SSPX and Rome : Latest Hint At What Will Transcend Sept 14th

[keepitreal]

I’m sure that this is one thing that they will not be allowed to do if they reconcile. I can’t see the Vatican allowing them to question the validity of an ordination by a valid bishop with canonical authority to ordain. I think the days of conditional ordinations are overk, if they agree to whatever the Vatican is proposing. Bishops would go ballistic if that were allowed to happen unchecked. It’s pretty obvious that they have a good reason to go ballistic.

As far as needing their own bishops to ordain or confirm, this is not a real need. Other institutes of clerics make due with the local bishop for that purpose or a bishop who is a friend of the institute. If they become a prelature, they can ordain with a letter of obedience from the Superior General. They won’t need to ask permission of the local bishop. The Superior General write a letter attesting to the qualifications of the candidate and giving permission for him to be ordained. They can pick any bishop. It’s like the orders. The orders can request that any bishop ordain. All that the ordaining bishop needs is the letter from the superior granting him permission to ordain. For confirmation, since they are not that many chapels or parishes, they can find a bishop who will perform the rite in the EF. Any bishop is allowed to do it.

Sometimes this is true. Sometimes it’s not. It all depends on what the Holy See commands. If it commands that you put aside an idea or goal and that you may never bring it up again and you agree to this at the starting gate, you will be called on the carpet if you back-pedal. If the response from the Holy See is simple, “No.” That does not mean that you cannot bring it up later. Wording is very important. It’s like the whole thing with the ordination of women. The wording that Bl. John Paul used made it clear that they would never entertain the question again. They consider those who bring it up to be flies.

Since no one outside of the inner circle knows what’s in that folder, we just have to wait and see.

I’ve heard of that happening in dioceses too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well, it looks like the Holy Father will allow SSPX to question certain dictates from the Second Vatican Council while still being in the Church. But traditionalists have known all along that VII was a “pastoral” council(although authoritative), and not a dogmatic one,and, therefore, could question it.

"While affirming his remaining attachment to Vatican II, Benedict XVI, on this September 14, 2011, brought down the taboo of the Council. For while no Pope could free a Catholic from the decisions of dogmatic Councils, the Pope, by way of the text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, liberates the souls from those of a pastoral Council. From now on, one may be of the Church without holding on to the controversial points of Vatican II.

see link: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

Well, it looks like the Holy Father will allow SSPX to question certain dictates from the Second Vatican Council while still being in the Church. But traditionalists have known all along that VII was a “pastoral” council(although authoritative), and not a dogmatic one,and, therefore, could question it.

"While affirming his remaining attachment to Vatican II, Benedict XVI, on this September 14, 2011, brought down the taboo of the Council. For while no Pope could free a Catholic from the decisions of dogmatic Councils, the Pope, by way of the text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, liberates the souls from those of a pastoral Council. From now on, one may be of the Church without holding on to the controversial points of Vatican II.

see link: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

That’s a good short article, and I happen to agree with it, but I am disappointed that it offers no particular insight into the 09/14 meeting. Strictly speaking, that quote that you offered us there is un-sourced, and I have to assume that it remains in the realm of speculation. Reasonable and probably correct, but speculative nonetheless.
That is, of course, unless I’m missing something and some specific aspect of the meeting has been either leaked or revealed.

 

[JReducation]

I found it especially touching, if you will, with the SSJV case because they had been in a similar situation to the SSPX. Even more radical in some ways. Then as soon as they were reconciled, Bl. John Paul II went way out of his way to accommodate them, as demonstrated in that instance. Very happy story, IMO.

Bl. John Paul was a very special man. His mission was to work for peace, inside the Church and around the world. He was very orthodox in his theology and in Canon Law, but he was not rigid.

I always loved the fact that he was smart enough to know how far he could bend without snapping the rules. What was unfortunate for him and I believe for Pope Benedict too is that most of us, let’s face it, do not have the knowledgte of the Church that they do. Half the time, we don’t understand why they do or not do certain things. The other half of the time we’re too stubborn and proud to try something new.

I always remember something that Pope Paul said when he went to be reconciled with the Orthodox. We now know that he wanted to meet with them, because he wanted to ask that they lift the excommunications against the Latin Church and to offer the same on our behalf. That was not generally known at the time. His secretary later wrote that on the day when Pope Paul and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I in were to meet in Jerusalem, in 1964, the secretary asked Pope Paul, “What will you say?”

Pope Paul said, “Nothing. We have said too much and accomplished too little. It’s time to try something different.”

I always liked that statement. Sometimes, we have to acknowledge that it’s time to make a change, because something has not worked.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Well, it looks like the Holy Father will allow SSPX to question certain dictates from the Second Vatican Council while still being in the Church. But traditionalists have known all along that VII was a “pastoral” council(although authoritative), and not a dogmatic one,and, therefore, could question it.

"While affirming his remaining attachment to Vatican II, Benedict XVI, on this September 14, 2011, brought down the taboo of the Council. For while no Pope could free a Catholic from the decisions of dogmatic Councils, the Pope, by way of the text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, liberates the souls from those of a pastoral Council. From now on, one may be of the Church without holding on to the controversial points of Vatican II.

see link: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

I would be very careful with this. He does not provide his source. Secondly, he makes a false statement. It was never against the law to question specific points in these documents as long as one does not question the doctrinal points and as long as one does not try to undo the legal points. The doctrinal points, for obvious reasons, they are doctrines of the Church, which are included in many of the documents. The legal points, because law is not up for debate unless you do so in the right environment. We can debate about a particular law or policy in a pub until the sun turns off the light and it won’t change the law. If we take the law to the person who has the power to change it, then we have a worthwhile discussion.

Outside of dogmas being cited or referenced in the Vatican II documents and lawful commands, there was never a regulation that you could not question a particular point. What has never been allowed is that you throw the entire council into the garbage or that you pass judgment of those who wrote the documents.

This quote makes it sound as if this is something new that Pope Benedict decided the day before yesterday. It’s not new. He himself, as Cardinal Ratzinger and as Father Ratzinger raised questions about certain points and no one ever got on his case over it.

Could the pope be repeating what was already known? That’s possible.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

We’ve known that the Council was merely pastoral and taught nothing new since the close to the Council itself. Incidentally, this is IMO the strongest aspect of the SSPX position. Namely that one who was orthodox and irreproachable doctrinally before the Council remains so after, if he holds precisely the same beliefs. What was true in 1950 was true in 1969, and remains true today.

 

[keepitreal]

I would be very careful with this. He does not provide his source. Secondly, he makes a false statement. It was never against the law to question specific points in these documents as long as one does not question the doctrinal points and as long as one does not try to undo the legal points. The doctrinal points, for obvious reasons, they are doctrines of the Church, which are included in many of the documents. The legal points, because law is not up for debate unless you do so in the right environment. We can debate about a particular law or policy in a pub until the sun turns off the light and it won’t change the law. If we take the law to the person who has the power to change it, then we have a worthwhile discussion.

Outside of dogmas being cited or referenced in the Vatican II documents and lawful commands, there was never a regulation that you could not question a particular point. What has never been allowed is that you throw the entire council into the garbage or that you pass judgment of those who wrote the documents.

This quote makes it sound as if this is something new that Pope Benedict decided the day before yesterday. It’s not new. He himself, as Cardinal Ratzinger and as Father Ratzinger raised questions about certain points and no one ever got on his case over it.

Could the pope be repeating what was already known? That’s possible.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I am not a member of SSPX, however, “some of my best friends” are. What run of the mill Traditionalists (those who not in an “irregular” situation with the Church) have in common, with SSPX is that we accept what has always been taught (what was believed before the Council—doctrines of the Church in faith in morals) and reject or question that which is not
nomatter what the source is. Even if that source is a pastoral council. What is fascinating (or tragic) is how, what many Traditionalists call (I know, “labels” again!) "neo-conservatives believe that VII, lock, stock, and barrel, is infallible and that if one even thinks about questioning it, you’re not Catholic.

 

[JReducation]

We’ve known that the Council was merely pastoral and taught nothing new since the close to the Council itself. Incidentally, this is IMO the strongest aspect of the SSPX position. Namely that one who was orthodox and irreproachable doctrinally before the Council remains so after, if he holds precisely the same beliefs. What was true in 1950 was true in 1969, and remains true today.

I’m only speculating here, but my guess is that Cardinal Levada would not find anything objectionable in that position. What he would find objectionable is in what Pope Benedict once referred to as the arrogant attitude of the SSPX. My guess is that this is what they would be asking them to change. In other words, they would be given parameters on how to disagree without being “arrogant” to use the Pope’s word.

This is why I keep saying that the laity has to stay out of this. It has been my experience that the laity does a great deal of seeding. We have seen this with that other group, whose name I can’t recall, “new catholics” or some such name. The ones who are excommunicated for being so radically liberal. You folks know who I mean. Those are mostly laymen mouthing off a bunch of nonsense and they have a few priests and religious who buy into the same nonsense. But the largest number of them are laymen.

The same is happening with the SSPX. There are more laymen blogging, making videos, making statements and fueling the flames when in fact, there is only on bishop in the SSPX who is a difficult man as Pope Benedict calls him. The others are not so difficult and most of their priests are really very polite men and do not say or espouse half of what the lay SSPX supporters say they do.

I think I shared my experience with a lay person at the local SSPX chapel. If not, here goes.

In order for this to make sense, you have to know that I am over 60, have cancer, congestive heart disease and am diabetic… My doctors say that I should have left this world several years ago, but the Lord disagrees with them. So I’m still very active in ministry and in formation work. However, I have to be careful with certain situations.

I was going to a funeral at the local SSPX chapel. It was very hot. It was July and the temp was close to 98. Instead of a habit, I put on my only pair of slacks and my only clerical shirt. We’re allowed only one. I always buy mine in grey, because grey is good for hot and cold days.

We share a car. That day, I had to take the bus and then walk from the bus stop to the chapel, about a mile. I get off the bus and start walking. I’m starting to panic, because I’m going to be late. I pick up my speed. It’s getting hotter, so I take off the collar and put the tab in my shirt pocket.

By the time I reached the chapel I was soaked in sweat and I was worried about being late. I probably looked a mess. I forgot to put my collar on. The layman who was collecting the booklets said to another, “He’s probably one of those NO priests. Look where he carries is collar.” He did it loudly enough that I could hear. I have no idea whether he wanted me to hear or not.

In any case, I had to go back there again for another event. It was a cooler day and I wore my habit. The priest was very pleasant, a nice kid. I mentioned to him that at least no one would give me the look as if to say, “You don’t belong”. He asked me why I said this and I told him about the comment during my previous visit. He was horrrified.

Since then, Father and I have become friends. We have even had dinner. He’s not allowed to celebrate mass for us, but he’s always welcome at our house and I try to invite him. I have found out that a lot of what people say on these threads, on blogs, and on YouTube is not what they teach and they are mortified by what they hear and see attributed to them. I have also found out that they too have the same problem as every other institute. They have some men who can’t keep their mouths shut, who are rude, who make inappropriate comments to the laity and many laymen run with these comments.

Given my little experience of them, I don’t think that they would be disinclined to accept some parameters on how disagreements are to be aired. It would actually give Bishop Fellay an edge over his lose cannons. He can remind them that these were agreements. Right now, he does not have much of an edge over them. At the end of the day, Bishop Fellay’s authority over them is by agreement, not a canonical authority. Once they become regularized, he then acquires the right to exercise a canonical office and becomes a canonical superior with the authority to discipline and control the disruptive children in the Society, as much as a superior can do that. You can’t force people to change, no matter how much authority you have.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I am not a member of SSPX, however, “some of my best friends” are. What run of the mill Traditionalists (those who not in an “irregular” situation with the Church) have in common, with SSPX is that we accept what has always been taught (what was believed before the Council—doctrines of the Church in faith in morals) and reject or question that which is not
nomatter what the source is. Even if that source is a pastoral council. What is fascinating (or tragic) is how, what many Traditionalists call (I know, “labels” again!) "neo-conservatives believe that VII, lock, stock, and barrel, is infallible and that if one even thinks about questioning it, you’re not Catholic.

I think the reason that you get a knee-jerk reaction is in how you (the universal you) say it. I have asked many questions and have never been told to shut up. However, I once mispoke and said “the Council” and I was consequenced for it. But when I have said, “This point could have been worded differently or that point is confusing or even that does not sound right” I have only been asked to explain what it is that I’m talking about. In other words, it does not draw the knee-jerk reaction from authority.

Let me offer another example that has nothing to do with the SSPX or the Council. But it’sa good example of how language works among ecclesial authorities.

If I say to one of my postulants or novices, “Go stand on your head.” I expect him to stand on his head. If he goes to someone else or even to me and says “I won’t stand on my head, because you can’t make me do so.” He’s going to be in serious trouble. I will pull him back so far that he will feel that he’s a gumband.

On the other hand, if he says, “Can I ask why I have to stand on my head?” I don’t see that as an afront to authority. It’s a question, no more and no less. Anyone can ask a question.

The same applies to the Council, the pope, the bishop and other authorities. When you question the right of authority to say something, then you’ve raised the bar. When you question the right of the Council Fathers to say something, you’re questioning authority. When you ask a question about what authority says, it’s just a question. No one can claim that it’s offensive to do so.

I don’t know if I’m helping here or making it worse.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

I think the reason that you get a knee-jerk reaction is in how you (the universal you) say it. I have asked many questions and have never been told to shut up. However, I once mispoke and said “the Council” and I was consequenced for it. But when I have said, “This point could have been worded differently or that point is confusing or even that does not sound right” I have only been asked to explain what it is that I’m talking about. In other words, it does not draw the knee-jerk reaction from authority.

Let me offer another example that has nothing to do with the SSPX or the Council. But it’sa good example of how language works among ecclesial authorities.

If I say to one of my postulants or novices, “Go stand on your head.” I expect him to stand on his head. If he goes to someone else or even to me and says “I won’t stand on my head, because you can’t make me do so.” He’s going to be in serious trouble. I will pull him back so far that he will feel that he’s a gumband.

On the other hand, if he says, “Can I ask why I have to stand on my head?” I don’t see that as an afront to authority. It’s a question, no more and no less. Anyone can ask a question.

The same applies to the Council, the pope, the bishop and other authorities. When you question the right of authority to say something, then you’ve raised the bar. When you question the right of the Council Fathers to say something, you’re questioning authority. When you ask a question about what authority says, it’s just a question. No one can claim that it’s offensive to do so.

I don’t know if I’m helping here or making it worse.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

So then, just as an intellectual exercise, because I’m very interested in your POV on this… let’s take your scenario and abstract it out a little bit, so it’s just a superior and a novice, generally speaking. The superior tells the novice to do something, and the novice isn’t quite sure, but he has an awful feeling that he’s been ordered to do something immoral. He’s been asking for clarification but none of the explanations seem to help and it isn’t getting him anywhere. What comes next?

 

[JReducation]

So then, just as an intellectual exercise, because I’m very interested in your POV on this… let’s take your scenario and abstract it out a little bit, so it’s just a superior and a novice, generally speaking. The superior tells the novice to do something, and the novice isn’t quite sure, but he has an awful feeling that he’s been ordered to do something immoral. He’s been asking for clarification but none of the explanations seem to help and it isn’t getting him anywhere. What comes next?

Using the superior - novice example, the novice always has the right to appeal to a higher superior until he reaches the man at the top. You do have a moral duty to try to find the answer. At some point, you can also concede that you can’t find the answer. In that case, the principle that governs obedience helps. It has two parts.

Part I: You are never allowed to obey what is EVIDENTLY sinful.

Part II: You are never culpable if there is doubt and you have done what is in your power to find the answer. The fault, if there is any, falls on the superior.

