SSPX poised for formal schism?

[Elizabeth502]

So as to your question, no, the release of SP was not an attempt to “turn the clock back”;

I was not the one who said that. Rather, another poster, who has yet to respond directly to my question, equated “the liturgy of 60 years ago” with “turning the clock back,” which supposedly will “never happen.” Except that the mere event of SP is an acknowledgement, by a particular Pope, of the authenticity of liturgical form prior to Vatican II.

the question of whether or not the EF had been abrogated had never been thoroughly vetted.

Well, that question has in fact been answered, been answered by a sitting pope duly elected to the chair of Peter, who by his actions affirms that

the existence of the TLM in the Catholic Church in the 21st century is officially acceptable, valid, and licit, and that form does in fact represent a pre-Vatican II liturgy which “turns back the clock,” so to speak, only in that it represents a form of worship which pre-dated Vatican 2.

May I remind any poster her who might be privately anxious about suppressing a form of the Mass which a sitting Pope approved of, that the same Pope contrasted a hermeneutic of continuity with a hermeneutic of rupture. It is not just the truths of Catholicism which predate 1962 or 1965; so do her liturgical practices.

 

[otjm]

Does the situation of bishops merely ignoring the words and activities of heterodox priests underneath them work for you as a parallel? Because it works for me,and I suspect it does for Lormar as well. Ditto for her mention of certain Religious congregations who have gone off the rails and on their webpages promote lesbianism and female ordination. (Same congregations who once faithfully represented magisterial teaching and are now unrecognizable as organizations faithful to the teachings represented by the seat of Peter.)

Most of what went on between Paul VI and John Paul 11 with the archbishop did not make the news; so an outside observer could very well say that both Popes ignored the Archbishop. That was hardly the case, but Rome did not hang that laundry out on a public line.

As to bishops ignoring ;anything, I don’t think either you or I know what the bishops, or any one of them, might or might not have done with any given priest or group of priests, or for that matter, how much the given bishop(s) may or may not have known.

If you think I am condoning any of the straying from the Magisterium, you are seriously wrong. That is not the issue I have addressed. I have no problem with a thread that discusses problems within the Church other than what goes on between the SSPX bishops and Rome; but this thread started about that specific narrow issue and has (as is common herein) blossomed all over the place.

Assuming for the moment that this issue ends in open schism, I have no doubt there will be all sorts of comments about how the “SSPX can’t say anything but everbody else does” which seems to be a theme herein this thread. If it does go to schims, it sone’ be because the SSPX criticized the language of Vatican 2; it will be because they would not reconcile according to the terms Benedict laid down. But we will see everyone off in the weeds, spouting all sorts of nonsense as to why it occurred.

As to any religious congregations, I don’t even know if you mean men or women; and further, what that really has to do with the immediate issue. Do I support such nonsense? Not in the least, and I would like to see Rome step up on those issues (whatever they are).For all I know (or you know) that may already be occurring, as again, Rome mostly does not hand the laundry out on the public line. In either case, unless there is a direct confrontation over the matter and the offender refuses publicly to retract, it is not comparable to the issue of this thread.

I am not naïve as to what has occurred in the last 50 years - having lived through it - and I have no patience for it. On the other hand, I do not make a point of trying to find out what the newest rage is among the CINOs. I have enough to deal with in my daily life, and figured out decades ago that I could do nothing more than idle chatter in most circumstances. That is Rome’s problem, not mine.

 

[otjm]

I was not the one who said that. Rather, another poster, who has yet to respond directly to my question, equated “the liturgy of 60 years ago” with “turning the clock back,” which supposedly will “never happen.” Except that the mere event of SP is an acknowledgement, by a particular Pope, of the authenticity of liturgical form prior to Vatican II.

Which is not turning back the clock.

Well, that question has in fact been answered, been answered by a sitting pope duly elected to the chair of Peter, who by his actions affirms that

The question was not answered as to the time period I was writing about, so your point is?

