This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It was once explained to me as ‘SSPX priests are from here to here(gestures right to left with hands), FSSP priests are from here to here(gestures more broadly)’. And this is basically true- SSPX priests are pretty reliably priests who would be hardliners but not out of bounds in the FSSP. As a general rule, the two get along well behind closed doors and the fraternity tends to be much more into ‘high liturgy’, as they’re both lefebvrists and fr Berg took, disproportionately, more high liturgy oriented seminarians in the split.
As an aside, ‘rebuffed pope Francis’ is not the greatest description, because pope Francis didn’t really make an offer. There’s a de facto temporary deal in place in which the SSPX has jurisdiction and no universal penalties(although they might have some local issues depending on the bishop), and in theory negotiations on a permanent one are… well, stalled out might be a generous term, but at least theoretically there’s supposed to be a permanent situation constructed in the future. According to bishop Schneider, Benedict’s offer was expected to be a nonstarter and only given to open negotiations, and progress was ongoing even during the rejection. Reading between the lines a bit the offer was probably intended to shape certain internal political factors in the society(=sidelining Williamson), and if so it certainly worked.
Thank you! Sincerely.
It seems to me that some sort of reintegration isn't that difficult to imagine, but that it would just take a few last painful steps on all sides to make it happen. Like you pointed out, Williamson was schismatic or, at least, cheerfully antagonistic. Another assumption I'd make is that part of reintegration would be at least a private admission by Fellay and/or other leadership that, yes, Lefenvre did some not-very-nice-things and we (the SSPX) acknowledge that. Mostly, I chalk a lot of this up to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is a massive bureaucracy that moves very slowly (one of the things I like about it most) and the crucial variable here is mostly just time. It would also seem that everything is on pause until Francis goes to his reward as well.
Again, appreciate your continued commentary here as you're obviously more well versed on this stuff than my trying-to-TradCath-ass.
On 1- much more broadly. SSPX chapels have less polyphonics, fewer high masses, don’t attempt to reintegrate pre-55 ritual at all, etc, etc. As usual the fraternity is more varied but it’s a pretty good rule of thumb.
A big Latin bureaucracy. The leadership on both sides is Latin(Italian and French for the SSPX, Italian and Hispanic for the hierarchy). Handshake agreements which don’t quite agree with ‘paper’ status are Good Enough for both sides not to need to hurry.
Notably, FSSP leadership is natively Germanic and Western Slavic speaking, except for those in actual Latin speaking countries.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link