SSPX vs Sedevacantism

[Onegin]

Rory,

Another aspect of your argument for supplied jurisdiction in the case of confession might be found if you look at the individual circumstances of FSSP priests who were formerly SSPX Priests. When they returned, were they required to re-confess those sins during the time they were Priests of the SSPX? I have not heard of such a thing.

So too with the laity. I have never heard of a case where a diocesan Priest or Bishop has recommended that a parishioner who formerly assisted at the SSPX chapel re-confess any sins that were made during the time they were receiving reconciliation at the SSPX chapel. Surely, if such confessions were invalid, the diocesan Priest or Bishop would consider this a serious situation and make such a recommendation if they found out about it. Yet I have heard nothing about this.

How about marriages? Has anyone heard of former SSPX parishioners being required to re-marry once they start attending the diocesan parish and the Priest or Bishop has knowledge of it? I have certainly not.

This seems to suggest two options:

1. Some of the SSPX-conferred sacraments are invalid but local Priests and Bishops choose to keep quiet about the need for re-conferral of those sacraments, leading to hundreds of laypeople likely being in a state of mortal sin or having invalid marriages.

or

1. The SSPX sacraments are, in fact, not invalid an the validity is conferred under supplied jurisdiction.

I think the SSPX situation is not so black-and-white as some here would have us believe. If so, we would (or at least should, due to the serious nature of invalidity) hear more instances of re-conferral of supposedly invalid sacraments accompanying regularisation of both Priests and laity. And yet, the silence is telling.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I suggest that traditionalists should persist in their local parishes, grieving in their hearts like Mary does at all the abuses. Writing the odd letter, being constant in prayer. .

The SSPX is doing much more than that … they are in Rome discussing the deficiencies that have taken root in the church since the modernistic misinterpretations of the admittedly and some say purposefully vague conciliar documents.

This is the Holy Ghost moving within the church to resurrect orthodoxy and restore the TLM to its place of honor as the ordinary form of the Latin rite. Had it not been for the Archbishop and the SSPX, there would be no EF … no other group had the intestinal fortitude to fight for it save some famously valiant priests who individually refused to give it up. If you are enjoying this ‘pearl’, you have only the courageous act of Archbishop Lefebvre to thank for it. There would be no FSSP, no Good Shepard, no ICK. Obviously the fruit of his work has been blessed by the Holy Ghost in Pope Benedicts (no less heroic) S.P.

Thank God the Archbishop and the original priests who came to him looking for an orthodox formation did not sit and grieve in their local parishes painfully enduring folk Masses and writing the odd letter to the odd ordinary.

 

[Lycorth]

Thank God the Archbishop and the original priests who came to him looking for an orthodox formation did not sit and grieve in their local parishes painfully enduring folk Masses and writing the odd letter to the odd ordinary.

Amen! Deo gratias for the Archbishop; the tree is judged by its fruits and the fruits are obvious.

 

[excubitor]

The SSPX is doing much more than that … they are in Rome discussing the deficiencies that have taken root in the church since the modernistic misinterpretations of the admittedly and some say purposefully vague conciliar documents.

This is the Holy Ghost moving within the church to resurrect orthodoxy and restore the TLM to its place of honor as the ordinary form of the Latin rite. Had it not been for the Archbishop and the SSPX, there would be no EF … no other group had the intestinal fortitude to fight for it save some famously valiant priests who individually refused to give it up. If you are enjoying this ‘pearl’, you have only the courageous act of Archbishop Lefebvre to thank for it. There would be no FSSP, no Good Shepard, no ICK. Obviously the fruit of his work has been blessed by the Holy Ghost in Pope Benedicts (no less heroic) S.P.

Thank God the Archbishop and the original priests who came to him looking for an orthodox formation did not sit and grieve in their local parishes painfully enduring folk Masses and writing the odd letter to the odd ordinary.

Without Luther and the reformation there would have been no Council of Trent and counter reformation within the church either. Shall we praise Luther?

Archbishop L. was a schismatic. He was excommunicated. He is not to be emulated or admired. It is true that in the early stages he fought to maintain the Latin Mass, but he also did a great deal of damage in misrepresenting Vatican 2 and the new mass. However whatever was good in his ministry in the early stages absolutely turned to dross when he rebelled against the Pope and in open defiance consecrated the four bishops. Those who persistently support the SSPX and promote it to fellow Catholics, and who argue against the Pope in claiming that their sacraments are valid, are adhering to the schism of Archbishop L. This is certainly sin. Quite frankly I don’t understand why it is allowed here on Catholic Answers. Have our Catholic sensibilities lost the ability to detect what schism is, and how close the SSPX are to open schism? The FSSP is in full communion with the Pope and they are able to maintain the Latin Mass. They also support the early works of Arch. L. but opposed him when he defied the Pope.

