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

[otjm]

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.

It has been seriously debated that the Pope’s permission to receive Reconciliation from an SSPX priest has nothing to do with the SSPX status, and all to do with the individuals who have been going to SSPX priests for Reconciliation.

And that argument has a great deal of merit, if one looks at this pontificate, and the emphasis the Pope puts on the needs of the poor, especially his comments of the Church being a field hospital.

And the god bishop is correct: the Church cannot force the SSPX to accept the documents.

And at exactly the same time, the Church can keep the SSPX in their irregular status. The Church does not want to force the issue, it wants to correct the attitudes and misconceptions the SSPX have concerning the matter (and other matters). But the Church doe not have Inquisitions; no one is burned at a stake, nor imprisoned, nor beheaded, nor hanged, drawn and quartered. The Church proposes; the SSPX accept, or don’t.

 

[otjm]

I really hope that Pope Francis could mend ties with the SSPX. After all, it’s no use of starting another organization outside the Mother Church and the Pope’s authority must always be respected.

However, the Pope does not need to mend the ties; the pope - and the Church - were not the ones who moved. The SSPX need to mend the ties and after more than 4 decades, they have shown no progress whatsoever. And this is not starting another organization “outside the Church”; they are in irregular status because the Church is keeping the door open to reconciliation. Legally they are “in but irregular”, but as Cardinal Muller said publicly some time ago, they are in practical schism - just not legal schism.

 

[BillTheSlink]

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!

Just wanted to correct one thing:

The day Lutherans come into the fold has to be the day they abandon the core beliefs of their faith and what distinctly makes them Lutheran. Asking, “When will the Lutherans come in?” is a bit like asking when will my cat turn into a dog?

I converted from Lutheranism and was a very knowledgeable one at the time. There are three main bodies of Lutherans: LCMS, ELCA, and WELS. There are others, but those three would take in 90% of Lutherans. I know people think that Lutherans are very similar because they believe in the real presence (but not in the same way we do) in communion, and because a Lutheran services looks and sounds very much like a Catholic mass, their beliefs are the polar opposite of the Catholic church. Lutherans insist the live you lead and the things you do have no baring on heaven and hell. Martin Luther said he could commit adultery 1,000 times a day and as long as he had faith he would get to heaven. While that might sound silly, believe me good Lutherans think that way. They also have no concept of mortal sin.

There have been talks called “inter-faith dialog” what Rome with ELCA. ELCA are the liberal version of the Lutherans and truthfully I think time and resources would be better spent with LCMS and WELS, but nonetheless LCMS and WELS are only observers at the talks.

 

[commenter]

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.

Perhaps the term “propaganda” would be unfair. Certainly “hopeful” but what are they hoping for?
Some thoughts:

• Unity can mean different things. The Vatican tries to meet and greet with every religious and non religious group, to encourage cooperation, and reduce friction.
• Media reports? If a handshake happens, that one handshake gets re-reported by press release to many outlets, and then brought up again and again on internet forums. People start talking about the handshake “trend”. “Lots of “buzz”, must be significant!”
• Omitted from media reports is the fact that **there already is a Vatican initiative for unity **underway. Individual priests, and chapel attached families, are encouraged towards unity by coming in to their bishop and/or parish, when they are ready. This includes provision for access to TLM in most places, and access to religious orders such as FSSP. The family probably knows their own readiness better than Rome, or Econe.
• The SSPX opposes Rome’s “individual option” initiative! Constantly reporting that there is an imminent breakthrough tends to keep SSPX families who are “on the fence” to linger on their side of the fence. (“Things should be much clearer in a few months”). Stay put.
• The SSPX website, and supporter websites, consistently oppose the Vatican on most things. That does not rule out families or individual clergy coming in, but does rule out the organization coming in.

 

[dmar198]

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.

Thank you for your caution and clarity. I wonder: is it possible to bring in the SSPX without denying any doctrine declared by Vatican 2? If the Church says that some things in some Vatican 2 documents can be interpreted as pastoral exhortations and not doctrines, would that involve Dropping any doctrines? This should be explored further. Certainly unity is not a greater good than truth. The Church Should uphold truth even if people remain disunited over it, but moreover, it is Unable by God’s protection to abandon the truth for the sake of unity.

