www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pius X Society being regularized?

Memo wrote:

Sure, that's why there's not a single old-ritualist church with episcopal approval in Mexico where these patriotic people have been persecuted by the former regime and its clergy. Even today there's not a single episcopaly-approved group in Latin-America with the exception of Brazil where there's an Apostolic Administration in Campos.

However, they have started to resent the deal with Rome, as they have been confined to a small territory and are not able to be as critical as they were in the past.

Teen I have to ask. Are you of the Tredentine Rite yourself or Byzantine? Every Byzantine topic seems to be viewed from a Tredentine perspective. I have never kept up so much with what is going on among them as I have here. It has provided me with material for when I contact a freind who is chaplain to the rite.

Hello,

I'd like to request more information about these quotes.

I do not believe a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church said these things, in direct oposition to what the holy father himself said.

Shalom,
Memo

For the discussion and from Adoremus...traditional but trusted site...

http://www.adoremus.org/0603PiusV.html

james

Neither, actually. My "home parish" is a Novus Ordo church. I occasionally attend the TLM and Divine Liturgy at the local FSSP church or the Melkite church.

If I had the choice, however, I suppose I would only attend the TLM, but I don't have that choice realistically where I live.

Memo,

Do the research yourself. I didn't make it up. Cardinal Hoyos definitely said those things, and one would think not without prior knowledge or approval from the Holy Father himself, since these are fairly bold statements.

Logos Teen

In his book All the Pope's Men Vatican journalist, John L. Allen, Jr. points out that some cardinals do in fact speak on issues without approval of the Holy Father. This is not to say is even needed. Be that as it may, the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei of 1988 would certainly trump any personal statement of a cardinal.

The pertinent statement from Ecclesia Dei regarding the schism reads:

Just so you know, this intitial story is being followed by CNA. SO to speak, "The plot thickens".

Follow up story by CNA [catholicnewsagency.com]

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

This can be part of the problem with a separation. It's easier to villify. It's possibly a reason why there needs to be some sort of rapproachment, even if it isn't perfect. I suppose its like a couple that have been separated but have come back together in good faith to work things out. It may not be perfect or all roses, but with time, wounds can be healed and trust formed again.

The other thing to remember is it effects children as well and future generations. With those new generations, the mistrust etc is bound to slip away.

You can see this in the church approved Tridentine mass communities as the young generations tend to lose the mistrust and anger of the older generations.

I'm not defending them, and I don't think such re-ordinations are required whatsoever, but I imagine the conditional re-ordinations are done in view of the fact that the SSPX likely believe that many modern bishops may lack the proper intention in delivering the sacrament, because they may personally hold to some heresy about priestly orders, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, or what not.

If that is their reason, then they could hold the new rites to be valid and yet still conditionally repeat a sacrament without being guilty of a contradiction.

Again, I am not saying I agree with this. I don't. But I won't accuse them of hypocrisy in such a case. If they are guilty of anything here it is that they aren't trusting in Rome's ability to discern such a thing and therefore presume too much and take it upon themselves. i.e. the mistrust factor again.

Hi Memo,

There has been such speculation on the part of someone like Hoyos (see here: http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9360 ) but of course, that is merely his private opinion.

I think the debate gets down to the technical canonical question about formal for informal schism.

I imagine the softening is in part in view of Pope Benedict XVI seeking to regularize the SSPX.

To that end, if there is any chance and hope of this right now, I think we should all refrain from throwing out accusations in the hope to encourage re-union of the SSPX in a formal way.

Shawn, no doubt Cardinal Hoyos would love to see a deal, and I think also at least one of the SSPX bishops (and one at least definitely does NOT want a deal - the other two are wisely keeping quiet).

I think we need to look at the reconciliation of Bishop Rifan in Campos as the ideal model for reconciliation. An ordinary entirely grounded in the TLM, with all of the liturgical and sacramental privaleges that go with it, in full communion with Rome.

This is a far better arrangement than even the FSSP, which are still subject to the local NO ordinaries. I pray it happens, and we will sing a Moleben of Thanksgiving if even one of the four bishops reconciles.

But it is not yet here, and much of what has been posted are Fr. Aulagnier's wishes (he is pro-Union) that I know are disputed by a significant faction of the harder-line SSPX clergy. Reconciliation needs to stay in our fervent prayers.

Regarding re-ordination: conversely no priests from the SSPX were re-ordained when coming into the FSSP. Including the current Superior General.
DD

Hi Shawn,

I agree, of course.

What we cannot refrain from is being Catholic and celebrating THE Mass of the Latin Catholic Church, the one our holy father, Paul VI validly and licitly approved for us.

