What Impact Has The SSPX Had On The Church?

[mariediana]

Right on, Lycorth!

Maria sounds to me like she was involved in some kind of a cult at one time.

I’ve been a traditional Roman Catholic all my life. Do you call that a cult? I was beginning to think that the mindset of the SSPX shown here is cultish. Ironic, isn’t it?

 

[Lormar]

I’m not an SSPX-er Maria. But thanks anyway! I, too, have been a traditional Catholic my entire life, which is why I feel more at home with them than I do in my parish church.

 

[mariediana]

How you judge the SSPX really depends on whether you think there is a crisis in the Church. If such a crisis exists, then the impact of the SSPX will be immense. If no crisis exists, then the SSPX has no impact on the Church, and exists only to preserve one form of the Mass from extinction.

I believe that the legacy is disdobedience. The rest is secondary.

 

[mariediana]

Give me a break. I’m getting more than a little sick of your baseless hatemongering.

Disagreeing with papal opinions is not remotely the same as schism or heresy. Just give it a rest, already.

More baseless hatemongering. The SSPX, be they schismatic or not, are clearly passionate about Catholic tradition and traditional practices. It’s not at all hollow or meaningless on their end. Any non-SSPX member can plainly see that, when they’re not so puffed-up with pride they can’t admit to the slightest error of judgment.

I pray you will take the time to look at the plank in your own eye.

I have never attacked you personally, nor have I called you any names. I don’t understand your animosity. I have tried to respond rationally, although, I’m sure I slipped a few times in trying to be completely charitable. I have endeavored to argue the subject, not attack the posters.

I will now cease to post as my offerings seem to bring out the worst in some posters.

God bless everyone.

 

[numealinesimpet]

It IS Catholic teaching that a priest promises obedience to his bishop. He makes that promise at his ordination.

Correct. Obedience is explained by S. Thomas Aquinas. Would you like to comment on the posting on that topic? Do you reject what he says?

 

[numealinesimpet]

I believe that the legacy is disdobedience. The rest is secondary.

Yes, that is the nub of the matter. But it is wrong to isolate Obedience and elevate it above everything else – especially when no distinction is made between true obedience and Indiscreet obedience, which, as St Thomas Aquinas writes, is actually a sin against Justice. If you (I mean in general; I’m not making personal digs at anybody) admit the theoretical possibility that a command from a lawful superior may sometimes be impossible to comply with, because it breaks a higher law, then it is possible to debate the particular case of the SSPX. But if you will not admit that it is ever right to withhold compliance, you are showing ignorance not only of Catholic teaching but of the history of the Church. Please re-read the postings on Law, and Obedience. It is, I believe, through a well-meant misunderstanding of the matter that many people at present allow themselves to be led astray by those in authority.

 

[ProVobis]

It IS Catholic teaching that a priest promises obedience to his bishop. He makes that promise at his ordination.

So in what way have the SSPX priests disobeyed their bishops?

 

[mick321]

i have never attacked you personally, nor have i called you any names. I don’t understand your animosity. I have tried to respond rationally, although, i’m sure i slipped a few times in trying to be completely charitable. I have endeavored to argue the subject, not attack the posters.

I will now cease to post as my offerings seem to bring out the worst in some posters.

God bless everyone.

Happy Holidays
.

 

[stevusmagnus]

I believe that if those who split off had stayed with us, we’d never have had any of the “modernist” problems we do today. They ran away instead of stayed and faced the problems that the rest of us had to face - alone.

They were wrong to leave. They were arrogant to leave. Marcel LeFebvre was prideful and disobedient to the Pope. He deserved his excommunication.

They never left! They simply did what the Church has always done and were suspended for it.

I do hope that one day they’ll repent and come back to the true Catholic Church.

Come back to this?

 

[stevusmagnus]

This shows their unbelievable pride in assuming they know more than the Vicar of Christ. Archbishop Lefebvre OWED Pope John Paul II, who is Christ on earth, absolute obedience. Just as Eve thought she knew better, so did Lefebvre. This is a classic case of the sin of presumption.

Absolute obedience is not Catholic and can even be mortally sinful depending on the circumstances.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Does anyone remember St. Thomas More who went to his death rather than disobey his Pope?

I actually liken Archbishop Lefebvre to St. Thomas More. The Pope’s good servant but God’s first. More refused to obey orders from the King that would involve him violating his Catholic faith. The Archbishop did likewise.

 

[numealinesimpet]

On the topic of Crisis in the Church:
The Baseball Confirmation of Phoenix, Arizona, 1998.

I compiled the following true account “from various sources”, including personal friends, in 1998. Let the reader be aware that some of these sources were Diocesan magazines up and down the USA, who reported the incident with approval.

In June 1998 the bishop in Phoenix, Arizona had all of that year’s candidates for confirmation come to the new baseball stadium to all be confirmed on the same day. He gave every priest in the diocese faculties to confirm during the “service.” He invited all attendees (including a special invitation to non-Catholics) to come to the ballpark wearing red shirts for the Holy Spirit. They then sang some stupid song to the Holy Spirit to the tune of “Take me out to the Ballpark,” an American folksong sung by Barney the dinosaur to name one advocate of the song. During the Mass, many people were seen eating hot dogs and popcorn. The candidates for confirmation poured out of the bleacher seats to any priest anywhere and were confirmed. How could anyone know who was eligible for confirmation or to receive the Eucharist?

After the “event,” two boxes arrived at the rectory of a local church to a truly devout priest. (He was one of the two priests in the diocese who refused to Go To The Ballpark. As he is now retired, I have been given permission to relate what happened). A delivery man plopped the boxes on the counter and said, “These are for you. They are the consecrated hosts that weren’t used at the ballpark.” He opened the boxes and to his horror he found two large food service containers, generally used to hold about 10 gallons of ice cream, filled with consecrated hosts. The second box didn’t even have these. It was lined with butcher paper and thousands of consecrated hosts were tossed into the box. He immediately took the boxes to the sacristy and started to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in every ciborium and chalice he could find. He then scoured each container and box for Crumbs to consume. He counted 5000 hosts.

It continues. The associate pastor decided that it wouldn’t be “proper” to store the hosts for too long, yet the parish could never distribute 5000. What to do? Without telling my priest friend, he began to fill the ciboriums that were being used in the offertory procession of the succeeding Novus Ordo Masses with already consecrated hosts. So during the next Mass the priest was consecrating previously consecrated hosts!

How did this bishop over-consecrate 5000 hosts? Or was it more? Did another parish receive a similar shipment? Who can imagine a more blatant or public statement that this bishop and whoever is under him does not believe in the Real Presence. He may speak the orthodox line when his back is to the wall, but in practice he preaches heresy. Catholics in his diocese are released from any obligation to obey him as these are most certainly, as canon law demands, times of crisis.(The writer of the last sentence, with her family, who are from Phoenix, after many years of deliberation, began attending the Phoenix SSPX Mass Centre from the following week, and have gone there ever since, while now also supporting* Summorum Pontificum*)

The faithful of Arizona have two choices in 1998.
If there is a Crisis in the Church, then a State of Emergency exists, and they can take their child to the SSPX chapel in Phoenix where he will be confirmed according to the rites of the Catholic Church, specifically and infallibly ‘canonised’ at the Council of Trent and by Pope S. Pius V 'in perpetuity.

Or, if there is no Crisis, they must obey Canon Law, have the child confirmed in their “proper” diocese, and Take Them To The Ballpark.

 

[michaeldaniels]

Oh my…that video is horrid!!! The guy liturgical dancers look like members of the trenchcoat mafia!!! and the music makes me want to gag…sounds like something from The Lion King. If that is what a californian Catholic is, then count me out…me, I would take the SSPX over them ANY day

They never left! They simply did what the Church has always done and were suspended for it.

Come back to this?

 

[Lycorth]

It IS Catholic teaching that a priest promises obedience to his bishop. He makes that promise at his ordination.

Picking and choosing is for cafeteria Catholics.

No one here is talking about picking and choosing.

We are free to embrace Tradition and Traditionalism as a defense of Tradition against modern novelties and liturgical experimentation. Especially now, given the outcome of 40+ years of modern novelties and monkeying around, we practically have a duty to.

This includes being honest and *charitable *about groups like the SSPX and genuinely examining what their impact was on the Church.

I’ve been a traditional Roman Catholic all my life. Do you call that a cult? I was beginning to think that the mindset of the SSPX shown here is cultish. Ironic, isn’t it?

Then you should be a little more grateful to the SSPX; in 1970 no one was defending the “traditional” Faith, much less organized for that purpose. At least be charitable towards them and not so judgmental.

I believe that the legacy is disdobedience. The rest is secondary.

Believe what you wish, but the legacy of the SSPX is a stalwart defense of Catholic Tradition when even the Holy Father lost sight of that.

I have never attacked you personally, nor have I called you any names. I don’t understand your animosity. I have tried to respond rationally, although, I’m sure I slipped a few times in trying to be completely charitable. I have endeavored to argue the subject, not attack the posters.

I will now cease to post as my offerings seem to bring out the worst in some posters.

God bless everyone.

You have slipped in charity, yes. Not towards me, though. Again, I have not accused you of attacking me. It’s plainly obvious that you are filled with hate towards the SSPX. Sorry, but I’m calling you out on that, and if that’s “bringing out the worst” in me, then I feel sorry for you and how you see the world.

