Negative attitude to SSPX

[floresco]

Some posters who appear to pride themselves on their loyalty to the Pope are writing in a very negative way about the SSPX. Yet he has made it clear that reconciliation with the SSPX is very important to him. Do they support his wishes by this kind of posting? They complain about the lack of loyalty of the SSPX at the same time as these posters themselves undermine the reconciliation he tries to bring about. Personally, I try to model my attitude to the SSPX on that of the Pope. We see nothing inflammatory or belligerent from him. He speaks of them respectfully and shows that he values them. Shouldn’t Catholics who are loyal to the Pope imitate him in this?

(adapted from another post of mine in a thread where it was off topic)

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

I whole heartedly agreed when you mentioned it in another post…they treat us horribly, then they get on their high horse when a member simply defends themselves or The Society. They treat us like lepers. Not to mention the negative attitudes towards us regarding anything we say. I can’t even begin to tell you the number of lies I have heard or seen written on this very message board that mistates the SSPX or one of their positions. I guess they feel if they tell the lie enough times, people will start to believe it is the truth. They have no shame…the possess no honor or integrity.

On the otherhand there are level headed, warm people like you that treat us with nothing but the utmost respect. I value you for that. Thank you so much and God Bless you. May more people adopt your attitude.

Some posters who appear to pride themselves on their loyalty to the Pope are writing in a very negative way about the SSPX. Yet he has made it clear that reconciliation with the SSPX is very important to him. Do they support his wishes by this kind of posting? They complain about the lack of loyalty of the SSPX at the same time as these posters themselves undermine the reconciliation he tries to bring about. Personally, I try to model my attitude to the SSPX on that of the Pope. We see nothing inflammatory or belligerent from him. He speaks of them respectfully and shows that he values them. Shouldn’t Catholics who are loyal to the Pope imitate him in this?

(adapted from another post of mine in a thread where it was off topic)

 

[MarkThompson]

Some posters who appear to pride themselves on their loyalty to the Pope are writing in a very negative way about the SSPX. Yet he has made it clear that reconciliation with the SSPX is very important to him. Do they support his wishes by this kind of posting? They complain about the lack of loyalty of the SSPX at the same time as these posters themselves undermine the reconciliation he tries to bring about. Personally, I try to model my attitude to the SSPX on that of the Pope. We see nothing inflammatory or belligerent from him. He speaks of them respectfully and shows that he values them. Shouldn’t Catholics who are loyal to the Pope imitate him in this?

(adapted from another post of mine in a thread where it was off topic)

The Pope’s attitude, though, is not “Eventually I will come to my senses and rejoin the SSPX, who have carefully preserved the faith while my predecessors and I have run off the rails.” That is, however, the attitude expressed by many Lefebvrites, particularly the ones who don’t want any reconciliation. After all, reconciliation would be easy: all they have to do is say, “I’m sorry, we done goofed. Will you please take us back, unworthy as we may be?” The Holy Father would be entirely right to slaughter the fatted calf for them in such a circumstance. But, except for the many who have left and reconciled themselves with the Church, most are not penitent. There is, I think, a limit to the mollycoddling that can be done in such a circumstance.

 

[floresco]

I whole heartedly agreed when you mentioned it in another post…they treat us horribly, then they get on their high horse when a member simply defends themselves or The Society. They treat us like lepers. Not to mention the negative attitudes towards us regarding anything we say. I can’t even begin to tell you the number of lies I have heard or seen written on this very message board that mistates the SSPX or one of their positions. I guess they feel if they tell the lie enough times, people will start to believe it is the truth. They have no shame…the possess no honor or integrity.

On the otherhand there are level headed, warm people like you that treat us with nothing but the utmost respect. I value you for that. Thank you so much and God Bless you. May more people adopt your attitude.

While I thank you for the kind words you have directed at me, I see a problem with the part I have bolded. Using a word like “lie” is likely to escalate bad feeling. I completely agree that SSPX positions are frequently misrepresented here, but it seems likely to me that these are honest mistakes. I believe that the majority of people doing this are well-intentioned but poorly-informed. I can understand how distressing it must be to read such things, but a calmer response might be more useful.

 

[Stylites]

They complain about the lack of loyalty of the SSPX at the same time as these posters themselves undermine the reconciliation he tries to bring about.

Maybe if less SSPX members would paint the Pope as some kind of cartoonish evil overlord or claim that the OF of the Latin Rite is somehow less than the full theology of the Church, then they would receive better press from the faithful.

