Latest News from Bishop Fellay on Doctrinal Preamble SSPX

[Boulder257]

I believe that self-interest and the desire of isolation, largely led by the laity of the SSPX resists the potential for unity. With unity, the SSPX will lose their feeling of “specialness” of “being set apart”. This feeling of “us versus them” is an extremely cohesive and powerful psychological reality.

I suspect that major donors to the Society are making their voices heard to the SSPX Bishops as well which likely isn’t helpful.

Very well said and you are more than likely right. No more front page news (well, front page on the papers WE read, lol). No more special meetings with the Pope. No authority as they have it now. Sad, but you are right in that these factors, whether concious or subconcious, are affecting their decisions.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I believe that self-interest and the desire of isolation, largely led by the laity of the SSPX resists the potential for unity. With unity, the SSPX will lose their feeling of “specialness” of “being set apart”. This feeling of “us versus them” is an extremely cohesive and powerful psychological reality.

I suspect that major donors to the Society are making their voices heard to the SSPX Bishops as well which likely isn’t helpful.

There could be some of that. But my impression is that SSPX isn’t all that large a group. There are bound to be some significant number of them who are very, very wary about all of this. They know what they are, what their schools and priests are like. They know what they’re taught, and if they didn’t believe it they wouldn’t stay in it.

And, of course, in the Church in the U.S. there is a lot to regret that has happened. A lot. And it wasn’t just “clown masses” and such. It wasn’t just “rainbow masses”. It wasn’t just “lavender mafia seminaries”. It wasn’t just the “pedophile” scandal. It wasn’t just the rogue theologians who condone immorality. It wasn’t just the bishops who wouldn’t confront the Kennedys, the Pelosis, the Kerrys. It wasn’t just the Catholic universities that went off the rails and established LGBT Unions and such. It wasn’t just the bogus “ordinations” of women “priests”. It wasn’t just the religious orders who went pro-abortion.

On and on and on, and we who have watched it and prayed about it and opposed what we could and supported what we could and sometimes felt like we, ourselves, were unacceptable to the “new Church” are FINALLY starting to see some positive results through the efforts of our good Pope Benedict, we think the SSPX ers are jerks for being a bit paranoid about it?

Say what you will about LeFevre’s defiance. Hard to accept that, and I’ll agree. But we really ought to accept it that the SSPX has stayed loyal to the teachings of the Church all this time. We have to ask ourselves first: Have we?

I’m not SSPX, by the way.

 

[codefro]

There could be some of that. But my impression is that SSPX isn’t all that large a group. There are bound to be some significant number of them who are very, very wary about all of this. They know what they are, what their schools and priests are like. They know what they’re taught, and if they didn’t believe it they wouldn’t stay in it.

And, of course, in the Church in the U.S. there is a lot to regret that has happened. A lot. And it wasn’t just “clown masses” and such. It wasn’t just “rainbow masses”. It wasn’t just “lavender mafia seminaries”. It wasn’t just the “pedophile” scandal. It wasn’t just the rogue theologians who condone immorality. It wasn’t just the bishops who wouldn’t confront the Kennedys, the Pelosis, the Kerrys. It wasn’t just the Catholic universities that went off the rails and established LGBT Unions and such. It wasn’t just the bogus “ordinations” of women “priests”. It wasn’t just the religious orders who went pro-abortion.

On and on and on, and we who have watched it and prayed about it and opposed what we could and supported what we could and sometimes felt like we, ourselves, were unacceptable to the “new Church” are FINALLY starting to see some positive results through the efforts of our good Pope Benedict, we think the SSPX ers are jerks for being a bit paranoid about it?

Say what you will about LeFevre’s defiance. Hard to accept that, and I’ll agree. But we really ought to accept it that the SSPX has stayed loyal to the teachings of the Church all this time. We have to ask ourselves first: Have we?

I’m not SSPX, by the way.

Just sounds like a bunch of ranting quite honestly. This is entitled to the argument: “Nobody is more Catholic than the Pope.”

 

[codefro]

There could be some of that. But my impression is that SSPX isn’t all that large a group. There are bound to be some significant number of them who are very, very wary about all of this. They know what they are, what their schools and priests are like. They know what they’re taught, and if they didn’t believe it they wouldn’t stay in it.

And, of course, in the Church in the U.S. there is a lot to regret that has happened. A lot. And it wasn’t just “clown masses” and such. It wasn’t just “rainbow masses”. It wasn’t just “lavender mafia seminaries”. It wasn’t just the “pedophile” scandal. It wasn’t just the rogue theologians who condone immorality. It wasn’t just the bishops who wouldn’t confront the Kennedys, the Pelosis, the Kerrys. It wasn’t just the Catholic universities that went off the rails and established LGBT Unions and such. It wasn’t just the bogus “ordinations” of women “priests”. It wasn’t just the religious orders who went pro-abortion.