This is a point on which the five great masters agree: Benedict, Augustine, Bernard and Francis. They are considered the master theologians on obedience. They are also spiritual fathers.

This actually protects people from having to obey a sinful command and it also protects them from scrupulosity.

Fraternally,

Br, JR, OSF

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

Using the superior - novice example, the novice always has the right to appeal to a higher superior until he reaches the man at the top. You do have a moral duty to try to find the answer. At some point, you can also concede that you can’t find the answer. In that case, the principle that governs obedience helps. It has two parts.

Part I: You are never allowed to obey what is EVIDENTLY sinful.

Part II: You are never culpable if there is doubt and you have done what is in your power to find the answer. The fault, if there is any, falls on the superior.

This is a point on which the five great masters agree: Benedict, Augustine, Bernard and Francis. They are considered the master theologians on obedience. They are also spiritual fathers.

This actually protects people from having to obey a sinful command and it also protects them from scrupulosity.

Fraternally,

Br, JR, OSF

Cool. Thank you.

 

[JReducation]

Cool. Thank you.

You’re welcome.

I must add that when possible, one should never act with a doubtful conscience. That’s not always possible. In that case, one surrenders to the judgment of the superior, bishop, pope, mother, father, etc and commend himself and the person giving the command to the mercy of God. You’re acting with the best information available. There may be more to it, but you don’t have it available.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Will_S]

Sometimes this is true. Sometimes it’s not. It all depends on what the Holy See commands. If it commands that you put aside an idea or goal and that you may never bring it up again and you agree to this at the starting gate, you will be called on the carpet if you back-pedal.

The SSPX desires regular status. But it is not their top priority. If the conditions do not suit them, they will carry on as they have been.

 

[At_Trent]

I suppose this is relevant. It’s not just the SSPX that thinks VII should be discussed.

dici.org/en/news/vatican-council-ii-a-debate-that-has-not-taken-place-by-msgr-brunero-gherardini/

 

[JReducation]

The SSPX desires regular status. But it is not their top priority. If the conditions do not suit them, they will carry on as they have been.

Not knowing what is in that folder that was handed to the bishop, we don’t know if the options were open for more dialog. It did not sound like that. It sounded more like this was the Vatican’s final offer.

If that’s the case, they will remain in limbo and the Vatican can even raise the bar as it has done with other groups where the laity has then been told to back away immediately or suffer ecclesial sanctions. There is a canon directed at the laity that says that they may not incite or support those who act contrary to Church authority, this includes the pastor, the bishop, the Roman Curia and the pope. In that canon, it says that the Chuch can impose a penalty on the laity.

That would be very sad. My hope is that it won’t come to this. I’m just warning people that the Vatican can lawfully do this. There is a logic here. You can’t drag this on forever. At some point the Church authorities have to say, “We have better things to do than to sit around trying to make you happy.”

As much as the Church may love the SSPX and want them regularized, the Church has other duties too. It cannot spend an inordinate amount of time on one group at the risk of neglecting others.

Having said that, I’m told by my friend who’s an SSPX priest that to many of the priests, this is a top priority and there are many who are ready to walk, if the SSPX authorities do not resolve this. Apparently, everything is not sunny in paradise. They seem to have some problems with many priests. There are some who are talking about joining the FSSP. That number may grow if the SSPX bishops don’t close this deal.

There seems to be a younger generation who joined the SSPX believing that the end to the problem is at hand. If this does not happen, these young men are going to be very disappointed.

That’s why I keep warning you guys, don’t talk for the SSPX. Back off. Let them talk. I believe that the lay faithful are inadvertently doing them harm. My friend once said to me that the biggest problem that they have with the mainstream bishops is that their own people have built a very negative reputation for them. One priest told me that much of what they do and say is at the behest of lay people who push them. It’s starting to feel wrong to them.

This often happens. There is that saying that the squeaky wheel gets the oil. However, sometimes the squeeky wheel is very selfish and it’s only one wheel. It’s the old thing about that silent majority.

I truly believe that there is a silent majority of lay faithful who just want their old mass, devotions and their peace and quiet. They don’t really care about what the Church said at Vatican I, II or III. Those are issues for theologians and bishops and they rather not be caught in the middle of that. These people suffer while a very vociferous, but small group goes around giving the entire SSPX a very bad name.

I think that Pope Benedict is sensitive to these young men. He speaks about them in very affectionate terms and he speaks about not leaving them out there. But we never get to hear what they want. We only get to hear their bishops and a few lay people who blog and post on the internet. I feel badly for these young men. They are stifled into silence.

My hope is that they SSPX leadership does not do something foolish such as pass up the opportunity to bring their young priests home. They also have young sisters and young religious brothers. You don’t do that to the young who are dying to come home and who joined you believing and trusting that you were going to fix the problem.

But the more that the bishops hear from those of you in the secular world, the more tense things get. Right now is not the time to make things tense. The waiting for a response from the SSPX has many people very tense already, especially their young priests, brothers and sisters.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

Not knowing what is in that folder that was handed to the bishop, we don’t know if the options were open for more dialog. It did not sound like that. It sounded more like this was the Vatican’s final offer.

If that’s the case, they will remain in limbo and the Vatican can even raise the bar as it has done with other groups where the laity has then been told to back away immediately or suffer ecclesial sanctions. There is a canon directed at the laity that says that they may not incite or support those who act contrary to Church authority, this includes the pastor, the bishop, the Roman Curia and the pope. In that canon, it says that the Chuch can impose a penalty on the laity.

That would be very sad. My hope is that it won’t come to this. I’m just warning people that the Vatican can lawfully do this. There is a logic here. You can’t drag this on forever. At some point the Church authorities have to say, “We have better things to do than to sit around trying to make you happy.”

As much as the Church may love the SSPX and want them regularized, the Church has other duties too. It cannot spend an inordinate amount of time on one group at the risk of neglecting others.

Having said that, I’m told by my friend who’s an SSPX priest that to many of the priests, this is a top priority and there are many who are ready to walk, if the SSPX authorities do not resolve this. Apparently, everything is not sunny in paradise. They seem to have some problems with many priests. There are some who are talking about joining the FSSP. That number may grow if the SSPX bishops don’t close this deal.

There seems to be a younger generation who joined the SSPX believing that the end to the problem is at hand. If this does not happen, these young men are going to be very disappointed.

That’s why I keep warning you guys, don’t talk for the SSPX. Back off. Let them talk. I believe that the lay faithful are inadvertently doing them harm. My friend once said to me that the biggest problem that they have with the mainstream bishops is that their own people have built a very negative reputation for them. One priest told me that much of what they do and say is at the behest of lay people who push them. It’s starting to feel wrong to them.

This often happens. There is that saying that the squeaky wheel gets the oil. However, sometimes the squeeky wheel is very selfish and it’s only one wheel. It’s the old thing about that silent majority.

I truly believe that there is a silent majority of lay faithful who just want their old mass, devotions and their peace and quiet. They don’t really care about what the Church said at Vatican I, II or III. Those are issues for theologians and bishops and they rather not be caught in the middle of that. These people suffer while a very vociferous, but small group goes around giving the entire SSPX a very bad name.

I think that Pope Benedict is sensitive to these young men. He speaks about them in very affectionate terms and he speaks about not leaving them out there. But we never get to hear what they want. We only get to hear their bishops and a few lay people who blog and post on the internet. I feel badly for these young men. They are stifled into silence.

My hope is that they SSPX leadership does not do something foolish such as pass up the opportunity to bring their young priests home. They also have young sisters and young religious brothers. You don’t do that to the young who are dying to come home and who joined you believing and trusting that you were going to fix the problem.

