What is the current state of affairs in the SSPX?

[TimothyH]

Yes, that is techinically correct. I did not mean that they were presently having actual discussions. I just meant that the overall dialogue is ongoing. It is at a bit of a standstill at the moment (it seems to me).

Yes, the Titanic is “at a bit of a standstill at the moment” too.

I don’t think the overal dialogue is going on at all. Maybe the deafening silence is what makes some people think something is happening.

One could say that tectonic activity in the earth’s crust is “Ongoing.”

-Tim-

 

[otjm]

A minor point, the first seminary was erected in Switzerland. While there is now a house of studies and a few non-society houses that the Society supplies for in France, the alleged objections of the bishops of France where cited as a reasonfor not founding the seminary there.

While Archbishop Lefebvre was French, and attended the French national Seminary in Rome, (a very learned man, even earned a Doctorate) was the Apostolic Delegate to all of French speaking Africa, and Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, (also known as the White Fathers, because of their white cassocks.) The First Seminary of the SSPX when it was started ad experimentum was and remains in Econe Switzerland. The local ordinary was at first quite supportive and the first seminarians attended classes at the University of Freiburg. Abp. Lefebvre’s stance at least early on was spun by both sides. Some of the supporters of the Society tried to link him with their political and social ideas. Many Francoists in Spain and some who shared Bp. W’s ideas about Jews tried to tie him into their groups. Sad as his own father was himself a victim of the Nazi camps. While one can find things that in retrospect the Archbishop may have been culpible for, many of the ideas about him are spin from those in the SSPX who thought he was too concilitory with Rome, and upset that he and Pope Paul VI on a personal level had been long term friends before the issues blew up.

The Archbishop when he first founded the Seminary had professors who offered what we now call the OF, as well as others who used the 1965 and 1962 Missals. The Archbishop did not reject the New Missal, but as abused developed and the Society felt pushed, it became more reactionary. The first priests ordained when the Society was erected as a Pius Union of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary, were intended to be incardinated into diocese (primarily in Europe) to offer both the old and new rite.

Thank you for the correction - my sense of geography stinks, to put it politely.

I don’t wish to paint the Archbishop as the source of all the SSPX stands for. It seems rather that he was a lightning rod, if you will, for some serious dissenters. How any group could get as far into reactionary positions as they seem to have is beyond me. and the farther it goes, the more entrenched they seem to get.

 

[runningdude]

I am saying that they do not hold a sede position publicly. Look through the postings above this one and you will see, from some who have far more knowledge than I , that there are some within the SSPX who do hold such position - or have (whether they are still within the SSPX I can’t say).

And I do not call them heretics. They have, however, said that there is heresy afloat within the confines of the Catholic Church and have said that documents of Vatican 2 do not and cannot be read in continuity with doctrines of the Church. and within the SSPX there are those who still will deny the validity of the OF (and not just the licitness).

If they are not heretics, then what are we arguing about?

That is not how I read some of their statements.

The subjective opinions expressed in their documents conflict with the objective truth of the situation.

See the other thread I referred to. What they say publicly does not jibe with that. One does not owe allegiance to “Eternal Rome”; one owes allegiance to the Pope.

Bishop Felley, their superior, said publicly that they interact with the Holy See on ordinary matters such as lifting excommunications reserved to the Holy See. The Holy See is the current Pope, not an “Eternal Rome”.

As I noted, the logic of their arguments carried out ends up there. This goes a little bit deeper than disagreeing about some language in the Vatican 2 documents.

You have failed to demonstrate their logic leads here. If they interact with the Holy See, and acknowledge the Pope’s authority to loose reserved sins, how are they denying his authority?

The last letter, which was (I believe) Received from Archbishop DiNoia, and if I recall the details, Bishop Fellay asked if that was edited and/or read by Benedict 16; it set out the minimum they needed to comply with in order to get the process moving forward. The answer to him was that the Pope had personally read and approved the letter.

They were allowed to ask for clarification. They asked for clarification. This is where things stalled. No ultimatum was set.

The SSPX encompass a wide spectrum of individuals within the priests who are members; some appear closer to reconciliation, and others seem to take the position they will never move and Rome has to admit its mistakes - which is nothing short of an alternative magisterium.

It does not matter what position individual priests take. It matters what the superior, currently Bishop Felley, dictates. If he regularized the SSPX by agreeing to Rome’s terms, it would then be his duty to discipline followers who disobey. He has already placed a gag order on the society to slow any further damage.

 

[runningdude]

Honestly, until I thought it through, and realized that the SSPX were not heretics, I was pretty hard on them too. However, they were originally guilty of only insubordination, not heresy, when Archbishop Lefevbre ordained four bishops without a papal mandate. Insubordination is a serious offense, but it is an offense against church discipline, not a denial of divinely revealed dogma.