 

[ProVobis]

Thank you for your caution and clarity. I wonder: is it possible to bring in the SSPX without denying any doctrine declared by Vatican 2? If the Church says that some things in some Vatican 2 documents can be interpreted as pastoral exhortations and not doctrines, would that involve Dropping any doctrines? This should be explored further. Certainly unity is not a greater good than truth. The Church Should uphold truth even if people remain disunited over it, but moreover, it is Unable by God’s protection to abandon the truth for the sake of unity.

Good questions.

It seems accepting Vatican II, whatever that is, is too broad a concept to be delving in in real negotiations.

But I suppose that won’t stop those who are firmly opposed to full communion in bringing up the issue again and again.

 

[commenter]

Thank you for your caution and clarity. I wonder: is it possible to bring in the SSPX without denying any doctrine declared by Vatican 2? If the Church says that some things in some Vatican 2 documents can be interpreted as pastoral exhortations and not doctrines, would that involve Dropping any doctrines? This should be explored further. Certainly unity is not a greater good than truth. The Church Should uphold truth even if people remain disunited over it, but moreover, it is Unable by God’s protection to abandon the truth for the sake of unity.

The doctrinal issues are significant for individuals in SSPX, but probably they vary from person to person. That is why a discussion one on one with someone from their own diocese is important, rather than hoping for a one-size-fits-all resolution.

The SSPX organization might evolve like the Polish National Catholic Church. It was founded for certain reasons during an “emergency”, but today it tries to retain their members and recruit other members as best they can, for reasons people are interested in today. They rebranded as “National Catholic Church”.

They try to attract Catholics who are dissatisfied for any reason at all, even if for different reasons than what the PNCC was founded for. Sometimes they buy a closed parish building, then “reopen” it as their own parish; even with the same name. They have friendly relations with the RCC, and they constantly use the word “Catholic” in all their documentation. But the organization itself has a momentum of its own now, apart from the original reasons why it was founded.

 

[ProVobis]

The SSPX organization might evolve like the Polish National Catholic Church. It was founded for certain reasons during an “emergency”, but today it tries to retain their members and recruit other members as best they can, for reasons people are interested in today. They rebranded as “National Catholic Church”.

And to the point of what people are interest today, I suggest the average churchgoer mainly thinks of attending such services on a given Sunday without a guilty conscience.

Politics is just too dynamic for one to base his long-range decisions on.

 

[RPRPsych]

However, the Pope does not need to mend the ties; the pope - and the Church - were not the ones who moved. The SSPX need to mend the ties and after more than 4 decades, they have shown no progress whatsoever. And this is not starting another organization “outside the Church”; they are in irregular status because the Church is keeping the door open to reconciliation. Legally they are “in but irregular”, but as Cardinal Muller said publicly some time ago, they are in practical schism - just not legal schism.

While this is true, in such situations, it behooves the Church (as Mother and Teacher) to “be the bigger man” and continue to do what they can from their side. They’re already doing so. I have a feeling that it will finally take place either under Pope Francis or his successor.

 

[ProVobis]

While this is true, in such situations, it behooves the Church (as Mother and Teacher) to “be the bigger man” and continue to do what they can from their side. They’re already doing so. I have a feeling that it will finally take place either under Pope Francis or his successor.

Again, to the average pew-sitter, it is a matter of whether he or she can attend Masses there without a guilty conscience. What they do in Rome is between the parties involved. I don’t attend Mass somewhere because Bishop Fellay says this or that.

 

[commenter]

While this is true, in such situations, it behooves the Church (as Mother and Teacher) to “be the bigger man” and continue to do what they can from their side. They’re already doing so. I have a feeling that it will finally take place either under Pope Francis or his successor.

I would say that “it” - reunification - already happened for many former SSPX clergy and attached laity in the 1980s and since then. They came in. Because people have different needs, and are in different situations,* it* happens on an individual or family basis, one at a time. Some of those now in or attached to SSPX will come in tomorrow. Some will likely never come in.

Some people put all their confidence in a sweeping, all purpose decree that would automatically makeshift attach everyone who belongs to SSPX, or any other organization. This one-size-fits-all approach would ignore very real differences among SSPX people.

 

[Louie1983]

Pope ready to regularize SSPX?

