Archbishop Lefebvre, SSPX, FSSP and Traditionalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Justinian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Justinian

Guest
  1. Does the SSPX keep the same beliefs as Lefevbre or did it change and/or evolve overtime?
  2. Do you think it was right for people to leave Lefevbre in 1988 especially if you would be a memeber of the FSSP?
  3. If the SSPX was never in schism, and Lefevbre was never validly excommunicated, then why did the SSPX later ask for Pope Benedict XVI?
  4. Does the SSPX fast 1 hour, 3 hours, or do they fast the whole 24 hours before without consuming anything before Mass?
  5. Does the FSSP accept every teaching of Vatican 2? . . .
  6. When traditionalists say that there are statements in Vatican 2 that are contrary to tradition, does this mean that there are errors? If not what does this mean?
 
Last edited:
  1. I don’t follow them.
  2. One can choose to follow the Church, or not. Following the Church has a 2,000 year history, and there is also a history of those who did not.
  3. The SSPX are not officially in schism - de jure (according to law) but Cardinal Mueller has publicly stated they are de facto (by the fact) in schism; the Church has decided to not declare them (de jure) to be so. It would appear that the decision not do declare them so is because it would be easier to resolve if that did not occur (see, e.g. the 1,000 year +/- history of the Orthodox schism - still not healed).
  4. the old fast was from midnight, not 24 hours. One can still follow the long fast if one chooses, whether or not that was abrogated.
  5. They may feel there are ambiguities which need clarification; to say that there are statements contrary to tradition is to approach schism.
  6. If the traditionalists say there are errors, they a;re doing two things; first, they are accusing the Church, and the vast majority of bishops of either outright heresy or something close to it and second, they appear to be expressing an opinion that the Church is no longer under the protection of the Holy Spirit, which borders on accusing Christ of a lie.
 
Contrary to what you may have heard, the SSPX are not anti authority nor are they choosing to be disobedient to the chair of Peter. The SSPX chapel that I’ve attended on occasion makes constant prayers for Pope Francis and the clergy as a whole after each mass.

You can attend an SSPX chapel if your motive for doing so is simply for the love of the Traditional Mass and to strengthen your faith. However, if you choose to attend as a symbolic way of showing your disapproval and disobedience to Rome or the Pope, then you’d be in sin.
 
I don’t know how familiar you are with Dr. Taylor Marshall, but he gives an excellent interview with Fr. Paul Robinson of the SSPX.

If you have the time you should definitely give it a look see.

 
I cannot understand the attention paid to; the admiration of; the almost hero worship afforded so many of the disobedient, dissident, reactionary, schismatic and/or malcontents on the face of this earth. We are driving toward heaven while focusing on the ditch!

It all began so long ago, when one declared “Non serviam!”

Our part is not to talk. It is to pray for them.
 
Last edited:
Please do, if you are speaking of me.

But, (if you do) how or why do you champion the disobedient?

Just wondering.
 
Last edited:
Justinian said:
  1. Does the SSPX keep the same beliefs as Lefevbre or did it change and/or evolve overtime?
Click to expand...
Honestly, this one really depends on who you ask. There are people who have left the SSPX and formed their own groups because they allege the SSPX hasn’t kept the beliefs of Lefevbre.
Crusader13 said:
Contrary to what you may have heard, the SSPX are not anti authority nor are they choosing to be disobedient to the chair of Peter.
Click to expand...
If they weren’t choosing to be disobedient then they’d fix their canonical status and be like the FSSP. To claim they’re not “choosing” to be disobedient makes no sense. They absolutely are.
The SSPX chapel that I’ve attended on occasion makes constant prayers for Pope Francis and the clergy as a whole after each mass.
Click to expand...
Which means… what? I’ve seen the Orthodox pray for Catholics during masses, it doesn’t indicate actual obedience in any way.
 
Justinian said:
Do you think it was right for people to leave Lefevbre in 1988 especially if you would be a memeber of the FSSP?
Click to expand...
The pope recommended individuals consider this move. ++Lefebvre did not have a position in the Church. Fssp offered the prospect of more direct participation in the Apostolate of the Church.
 
Last edited:
JSRG said:
I’ve seen the Orthodox pray for Catholics during masses
Click to expand...
😱

WOW. Details please! I can pretty much guarantee that they don’t pray for Pope Francis during their services. IIRC, ~ 6 years ago 2 Orthodox bishops issued a letter to Pope Francis telling him to repent. 😱 Someone actually posted that letter on CAF. I couldn’t even get through the first paragraph TBH.
 
Margaret_Ann said:
40.png
JSRG:
I’ve seen the Orthodox pray for Catholics during masses
Click to expand...
😱

WOW. Details please! I can pretty much guarantee that they don’t pray for Pope Francis during their services. IIRC, ~ 6 years ago 2 Orthodox bishops issued a letter to Pope Francis telling him to repent. 😱 Someone actually posted that letter on CAF. I couldn’t even get through the first paragraph TBH.
Click to expand...
To be fair, it was a very short mention, and occurred in the context of several groups being prayed for (Protestants were also mentioned, I can’t remember who else).
 
Crusader13 said:
I don’t know how familiar you are with Dr. Taylor Marshall, but he gives an excellent interview with Fr. Paul Robinson of the SSPX.

If you have the time you should definitely give it a look see.

Click to expand...
I’ve seen this, but I honestly think a better interview was done by Catholic Answers with Angelus Press (SSPX’s publisher).

I think it was a 2 part interview on Catholic Answers Focus podcast.

Very interesting
 
Crusader13 said:
If they weren’t choosing to be disobedient then they’d fix their canonical status and be like the FSSP. To claim they’re not “choosing” to be disobedient makes no sense. They absolutely are.
Click to expand...
I don’t like the SSPX, but they are not really in disobedience.

Yes, some individual priests are, but they are not as a group.

They are in DISAGREEMENT with the Church, but not really direct disobedience.

There is a key difference, because they TRY to obedient, as best as they can (due to their disagreements). If they were in a state of disobedience, I don’t think Pope Francis would be extending olive branches to them.
 
Last edited:
I am not a believer so have no opinion on the rightness or wrongness of SSPX beliefs.

Archbishop Lefebvre interests me because he is an individual who took what I see as very fine distinctions of belief to the extent of (de facto) splitting from the Church while at the same time arguing that he and the SSPX were the true upholders of Church tradition. I’m interested in what caused this intensity of belief and the hard edges that led to the split.

I have also never seen an explanation as to his apparent lack of judgement in the appointment of Bp Williamson, whose eccentric (to put it mildly) views were well known. I know anyone can make a mistake in judging someone’s suitability for high office but this appointment seems to me to need explanation. I have not read his biography but from reviews it seems not to deal in this issue in any detail.
 
JSRG said:
To claim they’re not “choosing” to be disobedient makes no sense. They absolutely are.
Click to expand...
I disagree. They never set out to usurp the authority of Rome or the Pope. The Society, under Lefebvre we’re striving to maintain the teachings and traditions of the Church, with special regards to the Mass itself.

On can make an argument that Abp. Lefebvre probably should have waited before he consecrated the new bishops, but when you read the the account of what took place, including the Abp’s own words, you can see that he had no intentions of wanting to be in schism nor to separate from from Rome or the Church. His thoughts and actions were in keeping with what he believed was best to preserve the society.
 
Consider the Old Catholic movement. It developed in response to a council some good people sincerely believed to have departed from historic Tradition.

In the early years, obviously all OC folks had much more training, formation and experience in the Church itself than in the OC. After a few decades, you now had people who had grown up in the OC, now just a few were getting formed by those who had been formed in the Church itself. (Like SSPX in 2020). The old momentum was not totally gone yet. But fading.

As more time passed, fewer converts from the RCC itself, no teachers who had any formation outside the OC. Structures intended as temporary became permanent. Their own Momentum (own magisterium) gradually set in.

But they didn’t stop using the word “Catholic”. Now on websites they seem to use it more. Some OC groups
pray for Pope Francis. “We are still in the Church”!

They say the current Magisterium is not required for an individual to interpret Catholic Tradition. But different OC groups interpret Tradition very differently now.

You might say this process does not apply to SSPX, because some OC movements have recently taken positions that appear (to you and me) apart from Catholic Tradition.
But this didn’t happen much during their first 50 years. Process takes time.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
There is a key difference, because they TRY to obedient, as best as they can (due to their disagreements). If they were in a state of disobedience, I don’t think Pope Francis would be extending olive branches to them.
Click to expand...
Francis and previous popes have extended various olive branches to the Eastern Orthodox as well.
Crusader13 said:
40.png
JSRG:
To claim they’re not “choosing” to be disobedient makes no sense. They absolutely are.
Click to expand...
I disagree. They never set out to usurp the authority of Rome or the Pope. The Society, under Lefebvre we’re striving to maintain the teachings and traditions of the Church, with special regards to the Mass itself.

On can make an argument that Abp. Lefebvre probably should have waited before he consecrated the new bishops, but when you read the the account of what took place, including the Abp’s own words, you can see that he had no intentions of wanting to be in schism nor to separate from from Rome or the Church. His thoughts and actions were in keeping with what he believed was best to preserve the society.
Click to expand...
This would simply say that initially he/they was/were not intending to be disobedient. But as soon as it was obvious he was going against them–particularly with excommunication being threatened and such–he was. This is why the FSSP separated from the SSPX and formed their own organization–they choose to be obedient rather than choosing to be disobedient.

If I do something my boss does not want me to do but without knowing he does not want me to do it, I am not choosing to be disobedient. If, however, he subsequently makes it clear to me I am going against what he wants, I am being disobedient. Which is exactly what the SSPX did/is doing.

If the argument is that they are in the right and the Pope/Vatican is in the wrong, and they are warranted in their disobedience… even if they are right to do so, they are nevertheless obviously choosing to be disobedient.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top