SSPX vs Sedevacantism

[MarkThompson]

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?

What’s your source for these claims? Are you sitting in on these folks’ confessions?

 

[Onegin]

What’s your source for these claims? Are you sitting in on these folks’ confessions?

What claims? That there are former SSPX chapel attendees that have allegedly invalid marriages and unconfessed mortal sins? If you buy into the argument that certain of the SSPX sacraments are invalid then you also have to wonder as to why those previous members who leave the SSPX are not advised to be re-married or re-confess when the local Priest or Bishop becomes aware of the situation.

I know of several former SSPX parishioners from different areas who left for the FSSP or diocesan parishes for various reasons. Although being open about having attended the SSPX chapels in the past and having received various sacraments at the chapels (including those allegedly invalid) none have ever been approached by the local Priest or Bishop with regards to having those sacraments validly re-conferred.

My question is why the silence on this if the sacraments are truly invalid? Isn’t this a dangerous omission? People are quick to judge invalidity but I think they fail to realise the practical implications of this, which I mention here.

 

[excubitor]

What claims? That there are former SSPX chapel attendees that have allegedly invalid marriages and unconfessed mortal sins? If you buy into the argument that certain of the SSPX sacraments are invalid then you also have to wonder as to why those previous members who leave the SSPX are not advised to be re-married or re-confess when the local Priest or Bishop becomes aware of the situation.

Buy into the argument??!! You can’t be serious. That is not an argument which is up for debate, its the clear and direct statement of the PCED.
SSPX marriages are natural marriages and have no chrism of grace which comes from the sacrament of marriage. SSPX confessions are simply noises in the air and have no power to forgive mortal sin except in the extraordinary cases of ignorance (where the penitent does not understand that the confession is ordinarily invalid) and in the near danger of death.

If you are trying to tell me that the average modernist priest of the diocese does not really take the sacrament of reconciliation seriously and therefore does not properly follow up on these matters then I can but agree with you, but that is hardly an argument that the SSPX should pursue given that they are directly opposed to the abuses and laxity of the modern church.

Funny isn’t how the SSPX rail at the church for being overly flexible and accommodating of other religions and protestant groups, but then when that flexibility and accommodating approach is extended to them they lap it up and trumpet it all over the Internet almost like it is tacit permission to continue in their disobedience. Maybe we need straight talking St Pius X to come in and hammer the schismatics.

Funny isn’t it that of the modernist errors St. Pius X condemned those who
“Are found to be utterly wanting in respect for authority, even for the supreme authority.”

This lack of respect was shown by ABL toward JP2. I also read a letter that Bp Fellay wrote to Pope Benedict XVI. I could not believe the lack of respect shown in the letter. They would not have dared to talk to St. Pius X that way. St. Pius X showed that at the root of modernism was pride. Yet we have pride abundantly demonstrated in the SSPX.
Bp. Fellay’s letter to the current Pope was shocking. He accused the Pope of
“public sin against the first commandment.”
“A great offense against the Sovereign Majesty of the only true God, One and Three”
“immense scandal to the faithful”

Then there is a series of “How could you”'s How could you this, How could you that/
“How could You, Vicar of Christ, Vicar of the solus Sanctus, solus Dominus, solus Altissimus, place Yourself as one among the representatives of the “religions” which deny His divinity?”
“How could You humiliate the Catholic Church, the only Spouse of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 5:26, 27) by bringing it down to the level of organizations founded not by God, but by the will of man (Jn 1:13)?”
"How could You invite the followers of “religions” which refuse the only Mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus (I Tim 2:5) or which, by denying the existence of one only, personal God are nothing more than atheism and idolatry?
“How could You justify this invitation by affirming that the Holy Spirit dwells mysteriously in every man, whereas St. Paul teaches the contrary (Rm 8:9)?”
“You are going to renew the Assisi scandal, on October 28, at St. Peter’s Square in Rome,”
“By these “inter-religious” meetings You promote an immense indifferentism”
“You provoke division within the bosom of the Church.”
“The past thirteen years of Your Papacy have failed to wipe away these signs in any way at all, nor their disastrous consequences for the Church, nor the wound that they have inflicted on the hearts of faithful Catholics.”

