SSPX seems to indicate a definitive break with the Holy See

[torch621]

Sounds to me like they’ve drifted from schism to heresy. I wouldn’t be surprised if they continue to separate into more and more diverse groups with ever differing interpretations of what Tradition teaches as they have opted for the very Protestant “I’ll start my own thing when the Church does something I don’t agree with” approach to Church authority. Ironically, SSPX takes a hard interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and they are themselves extra ecclesiam. I love the Extraordinary Form - nothing does more to hurt the spread of this beautiful form of the Mass than groups like SSPX - it makes us all look like heretics. I’d love to see Papa Francesco excommunicate them and then celebrate a licit EF Mass… probably hoping for too much there though.

As Father Z would say, Pope Benedict still was the pope of Christian unity!

Amen

 

[R_C]

To allege that the SSPX is heretical requires one of two things, either a stretch of the definition of heretic or a decree by the only person who has the authority to call anyone a heretic, the Bishop of Rome.

Having said that, we must be very cautious with the content of their statement. There are several serious problems in it.

1. It is an attack on the popes of recent years, even if it does not name them.
2. The SSPX demands the right to correct and denounce anyone whom they perceive to be in conflict with truth. But this would elevate the SSPX to a second Magisterium and would give the SSPX the same authority as the CDF, which is the official organism through which the Holy See corrects errors and defends truth, along with the bishops of the world.
3. The SSPX has no canonical place in the Church. Therefore, whatever statement the SSPX makes about the Church is only an opinion. It carries no authority. Any faithful Catholic who credits it with any authority is confusing the issue. Organizations and individuals can have opinions, but only those with a canonical place in the Church can make an authoritative teaching statement.
4. There are statements in the document that are heresy and some that border on heresy. However, we must distinguish between a statement that is a heresy and a person who is a heretic. Many faithful Catholics make heretical statements all the time. Either they don’t know their faith or they have a very strong opinion on some subject and they are convinced that their opinion is correct. I believe that the situation in the SSPX is the latter.

As I read the article, the SSPX didn’t withdraw from the Church, they withdrew from talks. The SSPX has never claimed to be a separate church. They really aren’t heretical. They don’t deny the validity of the Papacy or Catholic sacraments or doctrines. Their priests are real priests and their sacraments are valid. They are disobedient in saying some VII documents contain heresy and refusing to accept that they dont. But that’s it.

Thank you for this. I am appalled at how many are crying out that SSPX announced a break, that they are now heretics, et cetera. I just can’t see that in the document. I can’t see any official declaration from the Church, either. So it boils down to a glorified misunderstanding to which many are subscribing for no special reason.

I am not knowledgeable enough to discern which statements are heresy, but let us face it: not everything that was established in the Second Vatican Council is infallible. We don’t even know how much actually is. Don’t look at me that way, just read what a Pope and a cardinal-then-Pope wrote on this matter:

“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility” (Pope Paul VI, General Audience of 1/12/1966)

“The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then Pope Benedict, 7/13/1988)

So when SSPX (which I understand but not support - just to be very clear) speaks of errors within the conciliar texts, that is not heresy. It is just their opinion.

Clearly when they speak of a new type of magisterium and say that the reign of Christ is no longer the preoccupation of the ecclesiastical authorities, we are on a very dangerous ground (this could be one of those statements in odor of heresy), but many of the claims they bring forth are in fact quite reasonable for anyone who has a basic grasp of Catholic doctrine beyond the writings of the Council and the encyclicals of blessed John Paul II, and who has studied the liturgical traditions of the Church and the short and unfortunate history of development of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

So please, don’t fret. Nothing new under the sun so far. I am afraid that Pope Francis won’t be as lenient with them as Pope Benedict was, but so far all stays the same as far as I can tell.

 

[LSK]

I was born in 1961 and I was a kid when all the changes came.
I didn’t really understand it at the time, but I saw what it did to my parents and many of their generation (WW2). Timing is everything, and in hindsight, many of the changes were not implimented in a proper way. In fact, it was a textbook example, IMHO, of how NOT to impliment change.
I was there, and I saw what happened. They were told by fellow Catholics who obviously didn’t know what they were talking about, that the Latin Mass was now “illegal” and if they went to a TLM, they were “no longer Catholic”. If they had objections they were told figuratively, if not literally to ‘sit down and shut up’.
In the early days it was just a group of blue collar Catholics who just wanted a Latin Mass, what they grew up with. They got together, rented an abandoned chapel and got an old retired priest to say the Mass for them. They were not radicals, they just wanted a Latin Mass.
Over time the old priest passed away and that little chapel was eventually taken over by a group who had other ideas about what “traditionalism” was. They were just dissenters who wanted a fight.
And they got one.
I won’t bore you with the details, but it wasn’t pretty.
Me? I was a young man. threw my hands in the air, and left the Church for twenty years.
When I returned, I encountered traditionalists who were far different than the blue-collar Catholics I encountered years before.
Twenty years make quite a difference.
These trads were angry, negative, radical, given over to conspiracy theories, making horrible statements about the Pope and their fellow Catholics. It was no longer just about Latin, now it was about almost every aspect of Catholic Culture they objected to.
They reminded me a lot of fundamentalists.
So, the article doesn’t surprise me.
IMO the chances for reunification would have been better back in the 1990s. The longer a group is independent, and stays cut off from the Church, the harder it is for reconciliation, almost like a divorce.
This is a problem Protestant churches are very familiar with.
When the Anglican communion reconciled with the CC, there were still break-away groups who will never return.
When the first generation of trads started to die off, the reasons for reconcliation became dimmer for the next generation.

I was born in 1955, I witnessed the changes and I think this is a very nice summation of al lot of the problems that resulted and an accurate view of the problems today.

 

[Joe_5859]

Quare tristis es, anima mea, et quare conturbas me? Spera in Deo, quoniam adhuc confetibor salutare vultus mei et Deus meus…Ut quid Domine, recessisti longe, despicis in opportunitate, in tribulation? Non me derelinquas usquequaque.

Pax

I will now attempt to translate this post using the Latin I’ve picked up off the “street”:

Question three is, animate me, and question me with turbans? Hope in the Lord, question and repent with salutations for me and God … The Lord questions long recessions, despite the opportunity, in tribulation? I am not a questioning derelict.

Peace.

So was I close?

 

[Fairwinds]

I will now attempt to translate this post using the Latin I’ve picked up off the “street”:

Question three is, animate me, and question me with turbans? Hope in the Lord, question and repent with salutations for me and God … The Lord questions long recessions, despite the opportunity, in tribulation? I am not a questioning derelict.

Peace.

So was I close?

I think you missed a intransitive dispositional. you have no cachet.

 

[R_C]

Quare tristis es, anima mea, et quare conturbas me? Spera in Deo, quoniam adhuc confetibor salutare vultus mei et Deus meus…

Adiutorium nostrum in nomine Domini quam fecit caelum et terram.

Good old prayers at the foot of the altar.

 

[runningdude]

catholicnewsagency.com/news/traditionalists-announce-definitive-break-with-catholic-church/

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

Peace

This changes nothing. There is no new “break”, except perhaps an indefinite suspension of negotiations. The Society has said nothing new, that it hasn’t said before.

The Holy Father will likely not address this statement personally, as contrary to the SSPX’s accusations, the church is not in the business of superficial reconciliation. At most, one of the major Cardinals in the Vatican will issue a statement, if asked, clarifying only that the SSPX remains suspended.

The SSPX will likely slowly unravel. As the founding Bishops age, they will retire and ultimately return to the Lord they’ve attempted to serve, and its 400 priests will either trickle back into good standing, or fend for themselves. Only a new egregious act of disobedience, such as ordination of new bishops, would result in additional disciplinary measures, such as excommunication or declaration of schism.

 

[hazcompat]

Adiutorium nostrum in nomine Domini quam fecit caelum et terram.

Good old prayers at the foot of the altar.

ad deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.
Pax

 

[Fairwinds]

ad deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.
Pax

is there extra credit for prayers in latin?

 

[SonCatcher]

Why did you change the wording of the article?
The headline on the article is:

BIG difference between the words “announce” and “indicate”

The CNA article has the word “announce” in the URL. It is likely they used the word “announce” in the original and edited it more recently.

 

[Brendan_64]

At least this makes it clear and concise.

The SSPX have always paid lip-service to the authority of the Pope, while in reality displaying contempt and disobedience. They’ve been in schism since the day Archbishop Lefebvre defied the Pope and consecrated bishops, yet they imply that it is not them, but the rest of the Church that is in schism. Their views on the Church following VII, and the OF Mass, are heretical.

They sit there in defiance of our Pope and our Church, and expect that the Church changes to suit their view. The expect the Church to compromise on its teachings to meet them. They expect the Church to come to them.

If the SSPX truly respected our Pope and the Church, they would do the decent thing and join (or found) a loyal traditionalist organisation, such as the FSSP.

 

[Joe_5859]

The CNA article has the word “announce” in the URL. It is likely they used the word “announce” in the original and edited it more recently.

Good catch!

 

[ProVobis]

I will now attempt to translate this post using the Latin I’ve picked up off the “street”:

Question three is, animate me, and question me with turbans? Hope in the Lord, question and repent with salutations for me and God … The Lord questions long recessions, despite the opportunity, in tribulation? I am not a questioning derelict.

Peace.

So was I close?

Do you know better than the ICEL? Is this a preview of the old Latin Mass in vernacular?

 

[PietroPaolo]

I’m surprised how many posters can’t accept the, admittedly sad, fact that SSPX is (at least materially, if not formally) in heresy. I love the old Mass too, but come on people, SSPX is little better than Wymyn Priests at this point. Neither group will accept that their views are not the teaching of Mother Church and will never be the teaching of Mother Church. And both groups revolt against the authority established by God Himself in the Church.

 

[Aramis]

As I read the article, the SSPX didn’t withdraw from the Church, they withdrew from talks. I would not doubt the SSPX will ordain other bishops, and those bishops will be valid, no matter what we or the Vatican think about it. Nobody denies they have apostolic succession. The SSPX has never claimed to be a separate church.

The Pope might well excommunicate them, but it is not possible for the Vatican to throw them out of the Church. They really aren’t heretical. They don’t deny the validity of the Papacy or Catholic sacraments or doctrines. Their priests are real priests and their sacraments are valid.

They are disobedient in saying some VII documents contain heresy and refusing to accept that they dont. But that’s it.

Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Kathleen Sebelius and others of their kind are a much greater threat to the Church than the SSPX are.

Having said all that, it must also be said that some SSPX members could go schismatic from the SSPX. I’m guessing the fear of that is what impelled this breaking off of talks about regularizing SSPX.

The pope can declare them formally schismatic; if he does, then no faithful catholic may attend their liturgies.

He could find them infected with the heresy of antiquarianism, and declare them outside the church for heresy - but antiquarianism is a minor heresy at best, and doing so would also damage relations with the Byzantines (both Catholic and Orthodox). Byzantines trace an unbroken liturgical text back to the 450’s…

There are other heresies their statments skirt, too. Protestantism at its finest…

His Holiness could find that their intent in ordination is improper, and declare their ordinations invalid. Historically, popes have done this with far less cause.

THe pope can easily “un-church” them … they make enough public errors to justify a variety of approaches to declaring them to have defected the faith.

But there is little point in so doing. A schismatic church is still a source of potential vocations. And a formal schism doesn’t stop that. Just look at the number of former methodists, epsicopals, and lutherans in the Catholic Churches and their clergy.

 

[Monkey1976]

Do you know better than the ICEL? Is this a preview of the old Latin Mass in vernacular?

Considering ICEL’s first pass at “translation”…

 

[PietroPaolo]

The pope can declare them formally schismatic; if he does, then no faithful catholic may attend their liturgies.

He could find them infected with the heresy of antiquarianism, and declare them outside the church for heresy - but antiquarianism is a minor heresy at best, and doing so would also damage relations with the Byzantines (both Catholic and Orthodox). Byzantines trace an unbroken liturgical text back to the 450’s…

There are other heresies their statments skirt, too. Protestantism at its finest…

His Holiness could find that their intent in ordination is improper, and declare their ordinations invalid. Historically, popes have done this with far less cause.

THe pope can easily “un-church” them … they make enough public errors to justify a variety of approaches to declaring them to have defected the faith.

But there is little point in so doing. A schismatic church is still a source of potential vocations. And a formal schism doesn’t stop that. Just look at the number of former methodists, epsicopals, and lutherans in the Catholic Churches and their clergy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The pope can declare them formally schismatic; if he does, then no faithful catholic may attend their liturgies.

He could find them infected with the heresy of antiquarianism, and declare them outside the church for heresy - but antiquarianism is a minor heresy at best, and doing so would also damage relations with the Byzantines (both Catholic and Orthodox). Byzantines trace an unbroken liturgical text back to the 450’s…

There are other heresies their statments skirt, too. Protestantism at its finest…

His Holiness could find that their intent in ordination is improper, and declare their ordinations invalid. Historically, popes have done this with far less cause.

THe pope can easily “un-church” them … they make enough public errors to justify a variety of approaches to declaring them to have defected the faith.

But there is little point in so doing. A schismatic church is still a source of potential vocations. And a formal schism doesn’t stop that. Just look at the number of former methodists, epsicopals, and lutherans in the Catholic Churches and their clergy.

If the Pope declares them in schism, then I will accept that they are. Until then, opinions as to whether they are or are not are of the same character as the SSPX’ opinions that some of the VII docs are heretical or in error of some other sort…just the opinions of men.

In the meantime, we have masses of Catholics, including entire orders of nuns, and a lot of priests who think the Church is in error about huge things like the licitness of abortion, homosexual relationships, ordination of women. The SSPX is very much small fry in that picture, and very little in divergence from the Vatican compared to it.

If you ask me, the SSPX draws such ire from some precisely because they are traditionalists, not because they are egregious in deviationism. Other than some of the VII docs, they are not in deviation at all.

And no, I’m not SSPX. But I do know a number of them, and a lot of them would put a lot of us to shame when it comes to piety, personal charity and religious practice. I feel bad about the whole situation, and I don’t agree with their position on parts of VII. But I do think they are among the least of the Church’s worries at present.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Byzantines trace an unbroken liturgical text back to the 450’s…

Not true. There have been many changes to the Liturgy. If you look at the various prayers in the Liturgy you will see that most of them could not have existed in the 400s. St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great wrote the Anaphora which is still in use today, but the rest of the Liturgy has evolved over time. The SSPX is similar to the Russian Old Believers who resisted the Liturgical Changes that Russia implemented in the 1700s to align their Liturgy with the Greek Liturgy. Also this points that there were Liturgical changes in the 1700s, and there continues to be minor Liturgical changes to this day.

 

[JuantheTuba]

is there extra credit for prayers in latin?

No, but there’s respect to be found for those who stop making snide comments.