The Latest Public Statement of the SSPX

[Dee_S]

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.

Oh yes, they have judged this Pope and any Pope who has reigned since their inception. for that matter - as I said before, they just ‘tweak’ (slight adjustment) the content of their statements to fit.

This is the final paragraph quoted in my previous post (of the answer to Q7) in full. It seems just another set of words at first glance, but taking a hard look, it can be analyzed as representing the core of their mentality, the depth of delusion of themselves and others, culminating in the disturbing conclusion that they act out of sincerity in their self appointed mission.

“That is why, without any rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work of priestly formation under the guidance of the never-changing Magisterium, convinced as we are that we cannot possibly render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to posterity.”

Don’t know much about sedevacantists, except that they at least are more “up front” in that they reject the Pope and have made one of their own.

 

[JReducation]

So my question still remains. Is the voice of those who are friends of the SSPX strong enough and willing to move the leadership of the Society to admit that it was the break with the Primacy that got them into the canonical limbo and that they wish to submit to the Primacy?

The statement that Dee quoted about obedience requiring disobedience is problematic at many levels.

First of all, that kind of disobedience is only legitimate when authority commands us to sin. No one asked any of us to do that.

Second, the statement is an indictment of the rest of us who stayed within the Church and have operated within the system for all these years. To a non Catholic or some Catholics, it would appear that only the SSPX is truly faithful to tradition and the rest of us are heterodox or heretical. But if the issue is between them and the Primacy, then it says nothing about all other Catholics who have worked hard to remain faithful.

Third, the statement hints that the Holy See has indeed broken with the faith. That’s a major allegation. To make such an allegation is a break with the Holy See. On the one hand, it claims not to judge the pope and on the other hand it almost says, “We commend his soul to God’s mercy.” OUCH! I can see why Pope Benedict would say that Vatican II and the liturgy is not the cause of the SSPX’s canonical status, but the break with the Primacy is the cause. That implication along with illegal ordinations to give evidence that this is the belief out of which the SSPX operates seals the deal.

Now, what we need is to backpedal here and admit that the break with the Primacy was a mistake and that those who are formally responsible are sorry and wish to repair the damage done for the sake of those who follow them and the whole Church.

Are people willing to push for this?

 

[Lormar]

Brother, how well do you know them?

They will not admit they have been wrong in any way, shape or form. To do so would be to (in their mind) dishonor Archbishop Lefebvre. They will not do that.

Outside of the SSPX, they have little interest in what is going on in the Church. The only exception is to find the worst report of whatever either the pope, a cardinal, bishop, priest etc. is said to have done, written, or said, in order to reinforce and justify their “cause”.

To a non Catholic or some Catholics, it would appear that only the SSPX is truly faithful to tradition and the rest of us are heterodox or heretical.

The SSPX is their universal church. They are the only ones that are in possession of the truth. They are convinced they have safe-guarded the traditional Catholic faith and kept it inviolate for when the Vatican comes to its senses and realizes that they have been wrong all these years. What you have written is correct. They are the enlightened ones who have been “given the grace to see”, and the rest of the Catholics (including the hierarchy and all priests, religious and laity) are either 1) willfully ignorant, or 2) brainwashed, or 3) modernists.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Brother, how well do you know them?

They will not admit they have been wrong in any way, shape or form. To do so would be to (in their mind) dishonor Archbishop Lefebvre. They will not do that.

Outside of the SSPX, they have little interest in what is going on in the Church. The only exception is to find the worst report of whatever either the pope, a cardinal, bishop, priest etc. is said to have done, written, or said, in order to reinforce and justify their “cause”.

The SSPX is their universal church. They are the only ones that are in possession of the truth. They have safe-guarded the traditional Catholic faith and kept it inviolate for when the Vatican comes to its senses and realizes that they have been wrong all these years. What you have written is correct. They are the enlightened ones who have been “given the grace to see”, and the rest of the Catholics (including the hierarchy and all priests, religious and laity) are either 1) willfully ignorant, or 2) brainwashed, or 3) modernists.

Wow! So they aren’t just keeping up with the news the way the rest of us do, but are deliberately looking for “cause” to start in the detraction and, basically, gossip about the heirarchy. That is really, really sad. And sinful.

Continuing to pray…

 

[Lormar]

Wow! So they aren’t just keeping up with the news the way the rest of us do, but are deliberately looking for “cause” to start in the detraction and, basically, gossip about the heirarchy. That is really, really sad. And sinful.

