SSPX claims

[Bartolome_Casas]

I have seen some claims by SSPX people that Catholics are supposed to resist a “heretical” pope. They claim Pius IX stated this in a letter to the bishop of Brizen. They also say that John Paul II spoke of “new teachings” in Ecclesia Dei. They claim to the contrary that the Church cannot teach anything new. Can anyone point me to some good resources on how to answer these claims?
Thanks,

y.

To me, once a person starts answering such claims, he or she is genuinely considering the possibility that the current pope and other recent popes have taught heresy (as the SSPX bishops have consistently claimed).

Once a persons considers it possible that the current pope and other recent popes have taught heresy, then that person has begun a process of leaving the Catholic Church. That’s my view, anyway.

If there is even a chance that the current pope and other recent popes have taught heresy, then one might as well move on over to the Baptist church or maybe the Greek Orthodox Church.

The SSPX does assert that the current pope and other recent popes have taught heresy, but have not actually been heretics. They do this by making a distinction between “material heresy” and “formal heresy.” But, despite their undoubted sincerity, this all leads, I think, to a dark place of doubt, confusion, anger, hopeless, uncertain, insecurity, etc.

As far as I can see, being a Catholic means trusting that there can be no failure in the teaching office of the popes and the bishops in communion with the pope.

Why even waste time with SSPX claims? Must a person investigate and rebut all the claims of all the anti-Catholic groups? There are 100s or 1000s of them! The Jehovah’s Witnesses! The Mormons! The fundamentalist Baptists! The Marxists! The Seventh Day Adventists! The Atheists! It would be a full-time job taking on all these!

 

[april32010]

They don’t merit an answer. People can claim anything they want. I claim that I am Pope now. Refute it please.
Focus your energies on being fully Catholic with the whole Church from top to bottom, not answering contentious claims formed out of thin air.

great response,thank you so much! as a fairly new convert i tend to let this garbage bother me too much .

 

[Lormar]

I have seen some claims by SSPX people that Catholics are supposed to resist a “heretical” pope. They claim Pius IX stated this in a letter to the bishop of Brizen. They also say that John Paul II spoke of “new teachings” in Ecclesia Dei. They claim to the contrary that the Church cannot teach anything new. Can anyone point me to some good resources on how to answer these claims?
Thanks,

y.

Take it from someone who has been there and done that.

Stay away from those who tell you such things and from reading any of their literature. It is a slippery slope and you don’t want to go down it. Once down it, it is hard to get yourself up and out of it without continually sliding back down.

And don’t bother trying to refute them. They will entangle you in no time with more of their claims regarding our Church and our popes. They go from one thing to another until you are nothing more than a hopeless mass of confusion.

It is like quicksand.

Avoid them and, as someone here already said, be the best Catholic you can be. Draw closer to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to Our Blessed Mother.

 

[Yoyoma67]

Take it from someone who has been there and done that.

Stay away from those who tell you such things and from reading any of their literature. It is a slippery slope and you don’t want to go down it. Once down it, it is hard to get yourself up and out of it without continually sliding back down.

And don’t bother trying to refute them. They will entangle you in no time with more of their claims regarding our Church and our popes. They go from one thing to another until you are nothing more than a hopeless mass of confusion.

It is like quicksand.

Avoid them and, as someone here already said, be the best Catholic you can be. Draw closer to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to Our Blessed Mother.

Thanks for the advice, I am sure you mean well. But I am not that weak, and have debated theological topics for years with various types and no one has “dragged” me anywhere.

y.

 

[Yoyoma67]

I apologize for brushing off your inquiry. I was not responding to your sincere desire to know as I should have, but rather the claims themselves that you were passing along.
Mea culpa.

No problem, and thanks for the apology!

y.

 

[Yoyoma67]

To me, once a person starts answering such claims, he or she is genuinely considering the possibility that the current pope and other recent popes have taught heresy (as the SSPX bishops have consistently claimed).

Once a persons considers it possible that the current pope and other recent popes have taught heresy, then that person has begun a process of leaving the Catholic Church. That’s my view, anyway.

If there is even a chance that the current pope and other recent popes have taught heresy, then one might as well move on over to the Baptist church or maybe the Greek Orthodox Church.

The SSPX does assert that the current pope and other recent popes have taught heresy, but have not actually been heretics. They do this by making a distinction between “material heresy” and “formal heresy.” But, despite their undoubted sincerity, this all leads, I think, to a dark place of doubt, confusion, anger, hopeless, uncertain, insecurity, etc.

As far as I can see, being a Catholic means trusting that there can be no failure in the teaching office of the popes and the bishops in communion with the pope.

Why even waste time with SSPX claims? Must a person investigate and rebut all the claims of all the anti-Catholic groups? There are 100s or 1000s of them! The Jehovah’s Witnesses! The Mormons! The fundamentalist Baptists! The Marxists! The Seventh Day Adventists! The Atheists! It would be a full-time job taking on all these!

Answering the claims, questions, attacks of others is simply a matter of Catholic apologetics. As Cardinal Levada says " the project of defending one’s faith, of explaining the reasons for belief, is a perennial one." You may find this article interesting: zenit.org/article-29086?l=english
I was really just looking for an answer to my question, not a debate over whether the question should be asked.

y.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Answering the claims, questions, attacks of others is simply a matter of Catholic apologetics. As Cardinal Levada says " the project of defending one’s faith, of explaining the reasons for belief, is a perennial one." You may find this article interesting: zenit.org/article-29086?l=english
I was really just looking for an answer to my question, not a debate over whether the question should be asked.

y.

Well, I see what you mean.

You quoted Cardinal Levada: “the project of defending one’s faith, of explaining the reasons for belief, is a perennial one.” Yes, but this is not meant to be a major activity of every Catholic. In the Catholic Church, we have a division of labor. There a lay people who train and educate themselves for secular careers, who marry, have kids, and then there are those who become priests, religious, monks, nuns, and professional theologians and religious educators. Today’s proponents of the New Apologetics seem to have created this idea that we are all duty bound to spend all of our spare time arguing with people so as to get them into the Catholic Church and into Catholic orthodoxy. And, they seem to think that when we aren’t arguing with other people, we ought to be preparing to argue with them, by reading apologetic tracts. In this view, Evangelization has been reduced to Apologetics. In this view, Apologetics has become sort of like the 8th Sacrament. Suffice it to say, I don’t think Scripture and Tradition supports this view.

But beyond all that, here’s why some of us are trying to convince you to reconsider your quest to find out if the SSPX claims are true:

(1) We are trying to save you a lot of time and anguish.

(2) We are trying to keep you in the Church.

(3) This whole matter cannot be answered simply or quickly. You will have to really learn all sorts of things to get a grasp on all the accusations of the SSPX bishops. First, you’ll have to read, study and really understand about 10 key papal encyclicals that preceded the Vatican II Council. Then you’ll have to read, study and really understand all the key Vatican II Council documents. Then you’ll have to read, study and really understand one or more of the histories of the proceedings of the Vatican II Council. Then you’ll have to read, study and really understand the major writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (and his writings as Joseph Ratzinger). Then you’ll need to read, study and really understand the key writings and speeches of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. In 3-5 years of serious study, you might be able to grasp pretty well what is going on. I sensed that you wanted a simple means to rebut the claims of the SSPX bishops. There is none! These are complicated issues. The SSPX have been carrying out there “resistance operation” for about 40 years now. Most of the things written against them by all the various self-appointed Catholic apologists are shallow and useless and reveal that they never really grasped what is going on because they really do not have a deep knowledge of Catholic theology or Catholic history. The SSPX bishops are imbalanced and intemperate (and in the case of the one who denies the Holocaust, probably insane), but they DO have a deep knowledge of Catholic theology and Catholic history.

(4) You came to a Catholic forum to ask for help in figuring out whether it might be true that the last 3 popes (no counting John Paul the First) taught heresy. Isn’t that sort of like walking into a mosque and asking for help in figuring out whether the prophet of Islam was a liar and a con man?

 

[JM3]

OK, Thanks I appreciate your effort although I disagree. I’m not of course certain I am right either. It would be helpful if the Latin text were available anywhere. One interesting thing I found out is that even the English translations of Vatican documents are not “official”, only the Latin text.

y.

The latin text: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_19880702_ecclesia-dei_lt.html

1. b) Velimus praeterea, et theologos viros et alios scientiarum ecclesiasticarum peritos admonere, ut et eorum sententia hisce in adiunctis exquiratur. Amplitudo, enim, et altitudo praeceptorum Concilii Vaticani II renovatum postulant investigationis studium, quo Concilii perpetuitas una cum Traditione omnino illustretur, in iis potissimum doctrinae partibus, quae, cum fortasse novae sint, nondum bene a quibusdam Ecclesiae portionibus intellectae sunt.

If you know latin, great. I don’t know that much to be able to read what is meant. I did notice that the english looks to be translated word for word or phrase for phrase, which would jumble the meaning in english. But that’s just my opinion.

 

[Yoyoma67]

Well, I see what you mean.

You quoted Cardinal Levada: “the project of defending one’s faith, of explaining the reasons for belief, is a perennial one.” Yes, but this is not meant to be a major activity of every Catholic. In the Catholic Church, we have a division of labor. There a lay people who train and educate themselves for secular careers, who marry, have kids, and then there are those who become priests, religious, monks, nuns, and professional theologians and religious educators. Today’s proponents of the New Apologetics seem to have created this idea that we are all duty bound to spend all of our spare time arguing with people so as to get them into the Catholic Church and into Catholic orthodoxy. And, they seem to think that when we aren’t arguing with other people, we ought to be preparing to argue with them, by reading apologetic tracts. In this view, Evangelization has been reduced to Apologetics. In this view, Apologetics has become sort of like the 8th Sacrament. Suffice it to say, I don’t think Scripture and Tradition supports this view.

But beyond all that, here’s why some of us are trying to convince you to reconsider your quest to find out if the SSPX claims are true:

(1) We are trying to save you a lot of time and anguish.

(2) We are trying to keep you in the Church.

(3) This whole matter cannot be answered simply or quickly. You will have to really learn all sorts of things to get a grasp on all the accusations of the SSPX bishops. First, you’ll have to read, study and really understand about 10 key papal encyclicals that preceded the Vatican II Council. Then you’ll have to read, study and really understand all the key Vatican II Council documents. Then you’ll have to read, study and really understand one or more of the histories of the proceedings of the Vatican II Council. Then you’ll have to read, study and really understand the major writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (and his writings as Joseph Ratzinger). Then you’ll need to read, study and really understand the key writings and speeches of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. In 3-5 years of serious study, you might be able to grasp pretty well what is going on. I sensed that you wanted a simple means to rebut the claims of the SSPX bishops. There is none! These are complicated issues. The SSPX have been carrying out there “resistance operation” for about 40 years now. Most of the things written against them by all the various self-appointed Catholic apologists are shallow and useless and reveal that they never really grasped what is going on because they really do not have a deep knowledge of Catholic theology or Catholic history. The SSPX bishops are imbalanced and intemperate (and in the case of the one who denies the Holocaust, probably insane), but they DO have a deep knowledge of Catholic theology and Catholic history.

(4) You came to a Catholic forum to ask for help in figuring out whether it might be true that the last 3 popes (no counting John Paul the First) taught heresy. Isn’t that sort of like walking into a mosque and asking for help in figuring out whether the prophet of Islam was a liar and a con man?

