Sspx: Preamble Signed

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1334932403' post='2421246']
I dont' disagree with you at all, but when you think about it....well... the Church [i]did[/i] change....pretty abruptly....(for some, literally overnight!) and it has been difficult for some people to accept it...

Teh last 40 years have been brutal to traditionalists. I think Holy Mother church is very merciful, and if the SSPX desires more of what they have fought hard for, and the Vatican agrees, it can't be wrong...

I'm praying that the Holy Spirit come upon their hearts and that their regularization comes sooner than later!
[/quote]

I get what you're saying, but the part that I don't reconcile is that some people chose to be traditionalists over being faithful Catholics. Something is wrong with your priorities when worship style over obedience. I have a lot of sympathy for people who would really like more EF Masses or who prefer all things traditional, while still accepting where the Church is at right now. My sympathy stops when I encounter people who are basically traditional to the point of being anti-actually-Catholic.

Definitely praying for them and hoping for the best. I just get frustrated when I see them STILL waiting for the Church to bend to their wills when they've been defiant for all these years.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' timestamp='1334920968' post='2421205']
Geeze. IMHO, having a LOT of personal experience with these people, nothing is going to change until they submit wholeheartedly to the authority of someone other than themselves. It might be a step that they have signed this preamble, but the fact that it was only done after bending to THEIR wishes is a sign to me that they're still not ready to change (because that's what they need to do -- stop expecting the Church to change for them and start realizing that they are wrong).
[/quote]
[quote name='Totus Tuus' timestamp='1334921044' post='2421206']
Nevertheless, praying.
[/quote]
[quote name='Totus Tuus' timestamp='1334937299' post='2421266']
I get what you're saying, but the part that I don't reconcile is that some people chose to be traditionalists over being faithful Catholics. Something is wrong with your priorities when worship style over obedience. I have a lot of sympathy for people who would really like more EF Masses or who prefer all things traditional, while still accepting where the Church is at right now. My sympathy stops when I encounter people who are basically traditional to the point of being anti-actually-Catholic.

Definitely praying for them and hoping for the best. I just get frustrated when I see them STILL waiting for the Church to bend to their wills when they've been defiant for all these years.
[/quote]

Totally agree with all of what TT said. I've seen too many of those types (even here) to be 100% comfortable rejoicing in these things until it's totally settled. Now is certainly a time for hope, and I will pray for their reconciliation, but I also pray that they see their own errors and humbly submit to the authority of the Church instead of persisting in stubbornness and disobedience.

[Aloysius]

The SSPX are not trying to get the Church to change for them, they are sincerely striving to pass on the faith wholly and entirely as they have received it. Seeking clarifications is a GOOD thing, excercising their theological intellects in the vigorous and zealous pursuit of fulfilling the mandate of their Holy Orders, to transmit the full faith of the Church to the next generation, is a GOOD thing. while I may not agree with all of their gripes, they indeed do have a right to have some gripes with apparent disconnects between the Tradition of the Church and the direction many have taken the Church in now. this is not some Joe Schmoe heretic, this is a Catholic Bishop, who is absolutely not a heretic in any measure of the word, charged with the care of a whole bunch of priests, and the fact that he's asked for changes so that he can ensure that his whole fraternity can enter regularization with clear consciences is a good thing. I think +Fellay is doing a commendable job in this process. demanding that he just ignore his intellectual problems with the preamble as it was written is wrong, the Vatican envisioned the preamble as something which would potentially require changes.

as uncomfortable as it might make some elder brethren of our prodigal SSPX, the solution here is basically going to see accepting the SSPX as regularized AS IS with little to no changes, IMO, because their positions do not preclude them from being Catholics in good standing. they have existed outside of a proper canonical mandate for a long time, and therefore have been engaging in some disobedience and such, but they did so desperately trying to follow their consciences not to create some prideful new innovations like the LCWR, but to try to pass on the faith as they received it.

all the analogies between the SSPX and liberal dissenters that are so often found in these discussions are, for this reason, absolutely repugnant to me. transport the SSPX and the LCWR back in time 70 years, 100 years, 500 years, 1000 years, 1500 years, and one of those two groups will fit as Catholics in good standing in all of those eras, one of them will not. That is the fundamental difference between the problems of the SSPX and the problems of liberal dissenters, the SSPX never dissented from the faith, it just found itself in a problematic situation over a strong disagreement with the post-conciliar ordinary (non-universal) magisterium (the fallible one that sometimes needs hammerred out in every age because human beings aren't perfect) that has led it into a bit of disobedience, which we need to pray will soon pass its way as the water that it is, under the bridge.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Aloysius

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1334976689' post='2421515']
The SSPX are not trying to get the Church to change for them, they are sincerely striving to pass on the faith wholly and entirely as they have received it.
[/quote]

The reason I disagree with this is because the faith that they received wholly and entirely is what we have, not what they have. They have a different worship background, not a different faith background. The Church moves with the Holy Spirit. They failed to stay in that movement.

