SSPX to Regularize?

[Amppax]

This article seems to think that it may be a possibility soon, based on an internal memo from the Society itself (who, as I understand, has typically been the ones to walk away from negotiations). I would love to hear people's thought's, specifically about what the article has to say regarding the conditions: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/is-there-a-profound-change-between-rome-and-the-sspx/. 

 

[beatitude]

I don't know much about the history of the SSPX and the article doesn't say what the conditions are to be, so I can't comment knowledgeably. I tried to go to Mass in one of their chapels once, as a fifteen-year-old, without knowing what the SSPX even was - I was just curious about what Latin Mass looked like and I'd seen that they had it from the sign outside. I was treated badly for showing up without a mantilla, and I left before Mass started because I didn't have anything for my head and I felt embarrassed. I hope that situation was not truly representative of them as a group. I'm glad Pope Francis is stressing Christian unity so much, and I pray that they're able to reach a full reconciliation with Rome. They have safeguarded a liturgical treasure in the EF Mass and it would be good to have it more widely available to us all.

[Era Might]

I doubt it. They seem pretty hard hearted about their correctness.

[Nihil Obstat]

The rumors have been consistent for at least a month now. I am cautiously optimistic that this is going through.

14 minutes ago, Era Might said:

I doubt it. They seem pretty hard hearted about their correctness.

Well that is exactly the point, if you read the article. The new information implies that nothing will be required of them. Simply regularized as is.

Which, by the way, is what I have been calling the absolute best case scenario, for years now. If this goes through, I will be rejoicing greatly. I believe that we need their pastoral guidance right now, and a regularized Society will be a massive force for authentic Catholicism.

[Benedictus]

I think dialogue is desirable to do and to have unity as a long term objective. However, I think the ideas expressed in this article will create endless headaches and problems for the church if they went ahead. The implications of incorporating a dissenting faction is an odd one. I don't really see the point of it unless they can reach very clear agreement. Maybe the Vatican thinks it can slowly reform and tame them if they come in rather than being outside the structures? I think that may well be a bit naive. I can see a fair bit of opposition on both sides. 

The church would also have to answer some questions in terms of interfaith dialogue and face some challenging conversations with Jewish leaders. 

[Era Might]

12 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

The rumors have been consistent for at least a month now. I am cautiously optimistic that this is going through.

Well that is exactly the point, if you read the article. The new information implies that nothing will be required of them. Simply regularized as is.

Which, by the way, is what I have been calling the absolute best case scenario, for years now. If this goes through, I will be rejoicing greatly. I believe that we need their pastoral guidance right now, and a regularized Society will be a massive force for authentic Catholicism.

I read the article, they came across as their usual smug selves. I expect they'll just cause problems if they come back with no change in how they see things. Better to remain separate so they can bask in their correctness.

[Nihil Obstat]

Just now, Benedictus said:

I think dialogue is desirable to do and to have unity as a long term objective. However, I think the ideas expressed in this article will create endless headaches and problems for the church if they went ahead. The implications of incorporating a dissenting faction is an odd one. I don't really see the point of it unless they can reach very clear agreement. Maybe the Vatican thinks it can slowly reform and tame them if they come in rather than being outside the structures? I think that may well be a bit naive. I can see a fair bit of opposition on both sides. 

The church would also have to answer some questions in terms of interfaith dialogue and face some challenging conversations with Jewish leaders. 

Many liberal Catholics have effectively been in a state of doctrinal dissent for decades now. Only difference is their canonical standing. I see no substantive problems with simply treating the Society as Catholic.

You will not find a single official position of the Society which is at odds with the Church before Vatican II. If doctrine cannot change, and it cannot, and if these doctrinal positions were acceptable before the Council, and they are, then there is no problem.

[Gabriela]

What about the sedevacantists among them?

[Peace]

42 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

The rumors have been consistent for at least a month now. I am cautiously optimistic that this is going through.

Well that is exactly the point, if you read the article. The new information implies that nothing will be required of them. Simply regularized as is.