On and on and on, and we who have watched it and prayed about it and opposed what we could and supported what we could and sometimes felt like we, ourselves, were unacceptable to the “new Church” are FINALLY starting to see some positive results through the efforts of our good Pope Benedict, we think the SSPX ers are jerks for being a bit paranoid about it?

Say what you will about LeFevre’s defiance. Hard to accept that, and I’ll agree. But we really ought to accept it that the SSPX has stayed loyal to the teachings of the Church all this time. We have to ask ourselves first: Have we?

I’m not SSPX, by the way.

SSPX is not physically doing anything to fix the church. They are in the corner holding their breath waiting to get their way. Sounds like this may not get resolved in Benedict’s lifetime. They better pray the next Pope is a sympathizer.

 

[Boulder257]

Say what you will about LeFevre’s defiance. Hard to accept that, and I’ll agree. But we really ought to accept it that the SSPX has stayed loyal to the teachings of the Church all this time. We have to ask ourselves first: Have we?

I’m not SSPX, by the way.

I can certainly see your point and can, to some extent, appreciate their position. I too am offended by some of the offenses those have committed in the name of the Church and yet call themselves Catholic. It is for this very reason I don’t understand how the SSPX can continue their stand despite the fact that they are no different from what they claim to be fighting. I take offense to the idea that these men who decided to put themselves above the Church are effecting good. Those that decided to divide from the Church have committed the same sins as those who completed “clown masses” only in the opposite direction. They decided to man’s tradition was more important than God’s. With their continued defiance it makes it look as though they are continuing to strive for division.

I am reminded of a quote from the current prelate of Opus Dei (pretty conservative group if you ask me). He said, and I quote, ““Traditionalism,” in its different forms, is a sickness based on a mistaken concept of Tradition. In its genuine meaning, “Tradition” plays an important role in the Church along with Sacred Scripture, from which it is inseparable.”

Here is the link to Opus Dei’s site and the quote directly from the prelate: opusdei.us/art.php?p=8031 . He speaks of Vatican II in the same Q&A.

Using that quote one can only take away that those that are supporting the cause of the SSPX are sick. We all need to pray that God, the great physician, heals their hearts.

 

[Boulder257]

I can certainly see your point and can, to some extent, appreciate their position. I too am offended by some of the offenses those have committed in the name of the Church and yet call themselves Catholic. It is for this very reason I don’t understand how the SSPX can continue their stand despite the fact that they are no different from what they claim to be fighting. I take offense to the idea that these men who decided to put themselves above the Church are effecting good. Those that decided to divide from the Church have committed the same sins as those who completed “clown masses” only in the opposite direction. They decided to man’s tradition was more important than God’s. With their continued defiance it makes it look as though they are continuing to strive for division.

I am reminded of a quote from the current prelate of Opus Dei (pretty conservative group if you ask me). He said, and I quote, ““Traditionalism,” in its different forms, is a sickness based on a mistaken concept of Tradition. In its genuine meaning, “Tradition” plays an important role in the Church along with Sacred Scripture, from which it is inseparable.”

Here is the link to Opus Dei’s site and the quote directly from the prelate: opusdei.us/art.php?p=8031 . He speaks of Vatican II in the same Q&A.

Using that quote one can only take away that those that are supporting the cause of the SSPX are sick. We all need to pray that God, the great physician, to heal their hearts.

 

[ringil]

There could be some of that. But my impression is that SSPX isn’t all that large a group. There are bound to be some significant number of them who are very, very wary about all of this. They know what they are, what their schools and priests are like. They know what they’re taught, and if they didn’t believe it they wouldn’t stay in it.

And, of course, in the Church in the U.S. there is a lot to regret that has happened. A lot. And it wasn’t just “clown masses” and such. It wasn’t just “rainbow masses”. It wasn’t just “lavender mafia seminaries”. It wasn’t just the “pedophile” scandal. It wasn’t just the rogue theologians who condone immorality. It wasn’t just the bishops who wouldn’t confront the Kennedys, the Pelosis, the Kerrys. It wasn’t just the Catholic universities that went off the rails and established LGBT Unions and such. It wasn’t just the bogus “ordinations” of women “priests”. It wasn’t just the religious orders who went pro-abortion.

