M
Melchior_1
Guest
He recently answered one of my prayers, namely stable employment for five years (at least!). I of course need to hold up my end of the bargain; namely if I make more money to make sure I’m still tithing the 10%.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
No no no, I wouldn’t be that vain. I meant do as I do, meaning in terms of governing. What I do is no different from what other superiors do. You give your brothers what they truly need to know. To make such a formal statement, when they don’t need it, is stunning.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
I know I shouldn’t go investigating SSPX and similar sites. I think it is a near occasion of sin for me. 
However, I did look at the site linked earlier and discovered this.
At this point I think a watermelon shooter is called for! :hypno:
However, I did look at the site linked earlier and discovered this.
So while the Holy Father has called for a Year of Faith, some are celebrating the Year of Lefebvre. It boggles the mind.
At this point I think a watermelon shooter is called for! :hypno:
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
At the very least!
A
Aramis
Guest
Watermellon is an african fruit that came to the US with the slaves.
I keep praying for the SSPX. Intellectually, tho’, I see that a formal schism is likely.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is problematic in several ways. This is the same superior who wrote the letter that I cited above. What I’m reading into it is that this particular priest is determined to become his own Magisterium. I can’t say that he does or does not reflect the thinking of the SSPX. However, I can say that if the SSPX leadership wants to reconcile with Rome, this kind of activity has to stop. Archbishop DiNoia said the same thing as did Archbishop Mueller. The SSPX cannot set itself up as an authority.I know I shouldn’t go investigating SSPX and similar sites. I think it is a near occasion of sin for me.
However, I did look at the site linked earlier and discovered this.
So while the Holy Father has called for a Year of Faith, some are celebrating the Year of Lefebvre. It boggles the mind.
At this point I think a watermelon shooter is called for! :hypno:
Let’s take the way that the letter is titled.
To all the faithful of the District of Asia 2013 : Year of Archbishop Lefebvre
- There is no such thing as the District of Asia in the Church. There are districts and provinces that the larger communities, including the SSPX have. But those boundaries are only for the members of the institute, not the laity. The laity does not belong to the Asian Province of Dominicans, the Asian District of SSPX or the Vietnamese Province of Jesuits and so forth. Asian Catholics belong to their respect dioceses.
- No religious superior has the authority to create such a year for the laity without the consent of the conference of bishops for the region. Imagine how it would go over if the Franciscans wrote a letter to all those whom we serve saying that we’re declaring the Year of St. Francis for the United States. That wouldn’t score too many points with the Vatican or the local bishops. In fact, that would only feed the apprehension of the local bishops.
It’s very nice to have a year to honor someone, but you must have permission to engage the laity. In 1976, the Franciscans celebrated the 750th anniversary since the death of St. Francis. We wanted to do an international commemoration, including postage stamps in the USA, which did happen. After we had created a proposal, it was sent to the bishops and to the Holy See. The proposal was approved and we went forward with it.
In 2010, those dioceses where devotion to Bl. Mother Teresa is allowed wanted to have public veneration and study of her work and writings. Permission was requested first. I remember flying into Miami International Airport and seeing the Miami skyline in blue and white in honor of Mother.
In speaking of the Archbishop’s efforts during Vatican II he says that the Archbishop did not get very far without the support of the Pope, already imbued with the liberal ideas,
- My first problem is that the pope to whom he’s referring has a name.
- The second is that you can’t go around bashing popes. That’s a horrible image of the Church for the world to see.
This is direct insubordination that borders on heresy. This letter is dated January 1, 2013. In April of 2012, Pope Benedict had already informed Bishop Fellay, via the Preamble and a letter that Bishop Fellay mentions, that there is no error in the documents of Vatican II. Pope Benedict repeated this in October during the 50th anniversary of the Council. The CDF has repeated it over and over.
To make such a public statement, just a few months later, is insubordination. You’re are deliberately contradicting authority. It can border on heresy, because your actions deny the primacy of Peter, which is a dogma. It can also border on schism, because you’re inviting the faithful to go down this path of disobedience and mistrust of the Holy Father, instead of inviting them to authentic spiritual renewal through prayer and penance.
He says **the Roman Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. ** The problem with this statement is that he’s a Latin Catholic priest in the East. The Eastern Catholic bishops and patriarchs are very sensitive about no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church.
