Will Pope Francis mend ties with the SSPX? [CNA]

[commenter]

Maybe so, but there had to have been something there to prompt that suppression of the Jesuits. (You can probably include intellectual property in that mix, btw.) I have my own opinions given the history books I have read on the topic. Either way, there had to have been some I’m-right-and-you’re-wrong resentment and as a sociologist you probably agree that this does not necessarily bring on the perfect union we all seem to envision in the end.

The Jesuits were evicted from some countries by the governments for political reasons, long before various governments pressured the papacy to extend that ban elsewhere. I’m sure there were always other complicating factors, could include theology. I don’t know a lot about that era. A few Jesuits were confidants of royalty, teachers of the sons of the powerful, suspected of using international connections to promote their own agenda, exerting excess influence. But I am not aware of any changes during their 40 year “intermission” that would make them harder to connect with the Church later on.

For SSPX, I think the changes in 40 years are more significant. I would guess SSPX seminary professors in the 1970s, for instance, had a broad range of experiences in the Church itself. They likely had worked in Catholic institutions, had worked alongside members of male and female religious orders, had served in diverse parish situations, had known ordinaries, chancellors, and participated directly in diocesan ministries. I would bet they (in the 1970s) had more priest friends in the Church itself than in SSPX. Seminarians then benefitted from their teachers’ background practical experiences in the Church, both positive and negative, productive and not. What works, what doesn’t work, in the Catholic Church priesthood.

How much practical background experience, specifically in the Church itself, do you think 2016 SSPX seminary teachers and 2016 SSPX administrators have had? Do you think recent SSPX seminarians have gotten anything like practical exposure to the Catholic Church that their predecessors got? Do you think SSPX priests today have as many priest friends outside SSPX, as the SSPX priests in the 1970s?

OK, I am a sociologist, not a theologian, but I think the social is more significant than the speculating you see on the internet, about this meeting, or that interview, etc. Sociologically it was not a separate denomination 40 years ago; but today? tomorrow?

 

[ProVobis]

The Jesuits were evicted from some countries by the governments for political reasons, long before various governments pressured the papacy to extend that ban elsewhere. I’m sure there were always other complicating factors, could include theology. I don’t know a lot about that era. A few Jesuits were confidants of royalty, teachers of the sons of the powerful, suspected of using international connections to promote their own agenda, exerting excess influence. But I am not aware of any changes during their 40 year “intermission” that would make them harder to connect with the Church later on.

For SSPX, I think the changes in 40 years are more significant. I would guess SSPX seminary professors in the 1970s, for instance, had a broad range of experiences in the Church itself. They likely had worked in Catholic institutions, had worked alongside members of male and female religious orders, had served in diverse parish situations, had known ordinaries, chancellors, and participated directly in diocesan ministries. I would bet they (in the 1970s) had more priest friends in the Church itself than in SSPX. Seminarians then benefitted from their teachers’ background practical experiences in the Church, both positive and negative, productive and not. What works, what doesn’t work, in the Catholic Church priesthood.

How much practical background experience, specifically in the Church itself, do you think 2016 SSPX seminary teachers and 2016 SSPX administrators have had? Do you think recent SSPX seminarians have gotten anything like practical exposure to the Catholic Church that their predecessors got? Do you think SSPX priests today have as many priest friends outside SSPX, as the SSPX priests in the 1970s?

OK, I am a sociologist, not a theologian, but I think the social is more significant than the speculating you see on the internet, about this meeting, or that interview, etc. Sociologically it was not a separate denomination 40 years ago; but today? tomorrow?

I’m not a theologian either but a physics major, so I’ve always looked at the Jesuits for the advances they have made in science, the support of Galilean theories included. (Or perhaps they called to the order all the brilliant scientists to the world, I don’t know.) But as we know, it’s not nice to tell the Vatican “we know more than you guys do.” This is where my arguments have come from.

 

[pnewton]

Well, it’d be nice if it happened, but I’m a wee bit skeptical - especially after the Amoris Laetitia kerfuffle. It provides them with a convenient excuse to express reservations and ask for clarifications

It also provides for a common prededent. After all, their division began over matters of conscience, where they were acting in accordance with what they believed was objectively true.

 

[RPRPsych]

It also provides for a common prededent. After all, their division began over matters of conscience, where they were acting in accordance with what they believed was objectively true.

Hmm, I never thought about it that way! Good point. Although they might argue that it’s a case of apples and oranges…

 

[commenter]

“It also provides for a common prededent. After all, their division began over matters of conscience, where they were acting in accordance with what they believed was objectively true.” previous poster

Hmm, I never thought about it that way! Good point. Although they might argue that it’s a case of apples and oranges…

It’s not like comparing apples and oranges, more like apples and stryrofoam.

In the case of the Jesuits, they were previously excluded from many countries by governments for political or economic reasons. Those governments put political pressure on the Vatican to extend the already existing governmental suppression to most other places. Later, after the political climate changed, the Jesuits were allowed to return by some governments, and the Vatican was no longer under the same political pressure, and lifted its suppression, where it could. Of course, some governments extended the suppression for decades.

