This is what the FSSP released after the meeting. My emphasis.
Published 1 March 2024
Official communiqué of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter – Fribourg, March 1st, 2024.
Following a request from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, Pope Francis invited Fr. Andrzej Komorowski, Superior General of the FSSP, to meet with him. He received him in private audience at the Vatican on Thursday, February 29, 2024, accompanied by Fr. Benoît Paul-Joseph, Superior of the District of France, and Fr. Vincent Ribeton, Rector of St. Peter’s Seminary in Wigratzbad.
The meeting was an opportunity for them to express their deep gratitude to the Holy Father for the decree of February 11, 2022, by which the Pope confirmed the liturgical specificity of the Fraternity of St. Peter, but also to share with him the difficulties encountered in its application. The Pope was very understanding and invited the Fraternity of St. Peter to continue to build up ecclesial communion ever more fully through its own proper charism. Fr. Komorowski informed the Holy Father that the decree of February 11, 2022 had been given on the very day of the Fraternity of St. Peter’s consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, on the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes. The Holy Father hailed this coincidence as a providential sign.
First, “the difficulties encountered in its application”. The FSSP use the liturgical books in force as the Council began. They have to work with diocesan bishops in order to function within dioceses. Some bishop are better in this regard than others. Sometimes they can obtain their own churches. Sometimes they have to be hosted by some parish that has the Novus Ordo, share space. The harsh Traditionis custodes perhaps has made functioning at a parish church problematic even though the harsh document wasn’t aimed at them.
Those could be some difficulties.
Second, Francis “invited the Fraternity of St. Peter to continue to build up ecclesial communion ever more fully through its own proper charism”.
What does that mean?
That is precisely what quite a few people have written to ask me. They include their fears, stirred up by voices in the interwebs, videos, that the FSSP is going to be forced to say the Novus Ordo or at concelebrate at diocesan Chrism Masses as a sign of “building up ecclesial communion”. “Communion”… get it? Communion? As in “Mass” and therefore the Novus Ordo?
That pushes way beyond the plain sense of the text of the statement.
I will be the first one to reaffirm the Fat Man’s Laws of the House of God:
VIII. They can always hurt you more.
It would not surprise me if such measures have been considered. As a matter of fact, the issue of concelebrating at Chrism Masses has been brought up at every meeting of the FSSP leadership and Rome for 30 years. It comes up. And … that’s it.
For now, I suspect “Rome” will use the slow strangulation of the baby in diocesan parishes, rather than a hammer blow in the Fraternity or Institute. They will aim at diocesan priests. They are the weakest and easiest targets. Rome sent bishops the garrots.
For many years I’ve written that the true renewal will begin when diocesan priests learn to celebrate the TLM. Even if they don’t use it all the time, it will deeply affect their ars celebrandi, in turn producing a knock on effect in their congregations. That’s just one benefit. Tradition leaning diocesan priests are the real target, along with the people they serve.
This is something for other posts.
What was Francis’ invitation in that audience about? He referred to the FSSP’s “proper charism”. Let’s start there. What is their “proper charism”?
The early documents of the FSSP can be helpful.
The Declaration of intention by the founders (2 July 1988) states that they viewed themselves – which speaks to their charism – as the as “pars sanior of this same Fraternity [from which they were now independent, that is, of the SSPX]”, that – this speaks to their charism – “they have but one desire: to be able to live as a religious society in this Church and place themselves at her service under the authority, of course, of the Roman Pontiff, her supreme head” and then also, they describe their “own particular vocation” – which speaks to their charism – “to dedicate themselves to the People of God and [NB] above all to the formation of future priests in an authentic Catholic spirit, and in so doing, as befits the venerable tradition of the Catholic Church, to celebrate Divine Worship according to the guidelines of immemorial tradition.”
So, three main things in there: they have maintained the spirit of the SSPX, to which they think they are connected but in a “pars sanior” way. This is a term that is found often in the context of electoral contests, about majorities, etc. There can be a pars maior and a pars sanior which could be a minority. The sanus does not mean “sane” or even necessarily “healthy”. In some contexts it might be those who have great authority by way of seniority or wisdom or role. In this context the founders of the FSSP seems to see themselves as a minority, but who have won the “contest” because they chosen the path of obedience to John Paul II. If it has to do with “health”, then perhaps it aims at a desire to be a “healing” element in relation to the Society.
They also have the work of formation of priests which will, of course, always be difficult.
