Rome losing interest in reconciliation with SSPX?

DAILY NEWS BRIEF FROM CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS ^ | June 5, 2006

[NYer]

Jun. 05 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has shown a declining interest in restoring normal ties with Lefebvrists, according to the head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

Bishop Bernard Fellay, speaking to the French newspaper Le Figaro during an annual pilgrimage from Chartres to Paris, said that he thought "the enthusiasm for the reconciliation that the Pope wants has abated." He conceded, however, that Vatican officials might be waiting for the outcome of this summer's chapter general, at which the SSPX will elect its leader, before reviving active discussions.

Rumors about Vatican plans to regularize the status of the SSPX circulated freely earlier this year. The topic was reportedly on the agenda for the consistory of the College of Cardinals on March 24. But any plan for reconciliation will have to overcome considerable opposition, both within the Roman Curia and within the ranks of the traditionalist group.

In a homily preached to participants in the SSPX pilgrimage, Bishop Fellay illustrated the extent of Lefebvrist disaffection from Rome, saying that the modern Church leadership was engaged in "suicide" because Catholicism had renounced its missionary spirit.

[bornacatholic]

But, but..weren't we told they were "growing by leaps and bounds..." :)

It is amasing so many "bought into" the idea a schism preserves Tradition. I 'spose because of the radical changes in the West, for polemical reasons wrongly attributed to Vatican Two, the relative "security" of the sspx seemed attractive.

It had all the observable physical manifestations of being the same as what we were familiar with. We could observe the same Liturgy, Vestments, and Fortress-Catholicism so many of us grew-up with.

For many of us originally attracted to it, it took a awhile to realise it was a schismatic revolution within a traditional form.

To me, that was an eye-opener. Was my Faith built upon Jesus or upon obeying rules?

The change in the discipline of Meatless Fridays and the response to it by so many Catholics revealed to me just how shallow was our "Faith." I know a lot of people for whom that change may just as well have been an atomic bomb. That change blew-away their "faith," such as it was.

And we were supposed to be the brightest, best educated Catholic generation ever. Looking back it is difficult to admit that what semed so rock-solid was, in reality, suspect, fragile, and deracinated.

When what we are familiar with is taken away from us our relationship with Jesus is exposed for what it really is. The revolution in the West was a "Blessing in disguise" as my Dad used to say about other things. For those of us with eyes to see, it revealed to ourselves just who we are and what we believe and who it is we love.

[bornacatholic]

I am glad you have found an Indult community because we all need the support of others. I appreciate your candid observations about the sspx. I know that prolly wasn't easy to admit as I am sure you still have friends within the group.

[bornacatholic]

When I said "nobody," I was writing hyperbole to make a point. Still, I have never heard anyone in my Parish speak of the SSPX. As to Catholics quiting Communuion with their Bishop and their Pope, I suspect many more Catholics are severing Communion and joining evangelical groups than are severing Communion and joining the SSPX.

On the other hand, my Parish is spiced with scores of "bible-believing" converts from Protestant groups who have revivified our Church. Simply considered on the basis of "exchange," I think the Body of Christ has benefitted from the influx of protestants who have a personal relationship with Christ, a solid grasp of Scripture and service and the exodus of Catholics cleaved to clericalism, 16th century ritualistic formalism and a Fortress triumphalism.

[Slugworth]

The SSPX is split in itself between sedevacanists and non-sedevacanists, and the best sources on that would be found on the actual SSPX site, and it's supporters sites.

Are you sure? I couldn't find any evidence of a "split" here,

here,

here,

here, or

here. Perhaps you could post a link that shows that the SSPX is sedevacantist, whether as a whole or in part. I'd be very interested in reading any such source.

Thanks in advance.

[Theoden]

I am at work right now and don't have the saved articles available to me, or the time to post them. I will post them when I have time after I get home later today.

You seem to be very much a supporter of the SSPX. Are you a member yourself? I know that they were excommunicated by Pope John Paul II a few years back. I would love to have the good ones come back, but not the insatiable hardliners.

Give a mouse a cookie, and they will want a glass of milk. Not with the SSPX, offer them a cookie, and they will reject the offer and demand the whole jar of cookies with the glass of milk. Their demands are unreasonable. At first I liked them and their ideas, but I no longer do. I hope for reconciliation, but I don't think it's going to happen.

