Negative attitude to SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter floresco
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I think we all can support the SSPX better by telling them we are not attending their Masses until they are in full communion with the Pope. Nothing will hasten the reconcilliation than the people making such demand.
 
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.
This kind of thinking fosters suspicion and distrust. It too is an obstacle to reconciliation. It is worth making a conscious effort to attribute good motives to people and treat them as sincere.
 
Agreed 🙂 I have been misinformed about the SSPX more than once 🙂

My friend, the SSPX is not schismatic.

I echo your statements. 🙂

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.
I must correct what I said about being the good and bad of everything…that isn’t always true. All abortionists murder children, etc… Please forgive me of my mistake.
 
This kind of thinking fosters suspicion and distrust. It too is an obstacle to reconciliation. It is worth making a conscious effort to attribute good motives to people and treat them as sincere.
👍 Couldn’t agree more.
 
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.
You are using red herrings to justify the existence of SSPX. Mixing EMHCs and female ordination is the weasel way of addressing the issue. The first is presently allowed in the Latin Catholic Church and and the second is impossible in all the Catholic Churches. Mixing disciplines that you do not like with heretical thinking is not intellectually honest.
 
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.
As sympathetic as I am to the SSPX, I cannot claim that its supporters here are completely innocent victims of persecution. I have seen negative attitudes from some of them too. The reason I focus on the non-SSPX hostility in this thread is that so many seem to be behaving this way in the name of loyalty to the Pope. I have seen nothing in the Pope’s actions to lend any support to a belief that wants people to be hostile and rude to those associated with the SSPX. Being loyal to the Pope would mean behaving in a way that is consistent with his manifest desire for reconciliation.
 
They are growing in parishioners and vocations, while others are decreasing. I don’t think you have to worry about that happening. Heck, if things continue on the same course, many years down the road, The Church will most definitely need the SSPX as the vocations dwindle and there are less parishioners filling their Churches.
I think we all can support the SSPX better by telling them we are not attending their Masses until they are in full communion with the Pope. Nothing will hasten the reconcilliation than the people making such demand.
 
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.
This is such unrealistic pie-in-the-sky illogic that one could ROFL ! Seriously, do you have any idea about what you allege here, other than it is what you want to believe?

EWTN hosted a program recently with Rev. Kevin Fete and the question came up about how many O.F. masses are said daily throughout the world. It may surprise you to know that there are 300,000. Suppose for a minute that 50 people attend the weekday masses (divide by 7 days) and add the 300 minimal amount on any given weekend. You get nearly 25 million catholics (a watered-down estimate) attending mass. Surely you are out of touch if you believe ALL of these Catholics are hating the SSPX and all the other inventions of your mind that you attribute to them.

Even if he was wrong about the figure, and for argument’s sake, there are only 10 million. 🤷 Do you see how you come across to intelligent people?
Get real, Ockham.
 
I think we all can support the SSPX better by telling them we are not attending their Masses until they are in full communion with the Pope. Nothing will hasten the reconcilliation than the people making such demand.
I sometimes attend Mass at an SSPX chapel, but I do not receive the Eucharist when I do. By worshipping with them I express my respect for them and my gratitude for their role in preserving the TLM. By not receiving Communion, I acknowledge their irregular canonical status and my hopes that it will be regularized.
 
You are using red herrings to justify the existence of SSPX. Mixing EMHCs and female ordination is the weasel way of addressing the issue. The first is presently allowed in the Latin Catholic Church and and the second is impossible in all the Catholic Churches. Mixing disciplines that you do not like with heretical thinking is not intellectually honest.
Christiano, I hope you do not mind me using your post to illustrate a point. I think that you have expressed your legitimate disagreement with Ockham in an inflammatory and emotionally-charged way. This shows a distinction I am making. I am not saying that we must never disagree. In fact, I disagreed with his post too. Rather I am saying the way we disagree should support the Pope’s goal of reconciliation. I suggest we think about tone as well as content.
 
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)
I agree floresco. I tend to stay way away from these threads because of the uncharity that is so prevelant there. I also cringe whenever a priest, bishop or archbishop is judged and discussed in a derogatory manner with unfounded information.

I pray for reconciliation and I pray that it happens soon.
 
I think we all can support the SSPX better by telling them we are not attending their Masses until they are in full communion with the Pope. Nothing will hasten the reconcilliation than the people making such demand.
While I’d encourage voicing your opinion with the SSPX, with all due respect, I don’t think they will hasten the reconciliation until there is a solution that is acceptable for both parties. And I doubt that there are any external factors that will hasten the process.

In the case of the SSPX, I don’t think it is realistic to hope or assume that they will go the way of the FSSP, as the FSSP (from what I understand) is still obligated to say the Novus Ordo Mass if asked by the local ordinary and this is something that I don’t think the SSPX Priests will agree to since it would be totally inconsistent with their whole position.
 
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
Its subjective. Even if I just mention the FACT that Canon Law was disregarded, supporters will take offense no matter how much honey I put on top of that one. Besides, the truth is the truth. Why does it need to be sugarcoated?
 
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.
Ockham, with all due respect, please don’t paint all of us with the same brush stroke. My concerns about the SSPX are more along the lines of licitness and their adherence to all of what the Church holds. We cannot pick and choose. We cannot thumb our noses down at what the authentic teachings of the Council are. Inasmuch as there are problems with the interpration where people fall into the trap of the alleged “Spirit of Vatican II”, the teachings themselves are not to blame.

We cannot take the same approach that Martin Luther took (which, unfortunately, is similar to what happened in 1988). There were different reasons, but, the same tactic. We need to stay with Peter.
 
