Negative attitude to SSPX

[ProVobis]

I see no reason to think it is not important to them. They believe that the “the highest law is salvation of souls” and are prepared to have an illicit Mass for that goal. But it looks to me like they would far prefer to be licit. I have seen SSPX people who pray fervently for the Pope and for reconciliation. The SSPX leadership is cooperating and participating in the doctrinal talks.

And all of us should be praying for this. The entire Church will benefit from gaining their sense of tradition, their reverence and their concern for orthodoxy. They are good people in an unfortunate situation. Much as I value obedience, I can’t say what I would do if it looked like the TLM were being suppressed and I could only access it illicitly. I might very well do what they did. When the Pope has called for reconciliation, it is not a time for judging and blaming them.

Well put.

 

[Ockham]

Pope Paul VI had a good heart and left us a gift in Humanae Vitae. However, it seems like he was not a strong leader. The Canadian Council of Bishops refused to endorse HV and the Pope didn’t act. He ruled against CITH but left an unfortunate loophole which the USCCB used for their own gain. His new liturgy quickly devolved into something it wasn’t intended to be and yet the abuses continued.

Some will conveniently label it a ‘conspiracy theory’ but I believe it is easy to conclude there were people around the Pope opposed to the SSPX’s attachment to tradition. It was an obstacle to their agenda of radical change. Archbishop Lefebvre’s applications were not rejected, but ignored most likely awaiting his death. That’s how this mess was created. The SSPX does not reject any doctrine or dogman, they just wanted to conintue and grow their order. What’s wrong with that?

As they protected the TLM from the chaos and modernism of the past forty years, I believe future generations will hold the SSPX in great esteem and appreciation. We don’t know God’s will or what the future holds. This chapter in Church history is yet to be concluded.

 

[Momofmyangels]

Pope Paul VI had a good heart and left us a gift in Humanae Vitae. However, it seems like he was not a strong leader. The Canadian Council of Bishops refused to endorse HV and the Pope didn’t act. He ruled against CITH but left an unfortunate loophole which the USCCB used for their own gain. His new liturgy quickly devolved into something it wasn’t intended to be and yet the abuses continued.

Some will conveniently label it a ‘conspiracy theory’ but I believe it is easy to conclude there were people around the Pope opposed to the SSPX’s attachment to tradition. It was an obstacle to their agenda of radical change. Archbishop Lefebvre’s applications were not rejected, but ignored most likely awaiting his death. That’s how this mess was created. The SSPX does not reject any doctrine or dogman, they just wanted to conintue and grow their order. What’s wrong with that?

As they protected the TLM from the chaos and modernism of the past forty years, I believe future generations will hold the SSPX in great esteem and appreciation. We don’t know God’s will or what the future holds. This chapter in Church history is yet to be concluded.

Thank you for this. I find it disheartening that all these accusations are made against Archbishop Lefebvre that are just not true. One need only to read his own writings and interviews with him to see that. It is also sad that all Catholics can’t join the Pope in trying to reconcile with them instead of continuing to make statements that stray far away from reconciliation.

 

[Onegin]

Now comes my point. How can we say that the SSPX is breeding good Catholics when they themselves do not follow directives from the Pope?

Bit of a misunderstanding here, I believe. I think a lot of people get the idea that the SSPX is in this constant state of repeatedly disobeying the Pope. Not so. The act of disobedience that placed the SSPX in the state that it is in today happened in 1988. Since then, to my knowledge there hasn’t been a directive that Rome has officially issued that the SSPX have rejected. Their canonical status is the result of Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions, not the actions of the Priests and Bishops of the Society today.

Furthermore, as for the faithful, Rome has not released a statement saying that the laity SHOULD NOT attend an SSPX Mass. They have said they cannot recommend it (obviously) but they have not forbidden it. Therefore, the laity do not disobey Rome by attending Mass there.

When they continue to open their doors to Catholics when they know that they do not possess the faculties to say a licit public Mass? In fact, why do they not even care that they do not possess such faculties? Is the approval of the Church not important to them?

