Eastern Catholics' experiences with the SSPX

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I know that not everyone in this sub-forum checks out the Tradtional Catholic sub-forum but there is a post there asking sspx views on eastern catholic rites.

I posted that my experience is that they, the SSPX, support a very latinized version of the Byzantine rite.

 

[Diak]

Since Bishop Williamson has been the primary ordaining bishop for the vagante “Society of St. Josaphat” and has conducted these ordinations, not in the Byzantine ritual tradition, but the pre-1962 Roman Rite, “latinized” would be an understatement. It is precisely the kind of hybridization and syncretization that Metropolitan Andrey, Patriarch Josyp and their predecessors tirelessly fought against.

When I taught in an SSPX school, it was said to me on more than one occasion by both clergy and fellow faculty that my Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was not much more than a halfway house for the eventual spread of the pre-1962 Latin tradition. Without exception all of the priests and laity who more fully respected my Greek Catholic tradition, my Church and patrimony all left the SSPX in favor of full communion with Rome in one manifestation or another.

 

[Dan-Man916]

it seems to me that some in the SSPX don’t think that Catholicism exists beyond the expression found in the Tridentine Roman Rite. In their zeal to proclaim “this is the authentic faith”, they fail to realize just how many medieval additions there were, which makes their position a bit ironic, as they are arguing for a medieval Church, not really an ancient one that was much more austere.

Some latins are ignorant of the history of the Church and don’t realize that the Church exists outside of Rome.

 

[Pregustator]

Outside of Rome? Try outside of Econe.

As a recovering Lefebvrist, I can tell you that your typical SSPX adherent finds no authentic church outside of the Society of St. Pius X. They truly believe that the genuine Roman Catholic Church has been reduced to themselves and to a few other traditionalist groups that appear on their “approved” list.

The SSPX used to regard it as a betrayal, perhaps even a sin, for an SSPX faithful to attend a diocesan “Indult Mass” as the term went, back then. For the most part, they really just aren’t sure about the validity of orders (or any of the sacraments, for that matter) performed according to post-Vatican II rites.

Bishop Williamson was fond of referring to the SSPX as the pilot light on a stove that was turned off after Vatican II. None of the burners are on and haven’t been since the 1960s, but the SSPX is the pilot light that will enable the Church to reappear if ever Rome ever repents, repudiates Vatican II, and decides to “turn the gas on” again.

it seems to me that some in the SSPX don’t think that Catholicism exists beyond the expression found in the Tridentine Roman Rite.

There are, amongst the SSPX’s adherents, a small number of more astute persons who actually do have a broader understanding of the Church’s history, of it’s rich liturgical heritage, with respect to both the East and the West, but the SSPX, on the whole, do not pay much attention to such things. By and large, the SSPX are very focused on their “Crisis in the Church” thing, and most thought and discussion within the SSPX tends to go in that direction.

In their zeal to proclaim “this is the authentic faith”, they fail to realize just how many medieval additions there were, which makes their position a bit ironic, as they are arguing for a medieval Church, not really an ancient one that was much more austere.

Some argue for a restoration of medieval church and culture, others for a Counter-Reformation/baroque era Catholicism; still others are happy to go back no further than 1950. Some SSPX wonder what a reformed Church and liturgy would look like had Vatican II not taken things quite so far as it did, but reformed the Mass and the Church along more traditional lines, if you will. That last group tend to be considered the “Liberals” of the SSPX (if you can imagine).

As far as the Eastern Church goes, however, I never encountered any hostility toward it on the part of the SSPX. In fact, one could often hear praise for the Eastern Churches who have maintained their ancient liturgical traditions. I do remember one professor of mine at the seminary discussing the Latinization of the rites of Uniate churches, and expressing a sadness over that Latinization. He disliked that, and advocated that the Eastern liturgies be kept pure according to their own traditions. I never got the impression that this particular professor was saying anything that would have contradicted the SSPX. I don’t actually imagine that the SSPX would ever have developed a unity of thought on the matter, to be honest.

Since Bishop Williamson has been the primary ordaining bishop for the vagante “Society of St. Josaphat” and has conducted these ordinations, not in the Byzantine ritual tradition, but the pre-1962 Roman Rite, “latinized” would be an understatement. It is precisely the kind of hybridization and syncretization that Metropolitan Andrey, Patriarch Josyp and their predecessors tirelessly fought against.

Right, but if these folks are coming to Williamson for orders, what can anyone expect him to do, really? He has no ability to celebrate in the Eastern tradition. Williamson would justify it by saying, “the Church is in Crisis, these Byzantine Catholics want to stay true to the true Church, and this is a less-than-optimal, but wholly necessary temporary situation”.

But the very fact that there are Byzantine clergy insisting upon being ordained by SSPX bishops because they regard the SSPX as more genuine than anyone else around should speak volumes to anyone about the brainwashing that the SSPX perpetrates. The SSPX are what remains of the Catholic Church (Western or Eastern, apparently). And there are alot of people who believe that, at least in practice, although they may not come right out and confess as much.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Some latins are ignorant of the history of the Church and don’t realize that the Church exists outside of Rome.

quoted for truth

 

[ProVobis]

Some latins are ignorant of the history of the Church and don’t realize that the Church exists outside of Rome.

I hope you’re including all the babelized cultures of the Latin Rite as well in your vague generalization.

