The Latest Public Statement of the SSPX

[Lormar]

The problem is a radical mistrust of the Church. The SSPX have a two-footed stance: the first is a preservation of integral Catholic life, which doesn’t just mean sticking to the Tridentine Mass, but entails a complete Catholic lifestyle: doctrine, dress, entertainment, education, etc. Whether this is actually achieved is another matter; it is at least the objective.

The second is a rejection of the contemporary secular mentality, with its religious and moral relativism and a political system that is not subject to any constraint other than the will of the voters, which in practice means the will of the legislators. Traditionalists do not like modern democracy. A restoration of a Church-State political system is high on the agenda.

For the SSPX, the Church today neither preserves an integral Catholic life for its faithful nor keeps secular thinking out of its structures. The fear is that if the SSPX makes a deal with Rome, the pressure from secularism, already great, would become too much to resist. Secularism would finally break into the laager.

What is really needed is a consensus by world political leaders that Pope Francis is a religious fanatic and Catholicism a large sect. That would do wonders.

Justin, you are correct, and I still do not trust the Church. That is, I believe, the basis of my problem. And I don’t know how to conquer it, nor do I know how to snuff out that little voice in my head that is always asking “But what if the SSPX (or the sedevacantists) are right??”

 

[Lormar]

MODERATOR NOTICE

I have combed this thread and have deleted most posts that do not speak about the SSPX situation. This was very hard work. Please do not deviate again.

Sorry. We must try your patience terribly.

 

[Lormar]

But some claimed there was no crisis at all and, more to the point, that the AB had no basis for his consecration of four bishops. I’m not one of them, mind you, but just sayin.

In my opinion, the crisis could have been avoided had the changes not been so radical, and if every parish had been allowed to retain at least one TLM. But I wasn’t consulted.

As for the consecration of the four bishops, that was the worst thing he ever did, and the reasons he had for not waiting, as he had been asked to do by both Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, were the worst: tent was rented and people were already there for the priestly ordinations - why send them all home and have to rent another tent at a later date? Kill two birds with one stone.

 

[Lormar]

:wave:Hi Lormar, please don’t be “lost” :console:and I’m sure this is just a passing feeling, knowing as we both do, how difficult it is to cross’the great divide’. You know, as we all do, that we are quite safe inside “the barque of Peter” and there, can ride out any storms life throws at us. Remember… Ubi Petrus, Ubi Ecclesia.

Hi, Dee! No. It is not just a passing thing. Would that it was. It gets worse with each passing week. :blushing: This is what it is doing to me: :whacky:

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Justin, you are correct, and I still do not trust the Church. That is, I believe, the basis of my problem. And I don’t know how to conquer it, nor do I know how to snuff out that little voice in my head that is always asking “But what if the SSPX (or the sedevacantists) are right??”

Lormar, it is very important to keep in mind that what the Church herself mandates and what people on the ground push in her name can be two very different things.

I suspect that the core of your problem is the fact that the Church has not yet managed to sort out all the liturgical disorder, the doctrinal ignorance and the secular mindset that is affecting so many Catholics within her fold. I think it a help to remember the number of parables Christ made about the fact that both good and bad would be within the Church until the end in time: good and bad fish, sheep and goats, cockles and wheat. He probably made more parables on that subject than on any other.

The point is that a Catholic can always trust what the Church ***herself ***teaches and mandates, but he cannot always be sure of finding that teaching upheld and carried out in every part of the Church’s human institutions. The bad fish, the cockles and the goats are not just those who are in mortal sin; they are those who might be within the fold (just) but who have their own agendas, which agendas can succeed in disrupting the lives of the faithful sometimes to a very great extent.

It is not necessary that every parish in the Church be perfect for the Church to be credible or trustworthy. What is necessary is that a Catholic who wants to live a genuine Catholic life knows that the Church is on his side and will give him at least the essential support and guidance he needs. This can happen sometimes with very little interaction with Catholic social groups. The Church, don’t forget, is supernatural - Christ’s mystical body - and there is a whole lot of help she can give to a Catholic (like myself) who by necessity is not a regular parish goer.

Of course, if you can find a good parish within travelling distance then that is a real blessing, but it is not a condition sine qua non for trusting the Church.