In the FSSP’s Act of Foundation they say that the Constitutions will be “inspired by the approved statutes of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X”. Furthermore, they request swift approval of the Fraternity “in order that they may act effectively for the unity and the good of the Church”. That last part, about “unity of the Church” points to their charism.
In the Declaration of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, in which the Commission says that the FSSP has been approved, adds that they are to “serve the Good of the Church and Her unity”. Again, there is the point of unity.
In the Excerpt of the Constitutions of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, there is a part called “Aim of the Fraternity”. This says,
“The object of the Fraternity of Saint Peter is the sanctification of priests through the exercise of the priesthood, and in particular, to turn the life of the priest toward that which is essentially his raison d’être, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, with all that it signifies, all that flows from it, all that goes with it.”
Because of that…
“The members of the Fraternity will in this way take it to heart to do everything to prepare, spiritually and materially, the Sacrifice of the Mass”
Certainly Traditionis custodes makes all of that very difficult.
Lastly, there is the Decree of Pope Francis Concerning the FSSP (11 Feb 2022).
Without prejudice to [the grants] above, the Holy Father suggests that, as far as possible, the provisions of the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes be taken into account as well.
In statement after after the audience that the FSSP superiors at the time of that Decree, the FSSP said (my emphases):
During the very cordial meeting, they recalled the origins of the Fraternity in 1988, the Pope expressed that he was very impressed by the approach taken by its founders, their desire to remain faithful to the Roman Pontiff and their trust in the Church. He said that this gesture should be “preserved, protected and encouraged”.
I don’t want to go any farther into the weeds. That’s enough.
It seems to me to be that the plain reading of the the FSSP Statement about the meeting with Francis is the correct meaning.
When Francis “invited the Fraternity of St. Peter to continue to build up ecclesial communion ever more fully through its own proper charism” surely that meant – at the very least – to be the pars sanior, to be a alternative for sake of unity with the Roman Pontiff for the priests of the SSPX (and anyone else who desires Tradition), to foster the use of the traditional liturgical books for the celebration of all the sacraments, and to form priests for this work into the future.
That it is not some sort of code about forcing the priests of the FSSP to concelebrate the Chrism Mass with the Novus Ordo or to say the Novus Ordo themselves.
For now, at least, the cross hairs are not on the so-called Ecclesia Dei groups, but rather on the most vulnerable figure in the Church, diocesan priests with traditional inclinations. May God help them.
Loading ...
Seen far too many freakouts of this by YouTube commenters.
“For many years I’ve written that the true renewal will begin when diocesan priests learn to celebrate the TLM. Even if they don’t use it all the time, it will deeply affect their ars celebrandi, in turn producing a knock on effect in their congregations. That’s just one benefit.”
This is the case with my TLM priest. He says the TLM privately as were only allowed Sundays, and my entire parish can see the profound change and improvement. He not only says the Mass better, he’s become a better priest and man! I can’t speak for his NO Masses, but I’m certain that they too have gotten better, with added reverence!
For some time now I just didn’t understand what the NO concelebration was. What exactly was done when a bunch of priests stick out their arms pointing towards the altar during the consecration? Did they zap some power out of their arm that connected them to the happenings on the altar? Did they all become one person with the priest on the altar because they stuck out their arms? What exactly is going on? I had never heard a clear explanation. I watched a very illuminating video with two well known Catholic Youtube podcasters that laid it out pretty well. My understanding now is that it is not several NO Masses being said, it is ONE priest, saying ONE Mass on the altar and the other priests think that they are saying a Mass themselves (since they take stipends) because they stuck their arm out towards the altar. In my humble opinion this is diabolic disorientation of the clergy. I have never attended such a Mass and now that I understand what is going on I never will. It is a type of mockery of the Holy Sacrifice. The laity must speak up by not attending these strange inventions to show the innovators in the Church we will not go along.
One of the Churches we attend is a Diocesan and the two Priest say the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass as Pope Benedict commanded. Our retiring Cardinal sent them a letter from Rome guaranteeing them the right to continue saying the Traditional Mass…….But what happens when the new Archbishop takes over? Question is, can Rome be trusted? The FSSP has been betrayed in the past.
Pope Francis overruled Pope Benedict on the Mass.
Thank you for this. Clears up a lot
One interesting angle of the Maundy Thursday concelebration thing is the fact that FSSP priests have not been trained in the celebration of the novus ordo (just like 99% of novus ordo priests have not been trained to offer the TLM). In seminary, it can take a few years for proper liturgical training, right? Are proponents of FSSP priests concelebrating later this month saying that the novus ordo is such a banal, on the spot product, that anyone off the street can just perform its functions in a couple weeks with no classes required?
I have sympathy for every priest, bishop, and laymen who loves the Traditional Latin Mass and is trying to figure out how to navigate through these stormy times with faith and conscience intact. I’m also very much of a “Unite the Clans” mentality, and think the squabbles between different groups, like the FSSP and SSPX, are counter-productive at this time.
However, I understand and can sympathize with those who are frustrated by the FSSP play for the long game. I think, at least for me, it resides in a fear that every act of obedience to the illegitimate abuse of TC is one more step towards making it legitimate. That every act of compliance, regardless of how reluctant, is a confirmation that the Pope does, in fact, have total and absolute control over the entire liturgical tradition of the Church, and that he can do absolutely anything he wants without any restrictions. That, when considering the long game, it’s another nail in the coffin of tradition and reason and a bolstering up of the claim that the Novus Ordo (or whatever will come next) can be designated as the SOLE liturgical rite.
It’s not that, God willing, this mess will not eventually be cleared up, but the longer we comply and lend legitimacy to that which is illegitimate, the harder of a mess it will be to clean up, the longer it will take, and the more lasting damage it will leave behind.
I pray for the priests and bishops who are in an impossible situation and are trying to make the right decision, and I’m not blaming anyone, at this point, for the choices they’re making (at least on the Traditionalist side – I don’t hesitate to place blame where it belongs when it comes to the hateful and appalling decisions coming out of Rome). But it’s all still cold comfort for the folks in Austin, or for my own kids who expect to be booted out of our own parish in the very near future.
While priests are playing the long game, fathers are trying to raise their kids right now, and that includes baptisms and confirmations and weddings and the Mass. Everyone’s in a tough spot, and for no good reason other than one man’s desire to “make a mess.”
?
“ Are proponents of FSSP priests concelebrating later this month saying that the novus ordo is such a banal, on the spot product, that anyone off the street can just perform its functions in a couple weeks with no classes required?”
A priest is a priest. Replace novus ordo with another rite and that really sounds wrong. No, I’m not saying they should do Holy Thursday, but that sentence implies two classes of priests.
@DeeEem
My understanding of concelebration in the early Church was that it was the celebration of the Liturgy by the bishop with his diocesan clergy. A quote from Stappier-Baier’s “Catholic Liturgics” (1938):
“From the very beginning, only the bishop was regarded as the “head” of the community. The presbyters celebrated the Eucharist together with the bishop (concelebratio) and also acted as vicars of the bishop in rural communities.” P. 319
Concelebration was no longer practiced in the West at the point that the above manual was written (although I am given to believe it is still a liturgical practice in the East) Another quote specifically about Maundy Thursday:
“The communion of the clergy on Holy Thursday recalls the practice of concelebration, which was retained for a long time in the liturgy of this day.” P. 110
The way it’s done now is novel, but the thing itself is very ancient and persisted in practice for a long time.
Bonus quote: “Still other characteristics of the rite of ordination are the offering of a candle at the Offertory, the celebration of Mass with the bishop (concelebratio) and, after Communion, the profession of faith (Credo) as well as the promise of obedience.” P. 322
Kenneth Wolfe:
They might not make the contention, but it is true nonetheless.
A back-bench concelebrant need only vest, process, venerate the altar, sit when his brother priests sit, stand when they stand, put their arms out at the consecration, whisper the words of consecration, self commune, maybe assist in distributing communion, process and unvest.
Then it’s a big surf & turf dinner with Bishop F. Atticus McButterpants.
If the FSSP are being asked to build up “ build up ecclesial communion ever more fully” then that would surely mean they were not currently in “full communion”?
Surely that is the plain meaning of the words. What does that even mean anyway? Either they are in communion or they are not. IMO being in communion is like being pregnant. Either you are or you are not, you can’t be a little bit pregnant.
The mor they push, the greater will be the flourishing after this storm.
I have lived in two FSSP parishes in two different dioceses. In one, the bishop used it to put all the TLM people in one basket and keep it out of other parishes. The other, the bishop supports the parish because it serves a need in the diocese; this bishop also has allowed the TLM within the current guidelines in force. He is restricting it, but not obliterating it.
Father Z, I have a question that no one has given me a clear answer on: Does Traditiones Custodes forbid Bishops to invite the FSSP or ICKSP into their dioceses anymore? I know it says personal parishes are not allowed but does that apply to the Ecclesia Dei groups in this situation? If they are still allowed, why aren’t more Bishops doing so? Are they afraid? Or, do they just not care enough about us to provide the TLM for those who want it?