Gravitating towards the SSPX

[Randolph]

The above paragraph is helpful, because it considers the impact of time, in the present, and (possible) future. Most SSPX threads have posters on both sides focusing on prior decades; helpful only up to a point.

As both Church history and secular history have shown, conflicts are best resolved at early stages. In the passage of time, each side digs deeper into their own position and proceeds comfortably in their own way—resulting in less opportunities for communication and therefore reconciliation. We have seen these things happened: in the Eastern and Western Roman empires, post Protestant reformation, in tribal conflicts in North America and in Africa, in dynasties in Asia, in kingdoms in Europe, etc… A good example is with the Lutherans. Martin Luther did not want to deviate that much from the Church. But now, we can see huge (virtually impossible) gaps between us and them.

As SSPX continues to manage themselves outside of the Catholic Church, even small and particular changes in discipline and devotional practices from both sides will begin to take shape—creating gaps. In time, these gaps will grow bigger and wider—making reconciliation even more difficult. I am not even touching doctrinal possibilities.

 

[TheMortenBay]

As SSPX continues to manage themselves outside of the Catholic Church, even small and particular changes in discipline and devotional practices from both sides will begin to take shape—creating gaps. In time, these gaps will grow bigger and wider—making reconciliation even more difficult. I am not even touching doctrinal possibilities.

The only problem with viewing the issues from this angle is, that the only thing that keeps the SSPX from agreeing with the rest of the Church is the rest of the Church. The SSPX stand fast on Catholic doctrine as it has been taught since… I don’t know, forever maybe? So really the rift is only growing wider because the Church keeps insisting on “changing with the times”. If you’ve seen anything coming out of the Amazon Synod I think you already know what the fruits of that tree are. So for that reason alone I don’t think the SSPX is rushing to an agreement under this Papacy.
On top of that is of course the SSPX’s claim that there’s no such thing as “partial communion” and they have good arguments for claiming that the sanctions by the Pope against Abp. Lefebvre are illicit or invalid.

 

[commenter]

that the only thing that keeps the SSPX from agreeing with the rest of the Church is the rest of the Church. The SSPX stand fast on Catholic doctrine

As far as I can see, the number of solidly orthodox priests in unity with the pope and bishops is far greater than the total in SSPX. Any or all of them could join SSPX, but very, very few do. Yet surely they are aware of the problems of the Church itself. But they continue to work there, synod or no synod.

Some might say they are just remaining in the place where they grew up. But that could apply to the other orthodox clergy, too, synod or no synod.

 

[Randolph]

The only problem with viewing the issues from this angle is, that the only thing that keeps the SSPX from agreeing with the rest of the Church is the rest of the Church. The SSPX stand fast on Catholic doctrine as it has been taught since… I don’t know, forever maybe? So really the rift is only growing wider because the Church keeps insisting on “changing with the times”. If you’ve seen anything coming out of the Amazon Synod I think you already know what the fruits of that tree are. So for that reason alone I don’t think the SSPX is rushing to an agreement under this Papacy.

Recent developments in the Church have been very alarming indeed. They are so numerous that I don’t want, or have the time, to get into it right now. The Church, in recent years, seems to be run by a political/ideological party with political mandates to go “with the times” as you correctly put it. It is sadly and fairly similar to the Soviet style of secrecy and behind closed door dealings they are void of proper scrutiny and examination (yes, I am aware of what I just wrote and of the outrage that comes with it). For those who are familiar with Communism, they know well of what I am talking about. The Synodic style of governing seems to make the papacy look more like a political party. The selection of participants for Synods could easily be “chosen” for particular pre-determined outcomes. The voting process/result is then just a mere formality. Synods are convened frequently (every few years) to gradually change the church to reflect “the times”. Opponents to those in power are to be silent, shamed and/or exiled. I could go on and on… This is not the Church that obeys Christ. I ache for what’s to come for the Church as the onslaughts and attacks on the Church will surely continue.

Opponents and proponents of SSPX could argue forever on who stand for what, who are right and wrong, what actually happened, and what will happen. In my humble opinion, the Church, despite the failings and shortcomings of the hierarchy, is entrusted with the Successor of Peter to whom Christ gave the key to Heaven and the responsibility to feed His sheep. That can never change. My trust is in Christ. Without the pope, we don’t have the Catholic Church. Although Catholics are not papists, we are to obey him, support him and pray for him knowing too well that all popes
are human—and as history has shown, perhaps too human.

Upon critical examination, over the life of the Church, we can see that the devil has been working so diligently and tireless to destroy it—especially from within. St. Athanasius, among many saints and martyrs, reminded us of that. With the help of the Holy Spirit, the Church somehow has managed through all the turmoils and snares. Pope Benedict has correctly pointed that out, and asked us to “do our part” for the church that is to continue to pray for the Church and to be faithful to it. The Church will once again triumph over the bad storms and ferocious battles that are coming. Our faith must continue to be with Christ and with His promise to protect the Church from the gates of Hell.

 

[Dovekin]

The only problem with viewing the issues from this angle is, that the only thing that keeps the SSPX from agreeing with the rest of the Church is the rest of the Church.

The perennial teaching of the Church has been that Scripture and Tradition are interpreted properly by the Magisterium. SSPX are moving away from that by offering a definition of Tradition that disagrees with the Magisterium, the pope and bishops of the world.

So yes, the only thing that keeps SSPX from agreeing is the rest of the Church. The question is whether the rest of the Church is important. Is coordination with local bishops important? The Pope?

 

[TheMortenBay]

I’m pretty sure the SSPX says exactly that we have to view the documents of the Second Vatican Council in light of Tradition (as in the Magisterium) and that’s exactly why some of the documents are so problematic. The SSPX prays for the pope and the local ordinary, and I think what I’m trying to say is just that if the ordinary jurisdiction didn’t look down in the SSPX or ask of the SSPX to go against tradition, then there’d be no issue. But that’s what the proper authorities have done, historically anyway.

 

[commenter]

the only thing that keeps the SSPX from agreeing with the rest of the Church is the rest of the Church

I’m not sure “agreeing” is the right verb.
Some individual orthodox priests choose to work in conjunction with the bishop Orithdinary, and pope. Other individual othodox clergy also work, but apart in SSPX.

I don’t know what these individuals “agree” or disagree with. I wouldn’t make a generalization for either group.

 

[bookshelf]

SSPX are moving away from that by offering a definition of Tradition that disagrees with the Magisterium, the pope and bishops of the world

This is debatable. There is a distinct difference between the Magisterium teachings pre and post-Vatican II.

It would have been improbable that the Council’s prior Vatican II would dare to make such a statement “In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” (Lumen Gentium) Imagine St. Peter and the Holy Apostles affirming this.

 

[TheMortenBay]

I don’t know what these individuals “agree” or disagree with. I wouldn’t make a generalization for either group.

We can’t, just as we can’t say “Roman Catholic Priests believe so and so.” We may wish we could, but lacking that we can only take the SSPX on their official word. I’ve met people in the SSPX who were basically sedevacantist, but it’s not the stance of the Society.

 

[Dovekin]

The SSPX prays for the pope and the local ordinary, and I think what I’m trying to say is just that if the ordinary jurisdiction didn’t look down in the SSPX or ask of the SSPX to go against tradition, then there’d be no issue. But that’s what the proper authorities have done, historically anyway.

The “proper authorities” have asked SSPX to accept what the Magisterium defines as Tradition. There is some disagreement about what the Tradition is, but SSPX is not the proper authority to say what the Tradition is. The Magisterium is. So how is their position acceptable?

When I talk about coordination with the bishops, I mean more than praying for him. Who owns the church property? Where do they get chrism for baptisms? To whom do they promise obedience? Etc. In some places they may be very close to the bishop, but they do not have the same relationship as between bishop and other religious priests.

