Negative attitude to SSPX

[ProVobis]

Unless he is speaking from such authority, then we are free to disagree with him.

Who says you can’t disagree with him?

That said, his words do carry more weight than ours.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You are correct on this. However, there has been at least one instance where the Pope actually invalidated an order and did so retroactively. (Leo XIII invalidated the Anglican order.)

But that is because they already changed the Sacrament itself which rendered it invalid.

 

[MerryCatholic]

Some posters who appear to pride themselves on their loyalty to the Pope are writing in a very negative way about the SSPX. Yet he has made it clear that reconciliation with the SSPX is very important to him. Do they support his wishes by this kind of posting? They complain about the lack of loyalty of the SSPX at the same time as these posters themselves undermine the reconciliation he tries to bring about. Personally, I try to model my attitude to the SSPX on that of the Pope. We see nothing inflammatory or belligerent from him. He speaks of them respectfully and shows that he values them. Shouldn’t Catholics who are loyal to the Pope imitate him in this?

(adapted from another post of mine in a thread where it was off topic)

you know, i tend to avoid discussions about traditionalism, but i have to agree with you. you made a really good point. thus saying this, i gracefully bow out

 

[ProVobis]

But that is because they already changed the Sacrament itself which rendered it invalid.

Something like that. Yes. They weren’t ordaining with the proper intent.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Who says you can’t disagree with him?

That said, his words do carry more weight than ours.

You imply that because of his position, his words should not be disregarded. My only contention is that unless he is speaking under the authority of his position, then anything else he says is an opinion. No matter how good of an opinion it is, its still is an opinion.

 

[ProVobis]

No matter how good of an opinion it is, its still is an opinion.

But there are other opinions from the Vatican and canon lawyers which reinforce his. He doesn’t stand alone. You want to shoot them all down one by one, you are free to do so but why expend the energy?

 

[ConstantineTG]

But there are other opinions from the Vatican and canon lawyers which reinforce his. He doesn’t stand alone. You want to shoot them all down, you are free to do so but why expend the energy?

Because the truth is not a democracy. Not just because more people believe in something means its true.

I was watcing the Colbert Report last week and he was making fun of this “morality survey” where people were asked which of the listed actions are morally acceptable. 62% surprisingly says that Divorce and the Death Penalty are morally acceptable. Thats over the majority, thats almost 2/3s. So should we just say they are morally acceptable just because almost 2 in every 3 people say so?

 

[ConstantineTG]

But there are other opinions from the Vatican and canon lawyers which reinforce his. He doesn’t stand alone. You want to shoot them all down one by one, you are free to do so but why expend the energy?

And following this logic, more bishops approve of CITH and altar girls. Why don’t traditionalist accept them since many bishops approve of them?

 

[MarkThompson]

You are correct on this. However, there has been at least one instance where the Pope actually invalidated an order and did so retroactively. (Leo XIII invalidated the Anglican order.)

This is not really correct. Apostolicae Curae declared that Anglican orders had become invalid, not that the Pope himself was making them invalid by the declaration. In other words, Pope Leo did not by the document strip the Anglicans of valid orders, he simply confirmed that their orders had been and continued to be invalid.

Since Holy Orders are an indelible sacrament, like baptism, it is not possible even for the Pope to strip a person of them.

 

[ProVobis]

And following this logic, more bishops approve of CITH and altar girls. Why don’t traditionalist accept them since many bishops approve of them?

You can make a good case for an entire synod of bishops to be part of the Magisterium. However, guess who has the final say?

Though I don’t consider myself a traditionalist in the strict sense, I wouldn’t even participate in those discussion if those practices were unqualifiedly and enthusiastically approved by the Vatican.

 

[pnewton]

Finally, as mentioned, I take Msgr. Perl’s words at face value - which is that, strictly speaking, attending an SSPX Mass fulfils the Sunday obligation. No more no less. If Rome believes that attending the SSPX Mass presents a real, moral hazard or should not be done at all, I believe that Msgr. Perl would have used this opportunity to say so or to warn the faithful against attending. In fact, what he didn’t say is nearly as interesting as what he did.

