How to respond to SSPX followers

[otjm]

I for one would like to see the SSPX reconciled as a whole to the Church. I hope the “ordained” Priests would follow their Bishop under obedience, and try to come back into the Church for themselves.

Regardless of what one thinks of V2 - our Church has a few too many “liberal voices,” both from within and the media pushing against us. Some theologically-strong Priests could do wonders for instructing us Catholics in our faith.

One of the posters above mentioned that priests in the 90s/2000s seem disinterested in tradition. I agree. Many of the priests I’ve experienced from this time frame are the “mercy, love (and some more) mercy” priests that can tell you about the Year of Mercy every week in the homily, but fail to say anything about what the Year of Mercy IS, how to receive the Indulgences, or even what the Indulgences are.
Thank God that so many Seminarians today have a much stronger traditional-mindset - I suppose “cultural vocations” aren’t a thing anymore, and the Catholics remaining may be more traditional than most. The figures I had from France suggested most of the Seminarians now are actually for the FSSP/ICKSP, rather than the Dioceses (who are known to be a little “against” the mindset of the more traditional-minded). Ireland, despite very low vocations, have a group of very conservative-minded Seminarians, and they couldn’t “get rid of them” for their beliefs due to the low numbers and priest shortage…

I have been to very a few Novus Ordo Masses done very quietly. I don’t know whether that is equal to “reverent,” but it sure beats “Catholic ‘Folk’ Music” that we often get today (even the Catholic School’s Choir did better than our usual bunch yesterday for the Feast of the Annunciation!).
It just seems to be too easy to alter the prayers of the Mass, whether altering the “Through Christ our Lord” prayer, the dismissal, even the words of the Preface (My Missal states which is to be used, then we go an use something from Ordinary time??? )… If you think of it this way, and actually look out for the things that aren’t supposed to happen perhaps the view of the SSPX on the Ordinary Form doesn’t seem quite as extreme…
eingedi.org/violation-2.html
ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm
canticanova.com/articles/liturgy/art9bq1.htm

There are over 17,300 parishes in the US - how many do you actually attend? I don’t mean this as a put down, but you are painting with an awfully broad brush.

There are fewer than 500 parishes listed as having the EF - inclduing those which have it once every other month. There are about the same number of priests (a bit fewer), and there may be some who would like to say it but are constrained by what they are already responsible for; but certainly not many.

I also hear of people complaining that Masses are lacking reverence, full of abuses, and etc.; but even when traveling, I am simply not coming across those. That is not to say they do not exist, but the 70’s were 40 +/- years ago… and much has changed.

Some of the 'altered prayers" are within legitimate, provided for alternatives (as has been pointed out occasionally when people in these threads have complained), and music is a personal choice, but has far less to do with reverence and far more to do with taste.

 

[otjm]

Abp. +Lefebvre also voted in favor of it, if I’m not mistaken. He and many Catholics (not just SSPX) would argue that the Mass of Paul VI did not effectively follow the mandates of Sacrosanctum Concilium, or at least that its implementation did not. I’m not educated enough on the matter to say for myself, but I haven’t heard a lot of traditionalists really hate on Sacrosanctum Concilium in and of itself.

I think we could all agree that SC did not anticipate as many changes as were made; on the other hand, I find it interesting that some people seem to ascribe to the idea that SC was a limiting factor and that the the Church could not make changes other than what was outlined.

Some of the people who were working on liturgical changes were appointed to do that by Pius XII, a point that seems to have escaped the attention of many. And SC, while not specifying exactly what changes could or should be made, outlined that the Mass had accretions over time which should be removed, and had things removed over time which should be restored.

What perhaps was the most damaging was not the changes themselves, but the number of priests, the vast majority of whom had been ordained prior to Vatican 2, who took a free hand to making changes on their own, and who often, in what seemed a rebellion to the absolute strictness of the EF, took a less than very reverent approach to saying Mass. I suspect that lack of reverence did more to sour people about the OF than the actual changes, had they been explained to parishes.

 

[Catholic4Christ]

Some of the people who were working on liturgical changes were appointed to do that by Pius XII, a point that seems to have escaped the attention of many.

