SSPX not likely to 'come home'

[jam070406]

No, the SSPX don’t have their own tradition, they follow some traditions (for them strongly defined as anything pre-VII) of the Roman Catholic Church. The EF is a rite of the Roman Church, not their own.

Never said the EF was their own. I agree with you. BUT, it was a tradition of the Church that was cast away and that the SSPX were instrumental in preserving. It wasn’t till the generosity of the current Pope that many within the Church were able to experience the EF. I think this was a strategic move on the part of the Holy Father, who has always had a place in his heart for the SSPX and their love of the EF, to drawing them back.

They’re not like the former Anglicans who got an entire structure to allow for them to continue some traditions. The SSPX can continue what they do within the mainstream Church.

Well, we know the Pope wishes they continue using the EF in the mainstream Church. But there is no denying that there is resistance to the EF in circles within the Church. This is what they are on guard about. They want the Holy Father to assure them that what they have fought for will not be in danger. Not in an arrogant way but in a apprehensive way. I truly believe they are waiting on the Pope as a loving Father to say, fear not.

But it is amazing the drama people cook up on the Internet.

Fellay has shown nothing but respect and kind words for the Pope through this.

 

[jam070406]

I do indeed. That is why I became interested in this issue to begin with. My only point, for consideration, is that other groups have gone through similar trials.

In the case of my own EC’s history, there was plenty of ill-fated reaction and response from all sides - Church, clergy and laity. The results were not good, and the damage is still being undone. Yet it is the Church and those faithful who remained who are responsible for this progress. A complete rupture would not have yielded the same result.

And my friend, I don’t see how anyone at this stage is saying that the SSPX and it’s members have to surrender their traditions (really, a subset of Catholic tradition, no?). The situation seems to be well pass that. But basic obedience, respect for the broader traditions of the Church, and a commitment to handle differences “in the family” so to speak, do not seem unreasonable from a lay Catholic perspective.

There may likely be more to the story, and it does seem that His Holiness is most willing to see this through, despite everything, yet it is difficult at times (for me, at least) to fully appreciate the SSPX position.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions here. We are not privy to private conversations. We can’t rely on armchair quarterbacks who are sometimes bias.
You assume that they lack basic obedience while, in my eyes, obedience is THE MAIN eliminate driving their desire to reconcile. If they had lack of basic obedience there would be not motivating factor. What else what the motivating factor be? They could go on their way like the old Catholics.
You’re also saying nobody wants them to surrender their traditions. Which may be easy for an outsider to say but to them it’s a serious issue they want the Holy Father to protect.
Like I said, we are not privy to private conversations.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions here. We are not privy to private conversations.

Indeed we are not privy, as I openly acknowledged in the closing of the referenced post.

You may think I am “assuming” because admittedly I have expressed reservation here regarding that which creates division in the Church (real, perceived or otherwise), but I’m really not assuming anything. I have only considered statements from either party which are verified, public statements that are well quoted or, better yet, recorded “for posterity”. As an independent-minded person of conscience, I accept no other basis on which to form an opinion.

That said, it is clear that there are extremes even within the SSPX, and Bishop Fellay cannot be in an easy position, but he is the one to whom all look at this point. When objections are raised, no one but Bishop Fellay himself truly knows whether those objections are his alone, or those of other senior colleagues which he cannot overcome. If there are indeed conversations to which none of us are privy, it is those.

I do pray this can be resolved. As I seem to have offended here for expressing even a modestly worded note on another scenario where passions ran high and damage ensued, I’ll now bow out and continue to pray that this can be resolved, trusting in God, Pope Benedict’s appointment of Abp. DiNoia, and in the good intentions of Bishop Fellay.

 

[OurBeloved]

I must admit to being a little confused by this response. I specifically said I was not trying to belittle the importance of the homily and priests being faithful to the magisterium and so teach accordingly.

Well you were. You were trying to say that the faithful can merely turn to the Catechism or some other church document. You might have then added a caveat but that does nothing to lessen what you said or the implications of it.

Also I do not see how me disagreeing with your understanding of modest dress has anything to do with my post, or even this thread. I believe the forum rules prohibit bringing discussions from one thread into another.

