What Impact Has The SSPX Had On The Church?

[At_Trent]

“What Impact Has The SSPX Had On The Church?”

fwiw, I came across this. I don’t spend a lot of time reading what’s on the SSPX sites, but pertinent to the OP, here is what Bishop Fellay says :

And even at Rome, a certain number [of prelates] are expecting from these discussions—and it’s a direct quote— “very much good for the Church.”
dici.org/en/?p=4253

I really find it hard to find a reason to believe this man is out of touch with things. We can all sit here and find fault with the SSPX, but how many of us can secure discussions with Rome about the things we tend to bicker about over on the Liturgy And Sacraments forum ? Things we express shock over seeing and hearing about ?

Why is Rome listening and talking to these clergy ?

 

[Abenadar]

My experience has been that most Catholics are unaware of the existence of the SSPX. No priest I have ever talked to gives them any thought. Maybe that is different elsewhere, but I would say I know of little to no impact that have had on the Church as a whole. That is not to say that they have not been a significant force in the spiritual growth for many individuals, or even a stumbling block for some.

So I guess you think SP would have happened without the SSPX? Just curious, because I sure don’t see it happening. Without the SSPX I think the whole thing would have been a non issue.

 

[Abenadar]

I agree. I seldom hear the SSPX mentioned by anyone except on this site. I think their impact is minimal.

Seldom hearing about something doesn’t necessarily correlate to a minimal impact. I believe that as a direct result of the SSPX we were given Summorum Pontificum and a much wider (though still pretty narrow) usage of the EF.

As At Trent just mentioned, they are continuing to have an impact. They are now meeting with the Vatican to clear up some of the confusion over VII. A group with minimal impact couldn’t do that.

In regard to their most recent rosary crusade…We’ll see what happens with the 12 million desired rosaries, and if Russia is finally consecrated etc.

 

[Timothysis]

As At Trent just mentioned, they are continuing to have an impact. They are now meeting with the Vatican to clear up some of the confusion over VII. A group with minimal impact couldn’t do that.

Just saying that it is Rome who is trying to clear up misconceptions by the SSPX in regards to the documents of Vatican II, not the other way around. Rome is still calling the shots.

 

[ProVobis]

My experience has been that most Catholics are unaware of the existence of the SSPX.

You may be right here. You can probably hear more about them from outside the Church and from the Eastern Orthodoxers.

 

[Abenadar]

Just saying that it is Rome who is trying to clear up misconceptions by the SSPX in regards to the documents of Vatican II, not the other way around.

Tim, by the very fact that this is going on means that the documents themselves, presented by Rome, were pretty ambiguously drafted to begin with. If indeed the SSPX is the one with the misconceptions, then they are hardly alone! Look around the church at large…Even HMC, up to this point, has been unsure for 40 years on how to interpret her own documents. This was caused by Rome at VII, not by the SSPX, who can hardly be blamed (whether one supports their method or not) for attempting to cling to some modicum of sanity and clear, Catholic teaching in a 40-year desert of confusion. It wasn’t until the SSPX started hounding Rome about meeting and clearly interpreting the documents that they have finally admitted the point that something needs doing…Which it clearly does…Thank you, SSPX. But I have to ask: why did it take pressure from the SSPX to do this?

Rome is still calling the shots.

This is to be expected. Only this time I hope they have both eyes trained on the same target :whacky:. The last thing the Church needs is more breeding ground for misconceptions.

 

[Hesychios]

What impact has the SSPX had on the Church? Would the Church be different today if the SSPX did not exist? Has the SSPX made no difference whatsoever? Would we have the EF Mass? Would the other traditionalist orders exist?

Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre saved the Latin traditional Mass.

Yes, he was disobedient to the Pope, but if he did not act there would have been no indult TLM’s for the last few decades, and no Motu Propio for the Extraordinary Form. It all goes back to him and his strong stance.

I think that some day he will be recognized as the saint he is, and people will solicit his prayers.

