SSPX seems to indicate a definitive break with the Holy See

[JReducation]

I’d be hesitant to make the claim in bold above, for two reasons.

1. The “Right” and the “Left” are only a couple hundred years old, dating to the French Revolution 18 centuries after Christ. The idea that monothelitism or docetism or Arianism are “right-wing” heresies is anachronistic.
2. Over the last couple hundred years the Church has been assailed with heresies from both the “left” and the “right”. SSPX and other “rad-trad” groups are examples of breakaway movements from the right, but certainly there are examples from the “left” as well Nuns on the Bus, Unitarianism, and Modernism (perhaps the heresy of the last 2 centuries) come to mind.

There are many examples from the left, but none of them have become churches or ecclesial communities. All breakaway Churches (ie. Orthodox) and ecclesial communities (ie. Anglicans and Lutherans) came from the right.

Yes, we do use such terms as left and right in Church history . . . for those who are wondering. We use them all the way back to the Council of Jerusalem.

---

On another note.

If a Catholic is excommunicated, he or she is no longer a member of the physical Church as evidenced by:

1. He may not receive the sacraments until he is reconciled with the Church
2. He may not receive a Catholic burial or be buried in a Catholic cemetery
3. He may not be considered for beatification or canonization unless it is proven that he or she was invalidly excommunicated (ie. Joan of Arc).
4. If he is a cleric, he may not celebrate the sacraments. If he does so, he only complicates his spiritual state, because he is abusing the Sacrament of Holy Orders. No ordained man has a right to exercise the ministry without permission from a canonical authority. Only diocesan bishops and male religious superiors are canonical authorities. The SSPX does not have canonical superiors, because they have no canonical status. This is not light matter. Some people think that “It’s only an illicit mass, ordination, etc, but it’s valid”. In Church law and theology, there is no such thing as “only illicit”. Illicit means illegal. The degree of gravity depends of the subject at hand. The actual celebration of the sacrament, forget how it’s celebrated for a moment, the actual celebration without permission to do so, is very serious moral matter.
5. As we know, the ordination of bishops without a papal mandate implies an automatic excommunication of those who ordain and the candidate who is ordained. The pope can extend the excommunication to include those who support the action. This has been done in the past. It was done to the Franciscans in the 13th century. The superior general was excommunicated for disagreeing with St. Francis and everyone who lent support, even though they did not actually act contrary to the rule, was also excommunicated. To be fair, I have to insert here that the pope was a Conventual Franciscan Friar. He blew his tiara. He has the power to do so. Forget tiara. Franciscan popes do not wear tiaras. LOL But you get the idea.

Yes, if they are excommunicated they are outside of the Catholic Church. It’s a rather strange state of being, almost like Limbo. Unless they claim to be a Church of their own, they remain Catholic. But they are not part of the Catholic Church. Not being a Canon Lawyer I can only explain the outcome of an excommunication, not the idea behind how one can be Catholic, but not be part of the Catholic Church.

If I understood my professors correctly, it’s like one who studies medicine and loses his license for violating the law. He does not cease to be a Doctor of Medicine, but he is no longer a physician. He cannot make use of the MD until he rectifies his situation with the state and the medical board. He is no longer part of the medical community.

It is not the Doctor of Medicine that gives him the right to practice medicine, but the State.

In this case, it’s not Baptism that gives a person the right to participate in Church life, but the law of the Church. If it were only Baptism, then every Christian could participate in the life of the Church since there is only one Baptism. There is no such thing as a Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox Baptism. Those are Christian communities, not different baptisms.

An excommunication is a form of exclusion. The exclusion is a penalty, with the intent of causing the person to reconsider and seek forgiveness.

 

[gracepoole]

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.

Someone recently made that statement to me – “Vatican II was a pastoral council only and its teachings don’t necessarily have to be accepted.” From where does this claim originate? Obviously it’s not the Church’s teaching. But why does the SSPX believe it has a legitimate claim when arguing that a pastoral council need not be considered valid?

 

[PietroPaolo]

There are many examples from the left, but none of them have become churches or ecclesial communities. All breakaway Churches (ie. Orthodox) and ecclesial communities (ie. Anglicans and Lutherans) came from the right.

Yes, we do use such terms as left and right in Church history . . . for those who are wondering. **We use them all the way back to the Council of Jerusalem.
**

---

Which translation are you reading? I can find none that use “left” and “right” to describe anything at the Council of Jerusalem, perhaps that’s why you didn’t include a quote. “We” use the terms “left” and “right” in Church history, but only since they were coined in the 18th c. please cite ONE usage of said terms prior to the 18th c. Certainly you must have several as you are claiming the Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans were all on the “right.”

