Author Topic: Checkmate for the SSPX  (Read 1639 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22998
  • Reputation: +20139/-243
  • Gender: Male
Checkmate for the SSPX
« on: April 08, 2017, 03:15:02 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Checkmate?
    The Pope’s recent letter on SSPX marriages is deeply troubling. As is the Society’s response. Rather than quote it extensively, we will jump right into analyzing it.
    First, the letter makes it known at the outset that the Pope is motivated by a desire to “reassure the conscience of the” SSPX faithful about their marriages. At the end of the letter, this alleged motivation is repeated:
    Certain that in this way any uneasiness of conscience on the part of the faithful who adhere to the Society of St. Pius X as well as any uncertainty regarding the validity of the sacrament of marriage may be alleviated, and at the same time that the process towards full institutional regularization may be facilitated, this Dicastery relies on Your cooperation.
    The Society’s response gleefully repeats this as the reason for the Pope’s actions. Twice.
    We at Psalm 129 do not feel the Pope truly wishes to “reassure the consciences” of SSPX faithful regarding their marriages. Perhaps we are mistaken, but we see no evidence that there is or ever has been concern among SSPX faithful about their marriages. It seems to us that pretty much everyone who has been married at a Society chapel by a Society priest knew exactly what it was they were getting into, canonically speaking.
    It is likely that Francis was told by SSPX top brass that the SSPX faithful needed “alleviating.” But again there appears to be no evidence that SSPX faithful are asking for it. Rather it is the paranoid authorities who are worried. Thus, “alleviating the consciences of the faithful” is emerging as a new argument for the SSPX. We believe it is being used as a catch all because of its flexibility to serve as a reason to do anything SSPX leadership wants. In other words, it is a clever way of a) placing blame elsewhere should anything go awry in the future with the Romans and b) not having any real principled arguments about why a deal with Rome must happen. All the SSPX has to say is “well, it is for the laity that we pursue this” and they can dispose of all previous arguments against a deal and paint anyone against regularization as “against the faithful.”
    But more than that it is nonsense to say “the faithful” are why this should be done. The fact is that the laity are, to put it bluntly, stupid. Our worries, our desires, our consciences, are, generally speaking, riddled with poor thinking. We need to be catechized, told what to do, instructed as to what is the objective reality. Put another way, so what if the faithful are “worried” about their marriages? Objectively they are fine, and the faithful need convincing of that if they are scrupulous.
    The strange truth of all this is that none of this is being done for actual SSPX faithful. It is being done for public consumption by non-SSPX’ers. As we’ve said before on Psalm 129, the SSPX is more concerned with marketing gimmicks and PR campaigns that speaking truth to power.
    Second, the letter says:
    Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society.
    This might as well have been lifted from Vatican II. It is a time bomb meant to explode in the decades ahead. For now, it is meant to get the camel’s nose under the tent. The phrase “Insofar as possible?” is used. Well, what stands in the way of making it possible? The SSPX priest? The couple wishing to marry? Who gets to decide if the delegate is present? What if my conscience is already at ease without this delegate present? Will the Diocese acknowledge that I was married if it is I who reject their delegate? Will the local Bishop lodge a complaint against my priest if it is my priest who disallows this delegate to officiate my wedding? Such a refusal will surely be looked at as an act of real schism. If the SSPX priest refuses to let the novus ordo-trained delegate enter his chapel, will Bishop Fellay remove him from the chapel or worse expel him altogether? It’s not unlikely.
    Moreover, what sort of hybrid Frankenstein will this marriage ceremony look like anyway? Will the novus-ordo trained priest give the opening sermon, marry the couple, and then just slip away and change back into his t-shirt and jeans as he drives back to Diocese headquarters? It seems to us that this letter establishes an ecumenical nuptial mass with the novus-ordo priest presiding and then giving way to the Traditional priest later on. Who has ever heard of such a thing? And the SSPX says it wishes to convey its “deep gratitude to the Holy Father for his pastoral solicitude”? This letter is in no way a concession. It puts enormous pressure on SSPX priests individually and involves the Diocese directly in the dispensation of sacraments at their chapels. This is not being recognized “as we are.” It is a full-frontal assault on the heart of the SSPX priest, who is formed Traditionally and in exclusion to the novus ordo priesthood.
    Furthermore, it may turn out to be the case that the local Bishop will simply say that he wishes to be his own delegate. Imagine the headlines if a SSPX priest refuses entry of the local Bishop into his chapel. How can the Society issue such a joyful response to this totalitarian decree?
    One needs to also wonder if this delegate will have any control over how SSPX marriage preparation takes place. Will SSPX faithful have to take the Diocesan approved preparation? No doubt the Diocese will put pressure on SSPX faithful over the course of the next decade to adopt their own marriage prep courses. If this delegate is to marry SSPX faithful, does he understand how the man is the head of the household? Does he even understand what it is he is officiating? He may well stand at the pulpit and rant about feminism and how the local Bishop believes how men and women are partners. Even supposing he is a “conservative” or even “Traditional” delegate he is nothing more than a false friend of the Society.
    Far from putting anyone’s conscience at ease, the presence of a novus ordo priest, doubtfully ordained by a novus ordo bishop, and educated in the novus ordo religion, should make the couple truly apprehensive. Might the delegate even be a Freemason with malicious intent? That so few Traditional commentators on this matter have considered any of this on their blogs is indicative of how few understand the crisis and what it is Archbishop Lefebvre stood for and why he did what he did.
    The letter also says if a delegate cannot go or “if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass, reminding him of the duty to forward the relevant documents to the Diocesan Curia as soon as possible.”
    Does this mean that the couple now has to seek future marriage issues with the novus ordo Diocesan tribunal? Who is in charge of issuing annulments? Dioceses these days hand them out like tic-tacs.
    Perhaps specific answers to these questions will come out in the days ahead, but as of right now this appears to be if not the death blow for the Society then the dress rehearsal for that. The Society has been successfully checkmated by the Romans and positioned into a corner where they really can’t fight back. All they can say is “please” and “thank you.” That they consider this a wonderful thing shows just how far gone their leadership is.

    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4513
    • Reputation: +3875/-348
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Checkmate for the SSPX
    « Reply #1 on: April 08, 2017, 08:26:50 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think it is interesting that the only marriages Bergoglio is has concerns about are the ones officiated by the SSPX.  All the other ones (even those of a common law variety) are just fine, but SSPX marriages...


    Offline mw2016

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1351
    • Reputation: +756/-544
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Checkmate for the SSPX
    « Reply #2 on: April 08, 2017, 11:58:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Morrison at Traditio reported on the SSPX pedo priest film yesterday by saying that maybe the film is divine intervention that will deep-six the deal with Rome because the SSPX is now damaged goods.

    I'm not saying I agree with Fr. Morrison that it will stop the deal, but it wouldn't be a bad thing if it did. It would be ironic if something beyond Bp. Fellay's control halted his headlong run back into the arms of Rome.

    Offline DeProfundisClamavi

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 16
    • Reputation: +18/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Checkmate for the SSPX
    « Reply #3 on: April 08, 2017, 12:10:58 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • @mw2016: I agree. You may also have come across this article by Austen Ivereigh on Crux 2 days ago: https://cruxnow.com/analysis/2017/04/06/pope-francis-delay-sspx-agreement-pending-abuse-probe/

    His conclusion is rather abrupt but, sadly, correct.

    The SSPX may want to freeze Catholic doctrine at Trent, and it may - just - be possible to accommodate a group within the Catholic Church that holds those beliefs. But an organization of 600 priests with a 1950s approach to child abuse? That Rome cannot afford.

    Offline mw2016

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1351
    • Reputation: +756/-544
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Checkmate for the SSPX
    « Reply #4 on: April 08, 2017, 12:26:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  But an organization of 600 priests with a 1950s approach to child abuse? That Rome cannot afford.
    BINGO!


    Offline AlligatorDicax

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 798
    • Reputation: +320/-92
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Checkmate for the SSPX
    « Reply #5 on: April 08, 2017, 01:01:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Checkmate?[†]

    Quote from: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (27 March 2017)
    [....] the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass, reminding him of the duty to forward the relevant documents to the Diocesan Curia as soon as possible.

    Even this newfangled anonymous "Psalm129"[†] has failed to look far enough ahead, altho' perhaps I'm overgeneralizing from a tiny sample size:

    Novus Ordo churches in the U.S.A. now seem to require advance registration, in effect, as parishoners, and demonstrating "regular attendance", to bestow any of the once-in-a-lifetime sacraments.
    • But how would a N.O. church with a largish congregation monitor attendance?  It seems that the newly registered are provided with a set of envelopes for them to submit their contributions to the church.  I've never seen even 1 of those envelopes, but I do know that bar-code technology--printing the codes on envelopes or stickers, and scanning them on receipt--is plenty well established, and would be easily affordable for all but the most rapidly collapsing N.O. churches.  Maybe such a tool would be used to enforce required N.O. attendance on holy days of obligation, or whenever the Ratzinger "Benedict XVI" Summorum Pontificum (2007) forbids priests from celebrating the "Extraördinary Form".
    N.O. churches in the U.S.A. now seem to require such registration to offer even the hope of performing the Sacrament of Matrimony in their church.  I suspect that demand for photogenic traditional Catholic churches is increasing, even as N.O. congregations shrink, because such churches are becoming scarcer & scarcer, the result of perversely Calvinist notions of church architecture promoted by modernist bishops.  Especially when financial issues force a bishop to choose 1 church to close among several.  What traditional-Catholic couple would want to be married in a place that looks like a high-school lecture auditorium? 

    Sooo, might that elastic clause requiring whatever a diocese decides--at any future time--are its "relevant documents" be transformed into a long-term contract between the diocese and the SSPX-affiliated couple?

    Because in trying recently to assist family friends with a troubling situation for their first-born, I made a surprising discovery:
    Novus Ordo churches in the U.S.A. now seem to require advance registration, in effect, as parishoners, to perform the Sacrament of Baptism.  And lately I've read fans of a N.O. church defending its administrative desire to have the equivalent of their lay "extraördinary" ministers perform baptisms!

    I think the refusal of Baptism to a self-identified "Catholic" parent who requests it is highly unethical.  And delegation for convenience to someone not a priest, especially N.O. clergy or laymen, each of whom  lacks Orders as Exorcist, is also highly unethical.  New traditional-Catholic parents can wish [expletives deleted] on Pope Paul VI for that ritual race to the bottom.

    Sooo, might  married traditional-Catholic couples who survive their Vatican-mandated N.O.-infiltrated wedding, still satisfied with the SSPX, someday learn that according to the N.O. "relevant documents", they're handing control of their children's religion over to the N.O. diocese, or paying increased "donations" to some diocese-assigned N.O. church?   Possibly because some parts--or all--of those "relevant documents" are legal contracts enforceable under civil law?

    -------
    Note : Failed to be credited to <https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2017/04/04/checkmate/>.  Whoever is responsible for this blog fails or refuses to identify her-|himself.  There seems to be no "about" page.

    Online poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14890
    • Reputation: +686/-2494
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Checkmate for the SSPX
    « Reply #6 on: April 10, 2017, 03:27:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I think that hte letter shows that Pope Francis is friendly toward the SSPX.  

    Offline AlligatorDicax

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 798
    • Reputation: +320/-92
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Checkmate for the SSPX
    « Reply #7 on: April 10, 2017, 10:00:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Müller & Pozzo for C.D.F. (27 March 2017) via rorate-caeli
    Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society.  Where the above is not possible, or if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass [....][††]

    The excerpted text doesn't prevent a Novus Ordo bishop, d.b.a. "Local Ordinary", from making other decisions that the C.D.F. letter did not list.  After Vatican II, "collegiality" of bishops means that a N.O. bishop can do nearly anything he wants, without fear of criticism--never mind punitive action--from the Vatican[‡].  And it's widely known that the N.O. is afflicted by a "crisis of vocations".  So what if, e.g., the N.O. bishop decides to ignore the clear direction from the C.D.F., and refusing to assign a N.O. "priest" (therefore of doubtful Orders[†]), refuses to delegate authority to the SSPX priest, and instead dispatches a "permanent" deacon or even a lay "extraördinary" minister?

    Oh!  The C.D.F. didn't specify that the bishop's delegate would be a man.  Why should readers assume that the C.D.F. decree would be revised to restrict the delegate to the only sеx allowed for Catholic priests, if "Francis" Bergoglio lives long enough to issue the postulated eventual decree that admits women to the N.O. clergy as "deaconesses"?   Imagine the scandal if a genuinely traditional SSPX priest were being given commands by a sternly feminist deaconess at a heavily attended wedding, and he was allowing such public disrespect because SSPX clergy no longer dared to displease the N.O. bishop?

    Or what if the Novus Ordo bishop, again lamenting the "crisis of vocations", decides that the only "insofar possible" option for providing a N.O. delegate to the wedding of an SSPX couple is to perform the wedding at 1 of his N.O. diocesan "churches".  So the engaged couple would have to arrange their wedding schedules to accomodate the N.O. "church".  Whose rental for the wedding would coïncidentally provide revenue for the diocese over and above whatever diocesan fees must be paid by the engaged couple to apply for the diocesan delegate.  And likely endure a required N.O. prewedding class[†], which quite plausibly would eventually "welcome" sodomite couples, and feature that papal blockbuster "Amoris laetitia".

    Altho' the N.O. Church of Vatican II is referred to from time to time on C.I. as the "institutional Catholic Church", civil law--at least in the U.S.A.--does not grant it exclusive legal control over marriages identified as "Catholic".  Perhaps it's an important legal issue in countries or other jurisdictions that impose a mandatory church-support tax on their citizens or legal residents.

    -------
    Note †: As already pointed out by the otherwise-anonymous "Psalm 129", above in this C.I. topic): The meddlesome involvement of N.O. clergy, therefore clergy of doubtful orders, "should make the couple truly apprehensive".  I am amazed at the audacity of claiming that a couple that arranges for an SSPX-administered wedding would have "any uncertainty regarding the validity" of the resulting sacrament of matrimony.  Assuming that the hypothetical engaged couple has confidence in the Orders of their SSPX priest (i.e., confidence that he's not a N.O. priest who was admitted to SSPX without the benefit of conditional reördination).
     
    Note ††: This issue is also discussed elsewhere on CathInfo, e.g.:
    <https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/step-by-step-vatican-issues-marriage-pastoral-guidelines-for-sspx/> (orig. April 04), <https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-marriages-reflections-on-a-staggering-development-by-sean-johnson/> (orig. April 05).

    Note ‡: Unless, of course, what that N.O. bishop wants accomodates, endorses, promotes, or defends traditional Catholicism.  Especially if he dares to take action on it under "Humble Francis" Bergoglio.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17785
    • Reputation: +9965/-4466
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Checkmate for the SSPX
    « Reply #8 on: April 10, 2017, 01:56:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Perhaps we are mistaken, but we see no evidence that there is or ever has been concern among SSPX faithful about their marriages. It seems to us that pretty much everyone who has been married at a Society chapel by a Society priest knew exactly what it was they were getting into, canonically speaking.

    Well ...

    I do know of a couple cases first hand where SSPXers suddenly saw the light and realized that they were not validly married (after about a dozen years and some children) ... when seeking an annulment from the Novus Ordo (which was readily granted on the grounds of SSPX not having faculties).

    I guess that, before then, it never occurred to them that they may have been living in sin.

    Strangely, these types never see the light and then go seek convalidation of the marriage by the Novus Ordo ... it always happens to be when they're seeking dissolution.  If I woke up tomorrow and began having doubts, I'd go to the NO bishop and have the marriage convalidated (repeat the vows or whatever it took).

    Offline Introibo

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 4
    • Reputation: +10/-0
    Re: Checkmate for the SSPX
    « Reply #9 on: April 11, 2017, 03:23:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • @mw2016: I agree. You may also have come across this article by Austen Ivereigh on Crux 2 days ago: https://cruxnow.com/analysis/2017/04/06/pope-francis-delay-sspx-agreement-pending-abuse-probe/

    His conclusion is rather abrupt but, sadly, correct.

    The SSPX may want to freeze Catholic doctrine at Trent, and it may - just - be possible to accommodate a group within the Catholic Church that holds those beliefs. But an organization of 600 priests with a 1950s approach to child abuse? That Rome cannot afford.
    This Crux article written by Austen Ivereigh (author of the biography "The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope" :o) is full of it, accusing H.E. Bp. Williamson of harboring "ideologies of prejudice and hatred" and calling H.E. "a vehement holocaust-denier who vigorously opposed unity with the Vatican". I guess Ivereigh prefers such unity as between the late Pope John Paull II and the late Fr. Marcial Maciel, LC, and that between Bp. James Timlin and Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity (ex-SSPX; then-SSJ) in the Diocese of Scranton. :facepalm:
    No sexual abuse cases should be taken lightly but it is very disingenuous to compare SSPX with Rome which is not so advanced in dealing with the abuses. The SSPX would have been bankrupt if it is anywhere near to what the Novus Ordo dioceses have done.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16