SSPX poised for formal schism?

[Lormar]

While understanding and agreeing with the points brought up by BrJR, I would suggest one additional reason: The SSPX should know better. If they wave the flag of orthodoxy, they should know that part of orthodoxy is humble submission to the Pope when - for example - he requires an Institute or Society to agree that a properly-promulgated Ordo Missae is both valid and licit. Or that a particular Ecumenical Council neither stands above nor apart from others, but - when properly understood - is in continuity with them. The LCWR, Call to Action, Catholics for Choice, etc - they should know better, but it’s clear that they don’t - otherwise, they would not be clamoring for “reform” of doctrines that are immutable. The SSPX does know better.

If an average person makes a mistake on their taxes that happens to be to their advantage, it’s counted as a mistake. If a tax attorney makes that same mistake, it’s considered deliberate, because they should know better.

When Adam and Eve fell to Satan’s temptation, the window of redemption was left open. When Satan rebelled, there was no possibility of his redemption, because he knew better.

I am smiling to myself thinking of the looks on the faces of the members of the LCWR, Call to Action and Catholics for Choice members if you told them that they don’t know any better. The point is, they are convinced that they do know better, and best, the same way the SSPX thinks they know better.

Bottom line: pride. Pride blinds. It has blinded the LCWR, CTA, CFC and the SSPX, and it blinds us as well.

 

[otjm]

Is that any different from priests such as Father Benedict Groeschel, among others in the Church, saying that popes in the past have made “fatal errors”? Just asking.

It seems to be that a lot of what we accuse the SSPX of doing, or not doing, can be applied to many in our Church as well. And yet the SSPX is always called out. How about what was done when Humanae Vitae was released? Wasn’t that temerity?

Father Groeschel’s opinion is not ordaining bishops. His opinion is not contradicting a direct statement as to the legitimacy of a sacrament.

Which brings up part of this issue that has not been discussed; but has been dicsusssed elsewhere in the forums, and that is, at some point, if because of age if for no other reason, the bishops will come to the point of wanting to ordain another bishop. Anyone who thinks Rome is going to gladly oblige simply has not been paying attention.

The issue between the SSPX bishops and Rome is not about how some of the language of Vatican 2 could have been better done. It is that they are saying that (at least some of) Vatican 2 cannot be reconciled with prior understanding of dogma and doctrine. There is a world of difference between saying “this could have been better stated” and saying “This cannot be reconciled with prior statements of doctrine”. Those are two entirely different positions. People continue to focus on the “could have been better stated” and that is not what the SSPX are about.

The same goes for the liturgy. It is one thing to say that the rubrics could have been done better, or the prayers done differently; it is an entirely different thing to say the OF is not a legitimate Mass.

As to defending the SSPX (which is not directed to you), people want to step around the real issues and focus on the peripherals. Rome is not arguing the peripherals; it is arguing the essentials (as are the SSPX bishops) and at that point, it is correct to say the SSPX sets itself up as an alternate Magisterium.

The problem in any discussion about the SSPX is that the discussion keeps going down the rabbit holes of “Well, other people dissent abut (X, Y, and/or Z)”. Rome has narrowed down what the SSPX must do to reconcile; and it has not much at all to do with the peripherals. The whole routine of “What about this or what about that?” is irrelevant, period. The three bishops say “a) Vatican 2 cannot be reconciled with prior doctrine and b) the OF is not a legitimate Mass”. The Pope, and some 2000 or so bishops around the world say otherwise, and that is the definition of the Magisterium (for the sake of this discussion).

This whole discussion is simply wandering around in the weeds. It will come down to 1) a crisis (e.g. another bishop), 2) Rome’s patience; 3) a change of heart and mind on the part of one or more of the three bishops, or 4) some other trigger that puts the whole issue off the track of reconciliation. This issue has been hashed for decades, and it gets right down to the issue of obedience, and not much else.

One could drag Father Currin or Father Hans Kung into the issue; not to make too fine a point of it, neither of them were or are bishops.

 

[ProVobis]

The same goes for the liturgy. It is one thing to say that the rubrics could have been done better, or the prayers done differently; it is an entirely different thing to say the OF is not a legitimate Mass.

In fairness, though, more than the FSSPX would have complained if the Pope had banned everything outside of the Canon/EP, which legitimately he can do as well.

 

[Lormar]

Father Groeschel’s opinion is not ordaining bishops. His opinion is not contradicting a direct statement as to the legitimacy of a sacrament.

Which brings up part of this issue that has not been discussed; but has been dicsusssed elsewhere in the forums, and that is, at some point, if because of age if for no other reason, the bishops will come to the point of wanting to ordain another bishop. Anyone who thinks Rome is going to gladly oblige simply has not been paying attention.

The issue between the SSPX bishops and Rome is not about how some of the language of Vatican 2 could have been better done. It is that they are saying that (at least some of) Vatican 2 cannot be reconciled with prior understanding of dogma and doctrine. There is a world of difference between saying “this could have been better stated” and saying “This cannot be reconciled with prior statements of doctrine”. Those are two entirely different positions. People continue to focus on the “could have been better stated” and that is not what the SSPX are about.

The same goes for the liturgy. It is one thing to say that the rubrics could have been done better, or the prayers done differently; it is an entirely different thing to say the OF is not a legitimate Mass.

As to defending the SSPX (which is not directed to you), people want to step around the real issues and focus on the peripherals. Rome is not arguing the peripherals; it is arguing the essentials (as are the SSPX bishops) and at that point, it is correct to say the SSPX sets itself up as an alternate Magisterium.

The problem in any discussion about the SSPX is that the discussion keeps going down the rabbit holes of “Well, other people dissent abut (X, Y, and/or Z)”. Rome has narrowed down what the SSPX must do to reconcile; and it has not much at all to do with the peripherals. The whole routine of “What about this or what about that?” is irrelevant, period. The three bishops say “a) Vatican 2 cannot be reconciled with prior doctrine and b) the OF is not a legitimate Mass”. The Pope, and some 2000 or so bishops around the world say otherwise, and that is the definition of the Magisterium (for the sake of this discussion).

This whole discussion is simply wandering around in the weeds. It will come down to 1) a crisis (e.g. another bishop), 2) Rome’s patience; 3) a change of heart and mind on the part of one or more of the three bishops, or 4) some other trigger that puts the whole issue off the track of reconciliation. This issue has been hashed for decades, and it gets right down to the issue of obedience, and not much else.

One could drag Father Currin or Father Hans Kung into the issue; not to make too fine a point of it, neither of them were or are bishops.

OTJM,. you are too smart to not know that wasn’t my point. And no. It is not irrelevant. Something like that is always said when anyone counters a pointed finger by pointing out the others pointing back. Let me put it simply: people that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. We have enough disobedient Catholics to deal with instead of looking for others “outside”. And what does it matter whether Charles Curran was a bishop or not? He (and many others) flew in the face of not only his own bishop (Cardinal O’Boyle), but in the face of Paul VI.

Also, that is not what the SSPX used to say about the documents of Vatican II. If they are saying it now, that wasn’t what Archbishop Lefebvre said. He, and the other bishops at the council, signed the council documents believing that they would all be interpreted in light of tradition, and not that tradition would be interpreted in light of the Vatican II documents.

The SSPX does not say that the sacraments are invalid. How could they? They acknowledge the pope to be the pope. What they do say is that they might not be valid in some cases. They put the diabolical question mark in your head.

 

[Elizabeth502]

THIS:

He, and the other bishops at the council, signed the council documents believing that they would all be interpreted in light of tradition, and not that tradition would be interpreted in light of the Vatican II documents.

 

[Genesis315]

The issue between the SSPX bishops and Rome is not about how some of the language of Vatican 2 could have been better done. It is that they are saying that (at least some of) Vatican 2 cannot be reconciled with prior understanding of dogma and doctrine. There is a world of difference between saying “this could have been better stated” and saying “This cannot be reconciled with prior statements of doctrine”. Those are two entirely different positions. People continue to focus on the “could have been better stated” and that is not what the SSPX are about.

The SSPX’s position is actually worse than this now. Even sincerely believing certain phrases or passages could not be reconciled to Catholic doctrine, they could still acknowledge the Council as a legitimate ecumenical Council give it “religious submission.” It is indeed possible to give religious submission while qualifying or withholding assent to certain things, given certain conditions, if one in good faith believes there is error.

