Bishop Schneider backs the SSPX

[TMC]

Most of the discussion on this thread, and the discussion of SSPX generally, focuses on the EF versus the OF. But I don’t think that is really the issue for the SSPX. It seems to me that the SSPX refuses to be reconciled because of theological disagreements, particularly EENS, ecumenism, nostra aetate and some others. The availability or popularity of the EF may be important to many SSPX laity, but it has little or nothing to do with the SSPX’s continuing disobedience/estrangement.

 

[ProVobis]

The practicality of the “protocol” is harmed when one must go against a Bishop’s wishes. Lawyer or not, there are not many priests who want to do that.

Here, however, the deck is stacked in favor of the bishops, who ordain priests, one can argue, who fit the “mold” of the diocese. If one in priestly formation doesn’t fit, he will likely pursue another seminary in another diocese.

 

[ProVobis]

Several years ago or more, there was a group in the Midwest who had had it up to here with abuses in the Mass which were more than simply minor fluff.

It is good that they pursued a remedy, but I believe it was you who pointed out that most people will put up with all the abuses in the liturgy as long as they make it convenient for them to attend, or in some cases, like Holy Days or vacations, not attend at all. I apologize if this wasn’t you.

 

[Denise1957]

Most of the discussion on this thread, and the discussion of SSPX generally, focuses on the EF versus the OF. But I don’t think that is really the issue for the SSPX. It seems to me that the SSPX refuses to be reconciled because of theological disagreements, particularly EENS, ecumenism, nostra aetate and some others. The availability or popularity of the EF may be important to many SSPX laity, but it has little or nothing to do with the SSPX’s continuing disobedience/estrangement.

The Old Mass is only part of the issue for the SSPX, you’re right about that. It’s probably the main issue, but not the only one, for sure. Yes, there are theological disagreements about the Vll documents regarding what you mentioned above. It’s a bit difficult to discuss them without the topic becoming heated. I think that Bp. Athansius Schneider may have mentioned something about this in the interview (which this thread is based on), but I can’t recall the specifics just now.

 

[commenter]

Most of the discussion on this thread, and the discussion of SSPX generally, focuses on the EF versus the OF. But I don’t think that is really the issue for the SSPX. It seems to me that the SSPX refuses to be reconciled because of theological disagreements, particularly EENS, ecumenism, nostra aetate and some others. The availability or popularity of the EF may be important to many SSPX laity, but it has little or nothing to do with the SSPX’s continuing disobedience/estrangement.

I agree.
In my diocese the SSPX began when there was no TLM Mass offered. Now, the diocese has TLMs in 2 parishes at different times, both located near the current SSPX chapel. The problem is organizations started mainly for one purpose build up a momentum, and keep finding new reasons to keep going, as a separate organization. Even if the Vatican offered to meet the SSPX requests for A, B, and C, the SSPX would scamble and identify a new requirement “D”.

But the leaders never say “We know there is little likelihood of reunion with Rome in the next 40 years”. People won’t wait 40 years. Instead, they keep projecting benchmarks in the **near **future.

In 2018, there will likely be a synod coming up (“let’s wait 6 months, see what happens”)
In 2021 there will no doubt be hopes raised by an interview with a bishop (there are over 2000 of them, remember, so in any year, you can always find something), “so let’s be patient, don’t do anything yet, if we surrender now we will give up all we have worked for”. In 2024 there will be talks pending with the Vatican later that year, “we have to stay united, we have friends but also powerful enemies in Rome, don’t go over to Rome on your own now there are no safeguards, let’s see how this new crisis, or opportunity, plays out”.

People keep repeating that, supposedly, reunion was just a stoke-of-a-pen away at some point in the past; whether that is true or not, repeating it helps keep people on board in 2015, just a little longer. Every year websites raise people’s hopes about something positive happening soon, but also about some new reason to be paranoid about powerful cardinals, in dark rooms, (who apparently have lots of time on their hands) to plot how to destroy (crush, eviscerate, etc) the SSPX.

They will always find a reason to justify the organization. What about people in the meantime, raising families and making plans for their lives?

 

[Denise1957]

I think that if Archbishop Lefebvre hadn’t been asked to be on the preparatory commission for the Vll Council, and if he hadn’t been one of the Council Fathers who were intimately involved in Council proceedings, perhaps he would not have seen the situation firsthand, and also would not have arrived at the conclusion that the Church had changed her teachings, via the Council documents, and then in practice after the Council. He had hoped that the ambiguous statements, lending toward going against the traditional teachings of the Church, would be read and implemented in the light of Tradition, but that didn’t happen, and it hasn’t happened. That’s the main reason, I think, why the SSPX hasn’t reconciled, and why they probably won’t do so.

Bp. Schneider has also stated in the past that he would hope that Rome would issue a clear and definitive clarification of just what the problematic and intentionally ambiguous statements (in the Vll documents) are intended to mean, but that hasn’t happened, either

 

[Lormar]

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.

You are so right on.

