SSPX & OpusDei.

[Onegin]

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.

I have to pray for patience when I read comments like this. With all the scandal and abuse that is going on within the Church right now, people are still hung up on the SSPX.

One poster described this brilliantly when they said it is just like straining the gnat and swallowing the camel. Judging from this forum, it appears that we can unblinkingly deal with all the awful liturgical abuse and heresy being taught from within the Church, but people are too busy concerning themselves with the perceived errors a Traditional Catholic group. We are too busy setting ourselves up as little canon lawyers to see where the real atrocities are taking place.

 

[ProVobis]

I have to pray for patience when I read comments like this. With all the scandal and abuse that is going on within the Church right now, people are still hung up on the SSPX.

One poster described this brilliantly when they said it is just like straining the gnat and swallowing the camel. Judging from this forum, it appears that we can unblinkingly deal with all the awful liturgical abuse and heresy being taught from within the Church, but people are too busy concerning themselves with the perceived errors a Traditional Catholic group. We are too busy setting ourselves up as little canon lawyers to see where the real atrocities are taking place.

You said it better than I could have.

 

[JRKH]

Frankly I’d have to say that the OP’s question has already been answered.

No matter the relative merits of the two groups, the plain and simple fact is that it has always been more “traditional” to remain in communion with the Holy Father in Rome than not to. By that measure Opus Dei is definately more “traditional”

Now the other question that might be asked, and perhaps this is what was intended by the OP, is Which Group is more “conservative”.

Peace
James

 

[Tsuwano]

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?

Thank you , Mick. Your points are well taken and I am certainly willing to move on. I would simply add to your thought that god also witnessed Archbishop Lefebvre’s willfull disobedience toward to the Holy Father and his illicit ordination of clergy and bishops against the expressed wishes of the Vicar of Christ which led to his excommunication.

 

[Tsuwano]

I have to pray for patience when I read comments like this. With all the scandal and abuse that is going on within the Church right now, people are still hung up on the SSPX.

One poster described this brilliantly when they said it is just like straining the gnat and swallowing the camel. Judging from this forum, it appears that we can unblinkingly deal with all the awful liturgical abuse and heresy being taught from within the Church, but people are too busy concerning themselves with the perceived errors a Traditional Catholic group. We are too busy setting ourselves up as little canon lawyers to see where the real atrocities are taking place.

I truly am sorry for having tried your patience, and I agree with you that many people in this forum tend to strain the gnats while swallowing the camel. I think our disagreement may hinge on which area of focus actually constitutes “straining at gnats” or “swallowing camels.” I think the “perceived errors” of the SSPX, their claim to be a “Traditional Catholic group,” and the accusations of heresy made against Pope Paul VI and others is much more worthy of attention than, say, whether one receives communion in the hand or on the tongue, whether guitars should be allowed in the liturgy, or whether the mass should be said in Latin or English or Chinese. I certainly agree with your last statement, “We are too busy setting ourselves up as little canon laywers (and liturgists) to see where the real atrocities are taking place.”

 

[Abenadar]

…of the SSPX, their claim to be a “Traditional Catholic group,”

Are you saying they’re not a traditional Catholic group, or did I just misunderstand what you were trying to say?

 

[Tsuwano]

Are you saying they’re not a traditional Catholic group, or did I just misunderstand what you were trying to say?

I think the SSPX are as Catholic as the Lutherans or the Anglicans. They are not in union with Rome and so, in my opinion, they aren’t Roman Catholic at all. I don’t know what the SSPX means when they call themselves “traditional.” They seem to think that “traditional” describes a theology and liturgy that was lost to the Church at the Second Vatican Council and only saved by the efforts of Archbishop Lefebvre. I think this is a false view and I fail to see how you can be a traditional Catholic group or person without being in union with Rome and the Vicar of Christ, who is presently Pope Benedict XVI. Before I could take their view of the Church seriously, they would have to show that they are indeed a part of the Church. Since they fail to recognize the authority of the Holy Father and the magisterium of the Church or obey the wishes of the Church, I can’t say that they are Catholic. Or put another way, they are as Catholic as those women who thumb their noses at the Vatican and have had themselves ordained priests. To what degree are they Catholic?

 

[Abenadar]

Upholding the faith isn’t a sin.

Right, but teaching a new one is. I think one can understand Lefebvre’s trepidation regarding all the novelty in the church in the wake of the council.

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.

And yet the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. The traditional sacraments were, in his eyes, the best foundation and defense against the huge apostacy that occured in the church after the coucil. He passed on the faith exactly as he had received it, minus the ambiguities which are still being hammered out today.
Pope John Paul II didn’t order Lefebvre to commit a sin…rather, he was instigating complacency in Lefebvre where the traditional sacraments and their continuation were concerned…Which Lefebvre was afraid of given his concern about all the “variations” in the post-concilliar years. He was already very old without any solution for a realistic continuation of his society, which, in his eyes at least, offered the most surety in regard to the supreme law of the Church. Priests are responsible for their flocks on earth, and at their judgement…How much moreso for an Archbishop?

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.

There’s no comparison here. You’re trying to compare the confessions of one priest out of thousands, to the Archbishop’s attempt to make sure that thousands of souls would still have access to all the sacraments, as well as the faith, as they had been passed down to him.

He too could’ve invoked the “state of necessity” clause in canon law.

How so? Name the clause, please.

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.

Compare when St. Pio wasn’t allowed to hear confessions to the period when Lefebvre consecrated the bishops…Do you think there was maybe a tiny change in how things were being done in the church?

 

[Abenadar]

I think the SSPX are as Catholic as the Lutherans or the Anglicans.

And yet the word from Rome is that the SSPX is an internal matter for the Church.

They are not in union with Rome and so, in my opinion, they aren’t Roman Catholic at all.

Yes they are in union with Rome…just not full communion…yet. Nobody but you, and a few other misinformed people, are persisting in this line of thinking. The Society has never been like the Lutherans or Anglicans because they have never taught heresy.

I don’t know what the SSPX means when they call themselves “traditional.” They seem to think that “traditional” describes a theology and liturgy that was **lost **to the Church at the Second Vatican Council and only saved by the efforts of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Correction: substitute the word “lost” with “discarded” and then you basically have the gist of it.

I think this is a false view and I fail to see how you can be a traditional Catholic group or person without being in union with Rome and the Vicar of Christ, who is presently Pope Benedict XVI.

Right, but they are.

Before I could take their view of the Church seriously, they would have to show that they are indeed a part of the Church.

They have done this adequately. Rome has confirmed it all the while.

Since they fail to recognize the authority of the Holy Father

They are very open that they do so recognize.

and the magisterium of the Church

They have been some of the staunchest defenders of the Catholic Faith.

or obey the wishes of the Church, I can’t say that they are Catholic.

Have no idea what “the wishes of the Church” are. Nevertheless, they are Catholic. If you “can’t say they are Catholic” then you need to submit to what the Rome has said, as Rome disagrees with your take.

Or put another way, they are as Catholic as those women who thumb their noses at the Vatican and have had themselves ordained priests.

Absolutely not. The SSPX has denied no dogma. Moreover, the SSPX’s “thumbing of nose” (if you can even call it that) was never about pride and a false sense of “equality”, but about the salvation of souls.

To what degree are they Catholic?

Fully.

 

[Onegin]

I truly am sorry for having tried your patience, and I agree with you that many people in this forum tend to strain the gnats while swallowing the camel. I think our disagreement may hinge on which area of focus actually constitutes “straining at gnats” or “swallowing camels.” I think the “perceived errors” of the SSPX, their claim to be a “Traditional Catholic group,” and the accusations of heresy made against Pope Paul VI and others is much more worthy of attention than, say, whether one receives communion in the hand or on the tongue, whether guitars should be allowed in the liturgy, or whether the mass should be said in Latin or English or Chinese. I certainly agree with your last statement, “We are too busy setting ourselves up as little canon laywers (and liturgists) to see where the real atrocities are taking place.”

Aw, Tsuwano, I thought we were able to agree to disagree but then you posted this:

I think the SSPX are as Catholic as the Lutherans or the Anglicans. They are not in union with Rome and so, in my opinion, they aren’t Roman Catholic at all.

Please read Abenadar’s post above and think about some of the points. Rome has said that the SSPX are in communion (albeit imperfect), which is a matter being dealt with between the SSPX and Rome right now.

A few other points:

The lutherans and anglicans whom you claim are the “same” as the SSPX cannot validly celebrate the Holy Mass. Neither can the “womenpriests”.

If the SSPX were so far out in right field as you claim (on par with lutherans, etc) Rome would not have repealed the so-called excommunications of the SSPX Priests.

Abendar already noted this, but the SSPX do not teach heresy whereas the lutherans, anglicans and “womenpriests” do.

It seems like you were taking the concept of “disobedience” and extrapolating it to somehow put the SSPX on par with heretical schismatics like the lutherans and other groups. Not so, not just because I or anyone else here has said it but because Rome has said it, and a quick, reasonable look at the situation shows that such extrapolation is unjustified.

 

[spn82756]

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???

