The Church should respond to them: “from Vatican Council II up to the present day, men in the SSPX have been animated by a spirit that is contrary to that of the faith and have been acting against holy unity. They will no longer endure sound discipline.”
This is funny and tempting, but the better path is probably to do what all good parents do with their wayward children. Continue to treat them as children without being an enabler.
True... But I do not know if they actually care if the excommunications are lifted; I suspect they don't (otherwise they would not have proceeded with the ordinations in the first place). I wonder if this is more of an attempt to build credibility amongst those sympathetic to the SSPX (look, we tried everything, and the Vatican is unwilling to work with us! It was the Vatican that truly opposes unity!)
The Church should take the appeal seriously. The thing that makes the SSPX different from sedevacantists is that they still claim (at least in theory) that the Pope is the Pope and thus the governing structure is at least valid. The Vatican should treat these people as Catholics and work it through the system. The SSPX will lose of course, but that's not the point.
It would be an act of mercy to continue to treat the disobedient children as children. You never know...maybe at least some people within their group will be positively impacted.
I've had conversations with various Lefebvrists since 1988. While it's a bit random, and I can't claim any sort of representative group, around 20-25% of their clergy that I've spoken to are sedevacantist. The 'official' stance of the canonically non existent group is that they aren't.
Not good of course, but note that I've been told heretical things by priests from typical parishes. I bet you could find large pockets of priests who regularly tell couples contraception is a-ok or a matter of private discernment. A priest told my wife such in confession. I went to a parish where the priest regularly "married" people who had been divorced without an annulment as a matter of course.
Unfortunately clergy with heretical beliefs aren't that hard to find
Yep. A fair number of trads are refugees from NO parishes due to such doctrinal or moral heterodoxy. It's not primarily about the liturgy for everyone. Catholics live by the Sacraments, and prayer, and by *every* article of the Faith.
yes, but the DDF gave them an official response showing them what they have to do to be in union with the church. They obstinately refuse as individual bishops and priests.
A thought that has been working through my mind, while agreeing with pride, is lack of trust. If the gates of Hell will not prevail then what happened at the council? I suspect SSPX would say they are the protected church but that doesn't fit with the tradition they so like to quote.
I wonder how much of a difference it makes, as far as self-perception, that the SSPX will now have a substantial number of cradle members, as opposed to 1988 where there wouldn't have been as many.
I think it makes a massive difference, especially when they are home schooled, as I suspect might be fairly common in SSPX circles. I love homeschoolers, but they don't have a reputation for playing nicely with others.
Rude in what way? The whole point of homeschooling - I deal with a few families- is to be isolated from public education systems, and even from the communal model. Let’s just say that I observe a much higher tolerance for unconventional behaviour in children amongst homeschoolers.
That's a huge generalization that doesn't match my experience. If you're basing this on a few families, your experience is limited. ETA: The vast majority of children's issues stem from the parents, regardless of educational choice.
Nah, the whole point is that they get a solid education and learn to be life-long learners, instead of cogs in the wheel, so to speak. There are communal models that provide this, but they are not available everywhere, and sometimes they cost too much for the family to access them, even if they are available.
p.s. you didn't define "playing nicely," but I wouldn't call agreeing to the need for a papal mandate in the making of bishops "playing nicely." It seems like simple rational seriousness applied to the question of whether the pope is the pope. SSPX, at its core, is either not serious, or ultimately sedevacantist. I suspect homeschooled kids are going to grow up into either leaving the SSPX because they realize the premise doesn't make sense, or they will become serious sedevacantists.
Do you think SSPX families are likely to be typical homeschoolers? I suspect that they might be on the more isolationist end of the spectrum. Remember, they think that there is a crisis in the church and the means of grace are not available in a typical parish.
Speaking as a parent who sends his kids to the public schools specifically so they can get a high exposure to normal social environments: Yeah, that makes sense.
I have had to do a LOT of learning in college and throughout my career on how to interact with people. That wasn't all due to homeschooling, but homeschooling made it much easier not to learn social interaction.
I think a lot of that has to do with your family environment rather than homeschooling itself. Sociable, friendly, well-adjusted parents make sociable, friendly, well-adjusted kids.
Not sure when you were homeschooled, but note that the game has really changed in the last 25 years. Homeschool is common now with a lot of infrastructure built up. My kids interact with public school and private school kids all the time
The unsocialized homeschooler is that way because their parents chose that. And btw - a lot of what's called socialization in public schools is ... not good
That's fair. I've also noticed that it varies heavily on a state by state basis, both in terms of what bar the parents have to clear and in terms of local support. I was not socialized very well, in my own opinion, but I also didn't participate in any robust home school groups.
The Church authorities should first discipline those who abuse the Faith from the left; should make clear, orthodox and enforceable statements about reverent liturgy and morality; and then proceed to discipline the SSPX. Obviously the law is clear in regard to what the SSPX has done; however there are pastoral issues within the Church that also demand addressing in the name of justice.
A friend said that in this situation the SSPX reminds her of the older brother in the parable of the prodigal son. I think it’s a very good response to that common objection.
These complaints regarding doctrinal correction have gone largely unanswered for decades, and there are many souls leaving the Church as a result, even excluding the SSPX. Those numbers dwarf the SSPX's highest estimated numbers.
The thing with the SSPX is not really about liturgy or being "left-wing" or "right-wing" at a fundamental level. Its a question of ecclesiology and Church unity. This act of disobedience is a more pressing issue that can be handled directly than the more nebulous categories of "right" and "left." If the SSPX had attempted to ordain women to the priesthood, the Holy See would have approached the situation with the same seriousness. The German bishops started the year in a similar boat to the SSPX, but backed down when confronted by Rome.
Plus, it's not like Rome hasn't been calling for reverent liturgies. Pope Francis called for it, Pope Leo XIV has called for it. He has audiences on Sacrosanctum Concilium speaking directly about the liturgy. We've also seen bishops direct their priests to follow the rubrics of the Mass and avoid extra-liturgical additions. Would it be great if the Holy See could make a declaration and fix the liturgy? Yes. But that's not how the world works. Ultimately it is the local bishop who must protect the liturgy which is easier said than done. The liturgical abuses we see today are not new. They existed before the promulgation of the new missal. If anything, liturgical abuse was the reason there was a call for the renewal of the liturgy at Vatican II.
I think this is far more complicated than you make it out to be. First, the SSPX obviously violated the will of the Pope. I understand that there appears to be a double standard, and I think that the Vatican (from my admittedly limited knowledge) could have done more to prevent the consecrations, however what is done is done, and you cannot consecrate bishops without the will of the Pope and claim that it is not schismatic.
Secondly, disciplining "left-wing" elements in the Church is complicated, and the proper tactic or tactics to discipline liberal deviations from the Catholic faith remains unknown. Is it better to slowly change the episcopacy overtime or to make big changes at once? I fear that the later would cause significantly more schism within the Church, which may not be necessary (the left-wing of the Church is decreasing in numbers annually anyways). Does the Church maintain status quo while the left-wing elements slowly wilt and die? Also, is it better that discipline be public or private? The proper tactic is unclear to me, although I suspect a sudden action is more likely to result in a catastrophe. Justice is important, but prudence is valuable as well.
The Church could get away with not disciplining heterodox bishops if the DDF publicly corrected their false teaching. Discipline can be prudentially related to its effect on the individual, but the truth must be preached in season and out of season.
Public false teaching is *scandal*, not in the colloquial sense of making gossips gasp in horror, but in the theological sense of causing others to sin, including by corrupting children. The Church is our defense against such things.
I can't wrap my head around why someone would want to be in communion with another when the former believes the latter has abandoned the faith. Either the representatives of the SSPX cannot reason properly or they have alternative motives in taking this course of action. Either is possible, and perhaps both.
This is precisely why I agree with the commenter who said that the SSPX has only filed the recourse in order to be able to claim that they’re victims of the Vatican’s cruelty.
There is also the possibility that they think heterodox bishops in power have abandoned the Faith, and the Church still rests on Peter as it always has.
For example, I can't say I want to be in communion with Rupnik, but I'm not leaving the barque to get away. I would certainly take safety precautions to avoid giving him any power over me or mine though, and disobey as necessary to do so.
Not saying they've assessed the situation correctly, just saying it's a possible assessment.
I think at this point people need to stop trying to explain away the actions of the SSPX leadership as anything other than calculated and knowledgable moves designed to maintain power and influence over their members and their sizable assets. This is of course true about many leaders within the wider Church, but I am tired of people assuming that SSPX leadership (no judgement cast on their priests and lay members) have the best of intentions here.
The Church should respond to them: “from Vatican Council II up to the present day, men in the SSPX have been animated by a spirit that is contrary to that of the faith and have been acting against holy unity. They will no longer endure sound discipline.”
This is funny and tempting, but the better path is probably to do what all good parents do with their wayward children. Continue to treat them as children without being an enabler.
These guys have some real nerve…chutzpah as our Yiddish friends would call it.
True... But I do not know if they actually care if the excommunications are lifted; I suspect they don't (otherwise they would not have proceeded with the ordinations in the first place). I wonder if this is more of an attempt to build credibility amongst those sympathetic to the SSPX (look, we tried everything, and the Vatican is unwilling to work with us! It was the Vatican that truly opposes unity!)
I think that's a reasonable read.
The Church should take the appeal seriously. The thing that makes the SSPX different from sedevacantists is that they still claim (at least in theory) that the Pope is the Pope and thus the governing structure is at least valid. The Vatican should treat these people as Catholics and work it through the system. The SSPX will lose of course, but that's not the point.
It would be an act of mercy to continue to treat the disobedient children as children. You never know...maybe at least some people within their group will be positively impacted.
I've had conversations with various Lefebvrists since 1988. While it's a bit random, and I can't claim any sort of representative group, around 20-25% of their clergy that I've spoken to are sedevacantist. The 'official' stance of the canonically non existent group is that they aren't.
Not good of course, but note that I've been told heretical things by priests from typical parishes. I bet you could find large pockets of priests who regularly tell couples contraception is a-ok or a matter of private discernment. A priest told my wife such in confession. I went to a parish where the priest regularly "married" people who had been divorced without an annulment as a matter of course.
Unfortunately clergy with heretical beliefs aren't that hard to find
Yep. A fair number of trads are refugees from NO parishes due to such doctrinal or moral heterodoxy. It's not primarily about the liturgy for everyone. Catholics live by the Sacraments, and prayer, and by *every* article of the Faith.
yes, but the DDF gave them an official response showing them what they have to do to be in union with the church. They obstinately refuse as individual bishops and priests.
A thought that has been working through my mind, while agreeing with pride, is lack of trust. If the gates of Hell will not prevail then what happened at the council? I suspect SSPX would say they are the protected church but that doesn't fit with the tradition they so like to quote.
Pride and lack of trust are deadly.
I wonder how much of a difference it makes, as far as self-perception, that the SSPX will now have a substantial number of cradle members, as opposed to 1988 where there wouldn't have been as many.
I think it makes a massive difference, especially when they are home schooled, as I suspect might be fairly common in SSPX circles. I love homeschoolers, but they don't have a reputation for playing nicely with others.
That's rude. On what basis are you making this claim?
Rude in what way? The whole point of homeschooling - I deal with a few families- is to be isolated from public education systems, and even from the communal model. Let’s just say that I observe a much higher tolerance for unconventional behaviour in children amongst homeschoolers.
The family model is the basis of the communal model since the family is the most basic cell of society.
That's a huge generalization that doesn't match my experience. If you're basing this on a few families, your experience is limited. ETA: The vast majority of children's issues stem from the parents, regardless of educational choice.
Nah, the whole point is that they get a solid education and learn to be life-long learners, instead of cogs in the wheel, so to speak. There are communal models that provide this, but they are not available everywhere, and sometimes they cost too much for the family to access them, even if they are available.
p.s. you didn't define "playing nicely," but I wouldn't call agreeing to the need for a papal mandate in the making of bishops "playing nicely." It seems like simple rational seriousness applied to the question of whether the pope is the pope. SSPX, at its core, is either not serious, or ultimately sedevacantist. I suspect homeschooled kids are going to grow up into either leaving the SSPX because they realize the premise doesn't make sense, or they will become serious sedevacantists.
Lol - tell me you don't understand typical homeschoolers without having to say it
Do you think SSPX families are likely to be typical homeschoolers? I suspect that they might be on the more isolationist end of the spectrum. Remember, they think that there is a crisis in the church and the means of grace are not available in a typical parish.
Speaking as a former homeschooler: Bah, so rude!
Speaking as a parent who sends his kids to the public schools specifically so they can get a high exposure to normal social environments: Yeah, that makes sense.
I have had to do a LOT of learning in college and throughout my career on how to interact with people. That wasn't all due to homeschooling, but homeschooling made it much easier not to learn social interaction.
I think a lot of that has to do with your family environment rather than homeschooling itself. Sociable, friendly, well-adjusted parents make sociable, friendly, well-adjusted kids.
Not sure when you were homeschooled, but note that the game has really changed in the last 25 years. Homeschool is common now with a lot of infrastructure built up. My kids interact with public school and private school kids all the time
The unsocialized homeschooler is that way because their parents chose that. And btw - a lot of what's called socialization in public schools is ... not good
That's fair. I've also noticed that it varies heavily on a state by state basis, both in terms of what bar the parents have to clear and in terms of local support. I was not socialized very well, in my own opinion, but I also didn't participate in any robust home school groups.
The Church authorities should first discipline those who abuse the Faith from the left; should make clear, orthodox and enforceable statements about reverent liturgy and morality; and then proceed to discipline the SSPX. Obviously the law is clear in regard to what the SSPX has done; however there are pastoral issues within the Church that also demand addressing in the name of justice.
The Vatican appears to be getting better at, at least, stating good and consistent expectations. Enforceability is tricky.
Your comments are similar to an employee complaining during a discipline session " what about the others who are not following rules"
A good manager responds: we are currently discussing your issues, and this meeting is scheduled to develop corrections to your individual actions.
Let us not forgot that SSPX ordained Bishops without a Papal Mandate.
The Church had no choice but to respond.
A friend said that in this situation the SSPX reminds her of the older brother in the parable of the prodigal son. I think it’s a very good response to that common objection.
These complaints regarding doctrinal correction have gone largely unanswered for decades, and there are many souls leaving the Church as a result, even excluding the SSPX. Those numbers dwarf the SSPX's highest estimated numbers.
One would think the Church would respond to that.
The thing with the SSPX is not really about liturgy or being "left-wing" or "right-wing" at a fundamental level. Its a question of ecclesiology and Church unity. This act of disobedience is a more pressing issue that can be handled directly than the more nebulous categories of "right" and "left." If the SSPX had attempted to ordain women to the priesthood, the Holy See would have approached the situation with the same seriousness. The German bishops started the year in a similar boat to the SSPX, but backed down when confronted by Rome.
Plus, it's not like Rome hasn't been calling for reverent liturgies. Pope Francis called for it, Pope Leo XIV has called for it. He has audiences on Sacrosanctum Concilium speaking directly about the liturgy. We've also seen bishops direct their priests to follow the rubrics of the Mass and avoid extra-liturgical additions. Would it be great if the Holy See could make a declaration and fix the liturgy? Yes. But that's not how the world works. Ultimately it is the local bishop who must protect the liturgy which is easier said than done. The liturgical abuses we see today are not new. They existed before the promulgation of the new missal. If anything, liturgical abuse was the reason there was a call for the renewal of the liturgy at Vatican II.
I think this is far more complicated than you make it out to be. First, the SSPX obviously violated the will of the Pope. I understand that there appears to be a double standard, and I think that the Vatican (from my admittedly limited knowledge) could have done more to prevent the consecrations, however what is done is done, and you cannot consecrate bishops without the will of the Pope and claim that it is not schismatic.
Secondly, disciplining "left-wing" elements in the Church is complicated, and the proper tactic or tactics to discipline liberal deviations from the Catholic faith remains unknown. Is it better to slowly change the episcopacy overtime or to make big changes at once? I fear that the later would cause significantly more schism within the Church, which may not be necessary (the left-wing of the Church is decreasing in numbers annually anyways). Does the Church maintain status quo while the left-wing elements slowly wilt and die? Also, is it better that discipline be public or private? The proper tactic is unclear to me, although I suspect a sudden action is more likely to result in a catastrophe. Justice is important, but prudence is valuable as well.
The Church could get away with not disciplining heterodox bishops if the DDF publicly corrected their false teaching. Discipline can be prudentially related to its effect on the individual, but the truth must be preached in season and out of season.
Public false teaching is *scandal*, not in the colloquial sense of making gossips gasp in horror, but in the theological sense of causing others to sin, including by corrupting children. The Church is our defense against such things.
I can't wrap my head around why someone would want to be in communion with another when the former believes the latter has abandoned the faith. Either the representatives of the SSPX cannot reason properly or they have alternative motives in taking this course of action. Either is possible, and perhaps both.
This is precisely why I agree with the commenter who said that the SSPX has only filed the recourse in order to be able to claim that they’re victims of the Vatican’s cruelty.
There is also the possibility that they think heterodox bishops in power have abandoned the Faith, and the Church still rests on Peter as it always has.
For example, I can't say I want to be in communion with Rupnik, but I'm not leaving the barque to get away. I would certainly take safety precautions to avoid giving him any power over me or mine though, and disobey as necessary to do so.
Not saying they've assessed the situation correctly, just saying it's a possible assessment.
I think at this point people need to stop trying to explain away the actions of the SSPX leadership as anything other than calculated and knowledgable moves designed to maintain power and influence over their members and their sizable assets. This is of course true about many leaders within the wider Church, but I am tired of people assuming that SSPX leadership (no judgement cast on their priests and lay members) have the best of intentions here.