SSPX & State of Necessity

An interesting sidenote to the ongoing discussions between the SSPX & the Vatican:

“…In Bishop Fellay’s recent talks, recorded at SSPX chapels around the U.S., the bishop revealed that Pope Benedict XVI told him that the SSPX could no longer use “the state of necessity” provided for in the 1983 Code of Canon Law to continue their apostolates outside of formal Church governance because the Pope was attempting to solve the crisis. However, Bishop Fellay also said the Pope later told him that a crisis to justify their situation in France and Germany might actually still be valid.

renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/060322

With bishops like Levada given the red hat, I doubt any true fixing will be done. It will be more of the same. Cafeteria’s still open. Only new management.

[quote=EddieArent]With bishops like Levada given the red hat, I doubt any true fixing will be done. It will be more of the same. Cafeteria’s still open. Only new management.
[/quote]

Just be careful which serving line you go down! I prefer the one where the menu hasn’t changed for 1900 years and is in Latin.

[quote=loyola38]Just be careful which serving line you go down! I prefer the one where the menu hasn’t changed for 1900 years and is in Latin.
[/quote]

Amen, brother. I’ve been attending Novus Ordo but seriously leaning towards TLM based on my research. I love the NO but the TLM is so incredible. Someday soon we’ll all have easy access to the TLM.

Didn’t the TLM come about in the 1500s from the Council of Trent?

Yep. The Tridentine Rite came about around the 1500’s.

[quote=CatholicCid]Didn’t the TLM come about in the 1500s from the Council of Trent?
[/quote]

St. Pius V canonized it in the 1500s but I believe it dates back to the 500s or before. Anyone know when the Latin Mass originated?

[quote=loyola38]Just be careful which serving line you go down! I prefer the one where the menu hasn’t changed for 1900 years and is in Latin.
[/quote]

Not even the change that says if you don’t like what Mom has prepared, go eat elsewhere?

…I woke up this morning with a novel idea…his Holiness could join the society…well it was an idea like I said

After the Pope’s audience with the Superior of the Saint Pius X Fraternity
«Rapprochement by unhasty stages, but not too slow either»

Interview with Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of «Ecclesia Dei», on relations between Rome and the Lefebvrians

Interview with Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos by Gianni Cardinale

  «The Holy Father Benedict XVI this morning received, in the Apostolic Palace of Castel Gandolfo, the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity, Monsignor Bernard Fellay, who had requested it. The Pope was accompanied by the Most Eminent Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”. The meeting took place in an atmosphere of love for the Church and of desire to reach perfect communion. Albeit aware of the difficulties, the wish to proceed by stages and in reasonable time was shown». In these words a communiqué of the Press Office of the Holy See on 29 August last gave news of the first contact between the new Pontiff and the Fraternity that, as the Vatican Radio bulletin of the same day reminded us, «was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who died on 25 March 1991». 

… 30Days asked Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos about the hearing of August 29, at which Don Franz Schmidberger, an old collaborator of Monsignor Lefebvre and well known to Pope Ratzinger, was also present. Since April 2000 Cardinal Hoyos has been President of the Pontifical Commission «Ecclesia Dei», the Vatican body concerned with relations with the variegated traditionalist world, and has also, since 1996, been head of the Congregation for the Clergy.

*Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity? *
DARÍOCASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The audience is part of a process that began with a very important intervention by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who signed a protocol of agreement with Monsignor Lefebvre before the latter decided to proceed to the episcopal consecrations of 1988.

Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off…
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.

More:
30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9360

continuation…

What observations were made by the Superior of the Saint Pius X? *
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Monsignor Fellay, but this was known even beforehand, was able to express his fears on the state of the Catholic Church in the light of the abuses, not only liturgical, that have occurred since Vatican ** Council II. I believe that critical contributions of that sort that can come from the Fraternity can be a treasure for the Church, when expressed under the charisma of Peter and in charity among brethren. In the Church in fact we are all free to formulate critical observations on what doesn’t concern dogma and the essential discipline of the Church itself. On that subject I can testify that Cardinal Ratzinger was already fully convinced of the need for theological dialogue on the difficult points.
* In full unity there is more light to be found for studying these sensitive points.