But what about obedience? In approved apparitions of Mary…ie Fatima. Obedience was a very big issue. If we all start to decide what is heresy and what is not…then we are in trouble. Who do I look to for guidance? If we don’t believe that Paul VI was inspired by the HS…then everything else can be challenged. Who is to say that old Doctors of the Church and old theologians are always right. Some have been right for some things and wrong on others. Origen comes to mind.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Opus Dei is primarily a formation group for laity. The priests in Opus Dei are still under the direction of their Ordinary, not an Opus Dei bishop. In that way they are completely different from SSPX which is a priestly group.

As for learning what they teach, all of St.Josemaria’s writings are easily available and many of his talks were videotaped and are now on youtube.

 

[ProVobis]

that god also witnessed Archbishop Lefebvre’s willfull disobedience toward to the Holy Father and his illicit ordination of clergy and bishops against the expressed wishes of the Vicar of Christ which led to his excommunication.

This is all gossip and I’m sure the Holy Father would agree.

 

[DavidJoseph]

This is all gossip and I’m sure the Holy Father would agree.

Gossip? How so? It’s a well-known fact that Archbishop Lefebvre ordained bishops against the wishes of the Holy Father!

 

[DavidJoseph]

Right, but teaching a new one is. I think one can understand Lefebvre’s trepidation regarding all the novelty in the church in the wake of the council.

Lefebvre was never commanded to teach a new faith, though. Besides, what I said originally was that upholding the Catholic faith isn’t a sin but that disobedience to a legitimate order from the pope is a sin.

And yet the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. The traditional sacraments were, in his eyes, the best foundation and defense against the huge apostacy that occured in the church after the coucil. He passed on the faith exactly as he had received it, minus the ambiguities which are still being hammered out today.

The end doesn’t justify the means. We may never do evil so that good may come of it. Besides, Pope John Paul II did give Lefebvre permission to consecrate ONE bishop, did he not? Much better than none!

Pope John Paul II didn’t order Lefebvre to commit a sin…rather, he was instigating complacency in Lefebvre where the traditional sacraments and their continuation were concerned…Which Lefebvre was afraid of given his concern about all the “variations” in the post-concilliar years. He was already very old without any solution for a realistic continuation of his society, which, in his eyes at least, offered the most surety in regard to the supreme law of the Church. Priests are responsible for their flocks on earth, and at their judgement…How much moreso for an Archbishop?

Priests and bishops are also responsible for obeying their superiors’ legitimate orders. If anything, Lefebvre, by his actions, taught his flock to disobey, be prideful, and act like they know better than the Church.

There’s no comparison here. You’re trying to compare the confessions of one priest out of thousands, to the Archbishop’s attempt to make sure that thousands of souls would still have access to all the sacraments, as well as the faith, as they had been passed down to him.

Actually, there IS a comparison here. Archbishop Lefebvre was one priest out of thousands too. And St. Padre Pio probably heard the confessions of thousands of souls and helped them become holier.

How so? Name the clause, please.

St. Padre Pio could’ve decided that saving souls was too important for him to obey his bishop’s orders not to hear confessions, much like Lefebvre felt (wrongly) that in order to save souls, he had to ordain bishops without permission from Rome. As for the clause, it’s whichever clause in canon law Lefebvre invoked to justify ordaining bishops without the Holy Father’s permission. I’m no canon law expert.

Compare when St. Pio wasn’t allowed to hear confessions to the period when Lefebvre consecrated the bishops…Do you think there was maybe a tiny change in how things were being done in the church?

Makes no difference. Jesus told Peter that what he bound on earth was bound in heaven – no exceptions, not even if there were a crisis of faith in the Church.

 

[mick321]

Opus Dei is primarily a formation group for laity. The priests in Opus Dei are still under the direction of their Ordinary, not an Opus Dei bishop. In that way they are completely different from SSPX which is a priestly group.

As for learning what they teach, all of St.Josemaria’s writings are easily available and many of his talks were videotaped and are now on youtube.

I have never been to one of their “centers” nor do I know where to find one in the United States. Do you? Are you a member? Do you attend their “services”? Are they open to the public? Is there “reserved seating”? 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. Their youtube vids, even less.

If you are knowledgeable in this regard, in charity, please fill us in.

 

[mick321]

I have never been to one of their “centers” nor do I know where to find one in the United States. Do you? Are you a member? Do you attend their “services”? Are they open to the public? Is there “reserved seating”? 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. Their youtube vids, even less.

If you are knowledgeable in this regard, in charity, please fill us in.

Anyone?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I have never been to one of their “centers” nor do I know where to find one in the United States. Do you? Are you a member? Do you attend their “services”? Are they open to the public? Is there “reserved seating”? 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. Their youtube vids, even less.

