SSPX seems to indicate a definitive break with the Holy See

[Mike30]

It is entirely reasonable for us to state that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by consecrating bishops in direct defiance of the instructions of the Pope. Pope John Paul II has clearly stated this in very clear, unambiguous terms.

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

By stating that Archbishop Lefebvre (and the bishops he consecrated) committed a schismatic act, we are simply stating the position of our Church.

I think it would be proper to point out at this point that the horrible crime committed by the Archbishop and those he consecrated was disobedience.

That’s it. Disobedience.

I suppose that no one on this forum, at least those who sit in righteous indignation and supreme judgement of the SSPX has ever been in a similar position ie; disobedience.

I hope that you never are and never have to face the self righteous and indignant wraith of those protectors and defenders of the faith who routinely post here.

 

[kag1982]

I believe this information is never to be disclosed to the public. Did some Cardinal leak this information in serious violation against his oath?

The famous anonymous diary of the 2005 Conclave is the main source. It has never been confirmed publicly but it is taken as pretty much a given. Then Cardinal Bergoglio never corrected the record and other cardinals involved in the 2005 Conclave have hinted that Bergoglio had a lot of support and that he withdrew in a fairly dramatic manner.

 

[ProVobis]

The famous anonymous diary of the 2005 Conclave is the main source. It has never been confirmed publicly but it is taken as pretty much a given. Then Cardinal Bergoglio never corrected the record and other cardinals involved in the 2005 Conclave have hinted that Bergoglio had a lot of support and that he withdrew in a fairly dramatic manner.

If such “hinting” is allowed, why do they have the rule, which actually excommunicates Cardinals, in the first place? Might as well make it definite rather than speculative, I would think.

 

[JReducation]

If such “hinting” is allowed, why do they have the rule, which actually excommunicates Cardinals, in the first place? Might as well make it definite rather than speculative, I would think.

The oath covers that which they may not discuss . . . only that. There is a list of things that they may not discuss. Everything is not mentioned in the oath itself. It’s given to them in a folder along with other instructions before they begin the conclave.

Latin is not a problem for them. All of these men must be doctors. They have doctorates in theology, scripture, church history, canon law, liturgy, humanities, secular sciences, social sciences and divinity. They have a passive knowledge of Latin, which is required to get your degree.

That and the benefit of the instructions provided in a folder in their languages and the help of the many translators and secretaries that are in the Sistine Chapel with them, they know exactly what they should not and cannot say, what they must and what they may say.

 

[JustaServant]

At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate.
H.H. Pope BXVI on the SSPX

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

And this was said when and in what context?
Certainly the SSPX has ignored and groomed intolerance and hate within thier own camp. Like all fundamentalists, they beleive they, and only they hold the truth and everyone else has it wrong.

 

[Brendan_64]

I think it would be proper to point out at this point that the horrible crime committed by the Archbishop and those he consecrated was disobedience.

That’s it. Disobedience.

I suppose that no one on this forum, at least those who sit in righteous indignation and supreme judgement of the SSPX has ever been in a similar position ie; disobedience.

Not just disobedience, but disobedience to the Roman Pontif. I’m not sure that there are many people on this forum who have committed an act of disobedience that publicly rejected the primacy of the Pope.

 

[Saints_Alive]

And this was said when and in what context?
Certainly the SSPX has ignored and groomed intolerance and hate within thier own camp. Like all fundamentalists, they beleive they, and only they hold the truth and everyone else has it wrong.

Typical knee jerk reaction. You are stating your opinion and presenting it in a very dogmatic fashion.

You wrote the SSPX claims " only they hold the truth and everyone else has it wrong."

Please present one quote by a member SSPX clergy that backs you up and I will request my privilege of posting on this forum be taken away. Just one is all you need.

Now if you can’t provide that proof of your claim, then you really should retract your statement because it’s slander and defamation of character.

Btw, the link provided answers your question in my post you quoted.

 

[Saints_Alive]

Well, I don’t have a pony anymore in this race, so to speak. But I am still interested to see the conclusion of this “drama”. My comment about “heretics” is just to point out that we shouldn’t be so hastily throwing that word around as if we have the right to label who are heretics or not. Only Church Councils have declared people to be heretics, we shouldn’t make that same mistake here by presuming the authority of the bishops on a matter.

Now, what could the SSPX be found to be in heresy? There is a list that I think, from my own opinion, could be things where they can be found to be in heresy. ** But the Church first needs to make a pronouncement that they are in danger of heresy for believing what they believe in. Then they must be given a chance to repent.** Only if they refuse will they be formally charged as heretics and then they will be thrown out of the Church.

Careful friend. You will change the tone of this thread and spoil the fun. We don’t need no stinkin pronouncement !

Seriously though, excellent and sensible post.

Is it fair to say the SSPX are suspended ? Yes. Is it fair to say they are disobedient ? Yes.

Is it ok to judge, slander, and defame them in ways that verify beyond all doubt that Pope BXVI nailed it when he said we seem to need a group to hate ?

Evidently many posting on this thread think so. They know they are the ones he meant when he said that. So they must not care what he said. Like the SSPX doesn’t.

 

[edwest2]

I just don’t understand the obsessive nature of discussing the SSPX over and over. This is an internal matter. One that no one here is going to solve. I’ve read their latest statement but again, it’s not going to be up to anyone here as to what happens next, if anything.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CB_Catholic]

I think it would be proper to point out at this point that the horrible crime committed by the Archbishop and those he consecrated was disobedience.

That’s it. Disobedience.

I suppose that no one on this forum, at least those who sit in righteous indignation and supreme judgement of the SSPX has ever been in a similar position ie; disobedience.

I hope that you never are and never have to face the self righteous and indignant wraith of those protectors and defenders of the faith who routinely post here.

Um, IIRC, it was disobedience that caused the Fall…I would not make too light of that sin.

Also, Jesus Himself set up the principle of binding and loosing with the Apostles. He gave them the power to bind and loose, to govern the Church. Disobeying the Pope is not exactly on par with a kid disobeying his parents.

There really is nothing self-righteous about people expecting their Bishops to obey the Church and not put people in a precarious spiritual situation, is there? It is perfectly acceptable to judge the disobedient actions of a Bishop as being wrong and misleading people. Now, because of their disobedience, some of their Sacraments are not valid and they have no canonical status. They are on the brink of schism. The concern is for the integrity and unity of the Church and the salvation of souls.

 

[pnewton]

It is entirely reasonable for us to state that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by consecrating bishops in direct defiance of the instructions of the Pope…

I never said it wasn’t, and I am sure you know that. That act is in the past and it would seem that the Church (Pope Benedict) was more than willing to move past that specific act when he lifted the excommunications. The question is what do we do now. On this, we should tread lightly until the Church speaks.

 

[Mike30]

Um, IIRC, it was disobedience that caused the Fall…I would not make too light of that sin.

Also, Jesus Himself set up the principle of binding and loosing with the Apostles. He gave them the power to bind and loose, to govern the Church. Disobeying the Pope is not exactly on par with a kid disobeying his parents.

There really is nothing self-righteous about people expecting their Bishops to obey the Church and not put people in a precarious spiritual situation, is there? It is perfectly acceptable to judge the disobedient actions of a Bishop as being wrong and misleading people. Now, because of their disobedience, some of their Sacraments are not valid and they have no canonical status. They are on the brink of schism. The concern is for the integrity and unity of the Church and the salvation of souls.

If I remember correctly andicould be wrong you know, I believe that Jesus said

"let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

I am not making light of anything nor do I support the SSPX . However, I find it quite unsettleing that so many people on this forum have such a thinly veiled dislike for the SSPX that they will take any and I do mean any opportunity to revile them. Heretics screams one. Schismatics screams another. Disobeying the Holy Father is the current favorite it seems.

