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

[otjm]

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.

There is a difference between mending ties and denying reality, as I am sure, because of your qualifications, you are well aware.

This matter has been going on for what - 45 years? And the Church has begged, pleaded, cajoled, and prayed for all of those years.

However, contrary to some people’s opinions, there are some non-negotiable matters, and those pretty much were summed up in the letter Benedict gave to Fellay, and was almost immediately rejected by the other bishops of the SSPX and (apparently) a significant number of priests.

The rocket went up, turned around, and went into the ground full speed.

There are over 2,000 bishops who stand to be impacted by any decision. To think that Francis is going to go off on his own, willy nilly is the stuff of drug induced dreaming.

The possibility that an organization with 45 years of history is going to do a 180 - and you can take either organization here - is how likely?

Here or there some may choose to quietly remove themselves from the SSPX and reconcile. And the three bishops are going to come to a point where they stare at Rome, and the question will be, which, if any, look away? To wit: Williamson has self-destructed re: excommunication by ordaining another bishop; either one or more of the three will have to ordain a bishop (or more) or risk the group simply dying out. And my bet is that one or more will not break off the stare; they will ordain. All three? I don’t know, possibly Fellay may choose not to; but that does not mean he reconciles, either.

 

[commenter]

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.

I don’t think the leaders want any unification. They want vindication. To maintain credibility with their flock they have to present themselves as still a Catholic Church institution - but without compromise. It’s like a girl who has no intentions of genuine marriage (she will never give up her own house, own bodyguard, etc) but still wants to present herself as marriageable. If the fiance (or pope) wants to bestow a status on her, with her giving up nothing, she’ll accept it.

People in SSPX compromise more than they realize. Many evolved into sede’s. Bishop Williamson compromised into political and religious ideologies. Others seem to have compromised into other positions, depending on the country. Nobody stays the same distance from the Catholic Church. Gradually people are either evolving towards full unity with the Catholic Church Magisterium - think of those who switched to FSSP or posters on CAF - or away from it. Nobody stands still.

One poster on CAF is the father of a newly ordained SSPX priest, and is very cordial towards his diocese. Other posters, and our local SSPX priest, take an adversarial position. So there are differences. To hold their 2 flocks SSPX leaders spend part time denouncing Pope Francis, and part time offering false hopes - “We may get everything we want from our Pope, stay with us, it may all be clearer in a few months”.

The subtle message for some is Don’t go back to a parish and diocese on your own. We are already Catholic. Did you see that picture of Bishop Fellay and the Pope? We are significant in the eyes of the Church.

But the subtle message to the hardliners is Don’t drift over to the extreme groups. We are tough and uncompromising as much as the other guys, we won’t put up with Vatican nonsense.

 

[ProVobis]

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

This is indeed interesting, as the Archbishop himself chose to invoke the “necessity” clause of the 1983 Code to ordain three more bishops than the Vatican allowed, something which have excommunicated him without question under the 1917 Code.

Who writes on these “official” sites?

 

[RPRPsych]

There is a difference between mending ties and denying reality, as I am sure, because of your qualifications, you are well aware

Certainly.

This matter has been going on for what - 45 years? And the Church has begged, pleaded, cajoled, and prayed for all of those years.

However, contrary to some people’s opinions, there are some non-negotiable matters, and those pretty much were summed up in the letter Benedict gave to Fellay, and was almost immediately rejected by the other bishops of the SSPX and (apparently) a significant number of priests.

The rocket went up, turned around, and went into the ground full speed.

There are over 2,000 bishops who stand to be impacted by any decision. To think that Francis is going to go off on his own, willy nilly is the stuff of drug induced dreaming.

The possibility that an organization with 45 years of history is going to do a 180 - and you can take either organization here - is how likely?

But the situation now is different. Especially since Pope Francis’ accession, a small (but increasing) and highly vocal minority has decided to “beat the SSPX at their own game”. (I’m not going to name names or websites; they have enough publicity on their own.) This group is similar to the old “Resistance” warhorses, but shows far more antipathy towards the Pope (rather than just Vatican II) and projects itself as standing up for “Old School Catholicism”, while rejecting the “Sedevacantist” position. In the face of such a phenomenon, the SSPX is now simply a moderate-to-conservative group, “boxed in” by them on the right, and the usual “liberal / cafeteria” suspects on the left. Being boxed in can increase your likelihood of seeking respectability and reunion.

Here or there some may choose to quietly remove themselves from the SSPX and reconcile. And the three bishops are going to come to a point where they stare at Rome, and the question will be, which, if any, look away? To wit: Williamson has self-destructed re: excommunication by ordaining another bishop; either one or more of the three will have to ordain a bishop (or more) or risk the group simply dying out. And my bet is that one or more will not break off the stare; they will ordain. All three? I don’t know, possibly Fellay may choose not to; but that does not mean he reconciles, either.

