Are the SSPX in schism?

[GerardP]

What a peculiar statement. Only last night I fell asleep while thanking God for the Popes who have served the Church in my lifetime: Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI.

That’s nice. I however don’t believe they were all successful Popes as far as Popes go.

Also my family has always maintained a special devotion to Pius X since my parents made their First Holy Communion on the same day in the early 1920s, while they were still very young children, due to the mandates of Pius X.

I have different reasons for my devotion to St. Pius X. None of them have to do with me, but rather what he did for the Church.

Leo XIII was praised as well for his interest and teachings on the laborers of the world who were then impoverished and without hope.

I like Leo for what he taught about devotion to the Rosary and his defense of unchanging Catholic principles.

Do I look back over history to determine “bad Popes” in order to justify current fantasies about recent Popes? Nope. No need.

What makes the disturbing actions, strange philosophies and curious inactions of Popes fantasies? You make a lot of statements but don’t offer any proof of your opinions.

First and foremost, I was raised to protect my faith. What are you doing with yours?

I was taught a bunch of heresies by Church “approved” liars.
If it weren’t for God’s grace, good family, a mysterious nun who consecrated me at my baptism and a dead Jesuit who brought me to the faith and set me on the right path, I would not have found out what the Church actually taught.

So forgive me if I don’t share your polly-anna characterization of what being a Catholic is. I’ve had to fight for my faith. I’m a member of the Church Militant because we are always under attack from within and without. There is no room for Church Milquetoast.

 

[catharina]

That’s nice. I however don’t believe they were all successful Popes as far as Popes go.

I have different reasons for my devotion to St. Pius X. None of them have to do with me, but rather what he did for the Church.

I like Leo for what he taught about devotion to the Rosary and his defense of unchanging Catholic principles.

What makes the disturbing actions, strange philosophies and curious inactions of Popes fantasies? You make a lot of statements but don’t offer any proof of your opinions.

I was taught a bunch of heresies by Church “approved” liars.
If it weren’t for God’s grace, good family, a mysterious nun who consecrated me at my baptism and a dead Jesuit who brought me to the faith and set me on the right path, I would not have found out what the Church actually taught.

So forgive me if I don’t share your polly-anna characterization of what being a Catholic is. **I’ve had to fight for my faith. ** I’m a member of the Church Militant because we are always under attack from within and without. There is no room for Church Milquetoast.

My impression is that you like to argue. Everyone has “to fight” to preserve the faith. Most people are too graced, wise and prudent to fight Rome. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. Rome is home.

 

[GerardP]

Some very clever parsing, spinning and slicing in there.

Words actually mean things. Your characterization that I’ve parsed and spun things is your own “spin.” Prove me wrong if you think I’m wrong.

The one thing that requires response is that I never suggested that Canon Law is unwise, not even close.

I think it can be easily inferred that you don’t care about inconvenient Canon Laws that support the SSPX’s position.

What I did was point out how silly it is to try to use the “grave fear” exception to justify a deliberate, contemplated, and planned act of disobedience where the only “fear” was that he would never prevail on the Pope to change his mind.

You are not taking it far enough. What would be the consequence of the Pope not allowing a consecration? Answer: The end of “project survival”.

As to my position on Hoya’s position, I have pointed out in previous posts that through the patience and mercy of the Church, SSPX has been accepted as being in communion.

And they were always in communion. Don’t you agree? And it’s not through the patience and mercy of the mysterious “Church” you refer to. It’s through the simple facts of the whole case for tradition in the Church. The “Church” would be lying if it were to say officially that the SSPX is not in communion. It will never happen. (Unless the SSPX goes corrupt)

LeFebvre et al were excommunicated, but the Church allows SSPX to remain because they assent to the primacy of Rome.

Excommunicated for rejecting primacy but In Communion because they assent to the primacy of Rome. LeFebvre, De Castro Mayer and the four bishops all did and do assent to the primacy of the Pope and they are excommunicate for not assenting to the primacy of Rome?

But everytime they deny Rome’s teachings, they test that patience a bit.

Policies, not teachings.

Maybe some day the Church will relent and recant LeFebvre’s communication and all the rest.

You mean that Rome will finally admit that it was wrong about LeFebvre and always wrong about LeFebvre. We’re making progress.

What seems more likely to me is that SSPX will slowly trim its objections back, until it can say that the only real issue was allowing the continuation of TLM, and then say they are back.

Only if Rome clarifies the documents of Vatican II by condemning unorthodox interpretations of it’s documents.

Of course the issue was not just continuing TLM, it was rejecting NO, rejecting the Pope’s authority to change the liturgy, rejecting the doctrine of mysterious Grace being extended to non-Catholics, rejecting collegiality among theologians, and so forth.

The current Pope is no fan of the N.O. LeFebvre rejected it because it was not helpful to the faith. (read the Ottaviani Intervention, Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II by Michael Davies, Cranmer’s Godly Order as well. )

The Grace of the Church operates outside of the Church only to draw people into the Church. Not to save non-Catholics.

Collegiality is an attack on the papacy and a modernist version of the condemned principal of Gallicanism.

Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, Chenu, De Chardin are all the dangerous theologians who fought for the ambiguous language in Vatican II so they could appeal to the Council in order to change the Church. Linguistic errors became dogmatic errors. Renouncing the use of Petrine privilege is part of the democratization of the Church which LeFebvre fought. Pope John was a liberal for 1962. We’ve slid so far since then, he would be excoriated by large sections of the Church and the world for being too intransigent.

Most Catholics think the issue was TLM, and SSPX is happy to promote that view.

Bogus accusation. They are insisting that it’s about the faith, not the Mass.

But TLM was a sidelight, a sympton, and not the real underlying source of the schism – I’m sorry the “schismatic act” which “in practice” denied the Apostolic Authority of the Chair of Peter.

Resisting Peter to his face because he walked not uprightly with the Gospel.

 

[GerardP]

My impression is that you like to argue.

No. Just willing to argue for the truth. And I’m morally obligated not to avoid it in order to feel uncomfortable or to attack people who tell me a truth that is uncomfortable.

Everyone has “to fight” to preserve the faith. Most people are too graced, wise and prudent to fight Rome. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. Rome is home.

What kind of vague statement do you mean by “fighting Rome”? Are you saying Rome is always impeccable? Sorry history and the Church herself says differently. St. Paul “But though WE, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

You have to admit that St. Paul speaking as the word of God Himself knew that “We” was necessary because Rome isn’t impeccable.

Moses, David, St. Micheal, St. Pius V, St. Athanasius, St. Joan of Arc, (They are not peacemakers?)

Rome is home.

Christ Himself had to drive the moneychangers from the Temple. He never disobeyed the Old Law but still called the religious of his day "Vipers, Whited Sepulchres. Christ was divisive. He brought a sword. He was a divider, not a uniter.

 

[catharina]

No. Just willing to argue for the truth. And I’m morally obligated not to avoid it in order to feel uncomfortable or to attack people who tell me a truth that is uncomfortable.

What kind of vague statement do you mean by “fighting Rome”? Are you saying Rome is always impeccable? Sorry history and the Church herself says differently. St. Paul “But though WE, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

You have to admit that St. Paul speaking as the word of God Himself knew that “We” was necessary because Rome isn’t impeccable.

Moses, David, St. Micheal, St. Pius V, St. Athanasius, St. Joan of Arc, (They are not peacemakers?)

Christ Himself had to drive the moneychangers from the Temple. He never disobeyed the Old Law but still called the religious of his day "Vipers, Whited Sepulchres. Christ was divisive. He brought a sword. He was a divider, not a uniter.

sspx objectors have brought a new brand of divisiveness to the Church. That they dare to compare themselves to Christ rebuking the money changers says it all.

 

[GerardP]

The “grave fear” was that they wouldn’t get the bishops they wanted. They wanted those bishops because they, too, rejected the Church’s teachings on several issues, yes.

You mean Rome didn’t want Bishops who supported tradition. Bishop who opposed eirenism, mobilism and any other number of previously condemned positions under Pius XII or even John XXIII.

Yes. Are you not aware that the Church has published doctrines from time to time for 2000 years?

Those doctrines defined things. They didn’t undefine things.

The Truth does not change, but our depth of understanding of it does.

Vatican II doesn’t protect against heresy. What does Vatican II state about Hell for example?

After each of the major councils there were schismatics that rejected or did not understand the doctrines of that council. This is no different than those.

Except Vatican II made no dogmatic statements and contained no anathemas. Paul VI and John XXIII and Cardinal Ratzinger all stated in various ways that Vatican II was “modest” when it came to authoritative pronouncements and nothing is binding.

John Paul explained the root of the problem this way (again from the same Ecclesia Dei):

No. He made a statement but didn’t explain anything. Least of all did he define anything. I defy you to understand what he wrote and not be twisted in knots by his verbal bafflegab.

It’s phenomenological nonsense.

 

[Sure]

No. He made a statement but didn’t explain anything. Least of all did he define anything. I defy you to understand what he wrote and not be twisted in knots by his verbal bafflegab.

It’s phenomenological nonsense.

Do you really have difficulty understanding the motu proprio? What do you mean by phenomenological nonsense? This makes me wonder if you have actually read any other documents by Pope John Paul II or if you only read radical traditionalist interpretations of them.

Please consider answering the question I posed earlier:

“How do we know when a non-infallible (teaching) can morally be disregarded as an error?”

Thanks!

 

[GerardP]

sspx objectors have brought a new brand of divisiveness to the Church. That they dare to compare themselves to Christ rebuking the money changers says it all.

Your indignation is meaningless. While parishes are being sold and closed by the hundreds and lawsuits are being paid out in the billions, Apostasy is rampant now, you think the problem is the SSPX instead of the only man who could’ve stopped this calamity?

 

[Sure]

Your indignation is meaningless. While parishes are being sold and closed by the hundreds and lawsuits are being paid out in the billions, Apostasy is rampant now, you think the problem is the SSPX instead of the only man who could’ve stopped this calamity?

Gerard,

They’re separate problems…bad catechesis, weak bishops, modern relativism, and SSPX disobedience. This thread is addressing the SSPX situation. Let’s not muddle the discussion.

 

[catharina]

You mean Rome didn’t want Bishops who supported tradition. Bishop who opposed eirenism, mobilism and any other number of previously condemned positions under Pius XII or even John XXIII.

Those doctrines defined things. They didn’t undefine things.

Vatican II doesn’t protect against heresy. What does Vatican II state about Hell for example?

Except Vatican II made no dogmatic statements and contained no anathemas. Paul VI and John XXIII and Cardinal Ratzinger all stated in various ways that Vatican II was “modest” when it came to authoritative pronouncements and nothing is binding.

No. He made a statement but didn’t explain anything. Least of all did he define anything. I defy you to understand what he wrote and not be twisted in knots by his verbal bafflegab.

It’s phenomenological nonsense.

bafflegab? Is that a new sspx word?

Is it a helpful term in defying Rome?

 

[GerardP]

Do you really have difficulty understanding the motu proprio?

Of course. It’s a tautology. He explains the lack of understanding the Second Vatican Council by appealing to the Second Vatican Council. Tossing the words “clearly taught” is not “clear” at all. It’s Pyrrhonism and Mobilism as part of the modern mindset. No absolute truth is really accessible and nothing is static.

The Magisterium defines things. It places limits and narrows understanding. It’s doesn’t blur the truth and undefine what was previously defined. “Contemplate in their hearts?” C’mon. This is virtually immanentism condemned by Pius X in Pascendi.

What do you mean by phenomenological nonsense?

It’s poetry more than it is philosophy. It has no roots in metaphysics.

This makes me wonder if you have actually read any other documents by Pope John Paul II or if you only read radical traditionalist interpretations of them.

No. Unlike those who are against the SSPX. I read as many primary sources as possible. I’ve read a few of JPII’s encyclicals a good portion of Crossing the Threshold of Hope and I’ve attended a Theology of the Body seminar and read several of the TOB lessons.

At it’s best, it’s overly complicated naval gazing.

Please consider answering the question I posed earlier:

“How do we know when a non-infallible (teaching) can morally be disregarded as an error?” Thanks!

You ask questions based on Church teaching.

Does it break a commandment?

Does it cause a scandal against the faith?

Does it undermine a clear understanding of some previously clarified teaching?

Does it remove the defenses of the Church that protect it from error?

Does it confuse diverse points by being ambiguous?

Was it previously condemned and why?

Was it warned against by previous Popes and now is de facto accepted?

What types of theologians are associated with this “teaching” or policy?

Does acceptance of it strengthen or weaken your faith?

What is missing that previously the heirarchy would include on the same subject?

Know the tree by the fruit it bears.

Does a particular ecumenical /inter-religious event include an invitation to convert to Catholicism?

Signs of hope we see today are:

Pope Benedict has gotten rid of Bugnini pupil Marini as MC for papal masses.

Romano Amerio is being rehabilitated as the premier analyst of the changes occurring since Vatican II. Any understanding of pre vs. post conciliar theological debate must include him.

More and more people are reaching back prior to the Council for understanding and living their Catholic faith.

 

[catharina]

Your indignation is meaningless. While parishes are being sold and closed by the hundreds and lawsuits are being paid out in the billions, Apostasy is rampant now, you think the problem is the SSPX instead of the only man who could’ve stopped this calamity?

Your indignation is outrageous.

The fact that long-standing problems have been uncovered and resolved within the Church structure is all for the good.

That sspx leaders have chosen to defy Rome’s authority is not for the good.

That they do so in the name of Holy Tradition is more outrageous -as if the liberals haven’t caused enough trouble, now there is an official “holier than thou” group. Spare us, O Lord.

 

[GerardP]

Gerard,

They’re separate problems…bad catechesis, weak bishops, modern relativism, and SSPX disobedience. This thread is addressing the SSPX situation. Let’s not muddle the discussion.

They are related. Who is the Shepherd who appointed weak bishops, didn’t stamp out relativism, allowed bad catechesis?

It’s amazing how the modern Popes get exempted from responsibility for their leadership or lack thereof when the results are negative.

Had the Popes done their job, LeFebvre would have been behind them the whole way. Instead in the interests of a Hans Kung idea of 'kenosis" in the Church, they allowed utter debasement of the Church’s treasure and armament. And they allowed the persecution of traditional devout Catholics.

If the Pope will just be a strong Pope and really lead, the SSPX will support him.

But allowing truth and error to mix together is not guarding the purity of the faith.

 

[Sure]

Of course. It’s a tautology. He explains the lack of understanding the Second Vatican Council by appealing to the Second Vatican Council. Tossing the words “clearly taught” is not “clear” at all. It’s Pyrrhonism and Mobilism as part of the modern mindset. No absolute truth is really accessible and nothing is static.

The Magisterium defines things. It places limits and narrows understanding. It’s doesn’t blur the truth and undefine what was previously defined. “Contemplate in their hearts?” C’mon. This is virtually immanentism condemned by Pius X in Pascendi.

It’s poetry more than it is philosophy. It has no roots in metaphysics.

No. Unlike those who are against the SSPX. I read as many primary sources as possible. I’ve read a few of JPII’s encyclicals a good portion of Crossing the Threshold of Hope and I’ve attended a Theology of the Body seminar and read several of the TOB lessons.

At it’s best, it’s overly complicated naval gazing.

Please consider answering the question I posed earlier:

“How do we know when a non-infallible (teaching) can morally be disregarded as an error?” Thanks!

You ask questions based on Church teaching.

Does it break a commandment?

Does it cause a scandal against the faith?

Does it undermine a clear understanding of some previously clarified teaching?

Does it remove the defenses of the Church that protect it from error?

Does it confuse diverse points by being ambiguous?

Was it previously condemned and why?

Was it warned against by previous Popes and now is de facto accepted?

What types of theologians are associated with this “teaching” or policy?

Does acceptance of it strengthen or weaken your faith?

What is missing that previously the heirarchy would include on the same subject?

Know the tree by the fruit it bears.

Does a particular ecumenical /inter-religious event include an invitation to convert to Catholicism?

Signs of hope we see today are:

Pope Benedict has gotten rid of Bugnini pupil Marini as MC for papal masses.

Romano Amerio is being rehabilitated as the premier analyst of the changes occurring since Vatican II. Any understanding of pre vs. post conciliar theological debate must include him.

More and more people are reaching back prior to the Council for understanding and living their Catholic faith.

You think that Veritatis Splendor and other encyclicals are navel-gazing poetry??? LOL!!! Sorry, that’s just funny. Clearly, you are not well-grounded in the Christian Philosophy of Aquinas and Augustine. Any reputable Thomistic philosopher will confirm for you that John Paul II is a thorough and brilliant Thomist. Go back to school, buddy.

God bless!

 

[GerardP]

Your indignation is outrageous.

You mean righteous.

The fact that long-standing problems have been uncovered and resolved within the Church structure is all for the good.

They weren’t uncovered an resolved. They exploded and we’re still trying to put out the fires. And there are still yet unexploded problems that traditionalists have been warning about for years. Just as Lefebvre was warning about things that came about during the Council.

That sspx leaders have chosen to defy Rome’s authority is not for the good.

They are disobedient in order to be obedient to the mission of the Church. The highest law is the salvation of souls. In this emergency, they hear the pleas of the faithful and go to them.

That they do so in the name of Holy Tradition is more outrageous -as if the liberals haven’t caused enough trouble, now there is an official “holier than thou” group. Spare us, O Lord.

What you don’t get it the fact that John XXIII was a liberal, JPII was a liberal and Paul VI was a liberal. BXVI is moderate at best but we’ll run with it for now.

They might be well-intentioned but they were liberal nonetheless and their permissions, their allowances and their policies are what caused the radicals to do that much more damage.

Had the Popes been as hard on radical liberals as they were on traditionalists, they would have had more credibility as history unfolded and more than likely LeFebvre would never have had to take the steps he had to take as a successor to the Apostles.

 

[catharina]

You think that Veritatis Splendor and other encyclicals are navel-gazing poetry??? LOL!!! Sorry, that’s just funny. Clearly, you are not well-grounded in the Christian Philosophy of Aquinas and Augustine. Any reputable Thomistic philosopher will confirm for you that John Paul II is a thorough and brilliant Thomist. Go back to school, buddy.

God bless!

Gerard P is what he is and he reveals himself a bit more with each of his posts. I say “Deo gratias” for that fact.

 

[catharina]

You mean righteous.

They weren’t uncovered an resolved. They exploded and we’re still trying to put out the fires. And there are still yet unexploded problems that traditionalists have been warning about for years. Just as Lefebvre was warning about things that came about during the Council.

They are disobedient in order to be obedient to the mission of the Church. The highest law is the salvation of souls. In this emergency, they hear the pleas of the faithful and go to them.

What you don’t get it the fact that John XXIII was a liberal, JPII was a liberal and Paul VI was a liberal. BXVI is moderate at best but we’ll run with it for now.

They might be well-intentioned but they were liberal nonetheless and their permissions, their allowances and their policies are what caused the radicals to do that much more damage.

Had the Popes been as hard on radical liberals as they were on traditionalists, they would have had more credibility as history unfolded and more than likely LeFebvre would never have had to take the steps he had to take as a successor to the Apostles.

So you’re implying that the voting Cardinals failed to attend to the Holy Spirit’s influence?

 

[bear06]

But people would remain woefully ignorant of the truth.

I concur with this although I’m quite positive we’ll differ on just what the truth is.

The main problem is, a good portion of the people who post against the SSPX know very little about the history of the SSPX, the history of the Church in general and that colors their faith and they ultimately don’t know the Catholic faith.

Well, I know quite a bit about the SSPX and have studied them in depth. I have friends who are in the SSPX and friends who have left the SSPX.

They have a Protestant understanding of the Faith with the difference being that they like the Protestant caricature.

This is just silly as usual. People disagree with the SSPX and naturally they have a protestant understanding.

This is why someone like Dr. Tom Woods can write a book like “How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization” and go on EWTN to discuss it. But at EWTN they won’t challenge him on his traditionalist writings on air

. I really like some of his books but the man is quite allergic to footnotes and citing sources. It must just be the nature of an SSPX apologist even if they aren’t talking about the SSPX.

They can’t disagree with him on facts or theology, but they are politically against him. So, people will quietly tell him that they agree with him but won’t admit so on the air.

I think they probably consider him a blind squirrel who finds a nut once in awhile.

And forget Chris Ferrara, they are ridiculously afraid of him or any writers from the Remnant or Catholic Family News.

I hardly think they are afraid of him. He’s about as stable as Bishop Williams.

 

[bear06]

Your indignation is meaningless. While parishes are being sold and closed by the hundreds and lawsuits are being paid out in the billions, Apostasy is rampant now, you think the problem is the SSPX instead of the only man who could’ve stopped this calamity?

Please. Apparently you’ve forgotten the Reformation. I guess the Pope must have been sitting around and twiddling his thumbs then too. Please, just for a moment, try to get some historical reference.

 

[bear06]

It’s poetry more than it is philosophy. It has no roots in metaphysics.

You might try reading Ratizinger and Hans Urs von Balthasar on the subject.