Before this incredible litany of accusations Bp. Fellay addresses the Pope.
“Most Holy Father”
and at the end of his litany of accusation he says
“Please accept, Most Holy Father, the expression of our filial devotedness”

If that is how Bp. Fellay addresses The Most Holy Father when he expresses filial devotion then I’d hate to be his enemy. And this is not just a private letter to the Pope either. This has been plastered all over the Internet in the public domain. This just shows that the Bp. Fellay is outside the camp. If he was inside then his views and thoughts about the Pope would have been kept in-house. And then after this insulting dressing down of the Pope, Bp. Fellay then has the audacity to appear before the Pope with big smiles and handshakes as if they are equals. What a disgrace. In former times he would have been prostate on the floor with one of the Pope’s underlings booming “Recant” at him.


I’ve had enough. How many more indignities must the Holy Father suffer before something is done?

The whole thing just reeks of pride. Not just in the SSPX but in the whole church. Pride of the bishops and priests and layfolk all over the world doing what they like regardless of the instructions of the Pope. And the traditionalists who claim to maintain all that is Catholic from all the long ages are the worst offenders, even conducting a ministry without permission. What a terrible, terrible shame. It seems like the only person who is truly humble and subservient is our dear Pope who has become the whipping boy of the whole world.

Any wonder the apostle Paul instructed us
Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief."

Please SSPX just obey the Pope. Please don’t give him grief. Please let him have a moment of joy by actually being proper subjects to him for a change.

 

[giuseppeTO]

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?

The Pope will effect changes based on the current theological discussions with the SSPX, the SSPX will be regularized, and the Archbishop will eventually be canonized along perhaps with an SSPX bishop or two.

And you, my friend, will be left grieving in your guitar masses and hootenanys until all of the priests who are enamoured with these novelties die off and have no successors interested in such shenanigans.

Our Lord, from time to time, raises up clergy and gives them a mission to renew the faith. Marcel Lefebvre was His choice for the 20th century and we have the TLM only due to his perseverance.

 

[Lycorth]

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. This is absolutely insane.

I’ve gone back and read excubitor’s responses to my posts as well as to others. If I were full of more pride and ego than I am, I suppose I could tire myself by making a point by point rebuttal, but he can think of me what he likes. He can presume that I support disobedience to the pope and the magisterium and support a rogue sect and that I am blaming Vatican II (when I clearly implied that I did not) for modernist abuses and so forth. However, it seems as if it will fall on deaf ears; as least he was able to admit that there is no formal schism, even though he accused Archbishop Lefebvre (and the SSPX by extension) of being schismatics.

As has been said, when people have an axe to grind, all they can hear is the grinding. So the SSPX takes exception to some papal policies? Guess what, plenty of other Catholics have done the same before; Catherine of Sienna comes to mind. However, like Catherine of Sienna, the SSPX has not broken away, not formed their own church with their own hierarchy and pontiff, not done anything but profess the same love and devotion to the Holy Father that any Catholic should. They simply do not engage in papolatry and believe that the Holy Father cannot be questioned in the slightest for any reason or that the Holy Father is impeccable, as opposed to infallible only when exercising his office and teaching on a matter of faith and morals.

The one, sole act of disobedience was the Archbishop’s consecrations at Econe in 1988. The punishment for that has been lifted and it is flogging a dead horse to bring it up again. Those who do cannot have any other motivation than pride and anger in so doing, and their efforts would be better spent in prayer that modernist abuses of the Church continue to be fought as well as for the SSPX that they and the Vatican may be swiftly reconciled. All this criticism and exaggeration of the SSPX reeks of hatred.

Excubitor, get the chip off your shoulder, please.

 

[maurin]

The Pope will effect changes based on the current theological discussions with the SSPX, the SSPX will be regularized, and the Archbishop will eventually be canonized along perhaps with an SSPX bishop or two.

Our Lord, from time to time, raises up clergy and gives them a mission to renew the faith. Marcel Lefebvre was His choice for the 20th century and we have the TLM only due to his perseverance.

Santo subito!

 

[catharina]

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

When a bishop refused obedience to the Holy Father, sspx supported the bishop. There were no emergency circumstance that provided a “call to conscience.” There was only pride and the support of pride in action. This stands as an enormous and grievous error.

 

[catharina]

Guess what, plenty of other Catholics have done the same before; Catherine of Sienna comes to mind.

Please do NOT present Catherine of Siena, a canonized Saint and a Doctor of the Church as being comparable to those in sspx who offered disobedience to the Holy Father. One might object and offer opinions but one MUST remain faithfully obedient to the will of the Church as expressed by Rome. Catherine was fully obedient. In obedience, she was and she remains an example for the good.

 

[giuseppeTO]

There were no emergency circumstance that provided a “call to conscience.” .