I don’t find this too surprising. Pope Ven. Pius XII was himself a Pope of liturgical reform (like the other 20th century Pontiffs). His liturgical reforms of 1955 (especially the Holy Week services) are pretty well known, and not generally loved by traditionalist folks.

 

[commenter]

As for the rest of your post, being proud myself, it is hard for a proud person to ever admit they have been wrong. Or are wrong. Often people harden in their errors.

This is true, and not just for those in SSPX.
It does take courage to “come in” especially when you have experienced abuses of liturgy, and other things, that helped initially fuel the SSPX. I don’t agree with their complaints about V2 documents, but I certainly have seen, and still see less often now, the kind of things that get them mad.

In 1976, when the local SSPX chapel was started, our diocese was rampant in abuses, with no provision for the EF, no encouragement for orthodox RC families. Today it is 80% improved, and the problems are mostly in decline, as people retire. But the local chapel still is responding as if it were 1976, in spite of 2 close by EF Masses, much more supports, and a very different diocesan leadership. It’s called momentum, driving that chapel.

Welcome to those individuals who have come in, or will come in. Let our response be love, not judgement, of the others.

 

[CuriousMike]

There are over 17,300 parishes in the US - how many do you actually attend? I don’t mean this as a put down, but you are painting with an awfully broad brush.

I also hear of people complaining that Masses are lacking reverence, full of abuses, and etc.; but even when traveling, I am simply not coming across those. That is not to say they do not exist, but the 70’s were 40 +/- years ago… and much has changed.

Some of the 'altered prayers" are within legitimate, provided for alternatives (as has been pointed out occasionally when people in these threads have complained), and music is a personal choice, but has far less to do with reverence and far more to do with taste.

My profile doesn’t seem to indicate my location. Let me amend that.

I have experienced the Masses said by 7 Priests from my previous Diocese.
Not entirely sure of the numbers they have, but the Diocese is very large and encompasses very few Priests. A number of Priests serve two, maybe more areas from their home Parish.

In the city (where I am now), there are quite a few more Priests. If my memory serves correct, I have attended Masses from about 10-12 different Priests.

In all cases, these were Priests from different backgrounds, some Diocesan, some from religious orders. Some from SE Asia, others from Eastern Europe, Italy, French Colonies and others being “Australian Born and Bred.”
So I’d like to think there is a reasonable representation in that mix.

I’m not saying that our Masses are “Full of Abuses,” but I am noting that the same mistakes are quite recurrent. Omitting the homily was common in my previous Parish and choir practice right up to the bells ringing another that still happens in my new Parish.
If other prayers could be used, I’d expect a notation in my Missal - which it does include for some days of the Liturgical Cycle, for example “Note: Solemn Blessing (etc) as seen on Page No. … may be substituted,” or “1st Preface of Lent, Page No. …”

While music is largely a taste thing, I think I wouldn’t be the only one saying that a lot of Christian music is lame and tries very hard to be something its not.
One wonders when the Missal itself quotes the Churches documents noting that Gregorian Chant is to be retained as the official music of the Church.
In any case, the Word of God and receiving Jesus in the Eucharist are FAR more important things to me than music. If people don’t recognise this, then music cannot possibly help them.

 

[otjm]

My profile doesn’t seem to indicate my location. Let me amend that.

I have experienced the Masses said by 7 Priests from my previous Diocese.
Not entirely sure of the numbers they have, but the Diocese is very large and encompasses very few Priests. A number of Priests serve two, maybe more areas from their home Parish.

In the city (where I am now), there are quite a few more Priests. If my memory serves correct, I have attended Masses from about 10-12 different Priests.

In all cases, these were Priests from different backgrounds, some Diocesan, some from religious orders. Some from SE Asia, others from Eastern Europe, Italy, French Colonies and others being “Australian Born and Bred.”
So I’d like to think there is a reasonable representation in that mix.

