Focus Group on the SSPX in America
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,946
    It was, but Bergoglio chose to say they are Catholics without any ambiguity in reference towards their status. It was an internal canonical matter.

    They did a Pontifical High Mass at Lourdes in the sanctuary proper. The ICRSS doesn't even get that treatment with Cardinal Burke. The Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury got the SSPX treatment though... So make of it what you will.

    John, that's ridiculous. We have no obligation to go to Islamic services and that constitutes aiding a false religion. The problem was whether the SSPX counts for fulfilling the obligation. Yes it does. There also seems to be an implication there in that since they unambiguously are a Catholic rite and not in schism but only irregular, one should go rather than not because if they were schismatic, one could go but there would be no obligation to do so.
    Thanked by 1Ben
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    In October, the bishop of Ravenna invited the local SSPX prior to celebrate some Masses in a diocesan parish:
    http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2015/10/mons-ghizzoni-il-censore-del-rito.html

    Thanked by 1Ben
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,045
    Vatican II ... [has] always been considered a pastoral not dogmatic council, meaning it's more about practice (which can be discussed, like liturgy), not dogma (which must be accepted).

    Which is the problem: has there ever been a pastoral council before? What did it mean, and what was its place within the Magisterium?
    1. We can attend Muslim services and contribute to their collection.

    We can? We can worship a God who does not have a Son, and say it is ours?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    And lastly, it's my understanding that the teachings of Vatican II are less of a concern: it's always been considered a pastoral not dogmatic council, meaning it's more about practice (which can be discussed, like liturgy), not dogma (which must be accepted).
    THIS, THIS, THIS.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Which is the problem: has there ever been a pastoral council before? What did it mean, and what was its place within the Magisterium?
    No. Well, some claim it means very little if anything. (including canon lawyer Hesse)

    It is my take that we are still weighing if it will ever have a place in the Magisterium.
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    We can?

    Yes.
    We can worship a God who does not have a Son, and say it is ours?

    No.
    1. Attendance is not worship.
    2. We can worship the God of Abraham.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    The Argentine situation was partly politically-ruddered by the situation of the SSPX under civil law there.


    I believe this was actually a different situation. I can't find the article right now to confirm, but I am almost certain it was. Also, as Matt said, it doesn't exactly matter even if it were.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,946
    Well, John, the only reason to attend SSPX Masses as Catholics is the worship of God. One would assume that is why one would go to a mosque, and while I believe it is possible to go with the intention of curiosity, onlookers would not necessarily think so, and I’m not sure the worshippers at the mosque would either.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    The Argentine situation was partly politically-ruddered by the situation of the SSPX under civil law there.


    Yes. There may have been other 'dispensations' granted by Bergoglio to SSPX, but there was one which WAS based on some quirk of Argentine law. Bergoglio 'covered' SSPX (for lack of a more precise term.)
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    @JulieColl

    I'm curious what you were hoping to learn/gain from this line of inquiry.

    (I hope you know I mean that genuinely, and not in a passive-aggressive rhetorical way.)
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    Also, for the record, here are some relevant statements and events, showing some variations in the Holy See's approach over time:

    2003: Msgr. Perl of the Ecclesia Dei commission writes: Attendance at an SSPX Mass fulfills the Sunday obligation. SSPX priests may be in schism, depending on their individual attitudes.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20040415000423/http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

    2005: Msgr. Perl tells a French layman that SSPX priests are suspended, not excommunicated.
    http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/669/1989/1600/20050905_Let -ED-4.jpg
    [This seems to imply no broad assumption that they are in schism.]

