SSPX Not Heretical?

[bear06]

With this said, I am going to make the assumption that what I have experienced/read that brought up this concern has more to do with the SSPV than the SSPX. Unless there is any other (name removed by moderator)ut, I appreciate the info.

If you’d like to study up on the issues with the SSPX, I suggest these sites.
envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/lefebvre.htm
jloughnan.tripod.com/sspx-1.htm

They are both former SSPX attendees and Pete is a canon lawyer.

 

[bear06]

SSPX is not heretical because they have not rejected any of the teachings of the Church.
They are schismatic because of disobedience to the Pope when they ordained some Bishops against the explicit instructions of the Pope not to do so.

Well, as the Church teaches, it’s hard to separate heresy and schism. It is true that the Church has not declared them heretics and the SSPX do reject, by their action, the primacy of the Pope which is doctrinal. Time will tell. Hopefully the whole thing will be resolved soon in a positive way!

 

[thistle]

Well, as the Church teaches, it’s hard to separate heresy and schism. It is true that the Church has not declared them heretics and the SSPX do reject, by their action, the primacy of the Pope which is doctrinal. Time will tell. Hopefully the whole thing will be resolved soon in a positive way!

I hope so too. SSPX simply have to admit they were wrong, apologise, repent, and submit to Rome and they will be welcomed back.

 

[USMC]

Well then the SSPX priest is mis-informed as we have a member of the Third Order of the SSPX posting here and here is a link to it on their website.

SSPX ThIrd Order

As of 1980, when this third order was founded, the laity has been able to be members of the SSPX.

I think Byz is correct about this, but I’m sure the Priest wasn’t lying or even misinformed. He was making a general statement, which is true.

The SSPX is a priestly organization, and those who attend Mass there are not technically “member” of the group. However, the SSPX does have a third order, and those who choose to joined it would probably be considered members of the SSPX.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think Byz is correct about this, but I’m sure the Priest wasn’t lying or even misinformed. He was making a general statement, which is true.

The SSPX is a priestly organization, and those who attend Mass there are not technically “member” of the group. However, the SSPX does have a third order, and those who choose to joined it would probably be considered members of the SSPX.

But if in someway they could argue that they are not really “members” of the SSPX I do not see who they could argue that they do not have a “formal adherence to the schism” of the SSPX.

 

[USMC]

But if in someway they could argue that they are not really “members” of the SSPX I do not see who they could argue that they do not have a “formal adherence to the schism” of the SSPX.

Consider my situation: I personally alternate between an SSPX Church and an Indult Church. For daily Mass, I dirve for an hour an attend the Mass of an old retired Preist who wakes up at the crack of dawn and says the Old Mass in private. When I travel (which is quite often) I usually look first for a FSSP church. I have always found Mass at the FSSP to be very reverent and the sermons excellent.

Would you say that I am in “formal adherence to the schism”?

And, just for the record, I think the SSPX is completely justified in what they are doing. I think that the situation they are in is virtually identical to that of the excommunicated schismatic named SAINT Athanasasius.

BTW, if you would have lived in the Arian crisis do you think you would have stood with St. Athanasius who had been excommunicated by the Pope and was in schism? Or would you have joined the 300 Bishops “in union with Rome” who condemned him in the Council?

Anyone who is now against the SSPX show that they would have also been against St. Athanasius the excommunicated schismatic. Of course, his excomminication and schim were an allusion. He was one of the few who stood for the faith, while virtually all other members of the hierarchy fell into heresy.

Anyone who has a scruple about attending an SSPX Church, should study the Arian crisis, which is a parallel of today. The only difference is that the crisis today is far worse.

**Bishop Rudolph Graber, of Regensburg: ** “What happened over 1600 years ago [at the time of the Arian heresy] is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria [the patriarchal see of St. Athanasius] is today the whole universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into silence of being ignored; killing, by assassination of character.” (Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, p. 23)

Here is what the excomminicated schismatic St. Athanasius wrote to his followers:

St. Athanasius: May God console you!.. What saddens you … is the fact that others [the Arian heretics] have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously.

Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the buildings or the one who keeps the Faith? The true Faith, obviously.

That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the churches from old time until now may not be lost in our days,… rouse yourselves, brethren,… seeing them now seized upon by aliens.

True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is reached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way.

**You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. ** And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, Beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. --Apud Caillau and Guillou, Coll. Selecta Ss. Eccl. Patrum,
vol. 32, pp. 411-412

 

[Genesis315]

The SSPX don’t profess errors, per se, but they just believe things are errors that aren’t. There are legitimate concerns with what certain Catholic priests and bishops teach these days, but when has that not been the case?