 

[Dan-Man916]

it’s not a vague generalization. It is a mindset among both clergy and laity who have little to no experience or knowledge of the Eastern Churches, their distinct theology or their distinct rites. From what Eastern Catholics affirm themselves, the latinizations imposed upon them and the mindset created in them are a result of pressure on the latin church for uniformity attest to this.

 

[Diak]

As far as the Eastern Church goes, however, I never encountered any hostility toward it on the part of the SSPX. In fact, one could often hear praise for the Eastern Churches who have maintained their ancient liturgical traditions. I do remember one professor of mine at the seminary discussing the Latinization of the rites of Uniate churches, and expressing a sadness over that Latinization. He disliked that, and advocated that the Eastern liturgies be kept pure according to their own traditions. I never got the impression that this particular professor was saying anything that would have contradicted the SSPX. I don’t actually imagine that the SSPX would ever have developed a unity of thought on the matter, to be honest.

Hostility, no, but most definitely an overt attitude of praestantia ritus latini. I think much of the sympathy for the Catholic East I experienced was mostly because the liturgical tradition was not the Novus Ordo. When I expressed aspects such as our authentic baptismal traditions (all three Sacraments), married parochial clergy, returning to more ancient Eastern liturgical customs, etc., the tone very often changed to one of apprehension and “being too Orthodox”. As I mentioned, not all were uneducated in things Eastern, but those better educated and more appreciative of the authentic Eastern patrimony, at least during my association, did not stay SSPX.

In my experience your professor would have been in the minority. It was Bishop Williamson who largely fueled the flames of the infant Society of St. Josaphat to take their latinized views as the “authentic tradition” and he (and others) to a certain extent gave “spiritual guidance” to some of the SSJ. But the Holy Spirit does wonders; one of the most ardent supporters of the SSJ and similar SSPX-influenced latinized attitude, the “Transalpine Redemptorists”, later not only came into full communion with Rome but severed all ties with the SSJ and rejected the latinizing aspects.

I do agree with the “crisis mode” rife within the SSPX and that was my experience as well. But to internally rationalize schism that approach has be the standard justification for everything the SSPX does as without it there is really no need for its existence.

 

[Diak]

Another difficulty is that the larger corpus of Magisterial documents specifically relating to the Eastern Catholic Churches are either from the Second Vatican Council (Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Unitatis Redintegratio, etc. or are post-Conciliar (*Orientale Lumen, Slavorum Apostoli, Fourth Centenary of the Union of Brest *, etc.

The Conciliar/post-Conciliar nature of these documents (and all other Magisterial documents during this time for that matter) would be considered at best of questionable validity and applicability by the SSPX or perhaps more realistically rejected outright.

 

[Dan-Man916]

IMO, the west should return to the ancient practice of the three sacraments of initiation of infants.

Personally, i would have liked my 2 daughters brought into the Church this way, but I really have no choice as a Roman.

They receive far better catechetical teaching from me anyways, then they do at our parish religious education. the idea being that one should wait till the age of about 7 to receive the sacrament of eucharist is not wrong, but it is not in keeping with the ancient Church. The west needs to continue to embrace its own ancient traditions too. unfortunately, many traditionalists are stanchly against this. the return to a more austere liturgy, to sacramental practice as i mentioned.

 

[Diak]

You most certainly do have a choice “as a Roman” and can ask the local Greek Catholic priest to initiate your children. Since Chrismation and First Communion are involved, as a courtesy the local Latin diocese should be notified of your intentions, but in my two decades of active Ukrainian Catholic parish experience this has not been a problem and this concurrance has never been refused by the Latin chancery.

the idea being that one should wait till the age of about 7 to receive the sacrament of eucharist is not wrong, but it is not in keeping with the ancient Church.

Indeed - actually St. Augustine is one of the strongest proponents for paedocommunion.

 

[Hesychios]

When I taught in an SSPX school, it was said to me on more than one occasion by both clergy and fellow faculty that my Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was not much more than a halfway house for the eventual spread of the pre-1962 Latin tradition. …

When I was still a Latin Catholic (of somewhat traditionalist leanings) enquiring into the eastern churches I had a very long conversation with a UGCC priest in my area, it must have gone for nearly three hours, I know it was dark when I left his rectory and I arrived in the mid-afternoon.

Among the things he told me was that he could remember being told this same thing as a young priest (this would have been long before the SSPX existed, but probably after Vat II). Other Catholic priests would tell the Ukrainian Catholic priests that they fully expected to absorb the eastern church and their days were numbered. For him it was a hurtful thing to recall.

I couldn’t help feeling a great deal of sympathy.

 

[Aramis]

I’ve never met an actual member of the SSPX; only lay adherents to their schism. (I know where their chapel is, tho’, and know it was set up after the excommunications.)

The lay adherents to their schism, attending the one SSPX chapel in town, are openly dismissive of the one EC parish in state. They are openly hostile to anything not meeting their very narrow Baltimore Chatechism views (and it can be shown with pre-V II materials that the BC was wrong-by-omission on a number of issues, and just plain wrong on a few more).

Most of those pro-SSPX laity I’ve talked to would reject reunification not involving abrogation of the Pauline missal and V II in their entirety. They’d find some other form of schism to engage in, if anything less were to happen.

I’ve heard references to “Antipope Paul VI” and “Antipope JP II” from a few of them; since there is no SSPV presence, the local SSPX chapel seems to draw the sedevaticanists in force.