It’s hard to believe that a man who is well educated in the faith and in Church affairs would not know about the sensibilities of the Eastern Catholics. One or two of the countries in his region have a healthy representation of Eastern Catholics. Many Eastern Catholics do not identify as Roman.
This may seem insignificant and it would be if it were once or twice when the term is used. But the SSPX consistently uses the term Roman Catholic to refer to the Universal Catholic Church. Once again, we must watch what we say. The Church is very big, with many cultures and many personalities. It’s important to be considerate. The best way to be considerate is to use language accurately.
D
Dee_S
Guest
I know exactly what you mean.
In my 14 or so years there, I had also bought into this ‘Pope/Bishop/Church bashing’ (to borrow the concept from Br JR) 100%…convinced by what I heard from the pulpit, conferences, literature, books, etc that these ‘conciliar’ prelates along with the Holy Fathers (who had no power or will to correct things) were destroying the Church, either deliberately (as in the case of the Jews, Masons & Modernists that had been allowed to infiltrate the Church and get appointed to high positions) or by contributing to it’s destruction in ignorance by willingly promoting and/or tolerating their agenda.The mentality that results amounts to - ‘there is no salvation outside of the SSPX’ - and if there is, that it is due to the graces that God sends down only through their truly acceptable Masses; and our prayers/sacrifices.
And all this, horrifically, one enters into with the best will in the world, sincerely believing that all you suffer and endure while fighting this ‘good fight’, likened to that of St Athanasius and his followers, is seen and rewarded by God.
The breaking of charity when ‘advising’ other Catholics; by argument with family and friends, who do not understand this ‘crisis’ ; those who we encourage by argument to join the ‘cause’ and “defend the True Faith” is endemic - looking back, I shudder at how zealous I was and worse, how the spirit of pride had it’s grip on me, believing I was not only ‘right’ but in a way superior and more favored than those who resisted and remained faithful to their bishops and Rome.
That I suffered sorely for many years after ‘crossing the Great Divide’ into the ‘mainstream’ Church, mostly due to being rudely shifted from my comfort zone, I now consider a blessing and a lesson that where Peter is, there is the Church… Ubi Petrus, Ubi Ecclesia…and that obedience is much to be cherished.
D
Dee_S
Guest
…pity it’s morning here for me
http://media-cache-ec3.pinterest.com/upload/204139795579732614_iJTtYDvx_b.jpg but watermelons are in season here…
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I didn’t know that, thank you. So surely they had it in Italy long before we did, you’d think, what with proximity and all. And I agree with you on the SSPX.
D
Dee_S
Guest
Here’s a positive update :coffeeread: a guest commentary by Philip A. Cunningham and Eric J. Greenberg | Jan 28, 2013 which goes to show that God will always bring good out of bad…
The comments from Bishop Bernard Fellay could have triggered a public clash between Catholics and Jews, as in 2009 when then-SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson denied that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust.
But rather than spark a crisis, Fellay has instead motivated Catholic Church officials to directly repudiate him and his teaching with strongly worded pledges of friendship with Jews.
**“It is absolutely unacceptable, impossible, to define the Jews as enemies of the Church,” said the Vatican’s top spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi. ** “Anti-Semitism in all its forms is a non-Christian act and the Catholic Church must fight this phenomenon with all her strength.”
Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Vatican’s Commission on Religious Relations with Jews, lambasted Fellay:** “The Jews are our older brothers,” **he declared. “We are inseparably linked with the Jews.”
Auxiliary Bishop Denis Madden of Baltimore, chair of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, wrote to some involved in Catholic-Jewish dialogue:** “I wish to assure you as both colleagues and friends that the Holy See and the USCCB find the statements of Bishop Fellay both false and deeply regrettable. … The Catholic Church deeply values the friendship of the Jewish people and looks forward to the day when bias against them is eliminated everywhere.**
"Fellay…declared that Jews and other enemies “from outside the Church” were “the most opposed that the Society would be recognized as Catholic.” This shows, he argued, “that Vatican II is their thing. Not the church’s. They see, the enemies of the church see their benefit in the Council. Very interesting.”
Hostility to Jews seems inextricably woven into the SSPX’s opposition to Vatican II. An analysis conducted last year by the Anti-Defamation League found various SSPX websites around the world that were riddled with anti-Semitic themes from the past.
The forcefulness of the church’s reactions to Fellay’s comments indicates that Nostra Aetate, the sapling planted nearly 50 years ago, has put down sufficient roots to resist storm winds of lingering anti-Semitism.
religionnews.com/2013/01/28/guest-commentary-the-vaticans-strong-defense-of-the-jews/
http://www.religionnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/thumbRNS-ADL-COLUMN012813a-240x240.jpgPhilip A. Cunningham is professor of theology and director of the Institute for Jewish-Catholic Relations of Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. RNS photo courtesy Philip A. Cunningham.
http://www.religionnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/thumbRNS-ADL-COLUMN012813b-240x240.jpgRabbi Eric J. Greenberg is director of Interfaith Affairs of the Anti-Defamation League. RNS photo courtesy Anti-Defamation League.
The comments from Bishop Bernard Fellay could have triggered a public clash between Catholics and Jews, as in 2009 when then-SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson denied that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust.
But rather than spark a crisis, Fellay has instead motivated Catholic Church officials to directly repudiate him and his teaching with strongly worded pledges of friendship with Jews.
**“It is absolutely unacceptable, impossible, to define the Jews as enemies of the Church,” said the Vatican’s top spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi. ** “Anti-Semitism in all its forms is a non-Christian act and the Catholic Church must fight this phenomenon with all her strength.”
Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Vatican’s Commission on Religious Relations with Jews, lambasted Fellay:** “The Jews are our older brothers,” **he declared. “We are inseparably linked with the Jews.”
Auxiliary Bishop Denis Madden of Baltimore, chair of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, wrote to some involved in Catholic-Jewish dialogue:** “I wish to assure you as both colleagues and friends that the Holy See and the USCCB find the statements of Bishop Fellay both false and deeply regrettable. … The Catholic Church deeply values the friendship of the Jewish people and looks forward to the day when bias against them is eliminated everywhere.**
"Fellay…declared that Jews and other enemies “from outside the Church” were “the most opposed that the Society would be recognized as Catholic.” This shows, he argued, “that Vatican II is their thing. Not the church’s. They see, the enemies of the church see their benefit in the Council. Very interesting.”
Hostility to Jews seems inextricably woven into the SSPX’s opposition to Vatican II. An analysis conducted last year by the Anti-Defamation League found various SSPX websites around the world that were riddled with anti-Semitic themes from the past.
The forcefulness of the church’s reactions to Fellay’s comments indicates that Nostra Aetate, the sapling planted nearly 50 years ago, has put down sufficient roots to resist storm winds of lingering anti-Semitism.
religionnews.com/2013/01/28/guest-commentary-the-vaticans-strong-defense-of-the-jews/
http://www.religionnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/thumbRNS-ADL-COLUMN012813a-240x240.jpgPhilip A. Cunningham is professor of theology and director of the Institute for Jewish-Catholic Relations of Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. RNS photo courtesy Philip A. Cunningham.
http://www.religionnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/thumbRNS-ADL-COLUMN012813b-240x240.jpgRabbi Eric J. Greenberg is director of Interfaith Affairs of the Anti-Defamation League. RNS photo courtesy Anti-Defamation League.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I’d like to ask you a question that requires you to wildly speculate, but I’d like get the sense of things from a former insider. IF the SSPX were someday declared to be schismatic, how many of the laity would leave? Like in %? Was there a time for you, when if a Pope had done that, you would have stayed with the SSPX?I know exactly what you mean.
That I suffered sorely for many years after ‘crossing the Great Divide’ into the ‘mainstream’ Church, mostly due to being rudely shifted from my comfort zone, I now consider a blessing and a lesson that where Peter is, there is the Church… Ubi Petrus, Ubi Ecclesia…and that obedience is much to be cherished.
And does anyone know how many lay persons affiliate themselves very strongly with the SSPX?
J
JReducation
Guest
This is the kind of statement that good Catholics need to resist and put distance between themselves and such thinking. It is unfair to link Jews with Modernists and Masons. Masons are not very fond of Judaism either. The idea that Freemasons would cooperate with Jews to bring down Catholicism is not very likely. The use of the label, “Modernist” has lost its meaning from over usage, not to mention the fact that modernism goes far beyond religion. One can counter with a question. What does modernism mean to the typical person in the pew? If you derive spiritual benefits from traditional expressions of faith, but you were a fan of the Beatles, T.S. Eliot and modern art, you belong to the culture of modernism.
This kind of thinking actually fuels the fires of modernism. One of the claims of the modernist movement of the late 19th century and early 20th century was that tradition enslaves man. The very idea that there is no salvation outside of their vision of the Church is very limiting.
Again, here is another mindset to be avoided. While it is true that from a very early age St. Athanasius stood again Arianism and had to face men like Constantine II and Constantius along with some high level churchmen, St. Athanasius never broke with the primacy by violating Church law. He was an ardent and at times an outspoken defender of the faith and a faithful subject of the pope. The comparison is unfair to Athanasius. It can lead those who know nothing about the Fathers of the Church to believe that Athanasius was in trouble with the papacy and in rebellion. That is not the case at all.
We cannot deny that the world is undergoing a crisis of faith. However, if we make this crisis of faith to be so great and of such massive proportions, we risk instilling fear in people, fear that the Church is about to implode. That fear is contrary to Christ’s promise. There is a crisis of faith, but the beauty of the crisis is that it is an arena where Catholics can show their faith by continuing living the Gospel even when it’s not practical to do so. If we fall apart and subdivide into groupings, we’re not facing the crisis. Rather, we’re victims of the crisis.
The Bishop’s unfortunate comment may be what Catholics and Jews need to take one more step toward unity. Communion in faith must be preceded by union of minds.Here’s a positive update :coffeeread: a guest commentary by Philip A. Cunningham and Eric J. Greenberg | Jan 28, 2013 which goes to show that God will always bring good out of bad…
Bishop Bernard Fellay could have triggered a public clash between Catholics and Jews, as in 2009 when then-SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson denied that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust.
I would be interested in the answer to this question as well. My concern, when I see things like this letter that was published by the Asian SSPX superior is that he’s speaking to Catholics as if he is their bishop. If they begin to respond to “their bishop” by laying aside the year of faith in favor of the Year of Archbishop Lefebvre, do they not take one step closer to schism? Is this not following a false prophet?
This is an interesting question, because the answer should be zero. The SSPX is an institute for priests, not a diocese or a prelature. It is one thing to say that one is sympathetic to some of their issues, which I am. It is another to say that one affiliates himself with them, which I do not and hope others do not either. Not because the Society is evil, heretical or schismatic, but simply because it’s a society for priests. What does affiliate mean in the minds of those who identify themselves as such?
D
Dee_S
Guest
:hammering:tough questions, but will try and answer them best I can.
I remember Bishop Fellay only once addressing us around about 1998 or so, saying that there were rumors that Rome was going to formally declare them in to be in schism and he urged us to remain strong, stand firm and remember all we had learnt about the SSPX having a just cause, the supplied jurisdiction they had because of ‘the crisis’ in the Church etc. Whether or not he does the same on a regular basis nowadays I can’t say, but it seems more likely than ever given his current opposition to the regularization/canonical status offered by Rome which has conditions he must meet to be in full communion. They have had dealings in the past with Archbishop Mueller, who they have now chosen to accuse of heresy.
uch:At the time, and I can still recall it now, standing outside in the chapel grounds, I felt it to be another of Rome’s unjust attacks on the Society (and ourselves by association) and we were all :frighten:nervous of the giant (Rome) that was threatening us. I can’t recall feeling deterred by this and think I would probably have continued to stay where I was and support the cause even more faithfully. Do or die until a personal breaking point was reached or grace reached out and favored me, as it did in the end.
On the other hand, a great many of us constantly felt deep down, more than a bit uncomfortable being in conflict with Rome and what we knew was legitimate authority.
Especially as lots of what was written and said by the SSPX we knew intellectually and theologically was incorrect. e.g. make up and enforce their own version of canon law, to suit themselves - lots of that goes on, similar to the statements they currently make which anyone with a basic understanding of catholicism can spot the mistakes. They are highly authoritarian and have a solid wall of defence against the laity, who are silenced rather ruthlessly if they dare to question or oppose. In fairness, among the clergy I noted, it is just as draconian. Oh yes, obedience is their most highly prized tool and the spiritual club is wielded often.
Possibly a case of the heart ruling the head, because I recall hundreds of times standing in the Mass wishing that the Diocese had a Tridentine Mass that I could attend, rather than be forced (my perspective here) to be in what I knew was a false position. But then, the
so loved the Mass - and was cross with the local bishop who despite many years of petition would not grant even once a month in our diocese. Something of being caught between a rock and a hard place.Sorry but the % of the laity that would leave is impossible to speculate as that decision is IMO based on how much of the mentality you have imbibed - and that is individual. I know people that have left for intellectual reasons, but more than a lot of their heart/sympathies are still with the cause. The reasons for this are that the Church is seen as the oppressor of tradition, forcing only one type of mass and spirituality on their members.
Summorum Pontificam in many a diocese, fell on deaf ears and became known globally as ‘The Dead Letter’, kind of a litmus test of which bishops/cardinals were the Pope’s men or not by whether they facilitated this when asked for - nicely, politely, “a stable group” approaching their bishop etc. it does not say you must not be attending a SSPX chapel, nor does it say to my knowledge that you must be a member of a parish…
In the years I was there, the community definitely dwindled to about half it’s former size. Very, very few ‘new’ people joined - I think due to it being very difficult for one to convince a Catholic in good standing to join those who are known to not be, for what is perceived to be the benefits of a Latin Mass which is not enough to motivate them to join a rebellion.
Hope this answers some of your question…and I hope I don 't get :blackeye
r worse:stretcher:
J
JReducation
Guest
Along with the mistaken ideas that some have about the Tridentine form, the apprehensions that they have concerning traditionalists, there is a rule published by the Holy Father himself, that no group or individual who is part of an irregular association (ie. SSPX) may approach a bishop for the EF and the bishop may not grant it to them. This was clarified in UE. I remember how it enraged some people who were attending SSPX chapels for mass, because there was no EF. They felt that they were being singled out.Summorum Pontificam in many a diocese, fell on deaf ears and became known globally as ‘The Dead Letter’, kind of a litmus test of which bishops/cardinals were the Pope’s men or not by whether they facilitated this when asked for - nicely, politely, “a stable group” approaching their bishop etc. it does not say you must not be attending a SSPX chapel, nor does it say to my knowledge that you must be a member of a parish…
D
Dee_S
Guest
This encyclical was issued more than 10 years after I left the SSPX. The issue going back many years for those of us who wanted the Tridentine Mass in union with Rome, was that no matter how or who approached the local archdiocese, there was never any desire on their part to fulfil this request. This attitude continued and as I can see here (I stand corrected) was reinfoced by this encyclical, i.e. not being in any way interested in helping anyone still in the SSPX.
I can see the point, intellectually that is, but how then can one escape from the SSPX position without a lifeboat to do so? There are many people, as I said in my previous post, that would have jumped ship if there was an alternative. Catch 22
I even went to see the bishop to plead for those like myself, who did not like being where we were but that could not endure being thrown in the deep end of a local parish without the Tridentine Mass we so loved. No sympathy there and no hope of ever having that mass as he did not have any priest who could remember the rubrics.Bearing in mind, that the lay person does not really have enough knowledge or understanding of the true position they are in (as stated below in 19) and are really, i think, being caught in the cross-fire as Rome spends the last 40 years unsuccessfully trying to bring the SSPX back into the fold, while the punishments by and large, fall to the layman. A bit hard on the lay people, don’t you think? Reminds me of the words of Cardinal Newman:
“What is the province of the laity? To hunt, to shoot, to entertain,” (1) wrote Monsignor George Talbot in protest at the position John Henry Newman had expressed in his article On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine,which was published in the *Rambler *inJuly, 1859
Talbot’s conception of the laity has since been caricatured in the remark that the laity are in the Church to “pray up, pay up and shut up!” The nub of Talbot’s anxiety was plain: “if a check not be placed on the laity in England they will be the rulers of the Catholic Church instead of the Holy See and the Episcopate”. (3)Even Bishop Ullathorne, Newman’s Ordinary, could ask, “Who are the laity?” As Newman noted, “I answered (not in these words) that the Church would look foolish without them”.
ewtn.com/library/Theology/NEWMNLAY.HTM
- A coetus fidelium (“group of the faithful”) can be said to be * stabiliter existens *(“existing in a stable manner”), according to the sense of art. 5 § 1 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum,when it is constituted by some people of an individual parish who, even after the publication of the Motu Proprio, come together by reason of their veneration for the Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, and who ask that it might be celebrated in the parish church or in an oratory or chapel; such a coetus (“group”) can also be composed of persons coming from different parishes or dioceses, who gather together in a specific parish church or in an oratory or chapel for this purpose.
- The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the *forma ordinaria *or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.
Given at Rome, at the Offices of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, 30 April, 2011, on the memorial of Pope Saint Pius V.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Dee, I’m sure no one wants to attack you, please don’t think you can’t share your experience honestly, it’s very helpful to others in understanding.In the years I was there, the community definitely dwindled to about half it’s former size. Very, very few ‘new’ people joined - I think due to it being very difficult for one to convince a Catholic in good standing to join those who are known to not be, for what is perceived to be the benefits of a Latin Mass which is not enough to motivate them to join a rebellion.
Hope this answers some of your question…and I hope I don 't get :blackeye
It’s heartening to see you say the numbers of the laity were dwindling. I really think this is what the Holy See had in mind, to just wait it out. Especially because these Latin Masses seem to becoming a bu it more common in various Dioceses.
But BR JR said a couple things that combined with what you said are interesting. I had asked:
And does anyone know how many lay persons affiliate themselves very strongly with the SSPX?
BR JR: This is an interesting question, because the answer should be zero. The SSPX is an institute for priests, not a diocese or a prelature. It is one thing to say that one is sympathetic to some of their issues, which I am. It is another to say that one affiliates himself with them, which I do not and hope others do not either. Not because the Society is evil, heretical or schismatic, but simply because it’s a society for priests. What does affiliate mean in the minds of those who identify themselves as such?
In a later post he said this:
Along with the mistaken ideas that some have about the Tridentine form, the apprehensions that they have concerning traditionalists, there is a rule published by the Holy Father himself, that no group or individual who is part of an irregular association (ie. SSPX) may approach a bishop for the EF and the bishop may not grant it to them. This was clarified in UE. I remember how it enraged some people who were attending SSPX chapels for mass, because there was no EF. They felt that they were being singled out.
“Part of an irregular association…” It’s implicit in the rule that the laity are part of the SSPX.
Whatever the legal status or definition, in actuality, the SSPX is a religious group of clergy and laypersons with a common cultural understanding of beliefs and practices. These public letters and statements that have been brought up and the testimony of those that were “in” the SSPX and left - Dee said these phrases: * In my 14 or so years there,…I suffered sorely for many years after ‘crossing the Great Divide’ into the ‘mainstream’ Church, * mean that this is much more than simply attending a certain type of Mass and it has obviously been the intent of the SSPX for a very long time to incorporate as many of the laity as possible into something much larger and more permanent than any sort of association of clergy.
This is why Superiors write letters that don’t make sense (and are public) and proclamations of “Years of…” are disseminated to the public. They are establishing themselves as a church, (I’m sure in their minds “the” Church) without being formally in schism. There’s no chance for them to come back because they never intended to and don’t want to. But by staying “inside” as long as possible they have the chance of reaching as many sympathetic clergy and disgruntled laity as possible. Which is why the Pope asks Fellay for an answer and he just sends the consensus of the group which the Pope won’t accept. And why the Pope is not going to set a deadline.
G
GloriaMaria
Guest
I have only been able to find figures for the numbers of priests and religious associated with the SSPX. I will continue to look and get back to you if I can find a number of lay people.
Dee does an excellent job, in my opinion, of describing the mindset inside the SSPX. In fact, I have had my eyes opened more than a little at how the postings of those others who have been part of this group over a span of time and geography are very similar to what we have experienced with the mindset.
Anyway, I couldn’t speculate of the % of people who would leave. One thing that has changed since Dee left is the expulsion of Bishop Williamson. People inside will talk about this. A lot of people genuinely liked Williamson, changed the way they lived (for better or worse) because of his advice, and perceive him to be a very great man. Since that time, Bishop Fellay (for a reason unknown) went back on the attack when it comes to “Rome”. When, for awhile, it looked as though he were bringing the SSPX into more of a conciliatory frame of mind. There isn’t the same type of respect and awe paid to Fellay as to Williamson.
