Can The SSPX Handle Coming Home ?

[Mickey_Jackson]

As long as Bishop Williamson remains part of it, there’s no way the SSPX will be reconciled to Rome without experiencing major internal fractures. For this reason, it will not happen until he dies, and by that time the society will be an essentially separate Church, with potentially two generations of members who have never known proper membership in the Catholic Church and submission to the Catholic heirarchy.

It’s because of these things that I have absolutely no expectation the SSPX will return to full communion with the Church. Like so many schismatic movements of the past, their ties to the Church will dissolve and they’ll become an entirely separate entity. Only those who break away from the society can be reconciled.

For the good of his soul, I hope Bishop Williamson eventually returns to Communion with the one True Church.

For the good of the Church, I hope he experiences a radical change in his viewpoints before he returns. No man with his crazy, paranoid, and arrogant views should be a shepherd of the Faithful.

My two cents.

 

[brockmac]

Why should the SSPX concede that? It’s not true. It’s not a Catholic teaching and it’s not even something that the Holy Father himself believes.

In Principals of Catholic Theology, he states that not all valid councils have been good for the Church and the historical value of Vatican II has yet to be proven.

Point taken, perhaps they could concede that the Council is a valid council and that there is nothing in it that contradicts the historical faith without commenting on whether or not it is a good thing.

There is however also the point of acknowledging the validity and licitness of the NO Mass.

Not to mention, humble submission to the authority of the Bishop of Rome and the Magesterium.

If people want to celebrate the EF of the Mass, I have no issue. It is a beautiful and time honored liturgy. My problem is with people who are so convinced of their own wisdom that they cannot concede that the Magesterium has the authority allow for the OF of the Mass and even go so far as to say that this Mass is either invalid or illicit.

The teaching authority of the Church has been a part of Catholic belief from the beginning. When A.Bishop Leferve started his society, he and those who followed him, forgot that. All I am asking is that these sincere and well meaning folks acknowledge the authority of the Church and come home.

 

[ProVobis]

The only hope is for the SSPX to HUMBLY submit to Holy Mother, the Church and concede that:

Vatican II is a gift to the Church from the Holy Spirit which does NOT contradict the historical teaching of the Church.

The Mass of Paul VI is VALID and DOES validly consecrate the Eucharist.

If they would acknowledge these two things, they would be free to attend EF masses in dioscesan parishes or submit their chapels to the authority of the local bishop. Perhaps they could join the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.

If they were to acknowledge the articles stated above, they would be able to participate freely in NO (OF) Masses for things like Episcopal installations or consecrations, weddings, etc. and still continue to prefer the EF as (in their opinion) more reverent liturgy.

The main problem I see is a PRIDE that causes many to believe that they are wiser than the fathers of the council refuse to accept the validity or at least licitness of the OF. It is possible that fear of this pride is the reason that the EF was discouraged for so long. The hierarchy may have feared some communities believing that they were “more Catholic” than others, based on the form of the Mass that they used.

But the people who attend SSPX services may read arrogance and condescending attitudes from notes like yours. Aren’t you saying in effect you’re better than they?

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

You are probably right.

As long as the four bishops of the SSPX continue to insist that the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre (and themselves) was invalid, that they have the authority to validly hear confessions and witness marriages, and that Vatican II is in opposition to Tradition, you are probably right. It will take quite a bit of humility for the bishops to allow the entire Society to be reconciled, because these are issues that, if official statements from Rome are to be believed, are pretty much non-negotiable.

They are rapidly approaching a situation similar to that of the Church of England. In the latter case, the only way for the entire Anglican Communion to return to the fold would be for them to acknowledge that their bishops and priests are invalidly ordained, and that women cannot ever be admitted to the priesthood. Not very likely, which is why (outside of the traditional Anglican parishes and dioceses that are so sick of these excesses that they are returning to Rome en masse), it may be time to start focusing on the conversion of individual Anglicans rather than of the entire Communion. This, ultimately, is how the SSPX will have to be reconciled: by going to the Faithful on an individual level, rather than the bishops and priests who, though validly ordained, obstinately refuse any kind of submission to Rome.

 

[ProVobis]

I know, but… what if the EF is introduced at a parish where an associate preist says it, but the pastor or the liturgy committee or somebody says there ought to be girls? It could happen.

