Sspx Members Welcome?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345658841' post='2472020']

What do you mean?
[/quote]

I mean you and others would be wise to ask first "is this [insert interpretation here] your message?" Rather than state "This is your message[insert interpretation here]"

[Nihil Obstat]

How about we look at what I have actually said pertaining to the subject.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345102773' post='2468554']
I am sympathetic towards your thought process, Studiumecclesiae. By that I mean that I share many of your concerns, and (I hope) much of your zeal and desire to right what has gone wrong.
[/quote]

Nothing interesting to see here. Most of us share a desire to fix the liturgical crisis in our Church.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345138875' post='2468644']
Notwithstanding, of course, that hypothetically men in the Church, even many, even most, including sometimes bishops and even popes, might teach or believe heresy at some arbitrary point in time. I know you know that, but someone reading the thread might not.
[/quote]

This is factually true, and I mentioned it only for the reason I stated.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345222460' post='2469214']
In the experience I've had thus far, it seems that the official stance of the SSPX is often rather different than the various positions of many of its less influential members, and also the laypeople associated with them. Bishop Fellay, for instance, has said some remarkably reasonable things that do not at all fit with the caricature of the SSPX as being full of rabid, ranting, rad-trads. For that reason, I do personally believe that Fellay is an honest and faithful man, and will do good things for the Church and his Society.
Even Bishop Williamson, odious as his opinions may be on the Holocaust, actually seems to be a very intelligent, engaging man, based on the videos of him I've watched.

Unfortunately the generalizations and caricatures don't do us any good. They cannot capture the reality of much of the situation. They have many good things to say, and I for one think it's very rewarding to listen without prejudice, as much as possible, and approach the whole SSPX issue from the perspective of two mature, reasonable parties who share the same goals and the same Catholic faith.

And, just because I don't know if such a disclaimer is necessary, I am not saying necessarily that I agree with everything that is presented by the SSPX, 'party line' or not. I'm not saying anything about what I do or do not agree with.
[/quote]

This is really nothing more than an expression of my wish for charity and understanding on this subject. I think it is more than reasonable to say that the SSPX in general, and specifically its four bishops have good and valuable things to say, even if we do not agree with everything.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345534483' post='2471157']
[left]No matter what one's views are on the morality of the Econe consecrations and whatnot, we still might also agree that Archbishop Lefebvre especially, and the rest of the SSPX were treated rather badly by a lot of people within the Church. In my opinion there were failures on both sides.

To set the stage for this, recall that Archbishop Lefebvre was the Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers. The Holy Ghost Fathers, following the Council, held a general chapter and essentially made it clear to Archbishop Lefebvre that his leadership was no longer welcome.[/left]
[left]
[b][extract][/b][/left]
[left][b][size=3][b]A Homeless Bishop:[/b]

The Archbishop left the motherhouse, one simple bag in hand. A French seminarian saw him and asked "Where are you going like that, Excellency?"
"I don't know..."
"Can I be of assistance?"
"Thank you, that's all right."
He found refuge firstly on November 1 at the Institute of the Holy Ghost on Via Machiavelli. A little later, he found a small room at the Villa Lituania on Via Casalmonferrato. It was maintained by the sisters who were attached to the Lithuanian seminary. He bought himself a desk, a wardrobe, and some shelving, and he had just enough to pay his rent with the ninety thousand lira he received monthly from the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith for his work as a consulter and as president of the commission responsible for catechisms in Africa. It was a role he kept until 1972.[/size][/b][/left]
[b][/extract][/b]

I think it's very sad. He offered his entire life up to that point in service to the Holy Ghost Fathers. He was among the best missionaries they had in French West Africa. He was probably their most effective bishop, and did a huge amount of good in the area. And this is how he was thanked, at the end of it all. It's a shame. How might things have been different? There are a few moments in his life where I wonder that. That's definitely one of them. How much more could he have done for the Church? That's something we'll never know.
[/quote]

All of that occurred before the SSPX even existed. It's rather far from SSPX apologetics to recognize the great contributions Archbishop Lefebvre made to the African missions as a Holy Ghost Father and as a bishop, archbishop, and Apostolic Delegate.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345575652' post='2471353']
Just to make sure the other side isn't ignored:
There have been various people, including saints throughout history, for instance Joan of Arc just because she was the first to come to my mind who, for one reason or another, were not in favour with the Roman hierarchy. For them it took some time, in some cases many years after their death, before their reputation was 'rehabilitated'. It is, in my opinion, possible that some years down the road, probably decades, at such a time that we are more removed from the situation and perhaps can view it more objectively, that the actions of Marcel Lefebvre and the other four since then may be treated with considerably more sympathy by official sources.
Right now, being very much caught up in the situation, it's hard for either side to be truly objective. There is a lot of hurt both in Econe and in Rome. Harsh things have been said, rather extreme criticisms have been made, and at the end of the day a lot of people feel or felt personally attacked by the other 'side'. Therefore I don't believe we can have a truly objective look at this right now, at least such a perspective will be very difficult to uncover.
Perhaps a generation or two later on a pope will look and say "most of Archbishop Lefebvre's criticisms were correct. John Paul II did the best job he could with the information that was available at the time, but historical perspective tells us that Marcel Lefebvre acted justly."
All I'm saying is that such things could happen, and it's very hard for us to say many things with certainty right now. It's a complex situation which we're still living out, and things may very well look different when we come out the other side. For now, I attend Mass every week with the FSSP, and I'm content. But there is much work yet to be done. The liturgical crisis is far from over, and speaking more broadly the Church has many challenges now and in Her future. These are confusing times, and the simplest answer may not always be the best one.
[/quote]

I am expressing in this post that we are dealing with a very complex situation, which may in fact look different some generations from now with added historical perspective. I expressed my opinion that, for now, simplistic answers do not do either Rome or Econe justice. As I said "It is very hard for us to say many things with certainty right now. It is a complex situation which we are still living out."
That is, again, far from "SSPX apologetics". It is simply a recognition that Rome quite likely has more to say on the subject, though by its very nature these things take much time and patience.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345577357' post='2471370']
Well I don't think many on this site will deny that many of his concerns were quite valid. The question is more about his actions than the reasons for them.
[/quote]

I will stand by this. Marcel Lefebvre had valid concerns, and the real question is how he acted on them, and whether or not his actions were justified. The 60s and 70s were a very hard time for Catholicism.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345577859' post='2471373']
Exactly.
And IMO his actions could perhaps be re-evaluated in future generations, once we've gained some necessary perspective. As I said, it's a very complex situation, both because of internal and external factors, and I don't think any of the simple answers do it justice.
[/quote]

Just restating my longer post above.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345583195' post='2471422']
I would say cautious, rather than vague. As I have said in two separate comments in this thread, in my opinion this whole 'situation' is extremely complex, and simple answers really do not do any party justice. The whole thing is very sensitive, and deserves careful, reasonable thought and great understanding.
[/quote]

Again, restating.




So, really, please point out where I have been somehow "toeing the phishy line". Point out where I have not said what I mean. I have said exactly what I mean, nothing more and nothing less. The answer is not a simple one, because as I said, I do not think simplistic answers are sufficient in this situation.
If the fact that I [i]refuse to say[/i] either "The SSPX are arrogant disobedient borderline-schismatics" or "Rome is full of Modernism and corruption" somehow troubles you, then perhaps you are in the wrong thread. I will say neither of those things, because the simple answers are simply wrong.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Slappo]

I just don't find it very welcoming to air all of my disagreements with the SSPX in a thread titled "SSPX Members Welcome?". I don't think it would be very welcoming of me. Instead I posted where I can see the SSPX have helped bring some good out of their irregular situation. Summorum Pontificum and Universalis Ecclesiae are good things.