 

[Bengoshi]

I know I’m hijacking the thread here, but this needs to be said. No Catholic may disagree with Vatican II – certain interpretations of it, yes, but never outright disagreement. The fact that it’s pastoral makes no difference. Pope Paul VI said the following to Archbishop Lefebvre:

“You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application” (Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, Nov. 10, 1976).

Please check out this book that I am currently reading, “EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong” by Christopher Ferrara. It also distinguishes Vatican II documents from the others. Another book on this issue is “The Desolate City: Revolution in the Catholic Church” by Anne Roche Muggeridge.

 

[pnewton]

Why is Rome listening and talking to these clergy ?

The stated reason is pastoral: to bring them into full communion. I have no reason to doubt that.

 

[pnewton]

…We’ll see what happens with the 12 million desired rosaries, and if Russia is finally consecrated etc.

That is a whole new debate into itself and something the Catholic Church does not agree with you and Fatima Crusader on.

 

[puzzleannie]

Many people believe that the SSPX saved the EF Mass from extinction. Some believe that Traditional Catholicism survived only because of Marcel Lefebvre. Others believe that the SSPX damaged the traditionalist movement. What do you think?

.

I share the latter view. IMO looking back, having lived through some of the conflict up close and personal, is that without the public dissent it would have been much more likely that wider permission for TLM would have been granted sooner, to more priests, in more locations, and TLM devotees would not have been so marginalized. Nor would those of us who stayed faithful and obedient have been starved for not only the Mass itself but for the liturgical music and other traditions that go along with it.

The dissent forced some people to take sides so we lost some of the very priests who could have remained as resources when the indult was granted, and now for the EF. there would have been a larger cadre of priests and faithful with not only the love but the knowledge of the forms, rites, language etc. Fear of appearing dissenting has also been on (of many) contributing factors to lack of Latin language education. Faithful traditional Catholics have become very tired of being attacked as schismatics and all the other hate speech that has to be edited here so often, but is bandied about freely elsewhere in Catholic media.

Division is always destructive in wider and wider circles and the backlash was just as damaging. The people who would have stayed for instance in music ministries and choirs with their gifts, talents and knowledge have been lost to us so in many places the music is not keeping pace with restoration of the liturgy.

It think the previous popes would have been much more generous with the TLM indult, the rapid pace of change in implementing the NO would have been slower, with better catechesis and fewer abuses, and the EF would have come much sooner had the popes not felt it necessary to prevent the dissenters from claiming a victory.

as with any dissent, that on the right was just as damaging as that on the Call to Action end of the spectrum, not to mention two generations of adherents to SSPX who personally of good will and intention received a catechesis and model that invites dissent. I think it nearly impossible to overstate the damage caused by the movement and its leaders, and the time it takes for reunion and healing will be the best measure of that damage.

 

[Dempsey1919]

My experience has been that most Catholics are unaware of the existence of the SSPX. No priest I have ever talked to gives them any thought.

True, but I think some priests who know of the SSPX refuse to talk about them. In my opinion, the reason for this is because the SSPX are the black-sheep of the Catholic Church. It is okay to go to “ecumenical” meetings with protestants, but whatever you do, do not mention the SSPX because they are anti-Vatican II “schismatics.” Not all priests are like this, but I am sure there are some priests who do not mention the SSPX because they are opposed to the Society.

I would love to see my Bishop invite the SSPX priests to local meetings etc. Why not extend the hand of friendship? If he can engage in ecumenical dialogues with Anglicans, why can’t he dialogue with the Catholic priests of the SSPX? It seems that our superiors are more charitable towards our separated brethren than they are to fellow Catholic priests.

 

[mariediana]

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.

 

[Ockham]

Lefebvre deserves sainthood which I’m confident will come after the liturgical liberals are dead and forgotten.

Without the SSPX we wouldn’t have the FSSP. As these two orders are the strongest protectors of the TLM it is quite possible we’d have lost our Holy Mass without them.

Someone described the SSPX as a life raft along side the mother ship under attack and taking on water.

 

[pnewton]

Someone described the SSPX as a life raft along side the mother ship under attack and taking on water.

