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

[dumspirospero]

WHile some may say they understand where the SSPX’ers are coming from…I honestly do not. The fact remains they ARE in Schism with Rome and they are too hard headed to change a few minor things which are preventing them from coming back into full communion with Rome…The FSSP was started by a group of former SSPX Priest that did not want to be in schism with the Church and the FSSP is approved and encouraged by the Holy Father…Do not make the mistake of believing SSPX are in full communion with The Church…if you want to attend a TLM, find an Indult TLM in your area or talk to your local Bishop about getting an Indult to have the TLM.

 

[gelsbern]

This is my last post on this subject because I don’t want to get labled a traditionalist or whatever because I am not, I will say tho that what LeFebvre did does not fit under the official definition of schism, or schismatic.

The SSPX doesn’t teach anything that differs from the the Magisterium, they only question the validity of the NO, which is a matter of discipline, not faith. There is no guarantee of infallibility in matters of discipline and I quote catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t “neglect” to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. …

Calling SSPX schismatics is wrong, especially in this day and age when the Orthodox are welcome, etc.

Do you call people schismatics when they use birth control, eat meat on Fridays of Lent, disagree with Altar Girls, or what ever other discipline of the Church they ignore or disregard or disobey? Even if the Pope says that the SSPX is schismatic, this does not automatically make it so, the Pope is under Canon Law, not above it.

As for some of the 1983 canon, that was quoted in regards to Vicar of Christ, yes I disagree with it, because Jesus Christ is the only one who “has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” The Pope is supposed to be subject to Jesus Christ and therefore cannot possibly be the supreme ruler of the church.
When you make a man higher than God, there is an issue.

 

[HagiaSophia]

gelsbern:

Calling SSPX schismatics is wrong, especially in this day and age when the Orthodox are welcome, etc…

Really – what an interesting conclusion after a great deal of study into the subject I’m sure - it may be of interest to note the WHY of things and the separate time frames to make sense of the questions as well as the answers.

gelsbern:

As for some of the 1983 canon, that was quoted in regards to Vicar of Christ, yes I disagree with it, because Jesus Christ is the only one who “has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” The Pope is supposed to be subject to Jesus Christ and therefore cannot possibly be the supreme ruler of the church.
When you make a man higher than God, there is an issue.

You may certainly choose to disagree with some of it if you so wish, it remains however, that the man who wears the Fisherman’s ring and sits in the chair of Peter has the “keys” - to him is rendered the responsibility of binding and loosing, so unless you are posting from a room in the Gemelli Clinic today, may I suggest that your opinion and its value relates only to you and not to the Church as a body.

And I would like to suggest that the pope may know just a bit more about who is and who is not in schism than the next few people you wish to consult on the matter .

For your ready reference: Please note this worthy contribution (Post 72) from fellow poster JKirkLVNV in thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=493339#post493339

" from Ecclesia Dei: “c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and A) of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that B)formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law”.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

gelsbern:

The SSPX doesn’t teach anything that differs from the the Magisterium, they only question the validity of the NO, which is a matter of discipline, not faith.

You make a huge glaring error here.

The form of the Mass is discipline but to say that the Mass is not valid is not a matter of discipline, it is a matter of faith.

The SSPX does not just question the validity of the Mass, they question the right of the Pope to change the Mass.

They grant annullments, hear confession, and have weddings without jurisdiction.

They ingore the authority of the pope and the bishops.

They are in schism. The Orthodox are another matter as the Catechism states, one can not be born into schism.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I was going to throw my 2 cents in, but Hagia and Byz seem to have managed, so, “yeah, what they said.”

 

[Catholic29]

JKirkLVNV:

I was going to throw my 2 cents in, but Hagia and Byz seem to have managed, so, “yeah, what they said.”

I couldn’t agree more here, their posts seem to of closed the case for the SSPX. It all comes down to the one bearing the keys, and he has spoken.

