Is the current SSPX even more traditional than Arch. Marcel Lefebvre?

[notredame_999]

Is there an element in the current SSPX that is even more “hardlined” and “traditional” than even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre himself?

I say this as a catholic with SSPX sympathies and admiration for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, not an enemy.

 

[At_Trent]

I wouldn’t call the SSPX, in general, hardliners. I’d call them orthodox Roman Catholics in that they accept Roman Catholic Doctrine without compromise. I believe H.E. may have realized what was unfolding and saw he had to take a side. He sided with Tradition.

 

[pnewton]

Hard-lined is not the same thing as traditional. Are they as supportive of the Holy Father as LeFebvre, and by extension, the Holy Catholic Church, or are they more separated? My own opinion is that they seem closer now to the Holy See than in the past, but you have to realize that much of the more radical elements left with the SSPV split.

 

[malphono]

This is strictly a personal opinion, but from what I know of Mgr Lefebvre, he wasn’t all that much of a “hardliner.” One has to keep in mind that in the early days of the SSPX, he did everything strictly “by the book” even to the point of having the then-bishop of Fribourg sponsor the society in its initial stage. It seems to me the biggest problem at the time was the times: it was the 1970s and unfortunately, Mgr Lefebvre’s best efforts seem to have been thwarted at every turn. On the one hand, there were those in power in Rome who had their own agenda and, simply put, there was no room on it for the likes of Mgr Lefebvre. They, of course, did everything in their considerable power to sway Paul VI. On the other hand, there were the real “hardliners” whose agenda had no room for anything to do with the Council, and who joined-up with the SSPX. For their part, they did everything they could to sway Mgr Lefebvre in their direction.

After Paul VI went to his eternal rest, Mgr Lefebvre kept on his path which, of course, led to the SSPV split. And then came the 1988 debacle, which seems to me to have been in main a battle of wills of two very stubborn parties. And then Mgr Lefebvre went to his eternal rest.

As I mentioned on another thread recently, I often wonder if, in 1988, Mgr Lefebvre had been manipulated by some in the SSPX having their own ambitions. I don’t claim to know the answer, but if’s true it would explain a lot. My impression is that the SSPX has become increasingly hard-line since the passing of Mgr Lefebvre. Now, of course, we have PP Benedict XVI who is making a good-faith effort, but things have changed a lot within the SSPX.

 

[laszlo]

I wouldn’t call the SSPX, in general, hardliners. I’d call them orthodox Roman Catholics in that they accept Roman Catholic Doctrine without compromise. I believe H.E. may have realized what was unfolding and saw he had to take a side. He sided with Tradition.

Including the first and most important dogma of the Catholic religion, which distinguishes the Catholics from the Eastern Orthodox churches: the acceptance of the actual leadership of the pope and Apostolic See, and also the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary?

As for the question in the topic at least some SSPX congregation reordain a Catholic priest conditionally if he joins the SSPX. Archbishop Lefevbre accepted the validity of the ordinations.

 

[At_Trent]

Including the first and most important dogma of the Catholic religion, which distinguishes the Catholics from the Eastern Orthodox churches: the acceptance of the actual leadership of the pope and Apostolic See, and also the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary?

As for the question in the topic at least some SSPX congregation reordain a Catholic priest conditionally if he joins the SSPX. Archbishop Lefevbre accepted the validity of the ordinations.

Canons 1323 & 1324 do cloud the issue.

 

[laszlo]

Canons 1323 & 1324 do cloud the issue.

Can 1323 §1. Fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenda sunt quae verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur et ab Ecclesia sive sollemni iudicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio tanquam divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur.
§2. Sollemne huiusmodi iudicium pronuntiare proprium est tum Oecumenici Concilii tum Romani Pontificis ex cathedra loquentis.
§3. Declarata seu definita dogmatice res nulla intelligitur, nisi id manifeste constiterit.

Can 1324. Satis non est haereticam pravitatem devitare, sed oportet illos quoque errores diligenter fugere, qui ad illam plus minusve accedunt; quare omnes debent etiam constitutiones et decreta servare quibus pravae huiusmodi opiniones a Sancta Sede proscriptae et prohibitae sunt.

Matt 15: [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

 

[At_Trent]

If it’s cut and dried, why those 2 in the canon law ?

 

[floresco]

As I mentioned on another thread recently, I often wonder if, in 1988, Mgr Lefebvre had been manipulated by some in the SSPX having their own ambitions. I don’t claim to know the answer, but if’s true it would explain a lot.

I have heard a claim to that effect from an insider at the time. It does seem plausible, doesn’t it?

 

[malphono]

I have heard a claim to that effect from an insider at the time.

From an “insider”? My, but that is interesting.

It does seem plausible, doesn’t it?

Oh yeah. I’d say it’s big time plausible. If the plausible is fact and the hypothesis is true, it really does explain the de-facto “parallel Church” that has arisen since then. Just as the Council was “hijacked” by those pushing a certain agenda, so too would the SSPX have been “hijacked” for a similar reason (albeit that the two agendas are essentially antithetical). As a corollary, it would also explain why the incorrigible attitude of certain of the SSPX bishops is tolerated.