Negative attitude to SSPX

[pnewton]

I wouldn’t consider those who present constructive arguments bashers. Repetitive gossip and/or showing contempt is not constructive, in my opinion.

This is not always easy to stick to the issue without straying into personalities. Little things get ratcheted up easy. I was reading a book today for my son in which the vowels and the consonants fight.

A taunt was answered with a rock
A rock was answered with a spear
A spear was answered with a cataput.
And a catapult, with WAR.

Sound familiar?

Sometimes new posters come in with guns ablaze over whatever it is that compels them to sign up. Others get hit by friendly fire and…

 

[ProVobis]

Sometimes new posters come in with guns ablaze over whatever it is that compels them to sign up.

Makes you wonder if they all graduated from the obedience school, though.

 

[Ockham]

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?”

In many debates on ‘spirit of V2’ changes it eventually comes out the person is an EMHC, lector, permanent deacon, etc. It’s a theory of mine that many people who are adament about these changes play a role in them. There’s nothing judgemental, personal attack, offensive, or any of the other exaggerations seen here.

There is also a more radical agenda among some Catholics seeking things like abortion, divorce, married clergy, gay marriage, etc. I doubt many of them attend a weekly EF.

As the SSPX holds to the pre-V2 Church it naturally follows those most committed to the changes that have occured and/or wish to occur would be their opponents.

 

[floresco]

Regrettably, this is the language of the “schismatic mentality” which the SSPX fosters: setting up the notion of the (actual) Catholic church as the “new religion” of a “Novus Ordo” “Conciliar Church,” while the SSPX are just the “traditional” Church.

This is really pretty bad. Deliberately fostering this kind of mindset just drives a knife into the heart of any hope for reconciliation. I can’t imagine who could think that this sort of thing is a good idea or spiritually healthy.

I agree with you about the problems with this sort of language. Both sides need to pay attention to their choice of words for there to be reconciliation.

 

[floresco]

I presumed the link would be sufficient for any who wanted to read it. Would you like me to post it?

I did read it. I don’t think it qualifies as a definition of “imperfect communion”. But it is an excellent resource for understanding the Popes attitude to reconciliation. He writes:
But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.

"Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: ‘Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another’. I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in St. Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this ‘biting and devouring’ also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love?

 

[DavidPalm]

But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.

"Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: ‘Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another’. I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in St. Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this ‘biting and devouring’ also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love?

Man, this Pope so knows how to write like a Pope! I just love this spiritual ju jitsu he lays on his brother bishops, especially the neo-modernists.

 

[floresco]

This is not always easy to stick to the issue without straying into personalities. Little things get ratcheted up easy.

Something that I have noticed is the value of apologizing in de-escalating hostility. I try to be aware of people feeling offended by my words and then I let them know that I am sorry. So, while it is easy for things to get ratcheted up, sometimes it is also easy to ratchet them back down again.

 

[floresco]

Man, this Pope so knows how to write like a Pope! I just love this spiritual ju jitsu he lays on his brother bishops, especially the neo-modernists.

I’m a big fan.

 

[At_Trent]

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)

Yes, but many will do their best to twist H.H.'s intentions to further their agenda.

But, I must add, I’m very saddened at the way the Transalpine Redemptorists were treated by the SSPX when they reconciled with Rome.

Nevertheless, the SSPX is bearing good fruit. Their flock are raising their children as Roman Catholics (as are many independent chapels).

 

[Sirach2]

Floresco:

I did read it. I don’t think it qualifies as a definition of “imperfect communion”.

I hope you didn’t think there would be wording such as, “This is my definition of imperfect communion…” Obviously, we need to read the document and come to that conclusion based on Benedict’s words, which demonstrate that there is not at this time a full communion due to doctrinal reasons. The words that the Society “does not possess a canonical status” are a clearly defined statement of imperfect communion.

The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of
ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of
conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This
disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact
that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the
Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As
long as the society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its
ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.

In the previous document cited in the article, dated January 2009, he states:

"It is hoped that this step will be followed by the prompt attainment of full communion with the Church by the entire Fraternity of St. Pius X,

This indicates, as well, that there is presently an imperfect communion.

I hope this helps.

 

[DavidPalm]

Nevertheless, the SSPX is bearing good fruit. Their flock are raising their children as Roman Catholics (as are many independent chapels).

This is a sincere question, not a loaded one. The anecdotes I have heard relate that many young people in fact aren’t staying in the SSPX and “independent” chapels. One explanation has been that, since the SSPX and independent chapels set themselves against the legitimate authorities in the Church the reasoning of the young is, Why should I submit myself to the authority of the SSPX or “independent” bishops/priests if you won’t submit yourself to the authority of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him? Any thoughts on this?

 

[floresco]

This indicates, as well, that there is presently an imperfect communion.

I hope this helps.

Well, it doesn’t really. But I know how much you dislike quibbling and I suspect that getting this straightened out would take a fair bit of it. How about we let this one go?

 

[ProVobis]

I agree with you about the problems with this sort of language. Both sides need to pay attention to their choice of words for there to be reconciliation.

OTOH, perhaps there are those who either fear a reconciliation or even want a reinstatement of the excommunications. Unfortunately that’s probably on both sides too. I see disciplines like CITH, EMHC, standing, veils, etc. as looming larger and larger issues as time goes on, and the whole thing will boil down to winners and losers as usual. But then maybe I’ve watched the US Senate on C-SPAN too much.

