How should I feel about the SSPX?

[Boulder257]

There are people who will claim that Jesus was justifying the sin of the woman taken in adultery. He wasn’t. He showing mercy. He said “Go and sin no more”.
Very similar in the way you are reading into the Pope’s remarks. He is in no way justifying them, he is asking for mercy.To “go and sin no more”.
Tolerance is not the same as acceptence.

I also think you are reading too much into his words. Remember, he lifted the excommunication to give them an opportunity to repent, not because he agreed with their position. These things should be seen as mercy, not approval or sympathy.

 

[JustaServant]

I also think you are reading too much into his words. Remember, he lifted the excommunication to give them an opportunity to repent, not because he agreed with their position. These things should be seen as mercy, not approval or sympathy.

I thought I just said that.

 

[Esrb99]

http://wdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/12_05_31_PCEDLetter.jpg

Source

umm… did you read the link you posted regarding the letter?

“Clarification (2100 GMT): Following our request for a clarification, we have been informed by the US District of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) that the chapel mentioned in the letter below** is not a chapel of the Society** and that, while its specific name was expressly mentioned by the sender in the deleted data,** it is NOT included in the public list of chapels**, including those other chapels identified by the Society publicly as ‘Friends of the Society of St. Pius X’. It is very possible that this information, easily researched online on the website of the U. S. District, might have led someone in the Commission to believe that this specific chapel, which is not listed by them and not one of the “Friends of the Society of Saint Pius X” or “other traditional (non-SSPX) venues”, is a venue with no affiliation whatsoever with the SSPX and led to this different appraisal by the Commission.”

Again, no clear ‘answer’ from Rome on fulfilling obligations at SSPX masses.

 

[Boulder257]

I thought I just said that.

You did. I was echoing what you said.

 

[JustaServant]

You did. I was echoing what you said.

Oh, okay.
I guess both of us need a refresher reading course.

 

[Boulder257]

Oh, okay.
I guess both of us need a refresher reading course.

Yeah, sorry about that. I was quoting you because I agreed with what you said: that the other person was reading into it incorrectly. I could have done that a little better.

 

[Saints_Alive]

There are people who will claim that Jesus was justifying the sin of the woman taken in adultery. He wasn’t. He showing mercy. He said “Go and sin no more”.
Very similar in the way you are reading into the Pope’s remarks. He is in no way justifying them, he is asking for mercy.To “go and sin no more”.
Tolerance is not the same as acceptence.

Why make things up ? I didn’t say he accepted or justified anything. Neither did BXVI.

Glad your post is directly under mine though, so folks can see the truth.

 

[Saints_Alive]

I also think you are reading too much into his words. Remember, he lifted the excommunication to give them an opportunity to repent, not because he agreed with their position. These things should be seen as mercy, not approval or sympathy.

You are welcome to form an opinion of what BXVI thinks of the SSPX as I’m welcome to mine. Can you quote the text of mine where I stated he approved of the SSPX stance ? I don’t believe you can because I didn’t.

I do however, feel that with all of the reasons we can list that would indicate the SSPX could/should be declared in formal schism, there certainly must be a reason they aren’t declared in formal schism.

I’d think sympathy is in the equation there somewhere.

 

[Brendan_64]

I’m a bit confused. They are in an irregular status with the Church. Does this mean I should think of them the way I think of protestants? Or should I be rooting for them? I know we want them to be normalized in the Church, but until that happens how should I feel about them? I’m not interested in joining them or anything, just trying to figure out what I should be thinking. I see a lot of stuff by other bloggers, both positive and negative, about the group. I personally just don’t know what to feel.

The SSPX are Catholics, absolutely they are Catholics.

They are a Catholic society of priests whose bishops recognise the authority of Rome, but refuse to obey it on certain key issues, hence their priests have no faculties and the SSPX itself has no canonical status within the Church. But they are most definitely Catholic.

As for “rooting for them”, do you think it would be advisable of displaying loyalty to our Supreme Pontif, by ‘rooting for’ a society that blatantly disobeys Rome?

