Where are the courageous SSPX priests and Bishops?

[TrentCath]

Folks .. I apologize that in my original post, I listed the blog as querite.blogspot.com (which is nasty). It should have been queritedominum.blogspot.com.  Hopefully an admin will correct it.

I was disappointed with Fr. Pfeiffer (whom I have known for several years and deeply respect) for "jumping the gun" on this based on hearsay. 

I wonder why we don;t have the same zeal and courage to reclaim the church and the churches that those bent on destruction had.  I don't advocate doing this by attending the N.O. Rather, by infiltrating the N.O. hierarchy with priests and Bishops of the true faith. 

As layfolk, we do it by vigorously supporting our priests and bishops as they infiltrate the hierarchy.  The priests and bishops will have the courageous job of continuing to speak for the same faith and against the same heresies as they do now but they now can do it from within the ecclesial structure of the church.

As I said in my original post, it takes no courage to bay at the moon or rave to the choir .. but to beard a lion in his liar .. that is the challenge.

Its been trie before, FSSP, Campos etc.. It has always failed miserably and worse rather than convert others those who have tried have been converted, those who have stayed out of the 'official' aren't cowards, they are execising the virtue of prudence.

Coward may be a bit harsh but the course you suggest to avoid reforming the church, which I agree has not been attempted in a public manner by the FSSP or Campos, takes no courage at all and does not give the outward example of love of the Mystical Body.  You would leave it to continue to sicken while you "enjoy" the isolation of your chapel.

I would be equally critical of any SSPX priests who conform to the modernism/heresy of the newchurch.  But the prudence of isolation that you speak of has never saved the church from its errors in the past.  It requires no sacrifice, no fortitude, no valor.  Unless you take the battle to the legitimate hierarchy, you are a just a turtle in a shell.  If you don't consider the current hierarchy to be legitimate, then you have no horse in this race.

The problem with this position is that it rests on false premises, the SSPX is not outside the church nor does the SSPX claim to be the Church, all that one can say is that the SSPX is outside the official structure of the church, the Society therefore helps the church through prayer, penance, masses and so forth, it cannot therefore be said to 'leave the church to sicken'. Moreover the SSPX actively promotes the true teaching and sacraments through the internet, newsletters and its 'Angelus Press' Apostolate, this reaches both SSPX, traditionalist and novus ordo Catholics, in fact the districts in both the USA and France repeatedly send stuff to all the priests in their respective countries. The SSPX also organises conferences, on a personal level priests speak to diocesan priests and bishops and there are of course its negotiations with Rome, how then can it be argued it is leaving the church 'to sicken and rot' 

The absurdity of the accusation becomes even more apparent when one sees the sacrifices the bishops and priests have to make, always moving around, being accused of being 'schismatic' and so forth to provide the true faith and sacraments to all and sundry. It also ignorant to act as if SSPX or traditionalist catholics never interact with NO catholics, I do it everyday and I would think it is the same for many many others, we do not therefore 'sit in isolation in our little chapels'.

You cannot answer the fact that all groups that have ever reconciled with Rome have betrayed their principles and accepted the NO as legitimate and been neutered,  you have therefore failed to refute the argument I have presented.

Lastly your conclusion does not follow, the conclusion 'therefore they are cowards' does not follow from 'they refuse to enter the hierarchal church', even the conclusion 'therefore they are not courageous' would not follow.

[JuniorCouncilor]

TrentCath makes a lot of really good points, and echos quite a bit of what I've been thinking, with regard to the "outside the Church" rhetoric.

That said, I still think that if the Pope makes us an offer that involves reasonable guarantees that the SSPX will be able to preach the Faith (including criticism of the NO) without compromise, it's hard to see how one can really justify turning it down.

The question becomes, what are sufficient reasonable guarantees, and has the Pope offerred them?  The man with the grace of state to make the call is Bp. Fellay.  I don't think he's perfect, but neither can I think of anyone I would rather have making the call.

I mean, the man is the author of the Rosary crusades, n'est-ce pas?  He is the rightfully elected leader of the SSPX.  I would wish to see more trust from those who love the SSPX, and have loved its leaders.

But then, trust comes hard in these times, and not without reason.

[TrentCath]

TrentCath makes a lot of really good points, and echos quite a bit of what I've been thinking, with regard to the "outside the Church" rhetoric.

That said, I still think that if the Pope makes us an offer that involves reasonable guarantees that the SSPX will be able to preach the Faith (including criticism of the NO) without compromise, it's hard to see how one can really justify turning it down.

The question becomes, what are sufficient reasonable guarantees, and has the Pope offerred them?  The man with the grace of state to make the call is Bp. Fellay.  I don't think he's perfect, but neither can I think of anyone I would rather have making the call.

I mean, the man is the author of the Rosary crusades, n'est-ce pas?  He is the rightfully elected leader of the SSPX.  I would wish to see more trust from those who love the SSPX, and have loved its leaders.

But then, trust comes hard in these times, and not without reason.

I agree mostly, we will just have to wait, see, pray and do penance, after all what else can we do?

[VinnyF]

The problem with this position is that it rests on false premises, the SSPX is not outside the church nor does the SSPX claim to be the Church, all that one can say is that the SSPX is outside the official structure of the church, the Society therefore helps the church through prayer, penance, masses and so forth

While not separated from the church, as you suggest, the SSPX is outside of the hierarchy of the visible church to the extent that it cannot enjoin the hierarchy and defend the faith in a participatory manner.  The SSPX cannot, for instance, infiltrate the Curia, participate in Councils, participate in conclaves.   They can most certainly pray and those contemplatives in league with the SSPX can certainly do the same - no question there.

it cannot therefore be said to 'leave the church to sicken'.

I used that term to describe those who are content to remain in the bubble of their chapels and assume that there can be no advantage in engaging the hierarchy from within their own governing and counseling bodies.

Moreover the SSPX actively promotes the true teaching and sacraments through the internet, newsletters and its 'Angelus Press' Apostolate, this reaches both SSPX, traditionalist and novus ordo Catholics, in fact the districts in both the USA and France repeatedly send stuff to all the priests in their respective countries. The SSPX also organises conferences, on a personal level priests speak to diocesan priests and bishops and there are of course its negotiations with Rome, how then can it be argued it is leaving the church 'to sicken and rot' 

I don't think I said "rot", but, taking your point, certainly the publishing of faith materials is critical and there is no doubt that Novus Ordo folks have been and continue to be reached by these efforts.  That said, the effect of having 5 SSPX Cardinals and 25 Bishops would have an orders of magnitude greater impact.  That is my point.

The absurdity of the accusation becomes even more apparent when one sees the sacrifices the bishops and priests have to make, always moving around, being accused of being 'schismatic' and so forth to provide the true faith and sacraments to all and sundry. It also ignorant to act as if SSPX or traditionalist catholics never interact with NO catholics, I do it everyday and I would think it is the same for many many others, we do not therefore 'sit in isolation in our little chapels'.

I do not mean to belittle these sacrifices but they are not greater than any other missionary religious order.  As far as being called schismatic, that is a blessing (see the Litany of Humility) and we are all used to it.  I also do not mean to make light of your efforts to bring in Novus Ordo folks.  But I stand by my accusation that we sit very comfortably in our chapels and we do not have to worry about preaching the true faith because we are safe from any ecclesiastic retribution.

You cannot answer the fact that all groups that have ever reconciled with Rome have betrayed their principles and accepted the NO as legitimate and been neutered,  you have therefore failed to refute the argument I have presented.

Your implication is that the SSPX (in its priests and Bishops) have no backbone and a superficial faith that will easily succumb to the Novus ordo just like "everyone else".  If that is the case, then all of us who assist at an SSPX chapel are in trouble and are in the wrong place. 

I can therefore most certainly refute your argument, vis a vis the others who have regularized.  The difference is that the handful who have gone back are those exceptions to the SSPX foundation who believe that the Novus Ordo is not intrinsically evil and are weary of the burden and the doubt inherent in remaining in a suspended 'a divinis' state.  The eventual victory will be the regularization of 500 priests and bishops and nearly a million laity who are not weary of the battle but desirous of the battle.

[TrentCath]

I used that term to describe those who are content to remain in the bubble of their chapels and assume that there can be no advantage in engaging the hierarchy from within their own governing and counseling bodies.

There are I would say few in the actual SSPX who fit into this category, perhaps slightly more people amongst the laity.

I don't think I said "rot", but, taking your point, certainly the publishing of faith materials is critical and there is no doubt that Novus Ordo folks have been and continue to be reached by these efforts.  That said, the effect of having 5 SSPX Cardinals and 25 Bishops would have an orders of magnitude greater impact.  That is my point.

Except that they would not be SSPX cardinals or bishops, if Rome regularises us we shall be lucky to get even one cardinal!

I do not mean to belittle these sacrifices but they are not greater than any other missionary religious order.  As far as being called schismatic, that is a blessing (see the Litany of Humility) and we are all used to it.  I also do not mean to make light of your efforts to bring in Novus Ordo folks.  But I stand by my accusation that we sit very comfortably in our chapels and we do not have to worry about preaching the true faith because we are safe from any ecclesiastic retribution. 

a) they are still significant
b) given the size of their apostolate and their smaller number of priests, I would argue it is more than a normal missionary order
c)it is both a sacrifice and a blessing, they are not mutually exclusive
d)you have changed what you said, previously you were saying we merely live in little bubbles, now we live in chapels safe from ecclesiastic retribution
i) I do not see how it is relevant that we are exempt from direct eclessiastic retribution, though not indirect as bishops call us schismatics, tell others not to attend our masses etc..., is your suggestion that we should want to be under the direction of quasi heretics, de facto schismatics and theologically erroneous people who will do everything they can to ruin our mission?

Your implication is that the SSPX (in its priests and Bishops) have no backbone and a superficial faith that will easily succumb to the Novus ordo just like "everyone else".  If that is the case, then all of us who assist at an SSPX chapel are in trouble and are in the wrong place. 

Wrong.

Again your conclusion does not follow, to say 'If one returns to the normal structure of the church, there is a signifcant risk many will compromise over time' does not entail the conclusion 'therefore those who compromise have no backbone and have only a superficial faith'.

I can therefore most certainly refute your argument, vis a vis the others who have regularized.  The difference is that the handful who have gone back are those exceptions to the SSPX foundation who believe that the Novus Ordo is not intrinsically evil and are weary of the burden and the doubt inherent in remaining in a suspended 'a divinis' state.

False. Many believed the same as the SSPX, many in the FSSP and Campos for example.

  The eventual victory will be the regularization of 500 priests and bishops and nearly a million laity who are not weary of the battle but desirous of the battle.

When God wills it, but not before.

None of this however proves your assertion that there are no courageous SSPX priests and bishops, a frankly outrageous suggestion, which has been backed up by precious little in the way of direct evidence or sound reasoning.

[JuniorCouncilor]

I stand by my accusation that we sit very comfortably in our chapels and we do not have to worry about preaching the true faith because we are safe from any ecclesiastic retribution.

Um, I may be off base here, but it seems to me that we should be safe from ecclesiastical retribution for preaching the true faith whether inside or outside the Church's visible heirarchy.

I still think saying the SSPX are scared is a non-starter.  Some are perhaps excessively prudent-- at this point, I can scarcely blame them, though I don't believe I agree with them.

[VinnyF]

I used that term to describe those who are content to remain in the bubble of their chapels and assume that there can be no advantage in engaging the hierarchy from within their own governing and counseling bodies.

There are I would say few in the actual SSPX who fit into this category, perhaps slightly more people amongst the laity.

I don't think I said "rot", but, taking your point, certainly the publishing of faith materials is critical and there is no doubt that Novus Ordo folks have been and continue to be reached by these efforts.  That said, the effect of having 5 SSPX Cardinals and 25 Bishops would have an orders of magnitude greater impact.  That is my point.

Except that they would not be SSPX cardinals or bishops, if Rome regularises us we shall be lucky to get even one cardinal!

I do not mean to belittle these sacrifices but they are not greater than any other missionary religious order.  As far as being called schismatic, that is a blessing (see the Litany of Humility) and we are all used to it.  I also do not mean to make light of your efforts to bring in Novus Ordo folks.  But I stand by my accusation that we sit very comfortably in our chapels and we do not have to worry about preaching the true faith because we are safe from any ecclesiastic retribution. 

a) they are still significant
b) given the size of their apostolate and their smaller number of priests, I would argue it is more than a normal missionary order
c)it is both a sacrifice and a blessing, they are not mutually exclusive
d)you have changed what you said, previously you were saying we merely live in little bubbles, now we live in chapels safe from ecclesiastic retribution
i) I do not see how it is relevant that we are exempt from direct eclessiastic retribution, though not indirect as bishops call us schismatics, tell others not to attend our masses etc..., is your suggestion that we should want to be under the direction of quasi heretics, de facto schismatics and theologically erroneous people who will do everything they can to ruin our mission?

Your implication is that the SSPX (in its priests and Bishops) have no backbone and a superficial faith that will easily succumb to the Novus ordo just like "everyone else".  If that is the case, then all of us who assist at an SSPX chapel are in trouble and are in the wrong place. 

Wrong.

Again your conclusion does not follow, to say 'If one returns to the normal structure of the church, there is a signifcant risk many will compromise over time' does not entail the conclusion 'therefore those who compromise have no backbone and have only a superficial faith'.

I can therefore most certainly refute your argument, vis a vis the others who have regularized.  The difference is that the handful who have gone back are those exceptions to the SSPX foundation who believe that the Novus Ordo is not intrinsically evil and are weary of the burden and the doubt inherent in remaining in a suspended 'a divinis' state.

False. Many believed the same as the SSPX, many in the FSSP and Campos for example.

  The eventual victory will be the regularization of 500 priests and bishops and nearly a million laity who are not weary of the battle but desirous of the battle.

When God wills it, but not before.

None of this however proves your assertion that there are no courageous SSPX priests and bishops, a frankly outrageous suggestion, which has been backed up by precious little in the way of direct evidence or sound reasoning.

Trent,

I think we talking past eachother here. Maybe I can sum it up in a way that we can both agree on:

1) It think most SSPX priests and all SSPX bishops are extremely courageous
2) I am not in the least bit worried that Bishops Williamson, Fellay, Tissier, or de Galleretta will turn into a Bishop Rifan should they accept a canonical regularization
3) I think a regularization will send a significant flow of faithful into SSPX chapels and not vice-versa.
4) I will leave my SSPX chapel at the first whisper of modernism or heresy.

[TrentCath]

I used that term to describe those who are content to remain in the bubble of their chapels and assume that there can be no advantage in engaging the hierarchy from within their own governing and counseling bodies.

There are I would say few in the actual SSPX who fit into this category, perhaps slightly more people amongst the laity.

I don't think I said "rot", but, taking your point, certainly the publishing of faith materials is critical and there is no doubt that Novus Ordo folks have been and continue to be reached by these efforts.  That said, the effect of having 5 SSPX Cardinals and 25 Bishops would have an orders of magnitude greater impact.  That is my point.

Except that they would not be SSPX cardinals or bishops, if Rome regularises us we shall be lucky to get even one cardinal!

I do not mean to belittle these sacrifices but they are not greater than any other missionary religious order.  As far as being called schismatic, that is a blessing (see the Litany of Humility) and we are all used to it.  I also do not mean to make light of your efforts to bring in Novus Ordo folks.  But I stand by my accusation that we sit very comfortably in our chapels and we do not have to worry about preaching the true faith because we are safe from any ecclesiastic retribution. 

a) they are still significant
b) given the size of their apostolate and their smaller number of priests, I would argue it is more than a normal missionary order
c)it is both a sacrifice and a blessing, they are not mutually exclusive
d)you have changed what you said, previously you were saying we merely live in little bubbles, now we live in chapels safe from ecclesiastic retribution
i) I do not see how it is relevant that we are exempt from direct eclessiastic retribution, though not indirect as bishops call us schismatics, tell others not to attend our masses etc..., is your suggestion that we should want to be under the direction of quasi heretics, de facto schismatics and theologically erroneous people who will do everything they can to ruin our mission?

Your implication is that the SSPX (in its priests and Bishops) have no backbone and a superficial faith that will easily succumb to the Novus ordo just like "everyone else".  If that is the case, then all of us who assist at an SSPX chapel are in trouble and are in the wrong place. 

Wrong.

Again your conclusion does not follow, to say 'If one returns to the normal structure of the church, there is a signifcant risk many will compromise over time' does not entail the conclusion 'therefore those who compromise have no backbone and have only a superficial faith'.

I can therefore most certainly refute your argument, vis a vis the others who have regularized.  The difference is that the handful who have gone back are those exceptions to the SSPX foundation who believe that the Novus Ordo is not intrinsically evil and are weary of the burden and the doubt inherent in remaining in a suspended 'a divinis' state.

False. Many believed the same as the SSPX, many in the FSSP and Campos for example.

  The eventual victory will be the regularization of 500 priests and bishops and nearly a million laity who are not weary of the battle but desirous of the battle.

When God wills it, but not before.

None of this however proves your assertion that there are no courageous SSPX priests and bishops, a frankly outrageous suggestion, which has been backed up by precious little in the way of direct evidence or sound reasoning.

Trent,

I think we talking past eachother here. Maybe I can sum it up in a way that we can both agree on:

1) It think most SSPX priests and all SSPX bishops are extremely courageous
2) I am not in the least bit worried that Bishops Williamson, Fellay, Tissier, or de Galleretta will turn into a Bishop Rifan should they accept a canonical regularization
3) I think a regularization will send a significant flow of faithful into SSPX chapels and not vice-versa.
4) I will leave my SSPX chapel at the first whisper of modernism or heresy.

We can agree, though whether I will leave or not depends on whether I have anywhere else to go. 

[INPEFESS]

Are you sure? I would surmise that Satan delights more in blaspheming a real Mass and real Host than an invalid Mass and unconsecrated host. For what it is worth (this is on my mind since I just read it), the Consecration in the Satanic Mass in Malachi Martin's Windswept House is the exact formula, spoken in Latin, as in the Traditional Mass.

Yes, this only makes sense.

[Old Salt]

Are you sure? I would surmise that Satan delights more in blaspheming a real Mass and real Host than an invalid Mass and unconsecrated host. For what it is worth (this is on my mind since I just read it), the Consecration in the Satanic Mass in Malachi Martin's Windswept House is the exact formula, spoken in Latin, as in the Traditional Mass.

Yes, this only makes sense.

I speak from experience in attending several Black Mass's.
The "Consecration" formula was uttered loud enough for me to hear it, every time I went, and it was nothing like the TLM formula or NO formula.

Also, speaking of Fr Martin, He recounts twice his book "Hostage to the Devil" how the "Consecration" at a black mass was invalid due to altered words of the formula.