How should I feel about the SSPX?

[eyesopening]

I’m a bit confused. They are in an irregular status with the Church. Does this mean I should think of them the way I think of protestants? Or should I be rooting for them? I know we want them to be normalized in the Church, but until that happens how should I feel about them? I’m not interested in joining them or anything, just trying to figure out what I should be thinking. I see a lot of stuff by other bloggers, both positive and negative, about the group. I personally just don’t know what to feel.

 

[thistle]

I’m a bit confused. They are in an irregular status with the Church. Does this mean I should think of them the way I think of protestants? Or should I be rooting for them? I know we want them to be normalized in the Church, but until that happens how should I feel about them? I’m not interested in joining them or anything, just trying to figure out what I should be thinking. I see a lot of stuff by other bloggers, both positive and negative, about the group. I personally just don’t know what to feel.

You should be praying that they repent and come back into the fullness of the Church.

 

[eyesopening]

You should be praying that they repent and come back into the fullness of the Church.

Shouldn’t we be praying the same thing for all people though? Doesn’t the SSPX stand in a different relationship to us than, say, protestants?

 

[holyfamily1]

Shouldn’t we be praying the same thing for all people though? Doesn’t the SSPX stand in a different relationship to us than, say, protestants?

Yes, the SSPX ordinations are valid while Protestant “ordinations” aren’t. The Mass said by the SSPX is valid also.

 

[thistle]

Shouldn’t we be praying the same thing for all people though? Doesn’t the SSPX stand in a different relationship to us than, say, protestants?

I agree but that was not what the OP was asking. I was answering the OP’s question which was only about SSPX!

 

[clem456]

I agree but that was not what the OP was asking. I was answering the OP’s question which was only about SSPX!

He is the OP

 

[bcuster]

I’m a bit confused. They are in an irregular status with the Church. Does this mean I should think of them the way I think of protestants? Or should I be rooting for them? I know we want them to be normalized in the Church, but until that happens how should I feel about them? I’m not interested in joining them or anything, just trying to figure out what I should be thinking. I see a lot of stuff by other bloggers, both positive and negative, about the group. I personally just don’t know what to feel.

Continue to pray for Church Unity. Pray for humility on both sides of the dialog.

 

[otjm]

Yes, the SSPX ordinations are valid while Protestant “ordinations” aren’t. The Mass said by the SSPX is valid also.

The Mass is also illicit and in direct contradiction to what the Church has requested.

 

[Boulder257]

We should root for their repentance as we would anyone else who defies Church teaching. Above all, we should be praying for them and those that follow them.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I’m a bit confused. They are in an irregular status with the Church. Does this mean I should think of them the way I think of protestants? Or should I be rooting for them? I know we want them to be normalized in the Church, but until that happens how should I feel about them? I’m not interested in joining them or anything, just trying to figure out what I should be thinking. I see a lot of stuff by other bloggers, both positive and negative, about the group. I personally just don’t know what to feel.

Hello, eyesopening, and (if I may be so bold) welcome home.
You must have noticed by now that the issue of the SSPX raises temperatures - which is how it should be, and proves the love for the Faith on both sides.
The issue is an unprecedented one in the Church’s long history, I think: it is perhaps the first time that each individual Catholic is faced with a dilemma: Obedience to my superior, or to the Faith? What does the Faith really teach?
Every generation has had its own crises, and its own problems: its own crosses. This is one of ours.
A great strength of the Catholic Church has been that she defines the meanings of her words before she uses them. Certain words are bandied about in reference to the SSPX which should not be used without defining them first.
Let us first note what S. thomas Aquinas wrote on the nature of Law:-
[See e.g.
https://sites.google.com/site/catholictopics/moral-theology-and-canon-law/on-the-nature-of-law
]
On the Nature of Law: Divine, Natural, Ecclesiastical, Civil, Positive
According to St Thomas Aquinas,*
A Law is
•A precept of Right Reason
•For the Common Good
•Promulgated by the legitimate Authority.
Thus an attempt at enforcing a law that is either impossible, or unreasonable, or not directed to the Common Good, or not validly promulgated, is not a law at all but anabuse of authoritywhich we are under a moral obligation to resist, otherwise we are participating in the sin by compliance with the offence against justice.
“The Law” subsists in several categories, the later ones “inside” the earlier.
•First isDivine Lawwhich flows from the Nature of God Himself and the Nature of Reality.
Examples are:“Do good and avoid evil”. “Love the Lord thy God with thy whole Heart, mind and soul”.
•Within this isNatural Lawwhich flows from the nature and structure of Creation, and within this the nature and structure of Man, body and soul.*
Examples are:“You are never to commit murder”(the correct translation of the 5th Commandment);the absolute prohibition of abortion, homosexual acts, artificial contraception.
•Within this again isEcclesiastical Law*, which* derives from Christ’s establishment of His Church.*
Examples are: The Commandments of the Church(see the Catechism).
•Ecclesiastical Law contains general principles and
•Particularor•Positive Lawswhich derive from the lawful authority, derived from Christ, of appointed lawmakers within the Church*.In general, these are collected and set out inThe Code of Canon Law.
Examples are:the Sunday obligation, the Friday abstinence, the rule of celibacy for priests.
•Civil Lawis that part of Positive Law that “Renders unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”.*A Civil Law that contradicts or nullifies Ecclesiastical or Natural or Divine Law isipso factoinvalid.
In the very nature of things, a Law cannot contradict one on a higher level of this hierarchy. An attempt to promulgate a Positive Law that contradicted the Natural or the Divine Law would beipso factoinvalid.* Thus no conceivable Positive Law could legalise direct abortion.
Hence Roe vs Wade,which in the USA is the basis for legalising direct abortion, is invalid as a law, even though it was promulgated in correct form by the US legislature, because it contradicts the higher Divine and Natural Laws. Hence one is forbidden to comply with it.
Holy Mother Church helps us not least by providing Positive Laws to guide our daily conduct, and then enforcing them.
However, subordinate laws sometimes fail to achieve their purpose. They are merely applications of higher general laws to particular situations. Yet*** the particular or concrete situation can vary infinitely. It is impossible for positive law to envisage and provide for all these situations* in advance**, even exceptional situations. This is why dispensations from law have always been allowed, often even foreseen, even by God.***
[This paragraph adapted slightly from“The Episcopal Consecrations”*by Rev. Fr. F. Pivert, ISBN 0-935952-54-3, page 4].

We must beware of the fallacy of believing that the collection of written, positive laws constitutes the whole of Law. They must not be stretched beyond their context. In every generation, new situations arise that must be dealt with by reference to the higher categories of law and justice. Then the Church in her wisdom may or may not enact new positive laws.*

Examples that spring to mind in the modern age are: the question of the Just War given the existence of weapons of mass destruction: the question of which medical procedures, formerly unheard of, are licit and pleasing to God: organ donation? IVF?

In considering novel situations, we must be extra vigilant that we are hearing the authentic voice of the Bride of Christ, which can be none other than a faithful echo of that of the Bridegroom.

The crisis precipitated by the situation in the Church and the World after Vatican II – which it is absurd to say was actually foreseen and intended by the majority of the Council Fathers (if by any at all) – requires very careful contemplation on these things.
(cont’d)

 

[numealinesimpet]

(cont’d)

The Keys were given to Peter and his successors to keep and to safeguard the Faith until the end of time.* At no time, repeat, at no time since the Apostles has any pope attempted to impose by “obedience”* a programme of novelty while simultaneously attempting to extinguish immemorial traditions that had been held to be sacrosanct.* On the contrary, the Saints and doctors have*always**said:*in cases of doubt, do what the Church has always done in the Past. In the Past is to be found safety and certainty.

When a new situation arises not covered by the current set of positive laws, what the Church must do is to go back up through the hierarchy of levels to find the correct guidance.* It would normally result in a new series of Positive Laws.* The attempt by Vatican officials since Vatican II – up to and including the Pope – is strictly unprecedented, as history will show abundantly.* It is erroneous to simply apply a set of positive laws thatpresupposethat the Pope and the curia are safeguarding Tradition, as they have always done in the past.

This is quite apart from the irregular, hence illegal and invalid, way that the novelties have been proposed and enforced.* The SSPX, by standing fast and refusing illegitimate pressures, has brought these things into sharper and sharper focus.* They have done the Church an incalculable service.* And no, they are not disobedient within the meaning of either Law or True Obedience.*

(Compiled from various sources, principally S. Thomas Aquinas).

 

[EphelDuath]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has ruled that rejecting Vatican II entirely is untenable for the faith, which is what the SSPX does. (Originally, in the time of Abp. Lefebvre, they were just “raising questions” that needed to be answered. They were, not to the SSPX’s satisfaction.)

Pray that they repent and return to Rome. Until then, cooperating with them except in a case of emergency is to materially support disobedience to the Church, which is objectively sinful.

Quite frankly I find it ironic that the modern SSPX fondly reminisces upon the day when Rome would rapidly pass out excommunications and clearly rule that certain notions are heretical. Well, Rome’s done that to them. But the SSPX isn’t happy with it, so now they’ve resorted to what practically every liturgical abuser, priestess advocate, and homosexualist does, which is appeal to private interpretations of scripture, canon law, and magisterial documents to avoid accepting the judgment that has been passed upon them.

 

[numealinesimpet]

This leads us to the topic of ‘Obedience’.
Before we use that word, we need to define what it actually means.

Aquinas: Whether it is lawful to obey one’s Superior in all things
St. Thomas Aquinas, in *“Summa Theologica” II-II-104, *deals with the topic of Obedience in his usual exhaustive fashion.

The full text can be found on the web, e.g. at kensmen.com/catholic/summa22104.html
I have given below the main points, deleting some passages but adding nothing to his words. When St Thomas speaks of “subjects” and “superiors” he refers to anyone under authority, not only those in Religious Orders.

***Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things? ***

Objection 1. It seems that subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things. For the Apostle says (Col. 3:20): “Children, obey your parents in all things,” and farther on (Col. 3:22): “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh.” Therefore in like manner other subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things.

Objection 2. Further, superiors stand between God and their subjects… Therefore the commands of a superior must be esteemed the commands of God, …(1 Thess. 2:13): “When you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it, not as the word of men, but, as it is indeed, the word of God.” Therefore as man is bound to obey God in all things, so is he bound to obey his superiors.

Objection 3. Further, just as religious in making their profession take vows of chastity and poverty, so do they also vow obedience. Now a religious is bound to observe chastity and poverty in all things. Therefore he is also bound to obey in all things.

But on the other hand [sed contra], It is written (Acts 5:29): “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

I answer that … there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things.
First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Rm. 13:2, “They that resist [Vulg.: ‘He that resisteth’] the power, resist the ordinance of God” (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). “If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God.”
Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): “It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted.” His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.
… servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.

Reply to Objection 1. When the Apostle says “in all things,” he refers to matters within the sphere of a father’s or master’s authority.

Reply to Objection 2. Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.

Reply to Objection 3. Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.

Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.

 

[TimothyH]

I think it is OK to feel nothing about the SSPX.

Pray, offer it into God’s hands, and move on with the rest of your life - school uniforms and back to school supplies, what’s for dinner, the grass needs to be cut, a report is due for a customer by close of business today, etc.

Benedictine Monks have been praying for you and I for 1400 years. 1.5 million Franciscans are faithful to the Church every day.

I got up on time, started my day with a healthy breakfast and 20 minutes of scripture and then took my daughter to get her text books for school. I will work hard at my job, do some exercise, answer my bible study questions with my girlfriend this evening, and will end the day with some time at the adoration chapel. These are the things God has placed in front of me today.

What the SSXP does or does not do is of little interest to me, and I think that is OK not only to feel but to admit.

-Tim-

 

[numealinesimpet]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has ruled that rejecting Vatican II entirely is untenable for the faith, which is what the SSPX does.

Sorry, can you give a reference for that? I do not believe they do this. They have pledged to accept it as a valid Ecumenical council.
Where there is ambiguity, they are pledged to understand its texts in the light of previously defined, infallible Tradition: and they note that Pope Paul VI himself stated in so many words, that it had chosen not to invoke ‘the charism of infallibility’.

 

[EphelDuath]

Sorry, can you give a reference for that? I do not believe they do this. They have pledged to accept it as a valid Ecumenical council.
Where there is ambiguity, they are pledged to understand its texts in the light of previously defined, infallible Tradition: and they note that Pope Paul VI himself stated in so many words, that it had chosen not to invoke ‘the charism of infallibility’.

The society has also had a strained relationship with the Church since its founder ordained four bishops against the will of Pope John Paul II in 1988.

In their statement Thursday, the group contradicted now-retired Pope Benedict XVI’s stance on Vatican II. The letter made explicit reference to the “hermeneutic of continuity,” rejecting the interpretive lens by which Benedict XVI saw the conciliar documents in light of the Church’s Tradition.

The bishops say that the documents themselves have grave errors and that they cannot be interpreted without clashing with Tradition.

Soruce: ncregister.com/daily-news/traditionalists-indicate-definitive-break-with-catholic-church/#ixzz2b6ZQplC3

Doesn’t sound like “they are pledged to understand its texts in the light of previously defined, infallible Tradition”. Sounds like they still think the Council was erroneous. Perhaps you can show me that my interpretation is false?

 

[godisgood77]

I avoid SSPX…my view is that I am avoiding the near occasion of sin with that choice. I’m not saying that anyone else should use that logic.

My only recommendation would be to prayerfully consider whether associating with a group in an irregular and contentious relationship with our Popes and the Church will bring you to fuller communion with his Church or will pull you towards an irregular and contentious relationship with Mother Church.

 

[eyesopening]

Thank you for all the replies. As I stated, I’m not tempted to run off and join them or anything. I’ll read articles where Catholics will applaud the SSPX for their courage etc. and I’ll sit there thinking, “but this group is not obedient to the Church, why are they being applauded?” I’m just trying to understand the situation a little better.

 

[holyfamily1]

I avoid SSPX…my view is that I am avoiding the near occasion of sin with that choice. I’m not saying that anyone else should use that logic.

My only recommendation would be to prayerfully consider whether associating with a group in an irregular and contentious relationship with our Popes and the Church will bring you to fuller communion with his Church or will pull you towards an irregular and contentious relationship with Mother Church.

???

 

[godisgood77]

???

D/id you have a question about my comment holyfamily?