 

[TheMortenBay]

I know what you mean by coordination
The problem of the Magisterium is that it has two elements. I can’t remember what they’re called right now, but in effect you have the teaching, living Magisterium which is the organ of the Church comprised of the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him.
Then there’s the permanent Magisterium, which is the
sum of Tradition, the defined dogma and doctrine of the Church which can’t be changed. The teaching Magisterium (i.e. the Pope) has all power to teach and rule everything, granted ONLY that it’s not in disagreement with the permanent Magisterium (the previous teaching of the Church)

 

[Randolph]

I’m pretty sure the SSPX says exactly that we have to view the documents of the Second Vatican Council in light of Tradition (as in the Magisterium) and that’s exactly why some of the documents are so problematic. The SSPX prays for the pope and the local ordinary, and I think what I’m trying to say is just that if the ordinary jurisdiction didn’t look down in the SSPX or ask of the SSPX to go against tradition, then there’d be no issue. But that’s what the proper authorities have done, historically anyway.

Be it as it may. Let’s, for a moment, assume all you said is true—and even more. Then, we need faithful postulates to work in and with the Church to reform the Church as many saints (St. Francis, St. Catherine, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Athanasius, etc…) had done. Currently, there are many bishops, priests and laymen who have been heartbroken with what has gone wrong in the Church. They have chosen not to leave or disobeyed the Holy Father. Rather, they have chosen to stay in the Church and work things out. One can not help the Church separating oneself from it.

 

[TheMortenBay]

Well, that’s quite clearly where the SSPX draws the line. They don’t follow the rest of the Church into idolatry, but aside from historical reasons that find the SSPX “not in full communion”, what separates what they say from the likes of Bishop Schneider? The only difference as I see it is that Abp. Lefebvre saw what was going on in the 70’s and was excommunicated for trying to work against it. The Bishops in the Church today seem to have just woken up to the problems the SSPX have been trying to fight for years. I’m not saying their way is the right way, I’m just saying they have often had the long end of the stick about the crisis in the Church.

 

[Randolph]

Well, that’s quite clearly where the SSPX draws the line. They don’t follow the rest of the Church into idolatry, but aside from historical reasons that find the SSPX “not in full communion”, what separates what they say from the likes of Bishop Schneider? The only difference as I see it is that Abp. Lefebvre saw what was going on in the 70’s and was excommunicated for trying to work against it. The Bishops in the Church today seem to have just woken up to the problems the SSPX have been trying to fight for years. I’m not saying their way is the right way, I’m just saying they have often had the long end of the stick about the crisis in the Church.

It’s true the Pachamama fiasco was idolatry (Golden Calf) and was a violation of the very First Commandment. It’s an affront to the faith. Yet, we have bishops, priests and laymen who have spoken out strongly against it. They still stay with the Church, and work to get rid of it. Those who were responsible for Pachamama will face God’s judgement. If Bishop Schneider agreed with SSPX, he would have joined them already. But no, the good bishop has stayed faithful to the Catholic Church.

Bishop Lefebrve was excommunicated after he illicitly ordained bishops without the consent of the Holy Father. It was an act that incurred automatic excommunication.

 

[TheMortenBay]

Bishop Lefebrve was excommunicated after he illicitly ordained bishops without the consent of the Holy Father. It was an act that incurred automatic excommunication.

Yes, that’s the narrative. I don’t know if that’s actually one-to-one in the Code of Canon Law, though?
Either way, no, he shouldn’t have consecrated bishops against the wishes of the Pope, on the other hand, I don’t think there was ever a good reason why the Vatican didn’t want him to do the consecrations. After all it has since been clarified that persisting in celebrating the Tridentine Mass was never illicit.