The Jesuits continued to minister throughout their suppression, with the blessings of the Church, in unity with their bishops, though not explicitly as Jesuits. They never split with the Church. They weren’t “gone” for 40 years. They were still part of their diocese, as were laity who they ministered to, all under the same bishop. They worked in cooperation with diocesan clergy and other religious orders. There was no “matter of conscience” split with the Church.

In the case of the SSPX, the Church provisionally allowed the Society and their seminary in 1970. The Church in 1975 disbanded the Society and the Seminary. The rest is history, a very different history from the Jesuits. Calling this a “matter of conscience”? Then you could call anything a matter of conscience.

 

[gracepoole]

facebook.com/groups/1620094088253678/

The above link is to a SSPX page on Facebook. There exists many more. Whether or not these sites are a random sample, I’m not too sure.

How do you know this is an SSPX Facebook group? It has no description and it shares posts by those who reject the Vatican AND the SSPX. It also has a whopping 14 members.

 

[Robert_Sock]

How do you know this is an SSPX Facebook group? It has no description and it shares posts by those who reject the Vatican AND the SSPX. It also has a whopping 14 members.

The group I interacted with was associated with Fatima and I believe SSPX, but it was a closed group.

 

[ProVobis]

The Jesuits continued to minister throughout their suppression, with the blessings of the Church, in unity with their bishops, though not explicitly as Jesuits.

A Jesuit not ministering as a Jesuit and their underlying philosophy/principles? Exactly how does that work?

 

[commenter]

A Jesuit not ministering as a Jesuit and their underlying philosophy/principles? Exactly how does that work?

A non-Jesuit priest was put in charge of each of their religious houses. Those Jesuits who were already ordained continued to be priests, they were not suspended from ministry. But there was no corporate, explicit Jesuit ministry. From what I have read, the suppression was primarily caused by European governments, for political reasons, not a matter of philosophy or principles.

I would assume they felt stifled and discouraged, but don’t think it was about their personal spirituality being unpopular or interfered with. Even now, many Jesuits are ministering to people in various settings but not working as part of larger “Jesuit” institutions. Yes, they are under the bishop, but no, not part of a larger identifiable “Jesuit” ministry. The difference is that the Jesuits today always have a Jesuit superior, but maybe not during the suppression. But back then and now, they would have also been under a bishop.

 

[ProVobis]

A non-Jesuit priest was put in charge of each of their religious houses. Those Jesuits who were already ordained continued to be priests, they were not suspended from ministry. But there was no corporate, explicit Jesuit ministry. From what I have read, the suppression was primarily caused by European governments, for political reasons, not a matter of philosophy or principles.

I would assume they felt stifled and discouraged, but don’t think it was about their personal spirituality being unpopular or interfered with. Even now, many Jesuits are ministering to people in various settings but not working as part of larger “Jesuit” institutions. Yes, they are under the bishop, but no, not part of a larger identifiable “Jesuit” ministry. The difference is that the Jesuits today always have a Jesuit superior, but maybe not during the suppression. But back then and now, they would have also been under a bishop.

Thanks. I was basically asking if you’re not true to your order, how can you be sincere from the pulpit or in any other kind of ministry. It’s a difficult concept for me to perceive.

 

[commenter]

Thanks. I was basically asking if you’re not true to your order, how can you be sincere from the pulpit or in any other kind of ministry. It’s a difficult concept for me to perceive.

Jesuits are supposed to be truer to the Church itself, and only in a secondary sense true to their order. At the time of the suppression, that priority would sum up “sincerity”.

What if they responded differently? Suppose in the late 1700s they had announced they would not obey the pope and bishops, declare a state of emergency justified the continuance of the organization. Suppose they set up separate Jesuit chapels, withdrew from almost all contact with other religious orders and diocesan clergy. Suppose they ceased all ministry under any bishop ordinary. Suppose the Jesuits defiantly ordained new Jesuits, knowing these men would be suspended from the priesthood, isolated from their own bishops.

Declaring another state of emergency, suppose they ordained new Jesuit bishops, without permission from the pope. And, suppose they publicly opposed the popes and bishops for 40 years - but hung pictures of them in their chapels, as a sign of respect.

That does not describe the Jesuit response, but does describe the SSPX response. You can see why the situations are not comparable. The Jesuits were ministering within the auspices of the Church during that time, as individuals. The SSPX has not.

 

[johnnyc176]

ncregister.com/daily-news/is-there-a-profound-change-between-rome-and-the-sspx/

On April 10, Bishop Bernard Fellay, the current superior general of the SSPX, said before some 4,000 pilgrims in the French city of Le Puy-en-Velay that there is a “profound change” in the society’s relationship with the Vatican, triggered by the “dire situation” of the Church: “In the midst of this disorder … comes this whisper: ‘No, we cannot force you to accept the Council.’ They perhaps will not say it so clearly, but they did indeed say it to us after all.”

In its conclusion, the text argues that if “God wants to come to the effective aid of his Church, which is bleeding from a thousand wounds, he has thousands of different means of doing so. One of these is the official recognition of the SSPX through the Roman authorities.” It then closes with a prayer for the intercession of the Virgin Mary.