*After the audience an authoritative cardinal suggested that the Fraternity should recognize the legitimacy of the present Pontiff… *
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: **Unfortunately that is proof that within the Church, even at high levels, there is not always full knowledge of the Fraternity. The Fraternity has always recognized in John Paul II, and now in Benedict XVI, the legitimate successor of Saint Peter. That is not a problem. That then there are traditionalist groups that don’t recognize the last popes, the so-called “empty throne” people, is another question that doesn’t concern the Saint Pius X Fraternity. **

*It is known that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is asking the Holy See for a liberalization of the so-called Tridentine mass and a declaration affirming that this liturgy has never been abolished. *
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: **The mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished. ** As for liberalization, I remember that under the pontificate of John Paul II there was a meeting of all the department heads of the Roman Curia, in which the vast majority were not against such a request. It would be dangerous to create opposition between the old rite and the new. The liturgy cannot be a battlefield. **As priest, as cardinal and as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, I feel great pain in seeing the unacceptable language at times used of the wish of Jesus to give his own body and blood, and to entrust them to his Church. And this is true of some spokesmen of the Saint Pius X Fraternity, but not only them. **

You are well acquainted with the traditionalist world. How do you judge the personal piety of the priests who belong to it?
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Many traditionalist priests I have known have made an excellent impression on me: they have a sincere love for the mystery. Unfortunately there can also be fanatics who are bound to the old liturgy as one can be bound to a mathematical formula of which one doesn’t even understand the value in depth.

*Do you think they represent the legacy of a past in any case on the way to extinction? *
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: At the World Day of Youth in Cologne there was a considerable group of young people attached to the traditional mass. The echoes have been positive. And it shows how short-sighted it is to consider the traditionalist phenomenon as on the way to exhaustion. **Not least because in the traditionalist world, in proportion, the number of priestly vocations is decidedly superior to that of many diocese in the Church. **

In September 2001 John Paul II, in a speech to the plenary assembly of the Congregation for Divine Worship, praised the «very fine prayers» in the Missal of Saint Pius V. The speech was published with unusual delay by L’Osservatore Romano and has never been published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, though it usually prints papal speeches to the plenary assemblies of the Roman departments. When you then, on 24 May 2003, celebrated, for the first time after the post-council liturgical reform, a Tridentine mass in a patriarchal Roman basilica, that of Saint Mary Major, L’Osservatore Romano totally ignored the event. What do you think of these two acts of “censorship”? *
** CASTRILLÓN HOYOS
*: I prefer to judge facts rather than intentions and I don’t know what the cause of the two missing notices is, which, however, had ample repercussion.

*Do you think that the above-mentioned speech of John Paul II may be finally published in the Acta? *
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: **If it wasn’t the explicit wish of the Pope not to publish that speech, even when it was he who made it, I think it’s a serious thing not to have done so. **

© 30Days in the Church and the world. All rights reserved

Parts of this interview were edited due to length. See the link for the entire interview:
30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9360

Not sure what your intention is in posting this. It is being discussed on another thread.

[quote=CatholicCid]Didn’t the TLM come about in the 1500s from the Council of Trent?
[/quote]

No, the TLM did not “come about” in the 1500’s. I am not sure if you are just trying to get everyone going, or if you sincerely do not know. If you sincerely do not know, I suggest you do some research. Fr. Laurent Demets has just written an excellent article called The Liturgical Stakes. It is an excellent starting point.

defidecatholica.blogspot.com/2006/03/liturgical-stakes.html

[quote=srp643]Amen, brother. I’ve been attending Novus Ordo but seriously leaning towards TLM based on my research. I love the NO but the TLM is so incredible. Someday soon we’ll all have easy access to the TLM.
[/quote]

The TLM is incredible. That’s a very true statement! :thumbsup:

[quote=Ham1]Not sure what your intention is in posting this. It is being discussed on another thread.
[/quote]

My purposes was that to inform. This interview has a lot of important information in it. So many are so quick to judge the society in schism and say negative things about them, even when the Pope and the cardinal in charge of working with them do not share the same opinion; as if everyone knows better than the Pope. Then, when a local Bishop or priest does something scandulous, heretical, or disobeys the Pope; everyone backs them by throwing out the “obedience” word. This is clearly dear to our Holy Father’s heart and we should all pray for it and help him in any way we can.

BTW - There was no reference to this interview in the thread you mention until after I posted it here.

Regarding the “State of Necessity” and the SSPX, here is an excellent interview given in Christendom back in Dec. (?) by Bishop Fellay. It is long but very informative as to the position the SSPX is taking. It gives a lot of background info too. Like the SSPX, or not, it is always best to get your info from the horse’s mouth.

dici.org/dl/fichiers/Christendom_3.pdf

NeelyAnn wrote:

Like the SSPX, or not, it is always best to get your info from the horse’s mouth.

and

“…even if it was not a formal schism.”