But he did discourage it, and present a danger:
ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm

such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.
It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

The first bold is the danger, the second is the discouraging. In 2003, he wrote:
latin-mass-society.org/perl-011803.htm

1. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin

I think there the greater danger is in denying the problem, than in recognizing the area of temptation (schismatic mindset) and incorporating this risk in one’s decision. Likewise, if one is attending Mass at a diocesan parish that regularly abuses the liturgy, one would be foolish for not considering the dangers inherent in that type of exposure also. Far better to recognize the areas where sin can occur and avoid if possible the parish or chapel which may lead us to increased sin, whatever that sin may be.

That is the message of caution I see in Msrg. Perl’s advice, and it is useful advice in all areas of life. Thus, I think no one of us can sit in judgment over an individual’s decision to stay in an SSPX chapel, or a loosy-goosy parish.

But note (if you follow the link) attendence and even modest support of an SSPX chapel is not sinful in the least. It is a valid fulfulment of the Sunday obligation.

 

[Bbigam]

Lack of canonical status doesn’t invalidate the Mass. It makes it illicit (illegal). Which is logical since the permission from the local ordinary isn’t there. As there are not degrees of illicitness (a thing is either illicit or it is not) the SSPX Mass would be on par with a diocesan Priest at a Novus Ordo Mass who uses a glass chalice.

I don’t think that last is quite accurate. If a priest of the SSPX celebrates Mass… the entire Mass is (valid, yes, but) illicit, by virtue of the fact that the priest is suspended. If a diocesan priest celebrates Mass and uses a glass chalice… the use of the glass chalice is illicit. Not the whole Mass. There are not degrees of validity - but I believe there are degrees of liceity. A priest who leaves out the Gloria on a weekday feast day is doing something illicit, but isn’t going to get in any huge trouble (though I wish he would be corrected…). A priest who consecrates the Eucharist outside of Mass, well, it’s still valid, but he’s in big trouble (or should be).

 

[ConstantineTG]

You can make a good case for an entire synod of bishops to be part of the Magisterium. However, guess who has the final say?

Jesus

Though I don’t consider myself a traditionalist in the strict sense, I wouldn’t even participate in those discussion if those practices were unqualifiedly and enthusiastically approved by the Vatican.

I don’t think I’m qualified nor worthy to give my opinion on it so I just follow what the leadership says. I believe in the promises Jesus made to the Apostles and to His Church, so I have my complete faith in the Church and its earthly leadership.

 

[Onegin]

The disobedience surrounding the 1988 consecrations has been “forgiven” with the lifting of the excommunications. Their current state reverts back to suspensions which were imposed by another bishop (of of Fribourg) which Paul VI failed to remove. (1975) Long story there. Sufficed to say, all that’s supposed to be sorted out during the current talks.

Thanks for the clarification, Pro Vobis. I think the point I was hoping to make was that the current status is not one of “active disobedience” which implies that they are continuously receiving directives from Rome which are being disobeyed. The SSPX has repeatedly said that they submit themselves to the authority of the Pope. Rather both groups are trying to work towards a constructive agreement at the present time.

 

[Onegin]

You imply that because of his position, his words should not be disregarded. My only contention is that unless he is speaking under the authority of his position, then anything else he says is an opinion. No matter how good of an opinion it is, its still is an opinion.

I believe that Ecclesia Dei has indicated that we may rely upon responses to letters (such as Msgr. Perl’s) with moral certainty. This would seem to indicate that he does speak from the authority of his position and on behalf of Ecclesia Dei as a whole when responding to these letters.

 

[maurin]

You take scandal without solid reason. The CCC (1399) does not call the Eastern church “sects” (plural).

Quote: The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged

This is not the case with SSPX, who do not have lawful apostolic succession of holy orders, and rather than be “encouraged,” Msgr. Perl “discourages.” You might read the Monsignor’s words more carefully, as I have done this week to be sure of what I say. Their sacraments of marriage and penance are not valid either, but the Church supplies for them if the penitent is ignorant of this fact. With the rapid media information highway in our society today, it seems unlikely that there would be any who are unaware of this status. My presumption is that there is pressure put upon the unwary in these chapels to persuade them their error is truth.

And then, these folks come here to persuade some of us of the same error.

You’ve made our case for us. Supplied jurisdiction. A close reading of monsgr Perl’s statement should highlight the phrase “morally impeded.” You’re absolutely correct, the Church is merciful as Our Lord taught.

And as long as you don’t confuse the terms valid and illicit, I’m satisfied you’re coming closer to a reasonable understanding of the situ
Ation.

 

[Onegin]

But he did discourage it, and present a danger:
ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm
The first bold is the danger, the second is the discouraging. In 2003, he wrote:
latin-mass-society.org/perl-011803.htm

I think there the greater danger is in denying the problem, than in recognizing the area of temptation (schismatic mindset) and incorporating this risk in one’s decision. Likewise, if one is attending Mass at a diocesan parish that regularly abuses the liturgy, one would be foolish for not considering the dangers inherent in that type of exposure also. Far better to recognize the areas where sin can occur and avoid if possible the parish or chapel which may lead us to increased sin, whatever that sin may be.

That is the message of caution I see in Msrg. Perl’s advice, and it is useful advice in all areas of life. Thus, I think no one of us can sit in judgment over an individual’s decision to stay in an SSPX chapel, or a loosy-goosy parish.

But note (if you follow the link) attendence and even modest support of an SSPX chapel is not sinful in the least. It is a valid fulfulment of the Sunday obligation.

Thanks, pnewton. I agree with your point and I wouldn’t advise that anyone go anywhere where they would be tempted to have a schismatic mindset. And although this is most often interpreted in the context of attending Mass at an SSPX chapel, I think the example can also extend to the faithful who may be tempted to leave the faith as some have because of the abuses in certain churches, especially if they have no access to an orthodox parish.

So no, one should avoid the temptation if it is a temptation for them and, as I continue to stress, if one is uncomfortable with attending Mass at an SSPX chapel don’t go! Don’t put yourself in a situation where you would be uncomfortable. At the same time, I don’t think it is fair for anyone to disparage Catholics who are comfortable with it and - as you mentioned - understand that it fulfils the Sunday obligation.

In the end we are all Catholics and although some may not be happy with the decisions of the SSPX as a Priestly Society, this should not have a bearing on how we treat our fellow Catholics. This is precisely why I don’t append any modifier to my “religion” box in my profile. I’m a Catholic and that’s really the only modifier that matters regardless of whether I choose to attend Mass at my local diocesan parish, the FSSP parish, the SSPX or ICK or anywhere else. And while I respect those who do so, I think that appending modifiers creates an unnecessary divide that shouldn’t need to exist.

 

[ProVobis]

Thanks for the clarification, Pro Vobis. I think the point I was hoping to make was that the current status is not one of “active disobedience” which implies that they are continuously receiving directives from Rome which are being disobeyed. The SSPX has repeatedly said that they submit themselves to the authority of the Pope. Rather both groups are trying to work towards a constructive agreement at the present time.

I would agree with that. No new bishops have been consecrated for over 22 years. And no plans to. Exactly not your typical schismatic sect.

 

[PaulinVA]

I would agree with that. No new bishops have been consecrated for over 22 years. And no plans to.

I will say this without trying to start a fight - just to explain my neutral to negative impression of the SSPX.

My problems revolve not around consecrations of Bishops or active disobedience. They are more concerned with how the SSPX interacts with the Church.

On the SSPX website, it says that AB Lefebvre wasn’t really excommunicated, because he was following his conscience when he consecrated the Bishops.

No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321 §1, 1323 70). Now, Archbishop Lefebvre made it amply clear that he was bound in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Catholic priesthood and that he was obeying God in going ahead with the consecrations

And articles like this are on the SSPX website, as well. What’s a person to think?

The theologians affirmed that there are eight main, fundamental attitudes that underlie all the post-Conciliar changes, which eight philosophical principles masquerading as religion make of Vatican II the introduction of a new religion, all within the exterior structure, hierarchy, language and ceremonies of the Catholic Church. …Truly it is a new religion that substitutes personal conscience for the teaching of the Magisterium.

The last sentence is especially ironic considering the reason AB Lefebvre gave for consecrating the Bishops.

 

[floresco]

I will say this without trying to start a fight - just to explain my neutral to negative impression of the SSPX.

I understand you problem with their websites. I think some of the theological arguments are pretty weak and I find most of the older writing to tend toward the inflammatory and polemical (not so much the more recent statements). My overall feelings toward them are positive in spite of this, but I can understand how it could put people off.

I hope that people like you, who are less than enthusiastic about them, can nevertheless pray for reconciliation. I hope that this, at least, is something that all Catholics can agree on.