Which, by the way, is what I have been calling the absolute best case scenario, for years now. If this goes through, I will be rejoicing greatly. I believe that we need their pastoral guidance right now, and a regularized Society will be a massive force for authentic Catholicism.

What pastoral guidance? When you have a disagreement break off and form your own church? Or was it something I missed?

And is it safe to assume that "authentic Catholicism" is the kind that Nihil practices? Or can one be an authentic Catholic without reciting Latin and waking up to the sounds of Gregorian Chant?

Edited April 27, 2016 by Peace

[Benedictus]

3 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Many liberal Catholics have effectively been in a state of doctrinal dissent for decades now. Only difference is their canonical standing. I see no substantive problems with simply treating the Society as Catholic.

You will not find a single official position of the Society which is at odds with the Church before Vatican II. If doctrine cannot change, and it cannot, and if these doctrinal positions were acceptable before the Council, and they are, then there is no problem.

There's a difference between individual Catholics and incorporating an entire organisation that, and still has, issues with the church as it is. I suspect a remnant group, maybe a large one, won't come over anyway. They'd have good reasons too. SSPX would have to agree to relax a great deal or they'll bring heat. I doubt they'll want to tone down and accept challenges to their customs by visitors to Mass etc.

The problem is that Vatican ll was over 50 years ago and the implications of the Council can't be simply ignored. The culture, mission and context are important. The life of the church isn't static and additional friction will add more strain. To also suggest the Council, legitimate and guided by God, can be ignored in preference to an earlier time isn't a minor thing.

They can debate the meaning and misunderstandings around the Council. However, there are many legitimate things that have changed in terms of practices and new charisms that I doubt this group will accept. There are also things that the church maybe should have been more proactive at tackling, but they didn't and don't. So how would the Vatican deal with complaints that they either can't or won't tackle? It's the ongoing elephant in the room that is ignored.

[NadaTeTurbe]

11 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

What about the sedevacantists among them?

There's no sedevacantists among them. I know some very hardcore SSPX members - followers of Msgr Williamson who was expelled from the SSPX, and they are not sedevacantists. In fact, the sedevacantists hate the SSPX and Msgr Lefebvre. 

[Peace]

I respect more "traditional" minded folks but when you start implying that "my" brand of Catholicism is superior you go too far. . .

[Sponsa-Christi]

I can imagine Pope Francis earnestly desiring to reconcile the SSPX, but like Benedictus I honestly can't see this happening unless the SSPX agrees to fully accept the teachings (as in, the actual teachings, not just certain interpretations which are open to debate) of Vatican II. You can't have groups in the Church which pick and choose which ecumenical Councils to take seriously. 

While I wouldn't be too surprised if reconciliation did occur within the span of this Pontificate, the above-mentioned article did strike me as a bit of optimistic wishful thinking on the part of the SSPX. 

Edited April 27, 2016 by Sponsa-Christi

[Nihil Obstat]

19 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

What about the sedevacantists among them?

Frankly, they are a myth. The SSPX is not Sedevacantist and have expelled members for supporting that error.

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

What pastoral guidance? When you have a disagreement break off and form your own church? Or was it something I missed?

And is it safe to assume that "authentic Catholicism" is the kind that Nihil practices? Or can one be an authentic Catholic without reciting Latin and waking up to the sounds of Gregorian Chant?

You are better than the cheap shots and one-liners you keep stooping to.

4 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I can imagine Pope Francis earnestly desiring to reconcile the SSPX, but like Benedictus I honestly can't see this happening unless the SSPX agrees to fully accept the teachings (as in, the actual teachings, not just certain interpretations which are open to debate) of Vatican II. You can't have groups in the Church which pick and choose which ecumenical Councils to take seriously. 

While I wouldn't be too surprised if reconciliation did occur within the span of this Pontificate, the above-mentioned article did strike me as a bit of optimistic wishful thinking on the part of the SSPX. 

I do not think it is wishful thinking. In general the idea frightens them. It fractured them before and they are only just recovered from that issue. It will take courage on their part to step up to this.

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Frankly, they are a myth. The SSPX is not Sedevacantist and have expelled members for supporting that error.

You are better than the cheap shots and one-liners you keep stooping to.

So are you.