SSPX Update - Redux

[Melchior_1]

Let’s take a moment to analyse what Redux says.

Who is Redux, and how can I have that as my nickname offline in my everyday life?

Now who has the moral high ground? SSPX, quite clearly.

They lost the high ground awhile ago when they said the CCC wasn’t valid and that the Ordinary Form is a sin.

The Pope has left this matter in the hands of an Archbishop who is not capable of impartial judgment in view of his stance (already taken) against SSPX. It makes it look so bad for the Church, and leaves one suspecting its motives.

Can you give proof as to why you think the Archbishop isn’t being objective?

When Luther began his reform movement he wanted only to have the Church reform itself, and the Church already knew it had to be reformed. Instead of coming to terms with Luther, an intransigent Church dug in its heels and the result was to shatter forever the catholicity of the Church so that we now have untold millions of Protestants. Was that a sensible move? I think not. And here is history repeating itself.

Thank you, this illustrates my previous post. Luther also handled things unbiblically and in an nontraditional fashion, and look what happened?

As always, look to the true reformers of the Church. Francis, Dominic, Benedict (the original flavor) et all.

 

[Jonponwon]

That’s what they said about Luther.

 

[JM3]

you can expect many more breakaway groups.

Sadly, they are already here.

 

[clem456]

edit

 

[JM3]

Yes there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations of different stripes.

I was referring to groups within the Church with the SSPX mindset.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s take a moment to analyse what Redux says.

Who is Redux?

The Church lives, apparently comfortably, with the heresies deriving from Vatican II and others known to the Pope.

So, you’re taking the same schismatic attitude as the SSPX. “The pope and the rest of the Church are cooperators with heresy.” That’s a very big and serious allegation.

SSPX refuses to accept ANY of these heresies. Now who has the moral high ground?

Not the SSPX, any more than do Franciscans or any other institute. The SSPX is a clerical institute, nothing more. It’s not a discastry. It’s not a diocese. It’s not church or even an ecclesial community. Therefore, under the law, he has no right to claim any moral ground, just like Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, etc have no right to claim such ground. All of us, including the SSPX exist at the pleasure of the pope. The pope can suppress any of us, including the SSPX, tomorrow morning and that would bee the end of it. If you tried to revive, you would be in schism.

Why are you attributing more moral authority than you would to let’s say the Salesians who have remained faithful to the Church and the Holy Father. Instead of giving the SSPX moral authority and a pat on the back, we should point to them and say, “Hey, look at the Salesians, Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Augustinians, etc and see how they remain faithful to tradition and to the Holy Father without the arrogance, bashing, and disobedience. You guys can do this too.”

Instead, we pat them on the back and ignore the good example given by other institutes. Remember THE SSPEX IS ONLY AN INSTITUTE, not a church. It’s not even an institute of consecrated life. It does not have the Right of Exemption, nor is it of Pontifical Right. It cannot claim moral ground in a Church where it refuses to participate fully.

The Pope has left this matter in the hands of an Archbishop who is not capable of impartial judgment in view of his stance (already taken) against SSPX. It makes it look so bad for the Church, and leaves one suspecting its motives.

1. The pope has left this in the hands of the person who has the authority to resolve this.
2. “Not capable” in whose eyes? The man is an excellent theologian.
3. One cannot take an impartial judgment when faith is at stake. The SSPX is denying one of the most fundamental principals of our faith. The pope does not have to be infallibly right to govern and to command obedience. He is the visible head of the Church.
4. Suspecting whose motives, those of the pope? The pope has done a great deal to bring the SSPX home. He has not treated them to the language and insults to which they have treated him.

SSPX is not going to go away. It is, as Redux says, a right wing movement, and such movements have a way of carrying on indefinitely. When Luther began his reform movement he wanted only to have the Church reform itself, and the Church already knew it had to be reformed. Instead of coming to terms with Luther, an intransigent Church dug in its heels and the result was to shatter forever the catholicity of the Church so that we now have untold millions of Protestants. Was that a sensible move? I think not. And here is history repeating itself. Do we want millions more “heretics” walking the globe. Carry on the way you are treating SSPX and you can expect many more breakaway groups. Reach an accommodation with SSPX and the sooner the better.

