Provincialism in the SSPX

The other day, I noticed on one of the threads there was an individual lamenting the notion that the SSPX chapels will be flooded with new arrivals, "neo-Cons" and what she probably thinks are spiritual tourists who will water down the purity of that well oiled machine built by Archbishop Lefebvre.

That kind of esprit de corp -- which some might think is elitism -- seems directly opposed to the Great Commission which the Holy Spirit gave to the Apostles to go out and preach the Gospel to every living thing.

St. Anthony of Padua even preached to the fish.

I suspect this attitude is what is behind much of the hostility which some in the SSPX hold for the Thrice Defined Dogma.

otremer6 wrote:The other day, I noticed on one of the threads there was an individual lamenting the notion that the SSPX chapels will be flooded with new arrivals, "neo-Cons" and what she probably thinks are spiritual tourists who will water down the purity of that well oiled machine built by Archbishop Lefebvre.

That kind of esprit de corp -- which some might think is elitism -- seems directly opposed to the Great Commission which the Holy Spirit gave to the Apostles to go out and preach the Gospel to every living thing.

St. Anthony of Padua even preached to the fish.

I suspect this attitude is what is behind much of the hostility which some in the SSPX hold for the Thrice Defined Dogma.

Quite so; this appears to be nothing more that spiritual and doctrinal elitism that resents any threat of "infection" from those outside the "true" fold (the "well oiled machine built by Archbishop Lefebvre"), and is certainly the very antithesis of the Gospel message.

However, I am perplexed by your suspicion that behind such an attitude is a hostility held by some in the SSPX for the Thrice Defined Dogma. I see the exact opposite and only a shared spiritual and doctrinal elitism with Feeneyism (though they differ on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus), the latter of which is also forever proclaiming that it holds the "true" doctrine while every one else, including the SSPX and the "neo-Catholics" (and the entire Church), have watered it down to where the dogma is entirely meaningless.

In fact, the SSPX is for the most part one with the Church on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, except where they see a heretical watering down of the distinction between being saved outside the formal structure of the Church, but by and through the Church, and the alleged salvation of this same individual by and through his false Church (a legitimate "means" of salvation). Of course, that is NOT the correct interpretation of the doctrine and that is NOT what the Church actually teaches.

The SSPX is wrong on every count in their accusations of doctrinal error against the Church (the "errors" of VCII), and so are the Feeneyites. Their respective movements are defined by the same dissent (non-servium) which appears to be motivated by an assumption that the Church must recognize her doctrinal "errors" and "come back" to their respective interpretations of doctrinal purity.

Each group holds the true Faith (just ask them -- and don't we all), and the Church must find its way back to that same Faith, or there will never be a true reconciliation. Over the years, however, the Feeneyite mother ship has become less extreme in its position (the St. Benedict Center NH is seeking full reconciliation) and avoids any and all accusations of "heresy" by making their doctrinal dispute with the Church a dispute over conflicting but still "orthodox" opinions.

Please explain this "hostility" of the SSPX towards Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and how this alleged hostility fits into a spiritual and doctrinal elitism.

Well, when someone complains about all the "riff raff" coming into the "chapel" and mucking everything up, it sounds suspiciously similar to Cardinal Cushing's objection that the Catholic Church doesn't have enough churches to accommodate all of the non-Catholics in Boston.

That manner of thinking is strikingly, provincial and dis-edifying.

I'm just saying that the national and liturgical particularism of the SSPX tends to run roughshod over the actual Catholicity of the Church, almost as if they would prefer to be of the Synagogue of Satan than the Church.

Bishop Fellay may change some of that, however, come mid-September.

otremer6 wrote:Well, when someone complains about all the "riff raff" coming into the "chapel" and mucking everything up, it sounds suspiciously similar to Cardinal Cushing's objection that the Catholic Church doesn't have enough churches to accommodate all of the non-Catholics in Boston.

I would think that we would welcome (accommodate) as many non-Catholics as possible in the Catholic Church; though I suspect this particular ecumenical context is not exactly what you had in mind. Cardinal Cushing could at times seem to be more at home in the synagogues of other religions.

otremer6 wrote:That manner of thinking is strikingly, provincial and dis-edifying.

I'm just saying that the national and liturgical particularism of the SSPX tends to run roughshod over the actual Catholicity of the Church, almost as if they would prefer to be of the Synagogue of Satan than the Church.

Bishop Fellay may change some of that, however, come mid-September.

Fair enough … I tend to agree (though only fairly optimistic about the future). Unfortunately, the signs pointing to an intractable intransigence (by Bp Fellay) are still there. I hope I'm wrong in reading the tea leaves. A major split may be coming, and that might be a good thing.

With regards to Cardinal Cushing, his objection seemed more rooted in Americanism and latitudinarianism — although covered in a thin veneer of brick-and-mortar pragmatism. Too go a little further out on a limb it may have even suggested a sort of contraceptive mentality at work.

The SSPXer's comment comes from a completely different mindset, but I would agree "seems directly opposed to the Great Commission which the Holy Spirit gave to the Apostles to go out and preach the Gospel to every living thing."

It reminds me more of a high school drama, where the "cool kids" are worried about their clique being breathed upon by outsiders at the lunch table.

otremer6 wrote:The other day, I noticed on one of the threads there was an individual lamenting the notion that the SSPX chapels will be flooded with new arrivals, "neo-Cons" and what she probably thinks are spiritual tourists who will water down the purity of that well oiled machine built by Archbishop Lefebvre.

That kind of esprit de corp -- which some might think is elitism -- seems directly opposed to the Great Commission which the Holy Spirit gave to the Apostles to go out and preach the Gospel to every living thing.

St. Anthony of Padua even preached to the fish.

I suspect this attitude is what is behind much of the hostility which some in the SSPX hold for the Thrice Defined Dogma.

There is also an increasing suspicion (even among SSPXers) that the society has already over-compromised with the neocon theological mindset and that any potential reconciliation with Rome will require further estrangement from the "well oiled machine built by Archbishop Lefebvre."

I don't think it is spiritual elitism for the society to endeavour to protect itself from a possible invasion of neoconism that could potentially result in the incorporation of the SSPX into a theologically compromised neocon Church rather than the other way about. The failed Vat II experiment of opening up the Church to the world might well be the comparison they have in mind and the same outcome they fear.

"Go preach the gospel to all nations," doesn't necessarily mean throw caution to the wind. There are serious theological differences to be resolved and if the SSPX truly believe that its position is the correct one, it has a right to preserve and protect itself from possible lurking threats.
St. Anthony preaching to the fish surely wasn't putting himself under threat of a carp coop.

columba wrote:

otremer6 wrote:The other day, I noticed on one of the threads there was an individual lamenting the notion that the SSPX chapels will be flooded with new arrivals, "neo-Cons" and what she probably thinks are spiritual tourists who will water down the purity of that well oiled machine built by Archbishop Lefebvre.

That kind of esprit de corp -- which some might think is elitism -- seems directly opposed to the Great Commission which the Holy Spirit gave to the Apostles to go out and preach the Gospel to every living thing.

St. Anthony of Padua even preached to the fish.

I suspect this attitude is what is behind much of the hostility which some in the SSPX hold for the Thrice Defined Dogma.

There is also an increasing suspicion (even among SSPXers) that the society has already over-compromised with the neocon theological mindset and that any potential reconciliation with Rome will require further estrangement from the "well oiled machine built by Archbishop Lefebvre."

I don't think it is spiritual elitism for the society to endeavour to protect itself from a possible invasion of neoconism that could potentially result in the incorporation of the SSPX into a theologically compromised neocon Church rather than the other way about. The failed Vat II experiment of opening up the Church to the world might well be the comparison they have in mind and the same outcome they fear.

"Go preach the gospel to all nations," doesn't necessarily mean throw caution to the wind. There are serious theological differences to be resolved and if the SSPX truly believe that its position is the correct one, it has a right to preserve and protect itself from possible lurking threats.
St. Anthony preaching to the fish surely wasn't putting himself under threat of a carp coop.

I would agree with that, but any neo-Cons who come to the typical SSPX chapel are going to come away a little upset.

Bishop Fellay has already assured everyone that all of that agreement with the spirit of Vatican II is off the table.

It's not the smattering of neo-Cons in pews who post a threat to the SSPX, but perhaps it is their own mental attachment to liberalism that should be afraid of the intransigence of the SSPX?