SSPX to Regularize?

[Nihil Obstat]

To respond to the bit you tagged me in, there was some tension in, if I remember correctly, the late nineties at which point the Vatican appointed a Superior General for the Fraternity who was perceived as a 'moderate' when it came to the question of whether or not to permit Fraternity priests to celebrate the Novus Ordo. That was Devillers. The perception of him as being more favourable to the Novus Ordo was overly simplistic though.

There never was, to my understanding, an official decree that they must or must not do anything in particular, and Rev. Berg's replacement of Devillers as Superior General as voted by the Fraternity was not controversial. So things are copacetic for now, more or less, although the Fraternity would rather like some further freedom for their operations on a local level, as well as a bishop of their own...

[Amppax]

A question for everyone. What do you think will happen with the FSSP, should the SSPX regularize?

[Nihil Obstat]

15 minutes ago, Amppax said:

A question for everyone. What do you think will happen with the FSSP, should the SSPX regularize?

IMO, effectively nothing. Except that they will have the opportunity to openly collaborate, which is long overdue IMO.

[Amppax]

22 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

IMO, effectively nothing. Except that they will have the opportunity to openly collaborate, which is long overdue IMO.

Interesting. Would you say that there isn't tension between the two organizations? I would assume that because the FSSP broke off, there would be some hard feelings on one side or the other. Were there ever? And, if there were and aren't now, how did that change? 

[Nihil Obstat]

7 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Interesting. Would you say that there isn't tension between the two organizations? I would assume that because the FSSP broke off, there would be some hard feelings on one side or the other. Were there ever? And, if there were and aren't now, how did that change? 

There certainly was enormous tension early on. Things have calmed down a bit, but it is a bit region specific, which likely means it's very priest-specific. The Society looked at those who left as being unfaithful to Archbishop Lefebvre, and I have no trouble understanding where they were coming from. Some in the Fraternity thought that the consecrations were totally unacceptable. There were priests on either side who would tell their congregations that they could never, for any reason, attend the others' Masses. I'm friends with a woman who grew up being told by their SSPX priest that if they were ever seen at the Fraternity's Mass, they would be denied communion from the Society. (Which, of course, is ludicrous, but that was the level of rhetoric with some.) Over time with both the Fraternity and the Society growing incredibly well, there are a lot of priests who were not a part of that situation, so the same level of hard feelings has never existed.

For reasons mainly political they rarely if ever work together, but in many places they are unofficially very friendly. In my opinion that will quickly turn into official friendliness and collaboration very quickly in a lot of areas, given the freedom to do so.

[Benedictus]

On 28/04/2016, 20:24:34, Amppax said:

Funny you should mention that. Nihil and I had a discussion about the Orthodox and the SSPX at some point in the last year, if I'm remembering correctly. In terms of your specific question, though, there's certain precedents about how the Orthodox ought to be treated, if the treatment of Eastern Catholics is any indication. I mean, in many ways, it can be very very hard to distinguish between some Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox (I'm thinking specifically of some Melkites I know).  

However, it seems it is and has been allowed. Let's not require of them more than the Church has. 

The Orthodox are usually fairly balanced and fair, at least it seems in what I've experienced. I've seen Orthodox clergy attend the N.O Mass as observers and guests too, no problem. Some SSPX wouldn't even do that. They have a fair number of axes to grind.

[Amppax]

44 minutes ago, Benedictus said:

The Orthodox are usually fairly balanced and fair, at least it seems in what I've experienced. I've seen Orthodox clergy attend the N.O Mass as observers and guests too, no problem. Some SSPX wouldn't even do that. They have a fair number of axes to grind.

I have a lot to say about this, but I have about 5,000 words to write by Tuesday (St. Jude, ora pro nobis), so I'll have to come back to this. My point in comparing the two wasn't to compare them in liturgical approach (though I've known Orthodox that feel about the same way about the OF as the SSPX), rather to compare what their "in union with Rome" counterparts (Eastern Catholics/FSSP) have and have not been required to accept/do to be in full communion with Rome. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

45 minutes ago, Amppax said:

My point in comparing the two wasn't to compare them in liturgical approach (though I've known Orthodox that feel about the same way about the OF as the SSPX), rather to compare what their "in union with Rome" counterparts (Eastern Catholics/FSSP) have and have not been required to accept/do to be in full communion with Rome.

Generally, though, Eastern Rite Catholic priests don't have a problem concelebrating the Latin Rite N.O. when the occasion arises. For example, you usually see at least a handful of Eastern Rite clergy concelebrating at major Papal Masses.

As a personal example, when was studying canon law the vast majority of my classmates were priests, and a few of them were Eastern Rite. Often, we would have class Masses for special occasions. It was so generally accepted that Eastern Rite priests would join in, that it would have seemed extremely odd to the point of being jarring if one of them said: "I'll attend as a guest, but I won't concelebrate because I have deep personal reservations regarding your liturgy."

(Sorry if this distracts from your current paper, though!)

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

On 4/28/2016, 4:53:14, beatitude said:

I don't know much about the history of the SSPX and the article doesn't say what the conditions are to be, so I can't comment knowledgeably. I tried to go to Mass in one of their chapels once, as a fifteen-year-old, without knowing what the SSPX even was - I was just curious about what Latin Mass looked like and I'd seen that they had it from the sign outside. I was treated badly for showing up without a mantilla, and I left before Mass started because I didn't have anything for my head and I felt embarrassed. I hope that situation was not truly representative of them as a group. I'm glad Pope Francis is stressing Christian unity so much, and I pray that they're able to reach a full reconciliation with Rome. They have safeguarded a liturgical treasure in the EF Mass and it would be good to have it more widely available to us all.

all most welcome. It's there choice, mantillas can be compulsary for them if they wan't, they are there own order and orders can have some rules that the novus ordo or other orders don't have, this does not mean that we are not unified, we are all unified around the 6 or 7 ex cathedra statements, holy scripture, sacred tradition and the holy sacraments, oh and of course Jesus and the cross.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye