SSPX Crisis

[Dee_S]

:coffeeread:A news update for today…

“…the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X…stubbornly refused Benedict’s repeated overtures.”

“Throughout his nearly eight-year pontificate, Benedict invested a large share of his personal charisma and political capital seeking reconciliation with the SSPX…”
**
“The problem for the next pope, however, will be that the SSPX will be no more willing to accept the Vatican’s reconciliation under a new pope than they did under Benedict.”**

“As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict had spent 17 years at the center of Vatican efforts to avoid a permanent break with Lefebvre. When he became pope in 2005, he immediately signaled his desire to close the 1988 schism in an effort to promote unity within the church.”

“… in a letter addressed to all Catholic bishops in March 2009 (after lifting the excommunications, especially of Bishop Williamson)…highlighted Benedict’s isolation, both within the church and wider society: "I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility,” he wrote.

"The pontiff complained of having been “treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint,” for his “gesture of mercy” toward the SSPX bishops. He warned Catholic leaders they risked “biting and devouring” each other “as expression of a poorly understood freedom.”

“Yet, despite his efforts and years of talks, the SSPX refused to budge and to sign a Vatican reconciliation offer.”

"Benedict “had possibly underestimated the divisions within the Society,” says Tornielli. For sure, he adds, “he gave all he could, and even a little more than that.”

"The SSPX negotiations will remain a “wound” for Benedict, according to Giovanni Maria Vian…“He tried to heal this schism, because he is the last pope who has lived through the Council.”
northjersey.com/news/international/195387611_The_pope_s_unfinished_business__Outreach_to_traditionalist_SSPX.html?page=all

 

[GloriaMaria]

:coffeeread:A news update for today…

“…the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X…stubbornly refused Benedict’s repeated overtures.”

“Throughout his nearly eight-year pontificate, Benedict invested a large share of his personal charisma and political capital seeking reconciliation with the SSPX…”
**
“The problem for the next pope, however, will be that the SSPX will be no more willing to accept the Vatican’s reconciliation under a new pope than they did under Benedict.”**

“As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict had spent 17 years at the center of Vatican efforts to avoid a permanent break with Lefebvre. When he became pope in 2005, he immediately signaled his desire to close the 1988 schism in an effort to promote unity within the church.”

“… in a letter addressed to all Catholic bishops in March 2009 (after lifting the excommunications, especially of Bishop Williamson)…highlighted Benedict’s isolation, both within the church and wider society: "I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility,” he wrote.

"The pontiff complained of having been “treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint,” for his “gesture of mercy” toward the SSPX bishops. He warned Catholic leaders they risked “biting and devouring” each other “as expression of a poorly understood freedom.”

“Yet, despite his efforts and years of talks, the SSPX refused to budge and to sign a Vatican reconciliation offer.”

"Benedict “had possibly underestimated the divisions within the Society,” says Tornielli. For sure, he adds, “he gave all he could, and even a little more than that.”

"The SSPX negotiations will remain a “wound” for Benedict, according to Giovanni Maria Vian…“He tried to heal this schism, because he is the last pope who has lived through the Council.”
northjersey.com/news/international/195387611_The_pope_s_unfinished_business__Outreach_to_traditionalist_SSPX.html?page=all

I went online and read the article, which actually wasn’t poorly written for the secular media.

It outlines something which really saddens me. The Holy Father (emeritus) put so much heart, love, effort, everything…into reconciliation and the SSPX treated him with so very little respect. They could have at least deliberated in private, and sent him required responses that met the deadlines given.

Instead, they played double-speak games (like the whole business where they say that they have obviously given the response to Rome, and yet they never sent a response that anyone has heard). And they upped the anti-New Mass and Vatican II criticisms on the front page of the website - these are older articles, that just happened to be pushed to the front of the website.

And His Holiness had to be bent under the weight of all of this effort for children SO VERY UNGRATEFUL…ok, deep breath. I’m sorry for shouting.

 

[Lormar]

I went online and read the article, which actually wasn’t poorly written for the secular media.

It outlines something which really saddens me. The Holy Father (emeritus) put so much heart, love, effort, everything…into reconciliation and the SSPX treated him with so very little respect. They could have at least deliberated in private, and sent him required responses that met the deadlines given.

Instead, they played double-speak games (like the whole business where they say that they have obviously given the response to Rome, and yet they never sent a response that anyone has heard).** And they upped the anti-New Mass and Vatican II criticisms on the front page of the website - these are older articles, that just happened to be pushed to the front of the website. **

And His Holiness had to be bent under the weight of all of this effort for children SO VERY UNGRATEFUL…ok, deep breath. I’m sorry for shouting.

I think they did that to prevent further leakage and breakage. They are falling apart.

I agree with your post. Many years ago, a priest told me that one of the by-products of separating oneself from Rome is lack of charity.

