SSPX poised for formal schism?

[Elizabeth502]

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

No calumny was committed, sir. I will not lower myself to personal attacks, whether responding to them from one side or initiating them. Whatever error you believe I committed is a matter of disagreement between the two of us, something I charitably made note of in my previous post addressed to you. If you consider me guilty of such a serious charge as “calumny,” that would be a matter for moderator referral, I would think.

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

Who’s “excusing sin?” Not I. However, many on this thread are accusing members of the SSPX, and members of other traditionalist groups, of “sin,” based on assumptions about hidden, private motivations. This we are forbidden to do by our Master.

As to the magisterial discussion, the SSPX would probably say (I’m not an SSPX-er) that, rather, certain modernist tendencies in the Church which have been allowed to flourish and have even been reinforced by some in authority are the events, attitudes, and beliefs which are non-magisterial.

It seems that Tigg and I both see the vigorous condemnation of the state of souls of individual unknown members of SSPX to be lacking in Gospel charity.

 

[Boulder257]

No calumny was committed, sir. I will not lower myself to personal attacks, whether responding to them from one side or initiating them. Whatever error you believe I committed is a matter of disagreement between the two of us, something I charitably made note of in my previous post addressed to you. If you consider me guilty of such a serious charge as “calumny,” that would be a matter for moderator referral, I would think.

Who’s “excusing sin?” Not I. However, many on this thread are accusing members of the SSPX, and members of other traditionalist groups, of “sin,” based on assumptions about hidden, private motivations. This we are forbidden to do by our Master.

As to the magisterial discussion, the SSPX would probably say (I’m not an SSPX-er) that, rather, certain modernist tendencies in the Church which have been allowed to flourish and have even been reinforced by some in authority are the events, attitudes, and beliefs which are non-magisterial.

It seems that Tigg and I both see the vigorous condemnation of the state of souls of individual unknown members of SSPX to be lacking in Gospel charity.

I don’t understand how you can’t see that as a two sided street. How do you know the hearts of one group, but refuse to judge the hearts of another? Or am I misunderstanding your position?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t understand how you can’t see that as a two sided street. How do you know the hearts of one group, but refuse to judge the hearts of another? Or am I misunderstanding your position?

Yes, you misunderstand me. I never said a single thing about “knowing the hearts” of either group, but plenty of other posters on this thread have said or implied that they do know the hearts of the SSPX’ers, and are prepared to condemn all of them.

 

[janeway529]

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.

There’s a blog which I found online that has cited an insightful article from Homiletic and Pastoral Review. I’ll just quote a bit of it. It seems that the SSPX is falling into an eerily similar path.

In the thirteenth century many priests were involved in seeking wealth and having a pleasant life. They hardly preached at all, virtually never studied, and paid for important positions so that they could get even more money. A number of priests openly lived with women, causing great scandal. Some of the bishops lived in unbelievable wealth, and would sell Church positions to keep their rich life style. Many of the people were just as bad as their leaders.
As a result, many so-called prophets had appeared, some good, some not-so-good, who promised terrible punishments if people did not reform. Peter Waldo was one of the reformers who had a great beginning. He gave up his riches to live in poverty and spread the faith. He had many followers who also lived as poor men, and did penance. However, when they began to preach without permission against the lazy and sinful priests, the Archbishop of Lyons, France, excommunicated them.
…]
In time they got into all sorts of errors, such as placing their interpretation of the Bible over the authority of the pope, denying both purgatory, and veneration of the saints. They also refused to go to confession to immoral priests, preferring to confess to good people who were not priests. As a result, the Waldensians were excommunicated by the pope in 1184.
…]
Despite their sincerity, and their living radical Gospel poverty, they all fell astray. They lost the faith. But, their contemporary, Francis of Assisi did not. Why not? Because he never went anywhere to preach the Gospel without permission of the priests. Furthermore, he would never criticize the priests and bishops—even the most lazy and immoral ones—nor would he allow his friars to do so.

I believe such criticism can feed our own pride, and make us feel superior to our Church leaders. From that point it is not a great leap to begin to lump their teaching in with their behavior, and to begin to reject the doctrines of the Church. The danger is real.

Taken from: abbey-roads.blogspot.com/2012/07/condemning-bishops.html

 

[Tigg]

It seems that Tigg and I both see the vigorous condemnation of the state of souls of individual unknown members of SSPX to be lacking in Gospel charity.

To say the least, Elizabeth502, and at a time in church history when cultural norms and the secular voice do truly wish to destroy the Church. Seems somewhat off balance and condemning our own brethren doesn’t much appeal to me especially in light of how hard Pope Benedict worked for unity in the Church and how sincerely he wished for them to return.

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.

And you would assume to understand all the complexities of their issues, including their study of historical precedents and how they reached the painful plateau on which they find themselves. Amazing how easy it is to issue a blanket condemnation without understanding their rationale. I, for one, would be very afraid of doing such a thing. What is needed is much much prayer.

 

[fred_conty]

I may get formally smashed for saying this…but…most of this thread has been off topic…“SSPX poised for formal schism?”

It isn’t really about what they hold as true. It isn’t about whether they are better or worse than protestants. It isn’t about whether someone agrees with them or opposes them.
It isn’t about the popes and their stand on Mass types.

It is about yes or no, and why.

Does anyone really want schism? Popes? Bishops?

Is time a factor or not? What are any factors?

My opinion is…I don’t know why there should be a schism. Maybe a little more time, and people will die or change. And with Francis as pope, he is a friend to everyone. He talks more about the “spirit” rather than ideo-something.

Just some rambblings.

 

[codefro]

I may get formally smashed for saying this…but…most of this thread has been off topic…“SSPX poised for formal schism?”

It isn’t really about what they hold as true. It isn’t about whether they are better or worse than protestants. It isn’t about whether someone agrees with them or opposes them.
It isn’t about the popes and their stand on Mass types.

It is about yes or no, and why.

Does anyone really want schism? Popes? Bishops?

Is time a factor or not? What are any factors?

My opinion is…I don’t know why there should be a schism. Maybe a little more time, and people will die or change. And with Francis as pope, he is a friend to everyone. He talks more about the “spirit” rather than ideo-something.

Just some rambblings.

I don’t think it matters if anybody wants schism- it’s about whether the SSPX needs to be singled out and declared outside the Church and warned of the dangers of their situation or if the Magisterium will keep the SSPX close sand maybe allow them to have some influence on dialogues in the Church. It doesn’t matter what anybody wants.

 

[otjm]

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.

from this comment, it would appear that somehow I misread your earlier post; I apologize.

And no, I am not hot and bothered; but having seen a friend of mine, a retired school teacher/coach get sucked into the whirlpool of the rhetoric, I am greatly saddened.

There is one chapel, about 5 to 7 miles from my home, which is either SSPX; or some other group purporting to be Catholic but not part of the Archdiocese. I don’t know which, and frankly, I don’t care. They don’t impact my life.

Hot? No, more like bemused. Bothered? No, saddened that people can get that far removed from the Magisterium.

 

[Aramis]

from this comment, it would appear that somehow I misread your earlier post; I apologize.

And no, I am not hot and bothered; but having seen a friend of mine, a retired school teacher/coach get sucked into the whirlpool of the rhetoric, I am greatly saddened.

There is one chapel, about 5 to 7 miles from my home, which is either SSPX; or some other group purporting to be Catholic but not part of the Archdiocese. I don’t know which, and frankly, I don’t care. They don’t impact my life.

Hot? No, more like bemused. Bothered? No, saddened that people can get that far removed from the Magisterium.

Keep in mind - not all parishes that aren’t part of the local bishop’s diocese are outside the church proper - in many major metropolitan areas, the Eastern Catholics have parishes which are organized into separate dioceses (called Eparchies).

Also, parishes of the Anglican Ordinariate are Catholic, but are separate from the local Diocese. As are military base parishes part of the Military Ordinariate, but not the local diocese.

 

[otjm]

Keep in mind - not all parishes that aren’t part of the local bishop’s diocese are outside the church proper - in many major metropolitan areas, the Eastern Catholics have parishes which are organized into separate dioceses (called Eparchies).

Also, parishes of the Anglican Ordinariate are Catholic, but are separate from the local Diocese. As are military base parishes part of the Military Ordinariate, but not the local diocese.

Yes, I am aware.

This one I spoke of, however, is clearly out. We have two Eastern rite Churches - well, I guess the Maronites consider themselves Western; and this is clearly not one of them (both of which I have been to a number of times). And it was in existence long before the Anglicans appealed.

 

[pnewton]

I may get formally smashed for saying this…but…most of this thread has been off topic…“SSPX poised for formal schism?”

And with Francis as pope, he is a friend to everyone. He talks more about the “spirit” rather than ideo-something.

Just some rambblings.

Finally, back to the topic. I think the nature of Pope Francis is half the equation, but it is the bigger half, if you will excuse my mathmatical absurdity. I think you are right that he has no desire to take action against the SSPX. Unless the SSPX takes action that leaves him little choice, I think this issue will be kicked down the road. That being said, it is possible that they will make some move or statement that affects their communion. It has happened before.

 

[fred_conty]

Finally, back to the topic. I think the nature of Pope Francis is half the equation, but it is the bigger half, if you will excuse my mathmatical absurdity. I think you are right that he has no desire to take action against the SSPX. Unless the SSPX takes action that leaves him little choice, I think this issue will be kicked down the road. That being said, it is possible that they will make some move or statement that affects their communion. It has happened before.

I think Pope Francis is more that half. We have had two popes who have been patient. Just a guess, but I do not believe Pope Francis will force the issue either.

And the bishops in SPX do not want this either since their words have always been to recoginize the church as true. If this idea changes, which bishop Falley has never denied, then everyone agrees to disagree for the present as they have in the past, maintaining hope for understanding in the future.

May Jesus bless us all.

 

[Mark121359]

*** THIS!* **

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.

Peace, Mark

 

[system]

I would argue whats the big deal if they do? Look the Orthodox schismed. What is their status now? The protestants schismed. What is their status now? The Anglicans schismed. What is their status now?

No problems with any of them. The Church respects, accepts and loves them all.

Apparently everyone has a path and a way to Heaven, no matter what, if anything, they believe as long as they follow their conscience.

You hit it on the head Mike30. This is what the Pope’s since John Paul II have fostered. It is just an implementation of Unitatis Redintegratio, a document of V2. This document rejects the idea of a return of the above mentioned groups to the Church (contrary to Mortalium Animos, the Instruction on the Ecumenical Movement of 12/20/49, etc. ). So why is it required of the SSPX? UR believes that unity will no longer be brought about by a return to the True Church, but by a conversion of all the churches within the “total Christ”, a Christ who is not identified by any one particular church. Vatican 2 only says that the “Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” (LG 8) and does not say the Church of Christ = the Catholic Church. Why the hypocrisy with regard to the SSPX? The reason is that the SSPX does not believe this. They believe, righfully so, that the Church of Christ = the Catholic Church. Has the Pope called for a return of the Protestants, Orthodox, Aetheists…? So goes the crisis in the Church…Pray for us

 

[MicheleLMD]

I wouldn’t say anyone is “entrapped” in the SSPX. They choose to be there based on the crisis in the Church. While I don’t agree with Bishop Fellay and the SSPX on various issues, they are still Catholics who uphold the teachings of the Church better than most Catholics I have come across. Yes, they need our prayers, but so does every Catholic living during these times.

I like your quote. We have to remember that this was born during an extreme change in the Church. The entire mass that they loved and were taught to protect was changed. I sometimes wonder how many of us would have reacted in that place. Being taught you MUST kneel and receive communion on the tongue in a state of grace or face mortal sin. Taught eating meat on a Friday was a mortal sin. Seeing the communion rails removed and statues removed and tabernacle taken from the alters in some cases. My Dad has told me how this profoundly affected him. He still recalls this time with sadness. Many of these beliefs were so deeply rooted that yes they rebelled. I wonder what we would do if there were a true schism in The Church. What if they were preaching something you knew to be error or false. Would you defend God’s truth or the go along with the crowd. What if they removed the traditional crucifix and replaced it with a painting of Pope Francis? What if they changed the mass beyond recognition? What if your gut told you, ‘this is wrong’?

We can not judge them. God will judge us all. We were not there. It’s easy to call them schismatics but they are our brethren. They are children of God. They deserve our prayers. I was too little to understand but now as an adult I try to imagine it. Now that I have experienced the Tridentine Mass, I see it was a big change. It probably would have upset me too. Just count yourself lucky to be Catholic. Pray for discernment to see schism and recognize truth. God bless us all.

 

[Brendan_64]

The point I was making in my previous post was that the SSPX is not the enemy we should be fighting. …

Truth is, the SSPX is a relatively small group of Catholics who believe they are doing what’s best in this time of crisis while still acknowledging Pope Francis as Supreme Pontiff. Any faults they have with obedience or their interpretation of Vatican II is minor compared to the destruction of the Church we see around the world. And though it’s a real longshot now, I still pray for their unification with the Holy See, as should we all.

I agree with this.

We have our differences within the Church, and some are not obeying Rome as they ought to, but they are part of us, they are our Catholic brothers and sisters.

The SSPX are not a threat to the Church. The threat we face comes not from the SSPX, or from our Protestant brothers and sisters. The threat we face is from secular society with its culture of fornication, selfishness, greed and death. How will engaging in a bitter internal feud help us in dealing with Satan and his increasing sway over the world?

 

[MicheleLMD]

I agree with this.

We have our differences within the Church, and some are not obeying Rome as they ought to, but they are part of us, they are our Catholic brothers and sisters.

The SSPX are not a threat to the Church. The threat we face comes not from the SSPX, or from our Protestant brothers and sisters. The threat we face is from secular society with its culture of fornication, selfishness, greed and death. How will engaging in a bitter internal feud help us in dealing with Satan and his increasing sway over the world?

Yes, we have real adversaries to battle. Take up your weapon (rosary) and pray.

 

[M1Garand]

How relevant is Pope Francis pronouncement regarding dogmatic legalism and its divisive effects. That is all this discussion turns own, legalism and dogma without context. SSPX(I am not a member) rails against the liberal modernist movement that laid wast to the Church in the US and Western Europe in the 70’s and 80’s An example is the infiltration of the seminaries by the deviants that led directly to the abuse crisis. SSPX focus may be misdirected at times but I witnessed the abuses of the priest who refused to follow the rubrics of the church, made up their own version of the Catechism, and even committed scandal with young students at my high school. I have heard and seen it all. But in the end this discussion does nothing to evangelize Christ to the world or lead protestants back to the faith. A “good Catholic” lives his life like Christ and he or she is good even if that person cannot cite line and verse of the CCC(for 99.9% of the Churches history there was no one source Catechism). A good Catholic follows Christ and is likewise free to criticize abuse no matter its form. IF the SSPX levels a legitimate grievance maybe the Church and its members should listen and not act like the sadducees and fall back on legalism and condemnation and accuse them of blanket disobedience.

I do not intend the above as a criticism of any one post here.

 

[M1Garand]

I agree with this.

We have our differences within the Church, and some are not obeying Rome as they ought to, but they are part of us, they are our Catholic brothers and sisters.

The SSPX are not a threat to the Church. The threat we face comes not from the SSPX, or from our Protestant brothers and sisters. The threat we face is from secular society with its culture of fornication, selfishness, greed and death. How will engaging in a bitter internal feud help us in dealing with Satan and his increasing sway over the world?

 

[pnewton]

. IF the SSPX levels a legitimate grievance maybe the Church and its members should listen and not act like the sadducees and fall back on legalism and condemnation and accuse them of blanket disobedience.

This assumes a legitimate grievance, among many other things. If they had brought legitimate grievances, then I have no doubt they would have been addressed. Or more to the point, everything they have brought has been addressed and found insufficient or mistaken in some way.