The SSPX and Hypocrisy

[Spiller]

The SSPX provides a prime example of just how hypocritical some “traditionalists” can be. They are quick to condemn others whose views do not agree with their own. They are quick to apply labels like “heretic”, “dissident”, etc. to those who do not follow the Church – at least in their eyes.

Yet at the same time they will try to bend over backwards to explain-away the unacceptable conduct of Lefebvre and his minions. Some of the arguments are remarkably offensive, particularly to the papacy.

This absolutely ruins the credibility of said “traditionalists.”

 

[jmj603]

Off-topic question: Is this sort of post properly described as trolling or flamebait?

 

[johnknoesel]

I am a traditional Catholic and I do not in any way condone what they and I fully submit the authority of the Church. The problem that I have with post VII is the way that things were implemented. Let’s take allowing the mass in the vernacular, I think that was a great thing to do, however too many people threw out the baby with the bath water. VII allowed for the vernacular it did not in any way shape form or fashion throw out the TLM. It did not change the Churches views on Salvation outside the church it actually clarified but again it was misinterpreted by so many especially the US Catholics, just like the reaction of so many catholics when Benedict XVI allowed the TLM without any restrictions so many people went nuts the made it sound like the NO was being thrown out, the church is going back to the dark ages blah blah blah. Why can’t they just submit to the authority and read the documents themselves if they did then they would see the truth.

 

[LRThunder]

The SSPX provides a prime example of just how hypocritical some “traditionalists” can be. They are quick to condemn others whose views do not agree with their own. They are quick to apply labels like “heretic”, “dissident”, etc. to those who do not follow the Church – at least in their eyes.

Yet at the same time they will try to bend over backwards to explain-away the unacceptable conduct of Lefebvre and his minions. Some of the arguments are remarkably offensive, particularly to the papacy.

This absolutely ruins the credibility of said “traditionalists.”

The problem is not all “traditionalists” follow the SSPX. Should we judge the current Mass just because of what might happen in some dioceses? Of course not. Don’t judge traditionalists based on the SSPX (or worse) groups.

 

[ProVobis]

The SSPX provides a prime example of just how hypocritical some “traditionalists” can be.

And I have shown how hypocritical some “non-traditionalists” can be. Please read some of my posts or remain in denial, your choice.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

The problem is not all “traditionalists” follow the SSPX. Should we judge the current Mass just because of what might happen in some dioceses? Of course not. Don’t judge traditionalists based on the SSPX (or worse) groups.

LR. The OP did say “some” and I agree with him. Over on another board, I had been in a war with one such SSPX adherent. In the course of the debate, I was called name like in the OP’s post and even threatened with lawsuits due to daring to stand up to him. It got to the point where it was pointless to argue with him and I have ignored him for quite awhile.

The point is that it is some.

 

[LRThunder]

LR. The OP did say “some” and I agree with him. Over on another board, I had been in a war with one such SSPX adherent. In the course of the debate, I was called name like in the OP’s post and even threatened with lawsuits due to daring to stand up to him. It got to the point where it was pointless to argue with him and I have ignored him for quite awhile.

The point is that it is some.

Agreed.

 

[Cristiano]

The SSPX provides a prime example of just how hypocritical some “traditionalists” can be. They are quick to condemn others whose views do not agree with their own. They are quick to apply labels like “heretic”, “dissident”, etc. to those who do not follow the Church – at least in their eyes.

Yet at the same time they will try to bend over backwards to explain-away the unacceptable conduct of Lefebvre and his minions. Some of the arguments are remarkably offensive, particularly to the papacy.

This absolutely ruins the credibility of said “traditionalists.”

My opinion is that a lot of so called “traditionalist” that behave in that manner do so not because of theological understanding but because of personal issues.
Reading the CAF posts and looking at some details posted there I came to firmly believe that a lot of so called traditionalist look at the firm structure of the “tradition” more because of past and present issues in their lives than deep theological belief. Later they rationalize their convictions with solid arguments borrowed from CAF.
I also think that a lot of so called “liberals” behave in the same manner. I usually think that I can spot these trends if I look at the history of the posts of specific individuals. This could sound like pop psychology, but a lot of individuals are so transparent and the best approach is to treat them with love because they do not do anything bad by trying to protect the “Tradition” from either side of the fence, they just do not use the best tools available to them.