 

[Dee_S]

Hi, Dee! No. It is not just a passing thing. Would that it was. It gets worse with each passing week. :blushing: This is what it is doing to me: :whacky:

:hug1:will keep you in my prayers, but I do wonder where the ‘pressure’ is coming from is it perhaps family or friends? Would you be doing this alone? As the OP said “be not afraid”

 

[Dee_S]

In my opinion, the crisis could have been avoided had the changes not been so radical, and if every parish had been allowed to retain at least one TLM. But I wasn’t consulted.

As for the consecration of the four bishops, that was the worst thing he ever did, and the reasons he had for not waiting, as he had been asked to do by both Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, were the worst: tent was rented and people were already there for the priestly ordinations - why send them all home and have to rent another tent at a later date? Kill two birds with one stone.

:thumbsup:a great post, thanks! Yes, if only they had allowed at least one TLM - if not in every parish, then at least iwithin a reasonable driving distance.

Just thinking off the cuff, that the “they” here, were the individual Bishops who did not like the TLM and were actively cutting it out of the life of the Church and following an agenda that was not in keeping with Vatican II at all.

And for that matter, Archbishop Lefebvre appears (with hindsight) to also have been on a ‘mission’ of his own, which also was not in keeping with the mind of the Church.

Could it be that these two cases form the example and basis of what we now understand as ‘extremes’? and that the common sense of our Faith leads us to reject, and turn to our Holy Mother Church for shelter and protection.

I agree with Justin, in that we are part of the Mystical Body and our Faith and obedience to it must rise above all other considerations at ground level. Whenever I read any documents by the Vatican, or letters of the Popes, or the CCC - anything that is solid - I realise more and more that this is the Rock and that these other disturbances are simply just that. The Church is still…One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - even should those on the fringes try to persuade us that it is not.

 

[Lormar]

:hug1:will keep you in my prayers, but I do wonder where the ‘pressure’ is coming from is it perhaps family or friends? Would you be doing this alone? As the OP said “be not afraid”

No pressure from anyone. I read conflicting views here; that is enough. Plus I did spend a very long time in either SSPX or sedevacantist chapels. My parish doesn’t help either being the most “liberal” in the diocese (no, there is no chance of going elsewhere). Just so no one gets offended, my use of the word “liberal” is what my parish has been called by both a former assistant pastor and a religious in the diocese. In fact, they said worse, but I will leave it at “liberal”.

 

[Lormar]

I agree with Justin, in that we are part of the Mystical Body and our Faith and obedience to it must rise above all other considerations at ground level. Whenever I read any documents by the Vatican, or letters of the Popes, or the CCC - anything that is solid - I realise more and more that this is the Rock and that these other disturbances are simply just that. The Church is still…One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - even should those on the fringes try to persuade us that it is not.

I agree with Justin’s post as well. It is best to go straight to the source - the Vatican - for the truth. More and more I am finding that a Catholic cannot rely on any other reported source. News agencies and many publications rarely tell us the whole story, take quotes out of context, and seem to be operating on their own agenda - whatever that agenda might be. It appears to me that these news sources are determined to divide us even more. Tis a pity that so many of us either have fallen or do fall for it.

 

[Dee_S]

I agree with Justin’s post as well. It is best to go straight to the source - the Vatican - for the truth. More and more I am finding that a Catholic cannot rely on any other reported source. News agencies and many publications rarely tell us the whole story, take quotes out of context, and seem to be operating on their own agenda - whatever that agenda might be. It appears to me that these news sources are determined to divide us even more. Tis a pity that so many of us either have fallen or do fall for it.

:thumbsup:very nicely stated Lormar

 

[Dee_S]

I guess my issues with SSPX is that they claim to have the real deal and be the most traditional Catholics of all. However, isn’t respecting and adhering to what your current Pope has asked a major part of being a traditional Catholic? I can’t help but make a comparison to a certain (cough, cough) Martin Luther.

:winter:blame it on the climate (cough, cough)

We can take our ‘cue’ from Pope Benedict XVI on this one:
**
Pope Benedict’s obedience to new pope part of Tradition**
"VATICAN CITY (AP) — He slipped it in at the end of his speech, and said it so quickly and softly it almost sounded like an afterthought.

