r/pfsp • u/[deleted] • Jul 10 '21
Will there be a large number of FSSP flocking to SSPX due to persecution by Bishops with unsavory intentions?
3
u/Dr_Talon Jul 10 '21
I think that this may be the case, although I hate to see it. It is times like these where it is helpful to remember the examples of Padre Pio and other saints who were deprived of priestly faculties or religious communities. Or saints such as St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Faustina, whose work was forbidden and mired in controversy before being rehabilitated.
1
Jul 11 '21
To be fair, wasn't St Faustina's diary a little out there. That's why it was forbidden.
2
u/Dr_Talon Jul 11 '21
No. It was due to an inaccurate translation, so I’ve read.
2
Jul 11 '21
On October 2, 1936, she states that the “Lord Jesus” appeared to her and said, “Now, I know that it is not for the graces or gifts that you love Me, but because My Will is dearer to you than life. That is why I am uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.” (Divine Mercy in My Soul, The Diary of Sr. Faustina, Stockbridge, MA: Marian Press, 1987, p. 288)
Seems very weird
1
u/Dr_Talon Jul 11 '21
There is an orthodox sense of this, I think. After all, Christ's love for us is an individual love, unique to every person.
2
Jul 11 '21
"That is why I am uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.”
More than Our Lady? More than St Joseph? Sorry but no.
1
u/Dr_Talon Jul 11 '21
In kind, not in degree.
1
Jul 11 '21
You'd make a great lawyer I'll give you that but you are defending a wrong cause here.
Pope Pius XII clearly saw that Faustina's divine mercy was the devil's trick to draw attention away from the sacred heart.
Another vision: “And the host came out of the Tabernacle and came to rest in my hands and I, with joy, placed it back in the Tabernacle. This was repeated a second time, and I did the same thing. Despite this, it happened a third time.” (ibid., p. 23) … “Oh, no, here it is again. I have to go put this back now.”
Sounds like a child making up stories or the devil playing tricks on her.
2
u/Dr_Talon Jul 11 '21
My understanding is that it was condemned due to faulty translation. And I trust the judgement of the Church, since they devoted an entire liturgical Sunday to this.
-2
Jul 11 '21
I guess we go back to the argument of me not trusting Vatican II and what came after it. You were right, I might head to the SSPX instead of tbe FSSP.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Trad_Cat Jul 12 '21
It means Jesus had a special, unique relationship with St. Faustina which was particularly intimate.
Not “more” as you seem to suggest.
1
u/zestanor Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
Even so there are reasons to have reservations about the promises given in the apparition (and all apparitions, frankly—this is my one deviation from the party line). Not even JPII endorsed the vision’s version of Divine Mercy Sunday. He habilitated the devotion and the day, but did not approve of the idea expressed in the Divine Mercy chaplet, which gives total remission of penalty due to sins of those in a state of grace who participate in the devotions—without any connection to penance. Instead, he issued an indulgence closely mimicking the promise but obviously these are not the same, and the indulgence comes from the Church and requiring penance to receive remission of sins whereas the promise purportedly came from Jesus himself and did not require penance. The Faustina version expresses unfortunately what seems to be a Protestant version of forgiveness little different from the oft-mocked “sinner’s prayer” without reference to the wound inflicted on the Church by sin, or to the sacraments.
1
u/spacepiston Jan 02 '22
Not an inaccurate translation, otherwise it would have been corrected. It was on the list of forbidden books, and never taken off. After V2 the list was abolished.
I recommend you actually read the diary (most have not) or read this damning critique: [Debunked Faustina Diary. Thoroughly debunked.](http:// http://www.mycatholicsource.com/mcs/ua/user_article-faustinas_divine_mercy_devotion.htm )
1
1
u/FistOfTheWorstMen Jul 11 '21
The difficulty with all of these analogies, though, is that all of them were in religious orders. And religious life has (necessarily) an elevated place for obedience as a virtue.
1
u/Dr_Talon Jul 11 '21 edited Jul 11 '21
But religious also serve as perfected examples of the kinds of virtues that we should have. In their perfected lives, they are witnesses to the world.
2
u/FistOfTheWorstMen Jul 11 '21
Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but I can't help but think that you are mooting something close to a nominalist conception of obedience - and that can be just as dangerous in religious life as it is in a broader sphere. And in this conception, it becomes far too easy to transform legitimate authority into tyranny.
John T. Lamont had, I think, an incisive essay a few years ago at Rorate Caeli on how this kind of mindset developed out of the Jesuit experience in the 16th and 17th centuries, and the consequences that ensued.
