Bishop Schneider backs the SSPX

[pnewton]

Yet, there are constant reminders by the news media that …

This is why we must not listen to the news media for Church news, and in fact, all they say should be taken with a grain of salt. They are no more reliable than commercials. They have some value, but they also are usually selling some idea.

 

[otjm]

The progressives have progressed themselves out of the Church? Then how do you account for what happened at the last synod on the family? Are you aware of what happened?

You evidently believe that there is no such thing as a Crisis in the Church at the present time. Bp. Athanasius Schneider has previously stated that he believes that there will be a Schism as a result of the upcoming synod. If you do not believe that a Crisis exists, then there’s no point in debating the issue, since the Crisis is at the heart of the issue of the SSPX.

Doctrine has not changed in 2000 years.

It has been expanded; it has been nuanced, but it has not changed.

And yet we have a cadre of individuals who appear to take their understanding of what is happening from the public press, which to a very great extent either does not understand the Church, or hates the Church, or has an agenda contra the Church, or some witches’ brew of all three.

The Gospels tell us of Christ’s promise, that the Holy spirit would protect the Church from error in doctrine and morals; and having been raised on the Baltimore Catechism, that said it too.

Yet we now have this cadre, all of whom profess to be dyed in the wool authentic Catholics who seem to believe that the Holy Spirit no longer guides the Papacy and the Church.

Then again there is nothing like a juicy dollop of Crisis and Conspiracy to set idle minds awandering.

I am old enough that Humanae Vitae was issued when I was of an age sufficient to carry an M-16 and take a vacation across the puddle (post-college), and I remember how “Crisis!” and “Conspiracy!” (and a whole lot of other idle talk) were the fodder wide and high.

But the Holy Spirit (once again) guided the Pope; in fact, IMHO it is one of the most prescient and prophetic documents to issue from Rome for a long time.

And I kinda suspect that the Holy Spirit will again be working in the Church and through the Papacy - and not some sub group which may choose to set up an alternate Magisterium.

And by the way - the authority lies with the Pope to declare a crisis, and Paul 6th, John Paul 2; Benedict 16 and Francis have all said there is no crisis of which the SSPX posit. John Paul 1 undoubtedly would have said the same, except he departed for a meeting with his Boss before he could weigh in.

There is a vast difference between the Church having a crisis, and some of the members of the Church having one. Distinguishing between the two really isn’t all that hard.

For starters, it helps to recognize that there are about 1.25 billion members world wide, and about 69.4 million members in the U.S. - or about 5.552% of the total; but somehow we seem to think we make up the bulk of the Church.

Just a bit of perspective.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, in looking at it from a point of view of a traditional (SSPX) family, what sort of ministries would be good for a traditional family in these parishes?

I know what you mean. It seems like most of the ministries involve liturgical committees and deciding which 4 hymns to sing for Mass, among other things, not something whose different philosophy and worship practice would get excited about. But there are places like St. John Cantius; unfortunately they are few and far between.

 

[ProVobis]

This is why we must not listen to the news media for Church news, and in fact, all they say should be taken with a grain of salt. They are no more reliable than commercials. They have some value, but they also are usually selling some idea.

Yes, but someone is listening to them. When Summorum Pontificum was being issued, most if not all reports pertaining to it mentioned something about appeasing some schismatic groups in the very first sentence. Now how is that supposed to get people interested in the Latin Mass?

 

[Tomdstone]

Doctrine has not changed in 2000 years.

Originally, it was taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Then about 700 AD it was changed to proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
Originally, it was taught that the Blood was shed for many. Then it was changed to the Blood was shed for all.
In the past it was taught that burning of heretics at the stake was justified.

 

[pnewton]

Originally, it was taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Then about 700 AD it was changed to proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

Both of these statements are true.

Originally, it was taught that the Blood was shed for many. Then it was changed to the Blood was shed for all.
.

Both of these statements are true.

 

[otjm]

Originally, it was taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Then about 700 AD it was changed to proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
Originally, it was taught that the Blood was shed for many. Then it was changed to the Blood was shed for all.
In the past it was taught that burning of heretics at the stake was justified.

Burning heretics would come under disciplinary matters, as well as moral - and under moral it would come under the same genre that John Paul 2’s comments about capital punishment come under.

And as to the theological debate about procession, have you checked Ott? My copy is buried.

But none of these have anything to do with my first comment, as they are not changes to doctrine.