I think you know as well as I do that if the modernists had not largely taken over the church then we would all be saying the NO mass with communion on the tongue, kneeling, women covered, singing gregorian chant, priest facing the altar, mostly in Latin with occasional venacular, with altar rails and an altar, AND NOBODY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE. Cardinal Arinze said as much. All of these innovations are not a product of Vatican 2 and the New Mass. They are innovations of the modernists.

Furthermore you have no evidence that even if the NO mass had not been introduced that these modernists would not have corrupted the Latin Mass in just the same ways as they corrupted the NO mass. Indeed these corruptions were occurring to the Latin Mass in many parts of the world BEFORE the NO mass was introduced.

Furthermore you have no evidence that Vatican 2 is the cause of the breakdown of values within the church and the wider society. It is circumstantial evidence. Even without Vatican 2, how do you know that things would not have been just as bad as they are today. In fact you have no evidence that things might have been VERY, VERY much worse today if Vatican 2 had not happened. You simply have no evidence. These matters lie in the domain of God, not in the domain of Arch. L. and the SSPX. God allowed the council to occur, he allowed it to stand. It was therefore in his sovereign will. The council has since been endorsed by 3 Popes most emphatically. Therefore it behooves us to support the council and to interpret it as it was always intended to be interpreted; within the context of tradition.

You see the SSPX have picked the wrong enemy. They are attacking the new mass and the conciliar church. The real enemy is disobedience of modernists who flat out ignore the rubrics of the new mass and the intent of the council. Who openly defy and reject the commands and desires of the Pope.

They have also taken the wrong approach in tackling the problem. They have taken all the traditionalists that they can convince out of the church where they could make a difference and turned them into renegades. How is that good for tradition?

 

[Lycorth]

Without Luther and the reformation there would have been no Council of Trent and counter reformation within the church either. Shall we praise Luther?

False analogy. Luther deliberately went to form his own sect, edited the Bible to suit his own agenda, edited the Mass to suit his own beliefs and goals, and openly preached hatred for both the Church and what it taught, whenever it conflicted with a belief of his own. The Archbishop never spoke an unkind word towards the Church, never claimed that the Seat of Peter was empty, never edited the Bible or the Mass to suit his own views and goals, never preached hate for the Church. Comparing Archbishop Lefebvre to Martin Luther is like comparing George Washington to Al Capone because they both fell afoul of the law (Washington by rebelling against British rule and Capone for his mafia activities).

The Archbishop has passed away, the excommunications laid on the four bishops he consecrated at Econe in 1988 have been lifted, and the SSPX and the Vatican are well on their way to mending the rifts between them. Why people can’t move forward as both the SSPX and the Vatican have done is beyond me…

 

[excubitor]

Amen! Deo gratias for the Archbishop; the tree is judged by its fruits and the fruits are obvious.

Protestants use this scripture also for their own similar purpose. However disobedience of the commands of the Pope is also bad fruit which marks false teachers. Basically rejecting a council of the church is bad fruit. Dispensing INVALID and illicit sacraments is bad fruit.

There are many false teachers with bad fruit within the church also. But is leaving the church and joining another outfit the solution. No the solution is to stay in the church and to avoid as much as possible the teachings and ways of the false teacher who is within the church. We fight not with flesh and blood and material things like taking our bat and ball and leaving our parish. Its also questionable how useful our letters to the bishop are. NO we fight with spiritual tools of prayer and fasting. We grieve and make reparations for the sins of our fellowship, not run off like beaten dogs with our tails between our legs to the shining new church down the road. Its awful to see. The SSPX have abandoned their posts and left their brothers and sisters back in the parishes to the mercy of the wolves. Now Jackals roam the halls of the church with nobody to defend her, nobody who can faithfully drive out the evil birds which make their nests there.

Don’t you see? You SSPX-ers have played into the hands of the enemy. That’s what he wanted. He wanted to divide and conquer. He wanted to get you out of the church so his angry hordes could run foul there. Oh how we lament for Jerusalem. Where is Nehemiah and Zerubbabel to build up her walls once more.

I’m afraid that you SSPXers have lost your focus. You are fixated upon the Latin Mass as the pearl of great price (which it is) but that pearl is only useful if it adorns a beautiful woman. That woman is the church. If the church does not want to wear the pearl then that is a problem for the church and for Jesus Christ who is the head of the church. The solution is not to put the pearl on another woman like the SSPX. The solution is to wait patiently until the church misses her pearl and Jesus moves her to put it back on again.