Myself being practically perfekt in every way (!), I am able to sense the almost natural resistance to supernatural pride.

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

No, I do agree there is the well intentioned poster who is misinformed and regurgitates what he/she hears and when instructed it is wrong, they admit their fault and move on. On the other hand, there are a few posters (I will not name names) that in the face of countless documents, statements, writings, etc that has been provided to them time and time again from Rome and Cardinals, etc. stating their opinion is false, they still promulgate the mistruths as if they were the gospel. A person that is guilty of this is telling a pursposeful lie…not making an honest mistake.

While I thank you for the kind words you have directed at me, I see a problem with the part I have bolded. Using a word like “lie” is likely to escalate bad feeling. I completely agree that SSPX positions are frequently misrepresented here, but it seems likely to me that these are honest mistakes. I believe that the majority of people doing this are well-intentioned but poorly-informed. I can understand how distressing it must be to read such things, but a calmer response might be more useful.

 

[benedictgal]

Some posters who appear to pride themselves on their loyalty to the Pope are writing in a very negative way about the SSPX. Yet he has made it clear that reconciliation with the SSPX is very important to him. Do they support his wishes by this kind of posting? They complain about the lack of loyalty of the SSPX at the same time as these posters themselves undermine the reconciliation he tries to bring about. Personally, I try to model my attitude to the SSPX on that of the Pope. We see nothing inflammatory or belligerent from him. He speaks of them respectfully and shows that he values them. Shouldn’t Catholics who are loyal to the Pope imitate him in this?

(adapted from another post of mine in a thread where it was off topic)

First of all, floresco, please do not confuse the two issues. The ones, as I have read the discourse between the SSPX and the Holy See, who have actually placed roadblocks are the SSPX themselves. While the excommunications have been lifted, there remains much work to be done. SSPX has to yield some ground as well. Reconciliation is important to the Holy Father, but, it also has to be important to SSPX.

Before you start leveling charges and pointing accusatory fingers, you need to see both sides of the picture. While Archbishop Lefebre tried to stand up for tradition, he went about it the wrong way and ordained men to the episcopacy without Rome’s approval. This was wrong. But, even though the excommunications have been lifted, Lebfebre’s course, in my opinion, was not prudent. Furthermore, until Rome specifically gives a directive, something concrete and written, not a soundbite of a quote in a magazine, we really can’t assist at SSPX Masses. The Holy Father liberalized the use of the EF, but, nothing in Summorun Pontificum indicates that the SSPX is a valid option.

 

[Stylites]

The Pope’s attitude, though, is not “Eventually I will come to my senses and rejoin the SSPX, who have carefully preserved the faith while my predecessors and I have run off the rails.” That is, however, the attitude expressed by many Lefebvrites, particularly the ones who don’t want any reconciliation. After all, reconciliation would be easy: all they have to do is say, “I’m sorry, we done goofed. Will you please take us back, unworthy as we may be?” The Holy Father would be entirely right to slaughter the fatted calf for them in such a circumstance. But, except for the many who have left and reconciled themselves with the Church, most are not penitent. There is, I think, a limit to the mollycoddling that can be done in such a circumstance.

Worth repeating. No one is stopping schismatic leaders from repenting, except themselves.

 

[floresco]

The Pope’s attitude, though, is not “Eventually I will come to my senses and rejoin the SSPX, who have carefully preserved the faith while my predecessors and I have run off the rails.” That is, however, the attitude expressed by many Lefebvrites, particularly the ones who don’t want any reconciliation. After all, reconciliation would be easy: all they have to do is say, “I’m sorry, we done goofed. Will you please take us back, unworthy as we may be?” The Holy Father would be entirely right to slaughter the fatted calf for them in such a circumstance. But, except for the many who have left and reconciled themselves with the Church, most are not penitent. There is, I think, a limit to the mollycoddling that can be done in such a circumstance.

I understand the Pope’s attitude through his actions in promulgating Summorum Pontificum, lifting the excommunications of the SSPX bishops and arranging the doctrinal talks with them. He is being notably proactive in this cause, not simply waiting for penitents to return. If this is mollycoddling, then I too shall mollycoddle because I want to follow his example.

Also he writes with such sympathy and understanding about the desire for the traditional Mass that this is what sparked my own interest in it. While this is not the only issue involved in the SSPX, it is probably the most important one.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The problem with the SSPX is they think disobedience is okay for a noble cause (and mind you that “noble cause” is still very subjective). I’m sure every priest and bishop that allows a liturgical abuse is well meaning. They want to keep their flock interested in the Mass rather than them leave the Church. And hopefully through constant participation in the Mass they will be converted to faithful, devout and reverent Catholics in the near future.

