Bishop Schneider backs the SSPX

[pnewton]

If that were true could you direct me to the nearest EF that is in communion with Rome?

Yes. Annunciation Catholic Church, off of Texas Ave. But I was addressing what was said about the Church taking away spiritual devotions, not which Mass form, language, time slots, etc. was deemed best by priests. If the poster meant to say that public devotions are not available enough, then I do not have an answer for someone who would leave over not being accommodated enough.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think calling this idolatry is too far, as it relies on a very general sense of the word, and such an inward motive is something God alone could know with any individual. It is like saying pride is what keeps the SSPX away. While it may be the motive in some people, it is still something known to God alone.

I am quite satisfied with viewing the whole situation as an objective act of rejecting authority, which is quite serious enough, and leave God to sort out the motives.

I think a lot of people can live with that analysis. Authority can be rejected and has been rejected in the past rightly. However, everyone rejecting authority believes that they have that one special circumstance that makes it ok. Rarely is that the case. I agree that God can sort, but I also have as much hope in reconciliation of the Traditionalists in the SSPX as I have fear of the Progressives at the synod. SO who knows what will happen. I just know that I believe the SSPX are needed INSIDE the Church. The Church needs them. And they need the Church! I also know that many fear that reality should it come to pass.

 

[pnewton]

Would we fault an abused for leaving the Church? Would God? Are we prepared to equate abuse of tradition with abuse of minor boys?

They are not equal. I am sorry if I was unclear. The are similar and have the points of comparison that I mentioned. Only that. All analogies and comparisons are of limited use and should never be viewed as more that evidence at best, or thought experiments. They prove nothing and never are to be taken too far.

And at what point does the Church’s actions necessitate one to follow their consciences right on out the door?

For me, never. My faith in God is understood as more than just my understanding of the Church. Like I said, authority comes first. I would first try and understand why I do not think like the Church, with an openness to the real probability that I am wrong.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

No, he doesn’t. He just talks about the practicality of canonical recognition. However, he is but one bishop, and his opinion is just his opinion, albeit a very sharp and educated one. I hate to put too much into a news story on an interview. They Church does not work through the media. Therefore, I will only say that his presentation of the two sides (the Holy See and the SSPX) as just two sides…

…misses the very important and all critical fact that the two are not equal, in number, authority, protection from error, and (only in my opinion) openness to the other. If we were to speak of a parent and a child getting grounded, would we say that both should have an equal say in what happens? Authority is of critical importance to the life of the Church. Without it, there is no definition of what is or is not traditional, doctrine or discipline. Whenever I talk to non-Catholics, authority is the first issue I address, as it is primary, a foundation, to all else.

I have often wondered about just one Bishop. The SSPX are forbidden from certain sacraments because they lack the authority of the local Ordinary. What if “just one Bishop” extended that Authority. One Bishop and the Vatican have ascertained that the SSPX are indeed Catholic (Argentina) So, what would happen if a Bishop just said, "I give the SSPX priest faculties in my diocese?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

For me, never. My faith in God is understood as more than just my understanding of the Church. Like I said, authority comes first. I would first try and understand why I do not think like the Church, with an openness to the real probability that I am wrong.

That is easy to say when you don’t think the CHurch is wrong or that it is even possible for it to be wrong insofar as you would reject it as the Truth. But what of those who had those issues who thought as you did, who did not just wake up one day and say," boom I’m outta here" But tried and tried hard to bend to the Mind of the Church but could not. Imagine if you will the Church condoning sodomy, or the Church advocating the damnation of people and the desecration of the Eucharist? Would you be out then? If the Church said that Jesus was wrong, that the Historical Church was wrong and that new things are correct? While, I hope and pray and even believe that cannot happen, I don’t like my faith tested like it is being tested in today’s world. And like Thomas, Doubt can creep in. It is why I can sympathize with those who have the mistaken (I hope) notion that the Church has been led away from it’s mission.

 

[pnewton]

I have often wondered about just one Bishop. The SSPX are forbidden from certain sacraments because they lack the authority of the local Ordinary. What if “just one Bishop” extended that Authority. One Bishop and the Vatican have ascertained that the SSPX are indeed Catholic (Argentina) So, what would happen if a Bishop just said, "I give the SSPX priest faculties in my diocese?

