|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 16, 2015 22:58:04 GMT
the SSPX are no nearer to reconciliation now than at anytime since 1988, or perhaps more accurately since the Archbishop's death in 1991. Hello Alaisdir (and all), I am a former lurker who has now signed up! I would often peek into the forum to read opinions on the SSPX / traditional Catholicism more widely, as well as see what's happening with Irish Catholicism in general (I am Scottish myself). Hello Gabriel and welcome to the forum.I was struck by your comment that we are no closer to a resolution of the canonical status of the SSPX than we have been for decades. I wonder if that is not an overly pessimistic view? I'd agree with you that Alaisdir's view is rather pessimistic, though given that there have been many false dawns in the past, his reaction is probably understandable.I myself discovered traditional Catholicism some 3 - 4 years ago now. I will be upfront and say that I attend an SSPX Church myself, but I also give support to traditional leaning Diocesan priests, as well as other traditional groups such as the FSSP. (In my experience, they are all in cahoots to some degree behind the scenes anyway). The traditional faith has been a revelation to me, it is beautiful, compelling, inspiring. There is a real substance to it, compared to the saccharine post-V2 faith I grew up with (and lapsed from, as soon as I was able). To give an analogy, I feel like I have been eating buns all these years, but now I have a burger in my bun! Welcome home! It is parishoners like you who will help bring the SSPX back to Peter by keeping the bridges open.I have been greatly encouraged (and, I admit, surprised) by the progress which has been made regarding the SSPX situation under the pontificate of Pope Francis (which has been disappointing/concerning in other regards). It seems to me that all the "ingredients" (if you will) are already there for a formal canonical recognition of the Society, namely: - the Holy See has repeatedly confirmed (at least 3 times, that I am aware of) that an SSPX mass fulfills the mass obligation of Catholics - there are no remaining canonical penalties hanging over the SSPX Bishops, thanks to Pope Benedict - The Society is officially listed as an organisation of the Catholic Church, in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires (the fruit of a relationship begun under Cardinal Bergoglio, now ripened under his successor); this is a local recognition of Catholicity, not a universal one - though its illogical to say that a group is a recognised part of the Church in one area, but not in another. - Following visits to several SSPX seminaries with Cardinal Brandmuller, Bishop Schneider stated there was "no weighty reason" why the SSPX should not be granted a canonical status (and so be universally recognised) - Pope Francis has recently granted ordinary jurisdiction to the Society to absolve sins during the year of mercy; though of course the Society has always maintained they had emergency jurisdiction under canon law - and, important to note, a lunatic fringe has been purged from the SSPX - namely Bishop Williamson and his "resistance" I agree that these events have definitely made a reconciliation more likely.You probably knew all this already - and so, other than a rubber stamp to draw all of this together, what exactly is missing? And surely all of these factors represent positive developments since the low point of SSPX-Rome relations in the wake of the Econe consecrations? My own feeling is that the Society will ultimately be recognised, without any modification of its own positions. I think progress is slow and measured so as not to "frighten the horses" as it were. I hope this recognition occurs sooner rather than later and I expect it to, God willing, later on during this "year of mercy". Certainly, it would be a rather miserable and mean-spirited end to a "year of mercy" if this did not happen. A very astute analysis if I may say so.The SSPX is relatively small in the UK, as it traditional Catholicism in general. But there are encouraging signs - in my own locale (Glasgow area) we are starting to see a few more TLMs crop up in the Dioceses, which can only be a good thing. The inaugural mass of one such initiative recently drew over 200 people, which surpassed all expectations. I know the SSPX has given encouragement and support to Diocesan priests interested in the traditional mass. That's very interesting, and it's a good sign if the SSPX in Glasgow is rowing behind this. In Ireland, the trad movement's momentum appears to have slowed a bit compared to a few years ago, and the SSPX here has been plagued by mass defections (some to the Resistance (which has been growing