If The SSPX Were Declared In Full Communion Tomorrow

[white_sheep]

Originally Posted by tcm22 View Post
No one…individuals, or groups…who publicly defy and undermine Church teachings should be considered in full communion. That’s really my whole point.

This is really a silly point to make. I’m not sure if you were including the laity who attend an SSPX chapel in that, but if so, and that’s how I take it, then almost no Catholic I’ve even met IRL should be considered in full communion with the Church as they are almost all birth control Catholics.

 

[pnewton]

Ummm… Jimmy Akin tends to make his living attacking traditional Catholics and/or traditional Catholic issues these days as does several other CA staffers… just thought I would let you know…

I see. It was a “bash” then. One I find ridiculous by the way. I hate to point out the obvious, but you are posting here, on a CA supported forum for Traditional Catholicism. I followed Jimmy Akin for years before I even heard of the SSPX. No, I do not think there is a shred of accuracy in your, um, opinion.

BTW - posting here is optional and not a matter of faith and morals.

I think you will find that CA and Jimmy Akin, as faithful and obedient Catholics will accept what the Church says and will continue in their ministry full force.

 

[pnewton]

Back to the original topic, I have to say that I was curious as to the response of the SSPX when Pope Benedict lifted these excommunications. I was wondering if I would see a stiffening of resolve or a concillitory response. In my opinion, the response of the SSPX leadership was very conducive to further dialogue. I am glad that their internal dialogue has been out of the news, as it should have been and hope to see full communion restored soon.

 

[tcm22]

But the SSPX are to the same degree of communion as any other Catholic (group).

Their priestly functions have been suspended, though not invalidated. Or are we arguing semantics about their degree of communion? Half, 3/4, 7/8?

I don’t think it’s semantics, nor do I think we can put a number on it, but based on the comments of the Pope, they are clearly not the same as “any other Catholic group.” Repeating a portion of the Pope’s letter quote I made previously:

As long as the Fraternity does not possess a canonical position in the Church, its officials do not exercise legitimate offices in the Church.

That pretty much tells me the SSPX, and by extension those who (knowingly and willfully) support them have some work to do.

This is really a silly point to make. I’m not sure if you were including the laity who attend an SSPX chapel in that, but if so, and that’s how I take it, then almost no Catholic I’ve even met IRL should be considered in full communion with the Church as they are almost all birth control Catholics.

We’re all sinners. However when a group of clergy rejects the Magisterium and defies the Holy Father, that goes beyond the ill-formed catechesis of individual Catholics.

As for the SSPX laity, I feel bad for many of them. If the posters in this forum are any indication, however, many are just prideful and obstinate, putting their own emotions and fallible conclusions ahead of those of Christ’s Church. I’m sure many of the laity are just poorly led and don’t fully understand what they are doing.

How many of the SSPX laity are suffering under mortal sin or are living in invalid marriages due to the inability of SSPX to provide those sacraments? The weight these people bear is not the result of the Catholic Church, but the free will of the SSPX leaders who led them astray. I pray for full communion, not to justify the schismatic actions of the SSPX leaders, but to support the salvation of our brethren denied the graces of our Lord.

 

[diggerdomer]

Digger, to clarify, the SSPX doesn’t reject the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and the issues they have with the current CCC are those parts that deal with the Vatican II influence. Ultimately, the only thing that the SSPX outright “rejects” are two documents of Vatican II, insomuch as they see a conflict with Catholic tradition in those documents.

Good. We agree that SSPX rejects some of Vatican II, which is clearly an authoritative exercise of the teaching/prophetic ministry of the Magisterium. They (SSPX) see a conflict with the Catholic Church, and so they are in schism.

All of that said, I need to underscore the fact that Vatican II did not define or create any new Catholic doctrine (which is why many consider it a pastoral rather than an ecumenical council).

This is simply false. There is not a dichotomy between a Council being “ecumenical” or “pastoral.” PLEASE–READ CATHOLIC TEACHING!!!.

Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council. PERIOD!

Whether you or anyone want to classify it further as pastoral, or dogmatic, or purple…I don’t care. It is an Ecumenical Council and so its teachings carry the same authority as all the other (20) Ecumenical Councils considered such by the Catholic Church.

And if you really think Vatican II did not define any new doctrine, take a look at the DOGMATIC (do I really need to capitalize that word?) Constitution “Lumen Gentium” and what it has to say about infallibility. Clearly, Vatican II added to the definition of infallibility in ways that previous Councils and Church teaching had not. If you disagree, let me know and I will explain it more clearly (hint, check para 18-25).

Now, that said, I’m still failing to see what points of Catholic doctrine the SSPX rejects.

Then you are failing to read and sincerely consider what I and others have posted, all referring to material from the SSPX web site vs. authentic Catholic teaching (i.e. the Magisterium).

 

[pnewton]

If the posters in this forum are any indication, however, many are just prideful and obstinate, putting their own emotions and fallible conclusions ahead of those of Christ’s Church.

I do not know that it is fair to judge the SSPX by the poster we see here, even though as small as this movement here this will be our only interaction with them. The thing is, that all who post have a greater ego than those who don’t, myself included. I know that pride is something we all struggle with. Since this place is mainstream Catholic, you and I survive, while most of the SSPX frequently get banned. But, like all here, we need to understand that those of use that jump on the internet are not necessarily mainstream.

I am sure that many of the SSPX attend because of their previous affection to the TLM. That is not a bad thing.

 

[white_sheep]

Back to the original topic, I have to say that I was curious as to the response of the SSPX when Pope Benedict lifted these excommunications. I was wondering if I would see a stiffening of resolve or a concillitory response. In my opinion, the response of the SSPX leadership was very conducive to further dialogue. I am glad that their internal dialogue has been out of the news, as it should have been and hope to see full communion restored soon.

I think you missed a few important events. The SSPX had the million rosary campaign, or something like that, for the specific intention of reconciliation in full with the Church. That meant a great deal to me about what their intentions are and how they feel about it. I am truly optimistic and if it weren’t for that and one or two other things like that I don’t know if I would be nearly so optimistic.

 

[Onegin]

I’m sure many of the laity are just poorly led and don’t fully understand what they are doing.

So the laity that attend the TLM at a Society chapel are too stupid to understand that they really should be going to the local Lifeteen Mass down the street?

I’d be willing to guess that many laity become interested in the traditional movement precisely because they were poorly led and/or catechized in their local diocesan church. Or they witnessed abuses, inconsistencies or omissions that led them to question why the Church had changed in the way it did.

I pray for full communion, not to justify the schismatic actions of the SSPX leaders, but to support the salvation of our brethren denied the graces of our Lord.

When I read this kind of stuff, I have to chuckle because most Catholics would be terrified to say something like this to, say, a Protestant. I suggest re-directing your focus to the groups that are actually in danger of losing salvation.

Good. We agree that SSPX rejects some of Vatican II, which is clearly an authoritative exercise of the teaching/prophetic ministry of the Magisterium. They (SSPX) see a conflict with the Catholic Church, and so they are in schism.

Ultimately, this whole discussion re: the justifications (or lack thereof) for the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre come down to whether you join the Archbishop in believing that there was (and still is) a true crisis - a state of emergency - in the Church. If you don’t believe that then yes, the actions of the Archbishop would seem pointless and, ultimately, schismatic.

This is the crux of the whole SSPX position in the first place - the existence of a crisis originating from within the Catholic Church that ultimately necessitated the actions taken.

This is simply false. There is not a dichotomy between a Council being “ecumenical” or “pastoral.” PLEASE–READ CATHOLIC TEACHING!!!.

Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council. PERIOD!

Chill! You’re freaking me out with all those caps.

Anyway, I’m not here to argue with you about the classification of Vatican II. I just raised the issue that it is curious that an ecumenical council made no dogmatic statements. That’s all.

And if you really think Vatican II did not define any new doctrine, take a look at the DOGMATIC (do I really need to capitalize that word?) Constitution “Lumen Gentium” and what it has to say about infallibility. Clearly, Vatican II added to the definition of infallibility in ways that previous Councils and Church teaching had not. If you disagree, let me know and I will explain it more clearly (hint, check para 18-25).

Question: What determines dogmatic authority of a document? Hint: The intention of the Pope who promulgated that document.

Another question: Did Pope John XXIII and/or Paul VI intend for Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum to have dogmatic authority?

No, I don’t think that either Pope John XXIII nor Paul VI had any intention of binding Catholics to accept the documents of Vatican II as they would the deposit of faith.

“Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.”

• Statement by Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975 before a General Audience

The point is, you can say that Vatican II “defined” existing dogma. Yet, if the “definitions” of Vatican II appear to facially contradict existing doctrine, what are Catholics to think? Has new doctrine been created? Has the old been abrogated? Has something been added? Has nothing been added? The waters become muddied and all of a sudden, it’s a matter of doctrine whether one holds reservations about some of the statements of Vatican II.

Anyway, lest we lose ourselves in miscellaneous argumentation, I want to reiterate that my bottom line in this whole discussion was that I do agree with Digger that the actions of the SSPX were disobedient. Archbishop Lefebvre disobeyed Pope John Paul II when he consecrated bishops without Papal approval. Disagreement necessarily exists between those who sympathize with the belief that these disobedient actions were necessary for the preservation of Tradition and those who do not.

The actions of Archbishop Lefebvre (and, by extension, the Society), however, were not disobedient as regards Catholic doctrine. *The SSPX accepts all Catholic doctrine as handed down by Tradition, without exception. *

 

[pnewton]

I think you missed a few important events. The SSPX had the million rosary campaign, or something like that, for the specific intention of reconciliation in full with the Church. That meant a great deal to me about what their intentions are and how they feel about it. I am truly optimistic and if it weren’t for that and one or two other things like that I don’t know if I would be nearly so optimistic.

No, I didn’t miss it. I knew about it. It just did seem as significant to me as much as other things that were said after the Holy Father’s letter that I Believe posted. I think talk is cheap and action speaks louder. It takes a real lowering of one’s defenses and letting go of one’s ego to take unilatreal action as the Holy Father did. In fairness to Bishop Fellay, I think his response was laudable and much more concrete than a generalized call to prayer for reconcilliation.

 

[Onegin]

I think talk is cheap and action speaks louder.

Yes, and one million Rosaries is - well - a lot of Rosaries. So, unless people here think that your Rosary gets automatically negated by God or something if you associate with the SSPX, I think we can at least look to this as a good move to take concrete, prayerful action.

And hey, it sounds a whole lot more Catholic than “dialoguing.”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I agree with what you say. Everyone is up in arms about the SSPX, but just bring up Hans Kung and no one cares.

I see your point. On the other hand I don’t see why the Dimond Brothers should be “bashed” either. Actually, why should we bash anyone? If they are wrong on a particular point, we should argue against their position, not their person! This is true scholarship and it is what St. Thomas Aquinas would do if he were alive today.

At very least they do a lot of research finding the problematic quotes of the last 5 Popes, quotes which I had no idea about before I heard of the Dimond Brothers site. I heard that the Dimonds went through every L’Osservatore Romano for the last 40 years and searched for heretical statements.

These quotes are the types of problems which the CDF will eventually have to deal with.
So my point is, even though the Dimonds are wrong about sedevacantism and many other points, they have at least pointed out a lot of things that need to be dealt with by Catholics.

I like a lot of the publications that come out of the SSPX and their stand against modernism, but unfortunately the SSPX persecutes the Saint Benedict Centers and those who hold the dogma “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”, which is really a sad thing. I also am doubtful of their “state of emergency” and “supplied jurisdiction” argument.

I do find it funny that the Catholic Church donates money to build Russian Orthodox churches in Russia, even GIVES churches to the Orthodox in Spain, but then someone asks a Catholic Answers apologist if they may buy a Missal from Angelus Press and the answer they get is “no, you may not support a schismatic group”~!

That, I believe, is known as “doublethink” - Michael Davies points out in several of his books that Church these days is much given to Orwellian practices.​

 

[tcm22]

When I read this kind of stuff, I have to chuckle because most Catholics would be terrified to say something like this to, say, a Protestant. I suggest re-directing your focus to the groups that are actually in danger of losing salvation.

I wouldn’t say that to a Protestant because most don’t have the context to understand it. Unfortunately, the SSPX offers false sacraments to those seeking them. Confession or marriage before an SSPX Priest is invalid. What a horrible thing to place on an unknowing person who believes they have made a proper confession. What about all those who believe they are validly married in the Church?

I find little humor in it.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, and one million Rosaries is - well - a lot of Rosaries. So, unless people here think that your Rosary gets automatically negated by God or something if you associate with the SSPX, I think we can at least look to this as a good move to take concrete, prayerful action.

And hey, it sounds a whole lot more Catholic than “dialoguing.”

Yes, but when harmful actions have been committed, discussion is needed to heal wounds. If rosary campaigns were the course the SSPX initially took to address perceived wrongs in the Church instead of certain actions that have started this problem, then this would be a moot issue.

Go to the website and you find a link to this rosary campaign. However, it seems far off from being a primary focus. I am sure it is genuine, but it does not seem to be what the SSPX is about.

 

[TMC]

Question: What determines dogmatic authority of a document? Hint: The intention of the Pope who promulgated that document.

Another question: Did Pope John XXIII and/or Paul VI intend for Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum to have dogmatic authority?

No, I don’t think that either Pope John XXIII nor Paul VI had any intention of binding Catholics to accept the documents of Vatican II as they would the deposit of faith.

I don’t know that I agree that the intention of the Pope is controlling on whether or not something is dogmatic, but I don’t think there is any doubt that Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI intended for the council to be an Ecumenical Council and for its documents to have binding authority. Its hard to imagine why Lumen Gentium would be titled “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” if it were not intended to set out Church dogma.

Moreover, John XXIII said that the primary purpose of the Council was to take “a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought.”

Pope Paul VI obviously intended Vatican II to be binding. This is what he said in closing the Council:

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church. In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.

At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, **all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid **and worthless from now on.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19651208_in-spiritu-sancto_en.html

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think it’s semantics, nor do I think we can put a number on it, but based on the comments of the Pope, they are clearly not the same as “any other Catholic group.”

Reference as to the quote?

 

[Onegin]

Yes, but when harmful actions have been committed, discussion is needed to heal wounds. If rosary campaigns were the course the SSPX initially took to address perceived wrongs in the Church instead of certain actions that have started this problem, then this would be a moot issue.

Or, looking at it another way, there should have been a Rosary campaign preceding Vatican II.

Go to the website and you find a link to this rosary campaign. However, it seems far off from being a primary focus. I am sure it is genuine, but it does not seem to be what the SSPX is about.

Au contraire, I think they take it very seriously. In fact, it was indicated that in at least one chapel that I know of, the laity were strongly encouraged to take the campaign much more seriously and to start offering at least 1 Rosary per day for this intention (currently, I believe the participation numbers are lower than the goal).

 

[Onegin]

I don’t know that I agree that the intention of the Pope is controlling on whether or not something is dogmatic, but I don’t think there is any doubt that Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI intended for the council to be an Ecumenical Council and for its documents to have binding authority. Its hard to imagine why Lumen Gentium would be titled “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” if it were not intended to set out Church dogma.

What then, determines the dogmatic authority of a thing if not the Pope? If the Pope, as successor of Peter, can’t say that a document has the binding power of Catholic dogma then no one in the Church can, right?

As regards the two Dogmatic Constitutions we’re talking about, again, I reiterate my confusion as to what dogma, exactly, was set out in them. I can’t find any dogmatic statements in them other than the term being used in the title. I think we can at least agree that this at least facially appears to confuse the issue a bit, no?

Moreover, John XXIII said that the primary purpose of the Council was to take “a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought.”

Pope Paul VI obviously intended Vatican II to be binding. This is what he said in closing the Council:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19651208_in-spiritu-sancto_en.html

Yes, but a council isn’t - of it’s own accord - a point of Catholic dogma that one is morally obliged to either “accept” or “reject”. Dogmatic statements put forth during the council would be binding. This is where I think the confusion lies for many Catholics in treating Vatican II as dogmatic in and of itself.

For example, I would say that I believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary (dogma declared at the Council of Trent), but I wouldn’t say that I “believe” in the Council of Trent as a point of dogma, however. That statement has no meaning.

 

[tcm22]

Or, looking at it another way, there should have been a Rosary campaign preceding Vatican II.

Unfortunately there wasn’t. Instead, Lefebvre and his illicitly consecrated Bishops decided to defy the Church and put their followers into a situation of grave harm. While the rosaries are certainly a good thing, the schismatic actions taken by these men have yet to repudiated and the harm done to the Church remains undone.

Debating what’s dogmatic and what isn’t is certainly interesting, but has no bearing on the question of the status of the SSPX, nor does it justify the actions of the society. The Pope has stated he considers the issues between the Church and the SSPX to be doctrinal and must be resolved before they can be relieved of their regular status. Dogma, doctrine, pastoral…none of that matters when the SSPX clergy have no legitimacy in the Catholic Church.

Can the SSPX partisans justify this comment from Pope Benedict?

As long as the Fraternity does not possess a canonical position in the Church, its officials do not exercise legitimate offices in the Church.

That was written in March of this year. Seems to me all these other arguments are moot based on a statement like that.

 

[TMC]

What then, determines the dogmatic authority of a thing if not the Pope? If the Pope, as successor of Peter, can’t say that a document has the binding power of Catholic dogma then no one in the Church can, right?

I don’t know, but then I am not that interested in what is dogmatic as opposed to merely authoritative teaching.

As regards the two Dogmatic Constitutions we’re talking about, again, I reiterate my confusion as to what dogma, exactly, was set out in them. I can’t find any dogmatic statements in them other than the term being used in the title. I think we can at least agree that this at least facially appears to confuse the issue a bit, no?

I agree that it is simpler to list out dogmatic statements, but I don’t know that any council has done that. Everyone takes the “anathema” statements to mean that they are dogmatic, but did those councils actually say “this is the dogma part”?

Yes, but a council isn’t - of it’s own accord - a point of Catholic dogma that one is morally obliged to either “accept” or “reject”. Dogmatic statements put forth during the council would be binding. This is where I think the confusion lies for many Catholics in treating Vatican II as dogmatic in and of itself.

For example, I would say that I believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary (dogma declared at the Council of Trent), but I wouldn’t say that I “believe” in the Council of Trent as a point of dogma, however. That statement has no meaning.

I agree that a council isn’t dogmatic as a whole, but the teachings of a council are authoritative and Catholics are supposed to follow them whether they are dogmatic or just regular teachings of the Magisterium. Again, I guess my point is that Vatican II had the same authority as any other council. The Church doesn’t divide its teaching into two piles - that which must be believed and the optional stuff. All the teachings are mandatory whether infallible, dogmatic, or just ordinary. I don’t understand why people are so interested in divining which is which. Aren’t Catholics equally obliged to follow each? Whatever they are labeled, the teachings of Vatican II are just as binding as the teachings of Vatican I or of Trent.

I guess if push came to shove I would read Lumen Gentium to be all dogmatic, since its all labeled dogmatic, but as I said I don’t get wrapped around the categories. They seem somewhat fluid, frankly.

EDIT ADD - besides wasn’t the question whether the documents of Vatican II were meant to be binding? The teaching of the Church doesn’t have to be dogma to be binding.

 

[Kaizmom]

You have just described Sedes, which the SSPX are not.

I think your step daughter is worried for their souls. Those Saints throughout the centuries were not speaking of the majority rolling with the flow. Those who have fought for Tradition have always walked a narrow road.

I don’t know what Sedes is, but she attends an SSPX church and that is what she is learning. I have also seen the documents and books in the gift shop at this church that also promote those teaching. If she is worried for their souls, pray for them…don’t confuse them!