Pushed to the SSPX

[Onegin]

The fact that there are 54 pages on this topic is fascinating. People seem to love the SSPX as their own version of People Magazine. A private, Catholic gossip column if you will.

In response to this discussion, I am reminded of an informal poll I took here on CAF back in August. The poll asked members whether they would rather attend a Divine Liturgy (promulgated by the Eastern Orthodox Church) or a Mass at an SSPX chapel:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=368124

The results came out quite favorably for the Orthodox, a schismatic branch of the Church that flat out denies the doctrines of the the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and Papal Infallibility and who does not seek reconciliation with Rome. The SSPX do not differ with Rome on any point of Catholic doctrine.

Still, the majority of CAF members polled (from the Traditional Catholicism forum) would feel more comfortable there. By a wide margin.

Ignorance coupled with bias is a devastating thing and the SSPX is clearly seeing the fruits of this here. It’s a sad day when Catholics would rather stand up for a schismatic church that views them as heretics (Orthodox) than the SSPX who disagree with them on no point of doctrine whatsoever.

Clearly, gossip has achieved quite a lot.

 

[Alethiaphile]

The fact that there are 54 pages on this topic is fascinating. People seem to love the SSPX as their own version of People Magazine. A private, Catholic gossip column if you will.

In response to this discussion, I am reminded of an informal poll I took here on CAF back in August. The poll asked members whether they would rather attend a Divine Liturgy (promulgated by the Eastern Orthodox Church) or a Mass at an SSPX chapel:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=368124

The results came out quite favorably for the Orthodox, a schismatic branch of the Church that flat out denies the doctrines of the the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and Papal Infallibility and who does not seek reconciliation with Rome. The SSPX do not differ with Rome on any point of Catholic doctrine.

Still, the majority of CAF members polled (from the Traditional Catholicism forum) would feel more comfortable there. By a wide margin.

Ignorance coupled with bias is a devastating thing and the SSPX is clearly seeing the fruits of this here. It’s a sad day when Catholics would rather stand up for a schismatic church that views them as heretics (Orthodox) than the SSPX who disagree with them on no point of doctrine whatsoever.

Clearly, gossip has achieved quite a lot.

“[The Orthodox Church] who does not seek reconciliation with Rome.” A gross overstatement. Much of Orthodoxy does seek reconciliation with Rome, it is just not willing to buy Roman theology wholesale in order to accomplish that.

The gist of your whole post seems to be: you should dislike those nasty Orthodox much more than those traditionalists.

 

[ProVobis]

In response to this discussion, I am reminded of an informal poll I took here on CAF back in August. The poll asked members whether they would rather attend a Divine Liturgy (promulgated by the Eastern Orthodox Church) or a Mass at an SSPX chapel:

The secular and semi-secular press seems to have a field day with all SSPX-related news while they wouldn’t touch any Eastern Churches for fear of an international crisis maybe? Or maybe the Western bishops aren’t as threatened with the Eastern Churches, whether Orthodox or orthodox, as much as they are with the SSPX. I suppose we can come up with a lot of reasons.

 

[Onegin]

“[The Orthodox Church] who does not seek reconciliation with Rome.” A gross overstatement. Much of Orthodoxy does seek reconciliation with Rome, it is just not willing to buy Roman theology wholesale in order to accomplish that.

The gist of your whole post seems to be: you should dislike those nasty Orthodox much more than those traditionalists.

Nope, if my point was merely to hate on the Orthodox, I wouldn’t have even bothered posting.

My point was that we have a serious educational problem within the Church if the average Catholic feels they can identify more with non-Catholics than with traditionalists.

Why the double standard? Why is the Orthodox Divine Liturgy a beautiful expression of the past while the SSPX Tridentine Mass is protestant and disobedient? Anyone want to take a shot?

 

[surritter]

I don’t think the Orthodox liturgy is necessarily “a beautiful expression of the past.” It is beautiful, but it is schismatic so all the beauty and incense can’t make it unified with the See of Peter without personal and ecclesial submission to the proper authority. That’s asking nothing different than what the SSPX and every other Christian is called to do.

That said, you are right about the seeming incongruity of the poll – perhaps since the Orthodox separation is so far removed from us in time, it doesn’t register with many people as being a problem.

 

[numealinesimpet]

“[The Orthodox Church] who does not seek reconciliation with Rome.” A gross overstatement. Much of Orthodoxy does seek reconciliation with Rome, it is just not willing to buy Roman theology wholesale in order to accomplish that.

The gist of your whole post seems to be: you should dislike those nasty Orthodox much more than those traditionalists.

I don’t want to pile it on, Lover of Truth (Alethiaphile), and I’m sure there was no personal animosity towards the Orthodox implied. The point being made was that there are much graver difficulties with the Orthodox than with the SSPX.

If the Orthodox have problems with items of Roman theology that are still “open to consideration” I think that Rome is already doing everything it can to make constructive discussions leading to a reconciliation. This, I know, is dear to the heart of Pope Benedict, not to mention his predecessors. But if the Orthodox really have problems with items of Roman theology that have been infallibly defined by Rome, then there will never be reconciliation until the Orthodox “submit to Rome”. Rome cannot ever backtrack on what has been infallibly defined, or it would lose all credibility immediately – because it would prove that the Holy Spirit is not, after all, protecting Her from error.

The SSPX are making precisely this point to Rome. The Vatican II documents are being exploited to promote positions that have previously been pronounced as heretical, while the bastions of the Faith – notably the Liturgy – have been seriously compromised.

The SSPX do not reject Papal authority. They proved that by voting with their feet in the Holy Year of 2000, when several thousand, led by the SSPX bishops, processed through Rome to the feet of the Holy Father.

It is not rejecting the Pope or the Papacy to say, as a loyal son, “Father, in this particular instance you are making a terrible mistake”.

I read in history that on three separate occasions the leaders of the Orthodox were willing to reconcile with Rome, but the great majority of the people were not.

 

[Lycorth]

You’re right in that neither of us knows exactly what keeps the SSPX from full communion, but you must also agree that it’s not our decision to make. For now, they are not in full communion, so I am sticking with Rome on this one.

If you yourself “prefer the pre-VII practices and Mass to the new,” I say wonderful! Find a parish that is loyal to Rome that offers the Tridentine Mass!

Side note: Some older Catholics were devotees of the Divine Mercy and St. Faustina during the years when that movement was silenced. Instead of starting other parishes, they were humbly OBEDIENT to Rome, and eventually the restrictions were lifted by John Paul II. That is a wonderful example for us all.

I agree completely! Except for where you mentioned them not being in full communion; again, I wonder if they are not really still in full communion and it is simply a fact not yet realized. That’s what I’m getting at (now that I’ve found the simplest way to express it )

I do not think that much materially separates them. No, they do not agree with all Church teaching, but they do not contradict any dogma and the areas in which they differ still falls into an acceptable divergent range. There is enough leeway in some areas to permit differing beliefs.

I wonder if the division had as much to do with personalities as practicality. Perhaps that is why now there are talks underway.

God bless you, you’ve articulated precisely what’s on my mind!

In all that I’ve studied and read about this so-called “schism”, I have been nagged at by the thought that it really had more to do with personalities. People don’t like being disagreed with, people don’t like having perfectly good practices and expressions uprooted for novelties, people don’t like being told their in error - that goes for both the Vatican and the Society. In the end, both are staffed by sinful, imperfect human beings, but human beings that are trying to do what they truly believe is right. Hence, it’s really to be expected that everything wasn’t smooth as silk, especially when the 1988 consecrations and excommunications happened.

Thank God that talks are underway!

 

[Onegin]

I think that all Catholics - regardless of disposition towards the SSPX - should be praying for these talks to end well. After all, the SSPX are (and can continue to be) a wonderful resource for traditional theology. Many things they teach at the SSPX seminaries are not taught any more at the major seminaries. The traditional catechism taught at the Society chapels are things that are not heard in many churches. If the continued talks yield positive fruit, Catholics will be greatly benefitted as to having many more options and resources at their disposal.

I am skeptical when I see people so adamantly opposed to the SSPX being on equal footing as their diocesan counterparts. This view could only suggest that such people do not wish to have a traditional voice in the Church renewed.

 

[numealinesimpet]

In all that I’ve studied and read about this so-called “schism”, I have been nagged at by the thought that it really had more to do with personalities.

Not entirely. There was an ‘underground movement’ within the Church from the 19th century or even before, pushing for the “Modernism” condemned by the Popes. Vatican II allowed them to gain the upper hand, and to appear to have their views established as The New Orthodoxy. See e.g. Michael Davies,* Pope John’s Council* © Angelus Press ISBN 0-935952-04-7

People don’t like being disagreed with …

Yes, for over a decade the Church was In Denial about the self-imposed destruction; and the trads were raining on their parade. Later on, from the ebullient and effusive praise being lavished on The Changes, we suddenly started hearing the defensive and rather plaintive “But, after all, the New Mass is valid!”

 

[EnchantedEve]

You’re right in that neither of us knows exactly what keeps the SSPX from full communion, but you must also agree that it’s not our decision to make. For now, they are not in full communion, so I am sticking with Rome on this one.

If you yourself “prefer the pre-VII practices and Mass to the new,” I say wonderful! Find a parish that is loyal to Rome that offers the Tridentine Mass!

Side note: Some older Catholics were devotees of the Divine Mercy and St. Faustina during the years when that movement was silenced. Instead of starting other parishes, they were humbly OBEDIENT to Rome, and eventually the restrictions were lifted by John Paul II. That is a wonderful example for us all.

Complete non-sequitor. Bears no relation to the to situation being discussed. If you find the concerns of SSPX on the same level as private devotions and revelation, than you have missed the nature of those concerns.

 

[surritter]

Complete non-sequitor. Bears no relation to the to situation being discussed. If you find the concerns of SSPX on the same level as private devotions and revelation, than you have missed the nature of those concerns.

No, but there is a principle involved called obedience. Are you saying obedience to the See of Peter has no role in the life of a Catholic?

 

[ProVobis]

Later on, from the ebullient and effusive praise being lavished on The Changes, we suddenly started hearing the defensive and rather plaintive “But, after all, the New Mass is valid!”

The prize, however, goes to the Vatican for realizing that some of the translations created some doubt as to the validity so now they’re changing it again. In 10 to 30 years, no doubt it will be changed again to conform to the still newer English idioms of the day. Got vernacular?

 

[Onegin]

No, but there is a principle involved called obedience. Are you saying obedience to the See of Peter has no role in the life of a Catholic?

There’s a difference between saying the Church has no role and disagreeing with the Church where she has (at least ostensibly) departed from Tradition.

Blind obedience to any authority is just as problematic as using extremes to justify it.

 

[Lycorth]

There’s a difference between saying the Church has no role and disagreeing with the Church where she has (at least ostensibly) departed from Tradition.

Blind obedience to any authority is just as problematic as using extremes to justify it.

Sadly, this is true. Is it not disobedience to the See of Peter to change gears and believe that what was once exclusively true is now either untrue or of equal character to an innovation? Are traditionalists not being all the more loyal because they steadfastly adhere to traditions (which were never abrogated) even when Rome dallies with novelties?

Not entirely. There was an ‘underground movement’ within the Church from the 19th century or even before, pushing for the “Modernism” condemned by the Popes. Vatican II allowed them to gain the upper hand, and to appear to have their views established as The New Orthodoxy. See e.g. Michael Davies,* Pope John’s Council* © Angelus Press ISBN 0-935952-04-7

Ah yes, I forgot about the Modernist movement. But I was referring solely to the Society and the Vatican, though to be sure the troubles of the Modernists began the whole thing.

 

[michaeldaniels]

No…it is just shameful that most Catholics want to throw the SSPX under the bus for very minor differences and would feel more comfortable in an Orthodox Church, even though our beliefs are widely different on the Filioque and the other things the poster discussed…which are of great importance to Our Faith…It is a very large double standard…not to mention they will ask questions like "Is it ok to go to a protestant service with my friend or a protestant wedding or whatever type of protestant function it may be…AND THEY ARE NOT EVEN REMOTELY CATHOLIC…in total opposition to many of the things we stand for and believe in…heck most are notoriously Anti-Catholic…however lots of Catholics have no problem attending their churches and functions…but God forbid a function is taking place with any type of connection to the SSPX…no matter how minute, they would never consider participating in that…it is ridiculous.

“[The Orthodox Church] who does not seek reconciliation with Rome.” A gross overstatement. Much of Orthodoxy does seek reconciliation with Rome, it is just not willing to buy Roman theology wholesale in order to accomplish that.

The gist of your whole post seems to be: you should dislike those nasty Orthodox much more than those traditionalists.

 

[Lycorth]

No…it is just shameful that most Catholics want to throw the SSPX under the bus for very minor differences and would feel more comfortable in an Orthodox Church, even though our beliefs are widely different on the Filioque and the other things the poster discussed…which are of great importance to Our Faith…It is a very large double standard…not to mention they will ask questions like "Is it ok to go to a protestant service with my friend or a protestant wedding or whatever type of protestant function it may be…AND THEY ARE NOT EVEN REMOTELY CATHOLIC…in total opposition to many of the things we stand for and believe in…heck most are notoriously Anti-Catholic…however lots of Catholics have no problem attending their churches and functions…but God forbid a function is taking place with any type of connection to the SSPX…no matter how minute, they would never consider participating in that…it is ridiculous.

That is so painfully true, and makes me suspect the post Vatican II Church and what has gone on to bring about a Church that OKs Protestant perversions but condemns a traditionalist society for daring to stick with the Church’s own Tradition.

Something is very wrong here.

 

[michaeldaniels]

That is even more a reason to keep the Mass in Latin…dead languages do not change or evolve…it will always be the same

The prize, however, goes to the Vatican for realizing that some of the translations created some doubt as to the validity so now they’re changing it again. In 10 to 30 years, no doubt it will be changed again to conform to the still newer English idioms of the day. Got vernacular?

 

[michaeldaniels]

Yeah it is weird…and I can’t understand what is going on…it is almost like we are afraid of being Catholic…many priest and bishops are doing well to blur the lines between protestants and Catholics to be more inclusive and for non-Catholics to feel welcomed or to try and jazz things up so some upset Catholics will stay instead leaving for a “more fun” Church experience at the local Baptist Church…Heck, I converted because I wanted to be Catholic…I absolutely loved everything about The Catholic Church…that is why I made that decision many years ago…I loved how Catholics celebrated and lived their faith and the uniqueness that can only be found in The Catholic Church (All the Sacraments, rosaries, holy water, confession, etc.)…now with all the stuff going on, it perturbs me because it seems like a lot of Catholics don’t realize just how wonderful it is to be a Catholic and want to be more like protestants…If you have the fullness of Truth, why would you want to go anywhere else…or much less, be like those who do not share in the Fullness of Truth and do not Have all the Sacraments???

That is so painfully true, and makes me suspect the post Vatican II Church and what has gone on to bring about a Church that OKs Protestant perversions but condemns a traditionalist society for daring to stick with the Church’s own Tradition.

Something is very wrong here.

 

[ProVobis]

That is even more a reason to keep the Mass in Latin…dead languages do not change or evolve…it will always be the same

One only needs to look at just how the Our Father has evolved in the English language (from Old English to Middle English to Shakespearian English to Modern English) to fully appreciate what it is like keeping the Mass (and theology) in Latin.

 

[Onegin]

Wow, all the posts subsequent have been in agreement. I think I will just leave this thread happy now.

However, one final word regarding the SSPX. I used to be quite against the principle of the Society myself, having heard from various Catholic friends about this dissident and rebellious Archbishop that seemingly, arbitrarily chose to form his own sect against Rome’s wishes.

What I did not appreciate at the time, and what I am posting here now in hopes that some reading this may appreciate, is the fact that, at the time all of this went down (Archbishop Lefebvre and the consecrations in 1988), the situation with the Traditional Mass and Rome was very grave indeed. There was no Fraternity of St Peter and there was no Indult. What there was was a very real likelihood that the institution of the Pauline Mass would mean the loss of the Traditional Mass.

The loss of the Traditional Mass. This phrase probably means little to someone who has not been there! When I went to my first TLM, the terrible realization hit me. How close we had come to losing this! I could nott fathom it previously because I had never experienced it.

And not immediately, but slowly, the difficult situation of the SSPX began to make sense. I could see now how terrified the Priests must have been at the time, faced with the impending loss of this vital piece of our Catholic Tradition. To know that there would be no more Priests trained to say the Mass as they had been.

And how horrible it must have been to be an Archbishop, entrusted to preserve the Faith, presented with a decision that would have a terrible impact no matter which way you chose. And yet, a choice had to be made. I firmly believe that it was because of that choice, that Catholics today have the ability to access the Traditional Mass.

As Martin Luther said, “Tolle Missam, tolle Ecclesiam” meaning “If you take away the Mass, you take away the Church.”

I’ll leave this thread for now, as I have no desire to turn any of what I said into a debate. It is merely my own opinion, and I hope you’ll at least consider it, before choosing your words.