The woman of the church is still beautiful. She’s wearing a beautiful necklace with rubies which is the OF instead of pearls. She’s had a few bumps and scrapes and been knocked about by modernism, but God will clean her up for the marriage of the Lamb. He will make her pure and ready. And he will not need the SSPX and disobedient bishops and priests to do it. He will use obedient Catholics who are obeying not just their Pope’s direct commands and edicts but also his desires and intentions.

God could raise up sons of Abraham out of stones to praise the Lord. He can restore the church to purity without the SSPX. He can even do it without the Latin Mass. There are any number of ancient rites that he could use. There is no reason why the English mass in a hundred years of organic development could not be as noble and beautiful as the Latin Mass or the Greek or Syriac, Armenian, Coptic or Slavonic.
Even the Latin Mass is in the vernacular of its day. The vulgate (vulgar common tongue). On what grounds must the the mass be in Latin in this age when the mass was spoken in a range of languages in ancient times?

God sees things with the broad brush of centuries and millenia, not decades as we do. But what is constant in the church? Is it the particular rite of the mass? No there have been any number of different rites and forms of the mass. But what has been constant. Obedience to the Pope. This is an unchanging Sacred Tradition of the church. The SSPX who claim to uphold the Sacred Tradition of the faith in fact scuttle one of its most fundamental tenets; obedience to the Pope.

God makes good out of evil it is true but he does not need evil deeds to make good. Surely there will be punishments to those who perform sinful deeds so that good may result. Isn’t this Catholic morality 101? That we may not do intrinsically sinful deeds in order that good might result. Archbishop L. did an intrinsically sinful deed in consecrating the bishops. The bishops and the priests of the SSPX are adhering to the schism of the Archbishop L. This is also intrinsically sinful.

There may be ignorant SSPXers who are not culpable in these schismatic and intrinsically sinful acts, who I suspect the Pope is seeking to shepherd as he engages in these talks with the SSPX. I do not wish to accuse these ignorant SSPX-ers or their innocent children of adhering to the schism. But for all those who are knowing of the Popes wishes and commands and who knowingly continue to defy him and offer or receive sacraments which the Pope and his pontifical commission have flat out stated are INVALID: I say that they are committing intrinsically sinful and rebellious acts which will not bear good fruit for the priests or the people they serve.

 

[excubitor]

False analogy. Luther deliberately went to form his own sect, edited the Bible to suit his own agenda, edited the Mass to suit his own beliefs and goals, and openly preached hatred for both the Church and what it taught, whenever it conflicted with a belief of his own. The Archbishop never spoke an unkind word towards the Church, never claimed that the Seat of Peter was empty, never edited the Bible or the Mass to suit his own views and goals, never preached hate for the Church. Comparing Archbishop Lefebvre to Martin Luther is like comparing George Washington to Al Capone because they both fell afoul of the law (Washington by rebelling against British rule and Capone for his mafia activities).

The Archbishop has passed away, the excommunications laid on the four bishops he consecrated at Econe in 1988 have been lifted, and the SSPX and the Vatican are well on their way to mending the rifts between them. Why people can’t move forward as both the SSPX and the Vatican have done is beyond me…

Its not an analogy, its a principle. The principle being that God can make good come out of evil situations. I never compared ABL to ML.

 

[Lycorth]

There is but one reason that Catholic traditions, including the TLM, are still practiced today, and that’s because the SSPX took action to see that they would be. If you can provide proof of some other group being responsible or of some other way that Catholic traditions have survived to now, the times of Summorum Pontificum, then I will retract my stance.

Otherwise, the SSPX are to be thanked for what they did for the Church, by preserving her finest traditions so that we might take them up today.

Vatican II they accept as being a valid council but they disagree with its new policies and stances. Paul VI repeatedly stated that the council was pastoral in nature and did not define new dogmas - it was disciplinary in nature. Disciplines can be questioned and rejected for prior practices, which is what the SSPX’s stance on tradition basically boils down to.

The SSPX haven’t abandoned the Church, they have worked tirelessly to get Church leadership to see reason. If they had abandoned the Church, they would not have organized a pilgrimage to Rome for the jubilee nor profess filial devotion to both John Paul II and Benedict XVI during their reigns. You are confusing the SSPX with sedevacantists, who more closely fit your descriptions.

Traditionally-minded Catholics are the ones who are trying to build up the walls, and the SSPX is to be thanked for showing us the way when the chaos of the post-Vatican II era set in. The only ones who are playing into Satan’s hands are those who slander the SSPX instead of trying to learn what the deal is with them.

