Posted on 10/16/2013 8:48:30 AM PDT by NYer
The head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has denounced Vatican II, described the post-conciliar liturgy as “evil,” and said that he is grateful the group never reached an accommodation with the Holy See.
In a provocative address to the Kansas City audience, Bishop Bernard Fellay said: “It is has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate.’” He said that although the Novus Ordo Mass introduced after Vatican II may be valid, “The New Mass is bad, it is evil.”
Bishop Fellay told SSPX supporters that talks with the Vatican, designed to regularize the status of the breakaway traditionalist group, collapsed last June because the Vatican insisted on acceptance of the teachings of Vatican II. The SSPX leader flatly rejected the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI that Vatican II statements should be read in the light of consistent Catholic teaching. “The Council is not in continuity with tradition,” he said. “It’s not.”
While the SSPX leader said that the “hermeutic of continuity” preached by Benedict XVI was unrealistic, he acknowledged that the former Pontiff was somewhat sympathetic to the concerns of traditionalists. Under Pope Francis, he said, the gap between the SSPX and the Holy See is widening.
“When we see what is happening now,” Bishop Fellay said, “we thank God—we thank God!—we have been preserved from any kind of agreement” with the Vatican.
The harsh words from the SSPX leader appear to signal an end to any realistic hope for a reconciliation between the traditionalist group and the Holy See, and an indefinite continuation of the schism that began in 1988 when the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained Fellay and three other bishops in defiance of orders from Pope John Paul II.
Additional sources for this story
Some links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
If you were both baptized as non-Catholics, and had not been received into full communion at the time, you would have a valid sacramental marriage—non-Catholics aren’t required to observe the liturgical form. (My parents were in this boat.)
Both baptized Catholics but I’m not sure of what value the ‘sacramental marriage’ would be to us anyway. Perhaps some benefit in term of graces. Thanks for the reply.
One potential benefit would be being able to go to communion in your home parish without any danger of public scandal—though that might be possible anyway if the details of your marriage are not known and you are living celibately. It would be worth talking over with your parish priest—both the ins and outs of having your marriage straightened out and the proper approach toward Holy Communion in the mean time.
BTW—I just looked at your home page, and the part up top really resonated with me (I grew up in south-western Oregon but have family all over the State). While I have been effectively gone for a quarter-century now, I look forward to the day when Portland, Eugene, and Seattle are removed from the demographics of their respective states.
Unless I miss my guess, (or more properly have missed on developments in Eastern Oregon) you must be somewhere up near Spokane. All the traditionalist activity that I am aware of in Oregon is on the western side of the Cascades.
Thanks for your thoughts, Hieronymus. We do not belong to any actual parish — instead we have a couple of visiting diocesan priests who celebrate the Tridentine Mass in a chapel nearby (south-central WA). Once an EWTN priest told us by phone we were perfectly OK in our present circumstances to receive the Holy Eucharist after Confession like any other Catholics. But I have always wondered if that was correct. It is difficult to catch up to the traveling priests to discuss this but I will have to try harder. Another possibility is talking to priests at an FSSP parish one state over. I don’t even care about having the marriage “straightened out” since we are as brother and sister anyway, just want to receive Holy Communion. Same with my wife.
I know people who know Williamson. He has a lot of issues, but he is not a sedevacantist. He’s adolescent, and when it comes right down to it, he’s a modernist.
I don’t think so. The previous two pope have said the SSPX was an internal Church matter and that they were part of the Church. Secondly, whatever else it might be, Bishop Fellay is not taking a sedevacantist position. He does not say any pope is invalid. So please put back the, “Catholic Caucus” label.
Your position is 100% false. The previous two popes consistently held SSPX were part of the Church, and the current Pope has done nothing to change that. As well, the SSPX leadership doesn't contend that they aren't part of the Catholic Church. Whatever differences there are, neither side is making the claims you created.
I would think that we need to make sure to have some definitions here:
While, of course, we have the sacramental/canonical definition of "Catholic":
Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
But I would think that a more useful working definition would be that which is established in Canon 1364 §1:
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
And then the working definitions of those three terms are:
(Source: Can 751)
Two clarifications:
With the above, we can pretty well determine if any particular community is "Catholic" or not without resorting to our emotions or the news of the day.
In the case of the SSPX:
Are they apostate? I am confident that no SSPX member would have a problem professing Symbolum Apostolicum; the Symbolum Nicaenum; or the Quicunque Vult...so, therefore, they wouldn't be considered apostate.
Are they heretical? To my knowledge, they have not denied any truth that is to believed by divine and Catholic faith. The area where this could become questionable is in regards to the doctrinal authority of the issuances of Vatican Council II...but that is a subject for another discussion.
Are they schismatic? They haven't yet repudiated submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with members of the Church subject to him. They may be moving in that direction, but they aren't there yet.
So using the Canon 1364 definition, one could only conclude that "yes, they are Catholic"...at least as of 10/17/2013...but we'd have to check back regularly, as their status is evolving over time.
And what about those of us who do consider themselves Catholic and question the current pope’s validity due to heretical statements made by him? Who are you or anyone else to exclude me from Catholic discussions? I agree with all traditional Catholic teaching. Do you allow those who do not agree with traditional teaching and call themselves Catholic (you know, like the pro-choice and pro-gay marriage types)?
I like simple things.I also worry about our non-Catholic Brother’s and Sister’s reading a thread.If I called my Spiritual Director he would say no to SSPX being a part of a Catholic forum because of confusion.God bless them but they don’t represent me.
Here’s the thing Fatima. There is already confusion. I think groups like SSPX as well as the sedes are trying to make sense of it all. Their responses are directly related to Vatican II. I would like to think that ALL Catholics would want to discuss the confusion together.
As you intuited earlier, there are reasons for having the marriage “straightened out” that go beyond the realm of not living as brother and sister—all things being equal, a Josephite marriage is/can be a good thing.
Your wondering if the advice is correct is a good thing—you don’t need to make your Holy Communion specifically after Confession any more than any other Catholic. Either you had a firm purpose of amendment in the past and are in a morally upright situation, or you are not in a morally upright situation and need the situation amended before absolution is given. The main wrinkle is the appearance of scandal—but that largely depends on how widely known your initial marital state is—which is why going somewhere anonymously is sometimes suggested as an option. FSSP is likely good.
Is this thread for spiritual purposes or to debate the SSPX and its beliefs, etc?
From the perspective “Who brings most disruption to Catholic discussion?” — SSPX is the answer. I hardly ever saw an Orthodox disrupt a Catholic discussion though.
From the technical and legal perspective, and in truth, the SSPX is indisputably Catholic. They are certainly not sedevacantist.
As an opinion, I would prefer including both SSPX and the Orthodox in Catholic caucus threads; we can deal with an occasional disruptive poster internally. Or in an extreme case, refer such a poster to you and ask that he, not because he is SSPX or Orthodox, but because of his personality, be excluded.
I don't think it reflects the true spirit, if you will, of the Caucus label to continue in debate however. IMO.
But rules are rules I guess.
Actually, I'm fine with the current definition. I don't think sedevacantists should participate in Catholic Caucus threads.
But that's the point: The SSPX formally acknowledge that the chair is NOT empty. Their excommunications were lifted by Pope Benedict, and the Church has said the matter between the Church and the SSPX is an internal Catholic Church matter.
What this means is that the official view of the Catholic Church is that the SSPX are Catholics, albeit in an irregular position.
As markomalley points out, this could easily change in the days, weeks, or months ahead, as Bishop Fellay has just cleared his throat in a way that suggests a formal and final break with the Church.
At that point, it may very well be that the SSPX become non-Catholic, may become sedevacantist, or formally schismatic, or whatever. That's certainly where this train is currently heading. The SSPX doesn't have the authority to repudiate a church council, nor declare a liturgical rite “not legitimate.”
But until there is a formal break recognized by the Church, it strikes me as impertinent to judge the SSPX “not Catholic.”
sitetest
“Straightening it out” wouldn't be very difficult. As baptized Catholics, your marriage lacks proper form. It can be regularlized with little effort.
If for no other reason than to put to rest any questions in your mind, you might want to talk to someone in your diocese.
Or go talk to the FSSP folks. I don't think they'll steer you wrong.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.