What do traditional folks really think of BW's criticism of the SSPX?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dee_S
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
I didn’t say it was. I simply say that it is not true that the SSPX has done nothing good.
Click to expand...
I can’t see it this way at all. Their intentions cannot be known by us, but their outward actions can, and to date they have spurned the authority of several Popes and promote a conception that the Church is at fault and that they are in the business of saving it. Rather a wild assumption, don’t you think?

Any goodness that may have come about due to association with the SSPX, would not be as a result of what they do, but rather where and to whom God chooses to dispense His Grace.
 
Tomdstone said:
Why give a sarcastic shrug when a husband and wife are raising a large family and bringing up these children with decent morals and good Christian values?
Click to expand...
Good Christian values in the Catholic Church include accepting the rules and regulations which the pope makes explicitly know and which are directed specifically to those families.

I find it a bit of a stretch to accept that the families which are attending SSPX churches are not aware that one Pope excommunicated the four bishops; that two Popes have told the SSPX to not ordain more men, and that the Church has said that the SSPX are incorrect in their theology.

I don’t doubt that if one researched deeply enough, that one could find a few people attending the SSPX churches solely because there was no EF available anywhere near them, and that they had no contact essentially with the other parishioners of the SSPX. But since I am not gullible enough to be making an offer on waterfront property in Arizona, I amn not going to believe that the majority of them are in such a situation.

Thus we are left with parishioners who support the SSPX in their defiance of the Pope and the Church. That is not my prescription for bringing up children in the Faith, or for that matter, bringing up children with decent morals and Christian values. Last I checked, disobedience to a lawful authority doesn’t fit that description; and children model on their parents actions, not just on what their parents tell them.
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

If you disagree with something that the Holy See has said or any other legitimate Church authority, please write them directly. DO NOT use our forum to contradict, challenge, criticize, or expound on your ideas contrary to those of the Holy See. No one on these forums has the right or the authority to challenge the Holy See on this site. Applying terms such as “modernist” to the Holy See or anything that the Holy Father or his delegates have said will be viewed as defiance and contempt.

If you’re going to defend bishops and their rights, begin by protecting the rights of the Holy Father and those who speak on his behalf or don’t post on TC Forum.

I’m dead serious on this.
 
The problem here lies in Bishop Williamson’s understanding of the mission of the SSPX. One would say that his understanding is that the mission of the Society is stagnant, unchangeable. This is problematic. Only religious orders have unchangeable missions. The moment that you apply the same law to a society of apostolic life, then it ceases to be a society and becomes an order. The SSPX was not founded to be an order.

The society of apostolic life is unique in the life of the Church, precisely because it is founded around an apostolate. As the apostolic needs of the Church change or as the resources of the society to meet that apostolic need change, so should the society.

Religious orders are founded on a static mission that can never change. That’s why religious orders are always founded around a way of life, not an apostolate. A way of life can continue unchanged or with only minor accommodations.

For example, the great orders: Benedictines, Augustinians, Franciscans, Dominicans, Cistercians, Jesuits and Carmelites were founded around a way of life. Their apostolic work has changed over the centuries; but the way that they live must remain as that which was prescribed by the founder. The SSPS is not in this category. Archbishop Lefebvre did not dictate a rule of life to the Society. Archbishop Lefebvre dictated a mission to the Society. That mission is subject to the needs of the Church. The Church has the final word on what she needs and does not need. Every society accommodates to the Church’s expression of her needs. No society dictates to the Church what she needs.

Bishop Williamson is treating the mission (apostolic activity) handed down by Archbishop Levebvre as if it were the same thing as the way of life handed down by Benedict, Francis, Ignatius or one of the other founders of orders. This is causing him to get stuck. He can’t accept that the SSPX can change and still remain faithful to its founder.
 
Mike30 said:
From everything I have ever been told or researched your analysis does not appear to be 100%completely correct. I will however hope that someone who knows the difference such as Brother JR, may see this thread, become interested and resolve the issue.
Click to expand...
Thanks for considering me somebody who doesn’t “know the difference”. 🙂
 
Dee_S said:
I can’t see it this way at all. Their intentions cannot be known by us, but their outward actions can, and to date they have spurned the authority of several Popes and promote a conception that the Church is at fault and that they are in the business of saving it. Rather a wild assumption, don’t you think?