They are growing in parishioners and vocations, while others are decreasing. I don’t think you have to worry about that happening. Heck, if things continue on the same course, many years down the road, The Church will most definitely need the SSPX as the vocations dwindle and there are less parishioners filling their Churches.
First, proof?

Second, the Evangelicals and Pentecostals are also growing in numbers. Should we support them too? Should the Church bow down to them too?
 
While I’d encourage voicing your opinion with the SSPX, with all due respect, I don’t think they will hasten the reconciliation until there is a solution that is acceptable for both parties. And I doubt that there are any external factors that will hasten the process.

In the case of the SSPX, I don’t think it is realistic to hope or assume that they will go the way of the FSSP, as the FSSP (from what I understand) is still obligated to say the Novus Ordo Mass if asked by the local ordinary and this is something that I don’t think the SSPX Priests will agree to since it would be totally inconsistent with their whole position.
The problem here is pride. Right now they can’t see why they can’t just say they made a mistake and ask the Church to reinstate them. And as long as they have parishioners, they will have a false sense of justice on their side.

Do you think Martin Luther would have continued with his church if no one followed after him? If no one believed him and no one attended his Masses?

I’m not sure about what you are saying about the FSSP. The FSSP Parish in our diocese is exclusively EF. I do not know if that is the case in other diocese but at least that shows an example that they are not obligated to say Mass in the OF. Of course, it comes down to what the Diocesan Bishop would say, I suppose.
 
You are using red herrings to justify the existence of SSPX. Mixing EMHCs and female ordination is the weasel way of addressing the issue. The first is presently allowed in the Latin Catholic Church and and the second is impossible in all the Catholic Churches. Mixing disciplines that you do not like with heretical thinking is not intellectually honest.
This may be true. But I’d be very surprised if these "discipline’ issues won’t come up sometime during the current talks if they haven’t already.
 
Its subjective. Even if I just mention the FACT that Canon Law was disregarded, supporters will take offense no matter how much honey I put on top of that one. Besides, the truth is the truth. Why does it need to be sugarcoated?
In my experience, trying to state my positions tactfully does it make a difference. People can often focus better on the real issues when they are not distracted by having emotional buttons pushed. When people are angry and upset they may very well not listen at all. To speak sweetly and clearly is to serve the truth because one communicates it more effectively.

Don’t you think it would be an interesting experiment to try it and see what happens?
 
They are growing in parishioners and vocations, while others are decreasing. I don’t think you have to worry about that happening. Heck, if things continue on the same course, many years down the road, The Church will most definitely need the SSPX as the vocations dwindle and there are less parishioners filling their Churches.
Which is why there are ongoing talks to bring about full communication. I don’t think Rome (or the SSPX, for that matter) would be involved in such talks if no one showed up at an SSPX Mass.
 
Since the introduction of the new sacramental rites, Rome had allowed no religious society or congregation exclusive use of the older rites. Then on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops to ensure the survival of the traditional priesthood and sacraments, and especially of the traditional Latin Mass. Suddenly, within two days, Pope John Paul II recognized (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988) the “rightful aspirations” (for these things) of those who wouldn’t support Archbishop Lefebvre’s stance, and offered to give to them what he had always refused the Archbishop. A dozen or so priests of the SSPX accepted this “good will” and broke away to found the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP).

The Fraternity of St. Peter is founded upon more than questionable principles, for the following reasons:

It accepts that the Conciliar Church has the power:

to take away the Mass of all time (for the Novus Ordo Missae is not another form of this, QUESTION 5),

to grant it to those only who accept the same Conciliar Church’s novel orientations (in life, belief, structures),

to declare non-Catholic those who deny this by word or deed (An interpretation of “Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism [of Archbishop Lefebvre] is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication.” Ecclesia Dei Afflicata), and,

to professes itself in a certain way in communion with anyone calling himself “Christian,” and yet to declare itself out of communion with Catholics whose sole crime is wanting to remain Catholic (Vatican II, e.g., Lumen Gentium, §15; Unitatis Redintegratio §3).

In practice, the priests of the Fraternity, having recourse to a Novus Ordo bishop willing to permit the traditional rites and willing to ordain their candidates, they are forced to abandon the fight against the new religion which is being installed:

they reject the Novus Ordo Missae only because it is not their “spirituality” and claim the traditional Latin Mass only in virtue of their “charism” acknowledged them by the pope,

they seek to ingratiate themselves with the local bishops, praising them for the least sign of Catholic spirit and keeping quiet on their modernist deviations (unless perhaps it is a question of a diocese where they have no hopes of starting up), even though by doing so they end up encouraging them along their wrong path, and

note, for example, the Fraternity’s whole-hearted acceptance of the (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church (QUESTION 14), acceptance of Novus Ordo professors in their seminaries, and blanket acceptance of Vatican II’s orthodoxy (QUESTION 6).

They are therefore Conciliar Catholics and not traditional Catholics.

This being so, attending their Mass is:

accepting the compromise on which they are based,

accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church and the consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and

accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.

That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses.
The problem here is pride. Right now they can’t see why they can’t just say they made a mistake and ask the Church to reinstate them. And as long as they have parishioners, they will have a false sense of justice on their side.

Do you think Martin Luther would have continued with his church if no one followed after him? If no one believed him and no one attended his Masses?

I’m not sure about what you are saying about the FSSP. The FSSP Parish in our diocese is exclusively EF. I do not know if that is the case in other diocese but at least that shows an example that they are not obligated to say Mass in the OF. Of course, it comes down to what the Diocesan Bishop would say, I suppose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top