Pushed to the SSPX

[ServantofMary]

So you are trying to justify the disobedience of the SSPX to the lawful authority of the pope based on viewpoints, perceptions, and beliefs of those who are supposed to be subject to him; therein lies the problem.

Obedience is subordinate to the theological virtue of faith. If being obedient harms the faith, then a Catholic has a duty not to obey his superior.

 

[surritter]

Obedience is subordinate to the theological virtue of faith. If being obedient harms the faith, then a Catholic has a duty not to obey his superior.

If the Church recognizes something that is harmful to the faith, and your superior then calls you to do it, you would indeed have a duty to not obey.

But in the topic at hand, you are being obedient to something that you PERCEIVE to be true, when the pope has declared that it is not. So your perceptions must be set aside in place of obedience.

 

[ServantofMary]

But in the topic at hand, you are being obedient to something that you PERCEIVE to be true, when the pope has declared that it is not.

Please show me where the pope has declared that the theological concerns of the SSPX are not true.

 

[surritter]

Please show me where the pope has declared that the theological concerns of the SSPX are not true.

But in addition to systematic theology, we must also include: acceptance of Vatican II, respect for the chair of Peter, obedience to the Supreme Pontiff, recognition of the Mass of Paul VI, and the allowance of languages other than Latin.

Since supporters of the SSPX do not adhere to all of the above, they are disobedient. Please support ecclesial movements that do adhere to all of the above.

 

[ServantofMary]

Since supporters of the SSPX do not adhere to all of the above, they are disobedient.

The only things that supporters of the SSPX are disobedient to are the novel liberal and modernistic teachings that have entered the Church. They adhere faithfully and fully to the teachings and Tradition of the Catholic Faith that has been handed down from the apostles. Remember, the SSPX has never been charged with heresy.

 

[ProVobis]

If being obedient harms the faith, then a Catholic has a duty not to obey his superior.

Ultimately we will have to stand before God by ourselves. I doubt if our human superiors will be there to help defend us. We are the responsible party.

 

[chrisb]

I feel as though I have almost been pushed to at least trying to attend an SSPX Mass.

I have considered myself faithful to the Church, but at a recent (NO) Mass I attended, I was denied Communion on the tongue, forced to receive on the hand, and forced to receive multiple hosts (because the Church will be closed for awhile). Even though I explained I had a right to receive on the tongue, I was told “don’t argue, the Priest is the boss at the altar” No! Christ is the Head at the altar!

Why bother attending Indult masses when the Dioceses are just as rebellious?

Laus Deo

Grace and Peace,

I just about ‘always’ receive the Most Holy Sacrament on the tongue except for a few weeks during the height of the H1N1 outbreak when the Bishop of our Diocese recommended that Priest refrain from giving Communion on the tongue as it is a means of spreading the infection as the Priest sometimes touches the mouth of the communicant and can pass the infection to others.

Understanding this I was willing to receive communion in the hand. Since Advent I’m back at receiving communion on the tongue, the way I am most comfortable receiving.

Was this during the N1N1 outbreak? Did you speak with your Priest about it afterwords?

 

[EnchantedEve]

No one said that except me. I never implied that Lefebvre thought himself Pope. I only was explaining that* I* do not follow this man because he does not hold the keys of Peter nor sits in his chair. I follow the one that does.

I know that you see exceptions to this, but I do not. That is all I meant. You may see the advantage to following this Society, I do not. I know who I will follow and who leads the Church. It is he that I will follow. I spent most of my life thinking I could just take the Bible and figure everything out for myself. I will not do that as a Catholic.

You think that you have what it takes to do that for yourself, that is your decision.

I am merely making an argument on behalf of the SSPX, and their justification for not obeying. This is not to say the SSPX is necessarily right, that they are always justified, or that every position they take is reasonable. (For example, I never found it reasonable that they annulled their own marriages and religious vows. I cannot think of any reason this could be justified if they see themselves as part of the broader Church, and their arguments in its favor are weak.)

I do not attend SSPX churches, nor am I affiliated with them in any way. I do not even attend the Old Mass. I am trying to say that a Catholic, if he has history and orthodoxy behind him, if he feels the Faith to be in danger, than he is justified in holding face contrary to a superior. My study shows that outside religious orders, obedience to the degree many people advocate here is ahistorical, not theologically justified, and unreasonable. The Holy Father is protected by the Holy Ghost, but this does not make him a direct line to God like the Mormon president claims to be. The Holy Father is still a man, and as man may err. Popes have erred in past and have been rebuked by councils and bishops alike. I am not certain where this modern notion of obedience comes from, but it appears to be an overreaction against the disobedient nature of the modern world. This has good qualities and tends in a good direction, but we can carry it too far.

To all who have defended obedience in all things, I congratulate you on your strong convictions, and I pray you remain steadfast in you devotion to the Holy See. I myself simply feel that it is not for us to decide if everyone else should feel the same. Saints and hierarchy in past have disobeyed, and far be it from me to say that modern defenders of tradition are outside the pale for their actions.

God Bless All!

 

[EnchantedEve]

I insist on these things, but I am in no position to enforce them. Hence, I follow the true Church despite the failings of some of Her leaders.

However, if those in authority of the true Church do not enforce them, why would you suggest I go to another Church that broke away from the chair of Peter in order to enforce them? Don’t you see that refusal to be obedient to the Vatican is just as wrong as failing to insist on regular confession? This is the main point that needs to be addressed in this thread…

The SSPX is not another Church. If he had the Orthodox that would be different, but even Rome says they are part of the Church, so why would you say this?

