Catholics vs the SSPX

[pnewton]

Yet somehow you exonerate yourself from writing charitably and instead injectt your own venom with hubris and percieved impunity.

Perhaps. That is surely at least one person’s opinion. The main reason I have posted on this thread is to so that other readers can see and discern for themselves what is of God and what is not. At no point did I attempt to inject venon, though. If it came across that way, I apologize. The last post is a true reflection of on of my lines of reason. I douby I am the only one who thinks that way.

 

[pnewton]

Not to respond to anyone in particular, but I will inject one more arguement I have had in my own mind in rejecting the SSPX. It centers around the role of Scripture, Tradition and authority. One reason I became Catholic had to do with the role of Scripture and the logical fallacy of Sola Scriptura. As Catholics, we believe that it is the Church that gave us Sacred Scripture, not the other way around. Our other pillar is Sacred Tradition. Why? Is it not because we accept the work of the Holy Spirit through the centuries in the Church. To say that this work ended 50 years ago, and that alone is what we should listen to is less logical than a Baptist that says it ended with the canonization of the Bible and no further.

When Church councils are quoted, when Pope Pius X is quoted, why should we give it any credence? Is it not because they had the authority to pronounce doctrine? If we grant that they had authority because of the content, then we are worse off than before, because it will be the subjective value of the content that determines authority.

Rather, it is the authority of the Pope and the authority of Councils that is the basis for our Sacred Tradition. Where SSPX misses the boat is dismissing the ongoing nature of authority. Apostolic succession mandates that when on Pope dies, the next takes his place as a position of authority. Pope Pius X is not the pope, nor is John Paul II. There is a current Holy Father and he alone is the channel of authority in the Church today.

Does anyone here think that Pope John Paul II was ignorant of Church history and tradition during the 80’s? Did he know less that Lefebvere or did he just not agree with him? Ignorance was not an issue and the rebellion of the SSPX was not justified unless one takes the position that any Catholic can interpret for himself Scripture and Tradition. Furthermore, one can draw a line as to when one can stop Tradition and its authority. You don’t like the new Pope? Then, just appeal to previous popes and ignore the current one. You don’t like the last one either? Say his papacy is not part of Sacred Tradition and back it up one more. How about VII? Claim that because of modernism in the world at the time that it, too, is not part of the deposit of faith.

Just as Protestantism has a built in logical fallacy, so does the SSPX. We can argue centuries-old statements all day long. But these documents are not secret and unknown to the Holy Father and the Curia. Individual interpretation and rejection of authority is a sure way to split any organization. It is perhaps the most “Protestant” of all protestant legacies.

 

[rosary_for_life]

Wow, some people on here are significantly less-than-charitable! It starts from page one. As brothers & sisters in Christ, we shouldn’t be insulting each other. I just hope no non-Catholics read this thread and get the wrong idea about us!

 

[Aramis]

Real simple equation:

Fellay is not a bishop of the Church. He was excommunicated. (Ecclesia Dei) He can not be legitimately elected (under canon law) as Superior General of the SSPX.

quote=“Ecclesia Dei” In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)
[/quote]

IN the same document, the act is called schismatic.

---

Ecclesia Dei: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

 

[bear06]

And? Are you contesting that “clownish” is the wrong adjective used? Would you describe the photos and vestments pointed out as “dignified” and “refined” or “majestic” ?

Uh, yes, when referring to the papacy. I’m a little in awe that you would dare to agree with TIA when they refer to the clownish papacy and Pope Benedict in the same sentence. Please, oh please, tell me how this does anything else but undermine the Holy Father.

Catholic Culture points out in their section on the “strengths” of Tradition in Action “None.” This is pure bias on their part.

Look at their comments.

Again, I rather agree with them. If TIA disappeared tomorrow, the world would be a better place.

Are they “ridiculing” the clergy and the Popes and prominent Catholic leaders or are those individuals doing ridiculous things and wearing ridiculous things?

They actually don’t give proof of a misrepresentation on the part of TIA. The fact is, the Popes, clergy etc aren’t going to be around to explain (or spin) their ridiculous behavior. And in some of those pictures, there is no context that would justify what is being allowed to go on in the Church or at Church approved functions by clergy.

Come on. This is a totally modernist mindset. “The living Tradition of the Church’s Magisterium”??? is a bunch of jumbled words. It’s pseudo-theological razzmatazz. They don’t even know what they are talking about. They don’t even try to explain their terms. You have your guess, I have my guess. But they don’t say what they actually mean. I’m surprised they didn’t try to say that TIA is interrupting the Church’s “mojo.”

At least we agree on G.I. Joe

 

[bear06]

Yet you never condemn an uncharitable attack against the SSPX.

THAT is where the myopia is.

 

[stmaria]

pnewton;3013796]Not to respond to anyone in particular, but I will inject one more arguement I have had in my own mind in rejecting the SSPX. It centers around the role of Scripture, Tradition and authority One reason I became Catholic had to do with the role of Scripture and the logical fallacy of Sola Scriptura. As Catholics, we believe that it is the Church that gave us Sacred Scripture, not the other way around. ** Our other pillar is Sacred Tradition.**

While I do not belong to the SSPX, I sympatize with their plight. If I were to put myself in the place of Archbishop Lafebvre I would have done the same thing. He once said, “Can Tradition be excommunicated?” That is what he was doing. One must consider the context of why he thought it absoultely necessary to consecrate the Bishops. He also said, “That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to nought, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.”

Why? Is it not because we accept the work of the Holy Spirit through the centuries in the Church

.
Remember that the event at Assissi had just occurred. He didn’t believe that was the work of the Holy Spirit. He said the following ,"… there has never been a greater iniquity in the Church than Assisi, which is contrary to the First Commandment of God and the First Article of the Creed. It is incredible that something like that could have ever taken place in the Church, in the eyes of the whole Church —how humiliating."
In a current post a Vatican official admits that communion in the hand was started intentionaly as an abuse of the Holy Eucharist. This practice must have driven the Archbishop to the edge.

When Church councils are quoted, when Pope Pius X is quoted, why should we give it any credence? Is it not because they had the authority to pronounce doctrine

?
In Archbisop Lefebvre’s opinion Pope Pius IX, X, XI and Pius XII as well as other Popes were not being quoted. That was the problem as he said it with many of the documents of Vatican II. Archbishop Lefebvre stated, “Indeed, since the Council, what we condemned in the past the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing. How is it possible? We have condemned them: Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Modernism, Sillonism.3 All the errors which we have condemned are now professed, adopted and supported by the authorities of the Church.”

Where SSPX misses the boat is dismissing the ongoing nature of authority. Apostolic succession mandates that when on Pope dies, the next takes his place as a position of authority. Pope Pius X is not the pope, nor is John Paul II. There is a current Holy Father and he alone is the channel of authority in the Church today.

The SSPX has alway maintained that all of the Popes are valid.They tried to work things out. The consecration was in 1988 so for many years they waiting for a way to reconcile.

Archbishop Lefebvre stated, " We have done all we could, trying to help Rome to understand that they had to come back to the attitudes of the holy Pius XII and of all his predecessors. Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself have gone to Rome, we have spoken, we have sent letters, several times to Rome.

Does anyone here think that Pope John Paul II was ignorant of Church history and tradition during the 80’s? Did he know less that Lefebvere or did he just not agree with him

Every word and action of Pope John Paul was not infallible, so yes Lefebvre disagreed with him.

Ignorance was not an issue and the rebellion of the SSPX was not justified unless one takes the position that any Catholic can interpret for himself Scripture and Tradition. Furthermore, one can draw a line as to when one can stop Tradition and its authority. You don’t like the new Pope? Then, just appeal to previous popes and ignore the current one. You don’t like the last one either? Say his papacy is not part of Sacred Tradition and back it up one more. How about VII? Claim that because of modernism in the world at the time that it, too, is not part of the deposit of faith.

He did what he did out of necessity. This is what he believed.

“This Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ is disappearing everywhere in the Conciliar Church. They are following roads which are not Catholic roads: they simply lead to apostasy.This is why we do this ceremony.”

 

[TMC]

He did what he did out of necessity. This is what he believed.

In recent centuries there have been many well meaning, knowledgable and upright men that have believed that it was necessary to disagree with the Church, and believed in that necessity so strongly that they set out to ordain their own bishops and priests and teach what they believe to their followers. We call them Protestants

 

[GerardP]

Uh, yes, when referring to the papacy. I’m a little in awe that you would dare to agree with TIA when they refer to the clownish papacy and Pope Benedict in the same sentence. Please, oh please, tell me how this does anything else but undermine the Holy Father.

You have to make a distinction between the office and the man. I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree with the description of a “corrupt” papacy when referring to Benedict X or Alexander VI or Stephen VI.

Unfortunately, the damage done by photo-op antics of Popes does more to undermine the papacy than any comments on those photos by Catholics who want the Popes to act more dignified.

Again, I rather agree with them. If TIA disappeared tomorrow, the world would be a better place.

So you buy into their propaganda. They explain their bias away with undefined razzmatazz and hope nobody calls them on it.

Luckily most of the time they are preaching to a choir that has no interest in putting any of their claims to a test of truth.

They’ll tell you what to think about TIA and you’ll agree. That’s the nature of the relationship.

 

[GerardP]

In recent centuries there have been many well meaning, knowledgable and upright men that have believed that it was necessary to disagree with the Church, and believed in that necessity so strongly that they set out to ordain their own bishops and priests and teach what they believe to their followers. We call them Protestants

What do you mean “disagree with the Church?” Are you saying the SSPX disagrees with “the Church?”

Or do you just misunderstand what “the Church” teaches and says about the heirarchy?

 

[stmaria]

In recent centuries there have been many well meaning, knowledgable and upright men that have believed that it was necessary to disagree with the Church, and believed in that necessity so strongly that they set out to ordain their own bishops and priests and teach what they believe to their followers. We call them Protestants

Luther,Cramner,Zwingli and others were neither well meaning, knowledgable or upright men.Surely you don’t compare the Bishops of the SSPX to any of these men. Does this from Luther sound well meaning,knowledgable and upright?

The Smalcald Articles. by Martin Luther (1537)

Article IV: Of the Papacy

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/smc-02d.html

“Hence it follows that all things which the Pope, from a power so false, mischievous, blasphemous, and arrogant, has done and undertaken. have been and still are purely diabolical affairs and transactions…the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God…Lastly, it is nothing else than the devil himself, because above and against God he urges [and disseminates] his [papal] falsehoods concerning masses, purgatory, the monastic life, one’s own works and [fictitious] divine worship (for this is the very Papacy [upon each of which the Papacy is altogether founded and is standing]), and condemns, murders and tortures all Christians who do not exalt and honor these abominations [of the Pope] above all things. Therefore, just as little as we can worship the devil himself as Lord and God, we can endure his apostle, the Pope, or Antichrist, in his rule as head or lord. For to lie and to kill, and to destroy body and soul eternally, that is wherein his papal government really consists, as I have very clearly shown in many books.

 

[TMC]

What do you mean “disagree with the Church?” Are you saying the SSPX disagrees with “the Church?”

Or do you just misunderstand what “the Church” teaches and says about the heirarchy?

SSPX disagrees with many Church teachings. Obviously Archbishop Lefevbre and others were seriously disobediant and rejected the Pope’s authority, but that was not the only issue, or even the real issue, IMO.

Many of SSPX’s disagreements with the Church stem from one basic disagreement with the current teaching on EENS and ecumenism, which is really a disagreement over the salvic power of Christ’s Sacrifice. This disgareement on the extent and effect of Christ’s Atonement effects many areas of faith and morals. The basic issue is that the Church teaches that Christ died for the sins of all men. That although we do not, and cannot, understand the nature and extent of the salvic power of Christ’s Sacrifice, we believe that Sanctifying Grace is available to all men. That Grace is extended through Christ’s Church on earth in a mysterious way that does not require actual membership in the Church or even a conscious belief in Christ. That is what the Church teaches. It is not some mere policy - it is the Church’s teaching on Salvation.

SSPX rejects this teaching. You may argue that those who teach this are wrong, that’s fine. To say that the Church does not teach this is simply disingenuous. The Church does teach this, and SSPX rejects it. There are other examples, but this is a big and obvious one.

 

[TMC]

Luther,Cramner,Zwingli and others were neither well meaning, knowledgable or upright men.

Yes, I would exactly compare the Bishops of SSPX with these Protestants, in that they disagreed with the Church sufficiently to create a schism. Now SSPX is formally back in the Church so it remains to be seen if the lasting effects are the same. And of course these were well meaning, knowledgable and upright men. John Paul said as much about Luther on more than one occassion.

 

[Sure]

** I listened to a number of interviews with Fr. Martin** …His main argument was that the Vatican didn’t care about dissident liberal theologians to a certain point. They cared about power and LeFebvre was taking away power and contributions and people. And by consecrating bishops, LeFebvre would take away the one thing Rome has always counted on, the ability to outwait an opponent.

They expected the traditionalists to simply die out and they were willing to wait for the individual priests and faithful to simply die away. LeFebvre started schools, was worldwide, was financially secure, and was ordaining young priests. The bishops would insure the SSPX would keep on Rome’s back for longer than Rome was wanting to wait.

So, the excommunication in Fr. Martin’s view as a scholar, theologian and former high level Vatican secretary was invalid on its face and simply intended to dissuade people from supporting LeFebvre and gave the SSPX a “black eye” in the process.

So, you listened to an interview by a guy who had a theory that there were subversive elements in the Vatican who cared about power and contributions and the excommunications were invalid.

Ok.

I listened to Canon Law, a Motu Proprio, and the authoritative interpretation of that Motu Proprio by the Vatican.

 

[GerardP]

So, you listened to an interview by a guy who had a theory that there were subversive elements in the Vatican who cared about power and contributions and the excommunications were invalid.

Ok.

I listened to Canon Law, a Motu Proprio, and the authoritative interpretation of that Motu Proprio by the Vatican.

You’re setting up a false dillemma. You seem to imply that I nor Fr. Martin had taken Canon Law, the MP, the Vatican interpretation of that Motu Proprio into account.

You also seem to think that I rely on Fr. Martin as an authority to appeal to instead of the weight of his arguments.

While I’m sure, your knowledge of languages is far superior to Fr. Martin’s since you obviously read all of the Latin originals and don’t need to rely on any kind of translators or expertise. I have to take in multiple sources in order to gain certitude in a matter.

Taking that into account, it seems that I’ve read everything you’ve read on the issue and then I’ve gone a bit farther by taking other perspectives into account. Gotten a broader view. That probably explains why we have different conclusions.

 

[pnewton]

He did what he did out of necessity. This is what he believed.

“This Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ is disappearing everywhere in the Conciliar Church. They are following roads which are not Catholic roads: they simply lead to apostasy.This is why we do this ceremony.”

This is why we must not judge the man for actions or any of their followers. Some of the judgement leveled against the SSPX is for God alone. As far as this quote, how long more must the Church endure without becoming apostate before we all accept that the road did not lead to apostasy? Maybe the arguement can be said that the Church has changed roads, but then I think we would only be arguing the analogy and not the facts. In any case, thank you for your reasoned response.

 

[fatima1917]

Me for one. I listened to a number of interviews with Fr. Martin and he pointed out that modernists in Rome were loathe to have any exercise of papal authority except when it came to archbishop LeFebvre and they “took out the Howitzer and blew him out of water.”

His main argument was that the Vatican didn’t care about dissident liberal theologians to a certain point. They cared about power and LeFebvre was taking away power and contributions and people. And by consecrating bishops, LeFebvre would take away the one thing Rome has always counted on, the ability to outwait an opponent.

They expected the traditionalists to simply die out and they were willing to wait for the individual priests and faithful to simply die away. LeFebvre started schools, was worldwide, was financially secure, and was ordaining young priests. The bishops would insure the SSPX would keep on Rome’s back for longer than Rome was wanting to wait.

So, the excommunication in Fr. Martin’s view as a scholar, theologian and former high level Vatican secretary was invalid on its face and simply intended to dissuade people from supporting LeFebvre and gave the SSPX a “black eye” in the process.

The success of the SSPX was Fr. Martins’ belief a boon from God that the SSPX would provide a small and steady supply of reliable valid priests, giving valid sacraments and providing valid Catholic instruction during the crisis.

And Father Martin is of such high moral character:

angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14459

 

[GerardP]

SSPX disagrees with many Church teachings.

Which ones? I’ll leave them immediately if you show me which ones.

Obviously Archbishop Lefevbre and others were seriously disobediant and rejected the Pope’s authority, but that was not the only issue, or even the real issue, IMO.

Disobedient for a serious reason you mean. And that doesn’t mean that they reject the Pope’s authority. The constant appeals to him to correct the catastrophe of the post-conciliar era is evidence enough of that. If they didn’t think the Pope had the authority, they wouldn’t appeal to him and would be more akin to the Old Catholics.

Many of SSPX’s disagreements with the Church stem from one basic disagreement with the current teaching on EENS and ecumenism, which is really a disagreement over the salvic power of Christ’s Sacrifice.

Two things: Ecumenism is a policy. It has nothing to do with Church teaching. Christ didn’t teach “Ecumenism.”

As far as I know (which is a fair amount) the SSPX follow a moderate position on EENS consistent with pre-concilar catechisms. The Church hasn’t changed that position nor condemned it. Despite the strange wording of the modern catechisms and documents that are influenced by Von Balthazar, the Church still teaches there is no salvation outside Her.

This disgareement on the extent and effect of Christ’s Atonement effects many areas of faith and morals.

The basic issue is that the Church teaches that Christ died for the sins of all men. That although we do not, and cannot, understand the nature and extent of the salvic power of Christ’s Sacrifice, we believe that Sanctifying Grace is available to all men.

That is standard Catholic teaching.

That Grace is extended through Christ’s Church on earth in a mysterious way that does not require actual membership in the Church or even a conscious belief in Christ.

No. That is the “anonymous Christianity” that Karl Rahner espoused. It was not formally adopted by the Council. You can read the documents one way and be orthodox or you can wander into a liberal variant that ultimately turns Catholicism meaningless.

Here’s an interesting article on the subject.

catholicism.org/Zenit-Morali.html

That is what the Church teaches. It is not some mere policy - it is the Church’s teaching on Salvation.

No. It’s a clever spin on Church teaching but the Church doesn’t teach that there is Salvation Outside the Church.

SSPX rejects this teaching. You may argue that those who teach this are wrong, that’s fine. To say that the Church does not teach this is simply disingenuous.

No. To say that the Church teaches something contrary to a stated dogma is disingenuous.

The Church does teach this, and SSPX rejects it. There are other examples, but this is a big and obvious one.

I’m afraid you are wrong. Speculations about possibilities of “mysterious” salvation by non-Catholics will not hold. Anything that doesn’t actually incorporate souls into the Church

Ex Cathedra, irreformable dogma:

Cantate Domino

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

[Sure]

Which ones? I’ll leave them immediately if you show me which ones.

The requirement to obey canon law. The requirement to not celebrate the sacraments if you are a suspended priest. The requirement to not celebrate sacraments if you are excommunicated. The requirement not create parallel structures to subvert the lawful authority of Rome. The injustice when a priest pronounces absolution yet absolves no sin.

It doesn’t matter if they proclaim to uphold Church teaching when their very actions deny it. They are liars, through and through and they are not led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[bear06]

Which ones? I’ll leave them immediately if you show me which ones.

Gerard, you know quite well that they condemn much of Vatican II. Here’s is a nice little chart where they decide what Church teaching is and how Vatican II strayed from it. sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vaticanII.htm
Guess what? Vatican II is the Church. While they feel free to reject at will what the Council taught as something contrary to Tradition, they are in error. The only way for you to get out of this is to start the “we don’t have to listen to Vatican II because it’s not infallible” canard. You probably should have started out with this though because your little challenge was simply based on teachings and to say the column on the left aren’t teachings would be in error. They were teachings of Vatican II whether or not you see them as binding.