SSPX Myths

[Binx]

Sorry, but Brian Mershon isn’t much of an authority and he hangs all his hopes on comments from Card Castrillon Hoyos in magazine articles. It’s generally a good idea for Catholics to look at documents from the Holy See, not magazine articles.

Why knock Brian Mershon? I worked really hard on that article. Just kidding. I’m not Brian. BUT … what if I were?

Also, do you think he’s misquoting Cardinal Hoyos? Or if not, do you think the Cardinal is an untrustworthy Vatican source regarding current assessment of the SSPX?

Also, please explain where the SSPX found the authority to grant annulments independant of the Holy See?

Better, I think, for the Society to answer in their own words, here.

In this post SP world, the SSPX will whither and die.

Oh.

 

[Binx]

Thanks for the link. From reading one of the articles, it looks like the SSPX rejects portions of the 1983 canon law, and therefore it also rejects the authority of the Pope to promulgate it as well. Here is the quote:

“in order to find out if the grounds were consistent with traditional jurisprudence and, in particular, to exclude the grounds authorized by canon 1095, 2° & 3°, of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, namely, lack of due discretion and psychological immaturity.”

I looked at the above quotation in context, and to be honest, I can’t quite make out its exact meaning. Something to keep in mind is that these words are apparently notes from a lecture given by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, who is a Frenchman, so language nuance could be a factor here.

In general terms, I can assure you that the Society holds the 1983 Code to be in force. Of course they value greatly the 1917 Code, and their seminarians must study both codes, but there is no dispute among them about which one is the present law of the Church.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I looked at the above quotation in context, and to be honest, I can’t quite make out its exact meaning. Something to keep in mind is that these words are apparently notes from a lecture given by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, who is a Frenchman, so language nuance could be a factor here.

This is my interpretation:

Post-conciliar tribunals can hand out incorrect annulments for two reasons. Firstly, they could be wrong in iure, that is, they are following the parts of 1983 code that are wrong because they go against “traditional jurisprudence”. Secondly, they could be wrong in facto, that is, they followed the right law, but they applied it in a “flippant” manner so as to reach the wrong conclusion.

In any event, it is clear that the SSPX does not acknowledge the authority of diocesan tribunals, nor the legitimacy of their decisions.

It also seems clear that they reject canon 1095 of the 1983 code as “thoroughly personalist and liberal” and not in “conformity with traditional Catholic principles”, and refuse to use it in their own SSPX tribunals, in effect denying the authority of the Church to enact new rules governing the sacrament of marriage.

 

[ethelzguy]

Please be assured that I do not consider you ignorant, and that I respect you very much. I’ve been a member here for quite some time and have read many of your posts.

I would like you to know that there exist pockets in this country in which it is not possible to find a Reverent and Sober Celebration of the Holy Eucharist according to the norms of the GIRM. I happen to have moved into one of those pockets 4 months ago.

There are many of us who, having been born and raised into the Novus Ordo Missae, love it dearly and suffer inexpressibly by the egregious things our ears and eyes are subjected to at some Parishes–things which clearly violate the Teachings of our Church in the matters of both Faith and Morals.

I have chosen the SSPX for now–I pray for the day that I can walk into a local Parish and not be accosted by the world, but to participate in the passing away of the veil between heaven and earth at the Elevation.

In another, apparently since removed, thread, a poster claimed that out of 8 NO Masses in his city, they ALL had “abuses”, and as such, he “could not attend”.

I asked the poster to list the “abuses”. They did not. I would ask you the same questions. Please identify the “abuses” that cause you to not be able to attend any NO Mass in your region. Naming churches is not neccessary. I am interested in knowing how many churches in your area contain abuses such that you feel compelled not to attend.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I’ve been looking at another one of the SSPX annulment documents:

Until the 1983 Code, deceit was never accepted as a grounds for nullity of marriage, and this in order to protect the permanence of the conjugal bond. However,** the authors admit that the Church could introduce, in her positive law, deceit as a grounds,** especially if the deceit concerned something necessary to the primary object of marriage, such as the bonum prolis (e.g., one of the spouses deliberately hiding the fact that he/she was sterile).

But canon 1098 of the 1983 Code is much broader than this, and includes such deceit as the hiding of drunkenness, drug addiction, or even an angry temperament, which would make the common life impossible. The personalist inspiration of this new canon is quite clear and such that we cannot accept it. Nor is it our place to reformulate it in a Catholic sense.

Now compare that with Trent:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the Church could not establish impediments dissolving marriage; or that she has erred in establishing them; let him be anathema.

From the bolded part of each quote, it seems as though the SSPX accepts, at least in general principle, the authority of the Church to enact impediments to marriage. However, from the bolded and underlined part of each quote, it seems as though the SSPX rejects the actual impediment enacted by the Church, in effect claiming that the Church has erred in establishing that particular impediment.

In summary, I don’t see how it is possible for the SSPX to reject parts of the 1983 canon law on marriage without also thereby rejecting the Council of Trent’s dogmatic statement giving the Church the authority to enact such law.

