How to respond to SSPX followers

[Don_Ruggero]

while what you mention is true, it most certainly does not cover the problems Paul 6th, John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 have had with them.

It was not for no reason that Cardinal Muller said that though they were not in juridical schism, they were in practical schism.

Some of us who are priests have been dealing with these who are in “practical schism” now for five pontificates. Some of us have long memories of their actions against pope after pope and that is to say nothing of the incalculable harm they have done where they have simulated sacraments…imparting absolutions that were invalid for want of faculties or attempting to witness marriages when they have no jurisdiction, possessing no incardination for their priesthood, and on and on.

I should be very glad to live long enough to see them end their disobedience and return to communion with Rome (for many, I should write “come into communion with Rome” since it is so many decades, many of them have never known communion with Rome) and then for these bishops and priests to offer Mass at the tombs of Blessed Paul VI and Saint John Paul II in reparation for having disobeyed these saintly Vicars of Christ and at the tomb of Saint John XXIII in thanksgiving to God for the gift of Vatican II to the Church and in abject sorrow for having acted in such ways as to be stripped of faculties and suspended from the priestly ministry by the Successor of Saint Peter.

After more than four decades of witnessing how these people have behaved, I don’t have the expectation of being that long-lived.

 

[Brendan_64]

This is interesting. Pope Francis met with Bishop Fellay on Saturday.

Could Pope Francis be the Pope to bring the SSPX back into the fold?

lastampa.it/2016/04/04/vaticaninsider/eng/news/francis-meets-traditionalist-society-of-st-pius-x-leader-who-seeks-full-communion-definition-7Upwxc3xIcUsqDVutilLlO/pagina.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

 

[Catholic4Christ]

This is interesting. Pope Francis met with Bishop Fellay on Saturday.

Could Pope Francis be the Pope to bring the SSPX back into the fold?

lastampa.it/2016/04/04/vaticaninsider/eng/news/francis-meets-traditionalist-society-of-st-pius-x-leader-who-seeks-full-communion-definition-7Upwxc3xIcUsqDVutilLlO/pagina.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

It is great that the two met - it gives me hope every time something like this happens. But they decided not to proceed “with haste” - so it still may be quite a while.

 

[ProVobis]

It is great that the two met - it gives me hope every time something like this happens. But they decided not to proceed “with haste” - so it still may be quite a while.

It is possible too, that Bishop Fellay may be the only bishop who comes on board. At least that’s the feel I get when reading of such meetings.

 

[victrolatim]

The problems I have seen is that many (again, not all I’m sure) do not have an accurate view of the church as a whole. There seems to be this pervading view of more hardcore “traditionalists” that the “Novus Ordo” church is still the church of the 70s and 80s with the most extreme cases of liturgical abuse and overall wackiness being stressed. I am not going to argue of course that liturgical abuses do not take place (unfortunately they do sometimes) but, at least in the people that I have conversed with, they seem to ignore the good fruits of the new evangelization, EWTN, the most recent missal translation, etc. Anything that is not complete reversion to pre-Vatican II is not good enough and a lot of the more fringe publications pervade this.

 

[ProVobis]

The problems I have seen is that many (again, not all I’m sure) do not have an accurate view of the church as a whole. There seems to be this pervading view of more hardcore “traditionalists” that the “Novus Ordo” church is still the church of the 70s and 80s with the most extreme cases of liturgical abuse and overall wackiness being stressed. I am not going to argue of course that liturgical abuses do not take place (unfortunately they do sometimes) but, at least in the people that I have conversed with, they seem to ignore the good fruits of the new evangelization, EWTN, the most recent missal translation, etc. Anything that is not complete reversion to pre-Vatican II is not good enough and a lot of the more fringe publications pervade this.

Apparently the rupture was/is deep.

 

[Lormar]

I just read an on-line article from the NCR that Bishop Fellay met with Pope Francis on April 1st and that it was a favorable meeting. Apparently Bishop Fellay wanted clarification about the phrase “full communion.”

 

[Lormar]

It is a complicated situation. I wasn’t aware that Cardinal Muller said that, but I will take your word on that.

On the other hand we have the Pope talking about the “good faith and sacramental practice” of the SSPX in his letter opening the Year of Mercy (in which he granted them temporary faculties to hear Confession). He stated that from various quarters, several bishops had informed him of this. I wonder whether Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Brandmuller and perhaps even Cardinal Muller himself were these bishops the Pope was referring to. All of these good bishops had met with the SSPX in the months preceding the opening of the Year of Mercy (Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Brandmuller had visiting their seminaries and Cardinal Muller had met with Bishop Fellay).

Rather than condemn, castigate and view them as ‘untouchables’, we should view them as our fellow Catholics, reach out, try to understand and not fold our arms and turn our backs on them. The SSPX are Catholics and, whether we agree with them or not, they are on the margins of our Church. Is the onus not on all of us to reach out to the marginalised rather than wag our fingers at them and condemn them?

We should pray that some day soon there will be a reconciliation and the SSPX will be back fully in the fold again. What a great thing that would be.

St. Paul said we owe charity first to those who are members of the “household of the faith.”

I’d really like to know why anything to do with the Church pre-Vatican II is seemingly so disliked by so many. Not everything old is bad, and not everything new is good. The Church has yet to regain its balance.

 

[Padres1969]

Apparently the rupture was/is deep.

Not so deep that they haven’t stopped talking. And it seems that for many traditionalists Pope Benedict’s allowance for the EF to be used has quelled quite a bit of the dissent. From my own reading and viewing it does seem that there are still those who are theologically opposed to the OF and other changes that happened post-VII from continuing. But most, even if they object to the OF and other changes, are willing to let them exist just so long as they were allowed access to the EF and the older ways if they so chose. SSPX seems to occupy the area right on the fence between these two views.

 

[victrolatim]

If you want to understand the roots of the SSPX, read some of Archbishop Lefebvre’s writings. Long ago I read his “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” and although I didn’t agree with a lot of it, it helps to explain his mindset, what his theological basis was and the climate of the time he was writing in.

 

[Lormar]

Here’s one article about the meeting: en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/04/04/press_office_confirms_pope_francis_meeting_with_sspx_head/1220164

The other one was in the National Catholic Reporter.

 

[Glennon_P]

St. Paul said we owe charity first to those who are members of the “household of the faith.”

I’d really like to know why anything to do with the Church pre-Vatican II is seemingly so disliked by so many. Not everything old is bad, and not everything new is good. The Church has yet to regain its balance.

And conversely, not everything old is good, and not everything new is bad.

 

[Lormar]

And conversely, not everything old is good, and not everything new is bad.

That goes without saying. I’m sure you understood my point.

One would sometimes get the impression from much of what is written and said that the Church did little to nothing right before 1958.

 

[Glennon_P]

That goes without saying. I’m sure you understood my point.

One would sometimes get the impression from much of what is written and said that the Church did little to nothing right before 1958.

I absolutely understand.

There are also those who say the Church has done little to nothing right since 1958.

Both viewpoints have the same validity - that is to say, not much.

 

[Lormar]

I absolutely understand.

There are also those who say the Church has done little to nothing right since 1958.

Both viewpoints have the same validity - that is to say, not much.

Sad, but true.

 

[Pulvis]

I absolutely understand.

There are also those who say the Church has done little to nothing right since 1958.

Both viewpoints have the same validity - that is to say, not much.

Actually I believe both viewpoints raise many Valid points which should be discussed openly. Particularly the rapid changes occurring in the late 60’s and 70’s that had nothing to do with the conciliar documents. Like it or not, their are some within the Church that had ulterior motives and found the early post-Vatican II years fertile territory for novelty and mischief. Also the idea of some that the Church should return to Trent is just as wrong. But a discussion of what was left behind that should not have been, added to what was changed that should have been, is constructive. That discussion has not occurred on a large scale.

 

[Brendan_64]

Also significant is that on Saturday Bishop Fellay also met Archbishop Guido Pozzo secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. This would suggest discussion of doctrinal issues.

Perhaps at the end of this Year of Mercy, Pope Francis will surprise us with regard to the status of the SSPX, let’s hope and pray that this is so.

 

[Lormar]

Also significant is that on Saturday Bishop Fellay also met Archbishop Guido Pozzo secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. This would suggest discussion of doctrinal issues.

Perhaps at the end of this Year of Mercy, Pope Francis will surprise us with regard to the status of the SSPX, let’s hope and pray that this is so.

That is what I have been suspecting will happen. I hope it does.

 

[ProVobis]

Here’s one article about the meeting: en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/04/04/press_office_confirms_pope_francis_meeting_with_sspx_head/1220164

The other one was in the National Catholic Reporter.

Personally, I wish this weren’t so hyped up.

It only gives those opposed to any reconciliation more time to dig in their heels, so to speak.

And let’s not pretend everyone is praying for such reconciliation. Enough already downplayed the lifting of the excommunications and allowance of confessions to be heard.

 

[Padres1969]

Personally, I wish this weren’t so hyped up.

It only gives those opposed to any reconciliation more time to dig in their heels, so to speak.

And let’s not pretend everyone is praying for such reconciliation. Enough already downplayed the lifting of the excommunications and allowance of confessions to be heard.

Don’t know why people would oppose reconciliation. If the SSPX is ready to submit to the Pope and accept V-II why would anyone not want them reunified to the Catholic Church?