What is the current state of affairs in the SSPX?

[Darryl_B]

I am new to Catholic teaching, and until 12 weeks ago had never heard of the SSPX or even Vatican II. But I would really like to know, not who they are or what they are about, but whether reconciliation is foreseeable. It only takes two generations to reconcile, one to divide, and one to question why divided AND RETURN. Is it close or is the gap becoming wider?

 

[4givemeasinner]

From my vantage point, I think reconciliation will occur, but not for a while (and no I don’t know what a while constitutes ). I think that the Church is in a conservative swing.

Also I’m assuming you know what Vatican II is, because the subject of this thread is on the SSPX.

I wish you luck in your journey to know more about Catholicism.

 

[GWright]

Is it close or is the gap becoming wider?

Hi Darryl

I think reconcilliation is definitely possible and will happen in time - I pray that it is only a short time away, but I wouldnt be surprised if it were years yet.

The gap is not a big one, the SSPX has stated that they are comfortable accepting about 95% of Vatican II, which can be interpreted in the light of tradition.

There are 4 sticking points, which include Catholic Exclusivity (as opposed to ecumensim), religious freedom (as opposed to religious toleration) and the like. The trouble is, that these are all fundamentals and so it would well be tricky to come to a mutually suitable conclusion.

The reconciliation of the SSPX would be a massive and much needed shot in the arm for the Church.

 

[TimothyH]

I have consistently stated my belief that the Chair of Peter will ask the individual members of the SSPX the same question that Jesus asked Peter himself.

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15)

I believe that the Pope will ask each member of the SSPX, “Who do you say that I am?” and each member of the SSPX will face an intensely personal decision as to whether the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth or not, and will be asked to respond according to his decision.

For some, this will be the kind of decision which is made in the small hours, late on a sleepless night. Others will sigh and answer very quickly that the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff vested with the authority of Christ.

But I believe that there will be no group reconcillation. Everyone will be asked by God personally and individually.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Hi Darryl

I think reconcilliation is definitely possible and will happen in time - I pray that it is only a short time away, but I wouldnt be surprised if it were years yet.

The gap is not a big one, the SSPX has stated that they are comfortable accepting about 95% of Vatican II, which can be interpreted in the light of tradition.

There are 4 sticking points, which include Catholic Exclusivity (as opposed to ecumensim), religious freedom (as opposed to religious toleration) and the like. The trouble is, that these are all fundamentals and so it would well be tricky to come to a mutually suitable conclusion.

The reconciliation of the SSPX would be a massive and much needed shot in the arm for the Church.

I don’t think so.

I think it will be pretty irrelevant to the vast majority of Catholics thoughout the world. There are only 500 or so priests and a hand full of chapels. The OP states that he never even hears of the SSPX until a few weeks ago. I never heard of them until I came to CAF.

It will have very little impact to the worldwide Church or the lives of 99.99% of individual Christians. Very little will change and we already have the FSSP.

To think that the SSPX will have a major (name removed by moderator)act to the Church is probably wishful thinking. The resoration of the permanent diaconate, the renewal of religious life, John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, and a whole host of other things will have had a much greater impact when looked back upon by future generations.

-Tim-

 

[runningdude]

I have consistently stated my belief that the Chair of Peter will ask the individual members of the SSPX the same question that Jesus asked Peter himself.

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15)

I believe that the Pope will ask each member of the SSPX, “Who do you say that I am?” and each member of the SSPX will face an intensely personal decision as to whether the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth or not, and will be asked to respond according to his decision.

For some, this will be the kind of decision which is made in the small hours, late on a sleepless night. Others will sigh and answer very quickly that the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff vested with the authority of Christ.

But I believe that there will be no group reconcillation. Everyone will be asked by God personally and individually.

-Tim-

The SSPX does not deny that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

You must be confusing them with Sedevacantists, who deny at least the current pope.

 

[otjm]

I am new to Catholic teaching, and until 12 weeks ago had never heard of the SSPX or even Vatican II. But I would really like to know, not who they are or what they are about, but whether reconciliation is foreseeable. It only takes two generations to reconcile, one to divide, and one to question why divided AND RETURN. Is it close or is the gap becoming wider?