On and on and on, and we who have watched it and prayed about it and opposed what we could and supported what we could and sometimes felt like we, ourselves, were unacceptable to the “new Church” are FINALLY starting to see some positive results through the efforts of our good Pope Benedict, we think the SSPX ers are jerks for being a bit paranoid about it?

Say what you will about LeFevre’s defiance. Hard to accept that, and I’ll agree. But we really ought to accept it that the SSPX has stayed loyal to the teachings of the Church all this time. We have to ask ourselves first: Have we?

I’m not SSPX, by the way.

Yes there have been some frustating things since VII but Lafebvre didn’t have the right (leteral definition) to disobey the Pope and to do the HUGE act of consecrating Bishops.

You can’t leave the church because you don’t like what’s happening. I love Benedict and I approve of the EF and the other changes he is working in the church. I am sure there are quite a few liberal Catholics out there who don’t like the changes happening however, but are they leaving the Church to establish their own little club? If they are then it must be pretty small and insignificant, and it sure as heck ain’t getting any meeting’s with the Pope to talk about disagreement on doctrine- that’s for sure.

What I’m saying is that we may like some aspects of the Church and dislike others but we NEVER have the option to decide to put ourselves in an irregular situation- no matter how many clown masses, folk masses, weird priests there might be.

So “no” they haven’t stayed loyal to the teachings of the Church. THey’ve chosen aspects of the Church to remain loyal to and disregarded the legitamit authority of the Vicar of Christ, Don’t we decry the “cafeteria Catholics” around here?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Say what you will about LeFevre’s defiance. Hard to accept that, and I’ll agree. But we really ought to accept it that the SSPX has stayed loyal to the teachings of the Church all this time. We have to ask ourselves first: Have we?

This is a direct quote from the FAQ section of the SSPX website.

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation

Please explain to me where this particular Chruch teaching can be found.

Boulder257,
I agree 1000% with this and everything else you have said in this thread!!

I can certainly see your point and can, to some extent, appreciate their position. I too am offended by some of the offenses those have committed in the name of the Church and yet call themselves Catholic. It is for this very reason I don’t understand how the SSPX can continue their stand despite the fact that they are no different from what they claim to be fighting. I take offense to the idea that these men who decided to put themselves above the Church are effecting good. Those that decided to divide from the Church have committed the same sins as those who completed “clown masses” only in the opposite direction. They decided to man’s tradition was more important than God’s. With their continued defiance it makes it look as though they are continuing to strive for division.

I am reminded of a quote from the current prelate of Opus Dei (pretty conservative group if you ask me). He said, and I quote, ““Traditionalism,” in its different forms, is a sickness based on a mistaken concept of Tradition. In its genuine meaning, “Tradition” plays an important role in the Church along with Sacred Scripture, from which it is inseparable.”

Here is the link to Opus Dei’s site and the quote directly from the prelate: opusdei.us/art.php?p=8031 . He speaks of Vatican II in the same Q&A.

Using that quote one can only take away that those that are supporting the cause of the SSPX are sick. We all need to pray that God, the great physician, heals their hearts.

 

[jmj1984]

I can certainly see your point and can, to some extent, appreciate their position. I too am offended by some of the offenses those have committed in the name of the Church and yet call themselves Catholic. It is for this very reason I don’t understand how the SSPX can continue their stand despite the fact that they are no different from what they claim to be fighting. I take offense to the idea that these men who decided to put themselves above the Church are effecting good. Those that decided to divide from the Church have committed the same sins as those who completed “clown masses” only in the opposite direction. They decided to man’s tradition was more important than God’s. With their continued defiance it makes it look as though they are continuing to strive for division.

I am reminded of a quote from the current prelate of Opus Dei (pretty conservative group if you ask me). He said, and I quote, ““Traditionalism,” in its different forms, is a sickness based on a mistaken concept of Tradition. In its genuine meaning, “Tradition” plays an important role in the Church along with Sacred Scripture, from which it is inseparable.”

Here is the link to Opus Dei’s site and the quote directly from the prelate: opusdei.us/art.php?p=8031 . He speaks of Vatican II in the same Q&A.

Using that quote one can only take away that those that are supporting the cause of the SSPX are sick. We all need to pray that God, the great physician, heals their hearts.

The comment you made would have to apply to all traditionalists and not just supporters of the society. That would include traditionalist societies in normal relations with rome such as The Institute of Christ the King the Sovereign Priest, The Fraternity of St Peter and the Institute of the Good Sheperd to name a few were all 'sick’. This is clearly nonsense and highly offensive, whats even more amusing is that the founder of Opus Dei was himself a very traditional Catholic.

