SSPX update?

[Mrs_Sally]

A comparable complete group at present, no. However, in other orders there are individuals and groups who constantly challenge the Church and her doctrines and dogmas.Constantly. So it would appear that the safe path of action would be as follows.

1. pay lip service to what the Church says and publically swear fealty
2. continue to attack, disparage and otherwise refute that which the Church truly teaches
3. when called on the issue, deny that you are in conflict with the Church,state publically that you are a true son or daughter of the Chucrh and blithely continue on your way, teaching whatever you want and doing whatever you want…

At least the SSPX is honest about their position as opposed to the others as mentioned.

That is a bit of exaggeration. Individuals within a particular order may say things that are out of line, but there aren’t orders speaking against the Church as a whole. And in specific incidents that have become public the person in question stopped writing or teaching or whatever the Church asked. In other cases the person left the priesthood or religious life. I am not aware of any other group claiming to be part of the church who says the kinds of things about he bishops and popes that we’ve been hearing from the SSPX.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Canon Law makes a distinction between material schismatics and formal schismatics & manifest schismatics. The specific terms are not in the 1993 CIC, but are present in other elements of Canon Law.

The Orthodox, and others born into schism, are material schismatics - they are in schism, but it’s not by formal act for which they are personally culpable.

Formal schismatics are those who openly state schism or who have been formally excommunicated and/or anathematized for their schism. They are usually held to be culpable for their schismatic acts.

Manifest schismatics are those who commit schismatic acts or make schismatic statements but do not yet bear formal sanction as schismatics. They may or may not be culpable, but generally are not labeled as schismatic prior to trial, and if found guilty but not culpable, may not become formal schismatics.

There are manifest schismatics amongst the SSPX; to date, I’ve not heard of any being tried under canon law for this, and Rome prefers not to use the terms openly for manifest nor material schismatics out of christian charity, and in hopes of rapprochement and correction. The SSPX as a whole can’t be said to be formally in schism until tried or electing to be in schism. And while the leadership has made a number of provocatively worded statements, but they stop short of manifest schismaticism.

That seems to be it. The SSPX seems to be skirting a grey area in its (non)acceptance of Vat II. An outright repudiation of the Council, denying it has any legitimacy and affirming it does not form part of the Church’s magisterium, even with the distinctions mentioned earlier, would seem to be a schismatic act. But so far that kind of rejection has not been formally adopted by the SSPX, though recent statements come close.

 

[Faithdancer]

A comparable complete group at present, no. However, in other orders there are individuals and groups who constantly challenge the Church and her doctrines and dogmas.Constantly. So it would appear that the safe path of action would be as follows.

1. pay lip service to what the Church says and publically swear fealty
2. continue to attack, disparage and otherwise refute that which the Church truly teaches
3. when called on the issue, deny that you are in conflict with the Church,state publically that you are a true son or daughter of the Chucrh and blithely continue on your way, teaching whatever you want and doing whatever you want…

At least the SSPX is honest about their position as opposed to the others as mentioned.

I will agree that the SSPX does seem to be more up front about their issues then those cafeterianists who deny that they have any issue at all and then proceed to vote for pro-abortion candidates, legalizing same sex “marriage,” etc., not to mention those who travel around giving workshops where heterodox, new age prayer and spiritual practices are espoused. I’m not naming any names, however…

 

[JReducation]

I will agree that the SSPX does seem to be more up front about their issues then those cafeterianists who deny that they have any issue at all and then proceed to vote for pro-abortion candidates, legalizing same sex “marriage,” etc., not to mention those who travel around giving workshops where heterodox, new age prayer and spiritual practices are espoused. I’m not naming any names, however…

The difference is very important. The SSPX is an entire institute, whereas in these other cases they are isolated individuals.

The SSPX has bishops. These isolated individuals are not bishops who are threatening to ordain other bishops without a papal mandate in order to propagate.

In the case of the individuals, the greater damage is to themselves. In the case of the SSPX it has the potential to do major damage to the unity of the Church.

These other loose canons cannot create a new Church, the SSPX can do so. Therefore, they are a bigger concern to the Holy See than a loose canon out there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

The difference is very important. The SSPX is an entire institute, whereas in these other cases they are isolated individuals.

The SSPX has bishops. These isolated individuals are not bishops who are threatening to ordain other bishops without a papal mandate in order to propagate.

In the case of the individuals, the greater damage is to themselves. In the case of the SSPX it has the potential to do major damage to the unity of the Church.

These other loose canons cannot create a new Church, the SSPX can do so. Therefore, they are a bigger concern to the Holy See than a loose canon out there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

The heart of Pope Benedict XVI’s Christmas message to the Roman Curia (in 2005)(the Cardinals and Archbishops who manage the Vatican Congregations and Pontifical Councils in Rome), was a reflection on and interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. In his message he spoke very positively about the Council and addressed the post-Council problems *. *He also placed his reflections in the context of suffering and evil in the world. *

"The last event of this year on which I wish to reflect here is the celebration of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago. This memory prompts the question: What has been the result of the Council? Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken? What still remains to be done? No one can deny that in vast areas of the Church the implementation of the Council has been somewhat difficult, even without wishing to apply to what occurred in these years the description that St Basil, the great Doctor of the Church, made of the Church’s situation after the Council of Nicea: he compares her situation to a naval battle in the darkness of the storm, saying among other things: “The raucous shouting of those who through disagreement rise up against one another, the incomprehensible chatter, the confused din of uninterrupted clamouring, has now filled almost the whole of the Church, falsifying through excess or failure the right doctrine of the faith…” ( *De Spiritu Sancto, *XXX, 77; *PG *32, 213 A; SCh 17 ff., p. 524).

**"The Church, both before and after the Council, was and is the same Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic, journeying on through time; she continues “her pilgrimage amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God”, proclaiming the death of the Lord until he comes (cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 8)."

**“Thus, today we can look with gratitude at the Second Vatican Council: if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.” **
Houston Catholic Worker, Vol. XVIV, No. 2, March-April 2006
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html

*Benedict XVI’s Christmas message presents John Paul II’s answer to the great question which haunts so many: “What limits the force of evil, the power, in brief, which overcomes it – this is how he says it – is God’s suffering, the suffering of the Son of God on the Cross: ‘The suffering of the Crucified God is not just one form of suffering alongside others…. In sacrificing himself for us all, Christ gave a new meaning to suffering, opening up a new dimension, a new order: the order of love… It is this suffering which burns and consumes evil with the flame of love…. Christ has redeemed the world: ‘By his wounds we are healed’ (Is 53:5)” *

 

[Boulder257]

A comparable complete group at present, no. However, in other orders there are individuals and groups who constantly challenge the Church and her doctrines and dogmas.Constantly. So it would appear that the safe path of action would be as follows.

1. pay lip service to what the Church says and publically swear fealty
2. continue to attack, disparage and otherwise refute that which the Church truly teaches
3. when called on the issue, deny that you are in conflict with the Church,state publically that you are a true son or daughter of the Chucrh and blithely continue on your way, teaching whatever you want and doing whatever you want…

At least the SSPX is honest about their position as opposed to the others as mentioned.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it this way and I think this is critical of those who may not understand all of Church teacing, but choose to obey regardless. It would appear to me that the SSPX leadership are not being honest, they are being prideful and downright stubborn to the point of risking their eternal salvation. I can completely understand when someone doesn’t understand Church teaching, but I don’t understand those who flat out reject it based upon a prideful or personal interpretation. Even worse are those that base their entire relationship with God on their personal preference rather than the Church HE established. I think many times people forget that we did not create God, He created us.

Maybe we don’t understand; and that’s okay. It’s not an intelligence contest. It’s about love, which manifests itself as obedience to His will.

 

[Boulder257]

The difference is very important. The SSPX is an entire institute, whereas in these other cases they are isolated individuals.

The SSPX has bishops. These isolated individuals are not bishops who are threatening to ordain other bishops without a papal mandate in order to propagate.

In the case of the individuals, the greater damage is to themselves. In the case of the SSPX it has the potential to do major damage to the unity of the Church.

These other loose canons cannot create a new Church, the SSPX can do so. Therefore, they are a bigger concern to the Holy See than a loose canon out there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Boulder257]

That is a bit of exaggeration. Individuals within a particular order may say things that are out of line, but there aren’t orders speaking against the Church as a whole. And in specific incidents that have become public the person in question stopped writing or teaching or whatever the Church asked. In other cases the person left the priesthood or religious life. I am not aware of any other group claiming to be part of the church who says the kinds of things about he bishops and popes that we’ve been hearing from the SSPX.

Exactly, and well said. One may feel the SSPX is being “honest,” but in fact they are the ones paying lip service. You can’t say you respect the Supreme Pontiff, the position, and the Chair of Peter but remain in complete defiance. Dee provided some incredibly good examples of conflicting statements and double speak earlier in this thread.

 

[Mike30]

Exactly, and well said. One may feel the SSPX is being “honest,” but in fact they are the ones paying lip service. You can’t say you respect the Supreme Pontiff, the position, and the Chair of Peter but remain in complete defiance. Dee provided some incredibly good examples of conflicting statements and double speak earlier in this thread.

Well, that point could be argued. There are numerous, well known cases of dissident clergy and theologians who routinely challenge the Vatican, the Holy Father and deny Church Doctrine, yet, because they pay some degree of lip service, may be censured, in some cases, not all and are still allowed to espouse ideas and theories which in some cases are not even Christian in nature let alone anything resembling Catholicism. True, things have gotten better and these instances happen nowhere near as often as in past years, but they still remain. T

The difference as I see it between the SSPX and these others is that these theologians and clergy pretty much unanimously accept and defend Vatican II and feel that it has given them license to make their proclamations and espouse their ideas. For them, the only problem with Vatican II is that it did not go far enough and has not been fully implemented as intended.

As far as the SSPX becoming another Church, as Brother JR indicated, because they do have valid orders and Apostilic Succession, wouldn’t that put them in basically the same category as the Orthodox? The situation seems to be, at least on the surface, somewhat analogous.

And yet, the Church is quite fine with the Orthodox as well as other Christian groups and even non Christian faiths…

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Well, that point could be argued. There are numerous, well known cases of dissident clergy and theologians who routinely challenge the Vatican, the Holy Father and deny Church Doctrine, yet, because they pay some degree of lip service, may be censured, in some cases, not all and are still allowed to espouse ideas and theories which in some cases are not even Christian in nature let alone anything resembling Catholicism. True, things have gotten better and these instances happen nowhere near as often as in past years, but they still remain. T

The difference as I see it between the SSPX and these others is that these theologians and clergy pretty much unanimously accept and defend Vatican II and feel that it has given them license to make their proclamations and espouse their ideas. For them, the only problem with Vatican II is that it did not go far enough and has not been fully implemented as intended.

As far as the SSPX becoming another Church, as Brother JR indicated, because they do have valid orders and Apostilic Succession, wouldn’t that put them in basically the same category as the Orthodox? The situation seems to be, at least on the surface, somewhat analogous.

And yet, the Church is quite fine with the Orthodox as well as other Christian groups and even non Christian faiths…

First, as noted above, an individual saying certain crazy things is different than an entire group (that includes bishops) saying them.

It has been 500 and 1500 years since the splits with the protestants and Orthodox. How the Church feels now and how she felt at the time are different. I don’t recommend waiting 500 years to figure out if the Church will be “quite fine” with the SSPX if they do split off.

 

[Boulder257]

Well, that point could be argued. There are numerous, well known cases of dissident clergy and theologians who routinely challenge the Vatican, the Holy Father and deny Church Doctrine, yet, because they pay some degree of lip service, may be censured, in some cases, not all and are still allowed to espouse ideas and theories which in some cases are not even Christian in nature let alone anything resembling Catholicism. True, things have gotten better and these instances happen nowhere near as often as in past years, but they still remain. T

The difference as I see it between the SSPX and these others is that these theologians and clergy pretty much unanimously accept and defend Vatican II and feel that it has given them license to make their proclamations and espouse their ideas. For them, the only problem with Vatican II is that it did not go far enough and has not been fully implemented as intended.

As far as the SSPX becoming another Church, as Brother JR indicated, because they do have valid orders and Apostilic Succession, wouldn’t that put them in basically the same category as the Orthodox? The situation seems to be, at least on the surface, somewhat analogous.

And yet, the Church is quite fine with the Orthodox as well as other Christian groups and even non Christian faiths…

One person spouting off is a little different than four bishops and about 500 priests outright defying the Pope. Not to mention the SSPX is continuing to “form” priests and seminarians. They continue to ordain priests. They have even threatened, in a veiled way, to ordain more Bishops! This is a little different than someone holding a seminar on birth control. I’m not excusing the individual or their actions, I just don’t think you are using true comparable situations. I understand your frustration…trust me…but let’s not get carried away.

 

[Mike30]

One person spouting off is a little different than four bishops and about 500 priests outright defying the Pope. Not to mention the SSPX is continuing to “form” priests and seminarians. They continue to ordain priests. They have even threatened, in a veiled way, to ordain more Bishops! This is a little different than someone holding a seminar on birth control. I’m not excusing the individual or their actions, I just don’t think you are using true comparable situations. I understand your frustration…trust me…but let’s not get carried away.

I have no frustration nor am I an SSPX supporter, defender or associate. I am just trying to understand why there is such tremendous animosity and it appears outright hatred for the SSPX on the part of many, when such extreme feelings towards others is markedly absent.

Lets take for instance a certain Priest who will remain nameless. Since the sixties he has repeatedly attacked the institutional Church, at least the two most recent Popes, lectured at taught at numerous universities, sectarian as well as Catholic and published prolifically. He has recently called for open revolt from below in order to force the institutional Church to change its teachings. True the Church did suspend him from teaching as a Catholic theologian, even though he is still allowed to teach as a sectarian professor at the same university, and has condemned some of his writings, but yet he remains a Priest in good standing, still has his faculties and is basically free to spread heresy for lack of a better word with relative impunity from his position. I would think someone of his fame and position could do considerable damage to the faith and probably already has. Much more I would think than the SSPX ever could.

Yet he is given a pass on most of these forums. Why is that? Where is the ringing condemnation of such a person? Why would a Priest, who espouses views which are at a minimum dead set against the institutional Church its leadership and teachings and at worst outright heretical be allowed so much leeway?

And he is far from the only one, and he has many followers and admirers both within and outside of the institutional Church.

I just wonder at why the SSPX is considered such a threat and yet people such as he are not…

 

[pnewton]

And yet, the Church is quite fine with the Orthodox as well as other Christian groups and even non Christian faiths…

I have no frustration nor am I an SSPX supporter, defender or associate. I am just trying to understand why there is such tremendous animosity and it appears outright hatred for the SSPX on the part of many, …Yet he is given a pass on most of these forums.

I think there are two false misrepresentations of others here. First, the Church is not “fine” with the Orthodox. That is not a term that has any bearing on the relationship between the Catholic Church ant the various Orthodox communities.

Second, I think it inappropriate to accuse someone, or anyone, of hate. We can be accurate or inaccurate with our own opinions, but we should not exaggerate the opinions of others. I have never heard one person say they hate the SSPX here.

As to the difference between the SSPX dialogue here and that of others that defy the Holy Father, I have no idea of what forum you are talking about. It sure isn’t CAF. No one here has every received a pass bad-mouthing the Holy Father. I would be very surprised if there was any truth to that observation.

 

[Mike30]

I think there are two false misrepresentations of others here. First, the Church is not “fine” with the Orthodox. That is not a term that has any bearing on the relationship between the Catholic Church ant the various Orthodox communities.

Second, I think it inappropriate to accuse someone, or anyone, of hate. We can be accurate or inaccurate with our own opinions, but we should not exaggerate the opinions of others. I have never heard one person say they hate the SSPX here.

As to the difference between the SSPX dialogue here and that of others that defy the Holy Father, I have no idea of what forum you are talking about. It sure isn’t CAF. No one here has every received a pass bad-mouthing the Holy Father. I would be very surprised if there was any truth to that observation.

I never said anyone did I said no one has spoken out about this particular priest who has repeatedly challenged the Vatican As to hatred words and comments speak for themselves.

Nice attempt to deflect though:thumbsup:

 

[pnewton]

I never said anyone did I said no one has spoken out about this particular priest who has repeatedly challenged the Vatican As to hatred words and comments speak for themselves.

Nice attempt to deflect though:thumbsup:

Disagreement, as well as disbelief, it not deflection. I simply to not believe what you have posited.

Even is such a thing happened once, that would not be the topic of this thread, which is the SSPX. I have never been a big believer in using something wrong to justify another wrong. It didn’t work too well for me as a kid to point out what the kid down the street got away with.

 

[Mike30]

Disagreement, as well as disbelief, it not deflection. I simply to not believe what you have posited.

Even is such a thing happened once, that would not be the topic of this thread, which is the SSPX. I have never been a big believer in using something wrong to justify another wrong. It didn’t work too well for me as a kid to point out what the kid down the street got away with.

What don t you believe? The existence of this Priest or the fact that his views have not been challenged on this forum are are those of the SSPX?

I’m not trying to justify anything I just wonder why the SSPX is targeted for their views and more liberal and modern thinkers that defy the Holy Father are not

That s the question. That s what I have difficulty with

 

[Justin_Swanton]

What don t you believe? The existence of this Priest or the fact that his views have not been challenged on this forum are are those of the SSPX?

I’m not trying to justify anything I just wonder why the SSPX is targeted for their views and more liberal and modern thinkers that defy the Holy Father are not

That s the question. That s what I have difficulty with

The SSPX and progressive factions represent two shifts from what all us want to see in the Church. The question being which represents the worst shift. Let me schematize:

1. Ideal Catholic parish: the parishioners are thoroughly grounded in their Faith. They know what they believe and, more importantly, their outlook, their priorities, are infused with Catholicism. Their moral convictions follow the Magisterium and inform how they live (no contraception, never mind abortion, etc.). Their attendance at Mass is recollected and reverent and they have a keen faith in the Real Presence. They have a solid prayer and devotional life. They have a reverence for the Church and the Holy Father and their local bishop.

I would love to hear if such a parish exists anywhere.

1. Progressist parish. The parishioners know next to nothing about the Catholic Faith, not even the fundamentals. The cathechism programme is highly suspect and leaves its pupils with a sense of doubt about things like Biblical inerrancy. The parishioners take or leave the Church’s teaching on moral issues as suits them. Their attendance at Mass varies between passive and humanly interactive, but there is little respect shown for the Blessed Sacrament. They feel a kind of team loyalty for the Church and the Holy Father without actually going as far as to listen to what he has to say.

I see this kind everywhere.

1. Traditionalist (SSPX) parish. The Parishioners know their Faith in varying degrees. It is often the rote type of Faith, with a strong emphasis on things like mortal sin, Purgatory (and how to avoid it) and Hell. Their moral convictions follow the Magisterium and inform how they live (no contraception, never mind abortion, etc.). Their attendance at Mass is recollected and reverent and they have a keen faith in the Real Presence. They have a profound mistrust of the ‘mainstream’ Church and the papacy. This mistrust engenders a negative, doomsday outlook on life, which tends to hinder a charitable and more positive attitude towards others.

Of 2 and 3, which is the worst?

 

[Melchior_1]

1. Ideal Catholic parish: the parishioners are thoroughly grounded in their Faith. They know what they believe and, more importantly, their outlook, their priorities, are infused with Catholicism. Their moral convictions follow the Magisterium and inform how they live (no contraception, never mind abortion, etc.). Their attendance at Mass is recollected and reverent and they have a keen faith in the Real Presence. They have a solid prayer and devotional life. They have a reverence for the Church and the Holy Father and their local bishop.

I would love to hear if such a parish exists anywhere.

If you’re looking, mine is #1.

You forgot #4: Average parish which has a little bit of everything.

 

[pnewton]

What don t you believe? The existence of this Priest or the fact that his views have not been challenged on this forum are are those of the SSPX?

I’m not trying to justify anything I just wonder why the SSPX is targeted for their views and more liberal and modern thinkers that defy the Holy Father are not

What I do not *believe *is anyone is “given a pass” here that promotes heterodoxy views or speak against the Holy Father. I do not agree, that such a person is the topic here, or that it is relevant to the SSPX situation.

 

[Faithdancer]

The SSPX and progressive factions represent two shifts from what all us want to see in the Church. The question being which represents the worst shift. Let me schematize:

1. Ideal Catholic parish: the parishioners are thoroughly grounded in their Faith. They know what they believe and, more importantly, their outlook, their priorities, are infused with Catholicism. Their moral convictions follow the Magisterium and inform how they live (no contraception, never mind abortion, etc.). Their attendance at Mass is recollected and reverent and they have a keen faith in the Real Presence. They have a solid prayer and devotional life. They have a reverence for the Church and the Holy Father and their local bishop.

I would love to hear if such a parish exists anywhere.

1. Progressist parish. The parishioners know next to nothing about the Catholic Faith, not even the fundamentals. The cathechism programme is highly suspect and leaves its pupils with a sense of doubt about things like Biblical inerrancy. The parishioners take or leave the Church’s teaching on moral issues as suits them. Their attendance at Mass varies between passive and humanly interactive, but there is little respect shown for the Blessed Sacrament. They feel a kind of team loyalty for the Church and the Holy Father without actually going as far as to listen to what he has to say.

I see this kind everywhere.

1. Traditionalist (SSPX) parish. The Parishioners know their Faith in varying degrees. It is often the rote type of Faith, with a strong emphasis on things like mortal sin, Purgatory (and how to avoid it) and Hell. Their moral convictions follow the Magisterium and inform how they live (no contraception, never mind abortion, etc.). Their attendance at Mass is recollected and reverent and they have a keen faith in the Real Presence. They have a profound mistrust of the ‘mainstream’ Church and the papacy. This mistrust engenders a negative, doomsday outlook on life, which tends to hinder a charitable and more positive attitude towards others.

Of 2 and 3, which is the worst?

I pose a corollary question- of 2 and 3, which is by far the most prevalent? Which one is hardly known to the average Catholic parishioner, and which one surrounds the average Catholic parishioner?