SSPX Questions & Discussion

[JKirkLVNV]

Was his Intention the Salvation of Souls and why did he renege on the agreement?

I assume he thought he was correct. But here’s the trouble with that: Milingo thought he was correct, Feeney thought he was correct, the Old Catholics thought they were correct, Luther thought he was correct, Cranmer thought he was correct. So did Saint Athanasius (turned out he was). So how do we know who’s right and who’s wrong? The Church, the Magisterium. That’s the only objective way to determine.

 

[Sure]

I am not sure that it is justified to group Luther the manifest heretic with The Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. But as I can see that you have, so can you show me, if the Archbishop taught heresy?

What Kirk said.

Was my post really that ambiguous?

 

[MMLJ]

No, that’s not what is being said at all.

You know, the Holy See was in contact with the Protestant “Reformers.” Protestant religious leaders were invited and given safe passage to the Council of Trent.

But he was not your everyday Reformer, he was an Catholic Archbishop who had some say, i.e. in the formation, during the early stages of the Novus Ordo service. I am not sure about this so correct me I am wrong.

 

[bear06]

So can you clarify, are you saying that the Archbishop is anti-Catholic/taught heresy? If so how is he anti-Catholic or taught heresy if the Holy See was still in contact with him and with the SSPX today? As I know that Luther was a heretic to put it lightly, and possibly of the Occult.

I’m saying that intent doesn’t matter whether it be heresy or schism. As far as heresy and the SSPX, I’m not given the power to make that declaration although I suspect they have a little difficulty with Pastor Aeternus. ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But he was not your everyday Reformer, he was an Catholic Archbishop who had some say, i.e. in the formation, during the early stages of the Novus Ordo service. I am not sure about this so correct me I am wrong.

Well, Thomas Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury, a successor to Saint Augustine of Canterbury, and Luther was an Augustinian monk and university professor. They were still wrong.

 

[Sure]

But he was not your everyday Reformer, he was an Catholic Archbishop who had some say, i.e. in the formation, during the early stages of the Novus Ordo service. I am not sure about this so correct me I am wrong.

No, your right, he was much less off track than Luther.

The comparison between he and Archbishop Milingo is really much closer. They both acted outside of the law in consecrating bishops without papal mandate. I assume they both did this with good intentions. However, their acts still violated canon law and resulted in excommunication.

Not sure how involved Archbishop Lefevbre was in the new Mass (I don’t think he was). He did however vote to approve the Vatican II documents that he later claimed were problematic. Of course, none of that would have any effect on his status in the Church.

 

[MMLJ]

PLEASE:

I am signing off now, I have to go pick up my beautiful children from little school. So play nice when I am gone.

Your have all been very helpful and kind.

May God Bless you.

 

[Sure]

PLEASE:

I am signing off now, I have to go pick up my beautiful children from little school. So play nice when I am gone.

Your have all been very helpful and kind.

May God Bless you.

This has been a good thread. I hope we can keep on topic and discuss this further.

Let us all pray for the return of the SSPX to the fullness of communion with the Church!

 

[mrdrifter]

Ummm…you should re-read what Bear06 wrote:

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

…because they refer to them as BISHOP!

Duh, I get it now. Just threw me 'cause Msgr. is the normal title for a bishop.

 

[MMLJ]

If individuals are members of the SSPX i.e. attend mass, get the Eucharist, Holy Communion, Penance, Marriage, and other Sacraments, are they within the Catholic Church?

For example: Does attending a Mass ministered by the SSPX fulfill our obligation of Sunday Mass? Will individuals receive the true Eucharist in all ways? etc.

Since I read on another thread that providing the matter, form and intent are correct, that suspended priests, although suspended, are always priests and can administer the sacraments. (is this a true statement?)

(P.S. I know this might be trivial for some so bear with me, thank you for your thoughtfulness)

 

[Sure]

It is indeed a difficult question. In the Church documents already noted here it would seem that a person who exclusively attends such a church is adhering the schism and excommunicated. From Cardinal Castrillon’s interview comments, it would seem that the person is not in schism but is not in full communion either.

For this reason, it needs clarification from Rome.

 

[bear06]

If individuals are members of the SSPX i.e. attend mass, get the Eucharist, Holy Communion, Penance, Marriage, and other Sacraments, are they within the Catholic Church?

For example: Does attending a Mass ministered by the SSPX fulfill our obligation of Sunday Mass? Will individuals receive the true Eucharist in all ways? etc.

 

[MMLJ]

Again thanks to all who have supplied info and links.

I have recently visited their website and they (SSPX) have claimed that they are neither excommunicated nor in schism. Also have given references from the Canon to back it up.

For example: lex orandi, lex credendi

This is getting more confusing as I read more info.

If I may be so bold to say, “It is quite evident that laity such as myself, are finding it ever difficult to understand what is going on the the Catholic Church”. I have tried to ask others who attend the Novud Ordo mass, for example about the TLM or SSPX, and I would 99% have no clue of what I am saying/asking.

This is why I started this thread. It is a learning process and I realize it may take time, but I am one of the few who even queries or seeks info on the TLM or SSPX.

 

[Sure]

Again thanks to all who have supplied info and links.

I have recently visited their website and they (SSPX) have claimed that they are neither excommunicated nor in schism. Also have given references from the Canon to back it up.

For example: lex orandi, lex credendi

This is getting more confusing as I read more info.

If I may be so bold to say, “It is quite evident that laity such as myself, are finding it ever difficult to understand what is going on the the Catholic Church”. I have tried to ask others who attend the Novud Ordo mass, for example about the TLM or SSPX, and I would 99% have no clue of what I am saying/asking.

This is why I started this thread. It is a learning process and I realize it may take time, but I am one of the few who even queries or seeks info on the TLM or SSPX.

That is why it is perhaps the most prudent to pay the most attention to the official documents of the Church which have been linked on this thread. While other documents “might” be correct, you can KNOW that the Church’s documents are correct. There is less risk of error that way.

God bless!

 

[Johndigger]

I’m assuming you’re familiar with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, MMLJ - everyone gets the right to interpret the bible their own way.

Well, this is what the SSPX are applying to canon law, they say they have the right to interpret it and that everyone that doesn’t interpret it their way is wrong.

Then other people give their own interpretation of canon law.

How do we know which one is right?

Do you think that God would give us a law that doesn’t mean anything because we can interpret it in so many different ways, that it basically doesn’t mean anything?

No, God gave us proper authority to clarify and distinguish what the Church is really saying - and that authority, ultimately, lies with the Pope.

Listen to the Pope.

In Christ,

JD

 

[GerardP]

I’m saying that intent doesn’t matter whether it be heresy or schism. As far as heresy and the SSPX, I’m not given the power to make that declaration although I suspect they have a little difficulty with Pastor Aeternus. ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

Intent does matter when it comes to schism. It’s not a declaration by the Pope willy nilly (except in JPII’s case, tortured logica and all) and it certainly isn’t infallible.

Re: Pastor Aeternus. You can’t possibly “suspect” that the SSPX has difficulty with this. If I recall correctly you’ve already been asked to draw your attention to the fact that Vatican I makes the delineation of “true” obedience to the Holy Father.

I believe you’ve been corrected on this before. It amazes me how people when faced with the truth, ignore it and then trot out the same false argument within a short time.

Defending Vatican I and then de facto denying what it says is truly a disorientation prevalent in the modern era.

 

[GerardP]

I’m assuming you’re familiar with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, MMLJ - everyone gets the right to interpret the bible their own way.

Well, this is what the SSPX are applying to canon law, they say they have the right to interpret it and that everyone that doesn’t interpret it their way is wrong.

Canon Law is not the Holy Scriptures for one thing. I find this denial that anyone can actually read something and know what it means to be astounding. Romano Amerio pointed this out in Iota Unum as “Pyrrhonism”

Then other people give their own interpretation of canon law.

How do we know which one is right?

How do you know anything is right? How do you know 2+2=4?
Do you wait for an authority to tell you? Or can you determine it on your own?

We’ve had a Pope stating that there is no emergency in the Church when the roof is collapsing all over the place and he was punishing a bishop for defending the very formation he (the Pope) was supposed to have had. It’s utter madness.

Do you think that God would give us a law that doesn’t mean anything because we can interpret it in so many different ways, that it basically doesn’t mean anything?

God doesn’t give us Canon Law. Canon Law is a human element in the Church.

No, God gave us proper authority to clarify and distinguish what the Church is really saying - and that authority, ultimately, lies with the Pope.

That authority resides in the office of the papacy and the Pope is bound by the magisterium. No Pope can reinterpret the Assumption of Mary or the Hypostatic Union to mean anything else than it already does. Laws are a different matter and God gives men great latitude when it comes to damaging His Church.