 

[EnchantedEve]

Your phrasing betrays the precise problem (my emphasis added):

“From the viewpoint of Archbishop Lefebvre (and the SSPX)…”
“a preceived state of necessity…”
“He was, in his belief, acting…”

So you are trying to justify the disobedience of the SSPX to the lawful authority of the pope based on viewpoints, perceptions, and beliefs of those who are supposed to be subject to him; therein lies the problem.

We must phrase all speculation in this way, since the SSPX position has and is not definitively decided upon, we can only speculate as to how the Church shall judge it and how it occured in history. To make declarative statements would simple be unreasonable at this point.

 

[EnchantedEve]

But in addition to systematic theology, we must also include: acceptance of Vatican II, respect for the chair of Peter, obedience to the Supreme Pontiff, recognition of the Mass of Paul VI, and the allowance of languages other than Latin.

Since supporters of the SSPX do not adhere to all of the above, they are disobedient. Please support ecclesial movements that do adhere to all of the above.

I believe that is why they are having theological discussions, to mete all this out. Again, there appears to be a move to condemn the SSPX more than Rome has.

 

[surritter]

The only things that supporters of the SSPX are disobedient to are the novel liberal and modernistic teachings that have entered the Church.

Is or is not the SSPX disobedient to the pope? To deny that is quite a stretch. You wish to center this discussion on heresies of doctrine/dogma, which I acknowledge is not part of the SSPX. But do you agree that disobedience also comes in other forms?

Protestants are outside the full communion of Rome because of doctrine, but also because of many fractures in Church leadership/authority.

The SSPX is not in full communion with Rome because of their fracture in recognizing Church leadership/authority. If you disagree with this last sentence, then please write a post explaining how the episcopal ordinations of 1988 were not sinful.

 

[Lycorth]

I believe that is why they are having theological discussions, to mete all this out. Again, there appears to be a move to condemn the SSPX more than Rome has.

Funny, isn’t it, how that happens?

 

[ibkc]

Is or is not the SSPX disobedient to the pope? To deny that is quite a stretch. You wish to center this discussion on heresies of doctrine/dogma, which I acknowledge is not part of the SSPX. But do you agree that disobedience also comes in other forms?

Protestants are outside the full communion of Rome because of doctrine, but also because of many fractures in Church leadership/authority.

The SSPX is not in full communion with Rome because of their fracture in recognizing Church leadership/authority. If you disagree with this last sentence, then please write a post explaining how the episcopal ordinations of 1988 were not sinful.

It’s been explained over and over: the late Archbishop believed he was acting in an emergency situation to save the faith. Whether he was right or wrong or completely deluded isn’t the issue. He did not do it for the sake of being disobedient but out of a sense that it was the only thing he could do. This is very different from the disobedience of the original Protestants.

You don’t have to condone his actions to accept that he didn’t act out of malice to the Church.

 

[Shin]

It’s been explained over and over: the late Archbishop believed he was acting in an emergency situation to save the faith. Whether he was right or wrong or completely deluded isn’t the issue. He did not do it for the sake of being disobedient but out of a sense that it was the only thing he could do. This is very different from the disobedience of the original Protestants.

You don’t have to condone his actions to accept that he didn’t act out of malice to the Church.

I have the SSPX’s free books they give away for their apologetics, I never read them all, but they make decent cases based on canon law and moral law for their difficulties. I think their desire to be in union, and their only difficulties being due to the perceived corruption of the current administrations show that they will, almost inevitably be in full regular communion eventually.

That is when they find an administration half as tolerant towards the way Catholicism used to be practiced everywhere as it is towards the way it is currently mispracticed throughout the world.

It does make harrowing reading how thoroughly the previous way of Catholic life was suppressed and changed after the Council. And the effects are as well to witness.

 

[ServantofMary]

I have the SSPX’s free books they give away for their apologetics, I never read them all, but they make decent cases based on canon law and moral law for their difficulties.

Yes they do. I used to be against the SSPX until I read the books that you are referring to. If anyone would like to read them, here’s a link to get your own:

sspx.org/apologetic_materials.htm

 

[yosupman]

Is it possible? Pretty much anything is possible. I do think the looseness of the translation is a simpler reason. Dynamic translations have their place and are not neccessarily wrong. But it is likely that we see the reflect of the Holy Father’s preference (along with others) for a very literal translation.

Pnewton, you are on the money!

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think anyone has ever suggested it was theological, Br. JR.

This was just posted today. I do not meant to belabor the point of who is jumping to the topic of theology. Yes, many have responded to it. Yet, it is almost exclusively those who support the SSPX that keeps bringing it up, even though there was nothing in the SSPX doctrinal position that started this mess. It was their actions that caused the rift. They could have remained with their theology and kept themselves within the Church as have the FSSP.

Here is the post I was referring to:

Actually, Church doctrine was the reason that Archbishop Lefebvre saw a state of necessity in the Church, which then led him to consecrated four bishops without papal permission. So, yes, theology IS the issue that lead to the current condition.

 

[pnewton]

Please show me where the pope has declared that the theological concerns of the SSPX are not true.

Why would he? Their postitions are within the scope of what is allowable. I don’t even believe every new theological position and speculation that has come up in the last decades. That is not the issue as far as the Vatican is concerned.

 

[surritter]

It’s been explained over and over: the late Archbishop believed he was acting in an emergency situation to save the faith. Whether he was right or wrong or completely deluded isn’t the issue. He did not do it for the sake of being disobedient but out of a sense that it was the only thing he could do. This is very different from the disobedience of the original Protestants.

You don’t have to condone his actions to accept that he didn’t act out of malice to the Church.

OK – he didn’t act out of malice. I will not question his motives. But what he did was WRONG. When will the SSPX followers who flock to this thread admit that?