Question re SSPX

[poche]

If I’m wrong, please let me know. Pope St Pius X warned against Modernism. You can research and you’ll find that from Vatican 2 on the Church has suffered greatly. There is proof that Freemasonry has been infiltrating the Vatican for many years; it’s called New World Order and One World Religion. The Traditional Latin Mass is legal; I forget which pope, but around the 6th century a pope said that the Mass could not be changed, period.
I believe it was Paul VI that changed the missal, but left the older one alone, he had no choice. To understand the problems of Vatican II, see - Fr Gregory Hesse, a Canon lawyer and Fr Krammer, The Fatima Center. Both on You Tube. There will be explanations about SSPX. Blessings, and God bless all Catholics

Pope Pius X also started a liturgical reform.

 

[poche]

My understanding is that Bishop Williamson - a former Anglican, who was received into Communion in 1971 in England, and quickly went toward SSPX - has been chastised and removed from the jurisdiction of the SSPX. He has created a fringe group that SSPX nor Holy See recognize. While the SSPX are in defacto separation, the majority of them still retain Catholicity and commemmorate the Holy Father every day. In addition, the separation seems to be just short of a few signatures for renewed recognition.

Even if it is a tiny thread that holds the bird it is still held captive. So it is with the seperation of the SSPX and the rest of the Catholic Church.

 

[reggieM]

Pope St Pius X warned against Modernism.

True. And that teaching has been tragically ignored.

You can research and you’ll find that from Vatican 2 on the Church has suffered greatly.

True again, although the causes for that are many and cannot be reduced to the Council alone.

There is proof that Freemasonry has been infiltrating the Vatican for many years; it’s called New World Order and One World Religion.

Information on that sort of thing ranges from fictional-rumors to some scraps of evidence that could be pulled together into a story line, but there is not enough to state that there is “proof of infiltration”.

The Traditional Latin Mass is legal; I forget which pope, but around the 6th century a pope said that the Mass could not be changed, period.

It’s easy to misunderstand those previous liturgical statements by Popes. But the Traditional Mass has changed over the centuries and that is perfectly legitimate and legal.

I believe it was Paul VI that changed the missal, but left the older one alone, he had no choice.

The Holy See explained that there is one Roman Rite with two different “forms” of it. Keeping in mind that there was a change to the old missal in 1962, so that was permitted.

To understand the problems of Vatican II, see - Fr Gregory Hesse, a Canon lawyer and Fr Krammer, The Fatima Center. Both on You Tube. There will be explanations about SSPX. Blessings, and God bless all Catholics

Those priests offer some good insights, but we have to be careful and balance off their views with good, qualified priests who disagree with their understanding. In the end, what happened with Vatican II and the events in the Church that followed is not as simple as some describe it. It is the very same Church of Pope St. Pius X (his successors) that gave us the reforms at Vatican II and with some research we can discover where pastoral reforms were necessary and how VII addressed those needs. At the same time, there were abuses and unjust behaviors – and a pastoral document will have various imperfections.

But God uses all of these things to direct the Church. We have our duties and responsibilities within the Church, but ultimately we are not in charge - He is.

 

[commenter]

Even if it is a tiny thread that holds the bird it is still held captive. So it is with the seperation of the SSPX and the rest of the Catholic Church.

The most powerful thread holding people separate is "Things will be clearer very soon. I saw that press release, that discussions with the pope are taking place, they are just on the verge of an agreement. Let’s stay where we are for now, and see how this plays out. **WAIT. ** … Years pass… Children grow up…

For the first several decades of the Reformation, Luther’s followers called themselves Catholics, and insisted they were still in the Church, which just needed to repeal some of its recent abuses. In hindsight we can see they were not remaining the same while they waited, but were getting less Catholic each year, developing their own tradition, their own momentum. But they did not notice that, at the time.

It was their grandchildren who were realistic enough to accept as their own the title Lutherans. They accurately perceived a different religion, a different church had **already **been formed, not all at once but gradually during the waiting period of their predecessors. It was the waiting period that did it.

