E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
Yes, indeed. Thank you for saying this. This thread is about what the laity at the SSPX chapels are feeling, not canon law, etc.
- PAX
- Status
T
TrueLight
Guest
I always lose whenever I join a pool.My guess is that there will be a spectrum of feelings. Let’s start a pool.For, against, undecided.
Can you imagine such a pool? Who gets the winning? Hmmmmm
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
I do know that the last time I spoke to anyone about the reconciliation – it was around Christmas, I had the impression of extreme sadness coupled with a determination to stick to the “traditional faith”. If I attended SSPX chapels regularly, I would feel relieved if there wasn’t that shadow of my priests being irregular and the whispers of schism.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
The EF is pretty widely available in this diocese so I don’t know anyone personally who attend an SSPX chapel. What you say is so so sad – that some portion of the laity feel that there is such a thig as the “traditional faith” and that they might be willing to go into schism to keep it.
J
JReducation
Guest
You can always donate the profits to FFV.I always lose whenever I join a pool.
I thin that both of you have touched on a point that would lead some people to the radical end of that spectrum of which I spoke. They are not separating traditional disciplines and externals from faith. The faith of the Catholic Church is the same today as it was in the first century. The language, devotions, liturgy, customs and pious practices change, but never the faith. They need help to make that separation in their heads.The EF is pretty widely available in this diocese so I don’t know anyone personally who attend an SSPX chapel. What you say is so so sad – that some portion of the laity feel that there is such a thig as the “traditional faith” and that they might be willing to go into schism to keep it.
This happens in reverse with radical libeals. Their belief is that because externals change the faith must change as well. They’re going in the opposite direction.
Each group is trying to reconcile the faith with the externals. Neither is seing that the one does not have to change, because the other changes. That which has been revealed will be the same today and tomorrow. That which the Church has created over the centuries is not part of Revelation; therefore, the Church can tweek it and change it according to her wishes and needs, as long as she does not touch Revelation (faith).
It’s very hard to get either extreme to make this distinction; but it’s an important one.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Well, I’m one of those, as well as a member of the SSPX Third Order. My observations are that the majority of the laity are optimistic concerning a regularization. That goes for the clergy as well. The concern that is most voiced is for those traditional orders that are “attached” to the SSPX. As we have discussed in several previous threads, most rely on Bp Fellay to have negotiated a satisfactory solution for those Monks, Friars, and Nuns.
Some are wary that the SSPX, once regularized, will be eventually required to offer the OF. Again, it is pure speculation as to how the SSPX may be excluded from that requirement.
The media continues to spin in such a way as to derail the effort. You might be amazed at the number of influential people in the church, in the Vatican, in the Episcopate, and outside of the Catholic Church who do not want this reconcilation to happen for many different reasons. Here is an example mentioned in the Vatican Insider article Who is sabotaging the Agreement?:
This difficult climate and the tensions that will inevitably rise in the next few weeks are exemplified by the leak of a confidential letter that the secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Mgr. Guido Pozzo, recently sent to the abbot Philippe Laguerie, superior of the Institute of the Good Shepherd, society of apostolic life based on the pontifical right, which celebrates mass according to the Latin rite. Pozzo’s letter included some observations and suggestions for the Institute following a canonical visit some time ago. Its release, according to abbot Laguerie, means that someone wants to put a spanner in the works and disrupt the dialogue between the Holy See and the Lefebvrians.
In the letter, Pozzo addressed mainly two points. The first concerns the “exclusive” use awarded to the Institute of Pius V missal. Ecclesia Dei suggested that in the charters of the Institute of the Good Shepherd it would be better to avoid the word “exclusive” and simply highlight that it is the Institute’s “own rite”. “The matter of practicing the extraordinary form, as formulated in the charters” writes Pozzo “must be defined in the spirit of Summorum Pontificum. It would be better to simply describe this form as the Institute’s ‘own rite’, without mentioning ‘exclusivity’”. Basically the secretary of Ecclesia Dei is asking the conservative group already in communion with Rome to make an effort in closely following the indications of Benedict XVI concerning the interpretation of conciliar documents. But this confidential letter might have been leaked because it includes points that might discourage the Lefebvrians who are about to follow their superior Bernard Fellay on the way to full communion with Rome. ***
A small thing like this that may be easily explainable and innocuous to most sets off alarm bells for others.
But for what its worth, in my personal experience, the most homogenous support for the regularization I’ve seen comes from the laity in the SSPX chapels and the Catholic laity not associated with the SSPX … many examples of which are found on this board.