Indeed! But, one must comprehend what the horse is neighing! http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The Cardinal is NOT saying that that the SSPX is NOT in schism - for he has immediately preceding the quote by the word “separation” which is synonymous with “schism”!

Here is how to “read” the quote: “…even if it was not a formal schism.” That is: “it was a schism albeit perhaps not a formal schism.”

And, yes - the horse was neighing some very negative things and telling the pope to “get stuffed” from 1976 after he had been suspended a divinis from performing any priestly functons!

From those early days, the SSPX were claiming that Ordinations performed in the new Rite were suspect as to validity. I remember the newly ordained Australian SSPX Superior, Fr. Gerard Hogan, describing the newly ordained priest for the Archdiocese of melbourne, Fr. Peter Elliott, as “Deacon” - for he did not believe that he had been properly ordained.

Today, the latter is Msgr. Peter J. Elliott is a highly respected and orthodox priest and author of “Liturgical Question Box Answers to Common Questions About the Modern Liturgy”, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1997, etc.

On the other hand, Fr. Hogan has twice abandoned the SSPX and is currently servicing the interests of a multi-millionaire San Francisco family.

For more neighing from Archbishop Lefebvre, see jloughnan.tripod.com/vacilate.htm

SeanOL -

I am not sure what your point is … The link you provided has nothing to do with the direct thoughts of Bishop Fellay, or Archbishop Lefebre. Again, if anyone wants to know their position, it is best to read their personal interviews and writings, not someone else’s private interpretation of what they said or believe. These interpretations hold no value, they are merely opinion, just like ALL of the post on this message board!

[quote=Sean O L]NeelyAnn wrote:

and

Indeed! But, one must comprehend what the horse is neighing! http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The Cardinal is NOT saying that that the SSPX is NOT in schism - for he has immediately preceding the quote by the word “separation” which is synonymous with “schism”!

Here is how to “read” the quote: “**…even if **it was not a formal schism.” That is: “it was a schism albeit perhaps not a formal schism.”

And, yes - the horse was neighing some very negative things and telling the pope to “get stuffed” from 1976 after he had been suspended a divinis from performing any priestly functons!

From those early days, the SSPX were claiming that Ordinations performed in the new Rite were suspect as to validity. I remember the newly ordained Australian SSPX Superior, Fr. Gerard Hogan, describing the newly ordained priest for the Archdiocese of melbourne, Fr. Peter Elliott, as “Deacon” - for he did not believe that he had been properly ordained.

Today, the latter is Msgr. Peter J. Elliott is a highly respected and orthodox priest and author of “Liturgical Question Box Answers to Common Questions About the Modern Liturgy”, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1997, etc.

On the other hand, Fr. Hogan has twice abandoned the SSPX and is currently servicing the interests of a multi-millionaire San Francisco family.

For more neighing from Archbishop Lefebvre, see jloughnan.tripod.com/vacilate.htm
[/quote]

Ah, thank the holy angels, Sean, I was hoping you would show up! There’s a whole other thread where folks are convinced they aren’t in schism. forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1429415#post1429415

[quote=CatholicCid]Didn’t the TLM come about in the 1500s from the Council of Trent?
[/quote]

Actually no. What the Council of Trent did was set a standard for the Mass. Up until then there were many regional variations and many more cropping up all the time. What Trent did was suppress the celebration of masses using rites that had been in existance for less then, I think it was 200 years, I’m not sure. Those that were older than 200 years were allowed to continue. I think there were about 6 of them, Ambrosian, Braggan, Carthusian, Cistercian etc.

The Traditional mass had never been static and was evolving as time went by. The most drastic changes came about prior to 500 and included a lot of things After Trent the changes were mostly minor, I think the most drastic was the inclusion of the Leonine prayers, but since they actually occured after the mass proper, I guess that they really don’t count.

I would hazard a guess that what we know as the Traditional Mass probably came about sometime during the pontificate of Gregory 1 around 600 or so. At least he did an extensive revision of the Missal in force at that time and there was not a huge difference between that rite and the rite promulgated at Trent.

As to when Latin became the language of the mass there is no real answer. The best guess I’ve seen was is that it wasn’t before 200 and wasn’t later than 300. Most say it wasn’t a sudden act and that the mass was celebrated in either Greek or Latin during that time maybe using both languages in the celebration…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.