 

[GerardP]

In another, apparently since removed, thread, a poster claimed that out of 8 NO Masses in his city, they ALL had “abuses”, and as such, he “could not attend”.

I asked the poster to list the “abuses”. They did not. I would ask you the same questions. Please identify the “abuses” that cause you to not be able to attend any NO Mass in your region. Naming churches is not neccessary. I am interested in knowing how many churches in your area contain abuses such that you feel compelled not to attend.

No. I say name the Churches and the priests and the abuses. I personally would love to have the time and opportunity to run around filming every Novus Ordo in my diocese and slapping it up on youtube and linking it to our Cardinal archbishop’s sermons that he puts up there. It’d title each one with his name and his diocese.

 

[ethelzguy]

No. I say name the Churches and the priests and the abuses. I personally would love to have the time and opportunity to run around filming every Novus Ordo in my diocese and slapping it up on youtube and linking it to our Cardinal archbishop’s sermons that he puts up there. It’d title each one with his name and his diocese.

While perhaps enlightening, I suspect it would break forum rules.

 

[GerardP]

have yet to see any argument that would lead one to believe that the Holy Spirit has led the Church for the first 1900 years that allows for the discontiuation of that leadership now.

The Holy Ghost has permitted lousy leadership in the Church on numerous occasions in her 1975 (give or take a few )years of existence.

As far as toughening up, rest assured I am quite capable of dealing with people far tougher than on here.

That’s good to hear. I was worried from reading your previous posts.

I only point out your behavior so that others can discern for themselves the fruits of disobedience and from that avoid the pitfalls of schism.

1. You mischaracterize my “behavior.”
2. You’re simply making an assertion of disobedience and schism without a bit of evidence. Which just goes to show you don’t know the meaning of obedience or schism, they are merely “buzz words” to you in the way you use them. They are abused words like “Holy Spirit” and “Magisterium” and “Loyal” and a whole plethora of words that mean specific things but are propagandized by conservatives and liberals for the sole purpose of misleading the Catholic populace.

I have no doubt that many ssps people consider themselves very good people and tithe on the mint while washing the outside of their cups.

That’s a laugh! Who are the bishops ignoring the spirit of the law? Who are those sitting in the Churches paid for by the nickels and dimes of Catholic who held onto traditions before the filthy and unclean heretics came in and usurped everything?

Who is it who divides everyone and everything? Who sets youth against age with “Youth Day” and turned the liturgy into a modern day Tower of Babel? Who denies God his due while prattling on endlessly about so-called “dignity of man” and “unity” and “communion”

Hypocrites all and Our Lord is going to rip out the fig tree and plant a new one.

Yet here we have always seen the same insults and arrogance arise.

Not insults. Not arrogance. Just bad news that you don’t like.

Do you think you fool anyone with phrases like,
"I suggest you pray humbly to your guardian Angel?’ Everyone here recognizes when posters are condescending to others.

Condescending to suggest you pray to your Guardian Angel? Your Shepherd on Earth? No.

First, I won’t suggest something that I don’t do myself. You’re angel is your companion and cooperating with him will give you incredible benefits. You should consecrate yourself to your guardian. He will then have more influence to empower and protect you as well as punish you. And punishment from your angel is much more preferable than abuse from a demon.

I had wondered if you’d think the suggestion was condescending. That’s just more evidence of the charismatic mentality attacking the Communion of Saints that God has set up for us to help us get to Heaven. It always amazes me how Protestants and Charismatics think they have no need of the Angels as part of their constant spirituality because they already have direct access right to God Himself. But God won’t hear the prayers of the sinner except for true penitence. He has however given us intercessors in the form of Angels and saints.

My only solace is that the more people like you post the more the character of this movement is revealed.

It’s not a movement. It’s a stance. Same one the Church has always held. The Church is built on a Rock, not a rolling stone.
You build the Church up, not move it forward.

That and the knowledge that Jesus faced the same sort of people in his time.

Oh yes. Sinners. Unlike you and yours.

 

[maurin]

In another, apparently since removed, thread, a poster claimed that out of 8 NO Masses in his city, they ALL had “abuses”, and as such, he “could not attend”.

I asked the poster to list the “abuses”. They did not. I would ask you the same questions. Please identify the “abuses” that cause you to not be able to attend any NO Mass in your region. Naming churches is not neccessary. I am interested in knowing how many churches in your area contain abuses such that you feel compelled not to attend.

i have listed them ad nauseum on this forum, and over at catholicforum.com. I go by the same user name. you are welcome to review my posts.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m wondering why, exactly, the SSPX considers Canon Law to be a higher authority that the Holy See itself.

I’m confused here. Who wrote the Canon Law that is supposed to be binding on the whole Church? The SSPX?

And if there are loopholes in the Law, why not clarify by rewriting or rewording the Law rather than to say it doesn’t apply? To this day to my knowledge that escape clause Lefebvre used still holds. And it says what it says.

 

[pnewton]

They are abused words like “Holy Spirit” and “Magisterium” and “Loyal” and a whole plethora of words that mean specific things but are propagandized by conservatives and liberals for the sole purpose of misleading the Catholic populace. .

Not to mention Faith, Hope and the ever-needed Charity.

 

[pnewton]

** I personally would love** to have the time and opportunity to run around filming every Novus Ordo in my diocese and slapping it up on youtube and linking it to our Cardinal archbishop’s sermons that he puts up there.

Speaking of Charity,

1 Corinthians 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

 

[maurin]

To this day to my knowledge that escape clause Lefebvre used still holds. And it says what it says.

educate a neophyte, would you?

 

[ProVobis]

As is the motu proprio of Pope John Paul II on the matter.

You mean the DECREE that all bishops were to be “wide and generous” in promoting the Missal of 1962? Up until the SP, how did we stand on that?

 

[CassiusLonginus]

In another, apparently since removed, thread, a poster claimed that out of 8 NO Masses in his city, they ALL had “abuses”, and as such, he “could not attend”.

I asked the poster to list the “abuses”. They did not. I would ask you the same questions. Please identify the “abuses” that cause you to not be able to attend any NO Mass in your region. Naming churches is not neccessary. I am interested in knowing how many churches in your area contain abuses such that you feel compelled not to attend.

Howdy Ethelzguy, been a while, eh? Hope you’re having a nice Sunday.

I’ve got one in response to what you asked. One of the priests at my former parish when I lived in LA referred to the Holy Ghost as a “She” and “Her” whenever referencing Him/It. Beautiful church, though, and some of the priests were ok.

 

[ProVobis]

educate a neophyte, would you?

No need to. You probably attended the same SSPX Mass I did this morning. I learned several months ago you don’t even have to be a traditionalist to attend one.

 

[GerardP]

Speaking of Charity,

I can’t think of a greater act of Charity in these times than to let the Cardinal know exactly without dispute what our diocese looks like each Sunday.

Not at the Cathedral when he says Mass and people all try to act their best. I’m talking about the showboating priests that don’t give a wit about decorum. The scantily clad people that look like they rolled out of bed and threw on shorts a tank top and flip flops to go to Church.

The Mass Exodus of taking communion popping it in the mouth and leaving by the nearest door still “chewing.”

The Cardinal is the only one who seems to not know about this stuff. And if he does know, he should be ashamed for not doing anything and the population needs to know that the Cardinal is not being a faithful Shepherd. And maybe the Vatican will know who one more of the 'wolves" are.

If polite appeals and reason won’t get action perhaps shaming them will work.

 

[maurin]

I’m confused here. Who wrote the Canon Law that is supposed to be binding on the whole Church? The SSPX?

And if there are loopholes in the Law, why not clarify by rewriting or rewording the Law rather than to say it doesn’t apply? To this day to my knowledge that escape clause Lefebvre used still holds. And it says what it says.

educate a neophyte, would you?

No need to. You probably attended the same SSPX Mass I did this morning. I learned several months ago you don’t even have to be a traditionalist to attend one.

Might someone else offer me an explanation? I am really confused–what loophole is ProVobis speaking of?

 

[ProVobis]

Might someone else offer me an explanation? I am really confused–what loophole is ProVobis speaking of?

I believe this is the Canon Law the Archbishop used in his self-defense. Had it not been written, it would have been interesting if he indeed would have consecrated the four to be bishops.

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:

1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;

2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance

3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chanceoccurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;

4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

5° acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self?defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor;

6° lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325;

7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.

Can. 1324 §1 The perpretrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offence was committed by:

1° one who had only an imperfect use of reason;

2° one who was lacking the use of reason because of culpable drunkenness or other mental disturbance of a similar kind;

3° one who acted in the heat of passion which, while serious, nevertheless did not precede or hinder all mental deliberation and consent of the will, provided that the passion itself had not been deliberately stimulated or nourished

4° a minor who has completed the sixteenth year of age;

5° one who was compelled by grave fear, even if only relative, or byreason of necessity or grave inconvenience, if the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

6° one who acted in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor, but did not observe due moderation;

7° one who acted against another person who was gravely and unjustly provocative;

8° one who erroneously, but culpably, thought that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in Can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5;

9° one who through no personal fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or precept;

10° one who acted without full imputability, provided it remained grave.

§2 A judge can do the same if there is any other circumstance present which would reduce the gravity of the offence.

§3 In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.

 

[GerardP]

I believe this is the Canon Law the Archbishop used in his self-defense. Had it not been written, it would have been interesting if he indeed would have consecrated the four to be bishops.

God does have a sense of humor, the very Canon Law that was promulgated to the tastes of the modernist reformers who absolutely hated the iron hand of Pius XII and his predecessors, got what they wanted, and it contained the legal options that LeFebvre needed to help build up the Church.