Their doctrinal situation is not all that unlike the non-Chalcedonian Copts. Way back at the time of that Council, they thought Chalcedon taught innovation and contradicted Ephesus. The Copts weren’t really Monophysites, they didn’t profess what Eutyches did. They just misunderstood what Chalcedon was saying.

 

[USMC]

The SSPX don’t profess errors, per se, but they just believe things are errors that aren’t. There are legitimate concerns with what certain Catholic priests and bishops teach these days, but when has that not been the case?

Their doctrinal situation is not all that unlike the non-Chalcedonian Copts. Way back at the time of that Council, they thought Chalcedon taught innovation and contradicted Ephesus. The Copts weren’t really Monophysites, they didn’t profess what Eutyches did. They just misunderstood what Chalcedon was saying.

I have to respectfuly disagree. The SSPX rejects certain errors that are now mainstream, but which were explicitly condemned by previous Popes.

One example is false ecumenism. True ecumenism is when we work to bring those outside the Catholic Church into the Catholic Church. False ecumensims, which was conemned in the encyclical Mortalium Animos, of Pius XI in 1928, seeks to bring about a “unity” without non Catholics coming into the Church.

This false ecumenism is the official eccumenism now practiced by the Church. I say this, not on my own authority, but on the authority of the person appointed Cardinal under John Paul II, and made the President of the *Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. * If anyone would know the official position of the Church today on ecumenism, it would be him; and this is what he said:

Cardinal Kasper: “The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics’. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. ** Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end. …. Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved, and not in the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’, or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism”** (Adista, Rome, February 26, 2001, p. 9).

That the error was condemned in this encyclical papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

The SSPX still holds that Christian unity is only achieved by those outside the Church converting and becoming Catholics; therefore, they reject the false ecumenism described above. They don’t misunderstand it; they reject it.

 

[MyPhilomena]

I think Byz is correct about this, but I’m sure the Priest wasn’t lying or even misinformed. He was making a general statement, which is true.

The SSPX is a priestly organization, and those who attend Mass there are not technically “member” of the group. However, the SSPX does have a third order, and those who choose to joined it would probably be considered members of the SSPX.

correct:thumbsup:

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Consider my situation: I personally alternate between an SSPX Church and an Indult Church. For daily Mass, I dirve for an hour an attend the Mass of an old retired Preist who wakes up at the crack of dawn and says the Old Mass in private. When I travel (which is quite often) I usually look first for a FSSP church. I have always found Mass at the FSSP to be very reverent and the sermons excellent.

Would you say that I am in “formal adherence to the schism”?

At this point, no I would not say you were.

And, just for the record, I think the SSPX is completely justified in what they are doing. I think that the situation they are in is virtually identical to that of the excommunicated schismatic named SAINT Athanasasius.

At this point if you are not then you are on very shaky ground.

The SSPX are in schism and schism is never justified.

BTW, if you would have lived in the Arian crisis do you think you would have stood with St. Athanasius who had been excommunicated by the Pope and was in schism? Or would you have joined the 300 Bishops “in union with Rome” who condemned him in the Council?

This is a perfect example of a red herring as the schism of the SSPX has nothing to do with St. Athanasius or arianism. Arianism was a heresy. While the Pope might have been wrong in his actions I would need to research it more but I can not say where I would have stood as I am not standing in that place today.

With the SSPX I have the choice to stand with the Church or to be outside of it. I chose the Church.

Anyone who is now against the SSPX show that they would have also been against St. Athanasius the excommunicated schismatic. Of course, his excomminication and schim were an allusion. He was one of the few who stood for the faith, while virtually all other members of the hierarchy fell into heresy.

Wrong on many levels. It has yet to be proven that the SSPX are “right” and somehow like St. Athanasius.

Those of us who stand with the Church and its now multiple popes (yes both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI) just show that our opinions differ from yours and happen to be with the Church’s.

I would also add that Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he ordained excommunicated themselves by their actions which they knew would have this result. They chose to separate themselves where from what you have said about St. Athanasius was not the case there.

Anyone who has a scruple about attending an SSPX Church, should study the Arian crisis, which is a parallel of today. The only difference is that the crisis today is far worse.

No parallel today, one was a heresy one is not.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have to respectfuly disagree. The SSPX rejects certain errors that are now mainstream, but which were explicitly condemned by previous Popes.

One example is false ecumenism. True ecumenism is when we work to bring those outside the Catholic Church into the Catholic Church. False ecumensims, which was conemned in the encyclical Mortalium Animos, of Pius XI in 1928, seeks to bring about a “unity” without non Catholics coming into the Church.

When you can show official Church documents that put forward this “false” ecumenism I might believe you.

While you have provided a quote from Cardinal Kasper that does not mean that what he has said is the official Church Teaching on the matter. Bishops are men like all of us and can be mistaken in their understanding as we see all the time. Please show a Church document that puts this idea forward.

But then that is not what this thread is about.

This thread is only about the SSPX being in heresy which they are not. As that has been answered I think I will move on now.

Until then you are just showing that the SSPX believes that the Church is teaching errors in faith and morals, which if it is then it is all over and Christ lied to St. Peter.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

USMC;1627328:

I think Byz is correct about this, but I’m sure the Priest wasn’t lying or even misinformed. He was making a general statement, which is true.

The SSPX is a priestly organization, and those who attend Mass there are not technically “member” of the group. However, the SSPX does have a third order, and those who choose to joined it would probably be considered members of the SSPX.

correct:thumbsup:

So if this is correct then that means that there are lay members of the SSPX.

 

[MyPhilomena]

So if this is correct then that means that there are lay members of the SSPX.

if you mean people who attend the Mass, then yes, other than that, what do you mean to say?

 

[bear06]

Would you say that I am in “formal adherence to the schism”?

And, just for the record, I think the SSPX is completely justified in what they are doing. I think that the situation they are in is virtually identical to that of the excommunicated schismatic named SAINT Athanasasius.

Would you say that you are supporting the SSPX?

The priests and faithful are warned **not to support **the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.

BTW, if you would have lived in the Arian crisis do you think you would have stood with St. Athanasius who had been excommunicated by the Pope and was in schism? Or would you have joined the 300 Bishops “in union with Rome” who condemned him in the Council?

This is not the Arian heresy. The Pope has not contradicted Tradition. Also, the Pope John Paul didn’t excommunicated anyone while under duress like Pope Liberius.

Anyone who is now against the SSPX show that they would have also been against St. Athanasius the excommunicated schismatic

.
The burden of proof is yours.

Of course, his excomminication and schim were an allusion. He was one of the few who stood for the faith, while virtually all other members of the hierarchy fell into heresy.

There’s much difference between a pope who has been exiled and is under duress excommunicating someone and the excommunications of Pope John Paul II.

The SSPX is a little historically challenged when it comes to the whole Athanasius/Pope Liberius story. Pete Vere shows this here. envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/lefebvre.htm

A mere ten pages later, I came across a papal epistle authored by Pope St. Anastasius subtitled “The Orthodoxy of Pope Liberius.” In it, Pope St. Anastasius clearly states: “The heretical African faction [of the Arian heresy] was not able by any deception to introduce its baseness because, as we believe, our God provided that that holy and untarnished faith be not contaminated through any vicious blasphemy of slanderous men — that faith which had been discussed and defended at the meeting of the synod of Nicea by the holy men and bishops now placed in the resting place of the saints” (see art. 93 of the thirtieth edition).

So far, so good; God had clearly preserved the Church from Arianism through the actions and prayer of holy men. But who were these holy men, and how does this relate to Pope Liberius? I wondered. To my surprise, Pope St. Anastasius answered the question in the subsequent paragraph this way: “For this faith those who were then esteemed as holy bishops gladly endured exile, that is . . . Liberius, bishop of the Roman Church.”

Anyone who has a scruple about attending an SSPX Church, should study the Arian crisis, which is a parallel of today. The only difference is that the crisis today is far worse.

I’ll agree that we have heresy on both sides of the fence right now but I don’t believe it to be a parallel because our Pope enjoys a freedom that Pope Liberius did not.

 

[bear06]

So if this is correct then that means that there are lay members of the SSPX.

In reality, it doesn’t matter if there are lay members or not. What matters is found in the Excommunicaton Decree:

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.

 

[bear06]

if you mean people who attend the Mass, then yes, other than that, what do you mean to say?

I think he’s speaking of a third order.

 

[LilyM]

I think he’s speaking of a third order.

There is indeed a formal Third Order of the SSPX.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Until then you are just showing that the SSPX believes that the Church is teaching errors in faith and morals, which if it is then it is all over and Christ lied to St. Peter.

David,

Its not that simple. Remember, since the Second Vatican Council, no Pope has invoked his infallibility to define teachings of faith or morals. There have been pastoral documents issued since that time, but none invoking infallible teaching. Therefore, the entire deposit of faith concerning what the church requires us to believe regarding faith and morals predates the second Vatican Council.

When you say “what the church teaches”, you are including not only the Pope but the bishops as well. There are certainly bishops whose teachings contradict the deposit of faith. Cardinal Kasper’s proclamation on ecuminism is an example.

So, to clarify, the SSPX takes issue with this very idea of false ecuminism. Since it contradicts previous Papal pronouncements, it is not infallible. The Pope himself would not be infallible if he contradicted previous dogma defined by councils or Popes. To my knowledge, no post-conciliar Pope has attempted to do that.

So, it’s not that the church is “officially” teaching anything wrong, but rather, it is unofficially allowing Bishops and laity to teach false ecuminism and practice religious indifferentism without correction.

The same is true with the novelties that have weakened the liturgy which Pope Benedict has called “banal”. How does the sacred liturgy get to a point where the Pope labels it banal, except from free license on the part of bishops and priests, unchecked for years by serious oversight. Or perhaps Pope Benedict’s predecessor had a different view of banal? I don’t know the answer to that one.

However, the post-conciliar church has been rock-solidly in line with all Traditional Catholic views on morality, especially Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II.

 

[USMC]

When you can show official Church documents that put forward this “false” ecumenism I might believe you.

While you have provided a quote from Cardinal Kasper that does not mean that what he has said is the official Church Teaching on the matter. Bishops are men like all of us and can be mistaken in their understanding as we see all the time.

But this is not just any Bishop. This is a Cardinal; and not only that, he is the Cardinal specifically appointed by John Paul II to be the head of ecumenism. John Paul II named him as the as the presidend of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity - that makes him the top Cardinal in charge of ecumenism. Surely, if anyone would know the mind of John Paul II on ecumenism it would be the person that John Paul II named as the head of the ecumenical movement.

And if Cardinal Kasper’s understanding of ecumenism was not correct, surely John Paul II would have corrected him or replaced him. After all, the principle duty of the Pope is to protect the faith. Surely John Paul II would not have allowed someone to be in charge of ecumenism, which was such an important part of John Paul II’s Papacy, if he did not properly understand it.

And it was not as if Kasper was a stranger to the ecumenical movement. Prior to being named its president, he served under Cardinal Cassidy as the Pontifical Council’s secretary.

So who are we to believe, you? A laymen? Or the person named Cardinal and appointed as the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, by none other than John Paul II himself?

Certainly, if anyone knew the mind of John Paul II on this point it was his good friend, who he appointed head of the Pontifical Council for Promiting Christian Unity, Walter Kasper.

And don’t you dare claim that John Paul II was negligent in his duty of protecting the faith by leaving someone in charge of that important Council who did not understand ecumenism.

Now, let us again read the quote from the person appointed as the head of the Ecumenical movement by John Paul II:

Cardinal Kasper: **"The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics’. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. **Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end. …. Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved, and not in the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’, or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism" (Adista, Rome, February 26, 2001, p. 9).

Do you dare question the competency of the person that John Paul II entrusted to that high post? That would be to question the judgment of the Pope! And do you really think John Paul II would allow someone who did not understand his version of ecumenism, to stay in that office?

 

[bear06]

But this is not just any Bishop. This is a Cardinal; and not only that, he is the Cardinal specifically appointed by John Paul II to be the head of ecumenism. John Paul II named him as the as the presidend of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity - that makes him the top Cardinal in charge of ecumenism. Surely, if anyone would know the mind of John Paul II on ecumenism it would be the person that John Paul II named as the head of the ecumenical movement.

And if Cardinal Kasper’s understanding of ecumenism was not correct, surely John Paul II would have corrected him or replaced him. After all, the principle duty of the Pope is to protect the faith. Surely John Paul II would not have allowed someone to be in charge of ecumenism, which was such an important part of John Paul II’s Papacy, if he did not properly understand it.

And it was not as if Kasper was a stranger to the ecumenical movement. Prior to being named its president, he served under Cardinal Cassidy as the Pontifical Council’s secretary.

So who are we to believe, you? A laymen? Or the person named Cardinal and appointed as the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, by none other than John Paul II himself?

Certainly, if anyone knew the mind of John Paul II on this point it was his good friend, who he appointed head of the Pontifical Council for Promiting Christian Unity, Walter Kasper.

And don’t you dare claim that John Paul II was negligent in his duty of protecting the faith by leaving someone in charge of that important Council who did not understand ecumenism.

Now, let us again read the quote from the person appointed as the head of the Ecumenical movement by John Paul II:

Cardinal Kasper: "The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics’. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end. …. Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved, and not in the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’, or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism" (Adista, Rome, February 26, 2001, p. 9).

Do you dare question the competency of the person that John Paul II entrusted to that high post? That would be to question the judgment of the Pope! And do you really think John Paul II would allow someone who did not understand his version of ecumenism, to stay in that office?

Could we just cut to the chase here. Are you saying that John Paul II believed in false ecumenism?