SSPX Info, updates and interviews

[sw85]

I’m not sure I have an answer for you, but thank for a very articulate thread, one that goes much deeper than simply the SSPX and Rome. I’ve been wondering many of the same things for a while now. It seems Rome doesn’t like to lay it out sweet and simple anymore.

And this is a problem.

I get frustrated sometimes raising the issue on CAF. The response is always uniformly “There’s no discontinuity,” end of discussion. OK, well, lots of people don’t seem to share that assessment, and there appears to be plenty of reason not to. This includes seemingly millions of people who are very enthusiastic about the idea of there being discontinuity and who constantly trumpet that Vatican II is the source of that discontinuity.

I’ve read some very convincing pieces demonstrating that there is a continuity. I’m even prepared to assent to them. But none of them are authoritative. No one’s asking much here. I just want to know what is expected of me to assent to as a Catholic.

 

[Iotaunum]

I don’t know if I can answer all your points, but as someone who comes from an SSPX line of thinking perhaps I can give you my perspective. Put simply, the SSPX says traditional theology was replaced after the council with a more liberal theology which contradicts, at times, previous teachings and positions of the Church. Rome said basically that nothing which was unchangeable or infallible changed, merely pastoral changes took place. The hermeneutic of continuity position really, I believe, came from Cardinal Ratzinger. He believed that the SSPX and other traditional Catholics should see that the new theology and teachings are in fact in conformity with the tradition of the Church. This line of thinking says that the documents must be interpreted in conformity with the past teachings of the Church. The liberals of course interpreted them to their advantage.

The problem was, there are lots of ambiguous statements in the documents. The liberals “interpret” them to support their ideas while more conservative Churchmen, like then Cardinal Ratzinger, interpreted them in the same way the Church always understood the issues. One might ask; “then how come the SSPX don’t interpret them in the traditional manner?” In the “hermeneutic of continuity” - to use the Pope’s term. Well the answer is that the SSPX accept most of Vatican II. This may seem surprising given their vocal opposition to what it considers its “errors” - some have even commented that the SSPX accept more of Vatican II than many mainstream Catholics and of course the liberals.

So the SSPX and the Vatican agree with the interpretation in conformity with tradition. This covers 90% of the council documents. However, there are some points which the SSPX feel just cannot be reconciled. The Pope and Roman authorities obviously feel they can reconcile them, which was a component of the doctrinal talks. An example of a point which has given myself trouble is the following part in Lumen Gentium Number 16, which says that the Muslims;

“along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind”

This seems hard for me to reconcile, given that Christ will judge mankind on the last day, and the Muslims certainly do not worship Him. Nor is the Allah of the Muslims the God of the Bible; the Trinity. Perhaps this point was discussed. After years of talks with diocesan priests and even a few bishops, I have not had this point answers sufficiently for myself. I have had priests send me long articles trying to make sense of this point, but I simply cannot figure this one out. There are many points like this - religious liberty etc which the SSPX feel cannot be reconciled. I know they have asked for clarification from Rome in the past but still were not satisfied with the answers. I am sure that if Rome can clarify any further, they would not hesitate in accepting them. This is the issue being discussed. It is not bad will nor deception on either side - it is simply a difference in understanding. I know a few issues regarding Religious liberty have been clarified somewhat, which is another step towards reconciliation.

Also, in Rome in recent times many priests and theologians have been asking questions about clarification of the documents, which has not really happened in the past few decades.

 

[Khalid]

That one statement in LG continues to re-appear, over and over, as perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Catholicism I have ever seen. It’s even worse when taken out of context and shoved in to the Catechism. (So I read the Roman Catechism as an orthodox supplement at times.)

I have to think that it was poorly worded, that I do not know of the intent of the authors, that the mind of the Church is greater than mine - as St Ignatius said, “If the Church declares to be black what our eyes perceive to be white, we are obligated as well to call it black” - and to look at all of the truth in Catholicism, which no other sect does possess. However, that one statement, unless itself was issued in the greatest obfuscation and obscurantism, or the correction to it is issued in a similar vein - seems to be nothing short of heretical. Good thing Vatican II didn’t declare dogma (as proven by the lack of anathemas), or we’d be damning Protestants to Hell and singing Hallelujah to Allah and Mohammedanism based on that poorly-worded line. I wonder how much relativism could be cut out of the Church (for that paragraph is used to justify it greatly), and how closely she could come to reconciling SSPX, if that one paragraph was struck out loudly and forcefully with no obfuscation.

The only way I’ve ever heard much sense spoken about it is thus: “they profess to hold…”, much as the Bible describes things without approving of them - the only way I’ve seen to interpret it, is to read it with emphasis on “profess”, making it then a statement of what the Church believes that Mohammedans believe (which is odd in its own way, as the Church doesn’t pronounce on the doctrines of other religions) based on how they present themselves, without the Church acknowledging that their statements nor the methods used by Mohammedans to reach them (if they indeed do, as every Muslims I have ever known - and I have known many - would argue vehemently and vociferously and nearly violently against the insinuation that Allah has any ontological relation to the Christian God) have any validity or veracity, which makes the proper reading thus: “along with us they profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and claim to adore the One God”, etc. etc.

I’m interested in the SSPX debate (I can’t say that I’ve not been tempted to go over many times, if not on a daily basis, but the mind of the Church is greater than my own, and private interpretation is private interpretation no matter how you cut it), and will stay tuned here hoping for some better insight than the standard canards.

“Religious liberty” can be easily reconciled by redefining it as “liberty of conscience”, as, outside of technical religious discourse, the two are virtually synonymous today - and liberty of conscience is upheld by the Church; a man has the ability to choose the wrong religion, he just doesn’t have the moral right to do it, any more than he has the moral right to murder or commit adultery (although he also has the ability to choose to do those things); “religious liberty” when interpreted strictly from the lexicon seems to imply the moral right to choose a wrong religion, or, even worse, when interpreted from the modernists’ lexicon, seems to imply latitudinarianism at best and indifferentism or relativism at worst.

 

[runningdude]

… An example of a point which has given myself trouble is the following part in Lumen Gentium Number 16, which says that the Muslims;

“along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind”

This seems hard for me to reconcile, given that Christ will judge mankind on the last day, and the Muslims certainly do not worship Him…

The full sentence

In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Lumen Gentium Number 16

Jesus Christ is the God of Abraham. If they claim to have the same faith as Abraham, then they must be worshiping Christ.

“58* Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.”” John 8:58

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I think insistence on continuity need not be looked for in the documents themselves. Does the Church need to wait a few decades after every teaching document comes out and produce a new document re-endorsing the old one, or something?

In every generation the faithful receive the teachings of the Magisterium with humble submission. Where there is some apparent tension between a new teaching and an older one (which I think happens far less often than is sometimes supposed) we accept both and look for the way in which the two are reconciled with each other, interpreting the new in light of the old and vice versa, or else accept that our own understanding of the subject is incomplete. I really have a hard time understanding Catholics who claim to be faithful to Catholic tradition and yet fail to adopt this approach.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Jesus Christ is the God of Abraham. If they claim to have the same faith as Abraham, then they must be worshiping Christ.

I hope this isn’t too off topic, but it does connect to the truth of the teachings of Vatican II.

The Muslims specifically reject the idea that Christ is God, so I don’t think you statement works out.

The way I see it is this. The most fundamental definition of God (if I may use such language without any implied lack of appreciation of the mystery of God) is probably that of a unique self-existent being which is the ultimate source of all other existing things. Muslims believe in such a being, and so we can say they believe in the same God we do. Furthermore they correctly identify this God as the God of Abraham, and hold a great many other true beliefs about him.

On the other hand, there are a great many problems with Muslim beliefs about God, especially their rejection of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. This is where trouble comes in as far as correctly identifying them as worshipers of the same God. It’s easy to start with the errors, and extend them to the point of drawing the conclusion that Christians and Muslims are talking about an entirely different deities.

