Too many Sympathetic for SSPX

[Lormar]

Many of the laity that attend SSPX chapels have sacrificed much in order to do so. They support the society but are officially not members (since it is a priestly society). Perhaps it would be helpful for these supporters to know what is going on so they can trust in the support they are giving. After all, the SSPX was formed to support priesthood during a crisis time in the Church.

I agree that there has been much hyperbole and rhetoric. But I also have to report my experiences with my own SSPX chapel; so far all statements about Bishop Fellay that I have heard have been positive.

• PAX

Ecce, you don’t have to tell me. I was with them for many years. I know them inside and out.

I still suffer the effects of having been with them, and I do not know if I will ever be able to again think as a Catholic should and as I once used to. It is a daily battle, and I don’t always catch myself, as not thinking with the Church has become a habit. I have to be on the mental alert at all times.

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR,

I’ve said this before, but it may help to understand that the laity are being formed by these priests with daily sermons, instructions for communion, the SSPX website etc.

Some of the laity have made tremendous sacrifices to attend SSPX masses exclusively, especially when some are told that attending a Novus Ordo is sinful. In fact, some are told that even an “indult” mass, has dubious consecrations.

So therefore, it can problematic when suddenly, the perspective changes and I completely understand the feeling of needing an explanation even if technically, the leadership does not have to give one.

I know the trend is to portray the laity as not having any rights or say when it comes to the Church, but of course I don’t agree.

I do agree with Lormar. The SSPX laity really do need prayer.

I don’t disagree that they need prayer. I do feel that they are overstepping their bounds. If they made great sacrifices to follow the SSPX, it was not because the SSPX demanded this of them. The SSPX has no such authority. They made the sacrifice, because they liked what the SSPX had to offer.

However, to say that the superior general owes them an explanation is wayyyyy out of line. This shows that they do not understand the role and the rights of a superior general. His duty is ONLY to his institute. There is another letter by the former superior general who has come out and chided these folks for this very point.

I can’t recall Father’s name. But I linked his letter in the thread on Bishop Fellay’s letter. Father makes a very good point. The SSPX exists for one purpose only, the priesthood. It has no other purpose and it wants no other purpose.

If that’s it’s charism, that’s the only thing that Bishop Fellay has to consider in these negotiations. Superiors General have one moral duty, to the detriment of their souls, if they fail. That duty is to protect the charism of their institute and to keep the institute aligned with the Church. The people around the institute are not the superior general’s concern. That’s the concern for the local bishop.

I don’t believe that the issue is the laity being the enemy. I think the issue is the laity transferring concepts from the secular world into the ecclesiastical world. The concepts that it transfers are inimical to the good of the organization, in this case the society.

We live in a world where accountability has become a buzz word. It has almost lost its real meaning. Because it used to mean responsibility, not it means subservience. I object to that attitude that the superior must be subservient to anyone, when that is not part of Catholic tradition. This is what got us in trouble after Vatican II in the first place.

This one reason that many communities of religious are renewing themselves, such as mine. They became so inclusive that the lines of demarcation were lost. I believe that in their effort to survive, the bishops of the SSPX have done the same thing. The comments that these people make are the same as you find in the mainstream. “Someone owes me an explanation.” He has given the only explanation that he has to give. “I’m doing what is best for the Society, because it’s my ministry.” I felt that his letter was quite explanatory. To demand more explanation is offensive and arrogant.

Normally, I disagree with Bishop Fellay on the number continents on this planet. This time, I have to say that he has given a good explanation and need not give more. He is not a civil official with a constituency. This is the problem. This idea is a transfer into the Church of what does not belong there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

That is why they are angry. They are really angry with themselves the most, except they haven’t realized that yet. They’ve been duped, and they put their trust and confidence in the wrong person instead of where it belonged.

I understand why they are angry, and I don’t blame them in many ways. This development is a complete shift in the SSPX “creed”.

For what it’s worth, I think most of what they are demanding will be made public at the appropriate time.

The problem is that they want to be able to evaluate the progress of discussions and make their own personal judgments about what is the correct course of action before it has been decided. They don’t like being presented a fait accompli, even if all the requested information is then provided.

Of course this is a prideful setting of the personal opinion and judgment above the judgment of those truly responsible for making the decisions. But not only does this seem to be part of our concupiscence, it is also very liberal thinking, and we all live in and (even against our will) are formed by a liberal society.

 

[Lormar]

For what it’s worth, I think most of what they are demanding will be made public at the appropriate time.

The problem is that they want to be able to evaluate the progress of discussions and make their own personal judgments about what is the correct course of action before it has been decided. They don’t like being presented a fait accompli, even if all the requested information is then provided.

Of course this is a prideful setting of the personal opinion and judgment above the judgment of those truly responsible for making the decisions. But not only does this seem to be part of our concupiscence, it is also very liberal thinking, and we all live in and (even against our will) are formed by a liberal society.

Many of them have already made their decision. They just want more ammunition to reinforce it.

Personal opinion and judgment had no place in the Church before the sixties when it came to the laity. This is a recent development. All of a sudden, the past fifty years has produced a Church of “experts” who should and must be consulted before each and every step and decision in the Church is taken. The Church is not a democracy. We forget that.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

We live in a world where accountability has become a buzz word. It has almost lost its real meaning. Because it used to mean responsibility, not it means subservience. I object to that attitude that the superior must be subservient to anyone, when that is not part of Catholic tradition. This is what got us in trouble after Vatican II in the first place.

I very much agree with this, as I think would any traditional Catholic. I’ve seen priests hamstrung by the parish council and it just isn’t right.

Normally, I disagree with Bishop Fellay on the number continents on this planet. This time, I have to say that he has given a good explanation and need not give more.

Thank you, Brother Jr, for saying this. I also believe that Bishop Fellay has given a very clear, intellectual, and ultimately Catholic response to his critics. My trust in him as a Superior General has increased.

(and yes, I’m just a lay person, so my trust in him doesn’t mean much except to myself, but I did want to express it)

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

But not only does this seem to be part of our concupiscence, it is also very liberal thinking, and we all live in and (even against our will) are formed by a liberal society.

Personal opinion and judgment had no place in the Church before the sixties when it came to the laity. This is a recent development. All of a sudden, the past fifty years has produced a Church of “experts” who should and must be consulted before each and every step and decision in the Church is taken. The Church is not a democracy. We forget that.

Yes, indeed. As I see it, one of the possible traps in the traditionalist movement is falling into an underlying paradox (or conundrum, as I called it in another post) of using liberal democratic principles to attack liberal democratic principles. One can avoid this, being a traditionalist, but it is a trap that is there.

It’s hard to step out of a liberal democratic worldview when that is the world in which one has been raised. I raise my hand as guilty as charged.

• PAX

 

[fakename]

Alfonsus is correct. Canon Law holds that there is no appeal above the pope. If the pope refuses a hearing, the matter is settled. So why would any Catholic still be wondering? We can’t cherry pick when the pope has authority and when he does not.

Pope Boniface VI said that the law is “written in the pope’s heart and he choose to apply it to all or to some.” If he can choose to apply to some, then others are excluded. In this case, the Archbishop and his bishops were excluded, because the pope chose not to apply the law to them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Questions: if the pope is the law, then how can he be just since a just lawgiver must abide by his own laws?

Secondly, w/o any other assumptions and just about the sspx’s excommunication: in what sense do the consideration of objective facts fall under papal authority, in relation to this sspx-excommunication problem? Because after all, a lot of the problem turns on objective fact: “whether the excommunicated Archbishop really believed that the Church was facing an emergency”.

Or, is the pope’s legal powers and ability to reject any evidence he wants to reject founded on the principle that contingent particulars (which are objective facts) are subject to uncertain knowledge and so can be dispensed with by any of the two parties in a dispute (either the sspx or the pope)?

 

[ProVobis]

That is why they are angry. They are really angry with themselves the most, except they haven’t realized that yet. They’ve been duped, and they put their trust and confidence in the wrong person instead of where it belonged.

Do you think they were duped by the St. Joseph Daily Missal used in the 50’s which lists these questions under the Examination of Conscience:

Have I willfully doubted or denied my holy religion? Have I taken part in services other than those of my religion? Have I consulted fortune tellers, or read forbidden books, or despaired of God’s mercy? Have I neglected to worship God with prayer and the Mass?

I’m not defending them but the FSSPX were not responsible for what was written in the St. Joseph missal or other missals which had imprimaturs and nihil obstats.

 

[JReducation]

I wonder sometimes if the effects of the internet are comparable to the effects of the printing press which really helped fuel the protestant revolt.

Very interesting. Let me think about this.

Furthermore, they think they have the right to view all of the correspondence and to be made privy to everything, and I do mean everything, that has been said during the meetings with the CDF.

It is totally inappropriate for anyone to want this information.

As if all of this isn’t bad enough, the things that they are saying about him are over the top.

One can be right without being wrong. It is dead wrong to destroy a person’s integrity, even if you disagree. As a Franciscan of Life, I will defend the right to life of any person, whether I agree with that person or not. The right to life begins with the right to be born and the right to die at the appointed time. However, in between those end points of earthly life, is the right to live without being attacked. We often forget about that little aspect of the right to life. What good is the right to life in an earthly hell?

That is why they are angry. They are really angry with themselves the most, except they haven’t realized that yet. They’ve been duped, and they put their trust and confidence in the wrong person instead of where it belonged.

They were warned. My Jewish mother had a saying. Let’s see if I can translate it from Hebrew to English. “He who ignores good counsel, will live a short life.”

All of a sudden, the past fifty years has produced a Church of “experts” who should and must be consulted before each and every step and decision in the Church is taken. The Church is not a democracy. We forget that.

Everyone is an expert. I was at the doctor’s office and I must confess that I did a “no no.” There is a TV in the waiting room. I tried not to look at it, but I kept stealing glances at it out of the corner of my eye. It was a ladies program with Whoopi Goldberg and other ladies. I don’t know the name. But they sit around and talk. They were talking about men. Being one myself, I was paying attention.

I KNOW I KNOW. I’m not supposed to watch TV or listen to it. I’m sorry.

Anyway, I had to chuckle, because they were all experts on men. Yet, I could not identify with a single point that they were making. Go figure.

(and yes, I’m just a lay person, so my trust in him doesn’t mean much except to myself, but I did want to express it)

There is no such thing as “just” a lay person. There are religious, clergy and laity. Each has their place in God’s plan of salvation. When we step out of our place, we create cosmic chaos. That’s the problem.

Don’t ever say that again in my presence, because I will chide you every time. The laity are like the arms and legs of the body. The body can’t do much without them.

Questions: if the pope is the law, then how can he be just since a just lawgiver must abide by his own laws?

The lawgiver is Christ. The pope is the Living Law. Christ places the law in his heart and he hands it on to the faithful, but Christ does not bind him to the law. Otherwise, Jesus’ words would have no meaning. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what you unbind shall be unbound.”

Secondly, w/o any other assumptions and just about the sspx’s excommunication: in what sense do the consideration of objective facts fall under papal authority, in relation to this sspx-excommunication problem? Because after all, a lot of the problem turns on objective fact: “whether the excommunicated Archbishop really believed that the Church was facing an emergency”.

No one questions that the Archbishop believed this. What Cardinal Ratzinger told the Archbishop was that his perceptions were wrong and he needed to change them, because they were dangerous.

The Archbishop could not separate himself from his perception. That’s when he did what he did and incurred an excommunication. Bl. John Paul upheld the excommunication on the grounds that the Vatican had made an attempt to correct his perception and his response was a letter of attack in which he said to the Holy Father, “You are not shepherd of souls.” The Archbishop raised the bar. One has to wonder, had he not responded in attack mode, if he may have been allowed a trial. Once you respond in attack mode, the logical conclusion is that you have lost respect for the person in authority.

Or, is the pope’s legal powers and ability to reject any evidence he wants to reject founded on the principle that contingent particulars (which are objective facts) are subject to uncertain knowledge and so can be dispensed with by any of the two parties in a dispute (either the sspx or the pope)?

The Holy Father has the power to throw all evidence out the window if he wants to do so. He has but one duty: to comply with natural and moral law.

Here is the trick. In moral law, he must be just. If he throws out something that may prove a person’s innocence, he’s not being just. On the flip side, if the person sabotages his own case, as did the Archbishop with his aggressive response prior to the ordinations, then the pope is no longer bound by moral law to be nice. The pope’s first duty is to protect the papacy. When you attack the pope, you attack the papacy. The Church does not separate the pope from the papacy, as we do with the president. Either he is or is not the pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[numealinesimpet]