In the case of people spiritually raised in the SSPX the situation is quite different. First of all I would not call them minions because it is quite often used in a derogatory mode. I think that those individuals have been raised with a siege mentality respect to the institution that they love the most and disagree with. For those, I think that a constant loving and open minded dialog without witty comebacks it will suffice. With time closure will come.

Bottom line if we are willing to tolerate some of the “trash” talk and not take things personally, we will build a stronger Church.

 

[terillmorris]

The SSPX provides a prime example of just how hypocritical some “traditionalists” can be. They are quick to condemn others whose views do not agree with their own. They are quick to apply labels like “heretic”, “dissident”, etc. to those who do not follow the Church – at least in their eyes.

Yet at the same time they will try to bend over backwards to explain-away the unacceptable conduct of Lefebvre and his minions. Some of the arguments are remarkably offensive, particularly to the papacy.

This absolutely ruins the credibility of said “traditionalists.”

BEATUFIL !!! Well said. Lefebvre’s conduct was sinful and reprehensible and that is why he was excommunicated. All they can come up with is a lame excuse that “there was a state of emergency” so the Arch(disobidient)Bishop could do what he did. Laughable!!

 

[Spiller]

The problem is not all “traditionalists” follow the SSPX. Should we judge the current Mass just because of what might happen in some dioceses? Of course not. Don’t judge traditionalists based on the SSPX (or worse) groups.

Notice my use of “some.”

I consider myself a “traditionally-minded” Catholic as well, but I certainly do not condone what the Church has already condemmed…

 

[Spiller]

My opinion is that a lot of so called “traditionalist” that behave in that manner do so not because of theological understanding but because of personal issues.
Reading the CAF posts and looking at some details posted there I came to firmly believe that a lot of so called traditionalist look at the firm structure of the “tradition” more because of past and present issues in their lives than deep theological belief. Later they rationalize their convictions with solid arguments borrowed from CAF.
I also think that a lot of so called “liberals” behave in the same manner. I usually think that I can spot these trends if I look at the history of the posts of specific individuals. This could sound like pop psychology, but a lot of individuals are so transparent and the best approach is to treat them with love because they do not do anything bad by trying to protect the “Tradition” from either side of the fence, they just do not use the best tools available to them.

In the case of people spiritually raised in the SSPX the situation is quite different. First of all I would not call them minions because it is quite often used in a derogatory mode. I think that those individuals have been raised with a siege mentality respect to the institution that they love the most and disagree with. For those, I think that a constant loving and open minded dialog without witty comebacks it will suffice. With time closure will come.

Bottom line if we are willing to tolerate some of the “trash” talk and not take things personally, we will build a stronger Church.

I agree with most of your posting. Extremely insightful – except I don’t think all the arguments are necessarily strong from these forums – far from it.

I do agree that most “traditionalists” I meet in real life do exhibit the traits of living under a siege mentality. Sadly they have sentenced themselves to this sort of life and their negativism can be downright numbing – that’s precisely why they are often ignored.

 

[Spiller]

And I have shown how hypocritical some “non-traditionalists” can be. Please read some of my posts or remain in denial, your choice.

Oh, I am not in denial. Please don’t suggest I am in “denial” when I have denied nothing.

I firmly believe both extremes of the faithful – the ultra-progressives and the ultra-traditionalists which comprised probably 10% of the Church do probably 90% of the damage…

 

[Spiller]

I am a traditional Catholic and I do not in any way condone what they and I fully submit the authority of the Church. The problem that I have with post VII is the way that things were implemented. Let’s take allowing the mass in the vernacular, I think that was a great thing to do, however too many people threw out the baby with the bath water. VII allowed for the vernacular it did not in any way shape form or fashion throw out the TLM. It did not change the Churches views on Salvation outside the church it actually clarified but again it was misinterpreted by so many especially the US Catholics, just like the reaction of so many catholics when Benedict XVI allowed the TLM without any restrictions so many people went nuts the made it sound like the NO was being thrown out, the church is going back to the dark ages blah blah blah. Why can’t they just submit to the authority and read the documents themselves if they did then they would see the truth.