Continuing to pray…

Yes and no. They aren’t just deliberately looking for things to talk about. They don’t consider it gossip but keeping informed, and looking for yet another reason to stay where they are. And I want to make it clear that I am only referring to the laity, what their priests do I do not know.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Yes and no. They aren’t just deliberately looking for things to talk about. They don’t consider it gossip but keeping informed, and looking for yet another reason to stay where they are. And I want to make it clear that I am only referring to the laity, what their priests do I do not know.

Thanks for the clarification. I had extropolated a bit too far. But it is still sad to me, and I will continue to pray for metanoia for them all.

 

[JReducation]

Brother, how well do you know them?

They will not admit they have been wrong in any way, shape or form. To do so would be to (in their mind) dishonor Archbishop Lefebvre. They will not do that.

Outside of the SSPX, they have little interest in what is going on in the Church. The only exception is to find the worst report of whatever either the pope, a cardinal, bishop, priest etc. is said to have done, written, or said, in order to reinforce and justify their “cause”.

The SSPX is their universal church. They are the only ones that are in possession of the truth. They are convinced they have safe-guarded the traditional Catholic faith and kept it inviolate for when the Vatican comes to its senses and realizes that they have been wrong all these years. What you have written is correct. They are the enlightened ones who have been “given the grace to see”, and the rest of the Catholics (including the hierarchy and all priests, religious and laity) are either 1) willfully ignorant, or 2) brainwashed, or 3) modernists.

Yes and no. They aren’t just deliberately looking for things to talk about. They don’t consider it gossip but keeping informed, and looking for yet another reason to stay where they are. And I want to make it clear that I am only referring to the laity, what their priests do I do not know.

When we allow anger, suspicion, resentment and arrogance to govern our spiritual life we’re in serious trouble. These are the worst of the passions, more dangerous and more difficult to overcome than the passions of the flesh.

 

[Mike30]

I’m not a fan or supporter of the SSPX in any way shape or form. That being said, I don’t hate them either as many here apparently do. I think they started off well, and in reality, got pushed to where they ended up.

One of the main problems that I have seen from the SSPX is a sort of a bunker mentality. When the problems started with their seminary, which has been pretty much agreed upon were primarily political attacks in nature by various French Bishops, the SSPX felt that the Church was tipping over the edge. More than a few things sure made it look that way. Many mainstream seminaries in Europe were virtual hotbeds of dissent, revolutionary ideas, sexual imorality, you name it. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was himself horrified at abuses that were going on in that time period by both the laity and the Clergy. The SSPX felt they had to stay where they were to hold on to anything that remotely resembled Catholic tradition or else it would be gone forever.

I would almost be willing to guarantee you that the normal person who is either a SSPX supporter or member, has had either very bad experiences with the Church at large, lets use the a typical Los Angeles Conference as an example or has very limited if any exposure to the Church as it is today.

They have their memories of what transpired before. I’m not sure if they will ever lose those memories. They can be called disobedient, disloyal, whatever you like. They didn’t start out that way. No, the whole revolution at any cost mentality that many in the Church had back in those long ago days pushed them to where they are now and solidified their positions and their resolve.

There is plenty of blame to go around in this sad situation, and it by far is not all or even exclusively on the SSPX. I will say though that I think they did however, blow it big time with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and that is a truly sad thing.

 

[Lormar]

I’m not a fan or supporter of the SSPX in any way shape or form. That being said, I don’t hate them either as many here apparently do.

I don’t know who the “many here” that “apparently do” “hate” the SSPX are, but I am not one of them.

 

[pnewton]

I’m not a fan or supporter of the SSPX in any way shape or form. That being said, I don’t hate them either as many here apparently do.

I do not think anyone hates them. That is a strange word (emotion) to assign to another.

 

[otjm]

I’m not a fan or supporter of the SSPX in any way shape or form. That being said, I don’t hate them either as many here apparently do. .

I don’t think that many - or even very few - hate the SSPX.

I think that a lot of people are very disappointed in what they are seeing as the (apparent) position of the SSPX by their (the SSPX’s) own statements, in terms of reconciling with Rome. And there may be some who are disgusted with what they see as intransigence. But there is a good deal of distance between being disgusted with someone’s behavior, and hating them.

I don’t hate liberals. I have absolutely no patience with them and will not debate with them, or be dragged down with their silliness and inanity. I am, however, constantly amused with such things as their insistence on “tolerance”, having met not a few who were so thoroughly intolerant with others who do not agree with their positions.

I thought long ago that the SSPX would not reunite with Rome; and as I have watched I have been truly amazed with the linguistic dance they have choreographed over time in their public comments about Rome and reconciliation.

It would seem that there could only be four possible alternatives to the matter; a) Rome changes its position; b) they change their position; c) Rome simply ignores the matter further hoping (perhaps) that time will either wear them down, or they will stop growing; or d) they are declared schismatic.

