Focus Group on the SSPX in America
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    If you haven't seen updates on the massive fortress-like seminary that Arbp. Lefebrve's priestly Society is building in the hills of Virginia, perhaps you should take a look. It's clear that the SSPX is not painting in pale pastels about their intention to evangelize this continent. Their zeal and vision are stunning and invigorating, and it is obvious to all with eyes to see that they are ready for a dramatic expansion of their mission in America. They are not messing around; they clearly take to heart Christ's mandate to baptize all nations.

    I have been impressed by recent developments in their official statements on participation in the liturgy as they explain in the FAQ on their American website. It was also fascinating to read a recent exchange between Fr. Z and an SSPX priest in America. In other words, this is not your father's SSPX. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see a welcome trend towards a more moderate European attitude in the American district.

    I'm very interested to see if the reaction of mainstream American Catholics towards the SSPX may have changed over the years, and if there might be any way to offer a helping hand to our SSPX friends by our constructive feedback. So in the style of a Frank Luntz focus group, how would you, as a member of the institutional Catholic Church (respectfully, please), answer the following questions:

    1) In a few words, describe your current perception of the SSPX.

    2) If you were a Catholic bishop in America, what place, if any, would you have for the SSPX in your diocese?

    3) What advice would you give to the District Superior of the SSPX in America on crafting a winning message to Catholics in America?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,601
    I will limit myself to answereing the first question:

    My perception in my region (New England) is that they are a less than marginal presence here (2 chapels in CT, 1 in MA). The desire for the EF in New England is relatively marginal, perhaps an inheritance of Irish dominance of the Catholicism of the region and the fact that high liturgy was relatively marginal here, and I don't think it's going to be the basis for revival of Catholicism here, as many of the issues are about clericalism, and I don't see old-fashioned lay Catholic docility coming back to New England Catholicism any time soon.
  • 1) I don't have strong opinions about them. I have some sympathies for what appears to have motivated them. I would not/did not act on those sympathies in the same manner.

    2) Counterfactual too far from reality to contemplate (for me).

    3) I would be willing to bet that fewer than 1% of Catholics in my diocese have any idea what the SSPX is. I think that they are a long way from worrying about 'winning'.
  • (1) I'm confused by their stance. If their rhetoric is to be believed, Pope Francis is a "genuine modernist," "The [Second Vatican] Council is not in continuity with Tradition," and "we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement" with the Vatican, and "we tell [our faithful], ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’." All these quotes are from Bishop Fellay in remarks given to SSPX adherents. But then I read more public statements from the bishop as well as what the SSPX priest wrote to Fr. Z and there seems to be two messages going on here. It's hard for me to have an opinion when I'm not quite sure where they stand.

    (2) I'm not sure why a bishop would welcome the SSPX when the FSSP and other groups offer the traditional mass and the sacraments without all the issues?

    (3) With all due respect, get your house in order first.

    I'm not so sure that "this is not your father's SSPX." Yes, in many places they have an impressive liturgical life, but fruit of this is really limited unless they can regularize their relationship with the Church.
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    1. Everyone in this "focus group" will share some liturgical leanings with members of SSPX but our views are welcomed in traditionalist corners in full communion. SSPX goes beyond what we're willing to accept. They're the Donald Trump of traditionalists.
    2. None.
    3. Announce that you're disbanding.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    On (1), It's locally small, since others have been here first providing TLMs: first, independent chapels, then indult Masses, and now Summorum Masses. My only impression of the local SSPX group is from meeting a lay person who attends Mass there, someone who is embittered by corrupt attitudes in the religious-order priest who runs her local parish. As it happens, the local SSPX site is a few hundred yards from a conventional suburban church: this creates the appearance of a competitive relationship on their part.

    On the international level, I'm impressed with the current leadership and its conciliatory approach.

    (2) I'd want the local bishop to encourage contacts, but I'm not sure that there even is an SSPX priest resident in the area, apart from Sundays.


  • 1) Good guys, we need them, a little cranky

    2) Probably none.

    3) Join the FSSP
  • Outside of the fact that we really don't have a SSPX presence here, ditto Jeffrey Quick above.
  • There is a local SSPX chapel. I long for their full, conscious, active reconciliation. In the meantime, I speak with and of them charitably.

    When the Bishop of Rome can behave as this one does, he gives credence to the claim that he is a modernist. When insanity gets a brass fanfare, other sections of the orchestra look more sensible. I thank God that I have an Institute parish here, too.

    I'm not a local ordinary.

  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    1) I find myself sympathizing with them more and more everyday as things get more insane. Unclear statements, borderline sacrilegious light shows, misplaced priorities, appointment of hack bishops, tolerance of non-Catholics receiving communion, need I go on....

    While I can't say I would have left knowing what I do, I blame them less and less every day. I am also fully aware I say this living under an amazing bishop, which is one of the few ecclesiastical things that keeps me sane.

    2) I'd do everything I could to to reconcile them in my diocese and give them the best shot at active ministry, as a few other bishops have done.

    3) not sure.
    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    1. I have no animosity toward SSPX and they have no presence in this diocese. There were some SSPV folks and a priest around at one time. They were a different animal, to be sure.

    2. I am not nor will I ever be a Catholic bishop. Among all the things I have been accused of, that one has never come up.

    3. Hard to say. SSPX is a group of monarchist sympathizers in France. That wouldn't mean much of anything in America. I did read something by one of them on the martyr, St. Louis the XVI, who was anointed and consecrated by God, etc. Poor old Louis was something of a dim bulb with no management skills, as best I can tell.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    They're the Donald Trump of traditionalists.


    I'm sure you aren't trying to make this comparison, but I completely agree. They're someone I'd never vote for unless it was my last possible choice, but they bring important issues to the table, and raise questions about things no one else will.
    Thanked by 1Jeffrey Quick
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Thanks for the excellent and very thoughtful replies! I'm just very curious to see if the perceptions of mainstream Catholics about the SSPX have changed over the years, and I think there has indeed been a small but positive shift. I know my understanding of them has changed a great deal since the 80's, and I think there have been some significant changes in the American leadership since the days when Bishop Williamson penned his letters from Winona.

    If I were a bishop (ha!ha!), I would definitely want to regularize them and give them a parish if there was one that was on the skids and needed TLC. I would want to work closely with them and use that parish as a model for implementing the original goals of the Liturgical Movement, for which I think the SSPX in Europe has a great deal of sympathy. In fact, I'd say: Let me know what you need to make this parish just like St. Nicolas du Chardonnet.

    If I could proffer any advice to the SSPX leadership in America, I'd encourage them to reconcile with Rome as soon as possible. I used to get very frustrated by what I thought was their nitpickiness, esp. during the former pontificate, but, clearly, there are many things I do not know about their situation and what goes on behind closed doors. If a disagreement about the fine details of Dignitatis Humanae or Unitatis Redintegratio is what is holding the works up, I'd be very inclined to say that if the FSSP and other traditional orders could find a way to live with them, it seems to me the SSPX could, too.

    However, I do admit there ought to be some basic guarantees about their doctrinal autonomy if they ever reconcile with the Church. We don't hear very much about the doctrine of the Kingship of Christ taught by Pius XI in Quas Primas, i.e., the idea that Christ should reign in the public square in addition to being King of our hearts, but isn't it reasonable to assume that our SSPX friends could use a little reassurance that when they come back and start preaching this doctrine, they will be left alone?

    With the doctrine "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (understood, of course, according to the mind of the Church) so little taught today, is it not also reasonable to assume that the SSPX would also need some reassurance that when they come back and teach this doctrine, they are not going to have to worry about blowback?

    Although the then-Cardinal Ratzinger could get away with saying in his autobiography that the crisis of faith we are witnessing is due to the collapse of the liturgy, can we not understand that the SSPX would need some guarantees when they come back that if they speak in such a frank fashion, they will enjoy a similar immunity from harm?

    It seems to me that if we're talking about tearing down walls for homosexuals, the divorced and remarried, those living together, and for Lutherans and the Jewish people and the Orthodox, can't we give the SSPX a little reassurance that if they come back under the Big Tent, preaching what the Church has always taught, their right to religious liberty will also be respected?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,601
    Doctrinal *autonomy*?

    That's a curious expectation for a Catholic group with bishops and priests. I can't see there being meaningful *assurance* of that, ever, in that context.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Oops. You're right, Liam; that certainly is a poor choice of words on my part. It's just that there are so many different expressions of the Faith subsisting in the Church now. What I meant to say is that if Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Burke can both remain in good standing in the Church, then it's certainly possible for the SSPX to exist in the same Church as Cardinals Maradiaga, Baldisseri and Marx.