We don’t have millions of heretics walking the globe. A heretic is a Catholic who embraces error. Protestants were not Catholics. Therefore, they are not heretics. Their ancestors were, because they were Catholic. Let’s not hand down the sins of the father to the children.

Do we want more Protestants? No. We want unity. Does the SSPX want unity? Only on its terms, if Rome converts to its point of view. That’s unreasonable.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

SSPX refuses to accept ANY of these heresies. Now who has the moral high ground? SSPX, quite clearly. It was in this sense that I said that they were the “true Church” so to speak

When Luther began his reform movement he wanted only to have the Church reform itself, and the Church already knew it had to be reformed. Instead of coming to terms with Luther, an intransigent Church dug in its heels and the result was to shatter forever the catholicity of the Church so that we now have untold millions of Protestants. Was that a sensible move? I think not. And here is history repeating itself. Do we want millions more “heretics” walking the globe. Carry on the way you are treating SSPX and you can expect many more breakaway groups.

So the SSPX rejects heresies and in this sense is the ‘true Church’, and yet it will break away from the true Church like the heterodox Lutherans did in the 16th century. Very logical.

Careful with the use of the word ‘heresy’. I can see the Moderator weighing in any moment now…

 

[Lormar]

I’m all for people promoting the EF, and advocating it being more widely available. I love the FSSP and the work they do in their aposolate. However I do not believe the ends justify the means.** When I see different “trouble” groups, they always have this attitude. I never have, and probably never will.** It’s an incredibly dangerous mindset, and I don’t think the SSPX will be coming back until they ditch it.

Melchior, just so I understand you correctly, would you clarify the bolded part of what you wrote?

 

[Lormar]

St. Paul tells us what love is. Where ever the Holy Spirit is, there is love. The beatitudes are another good barometer to determine where the Holy Spirit is. The first beatitude is poverty. Poverty is about detachment. The biggest problem that groups like the SSPX have is they cannot detach from their opinion, their perception and their idea of what God wants. Christ reminds us that the peace makers shall be blessed. Calling your pope and your hierarchy names such as Modernists and heretics, is not a peaceful activity. Standing in front of thousands of laymen lambasting the Church leadership instead of keeping family business within the family, is sewing dissent, not peace keeping. St. Paul reminds us that love is prudent. This would fall under imprudent actions.

God grant me the grace to become and remain detached from what I think is and/or isn’t good the His Church, and to lay aside my opinions when Holy Mother Church says otherwise.

 

[Melchior_1]

Melchior, just so I understand you correctly, would you clarify the bolded part of what you wrote?

Poorly worded on my part, I need more sleep. It should read:

*However I do not believe the ends justify the means. I never have, and probably never will. It’s an incredibly dangerous mindset, and I don’t think the SSPX will be coming back until they ditch it. When I see different “trouble” groups, they always have this attitude. *

All the different trouble groups [LWCR, SSPX, SSPV, rogue (or “rouge”) priests] use the attitude “the end justify the means”, and I have never seen one instance where I agree with that mentality.

 

[Lormar]

Poorly worded on my part, I need more sleep. It should read:

*However I do not believe the ends justify the means. I never have, and probably never will. It’s an incredibly dangerous mindset, and I don’t think the SSPX will be coming back until they ditch it. When I see different “trouble” groups, they always have this attitude. *

All the different trouble groups [LWCR, SSPX, SSPV, rogue (or “rouge”) priests] use the attitude “the end justify the means”, and I have never seen one instance where I agree with that mentality.

Thanks, and I am glad that I asked you because I read it differently. Teaches me a good lesson. Ask a poster to clarify before assuming they mean something that they never intended their statement to mean. I learn something new each day!!

 

[JReducation]

So the SSPX rejects heresies and in this sense is the ‘true Church’, and yet it will break away from the true Church like the heterodox Lutherans did in the 16th century. Very logical.