We seem to always have amongst us those whose minds find a conspiracy under every rock and within every pronouncement.

 

[Elizabeth502]

otjm,

The poster did not answer my question as to his meaning that supposedly BXVI said the Church would “never turn back the clock.” Actually, you didn’t either.

BXVI made a very clear distinction about the hermeneutic of continuity versus the hermeneutic of rupture. Anyone who thinks that the EF represents “turning the clock back” is both (unknowingly perhaps) assuming rupture and thoroughly misrepresenting BXVI. Neither liturgy nor doctrine began with Vatican 2. They are both centuries old, and at least BXVI understood and applauded a continuous hermeneutic.

I am not all that hot and bothered about the SSPX. Apparently you are, but your replies did not answer my question, addressed to another poster.

 

[WildCatholic]

GloriaMaria:
Hogwash. They dress more conservatively and they are exceedingly polite. They can sing Gregorian chant and they know Mass and devotions inside and out. Fine. Do they cheat on their taxes, abandon children, defraud workers, fornicate, etc, etc,? Yes, some do. They are just like the rest of us, but they think they have the corner on the Catholic faith purely based on their devotions. Been there done that. Are some sincere? Of course. But it is not a Catholic paradise. It is not the way to heaven. They need obedience to get to heaven. We all do. They are headed very much in the wrong direction.

But come on, as I’ve heard many SSPXer’s say at least 100% of the people in our churches are pro life or believe in the real presence, or any other Catholic doctrine people have trouble with. That means they must be doing something right

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I definitely agree with your post. To me, it seems as if a good number of those who attend SSPX chapels (i’ve only ever seen them on certain forums) seem to think because they have the devotions down, they are good catholics. Don’t get me wrong, we shouldn’t have had clown masses and rock n’roll pizza and beer masses or whatever nonsense, but that does not mean that those of us who attend NO masses are wrong or the SSPX is right. As you said, Obedience is key. The SSPX seems to be waffling, but wants to break away. I pray they return in obedience, but I have a feeling that eventually they will be in schism, or those who attend their chapels will break away completely from the true church which is truly a tragedy.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

And if the SSPX does break away, they will end up just like the Old Catholic Church, an eccentric sect having little or no members apart from a few egoists who know better than the Magisterium.

 

[Veridical16]

But come on, as I’ve heard many SSPXer’s say at least 100% of the people in our churches are pro life or believe in the real presence, or any other Catholic doctrine people have trouble with. That means they must be doing something right

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I definitely agree with your post. To me, it seems as if a good number of those who attend SSPX chapels (i’ve only ever seen them on certain forums) seem to think because they have the devotions down, they are good catholics. Don’t get me wrong, we shouldn’t have had clown masses and rock n’roll pizza and beer masses or whatever nonsense, but that does not mean that those of us who attend NO masses are wrong or the SSPX is right. As you said, Obedience is key. The SSPX seems to be waffling, but wants to break away. I pray they return in obedience, but** I have a feeling that eventually they will be in schism, or those who attend their chapels will break away completely from the true church which is truly a tragedy.**

There are many who think that every ‘new mass’ is a clown mass or has the lame rock and roll mass nonsense, that its gone completely protestant.

The SSPX should realize their existence is a denial of Christ, or lack of trust, because it is docetist to assume that all of a sudden only a few “masses” across the world have merit, in pockets, it is a denial that this Church is universal, and that Christ allowed it to be a church for only an ELITE few.

Unfortunately, both the modernist liberals and traditionalists. There are some pockets of trad-minded Catholics susceptible to the SSPX mindset on the blogosphere and they are being prepared to be duped by Satan. They are preparing themselves to be in opposition to the papacy, forgetting that to behave in such a way has nothing to do with humility or self-denial, no matter how much they think the Pope making a mistake here or two, allows them to pontificate their view, which allows them to follow the hermeneutics of rupture.