April 27, 2016
Pope Francis may be prepared to end the split between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), and the breakaway traditionalist group is ready to accept a papal offer, according to a report in the National Catholic Register.

In an internal memo that has leaked to the media, an influential SSPX leader recommends accepting any offer by the Pope that would grant “an appropriate ecclesial structure” to the group. “It seems the time to normalize the situation of the Society has come,” the memo suggests.

Although Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of SSPX bishops, the bishops and priests of the traditionalist group remain suspended from ministry. Pope Francis has already shown a willingness to lift that suspension, at least partially, by granting SSPX priests faculties to hear confessions during the Jubilee Year. In a recent meeting with Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the SSPX, the Pope reportedly said that he hoped to extend that permission before the end of the Year of Mercy.

The memo—written by Father Franz Schmidberger, who was superior general of the SSPX from 1982 to 1994—remarks that Vatican officials have been gradually easing their demands regarding what the SSPX must do to achieve regular canonical status. The memo speculates that Pope Francis might approve a reconciliation without requiring the group to endorse all the documents of Vatican II. Father Schmidberger writes that “perhaps only Pope Francis is able to take this step, given his unpredictability and improvisation.”

In an interview earlier this month, a key Vatican official lent support to the notion that the SSPX would be allowed to continue questioning certain Vatican II documents which, in the view of traditionalists, clash with previous Church teaching. Archbishop Guido Pozzo, the secretary of the Ecclesia Dei commission, which supervises relations with traditionalists, told the French daily La Croix: “Vatican II can be adequately understood only in the context of the full Tradition of the Church and her constant magisterium.” He added that some questions about the interpretation of Vatican II documents remain “subject to discussion and clarification.”

Vatican-watchers speculate that if the Pope moves to regularize the SSPX, he will offer the group special canonical status—perhaps as a “personal prelature” like Opus Dei.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=28183

 

[dcana]

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.

That’s what I was thinking, but then I went to their official sspx.org website to get some things “straight from the horse’s mouth”, as it were. I found many things that are very problematic and I don’t see how they can continue to believe these things and be fully reconciled to the Church, but I’m not the Pope, either.

Quotes from their FAQ (bad things in red):

**Is the Novus Ordo Missae invalid? **This does not necessarily follow from the above defects, as serious as they might be, for only three things are required for validity (presupposing a validly ordained priest), proper:

• matter,
• form,
• and intention.

However, the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention. That will depend on his personal faith (generally unknown to those assisting). Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful validity.
**
Are we obliged in conscience to attend the Novus Ordo Missae?**

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic [whatever they mean by that], then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).
**
Should we accept the 1983 Code of Canon Law?
**
For Pope John Paul II, the purpose of the 1983 Code of Canon Law is the expression of the Second Vatican Council’s new ecclesiology. the new understanding that the Church has of her nature and mission) in canonical language, and it must be understood always in the light of conciliar teaching (Sacra Disciplinae Leges, January 25, 1983).

We must, therefore, suspect the new legislation of codifying the same errors and so be ready not to accept all its “laws,” but only those which do not evidently compromise Catholic teaching on faith or morals. For the most part, we may regret the loss of clarity, precision and integrity the 1917 Code of Canon Law had, but that is insufficient reason to reject these canons.

con’t

 

[dcana]

What are we to think of the New Catechism?

This question illustrates the fundamental differences between the SSPX and the Conciliar “traditionalists” or conservatives. These latter are often seen defending both the traditional Roman Mass and the “new” Catechism but not openly attacking either the Novus Ordo Missae or Vatican II.

The SSPX on the other hand defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the traditional Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo Missae, Vatican II and the “new” Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

Conservatives defend the Catechism of the Catholic Church for its re-affirmation of teachings silenced or denied by out rightly modernist catechisms; the Society rejects it though because it is an attempt to formalize and propagate the teachings of Vatican II.

One need but consider the 806 citations from Vatican II, a number which amounts on average to one citation every three-and-a-half paragraphs throughout the 2,865 paragraphs of the Catechism. [It seems like the logic here is “Vatican II is all bad. Since the Catechism quotes from Vatican II, it must therefore be bad and rejected.”]

In particular, the novelties of Vatican II appear in the following paragraphs:

• an infatuation ?] with the dignity of man (§§225; 369; 1700; 1929…),
• such that we may hope for the salvation of all the baptized (§§1682ff) [we can hope; that doesn’t mean all will be saved - far from it],
• even non-Catholics (§818) [this Feeniest understanding of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” has been condemned by the Church],
• or those who commit suicide (§2283) [we may hope and pray that they may attain salvation if they were not fully morally responsible for the act],
• and of all the unbaptised, whether adults (§847) [we commend them to God’s mercy],
• or infants (§1261) [we commend them to God’s mercy];
• which is the basis of all rights (§§1738; 1930; 1935) including that of religious liberty (§§2106ff),
• and the motive of all morality (§1706; 1881; 2354; 2402; 2407, etc.),
• a commitment to ecumenism (§820f; 1399; 1401) because all religions are instruments of salvation (§§819; 838-843; 2104), **all religions are instruments of salvation"],
• collegiality (§§879-885),
• over-emphasis on the priesthood of the faithful (§§873; 1547; 1140ff, etc.).

Now, just as he who denies but one article of Faith loses the Faith, so a teacher who errs on one point alone proves himself fallible, and, renders all he teaches questionable.

Just as the Second Vatican Council is not an authority to quote even where it propounds Catholic teaching (it does not do so infallibly and clearly), so this *Catechism *is not an authority of Catholic belief because of the modern deviations which it encompasses. Hence, those who defend this *Catechism *are supporting the innovations of Vatican II.

I also noticed that in many places on their website, “Vatican II” or “Modernist” teaching is contrasted with “Catholic” teaching, as if they alone are the “true” Catholics and the only ones who can rightfully call themselves “Catholic” and everybody else is under the errors of modernism. Often the “modernist” teaching that they present is not even true Catholic teaching - a straw man, in other words. It is often more what a “I’m spiritual but not religious” secularist would believe, not an orthodox, “conciliar” (as they put it) Catholic.

My :twocents:

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

What are we to think of the New Catechism?

This question illustrates the fundamental differences between the SSPX and the Conciliar “traditionalists” or conservatives. These latter are often seen defending both the traditional Roman Mass and the “new” Catechism but not openly attacking either the Novus Ordo Missae or Vatican II.

The SSPX on the other hand defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the traditional Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo Missae, Vatican II and the “new” Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

Conservatives defend the Catechism of the Catholic Church for its re-affirmation of teachings silenced or denied by out rightly modernist catechisms; the Society rejects it though because it is an attempt to formalize and propagate the teachings of Vatican II.

One need but consider the 806 citations from Vatican II, a number which amounts on average to one citation every three-and-a-half paragraphs throughout the 2,865 paragraphs of the Catechism. [It seems like the logic here is “Vatican II is all bad. Since the Catechism quotes from Vatican II, it must therefore be bad and rejected.”]

In particular, the novelties of Vatican II appear in the following paragraphs:

• an infatuation ?] with the dignity of man (§§225; 369; 1700; 1929…),
• such that we may hope for the salvation of all the baptized (§§1682ff) [we can hope; that doesn’t mean all will be saved - far from it],
• even non-Catholics (§818) [this Feeniest understanding of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” has been condemned by the Church],
• or those who commit suicide (§2283) [we may hope and pray that they may attain salvation if they were not fully morally responsible for the act],
• and of all the unbaptised, whether adults (§847) [we commend them to God’s mercy],
• or infants (§1261) [we commend them to God’s mercy];
• which is the basis of all rights (§§1738; 1930; 1935) including that of religious liberty (§§2106ff),
• and the motive of all morality (§1706; 1881; 2354; 2402; 2407, etc.),
• a commitment to ecumenism (§820f; 1399; 1401) because all religions are instruments of salvation (§§819; 838-843; 2104), **all religions are instruments of salvation"],
• collegiality (§§879-885),
• over-emphasis on the priesthood of the faithful (§§873; 1547; 1140ff, etc.).

Now, just as he who denies but one article of Faith loses the Faith, so a teacher who errs on one point alone proves himself fallible, and, renders all he teaches questionable.

Just as the Second Vatican Council is not an authority to quote even where it propounds Catholic teaching (it does not do so infallibly and clearly), so this *Catechism *is not an authority of Catholic belief because of the modern deviations which it encompasses. Hence, those who defend this *Catechism *are supporting the innovations of Vatican II.