Any goodness that may have come about due to association with the SSPX, would not be as a result of what they do, but rather where and to whom God chooses to dispense His Grace.
Click to expand...
As I suggested earlier, it’s a spurrious correlation. Any good that arises is in spite of their disobedience, not because of it.
 
Filii_Dei said:
Thanks for considering me somebody who doesn’t “know the difference”. 🙂
Click to expand...
You are in good company. I don’t know either. Thats why I was hoping that Brother JR would chime in. I’m sure he and probably he alone on this Forum really does know the difference.
 
JReducation said:
The problem here lies in Bishop Williamson’s understanding of the mission of the SSPX. One would say that his understanding is that the mission of the Society is stagnant, unchangeable. This is problematic. Only religious orders have unchangeable missions. The moment that you apply the same law to a society of apostolic life, then it ceases to be a society and becomes an order. The SSPX was not founded to be an order.

The society of apostolic life is unique in the life of the Church, precisely because it is founded around an apostolate. As the apostolic needs of the Church change or as the resources of the society to meet that apostolic need change, so should the society.

Religious orders are founded on a static mission that can never change. That’s why religious orders are always founded around a way of life, not an apostolate. A way of life can continue unchanged or with only minor accommodations.

For example, the great orders: Benedictines, Augustinians, Franciscans, Dominicans, Cistercians, Jesuits and Carmelites were founded around a way of life. Their apostolic work has changed over the centuries; but the way that they live must remain as that which was prescribed by the founder. The SSPS is not in this category. Archbishop Lefebvre did not dictate a rule of life to the Society. Archbishop Lefebvre dictated a mission to the Society. That mission is subject to the needs of the Church. The Church has the final word on what she needs and does not need. Every society accommodates to the Church’s expression of her needs. No society dictates to the Church what she needs.

Bishop Williamson is treating the mission (apostolic activity) handed down by Archbishop Levebvre as if it were the same thing as the way of life handed down by Benedict, Francis, Ignatius or one of the other founders of orders.** This is causing him to get stuck. He can’t accept that the SSPX can change and still remain faithful to its founder**.
Click to expand...
(my bold)
:thumbsup:thank you Br JR - I had never thought of it this way. And it is a way worth thinking about.
 
Dee_S said:
I can’t see it this way at all. Their intentions cannot be known by us, but their outward actions can, and to date they have spurned the authority of several Popes and promote a conception that the Church is at fault and that they are in the business of saving it. Rather a wild assumption, don’t you think?

Any goodness that may have come about due to association with the SSPX, would not be as a result of what they do, but rather where and to whom God chooses to dispense His Grace.
Click to expand...
I agree, Dee. I am starting to think that any attraction to them is nothing more than a smoke-screen. What possible good is having all of the exterior piety when the faith that is necessary to make it of any value is lacking? In that faith, I am including, first and foremost, obedience to the Holy Father.
 
otjm said:
Good Christian values in the Catholic Church include accepting the rules and regulations which the pope makes explicitly know and which are directed specifically to those families.

I find it a bit of a stretch to accept that the families which are attending SSPX churches are not aware that one Pope excommunicated the four bishops; that two Popes have told the SSPX to not ordain more men, and that the Church has said that the SSPX are incorrect in their theology.

I don’t doubt that if one researched deeply enough, that one could find a few people attending the SSPX churches solely because there was no EF available anywhere near them, and that they had no contact essentially with the other parishioners of the SSPX. But since I am not gullible enough to be making an offer on waterfront property in Arizona, I amn not going to believe that the majority of them are in such a situation.

