If The SSPX Were Declared In Full Communion Tomorrow

[I_Believe]

What group will be be bashing next ?

With all of the groups out there who are true dangers to the souls of Roman Catholics, why do we focus on the group closest to being in full communion ?

Why do the SSPX bashers ignore the Dimond brothers and Call To Action ? Those are the groups that can poison the souls of our children.

Fess up please. To those who constantly see the need to point out the SSPX clergy are suspended for now, what makes the SSPX such a danger to you ?

It’s reported that Cardinal Hoyos may spend some time in Econe after he retires. I suppose we should get busy writing letters to him "warning " him about those terrible SSPX clergy ?

 

[I_Believe]

btw, I don’t support my local SSPX Chapel, and won’t until they are regularized. I take the fact that the clergy are suspended as good enough reason not to support them yet, but I’m sorry, they are good Catholics.

Our Pope sees that. Why can’t those of you who hate them see it ? You disagree with the Pope ? Isn’t that what you profess to dislike about the SSPX ?

Fess up.

 

[thunderballs75]

I think the SSPX doesn’t consider themselves being disobedient, because they don’t consider the excommunications valid. They felt that what was happening in the Church at the time was drastic enough that the consecrations were necessary. They also point to Quo Primum, which says that no restrictions may be allowed to be imposed on the Tridentine Mass, and that no priest may be obliged to pray any Mass other than that one.

I’m still weary about them. However, we have to admit, that if the pressure weren’t coming from the SSPX, odds are that the Latin Mass would not have been liberalized, and modernism would have no opponent in the Church today. Of course, I think they could have done more good by staying in the Church and not being, in my opinion, disobedient.

And of course, I would love to see the SSPX enter full communion with the Church. They would be a great help in fighting the problems of modernism which all too often seep into the Church. The other organizations you mentioned are also in my opinion way worse.

 

[pnewton]

Why do the SSPX bashers ignore the Dimond brothers and Call To Action ? Those are the groups that can poison the souls of our children.

This thread seems argumentative by nature and assumes a “bashing” taking place. We all have the option of reporting posts and posters that are deemed to be lacking in charity. The other two groups you mentioned seldom post here, although the few times the Dimond brothers were linked here they was quashed pretty fast. If Call to Action supporters were to start and poster here, or even recruit here, I would bet a paycheck that the response of the Catholic faithful would be very defensive of the faith.

If the SSPX were declared in full communion I would say a prayer of thanksgiving as I have been praying for that occurance.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

This thread seems argumentative by nature and assumes a “bashing” taking place. We all have the option of reporting posts and posters that are deemed to be lacking in charity. The other two groups you mentioned seldom post here, although the few times the Dimond brothers were linked here they was quashed pretty fast. If Call to Action supporters were to start and poster here, or even recruit here, I would bet a paycheck that the response of the Catholic faithful would be very defensive of the faith.

If the SSPX were declared in full communion I would say a prayer of thanksgiving as I have been praying for that occurance.

I don’t bash SSPX. I might snark in a Jane Austen-esque way about their behavior and their more absurd actions, but I do NOT bash them. If they were to be returned to full communion, I’d say “welcome home, brethren!” I might be wary of them, but I’m wary of anyone whose views about certain things have been less than charitable or open-hearted.

 

[ack]

With all of the groups out there who are true dangers to the souls of Roman Catholics, why do we focus on the group closest to being in full communion ?

Why do the SSPX bashers ignore the Dimond brothers and Call To Action ? Those are the groups that can poison the souls of our children.

Because there are so many SSPXers on this forum who constantly insist that there’s nothing wrong with participating in the group. How many Call To Action members do you see hanging around CAF? Pretty much never. For that matter, does anyone else on CAF know who the “Dimond brothers” even are?

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

Because you do not see people on here who are at the most extremely liberal end of the spectrum, due to the fact that they want nothing to do with apologetics but will change Church teachings as they see fit, and any sedevacantists are quickly shown the door because their beliefs are not welcome here.

I am not an SSPX-basher, but firmly believe they could have done a lot more good if they had remained in full communion with the Church and with the Holy See instead of going off on their own to try and preserve Sacred Tradition, although the Deposit of Faith is guarded by the Holy Father, as he is successor of St. Peter, and the bishops in communion with him, as they are successors of the Apostles, so it is impossible to preserve Sacred Tradition apart from communion with the Holy Father.