 

[Randolph]

Yes, that’s the narrative. I don’t know if that’s actually one-to-one in the Code of Canon Law, though?
Either way, no, he shouldn’t have consecrated bishops against the wishes of the Pope, on the other hand, I don’t think there was ever a good reason why the Vatican didn’t want him to do the consecrations. After all it has since been clarified that persisting in celebrating the Tridentine Mass was never illicit.

You are performing gymnastic routines with words and events. Illicit consecration of bishops without consent of the Holy Father is an act that incurs automatic excommunication. Speculations of intent are at best just that, and at worst dishonest. The Tridentine Mass was not the reason that Bishop Lefebrve was excommunicated. Pope St. John Paul was never against the Tridentine Mass. In fact, he granted an Indult for that Mass, and asked bishops in the Church to be “generous” toward it. Pope Benedict mentioned these very facts in his motu proprio—Summorum Pontificum.

 

[TheMortenBay]

Yes

Illicit consecration of bishops without consent of the Holy Father is an act that incurs automatic excommunication.

Yes, but in a state of necessity that’s not true. EVEN if Abp. Lefebvre was wrong in thinking there was a state of necessity he couldn’t have been automatically excommunicated.
Regardless, I believe it was Pope Benedict who was of the opinion that wrongs were committed on both sides. It’s not likely the two of us on an Internet forum are going to find the nugget that’s gonna lead to full regularisation of the SSPX anyway.

 

[Randolph]

It’s not likely the two of us on an Internet forum are going to find the nugget that’s gonna lead to full regularisation of the SSPX anyway.

Yes, in charity, let’s move on. Let’s hope and pray for the SSPX will soon be in full communion with the Holy Catholic Church. That would be a great moment for the Church.

 

[commenter]

It’s not likely the two of us on an Internet forum are going to find the nugget that’s gonna lead to full regularisation of the SSPX anyway

Keep in mind large numbers of SSPX priests and seminarians have found the Nugget that led them to take action to full regularization.
On occasion more join them.

As some individuals become ready, they come in. As others are not ready, they don’t come in. Too many post about regularization only as a hypothetical future event, sort of “one size fits all”. Ok, that may happen too, but many parishes and other ministries exist now because of on going regularizations.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Augustinus - I was once in your shoes for the same reasons you are. I chose the SSPX and it changed my life and, I’m convinced, will also be the spiritual salvation of my wife and children. Follow Gab’s advice in that if you should not attend any Mass because it has the makings of a beautiful opera. If you are left rotten, unforgiving, and self-righteous, you are in need of apriestly spiritual advisor. If you are part of a conversation with anyone that calumniates a Mass that is offered as the Sacrifice of Calvary, you should stick up for it. If you attend a Mass that does not treat the Blessed Sacrament with the dignity of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ - run away from it as fast as you can. The SSPX has faculties to hear Confession, to Witness Marriages, and to licitly offer Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. No need to avoid them.

I first went to the SSPX (to be more precise, a closely affiliated chapel served by SSPX bishops) over 32 years ago, and things have never been the same. I stayed for a couple of years until the putative excommunications and some time thereafter (full disclosure, I left for personal reasons not directly related to these). I have been devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass ever since, and only attend the OF because circumstances force me to.

When I do attend the TLM, I attend diocesan Masses, but if the SSPX were the most easily available TLM, I would have no problem with attending, especially since they now have faculties for all seven sacraments including confession. Right now it appears that the SSPX offers the easiest way for my son to be confirmed in 2 or 3 years, and tentatively, that is what we are going to do. Quite aside from choosing the traditional rite over the newer one, diocesan confirmation preparation is more belabored and lengthy, whereas if I am understanding the situation correctly, the SSPX recognizes homeschool confirmation instruction and has materials for it.

Preparation For Confirmation - Angelus Press

As far as “community service” that is required for some confirmation programs (I do not think the SSPX requires this, but it would be good if they did), my son loves to help the homeless, and from time to time we take food to homeless people downtown and at the train station. He has a very keenly developed social conscience, and challenges me to be socially aware as well.