Sloth is not a solution and God helps those who help themselves. Traditionalists, including the SSPX, are trying to help the Church to put on that pearl; God will reward the efforts of those who work as well as pray, not those who sit back and try to encourage others to do nothing.

Furthermore, the SSPX is not putting the pearl on another woman; that could only be said if they formed their own church, elected their own pope, and broke completely away from Rome. None of that has been done.

The Lord has clearly used the SSPX to keep sacred traditions alive for the time when modernist novelties lost their appeal. That is worth noting.

As for Latin in the Mass, read Quo Primum.

Secondly, Latin is the universal language of the Church. No better way to truly unite believers across the earth by a liturgy in the same language and the same format which has achieved the same effect for centuries - that of uplifting all believers at once to the Lord. Catholics in this day and age have been riven by the introduction of the vernacular as well as the changes post-Vatican II (none of which the council even called for), so that tree is judged by its fruits as well.

We agree that obedience to the pope is essential, but the TLM was not invented at Trent - it existed for centuries before it. Lex orandi, lex credendi - the law of prayer is the law of belief. How we pray governs how we believe, how we act, how we think, how we live. During turbulent times God led the Church to adopt rigid standards like the shepherd uses a rigid staff to keep his sheep in order, for the protection of the Church as well as the believers.

During turbulent cultural times, common sense standards were done away with, things changed to (ostensibly) appeal to modern sensibilities and trends, and the faith has suffered for it. Modernists are the problem, not the SSPX.

The sole act of disobedience to the pope was when the Archbishop consecrated four bishops at Econe in 1988. That is all, and that act has been basically forgiven by Rome and the penalty lifted. It is a done deal, water under the bridge, and has been paid for. There is no more disobedience, and none other save that one unfortunate incident. Why must people drag up Econe every time the SSPX is criticized? Is it because there is nothing else to criticize the Society about?

There is no schism; the Vatican doesn’t treat with schismatics and schismatics don’t organize pilgrimages to the Vatican nor profess devotion towards the Holy Father. The Magisterium has not declared that the SSPX are in schism; John Paul II only said that the Archbishop’s ordinations were a “schismatic act”, not that he was in schism for it. There was never a declaration that the Society was ever in schism; just the fact that suspensions were laid on SSPX clergy proves that, because the Church can’t lay suspensions on schismatics, who are outside the Church and thus not subject to Church laws.

 

[Lycorth]

There is the matter of the Church supplying jurisdiction which may indeed justify the SSPX’s sacraments nonetheless; I refer you to Canon 1335*:

If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.*

Note the bolded excerpt; even if the excommunications were somehow invalid, they have been lifted and do not exist anymore. Thus, it seems that the Society can offer sacraments now that the excommunications are lifted and if people request them, which it seems like many people are. I’m no canon lawyer, but things may be better than you think.

I also refer you to this article by a non-SSPX Catholic and this one by the SSPX about the Church doctrine of ecclesia supplet, the teaching about how the Church supplies jurisdiction and where. I ask you to please read these in charity; they are long but worth the effort.

The same faith and morals that the Church has taught until the upheavals of the 1970s are those the Society upholds today, same as other traditionalists. It is slander to accuse them of forming their own church and own sect, which they have not done. Slander, too, is intrinsically evil.

Its not an analogy, its a principle. The principle being that God can make good come out of evil situations. I never compared ABL to ML.

There is no principle in your quote but rather an obvious equating of the Archbishop with an actual schismatic.

 

[maurin]

False analogy. Luther deliberately went to form his own sect, edited the Bible to suit his own agenda, edited the Mass to suit his own beliefs and goals, and openly preached hatred for both the Church and what it taught, whenever it conflicted with a belief of his own. The Archbishop never spoke an unkind word towards the Church, never claimed that the Seat of Peter was empty, never edited the Bible or the Mass to suit his own views and goals, never preached hate for the Church. Comparing Archbishop Lefebvre to Martin Luther is like comparing George Washington to Al Capone because they both fell afoul of the law (Washington by rebelling against British rule and Capone for his mafia activities).

The Archbishop has passed away, the excommunications laid on the four bishops he consecrated at Econe in 1988 have been lifted, and the SSPX and the Vatican are well on their way to mending the rifts between them. Why people can’t move forward as both the SSPX and the Vatican have done is beyond me…

Because when some people have an ax to grind all they can hear is the grinding. Nothing else.

 

[excubitor]

There is but one reason that Catholic traditions, including the TLM, are still practiced today, and that’s because the SSPX took action to see that they would be. If you can provide proof of some other group being responsible or of some other way that Catholic traditions have survived to now, the times of Summorum Pontificum, then I will retract my stance.

