Mission Creep in the SSPX

[SaintSebastian]

I might be mistaken, but  I thought I read somewhere once that the original purpose of the SSPX when they were first founded (before the suspensions, etc.) was to teach priests how to be priests--a la the Theatines/Clerks Regular of the Counter-Reformation time. It was the combination of the canonical troubles and the fact that the laity were constantly seeking them out to provide the sacraments according to the traditional rites that made them change their focus in the first place.

To me, there's nothing wrong with changing one's mission--sometimes the Holy Spirit has different ideas. St. Vincent de Paul's Congregation of the Mission (Vincentians) were first focused on reform of the clergy, but the wars associated with the Reformation marginalized and impoverished so many people, their focus became ministering to the poor.

That being said, as for the SSPX, I don't think providing the old rites and working for reform need to be mutually exclusive (and I don't think refusing the approbation of Rome is necessary for either mission).

In regards to Rome condemning Vatican II, it's not going to happen, IMO. I've brought up this historical precedent before, but when Pope Pius II definitively condemned the errors which emanated from the Council of Constance, he explicitly stated his acceptance and reverence of the Council (even though he just ignored its decrees in practice)  (cf. In Minoribus). The Church just isn't going to explicitly impugn her own authority.

[James02]

That's my point.  The Church ain't going to do it anytime soon.  BUT, it will allow the SSPX to reunite, and allow it to criticize VII.  Bishop Fellay understands this.  So IF this was the case, then the SSPX should return (and part of it will).  But the other part will go into schism and leave, saying it wants no part with Rome.

Now IF the SSPX were forced to endorse V II, then Fellay won't go for it.  Further, if the SSPX were brought back, with Fellay as  head of the SSPX, if Rome started to backslide, he'd take the SSPX out and run it independent again.

I am just alarmed at those in the SSPX who don't want to come home to Rome, period.  It's mission creep.  Like I said, if the N.O. is still around, they won't go back.  That is unrealistic and has a lack of Charity.

Again, repeating myself, I have no problem at going slow until PRACTICAL problems were solved.  If the SSPX is in a Diocese with a modernist bishop, what difficulties will that cause and how will it be dealt with?  THAT has to be addressed, no doubt.  But if it were set up right, then there is no excuse to stay separated.  Bishop Fellay shares that opinion, I doubt the other 3 bishops and a majority of the priests do.

[SPB]

Those who don't want reconciliation with Peter will never want it. They will always have something to moan about. Even if 99.999% of priests were like SSPX priests they'd find that 1 other priest out there who was rubbish and they'd have the cheek to blame him. Even if there were TLM's everywhere with strong numbers, they'd complain that there weren't enough High Masses so it still doesn't count. Etc. The problem for them is that they see the SSPX or their independent chapel as sinless, perfect and always in agreement with themselves. It's sad, because those ideas are usually circular in reasoning and quite vicious. They've lost their way and it is easy to show how. They see reconciliation with the Church as dirty and as compromising. They see that Rome has to actually reconcile with them. It's a very bizarre, cult-like, dangerous point of view. It's also the Eastern Orthodox view as everybody knows. The Eastern Orthodox are "waiting" for Rome to reconcile with them, they joyfully await the day in fact.

This is why I respect and love the FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei communities. They have not taken this position. Despite the sinners in the Church, despite the wolves, despite the modernists and despite the opposition they are working form within. They work with Peter, internally. They see that reconcilation in fact gives them more power to do their work - and they don't have to compromise.

I see this as the scene of a car accident. The SSPX are in the other car, saying "When you admit it is your fault, we can sort this out. in the meantime I will criticize you about everything". The FSSP are in the car with Peter, shouting at him for not driving properly but also comforting him and saying "together we will sort this out, with you leading". 

[Tim]

Let's pray Bishop Fellay gets what he needs and that no one splits. Anyone with eyes could see that split here in the tank. It's been there for a long time, but it seems we have come to the tipping point, and if all of the questions are allowed and no impediments are put on the SSPX, it's time.

tim

[TrentCath]

Those who don't want reconciliation with Peter will never want it. They will always have something to moan about. Even if 99.999% of priests were like SSPX priests they'd find that 1 other priest out there who was rubbish and they'd have the cheek to blame him. Even if there were TLM's everywhere with strong numbers, they'd complain that there weren't enough High Masses so it still doesn't count. Etc. The problem for them is that they see the SSPX or their independent chapel as sinless, perfect and always in agreement with themselves. It's sad, because those ideas are usually circular in reasoning and quite vicious. They've lost their way and it is easy to show how. They see reconciliation with the Church as dirty and as compromising. They see that Rome has to actually reconcile with them. It's a very bizarre, cult-like, dangerous point of view. It's also the Eastern Orthodox view as everybody knows. The Eastern Orthodox are "waiting" for Rome to reconcile with them, they joyfully await the day in fact.

This is why I respect and love the FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei communities. They have not taken this position. Despite the sinners in the Church, despite the wolves, despite the modernists and despite the opposition they are working form within. They work with Peter, internally. They see that reconcilation in fact gives them more power to do their work - and they don't have to compromise.

I see this as the scene of a car accident. The SSPX are in the other car, saying "When you admit it is your fault, we can sort this out. in the meantime I will criticize you about everything". The FSSP are in the car with Peter, shouting at him for not driving properly but also comforting him and saying "together we will sort this out, with you leading". 

And pray tell me where did the FSSP come from? Why do the other eclessia dei communities even exist? The FSSP came from the SSPX and the other communities exist only because Archbishop Lefebvre stood his ground. Your characterisation of the SSPX as essentially 'People who moan but do nothing' is therefore total rubbish. Why do you think SP was issued? Again because of the SSPX and their insistence on standing their Ground. All of these events did NOT happen because of the eclessia dei communities but because of the SSPX. Of course let us not forget that SSPX acts as a great counterweight to all the eclessia dei communities, being larger in both members and followers than all of them put together, and in a way forcing Rome to respect them.

The plethora of books on V2, re-examining it, the criticism of communion in the hand, the growth of the traditional movement all of this is because the SSPX has fearlessly and opnely proclaimed the truth since its creation. I do not deny that the FSSP do good work and so perhaps do some of the other eclessia dei communities, but the fact is that only the SSPX has an apostolate spreading Catholic Tradition through books, prayer cards etc... (Angelus Press) and only they dare confront Rome and the bishops 'to their face' on their websites, newsletters etc... Some individual eclessia dei priests may do so but they cannot do so officially. Aside from all this the SSPX can operate in areas where other eclessia dei communities cannot or will not, often because of the local hierarchy, the SSPX operates in at least twice as many countries as any other eclessia dei community.

And let us not forget what can happen to eclessia dei communities, the apostolic administration of St Jean Vianney began as entirely traditional and now its administrator Bishop Rifan believes he has to celebrate the NO or be out of communion with Rome 

Frankly your post as a whole strikes me as both naive and ignorant and ultimately is just more SSPX bashing.

[SPB]

And pray tell me where did the FSSP come from? Why do the other eclessia dei communities even exist?

Yes, we all know the history. But this gets old. When you start seeing yourself in this way, it is part of the general attitude. "YES, IT WAS WE, THE SSPX WHO DID ALL OF THIS! THANK US!". Where is God mentioned there? Where is the humility?

If you, and the SSPX, are so sure of your convictions (I am sure of many of the things the SSPX affirm by the way) then why do you keep promoting yourself - using the same rhetoric of "Well it it weren't for us...". If it weren't for the SSPX, God would have found another way. We are nothing more than instruments in His hands, and traditionalism is nothing more than a means to an end not an end in itself. Rather than tell us how much the Ecclesia Dei communities owe the SSPX, or how much Rome needs the SSPX, tell us how much glory must be given to God - how thankful we are that in His Divine plan things are slowly turning, that there even exists Ecclesia Dei is all part of God's plan.

The FSSP came from the SSPX and the other communities exist only because Archbishop Lefebvre stood his ground.

