SSPX poised for formal schism?

[pnewton]

And one can easily see there is in fact a crisis just by looking at the Church in the West today.

There is always a crisis in the Church, and probably always will be. Using dated quotes does not tell us today what particular crisis we are facing. I do not consider the abuse scandals a wide spread crisis anymore. The crisis in the liturgy spoken of has largely passed. There are more Catholics in the world than ever before. There are parts of the world where, especially in Europe where secularism is choking the Church. This can be seen as a type of crisis.

The point is, Blessed John Paul stated point blank to AB Lefebvre that no crisis rose to the level of justifying his illegal ordinations. I have no doubt that if Bishop Fellay attempts the same thing, he will get the same answer. According to Pope Francis, our challenge now is that we are focusing too much on moral issues and not enough on our primary mission of evangelism. That is our “crisis” today. In Pauline terms, we are trying to feed steak to babies. (can I copyright that?)

 

[Elizabeth502]

There is always a crisis in the Church, and probably always will be.

True. But the crises vary by time period and by region. Some crises may cry out for more aggressive “intervention” than others, such as this:

There are parts of the world where, especially in Europe where secularism is choking the Church.

IOW, some crises may not be particularly alarming (and the Church has often suffered from heresies, obviously, ancient and new). And some schismastic events or situations may also be more alarming than others. Some would consider the above quote as more urgent, as in “choking.”

I also think that there are often different reasons for various heresies and schismatic movements. To me, the most important thing is examine the roots and the origins. If that is not examined, then responses such as ignoring them, suppressing them, or maintaining denial will not necessarily improve the situation and resolve the crisis. It particularly should concern the Church if any heresy or contrary group within it is expanding, gaining popularity/visibility/credibility, etc. Generally, people behave in response to something else. Others could argue whether the response is “justified,” healthy, or any number of labels, but radical and risky actions are especially an opportunity to examine why a person or a group would take such a risk. And calling them bad and disobedient people is not an effective solution. In fact, it’s no solution at all.

This can be seen as a type of crisis.

The understatement of the month, if not the year.

The point is, Blessed John Paul stated point blank to AB Lefebvre that no crisis rose to the level of justifying his illegal ordinations.

I won’t argue with that, just saying that “crisis” was perceived differently by the Pope and by others, because human perception is subjective. In my adult life, I have most often observed radical behavior or “extremes” to happen as a result of perceived inaction on the part of leaders, regarding whatever prompted the behavior in the first place. (Such as in secular life, individuals and groups taking matters into their own hands because of lack of response to what is observed by some to be a prolonged crisis – rarely just a single event. I’ve seen this in education, in political action, and in many other areas.)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

True. But the crises vary by time period and by region. Some crises may cry out for more aggressive “intervention” than others, such as this:

IOW, some crises may not be particularly alarming (and the Church has often suffered from heresies, obviously, ancient and new). And some schismastic events or situations may also be more alarming than others. Some would consider the above quote as more urgent, as in “choking.”

I also think that there are often different reasons for various heresies and schismatic movements. To me, the most important thing is examine the roots and the origins. If that is not examined, then responses such as ignoring them, suppressing them, or maintaining denial will not necessarily improve the situation and resolve the crisis. It particularly should concern the Church if any heresy or contrary group within it is expanding, gaining popularity/visibility/credibility, etc. Generally, people behave in response to something else. Others could argue whether the response is “justified,” healthy, or any number of labels, but radical and risky actions are especially an opportunity to examine why a person or a group would take such a risk. And calling them bad and disobedient people is not an effective solution. In fact, it’s no solution at all.

The understatement of the month, if not the year.

I won’t argue with that, just saying that “crisis” was perceived differently by the Pope and by others, because human perception is subjective. In my adult life, I have most often observed radical behavior or “extremes” to happen as a result of perceived inaction on the part of leaders, regarding whatever prompted the behavior in the first place. (Such as in secular life, individuals and groups taking matters into their own hands because of lack of response to what is observed by some to be a prolonged crisis – rarely just a single event. I’ve seen this in education, in political action, and in many other areas.)

Also, I wonder if the SSPX will see a “growth”

Hopefully not. But there could be some traditionalists that are put off by the Pope and his representation in the media. While Pope Francis frustrates me and makes me nervous, I could never leave over a Pope that did things differently than I thought prudent. But I know of several people who are giving serious thought to crossing over to the SSPX, and the fact that they are not in formal schism only makes it easier for them to justify the jump.