We on CAF have argued the position of the SSPX for a long time, including on other threads. What I find is that both sides have very weighty points to make. It is not a pushover to decide between them, which is why people of obvious good will find themselves on opposite sides. Yet a dad of a family, like your humble correspondent, has no option but to take some position and then follow it through. I am very grateful to CAF for allowing debate on this delicate issue, within the limits they define (which I would modify if I were moderator, but I could never run CAF…) I have never tried to influence a fellow-parishoner who is content within his ‘mainstream’ parish, and I try to be active in my own parish, while letting the parish priest know where I stand on the SSPX and on what we may call the ‘trad’ position. Meanwhile, the snippets of news emanating from the Vatican and the SPX are extremely encouraging. But other mischievous reports are currently circulating. Without ‘prosetylising’ for the SSPX position, but purely to assist, may I post the following:
5-11-2012

An exchange of private letters between the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X and the three other bishops was circulated on the Internet on May 9, 2012. This behavior is reprehensible. The person who breached the confidentiality of this internal correspondence committed a serious sin.
Its publication will encourage those who are fomenting division; the Society of St. Pius X asks its priests and lay faithful not to respond except by redoubling their prayers, so that only the will of God may be done, for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.
Menzingen, May 11, 2012​

Get the Latest Information on Official News and Commentary from the U.S. District of the Society of St. Pius X

As many of you know, there is a lot of news coming out in both national and Catholic media outlets about discussions between Rome and the Society. Too often these blog posts and news reports take the form of sensationalism, gossip, rumor-mongering, etc. and seem to have as an aim to put undue pressure on those charged with leading the Society, or to foster division within the Society.

This is not the truly Catholic spirit; which brings me to my main point: the U.S. District has an email list set-up as the first conduit for official news and stories relating to the Society in general and the Rome/Society question specifically.

To sign up, click here! Simply call (800) 966-7337 to order.

Or visit:
www.angeluspress.org

 

[pnewton]

Questions: if the pope is the law, then how can he be just since a just lawgiver must abide by his own laws?

It is possible that a pope could behave unjustly, not that this has happened here.

Because after all, a lot of the problem turns on objective fact: “whether the excommunicated Archbishop really believed that the Church was facing an emergency”.

Only if one believes the SSPX side of the story which I don’t. But as has already been said, this is moot as the excommunications have been lifted.

 

[pnewton]

When I said sympathetic in my OP i meant “condoning of”

This is a different issue all together. I think the support for the actions of the SSPX are not as great as you believe. You might find a dozen people here of the thousands that post here that condone their actions to some extent, but true supports of the SSPX are an extremely small minority here and in the Church. Let us not confuse the one lost sheep as being bigger than the 99.

 

[JReducation]

This is a different issue all together. I think the support for the actions of the SSPX are not as great as you believe. You might find a dozen people here of the thousands that post here that condone their actions to some extent, but true supports of the SSPX are an extremely small minority here and in the Church. Let us not confuse the one lost sheep as being bigger than the 99.

I have no clue how the percentages stack up. But I find that those who support the violation of Canon Law can be very ugly and that troubles me. It troubles me that they are so willing to overlook a law that very specifically says that if you do this, these are the consequences. But more surprising to me is that they get angry when they have to deal with the consequences of violating the law.

Someone sent me a PM with a few snippets that they found around the Internet. I can’t post them all, because some a absolutely crude. Here are a few that can be read in polite company.

Speaking about the relationship between Pope Benedict and the SSPX:
**
True, some vestiges of the old Ratzinger still linger but in time, as his days are now numbered, he has come to realize what the true mission of the papacy is, his papacy in particular, and he is trying, in my opinion, to mitigate the harsh judgment that awaits him. He must answer for every lost soul under his watch or care. Thus his intent to bring back the SSPX into the fold, for he knows he was instrumental in causing a schism. **

This is judging the sate of a man’s soul, predicting his final judgment and whatever retribution God will give him for his sins. Let’s not mention that no one loses his soul through someone else’s choices. If you innocently follow bad guidance,you have no culpability and if you knowingly follow bad guidance, you are culpable for your choice to follow. We’re too quick to play this “they’re losing souls” card. It’s not that black and white.

**
Besides that, b16 is not long for this world. The next pope could sell off SSPX churches to pay for paedo lawsuits if he wished. Listen to Fellay himself explain how duplicitous these people were with the FSSP.**

Encouraging a distrust in the good will of future popes, without prior knowledge of the man to com or of Canon Law, obviously. Canon Law is very clear that you cannot separate a secular institute from its lawful property. The SSPX is a secular society, hence its property belongs to them, not to the Church. It only passes to the Church if they disband. The slight dig about “paedo” lawsuits is totally uncalled for, not to mention misspelled.

I see zero hard evidence that Benedict has changed his opinions or is anything more than a liberal pragmatist.

You may as well compare the Holy Father to a used car salesman.
**
This will be the final showdown. Once the Society is back in “full communion” it’s only a matter of waiting to see who wins this once and for all.**

This is not a call for unity and reconciliation, but almost a hope for a very bloody battle. When Archbishop Lefebvre said that he wanted priests who were willing to die for their faith, he never said that he wanted laity that took pleasure in the battle or who looked forward to a battle.

In my mind, if these people represent the supporters of the SSPX, the SSPX is better off without them. They are not doing much to help other Catholics feel more comfortable with the idea of regularizing the SSPX and certainly are not doing much to present the SSPX in a favorable light. I don’t care what people say about PC. There is always a need for diplomacy in our manner of speaking. Diplomacy can be very effective without being duplicitous. I should know, I grew up with a dad who was a diplomat and a very honest man.

People pass these kinds of statements around and then wonder why bishops, religious superiors and lay people are skittish about this reconciliation. The “sympathizers” are scary. That’s why the rest of us are skittish.

I hope that the number of such people is very small.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[pnewton]

I hope that the number of such people is very small.

I would think they are few indeed. Every sheepfold has a few wolves. In this case, I hope the wolves stay out, even if through pride during any reconciliation, though no doubt some would reconcile with very dangerous motives. This all assumes the hoped for reconcilliation, of course.

 

[ProVobis]

Let us not confuse the one lost sheep as being bigger than the 99.

Yes, but that one sheep says the other 99 sheep are lost.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, but that one sheep says the other 99 sheep are lost.

Translation please!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Translation please!

I take it, Br JR, you didn’t find that humorous in the midst of all the sheep and wolves. Sorry, pn.

 

[mattkubes]

This is a different issue all together. I think the support for the actions of the SSPX are not as great as you believe. You might find a dozen people here of the thousands that post here that condone their actions to some extent, but true supports of the SSPX are an extremely small minority here and in the Church. Let us not confuse the one lost sheep as being bigger than the 99.

True supporters may be an extremely small minority overall, but then so are Catholics who even know that the SSPX exists. If they actually have 1 million laity who attend their Mass centres, we could realistically assume support on their parts, and then I wouldn’t be surprised if the numbers were actually quite even. I would be very surprised if many more than a million non-SSPX Catholics were knowledgeable enough about this situation to make an informed decision one way or the other.

Not that numbers really matter. I’m just looking forward to closure on this whole saga.

 

[pnewton]

Translation please!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I think the idea is the persistent claim that they are right and the Catholic Church is wrong. He is the shepherd of the one sheep seeking the lost 99 in this reconcilliation. It is kind of a funny picture, in a way, though this idea opens the door to the SSPX version of Godwin’s Law. In other words, we will see if this brings out St. Athanasius.

 

[JReducation]

I take it, Br JR, you didn’t find that humorous in the midst of all the sheep and wolves. Sorry, pn.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh now I get it. LOL

True supporters may be an extremely small minority overall, but then so are Catholics who even know that the SSPX exists. If they actually have 1 million laity who attend their Mass centres, we could realistically assume support on their parts, and then I wouldn’t be surprised if the numbers were actually quite even. I would be very surprised if many more than a million non-SSPX Catholics were knowledgeable enough about this situation to make an informed decision one way or the other.

Not that numbers really matter. I’m just looking forward to closure on this whole saga.

The good thing is that those who don’t know about this whole mess can sleep in peace at night. I deliberately tell out brothers very little about it. They have enough things on their plate, beginning with their own spiritual life and that of the people they serve. The last thing they need is to worry about everyone else’s spiritual life. Bl. John Duns Scotus told the Franciscans of England that the problem was not that life was complicated. The problem was that they were overwhelming themselves with concerns that had no impact on their personal relationship with Christ. At the time, they were all worried about the decline of morals and faith among the English people. Bl. Duns Scotus steered them away from that, by refocusing their attention on what they were called to live.

In this world of instant communication, we’re bombarded with so much information that it’s easy to become overwhelmed to the point that we forget out priorities. Scouts was trying to teach the friars to focus on their priority. Their priority was not the moral life of all England. Their priority was to follow Francis to Christ. If they did that right, the graces that would flow and their example would do more for the moral life of England, than anything they could preach or teach. An excess of information can distract us from our focus.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV