SSPX Update - Redux

[Church_Militant]

How can you tell where the Holy Spirit is and isn’t? And can someone be deceived thinking He is there when He isn’t?

Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ told us “Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.” (Matthew 7:20) and one of the long standing aspects of our Traditional Catholic faith is obedience to our clergy (and in their case, their superiors) and, to me, this is where the SSPX bothers me most, because despite all their protestations of loyalty and such, they persist in disobedience to their superiors in Rome, so…

Brother Jay will certainly have way better (name removed by moderator)ut and experience than I do, but I can’t fathom religious who go schismatic like this.

 

[Mike30]

The thing is I for one never knew of the existence of the SSPX before reading about it on CAF. When I speak to others about it, they have no idea what I am talking about. We have always had good, reverent priests, no issue with our masses and that I would think is the norm.
A point - why does the SSPX have to set up chapels all over the world without the permission of bishops? If it was really needed and wanted, Catholic churches would be half empty with hordes rushing to attend their chapels and follow them.

Most peoplehave no knowledge of the SSPX or what it is. In fact most people have never even heard of them. As far as you having good reverent Priests thats wonderful:thumbsup:. Not everyone is so lucky. And while the situation is now much better than before, back in the truly horrific times of the late 60’s through the 70’s and early 80’s, there are still a lot of areas where abuses and experimentation occur on a regular basis.

The SSPX honestly feels that there is a crisis in the Church and that they have the obligation to do whatever is necessary in order to keep the traditions of the Catholic Church alivew and functioning. Whether right or wrong, it is what they believe. As to attendance at their Chapels, again, most Catholics, even those in areas where they have Chapels are unaware of their existance. The SSPX doesn’t advertise as a general rule and the only way people find out about them is generally by word of mouth or merely in passing.

As to whether or not the Extraordinary Form is needed or wanted I can only say that the Holy Father himself seems to think that it is.

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

I’ve been told that all Masses said by a SSPX Priest are illicit. Could somebody explain why this is? I accept it but if I get into an argument with somebody over it I need to know why this is the case!

 

[Church_Militant]

I’ve been told that all Masses said by a SSPX Priest are illicit. Could somebody explain why this is? I accept it but if I get into an argument with somebody over it I need to know why this is the case!

Because the SSPX clergy have had their faculties suspended for their continued schism.

 

[choliks]

I’ve been told that all Masses said by a SSPX Priest are illicit. Could somebody explain why this is? I accept it but if I get into an argument with somebody over it I need to know why this is the case!

Because the SSPX clergy doesn’t have a canonical place in the Church; they are suspended. A suspended priest may celebrate a valid mass, but it would be ilicit since it will be against the law.

 

[choliks]

Because the SSPX clergy have had their faculties suspended for their continued schism.

What they do may be schismatic, but they are not yet in schism.

 

[Carolus_Martell]

Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ told us “Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.” (Matthew 7:20) and one of the long standing aspects of our Traditional Catholic faith is obedience to our clergy (and in their case, their superiors) and, to me, this is where the SSPX bothers me most, because despite all their protestations of loyalty and such, they persist in disobedience to their superiors in Rome, so…

Brother Jay will certainly have way better (name removed by moderator)ut and experience than I do, but I can’t fathom religious who go schismatic like this.

Well not to be argumentative but the same thing can be said about the traditional clergy too.

Too much emphasis has been made of the head of the SSPX being anti Jewish but I would like to point out that Jesus himself spoke critically, un-lovingly, harshly, and forthrightly against his Jewish opposition to his teachings.

Well meaning Catholics should understand that for over a 1000 years young Jews were schooled by their parents that Christians were the blood enemy of the Jews…call it institutional teaching within the family.

With that upbringing in mind how do you think clever Jewish lawyers in government would regard our christian government institutions of the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s etc.

I think we have been conditioned to fall in to the ‘political correctness’ trap designed by communists to curtail our right to free speech.

When select groups are above criticism you essentially make them the new Royalty and that’s not good for the Church or a representative Republic…

…like the United States was designed to be and was until the 60’s.

In a nutshell the SSPX is worried that Rome will appoint a lukewarm Bishop to oversee their traditional organization and ruin it. That is the crux of the matter.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I cannot answer for Brother and please excuse my response, but I can fexplain why for at least some of us who are interested in this subject. After Vatican II, there was a virtual tidal wave of Liturgical abuses and attempts at virtual wholescale change within the Church. It seemed that everything new was considered good and anything traditional was bad This affected all levels and some of the worst offenses apparently took place at various seminaries. In fact the SSPX was founded not to preserve the Traditional Mass but to run a conservative Seminary for those who wanted no part of what was being taught or perhaps more precisely the way things were being taught at European Seminaries at the time. The use and preservation of the Traditional Mass was a sideline.

However, after a while, the SSPX ran afoul of the local Bishops for various reasons, depending on which side you believe. This set the stage for their loss of canonical status within the Church whichoccurred sometime later.

Now at the same time, more than a few people had become incensed over what was going on in some of the Masses that were being celebrated, and since the faithful were told repeatedly that the Traditional Mass had been suppressed,abrogated as it were, independent chapels began popping up which offered the Traditional Mass. Most of these chapels were staffed by the graduates of the SSPX,seminary so almost by default the SSPX became the face of the Traditional Mass movement although that was never their original intent.

So many of us are interested in their situation and status because **without them, the Traditional Mass more than likely would have disappeared,**except in the few areas where some older Priests were still allowed to celebrate it. In essence without them it is highly unlikely we would have any Traditional Masses at all being celebrated these days.

I don’t agree with this. I tend to think the opposite - that because the traditional Mass was so closely aligned with a group outside the mainstream of the church, it became more sidelined and “off limits” than it might have been.

Other non-SSPX priests who might have continued saying the TLM, or who might have been interested in learning it, would be less likely to do so if it branded them as ‘schismatic’ or ‘super trad’.

The TLM, instead of remaining a viable option, became an ‘underground’ Mass. I do realize that many people were anxious to experiment and all kinds of crazy things were happening. But by closing themselves off from the larger church, they didn’t help in the fight, they just became an ignorable fringe group.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Well not to be argumentative but the same thing can be said about the traditional clergy too.

Too much emphasis has been made of the head of the SSPX being anti Jewish but I would like to point out that Jesus himself spoke critically, un-lovingly, harshly, and forthrightly against his Jewish opposition to his teachings.

Well meaning Catholics should understand that for over a 1000 years young Jews were schooled by their parents that Christians were the blood enemy of the Jews…call it institutional teaching within the family.

With that upbringing in mind how do you think clever Jewish lawyers in government would regard our christian government institutions of the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s etc.

I think we have been conditioned to fall in to the ‘political correctness’ trap designed by communists to curtail our right to free speech.

When select groups are above criticism you essentially make them the new Royalty and that’s not good for the Church or a representative Republic…

…like the United States was designed to be and was until the 60’s.

In a nutshell the SSPX is worried that Rome will appoint a lukewarm Bishop to oversee their traditional organization and ruin it. That is the crux of the matter.

As long as they remain outside the Church (or in the shoe foyer to use our earlier metaphor), they are already ruined. They cannot be fully Catholic unless they are in full communion with Peter.

If they define not being ruined as being able to do what they want, when they want it and have their pretty Masses, then I guess they aren’t ruined. But to me saying “I want what I want, when I want it” is the definition of sin. And to be stubbornly in sin, outside the Church, is to be ruined.

 

[severus68]

Most peoplehave no knowledge of the SSPX or what it is. In fact most people have never even heard of them. As far as you having good reverent Priests thats wonderful:thumbsup:. Not everyone is so lucky. And while the situation is now much better than before, back in the truly horrific times of the late 60’s through the 70’s and early 80’s, there are still a lot of areas where abuses and experimentation occur on a regular basis.

The SSPX honestly feels that there is a crisis in the Church and that they have the obligation to do whatever is necessary in order to keep the traditions of the Catholic Church alivew and functioning. Whether right or wrong, it is what they believe. As to attendance at their Chapels, again, most Catholics, even those in areas where they have Chapels are unaware of their existance. The SSPX doesn’t advertise as a general rule and the only way people find out about them is generally by word of mouth or merely in passing.

As to whether or not the Extraordinary Form is needed or wanted I can only say that the Holy Father himself seems to think that it is.

I was actually referring to needing or wanting the presence of the SSPX, not to the EF.

 

[Mike30]

I was actually referring to needing or wanting the presence of the SSPX, not to the EF.

Well, thats understandable I suppose. However, the reason I gave is why they open Chapels. In fact, it is the only reason they open Chapels. As to needing and’or wanting, the SSPX doesn’t pick and area and go unless there is a demand for them. They don’t just show up and say here we are. Nope, it doesn’t work that way…

 

[Mike30]

I don’t agree with this. I tend to think the opposite - that because the traditional Mass was so closely aligned with a group outside the mainstream of the church, it became more sidelined and “off limits” than it might have been.

Other non-SSPX priests who might have continued saying the TLM, or who might have been interested in learning it, would be less likely to do so if it branded them as ‘schismatic’ or ‘super trad’.

The TLM, instead of remaining a viable option, became an ‘underground’ Mass. I do realize that many people were anxious to experiment and all kinds of crazy things were happening. But by closing themselves off from the larger church, they didn’t help in the fight, they just became an ignorable fringe group.

Actually, back in those days almost all Priests were flat out forbidden to celebrate the Extraordinary Form at all. Forbidden. Not discouraged, forbidden by their superiors. There were no places to learn it as Seminaries did not teach it except for the SSPX Seminary. The only ones who could legally celebrate it were a few elderly Priests here and there who were given dispensation and they were not allowed to teach it without special permission from the Bishop.

Even if they were allowed to teach it, no one else could celebrate it except them and them alone. And since almost all Bishops refused to allow it in the first place, such permission was undoubtedly extremely rare. I would say virtually non existant.

That was why the indult issued by Pope John Paul II caused such consternation among many Bishops. They saw it as their authority being infringed upon and their refusal to allow the Extraordinary Form even after the indult was isued is well documented. While true some Bishops did allow the Extraordinary Form after the indult, and some supported it vigorously, many did not and more than a few still do not.

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

Because the SSPX clergy have had their faculties suspended for their continued schism.

Okay. Was the suspension automatic as result of some other event? What specifically started it and brought it into action?

 

[Julia_Mae]

The SSPX honestly feels that there is a crisis in the Church and that they have the obligation to do whatever is necessary in order to keep the traditions of the Catholic Church alivew and functioning…

Whatever they believe, it is not* their* “obligation.” It’s the Pope’s obligation, the Bishops’ obligation. Their obligation as faithful Catholics is the same as yours and mine and they are failing at it extravagantly: duty and loyalty to the Magisterium.

 

[Julia_Mae]

As long as they remain outside the Church (or in the shoe foyer to use our earlier metaphor), …

Where I live, it’s called the “mud room.” An apt metaphor in this situation.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Where I live, it’s called the “mud room.” An apt metaphor in this situation.

Yes, I use that term too. Very apt.

 

[Mike30]

Whatever they believe, it is not* their* “obligation.” It’s the Pope’s obligation, the Bishops’ obligation. Their obligation as faithful Catholics is the same as yours and mine and they are failing at it extravagantly: duty and loyalty to the Magisterium.

I don’t disagree with you. However, given the overt hostility that had been shown towards the SSPX from its’ very first days by the Magesterium until just recently, their attitude is not at all surprising.

Let me be clear, I do not in any way support the SSPX, and personally feel that their way of trying to do things is ill thought out, foolish and disrespectful. That being said, after reading the history of the group, not just their version, but others as well, having been a young adult during their formative years and seeing what they were up against in those long ago times, I feel more sadness towards them than the hostility that many here seem to feel. I don’t for a second condone their actions.

But given everything else, I do understand them.

 

[choliks]

In a nutshell the SSPX is worried that Rome will appoint a lukewarm Bishop to oversee their traditional organization and ruin it. That is the crux of the matter.

There’s that word: “worried.” Why do they need to second guess the Holy Father and the Church, and, in effect, the Holy Spirit? Worry is the closest sibling of Fear. Most of the time, fear incapacitates us from loving. Love, or charity, is the prerequisite of obedience.

As one little green alien from a galaxy far, far, away once said: “Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering.”

 

[Julia_Mae]

That being said, after reading the history of the group, not just their version, but others as well, having been a young adult during their formative years and seeing what they were up against in those long ago times, I feel more sadness towards them than the hostility that many here seem to feel. I don’t for a second condone their actions.

But given everything else, I do understand them.

I think the basic motivation is probably laudable. I also think, having read about this for - what now? 20 years or so? That the attitude of rebellion has been present since the outset. It’s a very difficult situation.

 

[october_baby]

Well not to be argumentative but the same thing can be said about the traditional clergy too.

Too much emphasis has been made of the head of the SSPX being anti Jewish but I would like to point out that Jesus himself spoke critically, un-lovingly, harshly, and forthrightly against his Jewish opposition to his teachings.

Well meaning Catholics should understand that for over a 1000 years young Jews were schooled by their parents that Christians were the blood enemy of the Jews…call it institutional teaching within the family.

With that upbringing in mind how do you think clever Jewish lawyers in government would regard our christian government institutions of the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s etc.

I think we have been conditioned to fall in to the ‘political correctness’ trap designed by communists to curtail our right to free speech.

When select groups are above criticism you essentially make them the new Royalty and that’s not good for the Church or a representative Republic…

…like the United States was designed to be and was until the 60’s.

In a nutshell the SSPX is worried that Rome will appoint a lukewarm Bishop to oversee their traditional organization and ruin it. That is the crux of the matter.

These seem like reasonable points…