I hope God blesses you, also. Firstly, with some humility and charity.

Absolute obedience is not Catholic and can even be mortally sinful depending on the circumstances.

Yes. Absolute obedience is not taught by the Church except in matters of dogmatic statements about faith and morals proclaimed ex cathedra. In general, yes, absolute obedience is the norm, as a matter of common sense; order cannot be had without obedience. But not all the time, every time, even when the very Church is threatened by it.

The more discussions like this I read, the more I see that the Archbishop was right to do what he knew he needed to. Again, I hope we all pray for the speedy reconciliation of the Society with the Vatican; a full restoration would send Traditionalist shockwaves through the Church at a time when she really needs it!

 

[pnewton]

They never left! They simply did what the Church has always done and were suspended for it.

Come back to this?

As the poster you responded to has stated her desire to end the conversation I think it is fine that others get the last word. However this thread you posted is nothing but a strawman. A priest of the SSPX can be a regular diocesan priest, or some other order, without attending a religious conference in Los Angeles. It is a logical fallacy to use some of the stupid things that are done and say one should not be Catholic because of it. It makes as much sin as rejecting the Catholic Church because of pedophile priest or the SSPX because of the most venomous members.

In any case, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Those who take cheap shots, off-topic, illogically, at the Catholic Church are no better than those who take cheap shots at the SSPX.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Cardinal Pell (one of the soundest in the Upper Hierarchy, and one of the staunchest friends of the SSPX), was moved to Melbourne, Australia, in the 1980s. I was there during the incumbency of his predecessor, Archbp James (“Opportunity”) Knox, who was later on the one commissioned by Pope Paul VI to conduct a worldwide survey on the reception of the New Order of Mass (and whom M. Davies in *“Pope Paul’s New Mass” *describes as “Archbp. Bugnini’s Mouthpiece”). Cdl Knox replied that the Novus Ordo Missae had been met with worldwide joy, and that there was only infinitesimal interest in the Old Mass (an independent survey about the same time had reported over 60% of Catholics wanted the Old Mass back). I have lived in several places around the world and have never once met anyone who ever heard of Cdl Knox’s Survey, far less anyone who had actually been consulted. But on to Archbp Pell. He met with the local Seminary/theological college in the outer suburbs. He read out to them what they were going to teach henceforward. Their spokesman said, “Archbishop, we can’t possibly go along with that”. Archbp Pell replied, “I accept your resignations”. And he stuck to it. He began parish visitations – probably a novelty – and at the beginning of one Eucharistic Celebration a group of teenage female “Liturgical Dancers” in black leotards began making their way up the aisle to where the bishop was enthroned next to the Parish Priest. ArchBp. Pell leaned over to the PP and murmured, “If they ask for your head on a silver platter, I’m going to give it to them”.

 

[pnewton]

Cardinal Pell (one of the soundest in the Upper Hierarchy, and one of the staunchest friends of the SSPX), was moved to Melbourne, Australia, in the 1980s. I was there during the incumbency of his predecessor, Archbp James (“Opportunity”) Knox, who was later on the one commissioned by Pope Paul VI to conduct a worldwide survey on the reception of the New Order of Mass (and whom M. Davies in *“Pope Paul’s New Mass” *describes as “Archbp. Bugnini’s Mouthpiece”). Cdl Knox replied that the Novus Ordo Missae had been met with worldwide joy, and that there was only infinitesimal interest in the Old Mass (an independent survey about the same time had reported over 60% of Catholics wanted the Old Mass back). I have lived in several places around the world and have never once met anyone who ever heard of Cdl Knox’s Survey, far less anyone who had actually been consulted. But on to Archbp Pell. He met with the local Seminary/theological college in the outer suburbs. He read out to them what they were going to teach henceforward. Their spokesman said, “Archbishop, we can’t possibly go along with that”. Archbp Pell replied, “I accept your resignations”. And he stuck to it. He began parish visitations – probably a novelty – and at the beginning of one Eucharistic Celebration a group of teenage female “Liturgical Dancers” in black leotards began making their way up the aisle to where the bishop was enthroned next to the Parish Priest. ArchBp. Pell leaned over to the PP and murmured, “If they ask for your head on a silver platter, I’m going to give it to them”.

So, by this story you are saying the SSPX has almost no imact on the Church.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

I believe that if those who split off had stayed with us, we’d never have had any of the “modernist” problems we do today. They ran away instead of stayed and faced the problems that the rest of us had to face - alone.

They were wrong to leave. They were arrogant to leave. Marcel LeFebvre was prideful and disobedient to the Pope. He deserved his excommunication.

I do not admire anyone or any group who thinks they know more than the Vicar of Christ.