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
Absolutely. The FAITH cannot change. However, people within the Church can try to change it. May I point out the Arian heresy as an example of the widespread destruction of faith within the Church? The Faith remained what it was, but within the Church an estimated 90% of Bishops were Arian and therefore were not proclaiming the Faith.
While this is true, it does need a qualification. Language, devotions, liturgy, customs, and pious practices are intertwined with the Faith. They teach us the Faith. They help us believe the Faith. They give us graces to live the Faith. Lex orendi lex credendi. We cannot and must not make a hard-line distinction between Faith and the practice of the Faith. If the Faith is lost, the practices will be lost, too. If the practices are lost, the Faith will be lost, too.
While there are many factors, it cannot be coincidence that at a time when we have seen the most radical changes to Catholic practices, devotions, liturgies, customs, etc, there is also a massive crisis of faith and catechesis.
Perhaps. But there are many more people who need to realize the incredible importance of the things that you list. These so-called externals have been a part of Catholic identity and Catholic culture for so long that the swift and radical change of removal of them has shaken Catholic identity. Luckily the pendulum seems to be swinging back (thank God for Pope Benedict). I can only imagine the sadness and loss felt by many in the 70s when things that were part of Catholic identity (altars, stained glass, statues, devotions, etc, etc) were removed. For some, it must have felt like losing a family member, or getting lost in the woods.
The liberals also believe in lex orendi lex credendi. They are using to change the Faith.
This is too simplistic, brother. We are not dualists (a condemned heresy). Externals and internals are intertwined. One affects the other. One CHANGES the other. Yes, the Deposit of Faith cannot change, but if we change externals we can change the beliefs of an individual about the Deposit of Faith. We can ruin their faith.
Absolutely. Truth cannot change.
Tweeks and massive changes are different things. The Catholic Church has always been a Church of Tradition, meaning that novelty has been looked at with suspicion. When in doubt, She has historically gone with that which is old, not with that which is new. The modern outlook, however, has re-oriented humans towards the future. Progress is in the future, tradition is in the past. We are so inculcated with this modern outlook, living in a modern culture, that we often subconsciously follow it: the new is better, the old is “out-dated.”
It is also dangerous to make the distinction greater than what it has traditionally been.
And I will say pre-emptively that I am speaking of the Catholic Church as experienced by laity, since 99% of us here are not priests or religious.
- PAX
J
JReducation
Guest
It makes no sense to me for people who are not part of this to stick their spoon into this pot. It’s ludicrous.
J
JReducation
Guest
While I understand what you’re saying, we have to be with the Church where she’s at right now. The fact is that many externals have changed. I believe that many of the traditional ones are being recovered. My own community is one of the. For example, our recovery is not the same as that of the SSPX. To us the Tridentine Mass is not a big issue, because we are trying to get back to the year 1209, long before the Tridentine Mass.
Other parishes, dioceses, religious institutes are also looking at their roots and are going to go back to different starting points.
There is no reset in the Church where everything goes back to a default. While there are going to be many traditions recovered, because people see the need for them, there are going to be traditions that were not part of the Pre Vatican II Church, but are now being recovered, because of the Council’s command to return to the roots. I foresee a blend of customs and practices from different periods ranging from the first century to the 21st century.
This is where we have to separate faith from externals. It’s not dualism. It’s part and parcel for many of us. I understnd that the majority of Catholics are not monks or friars, so they have not had to live with an unchangeable faith on one side of the brain and changing customs, constitutions, devotions, liturgies, breviaries, etc for the last 1500 years. I’m talking about changes everytime thee is a general chapter or a new superior general. I bring up this example as what I hope will be a sign of hope to people that this is possible and we will all be OK. It has happened before for many people and while it was very challenging, they survived it and are happy. We need to give ourselves more credit. We’re stronger than we think. Just as all of thos cloistered nuns, monks and friars over the last 1500 years dealt with the two: faith and externals and did not lose it, the rest of the world can also survive it. These men and women are just as human as everyone else and they don’t have any extraordinary abilities.
Let’s relax, be patient and see wha tthe future brings. These are actually very exciting times to be in the Church. It’s a time when we can make many contributions and at the same time, pick up from the contributions of others.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
R
runningdude
Guest
I chose to simply matters dramatically, answering why a chapel is called a chapel, steering the person who asked the question away from accidentally calling the SSPX a church. As there is some controversy about the SSPX allegedly taking on some roles reserved to the diocesan bishops, its best to avoid language that might be mistaking as saying the SSPX is a body with any sort of “church” status. Don’t want to accidentally open that can of worms!
- Status