I also noticed that in many places on their website, “Vatican II” or “Modernist” teaching is contrasted with “Catholic” teaching, as if they alone are the “true” Catholics and the only ones who can rightfully call themselves “Catholic” and everybody else is under the errors of modernism. Often the “modernist” teaching that they present is not even true Catholic teaching - a straw man, in other words. It is often more what a “I’m spiritual but not religious” secularist would believe, not an orthodox, “conciliar” (as they put it) Catholic.

My :twocents:

And yet here we are.

My two cents is that more people on caf will be upset when/if pope Francis regularizes the sspx than are upset about the recent ambiguity of the permanence of marriage, the teaching of being in a state of grace to recieve the Eucharist or the recent opinion that under Zika circumstances abc can be dicerned.

Why this demanding for the pound of flesh from the sspx? In my neck of the woods they would be a much needed blessing.

 

[RPRPsych]

And yet here we are.

My two cents is that more people on caf will be upset when/if pope Francis regularizes the sspx than are upset about the recent ambiguity of the permanence of marriage, the teaching of being in a state of grace to recieve the Eucharist or the recent opinion that under Zika circumstances abc can be dicerned.

Why this demanding for the pound of flesh from the sspx? In my neck of the woods they would be a much needed blessing.

Sometimes I think Pope Francis is a sort of Rorschach test.

Go ahead, tell us what you really feel! I think a lot of posters here, self included, would be very happy to see the SSPX back in the fold.

 

[pnewton]

And yet here we are.

My two cents is that more people on caf will be upset when/if pope Francis regularizes the sspx than are upset about the recent ambiguity of the permanence of marriage, the teaching of being in a state of grace to recieve the Eucharist or the recent opinion that under Zika circumstances abc can be dicerned.

I hope we have the opportunity to prove this wrong. I can only speak for myself. It is my opinion that the Year of Mercy would be the perfect time for unilaterally reaching out to the SSPX by the Holy Father.

 

[commenter]

I do not believe the leaders of the SSPX want any real unification with the Church. Their website has consistently opposed the leaders of the Church, during this and earlier pontificates. But they are using the media and internet forums constantly to promote the idea that a merger of the **SSPX organization *into the Church is imminent. *

I think the reason they do this is that laity who attend their chapels, unlike the SSPX leaders, do want full unification from the Church. They likely feel a mild tension that going to the chapel is not exactly right, that they are not fully in union with their bishop and diocese, but ought to be - especially SSPX not cooperating on diocesan things like prolife and religious liberty.

Some laity have already drifted back to a parish and their diocese. The SSPX tries to counter this trend by telling people “our boat will carry us all across the Tiber in a few months”. (In other words, do not try to swim alone). In other words, the SSPX is not trying to get the TLM into more places, they want to maximize the number of people retained in SSPX chapels.

I predict in 15 years, there will be reports in the media about the significant recent SSPX visit for coffee with Pope John Paul III; an interview with 1 (of the 2000) bishops, who shows sympathy with the SSPX; some comments by anonymous “Church insiders” who privately acknowledge SSPX was right about Vatican II all along. There will be intriguing statements by the SSPX leader that “There are crucial developments soon coming to fruition that I can’t give details about right now; all I can say is that everything we have hoped for may come to pass in a few months, if you remain patient”; (i. e., remain in the chapel, don’t trust a parish or diocese).

…in a few months…

 

[gracepoole]

I think the reason they do this is that laity who attend their chapels, unlike the SSPX leaders, do want full unification from the Church. They likely feel a mild tension that going to the chapel is not exactly right, that they are not fully in union with their bishop and diocese, but ought to be - especially SSPX not cooperating on diocesan things like prolife and religious liberty.

I’m sure some fit into this characterization but it’s not my experience with SSPX folks at all. If full unification means compromise (or rather, what they would see as compromise), they fully reject it.

 

[ProVobis]

I think the reason they do this is that laity who attend their chapels, unlike the SSPX leaders, do want full unification from the Church.

Maybe but I think most don’t want to get involved in the politics, they just want to be able to attend Mass there without feeling guilty about it. After all, worshiping God should be the prime reason for attending Mass. Or any liturgy, for that matter.

Meanwhile let the shouting matches continue. I’m sure the Pope is used to that.