Thus we are left with parishioners who support the SSPX in their defiance of the Pope and the Church. That is not my prescription for bringing up children in the Faith, or for that matter, bringing up children with decent morals and Christian values. Last I checked, disobedience to a lawful authority doesn’t fit that description; and children model on their parents actions, not just on what their parents tell them.
Click to expand...
This is what I was thinking, and thank you for saying it better than I could. 🙂
 
JReducation said:
The problem here lies in Bishop Williamson’s understanding of the mission of the SSPX. One would say that his understanding is that the mission of the Society is stagnant, unchangeable. This is problematic. Only religious orders have unchangeable missions. The moment that you apply the same law to a society of apostolic life, then it ceases to be a society and becomes an order. The SSPX was not founded to be an order.

The society of apostolic life is unique in the life of the Church, precisely because it is founded around an apostolate. As the apostolic needs of the Church change or as the resources of the society to meet that apostolic need change, so should the society.

Religious orders are founded on a static mission that can never change. That’s why religious orders are always founded around a way of life, not an apostolate. A way of life can continue unchanged or with only minor accommodations.

For example, the great orders: Benedictines, Augustinians, Franciscans, Dominicans, Cistercians, Jesuits and Carmelites were founded around a way of life. Their apostolic work has changed over the centuries; but the way that they live must remain as that which was prescribed by the founder. The SSPS is not in this category. Archbishop Lefebvre did not dictate a rule of life to the Society. Archbishop Lefebvre dictated a mission to the Society. That mission is subject to the needs of the Church. ** The Church has the final word on what she needs and does not need. Every society accommodates to the Church’s expression of her needs. No society dictates to the Church what she needs.**

Bishop Williamson is treating the mission (apostolic activity) handed down by Archbishop Levebvre as if it were the same thing as the way of life handed down by Benedict, Francis, Ignatius or one of the other founders of orders. This is causing him to get stuck. He can’t accept that the SSPX can change and still remain faithful to its founder.
Click to expand...
👍

I was starting to worry about you, Brother Jay, because I haven’t seen you here for a few days.
 
Lormar said:
I agree, Dee. I am starting to think that any attraction to them is nothing more than a smoke-screen. ** What possible good is having all of the exterior piety when the faith that is necessary to make it of any value is lacking? In that faith, I am including, first and foremost, obedience to the Holy Father.**
Click to expand...
(my bold)
:thumbsup:well put Lormar :highprayer:"…and upon this Rock I build My Church"
 
Lormar said:
I agree, Dee. I am starting to think that any attraction to them is nothing more than a smoke-screen. What possible good is having all of the exterior piety when the faith that is necessary to make it of any value is lacking? In that faith, I am including, first and foremost, obedience to the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
I am thinking this way also. I find it troubling in other conversations when the focus is often on what the priest is wearing (special vestments) or exactly how folks say the rosary (no luminous mysteries) for example and not on any other aspects of faith - obedience to the Pope and local Ordinary being just one of the aspects.
 
A while back BW offered his services as a bishop to what he termed “The Resistance”, those priests who have left or have been expelled by the SSPX resulting from Bishop Fellay’s almost reconciliation talks with Rome in 2012.

At present, on their website, they are stating that those involved in this attempt are Masons…

“The SSPX spokespersons are attempting damage control, as is readily to be seen by their recent talks and conferences. Once one ( eg: Fellay, Pflugger, Ratzinger, Hoyos, Mueller, etc)joins the illuminati, they learn that everything, from then on out, must be deceptive.”
*** Note: They, themselves, brag of their worship, they do their “work” on their altars, they worship their “god”, (the “Great Architect of the Universe”),they have their “initiations” with secret words and symbols, they have their Lector, their Porter, their Acolytes, their “Worshipful Masters.” The most unfortunate thing, once the acolyte has requested “the illumination” from the lodge, if he ever realizes this is a religion, there’s not much of a way out!! But we cannot go along with them, and let them live the lies as heads of the SSPX. They must be deposed, and all the advisers of Fellay ,Lorans, and Kraw replaced. **

The general drift in all their writings and reports is that the present leadership of the SSPX must be removed (for their betrayal) and replaced by themselves (faithful to the cause).

BW is currently travelling and doing Confirmations etc among this Resistance:confused:
It is reported that when he visited in Post Falls he said “I am sorry that Bp Fellay has done such deeds which require my presence here!”
**
**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top