What good would the SSPX bring to the Church?

[DL82]

Of course, God wills all men to be united to His Holy Catholic Church, as He wills all men to be saved. I for one hope that each member of the SSPX comes home to Rome.

However, as a corporate body, what would the Society add to the Church? They say the Extraordinary Form of the Mass with great reverence - so do the FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, FI’s, numerous other orders and many secular priests. Those other groups do not however question the validity of the Ordinary Form, and sew division in the Church.

They have a thorough understanding of the Church’s traditional moral teachings prior to Vatican II, I admit, but so do the FSSP and for that matter all well-catechised Catholics. Further, they have an understanding of those teachings which is does not accept the valid development of doctrine. I would suggest, further, that since the repose of Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX has gone from a conservative viewpoint, conserving Catholic culture as it was in the 1950’s, to a reactionary, perennialist understanding, moving ever backwards in search of a supposed golden age in the Church, whenever that might have been (Council of Trent? 1400s? 1200s?) imposing on its members practices of dress, fasting and politics which had long since fallen out of use among the pre-Vatican II faithful, and making increasingly apocalyptic predictions about the near future, which are more in keeping with Protestant fundamentalists or other non-Catholic mysticism.

The Eastern Churches are admitted to full communion recognizing that the disciplinary councils which took place after the Great Schism were not ‘ecumenical’ for them, as they dealt only with the Latin rite, whose bishops alone were represented. In turn, the Eastern Churches submit entirely to the moral and theological teachings of those councils, interpreting Trent, Vatican I and II, etc. in the light of their own traditions. They bring their own theological and liturgical richness into the fullness of the Church. Something similar could be said about the Anglican tradition, and the ways they have been accommodated by the Holy Father’s recent encyclical.

The SSPX, on the other hand, belong to the Latin Rite of the Church, so surely the only way they can be admitted is to come under the full teaching authority of that Church, recognising that all of its councils and pronouncements are binding on them, as on all other parts of that Rite. I don’t see the Church making similar concessions to other Catholic groups in irregular standing, such as the Old Catholics - each of whom is validly confirmed and need only make a valid confession and profession of faith to be admitted to full communion. The idea of having a society in the Church which is free to dissent from core teachings that are binding on all other Catholics seems odd at best, and I am sure an offer to ‘soften’ the Church’s teachings to accommodate the Old Catholics would be extremely unwelcome among many posters on this forum.

Of course, I hope and pray that each and every bishop, priest, religious and lay member of the SSPX come back into union with Rome, and I trust that the hierarchy knows what it is doing in the offer it has made. At the same time, I really don’t see what benefit the SSPX brings to the Church as a corporate body, though I am happy to be enlightened by those who know it better than I.

 

[Tears_of_Assisi]

Hi, my comment in bold in the quoted text.

Of course, God wills all men to be united to His Holy Catholic Church, as He wills all men to be saved. I for one hope that each member of the SSPX comes home to Rome.

However, as a corporate body, what would the Society add to the Church? They say the Extraordinary Form of the Mass with great reverence - so do the FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, FI’s, numerous other orders and many secular priests. Those other groups do not however question the validity of the Ordinary Form, and sew division in the Church.

They have a thorough understanding of the Church’s traditional moral teachings prior to Vatican II, I admit, but so do the FSSP and for that matter all well-catechised Catholics. Further, they have an understanding of those teachings which is does not accept the valid development of doctrine. I would suggest, further, that since the repose of Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX has gone from a conservative viewpoint, conserving Catholic culture as it was in the 1950’s, to a reactionary, perennialist understanding, moving ever backwards in search of a supposed golden age in the Church, whenever that might have been (Council of Trent? 1400s? 1200s?) imposing on its members practices of dress, fasting and politics which had long since fallen out of use among the pre-Vatican II faithful, and making increasingly apocalyptic predictions about the near future, which are more in keeping with Protestant fundamentalists or other non-Catholic mysticism.