From what I can tell, the Bishops of SSPX, and the Lay SSPX try to steal sheep from the Pope. That is why they should not be listened to, and only prayed for as of right now.
There is a trend amongst Traditionalists, or those who have come to the Latin Mass who are offered tantalizing displays of “orthodoxy” by these folk, so they are wrongly given sympathy to rather than being brushed off because of their inclination to disrespect the person who is Pope.

 

[Veridical16]

^^I said docetist ,where I meant DONATIST, (too many damn heresies to remember!)

And if the SSPX does break away, they will end up just like the Old Catholic Church, an eccentric sect having little or no members apart from a few egoists who know better than the Magisterium.

What Old Catholic Church? There has only been ONE Catholic Church.

**If they break away, it will not be on the fault of SSPX pride alone, but on those orthodox Catholics in the Novus Ordo, who did not do what they ought to do, to express their faith with fervor and strength , without any of the modernist/heterodox flaws that also plague the people WITHIN the Church. **

I can see a tit-for-tat, attitude among many VII Catholics , who chase some people into the arms of the wolves who steal from the Pope. There is blame to go around.

This is the same mistake Catholics made in solely blaming Martin Luther or Calvin for protestantism. Schism is not an isolated incident. These are events, that are from the sins of omission, of those WITHIN the Church as well, even up to the sins of the Clergy.

So I don’t think it is holy minded, to be so dismissive of these Catholics who are baptized, go to confession, yearn to adore the eucharist, just as any of us.
I find, however it is unfortunate that traditionalists to SSPXers actually do know more about the History of Church than many who have been catechized during Vatican II…and when they see not many of us living as we should to humble them in their error(their faith is built on despair, fear, and suspicion), but continue to just dismiss them as “egotists” ? Will they ever return from their error?

That is why when one finds the treasure, he does become more aware of the temptations against the supernatural virtue of faith. (Sins through the intellect) Only those who have been spared being duped by these wolves in sheeps clothing through holy priests can see past the confusion, but some of these Catholics finding their way, can easily be persuaded by these types. I can see many writers, journalists, bloggers, Catholic circles confused amongst the clamor in the Church. (They start to get the disease of relying on one’s own individual intellect - private judgment)

The SSPX (to the more extreme) phenomenon is no different, than Lucifer’s sin, he was a seraphic angel, so in his heights he started to attribute the light as his own, rather than a reflection of the authority above him in humility.

That the SSPX feel they “know better” than others, is probably due to an account of making the Faith as some sort of intellectual foundation, which is not what the faith is based on…nevertheless, because not enough have done their part, to actually dispel this confusion within the body, their error persists.
The lives of the saints and the hardships they went through dispel the error of the SSPX.

Because the saint responded with humility in the face of authority bearing down on them; even when a priest or bishop was in the wrong against these saints at the time; none of these sspxers leaders come off humble.

And quite frankly, some bloggers and even media types who dismiss these with the SSPX mentality aren’t humble either. Just because one sides with the Pope does not give way to condescension to those who are baptized and formed in the faith as well, confused by suspicion.

I think its the sin of stupidity to both the traddie and the neo-conservative. One should have nothing to do with forming*** cliques*** in the universal Church.

 

[Darryl_B]

From what I have read Lefebrve was fairly much a sedevacantist, quoting the writings of Robert Bellarmine to justify that position. I don’t think SSPX has any desire to return to communion with the Catholic Church. They are like sheep without a shepherd, they split, and split again over anything, with no clear direction other than seperation as their basis, it’s short history is composed of personalities more than direction. It is like the history of Protestantism.

In my city they number around 80 from a population of 1.5 million. At the start of this year their church got seriously burnt in a fire, and they were not able to insure the actual building. So they have been meeting in unusual places including an old theatre, and a school hall, until they raise the funds for a new Church.

Wouldn’t it be easier just to come home?

 

[pnewton]

Really? Is that why he instituted SP?

That document was limited in scope. Note that the Catholic Church has not abandoned the current Missal and “gone back”.

 

[pnewton]

What Old Catholic Church? There has only been ONE Catholic Church.

They reject the teaching of papal infallibility from Vatican I.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church

 

[Tigg]

My, my, as could have been predicted when this thread started, we find the absolute certainty of those who know only what they read about the SSPX passing their ultimate and personal judgment on a group whose hearts and minds and very ***faith ***journey they cannot possibly know. I wish I could be so sure of my opinions and positive that the souls of others are not truly seeking first, the Kingdom of God.

To clarify, I submit to my Church, Magisterium and all the Councils while simultaneously witnessing the current crisis even in my own parish and I shudder at the scope of disobedience while certain of my women friends openly advocate for female ordination and tell all in their circle that the Church no longer teaches it a sin to use contraceptives. Are we so secure and smug in the midst of such blatant lies that we cannot extend a little sympathy to fellow Catholics when they believe that to disobey Tradition, that is, in and of itself, disobedience to Church and a suppression of Revelation? How many heart wrenching decisions have been made and how much pain suffered for love of Church (whether misguided or not?) I can only pray for myself that I display such virtues of diligence and uncompromising fidelity to that which in my heart I am convinced is truth, even in the face of humiliation, disgrace and even possible schism.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Sir, I was not “throwing words” into anyone’s “face.” Here is what you actually said, and I quote:

I know exactly what I wrote. I did, after all, write it. And no: there was and is no legitimate ground for rendering what I actually wrote as meaning that traditional forms of piety are (themselves) rebellious, which is what you claimed I wrote.

What I said I will say again: those who love traditional forms of piety or the forms and expressions of piety predominant before Vatican II (such as the EF) should, when they desire also to promote and encourage these forms of devotion or piety because of their intrinsic goodness, worth and power to foster a deeper devotion to God, the Church and the saints, take great care - in light of some - to show themselves as devoted also to the Church’s Magisterium and faithfully adhering to the teaching and preaching of the Church’s Shepherds. Such activity will go miles, so to speak, in showing forth indeed the goodness of these devotional practices and the fruit they yield for the Church and for the faith.

Now the reason for this is exactly because too many rather vocal persons who do actively promote these forms of devotion and worship spend too much time playing personal magister to the Church’s Magisterium, constantly criticizing the Church’s Shepherds and the documents of the Church’s Magisterium, such as the documents of Vatican II and also her legitimately approved practices that followed after Vatican II. As a consequence of this, the public association is to identify what we might call traditionalism or traditionalists with rebellion and even schism. That this does not follow can be wonderfully demonstrated if those who do wish to keep, retain and promote the traditional forms or expessions of devotion also showed themselves to be filially devoted to the Church’s Magisterium, perhaps by also taking care to promote that in, say, the context of their blogs, websites, forums, newspapers, etc. Such an example would go a long way to repairing the popular image of traditionalists before the laity and, no doubt, many of the clergy.

But perhaps I might lead by example in this; however, I can’t consistently commit presently the time needed to do this; but others who already do have such an apostolate might.

 

[Elizabeth502]

That document was limited in scope. Note that the Catholic Church has not abandoned the current Missal and “gone back”.

Nor has it abandoned what was previous to the current Missal.

It’s not an either/or. Continuity, not rupture. Some people prefer to ignore the words of Pope BXVI.

 

[TimothyH]

My, my, as could have been predicted when this thread started, we find the absolute certainty of those who know only what they read about the SSPX passing their ultimate and personal judgment on a group whose hearts and minds and very ***faith ***journey they cannot possibly know. I wish I could be so sure of my opinions and positive that the souls of others are not truly seeking first, the Kingdom of God.

To clarify, I submit to my Church, Magisterium and all the Councils while simultaneously witnessing the current crisis even in my own parish and I shudder at the scope of disobedience while certain of my women friends openly advocate for female ordination and tell all in their circle that the Church no longer teaches it a sin to use contraceptives. Are we so secure and smug in the midst of such blatant lies that we cannot extend a little sympathy to fellow Catholics when they believe that to disobey Tradition, that is, in and of itself, disobedience to Church and a suppression of Revelation? How many heart wrenching decisions have been made and how much pain suffered for love of Church (whether misguided or not?) I can only pray for myself that I display such virtues of diligence and uncompromising fidelity to that which in my heart I am convinced is truth, even in the face of humiliation, disgrace and even possible schism.

Tigg, this post is truly stunning.

Your ability to condemn judgment and then go on to judge is simply breathtaking.

-Tim-

 

[Boulder257]

My, my, as could have been predicted when this thread started, we find the absolute certainty of those who know only what they read about the SSPX passing their ultimate and personal judgment on a group whose hearts and minds and very ***faith ***journey they cannot possibly know. I wish I could be so sure of my opinions and positive that the souls of others are not truly seeking first, the Kingdom of God.

To clarify, I submit to my Church, Magisterium and all the Councils while simultaneously witnessing the current crisis even in my own parish and I shudder at the scope of disobedience while certain of my women friends openly advocate for female ordination and tell all in their circle that the Church no longer teaches it a sin to use contraceptives. Are we so secure and smug in the midst of such blatant lies that we cannot extend a little sympathy to fellow Catholics when they believe that to disobey Tradition, that is, in and of itself, disobedience to Church and a suppression of Revelation? How many heart wrenching decisions have been made and how much pain suffered for love of Church (whether misguided or not?) I can only pray for myself that I display such virtues of diligence and uncompromising fidelity to that which in my heart I am convinced is truth, even in the face of humiliation, disgrace and even possible schism.

This is where I get confused. Isn’t it just a bunch of hypocrisy to argue that the SSPX are upholding tradition while those on the “left” are disobedient to the Church??? Both situations are disobedience to the Church. Both put their own agenda before the teachings of the Church. Both choose pride over humility. Both assume they know what is best for the Church rather than being obedient to Her.

 

[Lormar]

^^I said docetist ,where I meant DONATIST, (too many damn heresies to remember!)

**I can see a tit-for-tat, attitude among many VII Catholics , who chase some people into the arms of the wolves who steal from the Pope. There is blame to go around.

This is the same mistake Catholics made in solely blaming Martin Luther or Calvin for protestantism. Schism is not an isolated incident. These are events, that are from the sins of omission, of those WITHIN the Church as well, even up to the sins of the Clergy.**

So I don’t think it is holy minded, to be so dismissive of these Catholics who are baptized, go to confession, yearn to adore the eucharist, just as any of us.
I find, however it is unfortunate that traditionalists to SSPXers actually do know more about the History of Church than many who have been catechized during Vatican II…and when they see not many of us living as we should to humble them in their error(their faith is built on despair, fear, and suspicion), but continue to just dismiss them as “egotists” ? Will they ever return from their error?

That is why when one finds the treasure, he does become more aware of the temptations against the supernatural virtue of faith. (Sins through the intellect) Only those who have been spared being duped by these wolves in sheeps clothing through holy priests can see past the confusion, but some of these Catholics finding their way, can easily be persuaded by these types. I can see many writers, journalists, bloggers, Catholic circles confused amongst the clamor in the Church. (They start to get the disease of relying on one’s own individual intellect - private judgment)

The SSPX (to the more extreme) phenomenon is no different, than Lucifer’s sin, he was a seraphic angel, so in his heights he started to attribute the light as his own, rather than a reflection of the authority above him in humility.

That the SSPX feel they “know better” than others, is probably due to an account of making the Faith as some sort of intellectual foundation, which is not what the faith is based on…nevertheless, because not enough have done their part, to actually dispel this confusion within the body, their error persists.
The lives of the saints and the hardships they went through dispel the error of the SSPX.

Because the saint responded with humility in the face of authority bearing down on them; even when a priest or bishop was in the wrong against these saints at the time; none of these sspxers leaders come off humble.

**And quite frankly, some bloggers and even media types who dismiss these with the SSPX mentality aren’t humble either. Just because one sides with the Pope does not give way to condescension to those who are baptized and formed in the faith as well, confused by suspicion. **

I think its the sin of stupidity to both the traddie and the neo-conservative. One should have nothing to do with forming*** cliques*** in the universal Church.

Thank you for putting into words so very well all that I was thinking.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I know exactly what I wrote. I did, after all, write it.

Great. Then you and I are both very clear about what each of us wrote and what we meant. I know I am.

The facts are that we disagree with each other, and as Tigg has said in different ways, I refuse to judge my brothers and sisters as to their motivations for their traditional piety, or to wring my hands over their salvation. I certainly refuse to condemn them or to campaign for their further marginalization on any discussion forum. As I cannot read hearts, I will leave that up to God.

Have a nice day.

 

[WildCatholic]

This is where I get confused. Isn’t it just a bunch of hypocrisy to argue that the SSPX are upholding tradition while those on the “left” are disobedient to the Church??? Both situations are disobedience to the Church. Both put their own agenda before the teachings of the Church. Both choose pride over humility. Both assume they know what is best for the Church rather than being obedient to Her.

Thank you for your post, this is definitely the sin of most Radical Traditionalists and Church “Left Wingers” who want change. They see their views as best rather than the church and succumb to pride. Sadly, I feel the SSPX is very pharasitic. Yes traditions are great, but it’s not the end all be all. Our World would have gone to pot even if we never had a Vatican 2. What would we blame then ? Our traditions were not what kept the faith strong, but Christ himself and the Popes. At the same time the left wingers disregard tradition focusing on the world and disregarding our teachings. Sadly though these groups are two sides of the same coin of disobedience

 

[1AugustSon7]

The facts are that we disagree with each other,

No the fact is that you calumniated me and as for what

Tigg has said in different ways,

Doesn’t change the fact that we are not excused to sin on account of scandal or scandals or the sins of others.

Yes, there is no shortage of sinners in the Church and no shortage of rash or careless persons or persons who even deliberately stir up controversy or even falsify doctrine. Notwithstanding, that does not grant us a license to set up a personal magisterium over and above or contrary to the Church’s. It certainly is not good when we are in an absolute habit of criticizing the Magisterium or the Church’s shepherds: that should not be the norm but a rare exception especially when the subject is one of doctrine. None of the saints - even the great reformers of morals and those who defended and promoted orthodoxy - did anything like that. They submitted completely to the Church’s and the bishops’ authority on all such matters.

I refuse to judge my brothers and sisters as to their motivations for their traditional piety,

Which has nothing to do with habitually criticizing the Magisterium rather than learning from, listening to and obeying it.

or to wring my hands over their salvation. I certainly refuse to condemn them or to campaign for their further marginalization on any discussion forum.

Okay, that is great! But what does that have to do with my advice to such persons - in order to help them and further advance and promote traditional forms of devotion and piety - to take special care, like the saints did, to be seen as dilligent and faithful children of the Church by echoing and obeyingthe Church’s Magisterium rather than trying to distill it through some filter taking it only in part or, moreover and worse, openly belittling or attacking the Church’s Magisterium, whether in their persons or accusing them of heterodoxy or even heresy?

Now since Tigg was talking about -and so are we as the subject of this thread - specifically the SSPX, they certainly are not doing what Catholics are supposed to do in regards to the Church’s Magisterium; and you don’t have to “read minds” to see that. They have visibly seperated themselves from the Church in many respects, especially in regards to jurisdictional authority. Many of them also have that horrible habit of constantly criticizing the Church’s Magisterium - now that too is also objectively scandalous, no less than, e.g., Catholics who run around claiming the Church now accepts the use of contraceptives or whatever. Both behaviours are extremist and objectively wrong: both have set themselves up as mini-magisteriums determining what is, and what is not, Catholic doctrine.