 

[reggieM]

…

For the first several decades of the Reformation, Luther’s followers called themselves Catholics, and insisted they were still in the Church, which just needed to repeal some of its recent abuses. In hindsight we can see they were not remaining the same while they waited, but were getting less Catholic each year, developing their own tradition, their own momentum. But they did not notice that, at the time.

It was their grandchildren who were realistic enough to accept as their own the title Lutherans. They accurately perceived a different religion, a different church had **already **been formed, not all at once but gradually during the waiting period of their predecessors. It was the waiting period that did it.

True, but 450 years later the Holy See apologized (Paul VI and John Paul II both asked for forgiveness) and admitted guilt for actions during the Reformation (as Lutherans did also). Pope Francis asked Protestants for forgiveness as well.
Additionally, a statement of joint reconciliation on the matter of Justification was signed.

 

[ProVobis]

When you go to the SSPX (just for the service, of course) you may be influencing someone else, priest or layperson, in ways you do not know, to make a bad decision, or cancel a good decision.

The service is one thing but how can going to confession, whoever the priest is hearing it, lead to someone else making a bad decision? The Pope’s emphasis is having one’s sins absolved; he has made an example of this himself.

I certainly am not going to judge someone who after confession stays around for the service afterwards, if that’s the way things are done at that chapel. For that matter it is not for me to judge where that person goes to worship God or if he or she does at all.

 

[commenter]

True, but 450 years later the Holy See apologized (Paul VI and John Paul II both asked for forgiveness) and admitted guilt for actions during the Reformation (as Lutherans did also). Pope Francis asked Protestants for forgiveness as well.
Additionally, a statement of joint reconciliation on the matter of Justification was signed.

True.
Lutherans are among the 713 groups to receive a formal apology from the Vatican in recent years.
But the denominations are still separate from the RCC. They have their own momentum, their own traditions now. Most Lutheran denominations have moved farther away from Catholicism than they were in 1960. They are still moving farther away, now in 2017.

Meanwhile, some Lutheran individuals and families have been swimming the Tiber.

 

[ProVobis]

I believe it was Paul VI that changed the missal, but left the older one alone, he had no choice.

As I understand it Pope Paul introduced the Novus Ordo Missae; it was not a change per se even if there are a lot of the prayers that remain intact. One can make the case that the Missals of 1965 and 1967 were abrogated, though. Perhaps the intent was to put the 1962 Missal to disuse, I don’t know, but the ruling was that it was not abrogated by the 1984 document. This document (QUATTUOR ABHINC ANNOS) specified that only the 1962 Missal was legitimate and it must remain in Latin. It had no bearing on the 1969 Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI.

 

[Jestersage]

The service is one thing but how can going to confession, whoever the priest is hearing it, lead to someone else making a bad decision? The Pope’s emphasis is having one’s sins absolved; he has made an example of this himself.

I certainly am not going to judge someone who after confession stays around for the service afterwards, if that’s the way things are done at that chapel. For that matter it is not for me to judge where that person goes to worship God or if he or she does at all.

I think what the commenter meant, based on his experience when he participated in an Assembly of God charismatic meeting, is that while to that particular person it may have no effect, to others it would be an endorsement of the spirit behind the group.

While if you and I go to SSPX, we are just treating it as “just a valid confession”, to others it may mean “SSPX is a good society and I should leave my current Parish with the Nouvo Ordo Mass for them exclusively.” And to my understanding, effectively speaking Catholics are responsible for how our actions and words influence others.

 

[otjm]

The service is one thing but how can going to confession, whoever the priest is hearing it, lead to someone else making a bad decision? The Pope’s emphasis is having one’s sins absolved; he has made an example of this himself.

I certainly am not going to judge someone who after confession stays around for the service afterwards, if that’s the way things are done at that chapel. For that matter it is not for me to judge where that person goes to worship God or if he or she does at all.

There have been enough reports over the years, and enough evidence of priests leaving the SSPX and moving farther out of relationship with the Church of priests giving homilies which do nothing to move the parishioners into reconciliation with the Church, but serve to move them farther away. Those may be isolated instances, but nevertheless occur.

Of greater danger (presuming the homilies at Mass are not disparaging of the Church) is that individuals may do more than just go to the EF and to confession; and that is, that they may join with other SSPX attendants in going down the “Alice in Wonderland” critiquing of the Church, of Vatican 2, and related items that may all too easily draw them away from the Church.