If your description of the SSPX is true, why would they be interacting with Rome ? And certainly, if Rome viewed them as you do, there would be a declaration of schism rather than an offer of reconciliation.

The Eastern Churches are admitted to full communion recognizing that the disciplinary councils which took place after the Great Schism were not ‘ecumenical’ for them, as they dealt only with the Latin rite, whose bishops alone were represented. In turn, the Eastern Churches submit entirely to the moral and theological teachings of those councils, interpreting Trent, Vatican I and II, etc. in the light of their own traditions. They bring their own theological and liturgical richness into the fullness of the Church. Something similar could be said about the Anglican tradition, and the ways they have been accommodated by the Holy Father’s recent encyclical.

The SSPX, on the other hand, belong to the Latin Rite of the Church, so surely the only way they can be admitted is to come under the full teaching authority of that Church, recognising that all of its councils and pronouncements are binding on them, as on all other parts of that Rite. I don’t see the Church making similar concessions to other Catholic groups in irregular standing, such as the Old Catholics - each of whom is validly confirmed and need only make a valid confession and profession of faith to be admitted to full communion. The idea of having a society in the Church which is free to dissent from core teachings that are binding on all other Catholics seems odd at best, and I am sure an offer to ‘soften’ the Church’s teachings to accommodate the Old Catholics would be extremely unwelcome among many posters on this forum.

Of course, I hope and pray that each and every bishop, priest, religious and lay member of the SSPX come back into union with Rome, and I trust that the hierarchy knows what it is doing in the offer it has made. At the same time, I really don’t see what benefit the SSPX brings to the Church as a corporate body, though I am happy to be enlightened by those who know it better than I.

I just can’t see how your view of the SSPX is united with the view of Rome towards them. You have already answered your own question of what will they bring.
“They have a thorough understanding of the Church’s traditional moral teachings prior to Vatican II”

What you don’t seem to see, is that this quality is essential.

The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.

Pope BXVI
blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/12/official-text-of-popes-letter-to-bishops-on-williamson-affair/

So here we see that it is not a one sided thing. To reject everything since VII is indeed an error, but to reject everything before VII is an error as well. And this is the problem of disunity. For example, one can’t say that the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no longer applicable to these times in which we live. One can’t abrogate or change doctrine. The pope can’t do it. Yet this heresy is in our midst today.

To expect a society of orthodox priests to accept such is absurd.

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t think anyone would assert that the 1400s were the golden age of the Church.

It seems that you have headed off all the usual answers to this question by pointing to the FSSP as the ones who are offering the same benefits as the SSPX but are doing it the right way. I don’t really have an answer to that.

For me, I think one of the good things would be that it would serve as a great example of healing wounds and resolving disagreements in the Church. It would do my heart good, such as it does in seeing the various Agnlican communions (who were also part of the Latin church once upon a time) come back into the fold.

I am curious to see how it all plays out. I would hate to see the SSPX go the way of the Old Catholics. I think this present dialogue is really leading up to a final moment where the SSPX has to choose whether they are in or out. They’ve sort of been in this state of limbo. Their proponents are pretty vocal about them not being in formal schism but only having an “irregular status”. Fine. Call it whatever you like, but it cannot go on like it has indefinitely. What happens when Fellay gets on in years? Will he go the way of Lefebvre and start illicitly consecrating bishops? Or will he submit to more ecclesial oversight? If he does nothing, there will be no future SSPX bishops, which means no future SSPX priests, which means no more SSPX before too long. So he has to do one or the other for SSPX to continue. What will he choose?

 

[Tears_of_Assisi]

Their proponents are pretty vocal about them not being in formal schism but only having an “irregular status”. Fine. Call it whatever you like, but it cannot go on like it has indefinitely.

This is crazy, some of the comments posted here.

Would you please explain how schism can be even a remote possibility ? Right now, today. How can they be in schism, have the excommunications of their bishops lifted, and still remain in schism ?

