What Impact Has The SSPX Had On The Church?

Dempsey1919 · #1 Mar 27, '10, 10:19 am

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?

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?

Please Note: Please remember to be charitable when you reply. Do not slander any Form of the Mass, do not slander any priests or bishops. Please remember that the SSPX are Catholic and should be treated with respect. You may not agree with their views or their actions, but please do not bicker. It would be a shame if this thread was locked because of arguments.

Dempsey1919 · #2 Mar 27, '10, 11:21 am

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.

corsair · #3 Mar 27, '10, 2:45 pm

Dempsey1919, I just happen to agree with you. SSPX has led the way in adhereing to the 1962 Rite. So its taken most of the abuse in the press and within the Concilliar church.

You are also right that FSSP would not exist and probably the others Institute of Christ the King, the Wyoming Carmelites, the Clear Creek Benedictines, not to mention the European traditional Orders.

SSPX opened the door for the rest. (just my humble opinion, so don't ask for any "documentation")

Abenadar · #4 Mar 27, '10, 6:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by corsair

Dempsey1919, I just happen to agree with you. SSPX has led the way in adhereing to the 1962 Rite. So its taken most of the abuse in the press and within the Concilliar church.

You are also right that FSSP would not exist and probably the others Institute of Christ the King, the Wyoming Carmelites, the Clear Creek Benedictines, not to mention the European traditional Orders.

SSPX opened the door for the rest. (just my humble opinion, so don't ask for any "documentation")

I agree with you and Dempsey almost entirely. One of Dempsey's points that I disagree with, however, is that I don't think the SSPX would have had the same type of influence they have if they had "been obedient".

Lefebvre knew the needs of his society better than anybody else, and he required four bishops to continue his work. Rome had permitted the possibility of only one (and somewhat vaguely, at that). I don't think Rome would have come through for them and would rather have waited the three years to Lefebvre's death, and then sort of let the SSPX disappear, or at least see what would happen. I mean, the FSSP doesn't have a bishop yet, do they? How many years have they been waiting for one? 20?

Although I'm sure we've all thought "what if" in regard to the SSPX, but I just don't think many of the improvements we've seen lately would have taken place ever without Lefebvre and his work. I think the FSSP was a reaction to the SSPX, and without them, I doubt the FSSP would have been started. Also, I don't think we would have had SP if not for the SSPX as well.

Timothysis · #5 Mar 27, '10, 7:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abenadar

Lefebvre knew the needs of his society better than anybody else, and he required four bishops to continue his work. Rome had permitted the possibility of only one (and somewhat vaguely, at that). I don't think Rome would have come through for them and would rather have waited the three years to Lefebvre's death, and then sort of let the SSPX disappear, or at least see what would happen. I mean, the FSSP doesn't have a bishop yet, do they? How many years have they been waiting for one? 20?

How do you know this? Are you clairvoyant?

How can you substantiate the statement "I don't think Rome would have come through for them and would rather have waited the three years to Lefebvre's death?"

Are you privy to something that the rest of us aren't???

franklinf · #6 Mar 27, '10, 8:25 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timothysis

How do you know this? Are you clairvoyant?

How can you substantiate the statement "I don't think Rome would have come through for them and would rather have waited the three years to Lefebvre's death?"

Are you privy to something that the rest of us aren't???

Well, he did put forward the FSSP. They don't have a bishop yet and it has been 20 years since their founding.

Abenadar · #7 Mar 27, '10, 8:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timothysis

How do you know this? Are you clairvoyant?

How can you substantiate the statement "I don't think Rome would have come through for them and would rather have waited the three years to Lefebvre's death?"

Are you privy to something that the rest of us aren't???

My post started by saying I agreed with the opinions of Dempsey and corsair. Anyway, in my post I thought I made it clear that I was expressing opinions...If not, sorry. When I said "I don't think Rome would have come through for them", what I meant was...

...I don't think Rome would have come through for them...

Traditional Ang · #8 Apr 2, '10, 3:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timothysis

How do you know this? Are you clairvoyant?

How can you substantiate the statement "I don't think Rome would have come through for them and would rather have waited the three years to Lefebvre's death?"

Are you privy to something that the rest of us aren't???

Timothysis:

Abenadar stated an OPINION and stated that what he stated was an OPINION. his opinion seemed to be confirmed by others on this board, so it was not an unreasonable opinion.

We were originally asked by the OP, Dempsey1919, to be charitable in our responses to each other. In addition, Our Lord Himself said that we should treat each other as we want to be treated. Can you say this post was charitable? Is this something you would like said to you if you state an OPINION? Esp. if this were an opinion you had formed about something based on something where you where personally and emotionally involved?

Timothysis, we have a lot of people on this board who were involved in the SSPX, who are now involved in the PFSP & the FSSP. Because they've lived with this for 20 years, this is an emotional issue for them. Could you please think of how you'd want to be treated if the roles were reversed before typing something like what you typed here?

Thank you.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Dempsey1919 · #9 Apr 2, '10, 3:43 am

Quote:

As a result – and I have seen this happen now for three generations – the older Faithful did not notice the omissions, while the rising generation never learned the omitted parts. Thus they lapsed from the Faith, and their parents could not understand why.

