SSPX Myths

[Binx]

Binx:

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

The pope has authority over the laws of the Church. He has authority to bind and loose.

There is no conflict in these statements. The Pope’s authority doesn’t free him to act in violation of the laws of the Church. The purposes of Church Law and of Papal Authority are harmonious–not adversarial–in their governance of the Church.

Pope St. Gelasius (d. 496):
“Yet we do not hesitate to mention that which is known to the Universal Church, namely, that as the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to loose what has been bound by the judgments of any bishops, whatsoever, and since it has jurisdiction over every church, so that no one may pass judgment on its verdict, the canons providing that an appeal should be to it from any part of the world, no one is permitted to appeal against its judgment.” (Ep. 26)

St. Maximos:
“How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter [Peter & Paul], and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate… even as in all these things all are equally subject to her [the Church of Rome] according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers [the popes] are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome.”
(Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

These quotations are meant to affirm Roman primacy, something Archbishop LeFebvre never questioned, even after the Pope claimed that the Law had excommunicated him (the Archbishop). In no way do these quotations support the idea that a pope is free to contradict the faith or laws of the Church, both of which are his to protect.

It is Christ’s church, and Christ is the Head. The Pope, His vicar on earth, is charged with fidelity of the highest order. Some popes are better at it than others.

 

[ProVobis]

That is an interesting speculation since most of the TLM’s I know have no part lf Lefebvre’s movement.

Really? Which other bishops were ordaining priests to say the Traditional Mass in the mid 80’s? Even the original FSSP priests owe him a little gratitude for their formation and training.

Maybe they were excommunicated but the Pope did recognize their validity and did leave the door open for communications. I doubt if this being done for women “priests” and their “bishops.”

 

[GailMac]

My dear GerardP - Have you a dictionary handy?

Yes! Good! Look up the definition of sedevacantist!

Oh you lost your dictionary? No problem - here’s some help:

Sedevacantism is a theological position embraced by a minority of Traditionalist Catholics which holds that the Papal See has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 (or, in some cases, the death of Pope John XXIII in 1963). Sedevacantists believe that Paul VI (1963–1978), John Paul I (1978), John Paul II (1978–2005) and Benedict XVI (2005-) have been neither true Catholics nor true popes, but rather notorious heretics.

The term “sedevacantism” is derived from the Latin phrase sede vacante, which literally means “while the seat is vacant”, the seat in question being that of a bishop. A specific use of the phrase is in the context of the vacancy of the Holy See between the death or resignation of a Pope and the election of his successor.

Some small groups of Traditionalist Catholics give allegiance to alternative Popes of their own, resulting in an open, consummated schism. Since they hold that the Holy See is headed by their nominee and therefore is not in fact vacant, they are not sedevacantists in the strict sense. However, the term “sedevacantist” is often applied to them because they reject the “official” papal succession. Another term for them is “conclavists”.

For more check the link: reference.com/search?r=13&q=Sedevacantist

Hope this helps!

Peace,

Gail

 

[Binx]

I think the purpose of the OP was to distort the truth

Actually, the OP states its purpose clearly. Here, I’ll show it to you again: “Although much longer refutations are readily available, the purpose of this post is to dispel those myths in concise fashion.”

and thereby subvert those of the faithful who don’t know what the SSPX is all about to a group of self-righteous prideful schimatics

And this, from the end of the original post, expands on the purpose: “Christian charity demands that these damaging myths not be perpetuated, especially on a discussion board such as this one, which presumably is interested in all things true as they pertain to Catholic tradition.”

who would rather remain excommunicated imagining they are somehow rescuing the Church from the errors of our modern ways. Pseudo-heroes and self-proclaimed martyrs for a lost cause.

You feel the Church cannot be rescued from the errors of our modern ways?

Faithfulness is an act that takes a lifetime and it would take Hell freezing over before I will see anything heroic about their supreme acts of disobedience. I kinda think they are of the same ilk as those who’ve ordained women in their alliances. They have one alliance - to themselves and their opinions. Both groups are the same.

Actually neither type is aligned to themselves, and their actual alliances are as far apart as can be. Those who attempt (it cannot actually be done) to ordain women are extremely modernist in their alliances, whereas the Society of St. Pius X is extremely apostolic and traditionally Catholic in its alliances.

P.S. The fact that they have ignored the Church’s supreme act of Mercy in imposing an excommunication in order to shock those involved into repentance and have instead for years plowed full steam ahead through the vineyards of the Lord speaks volume’s about what they are really all about. Actions speak louder than words!

Yes. They do.

 

[cam100]

Without what Archbishop Lefebvre did, we probably wouldn’t have the traditional Latin Mass.

It is also possible that Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions actually hurt the spread of the traditional Latin mass. Before the archbishop disobeyed the pope with the unauthorized consecrations, Pope John Paul II was planning to cooperate with Lefebvre in consecrating bishops to continue the traditional movement. After Archbishop Lefebvre’s unauthorized consecrations, the pope no longer would work with him, of course. It seems that the whole event kind of soured the Vatican on the traditional movement.

I think it is possible that if the Archbishop had not jumped the gun with the consecrations, the Vatican might have continued to cooperate and might have been much more agreeable to the traditional mass much earlier.

 

[Sure]

Silly posters!

Binx and Gerard are right…along with 3 crazy bishops and a tiny handful of extreme traditionalists. They are all right on this. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict are wrong.

Can’t you realize that Binx and Gerard are much better judges of necessity and unjust excommunications than the Supreme Legislator of the Catholic Church?

The whole SSPX is silly…and now irrelevant. Maybe someday, they’ll return to the Church, hopefully before they die in schism.

 

[ProVobis]

It is also possible that Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions actually hurt the spread of the traditional Latin mass.

Are you people listening to yourselves? There was no spread of the Traditional Latin Mass to damage because it was virtually non-existent except for the two bishops. Name just ONE (1) bishop outside of Lefebvre and Meyer who was ordaining TLM priests.

Who really believes the TLM would have resurrected all by itself without these two bishops, especially after Bugnini and his merry men spread so many untruths about the death of the TLM? Even JPII silenced the Nine Cardinal finding that the TLM was not abrogated. Who really hurt the spread of the TLM?

 

[Binx]

Was this totally ignored?

Yes. Sorry. It’s been a busy thread.

In response to your original comment, yes, you are right. Reconciliation–as it is referred to in the media–has not happened. It probably cannot until the nullity of the excommunications is made explicitly clear and doctrinal issues are sufficiently addressed.

 

[Binx]

Does this loophole also apply to the anathema from Trent?

Just to clarify, there is no anathema from Trent against the Society. See Post #93.