I would best (though that is a matter beyond me) that the priest would have facilities, and any issue with the bishop’s decision would be between him and the Holy Father.

 

[commenter]

I have often wondered about just one Bishop. The SSPX are forbidden from certain sacraments because they lack the authority of the local Ordinary. What if “just one Bishop” extended that Authority. One Bishop and the Vatican have ascertained that the SSPX are indeed Catholic (Argentina) So, what would happen if a Bishop just said, "I give the SSPX priest faculties in my diocese?

“Faculties” are a 2 way street.
I don’t believe there is currently blanket rejection of SSPX, nor will there be a blanket acceptance. To put it another way, when an SSPX priest applies for faculties, and/or incardination in a diocese, he is agreeing to go under the jurisdiction of the diocese - the current ordinary and his successors - (and/or he might choose to go through an existing recognized community such as FSSP). He would be interviewed, his background checked out. The diocese (and/or, possibly, a religious community if he is joining one) would make a decision on this particular man.

Some SSPX priests have chosen to do that. But they accept the jurisdiction of the ordinary or the religious superior - neither of whom are in SSPX.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

"

Some SSPX priests have chosen to do that. But they accept the jurisdiction of the ordinary or the religious superior - neither of whom are in SSPX.

Fascinating. So there are some SSPX priests and chapels where one could obtain baptism, Marriage etc licitly?

 

[commenter]

Fascinating. So there are some SSPX priests and chapels where one could obtain baptism, Marriage etc licitly?

No, the individual priests become now, either diocesan, or members of religious orders other than SSPX. They would no longer be under the jurisdiction of SSPX.

Chapels are owned or operated by SSPX. They would likely not permit anyone under the jurisdiction of a diocesan bishop to work there.

One question would be, could the SSPX be a recognized religious order? But a better question in my mind would be, are all the SSPX priests similar enough to make a blanket decree? I would guess no; that

Fr. A might be ready right now;
Fr. B might feel ready, but the bishop would say, not quite yet; or Fr. B might say that;
Fr. C might not want to come under the Church ever, at all, given his assessment of the Church today.

There are many other variables besides these. Individual priests, and families, have very different situations, which may change over time. “One size fits all” plans may not work.

So my suspicion is no blanket decree will ever happen. Individuals will come in, when (if) they feel ready.

 

[otjm]

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.

the sheep started scattering during the papcy of Pius 12th, and there was a gradual but fairly continual loss of people well into the 1990’s and beyond.

There is an urban myth that there was some sort of major exodus shortly after the release of the OF, but there is simply and absolutely no proof of it.

If you had family members leave the Church, it is easy to go from that to projecting it out across the United States, and the myth lives on - but the reality was and is different.

I am always struck by those who (supposedly) were so strong a Catholic during the EF, and all of a sudden, they fled the Church with the introduction of the OF.

So what I am being told is that (allegedly0 they had this deep understanding of the Eucharist, and all of a sudden they left it.

Somehow, that simply does not ring true - at all.

Baby boomers were part of the generation which went through the public sexual revolution of the 60’s and the 70’s; and subsequent generations lived in a society that in general - Catholic, Protestant and whatever, grew more and more hedonistic, more and more lax morally, and more and more secularized.

For more than 40 years, the SSPX have beaten the same drum with the same staccato beat; and the rest of the Church has moved on. They are a fringe element, denying basic elements of the Faith ( which is what the reconciliation with Rome really is about); they are isolated because they are so radical and they have far less impact than what they are credited for, and they are openly defiant of Rome. For more than 40 years, they have rejected any explanation of the differences they have over Vatican 2 documents, while the rest of the Church moves on.

It wasn’t that the sheep were scattered; it is that the sheep scattered. They made the choices, for a multitude of reasons, many of which they will not even admit, because that means examining one’s own conscience.

And I can speak from experience too; out of 11 cousins on my mother’s side, 6 left the Church; and each of those who left were in what we used to call a “mixed” marriage; they all married spouses who had a stronger faith then they did: 4 out of the six are males who had strong Protestant wives, and 2 women, one whose husband is a strong Lutheran, and one who married a Jewish guy outside the Church.

The crisis isn’t about the EF. Period. There are a number of people who either want the EF or attend the EF, who go around talking about a Crisis, and they talk about it enough that it becomes their reality. But post hoc, ergo propter hoc is still a logical fallacy.

 

[otjm]

I think it would be good to have SSPX as officially part of the Church. But would they be welcomed?

They will not be welcomed as long as they insist that some of the documents of Vatican 2 “break with Tradition”, which is simply a code word for saying the documents are heretical.

They will not be welcomed as long as they insist that Vatican 2 has to be overturned, or that we need another meeting of the Church to “undo” the documents.

They have in writing what is necessary to reconcile; the ball has been in their court and they have refused to pick it up.

And one of them has ordained a bishop, without Rome’s permission. And that is an issue the other three will be facing, as they are aging; unless they reconcile, they will have to either not ordain, which leaves the priests without a bishop, reconcile and seek permission to ordain a bishop (who, I suspect, would be vetted more thoroughly than someone trying to become an FBI agent), or go the same route - which means immediate excommunication.

 

[pianistclare]

the sheep started scattering during the papcy of Pius 12th, and there was a gradual but fairly continual loss of people well into the 1990’s and beyond.

There is an urban myth that there was some sort of major exodus shortly after the release of the OF, but there is simply and absolutely no proof of it.

If you had family members leave the Church, it is easy to go from that to projecting it out across the United States, and the myth lives on - but the reality was and is different.

I am always struck by those who (supposedly) were so strong a Catholic during the EF, and all of a sudden, they fled the Church with the introduction of the OF.

So what I am being told is that (allegedly0 they had this deep understanding of the Eucharist, and all of a sudden they left it.

Somehow, that simply does not ring true - at all.

Baby boomers were part of the generation which went through the public sexual revolution of the 60’s and the 70’s; and subsequent generations lived in a society that in general - Catholic, Protestant and whatever, grew more and more hedonistic, more and more lax morally, and more and more secularized.

For more than 40 years, the SSPX have beaten the same drum with the same staccato beat; and the rest of the Church has moved on. They are a fringe element, denying basic elements of the Faith ( which is what the reconciliation with Rome really is about); they are isolated because they are so radical and they have far less impact than what they are credited for, and they are openly defiant of Rome. For more than 40 years, they have rejected any explanation of the differences they have over Vatican 2 documents, while the rest of the Church moves on.

It wasn’t that the sheep were scattered; it is that the sheep scattered. They made the choices, for a multitude of reasons, many of which they will not even admit, because that means examining one’s own conscience.

And I can speak from experience too; out of 11 cousins on my mother’s side, 6 left the Church; and each of those who left were in what we used to call a “mixed” marriage; they all married spouses who had a stronger faith then they did: 4 out of the six are males who had strong Protestant wives, and 2 women, one whose husband is a strong Lutheran, and one who married a Jewish guy outside the Church.

The crisis isn’t about the EF. Period. There are a number of people who either want the EF or attend the EF, who go around talking about a Crisis, and they talk about it enough that it becomes their reality. But post hoc, ergo propter hoc is still a logical fallacy.

Well stated.

 

[commenter]

**They will not be welcomed **as long as they insist that some of the documents of Vatican 2 “break with Tradition”, which is simply a code word for saying the documents are heretical.

They will not be welcomed as long as they insist that Vatican 2 has to be overturned, or that we need another meeting of the Church to “undo” the documents.

They have in writing what is necessary to reconcile; the ball has been in their court and they have refused to pick it up.

If our message is “They will not be welcomed”, their response will be “We will not come”.

We are talking about 2 different things:

1. the SSPX organization; and –

2)the individual priests and families attached to SSPX.

The organization will likely never come in. They keep predicting imminent progress towards that goal, to get people to remain in the organization, and its websites.
By now they have too much momentum as an independent organization, they have their own ways. Unlike 1980, few leaders or seminary professors have served in the Church for much, if any amount of time. It is unintentionally becoming a separate denomination.

But families, and perhaps some individual priests, are in a different situation. Most regard themselves as still part of the Catholic Church, and the SSPX is just a temporary means to an end, not an end in itself. The Church is trying hard - sometimes too hard - to accommodate people with very liberal views. I’m sure many people in SSPX accept more of the actual Vatican II documents than my liberal relatives, who have moved beyond them.

When people criticize SSPX, that causes families to hold on, more tightly, to the organization itself. The websites can boast, “See, we told you they hate us. Don’t go to Rome until we tell you it is safe”. A better idea is to encourage your diocese to expand the TLM, to allow more opportunities - like a TLM parish - where traditional Catholics will feel at home; and to bring in their much needed gifts.

People keep arguing about what happened, or should have happened in the 1960s and 1970s, but that argument helps people postpone a beneficial move for their family.

 

[ProVobis]

… “break with Tradition”, which is simply a code word for saying the documents are heretical.

Not necessarily. Popes and several bishops, including your own, have spoken against the “rupture of continuity” that has been created since the council. The rupture is not a trademark of the FSSPX, nor of the FSSP or any of diocesan priests who celebrate the EF, for that matter.

If you want to argue this rupture started long before the council, I will not disagree with you there.

 

[Denise1957]

Not necessarily. Popes and several bishops, including your own, have spoken against the “rupture of continuity” that has been created since the council. The rupture is not a trademark of the FSSPX, nor of the FSSP or any of diocesan priests who celebrate the EF, for that matter.

If you want to argue this rupture started long before the council, I will not disagree with you there.

 

[pianistclare]

And of course, is kept alive and well.

 

[ProVobis]

And of course, is kept alive and well.

By no other than Pope Francis himself.

aleteia.org/en/religion/article/non-shocker-pope-francis-endorses-benedicts-hermeneutic-of-continuity-twice-18874001

 

[otjm]

If our message is “They will not be welcomed”, their response will be “We will not come”.

We are talking about 2 different things:

1. the SSPX organization; and –

2)the individual priests and families attached to SSPX.

The organization will likely never come in. They keep predicting imminent progress towards that goal, to get people to remain in the organization, and its websites.
By now they have too much momentum as an independent organization, they have their own ways. Unlike 1980, few leaders or seminary professors have served in the Church for much, if any amount of time. It is unintentionally becoming a separate denomination.

But families, and perhaps some individual priests, are in a different situation. Most regard themselves as still part of the Catholic Church, and the SSPX is just a temporary means to an end, not an end in itself. The Church is trying hard - sometimes too hard - to accommodate people with very liberal views. I’m sure many people in SSPX accept more of the actual Vatican II documents than my liberal relatives, who have moved beyond them.

When people criticize SSPX, that causes families to hold on, more tightly, to the organization itself. The websites can boast, “See, we told you they hate us. Don’t go to Rome until we tell you it is safe”. A better idea is to encourage your diocese to expand the TLM, to allow more opportunities - like a TLM parish - where traditional Catholics will feel at home; and to bring in their much needed gifts.

People keep arguing about what happened, or should have happened in the 1960s and 1970s, but that argument helps people postpone a beneficial move for their family.

I did not say “they will not be welcomed”; I said “they will not be welcomed if”.
The “if” is that they will revise their position (if revise is even near correct) that the documents of Vatican 2 are consistent with prior theology. Their position that the Church committed heresy - which is the substance of their position, in major part - is what is preventing them from being regularized.

The Church has been trying to welcome the SSPX - the bishops, and through them, the priests - for over 40 years. Anyone who says that the Church is not welcoming in essence does not want to be welcomed.

and anyone who says to the Church - directly or in effect - that “I will not come in until you change X, y, & Z” is telling the Church how to be Church; and indirectly, often telling Christ the same thing.

Go back to the younger son who demanded his inheritance, and look at the older son. The older son “did all the right things” and in essence, demanded that his father have nothing to do with the younger son.

There are a whole lot of people who don’t get the totality of that scene.

I agree with you that the likelihood of any wholesale, or even large reconciliation is somewhere between slim and none, none being the more likely position. That is sad, just as it is sad that others have become cafeteria Catholics on the liberal end.

And ultimately, each and every one of us - liberal, conservative, extreme ends of the spectrum or in the middle, are going to be judged. We all are given ample room to make our stance; we will then be judged on it; including how responsible we may actually have been and what impediments, to full understanding of our choices we may have had. Or not had.
Given the splintering which has occurred already, and appears to be continuing, slim and none looks closer to none. And that is sad; but it is also reality.

It amuses me to no end when I see someone say “They were only a signature away”. No, the signature was only that they would agree to a process and a massive change in position. The bishop was right in not signing, as subsequent history has shown that even as 4 (now 3) bishops, those 4 were not on the same page as to reconciling. and that doesn’t even begin to address all the priests under them.

 

[ProVobis]

The Church has been trying to welcome the SSPX - the bishops, and through them, the priests - for over 40 years. Anyone who says that the Church is not welcoming in essence does not want to be welcomed.

That could very well be. However, I’m not saying this is happening but welcoming them is a lot different than welcoming a philosophy which is diametrically opposed. Sure, I can say my local parish welcomes me by inviting me to participate on its liturgical committee but where’s the sincerity in that if my preference is the EF?

 

[otjm]

Not necessarily. Popes and several bishops, including your own, have spoken against the “rupture of continuity” that has been created since the council. The rupture is not a trademark of the FSSPX, nor of the FSSP or any of diocesan priests who celebrate the EF, for that matter.

If you want to argue this rupture started long before the council, I will not disagree with you there.

You hit upon a salient point.

It is beyond simplistic to label it all Modernism, as Modernism at its heart is atheism disguised. Most of what went on after Vatican 2 had a lot more to do with the cultural changes going on in Europe and North America. In part, it was a reaction to what was widely seen as oppressive authoritarianism, both in the secular world and the Church. Looking at the movements that sprang up in society, including the rash of (IMHO brainless) theories in some areas of psychology, as well as politics, and the downward spiral of sexual morality all had an impact not only on those sitting in the pews, but also in the priesthood. Experimentation became the mind set; all the “old” was going to be thrown off and the “new” was the exciting adventure. Academia had its share of blame.

People prefer to take shortcuts. That is nothing new in history; it is part of the human reaction to just about anything. A tremendous number of people never actually read the documents of Vatican 2; but they talked with one another; met in groups, followed the newest “guru” and took mental and emotional shortcuts rather than doing the hard work.

Those who blame the documents are beyond narrow sighted, as they only look at Western Europe and North America as exemplifying how the documents “shook up the Church”. I would posit that a tremendous amount of the rupture was driven by culture and a combination of economic and political freedom.

Why? Look at Poland. The Church there was under siege from the Communists. And yet a “progressive” came back from the Vatican 2 meetings, and proceeded to lead the clergy, and through them, the laity, to a much more effective and far faster actual implementation of the documents. People are rapid to blame the “progressives” of Vatican 2 for the chaos; but a leading “progressive” lead a country in a way that avoided all of the chaos.

The milieu in Poland was vastly different in almost all aspects, as compared to Europe and North America. We had freedoms Poles only could dream of; but, I would submit, we abused those freedoms, both secular and religious, to no end. The Poles had no such “luxury”.

Secularism, hedonism, and all the other “isms” afoot in the 60’s, 70’s and beyond, had far, far more to do with how members of the clergy, and the laity, reacted to Vatican 2, and in particular as a supposed indicator of Church direction (absent any reading of the actual documents), than did the actual documents, the thought and impetus that lead to the calling of the Council, and the desires of the Church Fathers - bishops and Cardinals and the Pope.

John 23rd, and Paul 6th had no intention of reinventing the Church. However, a large number of clergy and behind them, laity, did decide, absent any questions, that those two Popes and the bishops of the world did. Any reading would indicate that those societies were inventing something out of whole cloth.

And thus we get a reaction, about as mindless as the reaction of the pseudo progressives in Europe and North America, to overthrow Vatican 2.

Neither side has the common sense to come in out of the rain, let alone slow down and actually see what the 2 Popes and the bishops of the world were trying to accomplish.