Don, I think that you are letting your frustrations rule you a bit too much unless the problem is deeper than that. Do you believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid? In other words, is Christ truly present? Do you believe that the popes during and after Vatican II were valid? Do you think that popes should be perfect? Even the first pope was not perfect. I do believe that those who encourage others to no longer be in communion with Rome will have to answer to God at some point. I am not going to guess at what the Church would be like today if the SSPX never existed.
Great post, Carol. Therein lies the answers to all of the questions raised by the sedes and the schismatics.
Out of all the people who aren’t in full communion, I would place evangelizing the SSPX dead last if there was a list - and that places them after the majority of Catholics who think they are in communion. I see the SSPX situation much like Archbishop Scheinder: “The current situation of the Church is similar to that of the Arian Crisis in the 4.thcentury: there is a naval battle in the night, where the enemies of the Church attack vehemently the big ship of the Church, whereas in the same time little ships of several true Catholic groups attacks one another, instead of make a common defense against the enemies.”
Wow. A great quote from Bishop Schneider. I also think of Jesus's words "He who is not against Me is with Me." When the apostles talked of others using the Name of Jesus to cast out devils. I trust God to sort it out and will not speak ill of SSPX.
I am not afraid to speak ill of the SSPX, as I am sure you have noticed. I lived through this and saw things, lots of things. Probably things that Bishop Schneider has not gone through. Although he is a Bishop, I don't consider that the SSPX is one of the little groups that he might be mentioning, as I am sure that he knows that they are not in full communion with the Church. So why should I defend them?
Bishop Schneider also clarified his statements in regard to the SSPX and the statement above is not in reference to just the SSPX being like the Arian crisis but all the divisions that we currently have in the Church... CM Exclusive: Bishop Schneider Clarifies Michael Voris, S.T.B. | August 14, 2015 | https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/bishop-schneider-clarifies DETROIT, August 14, 2015 (ChurchMilitant.com) - Bishop Athanasius Schneider is urging caution on the part of those jumping to conclusions about his recent comments about the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), a schismatic group whose priests are suspended a divinis and exercise no legitimate ministry in the Church according to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. In a wide-ranging interview last week, His Excellency made brief comments in response to a question about the SSPX. Those sympathetic to the Society ran with the comments and inflated their significance, assigning to them a far greater certainty than Bishop Schnieder intended. In exclusive communications with ChurchMilitant.com, His Excellency states: I have not said that there are no reasons which would hinder a canonical recognition of the SSPX, but I said more cautiously, "To my knowledge there are no weighty reasons ... ." He continues: I have not said that the current canonical situation of the SSPX is OK. The contrary, because of ... their uncanonical status it is necessary that they receive the recognition from the Holy See. ... I never said that I support the positions of the SSPX about Vatican II. ... Of course, the SPPX has to make their critics [sic] with more respect towards the supreme authority of the Church and has to avoid incorrect and exaggerated expressions and judgements. One has to act with the principle veritatem facientes in caritate (to defend the truth with love). This I often told to the representatives of the SSPX. He goes on: One has to have enough intellectual honesty and objectivity as to admit that the SSPX makes some theological criticism of some not strictly dogmatic affirmations in the texts of Vatican II and of some postconciliar documents, which have to be taken seriously. Unfortunately their criticism lacks sometimes the due respectful form. Those statements can hardly be construed as gushing support for the SSPX as his earlier interview had been portrayed. Bishop Schnieder sees the current situation as extremely lamentable and greatly desires that the SSPX come back into communion with the Church, as all faithful Catholics do. When ChurchMilitant.com inquired of His Excellency about his alleged sympathy for the SSPX and their concerns (many of which are legitimate) being used to portray him as a backer of their current status, he responded, "Regarding the different commentaries of my words about the SSPX I have sent you already my clarifications and the words of my interview have to be red [sic] carefully and in a fair manner. I am really not so much anxious about what people speak about me. All my public pronouncements are transparent and can be red [sic]. Sometimes we have to tolerate or to suffer calumnies in order to be closer to the eternity and to loose [sic] human fear." In a recent official video posted by the SSPX, the organization said that Catholics should never attend the Novus Ordo Masses except for rare exceptions, characterizing it as "an offense against God." The SSPX goes so far as to say Catholics have no duty to fulfill their Sunday obligation at a Novus Ordo Mass, even if it is the only option available. "In such cases," the SSPX suggests, "the Church recommends the faithful to sanctify Sunday by dedicating a time for prayer, alone or in the family: One could read the Mass of the day, pray the Rosary, and make a spiritual communion." The Church has always taught that failing to fulfill one's Sunday obligation when options are available is a mortal sin. The video above expresses the official position of the SSPX as it has been released on their website by the U.S.A. District. The issue with SSPX sympathizers who support schism and their attempts to portray Bp. Schnieder as supportive of their cause is that it would place His Excellency at odds with Rome itself and with the Magisterium — a claim he totally rejects. Bishop Schnieder's comments — as he himself says — are his own subjective evaluations, and must be read cautiously. He is walking a tightrope, trying to keep a balance between the two opposing camps. He desires reunion. He understands there are problems of confusion with some of the documents of Vatican II and desires those confusions to be clarified. He has great sympathy for the SSPX in many of their observations about problems in the Church and the liturgy, as do many faithful Catholics. By his own admission, however, he does not support the full extent of their claims regarding Vatican II — that there are heresies present in the documents. He does not support their position that the Novus Ordo Mass is "an offense against God," and that Catholics may refuse to fulfill their Sunday obligation by staying home insead of attending a Novus Ordo Mass, as the SSPX claims. He does not support what he calls "the exaggerated expressions and judgments" of the Society. He does not support their dismissiveness and disrespect toward the supreme authority of the Church. He admits, as do many Catholics not supportive of schism, that there are serious problems in the Church, some emanating from an incorrect reading of Vatican II documents, and these problems need to be addressed — and when the SSPX speaks of this in a limited fashion, it raises legitimate concerns. The problem is that the SSPX goes over the line oftentimes, as Pope Benedict said. The Supreme Pontiff explicitly noted that the matters of concern for the SSPX are doctrinal, and until these are resolved, all SSPX clergy remain suspended a divinis, and they lack any legitimate exercise of ministry within the Church. For SSPX supporters to portray Bishop Schnieder as an unquestioning ally is something to which His Excellency objects. The full text of Bp. Schneider's initial message to ChurchMilitant.com follows: Dear Michael Voris, here are some clarifications about the issue of the SSPX: 1. I have not said that there are no reasons which would hinder a canonical recognition of the SSPX, but I said more cautiously "To my knowledge there are no weighty reasons". 2. I have not said that the current canonical situation of the SSPX is OK. The contrary, because of the their uncanonical status it is necessary that they receive the recognition from the Holy See. 3. I said that the SSPX should be received as they are, meanwhile. My thought is this: for pedagogical and pastoral reasons they should be meanwhile accepted as they are, in order to correct by time those things which have to be corrected in the SSPX. 4. I never said, that I support the positions of the SSPX about Vatican II. I only said, that there is on both sides, i.e. the Holy See and the SPPX an over-evaluation and overestimation of Vatican II, yet on opposing points of views. The question is the right measure, i.e. we must have an estimation and a good evaluation of Vatican II, but not in an exaggerated manner. We have not to make Vatican II a Council isolated from all the previous Councils or a kind of super-Council. 5. This is the tragedy of the history, that in confused times as this is our time, the good forces in the Church, which want to restore the true faith and Divine worship often fight one against the other, to the detriment of the true renewal and to the joy of the enemies outside and inside the Church. 6. Of course, the SPPX has to make their critics with more respect towards the supreme authority of the Church and has to avoid incorrect and exaggerated expressions and judgements. One has to act with the principle "veritatem facientes in caritate" (to defend the truth with love). This I often told to the representatives of the SSPX. 7. One has to have enough intellectual honesty and objectivity as to admit that the SSPX makes some theological criticism of some not strictly dogmatic affirmations in the texts of Vatican II and of some postconciliar documents, which have to be taken seriously. Unfortunately their criticism lacks sometimes the due respectful form. Nevertheless, some theological objections of the SSPX can be a constructive contribution for a more mature theological explication of certain themes, as for example the collegiality, religious liberty, the liturgical reform 8. Each true catholic should only be glad and thank God, when the SSPX with all their priests and Catholic families, from which the majority are faithful Catholics, would be recognized by the Holy See, so that there would be a new considerable force for a renewal of the Church according to the mind of the Saints, of our forefathers and of the true intention of Pope John XXIII, the intention which is demonstrated in his speeches and especially in the document drafts (schemata) which this Pope ordered to prepare and which he personally approved. 9. The current situation of the Church is similar to that of the Arian Crisis in the 4.thcentury: there is a naval battle in the night, where the enemies of the Church attack vehemently the big ship of the Church, whereas in the same time little ships of several true Catholic groups attacks one another, instead of make a common defense against the enemies. I give you the permission to use these my clarifications and to spread them. God bless you, + Athanasius Schneider Editor's note: Bishop Schneider's e-mail is posted here without alteration.
I plead ignorance on the subject. I know the FSSP is very opposed to them. I also was told years ago that to attend one of their Masses in an emergency was licit. I know our beloved Luke (Mac) was SSPX and no one could doubt his genuine holiness. I just dont know much.
It was not his perception of anything but the stark reality of the very decrees and dogmas of the church that had been taught faithfully for 1950 years which were flung open to the interpretation of the modernists situational ethics. It is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming. How else do we arrive at Amoris Laetetia but by contradictory changes to Church teaching.
Don, Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong to disobey a Pope. Period. It makes no difference what the issue was. The Church hierarchy was established by Christ Himself. The rupture in full communion was brought about by the Archbishop himself. It was against canon law. I am saying that we are not allowed to perform a wrong action to bring about what we perceive to be a right outcome. That’s a sin and it is wrong in the eyes of the Church. Amoris Laetitia is completely unrelated. I was abbreviating Archbishop Lefebvre to AL. Sorry. That was unclear. I apologize for that.
Thanks for your opinion Carol and obviously you are free to draw your own conclusions about me but I'm not interested in offering my personal opinions for analysis. Since we know that the Church can not teach error or contradict prior teachings I guess we don't need to concern ourselves with it. We ought to just obey and stop complaining. Except that's not what's happening is it. We all have to answer to Christ.
Don, Well, that is a diversion from answering some straightforward questions if I ever heard one before. The focus of most of our discussion was based on staying in communion with Rome. I can't think of any member here who is not concerned with what is occurring in the Church right now. Of course, this is the frustration that I was referring to. We are all frustrated to some degree over what is occurring in the Church right now and I never suggested that anyone stop complaining. My concern is when anyone appears to be suggesting that the answer is to become a sedevecantist.
No need to apologize. I understood the abreviation you were using. I used Amoris Laetitia as a very specific recent example of a sacrament of the church which we were both warned by Our Lady via Sister Lucia that Satan would attack and now we see the church itself instead of defending as it always has what has always been taught about marriage instead itself is introducing lots of situational ethics in regard to these teachings. Same with sodomy and Atheism and Mohammedanism and being saved outside the church... AL (not Amoris Laetitia) and the SSPX argued that it was not they who broke from the church but the modernist bishops of VII and the popes who propagated VII that had broke with the constant teachings of the church handed down by Christ and by the Holy Spirit which brought those teachings to their fullness. This was done largely by using situational ethics to change what had always been taught. I know we aren't going to see eye to eye on this.
I have questions for those who believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was simply disobedient. We have seen the phrase 'obey the pope in all things but sin' being mentioned on this forum many times while discussing the distressing changes that are being introduced into the Catholic Church since 2013. So, isn't that what Abp Lefebvre did? He sincerely believed that the changes introduced after Vatican II were against the teachings handed down through the ages. Are you sure he was wrong in his belief? Now the Instrumentum Laboris for the Amazon synod is out, and it has been condemned by Cardinal Brandmuller (who said it is heretical/ an apostasy), Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Mueller, theologian and monk Dom Giulio Meiattini, Monsignor Bux and many other faithful Catholics. What should they/ we do when women get ordained (as deaconesses, for a start) or priests get permission to get married or the Amazonian tribes are allowed to form their own versions of the liturgy? Obey?
Sg, I am following what Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Mueller, Cardinal Brandmuller have stated about the Second Vatican Council and other good clergymen have shown through their actions and also what Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Burke have stated about the SSPX. How can you listen to these good clergymen about their concerns in regard to the Church on the Amazon synod but yet not listen to them when they have stated that the Second Vatican Council itself was good and that the SSPX is in schism? I have said this before and I will say it again, I will wait and see what these good clergymen do when and if changes are made in the Church. Satan is shrewd and we are being tempted, I urge you and others to not take the bait and justify the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. I agree with Don on one thing in regard to this subject, "I know we aren't going to see eye to eye on this."
One day at a time, pray the Rosary, stay away from occasions of sin, be careful of what we read. It's in the Scriptures that Satan would like to sift us like wheat. We are not allowed to commit a sinful act to bring about a good result. We must wait on the Lord. He will deliver us.
The act of disobedience from Archbishop Lefebvre was on a priestly hierarchical level in the Church. We can’t compare our lay responses to the Amazon Synod because 1. It hasn’t happened yet 2. We wait on the Lord to see what good clergymen do when and if something changes We pray mighty prayers beforehand.
I conclude from your reply that you do NOT think the Novus Ordo Mass is valid. I would hope you would wish to correct this conclusion.
Carol , perhaps you would care to put your research skills to use and post article(s) that clarify the SSPX position as regards validity of the Novus Ordo Mass.
I grew up with the Latin Mass something is missing with the Novus Ordu Mass I always thought it was wrong to excommunicate Archibishop Lefebvre. The Pope should have allowed both Masses. Also remember the Pope did not obey Our Lady of Fatima wish about the third secret. I have always wondered about Pope John XXIII.