You are belligerently are resolutely ignoring what I am saying. I have many times acknowledged ABL’s support and the SSPX for their defence of the Latin Mass. I support the FSSP to this day who are a product of the SPPX and ABL. Does that mean that whatever the SSPX do from this day forward is justified and correct simply because they did a good work in the past? Of course not. I have many times shown that the fault of the SSPX is not in their defence of the Latin Mass but in their wholesale attacks on the council, the OF mass and their disobedience to the commands of the Pope in offering invalid and illicit sacraments.
Otherwise, the SSPX are to be thanked for what they did for the Church, by preserving her finest traditions so that we might take them up today.

Vatican II they accept as being a valid council but they disagree with its new policies and stances. Paul VI repeatedly stated that the council was pastoral in nature and did not define new dogmas - it was disciplinary in nature. Disciplines can be questioned and rejected for prior practices, which is what the SSPX’s stance on tradition basically boils down to.

They pay lip service to it being a valid council, but they spare no effort in poking every possible criticism at it. They find the worst possible modernist interpretation of the council in order to discredit it and disobey it. If they really believed in their heart that it was a valid council then they would obey it and interpret as best they can in a traditionalist manner as it was intended. Valid councils are not there to be spurned and ignored.

The SSPX haven’t abandoned the Church, they have worked tirelessly to get Church leadership to see reason. If they had abandoned the Church, they would not have organized a pilgrimage to Rome for the jubilee nor profess filial devotion to both John Paul II and Benedict XVI during their reigns. You are confusing the SSPX with sedevacantists, who more closely fit your descriptions.

So they work tirelessly for their local parishes do they? I think not. They take every opportunity to trumpet the abuses of their local priests as they air out the churches dirty laundry to the whole world on their web site. I have read some shocking things on their web site about the council and the OF mass. How then can they work for the church. In fact they claim on their web site that the conciliar church is a new religion. It is their brand of Catholicism which they are preserving. You are right however in saying that the SSPX are easily confused with sedevacantists.

Traditionally-minded Catholics are the ones who are trying to build up the walls, and the SSPX is to be thanked for showing us the way when the chaos of the post-Vatican II era set in. The only ones who are playing into Satan’s hands are those who slander the SSPX instead of trying to learn what the deal is with them.

The walls of the church are at the local parish, not in some disconnected chapel. You also have bought into the whole notion of blaming the council for everything that is wrong in the church. As I said in a previous post you have absolutely no evidence of this. For all you or ABL or the SSPX know the modernist crisis of the church would have happened anyway because of larger societal influences outside the church. You have no evidence that things might not be even worse today if it were not for the council. In fact there are some incredibly orthodox and traditional statements in Vatican 2 which we never hear because the SSPX, who you would think would be the ones promoting traditional teaching of a valid council, only blurt out the ones which might ambiguously support a modernist reading.

So nobody is promoting the traditional orthodox teachings of Vatican 2. Not the modernists, and not the traditionalists. It seems to me that the SSPX are working with and for the modernists.

Sloth is not a solution and God helps those who help themselves. Traditionalists, including the SSPX, are trying to help the Church to put on that pearl; God will reward the efforts of those who work as well as pray, not those who sit back and try to encourage others to do nothing.

Prayer is not sloth. Prayer is a mystical spiritual force of great power. You want to count your rosaries like David counted the men of Israel. Then you want to wave your rosaries at the Pope as you clench them in your fists. That might be work but its not good work. It is militancy. Mary will hear your rosaries but as soon as you count them and wave them they become works of men and not works of the Spirit.

 

[excubitor]

Furthermore, the SSPX is not putting the pearl on another woman; that could only be said if they formed their own church, elected their own pope, and broke completely away from Rome. None of that has been done.

Obviously I disagree. What function of the church has the SSPX not illegally taken from the church in defiance against the local ordinary? You even do annulments. (Don’t get me started). Even the Church of England did not elect their own Pope. What does that prove?
You might think that you have not completely broken away from the Pope but like the council you merely pay lip service to the Pope. You ignore his commands and completely defy him. He and also Pope JP2 offered the SSPX extraordinary terms to set up personal ordinariates for the SSPX. Unheard of (I would say outrageously liberal) terms to coax the SSPX back into communion. ABL even agreed to it and signed it, but then, get this, *went back on his agreement *and did not reunite with the Pope. He did this because he DID NOT TRUST the pope. So you may not have broken away completely from the Pope, but even your use of the word “completely” shows that you yourself admit that you have broken away almost completely. By your only admission the only thing left to do to show that you have completely broken away is to appoint your own Pope and make some kind of formal statement. How is that unity with the Pope?

