FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Traditional Catholics Unite the Clans (Dr. Marshall and Michael Matt) - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Traditional Catholics Unite the Clans (Dr. Marshall and Michael Matt) (/showthread.php?tid=84266)

Pages: 1 2 3


Traditional Catholics Unite the Clans (Dr. Marshall and Michael Matt) - In His Love - 03-18-2019




RE: Traditional Catholics Unite the Clans (Dr. Marshall and Michael Matt) - HeadRusch - 03-19-2019

(03-18-2019, 01:23 PM)In His Love Wrote:

I am a particular fan of both Dr. Marshall and Michael Matt. I find that Dr. Marshall is in the same boat I am as far as tradition in the church. Hes one step ahead of me, as he is able to go to a TLM weekly. I also appreciate what +Lefebvre did although I dont agree with ordaining Bishops, I do see his side of it and understand where he was coming from. It is up to Our Lord now as far as if what +Lefebvre did was permissable or not.

This video was great and Dr. Marshall really is bridging the gap between main stream catholics and Traditional minded catholics. Dr. Marshall is bringing in Catholics from every span of the Church who are orthodox and having them share their expertise or opinions on where the church is right now.

This video specifically goes into how we all need to put down our petty squabbles and focus our efforts on the Church and bringing in more Catholics to true Catholicism.


RE: Traditional Catholics Unite the Clans (Dr. Marshall and Michael Matt) - MagisterMusicae - 03-20-2019

(03-19-2019, 03:35 PM)HeadRusch Wrote: This video specifically goes into how we all need to put down our petty squabbles and focus our efforts on the Church and bringing in more Catholics to true Catholicism.

But are the squabbles actually "petty"?

Some clearly are and are superficial, but while some differences and disagreements may seem petty, dig beyond the surface and a deep analysis will show that many are not. This is why it could be easily said, for instance, that the SSPX and Diocesan clergy who celebrate the traditional Mass are far closer and more able to work together than the SSPX and the FSSP.

The question is why is there this divide between the SSPX and FSSP? Is it merely petty bickering with the ex? Hardly.

Yes, there's the baggage of 1988, but even if there were not this, the present official position of the FSSP is that the SSPX is schismatic. This is what they teach at the seminaries, and it is their official position. It is not the position of the Holy See or the Pope, yet they hold this, and it is more than just a wrong opinion. It is the very reason for their existence, so it is not a "petty" squabbles, even if the verbiage and talking points are "petty."

The FSSP is founded for the sole purpose : the destruction of the SSPX.

The founders of the FSSP claimed they "remained within the Catholic Church as the pars sanior [sane portion]" of the SSPX, in their 2 July 1988 declaration. The FSSP constitutions indicate they are "founded in the spirit of the apostolic letter Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta of Pope John Paul II (2 July 1988)." That motu proprio states that the commission which would establish the FSSP, and by extension the FSSP itself exists "for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Msgr. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions."

How can one expect the SSPX to in any way cooperate with the FSSP when this is their official attitude, or when their priests directly work against the SSPX? That is clearly the case when the FSSP has nearly always and exclusively been established where there was already an SSPX presence. Sometimes the FSSP was called in and given a church mere blocks away from the SSPX. When the SSPX is invited by faithful to a new place, assuredly the bishop will soon after invite in the FSSP. And with few exceptions where the SSPX is not in a place where the FSSP was, it is because the FSSP was able to chase them out of town. Nebraska is a perfect example. The SSPX was established there and the open support of Bishop Bruskewitz, plus his attempted excommunication of faithful who supported the SSPX scared enough away for the SSPX to close up shop.

The FSSP was established with this mission under the pretext that the SSPX is in schism, and Catholics who support the SSPX need to be saved from the grip of such a schismatic cult. The question is whether this is true or not.

If true, then there cannot be any possible unity between the FSSP and SSPX without a fundamental change in the SSPX, because for the FSSP it would be unity with the devil. If false then the the fundamental founding principles of the FSSP are false, and the only true basis for unity with the SSPX is if the FSSP be re-established on an entirely new purpose which does not involve seeing saving SSPX-supporting faithful from a schismatic cult as their prime target.

Now, people know here that I am certainly supportive of the SSPX, so clearly I'm biased on which of these is true, but even if I'm wrong, it's quite silly to not address the elephant in the room and pretend to have some unity which is as superficial and the "petty" squabbles it seeks to eliminate.

Some crow-eating is necessary on both sides, but ultimately, no unity can be had until those fundamental principles are worked out. Since the Holy See rejects the idea that the SSPX is schismatic, and has de facto approved their work, from my vantage point the only way to have any unity between the FSSP and SSPX would be for FSSP to start by recognizing this fact, and clearly stating that the SSPX is not in schism, whatever their present canonical status may be, and that thanks to the gestures of the Holy See, Catholics may attend and receive Sacraments form the SSPX without qualm of conscience.

I know many FSSP do hold this position and cooperate with SSPX priests to some extent, but this is not the official position of the FSSP.

One of the best things to take out of the video, however, and perhaps this is more for the faithful and diocesan clergy, is the actual real legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre. So many know only about 1988, and few know of his more than 60 previous years of ecclesiastical work and his steadfast support and direction of the conservatives at Vatican II. I think the more people get to know the whole Lefebvre, the more they will see that 1988 and the SSPX are just the logical conclusion of his whole life.

This is where, I think, we will have an opening for some unity. The more diocesan clergy and the faithful warm to Lefebvre and the SSPX will begin to be seen for what it really is, not some seven-headed beast, but a society of Catholics working for the good of the Church. Eventually if that happens, the FSSP will have to change its tune and, then the bad blood can be let.


RE: Traditional Catholics Unite the Clans (Dr. Marshall and Michael Matt) - HeadRusch - 03-20-2019

I cannot speak to whether that it is taught in FSSP seminaries that the SSPX are in Schism. But I can speak to the FSSP Priests I've heard speak about the SSPX and the FSSP Priests that have spoken on the matter, and not a single one has ever said they are in schism.

Do you have any proof any where that this is what is taught in FSSP seminaries?


RE: Traditional Catholics Unite the Clans (Dr. Marshall and Michael Matt) - MagisterMusicae - 03-20-2019

(03-20-2019, 07:05 PM)HeadRusch Wrote: I cannot speak to whether that it is taught in FSSP seminaries that the SSPX are in Schism. But I can speak to the FSSP Priests I've heard speak about the SSPX and the FSSP Priests that have spoken on the matter, and not a single one has ever said they are in schism.

Do you have any proof any where that this is what is taught in FSSP seminaries?

Yes, the one of the priests who is not of the FSSP, but who was trained at their Nebraska seminary explained this. He said he did not accept it, but this is what is taught as is the official stance of the FSSP. I also know plenty of FSSP priests who clearly say that the SSPX are not in schism, but none who are willing to publicly say so, encourage people to go to the Society if they wish or urge correction of the official stance or change in policy.

Also, Cardinal Burke claimed the Society was in schism in July 2015 in reply to a question in an Oregon conference, something Church Militant was happy to parade around in it's anti-SSPX crusade.

All I am saying is that these are not minor or "petty" issues that can be glossed over to create a utopian pan-traditional front. 

I think the FSSP wrong, but if they are not wrong on this point, then there cannot be unity with the SSPX. If they are wrong they need to fix a foundation problem for themselves before there could be any unity.

There is injustice on both sides, but in recent years I haven't seen the vitriol from the SSPX against the other traditional societies that I have seen from the anti-SSPX side, and I think that has to do with the fact that the SSPX is becoming more palatable to mainstream Catholics and other traditionalists in the wake (tidal wave, really) of Pope Francis.


RE: Traditional Catholics Unite the Clans (Dr. Marshall and Michael Matt) - MagisterMusicae - 03-20-2019

If I may also add here, one thing I was impressed with, and one of many reasons why I see there being more of a possibility for diocesan clergy who favor Tradition to work with the SSPX is what happened in Madison.

A few notable traditionally-minded priest in Msgr. Morlino's diocese urged him to draft a warning against the SSPX and language got in that he did not approve. As a result he ate crow and went on EWTN to retract his comments. That was a big olive branch and saw him take the time to speak to the SSPX superiors and get to know the work that was going on, and eventually warming greatly to the Society without officially approving them.

A SSPX priest I know was given a diocesan church for his first Mass there. The bishop not only did not argue, but happily offered the church for use, since the Society chapel is little more than a small converted school gymnasium.

Even Fr Z, who was for a while quite anti-SSPX, warmed quite a bit in the wake of this.


RE: Traditional Catholics Unite the Clans (Dr. Marshall and Michael Matt) - For Petes Sake - 03-20-2019

(03-20-2019, 06:54 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(03-19-2019, 03:35 PM)HeadRusch Wrote: This video specifically goes into how we all need to put down our petty squabbles and focus our efforts on the Church and bringing in more Catholics to true Catholicism.

But are the squabbles actually "petty"?

Some clearly are and are superficial, but while some differences and disagreements may seem petty, dig beyond the surface and a deep analysis will show that many are not. This is why it could be easily said, for instance, that the SSPX and Diocesan clergy who celebrate the traditional Mass are far closer and more able to work together than the SSPX and the FSSP.

I agree. A diocesan TLM priest tells people if they have a vocation to talk to the nearby sspx priest. That Michael Matt attends an FSSP while supporting what Lefebvre did makes no sense.


RE: Traditional Catholics Unite the Clans (Dr. Marshall and Michael Matt) - VoxClamantis - 03-21-2019

Magister Musicae, you just won "You Betta Your Life." See the Announcements sub-forum and contact the Rosary-maker!


RE: Traditional Catholics Unite the Clans (Dr. Marshall and Michael Matt) - JacafamalaRedux - 03-21-2019

Any port in a storm and we need them all; the Institute, Society, Fraternity, diocesan, etc. We need them all. I like the analogy of the traditional "branches" being likened to the military. The army can't do what the navy does and the navy can't do what the air force does. We can't afford any squabbling. There's no way we can restore Tradition if we're divided. 

B16 lifted the excommunications of the 4 Bishops and Archbishop Lefevre. Pope Francis has given the Society permission to hear confessions and officiate over marriages. So they're not in schism; they're irregular--thankfully. Because that means the Society is free to speak out against the problems in the Church, while the other traditional branches can't. So that's key. Without the Society, the other traditional groups wouldn't even exist. But the other branches are keeping their foot in the door, so to speak. And as churches close and the priesthood continues to dwindle, the guys from these traditional priests are ready to step in and fill the gap.


RE: Traditional Catholics Unite the Clans (Dr. Marshall and Michael Matt) - MagisterMusicae - 03-21-2019

(03-21-2019, 05:55 AM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: We can't afford any squabbling. There's no way we can restore Tradition if we're divided. 

Squabbling is inherently defined as petty bickering, so again, we need to go back to the reality of the situation and ask precisely what divides these groups? Merely charism? Different tactics and weapons?

That's Michael Matt's view, I am sure, but I think it is myopic and idealistic.

As above, however, there are deeper issues here including theological positions on indispensable points.