 

[Padres1969]

Could just be SSPX propaganda or overly “hopeful” talk. It does seem odd the idea that the Vatican would regularize SSPX without forcing them to accept Vatican II.

 

[ProVobis]

Interesting comments already posted on the site.

 

[dmar198]

Could just be SSPX propaganda or overly “hopeful” talk. It does seem odd the idea that the Vatican would regularize SSPX without forcing them to accept Vatican II.

One of the articles on this subject (this one) indicates a possible ground for clarification. It says that, according to the secretary for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, some statements in some Vatican 2 documents can be interpreted as “exhortations of a practical pastoral nature,” and not as doctrine. If that is true, perhaps that explains in what sense the SSPX won’t need to accept them. They won’t need to accept them as Doctrine if the Church says they can be interpreted as pastoral exhortations. I think we should go by the Church’s interpretation of its own documents. If it says some statements in those documents can be interpreted as pastoral exhortations and not doctrine, then I say Yay, let’s allow that and then move forward into unity. I Really want the SSPX to come back into regular status in the Church. They started out as a regular Catholic group 46 years ago and I think they will be a regular group again and soon. And I plan to celebrate if and when that happens.

 

[ProVobis]

Jesuits are supposed to be truer to the Church itself, and only in a secondary sense true to their order. At the time of the suppression, that priority would sum up “sincerity”.

What if they responded differently? Suppose in the late 1700s they had announced they would not obey the pope and bishops, declare a state of emergency justified the continuance of the organization. Suppose they set up separate Jesuit chapels, withdrew from almost all contact with other religious orders and diocesan clergy. Suppose they ceased all ministry under any bishop ordinary. Suppose the Jesuits defiantly ordained new Jesuits, knowing these men would be suspended from the priesthood, isolated from their own bishops.

Declaring another state of emergency, suppose they ordained new Jesuit bishops, without permission from the pope. And, suppose they publicly opposed the popes and bishops for 40 years - but hung pictures of them in their chapels, as a sign of respect.

That does not describe the Jesuit response, but does describe the SSPX response. You can see why the situations are not comparable. The Jesuits were ministering within the auspices of the Church during that time, as individuals. The SSPX has not.

Fair points, although I’m sure the fraternity had a lot of wealthy benefactors in building chapels and the like. Realistically you don’t just turn them away. If there is anything that should be questioned, it is their balance sheet which I understand is still not being disclosed to the public. For all I know they’ve decided they have no more money to expand.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

It seems both Pope Emeritus Benedict and Pope Francis have a heart for unifying outlying communities. Anglicans through the Ordinariate with Benedict XVI and SSPX (and perhaps Lutherans) with Pope Francis.

Good signs I think!

 

[commenter]

The issue is not about Vatican II, but about the status, independence, and size of the SSPX organization. They don’t want to be connected with local bishops, or collaborate with diocesan ministries, religious orders, and nearby parishes. They want a formal statement from the Vatican that they are fully approved by the Church. Period. No other involvement. They would continue to express disagreement with every other thing Pope Francis does, and with almost all bishops.

The problem is that they seem to be always saying they are on the verge of a profound change with Rome. Every few months there is a new interview here, a new contact with a Vatican official over there, some new breakthrough anticipated, always in the next few months. I believe many laity feel some tension about attending a chapel not approved by Rome. Every time a family is tempted to drift back to a parish, and their diocese, they are told things are on the verge of a breakthrough. So they stay. “Things should be clearer very soon. Some important developments are going on”. (Stay in the SSPX just a little longer).

If Pope Francis were to issue a statement “recognizing” the SSPX, other groups, almost all on the liberal side, would use that as a precedent. If the SSPX gets a waiver on some parts of Vatican II then liberal groups would claim the right to waiver on, and now advocate for birth control and women priests; and still be in the Church, like SSPX. It would set a precedent. Since the SSPX would allow no bishop or Vatican official to counsel them, the groups on the Left would say the same thing.

Almost all the information that there a “profound change” on the verge, is coming from the SSPX. Not sure what that means.

 

[BillTheSlink]

Let me state I am no expert on this. I have never been to an SSPX chapel, nor do I want to go to one. That said there are several things worth noting:

1. Pope Benedict offered them the same arrangement as Opus Dei where they are a Personal Prelature (SP?) and not subject to the local Bishop, or so it was reported on EWTN radio. SSPX turned it down.
2. There has been movement by the Pope towards reunification in that last few months. EWTN reported a couple of weeks ago that Rome was going to recognize confessions heard by SSPX priests as valid. If I can find the link I will come back and edit my post with it. I am afraid the news got overshadowed with the coverage of the death of Mother Angelica.

EDIT: Apparently it’s old news. I do not know why EWTN didn’t report on it when the announcement was made, but here is your link: ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-validates-sspx-confessions-for-year-of-mercy

The story was dated April 17 and was just updated tonight.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, we’ll be coming to some crossroad in November. Either the validity of their confessions will be extended or it won’t be. The rest, who knows?