    2009: Msgr. Perl tells a Catholic Answers staffer: attending an SSPX Mass fulfills the Sunday obligation, but we cannot recommend doing so.
    http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showresult.asp?RecNum=582339&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2003&Author=&Keyword=head&pgnu=2&groupnum=1&record_bookmark=323

    2012: Msgr. Pozzo writes that attending Mass at a chapel not run by the SSPX (but friendly to it) does not fulfill the Sunday obligation:
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YhV9lnGdHG0/T8dUjY0eoII/AAAAAAAAAak/B8PdV3xfnCE/s1600/PCEDLetter.jpg

    2014: an SSPX priest is permitted to offer Mass in St. Peter's Basilica with an accompanying pilgrimage group:
    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/sspx-priest-celebrates-mass-in-saint.html

    --
    Since the more anti-papal elements in the Society (the so-called "resistance movement") were expelled from the Society in late 2012, we can expect continued slow rapprochement.
    Thanked by 2JulieColl eft94530
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Adam, my purpose is to show that once we stipulate the fact that SSPX should operate in a canonically regular state, then it's far easier for all of us to talk about the many positive aspects of what they do. There is, I believe, a tremendous amount of good that they do that could serve as a blueprint for renewal in the Church, but the conversation can never get to that point, since it usually gets stalled on the first point, i.e., that they are not regularized, therefore, end of discussion.

    What would the SSPX do if he did while stipulating that the prelates and priests of the SSPX have no jurisdiction, and must apply for faculties with their respective ordinaries in their places of domicile?


    Liam, it's hard to know what the SSPX would do since it's my understanding that they described the previous agreement offered by Pope Benedict as a canonical "Rolls Royce"--they may have even used that term---in which, if I'm not mistaken, they would not have been subject to local bishops but would only have had to gain the local ordinary's permission to establish new apostolates in their diocese.

    You, as always, raise an interesting point, since obviously, it's not too far of a stretch to say that in some places if they were to preach traditional doctrine and, let's say, faithfully observe Canon 915, as they are wont to do, they might very well have their faculties removed by the local chancery as we have seen happen, for instance, the case of Fr. Marcel Guarnizo (no coincidence that he's named Marcel!) in Washington, D.C.

    It would appear that the reason the last attempt at rapprochement failed was because something was inserted at the last minute that would have prevented them from speaking freely about their reservations regarding ecumenism, religious liberty and the New Mass.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,942
    A sad fact of life is that, when you refuse an offer of a Rolls Royce, you're hard pressed to credibly demand a re-offer. It's gone. Pfft.

    But don't refuse a Prius because you can't have a Rolls.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW JulieColl
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,152
    The Lefebvrites set themselves up as above the Pope and the Magisterium. To come back into the Church, they need to repent, as would any other fallen away Catholic, or any sedevacanist
    Thanked by 2hilluminar JulieColl
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    BhCordova,

    How did they set themselves above the Pope and the Magisterium? [serious question]. As I understand it, they found it impossible to reconcile what the Church has always taught with what was new in town. One shouldn't have to pick being loyal to the Church or loyal to the Magisterium, since that's a non-sensical proposition.
    Thanked by 2Ben JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    image

    Maybe they've been offered one of these. LOL. I sure hope they're reading The Art of the Deal so next time they can get the Rolls Royce cum parrhesia.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,942
    Well, it's a problem for SSPX if they think the Via Parrhesia runs one-way only in their preferred direction.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    BhCordova,

    Let me use a modern example.

    If I refuse to accept that the earth is our common home, I haven't rejected a papal doctrine, but rather common sense.

    If I refuse to accept that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception was, by a special act of God, preserved from all stain of original sin and personal sin, then I deny a teaching of the Church.

    If I reject the idea that "mercy" means allowing people to live in sin and refusing to call it sin, then I haven't rejected a teaching of the Church, but only the fanciful imaginings of certain German bishops and their sympathizers.

    What, therefore, among established Church teaching, has the SSPX refused to accept, or actively denied.

    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Coexistence is not neat, not tidy, and not at all comfortable.


    It's like you said before, Liam. If the SSPX is willing to return to full communion on the condition that they enjoy an equal status with all the other constituencies in the Church, then coexistence is certainly going to get messy. If I were the SSPX, I'd say, "Game on!" and jump into the fray. It's not the way things are supposed to be in the Church, granted, but, from my point of view, if a decentralized, open-door, free-market Church is what's coming, I'd sure rather have the SSPX intra Ecclesiam than extra Ecclesiam if and when it comes.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    To come back into the Church, they need to repent, as would any other fallen away Catholic, or any sedevacanist


    Let's see now: the divorced-and-remarried are in good shape; practicing homosexuals get nice fluffy treatment; the Lutherans think intercommunion is already here, and the Greek Orthodox can come in any time they'd like.