I’m going out on a limb here, but my guess is that those who look away will align themselves with the group(s) I alluded to above. Those who remain in the SSPX will eventually find some sort of channel (Pope Francis is good at coming up with them! ) for a “reconciliation without capitulation”, and will simply remain as the “conservative wing” of the Church, not too far from prelates such as Schneider, Burke and Sarah. Perhaps, as with the Thomist / Molinist or free will / grace debates, an official pronouncement will permit latitude in the interpretation of such concepts as EENS, ecumenism and religious liberty. It won’t exactly be a happy ending, but more of a “mutual attrition” sort of thing. Still, it would be better than nothing.

 

[otjm]

This is indeed interesting, as the Archbishop himself chose to invoke the “necessity” clause of the 1983 Code to ordain three more bishops than the Vatican allowed, something which have excommunicated him without question under the 1917 Code.

Who writes on these “official” sites?

No clue as to who writes the sites; but as to the “necessity” clause, that was dismissed flat out by John Paul 2, and no one else in the dicastery, and no pope since him, has seen fit to even hint otherwise.

 

[commenter]

Certainly.
But the situation now is different. Especially since Pope Francis’ accession, a small (but increasing) and highly vocal minority has decided to “beat the SSPX at their own game”. (I’m not going to name names or websites; they have enough publicity on their own.) This group is similar to the old “Resistance” warhorses, but shows far more antipathy towards the Pope (rather than just Vatican II) and projects itself as standing up for “Old School Catholicism”, while rejecting the “Sedevacantist” position. In the face of such a phenomenon, the SSPX is now simply a moderate-to-conservative group, “boxed in” by them on the right, and the usual “liberal / cafeteria” suspects on the left. Being boxed in can increase your likelihood of seeking respectability and reunion.

I’m going out on a limb here, but my guess is that those who look away will align themselves with the group(s) I alluded to above. Those who remain in the SSPX will eventually find some sort of channel (Pope Francis is good at coming up with them! ) for a “reconciliation without capitulation”, and will simply remain as the “conservative wing” of the Church, not too far from prelates such as Schneider, Burke and Sarah. Perhaps, as with the Thomist / Molinist or free will / grace debates, an official pronouncement will permit latitude in the interpretation of such concepts as EENS, ecumenism and religious liberty. It won’t exactly be a happy ending, but more of a “mutual attrition” sort of thing. Still, it would be better than nothing.

You are blurring 2 different things.
SSPX Individuals - Some people will notice that so-called “conservatives” who are outside the Magisterium are moving farther away from the Magisterium, and increasingly adversarial to the Catholic Church. The issue is not really about TLM or Vatican II, there is a permanent anti-Magisterium who will also trash whoever are Pope Francis’ successors. The rise of the blatant extremists, all influenced by SSPX, will cause some moderates in SSPX to see the value of the Magisterium in a new light, and join their diocese. This is the Personal Choice option - come in when you are ready. Each year some come in; but others are not ready yet.

**SSPX Organization **- It will continue to oppose the Personal Choice option, using websites to proclaim first, that the Pope and bishops are totally wrong (so don’t go back to your diocese on your own); and second, that the pope might grant status to the **SSPX Organization ** soon - (so don’t go back to your diocese on your own). If the Vatican offered to repeal all sections of Vatican II that the SSPX disagreed with; and mandate the TLM be the only Mass celebrated outside the Eastern Churches - but only if the SSPX would dissolve their organization, the SSPX would turn it down. That’s how important the SSPX organization has become to them.

 

[otjm]

Certainly.

But the situation now is different. Especially since Pope Francis’ accession, a small (but increasing) and highly vocal minority has decided to “beat the SSPX at their own game”. (I’m not going to name names or websites; they have enough publicity on their own.) This group is similar to the old “Resistance” warhorses, but shows far more antipathy towards the Pope (rather than just Vatican II) and projects itself as standing up for “Old School Catholicism”, while rejecting the “Sedevacantist” position. In the face of such a phenomenon, the SSPX is now simply a moderate-to-conservative group, “boxed in” by them on the right, and the usual “liberal / cafeteria” suspects on the left. Being boxed in can increase your likelihood of seeking respectability and reunion.

I don’t see the situation as being any different today than it was 1 year ago, or when Benedict gave his position to Fellay, or when John Paul 2 tried his best, or when Paul tried his best. And what little I see coming from the SSPX, they are not moderate; they are still on the same course. That someone else may be more vile in their comments does not change the intransigence of the SSPX.

I’m going out on a limb here, but my guess is that those who look away will align themselves with the group(s) I alluded to above. Those who remain in the SSPX will eventually find some sort of channel (Pope Francis is good at coming up with them! ) for a “reconciliation without capitulation”, and will simply remain as the “conservative wing” of the Church, not too far from prelates such as Schneider, Burke and Sarah. Perhaps, as with the Thomist / Molinist or free will / grace debates, an official pronouncement will permit latitude in the interpretation of such concepts as EENS, ecumenism and religious liberty. It won’t exactly be a happy ending, but more of a “mutual attrition” sort of thing. Still, it would be better than nothing.