It usually is the laity who support the SSPX who are more vocal these days than are the clergy of the Society. Their constant harping is that THEY are right, that Monsignor Lefebvre was right, and it was the Catholic Church and the pope and the millions of clergy and lay faithful in communion with him who were wrong. Pope Benedict XVI is trying to move towards reconciling the Society with Rome (no, not the other way around, where Rome must reunite with the Society, as the SSPX is not THE Catholic Church, else Monsignor Lefebvre and his bishops would be considered a counter-magisterium). However, what is making the negotiations difficult is that the SSPX continues to operate in disobedience to the Holy Father’s wishes; I don’t think that he was all too happy about the ordinations back in June, or the fact that Society priests still continue to grant absolution in confession, witness marriages, and grant annulments without faculties since they are still suspended a divinis.

Even though the excommunications of the four bishops were lifted, they are not yet in full communion with Rome; they also, at present, do not exercise any legitimate ministry within the bounds of the Catholic Church because of the irregularity of their status. This is not “bashing”, I am stating the facts and telling the truth, because to state anything else would be dishonest of me. I check my facts with CatholicCulture.org, because they take news relating to the Catholic Church from official Catholic sources in communion with Rome. Thus, anyone who wants to accuse me of lying, slander, or simply say that “I don’t know what I’m talking about” hasn’t a leg to stand on.

 

[I_Believe]

I think the SSPX doesn’t consider themselves being disobedient, because they don’t consider the excommunications valid. They felt that what was happening in the Church at the time was drastic enough that the consecrations were necessary. They also point to Quo Primum, which says that no restrictions may be allowed to be imposed on the Tridentine Mass, and that no priest may be obliged to pray any Mass other than that one.

I’m still weary about them. However, we have to admit, that if the pressure weren’t coming from the SSPX, odds are that the Latin Mass would not have been liberalized, and modernism would have no opponent in the Church today. Of course, I think they could have done more good by staying in the Church and not being, in my opinion, disobedient.

And of course, I would love to see the SSPX enter full communion with the Church. They would be a great help in fighting the problems of modernism which all too often seep into the Church. The other organizations you mentioned are also in my opinion way worse.

Thank you for your honesty. You are taking a stand that reminds me of the words H.H BXVI wrote, going by what he said in his letter to his Bishops. You see the good in them as does H.H.

We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

But look at the average comment by members here. Rarely, do we see the ones pointing out the Society’s faults, also mention the saving graces.

(to everyone)
It’s because of the stigma cast upon the SSPX and it’s flock. It’s ugly, it surely hurts, and it has now become so terrible that our Holy Father himself has had it cast upon him. It was quite shocking for me when I came to these forums a little over 3 years ago after returning to the Church. I stopped practicing the Faith just before all the fuss really began, and was so far removed from it, I had no idea that there was such a mess. It’s sad. But the saddest thing I’ve ever read is that letter.

Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

When was the last time a Pope had to defend himself to his own Bishops ?

 

[pnewton]

When was the last time a Pope had to defend himself to his own Bishops ?

He did not have to defend himself. That was the way he wrote this letter. When was the last time a Pope had to write a letter because of an archbishop defying his authority as Pope?

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

Perhaps because of the first incident being so significant and unique, Pope Benedict wanted a much more detailed explaination of his actions.

 

[manualman]

It’s not about bashing. It’s about insisting on genuine catholicity. There are a wide variety of groups out there that would very much like to grab the instant credibility of the catholic church to bolster their OWN ideology. Call to Action is certainly one of them. Many of their ideas are simply incompatible with catholicism, but wearing the catholic ‘label’ gives them more credibility than they would have if they were honest and admitted that they are creating their own religion from scratch.

But there are many different ways to dissent and disobey. Call to Action and SNAP honestly CAN say their pressure has made a change in the “coverup” mentality of the bishops regarding wrongdoing in the priesthood. SSPX can honestly claim that their pressure has brought attention to the disgraceful neglect of good liturgy and the role of latin and Gregorian chant in the catholic church.

But we’ve never been a people that accept “ends justify the means” reasoning. So I don’t support groups that use unfaithful means to achieve their ends, even if those ends ARE righteous.

 

[Tradycja]

What group will be be bashing next ?

With all of the groups out there who are true dangers to the souls of Roman Catholics, why do we focus on the group closest to being in full communion ?

Why do the SSPX bashers ignore the Dimond brothers and Call To Action ? Those are the groups that can poison the souls of our children.

Fess up please. To those who constantly see the need to point out the SSPX clergy are suspended for now, what makes the SSPX such a danger to you ?

It’s reported that Cardinal Hoyos may spend some time in Econe after he retires. I suppose we should get busy writing letters to him "warning " him about those terrible SSPX clergy ?

I agree with what you say. Everyone is up in arms about the SSPX, but just bring up Hans Kung and no one cares.

I see your point. On the other hand I don’t see why the Dimond Brothers should be “bashed” either. Actually, why should we bash anyone? If they are wrong on a particular point, we should argue against their position, not their person! This is true scholarship and it is what St. Thomas Aquinas would do if he were alive today.

At very least they do a lot of research finding the problematic quotes of the last 5 Popes, quotes which I had no idea about before I heard of the Dimond Brothers site. I heard that the Dimonds went through every L’Osservatore Romano for the last 40 years and searched for heretical statements.

These quotes are the types of problems which the CDF will eventually have to deal with.
So my point is, even though the Dimonds are wrong about sedevacantism and many other points, they have at least pointed out a lot of things that need to be dealt with by Catholics.

I like a lot of the publications that come out of the SSPX and their stand against modernism, but unfortunately the SSPX persecutes the Saint Benedict Centers and those who hold the dogma “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”, which is really a sad thing. I also am doubtful of their “state of emergency” and “supplied jurisdiction” argument.

I do find it funny that the Catholic Church donates money to build Russian Orthodox churches in Russia, even GIVES churches to the Orthodox in Spain, but then someone asks a Catholic Answers apologist if they may buy a Missal from Angelus Press and the answer they get is “no, you may not support a schismatic group”~!

 

[rkrispies]

What group will be be bashing next ?

With all of the groups out there who are true dangers to the souls of Roman Catholics, **why do we focus on the group closest to being in full communion **?

Why do the SSPX bashers ignore the Dimond brothers and Call To Action ? Those are the groups that can poison the souls of our children.

Fess up please. To those who constantly see the need to point out the SSPX clergy are suspended for now, what makes the SSPX such a danger to you ?

It’s reported that Cardinal Hoyos may spend some time in Econe after he retires. I suppose we should get busy writing letters to him "warning " him about those terrible SSPX clergy ?

I think you hit it right there. It hurts more when you are betrayed by a member of your own family than by a stranger.

Chris

 

[Tradycja]

One point I may also add is that what I liked about Catholic Answers when I “reverted” from Protestantism to Catholicism is that they were really good with arguing against Protestant doctrines without ad hominem attacks on the Protestant people.

I think it is actually in the spirit of Catholic Answers and apologetics that we have a policy that **any question **is on the table in academic debate (after all we should always seek out the Truth) and we should never write off an argument because of the *person *who brings that argument forward.

I think Don Scotus was off in many things (especially philosophically) but in the end it was his argument that clinched the definition of the Immaculate Conception. On the other hand St. Thomas was so right on many things but did not believe in the Immaculate Conception.

In my opinion, no topic should be “forbidden”, especially to adult Catholics who are strong in their faith.

 

[pnewton]

In my opinion, no topic should be “forbidden”, especially to adult Catholics who are strong in their faith.

Not all here are adult and not all are strong in their faith. There is the rub.

 

[CB_Catholic]

What group will be be bashing next ?

With all of the groups out there who are true dangers to the souls of Roman Catholics, why do we focus on the group closest to being in full communion ?

Why do the SSPX bashers ignore the Dimond brothers and Call To Action ? Those are the groups that can poison the souls of our children.

Fess up please. To those who constantly see the need to point out the SSPX clergy are suspended for now, what makes the SSPX such a danger to you ?

It’s reported that Cardinal Hoyos may spend some time in Econe after he retires. I suppose we should get busy writing letters to him "warning " him about those terrible SSPX clergy ?

Why do you call disagreement with the SSPX bashing? I am not “bashing” them when I say they are not in full communion with the Church, or that the actions of the Archbishop in ordaining Bishops in disobedience to the Holy See, or in the continuance of their priests to administer Sacraments they are forbidden to is wrong. Those are facts, not bashing. These clergy are not terrible, but they are disobedient, and need to repent of their actions just as much as those who are disobedient in the “ultra-liberal” groups.

And to tell you the truth, even when they come into full communion with the Church, they are going to have a long row to hoe, because of the attitudes some of the traditionalists who attend their Masses express here. I have read actual bashing of Popes, the OF Mass, the clergy from some of these people that turn me off completely and I don’t think they will ever change the rhetoric. The disgruntled will remain disgruntled, no matter what happens. And I am not bashing those who call themselves traditionalists. But certain people among them have attitudes just as bad as the so-called “liberals” have toward them. It is going to take a lot to overcome this among Catholics who care about their Church.

 

[Cider]

What group will be be bashing next ?

With all of the groups out there who are true dangers to the souls of Roman Catholics, why do we focus on the group closest to being in full communion ?

Why do the SSPX bashers ignore the Dimond brothers and Call To Action ? Those are the groups that can poison the souls of our children.

Fess up please. To those who constantly see the need to point out the SSPX clergy are suspended for now, what makes the SSPX such a danger to you ?

It’s reported that Cardinal Hoyos may spend some time in Econe after he retires. I suppose we should get busy writing letters to him "warning " him about those terrible SSPX clergy ?

SSPX is based the most because people are threatened the traditional expression of Catholicism that is represented. Regardless of the protestations that that isn’t the case, which I’m sure we will see. People like the lazy modernist Catholicism that is practiced in most parishes in America.

 

[bpbasilphx]

If The SSPX Were Declared In Full Communion Tomorrow?

I would rejoice exceedingly! :clapping::dancing::extrahappy::bounce::egyptian:

Any time a schism is healed or a misunderstanding is reconciled or an irregularity resolved, that means we are ONE STEP CLOSER to universal reconciliation and resoration of Eucharistic communion!

 

[pnewton]

SSPX is based the most because people are threatened the traditional expression of Catholicism that is represented.

Huh? A lot of the criticism (I do not agree that it is “bashed”) comes from Catholics who attend the TLM. Also, people that attend the TLM are not criticized. I do not think the facts support this conclusion. No one is threatened by traditional expression of Catholicism.

 

[ProVobis]

Just a couple of years ago we were asking what if the Pope allowed EVERY priest to say the TLM with or without his bishop’s consent; the consensus was that SSPX would then be fully reconciled. Then we were asking what if the excommunications were lifted, and the consensus was that SSPX would then be fully reconciled. Now what does the Pope have to say that will allow SSPX to flourish without opposition? I don’t think there’s anything that the Pope or Vatican can say that will declare them in full communion. Why? Because that would upset too many bishops and others not necessarily Catholic. That’s the sad reality.

 

[tcm22]

I think you hit it right there. It hurts more when you are betrayed by a member of your own family than by a stranger.

Chris

This same analogy was made on Catholic Answers Live the other day. I thought it was very apt. It’s those closest to us who have the greatest ability to hurt us. We expect misplaced criticism from the Fundamentalists out there, but not from those who claim to be Catholics.

Just a couple of years ago we were asking what if the Pope allowed EVERY priest to say the TLM with or without his bishop’s consent; the consensus was that SSPX would then be fully reconciled. Then we were asking what if the excommunications were lifted, and the consensus was that SSPX would then be fully reconciled. Now what does the Pope have to say that will allow SSPX to flourish without opposition? I don’t think there’s anything that the Pope or Vatican can say that will declare them in full communion. Why? Because that would upset too many bishops and others not necessarily Catholic. That’s the sad reality.

I think the question isn’t what can the Pope of the Vatican say. It’s pretty clear the ball is in the court of the SSPX at this point. Having lifted the excommunications, the road is cleared for reconciliation, but that requires action on the part of the SSPX. The excommunication didn’t erase the problem. SSPX clergy still have irregular status and the laity is suffering from a lack of valid sacraments. Acceptance of Papal authority, recognition of the OF Mass, and a genuine desire to return to the fold would certainly go a long way. Unfortunately, it seems many SSPX want a declaration of full communion on their own terms. I find it difficult to imagine the SSPX, as an institution, truly wants to reconcile with the Church when their website continues to question the legitimacy of the Mass and VII. Some have suggested the website is out of date. I pray that’s the case, but I’m skeptical.

I think the Traditionalist population oeprating within the Church has done tremendous good in focusing some of the excesses of past decades and showing a faithful path toward a better Church. It’s unfortunate the SSPX hasn’t been a part of that. If they could have found a way to exist and influence the Church without resorting to overt opposition to the Magisterium and schismatic acts, they could have done a world of good.

I look forward to their return to full communion. I think it would make the Church a better place, but that requires them to reflect on why they are not in full communion now. It’s not up to the Pope to negotiate their return.