SSPX not likely to 'come home'

[TrueLight]

Why do you think people will be cheering? This is not a sports competition where defeat of the other team is cause for celebration.

You can’t speak for everybody.

Can you tell me of a time when the Church was not in a crisis in its 2000 year history? I think people should stop pretending that the Church was perfect and immaculate from Pentecost 33AD to 1962. The Church have gone through worse times than the last 50 years.

I’m going to blog on this in a couple of days. Stay tuned.

 

[TrueLight]

The SSPX should be formally kicked out and tell them, “we’ll be waiting for you with open arms when you are ready to accept OUR terms.”

I’m glad you’re not part of the Pope’s council.

Why do you think people will be cheering? This is not a sports competition where defeat of the other team is cause for celebration.

Maybe you’re not. You can’t speak for everyone. I know what I’ve seen. And if it doesn’t happen like you want it to?

Can you tell me of a time when the Church was not in a crisis in its 2000 year history? I think people should stop pretending that the Church was perfect and immaculate from Pentecost 33AD to 1962. The Church have gone through worse times than the last 50 years.

Since an articulate poster recently said this, everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. If you search through countless CAF posts, the official forum posters’ line , up until that post, was that there is no crisis.

But I have a blog post coming up that addresses your question. Stay tuned.

 

[TrueLight]

The ironic and annoying thing is that when I am rarely on FE or when I am speaking to laity who attend SSPX chapels, I am often disagreeing with SSPX followers and when I’m on here, I end up defending the good name of these priests because of the wholesale, anti-traditionalist attitudes.

Yes, the SSPX are disobedient and that is wrong. That doesn’t negate the fact that they deserve a nod for preserving our traditional liturgy and Catholic practices.

DiNoia admits as much in the article.

And the Holy See could have put down the hammer a long time ago. Think about why it hasn’t.

These kinds of threads continue to be a near occasion of sin for me, so I’ll take a break. Have fun.

 

[jam070406]

Yes, it must be a “progressive” plot. Because the Pope and Cardinal Levada are progressives, right?

Pope Benedict wants the SSPX back. There have been quotes, of those closer to the situation then you and I, that there are those that are trying to derail unity. Call it what you want. Dismissing it with cute litte quips doesn’t change reality. Perhaps you are unaware of the power struggles going on within the Vatican that have been in the news. Certainly there are those working against the Pope’s wishes, not just in this area. To think that everyone is in Curia is in perfect harmony working with the Pope, and against the SSPX is naive.

 

[jam070406]

The ironic and annoying thing is that when I am rarely on FE or when I am speaking to laity who attend SSPX chapels, I am often disagreeing with SSPX followers and when I’m on here, I end up defending the good name of these priests because of the wholesale, anti-traditionalist attitudes.

Yes, the SSPX are disobedient and that is wrong. That doesn’t negate the fact that they deserve a nod for preserving our traditional liturgy and Catholic practices.

DiNoia admits as much in the article.

And the Holy See could have put down the hammer a long time ago. Think about why it hasn’t.

These kinds of threads continue to be a near occasion of sin for me, so I’ll take a break. Have fun.

I agree. There is such disdain for the SSPX that this issue will never be discussed rationally or calmly. It’s best to walk away.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

There is such disdain for the SSPX that this issue will never be discussed rationally or calmly.

That may be true for and with some, but not all. I for one had no particular interest in this issue until I was exposed to some of the more extreme positions, pro and con, often seen, heard and read in connection with SSPX. I simply could not understand why this was such a lightning rod of an issue until I explored this is more depth (an onging effort).

I would only offer this for consideration. I belong to a particular Eastern Catholic Church that has had more than its fair share of problems within the Catholic Communion. There are those that left the Church out of sheer frustration, angered that the Church broke its promises and with no hope of success in appealing to Rome. There were fraternal organizations formed that were openly hostile to Church authority, and promoted disobedience as a form of protest. Ultimately, the situation became irreconcilable, and large numbers left the Church.

Yet, there were those who also felt strongly about the issues that were matters of contention, yet remained fiercely loyal to the Church despite the differences and strong sentiments. Ironically, prompted anew by Vatican II, the Eastern Catholic Churches began a process of renewal that continues to this day, which has addressed a fair number of these concerns, with some left for further progress and healing. BTW - this course has now run for nearly a century, and most of the forward progress has occured over the last 20 years or so.