A) isn’t going to happen; and anyone who seriously thinks it is may apply for Flat Earth Society membership, since both are equally likely.

B) appears more and more unlikely. This has gone on for how many years (I should sy, decades) now? And despite all sorts of hopeful wishes by many, nothing is changing except perhaps a hardening up of their position.

C) is unlikely but a possibility; while the SSPX are not growing by leaps and bounds, they do not appear to be going out of existence gradually as are groups like Call to Action appear to be heading.

D) is a hard step. the matter is decades old; Pope Benedict was involved as a Cardinal trying to reconcile them and that clearly carried over to his papacy. Pope Francis does not have the same history; whether he is someone with infinite (or close to it) patience will be seen; whether shortly or after a long while.

Disobedience seems to have been a constitutive element from somewhere not long after the beginning of the SSPX. It doesn’t appear to be changing. And the one thing that separates the SSPX from those on the far left is that this is run by four bishops and 500+ priests, some of whom are reported to hold even more rigid and separatist positions than Bishop Fellay. Rome has little traction trying to negotiate with a bunch of laity (as most of the liberal left is run by laity, although they did remove a priest not too long ago), so it is less that Rome is picking on the right and letting the left slide; they don’t have much in the way of clear leadership to work with (or against) on the left.

Which gets back to the issue of hating. I don’t think so. Frustrated? Yep. Disgusted? Right again. Disappointed? Undoubtedly.

 

[JReducation]

I have never seen hatred toward the SSPX here. I have seen frustration with them. As many people, not just on CAF, have said, the SSPX’s best window was Pope Benedict. Pope Francis is a saintly man, don’t get me wrong, but he has another mandate. That is, refurbishing the curia. I would be surprised if the SSPX is high on the Holy Father’s “To Do List.” Refurbishing the curia is enough to keep an 18 year old pope busy until he’s ready for Social Security. It’s one of those settings where you fix one thing and another goes wrong as is the case in any government.

People a legitimately frustrated with that community, because we saw the last pope and his staff do everything possible to bring them home and save face for everyone. They did not do their part. Summorum Pontificum was more for their benefit than for anyone else. The motu proprio was a good thing, but the Holy Father rushed to work on it in the hope of bringing the SSPX home. He lifted the excommunication at the request of the four bishops. He said so in public. To deny this now would be to call Pope Benedict a liar. They wrote and asked. Pope Benedict used their words, “a terrible burden to bear”. He lifted the burden and they still resisted his overtures. Cardinal Levada worked very hard for more than two years with the SSPX leaders. At the end, many laymen in the traditionalist community slandered his good name accusing him of sabotaging the talks.

We found out, via Bishop Fellay himself, that it was the Pope who made the last minute changes to the Preamble. This is in writing. Bishop Fellay says that he has it written and signed by Pope Benedict that it was he who added what “the SSPX cannot agree to do.” However, these laymen who slandered Cardinal Levada never offered a word of apology and never retracted. They simply moved along to their next concern as if the good cardinal were not a human being worthy of respect and worthy of his good name. These things frustrate an observer who wants to see this concluded.

Along with frustration there is also disappointment. Everyone hoped that the idea of a prelature was going to work. Bishop Fellay’s interview was very promising. He seemed to be very enthusiastic about doing what the pope asked of him. People warmed up to him. I mean people who are not part of that circle of traditionalists. Call me naive, but I think that many of us (including me) felt very positive about Bishop Fellay and the SSPX. We truly believed that even if we could not agree on all points, we could live and serve in the same Church accepting diversity as part of the Christian experience. We were disappointed when they made no further progress toward reconciliation. Hopes were shattered.

We have to be careful not to confuse these feelings with hatred. Hatred is a powerful emotion. It’s rather interesting, because in the spiritual life, hatred goes beyond doing harm. Hatred is indifference, which is worse than resentment.

 

[clem456]

We have to be careful not to confuse these feelings with hatred. Hatred is a powerful emotion. It’s rather interesting, because in the spiritual life, hatred goes beyond doing harm. Hatred is indifference, which is worse than resentment.

Brother could you give a more in-depth explanation of this?

 

[JReducation]

Brother could you give a more in-depth explanation of this?

I see emotions on a continuum of intensity. On the negative and destructive side of this continuum you have uncontrolled anger, which left unchecked often leads to resentment. Resentment is simply a big word for holding a grudge. That’'s certainly not the way that God forgives.