    P.S. Re: the SSPX being like the Donald Trump of traditionalists. I agree. Like Donald Trump, their bark may be worse than their bite. I'd be very wary of stereotypes and thinking that just because someone spouts militant and militaristic rhetoric and seems like a tough, demanding, uncompromising son-of-a-biscuit-eater, it doesn't necessarily follow that he/she is as irrational and autocratic as he/she appears to be, and perhaps the public persona is being projected to throw people off the track?

    By the same token, those who appear to be fluffy, squishy, loosey-goosey and eminently reasonable might in reality be fascist hard-liners and devoted war-mongerers. It's the fine print you have to be looking at, not the political theater. I'm not inclined to vote for someone who's been married three times either, just as I'm not inclined to support a religious order that has an irregular status, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with a great deal of what someone says and does and that I applaud their honesty and courage.
  • The analogy with Donald Trump fails, it seems to me, on one basic ground: Trump has been a life-long Democrat, if I recall correctly, and his policies won't differ greatly from those of the elected Democrat, if it suits his purpose to do that. The SSPX, for all the faults individual priests may have, can't be accused of dissimulation.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,601
    "it's certainly for the SSPX to exist in the same Church as Cardinals Maradiaga, Baldisseri and Marx."

    It's just that none of them have any assurance of autonomy. Coexistence is not neat, not tidy, and not at all comfortable.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • 1. Haven't been to an SSPX mass in years, so I will speak to what I remember from, say, a decade ago. I have mixed feelings. Some of the obsessions or mental tics seem unhealthy, but I have found them also in other, approved, trad circles. I respect their willingness to say unpopular things; only from a Society priest did I ever hear a condemnation of the Iraq war, and that was even in the early days when everyone was still getting their jingo on.
    2. Can't say. I think of the LBJ line about people inside vs outside the tent, and their respective vectors of urination.
    3. Things have changed so much for the better since Summorum Pontificum, what with trad concerns being legitimized and embraced (at least officially) by the Church, that I wonder what needs the SSPX believe still need addressing which they can effectively lobby for. Yet I also remember the days when the only way to get "the indult mass" in one's diocese was to have the SSPX first set up shop there--so maybe it's necessary to always have their presence.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,076
    1. Heretics
    2. It's a free country, they can put up anything they want as long as they don't call themselves Catholic
    3. Go back to France. We don't need any of your **** here
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    My goodness. Haven't you heard about the Year of Mercy?
    Thanked by 1Jeffrey Quick
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Mercy!
    Thanked by 1Ben Yanke
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    bhcordova, I suspect there may be something personal about your animosity and just want to let you know I understand if you have suffered from clerical unkindness and emotional abuse. Recently our former pastor passed away at an advanced age, and I've been struggling to resolve some complex emotions. So much good and not-so-good all hopelessly tangled up. I finally realized it isn't my job to deliver a final verdict in my own mind on the life and times of Fr. X and must leave it all to God. My sympathy and prayers for you if you're going through something similar. This is the opposite of when sheep attack, and it isn't pleasant, I know.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,428
    1. They are no more (and no less) a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church than are many Catholic-without-the-Pope Anglicans. One can learn much from them and their experience, but one also needs to understand what the problems are.

    2. I can't imagine any formal relationship. I think if I was a Bishop in an area where they were active, I would work harder to make sure that we had ample opportunity for that sort of liturgical piety --- either by homegrowing priests trained in the EF or by trying to bring in FSSP (or similar) priests. (I like to think I would do this anyway, but having "competition" would probably ensure it.)

    3. Repent. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.
    Thanked by 2JulieColl CCooze
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    For the record, the Ecclesia Dei Commission (the only organization competent to speak on the question) continues to confirm that they are not (at least not legally) in schism. So while they are disobedient as the day is long, they're not "Catholic without the Pope".
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,687
    What chonak said.

    Also, while I agree with Adam's second point, it is often done spitefully and very obviously so. For example, the Mass time of the new TLM is exactly the same time as the SSPX Mass... It also seems problematic that it isn’t as organic as envisioned by Summorum and for a negative reason at that. It is one thing for a bishop to invite the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest to take over a church. It is another to ask the FSSP to keep people from the SSPX. Admittedly, that is a part of their charism, but the two groups shouldn't be made to fight from the get-go.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Large doses of caritas et misericordia needed all around. It's the fault of our human condition that veritas isn't always accompanied by caritas, and the challenge is finding orthodoxy, beautiful liturgy, kindness, love and the Pope all in one package.
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,138
    Before I speak, my biases....

    I have many dear and good friends in the SSPX and I am married to a French girl. So bhcordova's commentary is especially problematic for me.

    That being said, there are many strands of thought running in the minds of those of the society. Many of the older clergy and families just simply do not feel welcome in the NO or the EF practiced in the those churches "in communion" with Rome. I say "in communion" because some in the society feel that they are connected to Rome and some don't. Some in the society feel that they "are" the Catholic Church and those of us outside of them are not. However, many of the younger members, clergy and families alike, feel very strongly that they have a mission to present the "fullness" of the faith, including the authority of the Pope, to the larger church. I would tell you that it was an absolute thunderstorm that Francis allowed them to hear confessions. That literally came out of nowhere.

    I appreciate Julie's commentary that caritas and misericordias are necessary on both sides of the table. I have encountered animosity of the highest degree from both parties and I have been to St. Nicolas du Chardonnet where invective is thrown out regularly against the diocesan church, which historically treated those folks like sh-t. So it is no surprise that we have a ways to go.

    Also, there are a great many in the SSPX who do wish that much of the animosity would go away. I know of men who are earnestly trying to reach out to FSSPs and diocesan clergy who are open to them. It will take time as enmity does not go away in a day or even a year.

    I have the blessing of teaching a young organist who plays for the society. I am always touched by her profound respect for presence of Christ in the tabernacle when she comes for her lesson. She treats the space no differently than her own church and covers her head and wears appropriate clothing. Her faith is no different than mine, except that she knows a lot more than many of her contemporaries. One could say she is a true believer, but I do not experience her in any way except someone who beautifully practices her Catholic faith.

    As Julie and I have said, the future of the church in France is in the hands of the traditionalists. It is they who will restore the beauty of Catholicism to its eldest daughter. The numbers support this notion and I even believe the dioceses are aware of it.

    In the meantime, pray for ourselves and our relationship to the society. Pray that stupid biases and misunderstandings will fall away. But they will only fall away when we open ourselves to them and they to us. Because in the end, we and they are really us together.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,076
    No, we need to pray for the society's relation to us. They are the ones who refuse to accept the Church's teachings.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    No, we need to pray for the society's relation to us. They are the ones who refuse to accept the Church's teachings.


    Just to be clear, other than their disagreements with Rome which cause them to act without faculties (which is a problem, don't misunderstand me), what church teachings do they disagree with?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    I tend to think their problems are not doctrinal but procedural. Heck, even the Church doesn't follow the documents of Vatican II, so how can anyone else be expected to.

    You notice I said, "heck," instead of an alternative. It is getting close to Christmas, so I am trying to be semi-good. LOL.
  • even the Church doesn't follow the documents of Vatican II


    *beats head slowly on organ console*
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Vilyanor
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,138
    Please Mr. Cordova, you seem to know more than the rest of us what the society does and does not believe. Please state what you believe to be their problem.

    Most canonists would say that their relationship is irregular but not heretical or schismatic. Rome has made several statements to that affect. I agree that the problem of faculties is serious, but I am not an expert. I know that SSPX priests celebrate at St. Peter's with permission of the church. We all can speak to the bad things that Bp. Williamson has said.

    I would hope the acrimony would stop but some of us do not wish for such. I will stop here and shut up. I say to continue to pray for us and the society together for a reconciliation.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    Refusing to submit is objectively schismatic. Pope John Paul II, Eccelsia Dei, and the CDF have called members of SSPX schismatic. But they aren't necessarily in formal schism. I.e., they refuse submission (material schism) but that is not their subjective intent. They just mistakenly believe that the circumstances don't require submission.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,341
    Can't be too much wrong with the SSPX...
    1. We can attend their Masses and contribute to their collection.
    2. They are regularly given permission to celebrate Mass in Catholic shrines and basilica.
    3. A bishop in Europe asked them to say Mass for a TLM community.
    4. Some bishops that need to remain nameless have given them faculties within the bishops own diocese.

    Oh and Pope Francis has given them faculties for the year of mercy...
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,076
    Just to be clear, other than their disagreements with Rome which cause them to act without faculties (which is a problem, don't misunderstand me), what church teachings do they disagree with?


    Have you heard of a little council called Vatican II?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,687
    You can drop the snark. The only conciliar document with which they have significant doctrinal problems is Dignitatis Humanae. Very few people are able to look at it and find its place in the tradition, and unsurprisingly the modernist version which rejoices in rupture wins the narrative wars. Professor Thomas Pink and Pater Edmund Waldstein, O.Cist. are required reading on that.

    I vigorously oppose the reforms of the constitution on the liturgy, both as given and as interpreted. Does that make me a bad Catholic? I basically take Fr. Hunwicke’s position. What was needed fifty years ago, at best, might have been needed then, but that doesn’t make it necessarily what we need now...and I don’t gang up on the conciliar document. No, Urban VIII, Pius X, Pius XII, and even John XXIII made reforms that paved the way and are really hard to undo.
    Thanked by 2JulieColl Spriggo
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,076
    I don't know if it makes you a bad Catholic, but at least you didn't leave the Church over it.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    Have you heard of a little council called Vatican II?


    The problem is bigger than you are seeing. The problems we're having in the church are bigger than the SSPX...Namely, a complete forsaking of tradition. Or, in a single panel:

    image
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,076
    The only conciliar document with which they have significant doctrinal problems is Dignitatis Humanae


    And the only doctrinal problem Henry VIII had with the Church was the teaching on divorce.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Vatican II is proof that if you really want something screwed up, give it to a committee. The Church has been in chaos since Paul VI and friends did a number on it. I am not SSPX and never will be - I think I will stay a relatively happy Byzantine. However, I can see their point at times.
    Thanked by 2Ben Yanke irishtenor
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    And the only doctrinal problem Henry VIII had with the Church was the teaching on divorce.


    The fact is, they're not in at all the same situation as Henry VIII. If they are completely outside the church, how can you reconcile with these points (as pointed out by another poster)?

    1. We can attend their Masses and contribute to their collection.
    2. They are regularly given permission to celebrate Mass in Catholic shrines and basilicas.
    3. A bishop in Europe asked them to say Mass for a TLM community.
    4. Some bishops that need to remain nameless have given them faculties within the bishops own diocese.
    5. They have been given faculties for confessions this year.


    and some more of my own:

    6. Ecclesia Dei specifically avoided using the term "schism"
    7. Benedict XVI lifting the excommunications of the previously excommunicated bishops.


    And lastly, it's my understanding that the teachings of Vatican II are less of a concern: it's always been considered a pastoral not dogmatic council, meaning it's more about practice (which can be discussed, like liturgy), not dogma (which must be accepted).
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Consider these recent reports:

    Re: reconciliation with the Orthodox: "By consigning those “painful memories to oblivion”, Pope Francis writes, and restoring a “relationship of love and fraternity”, there is no longer “any impediment to Eucharistic communion which cannot be overcome through prayer, the purification of hearts, dialogue and the affirmation of truth.”

    Re: intercommunion with Lutherans: "But in this interview, Pastor Kruse says he believes a door has been opened to celebrate the Eucharist together — a door that Lutherans had thought had been closed “for an eternity.” He also says he feels there is “no danger” of a Lutheran receiving the Eucharist “in the wrong way” because he would be “receiving Jesus Christ and not the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

    Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/rome-lutheran-pastor-pope-opened-door-to-intercommunion/#ixzz3uUtlohmo

    In light of this new attitude of glasnost on the part of Pope Francis, how is it possible to deny full communion with the SSPX, who, after all, teach what the Church has always taught, so there certainly ought to be a place for them in the pantheon of expressions of faith in the Catholic Big Tent.

    After all, it's quite ironic that the main sticking point for the SSPX was Dignitatis Humanae given the fact that there are not a few in the Church who go out of their way to apply Dignitatis Humanae in the most generous fashion to every religion under the sun, and yet one of the strange novelties remains that when these people deal with SSPX, the only standard that is applied is the pre-Vatican II motto of "pray, pay and obey" and "Remember, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church."

    Let's be really honest and ask this: why are those, while wanting to make "a space" in the Church for practicing homosexuals, and remarried divorcees, and talk about every religion on the globe in terms of "partial, shared, or impaired" communion, suddenly do an about-face when they get to the SSPX?

    When they get to the SSPX it must be noted that the Vatican II superdogma of ecumenism which is applied to every possible constituency on the face of the earth, is suddenly thrown out.

    With SSPX, these ultra-ecumenical enthusiasts suddenly forget what they've been doing for the last 50 years and dig out the superdogma of the Feeneyites.

    Think about it, that's quite ironic, since in adopting a very unecumenical line of "outside the Church there is no salvation" for the SSPX, they are unwittingly showing solidarity with the SSPX on one of the two issues that is impeding the SSPX's reconciliation with the Church.

    I think the SSPX should ask these liberal one-sided ecumenical enthusiasts one question: "Why is there mercy and an open door, ecumenical services of all kinds and partial communion for everyone, no matter what belief system, yet for us there is nothing but the stiff theological arm and rigorism of ultra Feeneyism? Where's the consistency in that?"


    Thanked by 2Ben Yanke Vilyanor
  • BhCordova,

    On the very point you raise,
    Have you heard of a little council called Vatican II?
    , what actual teaching of the council do they reject?
    Thanked by 2Ben Yanke Jahaza
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,601
    Julie

    I suspect one of the reasons is that, in the case of the SSPX, we're not talking about the laity ... but about a self-organized group of prelates and clergy, and therefor, unlike the other groups in general, there are perennial Roman concerns about jurisdiction and faculties. Neither side is likely to let go of that bone easily.
    Thanked by 1rich_enough
  • JahazaJahaza
    Posts: 468
    I don't know if it makes you a bad Catholic, but at least you didn't leave the Church over it.

    Oh, the irony. Certainly the ecclesiology of Vatican II makes clear that the SSPX haven't left the Church.
    Thanked by 2Ben Yanke tomjaw
  • Julie, I'm sympathetic to your passions about this issue. However, on this point:

    I think the SSPX should ask these liberal one-sided ecumenical enthusiasts one question: "Why is there mercy and an open door, ecumenical services of all kinds and partial communion for everyone, no matter what belief system, yet for us there is nothing but the stiff theological arm and rigorism of ultra Feeneyism? Where's the consistency in that?"


    I think that there are probably very good reasons for SSPX not to pursue that line. I suspect (but folks can correct me if I'm wrong) that they are not themselves very sympathetic to the approach to ecumenism to which you allude here. In that case, it would be somewhat self-defeating for them to appeal to it.

    Given their current relationship to the Church, at least as I understand it, there are probably better approaches in any case.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Yes, precisely, Michael Dickson. I don't believe they would like to be relegated to a spot on the pantheon, either, and that's the irony and weirdness of it all. I don't think they would like at all to have to appeal to the principles of Dignitatis Humanae to assure that they have a place in the Church, as if the Church were a pluralistic secular society.

    At the same time, though, if they are assured a place in the Church and are guaranteed total freedom to teach the Faith as it has always been taught and dispense the sacraments according to the traditional rite, will they take it? I would say to them, a la Donald Trump, find some "killer" SSPX priests, negotiate a sweetheart deal with the Vatican and hop on board the Good Ship Lollipop.

    P.S. Another possibility: what if Pope Francis just declares someday that the SSPX are fully regularized (without even consulting them first!)? What will the SSPX do then?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,601
    What would the SSPX do if he did while stipulating that the prelates and priests of the SSPX have no jurisdiction, and must apply for faculties with their respective ordinaries in their places of domicile?
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    1. We can attend Muslim services and contribute to their collection.

    2-4. I haven't seen proof that members of SSPX are given permission by competent bishops to celebrate Mass at shrines and basilicas with the knowledge that they are members of SSPX and that similar permission is denied to all non-Catholics.

    6. Ecclesia Dei has used the term "schism." Ecclesia Dei N. 539-99 (http://unavoce.org/resources/protocol-53999/): "With regard to the schismatic Society of St. Pius X."

    7. Paul VI lifted the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Is the argument that SSPX is as Catholic as the Eastern Orthodox?
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    I haven't seen proof that members of SSPX are given permission by competent bishops to celebrate Mass at shrines and basilicas with the knowledge that they are members of SSPX and that similar permission is denied to all non-Catholics.


    I am having trouble finding the article, but at least in one case in south america, the bishop invited the local SSPX priest to celebrate a weekly Mass in the cathedral.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,601
    The Argentine situation was partly politically-ruddered by the situation of the SSPX under civil law there.