How exactly are you classifying heresies? Is Universalism (established in the Unitarian Universalist Church) also a “heresy from the right?” If so, why does denying the ancient doctrine on Hell qualify as coming from the right (or the left for that matter)? Anglicanism started as a power grab by Henry VIII - is that from the “right” to? What about Arianism? Is denying the divinity of Christ rightist? Or Docetism? is denying the humanity of Christ also from the right?

In truth, the Church has always distinguished NOT “left” and “right” but orthodox from heterodox - true from false - and that is the only distinction that matters.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Someone recently made that statement to me – “Vatican II was a pastoral council only and its teachings don’t necessarily have to be accepted.” From where does this claim originate? Obviously it’s not the Church’s teaching. But why does the SSPX believe it has a legitimate claim when arguing that a pastoral council need not be considered valid?

The claim originates with those, like SSPX, who are seeking a way around accepting V2. Vatican 2 is an ecumenical council, as such it is infallible. The general aim was “pastoral” in the sense that it wasn’t called to combat a specific heresy or movement (as Trent was called to combat Protestantism or Nicea was called in the wake of Arianism) but the Council clearly taught dogmatic truth in such docs as Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and others. The Church has condemned this view. You’ll note, advocates of this view must also claim that the magisterium since Vatican 2 also needn’t be accepted as the magisterium has repeatedly referred back to and expanded upon the teachings of Vatican 2.

 

[gracepoole]

The claim originates with those, like SSPX, who are seeking a way around accepting V2. Vatican 2 is an ecumenical council, as such it is infallible. The general aim was “pastoral” in the sense that it wasn’t called to combat a specific heresy or movement (as Trent was called to combat Protestantism or Nicea was called in the wake of Arianism) but the Council clearly taught dogmatic truth in such docs as Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and others. The Church has condemned this view. You’ll note, advocates of this view must also claim that the magisterium since Vatican 2 also needn’t be accepted as the magisterium has repeatedly referred back to and expanded upon the teachings of Vatican 2.

Aha! Thank you.

 

[ringil]

The Church has graciously made the EF mass and all traditional devotions available to the faithful who desire it and fosters orders in which a priest may never have to celebrate a Pauline Mass if that is their wish.

Benedict was more than patient with them and in my view- they spat at his feet. Francis has other stuff on his plate than to give these men his time.

Let the SSPX get in line or just move out of the way.

 

[JReducation]

Someone recently made that statement to me – “Vatican II was a pastoral council only and its teachings don’t necessarily have to be accepted.” From where does this claim originate? Obviously it’s not the Church’s teaching. But why does the SSPX believe it has a legitimate claim when arguing that a pastoral council need not be considered valid?

That’s actually not true. Pastoral does not mean that we can pick and choose. Allow me to give an example. A bishop puts a pastoral plan on the table. Everyone who works in the diocese, lay, religious or clergy, must work according to that pastoral plan. The laity who live in the diocese are the beneficiaries of that pastoral plan. They can accept it or move to another diocese.

Pastoral care is what the Church does. Much of what was discussed at Vatican II had to do with the Church’s pastoral activity in the world. That does not mean that it is up for grabs.

When people say that it does not have to be accepted, I believe that they are confusing dogma and pastoral. That which is pastoral is always based on what the Church believes, but it is not in and of itself always a statement of belief. I can be. One can say that whatever is pastoral does not bind us de fides. But it does not mean that we can take it or leave it. We can only take or leave that which the Church allows us to take or leave.

Which translation are you reading? I can find none that use “left” and “right” to describe anything at the Council of Jerusalem, perhaps that’s why you didn’t include a quote. “We” use the terms “left” and “right” in Church history, but only since they were coined in the 18th c. please cite ONE usage of said terms prior to the 18th c. Certainly you must have several as you are claiming the Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans were all on the “right.”

You’re arguing instead of listening to what I’m saying. We (today) use the terms left and right to discuss conflicts and positions in the Church going back to the Council of Jerusalem. Why? Because those terms have meaning to us that do not require definitions. We can go directly into the meat of the matter, which is whatever the is. In the end, left and right are not as important as the outcome. Left and right are terms, nothing more.

How exactly are you classifying heresies? Is Universalism (established in the Unitarian Universalist Church) also a “heresy from the right?” If so, why does denying the ancient doctrine on Hell qualify as coming from the right (or the left for that matter)? Anglicanism started as a power grab by Henry VIII - is that from the “right” to? What about Arianism? Is denying the divinity of Christ rightist? Or Docetism? is denying the humanity of Christ also from the right?

In truth, the Church has always distinguished NOT “left” and “right” but orthodox from heterodox - true from false - and that is the only distinction that matters.

Why are you arguing this? What does it have to do with the SSPX?

 

[JReducation]

I have neither the time nor the health to argue. My apostolate here is to clarify when something is unclear. I’ve done that part. Please do not try to engage me in a debate. I can no longer do that. I used to and I had a lot of fun with them. But my health no longer allows it. Debates are draining for me. I have so many other demands on my time and energy right now and I don’t know how and I don’t know when I’ll see a respite.

 

[LightBound]

Well, then I guess I am a heretic, too, because I would go to a Latin Mass in an SSPX chapel before ever attending a NO Mass again. Fortunately, I am close to the ONLY Latin Mass in my Diocese. So, I attend there. However, if the Bishop of my Diocese ever took that Mass away (because he is self-admittingly not a “fan” of TLM), you bet your hide I would drive the hour and half needed to go to an SSPX Mass before I went to the NO Mass two blocks away from my house!

What an absolute slap in the face to all the priests who reverently celebrate the Mass in Ordinary Form! From the local parish priest to Pope Francis and all the clergy in between! I pray you are freed from this spirit of pride and disobedience. I often wonder if attitudes like the one you’ve shown in the above post help add to Bishops not being a “fan” of the Mass in Extraordinary Form…It would sure make me have an aversion to attending or promoting one if I though the majority of those who attended them thought as you do about the Mass in OF.

 

[JustaServant]

Which translation are you reading? I can find none that use “left” and “right” to describe anything at the Council of Jerusalem, perhaps that’s why you didn’t include a quote. “We” use the terms “left” and “right” in Church history, but only since they were coined in the 18th c. please cite ONE usage of said terms prior to the 18th c. Certainly you must have several as you are claiming the Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans were all on the “right.”

How exactly are you classifying heresies? Is Universalism (established in the Unitarian Universalist Church) also a “heresy from the right?” If so, why does denying the ancient doctrine on Hell qualify as coming from the right (or the left for that matter)? Anglicanism started as a power grab by Henry VIII - is that from the “right” to? What about Arianism? Is denying the divinity of Christ rightist? Or Docetism? is denying the humanity of Christ also from the right?

In truth, the Church has always distinguished NOT “left” and “right” but orthodox from heterodox - true from false - and that is the only distinction that matters.

There were no such concepts as ‘right’ and ‘left’ at the beginning of the Protestant reformation. The foundation of Protestantism was always a ‘return’ to the practices of the early church. Because they believed the CC had gone, for the sake of understanding I will use the modern term, liberal. The early Protestants believed they were conservative and orthodox in principal. That is what Brother Jay is pointing out. Heresies that last through the centuries are almost always heresies that begin in ‘conservative’ or ‘orthodox’ philosophy.
The SSPX, like the Protestants of the 16th century, beleive they are retaining ‘orthodox’ views.
BTW, your post is very turse and rather disrespectful toward a member of clergy, which Brother Jay is. You need to change your tone.

 

[Mike30]

My own personal opinion is that the SSPX knew or suspected that about the only supporter of them returning was Pope Benedict himself I really doubt that there were many if any others within the Magisterium were so inclined I mean let’s face facts the election of Pope Francis pretty much proves the Cardinals were hoping to move the Church on a different direction than when Benedict was Pope The SSPX just wouldn t fit in any more they are too much of a reminder of whatany in the Magisterium and in the Church as a whole want to forget

 

[larsont7]

Nothing new is being said with this statement by Bishop Fellay and the SSPX. They’ve held these same views from the beginning, and just because they post a 25 year anniversary statement, people are getting all wound up?

It all comes down to whether you agree with the SSPX’s position on supplied jurisdiction, and whether you believe the Church to be in a state of emergency or crisis. If you don’t agree with them, then don’t attend their Masses, simple as that.

Personally, I do not attend nor have I ever attended an SSPX Mass. But these Catholics are our brothers and sisters in the faith, and they need to be treated as such. To call them heretics or even schismatics is uncharitable and uncalled for. In this country, the vast majority of Catholics hold views that are contrary to Church teaching (abortion, gay marriage, contraception, transubstantiation), and yet the SSPX has never wavered on these issues. I may not agree with the SSPX regarding supplied jurisdiction, but I know the majority of them are pious Catholics adhering to the unchanging doctrines of our Catholic faith.

If faithful Catholics truly want the Church to overcome the secularization and modernism that is overcoming our society, we need the SSPX as our allies, not enemies.

 

[Mike30]

Nothing new is being said with this statement by Bishop Fellay and the SSPX. They’ve held these same views from the beginning, and just because they post a 25 year anniversary statement, people are getting all wound up?

It all comes down to whether you agree with the SSPX’s position on supplied jurisdiction, and whether you believe the Church to be in a state of emergency or crisis. If you don’t agree with them, then don’t attend their Masses, simple as that.

Personally, I do not attend nor have I ever attended an SSPX Mass. But these Catholics are our brothers and sisters in the faith, and they need to be treated as such. To call them heretics or even schismatics is uncharitable and uncalled for. In this country, the vast majority of Catholics hold views that are contrary to Church teaching (abortion, gay marriage, contraception, transubstantiation), and yet the SSPX has never wavered on these issues. I may not agree with the SSPX regarding supplied jurisdiction, but I know the majority of them are pious Catholics adhering to the unchanging doctrines of our Catholic faith.

If faithful Catholics truly want the Church to overcome the secularization and modernism that is overcoming our society, we need the SSPX as our allies, not enemies.

Careful there. You might get accused as well for saying such things.

 

[Brendan_64]

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.

So you are arguing that Pope John Paul II was wrong when he stated on July 2 1988 that Lefebvre’s act of consecration was an act “of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

Can. 751 Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 333 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Lefebvre breached Canon 751. He committed a schismatic act. There can be no question about that. Pope John Paul II stated this in very clear language.

Power in the Church emanates through the Supreme Pontif… Bishops hold their jurisdiction from the Supreme Pontif, they are not free to consecrate bishops in direct disobedience to a judgement of the Pope.

 

[runningdude]

My own personal opinion is that the SSPX knew or suspected that about the only supporter of them returning was Pope Benedict himself I really doubt that there were many if any others within the Magisterium were so inclined I mean let’s face facts the election of Pope Francis pretty much proves the Cardinals were hoping to move the Church on a different direction than when Benedict was Pope The SSPX just wouldn t fit in any more they are too much of a reminder of whatany in the Magisterium and in the Church as a whole want to forget

Pope Francis was the “runner up” when Pope Benedict was elected. I don’t believe anyone’s priorities changed drastically.

 

[Brendan_64]

Pope Francis was the “runner up” when Pope Benedict was elected. I don’t believe anyone’s priorities changed drastically.

 

[runningdude]

So you are arguing that Pope John Paul II was wrong when he stated on July 2 1988 that Lefebvre’s act of consecration was an act “of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
…

Yes, the Archbishop Lefebvre committed a “schismatic act”, and he and those he ordained faced the stiff penalty of excommunication for this act. However, neither he nor the SSPX as a whole, were ever declared to be in formal schism. They remain to day in a state of suspension.

The discipline was a warning to help them stay away from schism; Pope Benedict felt sufficient progress away from this danger was made that he lifted the excommunications on the leaders in 2009. Now all members of the SSPX remain suspended from ministry. Barring some new act of disobedience, they will likely remain in the state of suspension.

 

[commenter]

I have neither the time nor the health to argue. My apostolate here is to clarify when something is unclear. I’ve done that part. Please do not try to engage me in a debate. I can no longer do that. I used to and I had a lot of fun with them. But my health no longer allows it. Debates are draining for me. I have so many other demands on my time and energy right now and I don’t know how and I don’t know when I’ll see a respite.

Will pray for your health!

 

[JM3]

Can. 751 Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

However, neither he nor the SSPX as a whole, were ever declared to be in formal schism.

As far as I can tell, the Code of Canon Law doesn’t require a declaration of formal schism for one to exist.

 

[Brendan_64]

Barring some new act of disobedience, they will likely remain in the state of suspension.

Probably. One worrying factor here is the Sacrament of Penance. Without canonical status, SSPX bishops have no jurisdiction from Rome and cannot grant faculties for confession to their priests. Except in a life or death situation, SSPX priests cannot grant absolution. How many SSPX attending Catholics have gone to SSPX confessions thinking that mortal sins have been absolved? The consequences of that for the individuals concerned are potentially very grave. The SSPX knows it has no canonical status, yet SSPX priests persist in hearing confessions when they cannot grant absolution.