But in pledging his “unconditional reverence and obedience” to the next pope, Benedict XVI took a critical step toward ensuring that his decision to break with 600 years of tradition and retire as pope doesn’t create a schism within the church.

It was also a very personal expression of one of the tenets of Christian tradition that dates back to Jesus’ crucifixion: obedience to a higher authority.
news.yahoo.com/benedicts-obedience-pope-part-tradition-131918581.html

 

[JReducation]

Back in February I had a wonderful conversation with two lay volunteers who work with us in our ministry to the voiceless. Both are faithful adherents to the TLM, which is fine with us as long as they don’t attend it at the local SSPX chapel. In any case, one of them was asking about the SSPX and the new pope. He was wondering what would happen after Feb 28th when Benedict XVI would formally abdicate. They spoke back and forth for a bit. I observed that they kept going round robin on Vatican II and the liturgy.

I pulled out my copy of Light of the World and read to them what Benedict XVI said about the break with the SSPX. The Holy See’s problem with the SSPX has nothing to do with Vatican II, the form of the mass or the CCC. The Holy See’s problem with the SSPX is that it broke with the Primacy and it refuses to acknowledge it. Until it acknowledges it, progress cannot be made. Everything they’re saying about the Council and the mass is not true, said Benedict XVI. He did not use the words, “smokescreen” but that was the sense that I go from the reading. Whether it’s the SSPX or supporters, the conversation is always derailed by talk about the Council and the mass.

I asked these two nice chaps the same question that I’m asking here.

Why is it so hard for Traditionalist who are supporters of the SSPX to say the same thing that Benedict XVI said? He was not lying.

What would it take for the friends of the SSPX to ask the bishops to accept that they broke with the primacy when they accepted an illegal ordination and that they are sorry?

My guess is that if that happens, things can move along from there.

Making the comments that Bishop Fellay made about charity and the poor are not helping. First, the Holy Father already made these comments in his first or second homily. Second, by making this statement, it gives the impression that Bishop Fellay was not listening. I find that hard to believe. Third, that’s not the way to achieve unity with a pope who is very big on virtue, sacraments, ecclesiology, and orthodoxy.

 

[Lormar]

Whether it’s the SSPX or supporters, the conversation is always derailed by talk about the Council and the mass.

Well, yes. That’s the reason why they exist - to preserve the faith and the Mass.

 

[GloriaMaria]

ncregister.com/daily-news/sspx-we-didnt-criticize-pope-francis-we-agree-with-him/

Well, perhaps there was not an implied criticism of the Holy Father? The SSPX states that they are in agreement with him.

 

[Melchior_1]

Why is it so hard for Traditionalist who are supporters of the SSPX to say the same thing that Benedict XVI said? He was not lying.

What would it take for the friends of the SSPX to ask the bishops to accept that they broke with the primacy when they accepted an illegal ordination and that they are sorry?

Pride goeth before the fall.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

ncregister.com/daily-news/sspx-we-didnt-criticize-pope-francis-we-agree-with-him/

Well, perhaps there was not an implied criticism of the Holy Father? The SSPX states that they are in agreement with him.

It appears that Fr Lorans is doing damage control. Reading Bishop Fellay’s letter, the context links Pope Francis in a special way with the danger of a ‘merely man-centred philanthrophy’. To read it differently forces the sense.

I knew Fr Lorans and he is an excellent priest: highly intelligent, charitable, moderate (in the context of the SSPX) and very approachable. I can well imagine him not liking this passage from the letter.

 

[Dee_S]

It appears that Fr Lorans is doing damage control. Reading Bishop Fellay’s letter, the context links Pope Francis in a special way with the danger of a ‘merely man-centred philanthrophy’. To read it differently forces the sense.

I knew Fr Lorans and he is an excellent priest: highly intelligent, charitable, moderate (in the context of the SSPX) and very approachable.** I can well imagine him not liking this passage from the letter.**

(my bold)
This seems a bit contradictory. If he would not like this passage from Bishop Fellay’s letter - then why is such an intelligent and charitable man trying to whitewash the truth?

