L
Lormar
Guest
No, there isn’t a 100% chance of anything.
Why don’t you give them a chance?
- Status
Why don’t you give them a chance?
C
commenter
Guest
Ok, there is not a 100% chance the organization will oppose the next pope, bishop, or action of the Magisterium. But based on their track record, there is an overwealming probability they will oppose Catholic authority on most things. Because they almost have to. That’s the track they are on.
When you say “give them a chance”, if you mean the families attached to SSPX, sure. In my area, the diocese has 2 TLMs now. Children in families attending those TLMs, or other orthodox liturgies in the OF, have a chance (opportunity) to benefit from the diocese as a whole, other orthodox parishes, and local orthodox Catholic ministries in their area. They can benefit from their pope and bishop, have not been trained in skepticism towards Catholic authority.
Families inside the SSPX “fort” do benefit from some good things in their chapel. They benefit from none of the good Catholic things in their region, including prolife, evangelism, and religious liberty programs. (This is unified Catholic Action, so promoted by the real St. Pius X, which the chapels are absent from). SSPX kids benefit from reading (a certain selection of) pope and bishop wisdom from pre-1960, but not much from the present because of the climate of skepticism in SSPX.
The best way to “give them (SSPX families) a chance” is to give them more opportunities to choose good local things, but avoiding the bad; the ability to benefit from their pope and bishop, which they don’t now have. Unfortunately, on these kinds of threads, almost all the posts seem to be about the organization, almost none about families.
T
Tarpeian
Guest
Not all SSPX families have been trained in “skepticism.” There’s a great chasm between “skepticism” and The Truth that Holy Mother Church teaches. The SSPX, is active in the prolife apostolate. Bishop Fellay was there last year with many SSPX families. I’ve been going to The March for Life for 10 plus years, in this time the bishop of my diocese has never been. As far as evangelism, in my diocese there is none, and fellowship does not count. Why would there be given the current climate? At to who is leading the faithful in my diocese, on this issue, it would be strong, faithful priests, and Catholic families who know their Faith. I will not comment on the other issues.
I could spend a day, pecking away on my computer about “Religious Liberty.” In fact it could be a discussion for another thread. The secular attacks on religion, morality, etc., is a result of “religious liberty.” Read Spinoza, Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, Madison, and on and on. They understood that pluralism, and indifferentism was how you neuter faith in the public square, and to be exact The Catholic Faith.
Reading Church teaching prior to 1960’s is not only to gain wisdom. In fact there’s much wisdom to be gained after the council. I think 1,962 years of continuity might be more precise.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
For repeated and grave disobedience against the person of Blessed Paul VI, Marcel Lefebvre had the grave penalty of suspension a divinis imposed upon him on July 11, 1976. Ultimately he was justly excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
Give them a chance? These people have had FORTY years of chances and have had more kindnesses shown to them than I could begin to enumerate.
It is they who need to show that they are faithful to the Church, which they have rejected by their repeated actions.
Complete, total and UNQUALIFIED submission to the Vicar of Christ without condition.
Complete, total and UNQUALIFIED acceptance of Vatican II without condition.
T
Tarpeian
Guest
“Complete, total and UNQUALIFIED submission to the Vicar of Christ without condition.”
“Complete, total and UNQUALIFIED acceptance of Vatican II without condition.”
Is that so?
C
Cider
Guest
Of course they want to preserve their organization. They need to. In my own diocese the Bishop has claimed that no one here wants the EF of the mass at the same time there has been a petition for years to have a diocesan EF. I’ve also lived in diocese where there was no EF of the mass within hundreds of miles yet the SSPX chapel was packed. So yes they need to preserve their organization.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Isn’t this a little over-the-top, Father?
After all, it’s not what Pope Francis (or even Cardinal Muller) have been saying.
And if we’re counting years, our “separated brethren” (Protestants) have had five hundred years of chances (including 50 years of increased dialogue post-Vatican Council II), and have very little to show for it. At least the SSPX recognizes the papacies of St. John XXIII to Francis; ask a Protestant about the Pope and I’m sure most of those replies couldn’t be posted on this site.
4
40Days
Guest
Well, that list gets pretty long pretty quick if you want to bring up the submission and acceptance part…
American catholic universities…not much submission there.
Women religious orders with conferences considering going beyond Christ…not much there either.
How many liturgical abuses throughout the world happen daily?
Why not simply just say the black/do the red?..problems with acceptance there.
Music and language in the liturgy…again, who’s not accepting?
To inform the average Catholic that despite popular opinion and urban myth, chant and Latin were not exactly outlawed in the Council would be questioned at best.
And yet in each of these examples, there is plenty of kindness also shown. Along with that, haven’t some of these people or movements been qualified with their acceptance or obstinate in submission for even more than forty years?
I am not defending some small priestly fraternity here because to some degree I agree with you…however the impact of Catholic witness seems much more powerful with Norte Dame fawning all over the US President or worship that seems to take in a little too much entertainment value than some group of priests that don’t like the definition of religious liberty (among other things). Why is this particular group able to generate such reactions when they are relatively so small as compared to religious orders (for example)?
C
commenter
Guest
I don’t mean to stereotype.
I realize there is a range of viewpoints among SSPX families. There must be, because at any time there are some re entering their diocese - in other words, becoming less skeptical about the Church - while at the other extreme some (the Resistance) are now not only skeptical about the Vatican and bishop, but skeptical about the leaders of the SSPX.
Skepticism breeds deeper skepticism.
The impact of SSPX is that families tend to be more skeptical towards their pope and bishop. SSPX leaders say they only want people to be skeptical when the pope or bishop are “wrong”, but the net effect is that people are encouraged in a pattern of disobedience, which grows. It works against conversion. When you only are selectively obedient to (some of the) dead popes and bishops, you can find endless ways to avoid conversion.
Children growing up in a skeptical environment can’t benefit later on from obedience to live pope or bishop. SSPX families are not only isolated from bad Catholic things in their area, they are isolated from all Catholic things in their area, including the good.
This is the opposite of what St. Pius X called for, in his work on (unified) Catholic Action; unified action among families in a community, among parishes in a diocese, among dioceses in a nation, among the obedient Catholics in the nations. SSPX families tend to be isolated from all of that, other than what they have within the walls of their chapel. My diocese is 80% improved over 1976, but the SSPX chapel still responds as if they were living in 1976, and that impacts on families. Families switching from SSPX, to their diocese/parish, reduce isolation, move away from total skepticism.
Q
quies
Guest
Isn’t this a little over-the-top, Father?
After all, it’s not what Pope Francis (or even Cardinal Muller) have been saying.
And if we’re counting years, our “separated brethren” (Protestants) have had five hundred years of chances (including 50 years of increased dialogue post-Vatican Council II), and have very little to show for it. At least the SSPX recognizes the papacies of St. John XXIII to Francis; ask a Protestant about the Pope and I’m sure most of those replies couldn’t be posted on this site.
Fellas, these are excellent observations. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut…
I mean “Rabbi, how often can my brother sin against me and I have to forgive him? As many as seven times?”
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
After four decades of witnessing this? No. Not in my estimation at all.
Actually, my opinion of Lefebvre, as well as the men he picked to succeed him, could not possibly be lower. My opinion of him only declined between 1975 and 1989 and then, finally, when he died in 1991.
On the other hand, the two great men Lefebvre opposed are now respectively beatified and canonised…Lefebvre was a man who fought one of the greatest ecumenical council’s in the Church’s history, after the fact, as well as two of the greatest saints to ever occupy the chair of Peter. That says it all. And that must never forgotten.
I actually have positive memories of him, once upon a time. He had made positive contributions to the Church in Africa. How sad that he fell so far and came to such a sad, pitiful, and dreadful end after being excommunicated. As Saint John Paul II said the day after Marcel Lefebvre’s schismatic act: “The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition.” It is, as the saint wrote that day, a cautionary tale.
Very little to show? In a few months, I will be co-presiding with a Lutheran Cleric at a joint Catholic Lutheran ceremony during a year long observance to commemorate the Reformation that Catholic Churches around the globe will be participating in. I lived that dialogue for decades and am incredibly delighted with the fruit.
Of my whole priesthood and my decades on theological dialogue, I consider the Catholic commemorations with the Lutherans for the 500th anniversary of the Reformation to be a crowning moment of my life’s work in this field…but one would also need to speak of the Joint Declaration on Justification, the reassessment of history and the new lenses by which we view the history of the Reformation using the new methodologies of historical study and analysis…and the amazing document that will carry forward the dialogue: From Conflict to Communion.
As for the term “separated brethren” I think what Pope Saint John Paul II said in par. 42 of Ut Unum Sint says it very well indeed.
Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ.
In my work, that quote is always precisely one I turned to.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Was he fighting the Council and the Popes, or rather the abuses committed in their name (and which often went unnoticed?) Of course, he eventually crossed the line when he was excommunicated, but he may not have started out with that idea in mind. It’s complicated.
We don’t truly know what “end” he came to; he could easily have repented before death. Besides, Benedict XVI obviously had some respect for him, as shown by his lifting the excommunication on the four bishops (one of whom turned out to be a bad apple, but that’s another story.
)I’m not trying to downplay the progress that has been made, but what have the fruits been in terms of the salvation of souls? To what extent does dialogue help Protestants come into a more perfect communion with the Church? And how does this translate to the “Protestant in the street”, especially Evangelicals who are often explicitly anti-Catholic? Have Catholic-Protestant alliances in the search of “the common-good” (social justice, pro-life) led to a greater communion, or to an indifferentism on the part of the latter?
C
commenter
Guest
I have argued, on the internet and in person, against all the abuses you referred to, and others. I have worked in ministries and organizations to affirm solid liturgy and doctrine, directly engaging the diocese, parish, or school staff; sometimes helping to make positive change - with me, always from within the Church. The SSPX is outside the Church.
The SSPX don’t assist either in addressing internal Church abuses, which you rightly cite, nor the growing secular assault on Catholic Church authority. The SSPX organization benefits from, and adds to, the Media’s campaign to get Catholics to oppose/ignore the pope and bishop.
Families loyal to the SSPX are trained to be skeptical of Catholic authority, and skepticism limits conversion. Attachment to SSPX tends towards isolation of families from the Catholic life of their region, and the unified Catholic Action called for by the real St. Pius X.
So I am “pro SSPX” when it comes to their families - I am angry about some of the same abuses they are - but the best action for them, their children, and the Church is for the families to reunite with their diocese/parish. I urge posters who are quick to defend the SSPX organization to read St. Pius X, on Catholic Action.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
No. You are very wrong. It’s not complicated. Obedience is not complicated. Obedience is the key for any ecclesiastic to the will of God
Lefebvre received order after order from the Vicar of Christ. His one duty and his one obligation was to obey. The response is straightforward: “Yes, Holiness”
He not only refused to obey, he not only refused the various offers of mercy from the person of the Pope, he flaunted his disobedience. Not an obedience owed by the lowliest member of the Church but of a member of the College of Bishops to the Head of that College
He crossed the line long before he was excommunicated. He was suspended from all exercise of ANY priestly ministry in 1976. He reacted with contempt for the Vicar of Christ and flaunted his disregard; he used sophistry, that I will describe if asked, in justifying a depraved disobedience to the visible head of the Church
I remember when he was denounced by the Blessed Paul VI to the Sacred College and I would willingly recount it. I remember it as if it were yesterday
His stance on the council, which anyone reading this thread can find easily enough without my typing Lefebvre’s sentiments, should engender revulsion. However, rather than give my own thoughts about what he did, I repeat the words of the Saint of God whom Lefebvre opposed:
*Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre /…/ frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail
/…/
The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted, provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his Church
/…/
The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition
/…/
But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church*
That last paragraph is why in the end I have the sentiment about Lefebvre I do beyond my memories. The judgment of the Vicar of Christ: Lefebvre broke with Christ, His Church and Tradition
I know the end he came to in the external forum. I can say that Saint John Paul II, at the end of March in 1991, awaited word that, at least at the moment of death, Lefebvre wished to reconcile with the Church that he had rejected by his schismatic act. That word did not come to His Holiness. It did not come from Lefebvre nor from Bishop de Castro Mayer who wouldn’t even receive the delegation of the Holy See that went to him on his death bed
As regarding Pope Benedict, his is what Benedict wrote to the bishops in March of 2009 about why he lifted the excommunication:
An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return
The goal was not attained because these four men were not moved by the excommunication to repent
I have never said this before on this forum…but I will in testimony against in Lefebvre…of all the ecclesiastics I have known across decades, Joseph Ratzinger is the kindest and most gentle of souls in a unique way when one is in a one on one conversation with him. That he suffered on account of these men, who should be prostrate at the feet of the successor of Peter in abject sorrow for their multiple sins against the unity of the Church and the welfare of the people of God, inspires very strong feelings about their actions
That was letter one of the most poignant letters of a pope – I am speaking of published; there are those which are not published – that I’ve ever read
This is a question I am not going to characterise since you would not like the characterisation…I am certainly not going to dignify it with an answer
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Thank you for the clarification, Father. As I was born after 1976
)) I was not aware of the history from then (except from one “liberal” novel which also had critical things to say about St. John Paul II, so I ignored it), but that doesn’t excuse my getting the facts straight. Please accept my apology if I have given offence in this matter.Understood. I suppose I have my own prejudices in this area, as I have seen plenty of “sheep stealing” and an undue influence of Protestant “televangelists” on some of my friends and family, so perhaps I wrote uncharitably. Again, my apologies.
P
ProVobis
Guest
In the end that will be for the Pope to decide, after examining the financial structures and workable solutions, and hopefully ignoring the intense verbal attacks from both sides. The history will be irrelevant.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
No. The history will not be irrelevant and, as the Holy Father just said in an interview in La Croix in Europe, the SSPX will have to accept “that Vatican II is good”. That is, ultimately, the crucial point…the enduring value of the ecumenical council and how it has transformed the Church for the good.
Pope Francis has not yet had the same sorrows as his predecessors in dealing with the SSPX…on the other hand, Pope Francis has shown a willingness to depose bishops and superiors of institutes who are not conformed to his philosophy and to impose new solutions by his own motu proprio.
P
ProVobis
Guest
This is tough to measure. One group can focus on A, B, and C issues. Another one will focus on A, B, D, and perhaps E. Logic may dictate that if the two combine, that will benefit all issues but is this necessarily true? Perhaps a contributor to the first group may not care that his money will go to support D, where that might not be in keeping with his philosophy. But in the end, they may end up supporting the same political candidate so what does it really matter where the contributions came from?
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Excellent post.
However, I was referring more to the spiritual / theological influences of such collaboration. Does working together, say, to defeat gay marriage legislation or impose restrictions on abortion (which is a worthy and noble goal) afford a good opportunity for dialogue and evangelization, or does it lead to an “we’re both pro-life / anti-gay / serving the poor, so I can continue to be Evangelical / Pentecostal / Methodist; EENS is an outdated idea anyway” mentality? (Of course, this is based on my admittedly imperfect, layman’s understanding of EENS; as I see it, even post-Vatican II, non-Catholic Christians do not automatically get a free pass on salvation. But I could be wrong.
)
C
commenter
Guest
There is a workable solution in place right now. The Church has expanded availability of the EF. Many individuals swim the Tiber each year, but only when they are ready. Priests reconcile with their bishop, and then join a society or become diocesan clergy. Families join a parish, start getting active in, and receiving support from, various Catholic programs in their diocese. They avoid programs and parishes where they are not in agreement, but in most places there is lots of good stuff within the region. Their isolation ends.
Some priests and families are not ready today. They maybe ready tomorrow. Some, in the rival SSPX internal movements, and related spin offs, might never be ready, but we can hope and pray, they all “swim the Tiber” - only when they are ready. The SSPX leaders seem to attack or disdain the “individual swim option”, and it is ignored by the media; but it should be publicized. The biggest concern I have is the continued isolation of SSPX-attached families, which are discouraged from “making the swim”.
- Status