It very well may if men don’t stand up to the plate and serve.

 

[HelenRose]

What is the SSPX’s thinking about The Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Did having the TLM Mass more available help to bring SSPX members back to the Church or did it further divide them?

 

[I_Believe]

As long as the four bishops of the SSPX continue to insist that the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre (and themselves) was invalid, that they have the authority to validly hear confessions and witness marriages, and that Vatican II is in opposition to Tradition, you are probably right. It will take quite a bit of humility for the bishops to allow the entire Society to be reconciled, because these are issues that, if official statements from Rome are to be believed, are pretty much non-negotiable.

They are rapidly approaching a situation similar to that of the Church of England. In the latter case, the only way for the entire Anglican Communion to return to the fold would be for them to acknowledge that their bishops and priests are invalidly ordained, and that women cannot ever be admitted to the priesthood. Not very likely, which is why (outside of the traditional Anglican parishes and dioceses that are so sick of these excesses that they are returning to Rome en masse), it may be time to start focusing on the conversion of individual Anglicans rather than of the entire Communion. This, ultimately, is how the SSPX will have to be reconciled: by going to the Faithful on an individual level, rather than the bishops and priests who, though validly ordained, obstinately refuse any kind of submission to Rome.

Well, you’ve identified a hurdle they may not be willing to clear.

As I pondered in my OP, how much of what they have taught their faithful must they now admit was error ? It’s tough to do that when much of it wasn’t in error.

Look at Bishop Fellay. This poor guy is trying to reconcile with the Church he stood against, and at the same time, please those he stood up for.

It may be insurmountable.

 

[brockmac]

But the people who attend SSPX services may read arrogance and condescending attitudes from notes like yours. Aren’t you saying in effect you’re better than they?

I am not saying I am better than anyone else. I am only suggesting that to the best of my ability, I humbly submit to the authority of the Church. Oh yeah, and that I pray that all who call on the name of Christ may come to do so as well.

I am not going to argue whether the EF or OF is “better” as many in SSPX do. They both re-present the sacrafice of Calvary. How could one re-presentation of this sacrafice be better than another?

 

[Dauphin]

What is the SSPX’s thinking about The Catechism of the Catholic Church?

They feel that it contains several errors that are irreconcilable with the Catholic faith. In order to facilitate their return, it would have to be scrapped or re-written.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

Well, you’ve identified a hurdle they may not be willing to clear.

As I pondered in my OP, how much of what they have taught their faithful must they now admit was error ? It’s tough to do that when much of it wasn’t in error.

Look at Bishop Fellay. This poor guy is trying to reconcile with the Church he stood against, and at the same time, please those he stood up for.

It may be insurmountable.

You are most likely correct in that the odds of full recognition are slight.

But I disagree with you when you say that much of what they taught wasn’t in error. First of all, they didn’t just say that Vatican II had negative effects on the Church; they taught that it was heretical, which is impossible for an ecumenical council (even one that was, as they emphasize continually, largely “pastoral” and not dogmatic).

They taught that the Novus Ordo is, at best, doubtfully valid, at least where the Consecration of the Blood is concerned. This viewpoint reveals a startling ignorance of history (after all, the words mysterium fidei are no where to be found in the perfectly valid Liturgy of St. John), and a clear denial of the Pope’s infallibility in matters of faith and morals (and if the Mass isn’t a matter of faith, I don’t know what is).

They deceived the Faithful into believing that their confessions and marriages are valid, when the CDF, the only body with the canonical authority to pronounce judgment on this matter, insists that they are not.

There’s more, but these are the big ones. As I said, their situation is analagous to that of the Anglicans. Most of what the Church of England (or any Protestant community) teaches is true, but most of what they get wrong (i.e. the sacraments, the papacy, women and homosexual priests and bishops) is simply non-negotiable for those who accept the one true Faith. No matter what the SSPX gets right, it’s the things they get wrong that make a return unlikely unless they can admit their error.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

I am not going to argue whether the EF or OF is “better” as many in SSPX do. They both re-present the sacrafice of Calvary. How could one re-presentation of this sacrafice be better than another?

Brockmac, you hit the nail on the head. I love how the so-called Traditionalists refer to the Mass of Pius V as the “True Mass,” as if the numerous valid and beautiful Eastern rites are not equally acceptable to God.