I am always fascinated at the blindness of Catholics who do not or who refuse to recognize the deep and severe crisis that the Church is in. Empty seminaries, religious fleeing from their vows, 30% of Catholics attending Sunday Mass in the US, 3% in France, diocese bankrupt, churches closing and consolidating like mad, and you can smugly declare that there is no crisis.

Marcel Lefebvre, pray for us!

 

[Onegin]

SSPX marriages are natural marriages and have no chrism of grace which comes from the sacrament of marriage. SSPX confessions are simply noises in the air and have no power to forgive mortal sin except in the extraordinary cases of ignorance (where the penitent does not understand that the confession is ordinarily invalid) and in the near danger of death.

If you are trying to tell me that the average modernist priest of the diocese does not really take the sacrament of reconciliation seriously and therefore does not properly follow up on these matters then I can but agree with you, but that is hardly an argument that the SSPX should pursue given that they are directly opposed to the abuses and laxity of the modern church.

So, in one breath you tell me that there is no emergency in the Church to support the SSPX’s claim to supplied jurisdiction and in the second breath you tell me that the average modernist priest does not really take the sacrament of reconciliation seriously. So there are poor souls falling into Hell, presumably because the average priest and bishop doesn’t care enough to do something about it.

Do you see how contradictory this position is? If there are really Catholics out there invalidly married and with mortal sins on their souls (as you would suggest all those who participate in those particular sacraments do), then this is a SERIOUS PROBLEM in the Church that is not being addressed. At all. I’ve heard nothing. So, basically, Catholic souls in the SSPX are on their way to Hell and nothing is being done? What? The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

When a bishop refused obedience to the Holy Father, sspx supported the bishop. There were no emergency circumstance that provided a “call to conscience.” There was only pride and the support of pride in action. This stands as an enormous and grievous error.

This whole issue with the SSPX comes down to whether or not there is, de facto a state of crisis in the Church warranting the SSPX’s actions and specifically, the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. You believe there is not, I believe there is, but at least do us the courtesy of presenting your opinion as just that, an opinion, and not the gospel truth. In the end, only God knows, we can only do our best as human beings to follow His law.

 

[pnewton]

; the tree is judged by its fruits and the fruits are obvious.

If I used that sole criteria I would probably be Mormon. There is also discerning what is Truth.

Venerable John Paul II, pray for us.

 

[giuseppeTO]

If I used that sole criteria I would probably be Mormon. There is also discerning what is Truth.

Venerable John Paul II, pray for us.

True … and JP2 would not be venerable if that were the sole criteria.

 

[pnewton]

True … and JP2 would not be venerable if that were the sole criteria.

Depends on who you believe.

 

[Lycorth]

Please do NOT present Catherine of Siena, a canonized Saint and a Doctor of the Church as being comparable to those in sspx who offered disobedience to the Holy Father. One might object and offer opinions but one MUST remain faithfully obedient to the will of the Church as expressed by Rome. Catherine was fully obedient. In obedience, she was and she remains an example for the good.

The SSPX is not disobedient. All you can hear is the grinding of your axe.

If I used that sole criteria I would probably be Mormon. There is also discerning what is Truth.

Venerable John Paul II, pray for us.

We can blame the modernizing of the Church for that fact, if indeed fact it be. After all, who bothers to study even recent Church history, much less the history of the Church as a whole? Using that as the sole criteria, no one could deny the Catholic faith after seeing what the Church was for Western civilization.

That is why voices like those of the SSPX need to be heard, not marginalized because of one unfortunate incident which has already been forgiven and moved on from.

 

[pnewton]

We can blame the modernizing of the Church for that fact, if indeed fact it be. After all, who bothers to study even recent Church history, much less the history of the Church as a whole? Using that as the sole criteria, no one could deny the Catholic faith after seeing what the Church was for Western civilization.

I never know what the complaint is about modernization. That word is used too flipantly. Perhaps the Vatican should not have a website or the Holy Father travel by jet? I know it is not the heresy of modernism. Then sedavacantism would be the logical choice.

For me, it is the study of Church history that brings me to a position contrary to the SSPX. For it is in history, I see not only the documents they so often quote, but the reason behind them; their historical context. This is why I always find the analogy of Athanasius so ill-fitting. I am not a modernist, but neither do I fear the modern world. This is the time God has placed us.

Nonetheless, I agree that the voice of the SSPX does need to be heard. They can be a vital part of maintaining our Catholic identity while the Church adapts to the changing world, if they are willing to understand that they are a voice in the Church. They are not The Church. Hopefully the current talks will allow for this.