But things can go south from there, if we’re not attentive to our spiritual needs, which at that point means that we need to let go of what ails us. Very often, those who can’t let go of a grudge will graduate to more destructive behavior, sometimes in the form of slander, physical harm, harm done to property or any other form of vindictive behavior. This is often justified in the person’s mind under the banner of truth. The truth is that Christ and his Blessed Mother did not go after those who did them wrong. There is no greater truth than this. To allow anger to grow into an obsession where one needs to punish is contrary to the Gospel.

However, there is an even worse degree of ill will, if you will. That is indifference. Indifference is the greatest form of ill will. By this time, the person no longer feels anything for the other. He no longer cares for his neighbor’s well-being. He’s not about to do him harm, but he will not do him good either. His neighbor ceases to exist. This is hatred.

Hatred toward another is when the other ceases to be a real person and simply becomes the object of one’s derision. The keyword here is “object”. There is no consideration for the humanity of the other. A person filled with hate only sees his perspective and his wounded ego, but he is unable to see that is brother also has wounds. In his mind, the other is an object and objects don’t have hearts. It’s OK to strike out at them or to simply walk past them.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

They did not do their part. Summorum Pontificum was more for their benefit than for anyone else.

I thought so, too, but if you look through this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=774010

You’ll see a lot of confusion…

Did we ever get a straight answer?

 

[Dee_S]

Yes and no. They aren’t just deliberately looking for things to talk about. They don’t consider it gossip but keeping informed, and looking for yet another reason to stay where they are. And I want to make it clear that I am only referring to the laity, what their priests do I do not know.

:thumbsup:Absolutely correct. But talking now from the outside, it is a mentality that has been cultivated by the organization (as can be seen in their Q7 and everything they write and say). In fact, I can recall that it (them being right and Rome being wrong) was the major topic of discussion almost all the time - amongst the laity and from the pulpit.

Whether or not this ‘cultivation’ of what amounts to an intense paranoia that causes them to so radically mistrust the Church and the Pope - is deliberate - only God knows. But they are all, from top to bottom, deeply caught up it.

The truly lovely youtube video clip of Bishop Fellay talking about the SSPX, a report done by CNS, and his words towards a reconciliation where he thanks Pope Benedict, showed how happy he was - and gave all of us a very real hope. That he changed his mind, under pressure, is obvious - and I feel sorry for him and the Holy Father. Because the results of his ‘back tracking’ would be almost impossible to rectify - who would take him seriously now, should he wish to reconcile?
youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY

 

[Dee_S]

I’m not a fan or supporter of the SSPX in any way shape or form. That being said, I don’t hate them either as many here apparently do. I think they started off well, and in reality, got pushed to where they ended up.

One of the main problems that I have seen from the SSPX is a sort of a bunker mentality. When the problems started with their seminary, which has been pretty much agreed upon were primarily political attacks in nature by various French Bishops, the SSPX felt that the Church was tipping over the edge. More than a few things sure made it look that way. Many mainstream seminaries in Europe were virtual hotbeds of dissent, revolutionary ideas, sexual imorality, you name it. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was himself horrified at abuses that were going on in that time period by both the laity and the Clergy. The SSPX felt they had to stay where they were to hold on to anything that remotely resembled Catholic tradition or else it would be gone forever.

I would almost be willing to guarantee you that the normal person who is either a SSPX supporter or member, has had either very bad experiences with the Church at large, lets use the a typical Los Angeles Conference as an example or has very limited if any exposure to the Church as it is today.

They have their memories of what transpired before. I’m not sure if they will ever lose those memories. They can be called disobedient, disloyal, whatever you like. They didn’t start out that way. No, the whole revolution at any cost mentality that many in the Church had back in those long ago days pushed them to where they are now and solidified their positions and their resolve.

There is plenty of blame to go around in this sad situation, and it by far is not all or even exclusively on the SSPX. I will say though that I think they did however, blow it big time with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and that is a truly sad thing.

A very nice post thanks Mike. I like your perspective here, a nice balance. Yes, agreed a very sad situation.

 

[Dee_S]

So my question still remains. Is the voice of those who are friends of the SSPX strong enough and willing to move the leadership of the Society to admit that it was the break with the Primacy that got them into the canonical limbo and that they wish to submit to the Primacy?

The statement that Dee quoted about obedience requiring disobedience is problematic at many levels.

First of all, that kind of disobedience is only legitimate when authority commands us to sin. No one asked any of us to do that.

Second, the statement is an indictment of the rest of us who stayed within the Church and have operated within the system for all these years. To a non Catholic or some Catholics, it would appear that only the SSPX is truly faithful to tradition and the rest of us are heterodox or heretical. But if the issue is between them and the Primacy, then it says nothing about all other Catholics who have worked hard to remain faithful.