    On the other hand, those darn schismatic, heretical, rigorist, fundamentalist SSPX better repent fast and wear sackcloth and ashes, sign a detailed profession of faith and crawl on their hands and knees before they're received back into the Church and relegated to the lowest spot on the totem pole.

    Tell me, dear bhcordova, where'd you get your ecumenical training?

    (All in light-hearted good fun, of course.)
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,942
    Well, the Catholic church isn't inviting Lutheran or Greek Orthodox bishops and priests as such to have ordinary jurisdiction and have faculties. Again, that detail is fundamental to understanding the SSPX situation.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Well, the Catholic church isn't inviting Lutheran or Greek Orthodox bishops and priests as such to have ordinary jurisdiction and have faculties. Again, that detail is fundamental to understanding the SSPX situation.


    I think you're misunderstanding Julie's point.

    They certainly aren't uninviting hacks like casper and cupich to have jurisdiction and faculties.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,942
    But Kasper and Cupich always remain vulnerable to having them removed - they get their from Rome. They don't assume them on their own. In Roman terms, that's a huge difference.

    I'd also note, in another quirk of Roman culture, there are bishops who might be future employers who would not, even if they fiercely disagree with Cdl Kasper and Abp Cupich, take kindly to prospective employees who casually mention them in terms of open disrespect. One might not want to work for such bishops, but the brotherhood can be surprisingly thicker than ideology.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    One might not want to work for such bishops, but the brotherhood can be surprisingly thicker than ideology sound theology.


    Fixed that for you.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,942
    Sound or unsound. Same dynamic occurs regardless.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    It might, but it changes the consequences drastically.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,942
    Not for the context I was using it in.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,152
    @Julie I have no ecumenical training. I don't care a whit about SSPX. I just don't think they should be held to a lower standard than anyone coming back into the Church.
  • MichaelDickson
    Posts: 419
    Well, one issue is that it is not entirely clear to what extent, or in what manner, they are 'outside' the Church. Chonak's post (and some others) above illustrates why it isn't clear. (There are some points of clarity, I agree. There are also many points of confusion, at least for me.)
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    bhcordova writes:
    I don't care a whit about SSPX. I just don't think they should be held to a lower standard than anyone coming back into the Church.


    Perhaps it would help if bhcordova could cite some examples of group reconciliations in recent decades, to see if the Church has been upholding the standards bhcordova wants to see upheld.

    That is, we can ask how the Church reconciled some other dissident movements, to bring them back into good order and peace. Probably looking at cases within the past century and particularly after Vatican II would be most useful for understanding the Church's current praxis.

    I only know of one case, so I'll cite it. Where I live, in Boston, we recall how the dissident movement of Fr. Leonard Feeney was reconciled in 1972. (Readers unfamiliar with the story can read here.) With the consent of the Holy See, the canonical sanctions against Fr. Feeney were lifted with only the requirement that he profess the Catholic faith. Moreover, he was permitted to do so by reciting the Athanasian Creed, whose words begin: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith"; that is, without recanting his strict position on the doctrine Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    I think this case has some parallels to that of the SSPX. There are matters of discipline involved, including grave disobedience and unauthorized sacramental ministry. The doctrinal controversies are matters of contending interpretations of doctrine, not any genuine heresy: there does not seem to be any outright denial of dogma involved in the SSPX's critique of Vatican II, since no new dogmas were defined at the Council.

    The Church, being a merciful mother, will probably be generous because she has a horror of schism, and is even willing at times to tolerate some expressions of disagreement among the faithful in order to avoid schism.

    Are there other examples of group reconciliation in the past 50 years we could cite? Perhaps, God willing, someday there will be a reconciliation of illicitly ordained Chinese bishops. But I don't know of any other cases off-hand.