"Reuters based its report on an extrapolation of an April 14 letter to  friends and benefactors of the fraternity. In the letter, Bishop Fellay  stressed that the Church has always had a “true concern” for the “poor,  the needy, the infirm and the sick.” But he added that if it becomes  “merely man-centered philanthropy, then the Church is no longer carrying  out her mission; she is no longer leading souls to God, which can  really be done only by supernatural means: faith, hope, charity and  grace.”
He implored Pope Francis “not to allow souls to perish because they no longer learn sound doctrine.”
***“What good is it to devote oneself to serving people if one hides from  them what is essential, the purpose and the meaning of their life, and  the seriousness of sin that turns them away from it?” he asked."***

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/sspx-we-didnt-criticize-pope-francis-we-agree-with-him/#ixzz2RvVmoD6W

 

[Dee_S]

The Holy See’s problem with the SSPX is that it broke with the Primacy and it refuses to acknowledge it. Until it acknowledges it, progress cannot be made.

What would it take for the friends of the SSPX to ask the bishops to accept that they broke with the primacy when they accepted an illegal ordination and that they are sorry?

My guess is that if that happens, things can move along from there.

… that’s not the way to achieve unity with a pope who is very big on virtue, sacraments, ecclesiology, and orthodoxy.

:thumbsup:thank you Br JR!

I came across this on the SSPX website in their FAQ section,*
Q.7: But shouldn’t we follow the pope? *
http://www.sspx.org/sspx_faqs/pope_francis_on_throne250.jpg
Pope Francis
(this pic appears in Q7 answer)

In essence it reads much the same as the statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, “Can Obedience oblige us to Disobey?”, with a few tweaks here and there.

               "The question of our attitude towards the pope is a delicate                    one, especially since there is much confusion amongst                    Catholics concerning this question.

                                  The last fifty years have                    made this question (of their "attitude towards the pope")more important than usual since ***we have                    witnessed the introduction of various theories and practices,                    often by the popes themselves, that run counter to the                    perennial teaching of the Catholic Church."***

“…there is no doubt that we believe all the dogmas of the Church, especially those concerning the office of the papacy:”

They then point out two errors that are ‘commonly made’ when ‘judging’ the pope

"The first temptation is to presume to judge the Holy Father of being a formal heretic,…"

"The opposite error is far more common and assumes that whatever the pope does or teaches is correct."

Their conclusion…

How then are we to judge him?

• First, it must be understood that it is a duty and necessity to pray for the Holy Father and his intentions[3] As St. Clement Mary Hofbauer says: “A Christian who does not pray for the pope is like a child who does not pray for his father.”
• It is not for us to judge his culpability in the destruction of the Church. Only God can so judge him.
• Nor is it for us to judge him juridically - the pope has no superior on earth - or to declare unquestionably null all his acts.
• We must thus make a judgment of his words and actions inasmuch as they affect our eternal salvation, as our Savior said:

“Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. (Mt. 7:15)”
​

We are not to co-operate blindly in the destruction of the Church by tolerating the implementation of a new religion or by not doing what we can to defend the Catholic faith. Archbishop Lefebvre was surely our model here: No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for 19 centuries.
“Friends,” said St. Paul, “though it were we ourselves, though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we have preached to you, a curse upon him.” (Gal. 1:8)
That is why, without any rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work…
…
(my bold)

 

[Lormar]

All their fine pious words does not change the fact that their actions have judged the pope. Which is why not a few have said that in essence there is no difference between the SSPX and the sedevacantists.

 

[otjm]

ncregister.com/daily-news/sspx-we-didnt-criticize-pope-francis-we-agree-with-him/

Well, perhaps there was not an implied criticism of the Holy Father? The SSPX states that they are in agreement with him.

Having watched the statements over a number of years, they are all too often written in a way such that any objection by outsiders can be turned aside by “Oh, we agree with him/them/it” while insiders can read the same statement as one more demarcation of “See, he/they still don’t get it”.

Perhaps it was not a criticism of the Holy Father; it was, however, written in such a way that a proponent of the SSPX could most certainly take it as such. And there is no reason to presume that any given proponent is following matters separately from what directions are given within the society.