SSPX seems to indicate a definitive break with the Holy See

[JuantheTuba]

Forgive my lack of grokking…but I don’t understand what is happening here in this letter/article.
Can someone explain in simple laywomen’s terms?
Who is breaking with whom? And why?

Nobody’s breaking with anybody, the SSPX has just stopped talks with the Vatican Officials… for now.

 

[Brendan_64]

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.

Nothing to do with the fact that their founder, and their current bishops, committed a schismatic act in direct defiance of the authority of the Pope? Didn’t the Council of Trent state that, “there is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman pontiff”?

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.

And how do they compare in terms of obedience to the Church?

 

[landon13]

I really wish SSPX would recognize the Church and would fully come into communion with the Church. I also wish that the traditional mass and new order of mass would both be celebrated at almost every parish so these disagreements wouldn’t continue

 

[Ridgerunner]

Nothing to do with the fact that their founder, and their current bishops, committed a schismatic act in direct defiance of the authority of the Pope? Didn’t the Council of Trent state that, “there is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman pontiff”?

And how do they compare in terms of obedience to the Church?

As I said before, if the Pope declares them in schism, I’ll accept that. Otherwise, they’re not.

Their bishops did not commit schismatic acts, as I understand them. A bishop can consecrate bishops, as an inherent attribute of being a bishop. Lefevre was a bishop.

How do the SSPX people I know compare with most Catholics in terms of obedience to the Church? Very well, as near as I can tell. They actually go to confession regularly, pray regularly, are charitable, reject gay marriage and abortion, have children, usually quite a few. Never have I heard one promote female priests; something one hears a lot from regular Catholics. They don’t get divorced and remarried.

There are undoubtedly some bad ones, but I think the ones I know compare quite well in terms of obedience to the Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I really wish SSPX would recognize the Church and would fully come into communion with the Church. I also wish that the traditional mass and new order of mass would both be celebrated at almost every parish so these disagreements wouldn’t continue

So do I.

But it isn’t entirely a matter of the TLM and NO. SSPX as I understand it, rejects some of the documents of Vatican II. One I know of has to do with ecumenism. The SSPX is more like pre-VII triumphalists, believing protestantism is good only as a source of converts, not to be respected and dialogued with in itself. Undoubtedly there are other points like that, but I don’t know what they are and can’t look them up right now.

I also think there are divisions within SSPX itself, at least in terms of emphasis, though not in doctrine. When it comes to actual Church doctrine, the SSPX people are on all fours with the Church.

Also, SSPX is very small. Compared to dissident “regular” Catholics in the U.S., they’re a drop in the bucket.

 

[Lormar]

The subject title for this thread is misleading.

 

[JustaServant]

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.

There are precautions that everyone who attends an SSPX chapel must take. The first is to keep in mind that throughout the history of the Church, the heresies and schisms have all come from the right, not the left. Liberal left wing ideas are never well organized nor convincing enough. The eventually collapse. Right wing extremist ideas often sound very logical; therefore, they are convincing. We have to keep that precaution in mind.

There is a danger here that the bishops of the SSPX will ordain other bishops to succeed them. If they do this, these bishops will excommunicate themselves, again. My concern is that if they do so, will they break with Rome. I don’t know. But it is possible. It is also possible for Rome to jettison the SSPX from the Church, if the leadership makes such a choice. Let’s pray that they do not ordain another bishop.

There is a contradiction in their thinking. They allege that the papacy has lost authority. However, they refer to an archbishop who died outside of the Church as “venerable”. You can’t have it both ways. Either the pope has the last word and Archbishop Lefebvre was outside of the Church or the pope does not have the authority to sustain the excommunication.

Either the pope has the authority to interpret and apply canon law at his discretion or he does not.

You can’t have a papacy with absolute and unquestioning legal and moral authority with restrictions that you impose on it, such as using the law in a way that the pope does not use it.

These are real problem areas.

The best we can do is to pray for a resolution to this nightmare.

I believe is one of the problems is trust.
We talk about how the SSPX cannot accept authority, but really one has to trust before one submits to authority. And they have no trust.
On the right wing/left wing reply.
Correct me if I am wrong in my understanding, left extremes never seem to last, because they are not based in the concrete. Right extremes give birth to heresies because although they might have a basis in the concrete, they distort what that looks like. So, it does more damage in the long haul.
Hitler was a great example of this. He didn’t arrive on the scene saying “I’m evil, sign on the dotted line.” He came exorting the German conservative values of thier nationality and ethnicity. Embracing thier history he convinced the German people that he was the epitome of all the values they embraced.
Twelve years later, all they had left were the ruins around them.
For the SSPX, thier drifting into heresy comes wrapped in everything they hold dear.
And like the Germans, all they produce are ruins around them.

 

[Lormar]

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.

There are precautions that everyone who attends an SSPX chapel must take. The first is to keep in mind that throughout the history of the Church, the heresies and schisms have all come from the right, not the left. Liberal left wing ideas are never well organized nor convincing enough. The eventually collapse. Right wing extremist ideas often sound very logical; therefore, they are convincing. We have to keep that precaution in mind.

There is a danger here that the bishops of the SSPX will ordain other bishops to succeed them. If they do this, these bishops will excommunicate themselves, again. My concern is that if they do so, will they break with Rome. I don’t know. But it is possible. It is also possible for Rome to jettison the SSPX from the Church, if the leadership makes such a choice. Let’s pray that they do not ordain another bishop.

There is a contradiction in their thinking. They allege that the papacy has lost authority. However, they refer to an archbishop who died outside of the Church as “venerable”. You can’t have it both ways. Either the pope has the last word and Archbishop Lefebvre was outside of the Church or the pope does not have the authority to sustain the excommunication.

Either the pope has the authority to interpret and apply canon law at his discretion or he does not.

You can’t have a papacy with absolute and unquestioning legal and moral authority with restrictions that you impose on it, such as using the law in a way that the pope does not use it.

These are real problem areas.

The best we can do is to pray for a resolution to this nightmare.

Brother Jay, how are you? You’re always in my prayers.

It is a breath of fresh air to read your post.

 

[Lormar]

What is the heresy that the SSPX holds?

Every Sunday I sit in the pews with many Catholics who truly do hold heretical ideas. We don’t need to be looking to the SSPX for that.

Edited to add that what I posted is directed towards JustAServant.

 

[manualman]

If I understand this article correctly then the SSPX has come right out and said that Vatican II is NOT an ecumenical council and can be, must be disregarded. In short, they’ve applied their own reason and judgement and found theirs to be superior to that over every licitly ordained bishop on earth, including the pope.

Too bad, I used to have some respect for the SSPX. Now I see that they’re in the same bucket as Charles Curran, Hans Kung and John Calvin. I’m sure that will make some here howl, but too bad. Hitler and Stalin detested each other and considered each other to be political opposites. But their differences were superficial, just like that between the SSPX and my list above. It’s a shame.

If that’s their take on things, I DO hope they come more out in the open with it. Might as well have a conclave, elect a pope and ordain bishops all over the world, guys! Betcha they don’t though. They keep a veneer of respectability the same way Pelosi and Biden do: by insisting on their genuine catholic identity in spite of their rebellion. Behaving in total accordance with their logic and reasoning would make them look silly, so they don’t. They stay just inside the boundaries of being able to sell themselves as licit catholics. I’m not buying.

 

[Cider]

What is it with CNS that they rarely if ever post links to the source?

 

[CB_Catholic]

Not being accusatory.
Just wondered.

Actually, in the third to the last paragraph it dies say:

‘The traditionalist bishops announce that, in practice, the dialogue with the Vatican is over and that from now on, they will wait “either when Rome returns to Tradition and to the Faith of all time – which would re-establish order in the Church.”’ ’

So there was an announcement, not just an indication, that the dialogue with the Vatican is over.

 

[PietroPaolo]

What is the heresy that the SSPX holds?

I’ll point you to an argument I’ve made above. It’s so simple I’ll restate it here as a syllogism:

Those who hold that Vatican 2’s documents contain heresy hold heretical beliefs.
SSPX holds that Vatican 2’s documents contain heresy.
Ergo, SSPX holds heretical beliefs.

The major premise is supported by this.

God bless.

 

[Aramis]

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.

They have been formally suspended, and deprived of having any canonical role in the church. That is, fundamentally, a hairs breath away from being declared in schism due to their continued function in spite of their suspension.

The irony is that their canonical situation would only improve if they formally declared schism.

If one supports the SSPX as it rejects movement toward Rome, one supports schismatic acts and priestly disobedience.

The SSPX has some good and holy men, who have been deluded into error.

The SSPX are not heretics as a body - but some of them are spouting heresies. Antiquarianism and Sedevaticanism are rather common.

But they are not functioning as representatives of the Catholic Church. And haven’t been since 1973.

 

[Lormar]

I’ll point you to an argument I’ve made above. It’s so simple I’ll restate it here as a syllogism:

Those who hold that Vatican 2’s documents contain heresy hold heretical beliefs.
SSPX holds that Vatican 2’s documents contain heresy.
Ergo, SSPX holds heretical beliefs.

The major premise is supported by this.

God bless.

If you don’t mind, I will wait until the CDF and/or the Holy Father makes a pronouncement against them. In the meantime, I suggest we take care of our own immediate problems and let the SSPX go their own way.

Edited to add that I do appreciate what you are trying to say and I think I understand. Please correct me if I am wrong. You are saying that to even think there is heresy in the VII documents makes you a heretic. Is that correct?

 

[PietroPaolo]

If I understand this article correctly then the SSPX has come right out and said that Vatican II is NOT an ecumenical council and can be, must be disregarded. In short, they’ve applied their own reason and judgement and found theirs to be superior to that over every licitly ordained bishop on earth, including the pope.

Too bad, I used to have some respect for the SSPX. Now I see that they’re in the same bucket as Charles Curran, Hans Kung and John Calvin. I’m sure that will make some here howl, but too bad. Hitler and Stalin detested each other and considered each other to be political opposites. But their differences were superficial, just like that between the SSPX and my list above. It’s a shame.

If that’s their take on things, I DO hope they come more out in the open with it. Might as well have a conclave, elect a pope and ordain bishops all over the world, guys! Betcha they don’t though. They keep a veneer of respectability the same way Pelosi and Biden do: by insisting on their genuine catholic identity in spite of their rebellion. Behaving in total accordance with their logic and reasoning would make them look silly, so they don’t. They stay just inside the boundaries of being able to sell themselves as licit catholics. I’m not buying.

Well done, sir! :tiphat:

 

[PietroPaolo]

If you don’t mind, I will wait until the CDF and/or the Holy Father makes a pronouncement against them. In the meantime, I suggest we take care of our own immediate problems and let the SSPX go their own way.

Edited to add that I do appreciate what you are trying to say and I think I understand. Please correct me if I am wrong. You are saying that to even think there is heresy in the VII documents makes you a heretic. Is that correct?

No, I’m not saying that - Archbishop Muller, Head of the CDF said that. I’m just not disagreeing.
ArchbishopMuller:

the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity is the only possible interpretation according to the principles of Catholic theology…Outside this sole orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a heretical interpretation, a hermeneutic of rupture, [found] both on the progressive front and on the traditionalist.

Compare with (from the CNS article)
SSPX:

The “cause of the grave errors which are in the process of demolishing the Church does not reside in a bad interpretation of the conciliar texts – a ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ which would be opposed to a 'hermeneutic of reform in continuity…but truly in the texts themselves, by virtue of the unheard of choice made by Vatican II.”

Edited 7:08 pm EST - added SSPX Quote

 

[CB_Catholic]

Not being accusatory.
Just wondered.

Actually, in the third to the last paragraph it dies say:

‘The traditionalist bishops announce that, in practice, the dialogue with the Vatican is over and that from now on, they will wait “either when Rome returns to Tradition and to the Faith of all time – which would re-establish order in the Church.”’ ’

So there was an announcement, not just an indication, that the dialogue with the Vatican is over.

 

[Cider]

Nobody’s breaking with anybody, the SSPX has just stopped talks with the Vatican Officials… for now.

Read the whole thing on their website and yes that seems to be the gist of it. Of course mountains will be made out of molehills anyway.

 

[elizaveta01]

I read it, and none of this is a surprise. It’s basically what they’ve been saying all along. Nothing new really. There isn’t anywhere where they actually say they are breaking off talks with Rome, although it’s implied.

Anyone who knows the SSPX at all knows that they will never accept Vatican 2. They will only “come home” if the Church throws out Vatican 2 completely and restores the Church entirely to it’s earlier form. Not likely to happen.