 

[floresco]

This is a sincere question, not a loaded one. The anecdotes I have heard relate that many young people in fact aren’t staying in the SSPX and “independent” chapels. One explanation has been that, since the SSPX and independent chapels set themselves against the legitimate authorities in the Church the reasoning of the young is, Why should I submit myself to the authority of the SSPX or “independent” bishops/priests if you won’t submit yourself to the authority of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him? Any thoughts on this?

This is a very difficult time to be a parent and to raise one’s children in the Catholic faith. Virtually the entire society is pitted against the parents. There are many, many cases of young people leaving the Church even though their parents submit themselves to the authority of the Pope and bishops in communion with him. (I myself have such a son. ) A few anecdotes are not sufficient information to determine that young people leave the SSPX at a greater rate than the rest of the Church.

First we would need to determine that such a phenomenon existed. Then we could speculate about causes for it. (Although perhaps in another thread. )

 

[PaulinVA]

OTOH, perhaps there are those who either fear a reconciliation or even want a reinstatement of the excommunications. Unfortunately that’s probably on both sides too. I see disciplines like CITH, EMHC, standing, veils, etc. as looming larger and larger issues as time goes on, and the whole thing will boil down to winners and losers as usual. But then maybe I’ve watched the US Senate on C-SPAN too much.

But, you know, there a lot of non-traditionalist Catholics who are not happy with things such as the ones you mentioned. Having the SSPX reconciled with the Church will not solve those problems. I doubt it will have any effect at the diocesan level at all.

 

[floresco]

OTOH, perhaps there are those who either fear a reconciliation or even want a reinstatement of the excommunications. Unfortunately that’s probably on both sides too. I see disciplines like CITH, EMHC, standing, veils, etc. as looming larger and larger issues as time goes on, and the whole thing will boil down to winners and losers as usual. But then maybe I’ve watched the US Senate on C-SPAN too much.

I think you’re right. (Well I don’t know about your C-SPAN viewing habits. ) There are people on both sides who do not want reconciliation. I think this is one reason why it is so important for those of who support the Pope in this to do everything we can. He needs our prayers and actions backing him up.

 

[floresco]

In many debates on ‘spirit of V2’ changes it eventually comes out the person is an EMHC, lector, permanent deacon, etc. It’s a theory of mine that many people who are adament about these changes play a role in them. There’s nothing judgemental, personal attack, offensive, or any of the other exaggerations seen here.

I’m sure that you do not mean your theory in a bad way. But, personally, I cannot see how you could phrase it so it did not come across that way. I think it is going to push people’s buttons every time you mention it. Is it really worth all the bad feeling it stirs up in order to make this point?

 

[Ockham]

This is a sincere question, not a loaded one. The anecdotes I have heard relate that many young people in fact aren’t staying in the SSPX and “independent” chapels. One explanation has been that, since the SSPX and independent chapels set themselves against the legitimate authorities in the Church the reasoning of the young is, Why should I submit myself to the authority of the SSPX or “independent” bishops/priests if you won’t submit yourself to the authority of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him? Any thoughts on this?

I’m quite impressed at the average size of an SSPX family. As long as two of them come back to the Church that will still be more than what the typical Novus Ordo family had to begin with in many countries.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Nevertheless, the SSPX is bearing good fruit. Their flock are raising their children as Roman Catholics (as are many independent chapels).

But what is Catholicism? Is it just a set of values? A set of ideals? A philosophy? Isn’t communion with Rome important?

There are many sects that claim to be Catholic, Roman or otherwise. It depends who you ask, but from certain perspectives they are more Catholic than the Church that’s based in Rome. An extreme example would be the Roman Catholic Women Priests. Sure, in that phrase we here can all agree the only true part of it is “Women”. But in their own minds they are valid, from their perspective and their supporters’ perspective they are Catholic.

Ideals and values are only part of what makes one Catholic. We have to be part of the One Church. The most important aspect of this is the communion with the Pope. It takes more than the Pope just saying, “okay, you’re in communion with me.” So here where everything comes in, the values, ideals, the beliefs, the faith, the practices, etc. We all have to be aligned with the Pope and the Church.

Now comes my point. How can we say that the SSPX is breeding good Catholics when they themselves do not follow directives from the Pope? When they continue to open their doors to Catholics when they know that they do not possess the faculties to say a licit public Mass? In fact, why do they not even care that they do not possess such faculties? Is the approval of the Church not important to them?

 

[floresco]

Now comes my point. How can we say that the SSPX is breeding good Catholics when they themselves do not follow directives from the Pope? When they continue to open their doors to Catholics when they know that they do not possess the faculties to say a licit public Mass? In fact, why do they not even care that they do not possess such faculties? Is the approval of the Church not important to them?

I see no reason to think it is not important to them. They believe that the “the highest law is salvation of souls” and are prepared to have an illicit Mass for that goal. But it looks to me like they would far prefer to be licit. I have seen SSPX people who pray fervently for the Pope and for reconciliation. The SSPX leadership is cooperating and participating in the doctrinal talks.

And all of us should be praying for this. The entire Church will benefit from gaining their sense of tradition, their reverence and their concern for orthodoxy. They are good people in an unfortunate situation. Much as I value obedience, I can’t say what I would do if it looked like the TLM were being suppressed and I could only access it illicitly. I might very well do what they did. When the Pope has called for reconciliation, it is not a time for judging and blaming them.