 Yes, we are thankful for men like ABp Lefebvre, but it didn't begin and end with him. No need to make a cult of personality out of him. To think it was the SSPX only who were involved in the traditionalist movement is lunacy. They were the biggest players, no doubt, but there is a self-entitled "you owe us" kind of rhetoric that has started to flow from the mouths of the SSPX faithful and it isn't pretty.

Your characterisation of the SSPX as essentially 'People who moan but do nothing' is therefore total rubbish.

I didn't characterize them as that at all, and I never would. You are seeing yourself as a victim. The SSPX do a world of good. If there were no Eccelesia Dei communities near me I would happily attend an SSPX Mass (though unfortunately I have none, just a weekly Low Mass),

Why do you think SP was issued? Again because of the SSPX and their insistence on standing their Ground.

That's quite a lovely - convenient - reading of the events, but not entirely true. Your guess is as good as mine. I think SP was issued for a variety of reasons; but it was all divine providence, not the sole work of the SSPX.

All of these events did NOT happen because of the eclessia dei communities but because of the SSPX. Of course let us not forget that SSPX acts as a great counterweight to all the eclessia dei communities, being larger in both members and followers than all of them put together, and in a way forcing Rome to respect them.

Yes, ok, I get it, the SSPX are the best, everybody else must bow down to the SSPX. Who are the best. Without them, the Church would collapse. Once again, you read things conveniently. I am definitely not saying the SSPX are not influential. Nor am I saying they have done no work. However, it's not as cut and dry as you would try and make it, nor is it ultimately the SSPX who are the Vicar of Christ. That title belongs to a Prelate in Rome.

The plethora of books on V2, re-examining it, the criticism of communion in the hand, the growth of the traditional movement all of this is because the SSPX has fearlessly and opnely proclaimed the truth since its creation. I do not deny that the FSSP do good work and so perhaps do some of the other eclessia dei communities, but the fact is that only the SSPX has an apostolate spreading Catholic Tradition through books, prayer cards etc... (Angelus Press) and only they dare confront Rome and the bishops 'to their face' on their websites, newsletters etc... Some individual eclessia dei priests may do so but they cannot do so officially. Aside from all this the SSPX can operate in areas where other eclessia dei communities cannot or will not, often because of the local hierarchy, the SSPX operates in at least twice as many countries as any other eclessia dei community.

Why are you telling me this? As mentioned above, I never once said "SSPX do nothing at all". I don't deny the above. I already know how much they do. No need to advertise it to me. You are preaching to the converted in some sense.

Frankly your post as a whole strikes me as both naive and ignorant and ultimately is just more SSPX bashing.

Yours strikes me as reactionary and shows some poor reading skills since your main tack was to tell me how much the SSPX do when I never mentioned anything about how much they do or do not do. It is also a post that is sycophantic in it's obsession with citing the SSPX as the sole cause of everything good in the Church today regarding traditionalism.

Why would I outright bash the SSPX? I was making a post on my observations. Very general observations at that. If you deny that there is a dangerous ideology in many SSPX circles today it is you who is naive. When the SSPX criticize Rome and someone says "SSPX are Rome bashers" everybody here goes ape about such a stupid comment reminding everybody that sometimes critisizing is necessary. When the tables are turned on the SSPX all of a sudden "Oh look you hate the SSPX you NOer, by the way if it weren't for us you'd be xyz".

[Aragon]

I see this as the scene of a car accident. The SSPX are in the other car, saying "When you admit it is your fault, we can sort this out. in the meantime I will criticize you about everything". The FSSP are in the car with Peter, shouting at him for not driving properly but also comforting him and saying "together we will sort this out, with you leading". 

  The FSSP do not shout at Peter when he screws up. He made one of the biggest mistakes of his pontificate recently (Assisi) and the only traditional group that said anything was the SSPX. I'm mainly involved with diocesan Trad stuff, but the Society gained a lot of points in my book after that.

[SPB]

I see this as the scene of a car accident. The SSPX are in the other car, saying "When you admit it is your fault, we can sort this out. in the meantime I will criticize you about everything". The FSSP are in the car with Peter, shouting at him for not driving properly but also comforting him and saying "together we will sort this out, with you leading". 

  The FSSP do not shout at Peter when he screws up. He made one of the biggest mistakes of his pontificate recently (Assisi) and the only traditional group that said anything was the SSPX. I'm mainly involved with diocesan Trad stuff, but the Society gained a lot of points in my book after that.

I have heard from a few FSSP parishioners that their preists did say something. Just because they aren't publishing things on their website doesn't mean they just sit back and let it all pass. The problem here is that everybody has started to think in one mindset that fears anything outside the way the SSPX works. That if we aren't following their way of doing things, it's all of a sudden the bad way. Not so. Look at our religious Orders. We have many, and hundreds of congregations, societies of apostolic life, etc. If we are all focussed on the same thing that is good, but it is no criticism to say "well the FSSP didn't do it the way the SSPX did it". The FSSP are not the SSPX, and they value the position they are in. Whether some like it or not, the FSSP make these small tongue biting gestures. Blood in the mouth beats blood on the ground when there are souls to be taken care of.

[Stubborn]

Those who don't want reconciliation with Peter will never want it. They will always have something to moan about. Even if 99.999% of priests were like SSPX priests they'd find that 1 other priest out there who was rubbish and they'd have the cheek to blame him. Even if there were TLM's everywhere with strong numbers, they'd complain that there weren't enough High Masses so it still doesn't count. Etc. The problem for them is that they see the SSPX or their independent chapel as sinless, perfect and always in agreement with themselves. It's sad, because those ideas are usually circular in reasoning and quite vicious. They've lost their way and it is easy to show how. They see reconciliation with the Church as dirty and as compromising. They see that Rome has to actually reconcile with them. It's a very bizarre, cult-like, dangerous point of view. It's also the Eastern Orthodox view as everybody knows. The Eastern Orthodox are "waiting" for Rome to reconcile with them, they joyfully await the day in fact.

This is why I respect and love the FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei communities. They have not taken this position. Despite the sinners in the Church, despite the wolves, despite the modernists and despite the opposition they are working form within. They work with Peter, internally. They see that reconcilation in fact gives them more power to do their work - and they don't have to compromise.

I see this as the scene of a car accident. The SSPX are in the other car, saying "When you admit it is your fault, we can sort this out. in the meantime I will criticize you about everything". The FSSP are in the car with Peter, shouting at him for not driving properly but also comforting him and saying "together we will sort this out, with you leading". 

You have no idea what you are even saying.

[Stubborn]

That's my point.  The Church ain't going to do it anytime soon.  BUT, it will allow the SSPX to reunite, and allow it to criticize VII.  Bishop Fellay understands this.  So IF this was the case, then the SSPX should return (and part of it will).  But the other part will go into schism and leave, saying it wants no part with Rome.

Now IF the SSPX were forced to endorse V II, then Fellay won't go for it.  Further, if the SSPX were brought back, with Fellay as  head of the SSPX, if Rome started to backslide, he'd take the SSPX out and run it independent again.

I am just alarmed at those in the SSPX who don't want to come home to Rome, period.  It's mission creep.  Like I said, if the N.O. is still around, they won't go back.  That is unrealistic and has a lack of Charity.

Lack of charity on whose part? You seem to forget the NO is an anti-Catholic modernist innovation which was forced upon us all..........why on earth would the SSPX be considered uncharitable to join that? Why is it charitable to join Rome simply because it is unreasonable to expect Rome to come back to the faith? Should the SSPX join them, as St. Thomas More said - for the sake of fellowship? Or should they remain the Pope's good servant - but God's first? - even at the risk of another split.

Again, repeating myself, I have no problem at going slow until PRACTICAL problems were solved.  If the SSPX is in a Diocese with a modernist bishop, what difficulties will that cause and how will it be dealt with?  THAT has to be addressed, no doubt.  But if it were set up right, then there is no excuse to stay separated.  Bishop Fellay shares that opinion, I doubt the other 3 bishops and a majority of the priests do.

What do you mean "IF" the SSPX did join and end up in a Diocese with a modernist bishop - considering how many traditional bishops there are, they should expect to end up with a modernist bishop.  Why, after +10 years, hasn't the FSSP made any headway converting Rome? - Because it does not work that way, that's why.