The Lord has clearly used the SSPX to keep sacred traditions alive for the time when modernist novelties lost their appeal. That is worth noting.

As for Latin in the Mass, read Quo Primum.

Secondly, Latin is the universal language of the Church. No better way to truly unite believers across the earth by a liturgy in the same language and the same format which has achieved the same effect for centuries - that of uplifting all believers at once to the Lord. Catholics in this day and age have been riven by the introduction of the vernacular as well as the changes post-Vatican II (none of which the council even called for), so that tree is judged by its fruits as well.

Wrong. Sacred tradition shows that unity is not obtained from a particular rite of the mass or a particular language but from communion, unity, obedience and fidelity to the sovereign pontiff. You said yourself that the wholesale introduction of the vernacular and the ditching of the Latin was not the intention of the Popes and the council, so why then are you opposing the Pope and the council?

Here is Thomas Aquinas on this matter
*"It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if we imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” *

and if you are interested you can read also the following from St. Thomas
dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b32
Chapter 32 That the Roman Pontiff is the first and greatest among all bishops.
Chapter 33 That the same Pontiff has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ.
Chapter 34 That the same possesses in the Church a fullness of power.
Chapter 35 That he enjoys the same power conferred on Peter by Christ.
Chapter 36 That to him belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith.
Chapter 37 That he is the superior of the other patriarchs.
Chapter 38 That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.

He also says this* “misguided persons sin against the unity of the mystical Body by denying the plenary power of the Roman Pontiff”*

Is not disobedience a denial of the plenary power of the Pope. How is lip service and only the theoretical admission of the plenary power of the Pope obedience. Do you know plenary means? It means Complete. So the Pope has COMPLETE POWER over the church for the formation of unity in the mystical Body of the Church. To claim that this unifying power belongs in a particular language of a particular rite of the mass and not in the person of the successor of Peter is just as opposed to Catholic traditional belief as any fond innovation of the modernists.

 

[excubitor]

The sole act of disobedience to the pope was when the Archbishop consecrated four bishops at Econe in 1988. That is all, and that act has been basically forgiven by Rome and the penalty lifted. It is a done deal, water under the bridge, and has been paid for. There is no more disobedience, and none other save that one unfortunate incident. Why must people drag up Econe every time the SSPX is criticized? Is it because there is nothing else to criticize the Society about?

There is no schism; the Vatican doesn’t treat with schismatics and schismatics don’t organize pilgrimages to the Vatican nor profess devotion towards the Holy Father. The Magisterium has not declared that the SSPX are in schism; John Paul II only said that the Archbishop’s ordinations were a “schismatic act”, not that he was in schism for it. There was never a declaration that the Society was ever in schism; just the fact that suspensions were laid on SSPX clergy proves that, because the Church can’t lay suspensions on schismatics, who are outside the Church and thus not subject to Church laws.

Fine. There is no formal schism. I have never said there is. However the SSPX are exhibiting a schismatic mentality and behaving in a schismatic way. Besides you are just arguing on a technicality. If there is no schism then why do you not follow the commands of the Pope. All you have to do is sign the catechism which is a product of Vatican 2. Admit that the NO mass is a valid and indefectable product of the church, agree to the personal ordinariates. Why can’t you do that if you are not in schism as you say?
And if there is no schism then why is it necessary to send diplomats to Rome to negotiate a peace treaty with the Pope?

The very need of these talks is evidence that there are wide gulfs between the church and the SSPX. So what’s the difference. Perhaps you are not islands but you are a promontory with a very small isthmus. You are certainly not on the mainland of the church. If you were there would not be any need for negotiations at all.

Bishop Williamson calls a spade a spade. He says it like it is. The talks are a “dialogue of the deaf”. “Their positions are absolutely irreconcilable” . There will be no agreement
unless “SSPX becomes a traitor or Rome converts.”
blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/01/19/bishop-williamson-says-vatican-sspx-talks-dialogue-of-the-deaf/

You know as well as I do that a very large faction of the SPPX think this way. This faction scuttled ABL’s agreement with JP2 and they will continue to scuttle and undermine the talks with the Vatican. The SSPX will never join with Rome before it splits right down the middle. The chaos will be immense. The fighting and blood letting will be horrendous as was seen with the vicious and spiteful public battle in the American courts when the 9 priests split off and became the SSPV.

You want to make out that everything is fine. It is not. It is a diabolical mess as of course JP2 anticipated when he excommunicated the four bishops and ABL.