I see Francis as far more aligned with the Popes behind him, going back to Paul, than I think you do. He came out of Argentina, a country with its own set of problems, and from what I have read, he was familiar with the SSPX there, and was certainly not a promoter.

Perhaps where we disagree is on the issue of how deep the division is, or is perceived, by the Holy Office (as in those 4 popes). Benedict was the one who had to carry the water for John Paul 2, and from what I have read and heard, he did all he possibly could do to heal the separation, to no avail. Then he became Pope, and one should not take lightly the letter he gave to Fellay; it came literally after decades of being around that problem, and being directly involved in it.

This simply is not going to get washed under the bridge. At least the other two bishops make Burke, Sarah and Schneider look like liberals. And there are plenty of SSPX priests who can go the two bishops one or two better.

Presuming that Francis can ignore 2,000+ bishops and act unilaterally is to look at the papacy in ultramontanist terms, and he most certainly is not an ultramontanist.

One of the issues that gets bandied about as a sign that “Rome is moving closer” is the allowance for SSPX priests to hear confessions. That was not given to the SSPX as a sign of growing closer; it was an outright confirmation of what Rome has held all along; that the priests act without authority, and that their “confessions” are null. It fits right into Francis’ concerns for those on the fringes, whether they be poor, or alienated, or whatever. It was done for the benefit of the laity who attend the chapels, and the spin given it flies in the face of reality.

 

[RPRPsych]

I don’t see the situation as being any different today than it was 1 year ago, or when Benedict gave his position to Fellay, or when John Paul 2 tried his best, or when Paul tried his best. And what little I see coming from the SSPX, they are not moderate; they are still on the same course. That someone else may be more vile in their comments does not change the intransigence of the SSPX.

Thank you for your reply. You obviously are more familiar with these issues than I am. It’s hard, but not impossible, to find the SSPX in India - and though most of them are concentrated in my home state, something I found out quite fortuitously (sspxasia.com/India/index.html) , I’ve never had the time or the inclination to pay them a visit.

As for the SSPX being “on the same course”, I suppose that’s true; perhaps it’s just that their voices are being drowned out by the more vocal (and vile; that adjective is absolutely true!) elements in recent times. I don’t see them being given that much coverage in, say, the response to “Amoris Laetitia”. Of course, visibility is a poor guide of ideology.

I see Francis as far more aligned with the Popes behind him, going back to Paul, than I think you do. He came out of Argentina, a country with its own set of problems, and from what I have read, he was familiar with the SSPX there, and was certainly not a promoter.

Perhaps where we disagree is on the issue of how deep the division is, or is perceived, by the Holy Office (as in those 4 popes). Benedict was the one who had to carry the water for John Paul 2, and from what I have read and heard, he did all he possibly could do to heal the separation, to no avail. Then he became Pope, and one should not take lightly the letter he gave to Fellay; it came literally after decades of being around that problem, and being directly involved in it.

This simply is not going to get washed under the bridge. At least the other two bishops make Burke, Sarah and Schneider look like liberals. And there are plenty of SSPX priests who can go the two bishops one or two better.

Presuming that Francis can ignore 2,000+ bishops and act unilaterally is to look at the papacy in ultramontanist terms, and he most certainly is not an ultramontanist.

One of the issues that gets bandied about as a sign that “Rome is moving closer” is the allowance for SSPX priests to hear confessions. That was not given to the SSPX as a sign of growing closer; it was an outright confirmation of what Rome has held all along; that the priests act without authority, and that their “confessions” are null. It fits right into Francis’ concerns for those on the fringes, whether they be poor, or alienated, or whatever. It was done for the benefit of the laity who attend the chapels, and the spin given it flies in the face of reality.

Certainly. I think one of the problems some people have with Pope Francis is exactly that: he is from Argentina, and so a certain segment of the “blogosphere” is inclined to give him very little rope. I’ve seen complaints in comboxes about how “if we had an Italian pope, things would be better” (but weren’t John XXIII and Paul VI as Italian as spaghetti? And isn’t Papa Francis of Italian descent? Where else did he get the Mario from, Nintendo? )

And I certainly don’t see him as an autocratic leader who will overrule 2,000 bishops. However, if what you say is true (and you seem to have thought deeply about it, something I truly respect), then it’s sad, because:

1. if the SSPX (or the more extreme elements who make them look sane) are even partly right, they should be actively reaching out to the Church throughout the world and providing sound teaching, rather than indulging in mutual back-slapping, ego-stroking, “O tempora, O mores, and we are the remnant!” sessions on their blogs and websites.
2. if they are in the wrong, and wilfully ignoring the offers of the Popes from St. John Paul II onwards, it can only do them spiritual harm.

They need our prayers, more than anything else.