For example, one could say “Christians believe in a God who is a Trinity. Muslims specifically deny the Trinity. Therefore Muslims reject our God and worship another, specifically non-Trinitarian deity.” Or, one could say “Jesus is the One True God. Muslims do not worship Jesus. Therefore, Muslims do not worship the One True God.”

The problem is you are coming at the issue from the wrong direction, from the errors the Muslim holds concerning God rather than looking first at whether they believe in God and then identifying the errors they hold concerning him.

I recognize that it could be argued that Jesus Christ himself endorsed the other way of thinking with his statement that whoever rejects him rejects the Father who sent him, because he and the Father are one. I would propose this is meant in more of a moral/spiritual sense of rejection, since it is plain that the erroneous intellectual rejection of the idea of the Incarnation does not automatically mean that one intellectually rejects the idea of the very existence of God.

 

[sw85]

I think insistence on continuity need not be looked for in the documents themselves. Does the Church need to wait a few decades after every teaching document comes out and produce a new document re-endorsing the old one, or something?

This reads dangerously close to a denial of the problem. Right now the belief in the hermeneutic of continuity is probably a minority position in the Church. *Lots *of people reject it explicitly and believe the Church has changed its doctrines; the majority of those people actually favor this.

This uncertainty is a real problem. One way or another, a lot of people are in error right now. Who’s wrong? I’m not denying the need to be obedient. I am saying people need to know what they’re supposed to be obedient to. There’s no clear answer to that because there’s no clear answer to what Vatican II actually taught about anything, and the only people who can give us that answer are remarkably tight-lipped about it.

 

[Iotaunum]

The full sentence

Jesus Christ is the God of Abraham. If they claim to have the same faith as Abraham, then they must be worshiping Christ.

Thanks - I can see where you are comming from but it still does not do it for me. The Muslims are quite clear about not worshiping Jesus Christ and although they claim to worship the God of Abraham they do not. Muhammad’s Allah was not the God of the Bible. I don’t see how they can worship therefore the God who will judge mankind on the last day; Jesus Christ. I did not want to derail the thread but I felt I had to give an example of a passage hard to reconcile. I don’t think we should discuss this issue here, but if you or anyone else feels they can help me reconcile this point, please feel free to PM me. I would love to clarify this for myself.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

This reads dangerously close to a denial of the problem. Right now the belief in the hermeneutic of continuity is probably a minority position in the Church. *Lots *of people reject it explicitly and believe the Church has changed its doctrines; the majority of those people actually favor this.

This uncertainty is a real problem. One way or another, a lot of people are in error right now. Who’s wrong? I’m not denying the need to be obedient. I am saying people need to know what they’re supposed to be obedient to. There’s no clear answer to that because there’s no clear answer to what Vatican II actually taught about anything, and the only people who can give us that answer are remarkably tight-lipped about it.

I’m not denying the problem of disobedience, but I’m suggesting that the fault lies primarily on those who, in one way or another, refuse to be obedient to the Church.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m not denying the problem of disobedience, but I’m suggesting that the fault lies primarily on those who, in one way or another, refuse to be obedient to the Church.

How can you be obedient to something that is fantastically profuse in its lack of understandability?

You ask questions.

Who can answer them?

Someone who is qualified.

Who is qualified?

The leaders of the Church.

But they have not answered these questions.​

Our problem is that we don’t know WHAT to be obedient TO because Vatican II made precisely zero demands to be obedient to anything. Yet there must logically be something to be obedient to, after all it was a Council. We are looking for what to be obedient to. This is very troublesome.

I’m not sure anyone can crack open the docs of Vatican II and then come away saying to himself, “I am obedient to this, I submit to this.” It is impossible, I think, and so the Church will have to articulate in very clear terms what She expects in this regard because probably 99.9% of Catholics don’t know and can’t get an answer from the Council itself.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

I don’t think I made myself clear enough. The SSPX and Bishop Fellay don’t bother me. I respect Bishop Fellay very much, even when we disagree. As a society of apostolic life, I believe that the SSPX does exactly what it was founded to do.

I do believe that the audience on the blogs, in the media, and forums are not listening to either Bishop Fellay or to the Vatican. They’re looking for conspiracies, ghosts, and traps. They need to pay attention to what the Bishop has said three times this week. The Holy Father wants this now. He has also said that the Holy Father wants the good of the Society. So why keep looking for conspiracies or traps, when Bishop Felllay himself sees none? These folks are viewing the Church as their enemy. That’s what I’m talking about.

Hello good Br.

I understand exactly what you are saying, don’t worry. Traditionalists are naturally cynical and suspicious of all modern Church matters. It’s because the original traditionalists who lived through or right after the Second Vatican Council and the Econe Consecrations were treated like garbage by mainstream Catholics, non-Catholics (particularly Jewish groups) and the Conciliar heirachy, for decades. Just my thoughts, but I think the reason why SSPX traditionalists are so cynical of Bishop Fellay lately is because he has seemed to reverse some of his views very quickly and is now full steam ahead with a settlement. Any rapid change causes suspicion. It’s sort of like the public towards politicians: non-consistency automatically raises an eyebrow.

The article that was shared, was very suspicious of the video. As I said, the video was poorly edited. But when I read the write up that the same news service did from that interview, the write up is very objective. It simply reports where things are and it even has a few comments by the Bishop that were cut out of the video.

Judging the difference between the video and the written article by the same source, it looks like a job of poor video editing, not a deliberate attempt to slant the interview. That’s what I’m trying to point to.

Well I guess there are a few ways of looking at this. Even if it wasn’t deliberate, the way it was edited could be accused of being sensationalist; only leaving in good news and excluding any complications.

As to the question about the excommunication of the bishops, this has been explained millions of times, even by Pope Benedict. They were excommunicated because of the ordination, not because they’re Traditionalists. To compare them with Hans Kung is not appropriate. Fr. Kung never consecrated anyone. His license to teach as a Catholic theologian was revoked and he obeyed. Canonically, there is nothing to fault him for. Making heretic statements does not constitute a heretic in Canon Law. One has to be put on trial and be convicted by a tribunal. There is no automatic excommunication for stating error. There is an automatic excommunication for consecrating bishops without permission. That is the difference. Both are unorthodox actions: teaching error or consecrating a bishop without permission. The latter carries an excommunication and the former requires a formal trial. That’s the difference.

Interesting analysis, but the SSPX of course would argue that the consecrations were justified (I’m not going to give the reasons why, I’m ignorant on the subject). Traditionalists look at the whole situation as incredibly unfair, because heretic theologians, bishops and priests were allowed to teach their heretical agendas for decades, by far most of them never censured or silenced. Rome even promoted some of these people into high positions in the Church. Yet, one of the last remnants of orthodoxy and Catholic tradition is persecuted by the Conciliar heirachy all through the 1970s and 80s (and until today). When the great Archbishop Lefebvre finally made the decision on his conscience that it was necessary to consecrate Bishops for the good of the Church and for the salvation of souls when the Church was in a state of grand apostasy and heresy by the heirachy; he was of course told by Rome in a letter that he had incurred ‘automatic excommunication by his actions’, according to the Curia’s (in particular Cardinal Bernardin Gantin’s) interpretation of Canon Law. They have disputed this ever since. Nevertheless, after the consecrations traditionalists had two options: stay with the SSPX and be shunned and called an outsider by mainstream Catholics and the heirachy, or join the FSSP and be silenced from ever criticizing the New Mass, the Council or the decisions of the leadership. Fr. Kung has obstinately refused to adhere to the dogmatic infallible teachings of the Church and is constantly in the public sphere. Even recently, he has decided to side with the rebellious heretic Austrian priests. Where is the excommunication? Fr. Kung has been leading hundreds of thousands, if not millions of souls to possible perdition and has received no canonical penalty. The great Archbishop consecrated Bishops in a time of great crisis in the Church for the direct intention of saving souls and preserving Catholic orthodoxy and tradition. Which one was acting in the spirit of Christ our Saviour?

God Bless and Keep you good Br.

I.F.

 

[JReducation]

Fr. Kung has obstinately refused to adhere to the dogmatic infallible teachings of the Church and is constantly in the public sphere. Even recently, he has decided to side with the rebellious heretic Austrian priests. Where is the excommunication?

There is no prescribed penalty of excommunication of this kind of behavior.

The great Archbishop consecrated Bishops in a time of great crisis in the Church for the direct intention of saving souls and preserving Catholic orthodoxy and tradition. Which one was acting in the spirit of Christ our Saviour?

Jesus would not defy the pope. That’s the issue here. Defiance of the pope is an excommunicable offense.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[dragonslayer2]

Where do we stand?

An Interview of Fr. Arnaud Rostand, USA District Superior

sspx.org/District_Superiors_Ltrs/fr_rostand_remnant_interview_5-17-2012.htm

Cheers.

 

[dragonslayer2]

Canadian District Superior’s Letter: the SSPX & Rome

sspx.org/theological_commission/canadian_sspx_district_superiors_ltr_5-17-2012.pdf

Cheers

 

[ImmaculataFides]

There is no prescribed penalty of excommunication of this kind of behavior.

There is in Canon 1364:

c. 1364

1. With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, part 1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
2. If long lasting contumacy or the seriousness of scandal warrants it, other penalties can be added including dismissal from the clerical state.

Jesus would not defy the pope. That’s the issue here. Defiance of the pope is an excommunicable offense.

Not if it is justified good Br. That is what the SSPX argue.

God Bless and keep you,

I.F.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I blame jet planes changing everything.

I recently spoke to a Ukranian Orthodox priest about modernism in the Church. He said that the only modernizing he saw in his Church was the fact that a prayer for those traveling was changed from “protect those on land and on the sea” to “protect those on land and on the sea and in the air.”

I had a sad chuckle at that.

• PAX

 

[JReducation]

There is in Canon 1364:

Not if it is justified good Br. That is what the SSPX argue.

God Bless and keep you,

I.F.

Before one can apply 1634 a trial must be held and the tribunal must conclude, beyond the shadow of a doubt that the accused is a heretic or an apostate or the accused must openly break with the faith, not just with some aspects of the Church’s teachings. It would have to be someone like a Luther.

If you excommunicate someone for heresy, the excommunication comes to an immediate halt as soon as the accused asks for a hearing. If the hearing rules against him, he has a right to a trial with legal representation. The law is always on the side of the accused. The tribunal must be convinced that the accused is indeed a heretic, not simply a dissenter. This can be appealed through different levels until it reaches the Signatura.

The only way for this to be expedited is for the Holy Father to intervene and rule for or against the accused. Popes do not involve themselves in these matters. They are complicated, require a lot of time and cost a lot of money and man power. They are specific cases, often too many for a pope to involve himself in all of them.

As to illegal ordinations, the proof is on the person, because the law says that the excommunication comes not from the pope, but from the law. No trial is needed for the excommunication to take effect. When the excommunication is attached to a law, the affected party must prove that the law does not apply to him. The Holy Father can deny such an appeal without due process. In which case, the excommunication is assumed to be valid until a pope agrees to hear the plaintive, if ever.

People have argued that certain laws that carry a penalty of excommunication are unfair or that the penalty does not justify the crime, for example: if you strike the pope, you are automatically excommunicated, without a trial, even if the pope is an unpleasant person.

If you are in solemn vows (not simple) and you disobey your superior, you incur an excommunication. This only applies to members of religious orders. It does not apply to members of congregations. For example, it does not apply to sisters. They are not members of orders; therefore, they’re in simple vows. If they disobey, it’s called dissent, not disobedience. If I disobey, it’s called a break with the primacy, because I’m in solemn vows.

As you can see, it is not enough to read what is in the law. No tribunal would allow this way of using Canon Law. One can only apply the law according to the tradition of the law itself, the mind of the author of the law and the mind of the pope. None of those pieces are written into the code. It would make the code unmanageable. That’s why we have canon lawyers, major superiors, commentaries, historical precedents and tribunals.