The society has been justly punished, but continues to suffer the natural consequences of this disobedience. In part because of the disobedience, many members hold improper extreme “conservative” positions. However, many societies in good standing have similar individuals, holding improper liberal or conservative beliefs.

What becomes important then are that the values of the society are affirmed to conform to the values of the church. This tricky, because the society at large holds both legitimate, and illegitimate concerns. Accepting the Doctrinal Preamble is a start to towards the regularization process. The issue falls before the superior, Bishop Felley. He has the unilateral authority to regularize the society, by accepting the terms offered by Rome.

So far, Bishop Felley has simply not been ordered to accept the Doctrinal Preamble offered by the previous pope, and thus has not further disobeyed the previous or current pope by taking no action.

The matter is one of assuring continued obedience. The society was disciplined for past disobedience, and will not be regularized until a version preamble has been accepted. The preamble would give clear statement of the societies values, and assures that members who dissent from these values are disciplined internally. If there are assurances of internal discipline, then the external discipline would be removed.

Should Bishop Felley (or his successor) accept the preamble, it is possible that he may, by his own authority, continue to suspend some or all of the dissenters previously mentioned. One example of disciplinary measures Bishop Felley has already taken is to issue an order to make no further public statements, after several unauthorized public statements portrayed the society in a bad light. Bishop Felley, alone, speaks for the SSPX. Another possible example involves rumors that Bishop Williamson was removed from reconciliation discussion. It is a sign that obedience is necessary to exercise certain privileges.

When everyone involved is censured to some degree, discipline without hypocrisy is difficult. The society’s troubles started due to disobedience, and will only end when internal discipline can be reasonably expected. Rome has set terms that must be accepted if regularization is desired, but has not ordered that the society must be regularized. It is a complex and difficult situation, one that the superior alone can solve by making tough disciplinary decisions of his own.

 

[GWright]

I don’t think so.

I think it will be pretty irrelevant to the vast majority of Catholics thoughout the world.

Hi Tim

It might seem that way, the but presence of the SSPX would naturally affect the Church as a whole. People would wonder - hey, why dont those guys have any gay abuse scandals, why are their churches full, why do they have beautiful liturgy, why do they confidently express orthodox Christianity whilst we mince our words / pull our punches?

There are only 500 or so priests and a hand full of chapels.

They have 600 churches / chapels globally, more than a handful! The number of their priests continues to rise every year - they are a powerhouse of vocations, compared to the mainstream church (especially in europe).

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.

I didnt know about them until quite recently either.

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.

The FSSP is a fragment of the SSPX, we wouldnt have them at all if it were not for the SSPX (there are other traditional groups too).

Things have already started to change. B16s Summorum Pontificum liberated the latin mass and made it available again. In areas where Bishops do not attempt to suppress the latin mass, and allow free availability as the Pope intended, they are popular and growing strongly. Even some monastries / convents are reverting to latin worship.

To think that the SSPX will have a major (name removed by moderator)act to the Church is probably wishful thinking. -

Well its thanks to the SSPX that we still have our Catholic traditions - as mentioned the FSSP came from the SSPX, and they doubltess insprired the other groups too (who are also doing well, but are still smaller).

And its thanks to the desire for tradition that we got Summorum Pontificum.

I respect your right to disagree, but, for me, it is clear that the existence and stances of the SSPX is already having an effect on the Church. Heres hoping it continues!

It meant a lot to Pope Benedict, to try to fully reconcile the society: were it not a positive thing for the Church, then surely he would not have invested so much time and effort regarding them.

Edited by moderator

 

[Boulder257]

GWright, although I would like to take the time to dispute your arguments one by one, I think it probably better that you read the forum rules on proselytizing for the SSPX. It is strictly forbidden on this forum. And, if your post is not considered proselytizing, than it is certainly dangerously close to that distinction.

 

[Lormar]

People would wonder - hey, why dont those guys have any gay abuse scandals…

Don’t you be so sure. They have had their scandals.

 

[clem456]

Edited by moderator

Lord help us. Where to begin…
We don’t “do” Catholicism. One person or parish or sect doesn’t “do” Catholicism better than another.
Catholicism just is. It exists, as Christ exists. We cannot improve on something that is infinitely good by our own effort, because it is not our own effort, it is Christ’s. The faith, the Mass, is not something that can be compared in it’s value from place to place or people to people, like coins or stocks, or artwork or other common human experiences.

I don’t have time to go on with this. Maybe someone else can help me out here.