Never say “I will never” since only the grace of God is sustaining you as it is. You aren’t standing tall on your own strength and because of your own perceived great faith. Everything you have that is enabling you to stay put is a gift.

I walked right out the door of the Church a few months ago. After decades of trying, I can no longer reconcile the Church I once knew with the Church that is. I’m burned out completely. Never did I ever think I would ever sit home on Sundays. If the Church isn’t it, none of them are. And the SSPX - in their present irregular status - isn’t the answer either.

 

[ProVobis]

In my diocese the SSPX began when there was no TLM Mass offered. Now, the diocese has TLMs in 2 parishes at different times, both located near the current SSPX chapel. The problem is organizations started mainly for one purpose build up a momentum, and keep finding new reasons to keep going, as a separate organization. Even if the Vatican offered to meet the SSPX requests for A, B, and C, the SSPX would scamble and identify a new requirement “D”.

But the leaders never say “We know there is little likelihood of reunion with Rome in the next 40 years”. People won’t wait 40 years. Instead, they keep projecting benchmarks in the **near **future.

In 2018, there will likely be a synod coming up (“let’s wait 6 months, see what happens”)
In 2021 there will no doubt be hopes raised by an interview with a bishop (there are over 2000 of them, remember, so in any year, you can always find something), “so let’s be patient, don’t do anything yet, if we surrender now we will give up all we have worked for”. In 2024 there will be talks pending with the Vatican later that year, “we have to stay united, we have friends but also powerful enemies in Rome, don’t go over to Rome on your own now there are no safeguards, let’s see how this new crisis, or opportunity, plays out”.

People keep repeating that, supposedly, reunion was just a stoke-of-a-pen away at some point in the past; whether that is true or not, repeating it helps keep people on board in 2015, just a little longer. Every year websites raise people’s hopes about something positive happening soon, but also about some new reason to be paranoid about powerful cardinals, in dark rooms, (who apparently have lots of time on their hands) to plot how to destroy (crush, eviscerate, etc) the SSPX.

They will always find a reason to justify the organization. What about people in the meantime, raising families and making plans for their lives?

I agree with most of what you say. You seem to be most aware of the circumstances involved. I suppose much of what happened (reneging on the signed contract, etc.) might have been in the original plan, maybe not. They did invest in those chapels, as well as nursing homes, schools, etc. And here we are in the next generation where they feel they need to protect those assets perhaps. Perhaps they don’t even know who their founder was or the principles involved. There seems to be no urgency in trying to fully unite with the church, except with the occasional attendee, and that might be the bigger problem.

 

[commenter]

You are so right on.

Never say “I will never” since only the grace of God is sustaining you as it is. You aren’t standing tall on your own strength and because of your own perceived great faith. Everything you have that is enabling you to stay put is a gift.

I walked right out the door of the Church a few months ago. After decades of trying, I can no longer reconcile the Church I once knew with the Church that is. I’m burned out completely. Never did I ever think I would ever sit home on Sundays. If the Church isn’t it, none of them are. And the SSPX - in their present irregular status - isn’t the answer either.

Prayer offered, and requested (for you, me, and anyone else on the thread).

We ALL are going through some discouraging times in general, with the secularists showing their teeth, with so many Catholics and Protestants blase about the wolf at the door, with half hearted responses or ambiguity from many clergy; and realization of how far we, ourselves, sometimes are from the saints we should be. I know I spend too much time on internet rants, rather than in prayer. Keep focusing on the virtue of Hope, the most neglected virtue in an era of instant gratification, and despair.

When we keep turning to God, even when it is most discouraging, that’s a powerful prayer in itself.

 

[commenter]

I think that if Archbishop Lefebvre hadn’t been asked to be on the preparatory commission for the Vll Council, and if he hadn’t been one of the Council Fathers who were intimately involved in Council proceedings, perhaps he would not have seen the situation firsthand, and also would not have arrived at the conclusion that the Church had changed her teachings, via the Council documents, and then in practice after the Council. He had hoped that the ambiguous statements, lending toward going against the traditional teachings of the Church, would be read and implemented in the light of Tradition, but that didn’t happen, and it hasn’t happened. That’s the main reason, I think, why the SSPX hasn’t reconciled, and why they probably won’t do so.

Bp. Schneider has also stated in the past that he would hope that Rome would issue a clear and definitive clarification of just what the problematic and intentionally ambiguous statements (in the Vll documents) are intended to mean, but that hasn’t happened, either

1. VII has been clarified for 50 years. As time goes on popes or other officials will continue to comment on certain aspects.
2. In our lifetime and long after, VII on the whole will never be clearer than it is today.
3. Good people will continue to draw guidance for positive things. Bad people will continue to misuse it (this seems to be decreasing, but will never stop. The Earth is salted with those people). No “clarification” will end misuse of VII.
4. Those who keep focusing only on VII tend to discount or ignore the tremendous spiritual teaching of JPII, and other recent popes. The SSPX didn’t intend to ignore JPII or Benedict, but the overall climate of skepticism towards Rome contributed to ignoring the popes. Popes in recent years are addressing problems not envisioned during VII.
   VII gets blamed, and credited, for way too much.
5. Those who keep saying “wait for THE CLARIFICATION” are offering one more reason for families or clergy to postpone coming over to Rome.

 

[pnewton]

There is only one NFP teaching couple in my entire diocese. They have no current students. So, using this critique of the statistics are we saying that NFP should not be offered as a Catholic way of life?

It is evidence that many are not interested in NFP. If the current balance of the two forms of Mass is not terribly lop-sided, as all evidence presents, then I would ask for evidence that what has been presented is false. Yes, statistics are nothing but a small sliver of evidence, but cumulative, they do have weight. So, other than unreasonable speculation, is there any evidence in existence any where that the preference of Mass is more equal?

 

[pnewton]

Not necessarily. Popes and several bishops, including your own, have spoken against the “rupture of continuity” that has been created since the council.

I think the key is that this “rupture” where it occurs happened after the Council (and before), not in the Council or because of the Council. From what I read at the start of the Council, it seems like this rupture, or more precisely the philosophies behind it, were the cause of the Council, the perceived need, if you will. I think the most one can say is that the documents did not change the priests and bishops that needed it. Innovators gotta innovate, to paraphrase a popular saying, before, during and after the Vatican II.

I do see the response to this issue from the SSPX to be most unhelpful though. Think of the loss to the Church if leaders like Cardinal Burke, Bishop Bruskewitz, AB Chaput, just to name a few, broke with the Church because of the prevalence of this liberal heterodoxy. Their vital ministry would not exist.

 

[Lormar]

I do see the response to this issue from the SSPX to be most unhelpful though. Think of the loss to the Church if leaders like Cardinal Burke, Bishop Bruskewitz, AB Chaput, just to name a few, broke with the Church because of the prevalence of this liberal heterodoxy. Their vital ministry would not exist.

You are right. It wasn’t helpful to anyone, especially the Church. And this is one of the reasons why I am one of those who do not hold Archbishop Lefebvre in high regard.

The liberals were wise enough to know that separated from the Church they could affect no change, so they stayed and worked quietly (and often not so quietly) for decades within.

 

[Denise1957]

I do see the response to this issue from the SSPX to be most unhelpful though. Think of the loss to the Church if leaders like Cardinal Burke, Bishop Bruskewitz, AB Chaput, just to name a few, broke with the Church because of the prevalence of this liberal heterodoxy. Their vital ministry would not exist.

Cardinal Burke, Bp. Bruskewitz, Bp. Chaput, and others such as Bp. Athansius Schneider as well, don’t have an issue with the Council. That’s the difference between the conservative bishops and Cardinals, and the SSPX. I’m trying to be realistic about what the differences are.

 

[Tomdstone]

I walked right out the door of the Church a few months ago. After decades of trying, I can no longer reconcile the Church I once knew with the Church that is. I’m burned out completely.

I thought that the Roman Catholic Church was indefectible?

 

[Lormar]

I thought that the Roman Catholic Church was indefectible?

That’s what they say.

 

[commenter]

I do see the response to this issue from the SSPX to be most unhelpful though. Think of the loss to the Church if leaders like Cardinal Burke, Bishop Bruskewitz, AB Chaput, just to name a few, broke with the Church because of the prevalence of this liberal heterodoxy. Their vital ministry would not exist.

It’s not just at the upper levels of the Church. When we have our diocesan prolife gatherings, or meetings for religious liberty, I am pretty sure none of the laity are from SSPX. The people I meet there are not remotely liberal, it’s not like they are pushing some Vatican II agenda; Vatican II never comes up. Some of them go to the TLM diocesan Masses.

The SSPX in 2015 isn’t absent because of the TLM, or Vatican II. It’s an organization that is following its own momentum.

 

[pnewton]

The SSPX in 2015 isn’t absent because of the TLM, or Vatican II. It’s an organization that is following its own momentum.

I would see that if more priests would leave the organization to resume a ministry in the Church, it would do little to slow this momentum. There is a mindset that would see this as just further support of them being a remnant, making them more remnant-y.

 

[otjm]

It is good that they pursued a remedy, but I believe it was you who pointed out that most people will put up with all the abuses in the liturgy as long as they make it convenient for them to attend, or in some cases, like Holy Days or vacations, not attend at all. I apologize if this wasn’t you.

Nope - not me. Don’t apologize - there are innumerable posts and a plethora of threads containing them.

 

[otjm]

Most of the discussion on this thread, and the discussion of SSPX generally, focuses on the EF versus the OF. But I don’t think that is really the issue for the SSPX. It seems to me that the SSPX refuses to be reconciled because of theological disagreements, particularly EENS, ecumenism, nostra aetate and some others. The availability or popularity of the EF may be important to many SSPX laity, but it has little or nothing to do with the SSPX’s continuing disobedience/estrangement.

Bingo.