The approval of the Church is very important to them, otherwise Archbishop Lefebvre wouldn’t have bothered repeatedly appealing to Rome for permission to ordain the Bishops, he would have just gone ahead and did it if his real intent was to start a fractional society. The fact of the matter is that the SSPX leadership truly believe there is a crisis in the church, one sign of which is the lack of the TLM, that justifies taking these measures to preserve it. If you disagree that’s perfectly fine, but it’s important to note that they aren’t doing what they do for the sake of belligerence or because they feel “slighted” by Rome.

Finally, we should note that Rome has told us that the SSPX are in a state of “imperfect communion.” This should suggest 2 things immediately, that 1) the SSPX are not in full communion and 2) the SSPX are not entirely out of communion with Rome.

As I’ve said before, this whole thing is an internal matter from here onward. Our role as the faithful lay people is to pray for a reconciliation if it is God’s will and then to refrain from making any assumptions or statements that Rome has not made. It is not our job to attribute things to the SSPX that have not been attributed nor to cast aspersions upon those lay faithful who attend at the chapels. If you feel uncomfortable attending the SSPX, don’t go! But do something constructive meanwhile - pray for a resolution.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I see no reason to think it is not important to them. They believe that the “the highest law is salvation of souls” and are prepared to have an illicit Mass for that goal. But it looks to me like they would far prefer to be licit. I have seen SSPX people who pray fervently for the Pope and for reconciliation. The SSPX leadership is cooperating and participating in the doctrinal talks.

As an outsider looking in, I think its a bad example to show disregard for the authority of the Church. And I say outsider because I do not have the information that you speak of, like where the talks are at (I don’t think they’re even publicly saying where it is exactly). If faculties are not THAT important, why have them at all? Why don’t we just go to our nearest Orthodox church?

Again, we have been taught that the end does not justify the means. The SSPX surely means well in trying to accomplish their objectives. But that shoudn’t be at a greater cost, namely unity of the Church. Remember, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. If the Mass we go to is not licit, then its trying to separate that Body into pieces. This is why communion with the Pope is very, very important, to keep the Body whole, because there is only one Body.

And all of us should be praying for this. The entire Church will benefit from gaining their sense of tradition, their reverence and their concern for orthodoxy. They are good people in an unfortunate situation. Much as I value obedience, I can’t say what I would do if it looked like the TLM were being suppressed and I could only access it illicitly. I might very well do what they did. When the Pope has called for reconciliation, it is not a time for judging and blaming them.

I’m not going to judge them for who they are. Its not my place. But my only concern here is their situation and how it affects believers like myself. If people desire the TLM, then there are other societies and groups and orders that are in communion with the Pope. Its not as if they are the only source of such tradition. I’m not out to blame them, but instead I wish everyone would just follow the Church herself. You know what, I will make you a promise that I will go to Mass in a SSPX parish as soon as they are reinstated to full communion with the Church. But until then, my wish is for all Catholics to be obedient to the Church and follow the law that we must not go to Mass where priests do not have the necessary faculties.

Just so you know I’m serious with my promise, here is the nearest SSPX parish where I am → sspx.ca/British_Columbia/ChristTheKing.htm

 

[ConstantineTG]

Bit of a misunderstanding here, I believe. I think a lot of people get the idea that the SSPX is in this constant state of repeatedly disobeying the Pope. Not so. The act of disobedience that placed the SSPX in the state that it is in today happened in 1988. Since then, to my knowledge there hasn’t been a directive that Rome has officially issued that the SSPX have rejected. Their canonical status is the result of Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions, not the actions of the Priests and Bishops of the Society today.

Last year they have disobeyed again Rome’s request not to ordain priests until their Canonical status in the Church has been clarified.

Furthermore, as for the faithful, Rome has not released a statement saying that the laity SHOULD NOT attend an SSPX Mass. They have said they cannot recommend it (obviously) but they have not forbidden it. Therefore, the laity do not disobey Rome by attending Mass there.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html

1. …] However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.