I do hope that one day they’ll repent and come back to the true Catholic Church.

Archbishop LeFebvre did not dis-obey the Pope out of pride, he dis-obeyed him in order to save the Traditional Latin Mass. If he had not done that, the TLM would not exist today. Why do you think the Vatican had wanted the SSPX to die out so badly? Had SSPX not been successful, the New Mass would have been the only won celebrated in Catholic churches. And the New Mass was the one they created during Vatican II, so they wanted their mass to be the one celebrated by all parishes. Archbishop LeFebvre did not ever claim to know more than the Pope. He simply stuck with the Mass that was given to us by Christ Himself. LeFebvre was more concerned about obeying God then obeying the Pope, just as everyone should be.

 

[mariediana]

Oh my…that video is horrid!!! The guy liturgical dancers look like members of the trenchcoat mafia!!! and the music makes me want to gag…sounds like something from The Lion King. If that is what a californian Catholic is, then count me out…me, I would take the SSPX over them ANY day

“That video” is not the Catholic Church. It’s an abuse of the Catholic Church. Why must the concentration ALWAYS be on the abuses rather than the beauty and goodness of the church?

There are abuses in every “organization,” “church,” “sect.” Focus on the good and what is true, rather than on the abuse. For as many wierdos as you can find in the post Vatican II church, we can find just as many abuses in the SSPX group.

Concentrate on the Eucharist. The other things are insignificant. God will deal with errant priests. It’s not for us to do so.

 

[numealinesimpet]

As the poster you responded to has stated her desire to end the conversation I think it is fine that others get the last word. However this thread you posted is nothing but a strawman. A priest of the SSPX can be a regular diocesan priest, or some other order, without attending a religious conference in Los Angeles. It is a logical fallacy to use some of the stupid things that are done and say one should not be Catholic because of it.

What do you mean here? That the conference is not Catholic, or that the SSPX are not Catholic? Neither of which is true.

It makes as much sin

Sense?

as rejecting the Catholic Church because of pedophile priest or the SSPX because of the most venomous members.

In any case, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Those who take cheap shots, off-topic, illogically, at the Catholic Church are no better than those who take cheap shots at the SSPX.

It has everything to do with the topic of this thread. I think the point being made is that the legitimacy of the SSPX hinges on whether the Church is in a state of Crisis. That YouTube video, let us remember, was not some group of friends enjoying a party in their own home, and light-heartedly praising God at the same time (I hope we have all done that before now) but "Closing Eucharistic Liturgy – Los Angeles RE Congress 2010". These are presumably the people in charge of the education of Catholic children in a very large and populous part of the world. The point is that this Congress is not only getting away with what we saw, but are actively encouraged: while the SSPX schools and seminaries are hounded and denigrated.

Listen to the wise and measured words of Bp Fellay (Head of the SSPX) at a conference in Nov. 2008:–

In 2000 the SSPX said: "Before we begin serious talks, we want this: (i) Give the Traditional Latin Mass to everybody; (ii) Remove the Decree of Excommunication. And everybody said: “Bp Fellay is requesting the impossible!” Now the actual reply we got was, “We agree that the Traditional Latin Mass wasn’t suppressed: Cdl Sodano, Ratzinger, Castrillon Hoyos, Medina, and many others all agree”… we said, “So why don’t you do it?” and they replied, “But the Secretaries and the Under-secretaries don’t agree!”

Cdl Castrillon Hoyos said, “Some Faithful, and some Bps, think that if we do this, it will be a move against Paul VI, against the Novus Ordo, against the Second Vatican Council.” I replied, “I thought it was the Pope who is the Boss!”

And now, seven years later, the “impossible” has happened – by personal intervention of the Pope.

I say now: don’t be too carried away by the imperfections of this Motu Proprio – look at the broad picture. Some conversions are instantaneous – like that of S. Paul. But very many take much longer.

Look at the history of the Church. The general rule is that every serious crisis in the Church takes seventy years to run its course! (At this point there were audible sighs and groans from the audience). Matters deteriorate for decades, then some turning-point is reached – and the recovery proceeds for the remaining decades. There is no magical instantaneous resolution of the crisis. Now this Motu Proprio was definitely the turning-point! We’re not saying the crisis is over right now, but we do say that the hour has struck for the beginning of the restoration.

We would like a forest. We want a tree. After this Summer, the seed is in the ground. If we don’t plant the seed, we’ll never get the tree – or the forest!

To those impatient for an instantaneous solution: Did you really think the Pope would speak and everybody would make an overnight turnaround? That is not how human nature operates!
…
(continued…)
Retrieved from “http://www.tradwiki.com/wiki/Notes_...ellay_on_the_Motu_Proprio_Summorum_Pontificum”