Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) In communion with the Chair of Peter, YES or NO?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lefebvre a “premium theologian”?
Oct. 16, 1964
“The Pope…directed (Cardinals Bea and Ottaviani) each to appoint two members from their respective commissions to form a joint mixed commission to consider ways in which the text on Religious Liberty could be improved. The Pope then chose five from among these twenty members, adding five names of his own, to form a consultative commission to review the text on Religious Liberty. The name of Archbishop Lefebvre, Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, did NOT appear on the list; it did contain the names of Cardinal Browne, Bishop Pelletier … Archbishop Parente, Bishop Colombo, etc.” (Xavier Rynne, The Third Session, pp. 66)
Click to expand...
Spring 1997
Fr. Harrison referred to “members and supporters of the Society of St Pius X (having) resorted to the most convoluted hermeneutical acrobatics and bizarre conspiracy theories in order to explain away the conclusive documentary evidence” that Archbishop Lefebvre did, in fact, sign Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes on December 7, 1965 - having “in a moment of submissiveness, subjected his own judgment to that of Peter and, added his signature to the documents, thereby sharing in their promulgation (but that) after the Council he quickly reverted to his total opposition to these documents, especially Dignitatis Humanae.” The Latin Mass , Spring 1997
Click to expand...
Nov. 21, 1974
“On one day, Lefebvre castigates Vatican II, declaring the reform of Vatican Council II to be entirely corrupt, coming from and resulting in heresy; it is not possible for any faithful Catholic to adopt or submit to it in any way, but that it is to be categorically refused. He says that he held firmly to all that has been believed and practiced in matters of faith, morals, worship, catechetical instruction, priestly formation, Church institutions, and such things codified in the books which appeared before the Modernist influence of the Council. Rome is neo-modernist and neo-protestant. It is impossible for any alert Catholic to adopt or submit to it in any way at all.” (Declaration of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre “Catholic”, Jan 87, p6., and ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara.
Click to expand...
Jan. 11&12, 1979
In his answer to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, above Lefebvre “excuses” his statements in this way: “If in my discourses I made use of somewhat extreme expressions, allowances must be made for literary style.” “Schismatic church”, “heretical church” - the literary style of the prelate of Econe is corrosive enough, but his withdrawal is quite pitiful. (ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara)
Click to expand...
Is not the accusation of the Roman Catholic Church under the Vicar of Christ being a “schismatic church”, “heretical church” an act of formal heresy? I say it is, for it is impossible for the Church established by Christ to have the gates of Hell prevail against Her.
Click to expand...
Lefebvre’s vacillations
 
Sean asks:

“Is not the accusation of the Roman Catholic Church under the Vicar of Christ being a “schismatic church”, “heretical church” an act of formal heresy? I say it is, for it is impossible for the Church established by Christ to have the gates of Hell prevail against Her.”

I say it is not … it is rash and vituperative speech, excess of spleen, want of discretion, but not heresy.

There is a good discussion of heresy in an article of the same name from the Catholic Encyclopedia (see New Advent website).

Heresy requires that a Christian should deny some dogma of the faith. Archbishop Lefebvre, for all his faults, did not deny any dogma of the Faith. He railed against what he saw as the dangerous liturgical and theological novelties of his superiors. His concern in this regard was the risk of Catholics falling in to heresy and apostasy. What Catholic with eyes to see and ears to hear can’t find evidence of modern Catholics falling into heresy and apostasy in 2005 in a manner unheard of in 1960?
 
Some appropriate Dogmas:

The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church. (De fide.)

Our Redeemer Himself conserves with divine power the society founded by Him, the Church. (Pius XII)

The Holy Ghost is the Soul of the Church. (Sent. communis.)

The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world. (Sent. certa.)

In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals the Church is infallible. (De fide.)

The Church founded by Christ is an external visible commonwealth. (Sent. certa.)

The Church founded by Christ is holy. (De fide.)

If NOT 'formal" - then “proximate to”
 
Sean, you are the finest quoter of works in the blogosphere! For all that, however, you have not demonstrated that Archbishop Lefebvre denied any dogma of the faith. He was disobedient. He disobeyed, believing he was following a higher law, the law of Faith. All this nonsense about the jaws of death and the Church is just smoke and mirrors. The Pope can make all kinds of mistakes of judgment. He can issue orders which are disastrous for discipline in the Church. He can even bring in to question whether anyone is in Hell or not. The gates of Hell do not triumph over the Church until the Pope, in view of his supreme authority and jurisdiction, clearly wills to teach infallibly on a matter of faith or morals and then teaches something which is clearly false. To my limited knowledge this has never happened in the history of the Catholic Church. That is clearly miraculous and has been used as an argument for the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the one Church instituted by Christ.

Now, when Blessed Pius IX issues his encyclicals and decrees condemning certain beliefs as errors and a later pope ignores him, we have a problem.
When St. Pius X issues his encyclical (Pascendi) condemning modernism and we see people fitting his detailed description of modernist heretics “running the show” or, at least, in close proximity to the Vicar of Christ, we have a problem.
When Pope Pius XI condemns ecumenism in no uncertain terms (Mortalium Animos) and another pope waxes eloquent about how wonderful Luther was and kisses the Koran and proposes to bring leaders of all the world’s religions together for something other than their conversion, we have a problem.
When Pope Pius XII condemns various propositions in Mediator Dei and Humani Generis that later become centerpieces of teaching by the new blond haired boys in town, we have a problem.

These things are problems because the substance and wording of these earlier pope’s condemnations of the errors of the time had to do not with the length or color of albs to be worn at Pentecost. Their decrees and encyclical letters dealt with matters of truth and error which are related to Faith. These kind of things don’t change with the passage of time.

“There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church” we were once infallibly told. And now we have highly placed cardinals going around trying to say that Jews maintain some sort of parallel circuit leading to heaven in view of the nature of the Old Covenant. We have other highly placed geniuses trying to tell Protestants there is no need to convert to the Catholic Faith. It is sufficient to just have a good conscience, bla bla bla. Of course, you’ll never hear the same individuals cut the same slack for poor Archbishop Lefebvre whom they doubtless believe burns in one of the hotter regions of hell. This is the kind of nonsense you people are foisting upon us all by your pharisaical condemnations of people in the SSPX. All you are ever able to parade out is “disobedience” here and “disobedience” there. Baloney. Be legalistic with abortionists who have no legs to stand on. The members of the SSPX have at least a leg, and maybe nine toes.

Since when is it okay to say that a pope can contradict his forebears in matters of “discipline” when your meaning for “discipline” operationally impinges upon my definition of “Faith”?

These issues are beyond our Lilliputian intellects devoid of the benefit of the grace of state of the Holy Father. If the 2nd Vatican Council and a modern day pope can ignore official decrees of earlier popes then later popes can ignore them. This confusion can and will only be solved through the supreme effort of the Vicar of Christ when he finally sorts through all the apparent contradictions and explains them away in a manner that neither does violence to the condemnations of earlier popes nor the apparent excesses of enthusiasm of later popes.

Any idiot who has grown up in a household with two parents knows that the quickest way to chaos in the family is lack of continuity of discipline from father and mother. The same holds true in the Church. I’m sorry to say it, but the last 40 years of “springtime” in the Church has been an overall disaster for the Church and the world. Too many of the people are ignorant; too many clerics are perverts, time-servers and useless “company” men who just look forward to retirement and playing golf in Florida. There is more confusion in the Church on simple matters of doctrine and morals than we have seen since the blackest days of the Reformation. And, as if that weren’t enough, very good people in the Church squabble among themselves about political issues beyond their competence while Rome burns and the world laughs.

Benedicite,
Benedictusoblatus
 
Thanks Marty1818 for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

benedictusoblat has a problem. Several problems, in fact, that will not be solved by “chewing the cud” on this forum.

Benny, mate! Write direct to Pope Benedict; lay out your problems to him. No doubt your problems will be routed to the appropriate dicastery for attention. You will receive a reply - I did, several times.

I hope that a reply will satisfy you - but, I retain doubts.

Good luck, God bless and Goodbye.

John
 
From someone who has recently come across the sspx; like stumbling into a wasps’ nest; lots of angry buzzing and stinging and production of no honey at all.
The bottom line - the only line - is obedience. As soon as there is disobedience - especially such a public, radical and arrogant example as that of Lefevbre - faith vanishes; fsspx adherants can argue until they are blue in the face; there is no sound basis or predicate for their excuses. They are UNABLE to understand or have confidence in how Christ is leading His Church, because they have cast aside the neccessary disposition of docile submission to the authority of the Church.
It doesn’t matter who is Pope or what concessions are offered to SSPX: the only defections from their ranks will be people to whom God gives the grace of enlightenment, or those of good heart who are not yet hardened by pride.
But the official mindset of SSPX is diabolically slippery, confused and smoky; you can’t get a handle on it, because it isn’t real.
 
As long as Ecclesia Dei has not been overturned, the SSPX is still in schism.
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
As long as Ecclesia Dei has not been overturned, the SSPX is still in schism.
Click to expand...
And thats the bottom line.

And Monsignor Camille Perl of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei agrees:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM
 
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top