Negative attitude to SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter floresco
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PaulinVA said:
On the SSPX website, it says that AB Lefebvre wasn’t really excommunicated, because he was following his conscience when he consecrated the Bishops.
Click to expand...
I think the website might be a little outdated. That happens with a lot of websites. As I understand it though, the Archbishop used the “necessity” clause in Canon Law to consecrate four bishops, citing his own health and the fact there were no other bishops to perpetuate the Latin Mass. As for the excommunications, there seems to be a few sides on this, one which claims the Pope citied an automatic excommunication (latae sententiae) in spite of the “necessity” clause, one (mine) which claims the Pope in reality excommunicated the Archbishop *ferendae sententiae *(which he can do against anyone), and one which claims no excommunications at all. In any case the excommunications against the ordained bishops have been lifted and you know the rest.
 
floresco said:
I hope that people like you, who are less than enthusiastic about them, can nevertheless pray for reconciliation. I hope that this, at least, is something that all Catholics can agree on.
Click to expand...
I agree with the Pope that you can’t just throw all of those Priests and Seminarians out. They need to have their suspensions lifted after the reason for the suspensions is removed.
 
ProVobis said:
I… As for the excommunications, there seems to be a few sides on this, one which claims the Pope citied an automatic excommunication (latae sententiae) in spite of the “necessity” clause, one (mine) which claims the Pope in reality excommunicated the Archbishop *ferendae sententiae *(which he can do against anyone), and one which claims no excommunications at all. In any case the excommunications against the ordained bishops have been lifted and you know the rest.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the kind reply. I truly am trying to put everything in context. I certainly have more in common with you than most of the people I attend Mass with. We are one Church, but sometimes it sure is hard to find agreement.
 
Onegin said:
So no, one should avoid the temptation if it is a temptation for them and, as I continue to stress, if one is uncomfortable with attending Mass at an SSPX chapel don’t go! Don’t put yourself in a situation where you would be uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
If and when the SSPX can gain priestly faculties and can offer a licit Mass, I’d like to attend one of their Masses in the Ordinary Form.
 
Stylites said:
If and when the SSPX can gain priestly faculties and can offer a licit Mass, I’d like to attend one of their Masses in the Ordinary Form.
Click to expand...
I find it easy to imagine their status changing so that they may offer licit Masses. I find it very hard to imagine circumstances under which they would offer an OF Mass. Are you suggesting that this would be a condition for the reconciliation? Nothing that I have read leads me to think that.
 
PaulinVA said:
I agree with the Pope that you can’t just throw all of those Priests and Seminarians out.
Click to expand...
You have to be right about that. If the Pope had told them to put a complete stop to their priestly formation in progress, then basically there would be no need to negotiate their future in the first place. I think all sides realize that full communion won’t happen overnight.
 
floresco said:
I find it easy to imagine their status changing so that they may offer licit Masses. I find it very hard to imagine circumstances under which they would offer an OF Mass. Are you suggesting that this would be a condition for the reconciliation? Nothing that I have read leads me to think that.
Click to expand...
I assure you that I myself am not privy to the particulars of any negotiations. But it would make sense to see how obedient and humble and contrite and unified and licit and apostolic the erstwhile schismatics want to be.
 
Stylites said:
If and when the SSPX can gain priestly faculties and can offer a licit Mass, I’d like to attend one of their Masses in the Ordinary Form.
Click to expand...
I’m fairly certain it will be a cold day in Hell when that happens. Hopefully this won’t prove too much of a disappointment, considering how you appear to express a certain affection for the “erstwhile schismatics.” Your subtle and deftly-phrased concern over their eventual reunification is particularly inspiring. 😉
 
Stylites said:
I assure you that I myself am not privy to the particulars of any negotiations. But it would make sense to see how obedient and humble and contrite and unified and licit and apostolic the erstwhile schismatics want to be.
Click to expand...
This is not the Pope’s attitude. He does not write like he wants to score points on them or demand shows of loyalty. He writes as if he wants to make their path back as smooth as possible. His words are full of fatherly affection. And he does not use inflammatory words like “schismatic”. I suggest that you read what he says on this subject and imitate him.
 
floresco said:
This is not the Pope’s attitude. He does not write like he wants to score points on them or demand shows of loyalty. He writes as if he wants to make their path back as smooth as possible. His words are full of fatherly affection. And he does not use inflammatory words like “schismatic”. I suggest that you read what he says on this subject and imitate him.
Click to expand...
To be precise, the illegal Econe consecrations were a schismatic act, as the late Holy Father made abundantly clear, and more recently the Vatican has clarified that the SSPX is not presently in schism as a corporate body, but exhibits a dangerous “schismatic mentality.” You’re quite right that it’s very important to use words correctly and not stretch what has been said beyond what was originally meant, but at the same time the Holy See has repeatedly used the words “schism” and “schismatic” concerning the sect.
 
MarkThompson said:
To be precise, the illegal Econe consecrations were a schismatic act, as the late Holy Father made abundantly clear, and more recently the Vatican has clarified that the SSPX is not presently in schism as a corporate body, but exhibits a dangerous “schismatic mentality.” You’re quite right that it’s very important to use words correctly and not stretch what has been said beyond what was originally meant, but at the same time the Holy See has repeatedly used the words “schism” and “schismatic” concerning the sect.
Click to expand...
That is true. To be precise I ought to have said that the Pope does not use the word “schismatic” the way that Stylites was.
 
floresco said:
That is true. To be precise I ought to have said that the Pope does not use the word “schismatic” the way that Stylites was.
Click to expand...
Perfectly fair. And on reflection I don’t know whether I ought to have called the SSPX a “sect”? Are they one? Does the term have a specific canonical meaning?
 
ConstantineTG said:
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.
Click to expand...
Excellent, thoughtful post.
 
floresco said:
I find it easy to imagine their status changing so that they may offer licit Masses. I find it very hard to imagine circumstances under which they would offer an OF Mass. Are you suggesting that this would be a condition for the reconciliation? Nothing that I have read leads me to think that.
Click to expand...
From HH Pope Benedict XVI’s letter to the world’s bishops, accompanying Summorum Pontificum:

*"*Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."

One assumes that this applies to the FSSP and SSPX, should reconciliation come about.
 
The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."
Click to expand...
the new rite–aptly called–is holy insofar as the sacrifice of Christ is holy and not on account of its creation by committee.

the new mass did not organically grow from an existing form. it’s a new mass created on the preceived needs of the laity and not on account of being a superior form of worship.
 
Dee_Dee_King said:
the new rite–aptly called–is holy insofar as the sacrifice of Christ is holy and not on account of its creation by committee.

the new mass did not organically grow from an existing form. it’s a new mass created on the preceived needs of the laity and not on account of being a superior form of worship.
Click to expand...
I would urge you to read the Holy Father’s expressed will in the entirety of the cover letter that accompanied Summorum Pontificum.

And the EF is only holy insofar as the Sacrifice of Christ is holy. That’s what makes both forms holy, the Divine Liturgy holy, etc. They are the clothing that surrounds the Holy Sacrifice.

Plus, you’re chasing rabbits. The pope here seems to indicate that priests of the Church will need to be prepared to offer both forms. It was that to which I was responding, though you again have nailed why so many have problems with the SSPX and other “traditionalists:” the denigration of the OF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top