Friday, July 05, 2013

The SSPX and the Traditional Latin Mass

Father Jeffery Fasching celebrates a Traditional Latin Mass
at Saint Agnes Cathedral in Springfield Missouri
Photo by John Kelly
Vatican City, Jun 27, 2013 / 04:38 pm (CNA).- On the 25th anniversary of the illicit ordination of four bishops by traditionalist Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Society of Saint Pius X indicated a definitive break of talks with the Catholic Church... read more
I know I'm probably going to step in it with this blog entry, but that's never stopped me before.  Basically it looks like the talks between Rome and the "Society of Saint Pius X" (SSPX) are permanently stalled, with the SSPX bishops saying that Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI, was wrong about his "hermeneutic of continuity" verses a "hermeneutic of rupture" and his analysis that modern forms of communication (television and radio) have given the Modernists the valued tools they needed to transform Western civilisation, bring chaos down upon all of Protestantism, and crisis into the Catholic Church.  Instead, the SSPX is insisting that the cause of the current crisis within the Catholic Church is the Second Vatican Council itself, along with the introduction of the new mass.  With this statement, the SSPX is basically saying that the Vatican is wrong.  The popes are wrong, and the entire Western Catholic Church (Roman Rite) is wrong.  It would seem, based on my understanding of their statement, that they are saying talks with Rome will not resume until Rome is willing to admit that the SSPX is right.  In my opinion, their position is now strikingly similar to that of the Eastern Orthodox (minus the filioque controversy of course) and one wonders if what we are witnessing is an attempt to plant a Western Orthodox Church apart from Rome.

What concerns me is how this breaks down locally in my immediate area, which I'm sure many parallel situations exist in many other local communities throughout the United States and the entire Anglosphere.  I know there are many good Catholics, who are part of SSPX chapels, both clergy and laity, and I would not dare question their motives.  If anything I admire their zeal.  What concerns me is our local situation that I'm sure is shared in many communities.  Here in my diocese, the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), or Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, was banned by our previous bishop for decades.  It was during his reign that a local SSPX chapel was established in our area.  At that time, it could easily be argued that the establishment of this parish was a necessity, due to the ridiculous situation that existed at that time between traditional Catholics and the local bishop.  Many wrote to him, myself included, begging him to reconsider.  He did eventually have a change of heart, in 2007 after Summorum Pontificum was given, permitting the TLM once a month in Springfield and more frequently in a distant rural parish.  However, that bishop retired about five years ago.  His successor and current bishop of our diocese has not only tolerated the TLM, but has made more than generous availability of the TLM, seeing to it that it's celebrated regularly, no less than FIVE DAYS A WEEK!!! (Sunday, Tuesday - Friday).  The priest who celebrates this TLM mass, Father Jeffery Fasching, also hears confession before each and every mass, and is the most dedicated traditional Catholic priest local to this area.  His homilies are consistent with traditional Catholic sensibilities.  His manner of dress reflects this too.  What I am saying here is that our current bishop has more than compensated for the mistakes of our previous bishop on this matter.  To learn more about our new bishop's excellent provision made for traditional Catholics, you can read this website.

One would think with such a generous provision for traditional Catholics in the area, that the need for the local SSPX parish would diminish, and that regular attendance would fizzle.  Such is not the case, and this is the cause of my concern.  Having provided more than adequately for the liturgical and pastoral needs of traditional Catholics in the area, one would think that traditional Catholics would flock to the cathedral for mass.  Many faithful have, but still, many have not.  I personally know this priest who celebrates the TLM mass for the cathedral.  I can assure you he is 100% traditional in his teaching and sensibilities.  He provides a doctrinally safe environment for anyone under his priestly care.  So why aren't more SSPX members flocking to Saint Agnes Cathedral?

I can't answer this question.  All I can do is speculate, and I would rather not do that either.  What I can say is that the leadership's decision to cut off all dialogue with Rome does not help the situation of traditional Catholics here in Springfield Missouri, and if anything, puts them in an awkward situation, especially if they still attend the local SSPX chapel for Sunday mass.

