SSPX Myths

[Mousey]

I don’t feel qualified to answer that question. The Society’s views regarding post-conciliar annulments can be studied here.
Originally Posted by Just Lurking View Post
Is it true that the SSPX does not acknowledge the Catholic Church’s annulment process, and will not perform a marriage for someone who has a Catholic annulment?

The priest will never counsel a person to go to a post-Conciliar ecclesiastical tribunal. For there is a grave danger of a nullity being pronounced in iure for one of the doubtful or erroneous grounds approved by the New Code. It would then be impossible for the person to apply for an annulment on true grounds and it is difficult for him to accept the Society’s decision, if he has a post-Conciliar contrary decision.

When the person is not remarried, but questions the validity of his first marriage, or has asked for and/or received a judgment in favor of nullity from a post-Conciliar ecclesiastical tribunal, then the priest has the duty of informing him that such a judgment is not sufficient proof that his marriage is null and void, and that he cannot in conscience remarry, before submitting his case to a traditional tribu

 

[Sure]

Actually, it is a myth or not a myth regardless of whether you accept Canon 1323 (1324 was a typo on my part :doh2 or my reference to it.

Who is the author of Canon Law?

Just so you know the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts examined the question of necessity under canon 1323 and found there was no necessity. There decision is binding. As is the motu proprio of Pope John Paul II on the matter.

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.

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

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

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

I’m in the traditionalist camp, and even then I will say that this is really sketchy.

If John Paul II’s excommunication of SSPX was truly invalid, I would expect the current Holy Father to say so. Since he hasn’t done any such thing to my knowledge, I don’t see why this speculation on technicalities of canon law is fruitful.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

the sspx are not evil nor insane. they are misguieded people and are truly worried that tradtion will die out.

now I do agree that they should come back to full communion with the church and then work on getting tradtions back.

 

[maurin]

I agree with Cassius Longinus, only to the extent that those Parishes whose Priests and Deacons rewrite the Mass to suit their own agendas are arguably outside of Communion with Rome, or at the very least celebrating valid but illicit Masses.

I am a regular over at CCF, and even the most die-hard SSPX baters concede that the Mass as celebrated by an SSPX Priest is valid but illicit.

I would like nothing more than to go to a valid AND licit Mass. Unfortunately, my choice is either the SSPX or a circus Mass.

As for me and my house, until the local situation changes, we will serve the Lord at the local SSPX Chapel.

 

[GerardP]

If John Paul II’s excommunication of SSPX was truly invalid, I would expect the current Holy Father to say so.

Why would you expect that? I would only expect that of a Pope who did not consider Vatican II to be the real Pentecost of the Church.

Our Current Holy Father’s major flaw is his refusal to condemn liberal errors. It always has been and will continue to be. His record of suppressing liberals in the CDF is abysmal and he even admitted it himself. Han Kung never had to change a thing when he was censured. He simply teaches as a priest teaching a secular class, same teaching, same buildings, same university.

He wants liberals and traditionalists to all get along in the Church. It ain’t gonna happen.

The last thing he’s going to do is undermine John Paul II’s record. It would only undermine his own positions.

That is why the heirarchy does not want to engage the SSPX in doctrinal discussions. Because Rome does not want to condemn liberal errors and the validation of the SSPX would be a condemnation of everything that has been “accomplished” in the last 40 years.

God send us an Apostle to do such a thing.

 

[pnewton]

The argument that Lefebvre perceived a state of emergency was addressed by th Holy Father, JP II. I find the most salient point is that teh AB not only thought the sky was falling, but he perceived himself as the savior of the Church. Yet so far the Holy Spirit has not guide the Church as teh AB thought. So was he just ignorant or arrogant. I do not consider the possibility that he was right and the Holy Spirit wrong.

I also do not accept the false dichotomy that the only options are an SSPX or a Circus Mass.

 

[GerardP]

Just so you know the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts examined the question of necessity under canon 1323 and found there was no necessity.

This is the catch 22 argument. As if the crisis in the Church isn’t self-evident to anyone who knows the Catholic Faith.

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

No. It’s not morally binding. What is morally binding is to resist such misuses of power.

John Paul II has 26 years to end the 'auto-destruction" that Paul VI acknowledged and failed to do anything about. Because he had a wicked idea that the Church should be “emptied” for it’s own “passion.”

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.

Notice how Card. Castrillon is now some dumb cluck? As if Pope Benedict isn’t aware of what this man is saying on his behalf?

You are supposed to get the clue and stop talking about the SSPX as if they are schismatic. Because if you don’t, Benedict is going get more and more pressure on him to do what he really doesn’t want to do, overturn JPII outright.

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

The statistics are interesting. In 1968 there were in the U.S. a total of 338 annulments.** In 1992 there were no less than 59,030, that is one hundred and seventy-five times as many. Another interesting figure. **The total number of annulments in the Catholic Church world wide in 1992 was 76,286, which means that no less than 75% of all annulments were from the U.S., that is from a little over 5% of the world’s Catholic population. Moreover, not only do one in two Catholic marriages here in the States end up with a divorce, but one in five is officially annulled, 90% of the demands for annulment being successful. What do these figures tell us about the seriousness of such annulment processes, especially when the vast majority are granted for purely psychological reasons, namely lack of maturity, as if young age were sufficient to render one incapable of entering into a life long contract? **What does that tell us about the authority of Pope John-Paul II, who has several times spoken out against such abuses, but without ever bringing any sanctions **against or closing of the tribunals which allow such a fraud to continue?

In fact, an annulment is not created by the decision of an annulment tribunal. The function of the tribunal is simply to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there never was a marriage in the first place, that is that there never was any true exchange of marriage vows.

Consequently, a decision which is not well founded does not nullify a marriage. It is invalid, worthless. If a person who had obtained such an annulment were to enter into a second marriage, even one blessed by a priest, it would certainly be an invalid marriage. How incalculable are the thousands of such unions, which look on paper to be Catholic marriages, but which are nothing more then officially blessed concubinages?

What must be the attitude of the Catholic priest before the tragedy of the destruction of the indissolubility of marriage by the Church’s own ministers? His duty is to preserve the sanctity of the sacrament above all else, to defend the sacred marriage bond which is the foundation of human society and consequently of the social life of the Church herself. How could he dare presume to accept such decisions, so lacking in certitude? It is clear, then, that just as the Church supplies the jurisdiction for traditional priests to bless marriages, so also does she, in such tragic circumstances, supply the authority to form tribunals, without which it would be impossible to come to any kind of certitude at all. The clear conscience and salvation of souls depends upon it. It is clear, also, that a traditional priest can neither marry a person with an annulment, nor recommend that he marry, unless such a marriage has been thoroughly studied and declared null and void by a traditional tribunal, operating on truly Catholic principles, —which will always be a rare and extremely exceptional thing. Be prepared, then, to find our priests totally uncompromising on these principles. It is not because a person sincerely thinks that his “annulment” is different from the 59,030 others that it will be accepted.

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

In two ways this could happen,

1. if they cave in and embrace the conciliar policies.
2. if Rome gets its head on straight and starts condemning liberal errors in the Church. I’ve heard Bishop Williamson say if that happens the SSPX would gladly dissolve itself.

 

[maurin]

I also do not accept the false dichotomy that the only options are an SSPX or a Circus Mass.

Lake Jackson is a lllllllloooooooooooooooooooooong way aways from Palm Beach.

but all y’all are welcome to come visit and find out for yourself. I’ll even put you up!

 

[GerardP]

The argument that Lefebvre perceived a state of emergency was addressed by th Holy Father, JP II.

But the Holy Father was wrong. You act as if the Holy Father said 2+2=5, it would be correct because he’s the Pope.

I find the most salient point is that teh AB not only thought the sky was falling, but he perceived himself as the savior of the Church.

That’s just calumny. You obviously don’t know much about archbishop LeFebvre.

Yet so far the Holy Spirit has not guide the Church as teh AB thought. So was he just ignorant or arrogant.

Really? What exactly did the archbishop think Karnak?

I do not consider the possibility that he was right and the Holy Spirit wrong.

Talk about ignorance! What in the world makes you think you know the Holy Ghost? How do you know the Holy Ghost didn’t send the graces to prevent the destruction or later repair the damage to the post-conciliar Popes? And in their stubborn pride, arrogance and ego (since they were the movers and shakers at Vatican II) they decided to ignore His guidance?

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ not Christ Himself. And the First Pope denied God Himself publicly three times.

The charismatic Pentecostal poison that has warped the thinking of Catholics about the Pope is absolutely devastating. And it’s yet more proof of the terrible crisis.

I also do not accept the false dichotomy that the only options are an SSPX or a Circus Mass.

Maybe that’s because you might be more liberal than you think you are.

 

[pnewton]

That’s just** calumny**. You obviously don’t know much about archbishop LeFebvre…
Really? What exactly did the archbishop think, Karnak? …
Talk about ignorance! What in the world makes you think you know the Holy Ghost? How do you know the Holy Ghost didn’t send the graces to prevent the destruction or later repair the damage to the post-conciliar Popes? And in their stubborn pride, arrogance and ego (since they were the movers and shakers at Vatican II) they decided to ignore His guidance? …
Maybe that’s because you might be more liberal than you think you are.

Why do you and your ilk always through charity out the window and stoop to name-calling when anyone speaks ill of this man who split people from the Church but have no issue speaking ill of the Holy Father yourselves?

I gave no calmuny but merely reflected the argument that the AB himself gave, and is in fact the reason listed in the OP. Namely that** he** had to act in disobedience to the Holy Father. Why? If he did not perceive himself as the savior of the Church, then he lied about it a state of emergency existed that only his disobedient act could fix.

Why do I refer to the Holy Spirit? Simple. I have faith that the God guides the Church. One does not have to be all that observant to notice that in the last few popes chosen, that the Holy Spirit is not leading the Church as the Lefebvre envisioned. Of course a pope can do some stupid things and make mistakes. But look at the last few popes. Did the Holy Spirit guide the cardinals wrong every time? I think not. My reason for believing this?

It is called Faith, as in the the theological virtue.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I don’t feel qualified to answer that question. The Society’s views regarding post-conciliar annulments can be studied here.

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.”

 

[GerardP]

Why do you and your ilk always through charity out the window and stoop to name-calling

1. Referencing Karnak was being charitable. If you take offense to that. Toughen up.
2. Calling someone ignorant when they are displaying ignorance for all to see is like saying someone is tall who is seven feet tall and standing in front of everyone. You think that is name-calling?
3. You said you couldn’t accept the false dichotomy of SSPX Masses or Clown Masses. First, the false dichotomy is yours. You are exaggerating the crisis, possibly because you are more liberal than the SSPX and don’t see anything wrong with your middle road between what was the norm in the Church for centuries and the spectacles of today. So, I didn’t “name-call” you on that. I presented a real possibility that you find offensive.
   Perhaps it’s because the truth hurts sometimes.

when anyone speaks ill of this man who split people from the Church

1. you are admitting it’s okay to speak ill of the man.
2. You are simply continuing to spread the propaganda and lies. He did not split people from the Church. I’m every bit of a Catholic as any other Catholic.

but have no issue speaking ill of the Holy Father yourselves?

It’s not speaking ill of the Holy Fathers of the recent past to simply state what they did not do.

The lugubrious facts themselves speak ill of the recent Popes.

Speaking ill of the Holy Father is when the charismatic types blinded by their egos and thinking the Holy Ghost is their plaything on a leash, turn the Pope into the modern day Pharoah and delude themselves into thinking he’s a direct pipeline ( or should I say Popeline) to God’s day to day management of the Church.

I gave no calmuny but merely reflected the argument that the AB himself gave, and is in fact the reason listed in the OP.

You said he percieved himself as THE Savior of the Church.

Namely that** he** had to act in disobedience to the Holy Father.

Yes. That’s what true obedience demands as declared in Vatican I. The Holy Father was allowing the auto-destruction of the Church to continue. That is not the job of the Pope. Therefore, a bishop cannot in good conscience follow that path.

Why? If he did not perceive himself as the savior of the Church, then he lied about it a state of emergency existed that only his disobedient act could fix.

One doesn’t have to perceive themselves as something special because they continue to act in accordance with their state in life. I’m sure LeFebvre would have preferred a few thousand bishops agreeing with him and imploring the Holy Father to reverse course from the destruction that he’d unleashed on the Church.

This is amazing. You don’t even question the persecution of LeFebve and the allowance of liberal destruction by the Popes. “If the Pope says it, then that’s the truth.” I heard a priest on an interview say, “That’s not Catholicism, that’s stupidity.”

Why do I refer to the Holy Spirit? Simple. I have faith that the God guides the Church.

So do I. What’s the difference then in our perspectives?

One does not have to be all that observant to notice that in the last few popes chosen, that the Holy Spirit is not leading the Church as the Lefebvre envisioned.

Tell me, is the Pope chosen by the Holy Ghost or by the college of Cardinals?

God has often allowed bad bishops and Popes to rock the Church back on her heels. That doesn’t mean the Holy Ghost approves of the bad Popes or that He wouldn’t prefer faithful, traditional Popes like St. Pius X.

Of course a pope can do some stupid things and make mistakes.

Name some by John XXIII, Paul VI and JPII.

But look at the last few popes.

Yes. They were terrible Popes. Possibly good men, but terrible Popes.

Did the Holy Spirit guide the cardinals wrong every time?

Did the Cardinals listen? The Holy Ghost doesn’t pick the Pope. He allows men to elect the Pope. He allows Popes to be very bad Popes at times. He will only step in when things get on the brink. And sometimes he raises people from the oddest places, Hollywood movie stars, Retired French bishops, simple lay people. God is not limited to working with the Popes, especially when the Popes aren’t listening to Him.

I think not. My reason for believing this?
It is called Faith, as in the the theological virtue.

I’m sorry but your faith is based on some non-Catholic beliefs.

Who has taught you this “Holy Spirit” does everything including the vacuuming and laundry type of Catholicism?

I suggest you pray humbly to your guardian Angel and ask him to lead you to some appropriate sources of traditional Catholic material. Hopefully something with an imprimatur over a hundred years old.

 

[pnewton]

1. Referencing Karnak was being charitable. If you take offense to that. Toughen up.
   …
   I suggest you pray humbly to your guardian Angel and ask him to lead you to some appropriate sources of traditional Catholic material. Hopefully something with an imprimatur over a hundred years old.

I 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. As far as toughening up, rest assured I am quite capable of dealing with people far tougher than on here. 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. 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. Yet here we have always seen the same insults and arrogance arise. 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.

My only solace is that the more people like you post the more the character of this movement is revealed. That and the knowledge that Jesus faced the same sort of people in his time.

 

[Just_Lurking]

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.

I found some canons from Trent that anathematize this position (see here):

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.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges; let him be anathema.

 

[Binx]

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

The Holy Father is subject, of course, to the laws of the Church.

Generally speaking, a true traditional Catholic recognizes that the decrees of the Pope of matters of Ecclesial discipline cannot be appealed to any higher authority.

So, if Pope John Paul II said, as he did in Ecclesia Dei, that those bishops are excommunicated, there can be no appeal to Canon Law.

You’re making this up.

Anyone who claims that the Pope’s decisions are subject to , or appealable to, Canon Law denies the role of the Papacy defined in Vatican I, as is therefore a heretic.

Are you honestly arguing that the Pope is free to contradict Canon Law? Source?

 

[maurin]

I 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. As far as toughening up, rest assured I am quite capable of dealing with people far tougher than on here. 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. 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. Yet here we have always seen the same insults and arrogance arise. 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.

My only solace is that the more people like you post the more the character of this movement is revealed. That and the knowledge that Jesus faced the same sort of people in his time.

pnewton,

adjectives–or are they adverbs?–such as ‘always’ as in “yet here we have always seen the same insults and arrogance arise”, are about as all-encompassing as when St. Paul had written “all had sinned.”

surely there are some exceptions?

 

[pnewton]

pnewton,

adjectives–or are they adverbs?–such as ‘always’ as in “yet here we have always seen the same insults and arrogance arise”, are about as all-encompassing as when St. Paul had written “all had sinned.”

surely there are some exceptions?

Good point. Perhaps “frequent” would have been better used. Then perhaps some of the ignorance credited to me was justified.

 

[maurin]

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.

 

[Binx]

If you recognize the Magisterium, why do you still follow your excommunicated bishops.

You seem confused. The original post gave evidence of the Society’s recognition of the Magisterium and a canonical argument against the alleged excommunications, but it said nothing about me.

I think you better reread all the information about SSPX. To claim that your founder and those bishops he ordained were not excommunicated is False, misleading and incorrect.

My goodness. All three? Do you have a counter argument or just this triple condemnation?

Additionally, any bishops they ordain will also be excommunicated as they will be usurping a role that belongs uniquely to the Holy Father, and to him alone.

You are reading the future?

What others think of me is not the issue here. Misinformation is. And what you put out is not correct. All this has been hashed over so many times before you came on, its like same old, same old. The issue has been put to sleep.

Then why would you object to refraining from making authoritative proclamations about it?

Negotiations with Rome in July ended with your representative not accepting that the true magisterium is the pope and those bishops who are in union with him.

My representative? Are you talking about Bishop Fellay? He represents the Society of St. Pius X, a fraternity of priests, not me. What exactly did he say? Do you have a quotation?

Denying this does not change the fact. As I said earlier, when Rome says the split is over, my response will be “Welcome home”.

Mine too.