Ecclesia Dei and the SSPX
#41
(04-27-2016, 12:07 AM)Poche Wrote:
(04-26-2016, 08:44 AM)CaptCrunch73 Wrote:
(04-26-2016, 05:37 AM)Poche Wrote:
(04-25-2016, 04:08 PM)Share Love Wrote: I'm confused about something. Now, I've never attended an SSPX chapel, and I wouldn't attend one if I could, but how does this apply to SSPX clergy/seminarians/laypeople now?

"In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law." - Ecclesia Dei, St. John Paul II, 1988

How are we to interpret this in 2016 with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI's lifting of the excommunications of SSPX bishops and Pope Francis' granting of valid absolutions to SSPX priests? What constitutes "formal adherence to the schism"?

This sort of thing is why I really, really hope that this "normalization" of the SSPX that has been spoken of takes place, and soon.

And Bishop Fellay met with Pope Francis and Archbishop Pozzo April 1-2. Bishop Fellay indicated that at that meeting, the Pope had said the SSPX is Catholic and he would not condemn it, and that he wishes to extend the faculties of its priests.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/c...ase-31983/

It is as I have said. Pope Francis is a friend of Catholic tradition and he wants to regularize the SSPX.
:) :) :)

Friend of Tradition? Hardly. Let's not get carried away as seen by the treatment of the Franscican Friars of the Immaculate. Pope Francis has legitimized SSPX confessions for the Year or Mercy, that's all we now right now.

The situation with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is internal to that community. God is preparing them for a greater purification so that in the end they will be all the more holy. Pope Francis is showing a greater friendship towards the SSPX than any of his predecessors. When he was Cardinal Bergoglio of Buenos Aires he showed greater acceptance and support towards the SSPX than is shown here in the northern hemisphere. He vouched for one of their leaders before the Argentine immigration (Is there any American bishop who would do that?) I believe he si a friend of legitimate Catholic tradition.

I agree with the highlighted part. I know he was in favor Bishop Williamson's deportation from Argentina in 2009 and he spoke with bishop DeGalaretta regarding his decision.
There is more to that story, but I do not want to say anything else, since I do not have the paperwork handy to back up my omitted statement.  Let's just say Cardinal Bergoglio has very close ties to high ranking Jewish friends, also with Florencio Randazzo (Minister of the Interior) and the Kirchners.
Reply
#42
(04-26-2016, 05:25 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: GangGreen, FSSP doesn't have it's own bishops right?  If so, it would be a very poor choice to tick off local bishops.

Good point, but it still does make for an interesting situation.  Also if SSPX has its own bishops, then what does it mean for FSSP to not have their own when they've been been "in line" for much longer?
Reply
#43
Most orders and institutes, etc. don't have their own bishops, do they? I mean, members are bishops (the bishop of Boston is a Capuchin, the bishop of Rome is a Jesuit, etc.), but these orders don't have their own special bishops who travel around just dispensing the sacraments to their particular order/institute/etc.  They receive the sacraments from the local bishop or another bishop who may or may not be a member of their particular group. That's just my understanding anyway.  The SSPX is very unique in that regard.

As far a I know, the FSSP have been able to find bishops willing to administer ordinations or confirmations for them so I don't see why they need a special bishop. It would be nice to see an FSSP priest ordained a bishop and given charge of a diocese as an ordinary, but that's something totally different than being a special bishop for the FSSP (I doubt you'll see one of the SSPX bishops receive such a post either though).

Here's a question though: what if an existing bishop wanted to join the FSSP?
Reply
#44
Just to add to my post above, while having a personal prelature seems like a good idea for the SSPX (ironic, personal prelatures were a Vatican II innovation), I think it is still good to also have communities centered around the TLM directly incorporated into the particular Churches under a diocesan bishop.  Such communities should be part of the normal life of the Church.
Reply
#45
(04-27-2016, 11:35 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Most orders and institutes, etc. don't have their own bishops, do they? I mean, members are bishops (the bishop of Boston is a Capuchin, the bishop of Rome is a Jesuit, etc.), but these orders don't have their own special bishops who travel around just dispensing the sacraments to their particular order/institute/etc.  They receive the sacraments from the local bishop or another bishop who may or may not be a member of their particular group. That's just my understanding anyway.  The SSPX is very unique in that regard.

As far a I know, the FSSP have been able to find bishops willing to administer ordinations or confirmations for them so I don't see why they need a special bishop. It would be nice to see an FSSP priest ordained a bishop and given charge of a diocese as an ordinary, but that's something totally different than being a special bishop for the FSSP (I doubt you'll see one of the SSPX bishops receive such a post either though).

Here's a question though: what if an existing bishop wanted to join the FSSP?

A couple of thoughts on this -- the Eastern Churches have bishops to dispense their sacraments since it is a different Rite.  That seems akin to the situation here with the presence of different Rites.  So that's a different variation on the issue of prelatures (I know that the Eastern Churches aren't prelatures, I'm just analogizing).

I am not sure that the FSSP are always able to find bishops to administer the sacraments.  I know that the last couple confirmations at the church in a particular archdiocese were done by the FSSP pastor.  I would assume that means the bishop himself wasn't agreeable to doing it, and that bishop would not allow another bishop to enter the diocese to do it in his stead.  Maybe there are other circumstances that I'm not aware of, but that bishop does not otherwise have a good reputation (in my opinion).
Reply
#46
(04-27-2016, 12:05 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Just to add to my post above, while having a personal prelature seems like a good idea for the SSPX (ironic, personal prelatures were a Vatican II innovation), I think it is still good to also have communities centered around the TLM directly incorporated into the particular Churches under a diocesan bishop.  Such communities should be part of the normal life of the Church.