I'm not saying this out of spite, but I am saying it out of much first-hand experience (not speculation or a perception of the stereotype).

[Aloysius]

dichotemizing "worship background" as if it can be separate from doctrine is the first mistake. orthodoxy means "right belief" [b]and[/b] "right worship"--the two are inseperable. there are many doctrines and theological positions that were passed down to Lefebvre which he passed on to these four bishops which have been treated as if they are anathema in the post-concilliar Church (even though they have never been anathematized), it is those things which the SSPX has fought to preserve. the climate is shifting in the Church, Churchmen at high levels are recognizing more and more that SSPX theological positions derived from traditional doctrines are indeed tenable for Catholics, such as their stricter view on religious freedom, ecumenism, and inter-religious dialogue. this happened with Fr. Feeney as well when he was reconciled, where the Church came to admit that Fr. Feeney's stricter interpretation EENS was acceptable for a Catholic even if it wasn't the position the Magisterium espoused.

but there are indeed doctrinal issues, and Lefebvre and his successors have had many, many reasons to fear that they would be unable to pass down the fullness of their faith and theology fully intact as they received it. they won't enter into an agreement with Rome that would in any way compromise their ability to pass down the fullness of their whole theological tradition, and I respect that in some ways.

I think you grossly over-simplify the issues between Rome and Econe on this matter. Your attitude that treats the SSPX as if it is supposed to have its tail firmly planted between its legs in these discussions is wholly foreign to the mind of this generous Pontiff who, I believe, recognizes both sides as having contributed to causing the painful situation the SSPX has found itself in and is more than willing to work out the kinks to assure the leadership of the Fraternity that it will be allowed to hold its same positions as tenable for Catholcis, though he won't endorse them as the Fraternity would like him to, he is certainly of the mind that these positions were things that were once fully acceptable, and they hold no anathema, and are therefore acceptable to be held by Catholics now, even if it lowers our esteem in the eyes of modernist seculars.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Aloysius

[qfnol31]

There are parts of theology about which we may legitimately disagree. I will never hold these against someone, even if I think they are ridiculous. Then there are parts of theology about which we cannot disagree. I believe that the Society and its followers have espoused a form of theology that falls under both distinctions. While they have hesitations about the Second Vatican Council or the Ordinary Form of the Mass, sometimes these have been expressed to an extreme.

In these latter instances, particularly when a person or a group of people has acted wrongly against the Church, it is incumbent upon them to act in a sense of humility. In the case of the society, there are some theological views held that stand in direct contradiction to the Church. I think Bishop Fellay has done just that in his actions. I think that this back and forth between him and the Holy Office is a good and just thing, but in the end the Holy Father will always have the final say. It is up to Bishop Fellay to accept this, since the Roman Pontiff and his See is the center of all orthodoxy. It is his place to affirm or deny what can be held as a Catholic.

Now as for what TT has said, I think her post speaks more to the attitude of the followers of the Society rather than its leader. I think the priests fall on both sides and I'm not considering Bishop Williamson at all. Many followers, through their speech and actions, reject the Church entirely. Listening to these people talk, they go so far that they begin to reject even the teachings of the First Vatican Council, particularly the authority of the local bishop. They reject the Church today as not being Catholic, ignoring even the most orthodox of claims in favor of a perceived Nineteenth Century textbook theology. While Nineteenth Century theology is still Catholic, placing that particular theology in opposition to certain necessary tenants of the faith cannot work in the Church today. I'm very happy to see that some of the leaders carefully word their disagreements with theology today. Their subtlety is lost on many of the followers who do not have the minds for such careful distinctions.

What happens, then, is this group of laity takes up a hostile and schismatic point of view against the Church. It is fine to be counter-cultural and work against the evils that try to infiltrate the Church. It is [u]not[/u] fine to work against the Church herself. Most of the people in the Society that I have known (and these people have bled over into the Fraternity of St. Peter as well) continue to fight against the Church as if she no longer exists. This hostile and schismatic attitude cannot coexist within the Church. I believe this is TT's main point.

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1334987016' post='2421577']
There are parts of theology about which we may legitimately disagree. I will never hold these against someone, even if I think they are ridiculous. Then there are parts of theology about which we cannot disagree. I believe that the Society and its followers have espoused a form of theology that falls under both distinctions. While they have hesitations about the Second Vatican Council or the Ordinary Form of the Mass, sometimes these have been expressed to an extreme.

In these latter instances, particularly when a person or a group of people has acted wrongly against the Church, it is incumbent upon them to act in a sense of humility. In the case of the society, there are some theological views held that stand in direct contradiction to the Church. I think Bishop Fellay has done just that in his actions. I think that this back and forth between him and the Holy Office is a good and just thing, but in the end the Holy Father will always have the final say. It is up to Bishop Fellay to accept this, since the Roman Pontiff and his See is the center of all orthodoxy. It is his place to affirm or deny what can be held as a Catholic.

Now as for what TT has said, I think her post speaks more to the attitude of the followers of the Society rather than its leader. I think the priests fall on both sides and I'm not considering Bishop Williamson at all. Many followers, through their speech and actions, reject the Church entirely. Listening to these people talk, they go so far that they begin to reject even the teachings of the First Vatican Council, particularly the authority of the local bishop. They reject the Church today as not being Catholic, ignoring even the most orthodox of claims in favor of a perceived Nineteenth Century textbook theology. While Nineteenth Century theology is still Catholic, placing that particular theology in opposition to certain necessary tenants of the faith cannot work in the Church today. I'm very happy to see that some of the leaders carefully word their disagreements with theology today. Their subtlety is lost on many of the followers who do not have the minds for such careful distinctions.

What happens, then, is this group of laity takes up a hostile and schismatic point of view against the Church. It is fine to be counter-cultural and work against the evils that try to infiltrate the Church. It is [u]not[/u] fine to work against the Church herself. Most of the people in the Society that I have known (and these people have bled over into the Fraternity of St. Peter as well) continue to fight against the Church as if she no longer exists. This hostile and schismatic attitude cannot coexist within the Church. I believe this is TT's main point.
[/quote]

When the third and fourth generation SSPX children don't know who the Pope is and / or are completely ignorant of the office of the papacy, that indicates a problem (I speak from first-hand experience). Among many of the "parishes" there is a complete lack of awareness of the Church -- the only structure / institution that matters is their order. The Pope is the chief shepherd, pastor, teacher, and governor of the Church as well as the center and symbol of her unity. Most of the SSPX laity I have known are [i]de facto[/i] sedevacantists.

Unfortunately, there is such an insular mentality prevalent among SSPX families that they will not allow their children to be educated anywhere except in SSPX "schools." These schools are rarely truly education institutions ... My SSPX high school was a basements in a "parishioners" home staffed by two young women without college degrees ... my math / science teacher was only six months older than I was. My point is that rather than truly engaging the ideas, debates, and controversies, the younger generations of SSPX families are simply given the party line by people who often themselves lack the education and intellectual training to grasp the complexity of the issues. Bishop Williamson makes much headway among the laity of SSPX because his statements are so clearly black and white, extreme assertions that can be grasped without needing subtlety, distinction, or complexity.

I say this not with any intention of arrogance, but rather to point out that the position / understanding of the "official SSPX" (Bishop Fellay) is very often far, far different from how the SSPX mentality is manifested among its laity.

[dominicansoul]

that is scary... it sounds cultish.... it sounds like even if Bishop Fellay and the Vatican agree and the Society will be regularized, you will still have thousands of SSPX laity that probably won't follow Fellay, but continue to live as if they are the only authority of what is left of the "true" Catholic church.....

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1334980996' post='2421548']
dichotemizing "worship background" as if it can be separate from doctrine is the first mistake. orthodoxy means "right belief" [b]and[/b] "right worship"--the two are inseperable.
[/quote]

My post may have sounded like I was setting a dichotomy, but I know that doctrine and worship are interconnected. I actually believe that SSPX has separated the two, which is what I was trying to convey (unsuccessfully). They chose to be separate from the church for the sake of the way that they wanted to worship-- I think they are the ones who don't see the importance of all that is connected to that. If doctrine were so important and united to worship for them, then there wouldn't be dissent, in my opinion.

This might just be an "agree to disagree" thing, which is fine. I have had enough experience with SSPX to know that what I am saying is true, even if the way I am saying it isn't clear or agreeable to all.

[Aloysius]

the SSPX certainly never split their conception of worship from their doctrine, it's all a single issue to them. they want the traditional mass because they want the traditional doctrine, they want the traditional doctrine because they want the traditional mass.

as regards the status of the laity that follow the SSPX, that's all a very mixed bag. I know some people that go to the SSPX who are not anything like what Theograd described, every SSPXer I've ever talked to has certainly known who the Pope is, and there are SSPX schools that are much more than a basement; they're not exactly the highest quality of education, but they're not all basements. I would never recommend attending them, but I don't think it's fair to paint them all as theograd's described experience. I think there are nutty people that have gathered around the SSPX in many places, but there are also reasonable people who are indeed tapped into the same line as the leadership and I think those people are prevalent. I don't think all their laity should be painted with the same broad strokes based on a single person's bad experience.

ultimately, it is the bishops and the priests who will decide what happens here, not the laity. a few places may end up in fights over property ownership if some laity involved in boards of directors don't want to follow the society into regularization, but I think the sspx hierarchy actually has the property situation pretty well under control enough, they've successfully expelled priests from their order and maintained their properties so I think we can expect that, while it'll be rocky, the chapels will largely go with the society. I think +Fellay is doing his best to minimize any splintering, and I don't think there will be much splintering if +Fellay gets the agreement he's looking for.

[qfnol31]

Just as an aside, TheoGrad spent almost half her Catholic life in SSPX communities, from Idaho to Ohio and many place in between. She also knows quite a few people at St. Mary's in Kansas. While certainly not all members of their laity are crazy, her family used to have some close connections to them.

Her dad also knows Bishop Williamson.

[Aloysius]

I suppose my own experiences are far more anectdotal than hers, all I can look to is the leadership and the priests themselves. and again, I think this agreement is working out a way for them to mostly come back in without changing or compromising, and that will include allowing them to still have harsh criticism for many things, I think.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1334865021' post='2420780']
It really depends on the action. In this case the bishops received excommunication under Canon Law. If a bishop tries to ordain women etc. he also receives excommunication by the same law.

Article on LWCR:
[url="http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-04-18/american-nuns-vatican/54396560/1"]http://www.usatoday....ican/54396560/1[/url]

Article on Call to Action (very liberal group):
[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=48072"]http://www.catholicc...fm?recnum=48072[/url]
[/quote]

LWCR conference speaker.
[b] Barbara Marx Hubbard is an futurist and evolutionist, not Catholic. She believes we are "evolving".[/b]

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1335029935' post='2421673']
the SSPX certainly never split their conception of worship from their doctrine, it's all a single issue to them. they want the traditional mass because they want the traditional doctrine, they want the traditional doctrine because they want the traditional mass.

[/quote]
Once again (and I'll let this go): What I am trying to say is that if they want certain doctrines OR certain forms of worship to be presented only in the way they want, and not in the way that the Church ACTUALLY offers them, that's where the problem is. I don't really care how any sect wants their Faith to appear. I care whether people accept the Church as she is. SSPX doesn't.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' timestamp='1335135248' post='2421952']
Once again (and I'll let this go): What I am trying to say is that if they want certain doctrines OR certain forms of worship to be presented only in the way they want, and not in the way that the Church ACTUALLY offers them, that's where the problem is. I don't really care how any sect wants their Faith to appear. I care whether people accept the Church as she is. SSPX doesn't.
[/quote]

That's quite true. I would add that Vatican II is very much a part of Catholic tradition now, something the SSPX does not yet seem willing to accept. The SSPX and the LCWR do indeed share something in common, which is nothing short of a schismatic mentality characertized by an attitude of hostility and opposition to Church authority. They also arrogate to themselves a judgmental attitude towards the Magisterium which inevitably leads to a spirit of pride. And nothing good will come of that. Those who argue the SSPX only follows what they see as traditional teachings are missing the point. No one decides for themselves what those teachings are.
I'm amazed that anyone would state that the SSPX will come back without "changing or compromising." The fact that they are being asked to sign a doctrinal preamble means the pope is keenly aware of their doctrinal deficiencies as he made clear in his letter to the bishops. He stated there the SSPX will have to accept the postconciliar Magisterium. All of us have to accept that.

S.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Skinzo