 

[gelsbern]

ByzCath:

…
The SSPX does not just question the validity of the Mass, they question the right of the Pope to change the Mass.

.

I just want to touch on this piece right here. All catholics should question the right of the Pope to change the Mass. Not out of distrust, but for greater understanding. I say this because there are some irreconcilable things in Church history which should without clarification can leave nothing but questions.

Let me expand on this. You claim the Pope has the right to change the mass, how can he when previous councils who have promulgated their instructions say the opposite?

Session 12, Canon 9 of the Council of Trent says: “If anyone says … that the Mass should be said in vernacular only, let him be anathema.”

Canon 6 of the Council of Trent says: “If anyone says that there are errors in the Canon of the Mass and that therefore it should be abrogated: let him be anathema.”
/QUOTE

For those in Rio Linda, abrogated means to do away with.

Yet somehow now, these councils are either ignored, or fallible, why is that, when all throughout history the councils and popes have been believed to be infallible. How does this work? Once the Holy See answers these questions, then perhaps the issue will be put to bed, but until then there will be a division in the Church.

The Church does not expect the faithful to follow blindly, it allows for questioning practices and yet people just follow blindly along and never seem to ask for clarification of the discrepancies, and contradictions. If the Pope declared that all catholics must believe the sky is green and that grass is blue, would you not question it, or would you simply follow along?

 

[HagiaSophia]

gelsbern:

I just want to touch on this piece right here. All catholics should question the right of the Pope to change the Mass. Not out of distrust, but for greater understanding. I say this because there are some irreconcilable things in Church history which should without clarification can leave nothing but questions.

The Church does not expect the faithful to follow blindly, it allows for questioning practices and yet people just follow blindly along and never seem to ask for clarification of the discrepancies, and contradictions. If the Pope declared that all catholics must believe the sky is green and that grass is blue, would you not question it, or would you simply follow along?

May I point out that this thread is in relation to whether or not the SSPX is in communion with the Church. May I respectfully suggest that if you wish to start another thread discussing the Pope’s authority you do so and not hijack this one. ( I hasten to point out that the pope didn’t change the Mass The bishops and the Council of Vatican II did so.) You may wish to proceed from that point.

As a secondary observation, I should like to point out that ignoring the responses to your previous posts in this existing thread, does not make them go away.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Eddy Arent wrote:

What’s so bad about the SSPX’s terms? They aren’t looking to trash the Novus Ordo in an all or nothing deal as some might imagine. They want every Latin Rite priest to have the right to say the Mass of All Ages along with the truth to come out that the Bishops did no evil

Here is a chronology of the SSPX’s “trashing” of the normative liturgy of the Catholic Church:

1. Back in the 1980’s the SSPX produced a glossy brochure

“Sixty-two Reasons why, in conscience, we cannot attend the New Mass (also known as Mass of Pope Paul VI, Novus Ordo, new liturgy) either in the vernacular or the Latin, whether facing the people or facing the tabernacle. Thus, for the same reasons, we adhere faithfully to the traditional Mass (also known as Tridentine Mass, old Latin Mass, Roman Missal, Pian Missal, Missal of St Pius V, Mass of All Time).
Based on the Sixty Reasons set forth by 25 diocesan priests of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil.”

It is noteworthy that Bishop Rifan, the Apostolic Administrator for the 27,000 plus reconciled Campos community has repudiated the above with his statements, such as at:
Bishop Rifan Answers Questions About alleged Concelebration

If we consider the New Mass in itself, in theory or in practice, as invalid or heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, sinful, illegitimate or not Catholic, we would have to hold the theological conclusions of this position and apply them to the Pope and the entire episcopate residing in the world - that is, the whole teaching Church: that the Church has officially promulgated, maintained for decades, and offers every day to God an illegitimate and sinful worship – a proposition condemned by the Magisterium - and that, therefore, the gates of hell have prevailed against her, which would be a heresy. Or else we would be adopting the sectarian principle that we alone are the Church, and outside of us there is no salvation, which would be another heresy. These positions cannot be accepted by a Catholic, either in theory or in practice.

