Bishop Schneider backs the SSPX

[Denise1957]

If this is true, and I do not know if it is, then what would this say about the SSPX? If full integration into the Body of Christ, that is, Jesus’ body as expressed in the Holy Catholic Church would crush them, are they really much different than the rest of the Christian world that is no in communion with the Catholic Church? Again, I do not accept they would be crushed. Only that if the authority that Jesus (the Divine Creator of all) established crushes them, is that bad?

That is why, if this is true, I would rather see as many as possible save out of the SSPX, if the organization continues as it has since its establishment.

If you do not want to accept that that will be crushed, that’s okay. It’s just my opinion, based on what happened to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata. They were suppressed in their former status and completely reorganized. The traditional element was what was suppressed, along with the ability to celebrate the TLM. The founder, Fr. Stephen Manelli, was confined to quarters (and still is, I think), and not allowed even to see his family. Interestingly, it was St. Padre Pio, a close friend and mentor of Fr. Manelli (and the Manelli family), who encouraged Fr. Manelli to start a Franciscan Order. It took Fr. Manelli quite a while to get it started, as it was started after St. Padre Pio’s death.

It’s my opinion that what happened to FFI will happen to the SSPX, if they reconcile. However, if they do reconcile, and they “behave” and are meek and quiet and never say anything that might worry the Progressives, then they might possibly be allowed to co-exist. But then again, maybe not.

 

[Denise1957]

There are all sorts of less noble reasons one may want to form the Church in one’s own ideal image.

Indeed, there are. The Progressives in the Church, for example, are very good at it, and there are far more of them than there are those who are members of, or affiliated with, the SSPX. FAR more.

 

[commenter]

If you do not want to accept that that will be crushed, that’s okay. It’s just my opinion, based on what happened to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata. They were suppressed in their former status and completely reorganized. The traditional element was what was suppressed, along with the ability to celebrate the TLM. …
It’s my opinion that what happened to FFI will happen to the SSPX, if they reconcile. However, if they do reconcile, and they “behave” and are meek and quiet and never say anything that might worry the Progressives, then they might possibly be allowed to co-exist. But then again, maybe not.

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 may quote Bishop Schneider, they do consider him validly ordained, but do not consider him a valid ordinary. My diocese had a very liberal bishop for many years, but we have now a very traditional bishop, actively leading the campaign for prolife and religious liberty; but the local SSPX attitude to the diocese is the same as ever. The SSPX chapel and families don’t directly benefit from the new bishop’s ministry, his apostolic authority. There are many kinds of local supports for children and parents, many opportunities for ministry and participation in regional prolife that SSPX families are missing out on.

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).

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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 may quote Bishop Schneider, they do consider him validly ordained, but do not consider him a valid ordinary. My diocese had a very liberal bishop for many years, but we have now a very traditional bishop, actively leading the campaign for prolife and religious liberty; but the local SSPX attitude to the diocese is the same as ever. The SSPX chapel and families don’t directly benefit from the new bishop’s ministry, his apostolic authority. There are many kinds of local supports for children and parents, many opportunities for ministry and participation in regional prolife that SSPX families are missing out on.

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).

This is one of the better points I have ever heard about the SSPX. You made this point without obvious bias and malice. You did so expressing sheer concern for families attending the SSPX. You did it without appearing to judge them or the SSPX but with genuine concern. It may not be the biggest point to be made in the discussion but I must tell you I appreciate the way you expressed this. I am an SSPX “sympathizer” I guess you could say. But this was a very good point and good post.

Thank you.

 

[Denise1957]

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 may quote Bishop Schneider, they do consider him validly ordained, but do not consider him a valid ordinary. My diocese had a very liberal bishop for many years, but we have now a very traditional bishop, actively leading the campaign for prolife and religious liberty; but the local SSPX attitude to the diocese is the same as ever. The SSPX chapel and families don’t directly benefit from the new bishop’s ministry, his apostolic authority. There are many kinds of local supports for children and parents, many opportunities for ministry and participation in regional prolife that SSPX families are missing out on.

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).

The situation of the SSPX does not lend itself to a “normal” sort of Catholic life for families, that’s true. But then, I see it as a direct result of the Crisis in the Church more than anything. If there had not been severe changes and upheavels in the Church since the 1960’s, including an extreme change in the Mass, then there might not be a crisis, and we could all have a fairly normal Catholic life. But that’s just not the reality.

I think we’ll see how deep the Crisis in the Church really goes in the upcoming Synod on the Family. It might be easy to deny its existence (the Crisis), but not for long.

 

[Denise1957]

The SSPX may quote Bishop Schneider, they do consider him validly ordained, but do not consider him a valid ordinary.

The SSPX leadership do consider the hierarchy to be valid, as even Bp. Schneider mentioned that they pray for the Pope and for the local ordinary in their Masses. As to Bp. Schneider, since he is an auxialliary bishop, he does not have ordinary jurisdiction over a see, and therefore is not an ordinary, as far as I know.

 

[Lormar]

Denise, with all due respect, I think you are being melodramatic regarding the SSPX being “crushed” should they return to the Church.

Comparing them to the FFI isn’t good either. The founding of the FFI and that of the SSPX were two entirely different matters. The FFI wasn’t founded to be what they eventually became. The SSPX were.

Bishop Fellay isn’t a fool. He knows exactly what he is doing, and why he is doing it. If the laity that attends the SSPX chapels don’t want to follow him in returning to the Church, they have other options.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

This is an interesting topic.

We had a recent incident in the Chicago area that involved fixing a heating system inside an old church building that catered to the many (250 daily) homeless on the west side of the city. It is run by a group of nuns which aren’t exactly in communion with the Pope or the archdiocese. They needed the money and went on TV to explain their situation. People were asking why the archdiocese wasn’t helping them out. The fact is they couldn’t but they didn’t say it. The archdiocese is heavily in debt and not having much money coming in. So through the help of gofundme they were not only able to fix the heating system but now have additional funds coming in to help the needy.

Interestingly enough, a neighboring Catholic parish, realizing the seriousness of the situation, managed to come up with $10,000 to help the “schismatic” nuns. Good for them. What’s more important these days anyway?

 

[Denise1957]

Denise, with all due respect, I think you are being melodramatic regarding the SSPX being “crushed” should they return to the Church.

Comparing them to the FFI isn’t good either. The founding of the FFI and that of the SSPX were two entirely different matters. The FFI wasn’t founded to be what they eventually became. The SSPX were.

Bishop Fellay isn’t a fool. He knows exactly what he is doing, and why he is doing it. If the laity that attends the SSPX chapels don’t want to follow him in returning to the Church, they have other options.

Yes, I am aware of the differences between the situation with the FFI and the SSPX. I’ve studied both in depth, and don’t arrive at my conclusions lightly.

 

[Lormar]

Yes, I am aware of the differences between the situation with the FFI and the SSPX. I’ve studied both in depth, and don’t arrive at my conclusions lightly.

Oh.

 

[ProVobis]

If the laity that attends the SSPX chapels don’t want to follow him in returning to the Church, they have other options.

Some of them have, and some go to both diocesan Masses as well as the SSPX Masses. Tomorrow I suspect they’ll get a bump in attendance as Assumption Masses on a Saturday aren’t that plentiful in the diocese.

 

[commenter]

This is one of the better points I have ever heard about the SSPX. You made this point without obvious bias and malice. You did so expressing sheer concern for families attending the SSPX. You did it without appearing to judge them or the SSPX but with genuine concern. It may not be the biggest point to be made in the discussion but I must tell you I appreciate the way you expressed this. I am an SSPX “sympathizer” I guess you could say. But this was a very good point and good post.

Thank you.

Thank you for your kind feedback.

 

[pnewton]

Indeed, there are. The Progressives in the Church, for example, are very good at it, and there are far more of them than there are those who are members of, or affiliated with, the SSPX. FAR more.

If I understand how you are using that word “Progressives”, then I would note that there are a handful, much smaller than the SSPX, that have progressed themselves out of the Church. Their influence is virtually non-existent as a result. Those that are progressive, but stay within the limits of theology and church authority, will by that position, be of greater influence than the SSPX. I just do not get the SSPX’s reasoning of continuing as they are. I get how AB Lefebvre reasoned a need to protect the Traditional Mass. However, that was then. It would seem that so much more could be accomplished through a position in the Catholic Church. It almost seems like there is an inertia to remaining this “remnant”.

 

[Denise1957]

If I understand how you are using that word “Progressives”, then I would note that there are a handful, much smaller than the SSPX, that have progressed themselves out of the Church. Their influence is virtually non-existent as a result. Those that are progressive, but stay within the limits of theology and church authority, will by that position, be of greater influence than the SSPX. I just do not get the SSPX’s reasoning of continuing as they are. I get how AB Lefebvre reasoned a need to protect the Traditional Mass. However, that was then. It would seem that so much more could be accomplished through a position in the Catholic Church. It almost seems like there is an inertia to remaining this “remnant”.

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.

 

[ProVobis]

If I understand how you are using that word “Progressives”, then I would note that there are a handful, much smaller than the SSPX, that have progressed themselves out of the Church.Their influence is virtually non-existent as a result.

Yet, there are constant reminders by the news media that many if not most Catholics favor women priests, ABC, etc. IOW, those things which are condemned by the Church. Many of them, however, still go to Church and communion. I think it’s deceiving oneself to say their (those who have “progressed themselves out of the Church”) influence is virtually non-existent.

 

[commenter]

Yet, there are constant reminders by the news media that many if not most Catholics favor women priests, ABC, etc. IOW, those things which are condemned by the Church. Many of them, however, still go to Church and communion. I think it’s deceiving oneself to say their (those who have “progressed themselves out of the Church”) influence is virtually non-existent.

I am one of those people who think there is a “crisis” in the Church, a “sit-in scism” by many groups, most of whom identify as “progressive”. They dominate many religious orders, especially women, “Catholic” colleges, and strongly influence much of religious education. This problem - hostility to the Magisterium - is much bigger than the ultra-traditionalists. It is mostly from Catholics formed by the secular media.

But, I also think “ultra-traditionalists” are also influenced by the secular culture, which so much despises the LIVING magisterium. The media doesn’t care why you are skeptical about your bishop or the Vatican, as long as they get you to be skeptical. It doesn’t matter if progressive skeptics are more numerous or more powerful than conservative groups skeptical of the LIVING magisterium. The bad effect of skepticism on the family is the same. The bad effect on a person, of you remaining in an isolated skeptical group is not lessened by the fact that progressive skeptical groups may be larger and more powerful.

The fact that the National Catholic Reporter, LCWR, secularized “Catholic” colleges, Call to Action, and 100 similar groups exist, does not make it beneficial for this specific family to remain outside the flow of mostly good parish and diocesan ministries and supports.

 

[ProVobis]

The fact that the National Catholic Reporter, LCWR, secularized “Catholic” colleges, Call to Action, and 100 similar groups exist, does not make it beneficial for this specific family to remain outside the flow of mostly good parish and diocesan ministries and supports.

Okay, but unfortunately even the best of parishes can’t overcome any attachments to these groups in the past. And I agree with you about hundred or so being out there, some even being seen as very benign and sincere. But that works both ways.

 

[Denise1957]

I am one of those people who think there is a “crisis” in the Church, a “sit-in scism” by many groups, most of whom identify as “progressive”. They dominate many religious orders, especially women, “Catholic” colleges, and strongly influence much of religious education. This problem - hostility to the Magisterium - is much bigger than the ultra-traditionalists. It is mostly from Catholics formed by the secular media.

But, I also think “ultra-traditionalists” are also influenced by the secular culture, which so much despises the LIVING magisterium. The media doesn’t care why you are skeptical about your bishop or the Vatican, as long as they get you to be skeptical. It doesn’t matter if progressive skeptics are more numerous or more powerful than conservative groups skeptical of the LIVING magisterium. The bad effect of skepticism on the family is the same. The bad effect on a person, of you remaining in an isolated skeptical group is not lessened by the fact that progressive skeptical groups may be larger and more powerful.

The fact that the National Catholic Reporter, LCWR, secularized “Catholic” colleges, Call to Action, and 100 similar groups exist, does not make it beneficial for this specific family to remain outside the flow of mostly good parish and diocesan ministries and supports.

I understand and sympathize with your point of view, and you’re right about a lot of things. In your last paragraph above, you mention that it is not beneficial for this family to remain outside the flow of mostly good ministries and supports.

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? Will there be a lot of large families in all of these parishes with whom they can relate? Will First Fridays and Saturdays be offered? Confession on Sunday before Mass? Sound and proper Catholic teaching from the pulpit? Will there be support from the priest and others in the parish for dressing modestly? Will there be encouragement to attend confession frequently? Will the TLM be offered in a nearby parish, without having to drive very far? These are just some of the questions that would relate to a traditional (SSPX) family attending a diocesan parish.

 

[commenter]

I understand and sympathize with your point of view, and you’re right about a lot of things. In your last paragraph above, you mention that it is not beneficial for this family to remain outside the flow of mostly good ministries and supports.

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? Will there be a lot of large families in all of these parishes with whom they can relate? Will First Fridays and Saturdays be offered? Confession on Sunday before Mass? Sound and proper Catholic teaching from the pulpit? Will there be support from the priest and others in the parish for dressing modestly? Will there be encouragement to attend confession frequently? Will the TLM be offered in a nearby parish, without having to drive very far? These are just some of the questions that would relate to a traditional (SSPX) family attending a diocesan parish.

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.

 

[pnewton]

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?
.

Yes, there is always some crisis. No, I do not think our current crisis is worse than others. Yes, I am aware of what happened at the synod and am unconcerned with liberal theology. It has always been a part of the Catholic Church hand in hand and step in step with tradition, since the first innovation of evangelizing Gentiles. That too was accompanied by both those that saw a new direction and the traditionalists. The Church has only grown in doctrine because of those that were willing to think beyond the current status. The Church has only kept its orthodoxy because of those that refused to contradict tradition.

The ones I am talking about progressing themselves out of the Church are those who have ordained women priests and been excommunicated. If you note, and actually read what I typed, I said it was a handful that have done this. No, I do not agree for one minute that there are many Catholics, and even less clergy, that believe in women priests.

I believe that ABC is a different issue. It remains for the same reason that gossip, lying, and pretty much the whole gamut of sexual sin remain, namely, sin is easy and people tend to justify their sin. Just look and the political discussions and see how greed and selfishness is often justified, contrary to the Catholic Church.

The point remains, though, that the SSPX have removed themselves from ministry in the Church, and therefore relevancy. They could choose to be a factor within the Church, but they would have to accept the authority of the Church to do this effectively.