I'll leave it up to the experts to decide if a new schism has been created now between Rome and the SSPX.  What I can say is that based on perceptions alone, a "functional schism" already exists at a local level, even if not yet an "official schism" on the global level.  I say a "functional schism" for multiple reasons.  First, those who attend the SSPX chapel for confession and Eucharist are attending a chapel that is not in any way connected with any recognised authority in the entire worldwide Catholic Church, not to mention no authority recognised at the local diocesan level.  True, SSPX priests are validly ordained, and the sacraments they offer are valid, just like the Eastern Orthodox priests and their sacraments.  However, they are also illicit (meaning "illegal" according to Church law).  Like the Eastern Orthodox, the priest does not have permission to minister by any authority within the Roman Catholic Church.  Speaking as a former Protestant, who converted to the Catholic Church, primarily over the issue of authority, this is a very big problem.  It is a very "protestant" thing to buck the authority of a local bishop who is doing everything within his power to accommodate your needs.  I would say providing a TLM mass and confession FIVE DAYS A WEEK is more than an accommodation!  What more could anyone expect?  An engraved invitation perhaps?  Second,  by regularly attending the local SSPX parish, which is illicit and indeed redundant now, the faithful are separating themselves from the majority body of Catholics in the Springfield area united under the bishop or some kind of approved Church authority.  Again, speaking as a former Protestant, this is a recipe for schism.  After all, as a former Protestant, I ought to know a thing or two about schism, as this is the primary feature of Protestantism.  Who ever heard of "reforming" the Church from an organisation that operates outside of the official Church structure?  I say it's never been done.  Third and finally, there is a clear "attitude" of schism among SOME who do attend the local SSPX chapel and I'm sure this is not just a problem limited to our area alone.  I would not dare mention any names, but I know of some who are outright sedevacantists, and others who frequently accuse the pope of heresy.  Conspiracy theories abound among these types, and other Catholics are frequently looked down upon as "less Catholic" or "barely Catholic at all" simply for attending a regular diocesan parish.  I dare not say all those who attend the local SSPX chapel fit this description.  That would be an unfair generalisation.  I am only saying that I have witnessed these things among SOME who attend the local SSPX chapel, and they know who they are.   These people contribute to a "functional schism" in a more profound way than the other two reasons above.  They should step back and consider what kind of damage they are doing, not only to Christ's Holy Catholic Church, but to the SSPX as well.

The whole crisis in the Catholic Church is rather straight forward and easy to understand if people look at it in a dispassionate way and listen to the wise narrative of the former Pope Benedict XVI.

During the early 1960s the whole Western world was about to be overwhelmed by a tsunami of Modernism and moral relativism. It affected everyone and everything. All of Protestantism was affected by this as well as many within the Catholic Church. So the massive error the SSPX makes, in my opinion, is that they fail to understand the rise of Modernism was universal, affecting the Protestants even more profoundly than the Catholics. To blame all the Modernist problems in the Church on Vatican II is to entirely miss the point. Protestants could care less about Vatican II. It had no bearing on their churches or worldview. It was irrelevant to them. Yet they were more profoundly affected by Modernism than Catholics were. Modernism has gutted the Catholic Church, but in Protestantism it levelled their churches, clearing the way for Evangelical mega-churches, which though currently successful, are built on very unstable soil.

The key instrument of Modernism's torrent through Western society was the creation and widespread distribution of a little device called television. Through this seemingly harmless machine, the agents of Modernism were able to spread their poison far and wide, and as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI pointed out in the last days of his papacy, the "Council of the Media," created by the liberal press overshadowed the real "Council of Vatican II." The television, radio and press media, along with willing accomplices in the Church, spread a false notion about Vatican II, which took root in the 60s and 70s, leaving us with the crisis we currently have today.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Modernism ravaged the Church because of rapid modern communication, and the liberal press, giving people a false idea of what Vatican II was all about. The Catholic Church was wholly unprepared to deal with this new media of communication and has consistently stayed several steps behind it.

Some of the documents in Vatican II were left "deliberately vague." We don't know the reason why and we can only speculate -- so let's not. What we do know is that if these "vague" documents are interpreted in the light of previous Church teaching (the "hermeneutic of continuity") then there is no problem. Catholics stay traditional with just a few updates and that is that. If however, these "vague" documents are interpreted outside of previous Church teaching (the "hermeneutic of rupture") then all sorts of wacky things start to happen, which leads to the Modernist crisis in the Church today.