I’m not saying that our Masses are “Full of Abuses,” but I am noting that the same mistakes are quite recurrent. Omitting the homily was common in my previous Parish and choir practice right up to the bells ringing another that still happens in my new Parish.
If other prayers could be used, I’d expect a notation in my Missal - which it does include for some days of the Liturgical Cycle, for example “Note: Solemn Blessing (etc) as seen on Page No. … may be substituted,” or “1st Preface of Lent, Page No. …”

While music is largely a taste thing, I think I wouldn’t be the only one saying that a lot of Christian music is lame and tries very hard to be something its not.
One wonders when the Missal itself quotes the Churches documents noting that Gregorian Chant is to be retained as the official music of the Church.
In any case, the Word of God and receiving Jesus in the Eucharist are FAR more important things to me than music. If people don’t recognise this, then music cannot possibly help them.

If the same mistakes keep occurring, then the matter seems to be one of oversight from the bishop; and I am not going to tell a bishop he is wrong. Or lax. But that may be the issue, since it is a common matter.

I was in a schola in 1965 that cut a record of Gregorian chant. I love Gregorian chant, but precious few choirs, or choir directors know how it is to be sung. And it is not something I want to hear people in the pews slaughtering.

I am not sure at all that I would agree with you that the music available today is “trying hard to be something it is not”. It is meant to be music that can be sung by people in the pews, along the lines of “he who sings, prays twice”. It is not meant to be a performance; and have in the past seen people go “at it” about music, for example, from OCP. I went and looked at one point, and a large number of songs they were complaining about had notation at the bottom indicating the source; Old and New Testament. golly - what a terrible source… not.

But it wasn’t Palistrina, so it did not suit the aficionados. Sorry, just me, but I do not go to Mass to hear a four part, professional voices choir slide up and down the scales of whatever Palistrina wrote about 450 years ago, and I don’t give a flip that it is part of the Church’s musical heritage. I go to worship, not to listen to a concert.

And I say that because we had a parish in which they had such a choir (for Mass Saturday evening). I would always take the RCIA people after Easter to hear that Mass, as I felt that whatever my feelings were about it, they had a right to hear it. Some loved it; some were so-so, and some didn’t like it. I kept my opinions to myself, and then went to Mass the next morning.

Anyone and everyone is welcome to my share of that, and I most certainly will not criticize them for their taste. I am glad it makes their socks roll up and down, but it doesn’t do that to me.

On the other hand, I occasionally go to Mass at our local Trappist abbey. Long ago - back in the early 1960’s, they did a credible job at Gregorian chant. In Latin. If one wanted to join, one of their requirements was that one could at least carry a note in a washtub. Now - they chant in English, and I appreciate it; but the majority of them are well over 70. Not so good…

I understand you are not overjoyed and waxing eloquent about your diocese. It appears that some of it, if common, needs some leadership. You seem to have had experience with a number of priests; and again, maybe 1/1,000 of all priests in the US ( and you did not say you were in the US…). Again, please be cautious about painting with a broad brush. I find any number of posters making statements about local matters and portraying them as near universal. For readers who may not be particularly acquainted with the broader Church, or not particularly adept in critical reading skills, that leads to others making universal statements which have no real bearing on reality.

 

[Lormar]

It is exactly this. I don’t see the will for them to come back – I am speaking of the priests. That is all the SSPX is. The laity who attend their chapels have absolutely no standing relative to the Priestly Society, which anyway was dissolved by competent ecclesiastical authority four decades ago.

As it is, they are a thing apart. They answer only to themselves. There is no cooperation with the diocesan bishop wherever they live and run their chapels or schools…there is no oversight from the Congregation of Bishops, the Congregation of the Clergy, Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, the Congregation for Education and so forth. No collaboration with the Episcopal Conferences. No interaction with the presbyterates where they are.

It is not simply a matter of “we’re going to let you say Mass however you choose” – to be in communion or not in communion has very profound and radical implications for how a cleric’s daily life is actually lived, which goes well beyond the 30 minutes he uses to celebrate his daily Mass.

**Frankly, I think most lay people who come into full communion with the Roman Church sign on the dotted line “I believe and profess all that Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches to be revealed by God” without really beginning to know the profundity of what that statement means in all its permutations…and they go on with their daily lives as lay people. **

For a cleric, it is very different. The priests of the SSPX have to come to terms with what the ecumenical council taught…they either accept the orientation that the world’s bishops gave the Church on liturgy, on religious liberty, on ecumenism, and on the other topics…or they don’t. They either understand that their lives and persons as Catholic clerics involves full and complete submission to ecclesiastical authority, which goes beyond their immediate superiors in their own society, and they do so in all its manifestations for a cleric…or they don’t.