alarmingly in Ireland in the last year), but some to the Indult as well). The Scottish SSPX seems to have survived relatively unscathed from what you are saying.And earlier this year, a special one-off TLM was held to mark the 400th anniversary of the martyrdom of St John Ogilvie - the organisers expected 20 people, but drew nearly 4 times that. The celebrant - himself a convert - had travelled specially from his parish on the island of Benbecula and gave such a rousing homily that I almost got up and cheered. (he can also say mass in gaelic, interestingly, though I wouldnt change from latin ) So, I think we have every reason to be positive and optimistic, regarding the SSPX and traditional Catholicism more widely Given what is happening in Scotland, you are probably right.All the best! Same to you
|
|
|
Post by gabrielsyme on Dec 17, 2015 22:43:26 GMT
Hello Gabriel and welcome to the forum.I'd agree with you that Alaisdir's view is rather pessimistic, though given that there have been many false dawns in the past, his reaction is probably understandable. Thanks for the kind welcome. You make a good point about history, one I didn't take into account. In my brief association with traditionalism, things have mostly been positive and relatively fast-moving- and so my view was rather blinkered. Its true that, going back decades, there has indeed been a lot of disappointment and sadness over the situation, so perhaps Alaisdir has good reason to be more guarded. Welcome home! It is parishoners like you who will help bring the SSPX back to Peter by keeping the bridges open. Thanks again. I actually returned to the new mass at first and was going to that regularly for 3 or 4 years. But - for me personally- I found as my faith deepened, my satisfaction with the new mass (which was never huge) dwindled, and this ultimately lead me to the traditional mass. Back then, my dissatisfaction was not due to common Traddy objections such as communion in the hand, (though now I do dislike those things), because that was always completely normal in my experience. It was more the growing sense of a lack of reverence and depth, which I often felt. That's very interesting, and it's a good sign if the SSPX in Glasgow is rowing behind this. In Ireland, the trad movement's momentum appears to have slowed a bit compared to a few years ago, and the SSPX here has been plagued by mass defections (some to the Resistance (which has been growing alarmingly in Ireland in the last year), but some to the Indult as well). The Scottish SSPX seems to have survived relatively unscathed from what you are saying. The Society is not huge in Scotland - it has busy Churches in Glasgow and Edinburgh, a permanent presence in Orkney and offers occasional masses elsewhere. The following is perhaps only a few hundred people, but who are very loyal and there is a healthy ratio of children / young people. The local SSPX prior told me a few people had left to become sedevacantists, a few years ago. But it was literally a handful, no more, and everyone else speaks of their great delight and relief to be rid of the company of such views! I was new at this point and so didn't know much about it at the time. I would estimate those leavers have been replaced and then some. There's people who make weekly round-trips of hours to attend. I regularly attend a midweek Diocesan TLM, and occasionally visit the FSSP in Edinburgh, as well as my SSPX sunday mass. I also attend Una Voce events. I find I often encounter some of the same people at these various locations. Given what is happening in Scotland, you are probably right. Let us hope so - indeed lets hope for an improvement in the Church's health in general. (Edit - hope? I mean pray!) Cheers
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 18, 2015 23:27:34 GMT
Gabriel, you may be able to answer this for me. Some time ago I read the official biography of Cardinal Winning, which stated approvingly that he managed to keep the SSPX out of Glasgow, and to make John Paul II's indult a dead letter in the archdiocese, by a combination of denouncing the SSPX and discouraging his priests from taking any interest in the TLM. (The writer also claimed that the SSPX in Glasgow were harmed by being taken in by one or two wandering priests of dubious backgrounds, who were obliged to decamp when these came to light.) Does this still describe the situation, or has it changed much since Cardinal Winning's death in 2001?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 18, 2015 23:28:50 GMT
I would also guess that the SSPX presence in Orkney consists of those few Transalpine Redemptorists who refused to be reconciled along with the rest of the community. Am I correct, or is there some other source of support?