I hope this clarifies things a little.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TimothyH]

How can you be obedient to something that is fantastically profuse in its lack of understandability?

You ask questions.

Who can answer them?

Someone who is qualified.

Who is qualified?

The leaders of the Church.

But they have not answered these questions.​

Our problem is that we don’t know WHAT to be obedient TO because Vatican II made precisely zero demands to be obedient to anything. Yet there must logically be something to be obedient to, after all it was a Council. We are looking for what to be obedient to. This is very troublesome.

I’m not sure anyone can crack open the docs of Vatican II and then come away saying to himself, “I am obedient to this, I submit to this.” It is impossible, I think, and so the Church will have to articulate in very clear terms what She expects in this regard because probably 99.9% of Catholics don’t know and can’t get an answer from the Council itself.

It’s not troublesom to the 99.9% of Catholics never ask such questions.

These trust that their pastors and priests are leading them in the right direction. They go to confession and to Mass, try not to sin, and are too busy earning a living and driving their kids to school to worry about submission and obedience to specific details of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

They don’t worry about being obedient to the documents or how understandable they are because they love God, trust the Church, lead busy lives and simply never think about such matters.

99.9% of Catholics simply practice their faith and don’t worry about it.

-Tim-

 

[Moore11]

It’s not troublesom to the 99.9% of Catholics never ask such questions.

These trust that their pastors and priests are leading them in the right direction. They go to confession and to Mass, try not to sin, and are too busy earning a living and driving their kids to school to worry about submission and obedience to specific details of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

They don’t worry about being obedient to the documents or how understandable they are because they love God, trust the Church, lead busy lives and simply never think about such matters.

99.9% of Catholics simply practice their faith and don’t worry about it.

-Tim-

I think what you are saying is true. And that is a sad thing. “Too busy” is probably one of the biggest excuses for ill informed Catholics on a variety of issues, like HHS mandate and Obama, Birth control, Same Sex Marriage and a litany of other issues that people are just “too busy” and put the burden on the Father during the homily one day a week. Our faith calls us to be more informed and better educated than the attitude you accurately described.

 

[JReducation]

Timothy is right. Part of the problem that people on the extremes are having are self-imposed. The real focus for the Christian is the Spiritual Life. Yet, Spiritual Theology is the one area of faith that most Traditionalists and Liberals dislike discussing. They want to discuss that which has less bearing on their daily lives, such as this or that encyclical.

Let’s take a look at some of our holiest and most attractive saints and blesseds.

Francis of Assisi, John Bosco, Vincent de Paul, Anthony of Padua, Bernadette, Therese and Teresa of Calcutta. Did they really involve themselves in all of these issues? The truth was that they focused on other things, which were more immediate.

1. Prayer
2. Penance
3. The Eucharist
4. Love for the Church
5. Fidelity
6. The poor
7. Service
8. Frequent reception of the sacraments
9. Meditation on the Word of God
10. Peace
11. Hope in God’s mercy and love
12. Fraternity with all men
13. Doing little things with great love
14. Accepting what God gives and giving what he takes

Let’s not fool ourselves. They lived during very troubled times in the Church and around the Church. You would not have known it. They cultivated living in the presence of God. Only those who focus on the spiritual life can do this.

I observe how many threads we have started on this forum on Catholic Spirituality and they die very quickly. Start something on CITH or COTT, veils, Latin, SSPX and they go on for pages. However, when we look at the Spirituality Forum, we don’t see the same names as we see in the TC Forum.

Maybe, we have to ask ourselves if our attention is balanced. That can be a genuine problem in the spiritual life. It’s tempting to focus so much on this that one does not spend enough time on that if you get my meaning.

I believe that most Catholics truly want spiritual guidance. In my ministry, I don’t get questions about COTT or CITH. I get many questions about birth control, parenting, prayer, sacraments, sin, penance, how to get closer to God, family and conscience issues.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV