Is the SSPX Just Being Stubborn? Father Z Answers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ockham
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Ockham

Guest
"From a reader:

“Why is the SSPX still not in union with Rome? Especially with groups
like the FFSP what problem do they still have with us? They could
unite with Rome, and still basically continue as usual. Am I missing
something big? Are they just being stubborn?”

Well… yes. They are being stubborn!

It is of the essence of being traditional and being a Christian to be stubborn, by the way. We have some other, fancy words for “stubborn” when speaking about fidelity to doctrine and our identity, but “stubborn” will do for the sake of this entry.

Christians are stubborn in the face of all sorts of things the world has to offer. And the SSPX would say they are being stubborn about those very same things, for they fear, or think, or have the suspicion that some of those worldly things have been embraced by the Church in a way that is contrary to her God-given mission."

Continued…wdtprs.com/blog/2010/10/quaeritur-is-the-sspx-just-being-stubborn/
 
Funny how the English word “stubborn” took on such a negative connotation.
 

Energy suppliers are not doing enough to help people in debt, a new study has discovered.
The review from Ofgem and Consumer Focus discovered that firms are failing to take into account indebted customers’ ability to make repayments.
As a result, Ofgem have issued guidelines for energy companies so that they can work with people in debt to get the best outcome for all concerned.​

Debt Management
 

Professor Richard Disney, who carried out the study, remarked that: “We have figures that show more and more people have been seeking advice from counseling agencies and from friends and relatives.”​

Debt Management
 
Ockham said:
"From a reader:

“Why is the SSPX still not in union with Rome? Especially with groups
like the FFSP what problem do they still have with us? They could
unite with Rome, and still basically continue as usual. Am I missing
something big? Are they just being stubborn?”

Well… yes. They are being stubborn!

Continued…wdtprs.com/blog/2010/10/quaeritur-is-the-sspx-just-being-stubborn/
Click to expand...
This is a good article, and Fr Z is right, they cannot go to be subjected to their territorial bishops unconditionally.

However the resolution offered to Archbishop Lefevbre by that time Cardinal Ratzinger was not this, but to receive an independent status like the personal prelature of the Opus Dei. This offer was reiterated by now pope Benedict XVI.

Let us hope that the negotiations will have good result, and let us pray with our Lord for the unity.
 
I pray for resolution quickly. The “limbo” in which the SSPX operate is an open wound on the church.

Ideally, they will come back into union as a group.

But resolution one way or another is needed for the rift to heal.
 
Aramis said:
I pray for resolution quickly. The “limbo” in which the SSPX operate is an open wound on the church.

Ideally, they will come back into union as a group.

But resolution one way or another is needed for the rift to heal.
Click to expand...
And what if they simply don’t want to submit to Rome? Every indication seems to be that the SSPX are waiting for “modernist” Rome to “convert” and be reconciled to them, not vice-versa. What will Rome have to do, do we suppose, that will cause the SSPX to welcome the official Church back into the true fold?

I’m not just asking that question to be smarmy, incidentally, but to underscore the fact that that is precisely the way the SSPX sees matters: Rome has gone astray, not them. Rome needs to return, not them. Rome has more or less separated herself from the Church, not them.

It seems that Rome’s principal criterion for permitting the SSPX to return into the arms of Mother Church is that they submit to legitimate authority and accept the legitimacy, validity, and efficacy of the Second Vatican Council and of the Church’s reformed liturgy. How will the SSPX ever do that without completely demolishing their very reason for existence?

And looking at matters from the opposite perspective, how can Rome yield to the SSPX’s demand that the Church abandon Vatican II and restore the Tridentine liturgy as the Roman Catholic Church’s (exclusive) ordinary form of Mass? Until Rome is willing to do that, the Society of St. Pius X will never welcome Rome back into the true Catholic fold, as they interpret it.

For either to “convert” to the other, so much compromise one way or the other would be necessary as to render credibility of the yielding side absolutely nil. For if the Church were to submit to the SSPX by declaring to the world that “Vatican II is over; we’re taking everything back to the way it was before the Council,” inspite of a half a century of telling the Church and the world that Vatican II was the Holy Spirit’s renewal of the Church, who in the world would have any faith at all in the Church any longer? And that’s just the main gripe. What other beliefs that the SSPX holds would Rome have to embrace? That monarchies around the world ought to be restored? That the Holocaust was a hoax? That women should not wear pants, or have careers? That Catholics should be forbidden to watch television? Their bishops and priests teach such things, after all.

On the other side, if the SSPX were to compromise and say “okay, we accept the teachings of Vatican II and the liturgical reforms and we submit to the Roman authorities,” where would that leave the SSPX followers who have been told by the priests and bishops of the SSPX for so many decades that Vatican II was evil, that the new Mass is a bastard rite, probably invalid (so too the reformed Sacraments) and that the official hierarchy are all liberals, modernists, or Freemasons? The followers of the SSPX have for so long been taught that everything about Vatican II and the modern Catholic Church is either evil or misguided–just plain wrong, in any case–and all of a sudden it would all be OK? Well, if it’s all OK now, what is the point of the SSPX?

On the one side, the Church takes a solid stance: Vatican II was of God and the reforms and teachings of Vatican II are here to stay.

On the other side, the SSPX takes an equally inflexible position: Vatican II is evil and must be “repealed”. The Church must be restored to her pre-Vatican II state.

The side that gives in necessarily destroys itself in the process. I cannot, therefore, conceive of a reconciliation.
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
I guess the Pharaoh was a good guy then to be stubborn about keeping Jews as slaves. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yet I can be stubborn about attending Mass every Sunday, abstaining from meat on Fridays, attending to my kids, etc. even if my boss has other things for me to do?
 
The side that gives in necessarily destroys itself in the process. I cannot, therefore, conceive of a reconciliation.

I can understand the difficulty in perceiving reconciliation. But: reconciliation is based on the values shared by the parties, not their differences. If differences are the focus of any negotiation, then consensus is not acheived. SSPX and the Church share more values than disagreements. Assume further that both want a reconciliation (elsewise, why even talk?) Between the common ground and the desire, is where reconciliation will be found.

I foresee several possibilities of reconciliation. The Church, more and more, will want the old mass to be performed and said, and SSPX can do it better than most of the diocesan clergy can. SSPX does not want the Church to be destroyed, does not want to see Cathedrals and churches empty of people. Acceptance of Vat II does not entail the difficulties you fear because of how it was written. Many older councils promulgated positions that were definitively clear (eg if any one says the BVM was not immaculately conceived, let him be accursed). Not so with Vat II. There is alot of room for interpretation. Thus, reconciliation can be found by defining-or clarifying- the parameters of permissible interpretation.

Ironic that such a “liberal” issues would be brought to the fore by such a “conservative” group!
 
Aramis said:
I pray for resolution quickly. The “limbo” in which the SSPX operate is an open wound on the church.

Ideally, they will come back into union as a group.

But resolution one way or another is needed for the rift to heal.
Click to expand...
I’ll pray with you. But I don’t think if they return on a one-by-one basis (priest or bishop) over the next 40 years, that that would be the worst thing either. The FSSP (or the ICRSS or some newly named order without an “X”) should always be available, at least to the priests. The more priests able to say the Latin Mass, the better.
 
Pregustator said:
And what if they simply don’t want to submit to Rome? Every indication seems to be that the SSPX are waiting for “modernist” Rome to “convert” and be reconciled to them, not vice-versa. What will Rome have to do, do we suppose, that will cause the SSPX to welcome the official Church back into the true fold?
.
Click to expand...
The old Catholics after Vatican I also wated Rome reconciled to them instead of vice versa. They represented the so called ‘tradition’ against Rome. Soon they divided among themselves, the became charismatic, started to ordain married men to priesthood.

There is no life outside of the root.
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
I guess the Pharaoh was a good guy then to be stubborn about keeping Jews as slaves. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
He wasen’t speaking about that type of stuborness. He was speaking about Christians who are stuborn in the eyes of death. One good thing about persecution, that is forces you to choose sides.
 
ProVobis said:
I’ll pray with you. But I don’t think if they return on a one-by-one basis (priest or bishop) over the next 40 years, that that would be the worst thing either.
Click to expand...
Individually, or as a group, their return is good for them and the church.
ProVobis said:
The FSSP (or the ICRSS or some newly named order without an “X”) should always be available, at least to the priests.
Click to expand...
I think an Ordinariate system (as the Anglicans are getting) might be the best way to accomplish making the Latin Masses more available.
 
laszlo said:
The old Catholics after Vatican I also wated Rome reconciled to them instead of vice versa. They represented the so called ‘tradition’ against Rome. Soon they divided among themselves, the became charismatic, started to ordain married men to priesthood.

There is no life outside of the root.
Click to expand...
I don’t think this comparison is fair. First, the Pope has acknowledged that a lot of the concerns of the SSPX turned out to be valid concerns. Second, no one disputes that the SSPX is following the beliefs of the Church before the Council. In the case of the Old Catholics, they wanted to return to a practice that they believed existed in some earlier century in the church. They weren’t trying to maintain the practice of the church before Vatican I, which clearly had a supreme pope with great authority.
 
Aramis said:
I think an Ordinariate system (as the Anglicans are getting) might be the best way to accomplish making the Latin Masses more available.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. The problem I see there is similar to the concept of “personal parishes” where the availability actually lessens. The hypothetical “ordinariate” would cover a vast territory with extremely limited resources. The EF would probably thus be available only in areas of highly concentrated (or highly vocal or highly right-wing) population, thus leaving vast numbers of people (yea, even the majority of those who prefer the EF) with no access to it. Despite the desire of the all-powerful oil industry, not everyone is able to drive long distances, and in many cases, even 15 miles is a considerable trip. Quite the same problem as exists with “personal parishes.”
 
malphono said:
I don’t think so. The problem I see there is similar to the concept of “personal parishes” where the availability actually lessens. The hypothetical “ordinariate” would cover a vast territory with extremely limited resources.
Click to expand...
Surely they couldn’t be immediately obliged to cover vast territories? Especially in Catholic countries. Just do as they currently are doing and proceed with the mission.
 
In point of fact, the way the ordinariates are supposed to work is that they are functionally a personal prelature diocese with concurrent ordinary jurisdiction for their particular ritual church’s parish throughout the territory of the national conference…

Exactly the same way that the Ruthenian Eparchy, Melkite Eparchy, and Chaldean Eparchy got started…

Except that the ordinariates, unlike the EC Eparchies, are not actually obligated to ask before setting up parishes, as the National Conference has already granted them authority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top