[Apologetics] Re: [Apologetics] Re: MISCONCEPTIONS: What the “lifting” of the SSPX excom’s means for people

Sun Jan 25 19:56:58 EST 2009

Hi

Diversity and looking the other way - diversity is fine if the language or traditions differ but the underlying doctrine is the same.  Even if the language differs so radically that it takes a team of theologians a while to figure out that the underying doctrine is the same.  That is the case with with the East.  Looking the other way with regard to the canon has been the norm in the East since it was possible to do so, as the Church maintains the truth and differing canons don't change what they believe.

With the SSPX, it's a bit different.  "We have reservations about V2" could mean a) "We reject what the council truly said and did" in which case there is no hope; b) "We reject what we believe the council to have said and done" in which case they need to decide between A and C; c) "We accept the teachings of the council but we do not use the language used because if we used the same words they would mean something heretical to us in our language" in which case they're like the Eastern rites.

It's going to take a while - probably years - till they figure out what the situation really is, and rectify it.

What also needs to be separated is the doctrinal component from V2 vs the pastoral vs the results of the council.  The doctrinal may not always be expressed in the same language, the pastoral may not always be applicable to all situations, and the results, well, they must accept the new Mass as valid, even if they don't use it, just as the Eastern Rites do, but they're free to want communion on the tongue despite historical evidence that this was not the earliest method, or to do away with this nonsense of priests chattily explaining everything they do to the congregation, as if it were the first time they ever went to Mass.  Communion with one or both species has had its advantages for different places and different times.  And certainly the creed must be reinstated, communion must not be by intinction by the laity off the altar with the priest somewhere else, and God the Mother and Father of us all must stop approving these peculiarities in our cathedral, as well as stop the local bishop from promising female priests soon, and the local priest from declaring Anglican priests to be the same thing as Catholic priests, only with more women in their ranks.

South Africa now appears to have two parishes with regular Latin Mass in the extraordinary form, aside from the two SSPX groups (one with their own chapel) that I know of.  The cathedral in Johannesburg, where the one non-SSPX Mass takes place, unfortunately looks like a shiny glass barn.

God bless,
Stephen

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Art Kelly 
  To: Apologetics Group ; Jim Murphy 
  Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 12:39 AM
  Subject: [Apologetics] Re: MISCONCEPTIONS: What the “lifting” of the SSPX excom’s means for people

        I hope this action is not premature.  

        To lift the excommunication when "further steps will be required to complete the reconciliation of the SSPX" is worrisome.  

        And I'd like to know what Fellay meant when he wrote, "...we accept and make our own all the councils up to the Second Vatican Council about which we express some reservations."  

        The Church accepts some diversity, i.e. the Eastern Rite churches, so maybe for the greater good, we can "look the other way" on a few matters with the SSPX.

        Art

        --- On Sun, 1/25/09, Dianne Dawson <rcdianne at yahoo.com> wrote:

          From: Dianne Dawson <rcdianne at yahoo.com>
          Subject: [Apologetics] MISCONCEPTIONS: What the “lifting” of the SSPX excom’s means for people
          To: "Dianne" <rcdianne at yahoo.com>, "Apologetics Group" <apologetics at gathman.org>
          Date: Sunday, January 25, 2009, 1:09 PM

          MISCONCEPTIONS: What the “lifting” of the SSPX excom’s means for people 
          CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULA — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 2:27 pm 
          I am seeing a lot of confusion in the wake of the lifting of the excommunications of the bishops of the SSPX.

          Let’s get some things clear.

          VERY LITTLE HAS CHANGED JURIDICALLY except in the status of those four bishops.

          I hope that this has helped to change the "atmosphere" surrounding these problems.  

          The "lifting" of the excommunications is a first step in the long process that still remains.

          Q: Is the SSPX now legitimate?

          Not in a juridical sense, no.  The SSPX still does not have the approval of the Pope or of a diocesan bishop.  It is still a separated group, though these days many prefer not to speak of "schism".

          Q: Is it okay for the SSPX bishops to ordain now?

          No. The bishops of the SSPX are validly consecrated bishops, but the fact remains that they were illicitly consecrated.  That hasn’t changed.  They are still not reconciled with the Bishop of Rome.  They are still suspended a divinis.  They still have no permission to exercise ministry in the Church.  They may not licitly ordain.  They have no authority to establish parishes, etc.

          Q: Are the chapels of the SSPX okay now?

          Not in a juridical, legal sense, no.  Many good things can happen in one of those communities, but the SSPX chapels are not, because of the lifting of the excommunications, suddenly made legitimate.  They are not reconciled by this move.  

          Q: Are the priests of the SSPX in good standing now?

          Not yet they aren’t.  The priests of the SSPX are still suspended a divinis.  They say Mass validly, but without the permission of the Church, either from a faculty of the Holy See or the local bishop.  They do not have the necessary faculties to hear confessions and give sacramental absolution except in danger of death.

          Q: Is it okay to go to chapels of the SSPX for Mass?

          Yes and no.  It is still not "okay" to go to chapels of the SSPX if you are doing so out of contempt for the Holy See or Holy Father, etc.  If are are deeply attached to the older form of Mass, and it is very hard on you to go without it, yes, you can attend these Masses our of devotion.  You can fulfill your Sunday obligation still, because the 1983 Code of Canon Laws says you do.  

          But the fact remains that these are still chapels separated from unity with the local bishop.  

          In my opinion, it is not a good idea to go to these chapels exclusively except perhaps in very rare circumstances wherein there really is no acceptable alternative.

          Q: Is it okay to receive Communion at an SSPX Mass?

          Yes and no.  Yes… if you would otherwise have to go without the Eucharist for a long time because you are morally or physically impeded from receiving in a licit way.  No… if you are doing so because of contempt for the Pope, bishop, Holy See, etc.  

          I don’t think it is a good idea to frequent and receive Communion often in the chapels of the SSPX.  I think that undermines a person’s sense of unity with the Holy Father and the local bishop.

          Remember: The lifting of the excommunications was a necessary step on the way to something better.

          In his letter to followers of the SSPX, Bp. Fellay reminded everyone that they prayed that the older form of Mass would be derestricted, and it was with Summorum Pontificum.  He said there was a Rosary campaign to aid the lifting of the excommunications.  That happened today.  Bp. Fellay now says that we must pray that the necessary talks with the Holy See can begin soon about theological questions.  Amen.  Let us pray.

          So… folks… don’t suddenly get it into your head that all the problems with the SSPX have suddenly been removed.  Nothing has changed about their status.  What changed was the status of the four bishops: they are no longer excommunicated, but they are still in a state of separation from clear and manifest unity with the Holy Father.

          http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/

          Like a deer that longs for running waters so my soul longs for you, O God.
          Ps 42:1

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20090126/fc283b83/attachment.html>