There is another thread on this forum entitled “The Latest Statement…” which is at this point 415 posts long. That may be a lot of reading, but it would be worthwhile to go through as it posts a number of statements by the SSPX; some by the bishops, and some by the website for the SSPX and a good deal of reflections by a lot of people who have been hopeful that this matter could be put to rest.

The issues go back to Pope Paul 6th; came to a head with John Paul 2; continued with Benedict 16 and now are the responsibility of Pope Francis.

If I were a betting man, I would go invest my money in the stock market rather than bet that they as a group will reconcile. And that is based on the most recent statement noted in the thread above, and watching this issue land on the desk of now 5 different Popes (John Paul 1 not being around long enough to make any (name removed by moderator)ut). The question may not be so much will they reconcile, as what will Rome do after all these years, and a very concentrated effort at reconciliation. If Rome were to state that the issues have been thoroughly vetted, there has been no change, and they are officially in schism, we might see some of the priests and some of the laity who follows them come back to the Church. But from the sound of the last statement, it would appear that the bishops will not concede what Pope Benedict and Archbishop Mueller have stated as the necessary minimum for reconciliation. There has been nothing so far to indicate that Pope Francis would make the conditions anything less.

 

[crazzeto]

Reconciliation is possible, and we should pray for it.

 

[Joe_5859]

Talks between the Vatican and the SSPX are ongoing. We could guess if reconciliation will or will not occur and whether or not it is close. But that would just be speculation on our part.

The Pontfical Commission Ecclesia Dei is the one that is overseeing the process. Obviously the goal is reconciliation.

I’m inclined to agree with Timothy, though. Outside of Catholic internet circles, the SSPX is not really that well known. If they are reconciled, I’m sure there will be a day of headlines about “Pope welcomes back schismatic group with Holocaust-denying bishop.” But that will probably be all that the majority of Catholics will hear about it.

I suppose you never know, though. St. Francis of Assisi was just one guy and he gave a major shot in the arm to the Church. So did many of the saints. But I don’t think illicitly ordaining bishops and getting excommunicated is how most of those types of success stories start off. So I would be surprised.

 

[malphono]

If they are reconciled, I’m sure there will be a day of headlines about “Pope welcomes back schismatic group with Holocaust-denying bishop.”

Wasn’t that person more-or-less expelled from the SSPX last year?

 

[otjm]

The SSPX does not deny that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

You must be confusing them with Sedevacantists, who deny at least the current pope.

You are right that they do not publicly declare the current, or the last 4 Popes to legitimately be Pope.

However, there are certain basic issues at play. Without getting side-tracked over issues of whether or not Vatican 2 was infallible, at the very least it was an act of the Magisterium of the Church; statements by the Pope (in union with the bishops, but I won’t even side-track that point) concerning Faith and Morals.

Either the Holy Spirit protects the Church and guides the Pope when he speaks officially concerning Faith and Morals, or the Holy Spirit doesn’t.

If we say “doesn’t” we can all go home and spend our time on something else.

If we say “does”, then the Holy Spirit had to be protecting the Church and guiding the Pope when the documents were signed and promulgated.

To deny that the documents of Vatican 2 are consonant with prior doctrine puts one into the position of either denying doctrine (that the Holy Spirit protects the Church) or saying that the Pope who signed (and those since who uphold the documents) committed heresy - which then leads logically to the sede position. There simply is no other way around it. One can use all sorts of high falutin language, but after one gets past all the obfuscations of it, that is where one is left.

Of course it is possible to play all sorts of word games about the issue and persuade a lot of people.

The very bottom line with the SSPX, which started with Archbishop Lefebvre, is the issue of obedience. Either the SSPX will obey the requirements of the Pope, or they will not. So far, they will not.

 

[malphono]

The issues go back to Pope Paul 6th; came to a head with John Paul 2; continued with Benedict 16 and now are the responsibility of Pope Francis.

If I were a betting man, I would go invest my money in the stock market rather than bet that they as a group will reconcile. And that is based on the most recent statement noted in the thread above, and watching this issue land on the desk of now 5 different Popes (John Paul 1 not being around long enough to make any (name removed by moderator)ut). The question may not be so much will they reconcile, as what will Rome do after all these years, and a very concentrated effort at reconciliation.

I’m not all that interested in the SSPX in the first place (I might be more so if they had a presence that was convenient, but that is still a “might be” in any case), but from my armchair it seems to me that the of the five Pontiffs involved, there was only one who made a concentrated effort on this issue, that being Benedict XVI, and that era is now over. Shame that the SSPX blew it in February of this year. Such a “window of opportunity” is rare and often fleeting. It is of course possible that there will be another “window of opportunity” in the future, but I suspect if that, if there is, it’s going to be a long wait.

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

It is very, very sad that the SSPX has not returned to the Church. By keeping with the traditional mass, they have deserted all the other traditions regarding the Pope and the hierarchy of the Church

 

[otjm]

I’m not all that interested in the SSPX in the first place (I might be more so if they had a presence that was convenient, but that is still a “might be” in any case), but from my armchair it seems to me that the of the five Pontiffs involved, there was only one who made a concentrated effort on this issue, that being Benedict XVI, and that era is now over. Shame that the SSPX blew it in February of this year. Such a “window of opportunity” is rare and often fleeting. It is of course possible that there will be another “window of opportunity” in the future, but I suspect if that, if there is, it’s going to be a long wait.

There have been correspondence between Paul 6th and Archbishop Lefebvre showing that the Pope was trying his best to deal with matters that the Pope appeared to feel were going in a definite wrong direction; I may be wrong but I believe he may have directed the Archbishop to not ordain men. In any event, from what I have read, this matter did not suddenly blow up on John Paul 2’s watch.

It was with John Paul 2 that matters escalated. Then Cardinal Ratzinger was tasked with trying to keep things from getting further out of hand. it is not that John Paul did not involve himself (and I think there is evidence he did) but that he worked through normal channels (which would have been Ratzinger). I think there were very concerted efforts by John Paul to avert this matter going into the tailspin that it did, but things were bad going worse long before the ordinations of the four bishops.

It is sad, it is frustrating, and sometimes hard to comprehend how issues can get so far from the truth and then so hardened up.

And I agree that such opportunities are fleeting. I have no idea if Bishop Fellay thought that if he could get some movement out of the SSPX that he could get Rome to move further; if he did, then I think he seriously miscalculated on both ends.

 

[Love4All]

the SSPX has stated that they are comfortable accepting about 95% of Vatican II, which can be interpreted in the light of tradition.

There are 4 sticking points, which include Catholic Exclusivity (as opposed to ecumensim), religious freedom (as opposed to religious toleration) and the like.

That is 2, and I assume that you mean the other two by “and the like.” Could you state what the other two are?

 

[runningdude]

You are right that they do not publicly declare the current, or the last 4 Popes to legitimately be Pope.

Typo? I want to be sure I understand what you have intended to write. As written, I very strongly disagree.

However, there are certain basic issues at play. Without getting side-tracked over issues of whether or not Vatican 2 was infallible, at the very least it was an act of the Magisterium of the Church; statements by the Pope (in union with the bishops, but I won’t even side-track that point) concerning Faith and Morals.

Either the Holy Spirit protects the Church and guides the Pope when he speaks officially concerning Faith and Morals, or the Holy Spirit doesn’t.

If we say “doesn’t” we can all go home and spend our time on something else.

If we say “does”, then the Holy Spirit had to be protecting the Church and guiding the Pope when the documents were signed and promulgated.

They do not deny any dogma. They do not deny that the church is protected from errors in dogma. They are not heretics.

To deny that the documents of Vatican 2 are consonant with prior doctrine puts one into the position of either denying doctrine (that the Holy Spirit protects the Church) or saying that the Pope who signed (and those since who uphold the documents) committed heresy

They do not believe Vatican II changed any dogma. Vatican II in fact did not change, nor intended to change any dogma. The dispute is in the details. Failure to understand the details is the reason for the continued sanctions. This does not imply the SSPX are in the right, but only that they believe there are non-doctrinal errors in the church.

• which then leads logically to the sede position. There simply is no other way around it. One can use all sorts of high falutin language, but after one gets past all the obfuscations of it, that is where one is left.

You ignore basic facts of the SSPX relationship with the Holy See, which defy your logic that they must hold the vacant see heresy. The SSPX interacts with the Holy See in the normal course of spiritual care everyday. For instance, if someone confesses a sin that is reserved to the Holy See to remit, they refer it to the proper channels. The Holy See responds that all is “good and licit”. Logically, if they believed the See of Peter to be vacant or worse “filled” by an imposter, then they would thoroughly ignore ordinary channels. “Traditionally”, anti-popes were to be shunned.

Of course it is possible to play all sorts of word games about the issue and persuade a lot of people.

I don’t know what word games you think are being played. The facts do not support them holding the “sedevacantist” position. If they did, regularizing their canonical status would be a non-starter.

The very bottom line with the SSPX, which started with Archbishop Lefebvre, is the issue of obedience. Either the SSPX will obey the requirements of the Pope, or they will not. So far, they will not.

What ultimatum issued by the Pope have they refused to comply with?

 

[malphono]

There have been correspondence between Paul 6th and Archbishop Lefebvre showing that the Pope was trying his best to deal with matters that the Pope appeared to feel were going in a definite wrong direction; I may be wrong but I believe he may have directed the Archbishop to not ordain men. In any event, from what I have read, this matter did not suddenly blow up on John Paul 2’s watch.

The early history of the SSPX was an intrigue. In the beginning they were a “pio unio” under the then-bishop of Fribourg, and all was well. Until that bishop retired, and the status was revoked a few years later by his successor. But I don’t think the revocation was a unilateral decision on the successor bishop’s part. You may recall that this has been discussed over the years in various threads, but suffice it to say for the moment that Rome was not interested in any accommodation. That’s not to say Paul VI himself wasn’t, but by the time their “pio unio” status" was revoked in 1975, he (Paul VI) was in steep physical decline, and the pressure on Fribourg came from certain curial quarters who were most definitely not sympathetic to anything other than their own revisionist agenda.

It was with John Paul 2 that matters escalated. Then Cardinal Ratzinger was tasked with trying to keep things from getting further out of hand. it is not that John Paul did not involve himself (and I think there is evidence he did) but that he worked through normal channels (which would have been Ratzinger). I think there were very concerted efforts by John Paul to avert this matter going into the tails[pin that it did, but things were bad going worse long before the ordinations of the four bishops.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger did all the work, but of course in the end, despite what was expected, nothing positive happened. And it wasn’t for Ratzinger’s lack of trying. Unfortunately, he was in the middle between two very stubborn men, one (and I don’t mean Lefébvre) even more so than the other. After the episcopal ordination fiasco and Lefébvre having passed away shortly after, the whole thing became more and more of a morass.

It is sad, it is frustrating, and sometimes hard to comprehend how issues can get so far from the truth and then so hardened up.

And I agree that such opportunities are fleeting. I have no idea if Bishop Fellay thought that if he could get some movement out of the SSPX that he could get Rome to move further; if he did, then I think he seriously miscalculated on both ends.

Yes, perhaps so. Shame, really. I suspect things will remain “on hold” for quite some time. Lucky for the SSPX that Fellay is only about 55, so it’s possible that he can wait it out.
[/quote]

 

[Lormar]

Yes, perhaps so. Shame, really. I suspect things will remain “on hold” for quite some time. Lucky for the SSPX that Fellay is only about 55, so it’s possible that he can wait it out.

He is already on his second twelve-year term as SG (I think it is a twelve year term). I don’t think that the SSPX provides for a third. As it is, Archbishop Lefebvre never wanted a bishop as Superior General because he didn’t want anyone to get the impression that he was setting up a parallel church.

 

[Melchior_1]

The early history of the SSPX was an intrigue. In the beginning they were a “pio unio” under the then-bishop of Fribourg, and all was well. Until that bishop retired, and the status was revoked a few years later by his successor. But I don’t think the revocation was a unilateral decision on the successor bishop’s part. You may recall that this has been discussed over the years in various threads, but suffice it to say for the moment that Rome was not interested in any accommodation. That’s not to say Paul VI himself wasn’t, but by the time their “pio unio” status" was revoked in 1975, he (Paul VI) was in steep physical decline, and the pressure on Fribourg came from certain curial quarters who were most definitely not sympathetic to anything other than their own revisionist agenda.

A couple of notes on this;

• Someone suggested His Grace skip the Diocesan Right and try going straight to Pntifical. That didn’t end well.
• There was at one point I believe, a “godfather offer” (an offer that one cannot refuse, so to speak), which the SSPX rejected.
• I recall reading some place Rome was even fine with one Bishop being ordained, however drew the line at multiple bishops. No idea if this is true or not though.

 

[Lormar]

Melchior, you ought to read Bishop Tissier de Mallerais’ biography of Archbishop Lefebvre one day.