S
Stylites
Guest
The fact remains that you attributed hidden motivations and agendas to people who have issues with the disobedience of the SSPX, and sadly even used the word “haters”.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
O
Onegin
Guest
I don’t think there is a harm in admitting that there is a bias, especially amongst Catholics who don’t know what the SSPX is about and receive incomplete or incorrect information either from forums like this one or from local Priests. Which, I think we can all agree, is a great number.
For example, there was that South Carolina Priest’s letter some time ago in the parish bulletin shortly after the Moto Proprio that contained several inflammatory statements about the moral status of people who attend Mass at the SSPX chapel. (stmarysgvl.org/ourparish/2007-the-birth-of-john-the-baptist)
Fortunately, later statements and clarifications by Ecclesia Dei (such as the letter from Msgr. Perl) assure Catholics that it is not, as Fr. Newman was claiming, “gravely immoral” to attend Mass at an SSPX chapel.
But the fact remains that statements such as Fr. Newman’s are probably the only exposure that many Catholics have to the SSPX and chances are most Priests are not as open as to publish their opinions online as Fr. Newman did. It is safe to say, then, that there is a good chance that many Catholics who approach their diocesan Priest are coming away with an incorrect or overly negative opinion of the SSPX which in turn leads them to (incorrectly) assume that those who attend the SSPX chapels are somehow schismatic, sinful or worse, excommunicated. And it’s not such a ridiculous claim - I’ve personally spoken to a confused Priest who was quick to warn me that attending Mass at an SSPX chapel could result in an automatic excommunication. How sad!
So, in the end, what it really comes down to is that the SSPX is in a state of “imperfect communion” at the moment and we don’t have a definition for what this is because Rome hasn’t given us one. So let’s leave off the accusations of schism, excommunication, protestantism, disobedience, pride or whatever other label some ascribe to it and face the fact that the reconciliation isn’t going to be furthered by comparing Lefebvre to Luther or the lay faithful to Protestants. Ecclesia Dei has said you can attend the SSPX Mass and that is all we need to know. The rest is an internal matter and we are not a part of it.
From this point onward, until we have more information, we should pray for a reconciliation (if there is to be one) and refrain implying situations or canonical statuses that do not exist. If one is curious about the SSPX or unsure as to what their position is, please consult their website first. The worst thing one can do is hit up CAF making declarations containing misinformation or accusations. This is the kind of stuff that creates the problems in the first place. If you aren’t sure about the legitimacy of what you are posting, please, for the sake of some sort of reconciliation (and those Catholics who may take what you say to heart) don’t post.
Thanks.
For example, there was that South Carolina Priest’s letter some time ago in the parish bulletin shortly after the Moto Proprio that contained several inflammatory statements about the moral status of people who attend Mass at the SSPX chapel. (stmarysgvl.org/ourparish/2007-the-birth-of-john-the-baptist)
Fortunately, later statements and clarifications by Ecclesia Dei (such as the letter from Msgr. Perl) assure Catholics that it is not, as Fr. Newman was claiming, “gravely immoral” to attend Mass at an SSPX chapel.
But the fact remains that statements such as Fr. Newman’s are probably the only exposure that many Catholics have to the SSPX and chances are most Priests are not as open as to publish their opinions online as Fr. Newman did. It is safe to say, then, that there is a good chance that many Catholics who approach their diocesan Priest are coming away with an incorrect or overly negative opinion of the SSPX which in turn leads them to (incorrectly) assume that those who attend the SSPX chapels are somehow schismatic, sinful or worse, excommunicated. And it’s not such a ridiculous claim - I’ve personally spoken to a confused Priest who was quick to warn me that attending Mass at an SSPX chapel could result in an automatic excommunication. How sad!
So, in the end, what it really comes down to is that the SSPX is in a state of “imperfect communion” at the moment and we don’t have a definition for what this is because Rome hasn’t given us one. So let’s leave off the accusations of schism, excommunication, protestantism, disobedience, pride or whatever other label some ascribe to it and face the fact that the reconciliation isn’t going to be furthered by comparing Lefebvre to Luther or the lay faithful to Protestants. Ecclesia Dei has said you can attend the SSPX Mass and that is all we need to know. The rest is an internal matter and we are not a part of it.
From this point onward, until we have more information, we should pray for a reconciliation (if there is to be one) and refrain implying situations or canonical statuses that do not exist. If one is curious about the SSPX or unsure as to what their position is, please consult their website first. The worst thing one can do is hit up CAF making declarations containing misinformation or accusations. This is the kind of stuff that creates the problems in the first place. If you aren’t sure about the legitimacy of what you are posting, please, for the sake of some sort of reconciliation (and those Catholics who may take what you say to heart) don’t post.
Thanks.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Yeah, sure. You would quibble about the word “most” rather than “many?”
Ockham:
*
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.
*
O
Ockham
Guest
I seem to have touched a nerve. Let me guess…you’re an EMHC?
Me doth think the lady protest too much.
Me doth think the lady protest too much.
E
Emmit_Fitzhume
Guest
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Sirach2 seems to have touched a nerve. Let me guess…you’re a schismatic?
See, my friend, this is exactly the type of negative presumption and personal attack that Floresco was trying to bring to light. Some people – regrettably too few – are capable of expressing a considered judgment on a hypothetical or public-issue question without trying to advance an agenda due to personal reasons. It is no contribution at all to reasonable discourse to shoot back, “You seem to disagree with me. Let me guess…you’re dishonestly pushing an agenda for your own personal benefit?”
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
It seems to me that anyone who says the actual canonical status of the SSPX is considered a basher.It’s about time someone stood up to a SSPX basher and said this.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Wrong, Ockham. Rash judgment. I am NOT an EMHC.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Prepare yourself then for many more labels
F
floresco
Guest
You expressed that very well.So, in the end, what it really comes down to is that the SSPX is in a state of “imperfect communion” at the moment and we don’t have a definition for what this is because Rome hasn’t given us one. So let’s leave off the accusations of schism, excommunication, protestantism, disobedience, pride or whatever other label some ascribe to it and face the fact that the reconciliation isn’t going to be furthered by comparing Lefebvre to Luther or the lay faithful to Protestants. Ecclesia Dei has said you can attend the SSPX Mass and that is all we need to know. The rest is an internal matter and we are not a part of it.
From this point onward, until we have more information, we should pray for a reconciliation (if there is to be one) and refrain implying situations or canonical statuses that do not exist. If one is curious about the SSPX or unsure as to what their position is, please consult their website first. The worst thing one can do is hit up CAF making declarations containing misinformation or accusations. This is the kind of stuff that creates the problems in the first place. If you aren’t sure about the legitimacy of what you are posting, please, for the sake of some sort of reconciliation (and those Catholics who may take what you say to heart) don’t post.
Thanks.
The reconciliation isn’t just about talks in Rome and official declarations. We have a part in it too. We can pray. We can be well-informed ourselves and careful to spread correct information to others. And we can talk to each other in a way that keeps in mind that our goal is reconciliation.
S
Sirach2
Guest
But Rome did give a definition. I looked throughout this thread, and thought it was odd that it was alluded to but never posted.
F
floresco
Guest
There is a really big difference between making a claim about “many of the SSPX-haters” and saying that “most Catholics hate the SSPX”. It is not a quibble for him to point out that you misunderstood him.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I wouldn’t consider those who present constructive arguments bashers. Repetitive gossip and/or showing contempt is not constructive, in my opinion.
F
floresco
Guest
Your quote did not look like a definition of “imperfect communion” to me. It did not mention the term.
S
Sirach2
Guest
I presumed the link would be sufficient for any who wanted to read it. Would you like me to post it?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Constructive in what way? I agree that we are to paint everything in a postive light unless we possess factual information that proves the opposite (ie, we cannot say someone is going to make it if we know for a fact and without any doubts that the person is going to die). But some people mistake patronizing for charity. They are two different things. We are to be charitable, but not patronize.
P
pnewton
Guest
It is not hatred of the SSPX to oppose supporters of the SSPX when they spread propaganda.
The “Conciliar Church” referred to is the One Holy Catholic and Apostalic Church that is divinely led by the man who holds the Keys to the Kingdom that were given to St. Peter and passed on through 2000 years. This is Traditional Catholicism. An attempt to control the language like this deserve to be exposed for the propaganda tool that it is. This sort of tactic does not fly well here. Too many times it has been tried and it is always uncovered for what it is.
I pray for normalization of ties with the SSPX and nothing would thrill me more. However, in the current situation, I do not approve of recruitment here at a Catholic Forum, especially if the appeal is made to the schismatic mindset or be bashing that which I know to be holy.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
I second that Onegin described the situation very well.You expressed that very well.
The reconciliation isn’t just about talks in Rome and official declarations. We have a part in it too. We can pray. We can be well-informed ourselves and careful to spread correct information to others. And we can talk to each other in a way that keeps in mind that our goal is reconciliation.
I was some years ago quite sympathetic to the SSPX, but that sympathy has eroded over the years. However, I still find myself frequently correcting misconceptions about what the SSPX does and does not hold and as to their actual canonical status. And I too have found it puzzling that certain individuals, at least, are willing to extend what I consider to be inordinate amounts of charity to certain heretical and schismatic groups, but start to have a aneurysm when the topic of the SSPX comes up. Like others have already rightly said, I basically say that I try not to be any more harsh with the SSPX than the Vatican is–and then ask why they feel compelled to go so far beyond the Vatican in this one matter.
S
Stylites
Guest
Worth repeating.
- Status