 

[roadsend]

There could be some of that. But my impression is that SSPX isn’t all that large a group. There are bound to be some significant number of them who are very, very wary about all of this. They know what they are, what their schools and priests are like. They know what they’re taught, and if they didn’t believe it they wouldn’t stay in it.

And, of course, in the Church in the U.S. there is a lot to regret that has happened. A lot. And it wasn’t just “clown masses” and such. It wasn’t just “rainbow masses”. It wasn’t just “lavender mafia seminaries”. It wasn’t just the “pedophile” scandal. It wasn’t just the rogue theologians who condone immorality. It wasn’t just the bishops who wouldn’t confront the Kennedys, the Pelosis, the Kerrys. It wasn’t just the Catholic universities that went off the rails and established LGBT Unions and such. It wasn’t just the bogus “ordinations” of women “priests”. It wasn’t just the religious orders who went pro-abortion.

On and on and on, and we who have watched it and prayed about it and opposed what we could and supported what we could and sometimes felt like we, ourselves, were unacceptable to the “new Church” are FINALLY starting to see some positive results through the efforts of our good Pope Benedict, we think the SSPX ers are jerks for being a bit paranoid about it?

Say what you will about LeFevre’s defiance. Hard to accept that, and I’ll agree. But we really ought to accept it that the SSPX has stayed loyal to the teachings of the Church all this time. We have to ask ourselves first: Have we?

I’m not SSPX, by the way.

Pretty much spot on as I see it.

I attend Mass weekly in a parish affiliated with a recognized diocese and I feel totally out of place with what I see and hear. A great deal of what I see and hear at Mass is in direct conflict with the teachings of our Church.
I am not happy with the irregular status of the SSPX, but when it comes to liturgy and belief, they are a heck of a lot closer to Rome than what I see coming from my diocese.

 

[Boulder257]

:
The comment you made would have to apply to all traditionalists and not just supporters of the society. That would include traditionalist societies in normal relations with rome such as The Institute of Christ the King the Sovereign Priest, The Fraternity of St Peter and the Institute of the Good Sheperd to name a few were all 'sick’. This is clearly nonsense and highly offensive, whats even more amusing is that the founder of Opus Dei was himself a very traditional Catholic.

I agree with what you said, if you make that assumption it applies to all traditionalists. Unfortunately, you are applying an unapplicable assumption to the comment (and you know what they say about assuming, lol). This is the reason I included the link. If you read the entire quote it becomes apparent that he is focused on those that misrepresent or misunderstand Tradition. This clearly applies to groups like the SSPX and those that support it. To compare the SSPX and the FSSP is not very fair to the FSSP and shows a very basic misunderstanding of the societies and what they represent.

Thanks Oneofthewomen. It is always nice to know when someone validates your opinion and it is always nice to get a thumbs up! I very much like how we can agree/disagree, but still support one another along the way. Isn’t God amazing!?!?!?!

 

[Warrenton]

Things started to go bad when he refused to assent to the New Mass. By this point, there was a whole knew justification for his “protests” based on disagreement with at least four more Vatican II, we’ll call them talking points. So the validity of VII was called into question by SSPX.

“Things started to go bad” when a rupture occurred between what was being officially claimed and reality. It was claimed “things are being restored.” In reality, innovations were being foisted on people at breakneck speed.

It was claimed, “the Church is being renewed.” In reality, schools, parishes, seminaries and convents were emptying, and though no one admitted it, the abuse scandal was taking off.

It was claimed, “the old mass is not forbidden” In reality, it was virtually suppressed everywhere but in Britain.

That is the backdrop against which the SSPX’s actions must be viewed.

Not all that tough. Loads of precedents to this behavior. How many Protestant sects arethere exactly?

Very tough, actually, because there never was a Protestant who appealed to the authority of the Council of Trent. Moreover, to call SSPX Protestant is to confuse, and demean the disagreement between Protestants and Rome. And which side of the debate, given the facts, takes the place of “the Protestants?” Is it even helpful to use such a label?

 

[Warrenton]

In reality, Catholics do NOT come to different ideas about Tradition. They CAN NOT come to different ideas about anything because the Holy Roman Catholic Church is ONE.

They can and do, in fact, disagree. For example, you claim that the essence of tradition is adherence to the wishes of the pope. I claim that the essence of tradition is found in the Fathers, which includes how we worship. This does not require theological disagreement, but it can lead to profound practical disagreement.

This is certainly within the parameters of legitimate disagreement.

 

[Warrenton]

First I said that disobedience to the Pope (as the Vicar of Christ) is the definition of sin.

I also said that, at times, individuals profess disagreement with one or another teaching of the Church in order to rationalize their bad behavior, on principle.
In other words, ‘I don’t agree with the Churchs’ teaching on such and such,’ because they want to appease their conscience for doing what the Church forbids.