|
|
|
Post by gabrielsyme on Dec 19, 2015 22:50:21 GMT
Gabriel, you may be able to answer this for me. Some time ago I read the official biography of Cardinal Winning, which stated approvingly that he managed to keep the SSPX out of Glasgow, and to make John Paul II's indult a dead letter in the archdiocese, by a combination of denouncing the SSPX and discouraging his priests from taking any interest in the TLM. (The writer also claimed that the SSPX in Glasgow were harmed by being taken in by one or two wandering priests of dubious backgrounds, who were obliged to decamp when these came to light.) Does this still describe the situation, or has it changed much since Cardinal Winning's death in 2001? Hi Hibernicus, Interesting questions. Cardinal Winning was made Cardinal when i was at High School - during his time as Archbishop of Glasgow, I wasn't much interested in the Church and so I didn't follow his career / policies closely at the time. Since finding tradition, I have learned more about him (and the development of the local situation) as follows: 1) Winning didn't keep the SSPX out of Glasgow. Lefebvre himself actually visited Glasgow twice during Winning's time as Archbishop. In the 1980s, the Society in Glasgow managed to purchase a small, former protestant Church. (Hitherto, they had been worshipping in the gym hall of a non-denominational primary school across the road.) On Lefebvres first visit, the two Archbishops had some contact (I could not say of what type, or if it was cordial or not). On Lefebvres second visit, which was to bless the newly purchased Church, Winning claimed he had not been contacted by the frenchman (suggesting their former contact was not productive) and criticised him for this in the Glasgow Herald, a newspaper which is no friend of the Catholic Church (to say the very least). In the Herald, Winning described the new traditional Church as a "separate altar" which seems a clear accusation of a schism and no doubt an effort to hamstring the fledgling traditional congregation. This, even though the Econe consecrations were still 2 years distant. See this article from the time (1986): news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19860915&id=H7ZAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qqUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3402,3509717&hl=en (the link doesnt seem to be working properly - copy and paste the whole line, up to and including "en" into your browser bar; the article is on the bottom of the Herald front page). (note the sarcastic last paragraph - typical for the Herald). 2) Some years ago I spoke with a priest of the FSSP - a founding member who had left the SSPX, and who was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre - and he described the Archdiocese of Glasgow as an "impossible place" for the traditional mass under Thomas Winning and his successor Mario Conti. It is true that for many years, they successfully managed to suppress the traditional mass, even after summorum pontificum (a good example of the diabolical disorientation which Fatima warned us about.) 3) After Thomas Winning, we had Mario Conti who upheld the policy of no-accomodation regarding the traditional mass. He harassed priests who wishes to learn it, including Fr Stephen Dunn who wanted to learn it because his father had asked him to provide a traditional funeral upon his death. Dunn and 2 others had signed up for an LMS training course in London, but Conti managed to bully the other two out of it. At the course, it is said that Archbishop Vincent Nichols reacted with shock to learn that a priest from Glasgow had come to it, which says it all about the Conti regime. Conti actively worked to de-rail summorum pontificum, disobeying the Pope, and he was publicly attacked by both Fr Z and Damian Thompson for this (and for other things, on other occasions). Eventually Conti agreed to allow Fr Dunn to say one low mass on sundays - but the arrangement seems to have been that it must be at the exact same time as the local SSPX mass, to try to fragment that congregation. It would have been great to have two different traditional sunday mass times to choose from on a Sunday, alas. The two masses still occur simultaneously, but its my understanding the SSPX congregation is about 3 or 4 times bigger. Ironically, rather than poach people from the SSPX, the Diocesan mass has turned into a feeder mass for the SSPX. People go along, discover they like their religious heritage, and are then aggrieved because the same priest will not provide traditional masses for holy days etc and so they eventually turn to the Society. Conti latterly put Fr Dunn on sabbatical and he remains "on ice" to this day. Another Diocesan priest (a great priest) does do midweek TLMs and Holy days - but he is in a different part of the City and so it is not convenient for people to have to jump between two Churches, especially if they do not have a car. He also had an earful from Conti about his TLMs. Now more TLMs are appearing - I know of two recent monthly masses started with the possibility of another on the cards. 4) We now have Conti's successor as Archbishop, Phillip Tartaglia. He is a gentle man and sadly of poor health (two heart attacks). He does not make trouble for priests who want to say the TLM and has openly acknowledged their right to say it. This is a factor in why more TLMs are now springing up - often as special events or monthly masses at first. I am told he tells priests they can say it, but he stipulates that the main sunday mass in every parish must be a novus ordo. He seems much more tolerant. However, he has not done anything to promote the TLM and has not responded to the repeated exhortations of the Una Voce Scotland chairman to invite a (canonically regular) Traditional Order to the City, despite the chairman providing him with ample evidence of the success of such ventures elsewhere. So I would say the situation has indeed improved to some degree since the day of Thomas Winning. Diocesan priests are no longer harassed over the TLM and we are now seeing more of them spring up. (One big advocate is a redemptorist priest who was chased out of Dublin for teaching schoolkids they should not take communion if not in a state of grace). Locally I perceive an atmosphere of co-operation and mutual respect between traditional groups of various identities. I said before that you can see the same faces at various different masses - I have even seen Diocesan priests (wearing civvies) attending mass at the SSPX. All this greatly encourages me about the Church's future in my part of the world. To a large degree I am able to have my religious life exactly as my grandmothers would have been in her youth. Between the SSPX and a single Diocesan priest, one could normally attend a regular TLM every day of the week in Glasgow, bar monday (unless monday is a holy day, of course). 5) I could not say if its true or not that the Glasgow SSPX took in wandering priests who turned out to be bad eggs. I do know that in the last year or so, the UK district of the Society lost 2 or 3 priests to Bishop Williamsons "resistance". I think they must have extreme or distorted views. My own experience of the Society is limited to contact with perhaps 6 priests, all relatively young (between mid 20s to no more than 50) and who were all trained by the SSPX itself. All were english, bar one frenchman and one new zealander. I hope this info helps!