The SSPX go further than this now. They outright reject the Council’s very authority. They reject it as an act of the Church’s Magisterium and claim it is some different, new “magisterium” that must be rejected. This position was expressed by Bishop Tissier during his ordination sermon at Winona, June 15, 2012 where he lays out the SSPX’s reasons for this position and concludes the Council “has no authority of teaching” and “we do not accept that the council be a true Council.”

Sure, Bishop Fellay gave some talks when reconcilliation seemed like a possibility hinting that he had a more moderate view of the Council, but recently he signed on to a joint statement of the SSPX bishops expressing Tissier’s position (see par. 4 of their June 26, 2013 joint declaration for the 25th anniversary of their episcopal ordinations, which declares Vatican II to create a new false Magisterium distinct from the authoritative Magisterium exercised by the Church until then). This is also a favorite position of Fr. Gleize, who teaches on this subject at their Econe seminary (see his back and forth with Msgr. Ocariz from the end of 2011).

Their whole point is that by introducing what they see as errors, and by having what they see as the overall intention of surrendering the Church to the world, the Council is not an act of the Church’s true Magisterium, but something else that must be rejected in toto, even if it says things that are materially true in certain places.

Once one gets into rejecting the very authority of an ecumenical Council, rather than particular commands or teachings, one enters the real realm of schism.

 

[LiturgicalChant]

GloriaMaria:
They need obedience (to clergy) to get to heaven. We all do. They are headed very much in the wrong direction.

clashes with:

Cornelius a Lapide († 1637) wrote:

“Superiors may be admonished by their subordinates in all humility and charity so that truth may be defended: this is the basis (Galatians 2, 11) on which St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory, St. Thomas and many others who are quoted support this opinion. They teach quite unequivocally that St. Peter, although superior in authority to St. Paul, was admonished by him. St. Gregory rightly states that, “Peter remained silent so that, being first in the hierarchy of the Apostles, he might equally be first in humility.” St. Augustine writes, “By showing that superiors admit that they may be rebuked by their subordinates, St. Peter gave posterity an example of saintliness more noteworthy than that given by St. Paul, although the latter showed, nonetheless, that it is possible for subordinates to have the boldness to resist their superiors without fear, when in all charity they speak out in the defense of truth.”“ (Commentary Ad Gal., II, 11.)

and

Saint Theodore the Studite is categorical: “It is a commandment of the Lord, that one must not remain silent in the event that the Faith is at risk. For He says ‘speak out, and do not remain silent’…” (Acts 18:9) And “If he retreats, my soul does not favour him”. (Hebr. 10:38) And “If they remain silent, then the stones shall cry out” (Luke 19:40). Thus, when it comes to the Faith, it is not possible for one to say" "Who am I?"8.
Elsewhere, he writes: "At a time like this, when Christ is being persecuted through His Image, one is obliged to fight, not only if he is superior in rank and in knowledge by preaching and teaching the orthodox word; but even if he is in the place of a student, he still has a duty to reveal the truth courageously and speak freely. These are not the words of me, the sinner, but of the divine John Chrysostom, along with other Fathers.»9.

Following the local Synod of Alexandria which condemned the newly-appeared teaching of Nestorius as a heresy (430 A.D.), Saint Cyril wrote a letter to the simple faithful of Constantinople, encouraging them to abstain from every communion with Nestorius, if he did not repent. As for those who he (Nestorius) had severed from every communion with him, Saint Cyril regarded them as still canonically in communion with the Church. Says the Saint in a letter of his to the citizens of Constantinople: «…preserve yourselves spotless and immaculate, neither communing with the aforementioned, nor paying attention to him as a teacher, if he remains a wolf instead of a shepherd and if he prefers after this reminder of ours to uphold perverse things… We however are in communion with the clergy or laity who for the sake of the correct Faith have been separated or excommunicated by him, and we do not validate his unjust vote but rather, we praise those who suffer, telling them that ‘if you are scorned in the Lord you are blessed, for the Spirit of power and of God has reposed upon you’ (1 Peter 4:14)»14.

The truth of the faith is bigger than you or I, or individual clergy, individual hierarchy.

 

[LiturgicalChant]

In fairness, though, more than the FSSPX would have complained if the Pope had banned everything outside of the Canon/EP, which legitimately he can do as well.