Third, the statement hints that the Holy See has indeed broken with the faith. That’s a major allegation. To make such an allegation is a break with the Holy See. On the one hand, it claims not to judge the pope and on the other hand it almost says, “We commend his soul to God’s mercy.” OUCH! I can see why Pope Benedict would say that Vatican II and the liturgy is not the cause of the SSPX’s canonical status, but the break with the Primacy is the cause. That implication along with illegal ordinations to give evidence that this is the belief out of which the SSPX operates seals the deal.

Now, what we need is to backpedal here and admit that the break with the Primacy was a mistake and that those who are formally responsible are sorry and wish to repair the damage done for the sake of those who follow them and the whole Church.

---

Are people willing to push for this?***

(my bold)
:tiphat:I absolutely agree Br JR, and it’s been much on my mind lately (thinking of Cardinal Newman and his reply to Bishop Ullathorne when he asked “Who were the laity”, and Newman replied words to the effect “the Church would be foolish without them.”)

:thumbsup:Yes - their laity can make all the difference! Perhaps time they did.

 

[Lormar]

:thumbsup:Absolutely correct. But talking now from the outside, it is a mentality that has been cultivated by the organization (as can be seen in their Q7 and everything they write and say). In fact, I can recall that it (them being right and Rome being wrong) was the major topic of discussion almost all the time - amongst the laity and from the pulpit.

**Whether or not this ‘cultivation’ of what amounts to an intense paranoia that causes them to so radically mistrust the Church and the Pope - is deliberate - only God knows. But they are all, from top to bottom, deeply caught up it. **

The truly lovely youtube video clip of Bishop Fellay talking about the SSPX, a report done by CNS, and his words towards a reconciliation where he thanks Pope Benedict, showed how happy he was - and gave all of us a very real hope. That he changed his mind, under pressure, is obvious - and I feel sorry for him and the Holy Father. Because the results of his ‘back tracking’ would be almost impossible to rectify - who would take him seriously now, should he wish to reconcile?
youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY

Dee, you are right, and you put it better than I would have. I wanted to write those things, and I did have a post all typed up, but decided not to post it.

As for the “intense paranoia”, I still have it and wonder if I will always have it. There is a friend that I have that writes Catholic books. I look at her and envy her and remember when I used to be like her, and I wonder if I will have that complete trust again.

And as for Bishop Fellay, I believe he would have come back into the Church. What it precisely was that stopped him, only he knows for certain.

 

[Brendan_64]

I’m not a fan or supporter of the SSPX in any way shape or form. That being said, I don’t hate them either as many here apparently do. I think they started off well, and in reality, got pushed to where they ended up.

There isn’t hatred towards the SSPX on here. All there is on here are a fair few people who disapprove strongly of the blatant disobedience of the SSPX towards 2 of our Popes, the contempt that they seem to display for all our post-V2 Popes, and their contempt towards the faithful Catholic laity who prefer the OF form of the Mass (i.e. the vast majority of Catholics).

And I don’t see how they started off well and got pushed by anyone. As a Catholic Bishop, choosing to write a declaration attacking the Vatican 2 Council, which resulted in the SSPX losing its status within the Church was Lefebvre’s fault, nobody pushed him to do that. Ordaining priests in direct contravention of Pope Paul VI’ s orders was Lefebvre’s fault, which resulted in his suspension for a year and the supension of the priests he ordained, nobody pushed him to do that. Then blatantly disobeying the direct orders of Pope John Paul II in consecrating 4 bishops (despite a personal plea from Pope JPII urging him not to do so) resulting in his excommunication and the excommunication of the bishops he consecrated. Disobeying the direct order of a Pope and effectively leading the SSPX away from the authority of Rome, was Lefebvre’s doing, nobody pushed him to do it.

The SSPX, under Lefebvre’s leadership, were not pushed out. He committed a schismatic act and effectively took his organisation outside of the Catholic Church. Fair play to those within his organisation that realised what he had done, saw sense and formed the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter.

Rome had no real choice but to deal with Lefebvre and the SSPX other than how they did, and it was Lefebvre (and the bishops he consecrated), not Rome, who excommunicated themselves through their actions. An act of schism results in a de facto excommunication.

If the priests of the SSPX sincerely want to return to full union with the Catholic Church all they need to do is pick up the phone and contact the Catholic bishop in their area. They will be welcomed back with open arms. And if they want to continue saying EF Mass, there are opportunities within the Catholic Church for them to continue doing that. But what will never happen is that the Church will enter into some sort of negotiation over the Faith (including any aspect of Vatican II) with any organisation just to caox them back into the Church.