Now, would that justify their disobedience? I’m sure the traditionalists will be screaming on the top of their lungs to have them burned at the stake. Sure, not literally, but over and over figuratively.

Disobedience is disobedience. Whether its having the communion line walk through the altar and having people self-communicate, or its disregarding Canon Laws on the requirements of Papal approvals for ordaining Bishops. I don’t know why one disobedience is acceptable and the other is not. As Catholics we are taught that the end does not justify the means, no matter how noble the end may seem.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I understand the Pope’s attitude through his actions in promulgating Summorum Pontificum, lifting the excommunications of the SSPX bishops and arranging the doctrinal talks with them. He is being notably proactive in this cause, not simply waiting for penitents to return. If this is mollycoddling, then I too shall mollycoddle because I want to follow his example.

Also he writes with such sympathy and understanding about the desire for the traditional Mass that this is what sparked my own interest in it. While this is not the only issue involved in the SSPX, it is probably the most important one.

With regards to the TLM, there are other societies or groups such as the FSSP that we can go to for a valid TLM. I don’t know why we need to defend those who choose to disobey the Church when there are valid options out there.

 

[floresco]

Maybe if less SSPX members would paint the Pope as some kind of cartoonish evil overlord or claim that the OF of the Latin Rite is somehow less than the full theology of the Church, then they would receive better press from the faithful.

In my experience of people associated with the SSPX, they have a very positive attitude to them. This also appears in official statements from them.

Since I also consider the OF to lack theological clarity of the EF, I tend to agree with their concerns about it.

 

[floresco]

No, I do agree there is the well intentioned poster who is misinformed and regurgitates what he/she hears and when instructed it is wrong, they admit their fault and move on. On the other hand, there are a few posters (I will not name names) that in the face of countless documents, statements, writings, etc that has been provided to them time and time again from Rome and Cardinals, etc. stating their opinion is false, they still promulgate the mistruths as if they were the gospel. A person that is guilty of this is telling a pursposeful lie…not making an honest mistake.

Even in these cases, we should be trying to put the best possible interpretation on their actions. Perhaps they have misunderstood. Perhaps they have become so caught up in the emotions and polemics they are unable think clearly.

 

[MarkThompson]

I understand the Pope’s attitude through his actions in promulgating Summorum Pontificum, lifting the excommunications of the SSPX bishops and arranging the doctrinal talks with them. He is being notably proactive in this cause, not simply waiting for penitents to return. If this is mollycoddling, then I too shall mollycoddle because I want to follow his example.

This is very true, but I think in that regard one has to distinguish between two things: taking seriously their liturgical concerns, and indifferentism. Indifferentism would be to say, “Keep on doing whatever it is you’re doing, but you’re fine by our books now.” That would be as though Anglicanorum Coetibus had said, “Whichever Anglicans want to call themselves Catholic, fine by me.” Instead, AC set up canonical processes for the admission of Anglican bishops and parishes, with extraordinary grants to allow their married ministers to join the Catholic priesthood and to create a special Anglican-based liturgy for them. Do we think that similar concessions have not been offered to the SSPX? Look at the flourishing FSSP, who exclusively use the TLM, have their own seminaries, etc., etc. Somehow that’s just not good enough for the SSPX, though.

But that’s what being “notably proactive” means. It does not mean saying, “Meh, licit, illicit; obedient to the hierarchy of the Church, disobedient; it doesn’t really matter,” which is the attitude of those who select out-of-context quotations from various letters and off-the-cuff remarks to argue that the Church has pretty much said that adhering to the SSPX is A-OK. In fact it hasn’t, and this only serves to breed harder feelings: why, they say, does the Church still oppose us when they have said that we’re perfectly fine as we are??? The Church, of course, has never said any such thing – that would be indifferentism, which has definitely not been the Holy Father’s course.

 

[LoyalViews]

No, I do agree there is the well intentioned poster who is misinformed and regurgitates what he/she hears and when instructed it is wrong, they admit their fault and move on. On the other hand, there are a few posters (I will not name names) that in the face of countless documents, statements, writings, etc that has been provided to them time and time again from Rome and Cardinals, etc. stating their opinion is false, they still promulgate the mistruths as if they were the gospel. A person that is guilty of this is telling a pursposeful lie…not making an honest mistake.

Agreed I have been misinformed about the SSPX more than once

Worth repeating. No one is stopping schismatic leaders from repenting, except themselves.