I have been to enough retreats over 70 years that I know a retreat can focus on spirituality rather than on theology. A well-directed spirituality retreat, if it stays away from the disputes the SSPX have with the Vatican, can be excellent. However, there are plenty of other retreats given, for example, by Benedictines, that one does not have to lament the unavailability of the FSSP and go to the SSPX to do a retreat.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I think what the commenter meant, based on his experience when he participated in an Assembly of God charismatic meeting, is that while to that particular person it may have no effect, to others it would be an endorsement of the spirit behind the group.

While if you and I go to SSPX, we are just treating it as “just a valid confession”, to others it may mean “SSPX is a good society and I should leave my current Parish with the Nouvo Ordo Mass for them exclusively.” And to my understanding, effectively speaking Catholics are responsible for how our actions and words influence others.

To some extent yes, but who knows what influence a priest enamoured with protestantism and it’s leanings and it’s forms of worship may have, and what does the act of going to Mass at a parish like that have on that same individual vs. the SSPX? It’s impossible to weigh and generalize.

 

[SyroMalankara]

There have been enough reports over the years, and enough evidence of priests leaving the SSPX and moving farther out of relationship with the Church of priests giving homilies which do nothing to move the parishioners into reconciliation with the Church, but serve to move them farther away. Those may be isolated instances, but nevertheless occur.

The same could be said for priests within the Church, can it not? And overwhelming so if one is comparing proportionally.

Of greater danger (presuming the homilies at Mass are not disparaging of the Church) is that individuals may do more than just go to the EF and to confession; and that is, that they may join with other SSPX attendants in going down the “Alice in Wonderland” critiquing of the Church, of Vatican 2, and related items that may all too easily draw them away from the Church.

It’s always a possibility, but critiquing comes from both ends of the horseshoe, and sometimes from the middle.

I have been to enough retreats over 70 years that I know a retreat can focus on spirituality rather than on theology. A well-directed spirituality retreat, if it stays away from the disputes the SSPX have with the Vatican, can be excellent. However, there are plenty of other retreats given, for example, by Benedictines, that one does not have to lament the unavailability of the FSSP and go to the SSPX to do a retreat.

And yet both the FSSP and ICKSP are examples that SSPX can lead to reconciliation some how. The Spirit works in mysterious ways.

 

[commenter]

To some extent yes, but who knows what influence a priest enamoured with protestantism and it’s leanings and it’s forms of worship may have, and what does the act of going to Mass at a parish like that have on that same individual vs. the SSPX? It’s impossible to weigh and generalize.

I once was in a vile liberal Catholic parish (the pastor told my wife I was a “reactionary”). I sometimes would sneak over to the Assembly of God. Not only did I love the charismatic services, but the pastor was very cooperative with Catholic programs, very supportive of JP II, often quoted from C. S. Lewis, and his sermons were far better than the vile parish, where the sermons were taken from the daily newspaper.

It was tempting to say “I’ll maintain as a Catholic, but I have to go where I’m going to be fed”. Many, many Catholics did this, and ended up exclusively at the Assembly. They are still at the Assembly now, where the next pastor is much weaker than the one I liked, and anti-Catholicism is no longer banned. The bishop allowed the liberal Catholic pastor to serve out till retirement, and the next pastor is far more orthodox. Other, more extreme liberal pastors, either toned down or left the priesthood.

The Assembly of God does not have dioceses or a living Magisterium. So it is the luck of the draw, and people make bad long term commitments based on temporary comforts.
I learned that “visiting” a place outside the direct, living Magisterium can lead to bad decisions. The local diocese, as much as I have waved my fist at not only liberalism but gross inefficiency, etc, is a kind of safety net in the long run.

“Temporary” solutions, even if there are valid things included, often turn off to be permanent, and offer more problems than they solve if they are outside the living Magisterium, and a diocese.

 

[Dempsey1919]

otjm:

There have been enough reports over the years, and enough evidence of priests leaving the SSPX and moving farther out of relationship with the Church of priests giving homilies which do nothing to move the parishioners into reconciliation with the Church, but serve to move them farther away. Those may be isolated instances, but nevertheless occur.

I see where you’re coming from. I attend Mass at an SSPX chapel but I attend the OF Mass most days of the week. I see problems on both sides. In the SSPX, many of the parishioners are sede vacantists and reject EVERYTHING that came after 1958. In the OF parishes I attend, many of the parishioners are Modernists who reject anything that came before the Council. The SSPXers and the liberals are opposite sides on the same coin.

My position is to keep to the centre watchfully in a traditional way. I accept Vatican II and the reforms that came in its wake. But I also acknowledge that Vatican II is not without problems. I hope and pray for a reform of the reform - and a syllabus of errors on Vatican II. John Paul II has already offered an authoritative interpretation of Vatican II but it would be helpful if his teachings were placed in a single document. It would finally exorcise the so-called spirit of Vatican II and promote a hermeneutic of reform in continuity.

 

[commenter]

I see where you’re coming from. I attend Mass at an SSPX chapel but I attend the OF Mass most days of the week. I see problems on both sides. In the SSPX, many of the parishioners are sede vacantists and reject EVERYTHING that came after 1958. In the OF parishes I attend, many of the parishioners are Modernists who reject anything that came before the Council. The SSPXers and the liberals are opposite sides on the same coin.

My position is to keep to the centre watchfully in a traditional way. I accept Vatican II and the reforms that came in its wake. But I also acknowledge that Vatican II is not without problems. I hope and pray for a reform of the reform - and a syllabus of errors on Vatican II. John Paul II has already offered an authoritative interpretation of Vatican II but it would be helpful if his teachings were placed in a single document. It would finally exorcise the so-called spirit of Vatican II and promote a hermeneutic of reform in continuity.

Thanks for your balanced post.

Feel free to follow up with any additional information about that SSPX chapel. I am interested in what, if any, contact with other local Catholic ministries or programs happens, or is encouraged/discouraged by the chapel itself. Is the issue of obedience to **living **persons in the Church discussed?

You’ve seen my rant-posts, which are strong on analogies/theories but weak on direct observations in the field.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Is the issue of obedience to living persons in the Church discussed?

SSPX priests are ordered to pray for the Pope and local Bishop in the Mass. SSPX priests generally have good relations with the local diocesan priests who celebrate the ‘indult’ Mass. It’s grossly inaccurate to call the SSPX schismatic because they accept the authority of the Roman Pontiff. However, they’re convinced that the Church is in grave crisis and that they must be obedient to the Deposit of Faith and to the perennial expressions of the Faith. This means they won’t blindly obey something that is contrary to what the Church has always practiced. The problem with this viewpoint is that they’ve basically set themselves up as the ultimate judge of what’s Catholic. Others might disagree but that’s always been my impression.

The faithful who attend the chapels are not nostalgic for bygone years. Most of the people who attend the SSPX chapels do so because they’ve had bad experiences in their local parishes. They’re fleeing from liturgical abuse and heterodox sermons. Others attend because SSPX Masses are extremely reverent and because the priests transmit the Faith. The sermons are usually very simple and doctrinal in nature. They explain the Faith and the liturgy to people who haven’t been catechised.

That’s not to say there aren’t problems. Many of the people have been hurt and are bitter. They also have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater and be suspicious of anything that came after Vatican II. I’ve even heard priests express doubts about the validity of canonised Saints. The main problem with the SSPX is that they’re very pessimistic. They’re suspicious of everything that comes out of Rome. I honestly believe many don’t want to be reconciled. There’s a genuine fear that Rome will confiscate their buildings and force them to accept ‘compromises.’

 

[otjm]

The same could be said for priests within the Church, can it not? And overwhelming so if one is comparing proportionally.

That in essence is a red herring; it does not reform the SSPX that someone else errs.

It’s always a possibility, but critiquing comes from both ends of the horseshoe, and sometimes from the middle.

And?

And yet both the FSSP and ICKSP are examples that SSPX can lead to reconciliation some how. The Spirit works in mysterious ways.

While the Spirit works in strange way (and I can attest from personal experience) we now have 29 years of “it is close; it is just a few signatures away” game of cat and mouse. I have better things to do than follow what is most recently going on within the SSPX, but unless the Holy Spirit gets into overdrive, we are fast approaching the time where there will be a need for new bishops, and without reconciliation, IMHO the chance of them being given permission to ordain more is about like a snowball in a hot place.

And with no permission, and all of the work that has been done (in particular by Benedict 16), I would expect the whole matter to go back to the original scene in 1988, and more bishops be ordained without permission.

Pope Francis is obviously concerned for the salvation and welfare of those who attend the various chapels. That does not automatically equate with any change of position as to what the SSPX must do, and has refused repeatedly to do, over the 29 years.

Over the years, it has appeared (in news bits and pieces) that some of the priests would follow Bishop Fellay were he to sign anything; and likewise, there would be a significant group who would not. Which would leave us pretty much in a quagmire. The last go-around I read had at least one, if not both of the other bishops refusing the offer from Benedict.

The Holy Spirit will entice, but not coerce.

 

[reggieM]

SSPX priests are ordered to pray for the Pope and local Bishop in the Mass. SSPX priests generally have good relations with the local diocesan priests who celebrate the ‘indult’ Mass. It’s grossly inaccurate to call the SSPX schismatic because they accept the authority of the Roman Pontiff. However, they’re convinced that the Church is in grave crisis and that they must be obedient to the Deposit of Faith and to the perennial expressions of the Faith. This means they won’t blindly obey something that is contrary to what the Church has always practiced. The problem with this viewpoint is that they’ve basically set themselves up as the ultimate judge of what’s Catholic. Others might disagree but that’s always been my impression.

The faithful who attend the chapels are not nostalgic for bygone years. Most of the people who attend the SSPX chapels do so because they’ve had bad experiences in their local parishes. They’re fleeing from liturgical abuse and heterodox sermons. Others attend because SSPX Masses are extremely reverent and because the priests transmit the Faith. The sermons are usually very simple and doctrinal in nature. They explain the Faith and the liturgy to people who haven’t been catechised.

That’s not to say there aren’t problems. Many of the people have been hurt and are bitter. They also have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater and be suspicious of anything that came after Vatican II. I’ve even heard priests express doubts about the validity of canonised Saints. The main problem with the SSPX is that they’re very pessimistic. They’re suspicious of everything that comes out of Rome. I honestly believe many don’t want to be reconciled. There’s a genuine fear that Rome will confiscate their buildings and force them to accept ‘compromises.’

That was a very good overview - thanks.

Two issues the SSPX puts forward as challenges (aside from the liturgy) are:

1. Can the documents of Vatican II be reconciled with the previous Tradition of the Church?
2. Will the Holy See correct and discipline abuses and false teachings from pastors and bishops?

On the first question, yes - with some difficulty, but yes. I don’t think the SSPX has accepted that reasoning yet though and it does take some effort to understand, and some might even say some twisting and hair-splitting to reconcile, but it can be done.

On the second question, a lot of progress has been made since the 1970s but there is still more to go.

Some SSPX priests and faithful say that they would not reconcile until or unless the Church establishes the EF as the only Roman rite - but that is absurd. Even Bishop Fellay said that if the OF was offered in a traditional manner (as more priests do today) that Abp. Lefevbre never would have had to resist the way he did.

 

[otjm]

According to the SSPX, the Church is requiring the following of them:

1. It is necessary to require members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X to adhere to the new formula of the Profession of Faith dating from 1988 [sic — should read 1998] (see attachment). Consequently, it is no longer sufficient to ask them to profess the Profession of Faith of 1962.
2. The new text of the Doctrinal Declaration must include a paragraph in which the signatories declare, in an explicit manner, their acceptance of the teachings of the Vatican II Council and those of the post-conciliar period, giving the said doctrinal statements the degree of adherence that is due to them.
3. The members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X must recognize not only the validity but also the legitimacy of the Rite of Holy Mass and of the Sacraments, according to the liturgical books promulgated after the Second Vatican Council.

 

[DMIMS]

I just read this in National Catholic Register and I think it would be of interest here
firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/08/pope-benedicts-red-thread
Blessings