SSPX Questions & Discussion

[MMLJ]

Greetings To All,

PLEASE NOTE: This thread is NOT intended for those who wish to only criticize, chastise, mock, condemn, etc., the SSPX.

I am ***Genuinely interested ***in discovering what it is they represent, their history, their validity, the Ordination of Priests, their line of Bishops, beliefs, relationships to the Holy See, etc., (anything of import concerning this group).

This is an open discussion pertaining to the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). It would be only proper Etiquette that members refrain from anything that will lead to the closure of this thread. It would welcome if those who consider themselves Traditional Catholic Please post your info, but of course all are welcome.

Again PLEASE: Some of us are trying to gain information and understanding of the Traditional Catholic groups and would greatly appreciate that those who cannot answer appropriately according to forum rules to please refrain from posting.

I hope as Catholics we can work together and provide excellent info and advice and prevent the closure of this thread and future threads.

Thank you and may God bless us all.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

A good place to start is by watching the following. It is a speach given by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1975, a few years after founding the SSPX with full ecclesiastical approval.

youtube.com/watch?v=5nmjBM5QzEw

 

[Sure]

Here is the official Church teaching on the SSPX. This is from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts:

1 . From the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia dei” of 2nd July 1988 and from the Decree “Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre” of the Congregation for Bishops, of 1st July 1988, it appears above all that the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre was declared in immediate reaction to the episcopal ordinations conferred on 30th June 1988 without pontifical mandate (cf CIC, Can. 1382). All the same it also appears clear from the aforementioned documents that such a most grave act of disobedience formed the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic character.

1. In effect no. 4. of the Motu Proprio explains the nature of the “doctrinal root of this schismatic act,” and no. 5. c) warns that a “formal adherence to the schism” (by which one must understand “the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre”) would bring with it the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364 para.1). Also the decree of the Congregation for Bishops makes explicit reference to the “schismatic nature” of the aforesaid episcopal ordinations and mentions the most grave penalty of excommunication which adherence “to the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre” would bring with it.

1. Unfortunately, the schismatic act which gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree did no more than draw to a conclusion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner — with a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff — a process of distancing from hierarchical communion. As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.

1. One cannot furnish any judgement on the argumentation of Murray’s thesis (see below) because it is not known, and the two articles which refer to it appear confused. However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances. (cf CIC, can. 1323) As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of “serving” the church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.

1. As the Motu Proprio declares in no. 5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who “adhere formally” to the said schismatic movement. Even if the question of the exact import of the notion of “formal adherence to the schism” would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this pontifical Council that such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements:

a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church),

b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian “ecclesial” acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit).

1. In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements mentioned above (n.5) are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence.

…

 

[Sure]

continued

1. On the other hand, in the case of the rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the Lefebvrian movement, done without making one’s own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice the result can be that it is more difficult to judge their situation. One must take account above all of the person’s intentions, and the putting into practice of this internal disposition. For this reason the various situations are going to be judged case by case, in the competent forums both internal and external.

1. All the same, it will always be necessary to distinguish between the moral question on the existence or not of the sin of schism and the juridical-penal question on the existence of the delict of schism, and its consequent sanction. In this latter case the dispositions of Book V1 of the Code of Canon Law (including Cann.1323-1324) will be applied.

1. It does not seem advisable to make more precise the requirements for the delict of schism (but one would need to ask the competent Dicastery, cf. Ap. Const. “Pastor Bonus”, art 52). One might risk creating more problems by means of rigid norms of a penal kind which would not cover every case, leaving uncovered cases of substantial schism, or having regard to external behaviour which is not always subjectively schismatic.

1. Always from the pastoral point of view it would also seem opportune to recommend once again to sacred pastors all the norms of the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” with which the solicitude of the Vicar of Christ encouraged to dialogue and has provided the supernatural and human means necessary to facilitate the return of the Lefebvrians to full ecclesial communion.

Vatican City, 24th August 1996.

It would also be helpful to read the original document on which the above comments: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

Hope this helps!

 

[Sure]

Here is the agreement signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger that was to remove the Archbishop’s suspension and appoint a new bishop for the SSPX.

May 5, 1988

5.2 But, for practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society as a bishop seems useful. This is why, in the context of the doctrinal and canonical solution of reconciliation, we suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen from among the members of the Society, presented by Archbishop Lefebvre. In consequence of the principle indicated above (5.1), this bishop as a rule is not the Superior General of the Society. But it seems opportune that he be a member of the Roman commission.

1. Particular Problems
   (to be resolved by decree or declaration)

• Lifting of the suspensio a divinis on Archbishop Lefebvre and dispensation from the irregularities incurred by the fact of the ordinations.

• Sanatio in radice, at least ad cautelam, of the marriages already celebrated by the priests of the Society without the required delegation.