We can go to their Masses (which are valid, but illicit, but we cannot do so if we are attending because we agree with the SSPX’s stance regarding the issues on which they are disobedient to Rome. If you are attending out of a love for the Latin Mass (and there is no alternative Latin mass celebrated by priests in good standing with Rome that is close enough for you to be able to reasonably attend) but I don’t think it will count as fulfilling your Sunday obligation (unless there are no Ordinary Form Masses nearby that you could attend). But as an ‘extra’ Mass and you are loyal to Rome regarding the issues the SSPX disobey Rome on, then I would think that it’s OK to attend.

But do not attend Confession with an SSPX priest. In order for Confession to be valid the priests need to have faculties granted, and the SSPX do not have this.

Hopefully they will one day accept all of the Church’s Teachings and fully submit to the authority of the Pope, which would mean they could come into full communion with Rome. But sadly, they do not look like they are willing to do this. The ball is firmly in the SSPX’s court on that.

 

[Brendan_64]

I do however, feel that with all of the reasons we can list that would indicate the SSPX could/should be declared in formal schism, there certainly must be a reason they aren’t declared in formal schism.

I’d think sympathy is in the equation there somewhere.

Declaring the SSPX to be in formal schism wouldn’t help anyone. It wouldn’t help them at all, and it wouldn’t help the Church who would really like the SSPX to decide to come back fully home.

The prodigal son wasn’t disowned by his father and was welcomed back home with open arms when he decided to return. Hopefully the SSPX will one day do the same.

 

[Boulder257]

Declaring the SSPX to be in formal schism wouldn’t help anyone. It wouldn’t help them at all, and it wouldn’t help the Church who would really like the SSPX to decide to come back fully home.

The prodigal son wasn’t disowned by his father and was welcomed back home with open arms when he decided to return. Hopefully the SSPX will one day do the same.

Easy tiger. I was only making the point that we need to be careful when we try to interpret the actions of the Holy Father. We must not consider tolerance as weakness or sympathy. He was trying to bring a lost sheep into the fold and he was doing so with charity. That does not mean he was sympathetic to the situation they created for themselves.

 

[Brendan_64]

Easy tiger. I was only making the point that we need to be careful when we try to interpret the actions of the Holy Father. We must not consider tolerance as weakness or sympathy. He was trying to bring a lost sheep into the fold and he was doing so with charity. That does not mean he was sympathetic to the situation they created for themselves.

I have never, ever, said that he was sympathetic to the situation they created for themselves, and I agree, the situation is entirely of their own making.

I agree, he was indeed trying to bring a lost sheep back into the fold. However if that sheep refuses to come back into the fold then the Holy father will not force the sheep in through the gate, because the gate always remains open and sheep are free to leave or enter at their own free-will. Pope Benedict was simply saying to the SSPX, “We love you as a brother, and the door is always open to you should you decide to willingly come back home. But you must understand that it is your Mother, the Church, who sets the rules in the house”.

Hopefully the SSPX will one day see sense and return home.

 

[JustaServant]

Why make things up ? I didn’t say he accepted or justified anything. Neither did BXVI.

Glad your post is directly under mine though, so folks can see the truth.

Making things up?
No. YOU read things into the Pope’s remarks that were not there in an attempt to justify the SSPX and thier actions. Mercy is what he was talking about. The only “sympathy” there involves the consequences of the decision THEY made.

 

[otjm]

You are welcome to form an opinion of what BXVI thinks of the SSPX as I’m welcome to mine. Can you quote the text of mine where I stated he approved of the SSPX stance ? I don’t believe you can because I didn’t.

I do however, feel that with all of the reasons we can list that would indicate the SSPX could/should be declared in formal schism, there certainly must be a reason they aren’t declared in formal schism.

I’d think sympathy is in the equation there somewhere.

I am not sure that I would put sympathy in the equation.