Shalom,
Memo

Well this topic is still buzzing in TradLat circles!

Supposedly the Pope is calling a curial meeting on February 13th to discuss the renunciation of the excommunications of 1988 and allowing for broader use of the TLM.

Bishop +Fellay of the SSPX, in his sermon in Flavigny, France a few days ago, dispelled many of the rumors circulating, saying that nothing was in the works necessarily...

We shall see, although I figure a lot of this is just hot air. I hope not!

Logos Teen

Dear Teen Logo,

I have a friend who is a traditional Anglican Catholic and who belongs to the group that wants to be in union with the Pope.

Yesterday, he told me that there will be a meeting this month between His Holiness and their bishops.

So serious are they about being in union with the Pope that, according to him, their bishops have told Rome they will submit all their resignations to the Pope to allow him to decide who among them should be bishops etc.!

And that there is not ONE bishop or other clergyman among them who is not 100% in favour of union with Rome - as he himself is as well.

They seem to have already made the spiritual journey "over to Rome" now let's see what will happen in deed.

Let's pray for both these groups to reconcile with their Patriarch.

Alex

Dear Memo,

I see what is going on in the Latin Church as similar to what occurs in the Russian Church i.e. New Rite/Old Rite.

THE Mass of the Roman Church is BOTH the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Liturgy, I don't see anyway around it. One can identify oneself with either tradition and still be a Latin Catholic in good standing. Should the Society of St Pius X become reconciled, then the "Old Rite" of the Latin Church will have become solidified as an alternative Latin Rite. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I think that there would be many Latin Catholics, old AND young, who would love to attend a more readily available Tridentine Mass/parish and that there would be those who have fallen away from the Church who would return to the Tridentine tradition.

I have seen it happen here and we have had SSPX parishes blossom because RC's did not seem to know or care about the "schism" issue - in some areas, the SSPX is so popular that they have enough resources to build a cathedral, which is actually happening up here. The Latin Cardinal did not think this would be an issue, but he was completely wrong.

The changes of the Novus Ordo were rather far-reaching from a religious cultural point of view, in my estimation.

They affected the identity of some Catholics as "Catholics" as well as other things.

Let's also remember that at one time there was a movement in the time of Pope Paul VI to even change the way the Rosary was prayed ("reform it" by making it "less tedious" and shorten it - Cardinal Suenens led the way here).

But while many Catholics put up with the changes to the Mass, they absolutely would NOT tolerate changes to the Rosary, the form of prayer that has come to define Latin Catholic lay spirituality and participation in prayer life.

Pope Paul VI, wisely, ended the discussion on the "rosary reform" even though there is an institute following the writings of Cardinal Suenens that does promote the "reformed rosary" to this day.

The form of the Mass as given under the Novus Ordo isn't something written in stone and Catholics who want the Tridentine Rite and who derive their very identity as Catholics from it are at least showing they take their faith and worship seriously.

This has to be taken into account even by the Popes of Rome who must legislate even liturgical matters in the spirit of tradition, the spiritual good of the people etc.

The arguments about the Novus Ordo being a "return" to primitive liturgical traditions are tired and have lost their lustre today.

Liturgy, like faith, is something that belongs to the entire Church, now and in history and the Pope cannot simply decide to legislate sweeping changes and expect everyone to go along with them on the basis of his papal authority.

This is why I think I understand why Latin Catholics felt that their tradition was betrayed when the Novus Ordo came into being and that there was a break with the past etc.

It would be like a pope coming along and saying that the Marian dogmas et al. should no longer be accepted by Latin Catholics - and why, because the early Church didn't have them, because I say so etc.

For Eastern Christians, there is an intimate link between the "lex orandi, lex credendi" which is why what happened in the Latin Church with the Novus Ordo could not possibly occur in the Eastern Churches without a serious rupture in all manner of ecclesial things.

When Rome consulted with the Eastern Churches to ask their opinion on its move to the Novus Ordo, it received a consensual, "Don't do it."

The Novus Ordo, at worst, showed a remarkable naivete by its Roman creators concerning Catholic religious culture and its hold on the people etc.

It also showed a naivete with respect to the relation between faith and liturgical praxis - and I would venture to say that this shows one more point of division between Rome and the Eastern Churches.

Please don't understand this as an attack on the infallibility of the Pope, I don't question the Pope's authority on matters of faith and morals. And he can do what he likes as the Patriarch and ultimate liturgical arbiter of the Latin Church.

But in his latter role, I don't think that the charism of infallibility is involved.

Alex