SSPX update?

[PaulinVA]

1. Joe appears before the Judgment seat and is condemned to hell. “Sorry Joe,” God tells him, “That sacrament was invalid. Just your bad luck.”

Interesting question. So, Joe was led astray in your example by the SSPX priests, and believed the theological and canon law contortions that SSPX publishes that talk about supplied jurisdiction because of the “crisis” that the Vatican says does not exist. What happens? Joe was hookwinked.

1. Joe does time in Purgatory and eventually is admitted to heaven. God, seeing his good faith and knowing that it would be psychologically impossible for him to make his way to a regular parish (presuming the regular parish offers weekly confession), supplies, through His Church, the absolution that Joe needs and came in good faith to his chapel to receive.
   .

Well, this is a good question. Does the Church supply jurisdiction for Joe’s confession because he was hoodwinked by the SSPX? He knowingly went to a suspended priest for confession, but the suspended priest, through his order, presented an argument that he did indeed have supplied jurisdiction.

Don’t want to every talk about the priest’s culpability. Does this become a millstone around his neck because he led Joe astray? Was he himself led astray by SSPX?

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I’ve often heard about putting the nail on the coffin. However, it never occurred to me that you could nail yourself inside the coffin.

We have three statements that no one will agree are acceptable.

1. The new mass is evil.
2. The Council was the council of the Jews, Masons and Modernists.
3. The Jews are the enemies of the Church.

When a bishop makes such statements in such a public manner, there is no way that anyone in authority can get his foot out of his mouth.

The rest, who said what and who offered what guarantees pales by comparison. It comes as no surprise to anyone that everyone who was watching the talks was speculating. Speculations can be dangerous, precisely because they can confuse and frustrate.

However, the speculations the were shared with the good bishop did not tarnish the good name of the Church, the mass or another faith tradition. His comments do just that.

I’m sitting here thinking, “If I were pope, how would I extricate the bishop’s foot from his mouth?” If I ignore the comments, especially the one about the mass and the Jews, what am I saying to the world? On the other hand, if I engage in a defense of the bishop, I will come across as one who is so desperate to have the SSPX back that I’ll put up with anything. Finally, if I engage in a debate with Bishop Fellay, I make us equals and we’re not. I’m the Pontiff and he’s my brother bishop, not my equal. Big difference.

What a mess. :sad_yes:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

If there were ever a moment to “shake the dust from your feet” in the matter of the SSPX, this would seem to be it. Anything less than that, another round of nuanced statements and “lite” condemnations, nods to Tradition, or any other kind of PR-speak, would seem to betray all the progress made since Nostra Aetate. Anything less than that, and the Church becomes a love-struck sophomore pursuing a girl who rejects and insults him time and time again, only to keep coming back for more.

 

[RPRPsych]

Interesting argument, but I’d just like to zero in on one point:

1. Joe does time in Purgatory and eventually is admitted to heaven. God, seeing his good faith and knowing that it would be psychologically impossible for him to make his way to a regular parish (presuming the regular parish offers weekly confession), supplies, through His Church, the absolution that Joe needs and came in good faith to his chapel to receive.

What would constitute “psychologically impossible”?

Does Joe suffer from a mental illness or personality disorder that leads him to behave a particular way? If so, he’s not culpable.

Or, is Joe just prejudiced? While prejudice can certainly be the result of upbringing and culture (which can lessen culpability), prejudice does not constitute a “psychological incapacity” in itself. (If it did, imagine the field day that annulment tribunals would have with it! “X is psychologically incapable of living with a woman who is Y or does Y…”)

The irony of the “psychologically impossible” argument is that it sounds uncomfortably like the arguments that “liberal” Catholics make when justifying, say, contraception (“she’s psychologically incapable of coping with any more children”). We are on interesting, speculative, but possibly dangerous ground, and I’d feel safer if we didn’t have to resort to this.

