Too many Sympathetic for SSPX

[ImmaculataFides]

I Just simply don’t understand why there are so many Traditionalists who don’t really see anything wrong the the SSPX, or are indifferent to their status. I’ve heard arguments that the SSPX’s actions are “necessary”. While I do believe that there is a genuine crisis in the church in regard to the Sacred Liturgy and in Catechism, I don’t see how that can justify supporting or implying that you endorse the SSPX. To me it seems that the end doesn’t justify the means and that remaining outside of full communion with Christ’s Church and with Peter cannot be ever be justified even if its for a good reason.

Any Thoughts?

Traditionalists who adhere to the SSPX would tell you to not use the terminology “Full Communion”. You are either in communion or you are not. The SSPX are in communion.

Traditionalists sympathise with the SSPX because while the whole Church was being affected with apostasy, heresy and modernism, the SSPX kept the traditional faith and the traditional Mass. The SSPX justify their disobedience with arguments from Canon Law.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

I know people affiliated with the SSPX and have met one SSPX priest. I like them. Very nice people. Why shouldn’t I be sympathetic? They love the Catholic Faith.

As to this issue of “full communion,” I’ll never understand it. What is full communion? You’re in communion, or not.

Now heretics (the SSPX are not heretics) and other groups can be close to Catholicism (like the Orthodox) or farther (Lutherans) or farther (Baptists) or farther (Jews) or farther (Buddhists) but again, the SSPX are not heretics.

So I really can’t understand why, to ask the converse question, why people are so harsh towards the SSPX? So many liberal Catholics I know hate the SSPX and see them as evil. I know of priests who would never let an SSPX priest into one of their churches but will let in Protestants all the time, Protestant ministers to pray with them officially.

That’s backwards, man.

Frankly, I think that there are two types of opposition to the SSPX.

1. The Catholics like Br JR, who emphasize that we should be obedient and that the illegal consecrations were not alright.
2. The great number of liberal-minded clergy and laity who hate the SSPX because they represent an adherence to centuries of Catholic tradition, which frankly many of the more modernist types would like to ignore in favor of their own rupture-based understanding of V2 (which in their eyes was the only important Council and the one which is a super-dogma and gave birth to the Church).

I can understand group 1. I have no understanding for group 2.

 

[Zosimus41]

I Just simply don’t understand why there are so many Traditionalists who don’t really see anything wrong the the SSPX, or are indifferent to their status. I’ve heard arguments that the SSPX’s actions are “necessary”. While I do believe that there is a genuine crisis in the church in regard to the Sacred Liturgy and in Catechism, I don’t see how that can justify supporting or implying that you endorse the SSPX. To me it seems that the end doesn’t justify the means and that remaining outside of full communion with Christ’s Church and with Peter cannot be ever be justified even if its for a good reason.

Any Thoughts?

Its my belief they are too stubborn. What ever the pope offers them its not going to be good enough they will still have arguments against the church.

One day I decided to call a sspx office I was curious on what their position was.The person I spoke to was dead set against it. Even our Latin Mass now offerd has things wrong with it accroding to them.

So unless theres a lot of money support its not going to be a 50/50 deal. It will be a compromise of our people can go to a sspx mass and receive communion and they will counter ok they can go to mass here but cant receive communion It will be close to the same agreements we have with the orthodox churches kind of one sided But I doubt it will be a full return to the fold.

I hope I am wrong.

 

[Rich_C]

Why ask what traditionalists think on a forum with so few self-professed trads? Unless you’re asking people to read minds.

So true.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Its my belief they are too stubborn. What ever the pope offers them its not going to be good enough they will still have arguments against the church.

One day I decided to call a sspx office I was curious on what their position was.The person I spoke to was dead set against it. Even our Latin Mass now offerd has things wrong with it accroding to them.

So unless theres a lot of money support its not going to be a 50/50 deal. It will be a compromise of our people can go to a sspx mass and receive communion and they will counter ok they can go to mass here but cant receive communion It will be close to the same agreements we have with the orthodox churches kind of one sided But I doubt it will be a full return to the fold.

I hope I am wrong.

The SSPX have never had a problem with those who go to other EF Masses or to the NO receiving communion at the SSPX chapels.

