Religious Orders: SSPX

[Jbrady]

There’s 3 separate issues;

There’s a fourth one, too. The elephant in the room named Erich Priebke, and everything associated with that.

 

[TomH1]

Do you think that the SSPX was given due process when there order was suspended in 1975?

The Holy See has gone out of its way to enable the SSPX to fully reconcile with the Church. All the obstruction comes from one side. That side is not the Holy See.

I find it incredibly hypocritical that those who call themselves Traditionalists will only accept the authority of the Holy See if the Holy See says what they want.

There are plenty of ways to attend a church or chapel for the sacred liturgy in forma extraordinaria, including with other societies of apostolic life that are canonically regular. I cannot understand why one would associate with an organisation that the Holy See says is canonically irregular.

 

[TomH1]

Then the SSPX cannot have it both ways. It needs to reconcile with the Church and accept the doctrine of the Catholic Church has taught by the supreme magisterium.

If it rejects this then it must recognise itself as being in schism and stand by it beliefs.

The SSPX wants to be considered canonically regular and an full, integral part of the Church while at the same time disputing the doctrine of the Church’s supreme magisterium.

 

[TMC]

Tom; It is the SSPX that holds to the teachings of the Church. What the SSPX is being asked to accept is novelty. Even liberal theologians have been able to point this out.

This is why there is no theologian that can say; well the SSPX rejects this or that doctrine of the Catholic Church. All they can say is that they have problems with the novel reforms; which even priests of the FSSP have problems with.

The novelties introduced into the Church are not part of the supreme magisterium; they are novelty.

This is what the SSPX says, but this is the heart of the issue, isn’t it? The SSPX is saying that they, and not the Magisterium, get to say what the Church teaches. They say that they, and not the Pope or the bishops gathered in Council are the true arbiters of the Faith. That is pretty much the definition of schism, isn’t it?

 

[TMC]

No; the SSPX is saying that the deposit of the faith is not up for grabs. It is something that has already been handed on.

No, they are saying that they get to say what the deposit of faith is.

The Church is NOT saying that it is tossing out 2,000 years of faith and inventing something new. The Church is teaching that the Catechism and the documents of VII are consistent with the deposit of faith. SSPX is saying that they are not. So the dispute is over who gets to say what is consistent with the deposit of faith - the bishops sitting in council along with the Pope, or the SSPX. That is the dispute.

 

[TMC]

There is a mountain of difference between ambiguity - which is present in many Church documents both before and after VII - and declaring on one’s own authority that the Church’s teachings are “novel” and therefore invalid.

Again, the dispute is over who gets to make those decisions. The SSPX is effectively saying that authority is vested in them. The Church says it is vested in the bishops sitting in council, and the Pope. Other than a tiny sliver of folks like SSPX, Catholics agree that authority lies with the bishops and the Pope.

 

[TMC]

Whose authority is it then? Who told the SSPX that the Church abandoned the deposit of faith?

 

[TMC]

The SSPX isn’t saying that the authority is vested in them.

OK. Again, then on whose authority do they make their declarations about the “novelty” of the Church’s teachings? They are not merely expressing and discussing differences of opinion, they are purporting to ordain bishops, create parishes, and pass judgments on the Church’s teachings. On whose authority do they do those things, if not their own?

 

[TMC]

You are arguing that you think they are correct. I am asking who has the authority to determine what the Church teaches. That is the question.

 

[TMC]

I think he did. I also think that Pope Saint John Paul II did, and the Pope Emeritus Benedict did, and that Pope Francis currently does. Do you think that Papal authority ended at some point?

I know enough of the facts to know that the crux of this dispute is who gets to say what the Church teaches.

 

[Jbrady]

The SSPX isn’t saying that the authority is vested in them.

As a matter of fact, they are doing precisely that, which is why they are, in the words of the very conservative Cardinal Mueller, in schism de facto, though not de jure. And you don’t get more conservative and Traditionalist-friendly than Cardinal Mueller.

 

[Jbrady]

Yet, in this all he was doing was affirming what Archbishop Lefebvre affirmed long before him.

If you are trying to find a friend of the SSPX in Cardinal Burke, you are really barking up the wrong tree. He has stated that the SSPX “is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff. And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X.”

 

[Jbrady]

We are all about tolerance and love but not when it comes to the SSPX.

Yes. They tolerated Erich Priebke. And a whole bunch of other war criminals. How could I forget about the legendary tolerance of the SSPX.

 

[commenter]

The Vincentian Canon is clear about this reality.

The problem with the Vincentian “Canon” (Canon?) is that anyone can use this “canon” to justify any position. They all say they decided to follow the original Christian Truth. The problem is they are all following their personal interpretation of the Tradition, which may contradict the other 99 persons who also claim to follow the Vincent Canon, themselves
contradicting each other.

I have seen writers state “Tradition is obvious, it needs no interpretation”, then they go for hundreds of pages to interpret it, and explain why other Vincent wannabes are wrong.

 

[Jbrady]

The problem is they are all following their personal interpretation of the Tradition, which may contradict the other 99 persons who also claim to follow the Vincent Canon, themselves
contradicting each other.

This is a very real problem among Traditionalists. There are more than 400 Traditionalist groups in the US today, from those in communion with Rome like the FSSP, to loony-tune sedevacantists and conclavists. And they detest each other even more than they detest non-Trads. A big point of contention is whether the OF should be seen as valid, or as some “satanic ritual”.

There is therefore no leader of the Traditionalist movement as a whole, just petty chieftains who bicker among themselves.

The only Traditionalists that really have a leader are those who are in full communion with Pope Francis.

 

[TMC]

I don’t know who you are referring to in your “whataboutism” distraction, but I am talking about the small group that defied the Church by purporting to create their own bishops, dioceses and parishes, and who continue in those actions.

 

[Jbrady]

Pull the other one. It’s got bells on!

 

[njlisa]

This article provides an overview of the situation.

Doctrine remains problem in relations, SSPX affirms after Vatican meeting | Crux

 

[TMC]

Isn’t this conclusory statement belied by the fact that there are several interpretations of the Church’s Tradition? Or are you merely saying that your own interpretation (or SSPX’s) is the authoritative one?

 

[commenter]

The problem with SSPX in 2020 is not so much what they say about the 1960s Council, but that they are not in union with the 2020 local Dioceses and bishops and local clergy the way religious orders are.