 

[maurin]

Try expending some of your energy on the Priests and Bishops in the Church who are fighting against Tradition, for a little while excubitor, and do nothing to reign in the renegades and the innovators, offer Communion to abortionists, condone "alternative lifestyles,etc. You might have more luck. And you might not get so exacerbated. And you might just do some good.

 

[excubitor]

Try expending some of your energy on the Priests and Bishops in the Church who are fighting against Tradition, for a little while excubitor, and do nothing to reign in the renegades and the innovators, offer Communion to abortionists, condone "alternative lifestyles,etc. You might have more luck. And you might not get so exacerbated. And you might just do some good.

I have done plenty of that also. But to their credit the modernists have not split off into an identifiable separate organisation. That day may come and when it happens they will get the same treatment from me as the SSPX is getting.

These various abuses against tradition are terrible, but they pale in comparison to the strike against tradition which is exhibited by the SSPX in almost completely breaking off from the church to form an almost separate organisation.

 

[Hunter53]

I have done plenty of that also. But to their credit the modernists have not split off into an identifiable separate organisation. That day may come and when it happens they will get the same treatment from me as the SSPX is getting.

These various abuses against tradition are terrible, but they pale in comparison to the strike against tradition which is exhibited by the SSPX in almost completely breaking off from the church to form an almost separate organisation.

How can you possibly think that they PALE IN COMPARISON. After VII we have Priests and Bishops that no longer believe in the real presence, no longer believe in purgatory and spend most of their time worrying about worldly issues. We have a statue of budda on the alter at Assisi and an x-pope that kissed the koran. Their are no prayers at the foot of the alter, common people giving out communion, people receiving communion in their hand and very little respect for the sacraments. Don’t forget that most people went to the new mass because they were told that the Latin Mass was illegal. So how does this compare.

 

[maurin]

So the crime that the SSPX, in your opinion, has committed, which is remaining true to the magisterium of the Church, for example the definition of religious liberty which was condemned by the syllabus of errors and is now preached openly, is more serious a crime than the complete reversal of that particular condemned proposition?

It certainly does seem to be a brave new world.

I prefer the old one.

 

[excubitor]

How can you possibly think that they PALE IN COMPARISON. After VII we have Priests and Bishops that no longer believe in the real presence, no longer believe in purgatory and spend most of their time worrying about worldly issues. We have a statue of budda on the alter at Assisi and an x-pope that kissed the koran. Their are no prayers at the foot of the alter, common people giving out communion, people receiving communion in their hand and very little respect for the sacraments. Don’t forget that most people went to the new mass because they were told that the Latin Mass was illegal. So how does this compare.

That’s chicken feed compared to what was happening in the first century.The litany of errors of the first century church are even longer and worse and include:

• allowing the doctrine of Baal which included the teaching of fornication and idol worship
• allowing the doctrines of the Nicolaitanes.
• allowing Jezebel to preach from the pulpit fornication and idol worship
• defilements and lack of holiness with dead works

God even wanted to spew some of them out of his mouth. Yet they were still the church despite all of these horrors. Not once did God sanction them to rebel from their bishops and leave the church to join some other semi-detached group.

You’ve just lost your perspective.
Besides a lot of your complaints are very judgemental. I do not by any means agree with Assisi, but the way the traditionalist (of which I am one by the way) rack on about it, I can see that they are very hardline and judgemental about it. This same attitude would have complained to the Apostle Paul and accused him of indifferentism for visiting the Shrine to the UNKNOWN GOD. Paul even went to the extent of saying that this God was THE one true GOD who he was declaring. The traditionalists of today would have had kittens if he had said that in their company or at Assisi.

Notice some other incredible things Paul said.
He said they worshipped the true God ignorantly at the shrine to the UNKNOWN GOD.
He said that all the nations of the world were brothers
He said that all men seek God in their prayers and devotions
He said that all men have the ability to find God who is not far from them
He said that all the pagans moved lived and had their being in the one true God.
He even went to the extent of agreed with one of their pagan philosophers by saying that the pagans were the children of God.

Its all there in Acts 17. Its just so much like Vatican 2 its uncanny.

Vatican 2 highlights that there are good aspects in every religion and that the church upholds all that is good in those religions as being ultimately sourced from God. Interfaith prayer should be evaluated in the context of the event. Is it a dialogue between peoples in order to preach the true gospel of Jesus Christ or is it a false worship of heathen gods? Is the meeting conducted by people very strong in the faith?

