M
mick321
Guest
Similarities? Differences? Why do they both exist? Is one more faithful to tradition than the other?
- Status
A
adstrinity
Guest
Wikipedia is your friend.
The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is an international Traditionalist Catholic organisation, founded in 1970 by the French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Opus Dei, formally known as The Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei, is an organization of the Catholic Church that teaches that everyone is called to holiness and that ordinary life is a path to sanctity.[1][2] The majority of its membership are lay people, with secular priests under the governance of a prelate (bishop) appointed by the pope.[1] Opus Dei is Latin for “Work of God”, hence the organization is often referred to by members and supporters as “the Work”.[3][4]
It began in 1928 and was given approval by the Pope in 1950.
They are not in the same category.
The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is an international Traditionalist Catholic organisation, founded in 1970 by the French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Opus Dei, formally known as The Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei, is an organization of the Catholic Church that teaches that everyone is called to holiness and that ordinary life is a path to sanctity.[1][2] The majority of its membership are lay people, with secular priests under the governance of a prelate (bishop) appointed by the pope.[1] Opus Dei is Latin for “Work of God”, hence the organization is often referred to by members and supporters as “the Work”.[3][4]
It began in 1928 and was given approval by the Pope in 1950.
They are not in the same category.
J
JRKH
Guest
To answer your question -
I would say that Opus Dei is more faithful to tradition than SSPX because Opus Dei fully submits to the Holy Father and always has.
Peace
James
T
Tsuwano
Guest
Excellent point! Part of being faithful to tradition means being faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church. Opus Dei is and the SSPX is not.
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
Now hold up…One can be faithful to tradition without being faithful to The Holy Father…furthermore, a Catholic is obligated to oppose the Holy Father or other Bishops when they are wrong and they are not in line with tradition…for instance:
Pope Honorius I favored the monothelite heresy…therefore Catholics should not have been in communion with him…not when you fast forward to more modern times, The SSPX, do not believe Catholics should not be in communion with Paul VI, because of how he supported modernism and liberalism and the type of ecumenism which was condemned and spoken out against greatly by his predecessors…and to be honest, as I read and study more…the more I am inclined to believe and support their argument. One is not obligated to follow a heretic. In 1899, Leo XIII in Testem Benevolentiae, said the following:
“They [the american activist bishops] hold, in effect, that in order to reach the hearts of the seperated sheep, it is opportune to keep quiet about certain points of doctrine as if they were less important or to minimize them to the extent that they no longer have the meaning the Church has always held…”
How prophetic are those words today???
Pope Honorius I favored the monothelite heresy…therefore Catholics should not have been in communion with him…not when you fast forward to more modern times, The SSPX, do not believe Catholics should not be in communion with Paul VI, because of how he supported modernism and liberalism and the type of ecumenism which was condemned and spoken out against greatly by his predecessors…and to be honest, as I read and study more…the more I am inclined to believe and support their argument. One is not obligated to follow a heretic. In 1899, Leo XIII in Testem Benevolentiae, said the following:
“They [the american activist bishops] hold, in effect, that in order to reach the hearts of the seperated sheep, it is opportune to keep quiet about certain points of doctrine as if they were less important or to minimize them to the extent that they no longer have the meaning the Church has always held…”
How prophetic are those words today???
T
Tsuwano
Guest
I respectfully disagree with you. Catechism of the Catholic Church states in Part One, under the heading The Profession of Faith, 816: “The sole Church of Christ is that which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.”
And again, 881: “The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.”
And finally, 882: The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is the perptual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
Now, you may disagree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but then how is it that you are Catholic? I again reiterate that to be a traditional Catholic means to be in union with the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church. If you are not in union, then you are not a traditional Catholic. In my opinion, the SSPX are not traditional in any real sense of the word.
And again, 881: “The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.”
And finally, 882: The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is the perptual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
Now, you may disagree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but then how is it that you are Catholic? I again reiterate that to be a traditional Catholic means to be in union with the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church. If you are not in union, then you are not a traditional Catholic. In my opinion, the SSPX are not traditional in any real sense of the word.
J
JRKH
Guest
So what do you think is [umore traditional. Faithful TO the Holy Father or not.
After all the OP’ question is:
Is one more faithful to tradition than the other?
Peace
James
O
Onegin
Guest
Opus Dei is set up as a personal prelature. My hope is that the SSPX will be if the whole reconciliation process is resolved.
That’s the only similarity between the two that I can think of.
That’s the only similarity between the two that I can think of.
A
Adeodatus
Guest
Sorry for the digression: Wikipedia is not anyone’s friend. Just pull random phrases out of a hat and you’ll get articles with the same level of accuracy.
S
stuart12
Guest
I agree, Our first obedience is to God, and if His Vicar deserts his post, we must remain faithful to the Catholic Faith. The Holy Father’s authority is supreme but it is not absolute. His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre was 100% correct in his assessment that the Catholic Faith had been abandoned.
The SSPX currently criticise Opus Dei and its Founder, Saint Josemaria Escriva for teaching pluralism and secularism.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Pope Paul VI was NOT a heretic, and you have no authority to claim that he was. Slander and calumny are serious sins.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Prove that St. Josemaria Escriva and Opus Dei ever taught pluralism and secularism.
Also, if you’re implying that the popes at the time of Lefebvre and the SSPX had abandoned the faith, you are dead wrong and have no right to be judging a pope like that anyway.
S
stuart12
Guest
I never said that they have taught pluralism and secularism. I said that the SSPX criticise thm for doing so. The liturgy was in chaos. Erroneous teachings such as religious freedom and a false ecumenism were being promoted, which were contrary to the Catholic Faith. Plus, as the Archbishop believed that he was acting out of grave necessity, he could not have been excommunicated.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
You are correct that the liturgy was in shambles and false ideas were being promoted, and yes, Archbishop Lefebvre thought he was acting out of grave necessity. But that doesn’t mean he was justified in doing what he did. According to the current canon law, Canon 1321 (3) says that imputability must be presumed unless the contrary is made evident (the Latin verb “apparere” is used here, and it means “to be made evident,” not “to appear” or “to seem”). Whether or not His Excellency were right to do what he did is for the Church to decide, not us. In addition, one of the ways we may be an accessory to another’s sin is by defense of the wrong done. So unless the Church comes right out and claims Lefebvre did a good thing, we sin gravely if we applaud or support his disobedience.
S
stuart12
Guest
How many of our bishops today teach the Faith in its fullness as Archbishop Lefebvre did? How many of them either disbelieve or simply ignore elements of the Catholic Faith? The error was not on the part of the Frenchman.
It is not a sin to support the upholding of the Catholic Faith even if you have to oppose the Pope to his face.
M
mick321
Guest
Certainly, the average Catholic has no authority to condemn the Holy Father for heresy or any other infraction. Any Pope’s culpability on matters of heresy is unchanged by the claims of others. God Himself has personally witnessed the life of every Pope and is surely capable of administering the appropriate justice in each case.
The reason for the existence of SSPX - at least in the eyes of its founder - is widely discussed throughout this forum. Some credit and some condemn the Society for inventing the so-called traditionalist movement. They have websites, a publication house, seminaries, convents, and 100 chapels in the USA alone. Anyone, anytime, anywhere can walk into a chapel at random and hear for themselves what Society priests preach from the pulpit. Their agenda is in the open, attracts criticism, and invites debate.
I regret that I have no idea if St. Josemaria Escriva and Opus Dei have ever taught pluralism, secularism, or any other -ism. I have never been to one of their “centers” nor do I know where to find one in the United States. Do they celebrate the Extraordinary Form? The Ordinary Form? Any Mass at all? The reason for their existence and what they actually do is not entirely clear. Their website offers little help.
So if you are knowledgeable in this regard, in charity, please fill us in.
T
Tsuwano
Guest
I, for one, do not believe Archbishop Lefebvre did teach the Catholic faith in its fullness. How can one teach the Catholic faith in its fullness and not be united with the Church and the Vicar of Christ? In the end Archbishop Lefebvre taught his own interpretation of the faith, developed in separation from his brother bishops and the Holy Father. After all is said and done, he separated himself from the Church of Christ and for whatever reason, set himself up as the arbiter of what is and what isn’t Catholic. He had no authority to do so.
M
mick321
Guest
What is and isn’t Catholic was established long before Archbishop Lefebvre became an altar server. There is really no need to belabor that matter here. The Archbishop was called from this life in 1991. God Himself personally witnessed every moment of his formation and service as an altarboy, seminarian, priest and bishop.
Can we move on?
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Upholding the faith isn’t a sin. Disobeying a legitimate order from the Pope, as Archbishop Lefebvre did, is. As for “opposing the Pope to his face,” the ONLY time we may do such a thing is if the Pope orders us to commit a sin (the same is true of bishops and all other legitimate authority – religious and secular alike). Pope John Paul II didn’t order Lefebvre to commit a sin. Even so, if an individual should claim that any given command is sinful, the burden of proof lies on the one making said claim, and all benefit of the doubt is to be given to the one making the command.
St. Padre Pio was, among other things, forbidden to hear confessions for a time. He could’ve disobeyed, claiming that he had to uphold the Catholic faith and that people needed him to hear their confessions. He too could’ve invoked the “state of necessity” clause in canon law. Furthermore, I heard a rumor that his bishop was a practicing homosexual (which may or may not be true). Yet even if the rumors about Padre Pio’s bishop were true, and even if Padre Pio felt there was a genuine need for him to hear confessions, he nevertheless still obeyed the orders WITHOUT QUESTION, no matter how unjust they may have seemed to folks like you or me. The same thing can’t be said for Archbishop Lefebvre, unfortunately.
P
ProVobis
Guest
- Status