Lefebfre and Associates words:

Mar. 19, 1978
Today he says: “The Catholic-protestant mass, a spring henceforth poisoned which produces incalculable ravages. The ecumenical mass leads logically to apostasy.” Lettre aux amis et bienfaiteurs No. 14. Mar. 19, 1978.

Oct. 3, 1984
On the Decree of the Roman Congregation for Divine Worship (released 15/10/84) to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, Fr (later Bishop) Richard Williamson stated: “While acknowledging that a Pope may legitimately introduce a new rite of Mass, we can never admit that a rite, departing so far from Tradition as the Novus Ordo Missae is, as such, legitimate or doctrinally sound.” “THE VATICAN DECREE” “Catholic”, Dec 84, p.4.

 

[Sean_O_L]

1986
“All these Popes have resisted the union of the Church with the revolution; it is an adulterous union and from such a union only bastards can come. The rite of the new mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or do not give it. The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests, who do not know what they are. They are unaware that they are made to go up to the altar, to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to give Jesus Christ to souls.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “An Open Letter to Confused Catholics” Chapter: “The Marriage of the Church and the Revolution” , p. 116

1986
In a rather imprecise manner, Archbishop Lefebvre expressed his opinions regarding a “valid” though “sacrilegious” Mass (limiting himself to a “valid though sacrilegious” Novus Ordo Mass), and as to whether it can satisfy the Sunday obligation. “… may I assist at a sacrilegious mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these masses cannot be the object of an obligation…” (“An Open Letter To Confused Catholics”, by Arch bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fowler Wright Books Ltd for The Society of St Pius X, p. 36, 1986.

July 28, 1996
Fr Robinson of Hampton, Australia, during the Sermon on the Novus Ordo stated that Archbishop Lefebvre

1. Here is an excerpt from (then) Msgr Camille Perl, Secretary of Pontificia Commissio “Ecclesia Dei”’s reply to my letter

N. 343/98
Rome, 27 October 1998

…]

 

[TNT]

ByzCath:

They are in schism. The Orthodox are another matter as the Catechism states, one can not be born into schism.

So, the SSPX schism is pragmatically resolving itself, with time. About 2 generations from 1988, and VOILA. No more schism.

Good point. I like that. All we have to do is wait’em out.

40 years to go and counting.

 

[Sean_O_L]

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute “formal adherence to the schism”, 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.

c. Thus far the Church has not officially declared what constitutes " formal adherence to the schism " inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as " refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him " (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.

(CF. CORRESPONDENCE TO AND FROM ROME ON THE STATUS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X (SSPX)

For YOUR information, Eddie Arent, the “mass of All Ages” is the Mass as celebrated by Our Lord, Jesus Christ, in the simplicity of the Last Supper environment, and as authorized by all of the Apostles in the varying Rites emanating from them – including the Roman Rite which has received the approval of the successors of St Peter from his time to that of Pope John-Paul II today! Period!

Let me conclude, again with the words of Bishop Rifan of Campos:

No one can be Catholic while remaining in an attitude of refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate. In fact, the Church defines as schismatic those who refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff or to remain in communion with the other members of the Church who are his subjects (canon 751).
Now, to refuse continually and explicitly to participate in every and any Mass in the rite celebrated by the Pope and by all the bishops of the Church while judging this rite, in itself, incompatible with the Faith, or sinful, represents a formal refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate.

The EVIL of Archbishop Lefebvre, the Bishops and adherents to the SSPX schism is in doing precisely what Bishop Rifan states that no one can do to be considered to be a Catholic in communion with the Pope and the Catholic episcopate OR with those who are in communion with them.

The practical test? Will one refuse to attend the Liturgy of Pope Paul VI (the so-called ‘Novus Ordo’ ) in one’s local Parish under the jurisdiction of one’s local Ordinary?