Many of you have some familiarity with this history (much abbreviated above). For those that do, who would you say took the more noble path?

In the eyes of those who remained faithful - is everything perfect? No. Have all the matters that created such divisiveness been satisfactorily resolved? Hardly. Are they being actively addressed? Depends on the subject and persons involved, and the particular EC Church being referenced, as each have taken their own approach at times.

Does the Church ignore these issues? No. Does the Church afford these issues the importance we feel they deserve? Sometimes, but they are certainly not forgotten.

But, much like any venerable and ancient organization, the Church moves slowly. Progress is often chronolgically marked by generations, not weeks, months and years.

Yet progress is made, and the Church renews itself for the greater good and the glory of God.

Just some food for thought, and my :twocents: …

May God protect His Holy Church and unite us, in fulfillment of Christ’s own prayer that we all be as one.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m glad you’re not part of the Pope’s council.

Maybe I should be

Tough love is in order.

Maybe you’re not. You can’t speak for everyone. I know what I’ve seen. And if it doesn’t happen like you want it to?

Well, “fanboyism” can be found on both sides. Pride is inherent with our fallen nature.

Since an articulate poster recently said this, everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. If you search through countless CAF posts, the official forum posters’ line , up until that post, was that there is no crisis.

But I have a blog post coming up that addresses your question. Stay tuned.

I’m good. As you know I’ve been reading a lot of the Church in the First Millennium lately. So far from what I have read, the Church have been having a relatively great time the last 50 years. We don’t have 3 bishops claiming to be Popes. We do not have heretics deposing the Pope. We do not have orthodox bishops and priests being put in prison for upholding orthodoxy. We’re not selling indulgences which lead to the Reformation. We’re talking to the Orthodox, not excommunicating them or sacking Constantinople. Really, if one thinks the last 50 years is such a huge crisis, perhaps its time to read more history.

 

[Denise1957]

Dear Denise,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response, dear sister, and the kind words regarding my post.

Indeed, you are quite right, dear sister, the phenomenal impact of the permissive 1960’s did effect great changes within the Western world. The sad legacy of the sexual revolution is to be seen all around us today and we are paying a jolly heavy price because of that ‘whole generation with a new explanation’. Now men are confused and are drifting rudderless on a sea of moral uncertainty. Moreover, notwithstanding the quest for happiness people are not happier, in fact they are more restless and discontented than ever. Men and women have also become more brash and fierce in recent years and civil behaviour is becoming uncommon now.

Yes, dear sister, to be a true Catholic today means swimming against the stream of moral and cultural deterioration and daring to be different. That takes courage and humble submission to our Lord in love and obedience. Unfortunately, many modern Catholics want to give to religion as little as possible, but they still expect much from it, inspite of their worldliness and spiritual torpor.

The Catholic Church should be the beacon on the hilllside attracting the attention of all men, continually “reproving, rebuking and exhorting” (II Tim. 4: 2). When the decadent culture of the 1960’s emerged it should have been nipped in the bud by stern condemnation and faithful moral teaching. Sadly, this did not happen anywhere on the scale that it should have and even now we have a timid leadership, thus it is hardly surprising that men are not attracted to those who do not believe in the righteousness of their own cause. Could this be the reason why Muslim mosques are being errected all over Europe, while the Catholic Church declines in faith and practice? It seems to many that our Church is intent on arriving at the lowest common denominator, so as to be credible and attractive to the secular world, not appearing to austere and prudish. This is a grave error, whatever happened to the notion of providing a vibrant Christian counter-culture?

The Catholic Church’s understanding of God and mankind is correct, yet some modern Catholics are going everywhere to find themselves, or so they say, and to find a new perspective on God, but they should listen to the authentic voice of the Magisterium. Dissenting Catholicism, dear sister, is taking root everywhere, in seminars, religious houses and universities, and many priests are under enormous pressure and frequently buckle and go along with it. All of this is a great tragedy and is cause enough to be very heavyhearted. Yes, indeed, God is aware of what is going on within his Church and the abounding compromise with the world. However, many of us are thoroughly convinced that the days ahead will be a time of great trial for earnest orthodox Catholics and men will be compelled to nail their colours to the mast.