Perhaps this is why you are finding this so bizarre. The whole reason why you are in a crisis, as I already mentioned is because none of the priests have told you anything consistent. They simply don’t know or simply don’t care to tell the congregation about it. It’s not like modesty isn’t a great issue in the West either. Doesn’t it surprise you that not many bishops or priests are up in arms about it? People comes in all states of undress to the church for mass but the priest doesn’t say anything. Now that is some serious incompetence.

Anyway, unless you have an actual counter argument at this point, I don’t think there is anything more to say.

 

[thewanderer]

Well you were. You were trying to say that the faithful can merely turn to the Catechism or some other church document. You might have then added a caveat but that does nothing to lessen what you said or the implications of it.

This is not what I said. If you note what I actually wrote I said that preists’ teaching is one of the main ways that the faithful learn their faith. I pointed out the advantages we have today of not having to rely solely on the priests homily for our faith formation, we can all do the research ourselves if we so wish. You surely recognize the fact that not every priest will preach without error. This has been true throughout the history of the Church. Priests spreading error is not a new phenomenon. The great thing about today is that its fairly easy to get a look at the actual texts put forward by the magisterium so that you can help determine when a priest is in error. Blindly following priests is really not the best way to rid the Church of errors.

Perhaps this is why you are finding this so bizarre. The whole reason why you are in a crisis, as I already mentioned is because none of the priests have told you anything consistent. They simply don’t know or simply don’t care to tell the congregation about it. It’s not like modesty isn’t a great issue in the West either. Doesn’t it surprise you that not many bishops or priests are up in arms about it? People comes in all states of undress to the church for mass but the priest doesn’t say anything. Now that is some serious incompetence.

Anyway, unless you have an actual counter argument at this point, I don’t think there is anything more to say.

OurBeloved, not only are you dragging our discussion from a previous thread into one completely unrelated to it, which is against forum rules, you are doing so by presuming that I am in some sort of ‘crises’ which is far from the case and the only reason I can possibly think that you would continue to talk about it this way is to make it look as though my opinion is worth less because I am simply too confused to know what I am talking about. I do not appreciate people attempting to belittle me and my thoughts. If you wish to discuss this publicly please return to the thread in which we previously had our discussion, as I recall you left some questions of mine unanswered there.

 

[Stylites]

The whole reason why you are in a crisis, as I already mentioned is because none of the priests have told you anything consistent. They simply don’t know or simply don’t care to tell the congregation about it. It’s not like modesty isn’t a great issue in the West either. Doesn’t it surprise you that not many bishops or priests are up in arms about it? People comes in all states of undress to the church for mass but the priest doesn’t say anything. Now that is some serious incompetence.

I’ve heard it spoken from the pulpit: “If you don’t like the state of vocations today and think you could do a better job, then step forward and become a priest yourself.” Seems like more of the charitable and prudent thing to do rather than immodestly moan and bellow and rant and smear from the sidelines.

 

[OurBeloved]

This is not what I said. If you note what I actually wrote I said that preists’ teaching is one of the main ways that the faithful learn their faith. I pointed out the advantages we have today of not having to rely solely on the priests homily for our faith formation, we can all do the research ourselves if we so wish. You surely recognize the fact that not every priest will preach without error. This has been true throughout the history of the Church. Priests spreading error is not a new phenomenon. The great thing about today is that its fairly easy to get a look at the actual texts put forward by the magisterium so that you can help determine when a priest is in error. Blindly following priests is really not the best way to rid the Church of errors.

Actually, no. Every priest does not preach error. I am not sure which history books you are getting this information from. As far as history goes, a priest who does not teach proper teaching is warned and if he persists, he is excommunicated.

So lets not try to normalize the situation here. This is exactly what I mean by you belittling the importance of good clergy.

OurBeloved, not only are you dragging our discussion from a previous thread into one completely unrelated to it, which is against forum rules, you are doing so by presuming that I am in some sort of ‘crises’ which is far from the case and the only reason I can possibly think that you would continue to talk about it this way is to make it look as though my opinion is worth less because I am simply too confused to know what I am talking about. I do not appreciate people attempting to belittle me and my thoughts. If you wish to discuss this publicly please return to the thread in which we previously had our discussion, as I recall you left some questions of mine unanswered there.

I answered all your questions in that thread. You simply kept pestering me to offer you guidelines to dress modestly according to traditional values. That is something your parents should have done. NOT ME!

