SSPX poised for formal schism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter codefro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan_64 said:
The documents listed on the list that he signed are as follows

Declaratio de Libertate Religiosa - That is DIGNITATIS HUMANAE

Decretum de Activitate Missionali Ecclesiae

Decretum de Presbyterorum Ministerio et Vita

Constitutio Pastoralis de Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis - That is GAUDIUM ET SPES

The two documents in bold (Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes) are the two very documents that he says he did not sign, yet here is his signature. He did sign these documents, as these documents were signed for as ‘one lot’. Of course he opposed Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes, but when they were passed he signed for them, which is exactly what you would expect a bishop loyal to Rome to do. He humbly put his own opinions aside, submitted to Rome and signed.

The fact that he later denied this suggests that his attitude had hardened and he regretted signing for them, but saying you didn’t do something when you actually did isn’t really on.

Archbishop Lefebvre wasn’t some saintly figure, he was a bishop, a mere human, and was just as of ‘bending the truth’ as the rest of us are.
Click to expand...
I think you either don’t understand or are being disingenuous.

Lefebvre Did not sign the two he says he did not sign. If you have different information you need to present it. For instance, his signature on the ACTUAL document of Dignitatis humanae.
That he signed something that includes those documents as documents of VII is not disputed.

It is like when I buy a house. I sign many papers. As well as a page that says I sing for the whole transaction.

Not a single person on this thread has said Lefebvre is a sainted figure. But to accuse as you are doing is in itself bending the truth.

I have no dog in the fight. But I do respect fair and honest play. That is why I called you out.

Can you provide his signature on the documents in question. The actual documents. Yes or no.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Can you provide his signature on the documents in question. The actual documents. Yes or no.
Click to expand...
The documents were not signed individually. That isn’t how it was done. These four documents were promulgated together and signed together on the last day of the Council.

Here’s an interesting article from Fidelity magazine on the very same thing (and also includes a copy of the list of signature promulgating those four documents).

“It has been demonstrated from the original Vatican II archives that his name (as well as that of fellow-traditionalist Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of Campos, Brazil) appears on the list of signatures to this and the other three documents promulgated on the final day of Vatican Council II, December 7, 1965.”

culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/SSPX8.htm

Archbishop Lefebvre did in fact sign for Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes. Yes he did oppose them during the Council, but he did sign the declaration promulgating them. If he claimed otherwise, then he is at best mistaken about what he actually did.
 
giuseppeTO said:
I have read it. Are you suggesting he lied to Pope Paul VI in his meeting with him (see page 492)?

PPVI:“Why do you not accept the Council? You signed the decrees”
Lef:“There were two that I did not sign. Yes, two, religious liberty and Gaudium et Spes. (I signed the others out of respect for the Holy Father)”
PPVI: “And why not religious liberty?”
Lef: “It contains passages that are word for word contrary to what was taught by Gregory XVI and Pius IX”
Click to expand...
From the biography (pages 312-313) printed by the Angelus Press:
If later Archbishop Lefebvre stated several times that he did not put his signature on the declaration of religious liberty–as with Guadium et Spes–it was a claim in line with his opposition before and after the promulgation , and the result of an error or a memory slip. He seems to have confused his final votes against Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae with refusing to sign. Such a mix-up appears from the denials that the Archbishop made in 1976 and 1990. This would seem to imply that while on the one hand he gave his final placet to all the conciliar schemas except two, he did not think of the signatures as a promulgation of the Council documents with the Pope, even though he signed them all (as appears in the Acta Synodalia).
Click to expand...
 
It could be (and this has never ever occured to me before as a possibility) that I don’t know what I am talking about.:o
 
Brendan_64 said:
The documents were not signed individually. That isn’t how it was done. These four documents were promulgated together and signed together on the last day of the Council.

Here’s an interesting article from Fidelity magazine on the very same thing (and also includes a copy of the list of signature promulgating those four documents).

“It has been demonstrated from the original Vatican II archives that his name (as well as that of fellow-traditionalist Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of Campos, Brazil) appears on the list of signatures to this and the other three documents promulgated on the final day of Vatican Council II, December 7, 1965.”

culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/SSPX8.htm

Archbishop Lefebvre did in fact sign for Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes. Yes he did oppose them during the Council, but he did sign the declaration promulgating them. If he claimed otherwise, then he is at best mistaken about what he actually did.
Click to expand...
Brendan,

I re-read the pages that Lormar quoted from the Angeles article and as +Tissier’s comments are most likely correct, I concede the point.
 
giuseppeTO said:
Brendan,

I re-read the pages that Lormar quoted from the Angeles article and as +Tissier’s comments are most likely correct, I concede the point.
Click to expand...
That’s very gracious of you. Ultimately we all hope for the SSPX’s return to full communion with Rome. Having part of our brethren dwelling on the fringe of our Church in a sort of ‘grey area’ is not good for any of us.
 
giuseppeTO said:
You may not be looking hard enough. The SSPX has missions in Africa, Japan, the Philippines, Korea, India, Eastern Europe, and China (in plain clothes). Perhaps we need to see more non-traditionalist ministries leading non-Catholics of all stripes to join the true church, which is the Catholic Church. Luther, Calvin, Henry Tudor, and Joseph Smith were all Christians so it does not suffice to lead non-Christians to Christianity, unless it is the Catholic Church. A soul can only be saved through Her.
Click to expand...
The SSPX has missions to other countries. But the limited information I have is that these are not focused on helping non Catholics become Catholic. They reach out to already-devout Catholics, to encourage them towards participation in SSPX activities, or at least nurture skepticism towards the Pope and bishops, and uncertainty towards the Catechism. This is not evangelism.
 
Tomdstone said:
I am not sure that this is true because reservations have been expressed about turning back the clock.
Click to expand...
The Church will not ‘turn back the clock’ and certainly not just to accommodate the SSPX. The hope is that the SSPX see sense and submit to the authority of Rome, just like their former members who formed the FSSP did.

Of course we all hope for the return of the SSPX to full communion with Rome. How can we not hope for this? If we don’t hope for full communion of those already within the Catholic Church, how can we hope for the unity of Christians outside of our Church?

A person who says that they would rather not have the SSPX back fully in the fold is a person out of line with Church teaching.
 
Brendan_64 said:
The Church will not ‘turn back the clock’ and certainly not just to accommodate the SSPX.
Click to expand...
It is said that the Church did turn back the clock and that it did accommodate the SSPX when it freed up the Latin Tr. Mass. This was done on the specific request of the SSPX, was it not?
 
Tomdstone said:
It is said that the Church did turn back the clock and that it did accommodate the SSPX when it freed up the Latin Tr. Mass. This was done on the specific request of the SSPX, was it not?
Click to expand...
It was not.

There are no documents supporting that the SSPX requested this. The MP may have been a move to appease the SSPX but it had other purposes as well. Like providing a EF Mass to those who wish it. That has nothing to do with the SSPX.
 
…Church did turn back the clock
Click to expand...
Hmmm. What exactly is wrong with turning back the clock? Wasn’t the restoration of three Eucharistic Prayers back in 1969 “turning back the clock” to the early Church?
 
Tomdstone said:
It is said that the Church did turn back the clock and that it did accommodate the SSPX when it freed up the Latin Tr. Mass. This was done on the specific request of the SSPX, was it not?
Click to expand...
Do you have a source showing this was done specifically because of the SSPX?
 
ProVobis said:
Hmmm. What exactly is wrong with turning back the clock? Wasn’t the restoration of three Eucharistic Prayers back in 1969 “turning back the clock” to the early Church?
Click to expand...
It’s not a question of “turning back the clock”. The leaders of the SSPX maintain their right to be independent of the Magisterium and still claim to be Catholic. That was never OK, not in Pius XII time, nor in Pius X time, nor any time earlier. It won’t be ok in 2020. There may have been a time a few decades ago when the SSPX (as it was then) might have been accommodated as a community, re entering the Catholic Church corporately. That time is passed. The current leaders, and (perhaps) many of their clergy, have moved far beyond their 1970s position. You would have to “turn back the clock” of the SSPX, itself to a time when it was much less adversarial. That won’t happen. The more moderate have already left. The people in charge now are far more comfortable with dissent now; the right to dissent is now just as important as the TLM. Their list of demands now is longer than it was years ago, and will be much longer in the future.

The “modern” SSPX can’t re enter as a communion, but individual clergy and laity can unite with the Catholic Church. Hopefully most of them will. We can’t judge the leaders, just pray for them.
 
commenter said:
It’s not a question of “turning back the clock”. The leaders of the SSPX maintain their right to be independent of the Magisterium and still claim to be Catholic. That was never OK, not in Pius XII time, nor in Pius X time, nor any time earlier. It won’t be ok in 2020. There may have been a time a few decades ago when the SSPX (as it was then) might have been accommodated as a community, re entering the Catholic Church corporately. That time is passed. The current leaders, and (perhaps) many of their clergy, have moved far beyond their 1970s position. You would have to “turn back the clock” of the SSPX, itself to a time when it was much less adversarial. That won’t happen. The more moderate have already left. The people in charge now are far more comfortable with dissent now; the right to dissent is now just as important as the TLM. Their list of demands now is longer than it was years ago, and will be much longer in the future.

The “modern” SSPX can’t re enter as a communion, but individual clergy and laity can unite with the Catholic Church. Hopefully most of them will. We can’t judge the leaders, just pray for them.
Click to expand...
This is what I have always thought. The Chair of Peter is going to ask each individual for fidelity. It is a question Christ asks of everyone.

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15)

Christ asked it of the disciples and asks every person to answer this in one way or another at some point in their life. Peter answered clearly and the Chair of Peter will ask the same question of the individual members of the society “Who do you say that I am?” Peter will ask who they think the Pope is and where his authority comes from.

Every one of them will have to look in the mirror and discern on their own, between themselves and God. In the end it is going to be an intensely personal decision for many.

-Tim-
 
commenter said:
The “modern” SSPX can’t re enter as a communion, but individual clergy and laity can unite with the Catholic Church. Hopefully most of them will. We can’t judge the leaders, just pray for them.
Click to expand...
Some may but from my observations, one thing can’t be overlooked, and I’ve said this before. They do know how to market the missal of 1962. I no longer attend their Masses but the chapel was usually packed, especially for Holy Days where some couldn’t even find an OF. The current standoff with Rome wouldn’t exist if they had no heavy supporters. I pray not only that they be united but that they (and their bishops) be able to use their talents to spread the faith in a constructive way.
 
ProVobis said:
Some may but from my observations, one thing can’t be overlooked, and I’ve said this before. They do know how to market the missal of 1962. I no longer attend their Masses but the chapel was usually packed, especially for Holy Days where some couldn’t even find an OF. The current standoff with Rome wouldn’t exist if they had no heavy supporters. I pray not only that they be united but that they (and their bishops) be able to use their talents to spread the faith in a constructive way.
Click to expand...
Their “heavy supporters” are people who use the internet to boost themselves, using the Catholic Church as a recruiting net. If one “expert” denounces the bishop, the next expert has to go farther, denounce the Vatican, to keep up his website traffic and donations. Now they are taking the next step, attack the pope directly, in order to keep the money flowing in. They don’t really oppose secularism, because that doesn’t bring in the money like opposing the Catholic Church does. In Argentina they won’t disrupt abortion clinics (why not?); they only disrupt Catholic Cathedrals. That’s how you get your media attention (and money).

The people who pack the chapels are (unintentionally) following the worldly trend, to dissent. There are devout people in the SSPX, but no one is more devout because of their attendance there. They entered that way. If the chapels are now “packed”, it is because dissent has increased in society in general. In my city the SSPX chapel doesn’t try to evangelize Protestants, or former Catholics, or the unchurched. They recruit only current church going Catholics. The biggest church they pull people from is the diocesan approved Latin Mass, held 6 miles away.

Money flows into the SSPX, just as money flows into Call to Action, NETWORK, and Catholics for Choice, because they all know how to market dissent. Sometimes I wonder if maybe it’s the same money sources.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top