We all have agendas – after all we are all human. Sadly VC2 has often been used as an excuse for abuses. It’s also bee unfairly vilified by an equal number.

The sad part is that too darned many “traditional” Catholics that I come in contact with are also hypocrites when it comes to the Church. In effect they are cafeteria Catholics – they very trait they so ardently detest in those they label as “liberals” or “progressives.” That’s not to say that there are not hypocrites in other areas as well, but I truly believe that some “traditionalists” firmly believe THEY are the final say and not God, His Church or His Vicar on Earth…

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Like I have said before:

• The Extreme Traditionalists tends to raise Discipline to the level of Doctrine or Dogma.
• The Extreme Progressives tends to lower Doctrine and Dogma to the level of Discipline.
  The key word here is “Extreme”/ This may ruffle a number of peoples feathers but, in most cases, it holds true.

 

[Spiller]

Like I have said before:

• The Extreme Traditionalists tends to raise Discipline to the level of Doctrine or Dogma.
• The Extreme Progressives tends to lower Doctrine and Dogma to the level of Discipline.
  The key word here is “Extreme”/ This may ruffle a number of peoples feathers but, in most cases, it holds true.

That’s an interesting take, and I think there is some truth to that. I just see both extremes as being extremely dissenting.

 

[jmj603]

They are quick to condemn others whose views do not agree with their own. They are quick to apply labels like “heretic”, “dissident”, etc. to those who do not follow the Church – at least in their eyes.

This comment set the stage for a rather hilarious and entertaining thread on hypocrisy.

Thanks to everyone for coming out and playing along.

I just see both extremes as being extremely dissenting.

:doh2:

 

[aristotle]

My friend,

I suppose I would reply in comment to your quotation.

Extreme traditionalists are not the SSPX, but the SSPV, those who deny the Pope. And they are like the Orthodox. To read an early sampling of SSPV writings, just look to the letter to the synod by Bishop Photius.

Extreme traditionalists are, in this sense, our brothers and sisters, though they may be estranged, being in possibly formal heresy, being outside full communion, but so close it is sometimes hard to describe the separation.

Extreme progressives are not even Catholic, and often not even Christian. They do not merely reject the Pope now, but many Popes before him, and even the sacred deposit of the faith. They would throw Bishop Photius out as well.

So the Catholic Church is the middle of the road. Extreme traditionalism is like flying off the road into a forest and trying to forge one’s own path home.

Extreme progressivism is like driving off a cliff.

 

[Spiller]

My friend,

I suppose I would reply in comment to your quotation.

Extreme traditionalists are not the SSPX, but the SSPV, those who deny the Pope. And they are like the Orthodox. To read an early sampling of SSPV writings, just look to the letter to the synod by Bishop Photius.

Extreme traditionalists are, in this sense, our brothers and sisters, though they may be estranged, being in possibly formal heresy, being outside full communion, but so close it is sometimes hard to describe the separation.

Extreme progressives are not even Catholic, and often not even Christian. They do not merely reject the Pope now, but many Popes before him, and even the sacred deposit of the faith. They would throw Bishop Photius out as well.

So the Catholic Church is the middle of the road. Extreme traditionalism is like flying off the road into a forest and trying to forge one’s own path home.

Extreme progressivism is like driving off a cliff.

No.

I am speaking of these extremes within the context of Catholicism. Both extremely are pretty much the same…

 

[aristotle]

No.

No what?

No I disagree? No, I don’t like what you said? No, I missed McDonald’s breakfast menu?

I don’t understand your reply. Are you asking me for clarification? Are you challenging a point I raised? I am most confused.

 

[Spiller]

No what?

No I disagree? No, I don’t like what you said? No, I missed McDonald’s breakfast menu?

I don’t understand your reply. Are you asking me for clarification? Are you challenging a point I raised? I am most confused.

No, your proffered conclusion is inaccurate. Hyper-progressivism and hyper-traditionalism lead to the same end – dissent.