I would like to hear what the FSSP says about their situation and the cooperation of bishops. And the problem with TLM communities is that they are frequently not welcome in some if not many dioceses. In mine for example there is only one TLM allowed a month and the diocese still thinks it can restrict priests from saying it. Seminarians here are discouraged by their professors from having anything to do with the TLM.
Personal prelatures were set up to include a bishop at the head of it., that is an essential feature.

C.
Reply
#47
(04-27-2016, 03:12 PM)Cetil Wrote: I would like to hear what the FSSP says about their situation and the cooperation of bishops. And the problem with TLM communities is that they are frequently not welcome in some if not many dioceses. In mine for example there is only one TLM allowed a month and the diocese still thinks it can restrict priests from saying it. Seminarians here are discouraged by their professors from having anything to do with the TLM.
Personal prelatures were set up to include a bishop at the head of it., that is an essential feature.

That's why I said "also."  :) The personal prelature has its merits due to the problems you mention, but, at least from what I understand, it isn't theologically a true particular Church.  That's why the current prelate of Opus Dei is still the titular Bishop of Cilibia (as an aside, I don't like how retired bishops are now considered bishops without even a titular see--I think a break with the tradition of assigning all bishops a see, even a "dead" one, undermines the theological importance of a bishop).

Anyway, my point is really that the prelature is good for meeting the extraordinary pastoral needs we face, but the TLM (and the solid priests and faithful that tend to go with it) should still be infused into the more fundamental parts of the Church as much as possible IMO.  That's one way I think the SSPX and FSSP can complement each other (assuming the SSPX becomes a prelature).
Reply
#48
(04-27-2016, 04:29 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(04-27-2016, 03:12 PM)Cetil Wrote: I would like to hear what the FSSP says about their situation and the cooperation of bishops. And the problem with TLM communities is that they are frequently not welcome in some if not many dioceses. In mine for example there is only one TLM allowed a month and the diocese still thinks it can restrict priests from saying it. Seminarians here are discouraged by their professors from having anything to do with the TLM.
Personal prelatures were set up to include a bishop at the head of it., that is an essential feature.

That's why I said "also."  :) The personal prelature has its merits due to the problems you mention, but, at least from what I understand, it isn't theologically a true particular Church.  That's why the current prelate of Opus Dei is still the titular Bishop of Cilibia (as an aside, I don't like how retired bishops are now considered bishops without even a titular see--I think a break with the tradition of assigning all bishops a see, even a "dead" one, undermines the theological importance of a bishop).

Anyway, my point is really that the prelature is good for meeting the extraordinary pastoral needs we face, but the TLM (and the solid priests and faithful that tend to go with it) should still be infused into the more fundamental parts of the Church as much as possible IMO.  That's one way I think the SSPX and FSSP can complement each other (assuming the SSPX becomes a prelature).

My understanding of Opus Dei's situation is that they still have to obtain the local bishop's permission to carry out their apostolate in his diocese.  So I don't really know how the SSPX intends to accomplish anything more than the FSSP accomplishes, if that requirement will hold true for them (which, God willing, it would not).
Reply
#49
(04-27-2016, 04:34 PM)ermy_law Wrote: My understanding of Opus Dei's situation is that they still have to obtain the local bishop's permission to carry out their apostolate in his diocese.  So I don't really know how the SSPX intends to accomplish anything more than the FSSP accomplishes, if that requirement will hold true for them (which, God willing, it would not).

The Vatican II decree that deals with such things says "saving the right of bishops" and current canon law on personal prelatures incorporates this by requiring their consent:

Can. 297 The statutes are likewise to define the relationships of the prelature with the local Ordinaries in whose particular Churches the prelature, with the prior consent of the diocesan Bishop, exercises or wishes to exercise its pastoral or missionary activity.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_PZ.HTM

It looks like the Pope would have to derogate from the law to avoid this--but he has shown himself more than willing to derogate from laws in other circumstances  :)

As strange as it is on the surface, Pope Francis may be the perfect Pope to reconcile the SSPX.  God works in mysterious ways...
Reply
#50
(04-27-2016, 04:29 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(04-27-2016, 03:12 PM)Cetil Wrote: I would like to hear what the FSSP says about their situation and the cooperation of bishops. And the problem with TLM communities is that they are frequently not welcome in some if not many dioceses. In mine for example there is only one TLM allowed a month and the diocese still thinks it can restrict priests from saying it. Seminarians here are discouraged by their professors from having anything to do with the TLM.
Personal prelatures were set up to include a bishop at the head of it., that is an essential feature.

That's why I said "also."  :) The personal prelature has its merits due to the problems you mention, but, at least from what I understand, it isn't theologically a true particular Church.  That's why the current prelate of Opus Dei is still the titular Bishop of Cilibia (as an aside, I don't like how retired bishops are now considered bishops without even a titular see--I think a break with the tradition of assigning all bishops a see, even a "dead" one, undermines the theological importance of a bishop).

Anyway, my point is really that the prelature is good for meeting the extraordinary pastoral needs we face, but the TLM (and the solid priests and faithful that tend to go with it) should still be infused into the more fundamental parts of the Church as much as possible IMO.  That's one way I think the SSPX and FSSP can complement each other (assuming the SSPX becomes a prelature).

No, a prelature is not a particular church though I have long thought that might be the best solution for the SSPX in the manner of how the Eastern Catholic churches are handled. Just let them be a sui juris church. As far as their being "infused into the more fundamental parts of the Church", that is a fanciful position in the current situation and always will be. Realities are what Rome needs to face but in a church Francis promises to decentralize even more that will make your vision even more fanciful.

C.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)