 

[kozlosap]

Amen - We do live in the time that the Lord has provided us, we learn as we live.

 

[Lycorth]

I never know what the complaint is about modernization. That word is used too flipantly. Perhaps the Vatican should not have a website or the Holy Father travel by jet? I know it is not the heresy of modernism. Then sedavacantism would be the logical choice.

For me, it is the study of Church history that brings me to a position contrary to the SSPX. For it is in history, I see not only the documents they so often quote, but the reason behind them; their historical context. This is why I always find the analogy of Athanasius so ill-fitting. I am not a modernist, but neither do I fear the modern world. This is the time God has placed us.

Nonetheless, I agree that the voice of the SSPX does need to be heard. They can be a vital part of maintaining our Catholic identity while the Church adapts to the changing world, if they are willing to understand that they are a voice in the Church. They are not The Church. Hopefully the current talks will allow for this.

The Society knows they are not the Church. Their critics can’t help but paint them as such, though; they would have no ammunition to use against them otherwise. One can only beat the Econe drum for so long.

It is clear what I mean by “modernism”, the movement away from traditional expressions and attitudes towards the faith within the Church since the turbulent '60s/'70s era.

It is hard to see how a study of Church history does not vindicate those who defend the traditions that the Church enjoined in the days of her strength and vitality. Ah well; human minds are not guided by the Holy Spirit so it is no wonder we come to different conclusions. Hopefully, that same Spirit will bless the talks between the Vatican and the Society and move both to a reconciliation - one that will also see a renewal of traditional practices and attitudes that the Church sorely needs.

 

[catharina]

I am always fascinated at the blindness of Catholics who do not or who refuse to recognize the deep and severe crisis that the Church is in. Empty seminaries, religious fleeing from their vows, 30% of Catholics attending Sunday Mass in the US, 3% in France, diocese bankrupt, churches closing and consolidating like mad, and you can smugly declare that there is no crisis.

Marcel Lefebvre, pray for us!

How strange.
1.  You judge me, a stranger.
2.  You claim that I am smug and blind..

Bizarre.

Then again, sspx judged (still judges?) Pope John Paul II as lacking in Understanding.
Now sspx judges an excommunicated bishop as worthy of sainthood?

It's clear that I stand in very good company despite the twisted visions of sspx.

What a rejection of the truth of the Church that one would pray to M. Lefebvre,
while comparing him to St. Catheirne of Siena -
and while rejecting the holiness of late Holy Father.

I stand in the truth of Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.

St. Catherine of Siena, pray for us.
Venerable John Paul II, pray for us.

 

[catharina]

So, in one breath you tell me that there is no emergency in the Church to support the SSPX’s claim to supplied jurisdiction and in the second breath you tell me that the average modernist priest does not really take the sacrament of reconciliation seriously. So there are poor souls falling into Hell, presumably because the average priest and bishop doesn’t care enough to do something about it.

Do you see how contradictory this position is? If there are really Catholics out there invalidly married and with mortal sins on their souls (as you would suggest all those who participate in those particular sacraments do), then this is a SERIOUS PROBLEM in the Church that is not being addressed. At all. I’ve heard nothing. So, basically, Catholic souls in the SSPX are on their way to Hell and nothing is being done? What? The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

This whole issue with the SSPX comes down to whether or not there is, de facto a state of crisis in the Church warranting the SSPX’s actions and specifically, the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. **You believe there is not, I believe there is, but at least do us the courtesy of presenting your opinion as just that, an opinion, and not the gospel truth. **In the end, only God knows, we can only do our best as human beings to follow His law.

Why would I ever present the “courtesy” that perhaps sspx was correct?
Extending such a courtesy would require a rejection of my Catholic faith.

The Church has decided. The result: the excommunication of a sitting bishop.
The case is closed, via Church teaching and action.
It is not part of my vocation to disagree with Church decisions.
Some seem to imagine that they are free to disagree, They are not.

 

[Onegin]

Catharina you keep calling Archbishop Lefebvre “excommunicated.” He ceased being excommunicated on the day he died, so that label is unnecessary. I am telling you this in the honest assumption that you didn’t know this fact and am assuming that you don’t want to be needlessly slandering Archbishop Lefebvre’s name by continuing to apply a label that is no longer needed. It is no longer 1988, it is now 2010 - let us discuss this situation in the present.

Finally, stepping back and letting God be the final judge of the Archbishop’s decision back in 1988 is not a rejection of anything, least of all your Catholic faith. And that is really all I have left to say on the matter.