So I suppose that the millions of Catholics who openly use contracepction, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church, those who openly support a womans right to abortion or who have had one or more themselves, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church, those who openly clamor and scream for the right to have women Priests, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church are all right. They must be good if misguided souls. Compassion is the way to deal with them. These people number in the millions. Yet I don’t see the venom dripping about them on almost a daily basis

The SSPX has at most maybe a thousand or so members overall, spread out all over the world, yet they, this miniscule group is so egregious,so vile,so reprehnsible, such a danger, that they enrage the self righteous judges on this forum to the degree that no opportunity is spared to attack them.

It is sickening.

 

[Baelor]

So I suppose that the millions of Catholics who openly use contracepction, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church, those who openly support a womans right to abortion or who have had one or more themselves, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church, those who openly clamor and scream for the right to have women Priests, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church are all right. They must be good if misguided souls. Compassion is the way to deal with them. These people number in the millions. Yet I don’t see the venom dripping about them on almost a daily basis

There is venom dripping about the womyn-priestesses and abortion activists on a daily basis. They are clearly in the wrong; I have not seen anyone on this forum seriously defend them. In fact, many posters rightly point out that many have been excommunicated lata sententia. Is that any less forceful than the charge of schism or heresy?

The difference is that those individuals may actually be misguided, whereas the SSPX and its members really should know better. Your avowed enemies may have done wrong, but is your reaction to them going to be the same as to a friend who has just stabbed you in the back?

 

[Aramis]

Well, I would find it unlikely and highly distressing if the very Cardinals charged with running the Church and setting policies that we the faithful have to follow, would be so ignorant of something that basic. Not to mention, how could a person justify swearing an oath that they themselves did not understand?

Mind boggling, and quite frankly I feel unbelievable.

Speaking 3 languages (2 very poorly due to being used infrequently) and having studied 5 besides my native, I know that it’s easy to misunderstand a language you seldom use, even if at one time fluent. It’s quite possible, due to the lack of common use of Latin, that they may not truly grasp that their latin isn’t up to the tasks.

It’s better to presume incompetence than disobedience, IMO.

 

[Brendan_64]

So I suppose that the millions of Catholics who openly use contracepction, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church, those who openly support a womans right to abortion or who have had one or more themselves, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church, those who openly clamor and scream for the right to have women Priests, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church are all right.

Nobody is saying that these people are right, quite the reverse. The Church states clearly that contraception and abortion are grave matters. However if a bishop openly promoted this as acceptable then that would be a different matter and the Church certainly would take action.

 

[Aramis]

If I remember correctly andicould be wrong you know, I believe that Jesus said

"let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

I am not making light of anything nor do I support the SSPX . However, I find it quite unsettleing that so many people on this forum have such a thinly veiled dislike for the SSPX that they will take any and I do mean any opportunity to revile them. Heretics screams one. Schismatics screams another. Disobeying the Holy Father is the current favorite it seems.

So I suppose that the millions of Catholics who openly use contracepction, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church, those who openly support a womans right to abortion or who have had one or more themselves, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church, those who openly clamor and scream for the right to have women Priests, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church are all right. They must be good if misguided souls. Compassion is the way to deal with them. These people number in the millions. Yet I don’t see the venom dripping about them on almost a daily basis

The SSPX has at most maybe a thousand or so members overall, spread out all over the world, yet they, this miniscule group is so egregious,so vile,so reprehnsible, such a danger, that they enrage the self righteous judges on this forum to the degree that no opportunity is spared to attack them.

It is sickening.

Their persistent disobedience, flagrant disregard for the very canon law they claim to adhere to, establishment of parishes without permission and/or competent authority, and continued claim to function after suspension is sickening.

Pointing out their lack of canonical status, especially, and their other problems as well, is not an attack on them - it’s a call to the misguided faithful Catholics under their sway to wake up, and smell that the SSPX are NOT in good standing, and have given every appearance of not being interested in returning to good standing.

They are little different from many other groups, groups who are in formal schism already, in rejecting the Church’s authority.