 

[thewanderer]

Newyorkcatholic, They are not in full communion because thy do not have jurisdiction to celebrate the sacraments, causing all of them to be illicit and ven causing some to be invalid. (confession and marriage)

There is nothing wrong with being sympathetic, as was pointed out, so long as you do not condone their disobedience to Rome. It is a very good thing to desire their full reconciliation with Rome.

Also, in your evaluation you have left out a 3rd group of Catholics, those who do not know much about the SSPX or older traditions of the church except that SSPX is not in full communion wih Rome because of it’s disobedience and that members of SSPX have a tendency to be judgmental, or at the ery least come across as judgemental, towards those who do not follow the older traditions. This causes many Catholics o be extremely wary of them, and so, sometimes to even be wary of the older traditions themselves because they are associated with the SSPX. There are other Orders such as the FSSP which have helped to dispel the wariness against traditions caused by some in the SSPX, but it has not Benny entirely dealt with.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Newyorkcatholic, They are not in full communion because thy do not have jurisdiction to celebrate the sacraments, causing all of them to be illicit and ven causing some to be invalid. (confession and marriage)

There is nothing wrong with being sympathetic, as was pointed out, so long as you do not condone their disobedience to Rome. It is a very good thing to desire their full reconciliation with Rome.

Also, in your evaluation you have left out a 3rd group of Catholics, those who do not know much about the SSPX or older traditions of the church except that SSPX is not in full communion wih Rome because of it’s disobedience and that members of SSPX have a tendency to be judgmental, or at the ery least come across as judgemental, towards those who do not follow the older traditions. This causes many Catholics o be extremely wary of them, and so, sometimes to even be wary of the older traditions themselves because they are associated with the SSPX. There are other Orders such as the FSSP which have helped to dispel the wariness against traditions caused by some in the SSPX, but it has not Benny entirely dealt with.

1. They have a problem with jurisdiction but that has nothing to do with being in communion. Apples and oranges. Priests are suspended for different things, someone might be in mortal sin … these are not the same as not being in communion. I don’t think there is such a thing as “full communion.” You are, or you aren’t.
2. Disobedience is a problem, in and of itself. We don’t have to come up with a reason like “disobedience takes you out of full communion, now it’s partial communion.” How partial, anyway?
3. The judgmental thing … very subjective. My experience is that liberal Catholics are extremely judgmental. The SSPX-affiliated folks I know are quite nice. Even though I sometimes (not often) attend the NO, and otherwise almost always non-SSPX EF, they were not judgmental … just disagreed with me in a nice way.

So that third group is the largest, but I didn’t include them because they are not well informed. If they were better informed, I imagine they’d fall into group 1 or group 2, depending upon if they are close to the Church (group 1) or to the world (group 2).

 

[Zosimus41]

The SSPX have never had a problem with those who go to other EF Masses or to the NO receiving communion at the SSPX chapels.

Then you need to speak to the preist at St Michaels in Spring Texas. Because I asked him about recieving communion at his sspx church he said thats something we have to talk about first ergo I ended up not being able to go to communion.

In his sermon he stated he doubted that transubstantiation even happend in the Roman church.

The point is in my humble opinion I dont believe they are willing to fully unite.

 

[thewanderer]

1. They have a problem with jurisdiction but that has nothing to do with being in communion. Apples and oranges. Priests are suspended for different things, someone might be in mortal sin … these are not the same as not being in communion. I don’t think there is such a thing as “full communion.” You are, or you aren’t.
2. Disobedience is a problem, in and of itself. We don’t have to come up with a reason like “disobedience takes you out of full communion, now it’s partial communion.” How partial, anyway?
3. The judgmental thing … very subjective. My experience is that liberal Catholics are extremely judgmental. The SSPX-affiliated folks I know are quite nice. Even though I sometimes (not often) attend the NO, and otherwise almost always non-SSPX EF, they were not judgmental … just disagreed with me in a nice way.

So that third group is the largest, but I didn’t include them because they are not well informed. If they were better informed, I imagine they’d fall into group 1 or group 2, depending upon if they are close to the Church (group 1) or to the world (group 2).

As far as I understand it, not being ‘fully in communion’ simply means that thy are in disobedience to the pope and acting illegally. I realize they are not separated through heresy or schism, but can anyone who acts illegally on a daily basis really be considered ‘fully in union’ with the authority they are disobeying? I fail to see how they can be. Whether or not you agree with the use of this term, this is what people mean by it and why thy use it.

I realize that there are liberal Catholics who are judgemental, that doesn’t really change anything though. Claiming that disobeying Rome was necessary for the salvation o the church, or that the OF is an abomination, both of which I have heard claimed is judgmental of those who follow the teachings of the church without attending the EF. It can be very off-putting and has caused much damage to the image of those who prefer the older traditions.

 

[curlycool89]

I just have a few remarks.

I think most of the SSPX priests are heroes, they would rather go the risk of being excommunicated than compromise.

Heroic? Disobedience is never heroic. It was the disobedience of Adam that gave us original sin.

What was really heroic was Christ’s obedience unto death, even death on a cross.

It’s a pretty basic rule that if you say “I’ll risk excommunication for this” that you’re in the wrong. Nobody would say that abortion doctors are “heroic” because they’re going to be excommunicated.

Saying “I’ll risk excommunication” is pride speaking, plain and simple. It’s saying “I know better then the Church and I don’t need to obey”.

It would be impossible for us to know what really happened at that moment, as Rome and SSPX have different edition of the story.

Well, how about just facts then?

Archbishop Lefebrve consecrated 4 priests as bishops without a papal mandate and after being ordered by Bl. John Paul II not to go forward with the action. Consecration without papal mandate is an excommunicable offence according to Canon Law, and disobeying the Pope is frankly just asking to be excommunicated. After all, how can you say you are in communion with someone who’s authority you don’t recognize? It’s like claiming to be British but not recognizing Queen Elizabeth II.

I sincerely hope God would hear our prayers and will allow SSPX to come back to the church soon.

I hope so too. I also hope that everyone has the understanding that the SSPX will come back as just a part of the Church; it is not their mission to “fix” the Church of everything they see as an “ill” (most of which are not by the way).

The SSPX is the son who left. We are the son who stayed home. Hopefully, our attitude is not that of the son who stayed home, but whined and complained because he was not being celebrated and his prodigal brother was. Instead of being like Joseph in the OT who welcomes his treacherous brothers when they arrived in Egypt, the prodigal son could not see past his self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is the first step toward the fall.

I think it’s worth pointing out too that the son who left started on the road back after he realized that he had done wrong: “Father, I have sinned against Heaven and against You” (Lk 15:21). The son cannot come back and demand that the Father change things around or tell the brother that he needs to “be like I am now”. And it is absolutely the better and moral path that the brother never left at all.

 

[curlycool89]

I realize that there are liberal Catholics who are judgemental, that doesn’t really change anything though.

I call it the “China Defense”, named after the fact that anytime anyone points out how atrocious China’s record on human rights is they immediately point out how bad the other parties is. I’ve really misnamed it though, because it’s not a defense so must as it is an attempted justification.

That’s why you’ll get people saying “How dare you say that the disobedience of the SSPX is bad when you have clown OF Masses?” (sadly enough, I can’t say this is a rare occurrence, and in the interest of charity I won’t point fingers). The problem is that they’re both bad. People seem to operate on a “scale of bad”, and if your bad is “worse” then my bad then that puts me in the right.

China Defense - ignore the question and accuse the accuser of doing worse things, because apparently being “less evil” is now seen as “necessary” or “good” or “unapproachable”. Despite this “defense”, the fact remains that if you take a step back you see that both are wrong. Arguing about which is “more wrong” is a waste of time and frankly a distraction because in the end they’re still both wrong.

 

[mattkubes]

It is true that many Traditionalists, even here, went from justifying Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions to saying that they were not right, but they got us what we wanted, so we thank him for messing up. That kind of thinking is very weird. You should never get anything, because someone else messes up, even if what you get is a good thing.

That doesn’t seem to be the majority opinion in my little part of the trad world - but I suppose the legitimacy of +Lefebvre’s perception of a state of emergency is outside the scope of this thread.

I won’t say he messed up, but even mistakes can be a cause for joy at times (of course I know you weren’t excluding this):
“O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem.”

 

[ProVobis]

It’s a pretty basic rule that if you say “I’ll risk excommunication for this” that you’re in the wrong. Nobody would say that abortion doctors are “heroic” because they’re going to be excommunicated.

Saying “I’ll risk excommunication” is pride speaking, plain and simple. It’s saying “I know better then the Church and I don’t need to obey”.

The excommunications aren’t the issue. That part of it has been resolved.

What’s at issue is/are the suspensions of all FSSPX priests, which have been in effect since 1975, well before the illegal consecrations of 1988. Even if AL had never consecrated four bishops, those suspensions may not have been lifted. Those priests who accepted Rome’s offer came by themselves through the FSSP ranks; the others chose to remain as suspended FSSPX priests. The same thing may happen again, although probably through another newly-established fraternity.

 

[JReducation]

As to this issue of “full communion,” I’ll never understand it. What is full communion? You’re in communion, or not.

Let’s see if this helps. There are degrees of communion with the Church. For example, the Church holds and believes that all Christians have an imperfect communion, but a communion nonetheless, because of our one Baptism, which we profess in the Creed.

The Church also teaches the the Orthodox Churches are in schism, but are not schismatic, because the living members did not break with Catholicism. That was a problem of our common ancestors centuries ago. However, despite being in schism, they are in great communion than most non Catholic Christians, because they have apostolic succession, which is unbroken, just as the Catholic Church has. This succession allows them to have a valid and licit priesthood and valid and licit sacraments. This is called communion n sacris or communion in the sacred.

The SSPX are baptized. It has apostolic succession. It has five sacraments that the Church acknowledges as valid. However, the ordinations are all illegal, beginning with those of the bishops and every cleric they have ordained. Because they ordained against the wishes of the pope, they have broken with the primacy. Therefore, there is one more thing that they need for full communion. Peter, must welcome them back. As long as Peter sustains that they have broken with the primacy, they are not in full communion. They are in communion in most things, but are lacking. Pope Benedict explained this several times. If you go the book, Light of The World, Pope Benedict speaks about not being in communion with the primacy and how the primacy will not welcome them until they meet certain requirements, which are in the Preamble and which we don’t know exactly what they are.

As you can see, communion is not always about heresy. One can harm communion by other actions, in the case of the SSPX, it was breaking with the Primacy, even though they maintain all of the other necessary elements for communion. The more common elements, the greater your degree of communion. Communion simply means “union with”. When the Church says that there is an imperfect communion between her and someone else, she is saying that we are in union on some things, but not on everything.

1. They have a problem with jurisdiction but that has nothing to do with being in communion. Apples and oranges. Priests are suspended for different things, someone might be in mortal sin … these are not the same as not being in communion. I don’t think there is such a thing as “full communion.” You are, or you aren’t.

The issue of jurisdiction is related to the issue of communion. The Apostolic See will not grant the SSPX bishops jurisdiction until they are in full communion. Deacons and priests share in the jurisdiction of their ordinary. The SSPX does not have a ordinary. Only those whom Peter recognizes as ordinaries can be so, such as the diocesan bishops, not the auxiliaries, major superiors of men, and the orthodox bishops.

Communion and jurisdiction are related inside the Catholic Church. The question of jurisdiction is non existent outside of the Catholic Church. Inside, you cannot have jurisdiction, unless you have full communion. Full communion can only be granted by the pope. Communion not an abstract, it’s a concrete theological fact upon which the law is built.

If theology says that there are 10 requirements to full communion, then those who have less than 10 are in different degrees of communion. If they are Catholic, the Church can deny them jurisdiction until they meet all 10 requirements.

Much is going to depend on nature of the requirement. Some requirements are considered to be more serious than others. In other words, the Church has a hierarchy of requirements for communion, the two most important being Baptism and recognition by the Primacy. The Primacy is very important, because if a Catholic breaks with the Primacy, the house of cards can come collapse. Because of that danger, the Church takes that very seriously.

I hope that helps everyone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[curlycool89]

What’s at issue is/are the suspensions of all FSSPX priests, which have been in effect since 1975, well before the illegal consecrations of 1988. Even if AL had never consecrated four bishops, those suspensions may not have been lifted. Those priests who accepted Rome’s offer came by themselves through the FSSP ranks; the others chose to remain as suspended FSSPX priests. The same thing may happen again, although probably through another newly-established fraternity.

Can you explain that? It was my understanding that the priests are suspended because they were illicitly ordained and that they lack jurisdiction (as in they’re not incardinated or under the authority or a recognized Ordinary). Why were they suspended in 1975?

 

[white_sheep]

I Just simply don’t understand why there are so many Traditionalists who don’t really see anything wrong the the SSPX, or are indifferent to their status. I’ve heard arguments that the SSPX’s actions are “necessary”. While I do believe that there is a genuine crisis in the church in regard to the Sacred Liturgy and in Catechism, I don’t see how that can justify supporting or implying that you endorse the SSPX. To me it seems that the end doesn’t justify the means and that remaining outside of full communion with Christ’s Church and with Peter cannot be ever be justified even if its for a good reason.

Any Thoughts?

I am certainly not indifferent to their status. As far as seeing anything wrong with the SSPX goes, I see no more wrong with them than I do with the parish down the street.

 

[thewanderer]

I am certainly not indifferent to their status. As far as seeing anything wrong with the SSPX goes, I see no more wrong with them than I do with the parish down the street.

So there is no difference between a mass that is both valid and licit and one that is valid but illicit (ie illegal)? This position is confusing to me, it is clearly better to have a mass that is both valid and licit, even if it is not in accordance with ones preferences than to have an illicit mass that is more like what we would prefer.

 

[TrueLight]

So there is no difference between a mass that is both valid and licit and one that is valid but illicit (ie illegal)? This position is confusing to me, it is clearly better to have a mass that is both valid and licit, even if it is not in accordance with ones preferences than to have an illicit mass that is more like what we would prefer.

If it were only a matter of preference, then AB Lefebvre would not risk excommunication. It is important to understand that it is more than preference.

 

[thewanderer]

If it were only a matter of preference, then AB Lefebvre would not risk excommunication. It is important to understand that it is more than preference.

It is not always just a matter of preference, but when abuses are not occuring and both forms are celbrated licitly and reverently, how is which form you attend anything more than a matter of preference?

 

[JReducation]

That doesn’t seem to be the majority opinion in my little part of the trad world - but I suppose the legitimacy of +Lefebvre’s perception of a state of emergency is outside the scope of this thread.

I won’t say he messed up, but even mistakes can be a cause for joy at times (of course I know you weren’t excluding this):
“O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem.”

I was trying to soften it by using messed up instead of saying that he committed a schismatic action. That word sends people over the edge, since many can’t distinguish between an action being schismatic and an individual being schismatic.

I am certainly not indifferent to their status. As far as seeing anything wrong with the SSPX goes, I see no more wrong with them than I do with the parish down the street.

There is a major difference. Let’s take the example of medicine. Let’s say that I went to school to become a brain surgeon and I’m very good at it. I move to a new state and never get a license in that state. The brain surgeon down the street may not be as talented as I am, but he has a license to practice in that state. In law, this is very grave matter. No matter how good I cam, I can go to jail for practicing without a license.

This is the difference between the SSPX priest and the parish priest down the street. The parish priest down the street has a license.

So there is no difference between a mass that is both valid and licit and one that is valid but illicit (ie illegal)? This position is confusing to me, it is clearly better to have a mass that is both valid and licit, even if it is not in accordance with ones preferences than to have an illicit mass that is more like what we would prefer.

They are both valid. But the illicit one should not be taking place at all, precisely because it’s illegal for that priest to celebrate mass.

I believe that we’re moving into a very dangerous mindset, both liberals and extreme Traditionalists. That is an mindset that minimizes the importance of law for the sake of benefit. “As long as I get what I want, I don’t really care what the law says.” That’s a very dangerous way for society to think. People are doing this not only inside the Church, but in many areas of life. Another point of view is that “the law is wrong”. The problem is that we have no authority to put the law on trial. Neither in the Church nor in civil society do individuals have the right to put the law on trial. There are established systems to do that. The Supreme Court does it for the civil government. The Holy Father does it for the Church. No one else is authorized to dismiss a law, because he believes that it’s wrong.

As a society, we’re on a slippery slope when it comes to respect for the law.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV