Truly a sad state of affairs

[JM3]

Doesn’t anyone actually pick up the Bible, open the cover and read it?

-Tim-

Haven’t you heard that catholics aren’t suppose to read the Bible. They might interpret it wrong and end up starting their own religion.

 

[powerofk]

What I said is based on what I remember from a pamphlet that the SSPX left in all of the pews of a church I went to about 15 years ago. IIRC, it condemned “all who follow the illegitimate pope” and talked about “the real pope, Pope Pius XIII”.

I’m serious - at one point, at least, it appears that SSPX had actually declared Archbishop Levebre as “Pope Pius XIII”.

 

[JReducation]

The SSPX believes that the documents from the Second Vatican Council espouse heresy. As such, they believe that no Pope from Paul VI onward is valid, considering instead the head of the SSPX to be the “true” pope. They don’t believe that they are schismatics - they believe that we, the Church that accepted Vatican II, are the real schismatics. In other words, they don’t believe an excommunication on them would be valid - they believe that we are the ones who should be excommunicated, for accepting what the SSPX believes to be heresy!

Don’t confuse the SSPX with the SSPV. The latter are sedevacantists, not the SSPX. The SSPX’s relationship with the Primacy is a rather odd one to say the least; but it is not sedevacantist.

This particular behavior of the part of this SSPX group violates tradition at several levels. I’m sad to see a cassock there. I don’t know if that’s an SSPX priest, brother or seminarian. In any case, that person should know better.

The cathedral of any diocese is the bishop’s church. The only person who can dictate to a bishop or correct a bishop on the proper use of a cathedral is one who has jurisdiction over the bishop. They are violating the bishop’s rights. This has been this way since we had the first cathedrals.

Interestingly enough, cathedrals have been used for concerts and theater for centuries. So why can’t they be used for prayer? This was an evening of prayer for people who were innocent victims of hatred. There again is another violation of tradition. The Church has a history of coming to the protection of the underdog, be he Catholic or other.

What is not allowed is to use a Catholic church for a non-catholic service, unless the local bishop gives his permission and the tabernacle is empty. But this was not a non-Catholic service. This is an interfaith service sponsored by the Archbishop. Therefore, it’s sponsored by the Catholic Church.

There is another issue here. I don’t know if anyone else read this or not, but the Holy Father himself had a special remembrance for this anniversary. It would stand to reason that he would approve of such a remembrance in any diocesan cathedral. The SSPX has a right to disagree. Opinions are free. But no one has a right to undermine the pope.

Before anyone dares to bring up Paul, Catherine of Siena or Athanasius, let us remember that these folks acted like saints. That’s why we venerate them. They did not undermine the popes. They did not offend non-Catholics. They did not disagree with the pope in a belligerent manner. They were always submissive and humble in their expressions. The comparison does not hold.

Before one can claim Paul, Athanasius or Catherine did or said thus and thus, that person better make sure that his is as holy as these folks. Only then will his protest be expressed with the same love and same humility as these folks.

In essence, this kind of expression of disagreement only fits into Catholic tradition alongside of those who rebelled against the Church, not those who loved the Church. In other words, this is not the behavior of saints.

The Holy Rosary is not a political tool. To use it in such a manner is to use it as a political tool. This is a political statement, no matter which way one cuts it. The SSPX had its day in court during the years that it was in dialogue with Cardinal Levada and Pope Benedict. It said that it was not ready to accept what the Holy See had to offer. That’s fine. We respect their decision to discern and to wait, if that’s what they wish. But the clergy of the SSPX and its lay friends must also respect the decision of the local bishops to proceed without the Society.

This action was a violation of tradition. Those are my two cents for what they’re worth.

 

[RPRPsych]

Don’t confuse the SSPX with the SSPV. The latter are sedevacantists, not the SSPX. The SSPX’s relationship with the Primacy is a rather odd one to say the least; but it is not sedevacantist.

This particular behavior of the part of this SSPX group violates tradition at several levels. I’m sad to see a cassock there. I don’t know if that’s an SSPX priest, brother or seminarian. In any case, that person should know better.

The cathedral of any diocese is the bishop’s church. The only person who can dictate to a bishop or correct a bishop on the proper use of a cathedral is one who has jurisdiction over the bishop. They are violating the bishop’s rights. This has been this way since we had the first cathedrals.

