What to say to fellow Traditionalists who seem disloyal


#1

I love the Tridentine Mass very much.:bowdown:

However, I have noticed that many other people that I know, who also love the Tridentine Mass, seem to like the SSPX, and other such groups a LOT.(I don’t think that I know any sedevacantists).

Sometimes it seems that I am the only Traditionalist in my area who thinks that the SSPX Priests are in schism, and that it is NOT a good idea to attend their Masses, and that it is NOT a good idea to buy Missals and other material from the SSPX.

Any suggestions? Sean O L, do you have any tips?:confused:


#2

[quote=GoLatin]I love the Tridentine Mass very much.:bowdown:

However, I have noticed that many other people that I know, who also love the Tridentine Mass, seem to like the SSPX, and other such groups a LOT.(I don’t think that I know any sedevacantists).

Sometimes it seems that I am the only Traditionalist in my area who thinks that the SSPX Priests are in schism, and that it is NOT a good idea to attend their Masses, and that it is NOT a good idea to buy Missals and other material from the SSPX.

Any suggestions? Sean O L, do you have any tips?:confused:
[/quote]

Have they ever considered what their presence at a non-schismatic Mass might do? Imagine creating an atmosphere where people felt free to be pious and orthodox! Yes, that’s the power a group of Catholics like yourself could induce… maybe it would even make the parish they attend more orthodox!

Do they realize that by leaving the true Church they sap her dry of their voices? Don’t they realize that they could volunteer to do catechetical classes, etc… and help out the parish in a substantial way?

I think they’re not doing anything to help. Get some firm arguments about how they’re schismatic, and give them something tangible to do. That’s the ticket. :slight_smile:


#3

Hi GoLatin,

I think among traditionalists there is a certain gratitude to the SSPX because it is unlikely that Ecclesia Dei would have been commissioned had there not been an SSPX. I think that founding of the FSSP, for instance, would have occurred much later without the SSPX.

I have a genuine sympathy for members of the SSPX–not that I am in agreement with them. I think there are very many in the SSPX who are being faithful to the Church–those for instance who are not excommunicated and who hold the Novus Ordo to be valid and the Pope to be the Pope. The last information I have seen is that Catholics are not forbidden from attending SSPX Masses. In an age where bishops suppress kneeling for Communion yet protect child-molester-priests, it is not surprising to me that a group like the SSPX could exist. What is especially sad is that it does not appear that the bishops are very eager to go out of their way to bring the SSPX back into full communion either.

My suggestion is that you offer your feelings of being alone in your opinion for the intention of the full unification of SSPX back to Rome and for the conversion of sinners. God is fully capable of taking an unfortunate situation and bringing something wonderful out of it. Let us always remain faithful to Christ and His vicar on earth.


#4

To the SSPX, et. al

Thank you for preserving the ancient rites for us. If not for you, I might never have attended a Latin Mass again.


#5
  1. They are not attending schismatic masses.

[Edited by Moderator]

  1. We have not “left the Church” I often go to the local parishes for Confession and adoration. The priests are either grateful for someone of orthodox beliefs making a confession or they are upset because someone puts them to the collar by pointing out errors. (one priest didn’t bother to give the form of absolution)

Recently a priest told me, “You’re the first person I’ve heard use the word Prudence in the confessional. Most Catholics don’t even know what it is anymore.” I was tempted to say, "Why aren’t you teaching it from the pulpit? " I held back since I didn’t want to be combative in the confessional.

[Edited by Moderator]


#6

Greetings!

I am a Traditional Catholic seminarian attending a diocesan seminary. However, I do have a strong support for the SSPX. Unlike the SSPV, CMRI, etc., the SSPX is not in schism and does not have schismatic leaders.

I know that this is quite controversial, and I have gotten into several recent arguments on the topic. However, I would like to offer a suggestion. I used to have a strong fear of the SSPX and would not attend their Masses. But their Masses are so beautiful and holy. The Church has never said it was a sin to give the SSPX modest donations or attend their Masses.

The SSPX is neither in schism nor has schismatic leaders. To those people that claim such things, please go to the SSPX’s website and look through the articles under “SSPX FAQs”. All the information needed can be found there.

In particular…

Why Marcel Lefebvre is not excommunicated. Look at Canon Law

A person who violates a law out of necessity* is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity:

if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70),

and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties2 (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).


#7

No offense, but this is the analogous to the erroneous view that Martin Luther’s actions actually sparked good and were therefore necessary–this completely ignores St. Cajetan and others who went about reform the right way, and were doing so regardless of Luther. The SSPX’s actions are similar. Others were already doing lawfully what Lefebrve was doing unlawfully.

True reformers must have patience. As St. Robert Bellarmine said: “True patience enables us to bear the misfortune of suffering without incurring the misfortune of sin.” This impatience is the sin upon which the SSPX’s irregular status was forged.


#8

Have you read St. Catherine of Siena’s “Dialogue”? Do you know the value and power of suffering and prayer? Do you know the power of the fire of charity and just how flammable it is? Do you know who alone has the power to reform the Church? Do you know how we are called to participate in this? These questions are answered in this amazing book written in ecstasy.

It begins like this:

“A soul rises up, restless with tremendous desire for God’s honor and the salvation of souls.”

Sounds like you :slight_smile:

(just a warning though, the SSPX method for reform is rejected; so if you don’t want your current modus operandi to be challenged, don’t read it)


#9

The analogy doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Martin Luther wasn’t excommunicated because he resisted and fought against corruption. He was excommunicated because he was a heretic who refused to recant.

Secondly, if you’re going to hold LeFebvre as a comparison to Luther, you have to hold the actions of the post-conciliar Popes to scrutiny with the Popes of Luther’s time.

Leo X actually did excommunicate Luther with an explanation and a list of 40 errrors that he committed. Further, direct action was taken against Church abuses.

Taking that into account we are looking at a reverse image of Luther’s situation. A heretic who opposed the papacy against a bishop who opposed the destruction of the papacy through collegiality.

A series of Popes who directly condemned error vs. a series of Popes who were complacent with error in the Church.

True reformers must have patience. As St. Robert Bellarmine said: “True patience enables us to bear the misfortune of suffering without incurring the misfortune of sin.” This impatience is the sin upon which the SSPX’s irregular status was forged.

Turning that statement around we find no patience on the part of liberal reformers in the Church after Vatican II. Archbishop LeFebvre was very patient by encouraging, requesting, dialogueing with Rome for over 20 years.

Now, 37 years after Dietrich Von Hildebrand, Archbishop LeFebvre and many others do we finally get a Pope to simply admit the truth about the law.

Another point to be brought up is the nature of one’s state in life. Someone like St. Pio could bear with patience injustices brought on him because it is part of the charism of a contemplative. An archbishop is a direct successor to the Apostle’s and must at all costs work towards the salvation of souls. St. Paul pointed this out with Galatians when he declared that he had to resist St. Peter to his face and rebuke him publicly for basically “interreligious dialogue”.


#10

No. I haven’t. St. Bonaventure and St. Augustine are the two saints that are closest to mysticism that I respond to.

Do you know the value and power of suffering and prayer?

I’m reminded of it each time I look at the Crucifix.

Do you know the power of the fire of charity and just how flammable it is?

The highest form of charity is the desire to help someone get to Heaven. A human charity born of sentiment or human respect can get in the way of that highest charity.

Do you know who alone has the power to reform the Church?

Ultimately Christ. How he decides to do it is up to Him.

  1. He can intervene directly.

  2. His Mother can intervene.

  3. As bishop Williamson says, “Short of Divine Intervention, only the Pope can restore the Church.”

  4. Christ can influence someone comparatively small like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Athanasius or even (gasp) Archbishop LeFebvre.

Do you know how we are called to participate in this?

By living the Catholic faith according to our state in life.

These questions are answered in this amazing book written in ecstasy.

How do my answers stack up?

It begins like this:

“A soul rises up, restless with tremendous desire for God’s honor and the salvation of souls.”

Sounds like you :slight_smile:

That’s very kind of you. :o

(just a warning though, the SSPX method for reform is rejected; so if you don’t want your current modus operandi to be challenged, don’t read it)

At different times with different people, different methods and different traditions may be necessary. The SSPX themselves have said the more perfect form of dealing with injustices from the heirarchy is to simply bear it. But the law of the Church regarding the salvation of souls takes precedence. I wasn’t present when Archbishop LeFebvre said “I will not leave you orphaned.” But I appreciate and am thankful for what he did in an awful situation.


#11

It is quite ridiculouse to any Von Hildebrand in the same sentence as Bishop Lefebvre. He was a phenomenologist and therefore would more likely be considered a “modernist” by Lefebvre’s standards. It would be more likely to compare him to Fr. Fessio or Cardinal Ratzinger and it’s highly unlikely that you would have ever found hime to make a statement like “we finally got the Pope to admit the truth”.


#12

I would imagine the SSPX website might have some bias.

Calling on the above canon law is a common arguemnt with SSPX’ers. The question is who decides it is “necessary” to defy the pope? Martin Luther probably thought it was necessary to leave the Church and try to destroy Her. As Catholics the final arbiter for us in the matters is the Pope. The 4 “bishops” and the founder of SSPX were excommunicated in JPII’s letter in 1988. All of their priests are suspended which means their masses are illicit and other sacranments are invalid. Any priest coming out of a SSPX seminary is not a valid priest because the bishops of SSPX are excommunicated. Recently the head of SSPX asked the pope to lift the excommunication on him (i thought they weren’t excommunicated).

Finally there is not such thing as an independent priest, which SSPX’s sometimes claim to be. If the priest of the church you are attending does not have the faculties granted to him by the local ordinary (bishop) then the sacraments he dispenses are illicit and/or invalid.

God bless!


#13

This is not a discussion, once again, about the validity or whatever of the SSPX. Please return to the original topic or I will have to close the thread. Thank you.


#14

For your guys’ information here is the letter form JPII that states SSPX bishops are excommunicated.

ECCLESIA DEI
Pope John Paul II

Apostolic letter given on July 2, 1988.

  1. With great affliction the church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on June 30 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the church of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X founded by the same Archbishop Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.[1]

  2. This affliction was particularly felt by the successor of Peter, to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the church,[2] even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few, since every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the cross for the salvation of all.

The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective, in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his church.

  1. In itself **this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff **in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence **such disobedience—which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy—constitutes a schismatic act.**3] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, *Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.*4]

  2. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the church with the help of the Holy Spirit.

There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers, who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth."[5]

But especially contradictory is a notion of tradition which opposes the universal magisterium of the church possessed by the bishop of Rome and the body of bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his church.[6]

  1. Faced with the situation that has arisen, I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Archbishop Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the church’s tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the ecumenical councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.

To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.[7]

the letter continues on and the rest can be found on the web…


#15

It appeared that the original poster was askin advice on how to explain to people how the SSPX is in schism. Perhaps you could clearly restated the question (or the question you would like to be discussed).


#16

To clarify, I quote the OP:

…that it is NOT a good idea to attend their Masses, and that it is NOT a good idea to buy Missals and other material from the SSPX.

This is the crux of the discussion.


#17

The reason not to do these things is becasue they are schimatic. To explain the reason not to do these things you must explain why they are schismatic. Which is what I was doing. God bless.


#18

Spare me the indignation.

It’s not any more ridiculous to quote them together than it is to ask either of them if they could tell you the time of day.

If Von Hildebrand could recognize the objective truth and archbishop LeFebvre could also recognize the objective truth, then it is quite possible they could agree on something.

"MY CONCERN is not with the legal status of the changes. And I emphatically do not wish to be understood as regretting that the Constitution has permitted the vernacular to complement the Latin. What I deplore is that the new mass is replacing the Latin Mass, that the old liturgy is being recklessly scrapped, and denied to most of the People of God. -Dietrich Von Hildebrand-The Case for the Latin Mass.

It would be more likely to compare him to Fr. Fessio or Cardinal Ratzinger and it’s highly unlikely that you would have ever found hime to make a statement like “we finally got the Pope to admit the truth”.

I wasn’t comparing them. I was commenting that they are both respected Catholics who were working towards the salvation of souls and that they both knew something was seriously wrong with the post conciliar reforms.


#19

Why not buy their books and missals? At least you know they are solidly Catholic. They favour Tan Publishers which is a really good traditional Catholic source. Besides, if you can pay your heretic hairdresser for her service, and your Muslim taxi driver, or your Jewish drycleaner without batting an eye, why boycott the SSPX for their attempts to provide you with a service? They need to eat, too.:shrug:


#20

Because the act of hair dressing and taxi cab driving are not schismatic acts, which you would be supporting if you gave SSPX money. Why not just by from the same source the SSPX gets their stuff and cut our the middle man.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.