 

[crazzeto]

Lord help us. Where to begin…
We don’t “do” Catholicism. One person or parish or sect doesn’t “do” Catholicism better than another.
Catholicism just is. It exists, as Christ exists. We cannot improve on something that is infinitely good by our own effort, because it is not our own effort, it is Christ’s. The faith, the Mass, is not something that can be compared in it’s value from place to place or people to people, like coins or stocks, or artwork or other common human experiences.

I don’t have time to go on with this. Maybe someone else can help me out here.

I prefer orthodoxy and communion above all personally, traditional is my preferred spiritual expression.

 

[PaulinVA]

They have 600 churches / chapels globally, more than a handful! The number of their priests continues to rise every year - they are a powerhouse of vocations, compared to the mainstream church (especially in europe).

How many suspended Priests with no legitimate ministry does the Church need?

Edited by moderator

Well, one is licit and the other illicit. No contest.

 

[hoop0826]

Wondering if the bishops are concerned about the liturgy?

The world is watching what Church does at the liturgy. It a public affair. What does the world see when it sees the Church at the OF of the Roman Rite? What does the world see when it sees the Church in the EF of the Roman Rite?
The SSPX does seem to have a noble cause in preseving the liturgy.
Also, was not the SSPX brought back into communion with Rome?

 

[Mike30]

Wondering if the bishops are concerned about the liturgy?

The world is watching what Church does at the liturgy. It a public affair. What does the world see when it sees the Church at the OF of the Roman Rite? What does the world see when it sees the Church in the EF of the Roman Rite?
The SSPX does seem to have a noble cause in preseving the liturgy.
Also, was not the SSPX brought back into communion with Rome?

Unless it happened in the past day or two, no they were not.

Sorry, but they were not.

 

[Mike30]

Interesting that even though the Church is not of the world, it has to live in the world. There are practical matters to be considered.

In parish life for example…people want certain things to be certain ways. If somebody wants a certain style of liturgy, or new bells, or hymnals, or a new ministry, the question is asked “who is going to organize and pay for the effort?”

So proponents of this and that cause must go about building awareness and funding. If a cause can’t get support and funding, pretty good bet it won’t come to fruition.

One has to wonder regarding the topic at hand, if there were less public awareness on Catholic internet blogs and less upward flow of cash to support the cause…how long would disobedience remain an attractive option?
The Church as a whole has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit to survive and thrive regardless of awareness or cash flow. Other groups, not so much.

Actually, all that has to happen is that the Church says This is the way things are going to be, and stick with it. .

Thats it. Northing else really needs to be done.

 

[otjm]

The SSPX does seem to have a noble cause in preseving the liturgy.

That is very close to “the end justifies the means”.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Encouraging anyone to visit the SSPX chapels,

Exalting the SSPX or any other organization that is not in full communion with the Holy See,

Obscuring the fact that the Society is out of compliance with the Holy See and that there is serious concern over the validity of certain sacraments celebrated by the SSPX clergy,

And minimizing the importance and contribution of all other religious orders, societies and dioceses to highlight the SSPX

are inappropriate in a forum that is in full communion with and faithful to the Holy See.

No one is allowed to be disrespectful toward the SSPX. However, promoting and exalting any organization that is oppositional toward the Holy See is disrespectful to the Church.

 

[hoop0826]

That is very close to “the end justifies the means”.

Right, let me be clear as it is never right to do something disordered - like being against the Church, in order to do some good, like promote good liturgy.

The FSSP on the other hand has done well at promoting good liturgy while being in union with the Holy See.

 

[crazzeto]

Right, let me be clear as it is never right to do something disordered - like being against the Church, in order to do some good, like promote good liturgy.

The FSSP on the other hand has done well at promoting good liturgy while being in union with the Holy See.

Yes, and I do think FSSP is a good example of what SSPX could do if they would come back into communion with the Church (FSSP is made up of SSPX ex-patriots). Perhaps full implementation of Vatican II, which Pope Francis is working on, will be what it takes to get them to start talking again. We can only pray

 

[Megan7]

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.

Thanks for the link

 

[dannipollock86]

I am saying that they do not hold a sede position publicly. Look through the postings above this one and you will see, from some who have far more knowledge than I , that there are some within the SSPX who do hold such position - or have (whether they are still within the SSPX I can’t say).

That’s right, you can’t actually say without hard evidence. Please don’t speculate. Every Sunday SSPX priests pray for the pope after Mass. The Pope is the Pope no matter what, and deserves due respect and prayers for his enormous job. In my personal dealings with members of SSPX (and there has been a LOT of contact) I have never heard any sede notions, especially not from the clergy.

 

[choliks]

SSPX indicate definitive break of talks with Catholic Church

Keep on praying.