A few years ago I was coming home from a work event in Jersey when I passed by a random shrine dedicated to St. Padre Pio. I love the good Saint Pio, so of course I stopped, prayed for a while, and wandered into the small, dimly lit gift shop afterwards. I perused and bought a scapular, I think, and a small pamphlet on St Pio.
When I arrived home and started reading it, it reminded me of the 'zines we used to make in the 90's in high school: black and white, old-school and kind of edgy and mysterious. I wondered where this pamphlet was produced, and in the inside it was attributed to a Br. Michael Diamond, Most Holy Family Monastery, Fillmore, NY.
It seemed legit, but gave me a weird vibe; I learned through a quick google search why: MHFM is a sedevacantist Catholic organization. I would make reference to some of the things written in the pamphlet if I could, but I had enough sense to throw it away rather than leave it to be discovered later by an unwitting curiosity seeker.
Sedevacantism is toxic for one's spiritual health. But what of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and their traditional, reverent liturgies, their solid priests, and their missionary zeal? They are 100% Catholic, and especially after the lockdowns two years ago, many people discovered the Society who stayed open and didn't cower. They seem to have fortified many faithful Catholics during that period of "wandering through the desert." Plus, we have a SSPX chapel ten minutes from our home, and I know people and have friends who attend there. If the implementation of Traditionis Custodis starts to take effect at the diocesan level, and the SSPX is waiting there with open arms, why would we turn our backs on the good fortune of having a reverent traditional liturgy in our backyard?
Of course, the Society's canonical status is not easy to grasp for new Catholics and those nor familiar with their history. Are they Catholic? Yes. Are they in an irregular canonical status? Yes. Are their sacraments valid? For 6 out of 7, yes. What about the one that isn't?
Pope Francis extended faculties for SSPX priests to hear confessions in 2016 during the Jubilee Year of Mercy, and then extended those faculties for an indeterminate amount of time as it seems to stand now. So until he pulls back on that, my understanding is the validity of those confessions is not in question.
Were we in a bind, traveling, and the SSPX was there and available on a Sunday, I probably wouldn't hesitate to assist at one of their Masses.
Here's my hesitation (one among a few) with the SSPX as a permanent home, and with my role as the spiritual head of my family (the bishop, as it were, of my domestic church): were we to assist every Sunday, lay roots in the community, and raise up our children in it, one issue in particular is the admission that my children couldn't get married in an SSPX chapel and have a Catholic marriage.
Why? Matrimony as a sacrament depends on canonical form, which in turn depends on supplied jurisdiction as I understand it.
Cathy Caridi, J.C.L, at Canon Law Made Easy makes the case,
"Consequently, if a Catholic marries in a ceremony conducted by an SSPX priest, the marriage is invalid, for lack of canonical form. The SSPX priest is presumably a validly ordained cleric; but for the validity of a Catholic marriage, ordination is not sufficient."
"The fact is, Ecclesia supplet does not validate any marriages celebrated by SSPX clergy, period. This is because the marriages aren't being celebrated in the parish church by a properly delegated cleric--so they are invalid for lack of canonical form. Marriage tribunals rarely encounter such clear-cut invalidity as this.
Lack of canonical form was what prompted me to bring up the issue with my Catholic father, and to assist him in seeking healing and righting of his marriage. (See Healing a Marriage 'In The Root': What Is A 'Radical Sanation?')
This "valid but illicit" issue would be enough to give me pause of attending the Society chapels as anything but a one-off situation. This isn't even to speak of the grainier "chapel climate" of unspoken dissent and Jansenist tendencies that I'm not sure I want to raise my kids up in, personally. Rigor and reverence is laudable, but my fear is that when push comes to shove, the issue becomes one of ideology. This is not to disparage or speak ill of the character of either the Society priests (though, admittedly, I have little exposure to personally) or the laity who assist at Masses (a few of whom I count as friends), their faith or their devotion to Christ. Just that, as spiritual head of my household, I have hesitations about going down that path.
I still remember a few years ago when I was new to the Traditional Latin Mass going to our local parish for a First Friday TLM. We couldn't get a priest to the offer the Latin Mass, so for whatever reason a local priest offered the Novus Ordo instead. I remember being confused while many parishioners walked out when it became apparent it was the Novus Ordo being offered. I stayed, but that always made an impression on me. I don't judge or fault them. It just made me wonder: are these the things of faith, or is that faith being intermingled with ideology where one would take such an action (of essential boycott)?
Every traditional Catholic is going to have to make these kinds of choices though. If all you have is the N.O., will you refuse to attend it? Will you go SSPX? Byzantine? Ordinariate? Orthodox? Spiritual Communions at home? Not all of those choices are equal, and there is a precariousness in those decisions that can set the course of trajectory for one's family.
I met a good, solid Catholic guy my age when I was in St. Louis who was raised up in the SSPX and now is a charitable, solid Catholic who attends the Novus Ordo (with a beautiful family I might add). Of course it's one anecdotal example, and I never pressed him on why he made that switch at one point in his adult life. But I wonder if the "Tradition is security" for our children is perhaps overstated.
The SSPX holds a real allure for me on the surface, but it's very hard to ignore those reservations I have as well that I'm not astute enough to articulate. Like the Padre Pio sedevacantist pamphlet, there's just something internally that won't let me "go there." Personally, I haven't worked it all out yet in a 'worst case' scenario. I pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit at those times, to lead me deftly through the liturgical mine field and not astray.
I understand how some chapels could give you a feeling you don't like. I think in these hard times it's easy to get pulled into a negative conversation about current events and that's not the fellowship anyone needs. In a kind of similar way, when my children were younger one reason I wouldn't even consider the diocesan TLM is that it was kind of a "fringe group" in my mind, and as homeschoolers I figured my kids were fringe enough and didn't need to feel that their whole life revolved around living in a way that was different from everyone else, even from most other Catholics they knew. I'm glad so many more people go to the TLM now that if my kids were younger, that wouldn't be as much of a concern to me.
ReplyDeleteThe SSPX does tend to have smaller chapels so a kid could feel a little like a member of a fringe group even today. I wonder if that's one reason some children grow up and leave the SSPX, because they want to be a part of a larger community. (By the way, were those SSPX people who left the First Friday NO Mass?
I never really thought about the marriage situation since it's not on my radar, but I thought that had been resolved. I think the SSPX pastor can ask a bishop to send a priest as a diocesan representative to witness the marriage, and that makes it all okay. That may be something your local bishop has to approve but I think that's how it worked in my old diocese. Without that, I can definitely see finding the marriage issue concerning.
Thanks for your comment, Sharon. You make a good point about "being glad so many more people go to the TLM now," and I'm glad too. Same goes for homeschooling. I'm not a fringe guy, not a pioneer type, though we stand on the shoulders of giants.
DeleteI was in a conversation with a woman recently who was dyed-in-the-wool trad and lived through the 70's and 80's (before the Fraternity) 'catacomb' period of traditionalism--of Latin Masses in hotels, homes, bars even, desperately trying to find priests--and she did not talk about it fondly. To say it was fringe would be an understatement.
Lin Zhao, a Christian and political prisoner in Mao's Communist China, wrote in 1957, “Mr. Lu Xun once said, a road is what people make by treading. If there is not a first person, there will not be others, and there will still be no road. The first one who sets his eyes on the light of the distant fire and walks on where there is no road until he falls–he who marks the road with his own blood for those coming after him–will always, always earn our respect.”
Maybe 'fringe' though is relative. Look at St. Mary's Kansas--that's a huge community. Kind of like Amish country here in Lancaster county, though--fringe in the wider sense, 'normal life' in the smaller scope.
I'll freely admit I can only judge by circumstantial, not direct evidence, as I have not ever been inside a SSPX chapel. That might not be appropriate to say "the community is X" without having experienced it myself. Maybe I should go to see so I can judge for myself. Perhaps the fear is that despite their illicit and irregular canonical status, I will be drawn in because of the reverence and stoic witness. Hence the 'lure' in the title. God knows.
I think part of this post is that question of "what makes a trad?" My example of the (TLM parishioners, not SSPX) getting up and walking out of the FF NO would be that kind of 'line in the sand' that separates a true traditionalist from a non-trad like me. A true traditionalist, I imagine, would perhaps admit to the validity of the NO, but would not attend it as a matter of principal, since it would be viewed as an abrogation and (perhaps to some), profane. For them, it is not "It's all about Jesus in the Eucharist", the implication being that NO or TLM, it doesn't make a difference. It does. To attend the NO in this manner would be--even the most reverent 'golden unicorn' NO--I imagine, to betray those sensibilities. That's my take, at least. Still working through these things.
I knew a man in another group Id been in; that had been married in the SSPX. After his wife and the mother of his 10 children divorced him she was able to petition and receive an annulment from the tribunal based on the irregular canonical status of the SSPX where their marriage had been celebrated . She went on to marry the man she left her husband for .
DeletePaul, thanks for clarifying re the people who walked out of the Mass. I thought you were saying you wouldn't go to the SSPX because you thought that was bad behavior on the part of SSPX chapel members.
DeleteI take it your bishop is allowing the TLM you attend to continue. I think a lot of bishops are just holding steady, while the worst ones are gleefully taking away the TLM or making it extremely difficult for people to attend. I hope your diocesan or FFSP TLM is never taken away. If it is, you will definitely have a choice to make.
Therese, I do need to find out more about the current marriage situation with the SSPX. But in the example you give, I would have had more respect for the Church if they had said to that woman, "You can very easily have a valid marriage to the father of your 10 children. Assuming that is your first marriage, you can go through the simple process any Catholic in an irregular marriage can go through. You can make your vows before an authorized priest and return to your responsibilities as a wife and mother, and that's exactly what we advise you to do." I can respect a church that would say that. Harder to respect a church that we know will give annulments to almost anyone, no SSPX excuse needed.
A friend sent me this, fwiw:
Delete“ FWIW, Francis gave the SSPX de facto jurisdiction to witness marriages a couple of years ago. Yes there is supposed to be diocesan witness but the bishops were given permission to allow Society priests to proxy for the diocese rendering de facto jurisdiction by proxy.
IOW, they are 7 for 7 now.
The reasons for not attending society chapels is more complicated than mere canonical considerations.”
We are holding steady for now, but for many (us included), it’s probably that we are just buying time. Which is why I’ve been thinking about these things a lot. Where is our line in the sand and what will I do as a father. The rubber hasn’t hit the road yet but it will.
During the lockdowns- living in a blue state the SSPX stayed open- allowing indoor confessions and Catholics to enter indoors to the chapel while the local parishes - both Novus Ordo and FSSP were only holding outdoor masses. If it was not for the SSPX being fined by the health department for violating those orders and then suing the state( and the governor) we may still have been forced to hold mass outdoors to this day. In reality the local Bishop did nothing and it was only several of the protestant pastors in our state ( who had also been fined for violating the health department order and continuing - like the SSPX- to hold indoor 'services"- who sued and finally our constitutional right to worship was upheld.. and for that I am immensely grateful. Having been around some Catholics who left our parish to attend the SSPX what was a definite turn off for me was the belief they held- and were vocal about - that they believed the Novus Ordo mass itself was invalid. Those who continued to attend the N.O. were looked down upon and it was implied that ones soul was in danger since the mass was invalid. I left that parish discussion group specifically becuase the leaders of the group were promoting this error- it was to me a sort of prideful looking down upon others - even though the parish they were meeting at was a N.O. parish- with a Sunday TLM. I myself love the reverence of the TLM and increasingly cannot stand the irreverence found in many N.O. parishes in my home state.. I agree that we will all have to make those choices should our local Bishop ban the TLM. So far we are fortunate that our Bishop seems to be leaving things as they are and we are able to continue with a weekly TLM . I pray that this continue .. I guess also I am fortunate in that our parish does celebrate the hard to find ( unicorn) reverent N.O. mass.
ReplyDeleteTheresa -Agree and this strikes home. I would go even further and even those who say the NO is valid but "harmful to your soul" are crossing a line. The Church can error (outside of definitive teachings under the charism of infallibility where it cannot error at all), but there a limits to its errors in its non-infallible magisterial teaching as well as in its governance of Liturgy. She cannot promulgate a liturgy that, in itself, is objectively harmful to one's soul.
Delete