 

[1AugustSon7]

In a situation of radical, revolutionary events there always appear people who start to divide life into ‘before’ and ‘after.’ They want to start counting only from this new point as if everything that happened before had no meaning. When the future Protestants proclaimed the Reformation, I do not think they knew it would lead to the separation of the Western Church into two big camps. They did not realize it, they just acted. And they began to divide those around them into the healthy ones – those who accepted the Reformation – and the unhealthy, sick ones – the followers of Pope.

Moreover, history repeats itself: the same is happening now around the Second Vatican Council within the Roman Catholic Church. There are people who did not accept its decisions and people who consider it to be some kind of a starting point. And everybody reasons along those lines. A simple example: if in a conversation, someone mentions ‘council’ without any additional details, everybody automatically assumes that they are talking about the Second Vatican Council.

How unheard of!
Pope Benedict:

Pope Benedict XVI Christmas Address to Roman Curia, December 2005:

The last event of this year on which I wish to reflect here is the celebration of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago. This memory prompts the question: What has been the result of the Council? Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken? What still remains to be done? No one can deny that in vast areas of the Church the implementation of the Council has been somewhat difficult, even without wishing to apply to what occurred in these years **the description that St Basil, the great Doctor of the Church, made of the Church’s situation after the Council of Nicea: he compares her situation to a naval battle in the darkness of the storm, saying among other things: “The raucous shouting of those who through disagreement rise up against one another, the incomprehensible chatter, the confused din of uninterrupted clamouring, has now filled almost the whole of the Church, falsifying through excess or failure the right doctrine of the faith…” **(De Spiritu Sancto, XXX, 77; PG 32, 213 A; SCh 17 ff., p. 524).

 

[msokeefe]

Here is some interesting info:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130214_clero-roma_en.html

His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith:

Ranjith opposes the reception of Communion in the hand and standing, once saying, “I think it is high time to…abandon the current practice that was not called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium, nor by Fathers, but was only accepted after its illegitimate introduction in some countries.” A staunch supporter of the Tridentine Mass, Ranjith once said that bishops who opposed Summorum Pontificum were allowing themselves to be “used as instruments of the devil,” accusing them of “disobedience…and even rebellion against the Pope.” He once said, "I’m not a fan of the Lefebvrians…but what they sometimes say about the liturgy they say for good reason

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Ranjith

 

[JReducation]

I think they did that to prevent further leakage and breakage. They are falling apart.

I agree with your post. Many years ago, a priest told me that one of the by-products of separating oneself from Rome is lack of charity.

Every Monday night I have a three hour talk with my brothers. We call it the community chapter, not to be confused with a general chapter or an electoral chapter. Last Monday, my talk was on the abdication by the former Pope Benedict. I told my brothers,

"You cannot separate obedience to Peter from obedience to God. Christ did not suggest that Peter run his Church. He imposed Peter on the Church. Such a distinction is a false one. To attempt to circumvent Peter in order to obey Christ is contrary to the nature of the Church. The Church is the body and Christ is her head. She is the bride and Christ is the groom. We cannot separate the pope from God anymore than we can separate the body from the head without killing the person. Nor can will separate the pope from Christ anymore than we can separate the messenger from the message, unless he is not a real messenger.

Therefore, whether he be a fool or a scholar, as saint or a sinner, Peter remains the visible head of the body and bride of Christ. He remains the messenger through whom Christ delivers his message.

As our father Francis taught us, obedience is the highest of all virtues and the greatest expression of poverty. For there is no greater poverty than to surrender one’s will to the will of God. The only thing that we can say is contrary to the will of God is sin. Anything else is pure speculation on our part. Speculation does not justify disobedience."

Please excuse me for quoting myself. But I have prayed and thought about this for a long time. I cannot see it any other way. You cannot obey God and disobey the man who sits in the Chair of Peter, unless he asks you to commit a real sin. The last five popes have not asked for or commanded anything sinful.

 

[Dee_S]

"You cannot separate obedience to Peter from obedience to God. Christ did not suggest that Peter run his Church. He imposed Peter on the Church. Such a distinction is a false one. To attempt to circumvent Peter in order to obey Christ is contrary to the nature of the Church. The Church is the body and Christ is her head. She is the bride and Christ is the groom. We cannot separate the pope from God anymore than we can separate the body from the head without killing the person. Nor can will separate the pope from Christ anymore than we can separate the messenger from the message, unless he is not a real messenger.

Therefore, whether he be a fool or a scholar, as saint or a sinner, Peter remains the visible head of the body and bride of Christ. He remains the messenger through whom Christ delivers his message.

"…You cannot obey God and disobey the man who sits in the Chair of Peter, unless he asks you to commit a real sin. The last five popes have not asked for or commanded anything sinful."

 

[Dee_S]

Here is some interesting info:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130214_clero-roma_en.html

His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith:

Ranjith opposes the reception of Communion in the hand and standing, once saying, “I think it is high time to…abandon the current practice that was not called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium, nor by Fathers, but was only accepted after its illegitimate introduction in some countries.” A staunch supporter of the Tridentine Mass, Ranjith once said that bishops who opposed Summorum Pontificum were allowing themselves to be “used as instruments of the devil,” accusing them of “disobedience…and even rebellion against the Pope.” He once said, "I’m not a fan of the Lefebvrians…but what they sometimes say about the liturgy they say for good reason

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Ranjith

:thumbsup:thanks for this link to Pope Benedict’s audience with parish priests on Thursday 14 February 2013 - he discusses Vatican II Council, calling the de-railing of it the “Council of the media”, stating that it is now “broken” and the true renewal is taking shape…

Your Eminence,
Dear Brother Bishops and Priests,

“For me it is a particular gift of Providence that, before leaving the Petrine ministry, I can once more see my clergy, the clergy of Rome. **It is always a great joy to see the living Church, to see how the Church in Rome is alive; there are shepherds here who guide the Lord’s flock in the spirit of the supreme Shepherd. **It is a body of clergy that is truly Catholic, universal, in accordance with the essence of the Church of Rome: to bear within itself the universality, the catholicity of all nations, all races, all cultures.”

“We know that this ‘Council of the media’ was accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy … and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real force of the Council was present and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church.”

“It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force. And it is our task, especially in this * Year of Faith*, on the basis of this Year of Faith, to work so that the true Council, with its power of the Holy Spirit, be accomplished and the Church be truly renewed. Let us hope that that the Lord will assist us.** I myself, secluded in prayer, will always be with you and together let us go forward with the Lord in the certainty that the Lord will conquer.** Thank you!”
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130214_clero-roma_en.html

 

[Lormar]

Every Monday night I have a three hour talk with my brothers. We call it the community chapter, not to be confused with a general chapter or an electoral chapter. Last Monday, my talk was on the abdication by the former Pope Benedict. I told my brothers,

"You cannot separate obedience to Peter from obedience to God. Christ did not suggest that Peter run his Church. He imposed Peter on the Church. Such a distinction is a false one. To attempt to circumvent Peter in order to obey Christ is contrary to the nature of the Church. The Church is the body and Christ is her head. She is the bride and Christ is the groom. We cannot separate the pope from God anymore than we can separate the body from the head without killing the person. Nor can will separate the pope from Christ anymore than we can separate the messenger from the message, unless he is not a real messenger.

Therefore, whether he be a fool or a scholar, as saint or a sinner, Peter remains the visible head of the body and bride of Christ. He remains the messenger through whom Christ delivers his message.

As our father Francis taught us, obedience is the highest of all virtues and the greatest expression of poverty. For there is no greater poverty than to surrender one’s will to the will of God. The only thing that we can say is contrary to the will of God is sin. Anything else is pure speculation on our part. Speculation does not justify disobedience."

Please excuse me for quoting myself. But I have prayed and thought about this for a long time. I cannot see it any other way. You cannot obey God and disobey the man who sits in the Chair of Peter, unless he asks you to commit a real sin. The last five popes have not asked for or commanded anything sinful.

Dear Brother, feel free to quote yourself as much as you like!!

For there is no greater poverty than to surrender one’s will to the will of God.

A lot of food for meditation in that sentence.

 

[Edward_H]

What real fruit are they bearing for the whole Church, and the rest of the World?

They probably need better PR but to me they seem like a tempest in their own teapot…and no one else would notice the loss if they wholly fell of the vine.

 

[JReducation]

What real fruit are they bearing for the whole Church, and the rest of the World?

They probably need better PR but to me they seem like a tempest in their own teapot…and no one else would notice the loss if they wholly fell of the vine.

I don’t know about that either. Many people are very attached to them. Some of them are very kind men. It’s the angry ones and the indiscreet ones who frighten me.

 

[Moore11]

…and no one else would notice the loss if they wholly fell of the vine.

The SSPX says a lot of provocative stuff. Sometimes some members can spew some downright nasty things. I think the above quote shows that certainly both “sides” are capable of saying uncharitable, things based only on a narrow opinion.

 

[freshwind]

…and no one else would notice the loss if they wholly fell of the vine.

The SSPX says a lot of provocative stuff. Sometimes some members can spew some downright nasty things. I think the above quote shows that certainly both “sides” are capable of saying uncharitable, things based only on a narrow opinion.

agreed…and who would notice if they are lost? the Good Shepherd, Jesus would…

 

[Lormar]

The truth is that if things continue going the way they are in the SSPX, there won’t be any SSPX to return to the Church. As it is, they are falling apart, as the old saying goes, at the seams. Bishop Fellay has a revolution on his hands that isn’t getting any better, only worse with each passing week.