Alright, but what is the bad behavior that SSPX engage in, other than disobeying the pope?

Do we agree that the reason they are disobeying the pope is because they do not believe contemporary Church practices, especially sacramental practices, are within the Catholic tradition?

 

[TMC]

Alright, but what is the bad behavior that SSPX engage in, other than disobeying the pope?

Do we agree that the reason they are disobeying the pope is because they do not believe contemporary Church practices, especially sacramental practices, are within the Catholic tradition?

Yes, that is why they are disobeying. It is also the reason Luther disobeyed in 1520 and the reason the Old Catholics disobeyed after Vatican I. To me, the question is not whether they are sincere, it is whether they are correct in their beliefs and their tactics. I, for one, think they are wrong in each, but I do not doubt their sincerity or deny them the right to their beliefs. I hope that they will all eventually be fully reconciled with the Church; but I would not be surprised in the least to see many of them eventually decide to go their own way.

 

[Warrenton]

The issue here really is what Roman Catholics have come to accept out of Vatican I, which is the Pope’s universal authority in the Church. Isn’t questioning the Pope’s authority going against the very dogma defined in Vatican I? Of course there are matters where we can disobey the Pope. If the Pope says we eat now and we don’t feel like eating, its not a sin. When we eat is not his jurisdiction. But the SSPX disobeyed Canon Law, which is a pretty big deal. And they have disobeyed continuous orders from the Vatican not to ordain priests, which again falls into the right of the Pope because celebrations of Sacraments within the Church are within his jurisdiction.

I agree with your general take on the situation. That is why I place the entire question of the SSPX within the larger context of dissent, or freedom of conscience, that entails the Orthodox Church as well as certain Protestant churches.

If we go back to the root of the Orthodox schism, we often do not find the Greek bishops saying to the pope “you have no right to legislate.” What they said was “we are not bound to follow legislation that is wrong.” By wrong, they invariably meant (and mean) “contrary to the tradition of the Fathers.”

And it is a valid point that has not been dealt with in a satifactory way as between Rome, dissenting SSPX - type Catholics, and the East. These two constituencies were not represented at Vatican I, it must be recalled.

 

[Warrenton]

Yes, that is why they are disobeying. It is also the reason Luther disobeyed in 1520 and the reason the Old Catholics disobeyed after Vatican I.

That is not why Luther disobeyed. His theses state his disagreement.

The the Old Catholics are a closer analogy, although there were major issues of nationalism involved in that. Also, the historical situation was different: church life as lived by the mass of faithful was not significantly impacted by Vatican I.

 

[Warrenton]

What I’m saying is that we may like some aspects of the Church and dislike others but we NEVER have the option to decide to put ourselves in an irregular situation- no matter how many clown masses, folk masses, weird priests there might be.

So “no” they haven’t stayed loyal to the teachings of the Church. THey’ve chosen aspects of the Church to remain loyal to and disregarded the legitamit authority of the Vicar of Christ, Don’t we decry the “cafeteria Catholics” around here?

Let’s focus, though. Take clown masses, as an egregious example. Were they consistent with Tradition?

If we say “yes, sure, St. Cyril used to do them all the time,” we need some authority for this.

If we say, “no, the clown masses offended Tradition,” then we must decide how to respond.

Not responding is wrong, because that is tolerance of what amounts to heresy.

Consenting to attend that mass is tantamount to attending a foreign religious service, and implies a unity which does not exist.

In the case of the clown mass, who has broken from Tradition, the celebrant, or the person who refuses to attend it?

 

[TMC]

That is not why Luther disobeyed. His theses state his disagreement.

Yes, it is. His theses stated his belief that some Church practices of his time were improper and not truly consistent with the Deposit of the Faith.

The the Old Catholics are a closer analogy, although there were major issues of nationalism involved in that. Also, the historical situation was different: church life as lived by the mass of faithful was not significantly impacted by Vatican I.

I agree that the Old Catholics are an even better fit - in fact I think they are a perfect fit for what is going on with the SSPX right now. Hopefully the end result will be different.

 

[Warrenton]

SSPX is not physically doing anything to fix the church. They are in the corner holding their breath waiting to get their way. Sounds like this may not get resolved in Benedict’s lifetime. They better pray the next Pope is a sympathizer.

The SSPX is probably the catalyst for the wider celebration of the EF. To the extent that the EF “sets a standard” for devout celebration of the sacraments, that “fixes the Church” because incorrect and irreverent celebration of the sacraments is a problem. If so, then the SSPX is doing something for the Church.