No offense, but there is so much denial in the air, it’s not possible to discuss the SSPX with anyone other than the SSPX clergy or their flock on this forum, or any forum for that matter.

At what point in time did Rome determine it would be appropriate for random laity to declare schisms instead of Rome herself ? Is this a VII policy ?

 

[Joe_5859]

This is crazy, some of the comments posted here.

Would you please explain how schism can be even a remote possibility ? Right now, today. How can they be in schism, have the excommunications of their bishops lifted, and still remain in schism ?

No offense, but there is so much denial in the air, it’s not possible to discuss the SSPX with anyone other than the SSPX clergy or their flock on this forum, or any forum for that matter.

At what point in time did Rome determine it would be appropriate for random laity to declare schisms instead of Rome herself ? Is this a VII policy ?

I think you misunderstood my post. I am not declaring SSPX to be in schism. I don’t work for the Ecclesia Dei Commission. I know it’s not my call.

I’m just looking ahead to the future. I don’t see any other option in the future than either formal reconciliation or formal schism. Do you? If you do, please share as I would happily be corrected. Bishop Fellay (and the other 3 SSPX bishops) are not going to be around forever. Do they plan on having other bishops take their place? How will those bishops be appointed? Either the Holy See will be involved in that process or they won’t. If the SSPX illicitly consecrates some bishops again, I cannot see the Vatican just doing the same things they’ve done the past 20 years all over again.

In any case, I’m sorry for getting the discussion side-tracked. I should have kept my comments limited to the discussion at hand.

 

[Tears_of_Assisi]

Joe, I can’t answer the questions about a sustained SSPX.

Perhaps this may help us understand it isn’t simply the SSPX against Rome. Many others are concerned as well.

dici.org/en/documents/petition-to-pope-benedict-xvi-for-a-more-in-depth-examination-of-the-second-ecumenical-vatican-council/

 

[Joe_5859]

Joe, I can’t answer the questions about a sustained SSPX.

Perhaps this may help us understand it isn’t simply the SSPX against Rome. Many others are concerned as well.

dici.org/en/documents/petition-to-pope-benedict-xvi-for-a-more-in-depth-examination-of-the-second-ecumenical-vatican-council/

That’s fine that you can’t answer the questions. Really, the main point I was dancing around with my wordy speculation is that I hope it does not come to that. I pray for reconciliation.

That link you posted brings up a whole slew of other points, but I’ll refrain from commenting (oh. so. hard. to. resist… ) in the interest of not derailing DL82’s thread further.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

They have about 500 priests at the moment. That would be a great contribution imo.

 

[manualman]

… For example, one can’t say that the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no longer applicable to these times in which we live. One can’t abrogate or change doctrine. The pope can’t do it. Yet this heresy is in our midst today.

I’m curious what you mean by this example though. Are you denouncing nominal catholics who appear to be morphing into de facto Unitarians or are you implying that anybody who doesn’t hold the Feeneyite definition is a heretic?

Because, of course, there is an entirely different understanding of ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ that affirms it while rejecting the Feeneyite interpretation…

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

I’m curious what you mean by this example though. Are you denouncing nominal catholics who appear to be morphing into de facto Unitarians or are you implying that anybody who doesn’t hold the Feeneyite definition is a heretic?

Because, of course, there is an entirely different understanding of ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ that affirms it while rejecting the Feeneyite interpretation…

Extra ecclesiam nulla sallus is in no way Feeneyite, it is a defined dogma of Holy Mother Church not a heresy (in fact, to deny it is manifest heresy). The Feeneyite position is that only those with a water baptism may obtain eternal salvation -they reject baptism of desire and of blood-. There is hope that those who died (through no fault of their own) without knowledge of the Church may be saved, but it’s erroneous to suggest that salvation is open to all regardless of faith (or lack of).

As for the OP’s question as to “what the SSPX has to bring to the Church”, all I have to say is that all the SSPX has -from bishops to seminarians, from laity to religious- already belongs to Christ and his Holy Catholic Church. They always have and as long as the SSPX remains the SSPX, they always will be!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Of course, I hope and pray that each and every bishop, priest, religious and lay member of the SSPX come back into union with Rome, and I trust that the hierarchy knows what it is doing in the offer it has made. At the same time, I really don’t see what benefit the SSPX brings to the Church as a corporate body, though I am happy to be enlightened by those who know it better than I.

How can you not see the benefit of bringing millions of souls into the Church? And avoiding a schism? Does it have to bring something new and unique to the Church? What’s wrong with just bringing faithful souls who pray? Is that not enough? It’s like you don’t see the value in a group of Catholics unless they’re doing something new and weird.

 

[manualman]

…but it’s erroneous to suggest that salvation is open to all regardless of faith (or lack of).

So it’s the first concern I mentioned then (catholics who are closet unitarians)?

Apart from very secularized nominal catholics, are y’all really encountering people who believe that? Has somebody met a priest or bishop who attempted to declare that EENS is invalid today? I’ve encountered some alarmingly sloppy interpretations of “baptism of desire” but no outright denial.

 

[TrueLight]

I find it somewhat amusing, that like the Phoenix, SSPX threads die and rise again.

 

[DL82]

How can you not see the benefit of bringing millions of souls into the Church? And avoiding a schism? Does it have to bring something new and unique to the Church? What’s wrong with just bringing faithful souls who pray? Is that not enough? It’s like you don’t see the value in a group of Catholics unless they’re doing something new and weird.

I explicitly said in my OP that I welcome each and every soul in the SSPX coming into regular standing in the Church. Just as I would welcome anyone, convert, revert, priest, lay, religious or otherwise. Nonetheless, these people come to the Church as individual Catholics, and promise to be faithful to the Magisterium, submitting to its authority.

The SSPX, on the other hand, is being offered the opportunity to come into the Church as a corporate body. It will remain the SSPX, while being in the Church. When I came into the Church from an Evangelical background, I did not remain an Evangelical while being in the Church, but became fully Catholic. I had to reject those parts of my former faith that were contrary to Church teaching. Will the SSPX do the same, or will she continue to scorn Vatican II, the Ordinary Form of the Mass and other legitimate developments in the Church?

Normally, when a body exists in the Church, it does so with a unique charism. The Traditional Anglicans, who recently came into the Church, bring with them an appreciation of reverent use of English in the liturgy, and unique pastoral insights from the Anglican tradition. Opus Dei exists to sanctify daily work, the Franciscan friars exemplify poverty, the FSSP preserves reverent traditional Latin masses, the Carthusians model silent contemplation. What does the SSPX offer as a body, that would make its incorporation as a society, as opposed to the reversion of its individual members, a gift to the Church?

 

[Cristiano]

I explicitly said in my OP that I welcome each and every soul in the SSPX coming into regular standing in the Church. Just as I would welcome anyone, convert, revert, priest, lay, religious or otherwise. Nonetheless, these people come to the Church as individual Catholics, and promise to be faithful to the Magisterium, submitting to its authority.

The SSPX, on the other hand, is being offered the opportunity to come into the Church as a corporate body. It will remain the SSPX, while being in the Church. When I came into the Church from an Evangelical background, I did not remain an Evangelical while being in the Church, but became fully Catholic. I had to reject those parts of my former faith that were contrary to Church teaching. Will the SSPX do the same, or will she continue to scorn Vatican II, the Ordinary Form of the Mass and other legitimate developments in the Church?

Normally, when a body exists in the Church, it does so with a unique charism. The Traditional Anglicans, who recently came into the Church, bring with them an appreciation of reverent use of English in the liturgy, and unique pastoral insights from the Anglican tradition. Opus Dei exists to sanctify daily work, the Franciscan friars exemplify poverty, the FSSP preserves reverent traditional Latin masses, the Carthusians model silent contemplation. What does the SSPX offer as a body, that would make its incorporation as a society, as opposed to the reversion of its individual members, a gift to the Church?

If I were you I could look at the SSPX as we are looking at the Anglicans coming into communion with Rome. The goal is to welcome the Anglicans into the full communion with Catholic Church not because of what they could bring as a specific charisma but simply because it is good for their souls, at the same time they are allowed to retain some of their original characteristics because it gives them comfort and they are not in contradiction with the Church teachings. Same thing for the SSPX, bring them in full communion for the sake of their souls and allow them to be comfortable and without doctrinal differences.The present pope make it clear that I does not want to see Catholics forced into categories/boxes/labels that are neither real nor necessary.

 

[Mike30]

I don’t think anyone would assert that the 1400s were the golden age of the Church.

It seems that you have headed off all the usual answers to this question by pointing to the FSSP as the ones who are offering the same benefits as the SSPX but are doing it the right way. I don’t really have an answer to that.

For me, I think one of the good things would be that it would serve as a great example of healing wounds and resolving disagreements in the Church. It would do my heart good, such as it does in seeing the various Agnlican communions (who were also part of the Latin church once upon a time) come back into the fold.

I am curious to see how it all plays out. I would hate to see the SSPX go the way of the Old Catholics. I think this present dialogue is really leading up to a final moment where the SSPX has to choose whether they are in or out. They’ve sort of been in this state of limbo. ** Their proponents are pretty vocal about them not** being in formal schism but only having an “irregular status”. Fine. Call it whatever you like, but it cannot go on like it has indefinitely. What happens when Fellay gets on in years? Will he go the way of Lefebvre and start illicitly consecrating bishops? Or will he submit to more ecclesial oversight? If he does nothing, there will be no future SSPX bishops, which means no future SSPX priests, which means no more SSPX before too long. So he has to do one or the other for SSPX to continue. What will he choose?

Actually Joe,it is the Church Herself who says that the SSPX is in an irregular status,.not just proponents. That is why the supporters say irregular status, because the Church does.That must really stick in the craw of those who despise the Society so much that they waste not a single opportunity to trash it in any way possible/.

 

[ProVobis]

What good would it do? Well for starters, there are 500 priests who are trained in saying the Latin Mass. And what is the most common reason given by priests for not saying the Latin Mass? It seems that it’s that they don’t know how. So there’s the obvious and immediate benefit to the Church. Not to mention restating the Catholic doctrine as defined by Trent.

Yes, one could use the argument that he can attend SSPX Masses now. True but how many won’t even buy an Angelus Press handmissal because they’re “associated” with the SSPX, much less drive by an SSPX chapel.

Rhetorical question.

 

[ProVobis]

Normally, when a body exists in the Church, it does so with a unique charism. The Traditional Anglicans, who recently came into the Church, bring with them an appreciation of reverent use of English in the liturgy, and unique pastoral insights from the Anglican tradition.

I happen to be email friends with someone who happens to be a woman Anglican pastor. She provides a pastoral service all right and she’s very good but I don’t think she and I share the same faith. Just saying.

 

[pnewton]

They have about 500 priests at the moment. That would be a great contribution imo.

You think?

Wow! What a great asset. I think theologically they also have a lot to offer. Traditional theologians have always provided balance to liberal theologians, and visa versa. Both sides are important. This is one way the Church grows in its understanding. Even their continued dialogue of Vatican II may lead to a more precise understanding of that council. The key, they have to understand that they are but one side of the issue and the buck stops in Rome.

 

[jmj1984]

However, as a corporate body, what would the Society add to the Church? They say the Extraordinary Form of the Mass with great reverence - so do the FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, FI’s, numerous other orders and many secular priests. Those other groups do not however question the validity of the Ordinary Form, and sew division in the Church.