    Or would it be helpful for someone to look at the admission of former Anglicans into the Catholic Church and recount for us what professions were required of them. Were they required to abjure any specific errors?
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,946
    The group which now composes the Personal Apostolic Administration of S. John Maria Vianney, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, and the Institute of St. Philip Neri were all treated in a manner akin to Feeney, and as a matter of fact, all the reconciled Feeneyite communities were treated generously, because canonical status can be dealt with apart from doctrine (a key part of reconciling the MICM was giving a chaplain as they hashed out a doctrinal agreement).
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,704
    The following may be of interest...

    http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/the-german-and-english-bishops-and.html

    I wonder if the Ordinariate set up will be the model for the SSPX?

    Another group that has come back, http://papastronsay.blogspot.co.uk
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • stulte
    Posts: 355
    tomjaw - I think the Ordinariates would be a great model for a regularized SSPX.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,916
    all the reconciled Feeneyite communities were treated generously


    I've been blessed to have experiences with both the "Feeneyites" as well as the SSPX. (Discerned with the former; sing fairly regularly with the latter.) Both have their pros as well as their cons. The major point of difference between the two, in my experience, was that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart in Still River were the most friendly, generous, and outgoing of religious groups that I've had the pleasure of meeting, bar none. I don't know how much of this can be attributed to their strict interpretation of EENS (which, in a paradoxical way makes sense), but I am positive that a great deal of it has to do with the treatment the group has received from their local bishops since the time of Fr. Feeney. The group has been accepted by their ordinary without any attempt to alter their interpretation of doctrine. The local SSPX chapel has a lot of good people who are genuinely trying to live holy lives, but there is often a recurring attitude of 'playing the victim' when it comes to talking about the local bishop, and distrusting their actions.

    Now, these two groups believe roughly the same, in regards to the traditional mass, the second Vatican council, etc. It's something as simple as bringing them into the regular life of the church, and making them feel like they are contributing to the regular life of the church, that makes a very big difference. So, my lord bishops, on either side of the fence, this would be my two cents - be generous, even if there seems to be no reason to warrant it.
    Thanked by 1Jahaza
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Great insight, Stimson,--- in fact, a profound insight: that the ordinary sets the "tone" and attitude of the diocesan communities. The same is no doubt true of a pastor and his parish, and the same is probably true of the pontiff and the entire Church. Generosity, fairness and kindness coming from the top are contagious; suspicion, distrust, and partisanship coming from the top are also contagious.
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,464
    Righly or wrongly, i sympathise with their position. In my position, i deal with the attitude that the heritage of the Latin masses are "no longer of any use to the new Mass, and were the result of poorly understood theology", i am more open to their idea that the new Mass is part of the problem. i don't know, but i can see their point.
    I think most of us would relish working in a fssp or even sspx parishes. The problem is that jobs are few and between for music directors,
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    In what is being regarded as a positive sign in relations between the Holy See and the Society of Pius X, Fr. Franz Schmidberger, the new rector of the Society's seminary in Zeitzkofen, has signaled that he expects further developments at rapprochement and also that the Society is poised to cooperate and reciprocate with the generous outstretched hand of our Holy Father.

    One very interesting aside in this interview with La Stampa is Fr. Schmidberger's allusion to the time-tested formula of lex orandi statuat legem credendi et legem vivendi. Here is the quote in French (can't find it in English):

    C'est seulement lorsque la foi, la liturgie et la vie s'accordent entièrement, se complètent harmonieusement, que notre position est convaincante et obtiendra à la longue la victoire.

    Google translate has it: Only when faith, liturgy and life agree fully, harmoniously complement, is our position convincing and at long last the victory is obtained.

    It goes without saying that I pray and hope that Fr. Schmidberger is correct in this assessment: (from the translation on Eponymous Flower blog and on Google Translate):

    "No doubt - it seems - the Pope sees in our Fraternity a force that can be of help to, as many have claimed, the new evangelization. Furthermore, our work corresponds in principle to his invitation to the spirit of poverty. In fact we do not receive state subsidies or the Church-tax, but we live only the generosity and sacrifice of the faithful. "

    "If the Pope is really thinking of a canonical structure, it will open many doors even wider for our priests than today." "Especially" - concluded the former collaborator of Lefebvre - "we could work together, according to our vocation, to the formation of a new generation of priests filled with a spirit of faith and apostolic zeal."

    "Precisely as regards such contacts, Monsignor told us what to do: there can be no compromise on the doctrine nor the Catholic faith in its entirety, but we can be flexible when it comes the application of principles. In other words: in re fortiter, suaviter in modo [adamant in deed, gentle in manner]. If the Roman authorities, and particularly the pope himself, are calling us to unite our efforts to re-Christianize society, then we can we rejoice, however being careful to keep our integrity, to stay as we are."

    If his assessments do prove correct, it will be time to break out (in our house anyway) along with a bottle of bubbly, a Te Deum and Auld Lang Syne, not to mention Happy Day Are Here Again. : )
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Julie,

    I read the French differently than you (and Google) do.


    C'est seulement lorsque la foi, la liturgie et la vie s'accordent entièrement, se complètent harmonieusement, que notre position est convaincante et obtiendra à la longue la victoire.


    According to Langenscheidt, "lorsque" means "when", but I think he means "because". (If he means "when", in the sense of "at the time", he would have used "quand").

    Additionally, I think Google mis-locates the subject of "obtiendra". "Notre position" is the more logical subject, not "victoire".

    In short, I would render it thusly:

    "It is only because the faith, the liturgy and [the?] life [we lead?] agree with each other, and complement each other harmoniously, that our position is convincing and will, in the long run [in the end], win the victory."
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,183
    Thank you Chris. I was about to fix the translation when you posted.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Thanks so much for the much more accurate translation! Sorry about the mistakes; all I could see was the significant connection Fr. Schmidberger made between faith, liturgy and life and the rest was a bit fuzzy.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Julie,

    I'm glad I was able to help.

    God bless,

    Chris
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,767
    Maybe if he'd meant something else he might have said it. I only take issue with Google over à la longue:

    It is only when faith, liturgy and life are in complete agreement, complementing each other harmoniously, that our position is convincing and will win in the long run.

    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Thanks so much for all the translations. It's a very noteworthy sentiment and would be a great axiom or motto.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Bishop Fellay's press conference on Thursday at the March for Life. He made many wonderful remarks, but from 1:13:39 to the end, he really zeroed in on current events in the Church:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8sbN4tPDuI
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    I made a rough transcript of the end of his talk, from 1:13:39.

    On the granting of jurisdiction for hearing of confessions directly from the Pope:

    Bishop Fellay: "If you are logical, you have to conclude that since he has given this ordinary power, he has removed any sanctions or censure. If the pope gives this power, he must have removed the sanctions. Both cannot be together. It's reasonable to think pope made gesture is because he has something in mind. It can't just be something out of the blue.

    It's difficult to explain, because on one hand, he makes so many reproaches against those who insist on doctrine . . . very harsh words about those who don't want things to change. We think he might be aiming at us. I wonder; I'm not sure. I even asked Rome, "Is he aiming at us?" Even in Rome, they say they don't know. A prelate said, "He's probably aiming at conservative Americans." That is true. That is the way I got the message.

    He has involved himself personally in our case. The way he acts makes us think he has sympathy for us. It comes from the situation in Argentina. He knows us from Argentina. I refuse to have recognition from the state and don't want to be treated as a sect. The State is leftist and is using Concordat against us. Our Superior went and Cardinal Bergoglio said, "It is clear you are Catholic; you are not schismatic. No, no, no, don't do that.' (Apply as a sect.) He sent a letter for us, but the state got a contradictory letter from the Nuncio, and that was the situation when he became Pope.

    He was given a biography of Archbishop Lefebrve. The thick one. (by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais?) He read it twice. I think he has some sympathy for us. He sees we take care of those on the periphery, and he is happy with that. Maybe not happy with everything we do, but the fact that we are active and caring. We run after the souls, and he is happy with that. He likes that we are taking care of the souls.

    Just to show this very difficult personality: He said to our priest: "If you want your children to lose the Faith, send them to my schools." That means he knew very well what was going on in the Catholic schools in Argentina, in Buenos Aires, to the point of saying they lose the faith when they go to the schools. He was able to say that to us. Which means he knows of the problems, big problems in the Church. He knows of them, but he doesn't speak much of them.

    Sometimes the way he acts, the way he behaves, we are lost. What is he doing now. I don't have all the answers. I just see all these different pieces of his personality. One thing I know---don't try to put him in one category, you will be wrong. He is so unpredictable. He is amazing---in all directions, and the Church is not doing well with that.

    When he was pope we asked if he could nominate a bishop in Argentina to solve the problem we were having. He said, "Yes, this bishop, it's me." He took it personally. Really personally. When we were recognized as Catholic by the State, thanks to the letter from the new cardinal in Argentina, the Vatican said, "We have nothing to do with it." It is true. It is due to one person, the Pope. The Pope himself did it.

    It's true. It's difficult to express that. There is a close link to the Pope. You can't imagine the easy access we have to the Pope. We don't use it except in some . . . (indecipherable) We have direct access to the Pope. It's crazy; I don't know how to explain it, but it's obvious that he's thinking of us, to the point of saying that "I give them power to hear confessions."

    We had another way of explaining how our confessions were valid, the other doesn't exclude the other; it's not a condemnation of what we did before but this is a safe course. This gives people who were anxious about valid confession some security. This is amazing. So many contradictory elements in the situation of the Church.

    It's impossible to tell you what will happen tomorrow. Will we be recognized? Frankly, I have no idea because of the situation in the Church. Even in Rome we have people in Rome who want our death, our condemnation. Secr. of State says, "Society is schismatic," but Pope says, 'They are not schismatic." You have people in Vatican: one person has one answer, the other is contradictory. Since 2009 this has been going on. It's getting worse, but the Pope is on our side, if I may so. Who is going to win? The Pope, or others? I don't know. It's an absolutely unbelievable situation.

    We try to gain canonical recognition, but we have enemies in the Vatican. We represent the past of the Church, what the Church has always done. Everyone has to take a stance about that. A certain part of the Church has rejected the past. Two tendencies in the Church. There will either be those who are against us or who are favorable. Some hate us. Others, including cardinals, say "We need you to get us out of this fight."

    We ask the good Lord what He wants. The Will of God is what matters, so we try to go through all these difficult situations."
    Thanked by 2Vilyanor David Sullivan
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    So many contradictory elements in the situation of the Church. ...It's impossible to tell you what will happen tomorrow. Will we be recognized? Frankly, I have no idea because of the situation in the Church. Even in Rome we have people in Rome who want our death, our condemnation. Secr. of State says, "Society is schismatic," but Pope says, "they are not schismatic." You have people in Vatican: one person has one answer, the other is contradictory.
    DD
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    So many contradictory elements in the situation of the Church.


    Yeah, it's a crazy time now and doesn't appear to be getting better. I can't speak to the SSPX situation, since those folks are as rare as Democrats in this part of the country. I certainly wish SSPX well since it seems their hearts and intentions are basically good.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    I don't know what it all means, Charles, but it is interesting to see how the SSPX keeps growing (45 new seminarians this year!) and apparently with the implicit approval of Pope Francis, from what Bishop Fellay said in his interview. These things really stick out from what Bishop Fellay said, in my opinion, and are extraordinary developments:

    1) That the granting of jurisdiction to the SSPX to hear confessions may possibly be construed to mean that the sanctions and censure of the SSPX by the Vatican may be removed also.

    2) That when asked by the SSPX to appoint a bishop to solve their problems, Pope Francis apparently replied: "I have; that bishop is me."

    3) That Pope Francis conceded to then- District Superior of South America, Fr. Christian Bouchacourt, that "If you want your children to lose the faith, send them to my schools." (in Buenos Aires)

    4) That the SSPX apparently has direct and easy access to the Pope.

    5) That some in the Vatican want the death and condemnation of the SSPX, and the situation is getting worse, but Bishop Fellay has stated that he knows that "the Pope is on our side."

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Julie, Pope Francis has also been generous and helpful to Eastern Catholics. He removed the Latin created bans on married clergy, for example. Our parish priests have traditionally been married while the monastics from which the bishops are selected, were/are never married.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Yes, and the Anglican Ordinariate has also seemed to move forward, but still there is so much that is a puzzle. I keep thinking of St. Paul's famous line from the Epistle last Sunday:

    Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate.
    (We see now through a mirror, in a riddle.)
Add a Comment