[Papist]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1345659106' post='2472024']
I mean you and others would be wise to ask first "is this [insert interpretation here] your message?" Rather than state "This is your message[insert interpretation here]"
[/quote]
So basically, every post from from everyone needs to start with, "This is my interpretation", b/c EVERYTHING is an interpretation. Interpretations are not wrong. There are good/bad/poor/meh/amesome/etc interpretations. Just like your response to my post is an interpretation is a poor interpretation b/c I was being sarcastic.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1345660089' post='2472028']
I just don't find it very welcoming to air all of my disagreements with the SSPX in a thread titled "SSPX Members Welcome?". I don't think it would be very welcoming of me. Instead I posted where I can see the SSPX have helped bring some good out of their irregular situation. Summorum Pontificum and Universalis Ecclesiae are good things.
[/quote]

Univers[i]ae[/i]. I screw it up a lot too, but I just looked it up yesterday so it's fresh in the mind.

[Nihil Obstat]

Double.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Papist]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1345660089' post='2472028']
I just don't find it very welcoming to [b]air all of my disagreements with the SSPX in a thread [/b]titled "SSPX Members Welcome?". I don't think it would be very welcoming of me. Instead I posted where I can see the SSPX have helped bring some good out of their irregular situation. Summorum Pontificum and Universalis Ecclesiae are good things.
[/quote]
Where is that?

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1345658999' post='2472022']
I just got schooled
[/quote]

Yay! I get in a debate and I'm not the one who was schooled for once!

[Papist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345659486' post='2472025']
So, really, please point out where I have been somehow "toeing the phishy line". Point out where I have not said what I mean. I have said exactly what I mean, nothing more and nothing less. The answer is not a simple one, because as I said, I do not think simplistic answers are sufficient in this situation.
If the fact that I [i]refuse to say[/i] either "The SSPX are arrogant disobedient borderline-schismatics" or "Rome is full of Modernism and corruption" somehow troubles you, then perhaps you are in the wrong thread. I will say neither of those things, because the simple answers are simply wrong.
[/quote]
I don't think, never have, that you are towing the phishy line. But, it appears you defend SSPX, before/rather the Church. You are consistent in doing this under the shield of "just giving people on the other side a voice". I am not trying to knock you, but am giving you an explanation of how I am understanding.

Not directing this at any one person: I often wonder do SSPX supporters believe it is the SSPX that needs to reconcile with the Church or the other way around. There is a reason I have this impression.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345660156' post='2472029']

So basically, every post from from everyone needs to start with, "This is my interpretation", b/c EVERYTHING is an interpretation. Interpretations are not wrong. There are good/bad/poor/meh/amesome/etc interpretations. Just like your response to my post is an interpretation is a poor interpretation b/c I was being sarcastic.
[/quote]

Not so much. But in a case like this where someone is being interpreted to say something that was not actually stated by that person, yes, the interpreter should ask first.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1345662880' post='2472041']
Not so much. But in a case like this where someone is being interpreted to say something that was not actually stated by that person, yes, the interpreter should ask first.
[/quote]
For better understanding, will you please clarify / restate / identify those about whom you are speaking?

[Winchester]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1345139450' post='2468649']
what does ED stand for?
[/quote]
Encyclopedia Dramatica

[Winchester]

If you tried to pronounce that acronym in the wrong company, you might get cut.

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1345659106' post='2472024']
I mean you and others would be wise to ask first "is this [insert interpretation here] your message?" Rather than state "This is your message[insert interpretation here]"
[/quote]
As if the servers aren't slow enough without this the essence of cow.


Oh, I don't think I'm a lot dumber than you thought that I think that I thought that I was once.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Winchester

[Slappo]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345661816' post='2472034']
Where is that?
[/quote]

What do you mean? I didn't air any of my complaints in this thread. I'm not going to in a thread asking if SSPX members are welcome on phatmass. It's rude.

"Sure you're welcome but you guys are dumb because of XYZ"... oh how welcoming we are!