Personally, I think that people are more concerned with a perceived mistreatment of Bishop Williamson, than they are with reconciliation. Before June, any positive talk about the possible reconciliation by attendees was prefaced with the idea that it would work only if Rome came to her “senses”, or achieved the consecration of the Immaculate Heart by the Bishops around the world as requested by our Lady at Fatima.
People inside the SSPX aren’t pining for this reconciliation as far as I can see… Some of us had been, in our hearts, but we don’t say it out loud. Why? We get attacked (verbally) by the group. Defend the “New Mass”? Attacked. Defend the Holy Father or Bishop DiNoia or Archbishop Mueller? Attacked. Or worse, branded a “modernist” and somewhat shunned. People inside the SSPX have to read about this in private until they reach a decision.
The education has to come from outside the group.
I think a declaration of schism, would perhaps allow people inside to revisit the basics. But there should really be a place they can go to read something other than what the SSPX puts on their website. That would be the good that could come out of such a declaration. I have been corrected in desiring such a decision though. It isn’t right to wish something that would literally affect so many souls in an eternal way.
We have often said that we would go in an instant if such a declaration were made.
Recently, one of the SSPX families reminded me to read the (SSPX) website to check over the reasons to avoid the “New Mass”. This family used the terms “sacrilege” and “protestant” in describing the OF. It came right off of the website. This can’t go on.
Many of the people we know came from a background where: a. They were raised in the SSPX milieu and don’t know anything first hand about the Catholic Church. b. went from a Protestant religion or agnostic background right into the SSPX or c. as children were taken to an Eastern Catholic Church to avoid the abuses their parents saw in the OF.
J
JReducation
Guest
The red is mine. As Julia correctly says, no one is out to attack another brother or sister here.
Having said that and having read everything that Dee has posted, I can understand the qualifier in the Holy Father’s statement. Let’s look at word for word if need be.
"must not in anyway support"
He’s not speaking about making a donation or about understanding some of the problems that the SSPX or such a group may have with the mainstream Church. As I said, I’m guilty of that. I understand some of their problems and concerns. I agree with them. About two weeks ago, I went to a parish, walked into the church and walked out again thinking that I was in the auditorium and had failed to find the church. It turned out to be the church. I cringed. Things like that are an issue to them and are legitimate issues.
The difference here is that I cringe because the church in question looks like a university auditorium. I would join my voice to anyone who says so. That’s not the same as joining a cause. In this situation, we’re both looking at a problem, not naval gazing at how great we are compared to whomever built that church.
"belong to a group which shows itself . . … "
That’s a no brainer at several levels. It would seem to me unlikely that someone who believes that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is invalid or is illicit considers himself part of the mainstream Church. By default, this person has placed himself in judgment of the Church’s liturgy and sacramental rites. He is now above the Church. However, anyone above the Church, except for God, is no longer part of the Church. Therefore, you have no rights in the Church. Essentially, you have defected.
The idea that such a person would approach a pastor or bishop and propose the EF, but would hold that the OF is invalid or maybe valid, but ilicit, as Bishop Fellay said, that person is basically saying to the bishop, “I’ll attend mass here, if you convert.” That’s unacceptable. I can ask for the EF, because it nurtures my soul. That’s a very legitimate request. I cannot ask for the EF with the idea that if you don’t provide it, then I’m gone, because what you have to offer is bad. One has to take the Church in her entirety, not only what one desires.
By inserting the qualifier the Holy Father sends out a message that the two forms of the mass are equal. It is very important for the unity of the Church that everyone accepts that the Church’s liturgy and sacraments are valid and legal as the Church promulgates them. The Catholic who does not like the EF, must accept that it is Catholic and good. But the same conditions apply to the Catholic who does not like the OF. He’s equalizing the demands.
The final part of that **"against the Roman Pontiff . . . . " ** To deny that the pope has the power and authority to change the form of the mass, to change how we do business with non-Catholics, to change how we related to the civil state and how we define religious freedom is a serious doctrinal problem. What makes him “Pontiff” if he can’t govern as he pleases? Monarchs are not governed. He is bound by revealed dogma and revealed moral law. He has authority over any council, any previous pope, any doctor or saint, any miracle or apparition that is not part of public revelation.
The sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of canon law; he can abrogate the laws made by his predecessors or by Ecumenical councils; he can legislate for the whole church or for a part thereof, a country or a given body of individuals; if he is morally bound to take advice and to follow the dictates of prudence, he is not legally obliged to obtain the consent of any other person or persons, or to observe any particular form; his power is limited only by Divine law, natural and positive, dogmatic and moral. Furthermore, he is, so to say, the living law, for he is considered as having all law in the treasury of his heart (“In Scrinio Pectoris”; Boniface VIII. c. i, “De Constit.” in VI).
When a group takes a position that the pope can’t do this or can’t do that, there is a doctrinal conflict as we can see from what St. Boniface wrote and the Church has followed. To place oneself under their jurisdiction is to abdicate one’s right in the diocese.
J
JReducation
Guest
Gloria – several of your paragraphs really jumped out at me.
There are many forms of intimidation. The constant threat of the fires of hell is a form of intimidation as any other. I just observe when people use the expression, “those bishops or priests who are leading souls to hell.” The statement is false. No one can lead another person to hell. One goes to hell because one chooses to do so. If I follow my bishop’s guidance in good faith, even though the lead may be mistaken, my good faith absolves me from subjective culpability.
If I follow bad guidance knowing that it’s bad, then I have made the choice to do so. No one led me. Someone put forth a bad idea and I knowing that it was a bad idea decided to make it my own. It all goes back to the three requirements for mortal sin. Knowledge and free will cannot be ignored.
I can’t understand how anyone can justify believing that the Blessed Mother would command Peter, when that was not the relationship that she and Peter had. Her relationship with the Apostles was a very humble one. She was with them, but it was they who ran the Church and it was they who led the people, not her. She was the mother and she continues to be the Mother of the Church, not he son’s vicar.
I believe in my heart that both are good men. I also believe that both have made mistakes that will eventually lead to the collapse of the SSPX as we know it today. It will cease to exist or it will become a schismatic church. Intimidation can only go so far before someone rebels and says “NO.” Then, all of those silent souls who have been in quiet conflict will join the chorus. That’s it. History takes a 90 degree turn.
There are many forms of intimidation. The constant threat of the fires of hell is a form of intimidation as any other. I just observe when people use the expression, “those bishops or priests who are leading souls to hell.” The statement is false. No one can lead another person to hell. One goes to hell because one chooses to do so. If I follow my bishop’s guidance in good faith, even though the lead may be mistaken, my good faith absolves me from subjective culpability.
If I follow bad guidance knowing that it’s bad, then I have made the choice to do so. No one led me. Someone put forth a bad idea and I knowing that it was a bad idea decided to make it my own. It all goes back to the three requirements for mortal sin. Knowledge and free will cannot be ignored.
This always bothers me. First of all, the Holy Father has said that it has been done. For anyone to say that it has not been done is a problem. Second, the obsessive preoccupation with this consecration borders on idolatry. There is nothing wrong with consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart. There is something seriously wrong when one pits the Blessed Mother against Peter. Peter is the Vicar of Christ, not the Blessed Mother. While on earth, the Blessed Mother was part of the Church that Peter governed and she was submissive to Peter as her Son indicated that all should be. “Whatever you bind . . . etc”. Throughout her life Mary’s message was “Do whatever he tells you.”
I can’t understand how anyone can justify believing that the Blessed Mother would command Peter, when that was not the relationship that she and Peter had. Her relationship with the Apostles was a very humble one. She was with them, but it was they who ran the Church and it was they who led the people, not her. She was the mother and she continues to be the Mother of the Church, not he son’s vicar.
This is problematic. For a Catholic to say that the mass that the Church approves is a sacrilege, is doctrinally wrong. The Church can no more promulgate a sacrilegious mass than it can deny the resurrection of Christ. The Holy Spirit will not let it happen. Beside, I would like to see a Protestant mass where transubstantiation takes place.
I wonder what percentage of the laity attached to the SSPX is formerly Protestant, especially fundamentalist.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I think it’s clear that there is not one or two issues that must be resolved for SSPX to be able to reconcile with Rome. There is a total way of thinking that has to be addressed, and that is not going to be quick or easy, if it is desired at all.
- Status