Pope Francis and the SSPX

In all the tumult that has erupted within Church since the election of Pope Francis, one voice has been relatively silent: That of the SSPX.

I will admit that I was somewhat surprised by the lack of response (so far) to the Pope's 12,000 word 'interview'.

... or has it been?

On sspx.org there is a continual stream of posts about the crisis in the Church, including old articles restating the positions of the SSPX.

However, on the one hand, the amount of questionable statements by the Pope is enormous and could occupy a legion sifting through the various comments made and reported every day.

But, I have noticed that whenever Pope Francis has made a deliberate comment (not just an off-the-cuff statement), there exists calm commentary.

For example, concerning the day of prayer and fasting we have the following comment:

The call for peace is certainly a good one. One could wish that the Holy Father would make the connection between peace on earth and fidelity to the divine will and invite people to seek more directly peace from the only One who can give it: Our Lord Jesus Christ, Rex Pacificus. The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate violence is necessary, just as, the distinction between true peace and false peace. (Source)

or this:

Behind this innocent question there lurks the concept that if priestly celibacy is not totally a doctrinal matter, then it is pretty much up for grabs as some heated minds are all too ready to exact from the comments of Pope Francis. (Source)

It is almost as if the leadership of the SSPX has come to the realization, in this stage of the crisis of the Church, inflammatory rhetoric would not help the situation. Instead, it has adopted a simple maxim of their founder, paraphrased as:

Do not get emotional in arguing, it is not your truth, it is the Church's truth. (Archbishop Lefebvre as related by a former novice)

It is also possible that the SSPX has internalized the criticism of Dr. Lamont:

... I believe that there are some criticisms to be made of the Society’s position towards the Council. The Society tends to focus as much on the claim that the council contains errors as on denouncing the errors that it believes the council to contain. This gets priorities wrong. After all, there is no profit in a Catholic’s accepting that the council contains errors without learning what these errors were; whereas a Catholic who learns that the errors taught by the council are to be avoided, but who remains ignorant of the council’s having taught them, greatly benefits thereby – and is not really any the worse for his ignorance of the council’s assertions. The basis for objecting to the council’s having taught errors, after all, is that such teaching leads Catholics to accept these errors. If the Society were to focus on upholding its positive positions on doctrine, it would be in a much stronger position with respect to the Holy See and the Church generally. Rather than being in the position of defending the claim that some conciliar and post-conciliar teachings are false, it would put its opponents on the defensive, by saying “here are these authoritative teachings; all Catholics must accept them”. If its opponents are not to reject the authority of Church teaching altogether, they must either accept these teachings, or else claim that the Second Vatican Council had abolished them and hence accept that the council actually did reject previous teaching. Now that Benedict XVI has officially rejected the latter position, this approach by the Society would eventually force Catholics who intend to be loyal to the magisterium to accept the former. (source)

In this case, demonstrate the doctrine as pronounced by the Magisterium and then demonstrate where the Second Vatican Council contravened these doctrines.

Regardless of this last possibility, from my arguments with various online personalities that are unsatisfied with the way the SSPX is handling its criticism of the Pope, I do know one thing: The calm and patient approach is what convinces rather than the inflammatory 'conspiracy theory' rhetoric.

After all, it is not our truth, it is the Church's truth.

Keep Calm and Carry On

Prayer
Penance
Patience
P^3

Auctorem Fidei

Can the SSPX be right about the Novus Ordo? Revision: Feb 11, 2013 On another web forum, I was engaged in a rather heated discussion about the documents of Vatican II.

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX. This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid. No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein. Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse? The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin. Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service. It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R

Tradicat

Search This Blog