 

[kozlosap]

Quote from. JR:

[Maybe time will prove me wrong; but that’s my belief right now. The Holy See will not compromise much more of its authority with the SSPX.

---

FrCOLOR]

Once again you hit the nail right on the head Brother JR. It is not the Church who needs to change!

 

[larsont7]

There is always a crisis in the Church, and probably always will be. Using dated quotes does not tell us today what particular crisis we are facing.

I was responding to Aramis’s claim that 2 popes have said there is “no crisis in the Church”, and I have yet to find any backing of that claim. The quotes I provided, though dated, disproved his inital claim. And you are right, there have always been crises in the Church, but I would argue that not all crises are equal. Whether the crises we face today are any worse than ones in the past is debatable, but my personal opinion is that they are.

I do not consider the abuse scandals a wide spread crisis anymore. The crisis in the liturgy spoken of has largely passed. There are more Catholics in the world than ever before. There are parts of the world where, especially in Europe where secularism is choking the Church. This can be seen as a type of crisis.

I agree that the abuse scandal has been reduced considerably, but the effects of it are still out there, and is still a stumbling block for many from coming into (or back to) the Church. I would respectfully disagree that the crisis in the liturgy has passed, just based on my own personal experiences and from talking to other people, but that’s a debate for another thread.

As to the number of Catholics in the world, are you just tallying up the statistics of nominal Catholics, or those who practice and adhere to the faith? 1.2 billion is a large number, no doubt, but if a majority (based on every poll I have seen) disregard major tenets of the faith, wouldn’t you agree that actually makes the crisis worse than better? It would mean that the enemy is within rather than without, but perhaps that would be a good philosophical question for another thread as well.

The point is, Blessed John Paul stated point blank to AB Lefebvre that no crisis rose to the level of justifying his illegal ordinations. I have no doubt that if Bishop Fellay attempts the same thing, he will get the same answer. According to Pope Francis, our challenge now is that we are focusing too much on moral issues and not enough on our primary mission of evangelism. That is our “crisis” today. In Pauline terms, we are trying to feed steak to babies. (can I copyright that?)

I don’t disagree with your first two statements. Since I’m not SSPX, I don’t agree with what +Lefebvre did nor would I condone +Fellay following the same path. I understand why they did what they did, but I do not support their actions. That being said, I don’t believe they are the enemy either, which is what I see so much here on CAF.

As to our Holy Father’s words, I don’t know if I completely agree with what he’s saying, if that is in fact what he is saying. I don’t think it’s a one or the other sort of thing. We need to focus on evangelism AND on moral issues. I don’t see the profit in evangelizing and bringing people to the Catholic Church without teaching them what the faith is, how to be a faithful Catholic, and how to avoid sins that lead us away from eternal salvation.

Being a nominal Catholic will not save anyone; being a faithful Catholic will. This is not a numbers game to see how many converts we can get. We’re not salespeople. We shouldn’t try to lure people in without letting them know that being a faithful Catholic is not easy. It requires much hard work, sacrifice, prayer, fasting, and devotion. Christ called us all to evangelize, but not at the expense of watering down the faith to grow our numbers.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This:

I don’t think it’s a one or the other sort of thing. We need to focus on evangelism AND on moral issues. I don’t see the profit in evangelizing and bringing people to the Catholic Church without teaching them what the faith is, how to be a faithful Catholic, and how to avoid sins that lead us away from eternal salvation.

Being a nominal Catholic will not save anyone; being a faithful Catholic will. ***This is not a numbers game to see how many converts we can get. We’re not salespeople. *** …Christ called us all to evangelize, but not at the expense of watering down the faith to grow our numbers.

 

[otjm]

I won’t argue with that, just saying that “crisis” was perceived differently by the Pope and by others, because human perception is subjective. In my adult life, I have most often observed radical behavior or “extremes” to happen as a result of perceived inaction on the part of leaders, regarding whatever prompted the behavior in the first place. (Such as in secular life, individuals and groups taking matters into their own hands because of lack of response to what is observed by some to be a prolonged crisis – rarely just a single event. I’ve seen this in education, in political action, and in many other areas.)

Your comment seems to be wandering away from the underlying issue.

The underlying issue is that the SSPX holds that the loss of the faithful (statistics vary by country, but a number of European countries are in the 5% range - that is, 5% of baptized Catholics go to Mass weekly), and the downhill slope of those who have quit/left/become indifferent is and has been greased by open sinfulness beyond simply not going to Mass; abortion, sex out of wedlock, gross materialism, drugs, (fill in your favorite here) was caused by Vatican 2 documents, and the OF.