If the objective of Rome (John Paul 2, Benedict 16, and presumably Francis) as well as those working directly on the issue is reconciliation, it is far easier for someone who in in an “irregular” situation to reconcile, than someone who has been moved farther out - meaning someone declared to be in schism.

In other words, I see it not as sympathy, but as wisdom. Give people the shortest path to walk, and it is far easier to walk that path than one that is far distant.

This battle goes back to Paul VI. It isn’t something that was cooked up in the last decade or so. The Church has consistently taken the position that the SSPX are out on the edges or beyond. That should be news to nobody who has paid much attention for that period of time, and for those who may have heard about it more recently, the information has been out there for anyone wishing to do a bit of looking. And that does not involve any hate, or any such thing; it is just a simple expression of reality of the Church’s position.

Christ came to reconcile all to Himself; and the duty of the Church is to continue that. None of our recent popes have taken that duty lightly; and in being serious about it, that is not an expression of sympathy. It is an expression of a God-given duty, done in charity. Charity should not be mistaken for sympathy.

 

[Boulder257]

I have never, ever, said that he was sympathetic to the situation they created for themselves, and I agree, the situation is entirely of their own making.

I agree, he was indeed trying to bring a lost sheep back into the fold. However if that sheep refuses to come back into the fold then the Holy father will not force the sheep in through the gate, because the gate always remains open and sheep are free to leave or enter at their own free-will. Pope Benedict was simply saying to the SSPX, “We love you as a brother, and the door is always open to you should you decide to willingly come back home. But you must understand that it is your Mother, the Church, who sets the rules in the house”.

Hopefully the SSPX will one day see sense and return home.

Sorry Brendan. I quoted your post when I meant to quote Saints Alive post where he did, in fact, suggest the Holy Father was sympathetic to their plight. I do completely agree with your post wholeheartedly. I am having a really hard time today remembering which posts I am trying to reference! Sorry again my friend.

 

[Brendan_64]

Sorry Brendan. I quoted your post when I meant to quote Saints Alive post

No problem. It’s easy to make such mistakes when involved in a robust discussion,

To be honest, I used to have quite a hard-line (probably uncharitable on my part) towards the SSPX. Then I went to a couple of their Masses, and they seemed to contain decent Catholic people, trying to live out their lives as Christ would want them to, just like any other decent Catholic.

It is just very sad that they don’t accept that they ought to be bound by the Chair of Peter on matters of doctrine, just because they disagree. Does the SSPX think it has its own alternative Magisterium, that it can reject Rome where it disagrees? Whether you agree or disagree with it, you accept Church Teachings and the authority of Rome on these matters. That is how the Church works.

 

[Boulder257]

It is just very sad that they don’t accept that they ought to be bound by the Chair of Peter on matters of doctrine, just because they disagree. Does the SSPX think it has its own alternative Magisterium, that it can reject Rome where it disagrees? Whether you agree or disagree with it, you accept Church Teachings and the authority of Rome on these matters. That is how the Church works.

I agree completely.

 

[Aramis]

It is just very sad that they don’t accept that they ought to be bound by the Chair of Peter on matters of doctrine, just because they disagree. Does the SSPX think it has its own alternative Magisterium, that it can reject Rome where it disagrees? Whether you agree or disagree with it, you accept Church Teachings and the authority of Rome on these matters. That is how the Church works.

They assign chaplains to chapels as if parishes, presume the title pastor, have organized regions that function as if deaneries, have organized parallel communities of consecrated religious, provide support for a schismatic Byzantine rite groups (The SSJK). THey are functionally a parallel church.

The only things needed for them to be fully schismatic are to stop commemorating the pope and to ordain at least one more bishop. Which said, I would not be surprised to see happen if either Bishop Fellay or Tissier

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please do not use this forum as an apologia for any organization that the Church has already said has no canonical place until it meets certain conditions. Until the Church says that those conditions have been met, the situation has not changed and that’s all that can be said in fairness to all parties: the institute, the Church and the person asking the question.