 

[pnewton]

So I suppose that the millions of Catholics who openly use contracepction, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church, those who openly support a womans right to abortion or who have had one or more themselves, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church, those who openly clamor and scream for the right to have women Priests, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church are all right. They must be good if misguided souls. Compassion is the way to deal with them. These people number in the millions. Yet I don’t see the venom dripping about them on almost a daily basis

That is off topic. Surely you know that we are not judged on the curve by God. “Everybody else is doing worse” is not going to cut the mustard, not when if you are a child, or the SSPX. Every time this defense comes up, I just have to shake my head.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Their persistent disobedience, flagrant disregard for the very canon law they claim to adhere to, establishment of parishes without permission and/or competent authority, and continued claim to function after suspension is sickening.

Pointing out their lack of canonical status, especially, and their other problems as well, is not an attack on them - it’s a call to the misguided faithful Catholics under their sway to wake up, and smell that the SSPX are NOT in good standing, and have given every appearance of not being interested in returning to good standing.

They are little different from many other groups, groups who are in formal schism already, in rejecting the Church’s authority.

I question whether members of SSPX do not want to return to “good standing”. At least among the ones I know, the conflict is distressing to them.

Possibly I could be convinced that they are “little different” from those in formal schism, but so far I’m not.

They do not differ doctrinally. They accept the legitimacy of the Pope. As I understand it, some of their past points of dissidence have been cured. One was the use of the language"for you and for all" in the consecration. They maintained it should have been “for you and for many”. The Church has officially come around to their view of it; possibly not because of them, but it did change. One of the problems was the effective (but not sanctioned by VII) ban of the TLM. That has also been largely corrected. Another has been their fear of being governed by some of the bishops. In some cases they had a legitimate concern. My former bishop vowed early on that he would not allow the TLM in this diocese, and for 25 years he was as good as his word. Our new bishop does allow, and even encourage it. Had the SSPX priests come under some of the bishops in this country, they probably would have been told to sit in a basement and count the cockroaches as their “ministry”. What would they have done if Cdl Mahoney commanded them to conduct “rainbow Masses”? Fortunately, Pope Benedict (and one hopes, Pope Francis) undertook to replace some of the nuttier bishops with some who are more faithful to the teachings of the Church and less intolerant of traditional expressions of the faith.

It is my hope that the SSPX will become regularized. I haven’t given up on that hope yet.

 

[JM3]

They do not differ doctrinally.

news.va/en/news/note-from-the-congregation-for-the-doctrine-of-the

In 2009, the Pontifical Commission was structurally linked to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to address the doctrinal issues in the ongoing dialogue between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X.

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=121742

Archbishop Muller affirmed that the talks are not “a dialogue between two Church partners” and described them as a “brotherly colloquium to overcome difficulties with an authentic interpretation of Catholic doctrine.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

If I remember correctly andicould be wrong you know, I believe that Jesus said

"let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

I am not making light of anything nor do I support the SSPX . However, I find it quite unsettleing that so many people on this forum have such a thinly veiled dislike for the SSPX that they will take any and I do mean any opportunity to revile them. Heretics screams one. Schismatics screams another. Disobeying the Holy Father is the current favorite it seems.

So I suppose that the millions of Catholics who openly use contracepction, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church, those who openly support a womans right to abortion or who have had one or more themselves, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church, those who openly clamor and scream for the right to have women Priests, in defiance of the Holy Father and the Church are all right. They must be good if misguided souls. Compassion is the way to deal with them. These people number in the millions. Yet I don’t see the venom dripping about them on almost a daily basis

The SSPX has at most maybe a thousand or so members overall, spread out all over the world, yet they, this miniscule group is so egregious,so vile,so reprehnsible, such a danger, that they enrage the self righteous judges on this forum to the degree that no opportunity is spared to attack them.

It is sickening.

I’d like to chime in here with a little bit of Scripture:

[BIBLEDRB]James 3:1 [/BIBLEDRB]

The SSPX are to be judged more strictly because they are bishops and priest. They have more influence over the faith than a random person in the pew. Simple as that. They are teachers and they have greater responsibility towards the faith.