To begin with, the Church has said they are wrong in their ascribing the decline of Western religious observance to those issues. And while I agree with Br. JR’s comments, it is not simply the Pope (or two or three of them), or the Pope and the curia who disagree. The vast majority of the bishops of the world also hold they are wrong.

But even beyond that, they are tempting to ascribe what they perceive as results to a very limited set of issues, when what is causing the problem was in full swing well before Vatican 2, let alone the EF.

They seem to have no clue as to causation, and no clue was to how to rectify the matters, and no desire to work within the Church to do so.

There are all sorts of issues, both in society in general, and within the community of those who have been baptized into the Catholic Church. Those issues are not going to be solved by simply saying the Mass in Latin, or following the rubrics of the EF instead of the OF, or continuing to use only language relating to our faith that is 75, 100, 150 or more years old. And let me give you an example of that specifically: Paul 6th used a significant amount of scholastic language and imagery when he wrote Humanae Vitae.

It flew about like a stone.

John Paul 2 used language of phenomenology and humanism when he gave us what is now referred to as Theology of the Body, and while it is not spreading like wild fire, it is spreading, particularly among the youth who are exposed to it. In short, the “get it”.

Anyone who wishes to insist that one can only speak of the moral dimensions of the sexual act in pre-Vatican 2 terms is so far removed from paying attention that is is nigh impossible to describe.

 

[otjm]

As to the number of Catholics in the world, are you just tallying up the statistics of nominal Catholics, or those who practice and adhere to the faith? 1.2 billion is a large number, no doubt, but if a majority (based on every poll I have seen) disregard major tenets of the faith, wouldn’t you agree that actually makes the crisis worse than better? It would mean that the enemy is within rather than without, but perhaps that would be a good philosophical question for another thread as well.

The number is world-wide, but the problems we are having in the Church with which most are familiar are in the western Church - Europe, the Americas (and primarily North America) and Australia.

I don’t disagree with your first two statements. Since I’m not SSPX, I don’t agree with what +Lefebvre did nor would I condone +Fellay following the same path. I understand why they did what they did, but I do not support their actions. That being said, I don’t believe they are the enemy either, which is what I see so much here on CAF.

No one is saying the SSPX are “enemies” of the Church. What is being said is they appear to be heading towards schism, which is a direct refusal to accept the authority of the Church expressed through the Pope.

As to our Holy Father’s words, I don’t know if I completely agree with what he’s saying, if that is in fact what he is saying. I don’t think it’s a one or the other sort of thing. We need to focus on evangelism AND on moral issues. I don’t see the profit in evangelizing and bringing people to the Catholic Church without teaching them what the faith is, how to be a faithful Catholic, and how to avoid sins that lead us away from eternal salvation.

Being a nominal Catholic will not save anyone; being a faithful Catholic will. This is not a numbers game to see how many converts we can get. We’re not salespeople. We shouldn’t try to lure people in without letting them know that being a faithful Catholic is not easy. It requires much hard work, sacrifice, prayer, fasting, and devotion. Christ called us all to evangelize, but not at the expense of watering down the faith to grow our numbers.

This is A) off topic and B) appears to be sourced in the secular media, as what the Pope has said (rather than sound bites of what he has said) explain it very well. If you wish to make a separate thread that might be a good topic.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The number is world-wide, but the problems we are having in the Church with which most are familiar are in the western Church - Europe, the Americas (and primarily North America) and Australia.

I’m sorry, but Catholic South America is not without problems, and significantly so. They are merely different problems than those of North America.

This is A) off topic and B) appears to be sourced in the secular media, as what the Pope has said (rather than sound bites of what he has said) explain it very well. If you wish to make a separate thread that might be a good topic.

You can keep telling posters that they’re “off-topic,” but the facts are that the SSPX (topic of this thread) was and is a response to perceived crises, plural. Initially and today. The canonical situation has been talked to death, and I think most people are aware that the SSPX is on the margins of the Church and remains in ambiguous status at best. The election of Pope Francis has intensified concerns within some such groups about the direction of the Church. (I’m not an SSPX-er) To the extent that there is a perception, accurately reported in the media or not, that the Pope is disinclined to view the western Church to be in crisis, the SSPX will likely be more inclined to schism, and thus discussion of hypothetical “crises” is quite on-topic.

It seems clear that you don’t wish to address it, but other posters do, because the SSPX (topic of thread) wants to.