 

[otjm]

Yes, but someone is listening to them. When Summorum Pontificum was being issued, most if not all reports pertaining to it mentioned something about appeasing some schismatic groups in the very first sentence. Now how is that supposed to get people interested in the Latin Mass?

If people got disinterested with the first sentence, they weren’t very interested to begin with. Straw man.

Furthermore, there seem to be a significant number of people interested in the EF who haven’t even read it at all - first sentence or not.

 

[Tomdstone]

But none of these have anything to do with my first comment, as they are not changes to doctrine.

Maybe you think so, but the Eastern Orthodox take the change quite seriously.

 

[otjm]

Maybe you think so, but the Eastern Orthodox take the change quite seriously.

Along with a few other issues, none of which are relevant to this thread.

 

[Casilda]

Maybe you think so, but the Eastern Orthodox take the change quite seriously.

Along with a few other issues, none of which are relevant to this thread.

I think it is relevant. Had Bishop Schneider lived in 1054, would he back the Eastern Orthodox?

I wish there was more attention to the effects on families, rather than preservation of the organizational structure. Families have been told, for decades, that “regularization” with Rome may take place soon, “be patient, don’t leave SSPX at this critical moment” (1993, 2015, 2023?; every year is a critical moment). Families spent over a generation, raising children without the many benefits of a diocese. Children grew up in a climate of skepticism towards the pope and bishop.

The SSPX structure is getting families to postpone benefitting from the local Catholic community - (“wait just another 6 months, our situation with Rome will be clearer” - as years go by).

I believe the families inside the SSPX are a minute fraction of the families that simply fled the church permanently. I consider them fortunate, to have some semblance of the Mass and church community. There are those that didn’t wait, but simply fled. There are those that clung to God, Jesus, Mary and the saints but gave up on the church. Then there are the ones that did give up on God altogether. That’s the crisis. My entire family, extended, fled.
I heard growing up, that the devil runs religion. To balance that I have family who kept praying to the saints and Mary. Nobody wants to talk about this crisis. If you are “in” there is NO crisis, but if you have been out during the upheaval, there IS a crisis.

I read threads like this to try and get an understanding, of what happened, the few faithful like the SSPX weathering out the storm, did the FSSP find a safe island, should my family have abandoned the ship???

 

[Denise1957]

Well, the family has to weigh what’s available at the chapel, with what’s available through the much larger diocese, which has more bad things, and far, far more good things than the chapel. Children need all the things you mention. They also benefit from other kinds of Catholic activities and ministries that no one chapel or parish can offer - but a diocese can. Most nearby parishes fall short of what you describe. Some do offer it. You have to be selective.

The chapel can favor prolife, but my diocese is de facto the headquarters of the prolife/religious liberty active movement; headed, in effect, by our bishop. Adults may, perhaps, be able to handle an ambiguity - yes I am a faithful Catholic, know when and how much to “trust” the Church. For instance, this illicit is wrong, but that illicit is permissible given the crisis the Church is going through. Do you think children can really handle that inconsistency - given that “the crisis” has gone on for 40 years? Will the decision be clearer if we postpone joining the diocese until 2017? How will the family’s children know when it’s safe to rejoin the Church fully? When the “crisis” is over?

The reality is that “the crisis” will go on for the rest of their lives, it will never be “clearer” than today, as to whether to join the diocese, and the diocesan prolife, youth ministry, etc. BTW, where I live, the “crisis” of the Church is less and less internal, and more and more attack by the secular society around it.

I appreciate that you care very much about families. However, a typical SSPX chapel provides far more than just assurances of being prolife. The SSPX families are assured that their beloved Catholic devotions and TLM won’t be taken away from them at their SSPX chapel. They know what happened to the FFI (and Archbishop Lefebvre), and there is, I believe, a distrust based on real reasons. The SSPX offered a safe haven back when there were essentially none for a tradition-minded Catholic family.

I recall a story in a homily that the saintly SSPX priest (who baptized me) told us one Sunday. He recalled when an SSPX chapel first opened up in Minnesota, back in the 70’s, I think. He said that when Catholics first attended it, they were so starved for being able to practice real Catholic (and old-fashioned) devotions, that they went overboard at first, until they finally calmed down. These were faithful Catholics who just wanted to have a Latin Mass, complete with processions, statues in the sanctuary, communion at an altar rail, belief in the Real Presence, the blessing of religious objects, the Rosary said before Mass, the St. Michael prayer said after Mass, etc. The SSPX was the only option, at one time, for an old-fashioned Catholic life, which had sustained Catholics for many centuries and generations, until just after the Council. It’s also about more than the old-fashioned devotions. The Crisis plays a big part, in that there’s a reason (or reasons) why the devotions and TLM were taken away in the first place. The typical SSPX family is keenly aware of this.

