B
Bill_B_NY
Guest
I find it a complex and difficult situation. Simple in some ways, but not really. When attempting to sort out the motives and understandings that the SSPX has, we must be charitable but truthful. We have to see the good in them and also the errors.
Archbishop Lefevbre didn’t intend to start a new religion or to break from the Church, but his decisions had big consequences.
Much of the confusion about the SSPX comes from the mixture of a modern, ecumenical perspective and the traditional Catholic one.
In traditional Catholic terms, the SSPX is condemned. Schism or not, the traditional Catholic policy has always required obedience to the Pope. There was no semi-Catholic stance. You were either in or out, and the Pope determined it, as did actions such as obedience to local jurisdiction. There was no way to claim that an individual group had greater understanding of the Church than the Holy See does, so that (as the SSPX claims) they are privileged to act against the Pope because they see an “emergency” situation that the Pope does not see. None of the Saints acted that way. When St. Athanasius was exiled, he accepted it. When St. Padre Pio was silenced, he obeyed. This is even though those punishments were unjust.
The term “schism” is debated. SSPX defenders will say “they’re not in schism” and if that can be proven somehow, supposedly, the debate about their status is over.
But as above, the SSPX is in direct conflict and disobedience with the laws of the Church. They have been found to be as such by the Holy See and have been commanded to return to the jurisdiction of the Church. Schism or not, that is a big problem. Certainly, it may be possible to stand against the legal authority of the Church and insist that you are correct, and eventually be proven right. It has happened in rare cases. But it’s a huge risk.
But regarding the question in this thread, what has to happen in that case, is the SSPX is saying that they cannot, in good conscience, tolerate obedience to the authority of the Pope.
But what does that say about the FSSP and the rest of us? Clearly, we must be wrong about something, otherwise the SSPX would join us.
But what the SSPX is forced to say is they cannot accept the rules that the rest of us live under because it would threaten the Faith to do so … ?
That is strange. It would be necessary to say that the FSSP, for example (and every Catholic obedient to the Pope) either has some kind of compromised religion, is in error or doesn’t have the Catholic Faith.
I find that arrogant and totally misguided.
Archbishop Lefevbre didn’t intend to start a new religion or to break from the Church, but his decisions had big consequences.
Much of the confusion about the SSPX comes from the mixture of a modern, ecumenical perspective and the traditional Catholic one.
In traditional Catholic terms, the SSPX is condemned. Schism or not, the traditional Catholic policy has always required obedience to the Pope. There was no semi-Catholic stance. You were either in or out, and the Pope determined it, as did actions such as obedience to local jurisdiction. There was no way to claim that an individual group had greater understanding of the Church than the Holy See does, so that (as the SSPX claims) they are privileged to act against the Pope because they see an “emergency” situation that the Pope does not see. None of the Saints acted that way. When St. Athanasius was exiled, he accepted it. When St. Padre Pio was silenced, he obeyed. This is even though those punishments were unjust.
The term “schism” is debated. SSPX defenders will say “they’re not in schism” and if that can be proven somehow, supposedly, the debate about their status is over.
But as above, the SSPX is in direct conflict and disobedience with the laws of the Church. They have been found to be as such by the Holy See and have been commanded to return to the jurisdiction of the Church. Schism or not, that is a big problem. Certainly, it may be possible to stand against the legal authority of the Church and insist that you are correct, and eventually be proven right. It has happened in rare cases. But it’s a huge risk.
But regarding the question in this thread, what has to happen in that case, is the SSPX is saying that they cannot, in good conscience, tolerate obedience to the authority of the Pope.
But what does that say about the FSSP and the rest of us? Clearly, we must be wrong about something, otherwise the SSPX would join us.
But what the SSPX is forced to say is they cannot accept the rules that the rest of us live under because it would threaten the Faith to do so … ?
That is strange. It would be necessary to say that the FSSP, for example (and every Catholic obedient to the Pope) either has some kind of compromised religion, is in error or doesn’t have the Catholic Faith.
I find that arrogant and totally misguided.