They often quote the so-called “Ottaviani Intervention” in supporting their viewpoints. Apparently they didn’t read the whole thing, because the same Cardinal later wrote:

"The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS.”

The True Mass is the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, which is reenacted any time a validly ordained priest says “This is My Body” and “This is the cup of My Blood.”

 

[HelenRose]

They feel that it contains several errors that are irreconcilable with the Catholic faith. In order to facilitate their return, it would have to be scrapped or re-written.

Thanks. I really am ignorant about SSPX. I am hoping that all people can somehow be brought to together within the Church. I am so grateful that the T.L.M. Mass is available for everyone who wants it. I personally am more involved with the N.O. Mass but I can certainly see why those who love the T.L.M. prefer it.

 

[ProVobis]

I love how the so-called Traditionalists refer to the Mass of Pius V as the “True Mass,” as if the numerous valid and beautiful Eastern rites are not equally acceptable to God.

I’ve not heard Traditionalists say much negative about the Eastern Rites which basically have not changed since Vatican II; in fact probably more of them assist at these Eastern Rites than before.

 

[ProVobis]

I am not going to argue whether the EF or OF is “better” as many in SSPX do.

Are they the only ones who argue for one or the other?

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

I’ve not heard Traditionalists say much negative about the Eastern Rites which basically have not changed since Vatican II; in fact probably more of them assist at these Eastern Rites than before.

It’s not that they have explicitly said anything negative. I made this post mainly to emphasize the fact that the bishops and priests of the SSPX are, quite simply, wrong when they say that one form of the Mass is superior to another. There is only one Mass, but there are many ways of celebrating this Mass. Any rite that the Church endorses is valid and legitimate in the eyes of God, no matter how poorly a rite is sometimes said (let’s not forget that many abuses occurred with the Tridentine Rite, a fact that condemns not the rite, but the priest who commits the abuses).

 

[I_Believe]

This could be, and really has so far, been a good discussion. Can we please not start the same old worn out NO vs TLM debate ?

There is no reason to debate it now that BXVI’s MP has freed the TLM from stigma.

And let’s don’t start the traditionalist bashing again. There are other threads with all that going on right now.

My purpose in starting this thread was to discuss the issue, not argue about it. Feel free to tell me everything I say is flat wrong, but please stay on topic.

 

[ProVobis]

I made this post mainly to emphasize the fact that the bishops and priests of the SSPX are, quite simply, wrong when they say that one form of the Mass is superior to another.

Then it should follow that those that say the Mass in vernacular is superior (because they don’t understand Latin or whatever) are equally wrong. Right?

Can we please not start the same old worn out NO vs TLM debate ?

You mean, the old worn out SSPX vs anti-SSPX debate, don’t you?

 

[I_Believe]

Then it should follow that those that say the Mass in vernacular is superior (because they don’t understand Latin or whatever) are equally wrong. Right?

You mean, the old worn out SSPX vs anti-SSPX debate, don’t you?

lol, pretty much.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

Then it should follow that those that say the Mass in vernacular is superior (because they don’t understand Latin or whatever) are equally wrong. Right?

Correct, they are. If they don’t like Latin, they don’t have to go to a Latin Mass, but they shouldn’t put down those who like the solemnity.

 

[HashemEchad]

Before becoming a more religious Jew (mid 1990s), I’d attended a few Tridentine Latin Masses because I’d always admired the beauty of them, for esthetic reasons (being a fan of beauty, the Latin language and classical music, Tridentine Latin Masses were right up my alley so to speak!)

At the time, the only ones I knew of were SSPX, so those are the ones I attended.

Half my family is Roman Catholic; however, they all left the church right after Vatican 2 due to the changes, so all I knew of the Catholic church was from them.

I have to say as a non-Catholic, I am not too crazy about the modern Catholic church; I’ve been to a few new masses (weddings and funerals for Catholic friends), and they seemed identical to the Lutheran church services I’d also attended with a Lutheran friend back in the late 1980s. Not much beauty or reverence there, IMO.

I’m not in any way interested in being Catholic (or any kind of Christian)…but if I were to become Catholic it would be traditionalist Latin or nothing. Granted, for me the attraction is purely external (the Latin, the incense, the Gregorian chant/classical music, the ceremony and reverence, etc), but even at that, that’s all that would even remotely attract me to your church.