But the more that the bishops hear from those of you in the secular world, the more tense things get. Right now is not the time to make things tense. The waiting for a response from the SSPX has many people very tense already, especially their young priests, brothers and sisters.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

It’s posts like this that make me really want to make the trip to that SSPX priory and see what the people and the priests there are like. I really want to meet them.
At the first Catholic forum of which I was a part, the SSPX were vilified to an enormous degree. Since my posting in that forum coincided with my ‘conversion’ to a deeper understanding of my Faith, for a long time I had this incredible bias against the SSPX, and in many senses against Traditionalism too. Then, maybe out of my little streak of contrarianism, I went to their websites and read some of their material, and actually started to find out what they had to say. Turns out that a lot of it is pretty reasonably. They aren’t these foaming at the mouth practically in schism arrogant antichrists. Maybe there are a few over there, but by and large they’re just as reasonable as everyone else, albeit with a specific set of beliefs that set them apart in some key ways.
…but then, look at me. I got ‘converted’ to being a traddy and now I’m set apart by a certain set of beliefs as well, and that often puts me at odds with the ‘charismatic’ Catholics and the “there’s no such thing as a badly-celebrated Mass” Catholics and what have you.
I’m rambling yet again, but I mean to say that I’m sure they’re mostly just regular Catholics who happen to really believe that things in the Church are dangerously close to falling off the rails, and are doing their best to stay the course. In many ways I sympathize. Yeah there’s going to be a few bad apples- we’ve got plenty in the Church already and we’ll have many many more over the years. It started with Judas and it’ll end in the Eschaton.

 

[JReducation]

I suppose this is relevant. It’s not just the SSPX that thinks VII should be discussed.

dici.org/en/news/vatican-council-ii-a-debate-that-has-not-taken-place-by-msgr-brunero-gherardini/

No one said that it cannot be discussed. It’s a matter of when, where and how. The Holy Father said this very cleary in his interview for Light of the World.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

It’s posts like this that make me really want to make the trip to that SSPX priory and see what the people and the priests there are like. I really want to meet them.
At the first Catholic forum of which I was a part, the SSPX were vilified to an enormous degree. Since my posting in that forum coincided with my ‘conversion’ to a deeper understanding of my Faith, for a long time I had this incredible bias against the SSPX, and in many senses against Traditionalism too. Then, maybe out of my little streak of contrarianism, I went to their websites and read some of their material, and actually started to find out what they had to say. Turns out that a lot of it is pretty reasonably. They aren’t these foaming at the mouth practically in schism arrogant antichrists. Maybe there are a few over there, but by and large they’re just as reasonable as everyone else, albeit with a specific set of beliefs that set them apart in some key ways.
…but then, look at me. I got ‘converted’ to being a traddy and now I’m set apart by a certain set of beliefs as well, and that often puts me at odds with the ‘charismatic’ Catholics and the “there’s no such thing as a badly-celebrated Mass” Catholics and what have you.
I’m rambling yet again, but I mean to say that I’m sure they’re mostly just regular Catholics who happen to really believe that things in the Church are dangerously close to falling off the rails, and are doing their best to stay the course. In many ways I sympathize. Yeah there’s going to be a few bad apples- we’ve got plenty in the Church already and we’ll have many many more over the years. It started with Judas and it’ll end in the Eschaton.

Just one question . . . what did I say that made you want to go visit?

I’m kind of confused, because I think that I’m pretty objective about them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Will_S]

I have read most public pronouncements from the leadership of the SSPX over the past few years as well as several long interviews with Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger both in English and in German. That’s where I get my sense of the positions of the SSPX on various issues.

As for the distinction between SSPX-affiliated laity and the SSPX members themselves, I fully agree with you Brother JR. I don’t pay attention to the laity or to Bishop Williamson, who is not in the leadership (and I single him out here mainly because he is vocal – publishing his own newsletter – but also because he has had a lot of influence on the SSPX-affiliated laity in the USA).

But on the other hand, there are lots of good video and audio resources from SSPX priests where you can see what they teach in their own chapels. There are no polemics. No bashing. Just solid Catholic sermons and catechesis. And they must take preaching very seriously in SSPX seminaries. I’ve never heard a bad sermon from an SSPX priest. They are collectively the best preachers in the Church, in my opinion.

 

[At_Trent]

They are collectively the best preachers in the Church, in my opinion.

I agree. And it’s because they know what the mission of the Church has always been. The salvation of souls.