[FourtySeven]

Simply considered on the basis of "exchange," I think the Body of Christ has benefitted from the influx of protestants who have a personal relationship with Christ, a solid grasp of Scripture and service and the exodus of Catholics cleaved to clericalism, 16th century ritualistic formalism and a Fortress triumphalism.

I agree.

[steadfastconservative]

Paul Likoudis wrote an article last week in "The Wanderer" in which he said that it appears that the efforts to reconcile SSPX with Rome have stalled. He did not elaborate on whether Rome or SSPX is losing interest. It is pretty clear from what the SSPX bishops have been saying, however, that they are not interested in rejoining the Church unless Rome caves into all of their demands, which is extremely unlikely.

I said it a few months ago, when these rumors began, and I'll say it again: the SSPX is not going to reconcile with the Church. And frankly, the Church is better off without them.

[steadfastconservative]

Unless the SSPX returns to the Church, the group will not only stagnate but it will eventually start to decline in numbers and significance. If they remain in schism, they will be the losers, not the Church.

[Theoden]

I spent my lunch hour doing some more research on the SSPX, and you are right, they are non-sedevacantists. I misinterpreted some of the articles written by the dissidents.

They recognize that the Throne of St. Peter is still filled by a Pope, and that he does maintain authority (for the most part). So what? They are still in schism, and are still under the excommunicated status. I don't like the manner and tone of their disagreements, and I still dislike the group as a whole, though not on an individual basis.

On what authority can a small group of bishops break from the Body of Christ, and still claim legitimacy? There are many who have broke away in schism, and they have either been excommunicated, or been on the receiving end of a crusade or inquisition at some time. People can rationalize anything, and can quote/interpret Scripture into any point of view. That does not legitimize anything, and IMO is an act of extreme arrogance. Oh well.

[Theoden]

I agree with you.

[Frank Sheed]

I'm sorry but I read a lot of blogs and I can't recall where I saw this precisely. I can tell you that the story concerned the surprise as to why Archbishop Ricard was to receive the "red hat" as opposed to the Archbishop of Paris. The story then gave the basic account that I mentioned above: that the SSPX following was large and growing and that there was a fear that the Muslims would petition the government to convert Churches to mosques.

Here is a link from Rorate Caeli:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/04/traditionalist-strength-in-france.html

It links to a PDF file which is probably in French. You can see that the issue being discussed is that the exact number of SSPX Catholics may be higher than thought. Also, the SSPX website for Econe gives a total of 65 priests in seminary at this moment (some are not in Econe but they are in France). That is impressive to me!

I am not SSPX and mention this only because I found it a surprise. I can vouch for the fact that more and more young families are turning to Traditionalist Masses (especially the Tridentine Indult in the US). The Washington Post just did a nice story on the Mass at St. Mary's in D.C. which was sent to me by several of my tradtionalist friends.

F

[iowamark]

That blog entry mixes together Ecclesia Dei, FSSP, and SSPX as if they were the same thing, leaving out the critical fact that the first 2 are part of the Catholic Church and that SSPX is not.

I think that SSPX numbers are actually quite small. They have used the figure of 500 priests worldwide for years.

[Slugworth]

On what authority can a small group of bishops break from the Body of Christ, and still claim legitimacy?

On what authority can some layperson speaking from behind a screen name on some dopey internet forum declare that anyone has broken from the Body of Christ?

There are many who have broke away in schism, and they have either been excommunicated, or been on the receiving end of a crusade or inquisition at some time

*blink*

*blink*

Okay.

Would that include, say, the Orthodox? Are the Orthodox schismatics/excommunicated?

[Religion Moderator]

"Dopey internet forum"?

[Slugworth]

I think that SSPX numbers are actually quite small. They have used the figure of 500 priests worldwide for years.



There was a time when there were only 12 real priests on earth.

[Slugworth]

I use the term affectionately, of course.

[Religion Moderator]

LOLOL!

[iowamark]

But those 12 bishops, after Pentecost, evangelized the whole known world, ordained many new priests, and grew the church very rapidly, didn't they?

[Theoden]

I claim no authority, nor am I declaring that anyone has broken from the Body of Christ than has not been proven to have already done so by the Church hierarchy. It's really just a reiteration of fact, and I must be right in my other assumptions, otherwise I would not have received that kind of reaction from you.

I would have spoken the same way to you in person if this discussion was brought up in our presence. LOL, I don't think too many people will take kindly to Free Republic being called a "dopey internet forum". I have no problem speaking my mind to others I don't know in person, odds are I'm much more physically imposing than they, thanks to my Nordic blood.

The crusades/inquisition statement was just a bit of venting of what used to happen to groups such as the SSPX over 600 years ago. The Orthodox are a special case, one that I am not qualified to speak on, because I am not read up on it. I view them as schismatic, yes, but they think the same way about us. They are not under excommunicated status. They have some issues with the Latin Church, but are not preaching heresies or anything like that. They have legitimate authority, and reasons for being in schism, and that has been recognized by the Papacy, unlike the SSPX which is in direct conflict with Church doctrine. I wish it wasn't that way. I really do sympathize with many of the ideals of the SSPX, I simply take issue with their actions and words against their brethren who stayed in communion with the Holy See.

Odds are that we will reconcile with the Orthodox Church before we reconcile with the SSPX. Vatican II is both the best and worst thing that happened to our Church, IMO. I don't want to get into that here. The crux of my argument is that the SSPX needs to accept the reality of things, and that times have changed, and so the Church must, as she always has. If the SSPX stopped being to aggressive and venomous in it's diologue with Rome, then we would all be much better off.

I have nothing personal against you at all. This is only an argument, and I don't want you to get all bent out of shape over it, I know I'm not. Peace.

Theoden

[Slugworth]

I must be right in my other assumptions, otherwise I would not have received that kind of reaction from you.

You previously assumed, wrongly, that the SSPX takes the position that the Holy See is vacant. Neither your assumption, whether based on hearsay or ignorance, nor especially mine or anyone else's reaction to your words, should be used as a barometer of the truth, since both of those yardsticks have already failed you.

I would have spoken the same way to you in person if this discussion was brought up in our presence. LOL, I don't think too many people will take kindly to Free Republic being called a "dopey internet forum". I have no problem speaking my mind to others I don't know in person, odds are I'm much more physically imposing than they, thanks to my Nordic blood.

Here you assume correctly, provided you're being truthful. I can't even stand up without the aid of a cane, so if you are a burly Norseman in good health, you could indeed kick my butt. Point conceded.

The crusades/inquisition statement was just a bit of venting of what used to happen to groups such as the SSPX over 600 years ago.

600 years ago, the SSPX stance was the status quo in the Church, which is kind of the whole point here. The Crusades were fought against mongrels occupying Christianity's holiest places. Today, mongrels (i.e., Hindus), are being invited by the Catholic bishops to offer their diabolical worship in holy places (Fatima, for instance). The Inquisition was aimed at stomping out heresy - people publicly denying one or more truths of the Faith; i.e., that the Catholic Church is the one true religion outside of which no one can be saved, that Our Lord is actually present in the Blessed Sacrament, etc. If this were 600 years ago, I dare say that the SSPX would not be the ones on the business end of an inquisition, though they would definitely have their work cut out for them.

The Orthodox are a special case, one that I am not qualified to speak on, because I am not read up on it. I view them as schismatic, yes, but they think the same way about us. They are not under excommunicated status.

You weren't read-up on the SSPX, either, yet you had no problem declaring their excommunication. What makes the Orthodox a "special case?"

They have some issues with the Latin Church, but are not preaching heresies or anything like that.

They hold no dogmatic positions which the Catholic Church teaches are heretical? Are you sure?

They have legitimate authority,

"Legitimate authority," meaning the Roman Pontiff appoints their bishops and gives them territorial jurisdiction? Are you sure?

and reasons for being in schism, and that has been recognized by the Papacy,

They have permission to be in schism? Is this really what you're saying?

unlike the SSPX which is in direct conflict with Church doctrine.

Which ones?

The crux of my argument is that the SSPX needs to accept the reality of things, and that times have changed, and so the Church must, as she always has.

Check it, yo.:

"I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely."
-Pope St. Pius X, Oath against Modernism, 9/1/1910

From the Syllabus of Errors, Pope Pius IX:
[It is an error to believe that]"Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason."

[It is an error to believe that]"The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization."

"'Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed.' This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense -- with some modification when needful -- should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth. The secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. "Blind'- they are, and "leaders of the blind" puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which "they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself."
Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 8/8/1907

Look around & ask yourself who's side you're on. Stop. Think. Reassess. I beg you.