SSPX Resistance

[Psychae]

I seriously doubt reconciliation will happen.

The SSPX doesn’t want reconciliation. They want Rome, or what they call the “Conciliar Church,” to convert to what they call “The True Faith.”

In other words, the SSPX denies that the Catholic Church has the Faith, teaches that the SSPX has the Faith, and wants the Catholic Church to convert to SSPX-ism.

Never gonna happen. They’re living in an upside-down world.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

I don’t think they realistically belive that the entire church is going to roll over and join them. Demanding that is nigh on impossible.

But it’s always a good negotiating tactic to go in demanding the maximum and then claiming to have compromised half way when in reality that is what you wanted all along.

I think that without the SSPX, there wouldn’t be an organized or succesful traditionalist movement. Everything that is traditionalist these days and that is not SSPX is either some fringe and deluded sedevacantist conspiracy group or people travelling along in the wake and momentum or copy-cat-o-sphere of the SSPX without officially being part of it (and this includes people like the FSSP who I’m pretty sure wouldn’t be as succesful as they are if the SSPX hadn’t blazed the trail, we’re just slightly less extreme than the SSPX so therefore we are the good guys, right?). As such, from a traditionalist point of view, the SSPX has been a good thing even if at times their tone and attitude has been harsh.

 

[Psychae]

The SSPX has never been a good thing. They started in disobedience and continue in it.

God can bring good out of evil, however.

Of course the SSPX does not realistically believe the entire Church is going to roll over and join them. They believe they are the heroic “remnant” spoken of in the Bible, in reference to the end times. They believe the Church at large and all its members are going to Hell in a hand basket. They believe you only have a chance to become a saint and get to heaven if you die as a member or follower in good standing of the SSPX or “The True Faith” or “Tradition” as they call it. They revel in their specialness, their remnant-ness, their holier-than-thou-ness… and their priests preach this way from the pulpit.

It sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? That’s because it is. Like I said, they’re living in an upside-down world.

 

[Genesis315]

Interesting article here about how the SSPX is being regularized in “installments” as it were, without really having to do much on their end. This is definitely an interesting aspect of Pope Francis’ papacy that doesn’t get much attention.

The Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X: Prospects for 2019 (Guest Post)

by Côme de Prévigny The visit this past November of Father Davide Pagliarani, new Superior-General of the Society of St. Pius X (S...

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com

The abolition of Ecclesia Dei (essentially created because of the SSPX), with Rome noting it being unnecessary since the communities regularly celebrating the EF had reached “proper stability,” and Bishop Huonder–a Swiss diocesan bishop–choosing to live out his retirement at an SSPX school without objection from the Pope have happened since that article.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

if they only just admit that the Pope is valid… They have refused, so I don’t see what comes next. If they refuse to admit the validity of the Pope… I do not see how they can be fully regularized.

They do believe that Francis is the Pope. Perhaps you are thinking of those who are sedevantists.

In other words, the SSPX claim the right to contradict an Ecumenical Council

Pope Paul VI himself said Vatican II was not an infallible council and that the smoke of satan had entered the council.

I think that without the SSPX, there wouldn’t be an organized or succesful traditionalist movement

I do think yes, it is because of the SSPX that the traditionalist movement grew.

 

[gracepoole]

The SSPX has never been a good thing. They started in disobedience and continue in it.

God can bring good out of evil, however.

Of course the SSPX does not realistically believe the entire Church is going to roll over and join them. They believe they are the heroic “remnant” spoken of in the Bible, in reference to the end times. They believe the Church at large and all its members are going to Hell in a hand basket. They believe you only have a chance to become a saint and get to heaven if you die as a member or follower in good standing of the SSPX or “The True Faith” or “Tradition” as they call it. They revel in their specialness, their remnant-ness, their holier-than-thou-ness… and their priests preach this way from the pulpit.

It sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? That’s because it is. Like I said, they’re living in an upside-down world.

The SSPX did not “start in disobedience.” It was approved of by the Church when it began.

As for how people pray for the pope, I think you’ll find many right here on CAF who openly pray for a change in Pope Francis’ words, actions, and demeanor.

 

[TMC]

Pope Paul VI himself said Vatican II was not an infallible council and that the smoke of satan had entered the council.

This is untrue.

 

[Bixby]

One of the holiest diocesan priests I’ve ever known said he suspected Archbishop Lefebvre was/is a saint, though it might take the Church a century or two to realise the fact. I agree with him.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

This is untrue.

(1)Paul VI:General audience of Jan 12,1966:“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided us teaching with the authority of the ordinary Magisterium, which must be accepted with docility…”

2 Paul VI: June 29, 1972 Speaking of the crises that were facing the Church, the pontiff used a striking image, saying that it seemed as though “the smoke of Satan entered the temple of God from some fissure,” adding there was an atmosphere of “doubt, uncertainty, problems, restlessness, dissatisfaction, confrontation.”

I did get part of this wrong, the Pope said the smoke of Satan entered the Church of God. He did not use the word council but was speaking after the council.

I’m not saying it isn’t a valid council nor do the SSPX say it it is not a valid council.

The SSPX hold that there are certain areas where it does not follow Catholic Tradition.

 

[TMC]

I did get part of this wrong, the Pope said the smoke of Satan entered the Church of God. He did not use the word council but was speaking after the council.

I’m not saying it isn’t a valid council nor do the SSPX say it it is not a valid council.

The SSPX hold that there are certain areas where it does not follow Catholic Tradition.

Vatican II has the exact same teaching authority of every Ecumenical Council. Its teachings are not optional, and by denying the Council the SSPX is denying the teaching authority of the Church.

2,800 bishops were involved in Vatican II. Bishop Lefebvre signed the resultant documents. Only one of those bishops, Lefebvre, later declared the Council invalid, despite having signed all of the documents. Five Popes were involved in the Council in one way or another, Paul VI, John XXIII, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. The idea that this one Ecumenical Council is not valid or not authoritative is simply unsupportable, as is the idea that one bishop has the authority to overrule all of his fellow bishops, and five successors of Peter. What seems more likely - that nearly 3,000 successors of the Apostles are completely mislead, or that one rogue bishop is?

 

[twf]

m not saying it isn’t a valid council nor do the SSPX say it it is not a valid council.

The SSPX hold that there are certain areas where it does not follow Catholic Tradition.

In your own quote, St. Paul VI says “but it [the Council] still provided us teaching with the authority of the ordinary Magisterium, which must be accepted with docility…”

The non-Chalcedonian Copts and Syriacs also, I’m sure, felt they were appealing to their superior understanding of Tradition when they rejected the Council of Chalcedon.

 

[Scott84]

As a Western Catholic, I find it ridiculous too. If the point was to restore the Latin Mass and some of the traditional practices again, we now have FSSP and ICKSP and Pope Benedict’s “Summorum Pontificorum”, so no more need for SSPX.

They are annoying and sullying the reputation of St. Pius X with their antics.

I pray for their full regularization within the Church. They can’t do any good if they are outside the Church.

I frankly don’t see what their stumbling block is right now. With FSSP and ICKSP there is no need for SSPX to remain on the outs with the Church, especially with Pope Francis extending SSPX an olive branch.

Rome is waiting.

 

[poche]

There is a bishop who has retired and lives with the SSPX.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

There is a bishop who has retired and lives with the SSPX.

Do you mean Huonder?

His story is actually a bit more complicated, from what i’ve heard anyway. I understand the SSPX don’t really like him very much and are keeping him at arm’s length.

 

[KMG]

I assume you treat Lateran IV with the same absolute obedience you treat Vatican II.

 

[TMC]

I assume you treat Lateran IV with the same absolute obedience you treat Vatican II.

Why use the cryptic trap language? If there is some particular teachings of Lateran IV you would like to discuss, let’s do that.

As to Vatican II, I meant what I said - Vatican II has the same teaching authority of any Ecumenical Council. It was not a junior council, not an optional council. It was an Ecumenical Council. Those that reject the authority of the Bishops sitting in Ecumenical Council are rejecting the teaching authority of the Church. That is each person’s individual choice to make, guided by their conscience, but let’s not pretend that the most recent Ecumenical Council lacks the authority of prior councils, or that Catholics are free to reject it.

 

[Psychae]

“In May 1970, shortly after his retirement as Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, Lefebvre was approached by eleven members of the Pontifical French Seminary in Rome who had been criticized for their adherence to the traditional doctrines of the Catholic Church. They sought Lefebvre’s advice on a conservative seminary where they could complete their studies.[9] He directed them to the University of Fribourg, in Switzerland.” -Wikipedia

In my opinion the SSPX started in disobedience. It’s a mute point.

Who cares how many people pray in private that the Pope does this or that? The SSPX publicly teaches people to pray that the Pope “converts” to the “true faith” and “tradition.” That’s subversive and anti-Catholic.

The SSPX calls the Pope a false prophet on their website: “ * We must thus make a judgment of his words and actions inasmuch as they affect our eternal salvation, as our Savior said: “Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them.” (Mt. 7:15)”

The SSPX is no good. Like I said, tho, God can bring good out of evil.

 

[TMC]

The SSPX calls the Pope a false prophet on their website:

Their website used to be much worse. After the Williamson debacle they took down some of the more offensive material, but there are still some (slightly more subtle) material on there that is troubling.

 

[KMG]

Actually no, Vatican II does not have the same authority as the other councils, simply because it didn’t arrogate to itself the same authority. You can’t possibly compare a council like Nicaea, which did indeed proclaim dogma and condemn heresy, with a council that made no attempt to do either.

 

[KMG]

It’s not a matter of “opinion” whether the SSPX “started in disobedience.” They were legitimately constituted at their founding. To say they “started in disobedience” is objectively false.