Careful with the use of the word ‘heresy’. I can see the Moderator weighing in any moment now…

I teach theology to a small Trad group. A few weeks ago, I blasted them for their incorrect use of the terms “heresy” and “heretic”. I’m not sure if they were trying to sound intelligent or if they really did not see that they were using the terms incorrectly and offensively.

Heresy and heretic are legal terms. They come from Canon Law. Just like felony and felon are legal terms. When using a legal term, one has to use it the way that the law uses it and apply it to the person to whom the law applies it.

The tendency is Traddom is to go by this saint and that doctor, because they used the term, it must be right. WRONG! They often made semantic mistakes like other people do. They were not all canon lawyers.

Heresy is an error that contradicts the faith.

Heretic is a Catholic who embraces a heresy.

Those born outside of Catholicism, as is the case with the Orthodox and the Protestants, cannot be called heretics. They were are not former Catholics who embraced error. They were born into their respective faith tradition.

Since they were not born Catholic, Catholic law cannot be applied to them. It would be a sin of injustice to do so. It would like trying to apply the US Constitution to Canadians, simply because Canadians and Americans have a common heritage. Our heritage is one, but our current situation is not what it was before 1776. The same is true between Catholics and other Christians. We have a common heritage. But our situation today is not that of then. That’s the deal with the term “heretic”. It’s in Catholic law that applies only to Catholics. The first canon in Canon Law says that this code of law only applies to the Latin Church. As you can see, it does not even apply to all Catholics. Only Roman Catholics. Eastern Catholics are not bound by our code of law. There is an interesting thought. You can have 23 Catholics in a room bound by 23 different codes of law, because there are 23 Catholic Churches in union with the Bishop of Rome.

Now lets work on heresy. Heresy is an error against the faith. One need not be a heretic to believe a heresy. A Catholic may believe a heresy, but not know that it is a heresy. Therefore, he’s not a heretic. Only a Catholic who BELIEVES that such a position is heresy, can be called a heretic.

As to non Catholics, it is true that they blend heresies with truth. If their beliefs coincided with our own, there would be no need for different denominations. As Pope Benedict said last year during the week of Christian Unity. Protestantism is not what it was. It’s not so black and white as many Catholics think. That’s what he said.

He said that Protestantism has become a living faith for those who are born into the Protestant family. They do not understand why we can’t see things their way. This misunderstanding is very honest. It’s not stubbornness. Very often, they are afraid to look at our position out of fear of offending God. In this sense, their hearts are in the right place, which is to please God.

When he said this, I thought to myself that this made perfect sense. I am a Jew. I know how hard it is for devout Jews (not cultural Jews) to consider Christianity. They are terrified of looking at Christian claims out of fear of being contaminated by sin. Their biggest fears are the Incarnation and the Trinity. The more devout they are the stronger they feel about staying away from what they believe would offend God.

In this regard, good Protestants and good Jews are very similar to good Catholics. Slinging about terms like heretic and heresy only offends rather than help. And it’s incorrect to do so, because we’re applying a code of law that applies only to one segment of the Catholic Church, not even to all Catholics.

Because the use of the terms heresy and heretic is so complex, it is better to rely on the Magisterium and follow its lead. The papacy and the Curia know how and when to use these terms appropriately.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Oh but for someone who can think logically about this. Until Vatican II the Church believed and practised in a particular way

No, she didn’t. Do you think the preVat2 liturgy was what was done in Jerusalem in 50 A.D.? Or in Alexandria in 450 A.D.? The practices have changed over time, evolved, as it were, and will again. But the essentials have not changed at all. Practices will change again. And the essentials remain the same.

Nothing from the beginning has changed in terms of beliefs. Nothing from the middle changed, either, or the recent. Have you read the Vat2 documents? Nothing changed. They are expressing ancient beliefs to make them accessible to people of our age, but there is not a change in what is dogmatic.

Every time someone trots out a list or an excerpt from some old document that seems to suggest differently, they are simply trying to replace the understanding of the Church with their own personal take on the matter. O, but for someone with the whole view of salvation history! But wait! We do have such: the Magesterium of the Church.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

**MODERATOR MESSAGE
**

Before you post, please read post 174

Thank You

 

[Dee_S]

*However I do not believe the ends justify the means. I never have, and probably never will. It’s an incredibly dangerous mindset, and I don’t think the SSPX will be coming back until they ditch it. When I see different “trouble” groups, they always have this attitude. *

All the different trouble groups [LWCR, SSPX, SSPV, rogue (or “rouge”) priests] use the attitude “the end justify the means”, and I have never seen one instance where I agree with that mentality.

** Vatican Reiterates Church Support for Jews After Traditionalists Call Them “Enemies of Church” **

                                        January 17, 2013 2:10 am

algemeiner.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Vatican1-300x225.jpg*
The Vatican.*

The chief official responsible for Vatican-Jewish relations said that the Catholic Church will not go back on its “Nostra Aetate” declaration, which says that Christians and Jews have a close bond.

Cardinal Kurt Koch made that statement prior to the upcoming Day of Jewish-Christian Dialogue in Italy on Jan. 17, and in response to concern that the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) does not accept the 1965 declaration. The society’s Bishop Bernard Fellay recently referred to Jews as “enemies of the church.”

According to the World Jewish Congress, Koch told the Italian religious news service SIR that the SSPX does not “accept ecumenical dialogue, relations with Jews or religious freedom.”

“But these are central to the Holy Father’s teaching and if a group does not accept the Council and does not accept a magisterium, they need to ask themselves how they see themselves as Catholic,” Koch said. “This is the fundamental problem.”

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, had already called Fellay’s comments “absolutely unacceptable.”
algemeiner.com/2013/01/17/vatican-reiterates-church-support-for-jews-after-traditionalists-call-them-enemies-of-church/

 

[Dee_S]

God grant me the grace to become and remain detached from what I think is and/or isn’t good the His Church, and to lay aside my opinions when Holy Mother Church says otherwise.

:hug3:

 

[PaulinVA]

… We want unity. Does the SSPX want unity? Only on its terms, if Rome converts to its point of view. That’s unreasonable.

That has been the position from the beginning, and nothing has changed.

 

[QuestingKnight]

The SSPX, I understand, hold to pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism. This is a real problem for people who sincerley believe that the 1960’s was a revolution which introduced Catholicism 2.0; a more open, caring, tolerant Catholicism, whose practitioners are deeply uncomfortable with the strictness, hierarchy, authority, mysticism, architecture and rubrics that Roman Catholicism espoused prior to 40’s/50’s/60’s, or even the Reformation!

• The SSPX say that there are problems with the text of the V2 documents AND their interpretation, correct?
• The Pope says that the only problem is with their interpretation, correct?

So, all the Pope has to do is to issue corrections, as he has been doing, as to how the documents are to be interpreted e.g. Summorum Pontificum, the revision of the english missal, Anglicanorum Coetibus, the investigation of the LCWR; things like that.

You watch what he’s doing. I don’t think he’s going to make a revolution like the traditionalists want, as that would cause ructions, but I think he’s making progressivists very nervous.

• Some Catholics are very happy with the changes as-is.
• Some older, moribund Catholics want even more ‘progression’; something like Anglicanism.
• Traditionalist Catholics want the TLM in every parish on a Sunday.
• Some Catholics are scratching their heads at the latest family-friendly changes to the Mass at their local church.
• All Cahtolics are slowly starting to realise that The World no longer loves them, as they thought it did, when the leftists didn’t have a sure grasp on the levers of power and needed their co-operation or quiecence in ‘social justice’ politics.

In the end, whatever works, in the Church’s mission to save souls, will prevail. On a practical note, if trads will pay for the TLM and a priest to say it, then, once, the revolutionaries and their acolytes have gone to their reward, they’ll get it.

After all, what bishop will refuse people who are keen to go to a long-established Mass and who will thoroughly support it?

Problem solved c. 2025, methinks.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The SSPX, I understand, hold to pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism. .

I think the problem is people who believe there is such a thing as “pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism.” If we think the Faith is the practices, then we got lost a long long time ago and possibly they should be changed every four years just to get people out of the habit of thinking that way. And if we didn’t understand the teachings well enough that reading something in a more modern vernacular makes us think it changed, well, that just means understanding that we didn’t understand in the first place.

