For real...why are the SSPX always singled out and picked on?

  • Thread starter Thread starter michaeldaniels
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think he makes a valid point that it is way easier to single out the SSPX than doing the right thing and censuring, for example, Catholic politicians who go against the teachings of HMC.

That having been said, I did attend an SSPX chapel here once or twice way back when. When I found out they were not in communion with HMC, I did not attend again - as much as I love the EF. Until they are returned to full communion with HMC, I will not attend even though it means having to endure all the abundant abuses which are to be found in a whole lot of OF parishes. We do have an awful lot of examples on that score, do we not?
 
My observation as a non-Catrholic as to why some get hot under the collar about the SSPX includes:

They seem to contradict themselves over the issue of authority. People feel very angry any time they are abiding by the rules of the Church and doing what they are told is ok, and then someone blasts them for being not really Catholic. And this is increased exponentially when the people making the accusation are not in a good relationship with the actual hierarchy of the Church.

Often one also gets the feeling that the SSPX simply thinks that everything was better before Vatican II and they would just like to go back to that. Most people know that is not really true, or possible.

And finally, some members have said some things that are very inflammatory. For example, criticizing Mother Teresa for not being traditional enough and too ecumenical. People hear that and they compare the priest saying such things to Mother Teresa, and the comparison is not always a good one for the priest.
 
It may help to keep in mind that most of us have about zero connection with the start of the SSPX; and that start started primarily in France with the close of Vatican 2. Some, but not all of the issues that stirred the pot in France had to do with history and specifically the overthrow of the monarchy, the secularization that caused that, the Enlightenment, and an intensity that is hardly anywhere matched in the US. We seem to get the opinion that the problems with the SSPX started with the ordination of the four bishops - actually; it came to a peak at that point.

The ordination of the four bishops was a peaking point of a stew over the rejection of some, if not all of the documents of Vatican 2 by what was then a minority in France, and small minority in Europe, and a very small minority world wide.

Further confusion ensues when we do not separate out the Church, meaning the Magisterium and those who follow Rome’s direction, from those who choose to not follow Rome’s direction (dissenting theologians, bishops, priests and laity). Add to that the fact that we have a lot of laity who have been guided (or better, misguided) by those same dissenting theologians, bishops, priests and laity, and we have a serious communication issue. Who is it exactly that we are accusing; what are we accsuing them of; what is their level of alleged guilt; and what language do we use to plaster them with?

Coupled with all of this is the somewhat romantic notion that a) Rome micromanages the Church, or used to, and b) excommunications are or were handed out somewhat like aspirin. It wasn’t so before Vatican 2, and it isn’t so now. Much of the discipline is not public or publicized, and from that we too often presume that nothing is done.

And at times nothing is done, either because there may not be an effective means of discipline, or because there are factors deemed serious enough that direct discipline is not seen as a positive. In other words, there is the issue of judgement; and we may feel that we are better jduges of the use of discipline than the bishops; we, however, do not bear the consequences of those decisions. In other words, it is easy to Monday morning quarteback; it is a bit different to be the quarterback in the middle of the game.

RE: the side issue of not disciplining politicians; it seems to me the only one who has been vigorous about this is Archbishop Burke; I do not consider Archbishop Chaput to be either a liberal or a fool, but he certainly has not done as Burke has. Are we then to condemn Chaput?
 
People get mad at the SSPX because they expose a lot of people in the Church to be modernists. They are actually right about that point most of the time.

The real question though is why the SSPX gives the defenders of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus such a hard time. :confused:
 
Why is the SSPX singled out?
John 18:20:
If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.
Click to expand...
 
PhanxicoXavier said:
Why is the SSPX singled out?

If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.
Click to expand...
The problem with using this as evidence of anything is that this priest could make the same claim.

nytimes.com/2008/11/14/us/14priest.html

Besides, it is not the world that the OP is referring to but discipline from with the Catholic Church. Thus, the words of Jesus here simply can not apply. The Church is not “The World.”
 
For the record, I love the EF of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I wear a mantilla to all forms of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I cannot wait for the new translation of the Roman Missal to be implemented and I wish the USCCB would stop dragging its feet and start requiring Catholic liturgical music to be quality and Catholic.

But I won’t support the SSPX. As far as I am concerned, they’re in schism. They have rejected the authority of the Pope in their actions. They were founded by a dissident bishop. As much as I love the fact that they uphold tradition and devotion, they are still in rebellion. 🤷 Why would a faithful Catholic support them?

Why do the SSPX get “singled out”? Probably because unlike some of the crazy liberals who want to ordain women and throw away moral theology, SSPX seems Catholic enough to know what they are doing is wrong. They should know better. They’re not products of a lousy so-called Catholic education in the 70s or 90s. And thus they should be held to a higher standard.

That said, I think it would be fantastic for SSPX to swallow its pride and rejoin the Catholic Church again. At the very least, it would freak out the people who use “the spirit of Vatican II” to justify liturgical abuse. 😃

Just my :twocents:

❤️ Love is Patient
 
Love_is_Patient said:
they’re in schism.
Click to expand...
You mean like the Orthodox Church?

You do know attending an Orthodox Mass is valid and satisfies the Sunday obligation, don’t you?
That said, I think it would be fantastic for SSPX to swallow its pride and rejoin the Catholic Church again.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t hold my breath for ALL of them to agree to this. I would expect the Anglican route to be followed.
 
ProVobis said:
You mean like the Orthodox Church?

You do know attending an Orthodox Mass is valid and satisfies the Sunday obligation, don’t you?
Click to expand...
Does it? I always thought it did not satisfy the obligation.
 
Chiara80 said:
Does it? I always thought it did not satisfy the obligation.
Click to expand...
One can go to an Orthodox Church if it is not possible to make it to a Catholic Church. But then, if it is not possible to make it to a Catholic Church, one is dispensed from the obligation.
 
Canon law doesn’t state any restrictions.
Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.
Click to expand...
§2 If it is impossible to assist at a eucharistic celebration, either because no sacred minister is available or for some other grave reason, the faithful are strongly recommended to take part in a liturgy of the Word, if there be such in the parish church or some other sacred place, which is celebrated in accordance with the provisions laid down by the diocesan Bishop; or to spend an appropriate time in prayer, whether personally or as a family or, as occasion presents, in a group of families.
Click to expand...
 
ProVobis said:
Canon law doesn’t state any restrictions.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. It state it is to be a catholic rite. Orthodox, Anglican or Methodist would not apply. Eastern Rite, Maronite, Latin Rite, etc. would be acceptable. However, based on your quote, I think you answered well the question of whether SSPX, which celebrates a Latin Mass Rite, would offer a Mass which satisfies, one’s Sunday obligation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top