|
|
|
Post by gabrielsyme on Dec 19, 2015 23:10:56 GMT
I would also guess that the SSPX presence in Orkney consists of those few Transalpine Redemptorists who refused to be reconciled along with the rest of the community. Am I correct, or is there some other source of support? You are dead right Hibernicus - I do not know of the circumstances of why a disagreement appeared within the community, but it was a great shame that it did. I think that, of the men who decided to remain aligned with the SSPX, there are two in Orkney (and providing occasional masses in Aberdeen) and two based at a location in England. Before all these dramatic events happened, there was a short documentary (17 mins) made about the monks (filmed 2003). It is available on you tube, I remember enjoying it - it focused on their traditionalism and monastic lives, I don't recall any mention of their (at the time) irregular status. It did say that they had a low opinion of Vatican II. Here is a link to the program: www.youtube.com/watch?v=d20nzljVYPM
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Dec 21, 2015 10:14:11 GMT
Hello Gabriel, Yes I am pessimistic about the SSPX situation. I also believe that traditional Catholics often talk among themselves and don't hear much from the outside, some being content to believe that non-traditional Catholics frolic away at clown Masses and other blasphemous celebrations. I do a lot of "advocatus diaboli" in relation to the traditional movement, because it is necessary. Even from a tactical point of view. If you plan on the best-case scenario, and it does not materialise, no matter how much work you do is wasted. If you plan on the worst-case scenario, which is no reason to sit back and watch, there is a greater chance of receiving something. Traditionalist don't realise that they are a small minority within the universal Church and even in areas where they are relatively strong, such as France, they are still in a minority. These are facts that have to be grappled with. With regard to the SSPX, at present, it is outside the Church. This will be continue to be the case in the short term - there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The "worst case scenario" is that there never will be reconciliation - that the SSPX has already began to form the character of a separate denomination. I hope this is not the case, but my tactics will always be based in this assumption. Believe me, there is no malice in this position; I know a great many good people who are SSPX supporters and I know many bad people in the bosom of the Church. No criticism I have is personal. Far from it: most people I know in the SSPX did a lot of soul searching first. I don't agree with their conclusions, but I understand why they made them. So I will give some answers. As "Advocatus Diaboli", though there are those in the SSPX who would say of me that that is more than a posture. Regards, Alaisdir. the SSPX are no nearer to reconciliation now than at anytime since 1988, or perhaps more accurately since the Archbishop's death in 1991. Hello Alaisdir (and all), I am a former lurker who has now signed up! I would often peek into the forum to read opinions on the SSPX / traditional Catholicism more widely, as well as see what's happening with Irish Catholicism in general (I am Scottish myself). I was struck by your comment that we are no closer to a resolution of the canonical status of the SSPX than we have been for decades. I wonder if that is not an overly pessimistic view? See above. I love Scotland. I have many Scottish friends and I spent much time there in the 1990s. I have attended both traditional and novus ordo Masses there. I have known Scottish clerical students, both diocesan and religious and got a flavour of the Scottish Church. I know what you mean. Let me call this the good will of the Holy See. That has been there since 1988. The Holy See acknowledges this, but no where does it recommend that Catholics do so. We can also fulfil our Sunday obligations at an Orthodox Liturgy (which I had to do once while in Easter Europe) and, within limits, at an Old Catholic Mass (I have a friend who found he had to do this in Austria once). The idea that, for example in Ireland, where some people drive through two or three counties to attend SSPX Masses when there could be a recognised TLM or several perfectly devoutly celebrated OF Masses is not something the Holy See wants. Yet people do this. I'm afraid this is incorrect. There are. The bishops, priests and deacons of the SSPX continue to be suspended. This is not as serious as excommunication, but is still very serious. I'm afraid being listed as an organisation in a diocesan is not the same as recognition. The SSPX has had no canonical status as a body since their status as a pious union lapsed in the Lausanne diocese in 1975. Of course that canonical status has been offered too them several times since then beginning in 1988. So far, these have all been rejected. This is the point to be remembered. When it comes to reconciliation, the ball is firmly in the SSPX' court. If the society want this, they will get it, despite a great many enemies in the Curia (believe me, I don't do rose-coloured glasses). The point is that the society have to actively seek this, not wish they can be passively absorbed into the Church as a canonically acceptable body by osmosis. Whatever about Cardinal Brandmuller, Bishop Schneider is an auxilliary bishop in a remote mission territory and he has very little clout. He's popular with traditionalists because he says the things they want to hear (this is a bad habit). Cardinal Brandmuller is similar. But on the other hand, the SSPX were offered canonical status in 1988 and again in 2001 and again in 2007. And they didn't take it up - this is my fundamental point. The SSPX always maintained this, but never tested it in a court of canon law. There certainly are situations where "Ecclesia suppleat" does apply, but where people go out of their way to attend SSPX confessions the argument is tenuous - rather it's a sign of schismatic intent in regard to the faithful who do so. Encouraged by the SSPX. I'm glad you use the indefinite article. There still is a lunatic fringe within the SSPX. Of course most movements within the Church have a lunatic fringe, but that within the SSPX are those who want no truck with what they call the "conciliar Church". If Bishop Fellay is not prepared to take action here, he can't wish them away. As I said, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis I all have made gestures towards the SSPX; Bishop Fellay has not responded as they wished. That is the crucial failing point here. I actually hope you're right but fear we will still be having this conversation in twenty years. Not to pull you up, but UK means Northern Ireland as well as England, Scotland and Wales, which means partitioned dioceses and even parishes on the border here. Please use the term "Britain". In relation to Scotland, and particularly Glasgow, I'm glad to hear it. Neither Cardinal Winning nor Archbishop Conti were favourable to TLM in Glasgow.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Dec 21, 2015 10:20:09 GMT
One point Archbishop Conti, when he was Bishop of Aberdeen he celebrated a Sarum Rite Mass publicly. The organisers assumed it came under the general terms of the Ecclesia Dei arrangements at the time. That's not (unfortunately) how the Holy See viewed it and he got into not inconsiderable trouble (though he was translated to Glasgow later). It left him very sour in relation to the traditional liturgy later, especially when the red hat went to Edinburgh after Cardinal Winning's death.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 9, 2016 19:59:41 GMT
Since the blogger Stramentarius has questioned the use of "schism" as applied to the SSPX in the title of this thread in view of Pope Francis granting them faculties under certain circumstances, I have changed the title to SSPX "problem". In doing this, I do not intend to make any statement one way or the other about whether or how far the SSPX are formally in schism (the Williamsonite "Resistance" certainly are, and they were part of the SSPX when the thread was begun 7 years ago). Whatever you think about the status of the SSPX, it is certainly highly problematic and we should all hope and pray for their reconciliation.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 11, 2016 11:21:21 GMT
The Holy See are highly nervous of calling schism and the situation with the SSPX is not a schism (yet). The position of the Polish National Catholic Church is a good place to look at here. This denomination came into existence in the 1890s following a schism and the separations between it and the Catholic Church are minimal. For all that, and without the climate of polemic with the SSPX, reconciliation is not going to happen. St John Paul II did his very best to bring this to an end, but nothing happened. Incidentally, Polish National Catholic priests enjoy certain emergency faculties not dissimilar to those conceded to the SSPX The SSPX are by contrast not formally in schism. But there is certainly a schismatic atmosphere around them and we should consider some of the possiblities of a formal reconciliation. Just remember the extent of the polemics against bishops of the Catholic Church which have been raging since at least 1988. Can you see Bishop Fellay calling a ceasefire? At the same time, despite the renewed excommunication of Dicky Williamson and the priest he consecrated to the episcopacy which is a canonical sanction for a schismatic act and the heightened degree of polemics within the Resistance, how does the Resistance differ in essence from the SSPX? There is not a lot of difference. I will agree with Hibernicus' request for prayers. Reconciliation with the SSPX can not be taken for granted and the fact that many of the most egregious lunatics have left for the resistance is just a red herring. The SSPX situation is unchanged and unlike most people here, I am pessimistic about any forthcoming change.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 11, 2016 14:18:34 GMT
Are there any statistics on what proportion of priests and Mass-goers the SSPX represents?
I am always rather taken aback that they get so much coverage.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 12, 2016 9:48:13 GMT
Are there any statistics on what proportion of priests and Mass-goers the SSPX represents? I am always rather taken aback that they get so much coverage. There are no reliable statistics; several years ago (decades maybe - the priest who related this to me is over four years dead) the Vatican estimates were one million and counting. But there is no collated data and traditionalists have an exaggerated sense both of the numbers and influence. But if the combined number of sedevacantists, SSPX/resistance and those who attend legitimate traditional Masses make up several million; it's insignificant in a billion Catholics. In fact, the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association probably accounted for the vast majority of people attending the extraordinary form Mass until around about 2000 when they switched to Chinese, courtesy of the very generous German Catholic tax payer (Latin is still a live issue in China though). The Chinese element could have put the millions in double figures. So on numeric grounds not only the SSPX, but the whole broad traditional movement is weak, why discuss it? Well, there are a number of good reasons. One is that it reflects the interest of people here and significant proportion have attended EF Masses on a regular basis, and as such we are interested in the fate of the SSPX and their followers. Some SSPX supporters come here from time to time, but if you excluded one contributor's advancement of the geo-centric universe, most of them only debate on the topic of the SSPX. I won't ever say I have definitive refutation of SSPX arguments - I don't; but I find that the arguments I raise make absolutely no impact. I have raised the matter that the "one faithful bishop" narrative is not a fair reflection of the traditional movement and that the state of emergency in 1988 was not anyway as clearcut as present: I have argued that Archbishop LeFebvre would have been in a much stronger position in 1988 had he waited for 15 August before consecrating bishops as this was the date set in the Protocol of Accord signed by him (and then Cardinal Ratzinger) on 5 May that year for the consecration of a traditional bishop. Mgr Lefebvre repudiated the accord at the end of June triggering the excommunications. Now I am not suggesting he was wrong in doing so and in stating that Rome intended to renege on the agreement - only that had he waited for Rome to renege until August 15 would have made the argument more powerful and history shows that both he and Bishop de Castro Meyer were still alive seven weeks later. No SSPX sympathiser has addressed this issue with me. Once again, I am not saying I am right; only that the point I am raising has never been addressed. There are other issues too. Where was the state of emergency when three SSPX bishops consecrated Bishop Licinio Rangel to succeed Bishop de Castro Meyer in Brazil in 1992? Bishop de Galaretta was deliberately assigned to Argentina to serve Latin America. Why did the SSPX change the rules to allow a bishop be elected superior general? Why do the SSPX make much of Bishop Ferrario of Honolulu's excommunication of six lay people which was overturned by the Holy See, but make little of the excommunications by Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln (Nebraska) of SSPX supporter - Bishop Ferrario was restrictive in his allowance of the EF Mass where Bishop Bruskewitz was generous - allowing a Summorum Pontificum regime in his diocese in JPII's pontificate. When an SSPX supporter begins to address issues such as this, believe me, I'll sit up and pay attention. Otherwise, I'll regard them as hackneyed pleas which seem to expect the Church to do all the running oblivious that the SSPX have rejected at least three major overtures by the Holy See - in 1988, in 2000 and in 2007. Do they expect Francis I to step aside and offer Bishop Fellay the papacy? Now, let me state that no one goes to the SSPX without much soul searching. The vast majority of their supporters are pious and often well informed Catholics who have been burned by the clergy/bishops in various ways and I have every sympathy for their plight. For this reason, I pray for a reconciliation. But we are all sinners and traditionalists need to see that solely attending the EF Mass is not quite enough in the current crisis. Indeed, if you have recognised the beauty in the liturgy, more is expected than from the average Catholic and this goes beyond culture wars. In relation to the clergy who have the care of traditionalists, there is a great deal of zealous fire. Handled well, it can do great things; handled badly, it will just be destructive. So we need to pray for the clergy even more.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Jan 12, 2016 11:38:08 GMT
There are no reliable statistics; several years ago (decades maybe - the priest who related this to me is over four years dead) the Vatican estimates were one million and counting. But there is no collated data and traditionalists have an exaggerated sense both of the numbers and influence. But if the combined number of sedevacantists, SSPX/resistance and those who attend legitimate traditional Masses make up several million; it's insignificant in a billion Catholics. Really, that many? I can imagine millions (plural) being involved in traditionalism as a whole, but a million in the SSPX does seem a lot to me, even if there a very large contingents in a few countries such as France and the US. Perhaps I don't have the right 'feel' for the situation, but I would imagined that they were a smaller group with a disproportionate influence on account of being so vocal.
