Working for sspx but not supporting them

hello,
the water cooler thread said to start a thread rather than saying “i’m new here” so that’s what i’m doing. i’m new here ( :slight_smile: ) and i guess the most interesting thing i can say to start off is that i’m working in a school run by the sspx but i had no idea that they were fanatical etc until i began working there. i was a graduate teacher looking for a good catholic school and i found this school’s internet site accidentally (never having even heard of the sspx) and read it and thought “wow - a real catholic school!”, and got the job… only to discover what a fix i was in a couple of weeks into it. i signed on for a second year there (starting soon) mainly because it will help my resume to have two years of primary teaching (i’m secondary qualified), and i’m not looking forward to another year among the radicals…

so here’s my discussion point… what do people here know about the sspx? share experiences, if any, and give me some tips for getting people back to communion with Rome. :wink:

[quote=Benno]hello,
the water cooler thread said to start a thread rather than saying “i’m new here” so that’s what i’m doing. i’m new here ( :slight_smile: ) and i guess the most interesting thing i can say to start off is that i’m working in a school run by the sspx but i had no idea that they were fanatical etc until i began working there. i was a graduate teacher looking for a good catholic school and i found this school’s internet site accidentally (never having even heard of the sspx) and read it and thought “wow - a real catholic school!”, and got the job… only to discover what a fix i was in a couple of weeks into it. i signed on for a second year there (starting soon) mainly because it will help my resume to have two years of primary teaching (i’m secondary qualified), and i’m not looking forward to another year among the radicals…

so here’s my discussion point… what do people here know about the sspx? share experiences, if any, and give me some tips for getting people back to communion with Rome. :wink:
[/quote]

SSPX is a schismatic group.

John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei 1988
c)In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.

yes i know… now! do you think that working for them constitutes “formal adherence”? there are several non-catholic teachers and several catholic (not sspx) teachers working there. would jpII call us excommunicates? i doubt it. i have let everyone know that i don’t support the group, in spite of their best efforts to recruit me.

the funny thing is that schism was never mentioned in either the internet site or the job interview, so i assumed (naively) that it was just some unheard of order that was trying to start a good catholic school. i’m in australia, and most australians would never have heard of it before. and most australian catholic schools are a joke, so you might imagine why i was hoping for a good one to work in.

so the real question is, what can i do about these schismatics i see every day who consider catholics in communion with rome to be lost souls? remember that i have to teach ten year old children who are being raised with false teachings about catholicism! what can i do to help people at the school, if anything? it’s quite a unique situation, because plenty of catholics work in non-catholic schools, but not many teach in schools run by schismatics who claim to be more truly catholic than catholics!

[quote=Benno]yes i know… now! do you think that working for them constitutes “formal adherence”? there are several non-catholic teachers and several catholic (not sspx) teachers working there. would jpII call us excommunicates? i doubt it. i have let everyone know that i don’t support the group, in spite of their best efforts to recruit me.

the funny thing is that schism was never mentioned in either the internet site or the job interview, so i assumed (naively) that it was just some unheard of order that was trying to start a good catholic school. i’m in australia, and most australians would never have heard of it before. and most australian catholic schools are a joke, so you might imagine why i was hoping for a good one to work in.

so the real question is, what can i do about these schismatics i see every day who consider catholics in communion with rome to be lost souls? remember that i have to teach ten year old children who are being raised with false teachings about catholicism! what can i do to help people at the school, if anything? it’s quite a unique situation, because plenty of catholics work in non-catholic schools, but not many teach in schools run by schismatics who claim to be more truly catholic than catholics!
[/quote]

Pray and pray hard! :thumbsup: I’d go to a fellow Aussie’s site to read up on it. jloughnan.tripod.com/index.htm That said, you may get fired for defending Vatican II. Maybe Mr. O can help you find an obedient school! Good luck to you. In my life that might be considered purgatory if not hell!

thank-you for the link. i’ll check it now. yes last year was certainly close to purgatory. i want to discuss issues rather than be personal etc, so i’ll persevere with the thread even though i’m sure most people would prefer to dismiss it. there are a couple of issues i’d like to discuss.

  1. is it “formal adherence” to work there? some priests here say only if i receive communion with them and others say it could be adherence to work there, and all say to get out! which brings me to the second point.

  2. these people live in an actual community - meaning they are all based in a town in australia that is quite out of the way and many families have moved to the town even from overseas just to be among like-minded people etc. they are a very closed community, and the children are insulated from the world outside to the extent that many families don’t even read newspapers or follow the media in any way. think about what this means for the kids - they have NO idea that there is a world beyond the town (except in the sense of a “scary forest out there” or something). and they have no idea that the society is in schism - they actually think they are the only catholics. so WHO is going to give these kids a link not only to the world outside but also to the true teachings of the church? this is one of the reasons i haven’t run away yet - i’ve tried to gently introduce truth into my lessons with the kids, to at least sort of prepare them for the shock of one day realizing they have been raised in a fanatical environment. if i leave, there’ll be no-one there to provide the link. why should the church encourage dialogue with all faiths except schismatic catholics? can i have some opinions about that line of reasoning?

  3. why should catholics be afraid of these people? why not openly challenge them in a charitable way? what else is going to prevent them from spiralling into worse aberrations? if we simply cut them off and let them exist in their lttle microcosm the problems that are already there are going to get worse and the results for the next generation of these people could be awful. the problems aren’t only theological, there are cultural problems that stem from a certain mind-set/ worldview, ignorance, exclusivity etc…

i would like to be open about these issues rather than taking a hush-hush approach. i should say that most of the people in the community are very sincere people - they are just sincerely wrong.

  1. is it “formal adherence” to work there? some priests here say only if i receive communion with them and others say it could be adherence to work there, and all say to get out! which brings me to the second point.

I would guess it isnt a “formal adherence” because Catholics do work at protestant owned companies. I think it crosses the line when you teach their errors, eg this page has clear examples of how they treat and teach about Pope Benedict XVI.

  1. these people live in an actual community - meaning they are all based in a town in australia that is quite out of the way and many families have moved to the town even from overseas just to be among like-minded people etc. they are a very closed community, and the children are insulated from the world outside to the extent that many families don’t even read newspapers or follow the media in any way. think about what this means for the kids - they have NO idea that there is a world beyond the town (except in the sense of a “scary forest out there” or something). and they have no idea that the society is in schism - they actually think they are the only catholics. so WHO is going to give these kids a link not only to the world outside but also to the true teachings of the church? this is one of the reasons i haven’t run away yet - i’ve tried to gently introduce truth into my lessons with the kids, to at least sort of prepare them for the shock of one day realizing they have been raised in a fanatical environment. if i leave, there’ll be no-one there to provide the link. why should the church encourage dialogue with all faiths except schismatic catholics? can i have some opinions about that line of reasoning?

Thats interesting about you keeping the job, you seem to have been led there for a higher purpose.

  1. why should catholics be afraid of these people? why not openly challenge them in a charitable way? what else is going to prevent them from spiralling into worse aberrations? if we simply cut them off and let them exist in their lttle microcosm the problems that are already there are going to get worse and the results for the next generation of these people could be awful. the problems aren’t only theological, there are cultural problems that stem from a certain mind-set/ worldview, ignorance, exclusivity etc…

It has nothing to do with afraid. A vaild successor of St Peter named John Paul II declared them to be in schism and that stands as a clear and authoritative decree. Also hey are really the Lefebvrists not “SSPX”. As for presenting them with the truth, they should be made aware of Ecclesia Dei and especially informed about the warning of formal ties with that group.

thanks.
on that web page provided by bear06 i found an interesting quote from a church authority about adherence - that even participating in the mass isn’t adherence necessarily but that there’s a danger of gradually imbibing their spirit over a period of time, which is how i see it. i’ll have to show that quote to my confessor who tells me its a sin to attend their masses!
as far as being called to the school goes, it seems true. i initially was excited about apparently being called to join a young and growing school that was teaching traditional catholicism, but now i see that there was more to it. not that i think i can do much, but maybe god can use me for something.
actually i would say that there is definitely an element of “afraid” when it comes to openly discussing the group. perhaps it has something to do with the clandestine nature of the group or something to do with the validity of SOME of their arguments against the conciliar church etc, but in my experience it’s a bit like discussing opus dei - you tend to get ushered into a corner and spoken to in quiet tones. i’d like nothing better than for the lefebvrists (ok i’ll call them that) and the church to hold more and more public debates, on both “home grounds” and for mixed audiences. but neither side wants to do it. i find this ironic in the age of “dialogue”.

There are 2 SSPX churches in my area and I have often been curious to visit just to see what a Latin Mass was like. However, I’m a little uneasy about it. I don’t want to do something that might be an occasion for sin or possibly give the parishioners there (I assume they’re small parish bodies) the wrong idea and cause them to think I’m one of them.

You might be interested in this book as well…

More Catholic Than The Pope by Patrick Madrid

please read this:

30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9360

It is an article from the magazine **30 Days, **an interview with Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, head of the Congregation for the Clergy and President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”. Here are some excerpts:

" Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity?
DARÍOCASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The audience is part of a process that began with a very important intervention by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who signed a protocol of agreement with Monsignor Lefebvre before the latter decided to proceed to the episcopal consecrations of 1988.
Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off… **
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism. “
After the audience an authoritative cardinal suggested that the Fraternity should recognize the legitimacy of the present Pontiff… **
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately that is proof that within the Church, even at high levels, there is not always full knowledge of the Fraternity. The Fraternity has always recognized in John Paul II, and now in Benedict XVI, the legitimate successor of Saint Peter. That is not a problem. That then there are traditionalist groups that don’t recognize the last popes, the so-called “empty throne” people, is another question that doesn’t concern the Saint Pius X Fraternity.
It is known that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is asking the Holy See for a liberalization of the so-called Tridentine mass and a declaration affirming that this liturgy has never been abolished.
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished. As for liberalization, I remember that under the pontificate of John Paul II there was a meeting of all the department heads of the Roman Curia, in which the vast majority were not against such a request. It would be dangerous to create opposition between the old rite and the new. The liturgy cannot be a battlefield. As priest, as cardinal and as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, I feel great pain in seeing the unacceptable language at times used of the wish of Jesus to give his own body and blood, and to entrust them to his Church. And this is true of some spokesmen of the Saint Pius X Fraternity, but not only them. "

also this interview, from the same magazine, is with Monsignor Bernard Fellay, head of the SSPX:

30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9361

ok new devlopments, new questions…

first of all, thanks for the links and info, but let me throw this info into the mix…

archbishop lefebvre illegally ordained 4 bishops, and at least one of them seems more than a little unsavoury to me.

recently i came across a tape of a talk he gave at an australian conference just a few years back, following september 11. the talk he gave is disturbing to say the least. not only does he seem to have a great deal of sympathy for hitler and the nazis but he even blames the jews and freemasons for the spanish-american war, world war 1, pearl harbor, the assassination of kennedy, the oklahoma bombing, the war in serbia, both gulf wars, the war in afghanistan and september 11. i’ve probably forgotten a couple - basically, name a significant historical event and he’ll say the jews or masons did it. in all cases he claims there was a media cover-up or a false version of events that hid the truth of diabolical and mutinous plots by jews, masons and an invisible but all-encompassing “world-government” (presumably a mixture of jews and masons when no more specific finger-pointing will do) .

now a lot of us have a healthy distrust of the media, fine, but his idea of logic goes something like this: 1. The media says X happened. 2. it seems possible that X didn’t happen. 3. Therefore, the jews did it.

i have heard whispers from time to time about a “neo-nazi” element among traditional catholics, and i’ve just dismissed it as slanderous rubbish, but i have no doubt whatsoever that this bishop does not have a healthy worldview to say the least, and i now can’t help recalling a number of odd remarks i’ve heard from the members of the community in which i’m working, which seem to support the notion that there is indeed a jew-hating, racial-purity-obsessed element in the sspx movement. i wouldn’t worry about that so much if it wasn’t for the fact that one of the 4 bishops chosen by archbishop lefebvre is openly encouraging this element. it makes me wonder if it was integral from the beginning.

in bringing this up i’m in no way intending to tar everyone with the same brush. what bothers me most is that this element may have always been there from the beginning (due to some perverse interpretation of “no salvation outside the church” and a number of old encyclicals etc), and also that nobody in the audience of this bishop’s talk even dared question his bizarre and unscholarly interpretations of history nor his astonishingly bizarre conclusions. in fact, i couldn’t help imagining all the poor people in the audience reverently taking notes as their exalted cleric acted as an oracle of God’s own truth.

THIS worries me most of all. this is when doctrinal and ecclesiastical issues tend to fade into the background and the moral implications of sincere christians blindly accepting the perverse teachings of charismatic leaders acting outside of rome’s authority come into the foreground. there were times when he warned that anyone who believed the oficial versions of history - as opposed to his own - were being led down to hell. THIS is the true danger of schism, and always has been. replace church authority with the private judgement of fallen men, and many innocent people will suffer, especially when they find out that they have been misled.

as far as a reconciliation between the society and rome, i believe that bishop fellay and other sincere people within the society desire this, but this other bishop grandly proclaimed that should such a thing happen, there would be another break within the society itself, and certain priests would lead the “faithful remnant” away from rome again.

so it seems that, at best, there is a minority of very fanatical and divisive people within the society, and, at worst, the whole movement is poisonous from the roots up, or should i say the top down. would archbishop lefebvre have tolerated the things his own appointed bishop was teaching the “flock”? let’s hope not.

thoughts?

ok so i just did an uncharacteristically long surf of the web and have been convinced that yes, the society is indeed poisonous from the top down - it arose from an extremist right-wing movement with a long history and association with racism, and lefebvre was well into the whole thing. i bet all the poor people who are in the society out of love for the mass have been told that such claims are evil lies designed to bring down “god’s faithful remnant” etc. oh well, at least i know the situation now.

Benno,

I have had a very different experience from you. I have recently checked out the FSSPX, believing that the Catholic Church has massively lost its way and been influenced (infiltrated by?) modern libertarian secularism, and so far I find the Fraternity to faithfully represent the traditions and depositum of the historical Roman Catholic Church. I can’t speak for each individual member, but for the Fraternity as a whole.

I understand your dilemma concerning your teaching post; but it would, I believe, be a mark of your integrity, for you to 1) resign forthwith or 2) honestly reveal your disaffection to the people in charge there. Basic human loyalty requires it and must override any felt need to “stick it out” so that it looks better on a future CV.

Finally, ask yourself this question: would all the great saints and Doctors throughout the Church’s amazing God-directed history recognise and relate to the moral doctrine, religious practice and liturgy of taditionalists like the FSSPX - or would the Doctors and saints feel more at home in, indeed accept, the post Vatican II church? The answer, surely, is clear, and informative…

Indaba

hi indaba,
well first of all, i have been honest with the people there. there’s no duplicity involved.
secondly, the origins of the society and the evidence of schismatic/ heretical/ extremist mindsets worry me a lot, especially because i have come to love many people who adhere to the society. there is, i think, a difference between the founders and the majority of the people now involved, including many of the priests.
i believe wholeheartedly that the saints would do their best to reform the church by remaining within it and doing what they could from within. only a little leaven is needed, as great reformer saints such as teresa of avila demonstrate.
a question - if the society splits into two groups, one of whom reconciles with and makes concessions to the vatican, and the other of whom go even further into their own isolationism etc (with ostensibly the best intentions), which group will you follow? can you see from this dilemma, which i’m sure is not far off, why there is greater wisdom and service to the church to be found in communion with and submission to Rome?
yours in Christ

Benno wrote:

yes i know… now! do you think that working for them constitutes “formal adherence”? there are several non-catholic teachers and several catholic (not sspx) teachers working there. would jpII call us excommunicates? i doubt it. i have let everyone know that i don’t support the group, in spite of their best efforts to recruit me.

You are not adhering to the schism of the SSPX simply by (and particularly because of your hitherto “ignorance”) working at the school.

The links below will bring you up to speed - and, it will take quite some reading to get there!!!

Concentrate especially on the Cheat Sheet on the Society of St Pius X at jloughnan.tripod.com/chetshet.htm

Are you located at Tynong? Some of my best friends are still adherents to the SSPX - and they know that my opinion is that they are in a state of schism and excommunicated. We dine together about fifteen times a year.

radio-cipher wrote:

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished. As for liberalization, I remember that under the pontificate of John Paul II there was a meeting of all the department heads of the Roman Curia, in which the vast majority were not against such a request. It would be dangerous to create opposition between the old rite and the new. The liturgy cannot be a battlefield. As priest, as cardinal and as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, I feel great pain in seeing the unacceptable language at times used of the wish of Jesus to give his own body and blood, and to entrust them to his Church. And this is true of some spokesmen of the Saint Pius X Fraternity, but not only them. "

Quite right! The Mass of St Pius X has never been abolished - but, I do not know of many informed Catholics who believed that it ever was! Nor was it abrogated. BUT - it was obrogated: that is - the liturgy of the Roman Rite WAS replaced under the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI.

Hullo, Benno. I’m still finding out about SSPX - actually going through the 23 chapters of the founder’s “Letter to Confused Catholics”. Maybe you have read it :
www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/index.htm

I think it’s worth seeing what he has to say. One thing is true: the post-concilar church has not the influence or clear vision of its “mandate” that it had before Vatican ll. Is there a necesary connection? It has also adapted rather easily to “the times”, which is OK in terms of technology, perhaps, but surely not in matters of moral doctrine & faith which are supposed to be for all time, aren’t they?

Hoping both of us and others can see clearly in all this!

Yrs in Christ,

indaba,
thank-you for your gracious response, first of all. i know the things that are going through your mind and heart, i think, and i believe they are good. but there is more at stake than what our personal minds and hearts think and feel. answer my question re the possible division coming up within the society, and you may see what i mean. there are high, higher and highest principles involved with being a catholic. we have to all work and pray. i am very familiar now with all lefebvrist and anti-lefebvrist propoganda, and i have no place in my heart for either. both extremes abandon Christ, as far as i can tell.

sean, i have been through your site and have thought about inviting you around for a talk, but i know the human element that gets mixed up in all this mess that archbishop lefebvre and his kind have brought out, and i have wondered how much of the human element may come into our discussions. i don’t want to do anything other than be loyal to Christ and His Church, which is hard enough. i don’t want scandal or even gossip, about the society, the modern church or anything to do with Our Lord. i just want to do what i can through Him, and within His Church. i hope you understand. if you could see a young child ask me in all sincerity if we should “pray that the pope becomes a catholic”, you’d understand, i’m sure. it’s very complicated. i’m just trying to be true to the Faith.

Doctrine has not and never will “change” so there is no basis for this. Your view of the pre-Vatical II church is purely nostalgia and “good ol’ days” talk and is not based in reality. With every council there drops off a group and the SSPX is yet another example of that. Vatican I did it, Trent did it, Nicea did it, blah blah blah. These schismatic groups are in need a good lesson in history to point out that they are no different than the plethora of other groups that have seen a development in the practices of the Church and jumped ship. Also, many of these groups are very ethnocentric in that they see the Church in America seeming somewhat stagnant and blame it on Vatican II, failing to see the explosive growth in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

I could go on and on but has anyone forgotten that the Bible is written in Hebrew and Greek?? Jesus spoke Aramaic. Get over the Latin. It’s beautiful but like all these other languages it was time to move on (although the choice still exists).

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.