It is a good analogy and fits with what puzzleannie said. The SSPX are the ones who jumped in the life raft to save themselves and left the rest of the Church to the bailing and the repairs. Then they stay along side to cheer the workers on.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The SSPX are the ones who jumped in the life raft to save themselves and left the rest of the Church to the bailing and the repairs.

What did they save themselves from?

Lefebvre and the four Bishops were all automatically excommunicated from the Church. No greater evil can befall a Catholic; nothing is worse than excommunication. The other priests and laity have been labelled schismatic, divisive and disobedient for years; they have been shunned by their Catholic brothers.

Why did Lefebvre consecrate four Bishops without papal approval? This is the question. I do not believe that Lefebvre, who had a distinguished career in the Church, would deliberately excommunicate himself. The need for Bishops must have been great in his mind; he sincerely thought that there was a crisis in the Church.

I don’t think the SSPX jumped into the life raft to save themselves. They sincerely believed their actions were in the service of the Church.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Here’s what I think:

There would be no Summorum Pontificum without the SSPX and the FSSP would not exist. However, I think that the SSPX would have been able to have greater impact if they had been obedient to the Holy Father. I pray that they have their canonical status resolved so that they can continue ordaining priests, and so that they can positively impact the Church in the future.

The SSPX is currently the black sheep of the Catholic world. Nobody likes talking about them because it makes people feel uncomfortable. I think this is a shame. Afterall, they are Catholic, they are valid priests, and they preach the faith in it’s entirety. They disagree with Vatican II, but we must remember that Vatican II was not a doctrinal council. They preach the faith, but they disagree with the pastoral guidelines of Vatican II.

I appreciate the nod of sympathy for the SSPX but in my opinion, it is an oversimplification to say that “they disagree with Vatican II”. Abp. Lefebvre signed most of the documents based on the idea that it had to reconcile with Tradition. Assuredly most, if not all of Vatican II can be so interpreted.

I would observe that it is the bishops of the western democracies that almost universally disagree with clear Vatican II directives regarding the place of Latin in the liturgy and even more importantly, the pre-eminence of Thomistic philosophy and theology in their seminaries.

Vatican II is a cafeteria for most Catholics, but especially today’s bishops. It isn’t right to characterize the Society bishops alone as being in disagreement with important guidelines of Vatican II.

 

[Dempsey1919]

It isn’t right to characterize the Society bishops alone as being in disagreement with important guidelines of Vatican II.

I apologise for this. I realise that I expressed myself incorrectly. I typed this thread very quickly and I should have read the post before I hit the submit button. I know the SSPX does not disagree with Vatican II; they disapprove of certain interpretations of the Council and are currently in talks with Rome about this.

 

[Lycorth]

Without the SSPX, I don’t see how there would even be much of a Traditionalist movement today, or if so, we might have a Traditionalist movement that is forty years behind the movement we have now.

Many people might not even know who the SSPX are, but despite this, they were the first Traditionalists to emerge after Vatican II - the SSPX was formed in 1970. The work began here, with Archbishop Lefebvre and his priests. We owe them an enormous debt.

God promised that His Church would endure, that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. I believe the SSPX is instrumental in this, that God is the reason they came into being. Sure, God would have raised up someone else if the SSPX had not been formed, but He didn’t - speculation is one thing, history is another, and the SSPX were what happened. All other Traditionalist orders and societies owe their existence to the SSPX, and God bless the Archbishop for heeding God’s call when he did.

I pray the SSPX is restored to full communion with the Church. Full restoration would be a powerful sign that the Church fully approves of Traditionalism and this might create some serious momentum behind the restoration of our various traditions.

 

[Rites]

Overall I’d say the SSPX has had a very positive influence on the Church, and I earnestly hope that Archbishop Lefebvre is canonized someday. Without the Society, we would not have a traditionalist movement at all, and the Church would sink to a level of corruption unlike anything history has ever seen. Granted, certain members of the Society have rather unsettling views on some things, but the SSPX’s goals and intentions are totally sincere.

Let’s hope that something comes out of these discussions in Rome.