When I directed you to read what the Pope’s have written about modesty during a time when culture promoted modesty as a core value, you simply act as if there are no resources. Well, you cannot have it both ways. If you don’t have any resources, the people that should be teaching you are the CLERGY. They are incompetent today and so now you have turned to me.

I don’t want to return to that discussion because it is pointless. I only brought it up because the fundamental issue on that thread arises from the incompetency of today’s clergy in the West to communicate standards of modesty to the congregation that is in their care.

In short, I am not delving on modesty. I just showed modesty as one of the examples of where incompetent priests can cause confusion. So no, what I said was related to this thread. It was not about modesty it-self if you were paying attention. Rather, it was on the incompetence of today’s clergy to communicate such values to the lay person in the pew.

Now as I said before, unless you have some counter argument to raise, I really don’t see the point in saying that you are offended etc. I think you SHOULD be more offended with the incompetent clergy

 

[OurBeloved]

I’ve heard it spoken from the pulpit: “If you don’t like the state of vocations today and think you could do a better job, then step forward and become a priest yourself.” Seems like more of the charitable and prudent thing to do rather than immodestly moan and bellow and rant and smear from the sidelines.

Um no. How is me becoming a priest going to fix anything? I have Bishops and Cardinals above me. For all I know, I am going to be taught the same errors in seminary by a Theologian who has heterodox ideas.

So while I appreciate the knee jerk comment, it is always better to evaluate whether what you say is feasible. As you can see, in this case it is not feasible.

Also something worth considering is why you keep pointing the finger at me. There is a problem, that is all I am pointing out. It just appears to me that most people on this forum can’t seem to swallow that simple fact. They like to continue on with their lives as if everything is rosy

Just become aware of the issue and move on rather than just give infeasible advice that does not solve anything.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Um no. How is me becoming a priest going to fix anything? I have Bishops and Cardinals above me. For all I know, I am going to be taught the same errors in seminary by a Theologian who has heterodox ideas.

So while I appreciate the knee jerk comment, it is always better to evaluate whether what you say is feasible. As you can see, in this case it is not feasible.

Also something worth considering is why you keep pointing the finger at me. There is a problem, that is all I am pointing out. It just appears to me that most people on this forum can’t seem to swallow that simple fact. They like to continue on with their lives as if everything is rosy

Just become aware of the issue and move on rather than just give infeasible advice that does not solve anything.

St. Francis of Assisi was a deacon and he changed the Church.

 

[OurBeloved]

St. Francis of Assisi was a deacon and he changed the Church.

He was not living in a time where the Church wasn’t actively pointing out those who promote error

Today, its not that you don’t have great priests. But they just get marooned as the congregation heads to the more “jolly and laid back” priest who agrees with all they have to say.

So no, being a priest oneself is not a solution. That is something someone should pursue if it is their calling anyway.

 

[Stylites]

Um no. How is me becoming a priest going to fix anything? I have Bishops and Cardinals above me. For all I know, I am going to be taught the same errors in seminary by a Theologian who has heterodox ideas.

So while I appreciate the knee jerk comment, it is always better to evaluate whether what you say is feasible. As you can see, in this case it is not feasible.

Also something worth considering is why you keep pointing the finger at me. There is a problem, that is all I am pointing out. It just appears to me that most people on this forum can’t seem to swallow that simple fact. They like to continue on with their lives as if everything is rosy

Just become aware of the issue and move on rather than just give infeasible advice that does not solve anything.

It would be a better solution to the imagined “crisis” rather than immodestly moaning and bellowing and gnashing one’s teeth before a crowd. Who knows? Maybe the utter hopelessness which you are imagining might not come about in your seminary studies.

 

[OurBeloved]

It would be a better solution to the imagined “crisis” rather than immodestly moaning and bellowing and gnashing one’s teeth before a crowd. Who knows? Maybe the utter hopelessness which you are imagining might not come about in your seminary studies.

Well my friend, here is where I ask you to read all my previous posts.

I am not in misery. I am just pointing out an issue in the church today. As I mentioned to someone else very early, the crisis we have today happened at the time of Judges with Israel. God found a way to get Israel back on track.

It does not however mean that there would be less suffering or confusion.

Perhaps it is also better for you to understand how one becomes a priest. Seeing that the priesthood today is in crisis is not a sign that one should become a priest. Just letting you know in-case this is your view of how a vocation is considered.

In the end, the question you should ask yourself is whether it is that hard for you to admit that there is a problem? Or is it more comforting to just try and make infeasible suggestions to those pointing out the problems? Perhaps you are actually called to be Priest/Deacon and you should put your words to action. Just things for you to think about…

 

[Melchior_1]

He was not living in a time where the Church wasn’t actively pointing out those who promote error

Actually, he was. The time of Francis was very similar to our current situation.

 

[OurBeloved]

Actually, he was. The time of Francis was very similar to our current situation.

Right. So which history book is this from? A quick look at the period of history does not show a laid back church not calling out error. So maybe we are reading two different historians here?

Something worth mentioning here, most of you seem to be getting a bit ruffled up that the current situation might be a bit unique. Perhaps it is better to direct your frustration at those responsible rather than at me. I am just the messenger.

 

[Melchior_1]

Right. So which history book is this from? A quick look at the period of history does not show a laid back church not calling out error. So maybe we are reading two different historians here?

A quick look into history shows a church in disarray, with several clergy and laymen engaging in questionable behavior.

“Francis, Francis, go and repair My house which, as you can see, is falling into ruins” was the vision that Francis had. At first he thought it meant the local church, but now we know otherwise (especially looking at the dream that Pope Innocent III had of Francis holding up the church).

And of course, we see how effective some of the preachers were back then, considering that Dominic started an order solely under the premise that if the preaching was orthodox, the people in the pews would be. He wouldn’t have felt called to found such an order under that pretense if everyone preaching from the pulpit was doing a solid job.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Right. So which history book is this from? A quick look at the period of history does not show a laid back church not calling out error. So maybe we are reading two different historians here?

Something worth mentioning here, most of you seem to be getting a bit ruffled up that the current situation might be a bit unique. Perhaps it is better to direct your frustration at those responsible rather than at me. I am just the messenger.

So you’re one of those who believes that the Church was perfect and immaculate from 33AD until 1962?

 

[pnewton]

Actually, he was. The time of Francis was very similar to our current situation.

:ehh:
I do not think I can buy that one.

 

[Melchior_1]

:ehh:
I do not think I can buy that one.

You don’t think sex scandals, a few wars, blithe disregard for human life, heresies that deny the Trinity, lack of belief in the Real Presence, and heterodox preaching happen today? The Dominicans were formed specifically for the last reason, it was that bad.

The Church was in such disrepair that God rose up two men to aid Him in fixing it. The visions that Francis and Innocent had point this out.

Fast forward to today, two people were also raised up. Blessed JP2, and Blessed Teresa.

 

[CesarAugustus]

Just because someone writes an article saying “The vast majority blah blah blah,”
doesn’t make it accurate.

I would say that 90% of Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans etc, etc are orthodox.

And you can quote me!

Are you sure?

Yes, Dominicans have survived the 60’s and 70’s better, but the Jesuits…

The situation in Spain and Latin America is quite different. In fact, in the XX century, since the 50’s, the Company of Jesus had a crisis. For example, Liberation Theology.

From the Jesuit Parish in my city, not all Priests are entirely Orthodox.

A Spanish historian, Ricardo de la Cierva, has many literature regarding the problems of the Company (and other communities) in the XX century.

But yes, I know some very Orthodox and traditional Jesuits too.

Blessings!

 

[Denise1957]

I don’t think you’re wrong. But if you read some of the posts of recent years, I don’t think anyone really expected all of SSPX to “come home,” as the OP puts it. As we’ve discussed often here, the ones who were initially involved in the 70’s are more culpable than the current set, of whom many laity and priests know no other home. The contributions and support have been overwhelming, witness the many self-supporting chapels out there. From a marketing perspective they have done very well in getting people to attend there; that can’t be denied. So the question is how can we get everyone to reconcile with everyone else. As I said before, the Law of Distribution says you can’t.

As far as “errors of the Council,” chances are most of them (as well as non-FSSPXers) have never read the documents, much less in their original Latin form. Only a handful, if that much, were actually present at the council. So is the criticism of Vatican II really valid? After all many just parrot what they’ve been taught themselves. But this same goes for the 75% (and growing) number of Catholics who don’t attend Mass. It was really a sad day to hear from our own pastor that of the recent 200 or so First Communicants in our English/Spanish/EF parish, that most of them will never step foot inside a church again. Very sobering thought indeed.

Your post here makes a lot of sense.