For comparison, the Legionaries of Christ and their associated movement Regnum Christi was reported to have about 75,000 people involved with them globally at their height in the early 2000s (90%+ of that number being lay members) and they were a group that was meant to have a lot of influence in certain quarters and a large presence in many countries.
Or take this interview with John L. Allen on his book on Opus Dei. He talks about how big their image is despite having only circa 85,000 members globally.
The numbers just seem too big to me.... Now, let me state that no one goes to the SSPX without much soul searching. The vast majority of their supporters are pious and often well informed Catholics who have been burned by the clergy/bishops in various ways and I have every sympathy for their plight. For this reason, I pray for a reconciliation. But we are all sinners and traditionalists need to see that solely attending the EF Mass is not quite enough in the current crisis. Indeed, if you have recognised the beauty in the liturgy, more is expected than from the average Catholic and this goes beyond culture wars. In relation to the clergy who have the care of traditionalists, there is a great deal of zealous fire. Handled well, it can do great things; handled badly, it will just be destructive. So we need to pray for the clergy even more. I'm not sure that the first statement in this paragraph holds any longer, at least in the universal sense. Time has passed, and I know families who have raised their children as SSPX children (if I may use such an odd term). Moreover I think that there are younger people involved thanks to the radicalising factor that is the internet. It's no longer a considered thing to join. And the last problem you mention of too much zeal is a very big issue. While some of those I know in the SSPX are quite balanced, I've met a good number who are full of raging anger, or who promote a very scrupulous view of sin and are quick to inform you that your confessor isn't the right kind of orthodox if you disagree, or who are incredibly invested in conspiracy theories. Now, given how big the 'Resistance' is in Ireland, perhaps my view is skewed a bit by meeting that particular wing and I'm just not aware of it. But that has been my experience of the SSPX. I can see no renewal of Catholicism coming through it.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 12, 2016 22:24:31 GMT
I heard that before the present schisms, the Irish SSPX had about 300-500 sympathisers across the country. That number has almost certainly gone down, with the Resistance probably taking 150-200 of that, leaving a rump of 2-300, though even then there have been some defections back to the Indult/SP community, so that number is probably even tinier. Were it not for the fact that they own churches here, I think that the SSPX would probably have scaled back their commitments in Ireland drastically. Even though the Resistance are growing in Ireland, they do suffer from severe structural flaws that will hinder them down the line, most importantly their over-dependency (in the UK and Ireland at any rate) on Bishop Williamson. As for the LC and Opus Dei, I think their members would be much more committed than SSPX supporters would be, and thus would inevitably be smaller. I agree with everything else Ranger has said though.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 1, 2016 20:44:39 GMT
Fr Hunwicke offers an assessment of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais' official life of Archbishop Lefebvre, and commends the Archbishop's refusal to take refuge in sedevacantism: liturgicalnotes.blogspot.ie/2016/03/another-must-read.htmlAs regards the numbers debate above, I suspect like is not being compared with like. The figure for SSPX members probably refers to regular attenders at SSPX meetings; those for Opus Dei and LC/REgnum Christi would refer to formally enrolled members and associates. (To make the distinction clear; only a small proportion of regular attendees at Merrion Road parish Masses would be Opus Dei numeraries and supernumeraries; I am not sure if there are figures for the co-operators, whose connection is more tenuous. The SSPX figures I suspect are like counting everyone who attends Mass in that parish as an Opus Dei member.)
|
|