I personally am not comfortable with attending a Mass which is not in communion with the diocese, and I’m just trying to see it from the SSPX point of view. They do risk losing it all if they reconcile. It’s not as if Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum can protect them from persecution or suppression.

 

[Denise1957]

I believe the families inside the SSPX are a minute fraction of the families that simply fled the church permanently. I consider them fortunate, to have some semblance of the Mass and church community. There are those that didn’t wait, but simply fled. There are those that clung to God, Jesus, Mary and the saints but gave up on the church. Then there are the ones that did give up on God altogether. That’s the crisis. My entire family, extended, fled.
I heard growing up, that the devil runs religion. To balance that I have family who kept praying to the saints and Mary. Nobody wants to talk about this crisis. If you are “in” there is NO crisis, but if you have been out during the upheaval, there IS a crisis.

I read threads like this to try and get an understanding, of what happened, the few faithful like the SSPX weathering out the storm, did the FSSP find a safe island, should my family have abandoned the ship???

Well said.

 

[Walking_Home]

I appreciate that you care very much about families. However, a typical SSPX chapel provides far more than just assurances of being prolife. The SSPX families are assured that their beloved Catholic devotions and TLM won’t be taken away from them at their SSPX chapel. They know what happened to the FFI (and Archbishop Lefebvre), and there is, I believe, a distrust based on real reasons. The SSPX offered a safe haven back when there were essentially none for a tradition-minded Catholic family.

I recall a story in a homily that the saintly SSPX priest (who baptized me) told us one Sunday. He recalled when an SSPX chapel first opened up in Minnesota, back in the 70’s, I think. He said that when Catholics first attended it, they were so starved for being able to practice real Catholic (and old-fashioned) devotions, that they went overboard at first, until they finally calmed down. These were faithful Catholics who just wanted to have a Latin Mass, complete with processions, statues in the sanctuary, communion at an altar rail, belief in the Real Presence, the blessing of religious objects, the Rosary said before Mass, the St. Michael prayer said after Mass, etc. The SSPX was the only option, at one time, for an old-fashioned Catholic life, which had sustained Catholics for many centuries and generations, until just after the Council. It’s also about more than the old-fashioned devotions. The Crisis plays a big part, in that there’s a reason (or reasons) why the devotions and TLM were taken away in the first place. The typical SSPX family is keenly aware of this.

I personally am not comfortable with attending a Mass which is not in communion with the diocese, and I’m just trying to see it from the SSPX point of view. They do risk losing it all if they reconcile. It’s not as if Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum can protect them from persecution or suppression.

---

This looks to be more of “Tradition” made into an “idol”. When a group of people – would rather follow illicitly consecrated Bishops/ordained priests under suspension – well that speaks that “Tradition” has been raised to the status of an being “idolized”.

 

[Denise1957]

---

This looks to be more of “Tradition” made into an “idol”. When a group of people – would rather follow illicitly consecrated Bishops/ordained priests under suspension – well that speaks that “Tradition” has been raised to the status of an being “idolized”.

I don’t understand how adhering to a Mass and traditions that were the norm in the Church for many centuries (until the 1960’s) can be considered as idolization.

 

[Tomdstone]

I don’t understand how adhering to a Mass and traditions that were the norm in the Church for many centuries (until the 1960’s) can be considered as idolization.

This is something that Protestants have been claiming.

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t understand how adhering to a Mass and traditions that were the norm in the Church for many centuries (until the 1960’s) can be considered as idolization.

---

When it leads one to follow illicit/suspended priests and Bishops – yea “Tradition” has taken on “idolization”.

 

[Denise1957]

---

When it leads one to follow illicit/suspended priests and Bishops – yea “Tradition” has taken on “idolization”.

Well, I disagree that it has to do with idolization. But you have a right to your opinion.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

When it leads one to follow illicit/suspended priests and Bishops – yea “Tradition” has taken on “idolization”.

Well, I disagree that it has to do with idolization. But you have a right to your opinion.

---

Disagree as you like – It is what it is.

 

[Casilda]

---

When it leads one to follow illicit/suspended priests and Bishops – yea “Tradition” has taken on “idolization”.

If I speak for my family alone, I speak for many, the sheep were scattered because they were not comfortable with the abuses, obviously you have grown accustomed to them. I am fortunate not to have been one of the innocents participating as a clown acolyte in 1984, at St. Agnes’ in Milwaukee.