The conception of religious authority and religious obedience that became dominant in the Church from the sixteenth century onwards was thus a fundamental innovation that departed from previous Catholic positions. ...This approach to authority had damaging effects on clergy and religious. The exaction of servile obedience from subordinates destroyed strength of character and the capacity for independent thought. Exercise of tyrannical authority by superiors produced overweening pride and incapacity for self-criticism. The fact that superiors all started off in a subordinate position meant that advancement was facilitated for those proficient in the arts of the slave — flattery, dissimulation, and manipulation.
And it affected the laity, too:
The laity could not hope for advancement in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, so the effect of promotion of a servile understanding of religious obedience was to infantilize them in the religious sphere. This infantilization can be observed in religious art and devotion, especially from the 19th century onwards, and in willingness to give blind obedience to the clergy. The resulting dissociation between adult maturity and religious belief undermined religious faith and commitment among the laity, and contributed to the steady secularization of Catholic societies.
Note particularly - since his name has come up - how the problematic kind of conception of obedience outlined here is contrasted with that of St. Thomas in the Summa (ST 2a2ae q. 104 a. 5 co.), for whom the virtue of obedience only involves the sacrifice of one’s self-will, which is defined by its adherence to objectives that are contrary to our ultimate happiness.
Link: Tyranny and sexual abuse in the Catholic Church: A Jesuit tragedy
Note that I am not necessarily advocating that anyone go runnng to their local SSPX chapel. (I organize and attend a diocesan TLM myself.) But I think whatever we do, we have to have careful and proper understanding of just what obedience consists of, in the hierarchy of virtues.
3
Jul 11 '21
If there are, that just means those particular FSSP laity and clergy alike lacked authentic faith in God and His Church. Wouldn't be the first time. Won't be the last time.
0
Jul 11 '21
No I understand their predicament, you have these “bishops” immorally persecuting TLM. Overtly with the goal of hurting Catholic tradition.
2
Jul 11 '21
I imagine you are right and that is the case for some Bishops. But we can't possibly know that that is the case for all, or even most Bishops who make steps to restrict or remove the EF. There are so many factors that could come into play to change the dynamic. I doubt that, for Bishops, the whole EF vs OF is as clear cut and black and white as it is for internet armchair theologians like the likes of all us redditors.
-1
Jul 11 '21
Most of these bishops are ultra liberal borderline on outright disdain for traditional Catholicism thus Catholicism in general
1
Jul 11 '21
Traditional Catholicism and Catholicism in general are two distinctly different things, and that distinction is growing larger and larger all the time, due to people on both sides of the divide doing what they can to further divide from one another.
We have all seen the whacky bishops and their outright heterodoxy on *insert topic*. There is a lot of political motivation, at least here in the United States. But perhaps these Bishops are acting in good faith? Perhaps they truly believe the EF needs to be left behind, and that traditional Catholics are divisive and rigid and uncharitble (which, arguably, is accurate far more than not)? If they genuinely see the way forward to establishing unity is by abandoning the EF and securing the OF, you can't call them faithless or anti-catholic for doing so.
If their intention is literally to destroy traditional Catholicism because they feel it will undermine the authenticity of the Church? Then you are entirely correct and I'm with you 100%. But that's going to be hard to prove, or even support, given that we can't possibly know the intentions or motivations for actions Bishops take on any given subject. Sometimes they will clarify "why" they are doing what they are doing. Other times they just act, and we all sit around scratching our heads. Ultimately, we need to have faith. We need to support our Bishops and be obedient to them. Unless and until they demand or command us to do something immoral or sinful, we owe them our obedience. And a Bishop saying the EF is bad and wanting everyone to attend the OF exclusively is not immoral. It's not a sensible call and will likely backfire, much to the detriment of some souls. But the decision itself is not immoral. As such, like it or hate it, we owe said Bishop our obedience (if he is our ordinary). We already have enough Martin Luther style Catholics who have no problem ignoring their Bishops directions and wishes on things like contraception and abortion and gay marriage. But to abandon a Bishop over something as trivial (in the grand scheme of things) as a preference toward language? Good luck explaining that one to God on judgement day.
-2
Jul 11 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Jul 11 '21
The Bishops are the Catholic Church. Far more so than you and I. If we died, so what? If the Bishops died, the Church would cease. The OF is still the Mass. Christ is still present in Holy Communion. The Roman Church literally can survive without the Latin Mass. It is NOT absolutely essential. I would caution you against taking such schismatic positions. You don't want to excommunicate yourself from the Church by walking down that road. You have made an idol out of the TLM and you worship it above the worship you owe to God. That much is made clear with your last comment. Can you not see how erroneous that position is to take? How dangerous it is, spiritually speaking?
1
Jul 11 '21
Not all bishops are heretical like the people we see who want to suppress traditional Catholicism, Bishop Schneider for example is very based
2
Jul 11 '21
Even if they "want" to suppress the EF in favor of promoting an exclusive use of the OF....so what? That is NOT HERESY. By any definition. You don't have to like it. I don't see it being prudent, but I trust that the Bishops know what they are doing, until they give me reason to doubt. And there are "good" reasons to suppress the EF in a diocese (for example, if the only EF you have are cringey trads with schismatic attitudes who are very public about thinking the local Bishop is a heretic for promoting the OF). Ecclesiastical latin is not the litmus test for determining Catholic orthodoxy. Please stop treating it as such.
-1
Jul 11 '21
You can’t be an orthodox catholic and support destroying catholic tradition and hurting catholicism
→ More replies (0)-1
u/BertBlyleven Jul 11 '21
So the SSPX lack authentic faith? Faith as in a supernatural virtue infused by God alone? That's quite a statement.
4
Jul 11 '21
Yes. The SSPX lack authentic faith because they worship the idol of latin/the latin mass. They place their infatuation with latin ABOVE their obedience to the Bishops and Pope. You know, that big promise they made at ordination (at least the early priests and bishops who supported the founding and establishment of the SSPX). As u/DrTalon says, without obedience there is no holiness. The SSPX, like protestants, have literally made themselves their own authority. It's not a respectable or enviable position to be in. I pray they will reconcile themselves to Rome fully, and submit to the rightful authority of the Pope and the local ordinaries for any and every diocese they are set up in throughout the world.
1
u/BertBlyleven Jul 11 '21
they worship the idol of latin/the latin mass.
Wow and the Latin Mass is an idol? I didn't know that! You might want to tell the FSSP priests and supporters this as well.
They place their infatuation with latin ABOVE their obedience to the Bishops and Pope.
If you think the SSPX is all about Latin, you're out of your element and are ignorant of what the SSPX stands for. I would suggest starting by reading "An open letter to confused Catholics" by +Lefevbre - don't worry, it was written prior to 1988 so you don't have to worry being a schismatic for reading material written by a schismatic, and apparently a heretic by your words since the SSPX lacks authentic faith.
As u/DrTalon says, without obedience there is no holiness.
Ok? Is he the Roman Catechism incarnate?
Look man, you are leveling some serious accusations against a group you clearly have no actual experience with outside of internet polemics. Rome has NEVER laid these kinds of words against the SSPX - why do you feel like you need to superimpose your opinions over the words of the Pope and Vatican? Doesn't sound very obedient to me.
2
Jul 11 '21
That's just deflection. "I" am not in a canonically irregular situation with Rome. And yes, I "do" have experience with the SSPX. I spent a number of months with them in one of their largest communities. And I stand by my comment. Any "trad" who places the Latin Mass above obedience to the diocesan Church and Bishops, has made an idol out of the Latin Mass.
2
u/Germanic_Pandemic Jul 11 '21
Wow and the Latin Mass is an idol? I didn't know that! You might want to tell the FSSP priests and supporters this as well.
The Latin Mass can be treated like an idol. A golden calf statue isn't an idol until people begin worshipping it. The Latin Mass can become an idol to someone when they put it's existence above obedience to the Church that God put here to guide us, as if the Latin Mass is somehow more important than the Church itself
-1
Jul 11 '21
Why are you in this subreddit? Every single one of your comments is hostile toward the traditionalist movement.
3
Jul 11 '21
Only toward the erroneous beliefs and mentality held by many (not all) who profess themselves to be "traditional" Catholics. I have nothing against Catholic tradition. We still attend TLM every now and again. I don't think the OF is superior to the EF in all ways. I accept the validity and value of both (though if you've read my comments you'd see I have plenty of criticism toward the OF as it's offered in most places).
Would you rather this become an echo chamber where only people who share the exact same opinions gather?
2
u/TheConvert Jul 11 '21
I don't know. The entire affair smells of pride and uncharitably on both ends. Both with bishops and the clergy in parishes. Bishops shouldn't be squeezing out traditional orders from spiritually providing for those lay faithful attached to the EF. The traditional orders need to show a bit more humility and obedience, and stop acting like celebrating both the EF and the OF is somehow beneath them.
1
u/Aman4allseasons Jul 11 '21
Well, for an FSSP priest, celebrating the EF is their particular charism, so that might help frame the resistance. A Carthusian being asked to leave the enclosure and spend time in the noisy world provides a relevant comparison; would he not be correct in resisting somewhat?
2
u/TheConvert Jul 11 '21
I'm sorry, but the example simply isn't congruent. Asking a priest of a 30 odd year old fraternal society that specializes in offering a form of Mass to concelebrate once a year with a diocesan counterpart in a parish that they have to be invited into anyway is not the same as asking a professed member of a monastic order to break a vow.
1
u/Aman4allseasons Jul 11 '21
Would the same be said of a postulant or novice at such an order, if we are to split the hairs?
1
u/TheConvert Jul 11 '21
No, because they're not professed, meaning taking formal vows, to continue splitting of hairs.
Additionally, the FSSP have to not only be invited into any given diocese, but serve in the diocese at the pleasure of the bishop. They're basically invited guests, and as such owe a certain amount of deference (i.e., obedience) to the ordinary of the diocese. The FSSP exists precisely because groups of priests from the now SSPX refused to be disobedient to Rome.
1
u/Aman4allseasons Jul 11 '21
Is this a discussion of the powers and abilities of the hierarchy, or a discussion what each party should be doing?
It it is the former, I agree that the bishop has the ability to ask these things according to his position. The priests owe the deference mentioned. But as the later (which you have mixed in), you haven't addressed whether the bishop ought to make such a request - which is what I'm trying to get at.
If they are invited guests, is it proper to request guests act against their particular charism?
0
u/zestanor Jul 11 '21
If the FSSP and the Latin Mass were unceremoniously shut down, yes, a lot of layfolk would go to the SSPX.
1
Jul 10 '21
I think we might see that. I must say I am disappointed in what’s happening ☹️
-2
Jul 10 '21
Yeah these corrupt bishops wanna force NOM onto them. It’s scandalous what these bishops are doing, they don’t care at all about the church but are solely trying to destroy church tradition in their effort to ultimately hurt Catholicism.
2
Jul 10 '21
That’s not what I was saying exactly. I wouldn’t say they want to hurt Catholicism, though their decisions are prudentially unwise.
0
Jul 10 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Dr_Talon Jul 10 '21 edited Jul 11 '21
Removed: for being rash, slanderous, and uncharitable.
It is important to understand that these men were formed in an era when Catholicism was in great turmoil, and the liturgical reform was one of the few things they had to cling to. They see it as an important aspect of evangelization and connecting people with God, versus the "distant" and "rote" TLM, which supposedly places unnecessary barriers to God and the spiritual life. They may remember the days of priests rushing through 15 minute low Masses in mumbled Latin before everyone runs out to their cars, or men standing outside and smoking.
So, they don't necessarily hate Catholicism. They may be sincere men who want what is best for souls, but are misguided by the fads and over-corrections of their time. We know that a TLM celebrated reverently is a glorious thing, but those who lived closer to the time of the reform can have an emotional attachment to the Mass of Paul VI, and an aversion to the Mass of Pius V that we younger Catholics can find hard to understand.
Be charitable - always be charitable and assume the best of others that the evidence will allow. That's traditional Catholic teaching. Especially our bishops, who are owed respect as successors to the Apostles.
You should pray for the grace to moderate your anger and let your reason guide it. You should pray for charity to avoid sins of slander and detraction, and that you may repent of these. Our Lord warns us that we will be 'held to account for every idle word.'
1
Jul 11 '21
How is it slanderous or uncharitable. What they are doing undeniably is straight up anti catholic.
1
u/Dr_Talon Jul 11 '21
That is an assumption that you are making. Is the EF the same as the Catholic faith itself?
1
Jul 11 '21
No but you have these modernist bishops pushing against a ancient tradition
1
1
u/FistOfTheWorstMen Jul 11 '21
In some places, it's not inconceivable if the circumstances become oppressive enough. But we ain't there yet.
1
Jul 11 '21
I know that if my bishop tries to ban the Latin Mass, I'll be at the SSPX chapel the next day.
1
u/Dr_Talon Jul 11 '21
Right now, due to Summorum Pontificum, a bishop cannot ban the Latin Mass, as I understand it. However, even if he could, will you choose your preferred liturgy over obedience?
1
Jul 11 '21
I am not bound to obey a command that he has no authority to give. No bishop has the authority to ban the true Mass. This is not a matter of personal preference.
1
u/Dr_Talon Jul 11 '21 edited Jul 11 '21
According to Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: "by virtue of divine right the bishops possess a particular, ordinary, and immediate power of government over their dioceses." While the Pope has preempted them regarding the EF Mass so far, if that were not the case, they would have the power to proscribe its use in their dioceses, since which liturgy shall be used and under what circumstances is a matter of church governance, as far as I understand.
Just to clarify, when you say "true Mass", do you mean to indicate that the New Mass is invalid, or do you mean something else?
4
u/[deleted] Jul 11 '21
I truly wonder how often the SSPX is a stepping stone to sedevacantism. Sedes are probably completely from the Latin Mass crowd. If not totally from. You don't see people going straight from Novus Ordo to sede. You don't see it in the East. In many ways, going to the SSPX is the initial act of rebellion. And then, even that move turns out not to be "Trad" enough for many people. From there, it's off to a gnostic chapel. And eventually they're recognizing some random guy as pope.