This clashes with this view:

To the Ultramontane mind, which is also the mind of the Popes of our day, one cannot adopt the traditionalist stance and remain authentically Catholic. It is often not appreciated that in the discussions preceding the dogmatic formulations of the First Vatican Council, Pius IX strongly favoured the interpretation of Papal Infallibility as meaning Papal inerrancy in matters of Church discipline as well as in dogmatic definitions, an exaggerated claim at odds with the teaching of the Church. But when – so the story goes – Fr. Guidi, Superior General of the Dominicans, pointed out to the Pope that his idea of Papal infallibility was against Tradition, Pius IX angrily reminded him that “La tradizione son’io!” – ‘I am Tradition’, a symptom of Papal megalomania providentially checked by the Holy Ghost.48

Unfortunately, there is ample evidence today that the modern Popes consider themselves the infallible arbiters of disciplinary and liturgical tradition rather than its respectful custodians. John Paul II, for example, has been known to act arbitrarily and inconsistently in contravention of established liturgical law. One famous episode was during his visit to West Germany in 1980 when, in contradiction to the firm Papal policy of not giving Communion in the hand, he administered the Sacrament in this manner to a small boy by way of exception, thus establishing an irrevocable precedent.49 On another occasion, I am told, the Pope incorrectly knelt during a Papal ceremony in Rome, and when his Master of Ceremonies discreetly directed him to rise, John Paul remained on his knees and retorted pointedly: “II Papa s’inginocchia!” – “the Pope is kneeling!”. With such a subjective attitude towards liturgical tradition, unthinkable in any of the Eastern Churches, it is understandable that the modern Popes and the ultramontanist Curia should view traditionalist rejection of the liturgical reform as incompatible with Catholic orthodoxy which they narrowly understand as right belief and right morals.

From the traditionalist standpoint, it is an abuse of power for the modern Papacy; however orthodox in its dogmatic teaching, to Command the faithful to accept an anti-traditional liturgy in the name of obedience to the supreme ecclesiastical authority. If the Papacy, in an official document, can reverse a fundamental teaching of orthodox Christianity by totally subordinating the liturgy to the interests of new ‘orientations’, one is forced to conclude that recent Popes, in turning their backs on their own past for whatever noble motives, have placed themselves above Tradition and abused their position as the supreme legislators in disciplinary matters. For a Catholic to make such an admission is painful, and from the ultramontanist point of view disloyal, not to say actively schismatical.

There is unlikely to be agreement on this question until the Holy Father comes to a deeper understanding of his own action in re-legalizing the traditional Roman liturgy, which logically considered, entirely contradicts his thinking on the post-conciliar reform, which is substantially that of Paul VI and of the episcopal conferences. Yet this contradiction which has created a dynamic tension in the Church must ultimately be resolved, and we may optimistically regard it as a sign of hope for the eventual restoration of the patrimony of which Latin Catholics have been unjustly deprived. In the meantime, as Archbishop Lefebvre remarked shortly after his audience with Pope John Paul II in 1978: "We can at least pray to the Blessed Virgin that when he becomes aware of the enormous difficulties he will meet in the exercise of his power as Pope, he will reconsider his stance and perhaps conclude that he must return to Tradition ».

 

[pnewton]

This clashes with this view:

A lot of things the Catholic Church believes clashes with a lot of opinions.

Where did you get that stuff?

This part tends to make me question the motive of this “opinion”.

There is unlikely to be agreement on this question until the Holy Father comes to a deeper understanding of his own action in re-legalizing the traditional Roman liturgy, which logically considered, entirely contradicts his thinking on the post-conciliar reform, which is substantially that of Paul VI and of the episcopal conferences. Yet this contradiction which has created a dynamic tension in the Church must ultimately be resolved, and we may optimistically regard it as a sign of hope for the eventual restoration of the patrimony of which Latin Catholics have been unjustly deprived.

Anyone who thinks the clock is going to be turned back, or he is more knowledgeable than the Pope on the Pope’s own action does not merit consideration or my time.

I found these quotes linked on two sites of questionable theology and affiliation. None of them seem to have any authority or even back the opinions up with authority. I will keep looking in case this new poster does not provide links.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Anyone who thinks the clock is going to be turned back… does not merit consideration or my time.

Deifne “turned back.”

 

[Mike30]

Since you are obviously not a member of the SSPX, what difference would it make to you?

 

[otjm]

OTJM,. you are too smart to not know that wasn’t my point. And no. It is not irrelevant. Something like that is always said when anyone counters a pointed finger by pointing out the others pointing back. Let me put it simply: people that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. We have enough disobedient Catholics to deal with instead of looking for others “outside”. And what does it matter whether Charles Curran was a bishop or not? He (and many others) flew in the face of not only his own bishop (Cardinal O’Boyle), but in the face of Paul VI.

Also, that is not what the SSPX used to say about the documents of Vatican II. If they are saying it now, that wasn’t what Archbishop Lefebvre said. He, and the other bishops at the council, signed the council documents believing that they would all be interpreted in light of tradition, and not that tradition would be interpreted in light of the Vatican II documents.

The SSPX does not say that the sacraments are invalid. How could they? They acknowledge the pope to be the pope. What they do say is that they might not be valid in some cases. They put the diabolical question mark in your head.

I fired my comment off while needing to go off doing something else and I may have been a bit too terse.

Not in any particular order: Currin, IMHO, has done more harm to the Church with what he did than the SSPX have done in about the same length of time. However, the point still is, Currin is a priest; the three are bishops, and Rome is going to come down harder on a bishop than a priest, and on a priest than the laity, as that goes to the dynamics of the Church. The bishops are in direct apostolic succession, along with the Pope, and owe a fealty to the Pope that is more direct than anyone else.

Part of what I was trying to get at is that this is not about some sort of disagreement, some sort of opinion matters (e.g. Groeschel). This is directly and specifically and narrowly about obedience directly owed our Holy Father. Look through the posts here and most of them are missing the point. One writes about attacks on the SSPX and the inability to respond. When the attacks are missing the point (obedience), then I can understand the frustration.

I am not jumping on the SSPX; the bishops, the priests, or those who follow the SSPX. That is Rome’s problem, and Rome can handle it.

I think they (the SSPX) have derailed; but that simply goes back to the main issue; obedience. They are welcome to any opinions about Vatican 2 as long as they remain obedient to the Pope and his requirements, which they apparently are not willing to abide and follow.

Beyond that (i.e… their opinions otherwise) don’t impact me and there is sufficient room in the Church for them.

The issue of this thread - their apparent intransigence to work with Rome - was the start of the thread; not opinions, not complaints, but the very bottom line of their accepting or not accepting Rome’s letter (personally approved by Benedict).

Groschel was not in disobedience to Rome as far as I can tell, and so is irrelevant to the primary issue; further, he is not a bishop so he will come under far less scrutiny.

Currin was directly disobedient to Rome, but not a bishop. He, as I noted, has probable far, far outclassed the SSPX in terms of damage. But he is not and was not a bishop, so he comes much farther down the chain in terms of obedience issues.

Bishops are not mid level managers; they are direct descendants of the Apostles and stand in their place; as such they have authority, and they also have a very direct requirement of loyalty to Rome. Rome is the ultimate authority; but the bishops share in that authority and thus Rome is going to more time, energy and focus on them when it comes to obedience. And yes, I know all about the bishops who have played fast and loose with liturgy; but this is not a dispute about liturgy - except for authority to ordain other bishops, and to ordain priests.

Read through the posts - they are wandering out in the weeds. Some seem to have no real idea about the actual grounds of dispute. And so it goes, each time there is a thread about the SSPX.

I have one friend who has bought in, lock stock and barrel to the chatter and will only go to an SSPX Mass. The best I can describe it is that his reaction is along the lines of the 900+ people who committed mass suicide under Jim Jones; they are reasonably intelligent people who are in a self-identifying small community, who have lost all contact with and bearings from larger society. And that leads to a spiraling down farther and farther into the mindset of the same referenced group.

Lefebvre knew their were problems in the Church in France; I believe that while he understood the problems, he was incorrect as to causation. And he headed up a group which did likewise, and they isolated themselves more and more from the mainstream Church, until we find ourselves at this impasse. As to what the SSPX say - that has too much latitude to report with accuracy; it is sufficient to me that whatever was in the letter is what they have to agree to, and they won’t agree. And there it sits.

 

[pnewton]

Deifne “turned back.”

A restoration of the liturgy as it was 60 years ago. I believe Pope Benedict said “going back”, as in “there is no question of going back.” The phrase used above was "eventual restoration of the patrimony of which Latin Catholics have been unjustly deprived. "

 

[pnewton]

Since you are obviously not a member of the SSPX, what difference would it make to you?

I refer you to First Corinthians 12. Any loss of a part of the Church, or restoration to ministry of part of the Church, affects us all. There is a unity of all of creation and a greater unity of the whole of Christianity.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I believe Pope Benedict said “going back”, as in “there is no question of going back.” The phrase used above was "eventual restoration of the patrimony of which Latin Catholics have been unjustly deprived. "

Really? Is that why he instituted SP?

 

[Lormar]

I fired my comment off while needing to go off doing something else and I may have been a bit too terse.

Not in any particular order: Currin, IMHO, has done more harm to the Church with what he did than the SSPX have done in about the same length of time. However, the point still is, Currin is a priest; the three are bishops, and Rome is going to come down harder on a bishop than a priest, and on a priest than the laity, as that goes to the dynamics of the Church. The bishops are in direct apostolic succession, along with the Pope, and owe a fealty to the Pope that is more direct than anyone else.

Part of what I was trying to get at is that this is not about some sort of disagreement, some sort of opinion matters (e.g. Groeschel). This is directly and specifically and narrowly about obedience directly owed our Holy Father. Look through the posts here and most of them are missing the point. One writes about attacks on the SSPX and the inability to respond. When the attacks are missing the point (obedience), then I can understand the frustration.

I am not jumping on the SSPX; the bishops, the priests, or those who follow the SSPX. That is Rome’s problem, and Rome can handle it.

I think they (the SSPX) have derailed; but that simply goes back to the main issue; obedience. They are welcome to any opinions about Vatican 2 as long as they remain obedient to the Pope and his requirements, which they apparently are not willing to abide and follow.

Beyond that (i.e… their opinions otherwise) don’t impact me and there is sufficient room in the Church for them.

The issue of this thread - their apparent intransigence to work with Rome - was the start of the thread; not opinions, not complaints, but the very bottom line of their accepting or not accepting Rome’s letter (personally approved by Benedict).

Groschel was not in disobedience to Rome as far as I can tell, and so is irrelevant to the primary issue; further, he is not a bishop so he will come under far less scrutiny.

Currin was directly disobedient to Rome, but not a bishop. He, as I noted, has probable far, far outclassed the SSPX in terms of damage. But he is not and was not a bishop, so he comes much farther down the chain in terms of obedience issues.

Bishops are not mid level managers; they are direct descendants of the Apostles and stand in their place; as such they have authority, and they also have a very direct requirement of loyalty to Rome. Rome is the ultimate authority; but the bishops share in that authority and thus Rome is going to more time, energy and focus on them when it comes to obedience. And yes, I know all about the bishops who have played fast and loose with liturgy; but this is not a dispute about liturgy - except for authority to ordain other bishops, and to ordain priests.

Read through the posts - they are wandering out in the weeds. Some seem to have no real idea about the actual grounds of dispute. And so it goes, each time there is a thread about the SSPX.

**I have one friend who has bought in, lock stock and barrel to the chatter and will only go to an SSPX Mass. The best I can describe it is that his reaction is along the lines of the 900+ people who committed mass suicide under Jim Jones; they are reasonably intelligent people who are in a self-identifying small community, who have lost all contact with and bearings from larger society. And that leads to a spiraling down farther and farther into the mindset of the same referenced group. **

Lefebvre knew their were problems in the Church in France; I believe that while he understood the problems, he was incorrect as to causation. And he headed up a group which did likewise, and they isolated themselves more and more from the mainstream Church, until we find ourselves at this impasse. As to what the SSPX say - that has too much latitude to report with accuracy; it is sufficient to me that whatever was in the letter is what they have to agree to, and they won’t agree. And there it sits.

There is a lot I would like to say to this, but I will choose only one thing to comment on - I know many, many people who have lost touch with reality. Some of them are alleged apparition devotees always chasing after signs and wonders; others are utopian political ideologues who never think their ideals through and are forever wondering why when put into practice they aren’t working; others are women priests; and the saddest are the religious who have gone off the rail and really lost touch with reality, like the religious who taught me and who are now goddess worshipers.

I am not defending the SSPX. Let’s get that straight. My only point is that we are at the point where there is nothing we can say about them that we can’t find a parallel to in the Church. Perhaps the Archbishop should have taken a cue from the liberals in the sixties and stayed and worked from within, but he chose not to.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter what we think of them, or what our opinions are. Whatever they and their adherents do or don’t do will be judged in the end by God, and His is the only “opinion” that matters.

 

[otjm]

Really? Is that why he instituted SP?

It is only speculation, but if one looks at the situation before SP came forth, about the only place one could attend Mass in what Benedict called the Extraordinary Form was to an SSPX chapel.

By setting forth SP, he accomplished two things: 1) he made the EF more available to those who wished to attend in that form (while acknowledging his own opinion that it would be limited - see his accompanying letter), thereby effectively “defanging” the SSPX on the issue while acknowledging their desire for the EF as legitimate, and 2) because he sought reconciliation with the SSPX, gave the appearance of working with them by doing so.

It is clear that Benedict wanted reconciliation. It is also clear that it was going to be on his terms, not the SSPX’s, as was subsequently shown.

However, by releasing SP, he effectively found a way to stop movement of laity to the chapels, and the subsequent exposure to their stances other than as to the EF itself.

So as to your question, no, the release of SP was not an attempt to “turn the clock back”; Benedict was a peritus at Vatican 2 and was definitely not in the camp which attempted, prior to and at the beginning, to derail Vatican 2 or force it to fit within the confines of the strongly conservatives. It was an acknowledgement that there were others, besides the followers of the SSPX, who wished to have the EF available to them; they were seen as a minority and the question of whether or not the EF had been abrogated had never been thoroughly vetted.

 

[otjm]

There is a lot I would like to say to this, but I will choose only one thing to comment on - I know many, many people who have lost touch with reality. Some of them are alleged apparition devotees always chasing after signs and wonders; others are utopian political ideologues who never think their ideals through and are forever wondering why when put into practice they aren’t working; others are women priests; and the saddest are the religious who have gone off the rail and really lost touch with reality, like the religious who taught me and who are now goddess worshipers.

I am not defending the SSPX. Let’s get that straight. My only point is that we are at the point where there is nothing we can say about them that we can’t find a parallel to in the Church. Perhaps the Archbishop should have taken a cue from the liberals in the sixties and stayed and worked from within, but he chose not to.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter what we think of them, or what our opinions are. Whatever they and their adherents do or don’t do will be judged in the end by God, and His is the only “opinion” that matters.

I can’t think of any parallels in the Church in which bishops are in such obvious, outward, explicit and direct disobedience to the pontiff. That is why I have posted, because we wander off topic into whatever else the SSPX have wrong, and then we wander about sorting through what the followers of the SSPX take as positions, and then we wander out in the weeds about nuns and sisters, and laity (who have been excommunicated, not that the official act did anything to slow them down).

The Church has a lot of problems. Elsewhere there has been a discussion about catechesis, with the Pope wading in that people need something even more desparately than catechesis - that being the more basic building block of accepting Christ for who He is, and accepting that that matters.

We could spend a phenomenal amount of electrons going on about those issues. However, this thread started over the apparent hardening of the SSPX bishops’ position; not about all the rest of the meanderings that have occurred in this thread.

And I would probably disagree with you that it is not important what we think; if we don’t understand what the very absolute basic issue is between the SSPX and Rome, we open ourselves to falling into the position that this is about something else, or a bunch of something else’s. Benedict made it clear that there a few basic issues that had to be resolved, and he said how they had to be resolved in the letter that was referenced in the first post. From what appears to be an outright rejection of that letter and of the terms from Rome may or may not flow an open formal schism; or that may await a further and different trigger. But I think it is important what we think about the issue, because if formal schism comes about, it should be clear to all why it came about. And short of an extremely significant change of attitudes, that appears what will eventually occur… Miracles can and do occur; however, not always where and when we may want. And at this point, after how may decades, it would appear that a miracle will be necessary to stop the train wreck.

Christ prayed, in John 17 that all may be one, as Christ and the Father are one. That should be our prayer.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I can’t think of any parallels in the Church in which bishops are in such obvious, outward, explicit and direct disobedience to the pontiff.

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.)

 

[tommydude2112]

They are truly in need of our prayers.
LORD, bring them back to the Church