Are they saying that the seminarians are perpetually engaged to the society per the new norms?
"While we have been planting trees here on the property, we have also seen a much more important “planting”: four of our seminarians have just made their perpetual engagements in the Society of St. Pius X. Last weekend, these candidates for the sub-diaconate confirmed for life their attachment to the SSPX, following the new norms established at the last General Chapter. They are thus firmly planted in Holy Mother Church, through the Society. It is indeed essential for the priest to be rooted in the Church, whether through his diocese or through a religious congregation; otherwise, he would be trying to stand alone without support. Without these roots, he cannot withstand the tempest which we know to be very strong in our times. Like Our Lady and St. John, the priest stands at the foot of the cross where he receives the grace to give new life to a decaying society. We can thus be reminded of this grace as we contemplate today Our Lady’s Sorrows in the Stabat Mater. So, let us pray in thanksgiving for our priests, engaged members, and especially for our Sisters who honor their patroness on this feast day."
Fr. Le Roux’s letter announces that SSPX seminarians will/are now making their perpetual engagements, before even having received major orders:
https://stas.org/en/publications/newsletters/april-2019-faithful-cross-above-all-other-one-and-only-noble-tree-47238 (https://stas.org/en/publications/newsletters/april-2019-faithful-cross-above-all-other-one-and-only-noble-tree-47238)
Trapping them early?
More from the SSPX acknowledging the new policy:
https://sspx.org/en/media/photos/perpetual-engagements-2019-46889 (https://sspx.org/en/media/photos/perpetual-engagements-2019-46889)
And the rationale:
https://stas.org/en/news-events/news/first-and-final-engagements-sspx-new-policy-priestly-ordinands-43080 (https://stas.org/en/news-events/news/first-and-final-engagements-sspx-new-policy-priestly-ordinands-43080)
Yes.
Here was the original announcement, which flew under the Resistance radar:
https://stas.org/en/news-events/news/first-and-final-engagements-sspx-new-policy-priestly-ordinands-43080 (https://stas.org/en/news-events/news/first-and-final-engagements-sspx-new-policy-priestly-ordinands-43080)
The SSPX gives reasons why they changed the policy now, but they do not explain why this was not done in the past (as why did not Bishop Fellay do this when he was Superior General). Apparently it was never a problem before for him or Fr. Schmitdberger or the Archbishop)
"Entrance into one of these families places the soul in closer contact with the life-force of the Mystical Body, realizing its dependence on the same, and directing it with the soul of the Church. For this reason the Society of St. Pius X demands that every soul she gives to the priesthood be submitted to authority,[So do they admit that an SSPX priests was not submitted to an authority before this policy, if so then why expel priest for disagreeing with a change in principles and polices that came about in 2012] with bound for life to her family and in turn bound to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church [So all the persist before this year were never bond to the Church]. Stability and integrity will be the fruits of this commitment, so needed today. Indeed, it is only by submission to authority in God’s order that we participate in His Charity, which is the true bond of perfection."
That whole paragraph is wordy mumbo-jumbo to me. Nothing is ever clear with them anymore. But I picked up on the word "diocese" twice. It's only one tiny step away from saying the priests have to be submitted to the SSPX which will in turn be submitted to the diocese which is necessary to be part of the Mystical Body. That's where it seems like it's going to me. It's all still based in the idea that if we are not bound to the Conciliar Church we are not bound to the Church.
What is sick about it is that they know they have the monopoly on the traditional sacraments and truly valid priests so they are using that as leverage to force all priests and people to be loyal to them no matter what they do in the future.
Oh really? I certainly don’t recognize any “monopoly on the traditional sacraments”. Nor do I accept, unquestioningly, this idea of “truly valid priests.” The only leverage sspx has is that which you create in your own mind. The Society is, at most, a voluntary “pious union of priests,” and was never more than that from its very foundation.
I certainly don’t recognize any “monopoly on the traditional sacraments”.You may not recognize it, but it is reality for most people in the US. Without the sspx, most people wouldn’t have a Latin mass within 2-3 hrs of them. You can call it a monopoly or top Latin mass producer or just simply, the largest priestly organization.
