What am I missing about the SSPX?

  • Thread starter Thread starter holdencaulfield
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

holdencaulfield

Guest
I don’t understand why everyone hates them so much. What do they do that is wrong. I could see how they are annoying if they have a “im better than you” attitude, however what do they do that’s wrong. I don’t understand. The way I see it:
  • They follow Vatican II
  • They follow Pope Benedict XVI
  • They are not in schism.
Am I wrong about something?
 
holdencaulfield said:
I don’t understand why everyone hates them so much. What do they do that is wrong. I could see how they are annoying if they have a “im better than you” attitude, however what do they do that’s wrong. I don’t understand. The way I see it:
  • They follow Vatican II
  • They follow Pope Benedict XVI
  • They are not in schism.
Am I wrong about something?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that most people here actually hate them. I, for one, don’t hate them and am unhappy with their actions. In fact, I’d hardly agree with the three things you see. Maybe it would be helpful if you listed how you seem them following VII and following B16. And as for the schism, most here wouldn’t state that all of the SSPX are in schism. That said, I’m sure that most thing their bishops are excommunicated and that their priests are suspended and probably(although none of us could say anything more than the Ecclesia Dei Commission has said about this) also excommunicated. Again, hate isn’t the norm around these part. I hate the situation they are in, I think it’slargely their own doing and I hope that the whole situation will be made a thing of the past very soon.
 
In Holden’s defense, he looked at the other thread that was mentioned and realized that SSPX is not what first thought it was. Take a look at those posts then his there and I think you will see how he changed his mind and drew his conclusions.

I, for one, respect someone who asks an honest question about a difficult topic, then realizes the situation and changes their mind. That is intellectual honesty and something worth of respect.
 
rpp said:
In Holden’s defense, he looked at the other thread that was mentioned and realized that SSPX is not what first thought it was. Take a look at those posts then his there and I think you will see how he changed his mind and drew his conclusions.

I, for one, respect someone who asks an honest question about a difficult topic, then realizes the situation and changes their mind. That is intellectual honesty and something worth of respect.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I still don’t like them, however I do acknowledge that I was wrong about them. However I don’t agree with what they do. Sure I dislike the NO and like the TLM, but that’s not justification for what they did.
 
holdencaulfield said:
I don’t understand why everyone hates them so much. What do they do that is wrong. I could see how they are annoying if they have a “im better than you” attitude, however what do they do that’s wrong. I don’t understand. The way I see it:
  • They follow Vatican II
  • They follow Pope Benedict XVI
  • They are not in schism.
Am I wrong about something?
Click to expand...
“They follow Vatican II”. No they don’t! They quote more from Vatican 1 than Vatican II. They remind us over and over that Vatican II did not define anything, as though Vatican II did not teach us, and lead us into the spirit of Ecumenism, which they hate.

'They are not in schism". Yes, they are! They formed their own hierarchy with illicit ordinations. They had the opportunity, again, to rejoin the Church. They met with Benedict, and told him to stick it. That was a year and half ago, and they have not come back. They want more. They want us to honor them, and canonize their Archbishop.

“They follow Benedict XVI.” No they don’t! They hope that with what they got out of the pope relative to the TLM they can get more. But Benedict made a personal appeal to them to return, and they sneared at him.

You are wrong. Stop, please, defending this stuff.

Your Abbott
 
Your_Abbott said:
“They follow Vatican II”. No they don’t! They quote more from Vatican 1 than Vatican II. They remind us over and over that Vatican II did not define anything, as though Vatican II did not teach us, and lead us into the spirit of Ecumenism, which they hate.

'They are not in schism". Yes, they are! They formed their own hierarchy with illicit ordinations. They had the opportunity, again, to rejoin the Church. They met with Benedict, and told him to stick it. That was a year and half ago, and they have not come back. They want more. They want us to honor them, and canonize their Archbishop.

“They follow Benedict XVI.” No they don’t! They hope that with what they got out of the pope relative to the TLM they can get more. But Benedict made a personal appeal to them to return, and they sneared at him.

You are wrong. Stop, please, defending this stuff.

Your Abbott
Click to expand...
I went to their website and the only thing that I can see they are not in schism according to the Holy See. They do follow Vatican II , how do they not? The only thing I can see them as not doing is not following the will of the Pope. They don’t really follow Rome, however I mean are they wrong about anything doctrinally.
 
Holden, how much of the SSPX website have you actually read?

If you read through the whole thing, you will find that they (1) advise Catholics not to attend the NO mass and (2) not to confess with NO priests. They also express reservation about Catholics attending diocesan approved FSSP masses!

Additionally, I have met Catholics who have been told by SSPX priests that attending the NO mass is a mortal sin.

There’s a lot of problems with the SSPX - and not “following the will of the Pope” is just the tip of the iceberg.
 
holdencaulfield said:
I don’t understand why everyone hates them so much. What do they do that is wrong. I could see how they are annoying if they have a “im better than you” attitude, however what do they do that’s wrong. I don’t understand. The way I see it:
  • They follow Vatican II
  • They follow Pope Benedict XVI
  • They are not in schism.
Am I wrong about something?
Click to expand...
They follow Vatican II? That’s like claiming, what is wrong with the Muslims, they follow Bush! 😛

The 2nd one is unclear. They might “follow” (I assume you mean agree?) with the current Pope, but their group was started by disobeying the Pope. Antichrist was a popular term.

The 3rd one is also unclear. Do you mean the group of priests and other religious who practice outside of the Church? Are you talking about members that might not be fully catechized and believe they are in a Catholic church?
 
tcraig said:
Holden, how much of the SSPX website have you actually read?

If you read through the whole thing, you will find that they (1) advise Catholics not to attend the NO mass and (2) not to confess with NO priests. They also express reservation about Catholics attending diocesan approved FSSP masses!

Additionally, I have met Catholics who have been told by SSPX priests that attending the NO mass is a mortal sin.

There’s a lot of problems with the SSPX - and not “following the will of the Pope” is just the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...
Oh, I guess there is then.
 
hasikelee said:
They follow Vatican II? That’s like claiming, what is wrong with the Muslims, they follow Bush! 😛

The 2nd one is unclear. They might “follow” (I assume you mean agree?) with the current Pope, but their group was started by disobeying the Pope. Antichrist was a popular term.

The 3rd one is also unclear. Do you mean the group of priests and other religious who practice outside of the Church? Are you talking about members that might not be fully catechized and believe they are in a Catholic church?
Click to expand...
I mean the people.
 
holdencaulfield said:
I went to their website and the only thing that I can see they are not in schism according to the Holy See. They do follow Vatican II , how do they not? The only thing I can see them as not doing is not following the will of the Pope. They don’t really follow Rome, however I mean are they wrong about anything doctrinally.
Click to expand...
Did you not read Ecclesia Dei. It was signed by the Pope himself. He said they caused schism, and they were excommunicated.

That is pretty heavy stuff. They are putting their immortal salvation at risk. Let’s call a spade a spade.

Your Abbott
 
holdencaulfield said:
I mean the people.
Click to expand...
If you mean the people, then it sounds as if you are simply calling for more understanding and compassion on a personal level, something we should all try to do.

For example, it might be good to know that the group itself is in schism and was started by disobeying the teachings of Catholicism, but on an individual level, the personal culpability and understanding of someone practicing within SSPX can’t be logically debated.

That would be like trying to see into someone’s heart, or test their amount of knowledge on faith. Not possible, or entirely relevant to anything.

I can use my grandma as a good example. She is a very devout Filipina steeped in SSPX. She truly believes she is practicing her Catholic faith. There is no mean-spirited intention in her heart.

That doesn’t mean she is doing the right thing, nor does it mean I should cover up certain facts. Typically, with it being impossible to judge a person’s heart, forums such as these can only talk about actual facts, such as SSPX as a group.

Maybe this is where you are having a misunderstanding?
 
holdencaulfield said:
I went to their website and the only thing that I can see they are not in schism according to the Holy See. They do follow Vatican II , how do they not? The only thing I can see them as not doing is not following the will of the Pope. They don’t really follow Rome, however I mean are they wrong about anything doctrinally.
Click to expand...
Actually, they generally reject Vatican II. That is one of the points of contention. They want the Holy Father to repudiate Vatican II on the grounds that non-Catholic Theologians participated (but did not contribute). On paper, they say they accept it, but when Bishop Fellay rather rudely rejected meeting with the Holy Father last summer after the Motu Proprio was officially announced, it became clear that it was the erasure of Vatican II that they wanted.

The problem, as I see it, is that they cannot understand that a modern (not modernist) perspective can be valid and faithful.

Their issues with it are two-fold.

Vatican II was not doctrinal. That is it neither defined nor clarified and doctrines. It was pastoral in nature. So really, V-II does not have much of an impact other than to help bring certain attitudes and perspective in cleaarer focus. (I know this, I had a full semester class that was a survey of Vatican II and we real all the documents.) However, as there are no anathemas or condemnations in it, I think that leads some SSPX leaders to look at it with suspicion.

The other problem is what happened after Vatican II. The Mass of Pope Paul VI was introduced shortly afterwards, and a liturgical, and, consequently, doctrinal free-for-all began in many quarters. Heresy and heterodoxy abounded. SSPX blames Vatican II for this.

The problem with that is that the origins of these abuses predate the calling of that council. For example, the admission of openly gay pmen to seminaries began in the late 1950s in the USA. (These men would later end up destroying many young people and costing the Church billions of dollars.) Liturgical abuse was common, perhaps even more common than today because the Latin Rite Mass before Paul VI has virtually no “options”.

But these are conveniently ignored. It is just easier to blame V-II and be done with it.

But that is not the problem. The real problem is that groups like the SSPX have destroyed their own credibility within the Church and have effectively eliminated any influence they may have by behaving in this arrogant manner.

What the Church need is faithful Christians who understand their faith and understand traditions and will not compromise. Instead, groups like the SSPX, and similar sedavacantist groups, lure away the the very people who can help keep the bark of Peter afloat.

We need their faithfulness. We need their orthodoxy. We need their obedience. The Church needs the SSPX. (But the SSPX needs the Church more!)
 
Good point, yes the SSPX are trying to destroy the Church from the outside, not heal it from the inside.
 
holdencaulfield said:
Good point, yes the SSPX are trying to destroy the Church from the outside, not heal it from the inside.
Click to expand...
I think I disagree with your characterization. I do not think the SSPX wants to destroy the Church. I think the SSPX believes the Church is losing her way and is about to sail over a waterfall.

Using that analogy, rather than trying to help steer the Church away from the precipice, they are afraid to they will be caught in the torrent and destroyed with everyone else. So they jumped ship and are trying to get away.

Now what do you call someone who abandons their post when things get difficult or even scary?
 
rpp said:
I think I disagree with your characterization. I do not think the SSPX wants to destroy the Church. I think the SSPX believes the Church is losing her way and is about to sail over a waterfall.

Using that analogy, rather than trying to help steer the Church away from the precipice, they are afraid to they will be caught in the torrent and destroyed with everyone else. So they jumped ship and are trying to get away.

Now what do you call someone who abandons their post when things get difficult or even scary?
Click to expand...
An abandoner. Bad…good apology.
 
There is a great movie that can be seen as a parallel to this. It is called the Caine Mutiny featuring Humphrey Bogart, Van Johnson Fred MacMurray, Robert Francis and Jose Ferrar. Watch the movie and mentally replace the names of the Characters.

Capt. Queeg (Bogart) = Pope John Paul II
Lt. Kieffer (MacMurray) = Hans Kung, Gregory Baum or the liberal fruitcake of your choice.
Lt. Cmdr. Steve Maryk (Van Johnson) = Archbishop Lefebvre
Lt. Keith (Francis) = lay SSPX members
Lt. Greenwald JAG (Ferrar) = Cardinal Ratzinger when Prefect of the CDF. (okay, the analogy breaks down here a bit,but you will get at the very end.)

Such analogies help me to understand difficult situations. But DO NOT ignore the closing scene with Greenwald, Kieffer, Keith and Maryk.
 
Vatican II was not doctrinal. That is it neither defined nor clarified and doctrines.
Click to expand...
Is this your argument or what you believe the SSPX thinks? Danka.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top