 

[larsont7]

The number is world-wide, but the problems we are having in the Church with which most are familiar are in the western Church - Europe, the Americas (and primarily North America) and Australia.

I agree that the major problems in the Church lie in the Western Church. And you are correct, the polls I was referring to only pertain to the Americas and Europe, so I should have worded that better. I meant the majority of Catholics in the Western Church, not those in Asia or Africa.

No one is saying the SSPX are “enemies” of the Church. What is being said is they appear to be heading towards schism, which is a direct refusal to accept the authority of the Church expressed through the Pope.

Perhaps that is what you are saying, but that’s not what I’ve been seeing in a lot of these threads. I’ve seen a lot of people saying they’re Protestants, comparing them to Old Catholics, saying their Masses are invalid (rather than illicit), etc. In these ways, people give the impression that the SSPX is an enemy of the Church, and this is far from the truth.

And though they may appear to be heading toward schism, they have not crossed that line as of yet, and I think we should all hope and pray that that doesn’t happen.

Another thing I’ve seen is that when some people on here are talking about the SSPX, they talk about the people that attend their chapels rather than the SSPX itself, saying that these people think they are “holier than the Pope” and are radical in their views. I’m guessing these same people see the SSPX in a bubble, and that everyone that goes to SSPX Masses fit perfectly into this bubble. This is simply not the case. If you actually meet some who attend, you find many are faithful Catholics just like anyone else.

I’ve yet to see any good come from these SSPX threads, and if the SSPX are not allowed to share why they feel the way they do because it violates the rules, they should just get rid of these threads altogether.

This is A) off topic and B) appears to be sourced in the secular media, as what the Pope has said (rather than sound bites of what he has said) explain it very well. If you wish to make a separate thread that might be a good topic.

It is only off topic because I was disagreeing with pnewton’s response to me and his interpretation of the Holy Father’s words.

 

[Brendan_64]

I’ve seen a lot of people saying they’re Protestants, comparing them to Old Catholics, saying their Masses are invalid (rather than illicit), etc.

I haven’t seen anyone on here state that SSPX masses are invalid.

Whether their Masses are invalid, illicit or licit, is not a matter of personal opinion. The validity of a Mass depends upon Apostolic Succession (not the approval of Rome). Whether or not a Mass is licit or not is a matter from Rome to decide upon.

SSPX Masses are valid, how can they be otherwise unless you deny Apostolic Succession? SSPX Masses, Old Catholic Masses, Sedevacantist Masses and a Mass celebrated by any priest ordained by a bishop who has an Apostolic line of succession, is valid. All these Masses are however most definitely illicit. Any Catholic who states either that they are invalid, or that they are licit, is holding a view that is in opposition to the teaching of our Church.

 

[Tigg]

I was responding to Aramis’s claim that 2 popes have said there is “no crisis in the Church”, and I have yet to find any backing of that claim. The quotes I provided, though dated, disproved his inital claim. And you are right, there have always been crises in the Church, but I would argue that not all crises are equal. Whether the crises we face today are any worse than ones in the past is debatable, but my personal opinion is that they are.

It is my opinion as well, when we hear a pope say this:

“In vast areas of the earth,” Pope Benedict XVI recently stated to the assembled members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who met in plenary session, “the faith risks being extinguished, like a flame without fuel.” ** Over and over during the course of his pontificate, the Pope warned that the world–especially the affluent Western world–faces a “crisis of faith.”**

We need to focus on evangelism AND on moral issues. I don’t see the profit in evangelizing and bringing people to the Catholic Church without teaching them what the faith is, how to be a faithful Catholic, and how to avoid sins that lead us away from eternal salvation.

Agreed. You know, heresies come and go and when the Church makes a definitive pronouncement pertaining to them, it *strengthens * the faith because the error is condemned. That is not what we are seeing today - false teaching in moral matters continues to be promulgated from within (think of Austria recently) and certain “ones” are more and more opposing perpetual teaching. Nominal Catholics with little solid foundation in truth no longer know what to believe, so how can they in fact, *”have” * faith? They know not what it teaches. So………“Will the Son of Man find any faith on earth when He comes?” It is, as John Paul once described it, the “silent apostasy.”

In the meantime, we are happy to chastise a group of Catholics who, as I understand it, want some “doctrinal problems” clarified. Since even some of the hierarchy has recognized certain issues as being ambiguous, or at the very least, problematic, I would hope and pray that the Society through God’s direction is regularized and that they find their way home to us.

 

[BluesPicker]

“Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her…But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments…, then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20).” [Pope St. Pius X: Allocution of May 10, 1909]"

  That sums it up rather nicely.  If you are fighting in a war and your troops are scattered and doing what they want to do rather than follow lawful authority you are sure to lose.

   In the past there have been great saints called by God to advise the Holy Father.  This has been my prayer for years that the Lord send a saint to minister to His Church.

 

[Robertwilliam]

Fools rush in where angels would dare to tread. Pray for the pour souls entrapped in the SSPX.

RATHER, pray for the poor fools entrapped in the Vatican II Church.

 

[Tomdstone]

They seem to have no clue as to causation, and no clue was to how to rectify the matters, and no desire to work within the Church to do so.

I don’t think that is true.

 

[TMC]

In the meantime, we are happy to chastise a group of Catholics who, as I understand it, want some “doctrinal problems” clarified. Since even some of the hierarchy has recognized certain issues as being ambiguous, or at the very least, problematic, I would hope and pray that the Society through God’s direction is regularized and that they find their way home to us.

I just don’t think that its accurate to say that the SSPX is seeking clarification of anything. They want the Church to change certain of her teachings. I don’t condemn them for that - there are some Church teachings I would like to see changed, too. But they are not merely advocating for the change they want. They are purporting to have the authority to say what the Church “really” teaches. They are also purporting to have the authority to ordain bishops and priests that see the Church their way. Again, I don’t condemn them for creating a religious organization that comports with their beliefs, they must follow their own consciences in that regard. But I am puzzled as to why anyone would believe that such an organization would be able to remain part of the Church.

Really, the parallels to the Old Catholics are striking. I think that is the direction that the SSPX is heading, unless some large course correction occurs soon.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I just don’t think that its accurate to say that the SSPX is seeking clarification of anything. They want the Church to change certain of her teachings.

Which permanent Roman Catholic doctrine do you think they would like “changed?” Not an explanation of a doctrine – such as language, not the practice of the liturgy, not the existence of a discipline, but a teaching that is part of the hermeneutic of continuity pre- and post-Vatican II.

 

[TMC]

Which permanent Roman Catholic doctrine do you think they would like “changed?” Not an explanation of a doctrine – such as language, not the practice of the liturgy, not the existence of a discipline, but a teaching that is part of the hermeneutic of continuity pre- and post-Vatican II.

Not sure I can sort through all of your many caveats, but as I understand it the SSPX would like several of the teachings of Vatican II changed or abrogated. Most notably (to me anyway) are the Council’s teachings on salvation and on the Jewish people. I am sure there are others, but those are the two that I hear most often.

To clarify: I am not asserting that Vatican II’s teachings in those areas were new or novel or a break with the past, although I believe that some take them to be all of those things.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

You can keep telling posters that they’re “off-topic,” but the facts are that the SSPX (topic of this thread) was and is a response to perceived crises, plural. Initially and today. The canonical situation has been talked to death, and I think most people are aware that the SSPX is on the margins of the Church and remains in ambiguous status at best. The election of Pope Francis has intensified concerns within some such groups about the direction of the Church. (I’m not an SSPX-er) To the extent that there is a perception, accurately reported in the media or not, that the Pope is disinclined to view the western Church to be in crisis, the SSPX will likely be more inclined to schism, and thus discussion of hypothetical “crises” is quite on-topic.

I think that is really the question. Does Pope Francis feel that the western Church is in crises? I would say from reading his words that he does feel that there is a crises. It may not be the exact issues that the SSPX is concerned about though.

And even if there is a crises (which Popes John Paul, Benedict, and Francis didn’t deny), that doesn’t mean that the SSPX has the right plan or authority for solving it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think that is really the question. Does Pope Francis feel that the western Church is in crises? I would say from reading his words that he does feel that there is a crises. It may not be the exact issues that the SSPX is concerned about though.

And even if there is a crises (which Popes John Paul, Benedict, and Francis didn’t deny), that doesn’t mean that the SSPX has the right plan or authority for solving it.

Just adding that I didn’t claim the bolded part. I am claiming that until the hierrarchy shares some sense of crisis and addresses that with action of some kind, groups like the SSPX will probably not diminish, and may even expand. (Probably depends on how much such groups see the crisis as intensifying rather than merely stagnating.)

Various statements of condemnation – officially or not – are also not a solution, because the root catalyst for their very existence is not, in their eyes, being addressed. And any change in perception will probably not occur until there are visible and unambiguous responses to that original catalyst.