• Provision for an “amnesty” and an accord for the houses and places of worship erected - or used - by the Society, until now without the authorization of the bishops.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Mgr Marcel Lefebvre

fssp.org/en/protoc5mai.htm

Sadly, just a few weeks later on June 30th, Archbishop Lefebvre violated the agreement he signed and in consecrating 4 new bishops, excommunicated himself.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

After watching the vidoe of the speech given in 1975 (see post # 2), it is interesting to read the speech given by the Archbishop in 1988 during the consecration ceremony.

This will shed some light on his motivation.

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_v_1988_consecration_sermon.htm

 

[bear06]

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The following is a youtube video of, what the Archbishop called, “operation survival”.

youtube.com/watch?v=gAr0psfJGeg

 

[Sure]

MMLJ,

You should keep in mind as you assess the situation and read these documents that Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated. The Holy Spirit does not call men to separate themselves from the Church. That is a different spirit altogether.

 

[MMLJ]

After watching the vidoe of the speech given in 1975 (see post # 2), it is interesting to read the speech given by the Archbishop in 1988 during the consecration ceremony.

This will shed some light on his motivation.

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_v_1988_consecration_sermon.htm

Note to All:

I am going through each post but it may take some time as it is a lot to digest.

Thank you for your post. So the Bishops that Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated are valid but illicit?

 

[bear06]

So the Bishops that Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated are valid but illicit?

Yes. You won’t find the Vatican referring to any ot them as Father or Msgr.

 

[MMLJ]

Yes. You won’t find the Vatican referring to any ot them as Father or Msgr.

Thank you for your response.

Was the reaction of the Holy See before or after the Consecration of the Bishops by the Archbishop?

 

[MMLJ]

MMLJ,

You should keep in mind as you assess the situation and read these documents that Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated. The Holy Spirit does not call men to separate themselves from the Church. That is a different spirit altogether.

Thank you for your response.

Canonically speaking, what is the highest/greatest good? I ask because I would like to know the Intent of the ArchBishop.

 

[Sure]

Thank you for your response.

Was the reaction of the Holy See before or after the Consecration of the Bishops by the Archbishop?

The Motu Proprio, Ecclesia Dei, declaring the excommunications of the Archbishop and the 4 new bishops was issued on July 2, 1988 two days after the schismatic act of illegal consecration on June 30, 1988. The Holy See (Cardinal Ratzinger) had been working to resolve the situation and had reached an agreement with the Archbishop on May, 5 1988 and had been warned by the Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops:

Congregation for Bishops to His Excellency Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle

Since on June 15, 1988 you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by Canon 1013 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto excommunication latæ sententiæ reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with Canon 1382. I therefore entreat and beseech you in the name of Jesus Christ to weigh carefully what you are about to undertake against the laws of sacred discipline, and the very grave consequences resulting therefrom for the communion of the Catholic Church, of which you are a bishop.

Given at Rome, from the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, June 17, 1988.

By Mandate of the Supreme Pontiff,

Bernardin Card. Gantin
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

This agreement and warning were then disregarded by the Archbishop on June 30th.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

MMLJ,

You should keep in mind as you assess the situation and read these documents that Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated. The Holy Spirit does not call men to separate themselves from the Church. That is a different spirit altogether.

True, the Holy Spirit does not call men to separate themselves from the Church, but, in extraordinary circumstances, he does move men to do things that would normally not be allowed.

So, for example, let’s say that the Pope failed in his duty to guard and protect the faith. Let’s say that some of the worst heretics were elevated to the rank of Bishops and were leading many astray. And let’s say that even the Seminaries were becoming thoroughly corrupted both morally and theologically, which were then procuding morally and thoelogically corrupt Priests. Let’s also imagine that the Mass had been transformed in such a way that it resembled an Anglican, or Lutheran, Service, and that even the very words of consecration had been tampeted with. And let’s say that this lack of action on the part of the Pope, and the corruption to followed, was resulting in a tremendous crisis of faith, and distortion of the true teaching of the Church.

If such extraordinary circumtances ever emerged, it would make perfect sense that God would raise up a valiant Bishop (or possibly an Archbishop) to establish Semenaries where true Priests could be formed, who could then offer the Mass and other sacraments in a worthy manner, and provide true and Orthodox catechesis.

In times of a great crisis, God will raise up a valiant defender of the Faith. In the days of the Arian crisis, for example, when, according to Fr. Jurgins who wrot “Faith of the early Fathers” 97% of the Bishop had become Arian, God raised up St. Athanasius, who was excommunicated by the Pope; banned from his diocese at least 4 times (and replaced with an Arian bishop), condemned by a council of 300+ Bishops, and who spent 17 years in exile.

This objectively excommunicated schismatic was, of course, the saint God used to protect the faith. And of course the “excommunication” and charges of “schism” were completely unjust and therefore “absolutely null and utterly void”.

Time will show that God raise up Archbishop Lefebvre in our day just as he raise up St. Athanasius during the Arian crisis. A defender of the faith who, against all odds, and not fearing for himself, took the necessary actions to provide true and worthy sacraments, as well as Orthodox Catechises in a day of tremendous liturgical corruption, heretics catechesis and a general watering down and perversion of the true teaching of the faith.

 

[Sure]

True, the Holy Spirit does not call men to separate themselves from the Church, but, in extraordinary circumstances, he does move men to do things that would normally not be allowed.

So, for example, let’s say that the Pope failed in his duty to guard and protect the faith. Let’s say that some of the worst heretics were elevated to the rank of Bishops and were leading many astray. And let’s say that even the Seminaries were becoming thoroughly corrupted both morally and theologically, which were then procuding morally and thoelogically corrupt Priests. And let’s say that this lack of action on the part of the Pope, and the corruption to followed was resulting in a tremendous crisis of faith, and distortion of the true teaching of the Church.

If such extraordinary circumtances ever emerged, it would make perfect sense that God would raise up a valiant Bishop (or possibly an Archbishop) to establish Semenaries where true Priests could be formed, who could then offer the Mass and other sacraments in a worthy manner, and provide true and Orthodox catechises.

In times of a great crisis, God will raise up a valiant defender of the Faith. In the days of the Arian crisis, for example, when, according to Fr. Jurgins who wrot “Faith of the early Fathers” 97% of the Bishop had become Arian, God raised up St. Athanasius, who was excommunicated by the Pope; banned from his diocese at least 4 times (and replaced with an Arian bishop), condemned by a council of 300+ Bishops, and who spent 17 years in exile.

This objectively excommunicated schismatic was, of course, the saint God used to protect the faith. And of course the “excommunication” and charges of “schism” were completely unjust and therefore “absolutely null and utterly void”.

Time will show that God raise up Archbishop Lefebvre in our day just as he raise up St. Athanasius during the Arian crisis. A defender of the faith who, against all odds, and not fearing for himself, took the necessary actions to provide true and worthy sacraments, as well as Orthodox Catechises in a day of tremendous liturgical corruption, heretics catechesis and a general watering down and perversion of the true teaching of the faith.

Good luck with that.

 

[bear06]

Thank you for your response.

Was the reaction of the Holy See before or after the Consecration of the Bishops by the Archbishop?

They were warned of the excommunications long before the consecration of bishops. Their trouble with the Church started long before this though. I think many think that the first problem they had before the excommunications but this isn’t true. The canonical study is a good place to start.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Good luck with that.

Yeah, I know what you mean. God would never permit a Pope to allow corrupt and heretical men to be raise to the level of bishop, and Cardinal. Nor would he allow a Pope to stand idly by while the Seminaries became cesspools of iniquity and heresy. Nor would he allow a Pope to approve a Mass as valid that contained no words of consecration. Nor would he allow an entire generation of Catholics to be taught a watered down /semi-heretical version of the faith. Nor would he allow a Pope to invite snake worhippers, animists (devil worshippers), Hindus, worshippers of The Great Thumb, and a variety of of other false religions to a prticular Church (Assisi, for example) and provide them with a room where they could commit a mortal sin against the first commandment. God would never allow such a thing, would he?

But if he did allow such things, do you agree that it would be justifiable for a Bishop to do things that would normally not be allowed?

 

[bear06]

Greetings To All,

PLEASE NOTE: This thread is NOT intended for those who wish to only criticize, chastise, mock, condemn, etc., the SSPX.

I am ***Genuinely interested ***in discovering what it is they represent, their history, their validity, the Ordination of Priests, their line of Bishops, beliefs, relationships to the Holy See, etc., (anything of import concerning this group).

This is an open discussion pertaining to the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). It would be only proper Etiquette that members refrain from anything that will lead to the closure of this thread. It would welcome if those who consider themselves Traditional Catholic Please post your info, but of course all are welcome.

Again PLEASE: Some of us are trying to gain information and understanding of the Traditional Catholic groups and would greatly appreciate that those who cannot answer appropriately according to forum rules to please refrain from posting.

I hope as Catholics we can work together and provide excellent info and advice and prevent the closure of this thread and future threads.

Thank you and may God bless us all.

OK, after the last post I’ve got to ask if this thread is for those who want to mock the Holy Father? I’m really trying to be good here so maybe the OP can address this.

 

[Johndigger]

Here is the official Church teaching on the SSPX. This is from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts:

Could you source this please? Not that I don’t believe you, but if I decided to maybe show this to someone else, I’d like to have a good source to back it up.

In Christ,

JD