Sheesh, I came here to ask a question on how to defend the Church’s teaching better on TWO particular points. That’s clear in my early post. One is never in danger of leaving the Church by defending her teachings and trying to explain them better. In fact I asked a very simple and limited question. If you look at my first posts you will see that is the case. All the reading you are talking about is not necessary to answer the TWO points I raised. As to the “division of labor” question you raise, the laity are certainly not exempt from defending the faith. No one is saying you are duty bound to do it all the time. Read however what Pope Benedict has said that we need apologetics at “every level”. I suggest however that you also read the catechism on our duties and responsibilities and read also Vatican II’s Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity. The laity are not just limited to having children!
My first post in fact addressed only TWO points, a letter of Pius IX, and a teaching of John Paul II. Try reading more carefully or just let others answer. I have debated non-Catholics for years and it is not a danger to my leaving the Church.

y.

 

[Yoyoma67]

The latin text: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_19880702_ecclesia-dei_lt.html

If you know latin, great. I don’t know that much to be able to read what is meant. I did notice that the english looks to be translated word for word or phrase for phrase, which would jumble the meaning in english. But that’s just my opinion.

I do in fact know Latin and I thank you very kindly for the link to the Latin text, that is very helpful indeed!
God bless,

y.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think that is an appropriate response, the Vatican could have said the same thing about the doctrinal talks with the SSPX, but concern for ending the schism necessitated those. It’s an apologetics question really, and since the Vatican has asked we revive apologetics I think that’s the direction we have to go.

Then the answer would be to stick to apologetics and go to the Scripture and Church teaching on ecclesialogy. This should be all we need to stop worrying about the Catholic Church or the Pope going apostate on us. This SSPX business is important on a spiritual level for those few involved, but is is nothing compared to the Orthodox split or the Protestant Reformation. If the Holy Spirit managed to keep the Church intact through those, this is nothing but a blip. The only danger is an individual one.

 

[pnewton]

Try this:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

Where in Ecclesia Dei doe John Paul II promote a new teaching?

Also, does the person who is making this claim, or you, also reject Papal Infallibility? The Assumption of Mary? These are the more recent dogmas. While the roots of these can be traced back to the early church, they are tenuous. There is certainly a since in which these can be called new.

In this age old game of responding to contraditions (in the Bible, in the Church) one finds that almost always there is an issue of context in which one finds some terms used with different meaning. Look to define the terms, especially the word “new”. New in what sense? Since “new” is an adjective, what is the noun being modified? What is the meaning of that noun? etc.

 

[ProVobis]

This SSPX business is important on a spiritual level for those few involved, but is is nothing compared to the Orthodox split or the Protestant Reformation.

pn, you may be right but there are a different number of generations involved in each of those groups. The FSSPX are relatively new and the Protestant Reformation didn’t become so widespread overnight. There certainly weren’t 30,000 denominations in the sixteenth century. However, there probably would have been a lot more if it hadn’t been for the Council of Trent.

 

[Yoyoma67]

Then the answer would be to stick to apologetics and go to the Scripture and Church teaching on ecclesialogy. This should be all we need to stop worrying about the Catholic Church or the Pope going apostate on us. This SSPX business is important on a spiritual level for those few involved, but is is nothing compared to the Orthodox split or the Protestant Reformation. If the Holy Spirit managed to keep the Church intact through those, this is nothing but a blip. The only danger is an individual one.

I have no worries whatever of the Church or the Pope “going apostate”. I am just trying to come up with a good response to the question. As to the importance of the SSPX, it’s obvious the Pope considers it important and he has invested a lot of time and effort in it, and has still not given up. I think we should keep the same spirit.

y.

 

[Lormar]

Thanks for the advice, I am sure you mean well. But I am not that weak, and have debated theological topics for years with various types and no one has “dragged” me anywhere.

y.

Then what are you doing here asking for advice?

 

[pnewton]

I think we should keep the same spirit.

y.

Absolutley! I have never said otherwise.

 

[Yoyoma67]

Then what are you doing here asking for advice?