My friend, the SSPX is not schismatic.

I understand the Pope’s attitude through his actions in promulgating Summorum Pontificum, lifting the excommunications of the SSPX bishops and arranging the doctrinal talks with them. He is being notably proactive in this cause, not simply waiting for penitents to return. If this is mollycoddling, then I too shall mollycoddle because I want to follow his example.

Also he writes with such sympathy and understanding about the desire for the traditional Mass that this is what sparked my own interest in it. While this is not the only issue involved in the SSPX, it is probably the most important one.

I echo your statements.

With regards to the TLM, there are other societies or groups such as the FSSP that we can go to for a valid TLM. I don’t know why we need to defend those who choose to disobey the Church when there are valid options out there.

Oft times I have thought this, too. That is what I do, I support the FSSP and the ICRSS, and Una Voce. I do NOT support the SSPX, but I do respect them. Some members are ignorant, but some members, the true members, are very kind and care for the church. There are the good and bad of everything, is there not? Be can not judge a whole group just on the actions of one member.

 

[Ockham]

My guess is many of the SSPX haters possess ulterior motives and hidden agendas. If you can’t live without your EMHC role or wish for female ordination then groups like the SSPX are obstacles to you.

 

[floresco]

First of all, floresco, please do not confuse the two issues. The ones, as I have read the discourse between the SSPX and the Holy See, who have actually placed roadblocks are the SSPX themselves. While the excommunications have been lifted, there remains much work to be done. SSPX has to yield some ground as well. Reconciliation is important to the Holy Father, but, it also has to be important to SSPX.

I was referring to the attitudes of posters here on CAF. It seems to me that there are people here who, in the name of loyalty to the Pope, work against his manifest desire for reconciliation. Yes, there is the official reconciliation too, but it needs to be supported all of us. I’m talking about an attitude of reconciliation throughout the Church.

Before you start leveling charges and pointing accusatory fingers, you need to see both sides of the picture. While Archbishop Lefebre tried to stand up for tradition, he went about it the wrong way and ordained men to the episcopacy without Rome’s approval. This was wrong. But, even though the excommunications have been lifted, Lebfebre’s course, in my opinion, was not prudent. Furthermore, until Rome specifically gives a directive, something concrete and written, not a soundbite of a quote in a magazine, we really can’t assist at SSPX Masses. The Holy Father liberalized the use of the EF, but, nothing in Summorun Pontificum indicates that the SSPX is a valid option.

It is not my intention to level charges or accuse. I’m sorry if my post came across that way.

If you think that Abp. Lefebvre was wrong or that Catholics should not attend Mass at SSPX chapels, I do not object to you stating your opinion and giving your reasons. We cannot achieve reconciliation by closing our eyes to genuine disagreements. I am, however, concerned by the inflammatory and hostile tone in some of the posts.

 

[floresco]

The problem with the SSPX is they think disobedience is okay for a noble cause (and mind you that “noble cause” is still very subjective).

Let’s say for the sake of argument that you are correct in your claim of the SSPX being disobedient. Does this justify people being rude and hostile to supporters of the SSPX? I certainly don’t expect everyone else to agree with all the SSPX positions, but I’m seeing a lot of angry and sarcastic posts directed at them

 

[kozlosap]

My guess is many of the SSPX haters possess ulterior motives and hidden agendas. If you can’t live without your EMHC role or wish for female ordination then groups like the SSPX are obstacles to you.

Are there people here who try and argue that the SSPX is not in full communion with the Church? Yes, but does that make them “haters”? I spent all morning re-reading the multitude of SSPX threads and there is some “holier than thou” attitudes on the SSPX side as well as non-SSPX who refuse to read about the way that His Holiness John Paul ll tried to start the re-unification process.

There are no hidden agendas. In our diocese it is permitted for women to be EMHC. If the bishop decided he didn’t approve of women being EMHC then they would not be. I haven’t seen anyone who supports ordination of women to the priesthood. Just because a person (either man or woman) supports young women being alter servers does not mean they support ordination for women. Talk about jumping to laughable conclusions. I am not heretical because I do not believe that SSPX has the only true form of the liturgy and I also believe that they are not heretical either as long as they continue to look to the Holy Father as the leader of the Faith. Anyway, just MHO.

 

[floresco]

This is very true, but I think in that regard one has to distinguish between two things: taking seriously their liturgical concerns, and indifferentism.

That is a useful distinction. Certainly we must avoid indifferentism.