 

[Sean_O_L]

As to Eddy Arent’s claim “that the Bishops did no evil”:-

Do a Google search using the phrases “evil OR heretical” “novus ordo” (The phrases should be within the inverted commas, with a space between the phrases, and OR must be in capitals.)

This search will return 15, 100 hits, among which is the following directly from an official SSPX site:

The dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants which are evident in the Novus Ordo Missae render it a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil, given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass ought to have.
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm

CAN WE ATTEND THEIR [Indult] MASSES?

If we have to agree to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Novus Ordo Missae, then NO, for we cannot do evil that good may ensue.

This condition may not be presented explicitly, but by implication, such as:

By a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Missae on other days of the week or at other times, …
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q10_indult.htm

Q. What was wrong with going to the Catholic Church on Sunday and Holy Days—refusing to pray or read Novus Ordo prayers, but reading and praying the true, traditional Mass prayers and not financially supporting them? Could I go to Church, ignore the changes, etc., and do what I have been for the past few years? I am not participating in their Novus Ordo Missae service, but attending Church where this is going on. F.W.R., Syracuse, N.Y.

A. Many Catholic there are who feel the way you do. Missing Church on Sunday is frightening— a real shocker to most good Catholics. Shall we judge them severely—those Catholics who do this? I strongly recommend that people stay away from this new service, which is not Our Mass. Going unwillingly only encourages those who go along with it. Also, I believe the Novus Ordo is heretical and leads to apostasy from the Faith.
sspx.ca/Angelus/1979_April/Ask_Me.htm

On the other hand, read above what Bishop Rifan of Campos, Brazil stated unequivocally in line with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Eddie Arent, the evil that the SSPX bishops have done is to rend the unity of the Catholic Church through schism, and to promote and foster schism throughout the world among vunerable members of Christ’s Church - including the other 15,000 perple represented in the hits above!.

 

[Sean_O_L]

gelsbern wrote:

I just want to touch on this piece right here. All catholics should question the right of the Pope to change the Mass. Not out of distrust, but for greater understanding. I say this because there are some irreconcilable things in Church history which should without clarification can leave nothing but questions.

Let me expand on this. You claim the Pope has the right to change the mass, how can he when previous councils who have promulgated their instructions say the opposite?

Session 12, Canon 9 of the Council of Trent says: “If anyone says … that the Mass should be said in vernacular only, let him be anathema.”

How can you be taken seriously, mate, when you do not appear to understand what the text of the Session 12, Canon 9 of the Council of Trent actualy meant?

At the time, the Protestants WERE saying that the Mass should be said in the vernacular only! And that was what Trent condemned: “saying that the Mass should be said in the vernacular ONLY.”

What was the position in 1969 (and as of today)?

It is patently evident (at least to those who do not have a problem with that particular Canon) that the new liturgy of Paul VI WAS PROMULGATED in Latin - and vernacular translations were, subsequently permitted upon submissions from the Bishops’ Conferences. However, the official Mass of the Roman Rite (is the Latin Liturgy promulgated in 1969) AND - to my knowledge - NO-ONE has said or IS saying that “the Mass should be said in the vernacular only.”

I hope that this solves your scruple on this and indicates that the other problems you raise ought to be also re-evaluated in the light of logic.

 

[jimmy]

EddieArent:

What’s so bad about the SSPX’s terms? They aren’t looking to trash the Novus Ordo in an all or nothing deal as some might imagine. They want every Latin Rite priest to have the right to say the Mass of All Ages along with the truth to come out that the Bishops did no evil which is spelled out in Canon law for those of you in Rio Linda (as Rush would say). Further, if they do come back, what becomes of the indults and other societies (not all use the 1962 Missal, Institute of Christ the King I heard doesn’t anyway)?

The problem with there terms is they reject the authority of the Church. There is a council in Rome(Vatican II) and they refuse to accept it because they do not agree with it. They refuse to accept the new mass also. Other than that, I have no problems with their proposals. I would like it if all preists could freely say the latin mass, that is the mass I prefer.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

TNT:

So, the SSPX schism is pragmatically resolving itself, with time. About 2 generations from 1988, and VOILA. No more schism.

Good point. I like that. All we have to do is wait’em out.

40 years to go and counting.

Yes and then they will be no better than the Orthodox and others with a valid priesthood and sacraments. They will be outside of the Catholic Church.

 

[EddieArent]

You guys still have not shown me where the SSPX says that the Mass is “invalid.” You guys point to comments about the Novus Ordo being Protestantized, which given the history of Father Bugini, is a point to be brought up.

In Orlando, there is no indult Mass. I’ve lobied, and received the same answers as folks did when the other Bishop was runningthings - all half truths and lies. Further, I cannot morally support this diocese until several conditions are meet in the curia which are full of Call to Action supporters, radical nuns, and priests who went against Bishop Wenski’s statements on pro-abortion politicians by giving Senator Kerry Holy Communion only to later receive promotions as one priest was named Vicar for Priests and the other Direcot of Liturgy. I will not support such a diocese that tolerates Lutherans ordaining their “bishops” at our shrines while the Tridentine Mass and Latin/traditional Novus Ordo is shun down by the leaders of the diocese.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

EddieArent:

You guys still have not shown me where the SSPX says that the Mass is “invalid.” You guys point to comments about the Novus Ordo being Protestantized, which given the history of Father Bugini, is a point to be brought up.

In Orlando, there is no indult Mass. I’ve lobied, and received the same answers as folks did when the other Bishop was runningthings - all half truths and lies. Further, I cannot morally support this diocese until several conditions are meet in the curia which are full of Call to Action supporters, radical nuns, and priests who went against Bishop Wenski’s statements on pro-abortion politicians by giving Senator Kerry Holy Communion only to later receive promotions as one priest was named Vicar for Priests and the other Direcot of Liturgy. I will not support such a diocese that tolerates Lutherans ordaining their “bishops” at our shrines while the Tridentine Mass and Latin/traditional Novus Ordo is shun down by the leaders of the diocese.

Go back and re-read (or read fully) post #33 from Sean. Please tell me what is says to you.

Now please explain how when the SSPX says that agreeing to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Novus Ordo Missae is an evil that can not be done is not just a back hand way of calling it invalid.

Actually it is much worse than calling it evil, they are calling it a grave sin to agree to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Mass because the language used (we cannot do evil that good may ensue) comes directly from paragraph 1789 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which talks about making a moral choice.

If agreeing to the Mass is an immoral evil that can never be done, then logically it is not valid.

 

[Exporter]

Gelsbern wrote:" This is my last post on this subject because I don’t want to get labled a traditionalist or whatever because I am not, I will say tho that what LeFebvre did does not fit under the official definition of schism, or schismatic.

The SSPX doesn’t teach anything that differs from the the Magisterium, they only question the validity of the NO, which is a matter of discipline, not faith. There is no guarantee of infallibility in matters of discipline and I quote catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Quote:
Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t “neglect” to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. …

Calling SSPX schismatics is wrong, especially in this day and age when the Orthodox are welcome, etc.

Do you call people schismatics when they use birth control, eat meat on Fridays of Lent, disagree with Altar Girls

---

I agree with the above. You must differintiate between Disipline and those tthings that can be infallible. They aren’t the same.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Exporter:

Calling SSPX schismatics is wrong, especially in this day and age when the Orthodox are welcome, etc.

I agree with the above. You must differintiate between Disipline and those tthings that can be infallible. They aren’t the same.

I want to make certain that I am not misunderstanding your post: do I take from it that Ecclesia Dei when it says:

from Ecclesia Dei: “c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and A) of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that B)formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law”.

is not correct - that is, you do not agree with John Paul II?

Do I understand that the clear differentiation in post #24 is considered by you to be “error”?

Thanks in advance for your clarification.