Listen to the Pope.

In Christ,

JD

Popes have failed often in the course of their duties. Go to new advent’s website and look in the encyclopedia for the trial of Pope Formosus. And then try to imagine the confusion for those close to the papacy in those days.

 

[bear06]

Intent does matter when it comes to schism. It’s not a declaration by the Pope willy nilly (except in JPII’s case, tortured logica and all) and it certainly isn’t infallible.

Re: Pastor Aeternus. You can’t possibly “suspect” that the SSPX has difficulty with this. If I recall correctly you’ve already been asked to draw your attention to the fact that Vatican I makes the delineation of “true” obedience to the Holy Father.

I believe you’ve been corrected on this before. It amazes me how people when faced with the truth, ignore it and then trot out the same false argument within a short time.

Defending Vatican I and then de facto denying what it says is truly a disorientation prevalent in the modern era.

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

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

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

 

[Johndigger]

Canon Law is not the Holy Scriptures for one thing. I find this denial that anyone can actually read something and know what it means to be astounding. Romano Amerio pointed this out in Iota Unum as “Pyrrhonism”

Of course it’s not Holy Scripture and neither am I say that you can’t read something and gain knowledge from it. However, just like with Holy Scripture, if you attain something from scripture that directly contradicts what the Church has said on the matter - then you’re obviously not understanding scripture.

When it comes down to my own (Or SSPX’s) interpretation of any Church document, infallible or not - against the Pope and the Church’s, I will listen to the Church.

We’ve had a Pope stating that there is no emergency in the Church when the roof is collapsing all over the place and he was punishing a bishop for defending the very formation he (the Pope) was supposed to have had. It’s utter madness.

Sure, you might say that things arn’t as good as they could be, but the people who blame the Pope/ Novus Ordo / Vatican II are MASSIVELY oversimplifying the issue - Try a sexual revolution, a feminist one, an onslaught of materialism being the main cause of the problem.

There are lots of things to blame for the “roof collapsing in the Church” and none of them are solved by seperating yourself from the Roman Pontiff.

God doesn’t give us Canon Law. Canon Law is a human element in the Church.

I agree. Bad wording on my part. But Canon Law is still guided by God, insofar, as he has bestowed the authority upon humans to make these laws and He guides his Church continually.

That authority resides in the office of the papacy and the Pope is bound by the magisterium. No Pope can reinterpret the Assumption of Mary or the Hypostatic Union to mean anything else than it already does.

I’m talking about Canon law. Not infallible statements.

Popes have failed often in the course of their duties. Go to new advent’s website and look in the encyclopedia for the trial of Pope Formosus. And then try to imagine the confusion for those close to the papacy in those days.

No denying this. I’m NOT saying that we should absolutely follow the Pope blindly. However, we still need to listen to Christ’s vicar on Earth. This isn’t just some wayward Pope - his decision has been confirmed by the next Pope and is still held to this day.

However you word it, your position amounts to the fact that we can disobey the Pope when we feel like it as long as we feel their is grave enough reason.

Satan’s “Non-Serviam” still echoes through time even until this day.

JD

 

[bear06]

BTW, back to the “true obedience” argument. Lefebvre, to my knowledge, never even used this argument. His argument was he was operating under grave fear. Not only that, previous Magisterium had already said this:

Under Pope Pius XII, the Canonical Tradition was clearly stated that the pressure of grave fear did not excuse bishops who illicitly consecrated or illicitly received consecration from the latae sententiae penalty of excommunication. For as the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office decreed April 9, 1999, “Episcopus, cuiusvis ritus vel dignitatis, aliquem, neque ab Apostolica Sede nominatum neque ab Eadem expresse confirmaum, consecraus in Episcopum, et qui consecrationem recipit, etsi metu gravi coacti (c. 2229 A73:3ƒ [CIC 1917]), incurrunt ipso facto in excommunicationem Apostolicae Sedi specialissimo modo reservatam” (AAS 43 [1951] 217-218). In short, canonical tradition dictates that grave fear does not mitigate from the penalty of excommunication when one consecrates bishops without papal mandate.

How in the heck can anyone try to say that Lefebvre had to ordain bishops out of “true obedience”. Obviously, Pius XII didn’t buy it either.

So people can “correct” me all they want but they’d still be wrong.