Interestingly enough, cathedrals have been used for concerts and theater for centuries. So why can’t they be used for prayer? This was an evening of prayer for people who were innocent victims of hatred. There again is another violation of tradition. The Church has a history of coming to the protection of the underdog, be he Catholic or other.

What is not allowed is to use a Catholic church for a non-catholic service, unless the local bishop gives his permission and the tabernacle is empty. But this was not a non-Catholic service. This is an interfaith service sponsored by the Archbishop. Therefore, it’s sponsored by the Catholic Church.

There is another issue here. I don’t know if anyone else read this or not, but the Holy Father himself had a special remembrance for this anniversary. It would stand to reason that he would approve of such a remembrance in any diocesan cathedral. The SSPX has a right to disagree. Opinions are free. But no one has a right to undermine the pope.

Before anyone dares to bring up Paul, Catherine of Siena or Athanasius, let us remember that these folks acted like saints. That’s why we venerate them. They did not undermine the popes. They did not offend non-Catholics. They did not disagree with the pope in a belligerent manner. They were always submissive and humble in their expressions. The comparison does not hold.

Before one can claim Paul, Athanasius or Catherine did or said thus and thus, that person better make sure that his is as holy as these folks. Only then will his protest be expressed with the same love and same humility as these folks.

In essence, this kind of expression of disagreement only fits into Catholic tradition alongside of those who rebelled against the Church, not those who loved the Church. In other words, this is not the behavior of saints.

The Holy Rosary is not a political tool. To use it in such a manner is to use it as a political tool. This is a political statement, no matter which way one cuts it. The SSPX had its day in court during the years that it was in dialogue with Cardinal Levada and Pope Benedict. It said that it was not ready to accept what the Holy See had to offer. That’s fine. We respect their decision to discern and to wait, if that’s what they wish. But the clergy of the SSPX and its lay friends must also respect the decision of the local bishops to proceed without the Society.

This action was a violation of tradition. Those are my two cents for what they’re worth.

I couldn’t agree more. To misuse the Holy Rosary and the prayer that Christ taught us, and to call God a “false god” simply because Judaism and Protestantism understand and worship him imperfectly, is blasphemous.

 

[GPGT]

So, Jews and protestants follow “false gods?”

As Jews would openly deny the Trinity I can’t see why they should be involved in a service in a Catholic cathedral. I also can’t see why they would want to since they don’t believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah but I suppose that’s between them and God. The mere thought of something like this before Vatican II would have undoubtedly been called apostasy so it’s quite easy to see where the SSPX is coming from if you really think about it, not that I’d condone their actions.

 

[Jeanne1184]

I had no idea who SSPX was until this post. However, even if they weren’t a ‘known revolutionary group’, I can understand serious Catholics finding it highly bizarre for a Jewish rabbi to speak to the flock of Christ in His visible church from the altar.

It would be like St. Paul inviting a die-hard Pharisee to speak at one of his churches.

I think Christ would approve of the SSPX method of ‘prayer in protest’.

If the Pope (or clergy) wants to share Holocaust memories, then a local park or non-religious setting would have been appropriate. I doubt priests would be invited to speak at the synagogue…or have things gotten that chummy? Disconcerting thought.

If the God of the Jews and Muslims was the same God who is the Father of Jesus, why did Jesus come? If almost everyone hadn’t gotten sidetracked by the Powers and Principalities of this world, drastic measures wouldn’t have been necessary.

This isn’t about anti-other’s religions but about Christians being absolutely sure about Whom they serve and worship.

Jesus came: One, to bring the ‘original children’ back to the fold; and two, to offer adoption to the rest of us Gentiles who were spawned by the devil or other equally false gods. So, how could anyone prior to Jesus have been worshipping the True God except those few who were ‘children of Promise’ like Isaac, and the Prophets? Christ was a surprise to everyone - even “His own”.

Then again, if the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement can take over churches, why not anyone else? The anti-Christ has no problem passing himself off as Christ - just read 1&2 Timothy with the bits of Paul’s teaching thrown with the intent to deceive, for one example.

Things are certainly getting interesting in the world of Catholicism.

 

[RPRPsych]

In come the trolls.

“Apostasy”?

“Religion: Bible?”

I’m sure the Muslims must be having a huge laugh at your antics, guys. Go ahead and create further divisions, and trash the Jews. You’re playing their game.

 

[GPGT]

In come the trolls.

Let there be no question that my loyalty is with the Pope. I really don’t want to be thought of as a “troll” just for being able to point out one side’s point of view. And I’m quite sure the Muslims have their own apostasies to deal with.

 

[RPRPsych]

Let there be no question that my loyalty is with the Pope. I really don’t want to be thought of as a “troll” just for being able to point out one side’s point of view. And I’m quite sure the Muslims have their own apostasies to deal with.

Ouch, sorry about that. It’s hard to tell the difference between a candid friend and a troll sometimes. I must pray for discernment.

And as for the Muslims; yes, they have their problems. But, unlike us, they can present a united front against anyone they perceive as the adversary. Internecine quarrels like this will only weaken Christianity and the West further; the SSPX is a symptom, not the disease.

 

[Contarini]

Ouch, sorry about that. It’s hard to tell the difference between a candid friend and a troll sometimes. I must pray for discernment.

And as for the Muslims; yes, they have their problems. But, unlike us, they can present a united front against anyone they perceive as the adversary. Internecine quarrels like this will only weaken Christianity and the West further; the SSPX is a symptom, not the disease.

You’re wrong about Muslims. The fundamentalists who dominate contemporary Islam are able to present a “united front” only because they rule out other, perhaps more venerable expressions of Islam (most notably Sufism) as illegitimate.

I don’t see why anyone would want to imitate this.

This is not to condone the SSPX, only to say that imitating contemporary Islam is hardly something I would encourage.

 

[RPRPsych]

You’re wrong about Muslims. The fundamentalists who dominate contemporary Islam are able to present a “united front” only because they rule out other, perhaps more venerable expressions of Islam (most notably Sufism) as illegitimate.

I don’t see why anyone would want to imitate this.

This is not to condone the SSPX, only to say that imitating contemporary Islam is hardly something I would encourage.

I’m not saying we should imitate them. God forbid!

What I’m saying is that Western civilization is already on the decline, and disputes like this will weaken it further, leaving us vulnerable to further cultural or military infiltrations from the Muslim elephant that’s sleeping in the room, waiting for its time. The SSPX’s actions are just a symptom of a fundamental divide between the authoritarians, the permissives, and the Catholic Church which is the only organization trying to hold the centre.

 

[Contarini]

I’m not saying we should imitate them. God forbid!

What I’m saying is that Western civilization is already on the decline, and disputes like this will weaken it further, leaving us vulnerable to further cultural or military infiltrations from the Muslim elephant that’s sleeping in the room, waiting for its time. The SSPX’s actions are just a symptom of a fundamental divide between the authoritarians, the permissives, and the Catholic Church which is the only organization trying to hold the centre.

This is a digression and I apologize for starting it. But as a general principle I notice that the Christians who are most concerned with the “danger” of Islam are the ones who sound most like the very Muslims they are worried about. It was unfair of me to apply this to you in this context. But you tend to become like your enemies.

That’s why, personally, I’d prefer to have Eastern Orthodox monks for enemies.

Edwin

 

[RPRPsych]

This is a digression and I apologize for starting it. But as a general principle I notice that the Christians who are most concerned with the “danger” of Islam are the ones who sound most like the very Muslims they are worried about. It was unfair of me to apply this to you in this context. But you tend to become like your enemies.

That’s why, personally, I’d prefer to have Eastern Orthodox monks for enemies.

Edwin

Fully agreed! It reminds me of one of my favourite ever song lyrics:

“Choose your enemies carefully, for they will define you.” (U2, “Cedars of Lebanon”)

 

[KyrieEleison17]

The Holy Rosary is not a political tool. To use it in such a manner is to use it as a political tool. This is a political statement, no matter which way one cuts it.

I am beginning to think that groups like the SSPX are partly responding to or being influenced by a lot of emotions out of feelings like frustration or disappointment. As these tend to be aimed at society, they naturally take a political tone. Ironically enough, I think a lot of the wide-spread social ills that we know are of particular concern to our Holy Father by their nature can lead to this: you look at the nasty history of the relationship between economic woes and political extremism and there is, not surprisingly, a direct correspondence. Both far-left and far-right extremism flourished during periods of general or increased economic hardship combined with attempts to suppress or reduce human dignity: to reduce man to a conveniently marketable commodity.

In Constantine’s time, historians widely agree that the Church became such a hotbed of wrangling, partisanship and dispute in part because of combinations of political disenfranchisement - the Imperial monarchy steadily removed all real political power from the people - and in part because of the increasing burdens of empire on the people’s finances. The Church or, more broadly, religion - but the Church especially because she now had certain rights and freedoms under law- became one of the last -if not actually the last- refuge of something like free expression and social change, and also one of the last avenues of upward social mobility, a characteristic it would retain -for better or worse- well into Medieval times (Cardinal Wolsey comes to mind as an example).

In other words, I think instances like this speak also to general underlying difficulties; at the very least, such things or radicalism would not be so appealing in more ideal circumstances though they will always be there.

I think Pope-emeritus Benedict XVI in his Jesus of Nazareth series (specifically volume 2) did a fine job showing historically the realities that usually underlie “religious” extremism: i.e., that they are normally not religious but actually politically motivated being vented or expressed under religion. Bishop Fellay needs to watch this closely and not be tempted to align himself dangerously with popular feelings: trying to harness such emotions, passions or feelings is like trying to ride an unbroken stallion: it may seem strong and fast but it will not obey your commands and is really only entertaining you at best, and will eventually throw you off with much risk to your health.

 

[willie_duggan]

The very simple answer to this is for these ecumenical services not to be held in a Catholic church.

I have to say that I do not like the concept of a Catholic church being used to hold ecumenical/non-Catholic services.

Catholic churches should only hold Catholic ceremonies in my opinion.

 

[Contarini]

Is Catholicism a sect, or is it the true Church, in which all that is good and true finds a home?

Edwin

 

[willie_duggan]

Is Catholicism a sect, or is it the true Church, in which all that is good and true finds a home?

Edwin

The true home is expressed in the Catholic celebration of the sacraments, and not “ecumenical” ceremonies.

 

[Vouthon]

I am beginning to think that groups like the SSPX are partly responding to or being influenced by a lot of emotions out of feelings like frustration or disappointment. As these tend to be aimed at society, they naturally take a political tone. Ironically enough, I think a lot of the wide-spread social ills that we know are of particular concern to our Holy Father by their nature can lead to this: you look at the nasty history of the relationship between economic woes and political extremism and there is, not surprisingly, a direct correspondence. Both far-left and far-right extremism flourished during periods of general or increased economic hardship combined with attempts to suppress or reduce human dignity: to reduce man to a conveniently marketable commodity.

In Constantine’s time, historians widely agree that the Church became such a hotbed of wrangling, partisanship and dispute in part because of combinations of political disenfranchisement - the Imperial monarchy steadily removed all real political power from the people - and in part because of the increasing burdens of empire on the people’s finances. The Church or, more broadly, religion - but the Church especially because she now had certain rights and freedoms under law- became one of the last -if not actually the last- refuge of something like free expression and social change, and also one of the last avenues of upward social mobility, a characteristic it would retain -for better or worse- well into Medieval times (Cardinal Wolsey comes to mind as an example).

In other words, I think instances like this speak also to general underlying difficulties; at the very least, such things or radicalism would not be so appealing in more ideal circumstances though they will always be there.

I think Pope-emeritus Benedict XVI in his Jesus of Nazareth series (specifically volume 2) did a fine job showing historically the realities that usually underlie “religious” extremism: i.e., that they are normally not religious but actually politically motivated being vented or expressed under religion. Bishop Fellay needs to watch this closely and not be tempted to align himself dangerously with popular feelings: trying to harness such emotions, passions or feelings is like trying to ride an unbroken stallion: it may seem strong and fast but it will not obey your commands and is really only entertaining you at best, and will eventually throw you off with much risk to your health.

This was a very insightful and well-written post. Thank you!

 

[Rich_C]

…a schismatic sect… they remain yet outwith the Body of Christ through their own blindness to the Truth.

No holy father has declared them schismatic or outside the Body of Christ, the Church.

Your information is erroneous.

 

[Rich_C]

The SSPX believes that the documents from the Second Vatican Council espouse heresy. As such, they believe that no Pope from Paul VI onward is valid, considering instead the head of the SSPX to be the “true” pope.

This is totally false. However disobedience they have been, the SSPX has always recognized every pope from Peter to Francis as the rightful vicar of Christ.

It can be a sin to make false detractions, you know.