 

[RPRPsych]

If there were ever a moment to “shake the dust from your feet” in the matter of the SSPX, this would seem to be it. Anything less than that, another round of nuanced statements and “lite” condemnations, nods to Tradition, or any other kind of PR-speak, would seem to betray all the progress made since Nostra Aetate. Anything less than that, and the Church becomes a love-struck sophomore pursuing a girl who rejects and insults him time and time again, only to keep coming back for more.

Well, God hasn’t given up on us, despite our many betrayals, so I’m not sure if the Church should give up efforts at unity in spite of this. As Chesterton said, Christian charity differs from “ordinary” charity precisely in that it must be willing to forgive the “unforgivable”.

However, I would agree with you that a strong condemnation of such statements, and the scandal they cause, is in order. If we have not learnt our lessons from the Holocaust, great is our sin.

And I love that metaphor, especially the love-struck sophomore.

 

[TimSpalding]

…*Well, Joe commits a grave sin and goes to his chapel for confession. He manages an imperfect act of contrition and is absolved. He leaves the confessional and the next day whilst walking in town he is run over and killed. The story now has two possible endings …Does the Church supply jurisdiction for Joe’s confession because he was hoodwinked by the SSPX? …

This sort of “thought experiment” is a modern, novel thing, but this is the unusual case where there’s a direct Biblical counterpart, at Luke 18.9ff.

Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income. But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’ I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Of course I believe confession and absolution exist and “work,” but I don’t think Jesus would have told a story that centered around unknowable interior disposition if that, not what amount to juridical niceties (e.g., just whether the priest had “supplied jurisdiction” or not), were not the core of all this.

That conversion of the heart is at the center of it all, and is fundamentally unknowable from the outside, cuts both ways. The humble, god-fearing SSPXer can be the tax collector and we the Pharisees. And one might have to let a few “liberal Catholics” in. Or at least not thank God you aren’t like them.

 

[raoban221]

Gi?i thi?u d?ch v? l?p camera l?p máy ghi hình HÃ* ThÃ*nh camera quan sát

9366829547448376603333957070955643566454734321983
L?p camera, hay trang b? h? th?ng camera quan sát cho van phòng, nhÃ* xu?ng, siêu th?, gia dình lÃ* vô cùng c?n thi?t v?i tình hình kinh t?, xã h?i dang phát tri?n ngÃy cÃng nhanh. Bên c?nh nó lÃ* n?n tr?m cu?p, các t? n?n xã h?i ngÃ*y m?t tang nhanh nhu bây gi?.

CAMERA HÀ THÀNH chuyên cung c?p d?ch v? l?p camera , thi?t k?, l?p d?t máy quay, h? th?ng camera ch?ng tr?m, camera giám sát theo yêu c?u c?a quý khách hÃ*ng. Quan sát qua m?ng Internet, m?ng LAN, TV. camera quan sát

9748581794800248608635097937980825479885241492003

V?i ch?c nang chÃnh là thu l?i hình ?nh,Máy quan sát du?c ?ng d?ng r?ng rãi trong linh v?c ghi hình, giám sát. M?t h? th?ng nhi?u Camera l?p d?t t?i nh?ng v? trÃ* t?t s? cho phép b?n trông coi, theo dõi toÃn b? ngôi nhÃ, van phòng hay b?t c? khu v?c nÃ*o b?n mu?n quan sát. Nh?ng lúc b?n không có m?t t?i dó.

Hi?u m?t cách don gi?n thì Camera lÃ* m?t thi?t b? ghi hình. V?i m?t chi?c máy quay, b?n có th? luu l?i du?c nh?ng hình ?nh trong m?t kho?ng th?i gian nÃo dó, b?o qu?n và b?n có th? xem l?i b?t c? khi nÃ*o b?n mu?n. l?p camera

1543804984778813383694934907048005720861094526001

Chúng tôi chuyên thi?t k?, thi công vÃ* l?p d?t các h? th?ng máy thu hình, camera quan sát
(Camera IP vÃ* camera thu?ng). S?n ph?m ch?t lu?ng cao, ngu?n g?c rõ rÃ*ng. Nh?p kh?u t? các nu?c nhu Japan, Korean, Taiwan. l?p camera

Hãy d?n v?i chúng tôi d? quý khách du?c cham sóc t?t nh?t!

4801466198079366631925226994189966000900598702018
giá r? ch? 500k

 

[GloriaMaria]

This sort of “thought experiment” is a modern, novel thing, but this is the unusual case where there’s a direct Biblical counterpart, at Luke 18.9ff.

Of course I believe confession and absolution exist and “work,” but I don’t think Jesus would have told a story that centered around the interior disposition if that, not what amount to juridical niceties (e.g., just whether the priest had valid faculties), were not the core of all this.

That conversion of the heart is at the center of it all cuts both ways. The humble, god-fearing SSPXer can be the tax collector and we the Pharisees. And one might have to let a few “liberal Catholics” in. Or at least not thank God you aren’t like them.

I understand what you are saying, but being intimately acquainted with the SSPX mentality, I can assure you that in many, many cases there is an unbelievable amount of pharisaical pride involved in the decision to be in the pew, and in the confessional. There is not a lot of humility in this millieu, because the whole premise behind the SSPX is that they know what is Catholic teaching, and the rest of the Church has it wrong.

Newly reposted on the website for their US District, which I will not link to, is an article condemning the “new” catechism as sinfully unCatholic, and as always you find the articles condemning the "new"Mass as a sacrilige.

Also, don’t forget that the SSPX priests are sitting there waiting in the confessional, and that they tell us it isn’t safe to go to the Diocesan priest for confession. They tell us that we put our children in danger of bad advice if we allow them to confess to a regular parish priest. There is a lot of culpability on all sides.

 

[TimSpalding]

I understand what you are saying, but being intimately acquainted with the SSPX mentality, I can assure you that in many, many cases there is an unbelievable amount of pharisaical pride involved in the decision to be in the pew, and in the confessional.

Oh, I don’t doubt you. Not at all. Your impression very much matches mine. I was just trying to insist that the issue is that pride and uncharity not, say, whether the priest you confess to has supplied jurisdiction.

 

[GloriaMaria]

Oh, I don’t doubt you. Not at all. Your impression very much matches mine. I was just trying to insist that the issue is that pride and uncharity not, say, whether the priest you confess to has supplied jurisdiction.

Supplied jurisdiction is all wrapped up in in the pride, too. One has to accept the argument of supplied jurisdiction to be there in the first place, That’s the first hurdle really, it’s like the “leap of faith”. Once there is a perception of a “crisis in the Church”, then comes the acceptance of supplied jurisdiction. But we make ourselves the arbiter of what constitutes a crisis. That is pride. You are definitely on to something.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Pharisaical pride… I think of some of the SSPX families I knew: the Palmers, the Pekelharings, the Daniels clan. Salt of the earth. Sure, there are opinionated SSPXers who would doubtless say the same things about ‘modernist’ Catholics that are being said about them. They may be the noisy and visible portion of the SSPX but they are far from being representative of it.

To dismiss the faithful of the SSPX as possessed of an unbelievable amount of pharisaical pride is to pass the kind of a judgement of one’s fellow man that a certain parable quoted earlier in this thread describes.

You cannot - repeat cannot - stereotype the SSPX faithful. They come in all shapes and sizes. I’ve travelled around and met many of them and I can tell you it is a real kaleidoscope.

 

[Melchior_1]

You cannot - repeat cannot - stereotype the SSPX faithful. They come in all shapes and sizes. I’ve travelled around and met many of them and I can tell you it is a real kaleidoscope.

Other things you cannot stereotype:

1. The Ordinary Form
2. Charismatic Renewal.
3. The Jesuits.
4. The Jews.

Doesn’t stop people, especially from the SSPX, doing just that.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

You cannot - repeat cannot - stereotype the SSPX faithful. They come in all shapes and sizes. I’ve travelled around and met many of them and I can tell you it is a real kaleidoscope.

But, none the less, ***they have chosen ***to leave full-communion with Rome. Part of being a faithful Catholic is being faithful & loyal to the Magisterium and the Holy Father, not an illicitly ordained Bishop.

Whatever their reasons, they still left. They may be faithful to the SSPX, but the SSPX is not the Church.

 

[jwinch2]

Pharisaical pride… I think of some of the SSPX families I knew: the Palmers, the Pekelharings, the Daniels clan. Salt of the earth. Sure, there are opinionated SSPXers who would doubtless say the same things about ‘modernist’ Catholics that are being said about them. They may be the noisy and visible portion of the SSPX but they are far from being representative of it.

To dismiss the faithful of the SSPX as possessed of an unbelievable amount of pharisaical pride is to pass the kind of a judgement of one’s fellow man that a certain parable quoted earlier in this thread describes.

You cannot - repeat cannot - stereotype the SSPX faithful. They come in all shapes and sizes. I’ve travelled around and met many of them and I can tell you it is a real kaleidoscope.

The only people I know involved with the SSPX are an otherwise ordinary family who do not believe there is anything wrong with what is contained in Vatican II or the OF of the Mass, but had become so disheartened with how they had been implemented and, being unable to find a parish in their area which celebrated a reverent liturgy according to what was stated in the documents, decided to move to an area where the SSPX was at. Their reasoning for not simply going to a place where the OF was celebrated properly was that priests and bishops move, and there is no guarantee of what things will be like in 5 years. They wanted to know exactly what the Mass, etc. was going to be like while their kids were growing up.

Other than that, I know no one involved with the SSPX at all, except for here on CAF.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

But, none the less, ***they have chosen ***to leave full-communion with Rome. Part of being a faithful Catholic is being faithful & loyal to the Magisterium and the Holy Father, not an illicitly ordained Bishop.

Whatever their reasons, they still left. They may be faithful to the SSPX, but the SSPX is not the Church.

True, sadly enough. But it is difficult for a non-SSPXer to comprehend the extent to which the mistrust for the Church inculcated in the SSPX can so alter one’s outlook that one ends up rejecting contact with the mainstream Church out of conscience. Bear in mind too that most SSPX faithful, like the rest of us, lead pretty basic and insular lives. They go to chapel each Sunday, then go to work or stay home for the rest of the time. They are not part of anything ecclesiastical outside the SSPX and so do not have the opportunity to discover both sides of the question. They read SSPX publications (which do not give a balanced presentation of the facts) or watch the news on TV (which hardly gives the facts at all). Despite our age of hypercommunication it is quite possible to be a mental hermit. That is what your typical SSPX parishioner is.

 

[Melchior_1]

Newly reposted on the website for their US District, which I will not link to, is an article condemning the “new” catechism as sinfully unCatholic, and as always you find the articles condemning the "new"Mass as a sacrilige.

From the US site: *Just as the Virgin Mary would not be immaculate if she had the lightest blemish, so the Catechism is not Catholic if the faith that it teaches is not whole, total, and clearly explained. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is therefore not Catholic. *

Another article flat out says Benedict is wrong when he says there are two Forms within the same Rite.

I’m not sure what the SSPX are trying to accomplish here.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Don’t want to every talk about the priest’s culpability. Does this become a millstone around his neck because he led Joe astray? Was he himself led astray by SSPX?

Most SSPX priests enter seminary when still in their teens, perhaps early twenties. Many come from established SSPX families. Conclusion…

 

[Oneofthewomen]

And I did exactly the same thing when I belonged to a Church who was being disobedient to Rome, but because I was on the other side of the “traditional fence”, I was open game for all sorts fo nasty, negative remarks about my brand of Catholicism. I was wrong. I was trying to make the Church be something that she could not be, because*** I thought ***it was better. I repented, confessed, and came back to full- communion. It was hard, because I had to swallow my pride, and that’s exactly what I see as the problem here- PRIDE, plain & simple!
The SSPX is doing the exact same thing. Just because their rallying cry is “We are trying to uphold Tradition”, does not mean that they are any more correct than an organization that supports Woman’s ordination or same-sex marriage within the Church.

Bottom line here, Justin, is that there is nothing, nothing at all that you can say that will ever make me have any sympathy for the SSPX. They have, IMHO, done more harm than good to the Church, especially with this last round of comments from Bishop Fellay.

True, sadly enough. But it is difficult for a non-SSPXer to comprehend the extent to which the mistrust for the Church inculcated in the SSPX can so alter one’s outlook that one ends up rejecting contact with the mainstream Church out of conscience. Bear in mind too that most SSPX faithful, like the rest of us, lead pretty basic and insular lives. They go to chapel each Sunday, then go to work or stay home for the rest of the time. They are not part of anything ecclesiastical outside the SSPX and so do not have the opportunity to discover both sides of the question. They read SSPX publications (which do not give a balanced presentation of the facts) or watch the news on TV (which hardly gives the facts at all). Despite our age of hypercommunication it is quite possible to be a mental hermit. That is what your typical SSPX parishioner is.

 

[90Domer]

You want to take a university that is the exclusive domain of an exempt religious congregation and give it to the SSPX, which is a suspended secular institute because of a football game?

It’s just a football game. Regardless of what we think, the Holy Cross Brothers are an exempt religious institute protected by the Holy Father himself. Have we forgotten how annoyed the Holy Father got when people jumped all over Fr. Jenkins over the Obama issue? They were politely told to back off an exempt religious.

It was not that the Vatican agreed with the invitation of President Obama. I don’t think that they agreed at all. It was that there were people attacking a religious who is protected by the Right of Exemption granted to him by the Council of Trent. The Vatican politely reminded people of this. There were only two people who had the right to say anything to him, his superior general and the pope.

We must be careful not to do one wrong thing to fix another. If we want to say that Notre Dame should only admit practicing Catholics, that’s an interesting suggestion. Notre Dame didn’t raise those kids. They arrived as they are, unfortunately.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! This is the most concise explanation about the Notre Dame “problem.”

I am an alumna of ND, and many of us were greatly disturbed by the invite. Sadly, many did not know that Notre Dame has a history of inviting sitting presidents to their commencements. Sadly, most that accepted in the past were Republicans. Sadly, Notre Dame got fooled when Pres Obama accepted. They should not have given him an honorary doctorate, but alums answered with their wallets, so ND righted their ship.

I dare say I would not want ND to be another Ave Maria or Steubenville. If I wanted that atmosphere, I would have attended those schools. Notre Dame allows its students to be taught in the framework of sound Catholic doctrine, while allowing the students to explore other issues and deepen their faith. Notre Dame has the best alumni association when it comes to giving back to those in need. Yet that is too often ignored or overlooked. Quite frankly, these comments offend me. Personally, though, Notre Dame is used to the hate and takes it in stride. We have a saying: Embace the Hate.

Anybody is free to PM me with comments. I am a proud alum and always will be. I love my Notre Dame family because that’s what we are–a family!

 

[LightBound]

Most SSPX priests enter seminary when still in their teens, perhaps early twenties. Many come from established SSPX families. Conclusion…

Seminary in their teens or early 20’s? Just how much training in pastoral care do they actually receive in an SSPX seminary? How on earth can someone so young provide pastoral care to individuals, couples, or families? You would think they would require at least a college degree before taking on that aspect of being a priest!

 

[90Domer]

LOL Actually, we rarely drink. We can’t afford it. We can barely afford food.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I would be more than happy to support your ministry if I had a link or an address. God bless.

Sandy