Thomas Merton, who was such a prolific and popular writer, only had one of his lectures recorded. He gave it on the day of his death and he quoted the Dalai Lama (whom he had just met) who was in exile after the Chinese overran Tibet with much violence against Buddhists. He said “from now on, brother, everyone stands on his own feet.” Merton went on to explain that this meant “… we can no longer rely on being supported by structures which may be destroyed at any moment …”

Our Faith means we have to stand on our own feet and not depend on the structures to prop up our Faith, we have to know what we believe, why we believe it, defend the Hope within us, be responsible for our own salvation. Our Faith cannot hinge on whether some specific formula is followed that is comfortable for us at a Mass in a language we like.

 

[JReducation]

The SSPX, I understand, hold to pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism.

• The SSPX say that there are problems with the text of the V2 documents AND their interpretation, correct?
• The Pope says that the only problem is with their interpretation, correct?

No he does say that. He says that the only problem is them. He is not willing to issue interpretations. He has said so very clearly. He has said that the documents must be taken as they are written. He repeated this at least three times during the 50th anniversary celebration of Vatican II.

If he had said that the documents could be clarified the SSPX would have accepted this. According to Bishop Fellay, this was the agreement between the SSPX and the CDF and it was recorded into the Preamble. It was the pope who said, “NO INTERPRETATIONS ALLOWED. Take them or leave them.” Bishop Fellay has said, several times, that he asked the pope if he had actually written this into the preamble and deleted the possibility for interpretation and dialogue. He received a personally signed note from Pope Benedict that he had and that this was what he demanded. The letter was written in the Pope’s handwriting and signed by him.

So, all the Pope has to do is to issue corrections,

The Pope has said that there are no corrections of the documents that need to be issued. There are corrections of how the documents are implemented. But the text of the documents will remain the same forever and will remain part of the Church’s tradition, said the pope.

as he has been doing, as to how the documents are to be interpreted e.g. Summorum Pontificum, the revision of the english missal, Anglicanorum Coetibus, the investigation of the LCWR; things like that.

None of these had to do with the Council documents.

Summorum Pontificum was a motu proprio. The revision of the English missal had nothing to do with the pope. This was initiated by the Congregation for Worship. Anglicanorum Coetibus was the pope’s initiative, not Vatican II’s. The investigation of the LCWR was not the pope’s initiative. It was Cardinal Levada’s initiative. The pope wants nothing to do with it. He has already said that he will not interfere in the affairs of religious life. He made this statement when the problem with the Legion of Christ broke. He handed the Legion to a prefect to take care of it.

On a practical note, if trads will pay for the TLM and a priest to say it, then, once, the revolutionaries and their acolytes have gone to their reward, they’ll get it.

Is not that easy.

1. The priest has to be willing to say it.
2. If the priest is diocesan, he must have the time on his schedule to say it. He cannot drop parish duties or a parish mass for the EF. That’s not allowed by SP.
3. If the priest is a regular priest, he must have the permission of either his brothers or his superior. SP does not cover regular priests, except to say that they may say the EF in private (if the superior allows them to say private masses).
4. No one can bring a priest into a parish without the permission of the pastor.

It’s not just a matter of money. There are rules that must be observed. The red is mine. That comment is offensive to many good priests.

After all, what bishop will refuse people who are keen to go to a long-established Mass and who will thoroughly support it?

With this attitude, I would. The law would be on my side. UE says quite clearly that those who belong or follow any group that does not acknowledge the validity and legitimacy of the Ordinary Form is to be granted the EF.

It’s not enough to say that the OF is valid. You must also say and believe that it is licit and you must never have belonged to or supported a group such as the SSPX or you have no right to request the EF. That was also one of Pope Benedict’s conditions. Many traditionalists are upset, because they can’t approach their pastors or bishops until there is enough time of separation between them and the SSPX or other independent traditionalist groups. You can’t walk in and say, “I stopped yesterday.” It won’t work.

Again, there are rules and procedures that everyone has to follow.