As regards Cherie Blair and her husband, they, and others like them, are convinced that the Church will eventually embrace a more liberal stance, and the way things are going presently who can blame them for entertaining such a view. They know what the Church teaches, but willfully refuse to submit and obey that teaching, believing that one day the Church will be made in their image.

We must not loose heart, as you say, for the “gates of hell” will never prevail against the one true Church of Christ (S. Matt. 16: 18), even if that Church does become a very small in number. Christ predicted that, as the world grows old and His Second Advent is delayed, faith in the promised deliverance will wax dim, and men will begin to faint instead of praying without ceasing. Those faithful who endure unto the end, steadfst in hope, unshaken in confidence, will be very small remnant (cf. S. Lk. 18: 8).

God bless, my dear sister.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

Thank you for your response, Portrait.

I think that the situation in the UK seems to be worse than here in the U.S., but I may be wrong about that. Surely it is a difficult time to be a Catholic there. You mentioned that Mosques are going up all over Europe. I can see how that would be distressing, especially for a formerly Catholic country, such as England. Here in the U.S., which was never a Catholic country (though it was Catholics who originally settled here, at first), the situation may be better.

I listen a lot to EWTN radio and its affiliates. I find that when Catholics call in from all over the country, most have a good understanding of Church teaching, and are trying to follow it faithfully. Some calls deal with trying to live the faith in uncertain times. One of my favorite guest commentators is Mother Miraim of the Lamb of God, a convert who is Jewish, and she founded a group of women religious called Daughters of Mary, Mother of Israel’s hope, based in Oklahoma. Here’s a link:

ncregister.com/daily-news/rosalind-moss-unexpected-journey/

Also in Oklahoma is clear Creek abbey, who are Benedictines who celebrate the EF. Here’s a link

clearcreekmonks.org/

Also, there’s Dom Mark Kirby, who founded Silverstream Priory originally in Oklahoma, but who recently moved the Priory to Ireland. There weren’t enough men joining the Priory in Oklahoma, so he moved. He didn’t give up, but rather moved to an area which is in great need of people who will stand up for the Catholic faith. Here’s a link:

cenacleosb.org/

I mention these examples so that you can see that even in an area where there are few Catholics, Catholics of great faith remain firm and steady. In Oklahoma, Catholics are a definate minority. Instead of Mosques, there are mostly Baptists and Pentacostals. In a sense, it’s a great time to be a Catholic, because we can offer an example to others without becoming or appearing austere or prudish, but cheerful in our modesty and civility. We can still be a contradiction to the dominant culture, and remain hopeful, which provides a HUGE challenge to growing in holiness, but it can be done, with God’s help.

I’ll give my take on the SSPX situation. I agree with the OP that the SSPX will not likely ‘come home.’ There are many good priests and faithful there, but since they will not likely be allowed to speak in terms of “errors of the Council,” which in part defines who they are, they will not likely reconcile, unfortunately. I hope I am wrong.

 

[jam070406]

That may be true for and with some, but not all. I for one had no particular interest in this issue until I was exposed to some of the more extreme positions, pro and con, often seen, heard and read in connection with SSPX. I simply could not understand why this was such a lightning rod of an issue until I explored this is more depth (an onging effort).

I would only offer this for consideration. I belong to a particular Eastern Catholic Church that has had more than its fair share of problems within the Catholic Communion. There are those that left the Church out of sheer frustration, angered that the Church broke its promises and with no hope of success in appealing to Rome. There were fraternal organizations formed that were openly hostile to Church authority, and promoted disobedience as a form of protest. Ultimately, the situation became irreconcilable, and large numbers left the Church.

Yet, there were those who also felt strongly about the issues that were matters of contention, yet remained fiercely loyal to the Church despite the differences and strong sentiments. Ironically, prompted anew by Vatican II, the Eastern Catholic Churches began a process of renewal that continues to this day, which has addressed a fair number of these concerns, with some left for further progress and healing. BTW - this course has now run for nearly a century, and most of the forward progress has occured over the last 20 years or so.

Many of you have some familiarity with this history (much abbreviated above). For those that do, who would you say took the more noble path?

In the eyes of those who remained faithful - is everything perfect? No. Have all the matters that created such divisiveness been satisfactorily resolved? Hardly. Are they being actively addressed? Depends on the subject and persons involved, and the particular EC Church being referenced, as each have taken their own approach at times.

Does the Church ignore these issues? No. Does the Church afford these issues the importance we feel they deserve? Sometimes, but they are certainly not forgotten.

But, much like any venerable and ancient organization, the Church moves slowly. Progress is often chronolgically marked by generations, not weeks, months and years.

Yet progress is made, and the Church renews itself for the greater good and the glory of God.

Just some food for thought, and my :twocents: …

May God protect His Holy Church and unite us, in fulfillment of Christ’s own prayer that we all be as one.

I understand what you are saying.
But I think you underestimate the SSPX. I also believe people project an intent on them that comes from a judgmental spirit out of dislike for them. You mention disobedience but never give credit for their desire at unity. If they were really bent on disobedience they could very well go their way. Like the old Catholics. I also think that those that heap such judgment on them don’t stop to think of the working of the Holy Spirit in them to bring them even to this point. You are fortunate that VII that called for you to return to your roots. I don’t think the SSPX would object to this. Their concerns are very specific and p(name removed by moderator)ointed to areas they feel are a break from Tradition. It’s very telling that the head of the CDF stated that the faith is viewed differently now and that the SSPX needs to converted to this new way of thinking. Image if Rome said we needed to convert the ECs to our way of thinking!
Just like you, the SSPX wants to retain their traditions. I would think that someone like you could appreciate that. The difference is, the SSPX would feel a greater impact against their traditions then your EC church. That’s my 2 cents.

 

[pnewton]

Interestingly, Archbishop Di Noia says the church is in fact in crisis in this recent interview.

This is a good interview which acknowledges some of the concerns of the SSPX but also is firm that the SSPX needs to reconcile.

Di Noia Interview.

I went to your link. No where does AB DiNoia say the Church is in crisis, according to a word search I did. Might I ask what statement you took to derive this opinion?

 

[TrueLight]

I went to your link. No where does AB DiNoia say the Church is in crisis, according to a word search I did. Might I ask what statement you took to derive this opinion?

And yet they argue it does?

This is a very good example of two of the things we’ve mentioned: the danger of reading this as it’s been read by Rahner, instead of in the light of the whole Tradition.

**They claim that salvation is hardly proclaimed anymore.
**
Ralph Martin agrees with that. We do have a crisis, because the Church has been infected with the idea that we don’t have to worry or be anxious or we don’t sufficiently take the mandate to proclaim Christ seriously. But it’s not because of Vatican II, but bad theology. That’s why Dominus Iesus was part of the response to all of that theology of religion. There is no question that the necessity of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus has a long history. But they were talking about heretics, not nonbelievers. That formula addresses the problems of heresies. It has its history.

As I said, I’m taking a break, but I didn’t want this question hanging as if I’m making things up.

 

[jam070406]

Maybe I should be

Tough love is in order.

Well, “fanboyism” can be found on both sides. Pride is inherent with our fallen nature.

I’m good. As you know I’ve been reading a lot of the Church in the First Millennium lately. So far from what I have read, the Church have been having a relatively great time the last 50 years. We don’t have 3 bishops claiming to be Popes. We do not have heretics deposing the Pope. We do not have orthodox bishops and priests being put in prison for upholding orthodoxy. We’re not selling indulgences which lead to the Reformation. We’re talking to the Orthodox, not excommunicating them or sacking Constantinople. Really, if one thinks the last 50 years is such a huge crisis, perhaps its time to read more history.

I beg to differ. We are now seeing remnants of the Faith in what were once Christian nations. Silent apostasy and dissent against moral teaching everywhere. Factions of the Church on the brink of schism over homosexuality, women priests etc. Some places as low as 15% attending Mass. Pro abortion Catholics. Those that believe there is no crisis have their head in the sand.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I beg to differ. We are now seeing remnants of the Faith in what were once Christian nations.

And at different times of the Church’s history it has happened. When Islam conquered the Middle East, when the Reformation happened, etc.

Silent apostasy and dissent against moral teaching everywhere.

Happened in the past too. Martin Luther, Arius, Nestorius, etc.

Factions of the Church on the brink of schism over homosexuality, women priests etc. Some places as low as 15% attending Mass. Pro abortion Catholics.

I heard King Henry was a pro-divorce Catholic. Again, none of this is new. Besides, there were no statistics in the 1500s. How did you know that only a certain percentage attended Mass then?

Those that believe there is no crisis have their head in the sand.

That is not me. I never said there was no crisis. I said that there was never a time that the Church was not in crisis. We are in crisis. But let us not pretend that we are only in crisis today. Every generation brings a new crisis to the Church.

 

[jam070406]

And at different times of the Church’s history it has happened. When Islam conquered the Middle East, when the Reformation happened, etc.

Happened in the past too. Martin Luther, Arius, Nestorius, etc.

I heard King Henry was a pro-divorce Catholic. Again, none of this is new. Besides, there were no statistics in the 1500s. How did you know that only a certain percentage attended Mass then?

That is not me. I never said there was no crisis. I said that there was never a time that the Church was not in crisis. We are in crisis. But let us not pretend that we are only in crisis today. Every generation brings a new crisis to the Church.

I think we’re talking past each other. I’m aware the Church had issues in the past. It doesn’t soften or dismiss the current situation. Or make it less serious. It still has to be dealt with.

 

[awkwardcustomer]

To anyone who has replied to my comments, my apologies for not responding. I’ve just joined Catholic Answers and can’t work out how the system operates. I keep going round in circles, getting lost, messing up. I will keep trying and in the meantime, sorry!

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think we’re talking past each other. I’m aware the Church had issues in the past. It doesn’t soften or dismiss the current situation. Or make it less serious. It still has to be dealt with.

Oh definitely. But its just concerning that people seem to make it seem worse today than at any point of the Church’s history. There has certainly been worse times.

 

[Big_Feet]

I think we’re talking past each other. I’m aware the Church had issues in the past. It doesn’t soften or dismiss the current situation. Or make it less serious. It still has to be dealt with.

(emphasis mine)

The Church IS dealing with it. Sometimes things take time. The Church cannot just snap it’s preverbal fingers and make something as serious as this go away instantaneously. It never has been able to do that. It must gently redirect the faithful (clergy and laity) back to the truth from their errors.

 

[Zosimus41]

catholicnewsagency.com/news/sspx-letter-indicates-refusal-of-vatican-reconciliation-document/

Oof. Not good prospects. Praying for reconciliation with Rome.

Please receive your sacraments from a ‘legitimate’ source. Your soul is at stake!

As I stated early on. I doubt it would happed any time soon. New generations of SSPX still carry a deep seated dislike for the vatican II. Even call into question if there has been a true pope since vatican II. I visited an SSPX mass once the priest said he doubted if the transubstantiation even occurs in the new mass.

These people are taught and understand the disagreement between the church and them and stand by their opinions whole heartedly.

SSPX believe Vatican II was invalid or even heretical.As long as the vatican insist their acceptance of the validity for vatican II I dont think they are going to agree. Maybe agree to disagree.

When and if it ever comes down to them needing money just to survive then they will sign on with the vatican. Sadley in my humble opinion I think theres just too much they disagree with for them to “just give in” and come home. It has to be on mother churches terms.

 

[jam070406]

(emphasis mine)

The Church IS dealing with it. Sometimes things take time. The Church cannot just snap it’s preverbal fingers and make something as serious as this go away instantaneously. It never has been able to do that. It must gently redirect the faithful (clergy and laity) back to the truth from their errors.

Why is that only the SSPX should be served stern discipline, yet dissenters from moral Teaching should be treated “gentle”?

The attitude around here is … cut those Pharisee type SSPX loose!

 

[jam070406]

As I stated early on. I doubt it would happed any time soon. New generations of SSPX still carry a deep seated dislike for the vatican II. Even call into question if there has been a true pope since vatican II. I visited an SSPX mass once the priest said he doubted if the transubstantiation even occurs in the new mass.

These people are taught and understand the disagreement between the church and them and stand by their opinions whole heartedly.

SSPX believe Vatican II was invalid or even heretical.As long as the vatican insist their acceptance of the validity for vatican II I dont think they are going to agree. Maybe agree to disagree.

When and if it ever comes down to them needing money just to survive then they will sign on with the vatican. Sadley in my humble opinion I think theres just too much they disagree with for them to “just give in” and come home. It has to be on mother churches terms.

There are folks within the Catholic Church that hold kooky ideas. Individual kooky ideas does not an official stance of a society make.