So there you go. That is what is wrong in the Church, and that is what needs to be repaired. We already have the tools and the demographics on our side. The crisis in the Church will correct on its own regardless of any further intervention by the pope, because everything has been put into place by the last two popes. The only thing Pope Francis can do is speed it up, slow it down or leave it alone, and that will be his legacy which we must trust in God's hands.

On a local level, reform can happen in only one way, and that is if, as many Catholics as possible are participating in canonically-approved celebrations of the TLM.  It has become apparent now that is not going to happen with SSPX chapels any time in the near future.  Therefore, I would encourage all those who assist at a SSPX parish to flock to the nearest diocesan or canonically-approved TLM, if one is available nearby.  Your numbers will have NO EFFECT (ZERO PERCENT EFFECTIVENESS) on reforming Holy Mother Church, if you remain separated from her main body within the walls of a SSPX chapel.  I would say your attendance there has effectively neutralised your witness.  If the local bishop has made provision for you, as our bishop has in Springfield Missouri, then your witness is needed there instead.  That is, unless you like your witness being neutralised. As for clergy within the SSPX, their situation is different of course, but thanks to the provisions made by the last two popes, the door is wide open for reconciliation with Holy Mother Church.  I would encourage these priests to strengthen their priestly ministry by incardination under a tradition-friendly bishop, or into the Vatican loyal FSSP, or any of the dozen or so traditional institutes that remain loyal to the Holy See.  Now is not the time for division and stagnation.  Now is the time for reform and renewal!  We need the witness of all traditional Catholics to make it happen in a timely manner.  Indeed, it is now only the division of traditional Catholics that is slowing things down.

I applaud the efforts of the Bishop of Springfield-Cape Girardeau on this matter.  He is a shining example for other bishops to follow when it comes to this.  The influx of new traditional Catholics into Saint Agnes Cathedral will only trigger bigger and better reforms in the future.  It can do nothing else.

------------------------------------------------------

Click Image to Learn More
Highly recommended by priests and catechists, "Catholicism for Protestants" is a Biblical explanation of Roman Catholic Christianity as told by Shane Schaetzel -- an Evangelical convert to the Catholic Church through Anglicanism.  The book is concise and formatted in an easy-to-read Question & Answer catechism style.  It addresses many of the common questions Protestants have about Catholicism. It is ideal for Protestants seeking more knowledge about the Catholic Church, and for Catholics seeking a quick refresher course on fundamental Catholic teaching. It's an excellent book for Catholics and Protestants alike!
NIHIL OBSTAT, IMPRIMATUR

ORDER YOUR COPY HERE
Publisher Direct | Amazon | Barnes & Noble
Kindle | eBook | iBookstore

25 comments:

Howard said...

Good post. Some of my best friends are Traditionalists, and some of their friends are associated with SSPX, so I know a crisis is coming. I think that's what this is: a crisis that will resolve a long period of uncertainty. SSPX missed the deadline imposed by Benedict XVI, then they made the "definitive break" mentioned at the top of this story; and now John XXIII and John Paul II are set to be canonized, an action with the CDF (http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm) has said must be definitivel held. Traditionalists will soon (if not yet) have to choose between the Catholic Church and SSPX; they will no longer be able to claim both.

johnnyc said...

I don't attend an SSPX parish ...we have the TLM in my parish but for me it is the salvation outside the Church issue. The whole re-formulated positively thing....I don't know. All I know is when I try and explain the Church's teaching to protestants quite a few respond 'then why do I need to belong to the Catholic Church or why do I need the sacraments? Then when you try and explain the Church's teaching that Jews and Muslims worship the same God....well...that doesn't go over to well. Was this explained the same way before Vatican II?

Louis C. Gasper said...

SSPX absolutions are very surely not valid, as SSPX priests have no faculties. The principle of ecclesia supplet does not obtain when there is a priest with faculties reasonably available. Likewise, it is at best uncertain that attendance at an SSPX Mass satisfies the Sunday obligation, for the same reason.

Shane Schaetzel said...

Louis, I completely understand. This is what happens when an organisation (and its clergy) lack authentic authority from the established Church to back it. What you end up with is doubts, uncertainties and ambiguities. This is all the SSPX has to offer. Sadly, many SSPXers never consider this. That's why I say their situation is similar to the Eastern Orthodox, though at least the Orthodox have Patriarchs on their side. The SSPX doesn't even have that.

This is not the 1990s. The crisis may not be near over yet, but the persecution of traditionalists is coming to a close. When a local bishop makes ample provision, as the ordinary in Springfield Missouri has, then there really is no excuse. The SSPXers must return to Holy Mother Church. To fail to do that is a denial of everything they say they hold dear.

Matthew M said...

Hi Shane~
I appreciate your posts and this one is most outstanding. As a former Orthodox Christian via Byzantine Catholicism I understand what you are saying. The thing is, I have always been an Anglican Recusant! In fact, I think the SSPX is now in the same position as the Catholic Church of England was under King Henry VIII. If one thinks about it, one could say that SSPX ordinations are now invalid because they do not use the new ordinal. After all Henry's Church used the same ordinal as his predecessors and not the new Tridentine Usage. This argument has been used by Anglicans since Apostolicae Curae
Pope Leo XIII
On the Nullity of Anglican Orders (1896)
to prove the validity of Anglican Orders.
The situation with the Eastern (Byzantine) Orthodox is different and more complex.

I have always had respect for what the Traditionalists and the SSPX were saying but now as you point out with Summorum Pontificum and the new Reform of the Reform Liturgy and it being celebrates as intended (see NLM / Holy Ghost Church in Tiverton, Rhode Island) things are slowly changing in the Roman Rite. Add to that the Ordinariates and groups validly in communion with Rome and a new trial liturgy being tested in some AU Parishes in the USA and Canada perhaps all is not lost.

johnnyc said...

But it's not just about the TLM. As you stated in the article some of the Vatican II documents were 'deliberately vague'. I plan to read those documents but from reading different forums it does seem to be different teachings prior to Vatican II. So I don't think it's only about the Mass but the impression that the faith has been watered down?

Shane Schaetzel said...

Jonnyc, the problem all comes back to Benedict's hermeneutic analysis. If V2 is interpreted in the hermeneutic of continuity, there is no problem. If V2 is interpreted in the hermeneutic of rupture, it can go from goofy to disaster!

As for the documents of V2 themselves, yes, Rome will have to make some clarifications in the years to come, but I'm betting they won't be as many as one thinks. The CDF has already ruled that it is heresy to say the Church's teachings changed with Vatican 2. So no matter how you slice it, reform is on the way.

Matthew M said...

"The CDF has already ruled that it is heresy to say the Church's teachings changed with Vatican 2"

Truly?
When was this? I think I missed it!. If this is upheld then a lot of Bishops and Priests could be in trouble for deviating from the pre-Vatican II Church Teachings.
I guess it's all up to the Pope to start the push to return the Church to the authentic teachings. I'd rather it was a Pope like Benedict XVI but I'm willing to let Francis I do it if he has the will to do so. Maybe the changes he is embarking on is just the beginning leading back to the Apostolic Order.

Shane Schaetzel said...

Matthew, yes, really and truly. There are things that many within the SSPX (and some sedevacantist groups) simply don't want their followers to know, and so they simply just don't talk about them. Here are two articles you can check out to see for yourself...

2007 Vatican II did not change doctrine

2012 Prefect of CDF says seeing Vatican II as rupture is heresy

The long and short of it is this. If you pick up and read a Catechism from 1955, it is just as valid as if you read a Catechism from 2005. The latter may be more detailed than the former, but they are both just as valid and accurate. The faith has not changed! Vatican II must be interpreted in the context of all Church teaching leading up to Vatican II. Failure to do so is heresy. Period.

Furthermore, both Pope Paul VI and Pope Benedict XVI specifically said that the "note of infallibility" was intentionally not applied to any of the Vatican II documents. Now that's not to say that infallible things were not taught in Vatican II. They most certainly were, but only those things which were already previously defined as infallible. Unlike Vatican I and Trent, the conciliar fathers at Vatican II intentionally wanted to keep Vatican II of a "lower order" than Vatican I and Trent, which is to say "pastoral" in nature, instead of "doctrinal" as was previous councils.

It is the ultimate mistake to elevate Vatican II to a "super council" level, as many within the Church do, when the conciliar fathers themselves specifically intended for it to be considered as a "lesser council" and "pastoral" in nature. These aren't my words, but the words of two pontiffs, both of whom were present at Vatican II, one of whom concluded the Second Vatican Council himself.

Shane Schaetzel said...

A recent commenter on this blog's Facebook page pointed out that perhaps the reason why more SSPX members haven't flocked to a traditional community within the Church, that is canonically approved, is because of "fear" and "suspicion" that the recent accommodations in the Church (either at the universal or local level) might only be temporary. He pointed out that considering the situation that once existed in my own diocese, many traditionalists in the SSPX may be apprehensive about returning for fear that the accommodations might again be taken away with a change of bishops again. The following was my response to this very insightful explanation...

-------snip--------

If not now... when? It's hard to argue with a feeling. Yet at the same time, I am one who believes feelings should not dictate our faith.

Unless you've been an Evangelical Fundamentalist, you cannot imagine the level of fear and apprehension that goes into converting to Roman Catholicism. I've been there. I've done that. I was once an anti-Catholic preacher. There is an Evangelical church in Springfield that has the tapes to prove it. So when God started calling me to Rome, it's almost impossible to explain the level of fear and apprehension that accompanied it. It nearly drove me to a nervous breakdown, but by God's grace, that didn't happen.

I guess this experience of mine makes it difficult for me to accept fear, suspicion and apprehension as valid reasons for resisting the call of God. If Catholics are resisting God's obvious call to return to Rome in Pope Benedict's gestures, over the mere feelings of fear and suspicion, then I believe they are deluding themselves. If not now, then when? 5 more years? 10 more years? 20 more years? A generation or two? With each passing year, the chasm between Rome and the SSPX will grow wider. Not over liturgy and doctrine, because liturgy is improving and doctrine never changed, but because when separations are prolonged, those separated become comfortable and entrenched in their positions. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest. I tell you, if the SSPX doesn't reconcile within a few years, then it may never reconcile at all. How long will it take before Rome and the SSPX reunite? Look at the Eastern Orthodox. We are pushing nearly 1,000 years with them now. This is one very real possibility.

After all is said and done, I think many within the SSPX privately know this. How many SSPX members discretely cross over to FSSP parishes to have their marriages blessed, and then quietly slip back into the SSPX pews? I've heard it's more than a few. What does this say? In my book it says quite a lot. They know they have an authority problem in the SSPX. They know the current status quo isn't good enough. My message to them is simply this. Go ahead and waste your traditional Catholic witness in the SSPX if you like, but know your testimony is neutralised over there. Regular attendance at an SSPX parish only gives the Modernists the fuel they need to prolong their control over local parishes and chanceries. The only place a traditional Catholic's witness is having an effect for change is within the canonical structures of the Catholic Church. When you're within a dioceses, fraternity, or some approved institute, your witness cannot be dismissed. It has to be acknowledged, even if grudgingly, because you're part of the Church and you're approved by Rome. Outside of these canonical structures however, your traditional Catholic witness is just dismissed. You're just a "rebel," or so they will say of you, and they'll get away with it, because in a real sense, you kinda are.

That's my message to SSPX faithful. I say it in brotherly love, with no malice or contempt. These are just the facts of life. Don't shoot the messenger.

Gary Adrian said...

What about if there is not TLM in your area other than with the SSPX? I was away from the Catholic Church for thirty years due to the modernist teachings and actions of the priests in my parish. It was a 'Traditionalist' priest who brought me back into the fold despite the antics going on in my diocese parishes.

Shane Schaetzel said...

Gary, Summorum Pontificum mandates that the bishop supply a mass according to the Extraordinary Form provided a stable group requests it. A group the size of just a few families should be more than enough. If the bishop fails to provide it, Ecclesia Dei should be contacted at the Vatican, so that your bishop can be "assisted" in providing a priest specifically for this purpose.

Gary Adrian said...

Well, I already know we could get about 30 to attend. But I was told by the diocese that they don't have enough priests to go around as it is. Do you think 30 would be enough?

Shane Schaetzel said...

Yes, 30 is enough for a starter group. Continue to work with the chancery office for now. Tell them you are open to anything, and ask them if they will contact the Fraternity of Saint Peter for help. (Remember, the squeaky wheel gets the oil.) As long as the chancery is working with you, you shouldn't need to go any higher. If however, you encounter obvious resistance or stonewalling, then contact Una Voce America and ask them to help you make contact with Ecclesia Dei at the Vatican.

Mario said...

A lot of comments against the SSPX!
Well to many who have made comments here!
It only shows your "Ignorance" of the heresies the Second Vatican Council has preached!
There is imminent reasoning behind the SSPX not to receive canonical approval by the Church!
The FSSP are not spreading the Latin Mass their duty is only to destroy the SSPX which is the goal Rome has set for them, their duty is to open Mass centers a few hundreds of yard next to an SSPX Mass center so you could reduce faithful getting to the SSPX Mass center!
You cannot be Catholic just because you go the Traditional Mass! You need to follow the Doctrines Tradition has taught!
For instance the Church teaches "there is salvation outside the Church" this contradicts tradition, how could you accept such a statement, then why are you Catholic! So you don't believe the Blood of Christ from the Cross is the only means of Salvation!
So you believing that Christ is not the means of Salvation and saying that I go the Traditional Mass doesn't make common sense!
This is just an example! The tip of the Iceberg of Vatican 2, there a vast amount of heresies it contains!
That's why the SSPX wants a Doctrinal Solution! Please do read the Crisis of the Church, just because you were a Protestant and Converted doesn't mean you have a hands on experience on Doctrinal Issues and Irregularities!
The Change with respect to the Dogmas of Earlier Councils and the statements made by Vatican 2 need be considered!
The SSPX is and was disobedient to the last Five Popes, Yes the SSPX is disobedient in order to be obedient to the other 261 Popes!

Shane Schaetzel said...

Mario, thank you for the courage to make your comments, but I must point out some serious problems. In the main article I mentioned a "functional attitude of schism" as well as "conspiracy theories." This is what I'm talking about.

One of the main problems here is the classic strawman fallacy. You stated that Vatican II undermines the historical teaching of "no salvation outside the Church" when in fact it does not. You even go so far as to suggest that Vatican II undermines the essential Christian teaching that the sacrifice of the cross was not necessary.

I'm telling you that Vatican II does not teach any of this! Granted, many have falsely misinterpreted it that way, but Vatican II never actually taught that anywhere. In fact, the Vatican CDF prefect has said that it is heresy to say that Vatican II changed any of the historic teachings of the Church.

What does that mean? It means that when Modernists gleefully claim Vatican II changed the teachings of the Church, they are committing heresy. Likewise, when Traditionalists say they are clinging to the "old teachings," because they lament that Vatican II changed the teachings of the Church, they too are committing heresy.

Everything within Vatican II is consistent with historic Church teaching, provided it is interpreted properly, within the context of Trent and Vatican I. The only time when there is a problem is when people try to forget Trent and Vatican I, and then try to interpret Vatican II within some kind vacuum. That's wrong and it's an abuse of Vatican II.

The "doctrinal solution" the SSPX seeks already exists in the "hermeneutic of continuity" with the past. Now if the SSPX seeks clarification of certain Vatican II teachings, that is one thing and perfectly legitimate. But you know just as well as I do, that is NOT the goal of the SSPX. The stated intention of the SSPX is to continue to deny Vatican II entirely, ignore it, and pretend it never happened. Outside of this demand, the SSPX will not reunite with Rome. That is unacceptable and ridiculous. It's also very "Protestant" when you stop and think about it. All of the Protestant "reformers" claimed to be adhering to an older and more "orthodox" version of Christianity while Rome (so they said) had wandered off into the modern "heresies" of Purgatory, indulgences, etc.

The same goes for the Eastern Orthodox, who retained their catholicity but lost their unity, again for the exact same reason, claiming Rome had gone off the rails with the "modern" filioque phrase in the creed. All of them, Orthodox and Protestants alike, claimed to be adhering to tradition, and that Rome had gone astray. Likewise, all of them had in common one thing, in that they lacked authority to make such claims and put themselves in the place of the pope....

Shane Schaetzel said...

...Some of the concerns of the SSPX are legitimate, but their way of handling it is totally wrong. Yes, some statements within Vatican II are vague and need clarification, but when interpreted properly, they have no conflict with previous Church teaching. The pope needs to reiterate this. True. But to deny Vatican II in total, just because a lot of people have abused it, is a tragic error and a very Protestant thing to do.

Now as for the FSSP chapels, their location is to minister to the needs of traditional Catholics. So long as the SSPX continues to behave like Protestants, then they will continue to be treated like Protestants. We Catholics have no problem setting up shop right next to a Baptist church, so likewise, we will do the same with SSPX chapels. When the SSPX stops behaving like Protestants, and reunites with the Catholic Church, they can expect to receive the full space needed to minister to the Church's faithful on their own without interference from the FSSP or anyone else. Until then however, the SSPX is really no different than the Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists or even Eastern Orthodox for that matter. When you play with the schismatics, don't whine and complain when your chapels are treated the same way as schismatics. It was the SSPX that decided to play hard ball with the Catholic Church. As y'all are finding out, the Catholic Church can play hard ball too. Stop competing with the Catholic Church, and your SSPX chapels will no longer have to worry about the Catholic Church competing with them. The most recent statement from the SSPX, reported above, is very discouraging. It's a huge step in the WRONG direction, and could be the beginning of the end for the SSPX.

Mario said...

Well there is nothing extraordinary to say "Vatican II isn't Dogmatic"

You say there are ambiguous Texts included which itself is the greatest error Vatican II has within itself.
Dogma means "Definition" you need to define text when it comes to a Dogmatic Council not give ambiguous text!
Well I am not here to Refute your comments, but I would like to suggest that you should give sometime to Reading
IOTA UNUM
The Rhine Flows into the Tiber!
Books by ArchBishop Marcel Lefebvre!
I believe you wouldn't be interested with the above, but atleast take time to read the text of Monsignor Brunero Gheradhini!
Vatican II is making a Compromise in Faith, and also on the Basic Doctrines of the Church, You don't seem to understand the Gravity of the Crisis in the Catholic Church!
For your information on the head of the Congregation of Doctrine and faith, ArchBishop Ludwig Mueller, doesn't accept the Blessed Virgin Mary to be a Virgin, additionally he doesn't believe in Transubstantiation!
If the Catholic Church is Behaving Protestant, we need to behave Catholic!
Just because someone officially belongs in the Church it doesn't mean everything he says is Right! We didn't ask for Reconciliation since we believed in only "Doctrinal Agreement" It was Rome who came to Us!Pope BenedictXVI wanted a reconciliation since he treated ArchBishop Lefebvre with contempt when he was the Head of the CDF!
There is no "Doctrinal" Grounds that we should accept Vatican II its absolutely not necessary! Its erroneous to say so!
Rome doesn't want to look at itself to say we have made a mistake!
But times will come when they have to say so!
Please pray for me! Thank You for your response!

Shane Schaetzel said...

Thank you for your reply Mario. Yes, I will pray or you, and for all within the SSPX. Please continue to pray for Holy Mother Church as I'm sure you already do. As I said above, I agree with the SSPX in that we are in need of reform, and I even go further in agreeing with various archbishops and cardinals that Vatican II needs clarification. The fact that the SSPX protests against the errors and abuses is fine. What I disagree with is the manner in which they do it, outside of regular canonical structures. That is all. Peace be with you and may God reconcile our leaders soon.

Mario said...

Thank You Mr.Shane for your Reply! We cannot be included in the Regular Canonical Structure, None of our Cardinals would want the Catholic Church to get to a Post Vatican II era! The Catholic Church is lost in Liberalism, we need a Miracle to happen!
Many of the Bishops never want the Latin Mass, kindly do try to have a look at the Statistics of the Implementation of Pope Benedict XVI Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum on the Traditional Latin Mass!
Try reading some text on ArchBishop Lefebvre!
We want to be regularised Mr.Shane but its very Difficult!
Liberalism is difficult to sustain, it grows in leaps and bounds! Being Conservative is difficult!
Thank you for assuring me your prayers, it was a great honor to have able to share the little things! Thank You!

Shane Schaetzel said...

Thank you Mario, the pleasure and honour is mine. I appreciate your contribution to this discussion. I am yours in Christ -- Shane.

Mario said...

Greetings Shane!
Please do see this interview of Bishop Athanasius Schenieder!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8iBeaGeuxw

Shane Schaetzel said...

Thank you Mario, yes, I've seen that, and it's a sentiment that has been echoed by the fans of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI for some time. I agree with it wholeheartedly. In fact, I've written about it in a bit more detail here:

http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-new-mass-according-to-vatican-ii.html

And here...

http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-reforms-of-vatican-ii-were-hijacked.html

Elaine Cooke said...

I find this article a bit of a near miss. Its true, the SSPX laity are pretty stubborn, suspicious of the Novus Ordo/TLM, and generally set in their particular traditional ways. SSPX laity won't return easily to Novus Ordoland even when it actually tries to embrace the TLM. I know because I moved to an "approved" mass after 3 years of SSPX masses. The "approved" TLM I attended had that particular Novus Ordo taste to it. You know, kind of loose in the rubrics department. Nothing horrible, just loose. The more I went, the more I saw how little things added up, and ultimately, how loose things really were. I didn't notice at first because they were things only God and the fastidious would mind. The thought entered my mind that God would forgive those things because they were small and probably didn't really matter.

Wow! Who the hell did I think I was thinking that? I was moving back to my old mindset prior to SSPX. That old Novus Ordo mentality that says "no fuss, silly details, it's all good". But is it all good? Taking a good look at that scared me because I wanted it to be ok. I wanted to rest easy at the more lax mass and be safe "inside" the Church.

Because of a strange circumstance, one day I took my family to an SSPX mass after about 6 months at the "approved" mass. What a difference! I will tell you right now that the "approved" priest is a really good man. No question. But his mind set is not quite the same as the SSPX mind. Little differences in handling the mass added up to quite a lot when I took a closer look. The laxity at the "approved" masses is obvious to anyone who takes time to consider God's point of view. I have taken special care to pay attention to just what God has asked for. God doesn't ask for things just to be a bully. He asks because he wants obedience. There is far less obedience from "good" "approved" TLM priests simply because their lax conscience no longer corrects them since they have been trained in the more lax Novus Ordo liturgy. <----Now admittedly, that's a guess. I don't really know why they do what they do, but they do do it. "Approved" TLM priests are FAR more lax about things than the SSPX priests. I find that the lax mindset is a serious detriment to my faith because I'm an American. I live in cotton. By nature I am lax deep down. But I'm Catholic enough to know I need poking to keep even slightly straight on my road. I know that keeping the very specific details with care that the SSPX have done an heroic thing. It is way too easy to look the other way when the priest isn't beautifully precise and turns his back on the chalice when Jesus is in it, or holds his hands sloppily, or misses a line from time to time, or whose Latin is less than stellar. For those who say they don't need to worry about such things, I am certainly suspicious of them because I know how slippery a slope that mindset is over time.

Bravo to the SSPX for holding a very difficult line! And no bravo for Sedevacatism, which is never ok and those who go there simply must be sidelined and shunned. For the rest who fear that by going to SSPX masses that they might be outside the Church and part of schism, pray much and check with scripture and the saints to retain a good compass. St. Athanasius fighting the Arian heresy rampant in the Church in his day can help shed some light: "They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle - the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? Even if Catholics who remain faithful to the Traditions are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

Matthew Bellisario said...

You wrote, "So why aren't more SSPX members flocking to Saint Agnes Cathedral?...I can't answer this question."

I think I can answer this question for you. There is more to the Latin Mass than just showing up on Sunday for Mass. The actual parish life also matters, and when a parish revolves around the Latin Mass it is much different than a parish revolving around the average Novus Ordo mentality. This is why people flock to SSPX parishes. It is because they are not being fed at the Novus Ordo parish, which for the most part of void of true Catholic teaching and traditional Catholic parish life. This mentality that just because a Novus Ordo parish throws a bone to allow a Latin Mass on Sundays, and everyone should be happy, is nonsense. That being said I am not an SSPXer, but I do understand the situation of things and you seem to looking at this issue very naively. Thats my two cents worth!