The SSPX does not question the validity of the Novus Ordo as they have made abundantly clear over the last thirty years, they have however stated they believe that the Traditional Latin Saraments are more efficacious than the New Sacraments. This view is also subscribed to by at least some within the FSSP, including Fr Ripperger who is a professor at the FSSP’s Our Lady of Guadalupe seminary and openly states this in many sermons and talks provided on his website

As for sowing division, are their actions worse than those of the hundreds of priests who have joined the ‘Call to Action’ in Austria?

I would suggest, further, that since the repose of Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX has gone from a conservative viewpoint, conserving Catholic culture as it was in the 1950’s, to a reactionary, perennialist understanding, moving ever backwards in search of a supposed golden age in the Church, whenever that might have been (Council of Trent? 1400s? 1200s?) imposing on its members practices of dress, fasting and politics which had long since fallen out of use among the pre-Vatican II faithful, and making increasingly apocalyptic predictions about the near future, which are more in keeping with Protestant fundamentalists or other non-Catholic mysticism.

This is simply nonsense. There are many reasons one can disagree with the society but one should do so on the basis of fact not fiction, if one criticises the practices of theology, dress and fasting of the society one must also criticise that of the FSSP as they are essentially the same. As for politics, this is simply false, do you believe that all their priests and bishops spout the same political agenda? Given the different political climates in the various countries they operate this simply couldnt be true. True they are probably more inclined to the right wing, but so are most conservative catholics and even more so traditionalist catholics.

The Eastern Churches are admitted to full communion recognizing that the disciplinary councils which took place after the Great Schism were not ‘ecumenical’ for them, as they dealt only with the Latin rite, whose bishops alone were represented. In turn, the Eastern Churches submit entirely to the moral and theological teachings of those councils, interpreting Trent, Vatican I and II, etc. in the light of their own traditions. They bring their own theological and liturgical richness into the fullness of the Church. Something similar could be said about the Anglican tradition, and the ways they have been accommodated by the Holy Father’s recent encyclical.

Could you perhaps provide some sources for this? The claim is repeatedly made that eastern catholics do not have to recognise the ecumenical councils as ecumenical and yet this claim has been rebutted by Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF

The SSPX, on the other hand, belong to the Latin Rite of the Church, so surely the only way they can be admitted is to come under the full teaching authority of that Church, recognising that all of its councils and pronouncements are binding on them, as on all other parts of that Rite. I don’t see the Church making similar concessions to other Catholic groups in irregular standing, such as the Old Catholics - each of whom is validly confirmed and need only make a valid confession and profession of faith to be admitted to full communion.

Perhaps you should leave this matter to the wisdom of the Holy Father? Numerous ‘traditionalist’ groups have been reconciled to the church over the years including the FSSP, the Institute of The Good Sheperd and many many others so this is by no means an unparalleled event. Indeed the Insitute of The Good Sheperd has written in its statute the right to engage in criticism of Vatican II.

Secondly comparing the SSPX to Old Catholics is bizzare to say the least, the SSPX and FSSP believe much the same, Old Catholics have no counterpart that is approved in the church except those who dissent from the Church’s teachings. A more fundamental distinction between the two is that Old Catholics deny numerous De fide teachings as well as articles of faith whereas the SSPX merely raises issues with a council which is universally accepted as being an expression of the ordinary non-infallible magisterium.

Of course, I hope and pray that each and every bishop, priest, religious and lay member of the SSPX come back into union with Rome, and I trust that the hierarchy knows what it is doing in the offer it has made. At the same time, I really don’t see what benefit the SSPX brings to the Church as a corporate body, though I am happy to be enlightened by those who know it better than I.

To answer the question posed by your thread title, the same good as the FSSP but in larger numbers, being larger than the FSSP they will essentially supplement its work, both in countries where it is active and in the ten or so countries where the society is active and it is not. I suspect any agreement with the SSPX would also have to be accepted by the religious orders and congregations affiliated to the SSPX and so these would bring a rich understanding of a more rigorous and traditional understanding of religious life and the rules of the various orders and congregations.