… The Society is, at most, a voluntary “pious union of priests,” and was never more than that from its very foundation.
the Society's perpetual engagement would need to be something extraordinarily and unprecedentedly binding to represent the sort of dangerously unbreakable tether that some hereabouts have assumed it is.The issue is not the "unbreakableness" of the tether, but the idea that a non-priest would have to have a tether at all, even if it could be broken in some cases. The issue is that the neo-sspx is further grasping control over its seminarians with no apparent need. ...Unless the neo-sspx is close to a deal and they are worried that many seminarians would jump ship? Would not a tether keep them tied to the newly-indult, modernist-drowning ship?
Actually Matthew, and with all due respect, you are wrong.
Before Vatican II (and this is still the case, as a minimum in the 1983 Code) a religious, e.g. Benedictine, Carmelite, Dominican, Franciscan, etc. usually professed solemn/perpetual vows after 1 year of canonical novitiate and 3 years of temporary vows - so only 4 years total. Under the 1983 Code, the novitiate can be extended up to last 2.5 years, and temporary vows up to last 6 years - at the most!
This stipulation to promote for only those perpetually engaged in the SSPX to major orders is actually required by Canon Law. Canon 995 in the 1917 Code, and Canon 1037 in the 1983 Code.
Actually Matthew, and with all due respect, you are wrong.Not that I support them, but members of the FSSP and ICRSS are 'definitively incorporated' into their institutes, before they are advanced to Major Orders. The same goes for other groups, like Sulpicians, Oratorians, and others without vows like Glenmary, Maryknoll, etc.
Before Vatican II (and this is still the case, as a minimum in the 1983 Code) a religious, e.g. Benedictine, Carmelite, Dominican, Franciscan, etc. usually professed solemn/perpetual vows after 1 year of canonical novitiate and 3 years of temporary vows - so only 4 years total. Under the 1983 Code, the novitiate can be extended up to last 2.5 years, and temporary vows up to last 6 years - at the most!
This stipulation to promote for only those perpetually engaged in the SSPX to major orders is actually required by Canon Law. Canon 995 in the 1917 Code, and Canon 1037 in the 1983 Code.
members of the FSSP and ICRSS are 'definitively incorporated' into their institutes, before they are advanced to Major Orders. The same goes for other groups, like Sulpicians, Oratorians, and others without vows like Glenmary, Maryknoll, etc.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-morphing-perpetual-engagements-as-seminarians/18/?action=reporttm;msg=653518)
Ha ha. Ok then the neo-sspx's changes are meant to align their policies with potential "merger and acquisition" partners, after they make a deal with rome. Gotta make the transition as smooth as possible.
I am now curious about why the SSPX did not do this before. Their reasons for not doing it before could highlight the change in why they are now.
In this article, Fr. Peter Scott explains why Archbishop Lefebvre required no fewer than 9 years (after ordination) before accepting perpetual engagements.See attached screenshot (below) for Fr. Scott's explanation of the Archbishop's policy (the Facebook page cannot be copy/pasted).
https://m.facebook.com/SspxAgainstTheRumors/posts/1804672902889871 (https://m.facebook.com/SspxAgainstTheRumors/posts/1804672902889871)
(And someone had better download it fast).
Consequently, the new change in policy is but one more rejection by the Society of the wisdom of its founder.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-morphing-perpetual-engagements-as-seminarians/18/?action=reporttm;msg=653518)I disagree with you. Yes, the FSSP and ICRSS are compromise-ED groups, but societies of apostolic life, or societies of common life without vows before Vatican II had the same procedure - I cited Glenmary, Maryknoll, the Sulpicians and the Oratorians as examples. There were and are many other societies/institutes like this. I don't believe in this case following correct canonical procedure has anything to do with a future deal with Rome.
Ha ha. Ok then the neo-sspx's changes are meant to align their policies with potential "merger and acquisition" partners, after they make a deal with rome. Gotta make the transition as smooth as possible.
I disagree with you. Yes, the FSSP and ICRSS are compromise-ED groups, but societies of apostolic life, or societies of common life without vows before Vatican II had the same procedure - I cited Glenmary, Maryknoll, the Sulpicians and the Oratorians as examples. There were and are many other societies/institutes like this. I don't believe in this case following correct canonical procedure has anything to do with a future deal with Rome.
Archbishop Lefebvre was truly very wise, and very holy, but the practice of such a long series of engagement renewals for SSPX seminarians/priests, or the Brothers' long periods of temporary vows, doesn't have a real canonical basis or pre-conciliar precedent, even with the Holy Ghost Fathers to which the Archbishop belonged.
The only congregation (and note that this is a congregation with vows, not a simple institute without vows like the SSPX) I know of with so many years before perpetual vows, is the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) when final profession is made after tertianship. Try as you might, though, you cannot compare the SSPX with the (real) Jesuits.
Didn't Bishop Fellay tell us we did not have to worry about the SSPX ever changing its Statutes as a result of its pursuit of a practical accord with modernist Rome?
Well, here is an excerpt from the SSPX Statutes (1976 version, augmented by the General Chapter of 1982) vs the new policy (which will necessarily result in....changing the Statutes):
"5. The entry into the Fraternity is realized for the clergy through the commitment, publicly expressed before the Superior General or his delegate and before the Blessed Sacrament, to remain faithful to the statutes. This commitment cannot take place before a year of preparation in a house of the Fraternity.
6. Clerics during their formative years up to the sub-diaconate will make annual commitments. From the sub-diaconate they can commit for three years and after a new re-engagement of three years they can make a permanent commitment. For priests who would commit themselves to the Fraternity they must make at least one commitment of three years before their final commitment. The brothers, according to their particular statutes, after six years of temporary vows, that is to say two times three years, make perpetual vows."
NB: The new policy was first announced publicly in December, 2018. In all likelihood, therefore, it was agreed to change them at the 2018 General Chapter. The change is certainly related to the pursuit of an accord with modernist Rome (i.e., coming into conformity with the 1983 CIC: With the SSPX now arguing "the state of necessity recedes," they no longer have any theological justification for deviating from the canon law of the conciliar church).
The fall of the SSPX is such a great loss -- that's why the Trad world has been thrown back to the Stone Age, as it were. We're even worse off than the Trad world was in the 1970's. Remember there was a small but growing 100% Traditional TAN Books back then. We don't even have that now.
Well, yeah. If Matthew is right, (and I think he is), and the sspx has fallen, then it is no longer a viable traditional Catholic alternative. It is lost to us, and we to it. So to describe sspx as still the largest, remaining traditional Catholic priestly organization in the world is kind of a moot point. It really doesn't matter.
It's like having a big luxury car sitting in the driveway. It looks good. It looks like it should run, but it doesn't, and it can't be fixed. Better to call a tow truck and have it hauled off to the dump--unless, of course, you're the good bishop, holding out some glimmer of hope that it might be repaired some day and put back on the road. I have no such hope.
Better to call a tow truck and have it hauled off to the dump--unless, of course, you're the good bishop, holding out some glimmer of hope that it might be repaired some day and put back on the road. I have no such hope.
You have noble sentiments, Xavier. May God help you root them in sound principles.
Yeah, and they'll probably lie to the seminarians by making a big deal about this "solemn" promise and over-exaggerate how they owe fidelity and obedience to the society, for God's sake, for the Church's sake, etc.
See attached screenshot (below) for Fr. Scott's explanation of the Archbishop's policy (the Facebook page cannot be copy/pasted).X,
Yes, Hollingsworth, we know how you feel about the Bishop Williamson's optimism. Many of us heard you the first time. And the second time. And the third time. And the fourth time. And...
SSPX detractors should remember the only essential things: vocations, holiness, Catholic families, the spirit of sacrifice etc. Not finding fault with each and every decision that informed Traditional Catholic Bishops and Priests have decided to make for pursuing those ends.
Fr. Cekada makes the same argument (and then some), in a rebuttal to Fr. Scott’s article.
Note that Fr. Cekada does not call into question the evident wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre’s long temporary engagement policy, but rather the suggestion that priests who leave the SSPX are public sinners.
I would have to say that, though I obviously agree with Fr. Scott’s defense/explanation of the Archbishop’s policy, Fr. Cekada shreds the rest of his arguments (pointing out, among other things that, contrary to Fr. Scott’s assertions, the SSPX does not constitute a religious congregation, or even a society of apostolic life, in the canonical sense):
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/SSPXLegStat.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/SSPXLegStat.pdf)
Ah, Matthew, so you and the other wordy, loquacious posters and frequent contributors to CI topics never repeat yourselves?Let me ask you, Matthew, do you personally hold out any hope for the resuscitation of the SSPX? Do you not, like myself, feel that the organization has exhausted its usefulness, and that its time is up?
I think perpetual engagements are a wonderful means to ensure whole-hearted commitment to one's would-be Fathers in the Priesthood. etc...So, were you critical of the former policy? Or would admit that the SSPX was wrong before and it is only now that they are right concerning perpetual engagements in the SSPX?
Regarding the SSPX. I personally believe the SSPX is extremely advanced in their new direction, and too far gone. It's not just +Fellay, or we might get lucky and have a turnaround. It's a huge percentage of the younger priests, a large chunk of the Faithful, etc. which has succuмbed to the siren song of the Modern World. Furthermore, it's almost 100% of the leadership and higher-ups. That seals the fate of the SSPX right there. Humanly speaking, barring a literal miracle, the SSPX is toast. All we can hope for is that as many priests and faithful will jump ship in the coming years. Of course, we always hope for conversions coming in from any group: the FSSP, the Novus Ordo...I'll just let these words stand on their own merit. I do not believe for a second that Matthew believes a "literal miracle" will occur, and that the Society will return to its original Lefebvrian roots. As he says, "Put a fork in it, it's done." I just wish that H.E. would put a fork in it. He doesn't seem so disposed for whatever reasons.
So no, I don't hold out any human hope for the SSPX as an organization. Put a fork in it, it's done.
This might be construed as a gross exaggeration, but when reading about how these new neoSSPX jugend, ;) I mean seminarians, are required essentially to pledge their allegiance to Das Menzigen Kirchefuhrer, I mean the neo-SSPX, ::) I confess (mea maxima culpa), this is what first pops into my fevered mind.
[Photo of early-20th-Century children posed before national flag (of fascism-marketed-as-socialism) omitted]
Or in the same vein.
This might be construed as a gross exaggeration, but when reading about how these new neoSSPX jugend, I mean seminarians, are required essentially to pledge their allegiance to Das Menzigen Kirchefuhrer, I mean the neo-SSPX, I confess [...], this is what first pops into my fevered mind.
My Internet-connected p.c. is too underpowered to display videos, but your embeded video wouldn't be a clip from Triumph of the Will of the torchlight procession (Sportsplatz München? ), would it?Nien, I mean no. (hee hee) It is the Hiking song from the movie 1984 with John Hurt and Richard Burton. Your reference to Triumph of the Will is excellent though. Fascinating in its diabolicalness.
With straightforward modifications to that model procession, so as to feature a cross-bearer leading the neoSSPX ‘perpetually engaged’ who haven't yet been ordained to the priesthood, torches would be a fine symbol of ardent & unquestioning obedience, and provide a rousing event for Menzingen, don't you think?
If scheduled annually for the liturgical-summer feasts of Pentecost, Corpus Christi, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, or Sts. Peter & Paul, it might even increase tourism during Switzerland's nonskiing season.
For CathInfo readers who might have missed it: As "Pope Francis", Bergoglio officially & openly ratted out the "Underground Church" in Red China [....] Maybe clergy from the Roman Curia weren't keen on risking their own lives, e.g., against atheist Chinese secret police, to conduct official visitations to demand obedience or conformance to modernist norms as newly justified by the latest reïnterpretation of "The Spirit of Vatican II"?
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Young_Pioneers_of_China%2C_School_Opening.jpg/618px-Young_Pioneers_of_China%2C_School_Opening.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Young_Pioneers_of_China%2C_School_Opening.jpg/618px-Young_Pioneers_of_China%2C_School_Opening.jpg)>
▲ Young Pioneers of China at a school opening.
Do they truly have no power to bind anyone to anything and never have?
Fr Cekada says they never got the final ok for the union and therefore don't have the power of the Church behind them when they receive these engagement. If that is correct, could that have changed now? Perhaps this new statute is yet another backroom agreement with Rome? Rome has "authorized" the confessions, the marriages, the ordinations, and also the perpetual engagements…?