SSPX to Regularize?

[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

[PhuturePriest]

It does seem problematic to be in the Church but refuse to celebrate the ordinary form of the Mass approved by the Church on theological grounds. It's one thing to say you simply don't want to celebrate it because the other form is more appealing to you, or it's just not your cup of tea -- but it's another thing entirely to say "I refuse to celebrate this form of the Mass because I object to it."

[Nihil Obstat]

3 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

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.

Very much so. It is likely that a seminarian who wanted to occasionally say the Novus Ordo would be asked to leave their seminary, as I understand it. They are, after all, dedicated specifically to the Latin Mass. There are many other options for people who do not have that particular devotion.

2 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

This still seems problematic, though.

I do not think so.

2 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

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.

 

I cannot think of any situations in which a Fraternity priest celebrating the Novus Ordo becomes a true pastoral necessity. And apparently Ecclesia Dei does not have much issue with the current state of affairs.

Even at the chrism Mass (when he cannot manage to not be in town at the time) my priest will only attend in choro, never concelebrate.

 

Like I said above, they are quiet about it, they try not to make waves, everybody is happy. The world continues to turn. Priests are not forced to say a Mass of which they have always questioned the liturgical, pastoral, and theological basis. As is their right.

2 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

It does seem problematic to be in the Church but refuse to celebrate the ordinary form of the Mass approved by the Church on theological grounds. It's one thing to say you simply don't want to celebrate it because the other form is more appealing to you, or it's just not your cup of tea -- but it's another thing entirely to say "I refuse to celebrate this form of the Mass because I object to it."

You should petition Pope Francis to force them, and see what kind of mess we end up with.  I guarantee that everyone will lose.

[Sponsa-Christi]

12 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Like I said above, they are quiet about it, they try not to make waves, everybody is happy. The world continues to turn. Priests are not forced to say a Mass of which they have always questioned the liturgical, pastoral, and theological basis. As is their right.

I think it's fine if a priest in a community like the FSSP has a strong personal preference for the EF, and so chooses it as the form of the Mass he celebrates in general. But it is a major problem if a priest has deep-seated reservations on the basic "goodness" (again, for lack of a better word) of the Church's Ordinary Form to the point where he has conscientious objections to even the hypothetical possibility of ever celebrating it.

To me, this seems like it represents a fundamental disconnect from the rest of the Church, or a doubt that the Holy Spirit does indeed guide the magisterium. If the N.O. is really somehow intrinsically inferior to the older form (as opposed to simply being less subjectively inspiring to some people on a purely personal level), why would the Holy Spirit allow the Church to move in such a negative direction? And are those who object to the Ordinary Form therefore somehow better at discerning what is authentically Catholic than the Church herself?  

Actively forcing the FSSP to celebrate the Ordinary Form might very well cause more problems than it solves in the short term. But leaving such "dissenting" attitudes unaddressed entirely could have serious consequences in the long run.  

[Nihil Obstat]

8 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I think it's fine if a priest in a community like the FSSP has a strong personal preference for the EF, and so chooses it as the form of the Mass he celebrates in general. But it is a major problem if a priest has deep-seated reservations on the basic "goodness" (again, for lack of a better word) of the Church's Ordinary Form to the point where he has conscientious objections to even the hypothetical possibility of ever celebrating it.

To me, this seems like it represents a fundamental disconnect from the rest of the Church, or a doubt that the Holy Spirit does indeed guide the magisterium. If the N.O. is really somehow intrinsically inferior to the older form (as opposed to simply being less subjectively inspiring to some people on a purely personal level), why would the Holy Spirit allow the Church to move in such a negative direction? And are those who object to the Ordinary Form therefore somehow better at discerning what is authentically Catholic than the Church herself?  

Actively forcing the FSSP to celebrate the Ordinary Form might very well cause more problems than it solves in the short term. But leaving such "dissenting" attitudes unaddressed entirely could have serious consequences in the long run.  

Well, you are begging the question a bit if you attribute this to having "deep seated reservations on the basic goodness" of the Novus Ordo. That is such a nebulous way to phrase it, as you acknowledged, that I do not think it does us any good at all. I doubt any FSSP priest would phrase it that way, because they all do recognize it as a valid Mass.

While I have a lot to say on the subject, I do not wish to say it here. I would recommend The Bugnini Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform by Laszlo Dobszay, which is available as a free pdf, as well as its follow-up by Dr. Dobszay entitled Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite.

[Amppax]

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I think it's fine if a priest in a community like the FSSP has a strong personal preference for the EF, and so chooses it as the form of the Mass he celebrates in general. But it is a major problem if a priest has deep-seated reservations on the basic "goodness" (again, for lack of a better word) of the Church's Ordinary Form to the point where he has conscientious objections to even the hypothetical possibility of ever celebrating it.

To me, this seems like it represents a fundamental disconnect from the rest of the Church, or a doubt that the Holy Spirit does indeed guide the magisterium. If the N.O. is really somehow intrinsically inferior to the older form (as opposed to simply being less subjectively inspiring to some people on a purely personal level), why would the Holy Spirit allow the Church to move in such a negative direction? And are those who object to the Ordinary Form therefore somehow better at discerning what is authentically Catholic than the Church herself?  

Actively forcing the FSSP to celebrate the Ordinary Form might very well cause more problems than it solves in the short term. But leaving such "dissenting" attitudes unaddressed entirely could have serious consequences in the long run.  

I don't think anyone questions what you call the basic "goodness" of the OF, at least not in terms of the FSSP (going to step away from the SSPX for a moment). Like Nihil said, they accept it as a valid mass. To get into a discussion of the rest of your post, at least publically would probably be in violation of our community guidelines here, so I'm going to bow out of the discussion, but I'll again reiterate what I said before, we ought not require of them what the Church hasn't. As far as I understand, what Nihil has represented is the FSSP position, and they've never been admonished for it, at least not by the Vatican (Ecclesia Dei, CDW, etc). @Nihil Obstat perhaps you have more concrete info on that?

There's more I could say, but probably shouldn't, even though my personal position on the matter is probably the opposite of what people would assume based on what I've written so far. To continue this discussion down this avenue further would take us away from the original topic (the SSPX's regularization) and towards territory that dUSt has made rather clear time and again that he'd rather not have discussions go.