I didn’t ask for advice only for some help to figure out the best approach to an apologetics issue.

y.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Sheesh, I came here to ask a question on how to defend the Church’s teaching better on TWO particular points. That’s clear in my early post. One is never in danger of leaving the Church by defending her teachings and trying to explain them better. In fact I asked a very simple and limited question. If you look at my first posts you will see that is the case. All the reading you are talking about is not necessary to answer the TWO points I raised. As to the “division of labor” question you raise, the laity are certainly not exempt from defending the faith. No one is saying you are duty bound to do it all the time. Read however what Pope Benedict has said that we need apologetics at “every level”. I suggest however that you also read the catechism on our duties and responsibilities and read also Vatican II’s Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity. The laity are not just limited to having children!
My first post in fact addressed only TWO points, a letter of Pius IX, and a teaching of John Paul II. Try reading more carefully or just let others answer. I have debated non-Catholics for years and it is not a danger to my leaving the Church.
y.

Well, my friend, you wrote a good answer. I especially liked what you said about we lay Catholics being able to do more than have and raise children. Good one!

But, on the other hand, from my point of view, I feel that you are swimming out into DANGEROUS waters full of man-eating sharks, and yet you don’t see it.

Think of it this way. Suppose you were a Jewish person, and you walked into a meeting of Orthodox rabbis and said, “Excuse me rabbis, but I just read this book by Adolf Hitler called Mein Kampf, and I was wondering how I should rebut all the stuff Mr. Hitler says in their about us Jews.”

In my view, the SSPX bishops are as antagonistic towards the Catholic Church as antisemites are towards the Jews. In general, the Jewish people don’t attempt to rationally engage and rebut the antisemites. Rather, they keep a distance from the antisemites, keep on guard against them, and also try to really the decent people of the Gentile world to reject and stigmatize the antisemites.

If the SSPX bishops are correct in their assertion that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are/were teachers of actual heresy, then that leads, sooner or later, to the logical conclusion that the Catholic Church is NOT the one true Church and is not trustworthy and reliable. (I suppose you could say that this what I propose as a general “apologetics” answer to all that the SSPX say.)

Antisemites aren’t playing around. If their wishes come true, there will be no more Jews on the earth. And every time a Catholic starts considering whether the SSPX bishops might be right, that Catholic has been seduced down a path that is going to lead to the extinction of the Light of Christ in that Catholic’s soul.

In short, the only thing to do with SSPX-ism is to say “Get behind me, Satan!” and move on. These people are dangerous! I know some or many of the priests and lay people associated with SSPX chapels are devout, faithful and holy Catholics who imagine that they are doing the right thing by attending Mass at SSPX chapels. But that fact does nothing to eliminate the mortal danger to souls that the SSPX bishops present. That is my OPINION, that’s all.

Footnote thought: In fact, the SSPX bishops themselves are quite antagonistic towards the Jews and claim that the Jews (along with Freemason, Communists) are responsible for what they see as the corruption of Catholic Church at and since the Vatican II Council. The SSPX magazine “Angelus” has carried a number of articles over the years that have expressed this point of view.

Orate fratres!

 

[Moore11]

The attacks on “SSPX supporter” is getting old. If some nuts hold sedivacantist views that is a separate issue than the SSPX.
The reconciliation must be close because the attacks are stepping up.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The attacks on “SSPX supporter” is getting old. If some nuts hold sedivacantist views that is a separate issue than the SSPX.
The reconciliation must be close because the attacks are stepping up.

Well, you bring up a good point, my friend. The SSPX bishops and priests are steadfastly anti-sedevacantist.

But, the bishops DO teach that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have taught actual heresies.

They say that these popes did not suffer automatic excommunication for those heresies, however, because of the difference in Catholic theology between “material heresy” and “formal heresy.” I’m not kidding! Just ask SSPX priests, they’ll tell you all about it. Or do some searching on the various official SSPX web sites (esp. SSPX Asia).