The approval of the Church is very important to them, otherwise Archbishop Lefebvre wouldn’t have bothered repeatedly appealing to Rome for permission to ordain the Bishops, he would have just gone ahead and did it if his real intent was to start a fractional society. The fact of the matter is that the SSPX leadership truly believe there is a crisis in the church, one sign of which is the lack of the TLM, that justifies taking these measures to preserve it. If you disagree that’s perfectly fine, but it’s important to note that they aren’t doing what they do for the sake of belligerence or because they feel “slighted” by Rome.

Finally, we should note that Rome has told us that the SSPX are in a state of “imperfect communion.” This should suggest 2 things immediately, that 1) the SSPX are not in full communion and 2) the SSPX are not entirely out of communion with Rome.

But the Orthodox is also in a state of imperfect communion, and yet we cannot attend their Mass/DL and fulfill our Sunday Obligation.

As I’ve said before, this whole thing is an internal matter from here onward. Our role as the faithful lay people is to pray for a reconciliation if it is God’s will and then to refrain from making any assumptions or statements that Rome has not made. It is not our job to attribute things to the SSPX that have not been attributed nor to cast aspersions upon those lay faithful who attend at the chapels. If you feel uncomfortable attending the SSPX, don’t go! But do something constructive meanwhile - pray for a resolution.

I always pray for conversion of everyone into the Church. But also I hope that everyone who is Catholic will be obedient to the Church and set aside their own personal desires and bias and follow what the Church says and trust in the leadership that God has given us.

 

[Onegin]

Not a whole lot to say in response other than to re-affirm that the SSPX’s current canonical status is as a direct result of the 1988 consecrations. They have not incurred any additional sanctions as a result of ordaining Priests which happens on a regular, annual basis as far as I know.

As for the Orthodox church, I cannot comment other than to say that Ecclesia Dei has indicated that attending the SSPX Mass fulfils one’s Sunday obligation (as well as indicating that one can give to the collection) whereas I am not aware of the Church’s position on attending Orthodox liturgies, so I’ll take your word for it. What I do know is that the Orthodox Church has some doctrinal disputes on issues which seem to run much deeper than those in the SSPX. I believe the two matters are quite distinct from one another.

I do not use the SSPX’s status of imperfect communion as justification for anything other than to refute the notion that the SSPX is somehow completely outside communion with Rome or otherwise comparable to the Protestants who have no communion.

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.

Until we have more information, that’s basically where I believe we are with that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not a whole lot to say in response other than to re-affirm that the SSPX’s current canonical status is as a direct result of the 1988 consecrations. They have not incurred any additional sanctions as a result of ordaining Priests which happens on a regular, annual basis as far as I know.

It doesn’t matter if there are more sanctions or not, but the fact is that they do not have a canonical status within the Church and that they do not practice any valid ministry within the Church means that their Masses are not valid within the Church.

As for the Orthodox church, I cannot comment other than to say that Ecclesia Dei has indicated that attending the SSPX Mass fulfils one’s Sunday obligation (as well as indicating that one can give to the collection) whereas I am not aware of the Church’s position on attending Orthodox liturgies, so I’ll take your word for it. What I do know is that the Orthodox Church has some doctrinal disputes on issues which seem to run much deeper than those in the SSPX. I believe the two matters are quite distinct from one another.

The bottom line is, like the SSPX the Orthodox have valid priests, valid Masses/DLs, valid Sacraments. But because they have no canonical status in the Catholic Church, we cannot go to their Masses to fulfill our Sunday obligation. We may seek out the Eucharist and Confession though if there is danger of death.

I do not use the SSPX’s status of imperfect communion as justification for anything other than to refute the notion that the SSPX is somehow completely outside communion with Rome or otherwise comparable to the Protestants who have no communion.

Actually, CCC 838 states that anyone who is receives a valid Baptism but is not a member of the Catholic Church is in an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. This includes Protestants.

Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."

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.

Until we have more information, that’s basically where I believe we are with that.

I’ve quoted ECCLESIAE UNITATEM. I’ll go with whats on that document.

 

[Lormar]

This is a sincere question, not a loaded one. The anecdotes I have heard relate that many young people in fact aren’t staying in the SSPX and “independent” chapels. One explanation has been that, since the SSPX and independent chapels set themselves against the legitimate authorities in the Church the reasoning of the young is, Why should I submit myself to the authority of the SSPX or “independent” bishops/priests if you won’t submit yourself to the authority of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him? Any thoughts on this?

I agree. Sets a very bad example.

 

[Lormar]

As an outsider looking in, I think its a bad example to show disregard for the authority of the Church. And I say outsider because I do not have the information that you speak of, like where the talks are at (I don’t think they’re even publicly saying where it is exactly). If faculties are not THAT important, why have them at all? Why don’t we just go to our nearest Orthodox church?

Again, we have been taught that the end does not justify the means. The SSPX surely means well in trying to accomplish their objectives. But that shoudn’t be at a greater cost, namely unity of the Church. Remember, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. If the Mass we go to is not licit, then its trying to separate that Body into pieces. This is why communion with the Pope is very, very important, to keep the Body whole, because there is only one Body.

I’m not going to judge them for who they are. Its not my place. But my only concern here is their situation and how it affects believers like myself. If people desire the TLM, then there are other societies and groups and orders that are in communion with the Pope. Its not as if they are the only source of such tradition. I’m not out to blame them, but instead I wish everyone would just follow the Church herself. You know what, I will make you a promise that I will go to Mass in a SSPX parish as soon as they are reinstated to full communion with the Church. But until then, my wish is for all Catholics to be obedient to the Church and follow the law that we must not go to Mass where priests do not have the necessary faculties.

 

[Onegin]

It doesn’t matter if there are more sanctions or not, but the fact is that they do not have a canonical status within the Church and that they do not practice any valid ministry within the Church means that their Masses are not valid within the Church.

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.

The bottom line is, like the SSPX the Orthodox have valid priests, valid Masses/DLs, valid Sacraments. But because they have no canonical status in the Catholic Church, we cannot go to their Masses to fulfill our Sunday obligation. We may seek out the Eucharist and Confession though if there is danger of death.

Again, Ecclesia Dei has said that the SSPX Mass fulfils the Sunday Obligation. I don’t think we need to dig deeper than that.

I think the comparison with the Orthodox and Protestants (both whom have much deeper doctrinal disputes with the Catholic Church) is unfair. Firstly because neither of these groups is engaged in talks with Rome seeking resolution (the Protestants do not want to rejoin the Church after all), and secondly because the canonical status of these groups extends to the laity who are affiliated with them. For example, a Greek Orthodox person - by virtue of being Greek Orthodox Church - is in imperfect communion themselves. A Protestant because he is a Protestant is in imperfect communion. A person who attends an SSPX chapel is a Catholic no different from the people in the pew with you on Sunday. The SSPX canonical status extends purely to the Society Priests and not to the laity who frequent the chapels.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

That is why I compared them to the Orthodox. They have valid Mass/DL as well as all the Sacraments and Apostolic Succession. We still cannot fulfill Sunday Obligation with them because of the lack of faculties.

Again, Ecclesia Dei has said that the SSPX Mass fulfils the Sunday Obligation. I don’t think we need to dig deeper than that.

Can you point me specifically where it states that?

I think the comparison with the Orthodox and Protestants (both whom have much deeper doctrinal disputes with the Catholic Church) is unfair. Firstly because neither of these groups is engaged in talks with Rome seeking resolution (the Protestants do not want to rejoin the Church after all), and secondly because the canonical status of these groups extends to the laity who are affiliated with them. For example, a Greek Orthodox person - by virtue of being Greek Orthodox Church - is in imperfect communion themselves. A Protestant because he is a Protestant is in imperfect communion. A person who attends an SSPX chapel is a Catholic no different from the people in the pew with you on Sunday. The SSPX canonical status extends purely to the Society Priests and not to the laity who frequent the chapels.

Their canonical status affects the laity because we need priests who has the faculties. This not only concerns Mass but also most of the Sacraments.

 

[maurin]

Not a whole lot to say in response other than to re-affirm that the SSPX’s current canonical status is as a direct result of the 1988 consecrations. They have not incurred any additional sanctions as a result of ordaining Priests which happens on a regular, annual basis as far as I know.

As for the Orthodox church, I cannot comment other than to say that Ecclesia Dei has indicated that attending the SSPX Mass fulfils one’s Sunday obligation (as well as indicating that one can give to the collection) whereas I am not aware of the Church’s position on attending Orthodox liturgies, so I’ll take your word for it. What I do know is that the Orthodox Church has some doctrinal disputes on issues which seem to run much deeper than those in the SSPX. I believe the two matters are quite distinct from one another.

I do not use the SSPX’s status of imperfect communion as justification for anything other than to refute the notion that the SSPX is somehow completely outside communion with Rome or otherwise comparable to the Protestants who have no communion.

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.

Until we have more information, that’s basically where I believe we are with that.

With many posters on this and other threads, Msgr Perl’s words don’t seem to matter. And he’s in good standing, exercises an official ministry, and spoke for the Pope. I have no hope that these same posters will hear anyone else when they won’t hear the Msgr.

As for the Orthodox it absolutely blows my mind that paragraph 1399 of JPII’s Catechism actually uses the phrase “the faithful are encouraged” to assist at a Liturgy (with conditions, cf the paragraph) celebrated by sects which deny the Pope’s position. Its Orwellian.

 

[Sirach2]

Maurin:

As for the Orthodox it absolutely blows my mind that paragraph 1399 of JPII’s Catechism actually uses the phrase “the faithful are encouraged” to assist at a Liturgy (with conditions, cf the paragraph) celebrated by sects which deny the Pope’s position. Its Orwellian.

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.

 

[ProVobis]

With many posters on this and other threads, Msgr Perl’s words don’t seem to matter. And he’s in good standing, exercises an official ministry, and spoke for the Pope. I have no hope that these same posters will hear anyone else when they won’t hear the Msgr.

I don’t know why his words are undermined. He’s part of the Magisterium.

As for the Orthodox it absolutely blows my mind that paragraph 1399 of JPII’s Catechism actually uses the phrase “the faithful are encouraged” to assist at a Liturgy (with conditions, cf the paragraph) celebrated by sects which deny the Pope’s position.

Good observation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

I agree with everything you said except the part about lawful apostolic succession. I do not think Canon Law can prevent Apostolic Succession if the Sacrament of Holy Orders is valid. This is the reason many schismatic groups maintain Apostolic Succession and valid Orders despite being in schism. The ordination of Bishops were valid but illicit because it violated Canon Law. Their sin of disobedience does not invalidate the Orders nor deny Apostolic Succession.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t know why his words are undermined. He’s part of the Magisterium.

Being part of the Magisterium doesn’t mean you speak with the authority of the Magisterium every single time. Unless he is speaking from such authority, then we are free to disagree with him.

 

[ProVobis]

Not a whole lot to say in response other than to re-affirm that the SSPX’s current canonical status is as a direct result of the 1988 consecrations.

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.

 

[Sirach2]

ProVobis:

*I don’t know why his words are undermined. He’s part of the Magisterium. *

*It seems that there is an ala-carte pick and choosing of his words according to what one wants to hear. Why are his words discouraging people from going to the SSPX not being taken to heart? *

 

[ProVobis]

I agree with everything you said except the part about lawful apostolic succession. I do not think Canon Law can prevent Apostolic Succession if the Sacrament of Holy Orders is valid. This is the reason many schismatic groups maintain Apostolic Succession and valid Orders despite being in schism. The ordination of Bishops were valid but illicit because it violated Canon Law. Their sin of disobedience does not invalidate the Orders nor deny Apostolic Succession.

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.)