Aquinas states regarding interfaith dialogue as follows.
"t seems that one ought to distinguish according to the various conditions of persons, circumstances and time. For some are firm in the faith; and so it is to be hoped that their communicating with unbelievers will lead to the conversion of the latter rather than to the aversion of the faithful from the faith. These are not to be forbidden to communicate with unbelievers who have not received the faith, such as pagans or Jews, especially if there be some urgent necessity for so doing. "

My great concern with the Assisi dialogues is not that JP2 was involved in them, but rather that those weak in the faith might suppose that they also should engage in these activities. However that is obviously not the intent of Vatican 2 and I even remember reading that these kind of activities should only occur with the express permission of the bishop. No doubt this has been poorly implemented but does not prove that interfaith dialogue is intrinsically sinful as is suggested by the hyper-traditionalists.

Just check out this statement by JP2 to this Assisi gathering.
*IN CONCLUDING this World Day of Prayer for Peace, to which you have come from many parts of the world, kindly accepting my invitation, I would like now to express my feelings, as a brother and friend, but also as a believer in Jesus Christ, and, in the Catholic Church, the first witness of faith in him…
It is, in fact, my faith conviction which has made me turn to you, representatives of the Christian Churches and Ecclesial Communities and World Religions, in deep love and respect.
*

What an incredible witness for the gospel. Profound. Now if JP2 was bent upon idol worship and building the One World religion he would not have said that would he?

 

[excubitor]

JP2 never exhorted anybody to pray to a false God. He urged everybody to pray to God according to the dictates of their conscience. There is a big difference. What he is appealing to here is the obedience to the natural law which is largely communicated by God to all men through the human conscience. He repeatedly said things like this:

*With the World Religions we share a common respect of and obedience to conscience, which teaches all of us to seek the truth, to love and serve all individuals and people, and therefore to make peace among nations.

Yes, we all hold conscience and obedience to the voice of conscience to be an essential element in the road towards a better and peaceful world…
This is exactly taught in the scriptures by Paul himself.*
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience [3] also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.*

Now if the Pope said this today the hyper-traditionalists would have kittens and start dragging out all the quotes in tradition about Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and accusing the Pope of heresy. But they are talking about different things. Obedience to the conscience is talking about those who have not heard the gospel and have invincible ignorance whereas Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is talking about those who have rejected the church which is the ordinary means of salvation.

Here is an outstanding article which deals with this issue from which I have gleaned some of this information
matt1618.freeyellow.com/assissi.html

As for the other abuses such as communion in the hand etc. Please show in the scriptures where communion in the hand is forbidden and I will show you heaps of scriptures which point out how rebellion, dissension and rejection of authority is utterly unacceptable and is forbidden in scripture because of its dreadful harm to the unity of the Body of Christ. I can also show you countless evidences in tradition and history to show the horrendous damage caused by schism and the absolute condemnation of schism by the church.

I’m not saying this to condone CITH but rather to show that schism is a far worse and far more fundamental issue than CITH.

But the SSPX are like naughty boys who when told not to go near the edge of the cliff instead go as close as they can. They seem to think that provided they don’t fall off the cliff that they are being obedient to their Father.

 

[Onegin]

I have done plenty of that also. But to their credit the modernists have not split off into an identifiable separate organisation. That day may come and when it happens they will get the same treatment from me as the SSPX is getting.

Actually, yes, they have once they reject Catholic doctrine and adhere to heretical ideas. E.g. that abortion can be morally permissible in some circumstances, that women priests are a good thing for the Church, that one need not reject the gay lifestyle to be a Catholic, etc. All of these ideas are popular in modernist circles today and you are telling me that the modernists have not split off into something different? Au contraire, they have placed themselves outside of the Church with these ideas that are anything but Catholic.

Can you tell me what ideas the SSPX espouse that are not Catholic?

These various abuses against tradition are terrible, but they pale in comparison to the strike against tradition which is exhibited by the SSPX in almost completely breaking off from the church to form an almost separate organisation.

Well, at least you used “almost.”

So the crime that the SSPX, in your opinion, has committed, which is remaining true to the magisterium of the Church, for example the definition of religious liberty which was condemned by the syllabus of errors and is now preached openly, is more serious a crime than the complete reversal of that particular condemned proposition?

It certainly does seem to be a brave new world.

I prefer the old one.

Amen.

Also, as a general point, I’d like an answer to the issue I posed a few pages ago, namely why clergy and laypeople returning to the diocesan parishes from the SSPX (which some do from time to time) are not required to have those supposedly invalid sacraments re-conferred upon them once the local ordinary has knowledge that they were assisting at SSPX chapels.

Surely it is kind of a big deal that there are Catholics out there invalidly married and/or with unconfessed mortal sins on their souls, right?