If you are knowledgeable in this regard, in charity, please fill us in.

Their centers (no quotation marks needed) are similar to retreat centers in that they offer classes, Bible studies, and the opportunity to receive spiritual direction. They did not hold any type of liturgical service (again no quotes) that would more properly happen in a Church.

The priests of Opus Dei, as I said, are under the direction of their Ordinary, so they can offer whichever form of the Mass they chose. I have only been to OF Masses when the presider has been an Opus Dei priest, but that doesn’t mean that they will not offer EF masses.

I am not a member of Opus Dei, but as I said I have been to Masses offered by Opus Dei priests, and public talks given by Opus Dei priests and laity. At least in this area, they are regularly held in local churches and announced in the bulletin, websites, etc.

There are no SSPX chapels in my diocese (or I believe the adjoining diocese) so they are the mystery to me! That said, I have no interest in attending one anyway. The EF is generously offered in several local parishes, so I can easily get to one even mid-week. I am always truly grateful for this wonderful diocese!

 

[Abenadar]

Lefebvre was never commanded to teach a new faith, though. Besides, what I said originally was that upholding the Catholic faith isn’t a sin but that disobedience to a legitimate order from the pope is a sin.

That was exactly my point as well. Lefebvre never DID teach a new faith…Unlike many other bishops who did. Lefebvre did nothing but uphold the Catholic faith…Unlike many disobedient bishops. What strikes me is that Lefebvre can’t be disobedient - in order to help continue the traditional sacraments - without being character-assassinated…Yet liberal bishops may be disobedient and teach a new religion without similar treatment.

The end doesn’t justify the means.

Actually, this may not be 100% correct according to canon law.

We may never do evil so that good may come of it.

But you are already judging that evil has been done, whereas most people, looking at a highly complicated situation, would suffice to say that, while there may be strong arguments for why evil may have been done, they will not assert it as fact.

Besides, Pope John Paul II did give Lefebvre permission to consecrate ONE bishop, did he not? Much better than none!

There was a greater need than for just one bishop…possibly a stranger, picked by JPII rather than Lefebvre…to be consecrated at some vague, future date. From a practical perspective this doesn’t make sense, does it?

Priests and bishops are also responsible for obeying their superiors’ legitimate orders.

Lefebvre was quite clear about his duty to the Church’s supreme law versus the pope’s orders, which would have hampered that law.

If anything, Lefebvre, by his actions, taught his flock to disobey, be prideful, and act like they know better than the Church.

This is your opinion. My opinion is that Lefebvre, by his actions, taught that in the face of great confusion, error, and apostacy, when souls are at stake, one should hold fast to the things that have been passed down to us by the Church which have been proven to be efficacious helps against that confusion and error.

Actually, there IS a comparison here. Archbishop Lefebvre was one priest out of thousands too. And St. Padre Pio probably heard the confessions of thousands of souls and helped them become holier.

There’s a difference between being one of many priests who can supply the same absolution, versus being the one and only priest who is willing to put everything on the line to preserve the traditional sacraments.

St. Padre Pio could’ve decided that saving souls was too important for him to obey his bishop’s orders not to hear confessions,

As I said, St. Pio was one of many priests supplying the same sacrament.

much like Lefebvre felt (wrongly) that in order to save souls, he had to ordain bishops without permission from Rome.

Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. Lefebvre, basically the only one still providing the traditional sacraments felt that he had to ordain. Whether he was wrong or not, canon law still provides for this.

As for the clause, it’s whichever clause in canon law Lefebvre invoked to justify ordaining bishops without the Holy Father’s permission. I’m no canon law expert.

It goes like this:

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:

4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:

5/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

These are just two small parts of Lefebvre’s arguments. Also, St. Pio probably wasn’t working with canon lawyers the way Lefebvre was.

Makes no difference. Jesus told Peter that what he bound on earth was bound in heaven – no exceptions, not even if there were a crisis of faith in the Church.

Says you. “NO EXCEPTIONS”…Lol. As if there aren’t already precedents of a number of saints being “disobedient” to popes. Athanasius was excommunicated **four **times!

 

[baltobetsy]

Just one correction - the head of Opus Dei, the prelate, is indeed a bishop, so Opus Dei may be described as a diocese without borders. The technical term is “personal prelature.” In matters pertaining to Opus Dei, members are subject to the prelate. In ordinary church matters, they are subject to their diocesan bishops.

If you wish to find a center near you, go to the Opus Dei website and click on “contact us,” where you will be invited to email them. You can give them your location, and they will respond with the addresses of the centers nearest you. I have found them very responsive.

Betsy