SSPX Questions & Discussion

[bear06]

With regards to ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’, which the SSPX states, so
changing the Mass and the Sacraments can only result in a change of belief:

This belief would not seem in keeping with Mediator Dei.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html

 

[MMLJ]

With regards to ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’, which the SSPX states, so
changing the Mass and the Sacraments can only result in a change of belief:

Are the priests, bishops, and cardinals who minister/support/etc. the Novus Ordo service now using this same argument pertaining to the SSPX?

If the SSPX were not able to claim ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’ (before);
changing the Mass (TLM) and the Sacraments can only result in a change of belief, why is it now possible that those who oppose the SSPX are able to utilize this very same argument (pertaining the the NO service since now the TLM is more readily available and increasing both in members and in # of days Churches offer it)?

Hope that is more clear and members can now address the post.
Thank you and God Bless.

Still have not received an answer to this.

 

[Sure]

With regards to ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’, which the SSPX states, so
changing the Mass and the Sacraments can only result in a change of belief:

Are the priests, bishops, and cardinals who minister/support/etc. the Novus Ordo service now using this same argument pertaining to the SSPX?

If the SSPX were not able to claim ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’ (before);
changing the Mass (TLM) and the Sacraments can only result in a change of belief, why is it now possible that those who oppose the SSPX are able to utilize this very same argument (pertaining the the NO service since now the TLM is more readily available and increasing both in members and in # of days Churches offer it)?

Hope that is more clear and members can now address the post.
Thank you and God Bless.

Still have not received an answer to this.

Perhaps there are some who would use this argument back against the SSPX. They would be incorrect and misguided. There is no problem inherent to the TLM that is said by the SSPX. Their only problem is their excommunicated and suspended status which derives not from their choice of liturgy but from their lack of obedience.

When it comes to the two forms of the Mass we are called by the Holy Father to embrace them both. There should be no tension between the two.

 

[Johndigger]

This post is not to advocate disobedience, but to show that in extraordinary circumstances - when a Pope acts in ways that are scandelous, and when he seems to be teaching and doing things directly contrary to the faith - blind obedience is not necessary; and in fact would be most imprudent.

I’m not saying that we should follow the Pope blindly. As indeed I’ve already said:

Johndigger:

I’m NOT saying that we should absolutely follow the Pope blindly.

Thus it is that [Pope] Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed…

This is the crux of the matter. Who decides when the Pope has fallen into error? Who decides when the Pope goes against tradition?

Is it every man for themselves, then? Who decides when the Pope has fallen into schism?

Couldn’t ANY other schismatic (but not heretical) group deny the authority of the Papacy over them using EXACTLY the same arguments you are?

The Pope has the authority to change the external appearance of the Mass - whether for the better or for the worse is another thread.

MMLJ,

With regards to lex orandi, lex credendi - the Mass has been changed and adapted a fair few times in the last 2,000 years. They didn’t neccessarily result in a belief change.

To blame the major problems of the Church on a change in the liturgy and a Church council is classic oversimplification. I would hasten to remind you again of the sexual (and other) revolutions and scandals in the Church.

You might want a scapegoat, maybe it even sounds good, but it’s just not reality.

The Pope should be obeyed. Pope John Paul II was extremely fair on the Archbishop. But he disobeyed and committed a schismatic act.

The burden of proof is still on you, folks. Prove to me that the Pope doesn’t have authority to change the liturgy. Prove to me that, interpreted in the light of Sacred Tradition, Vatican II is heretical. Prove to me that 3 Popes have fallen into grevious error.

JD

 

[GerardP]

Again, Gerard, one can have the noblest of intentions and still be entering into schism. In this regard, intent doesn’t matter.

Untrue. Can you back up your assertion?

I have drawn my attention very closely to the words of Pastor Aeternus.

And you’ve drawn an incorrect conclusion. You are advocating Papal Irresistibility. Not infallibility.

 

[GerardP]

Although This may be indirectly relevant to the SSPX, and is true that he did kiss the Qur’an, it would preferable if we Stay on topic and not get into tit-for-tat arguments.

St Matthew 19:19. … Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

I disagree “tit for tat” arguments are sorely needed in this forum. There is an a priori assumption on the part of many that anything the Vatican, the Curia or the Pope does is automatically above board and virtuous.

There’s nothing doctrinal to support this.

The very fact that people are unaware of Church history as well as the limits of papal authority and the moral teaching of the Church on “true obedience” is leading many sincere Catholics to believe in a caricuture of the heirarchy that is more in keeping with Protestant objections about the papacy. The only difference is the Catholics like the Protestant understanding of the papacy and the Protestants don’t. The problem is they are both in error.

The SSPX’s actions are direct reactions to causes that reside in the organizational structure of the Church.

People who are comfortable condemning archbishop LeFebvre for trying to stem the crisis that JPII denied existed, (any fool can see that that was false. ) refuse to acknowledge the facts that provoked an emergency reaction from LeFebvre.

So, a tit for tat would be extremely illuminating in this type of discussion. It gets facts out that are avoided by those opposed to the SSPX.

 

[Sure]

I disagree “tit for tat” arguments are sorely needed in this forum. Yes There is an a priori assumption on the part of many that anything the Vatican, the Curia or the Pope does is automatically above board and virtuous. This is an assumption

There’s nothing doctrinal to support this. **You mean to support your assumption of what others are saying **

The very fact that people are unaware of Church history as well as the limits of papal authority and the moral teaching of the Church on “true obedience” is leading many sincere Catholics to believe in a caricuture of the heirarchy that is more in keeping with Protestant objections about the papacy. Obeying the Pope on disciplinary matters is not Protestant The only difference is the Catholics like the Protestant understanding of the papacy and the Protestants don’t. Huh??? The problem is they are both in error.

The SSPX’s actions are direct reactions to causes that reside in the organizational structure of the Church. And perhaps their reactions are not justified, according to the Holy Father they were not
People who are comfortable condemning archbishop LeFebvre for trying to stem the crisis that JPII denied existed, (any fool can see that that was false. ) refuse to acknowledge the facts that provoked an emergency reaction from LeFebvre. Again, you assert there was some “big crisis” that justified Lefebvre’s action, the Pope ruled there wasn’t. SO, we are left with Gerard thinks there was a Big Crisis that justifed Lefebvre’s action and Pope John Paul II thought that it did NOT justify his action.

So, a tit for tat would be extremely illuminating in this type of discussion. It gets facts out that are avoided by those opposed to the SSPX. Agreed, it helps get at the facts that are avoided by SSPX apologists

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

This is the crux of the matter. Who decides when the Pope has fallen into error? Who decides when the Pope goes against tradition?

This may come as a surprise to some, but believe it or not we can know what the Church teaches. For example, the Council of Florence clearly taught that the Old Covenant was null and void; that it would not save anyone, and that it was a mortal sin to attempt to be saved by practicing the precepts of the Old Testament.

Therefore, when the US Bishops claimed, a few years ago, that the Old Covenant was salvific for the Jews, we can be 100% certain that this was rank heresy.

Similarly, the Church has formally condemned the teaching of religious liberty and Separation of Church and State. Therefore, if anyone teaches these, we can be certain that they are in error.

There certainly may be some things where the teaching of the Church is not certain, but when the Church has defined a dogma, or condemned an error, we can be certain on those points.

That is why Pope Pius IX could say that if a Pope teaches something that if false, he should not be followed.

 

[Sure]

This may come as a surprise to some, but believe it or not we can know what the Church teaches. For example, the Council of Florence clearly taught that the Old Covenant was null and void; that it would not save anyone, and that it was a mortal sin to attempt to be saved by practicing the precepts of the Old Testament.

Therefore, when the US Bishops claimed, a few years ago, that the Old Covenant was salvific for the Jews, we can be 100% certain that this was rank heresy.

Similarly, the Church has formally condemned the teaching of religious liberty and Separation of Church and State. Therefore, if anyone teaches these, we can be certain that they are in error.

There certainly may be some things where the teaching of the Church is not certain, but when the Church has defined a dogma, or condemned an error, we can be certain on those points.

That is why Pope Pius IX could say that if a Pope teaches something that if false, he should not be followed.

So, there is no Pope then?

 

[Johndigger]

This may come as a surprise to some, but believe it or not we can know what the Church teaches. For example, the Council of Florence clearly taught that the Old Covenant was null and void; that it would not save anyone, and that it was a mortal sin to attempt to be saved by practicing the precepts of the Old Testament.

Therefore, when the US Bishops claimed, a few years ago, that the Old Covenant was salvific for the Jews, we can be 100% certain that this was rank heresy.

Similarly, the Church has formally condemned the teaching of religious liberty and Separation of Church and State. Therefore, if anyone teaches these, we can be certain that they are in error.

There certainly may be some things where the teaching of the Church is not certain, but when the Church has defined a dogma, or condemned an error, we can be certain on those points.

That is why Pope Pius IX could say that if a Pope teaches something that if false, he should not be followed.

ABSOLUTELY!!! I couldn’t agree more!

If a Pope teaches erroneously against infallible teachings, then we can legitimately disobey him to some extent.

Now all you have to do is prove that Pope Benedict has done that.

However, the quote that I was replying to was about CUSTOMS not infallible teaching.

Who decides when the customs of the Pope are wrong and that we can ignore him?

Unless I am understanding the phrase “customs” wrong and that does, indeed, refer to infallible teaching…?

JD

 

[GerardP]

Gerard wrote:
There is an a priori assumption on the part of many that anything the Vatican, the Curia or the Pope does is automatically above board and virtuous.

Quote Sure:
This is an assumption.

No. It’s an inference based on behavior.

Gerard wrote:
There’s nothing doctrinal to support this.

Quote Sure:
You mean to support your assumption of what others are saying.

My inference, you mean.

Gerard wrote:
The very fact that people are unaware of Church history as well as the limits of papal authority and the moral teaching of the Church on “true obedience” is leading many sincere Catholics to believe in a caricuture of the heirarchy that is more in keeping with Protestant objections about the papacy.

Quote Sure:
Obeying the Pope on disciplinary matters is not Protestant

When the Pope’s disciplinary judgements are allowing the loss of faith and mass apostasy they must be resisted. The idea that the Pope is infallible in all disciplinary matters is a Protestant misunderstanding. The idea that the Pope is irresistible is a Protestant misconception that has been adopted by many Catholics.

Gerard wrote:
The only difference is the Catholics like the Protestant understanding of the papacy and the Protestants don’t.

Quote Sure:
Huh??

Read above and think about it.

Gerard wrote:
The problem is they are both in error.

Quote Sure:

Gerard wrote:
The SSPX’s actions are direct reactions to causes that reside in the organizational structure of the Church.

Quote Sure:
And perhaps their reactions are not justified, according to the Holy Father they were not. He could say the sky is green and that wouldn’t change the fact that he can be wrong.

Objectively, was the Holy Father right or wrong on this? Are you saying that there has been no crisis in the Church which has become more pronounced since the close of the Council?

Gerard wrote:
People who are comfortable condemning archbishop LeFebvre for trying to stem the crisis that JPII denied existed, (any fool can see that that was false. ) refuse to acknowledge the facts that provoked an emergency reaction from LeFebvre.

Quote Sure:
Again, you assert there was some “big crisis” that justified Lefebvre’s action, the Pope ruled there wasn’t. SO, we are left with Gerard thinks there was a Big Crisis that justifed Lefebvre’s action and Pope John Paul II thought that it did NOT justify his action.

JPII refused to acknowledge its existence. We were in the "Springtime of Vatican II " remember. Utter madness. As if the Pope saying something changes a fact.

And No. It’s not “what Gerard thinks.” It’s what the facts say and what the Pope says. Paul VI called it the “smoke of Satan” entering the Church at the highest levels. JPII eventually conceded by calling it “the silent apostasy” and Pope BXVI called it “liturgical ruins…the collapse of the liturgy” among many other aspects of the Crisis. The difference is B16 is the only Pope who has taken any small steps only recently to address this.

Gerard wrote:
So, a tit for tat would be extremely illuminating in this type of discussion. It gets facts out that are avoided by those opposed to the SSPX.

Quote Sure:
Agreed, it helps get at the facts that are avoided by SSPX apologists.

By all means provide those facts. You won’t find me avoiding unpleasant facts. I study all sides of an issue before coming to a conclusion.

 

[GerardP]

ABSOLUTELY!!! I couldn’t agree more!

If a Pope teaches erroneously against infallible teachings, then we can legitimately disobey him to some extent.

What about immoral disciplinary orders? Was the deacon ordered by Pope Stephen to respond for the corpse of Pope Formosus morally obliged to participate in that horror?

However, the quote that I was replying to was about CUSTOMS not infallible teaching.
Who decides when the customs of the Pope are wrong and that we can ignore him?

How would you determine the answer to to the trial of Formosus?

Unless I am understanding the phrase “customs” wrong and that does, indeed, refer to infallible teaching…?

Do you believe the Pope is irresistible in non-infallible matters?

 

[Sure]

No. It’s an inference based on behavior.

My inference, you mean.

When the Pope’s disciplinary judgements are allowing the loss of faith and mass apostasy they must be resisted. The idea that the Pope is infallible in all disciplinary matters is a Protestant misunderstanding. The idea that the Pope is irresistible is a Protestant misconception that has been adopted by many Catholics.

Read above and think about it.

Objectively, was the Holy Father right or wrong on this? Are you saying that there has been no crisis in the Church which has become more pronounced since the close of the Council?

JPII refused to acknowledge its existence. We were in the "Springtime of Vatican II " remember. Utter madness. As if the Pope saying something changes a fact.

And No. It’s not “what Gerard thinks.” It’s what the facts say and what the Pope says. Paul VI called it the “smoke of Satan” entering the Church at the highest levels. JPII eventually conceded by calling it “the silent apostasy” and Pope BXVI called it “liturgical ruins…the collapse of the liturgy” among many other aspects of the Crisis. The difference is B16 is the only Pope who has taken any small steps only recently to address this.

By all means provide those facts. You won’t find me avoiding unpleasant facts. I study all sides of an issue before coming to a conclusion.

But as it applies specifically to the SSPX, it still remains that you think Lefebvre saw a big enough crisis to morally justify his actions and the Pope didn’t. I’m sorry, but I side with the Pope’s interpretation on this one and not yours. That doesn’t make me a “modernist” and it doesn’t make me protestant. Ultimately, your whole proof rests upon your own analysis that something was clearly wrong. Mine rests upon the judgement of the Holy Father.

 

[GerardP]

But as it applies specifically to the SSPX, it still remains that you think Lefebvre saw a big enough crisis to morally justify his actions and the Pope didn’t.

Again, the facts showed the crisis. JPII’s judgement on the interior disposition of LeFebvre is not an excuse for JPII’s bad behavior. JPII didn’t have the humility that St. Peter had by actually taking the correction that LeFebvre and many others had requested of him.

It becomes more and more apparent as time goes on just what a negligent job he did unfortunately.

I’m sorry, but I side with the Pope’s interpretation on this one and not yours.

Do you side with the Pope because he’s the Pope or because the facts concerning the crisis lead you to believe that JPII was correct and there was no emergency?

That doesn’t make me a “modernist” and it doesn’t make me protestant.

Is this relevant or are you exaggerating what I wrote so you can set up a straw man to fight? I didn’t call you a modernist or a protestant.

Ultimately, your whole proof rests upon your own analysis that something was clearly wrong.

What’s your point? Are you saying that I can’t possibly be correct? Does the fact that I’m not Pope change the validity of the argument? Am I wrong in my conclusions that there is indeed a crisis of enormous scope in the Church? Or did I miss Paul VI’s and JPII’s heroic efforts to curtail liturgical abuse, condemn modernist errors, protect Our Lord from sacrilege? We won’t even get into the molestation scandal.

Mine rests upon the judgement of the Holy Father.

Yes. And that’s plainly papalotry. You can’t even address the fact that the Pope didn’t admit to any crisis until the very end of his pontificate. And he didn’t have the courtesy to say that LeFebvre was correct. More importantly he still didn’t do anything.

 

[MMLJ]

I am going to try and bring the thread back on track

The SSPX, on their website that they are neither in Schism nor Excommunication, and they have cited what seems to be valid references.

Would someone try and elaborate this above?

for example:

1.  A person who violates a law out of necessity* is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity1:

• if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70),
  *and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties2 (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

1. No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321 §1, 1323 70). Now, Archbishop Lefebvre made it amply clear that he was bound in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Catholic priesthood and that he was obeying God in going ahead with the consecrations (Cf. the Sermon of June 30, 1988, and Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 136 [APPENDIX II]). Hence, even if he had been wrong, there would be no subjective sin.
2. Most importantly, positive law is at the service of the natural and eternal law and ecclesiastical law is at that of the divine law (PRINCIPLE 8). No “authority,” [PRINCIPLE 9] can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments. No “law,” can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church. With Rome giving no guarantee of preserving Catholic Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre had to do what he could with his God-given episcopal powers to guarantee its preservation. This was his duty as a bishop.
3. The Church’s approving the SSPX (QUESTION 2) allow it what it needs for its own preservation. This includes the service of bishops who will guarantee to maintain Catholic tradition.

(sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q11_abexcommunicated.htm)

Thank you for remaining on topic.

 

[Sure]

Again, the facts showed the crisis. JPII’s judgement on the interior disposition of LeFebvre is not an excuse for JPII’s bad behavior. JPII didn’t have the humility that St. Peter had by actually taking the correction that LeFebvre and many others had requested of him.

It becomes more and more apparent as time goes on just what a negligent job he did unfortunately.

Do you side with the Pope because he’s the Pope or because the facts concerning the crisis lead you to believe that JPII was correct and there was no emergency?

Is this relevant or are you exaggerating what I wrote so you can set up a straw man to fight? I didn’t call you a modernist or a protestant.

What’s your point? Are you saying that I can’t possibly be correct? Does the fact that I’m not Pope change the validity of the argument? Am I wrong in my conclusions that there is indeed a crisis of enormous scope in the Church? Or did I miss Paul VI’s and JPII’s heroic efforts to curtail liturgical abuse, condemn modernist errors, protect Our Lord from sacrilege? We won’t even get into the molestation scandal.

Yes. And that’s plainly papalotry. You can’t even address the fact that the Pope didn’t admit to any crisis until the very end of his pontificate. And he didn’t have the courtesy to say that LeFebvre was correct. More importantly he still didn’t do anything.

Ok, I get it. You think Lefebvre was right and you are entitled to your opinion. The official documents issued by the Catholic Church disagree with you.

There really isn’t any point in continuing the discussion. I know where you stand and you know where I stand.

Just a quick aside, I noticed that you made reference to the molestation scandal. It may interest you to know that the vast majority of priests who abused children were ordained prior to Vatican II.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Just a quick aside, I noticed that you made reference to the molestation scandal. It may interest you to know that the vast majority of priests who abused children were ordained prior to Vatican II.

Actually the majority of abuses occurred after Vatican II and the implementation of the NO-service.
The Ordination had nothing to do with it (let us not get into New Rite vs Old Rite Ordinations, or Homosexual priests after Vatican II , that would be a good topic for another thread).
Again you are guilty of “contextomy,”

 

[bear06]

Untrue. Can you back up your assertion?

Yes, true. Do you not remember Luther. I think it was Andreas who pointed out that he had the best of intentions.

And you’ve drawn an incorrect conclusion. You are advocating Papal Irresistibility. Not infallibility.

Please stop using the latest Angelqueen jargon to tell me what conclusion I’ve drawn.

 

[GerardP]

Well, the thread started to get derailed within the first 5 posts.

What are the most pressing questions you have?

From what you posted, this is one of the pertinent points.

*“No “law,” can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church.” *

Establishing this premise is one of the main issues that needs to be brought to light. This has to be understood within the context of the indefectibility of the Church.

I believe that archbishop LeFebvre was brought to the fore by God precisely because the Church is indefectible.

One would think that God would always pick a Pope to be his champion, but history shows that God often picks less obvious people to get his message.

I was just listening to Bishop Sheen today and he said that God chooses the very elements that are used to cause trouble to repair the damage.

A disobedient Man in Adam is replaced by the Man-God obedient unto death.

The Proud Eve is replaced by the humble Handmaid of the Lord

The tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil is replaced with the cross where the Fruit of the Vine is found and eternal life.

God’s counterattacks have been from very unlikely sources. A bishop, a French bishop at that. How many French bishops have been troublesome for the Church in recent years?

Who would have thought that a more recent devastating blow by God would come from Hollywood itself? Mel Gibson’s “Passion” provided a devastating reminder to God’s enemies in Hollywood that He is in Charge.

Who knows how further restoration will occur? God only knows but when we find out, it will be a big surprise and we will see at that moment how the answer will be.

 

[bear06]

*“No “law,” can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church.” *

What proof do you possess that shows that only consecrating one bishop instead of four would bring about the destruction of the Church?!