Author Topic: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians? (Read 6843 times)

obediens · « **Reply #15 on:** May 08, 2019, 02:46:11 PM »

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.

Matthew · « **Reply #16 on:** May 08, 2019, 02:48:00 PM »

In my day, those entering the clerical state (2nd year, Tonsure) would make a 1-year commitment to the SSPX. It wasn't a vow, just a promise with the tabernacle door open for extra gravity.

I've seen people leave the seminary as late as their 5th year. (I even know of one ordained deacon who turned back and is now laicized. I think he had to choose between saying the Divine Office daily for the rest of his life, and being single for the rest of his life.)

How can early year seminarians be making a permanent commitment to ANY priestly society when they're not even a priest yet!

Matthew · « **Reply #17 on:** May 08, 2019, 02:51:36 PM »

Quote from: obediens on May 08, 2019, 02:46:11 PM

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.

Ok, but here's why I was wrong: I have limited knowledge and no direct experience with any religious orders properly speaking -- only to PIOUS UNIONS which is what the SSPX is. I stand corrected.

I will correct myself to: This is not normal behavior for the SSPX, a Pious Union. And if it's so proper, even required, then why was the SSPX derelict in its duties before 1917 Canon Law from 1970 - 2018? Isn't that a bit ridiculous?

The only perpetual vows I saw or heard about in the SSPX organization was for certain brothers who had made several 3-year and several 7-year commitments (all consecutive) to the SSPX. That's where my experience comes from.

obediens · « **Reply #18 on:** May 08, 2019, 02:52:34 PM »

Quote from: obediens on May 08, 2019, 02:46:11 PM

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.

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.

Matthew · « **Reply #19 on:** May 08, 2019, 02:58:46 PM »

This is about making sure that you don't end up with independent priests -- formed at great seminaries, ordained by 100% valid bishops, but completely on their own.

I hear ya. It's a problem.

However, when you have a Crisis in the Church, then ALL BETS ARE OFF and priests need to abandon ship to help themselves and others to keep their Faith.

Incardination, submission to your local bishop, submission to the Pope, jurisdiction, a celebret to say Mass -- all good things. In short, AUTHORITY is a great thing. IN NORMAL TIMES.

We are not in normal times. (See the corresponding article on TIA about Pope Francis and the Cuban acrobats.)

Vatican II roped in HOW MANY CLERICS to help them in their work of destruction, under the banner of obedience and using their authority?

Don't ever kid yourself that something that worked SO WELL would be put on a shelf somewhere, never to be used again.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #20 on:** May 08, 2019, 03:00:52 PM »

Quote

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.

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.

Matthew · « **Reply #21 on:** May 08, 2019, 03:03:02 PM »

Here's my point.

Bp. Zendejas (then- Fr. Zendejas) was an SSPX priest for many years. He was in major orders, and was actually with the organization since the late 80's.

He left the SSPX because of the new orientation. He was justified in doing so. Just like hundreds of priests left the obedience of their local bishops, etc. after Vatican II.

The point of this thread, is that the SSPX is trying to keep its members who might be tempted by conscience to leave. We're not saying it's not normally a good thing to have commitments, engagements, incardination, etc.

We're just calling out this latest nefarious behavior of the SSPX for what it is.

X · « **Reply #22 on:** May 08, 2019, 03:56:32 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 08, 2019, 03:00:52 PM

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.

Bingo #2:

Obediens has explained “why” they are doing it (ie., the plausible excuse for the correction of a custom which never bothered them before);

Pax has explained the ulterior motive;

Matthew has explained the dramatic change in (here it comes again) PRAXIS.

homeschoolmom · « **Reply #23 on:** May 08, 2019, 04:06:20 PM »

I stand corrected too on thinking perpetual engagements normally take more time. Big picture remains the same. Especially if all the other captured trad organizations are doing it.

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.

X · « **Reply #24 on:** May 08, 2019, 04:14:43 PM »

Quote from: homeschoolmom on May 08, 2019, 04:06:20 PM

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.

Bingo #3:

(Rhetorical question): Was the matter of perpetual engagements discussed in the SSPX statutes?

X · « **Reply #25 on:** May 08, 2019, 04:35:59 PM »

In this article, Fr. Peter Scott explains why Archbishop Lefebvre required no fewer than 9 years (after ordination) before accepting perpetual engagements.

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.

X · « **Reply #26 on:** May 08, 2019, 05:20:38 PM »

Quote from: X on May 08, 2019, 04:35:59 PM

In this article, Fr. Peter Scott explains why Archbishop Lefebvre required no fewer than 9 years (after ordination) before accepting perpetual engagements.

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.

See attached screenshot (below) for Fr. Scott's explanation of the Archbishop's policy (the Facebook page cannot be copy/pasted).

obediens · « **Reply #27 on:** May 08, 2019, 05:38:40 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 08, 2019, 03:00:52 PM

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.

X · « **Reply #28 on:** May 08, 2019, 05:43:26 PM »

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).

X · « **Reply #29 on:** May 08, 2019, 05:46:08 PM »

Quote from: obediens on May 08, 2019, 05:38:40 PM

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.

Translation: "We can't be 88'ers anymore."

Shill.

Author Topic: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians? (Read 6843 times)

obediens

Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?

Matthew

Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?

Matthew

Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?

obediens

Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?

Matthew

Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?

Pax Vobis

Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?

Matthew

Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?

X

Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?

homeschoolmom

Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?

X

Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?

X

Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?

X

Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?

obediens

Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?

X

Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?

X

Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?