One’s whole life is profoundly governed by ecclesiastical authority, when one is an ordained priest.

Don Ruggero, since you are not accessible via private message, you would do me, and perhaps others, a great service if you explained some things.

1. Would you be kind enough to expound on the paragraph of your post I highlighted?
2. Yesterday, you posted something about ecumenism. As you know, the SSPX and other traditionals point to Mortalium Animos which they say contradicts the direction the Church decided to move in during VII. Would you be so kind as to take the time to explain how they (the SSPX and others) are wrong regarding this?
3. If you don’t mind a more personal question , have you ever had to obediently submit your personal judgment, preference and intellect to that of Holy Mother Church in the face of something they were doing that you strongly disagreed with or did not approve of?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Don Ruggero,

1. Would you be kind enough to expound on the paragraph of your post I highlighted?

The laity I received into full communion had some knowledge of the Catechism of the Catholic Church…a variation on basics, unless the person was a religious scholar. I can’t, for instance, have an in-depth chat about the Christological controversies addressed by Chalcedon or ask them to predicate the communicatio idiomatum or explain circumincession – but I would expect any priest to. These express what the Church teaches about the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union. The laity coming to full communion couldn’t articulate “all that the Church taught that was revealed by God”

I find very few laity who’ve read the documents of Vatican II, let alone studied them at a graduate school level…which is where I taught them. SSPX priests, if they return to full communion, will need to know these and live these – and need to know them to understand the implications of what they are returning to communion with

1. Yesterday, you posted…about ecumenism. As you know, the SSPX and other traditionals point to Mortalium Animos which they say contradicts the direction the Church decided to move in during VII. Would you be so kind as to take the time to explain how they (the SSPX and others) are wrong regarding this?

There are a number of past documents I could point to that state the Holy See’s opposition to, for example, the World Council of Churches and the nascent ecumenical movement in the 19th & 20th centuries. The Holy See also opposed the political unification of the Italian peninsula (we’re still living with the aftermath of that!) They opposed various political systems many live in. There are a number of times a history student sees decisions and prudential judgments made by Church authority that were on the wrong side of history. Thankfully, many of those eventually get redressed, somewhat. In a reflective moment, Pope Benedict wrote the world’s Catholic bishops:
Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden.
The Church must own that reality. We all must own that reality

The Council Fathers perceived the action of the Holy Spirit and mandated that the ecumenical movement was now a priority for the Church in this era…and Ut Unum Sint is one of the most beautiful expressions of the Church’s new orientation and mind about non-Catholic Christians and the imperative for Church unity – as opposed to what was in the past

1. If you don’t mind a more personal question, have you ever had to obediently submit your personal judgment, preference and intellect to that of Holy Mother Church in the face of something they were doing that you strongly disagreed with or did not approve of?

Yes, often. I accepted a number assignments I didn’t “want”

There were a number of times when I expressed my preference for what I would be happier doing and was told “no.” The judgment of the bishop or some need somewhere outweighed my preference.

In matters of personal judgment, I would probably cite consultation by the bishop when I was a formator. I once asked the bishop why he sought my opinion so often when he seldom took my counsel…wouldn’t he be better served by choosing someone whose opinion he more valued. He said it was because I often gave a perspective that gave him a different insight on the person or on the matter, which served him well…whatever the decision he ultimately made

I never expected to find myself involved with the ecumenical movement. That unforeseen obedience has been one of the most enriching gifts of my life and priesthood

On the other hand, personally, I always appreciated that our altar servers were male and I kept to that until the day the Vatican decreed otherwise. That very day, my practice changed – my preference was nothing beside the request of the girl who wanted to serve at the altar and the Vatican that said she could; I’ve never looked back

There were times when, behind closed doors, there were exchanges – some more open and others that weren’t…those the bishop said, “It is my decision and I’ve decided.” Typically, my answer was “Yes, Excellency”. On occasion, when I couldn’t agree, my response was “As Your Excellency says” – and he well understood the difference. To this day, no non-priest would ever know or be able to figure out what those might have concerned. As far as the laity and the world beyond closed doors were concerned, my thought was identical to the bishop’s.

On a light note, we were about to begin a liturgy and the bishop asked about a couple of issues. I answered and he said, “Oh! I don’t like that!” I said, “Well, what do you prefer?” He said and, without saying a thing, I walked over, made the changes, and came back to get in place for the procession. He looked at me and, with raised eyebrow, said “Just like that?” I said “It’s not like you want to change the matter or form of a sacrament.” He was pleased and made a comment; most of the concelebrants were listening & smiling. I said, “Out of the whole lot of us, you’re the only one in the room with a mitre on your head, so that says you get to decide. You didn’t have to send me off for those extra degrees for us to know that!” We were all laughing until we got to the cathedral door

My thoughts about Marcel Lefebvre ultimately rest on the Summer of 1976. The thoughts haven’t changed in the intervening 40 years…just confirmed by the Summer of 1988

 

[Lormar]

Thank you, Father, for taking the time to answer my questions. I genuinely appreciate it.

Condensing your response, you are basically saying that the laity does not have enough knowledge on Church matters to make an informed enough decision on whether what they are reading from others who are urging them to leave the Church for what they perceive to be “greener pastures” is right or wrong?

Also, if you don’t mind me saying, you sound as if you are fortunate enough to possess a docile character. What does someone do who is not given to docility in order to conform themselves to the mind of the Church?

One more question. If the Church is wrong in the direction it is going in today, is it better to be “wrong” with the Church than be right with a group such as the SSPX?

 

[Lormar]

My thoughts about Marcel Lefebvre ultimately rest on the Summer of 1976. The thoughts haven’t changed in the intervening 40 years…just confirmed by the Summer of 1988

I’ll go back and read what happened that summer just to refresh my memory. Is that when he was asked not to ordain any more priests?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you, Father, for taking the time to answer my questions. I genuinely appreciate it.

Condensing your response, you are basically saying that the laity does not have enough knowledge on Church matters to make an informed enough decision on whether what they are reading from others who are urging them to leave the Church for what they perceive to be “greener pastures” is right or wrong?

Also, if you don’t mind me saying, you sound as if you are fortunate enough to possess a docile character. What does someone do who is not given to docility in order to conform themselves to the mind of the Church?

One more question. If the Church is wrong in the direction it is going in today, is it better to be “wrong” with the Church than be right with a group such as the SSPX?

1. I am contrasting two people coming into full communion with Rome: lay people who are received into the Church and the SSPX priests who would have to be restored to full communion with Rome. In the former case, their knowledge of all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches to be revealed by God is necessarily very limited – they are not theologians. And their lives in the Church will never require them to be theologians. The SSPX priest – or any priest – should have gone through years of academic study in philosophy and theology. They should have been formed, across years, in the spiritual life. The level to which they are to be held – in terms of knowing the documents of Vatican II and in terms of being able to correctly integrate those documents into what the Church has taught is rightly a very high expectation.
2. No, I do not have a docile character at all. I remember one priest saying to my seminarian self that I was far too willful to ever make a good priest. Submission is an act of the will. It may require violence to oneself but it remains an act of the will.

I really don’t know how to answer your last question. The concept is completely alien to me. Whether it is the liturgy, how we approach ecumenism, our relations with every other Christian confession, the renewal in theology…over the decades, I have seen such vast improvement from what was when I was young to what now is that it is as evident to me that we are witnessing the work of the Holy Spirit in all of the various areas related to the Council’s implementation that it is like one knowing the sun is in the sky when one has the light of day all about you.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I’ll go back and read what happened that summer just to refresh my memory. Is that when he was asked not to ordain any more priests?

Oh it was much more than that. The society was dissolved by the diocesan bishop who had kindly created it ad experimentum. Remember, at this point the archbishop was already emeritus and could not erect seminaries or any thing requiring the action of a sitting diocesan bishop. The archbishop went through this tortured argument that this entity still existed canonically.

Pope Paul VI then personally forbade him from proceeding with the ordinations to the priesthood for a list of reasons, actually. The archbishop disobeyed the Vicar of Christ. The Pope denounced him to the Sacred College of Cardinals. When the archbishop would not repent of his disobedience, the Pope suspended Marcel Lefebvre from all priestly ministry – he could not lawfully celebrate the sacraments thereafter but he flaunted his disregard of that, too. And he lived and died in his disobedience and his personal rejection of the Vicar of Christ.

 

[Lormar]

Oh it was much more than that. The society was dissolved by the diocesan bishop who had kindly created it ad experimentum. Remember, at this point the archbishop was already emeritus and could not erect seminaries or any thing requiring the action of a sitting diocesan bishop. The archbishop went through this tortured argument that this entity still existed canonically.

Pope Paul VI then personally forbade him from proceeding with the ordinations to the priesthood for a list of reasons, actually. The archbishop disobeyed the Vicar of Christ. The Pope denounced him to the Sacred College of Cardinals. When the archbishop would not repent of his disobedience, the Pope suspended Marcel Lefebvre from all priestly ministry – he could not lawfully celebrate the sacraments thereafter but he flaunted his disregard of that, too. And he lived and died in his disobedience and his personal rejection of the Vicar of Christ.

I was told that he was reconciled to the Church on his deathbed by a Fraternity of St. Peter priest. It was an FSSP priest that told me this. If this is true, the SSPX has never mentioned the fact.

 

[Lormar]

1. I am contrasting two people coming into full communion with Rome: lay people who are received into the Church and the SSPX priests who would have to be restored to full communion with Rome. In the former case, their knowledge of all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches to be revealed by God is necessarily very limited – they are not theologians. And their lives in the Church will never require them to be theologians. The SSPX priest – or any priest – should have gone through years of academic study in philosophy and theology. They should have been formed, across years, in the spiritual life. The level to which they are to be held – in terms of knowing the documents of Vatican II and in terms of being able to correctly integrate those documents into what the Church has taught is rightly a very high expectation.
2. No, I do not have a docile character at all. I remember one priest saying to my seminarian self that I was far too willful to ever make a good priest. Submission is an act of the will. It may require violence to oneself but it remains an act of the will.

I really don’t know how to answer your last question. The concept is completely alien to me. ** Whether it is the liturgy, how we approach ecumenism, our relations with every other Christian confession, the renewal in theology…over the decades, I have seen such vast improvement from what was when I was young to what now is that it is as evident to me that we are witnessing the work of the Holy Spirit in all of the various areas related to the Council’s implementation that it is like one knowing the sun is in the sky when one has the light of day all about you**.

I wish I could see it that way. It would take a powerful grace for me to do so.

 

[R_H_Benson]

I wish I could see it that way. It would take a powerful grace for me to do so.

I think he is being sarcastic.

 

[Lormar]

I think he is being sarcastic.

He is?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I think he is being sarcastic.

I am not being sarcastic at all. Far from it. What I have said expresses exactly and precisely how I feel.

I fail to see how I could be any clearer or more emphatic.

I thank the Lord to have lived at the time of the Council and through the intervening years to see and to be part of its implementation. The blessing it has been is truly tremendous…

 

[R_H_Benson]

I am not being sarcastic at all. Far from it. What I have said expresses exactly and precisely how I feel.

I fail to see how I could be any clearer or more emphatic.

I thank the Lord to have lived at the time of the Council and through the intervening years to see and to be part of its implementation. The blessing it has been is truly tremendous…

Interesting.

 

[Lormar]

Don Ruggero, the SSPX often uses the Arian heresy crisis in the Church and St. Athanasius as a point of reference for what Archbishop Lefebvre did and the SSPX is doing.

How are they not alike?

 

[carefullytread]

Don Ruggero, the SSPX often uses the Arian heresy crisis in the Church and St. Athanasius as a point of reference for what Archbishop Lefebvre did and the SSPX is doing.

How are they not alike?

Isn’t the difference that the Arian heresy was never definitively taught by a pope or council whereas Vatican II clearly is a definitive council? My understanding is that the neither the pope nor an ecumenical council is allowed to teach on faith or morals in error.

It is possible for a pope to have heretical ideas or for large numbers of bishops to teach them. But a pope will never definitively teach heresy and same with all the bishops teaching in communion with the pope.