SSPX to Regularize?

[CountrySteve937]

The SSPX has too accept VII.

Pope Benedict XVI in the Ratzinger Report put it best:

 

 To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council.It is also our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to "right" and "left" alike)to view Vatican II as a "break" and an abandonment of the tradition.There is,instead, a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistc longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.

 

 

Pax

[Nihil Obstat]

Accepting the Council, whatever that means, does not and never has meant that aspects of the council cannot be discussed, debated, even corrected or given an authentic interpretation. This is all the Society has ever asked for. And every authority on the subject agrees that discussion, even substantial discussion of the documents themselves, remains a possibility for faithful Catholics.

[BigJon16]

3 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

 If this goes through, I will be rejoicing greatly. I believe that we need their pastoral guidance right now, and a regularized Society will be a massive force for authentic Catholicism.

I would echo this, not because I tend to be one to separate the Church into "camps," but simply because I agree that the Society could have a lot of great gifts to offer the Church, especially in the 21st Century. That's kind of what makes the Universal Church such a beautiful thing, different perspectives, different practices, all centered around the same Person.  

Not that you're separating the Church into "camps," (you aren't, nor have you ever), but I can see how some could take this that way. People tend to get very emotional about traditionally grounded groups, asserting that they feel "offended." I guess I get that. But I think that typically comes from a feeling of being looked down upon.

The greatest obstacle the SSPX might face is such opinions of them as pretentious and "high and mighty," and although some particular persons might be, that doesn't mean they can't enter into full communion. News flash, spend any good amount of time around Catholics, and odds are that some of them are going to come off as jerks. But if there's one thing I've learned this past year, don't judge a book by it's cover. And don't judge a Trad by their surplice (Not sure if that makes sense, but it kinda sounds cool.) 

 

I've not been on PM much, but I've always enjoyed Nihil and Amp's levelheadedness about the Church. You guys rock! 

[Nihil Obstat]

Personally, I think the perception of the sspx being elitist and pretentious is totally without basis in reality. In my personal experience they are in fact very 'blue collar' and fairly rough around the edges. Y'all 'Muricans should love that.

I met bishop Williamson briefly, not too long after he was expelled from the Society, and he wore the shabbiest chasuble you are ever likely to see... Anyway, not a pleasant man at all. The Society was right to show him the door, I say.

[Amppax]

4 hours ago, Benedictus said:

I think dialogue is desirable to do and to have unity as a long term objective. However, I think the ideas expressed in this article will create endless headaches and problems for the church if they went ahead. The implications of incorporating a dissenting faction is an odd one. I don't really see the point of it unless they can reach very clear agreement. Maybe the Vatican thinks it can slowly reform and tame them if they come in rather than being outside the structures? I think that may well be a bit naive. I can see a fair bit of opposition on both sides. 

The church would also have to answer some questions in terms of interfaith dialogue and face some challenging conversations with Jewish leaders. 

I think the SSPX did themselves a huge favor in the latter regard getting rid of Bishop Williamson. 

[Nihil Obstat]

7 minutes ago, Amppax said:

I think the SSPX did themselves a huge favor in the latter regard getting rid of Bishop Williamson. 

Williamson has totally lost it. I like to think that his intentions were good at one point, but he has been totally consumed with a very dangerous, very evil sort of fanaticism. He fell for the exact danger the recent letter circulated in the Society warned about; the temptation to regard hindered unity as normal. More than that, he seems to find it preferable, and he is against the very concept of fixing relationships with Rome. He has given up hope for a resolution to the Church's troubles, and his preaching to his weird group of independent chapels encourages them to be more insular, more hostile, and ultimately less Catholic. It is very troubling, but at least he has been isolated along with his more strident followers.

[Nihil Obstat]

5 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I.e., I don't think there's actually any way the Church would or could accommodate the SSPX without the Society accepting, at least in basic principle, the legitimacy of Vatican II.

We should be clear here. The SSPX do accept, and have always accepted Vatican II as a valid Council of the Church. That has never been the question. For goodness' sake, Marcel Lefebvre was a council father. There are certain formulations in certain documents to which they object. They can point to a discrete list of objections when they are asked to (and they have done so), and that is what the doctrinal talks revolved around. It is within the context of Vatican II as a valid council that they object to a specific subset of issues within it; the doctrinal talks would make little sense if we were starting from a disagreement on whether or not the council even exists.

So yes, clearly they accept "the legitimacy of Vatican II." They just disagree with some of its stickier formulations. And it seems that they are well within their rights to do so.

[Guest]

All I want to know is if Allah from the Koran is God...

[Nihil Obstat]

38 minutes ago, Josh said:

All I want to know is if Allah from the Koran is God...

Wrong thread for that...

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Wrong thread for that...

Isn't that one of the issues they disagree with?

[Nihil Obstat]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

Isn't that one of the issues they disagree with?

They are incredibly un-unique in that regard.

[Amppax]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

Isn't that one of the issues they disagree with?

I don't think it is being considered an obstacle to regularization, so it's not really relevant to this thread.

[PhuturePriest]

I think the Council itself is a lesser thing bearing their regularization.

This, however, is not: http://corbiniansbear.blogspot.com/2015/08/sspx-dont-go-to-novus-ordo-mass.html

Calling the Ordinary Form an "abomination" and directing Catholics not to attend Mass if that is the only Mass available to them is not exactly kosher.

[Amppax]

1 hour ago, PhuturePriest said:

I think the Council itself is a lesser thing bearing their regularization.

This, however, is not: http://corbiniansbear.blogspot.com/2015/08/sspx-dont-go-to-novus-ordo-mass.html

Calling the Ordinary Form an "abomination" and directing Catholics not to attend Mass if that is the only Mass available to them is not exactly kosher.

I would agree. However, I think it's easier to deal with than doctrinal difficulties. They just need to shut up about the Novus Ordo, like it seems the FSSP does for the most part. They'll probably have to retract the "if you don't have an EF mass, you're dispensed of your obligation" thing; at least I would hope so. 

[Nihil Obstat]

37 minutes ago, Amppax said:

I would agree. However, I think it's easier to deal with than doctrinal difficulties. They just need to shut up about the Novus Ordo, like it seems the FSSP does for the most part. They'll probably have to retract the "if you don't have an EF mass, you're dispensed of your obligation" thing; at least I would hope so. 

More or less. The FSSP are no fans of the Novus Ordo, and most if not all categorically refuse to celebrate it under any circumstance. They are just quiet about it.

[PhuturePriest]

6 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

More or less. The FSSP are no fans of the Novus Ordo, and most if not all categorically refuse to celebrate it under any circumstance. They are just quiet about it.

Hm, interesting. I've known priests in the FSSP who have no issue with it and are willing to celebrate it, but perhaps they are the minority.

[KnightofChrist]

I've always wonder what would happen with these types of discussions if SSPX was replaced with any number of the Orthodox Churches. If any of the Orthodox Churches had the same or similar issues with VII or the N.O. but were willing to fully return I wonder just how different they would be treated than the SSPX. I'm willing to bet without the same kind of demands (if any demands at all), much nicer and with much wider open arms. I could be wrong though, I guess.

Edited April 28, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[Sponsa-Christi]

20 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

More or less. The FSSP are no fans of the Novus Ordo, and most if not all categorically refuse to celebrate it under any circumstance. They are just quiet about it.

This still seems problematic, though.

[Amppax]

6 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

I've always wonder what would happen with these types of discussions if SSPX was replaced with any number of the Orthodox Churches. If any of the Orthodox Churches had the same or similar issues with VII or the N.O. but were willing to fully return I wonder just how different they would be treated than the SSPX. I'm willing to bet without the same kind of demands (if any demands at all), much nicer and with much wider open arms. I could be wrong though, I guess.

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).  

Just now, Sponsa-Christi said:

This still seems problematic, though.

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

[Sponsa-Christi]

13 minutes ago, Amppax said:

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

To clarify, I meant that it would be problematic if they were anti-N.O. in a way that's not officially known by the Church. Like, if FSSP priests were de facto telling people to avoid the N.O., or refusing to say an N.O. in a case of great pastoral necessity, even if this "ideology" (and I don't mean "ideology" in an inflammatory way---I just can't think of a better word off the top of my head) wasn't actually written in their constitutions or discussed publicly.

Obviously, the Church doesn't require the FSSP to celebrate the N.O. in their own houses or institutions, which is fine. But presumably, the Church does expect them to be okay with the Ordinary Form at least in principle.

 

Edited April 28, 2016 by Sponsa-Christi