This is one of the best things I've read at CAF! Why? Because it perfectly describes what happened to me. I left the faith in my teenage years because I had never been given the faith; the catechises I received was extremely poor. The sad thing is, I was not an isolated case. My sister's husband grew up in a devout Catholic home but he no longer practices the faith; this is not surprising considering he didn't even know that the Mass was the one Sacrifice at Calvary! He thought the Mass was a memorial meal; and this coming from an ex-Altar boy! Something is definitely wrong!

Dempsey1919 · #10 Apr 2, '10, 4:14 am

Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll definitely look into getting the Rhine Flows into the Tiber.

I've been thinking about it, and there is one critical thing that should be considered before judging the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX:

Is there a crisis in the Church?

If the answer to this question is yes, then Archbishop Lefebvre should be applauded; I would go so far as to call him a saint!

However, if the answer to this question is no, then Archbishop Lefebvre was disobedient and wrong for going against the will of the Pope.

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.

Lycorth · #11 Apr 2, '10, 12:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProVobis

You can criticize me for doing this but I would like to look at it like this: On a hot summer's day, a family decides to go to the beach but one of the kids insists on walking to Mass even though it's in a hot church and his father wants the whole family to go to the beach. Yes, the child is disobeying but is he worthy of being cut off from the family?

The better question is this: Archbishop Lefebvre had the God-given power to consecrate bishops. Did he abuse this power by consecrating other bishops to ordain priests to say the TLM and preserve old customs when no other bishop would ordain such priests and the archbishop himself was dying? Hardly. Remember God is a higher power than the Pope.

Excellent point. The Archbishop did not want to have any confrontation with Rome. It is clear he did what he had to do; such is the burden of being in a position of leadership.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dempsey1919

Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll definitely look into getting the Rhine Flows into the Tiber.

I've been thinking about it, and there is one critical thing that should be considered before judging the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX:

Is there a crisis in the Church?

If the answer to this question is yes, then Archbishop Lefebvre should be applauded; I would go so far as to call him a saint!

However, if the answer to this question is no, then Archbishop Lefebvre was disobedient and wrong for going against the will of the Pope.

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.

Precisely!

The most vocal critics of the SSPX, and of Traditionalists in general, seem to be those who think everything is just hunky-dory, that no problems exist in the Church, and that despite the foundering of the faith of many, the Church is on the right track.

Dempsey1919 · #12 Apr 2, '10, 1:07 pm

Quote:

The most vocal critics of the SSPX, and of Traditionalists in general, seem to be those who think everything is just hunky-dory, that no problems exist in the Church, and that despite the foundering of the faith of many, the Church is on the right track.

Those who believe there are no problems in the Church are burying their heads in sand. It should be clear to everyone that there is a major crisis in the Church. The decline in vocations, the decreased Mass attendance figures, the false ecumenism, the widespread dissent and lastly, the sex abuse scandal all prove that there is a crisis in the Church!

The Church is in crisis, and I personally believe that the devil is attacking the Barque of Peter from every angle. I do not know what caused this crisis; maybe it is part of the plan of God? Maybe it is solely from the Enemy? I cannot answer this question.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre knew there was a crisis in the Church, and he formed the SSPX to defend the Catholic faith. He went to grave thinking that the Church would eventually return to tradition, and he hoped that the SSPX would be able to help the Holy Father pick up the pieces. I think this has come to pass. The Rome-SSPX discussions will eventually fix the problems surrounding Vatican II; and will hopefully cause the Church to return to tradition (or at least become more traditional).

Aramis · #13 Apr 4, '10, 9:51 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lycorth

Excellent point. The Archbishop did not want to have any confrontation with Rome. It is clear he did what he had to do; such is the burden of being in a position of leadership.

Precisely!

The most vocal critics of the SSPX, and of Traditionalists in general, seem to be those who think everything is just hunky-dory, that no problems exist in the Church, and that despite the foundering of the faith of many, the Church is on the right track.

Was there a Crisis? Yes.
Was it sufficient to justify the actions His Grace took? Doesn't seem so. HH JP II didn't think so. HH Benedict doesn't seem to think so.
He broke his own vows of obedience by how he responded to the crisis.

Had he consecrated only one or two, just enough to ensure the SSPX had a bishop and he had a successor, I doubt highly the SSPX would be in such a harshly worded position as "... exercise no valid ministry within the Church."

**ProVobis** · #14 Apr 4, '10, 10:27 am

Quote:

Was it sufficient to justify the actions His Grace took?

A better question maybe: Did the Bishop abuse his God-given power to consecrate other bishops, in light of the fact he was dying and there were no other bishops who were ordaining priests to say the Latin Mass?

At Trent · #15 Apr 4, '10, 12:39 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramis

Was there a Crisis? Yes.
Was it sufficient to justify the actions His Grace took? Doesn't seem so. HH JP II didn't think so. HH Benedict doesn't seem to think so.
He broke his own vows of obedience by how he responded to the crisis.

Had he consecrated only one or two, just enough to ensure the SSPX had a bishop and he had a successor, I doubt highly the SSPX would be in such a harshly worded position as "... exercise no valid ministry within the Church."

Is Easter Sunday not enough reason to hold your tongue ?