SSPX vs Sedevacantism

[giuseppeTO]

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.

My dear Catharina,

In my humble opinion, which is what these boards allow, anyone (including you) who disputes the crisis in the church, is either blind or dishonest. I gave you the benefit of the kinder.

I never disputed the holiness of JP2. His weakness was to allow the greatest apostacy from the church during his pontificate since the Reformation.

Since Marcel Lefebvre was raised by the Holy Ghost to rescue the Mass of Pius V, albeit by disobeying a request of the Pope, he is still my patron, along with St Catherine, the also-excommunicated St. Athanasius, and perhaps even John Paul II someday.

 

[catharina]

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.

If what you are saying is accurate, that after death the title of excommunication is no longer applied, then I do apologize. In fact I’ve never heard that bit of teaching. What I most recall is that the actions of the archbishop caused agony for many faithful Catholics who saw, first-hand, an action that caused the excommunication of a bishop, through his own quite singular choice of disobedience. Certainly in the personal history of the man’s life, his action of disobedience caused great harm and sorrow for all Catholics. My thanks to you for granting me the benefit of the doubt. I appreciate that. It’s most gracious of you.

 

[catharina]

My dear Catharina,

In my humble opinion, which is what these boards allow, anyone (including you) who disputes the crisis in the church, is either blind or dishonest. I gave you the benefit of the kinder.

I never disputed the holiness of JP2. His weakness was to allow the greatest apostacy from the church during his pontificate since the Reformation.

Since Marcel Lefebvre was raised by the Holy Ghost to rescue the Mass of Pius V, albeit by disobeying a request of the Pope, he is still my patron, along with St Catherine, the also-excommunicated St. Athanasius, and perhaps even John Paul II someday.

O f course, I never have and never will dispute that there is a crisis in the Church.
Only you are claiming I said such a thing. I never even implied it.

St Catherine of Siena and St. Athanasius are canonized and recognized Saints.
Our Holy Father Pope John Paul II is counted among the Blessed.

It is an extreme error to pretend that M. Lefebvre is comparable to any of them.
Simply, according to the Catholic Church, the bishop has achieved no such standing.
If you wish to invent your own standards for holiness, continue as you have been doing.

That is to say, you can invent such standards, but they can NOT be justified as Truth.

 

[giuseppeTO]

his action of disobedience caused great harm and sorrow for all Catholics.

ALL Catholics? My, but you are prone to exaggeration aren’t you? I can think of nearly a million who would disagree.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Only you are claiming I said such a thing. I never even implied it.

.

You said and bolded in red in post #67 that there was no emergency situation. The emergency is the crisis.

 

[catharina]

ALL Catholics? My, but you are prone to exaggeration aren’t you? I can think of nearly a million who would disagree.

I’m not prone to exageration at all.
Are you pretending that there was NOT great pain in sspx over the excommunication?

If so, you are truly mistaken.

 

[catharina]

You said and bolded in red in post #67 that there was no emergency situation. The emergency is the crisis.

So, I will repeat myself (and I stand by it):

**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. **

No “emergency situation” created a crisis that called
for the direct disobedience by a bishop. Hence, the dire penalty.

It’s inarguable for faithful Catholics.

 

[Lycorth]

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.

Amen. I truly hate to cast stones or aspersions, but she has an axe to grind and, apparently, a mission to get any thread about the Archbishop locked due to starting up fights.

Just turn the other cheek, brush the dust from your sandals, and move on. This thread is about showing that the SSPX are not sedevacantists, not about yet another flame war because there are some folks out there who sadly cannot realize that the archbishop’s excommunication expired upon his death, that the excommunications upon the bishops he consecrated are lifted, and that that incident constituted the one, sole moment where an act of disobedience either existed in fact or was merely perceived to be so. Either way, the Econe excommunications are a done deal and the Society and the Vatican have both moved on.

If others cannot, perhaps they should examine the planks in their own eyes before judging those they think are in the eyes of the SSPX.

 

[catharina]

Amen. **I truly hate to cast stones or aspersions, but she has an axe to grind and, apparently, a mission to get any thread about the Archbishop locked due to starting up fights. **

Just turn the other cheek, brush the dust from your sandals, and move on. This thread is about showing that the SSPX are not sedevacantists, not about yet another flame war because there are some folks out there who sadly cannot realize that the archbishop’s excommunication expired upon his death, that the excommunications upon the bishops he consecrated are lifted, and that that incident constituted the one, sole moment where an act of disobedience either existed in fact or was merely perceived to be so. Either way, the Econe excommunications are a done deal and the Society and the Vatican have both moved on.

If others cannot, perhaps they should examine the planks in their own eyes before judging those they think are in the eyes of the SSPX.

Guessing I am the “she.” So you are judging me? OK, judge away.

Do so many people so easily forget the horrific pain of the days
that resulted from the disobedience of the bishop?
Must you whitewash the past?

If the Vatican ever tells us that the man was holy and saintly, THEN I’ll agree. Not until.
I consider this stance to be faithful Catholic obedience. If others choose otherwise, then it’s on them. My stating the truth is NOT starting a fight. In fact, it is the opposite.

If you are accusing the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH of mis-perceiving the disobedience, you are in error. That is the fact as things stand now - and you can NOT invent the future no matter how often or stubbornly you atttempt to do so.

 

[catharina]

Very few sins merit the penalty of excommunication. From previous CA:

"Having an abortion means automatic excommunication from the Church. Are there other sins that carry this penalty?

”A: Yes. In the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) eight other sins carry the penalty of automatic excommunication: apostasy, heresy, schism (CIC 1364:1), violating the sacred species (CIC 1367), physically attacking the pope (CIC 1370:1), sacramentally absolving an accomplice in a sexual sin (CIC 1378:1), consecrating a bishop without authorization (CIC 1382), and directly violating the seal of confession (1388:1).

Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Heresy is the obstinate doubt or denial, after baptism, of a defined Catholic doctrine. Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the refusal to be in communion with members of the Church who are in communion with him (CIC 751).

Violation of the sacred species is the throwing away the consecrated species of Christ’s body or blood or the taking or retaining of them for a sacrilegious purpose (CIC 1367).

Physically attacking the pope is self-explanatory, as are absolving an accomplice in a sexual sin and consecrating a bishop without authorization from the Vatican.

A direct violation of the seal of confession is one in which both the penitent and the penitent’s sin can easily be determined by the confessor’s words or behavior. Again, the penalty of automatic excommunication does not apply if no one perceives the disclosure (CIC 1330).

Automatic excommunication for abortion (CIC 1398) applies not only to the woman who has the abortion, but to “all those who commit this crime with knowledge of the penalty attached, and [this] includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed” (Evangelium Vitae 62).

No one is automatically excommunicated for any offense if, without any fault of his own, he was unaware that he was violating a law (CIC 1323:2) or that a penalty was attached to the law (CIC 1324:1:9). The same applies if one was a minor, had the imperfect use of reason, was forced through grave or relatively grave fear, was forced through serious inconvenience, or in certain other circumstances (CIC 1324)."

*Catholic Answers Staff Category: Canon Law Keywords: canon law excommunication sin apostasy abortion *

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cacheeNBzOIRQ2YJ:www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/excommunication+catholic,+lefebvre,+excommunication+ends+with+death%3F&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[Onegin]

If what you are saying is accurate, that after death the title of excommunication is no longer applied, then I do apologize. In fact I’ve never heard that bit of teaching. What I most recall is that the actions of the archbishop caused agony for many faithful Catholics who saw, first-hand, an action that caused the excommunication of a bishop, through his own quite singular choice of disobedience. Certainly in the personal history of the man’s life, his action of disobedience caused great harm and sorrow for all Catholics. My thanks to you for granting me the benefit of the doubt. I appreciate that. It’s most gracious of you.

Yes, because at the time of death, God Himself will judge the soul of the individual. However, this isn’t to say that excommunications can’t be lifted post-mortem as history has shown us examples of this being done.

Here is an interesting article on the various forms, types and effects of excommunication. It is quite long but worth the read:

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

 

[pnewton]

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.

Actually, it was not clear. Often the Syllabus of errors is used to show the philosophy of modernism as heresy. Yours is an entirely different definition.

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.

Tridentine Mass was codified in the sixteenth century; a time when the Catholic Church hemmoraged membership at an unprecedented rate. In the eleventh century the Catholic Church finally lost its Orthodox churches as they broke away. Nothing on the magnitude of these two events has occurred in the last century. This is what I see from history. These were two crises of a whole other order than anything that is happening today.

There are 1.1 billion Catholics today, making it the largest group of any kind in the world. Yes, many are name only, as are in all demographics.
adherents.com/adh_rb.html

Here is a page of other Catholic statistics:
adherents.com/Na/Na_100.html#706

Ah well; human minds are not guided by the Holy Spirit so it is no wonder we come to different conclusions.
[Rom 8:14](http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

 

[maurin]

Guessing I am the “she.” So you are judging me? OK, judge away.

Do so many people so easily forget the horrific pain of the days
that resulted from the disobedience of the bishop?
Must you whitewash the past?

If the Vatican ever tells us that the man was holy and saintly, THEN I’ll agree. Not until.
I consider this stance to be faithful Catholic obedience. If others choose otherwise, then it’s on them. My stating the truth is NOT starting a fight. In fact, it is the opposite.

If you are accusing the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH of mis-perceiving the disobedience, you are in error. That is the fact as things stand now - and you can NOT invent the future no matter how often or stubbornly you atttempt to do so.

But you, Catharina are in effect accusing the current earthly head of the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH of mis-perceiving the disobedience. The current Pope has first freed the Holy Mass from indult, then lifted the excommunications, and then began bi monthly doctrinal talks with this disobedient crowd. It seems you may be the one with the misperceptions.

And may I please request that you stop all these accusations of judging? All you have done is judge. And not quite correctly.

 

[maurin]

Actually, it was not clear. Often the Syllabus of errors is used to show the philosophy of modernism as heresy. Yours is an entirely different definition.
Tridentine Mass was codified in the sixteenth century; a time when the Catholic Church hemmoraged membership at an unprecedented rate. In the eleventh century the Catholic Church finally lost its Orthodox churches as they broke away. Nothing on the magnitude of these two events has occurred in the last century. This is what I see from history. These were two crises of a whole other order than anything that is happening today.

There are 1.1 billion Catholics today, making it the largest group of any kind in the world. Yes, many are name only, as are in all demographics.
adherents.com/adh_rb.html

Here is a page of other Catholic statistics:
adherents.com/Na/Na_100.html#706

Ah well; human minds are not guided by the Holy Spirit so it is no wonder we come to different conclusions.

[Rom 8:14](http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

I think that what you are trying to use as a proof here may be quite misleading, pnewton. For instance, I took piano lessons for 6 years when I was a child. I haven’t touched a keyboard more than once or twice a year. Could I seriously count myself among the ranks of pianists?

I also believe another case can be made for the hemmorahging (sp?) Of Catholics from the Faith or no faith in the last fifty years as comparable to the ones you describe. I may be wrong, but not sure if I am.

Btw, thank you for your kind post on a previous page. I really appreciate your generosity of understanding.

 

[giuseppeTO]

If the Vatican ever tells us that the man was holy and saintly, THEN I’ll agree.

One of the few virtues I do possess is patience. I can wait for the Vatican to recognize the holiness of Marcel Lefebvre. I have asked for his intercession several times and my prayers have always been answered. I will probably not be here when he is canonized but it will surely happen.

By the way, I have also asked for intercession from my pious and deceased grandmother without waiting for the Vatican to tell me that she was “holy and saintly”.

 

[CWBetts]

I was under the impression that the SSPX believed that Pope Benedict is an “antiPope”… was I wrong? (I hope so!)

if the SSPX accept the Holy Father, that makes sense why the Vatican is continuing dialogue with them… are they still in schism?

it’s good to hear they’re not sedevacantists

but I was wondering… why be SSPX? why not simply be a traditional Catholic and attend an FSSP Mass?

As mucha s I am not a fan of the SSPX, they accept the vilidity of the Pope, but and since the excommunications have been lifted, SSPX Masses are valid. However their Masses are not licit as faculties have not been restored. The FSSP is a much better choice for those who are of a Traditional bent.

 

[CWBetts]

One of the few virtues I do possess is patience. I can wait for the Vatican to recognize the holiness of Marcel Lefebvre. I have asked for his intercession several times and my prayers have always been answered. I will probably not be here when he is canonized but it will surely happen.

By the way, I have also asked for intercession from my pious and deceased grandmother without waiting for the Vatican to tell me that she was “holy and saintly”.

I am sure he will be cannonized about the same time as Luther and Arius.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I am sure he will be cannonized about the same time as Luther and Arius.

One of my prayers that the Archbishop has not answered was that the heretics from Franciscan U convert back to the true faith in honor of their saintly benefactor who weeps incessantly over the hootenany they have made of the Holy Sacrifice.

+Marcel Lefebvre, pray for us.

 

[CWBetts]

One of my prayers that the Archbishop has not answered was that the heretics from Franciscan U convert back to the true faith in honor of their saintly benefactor who weeps incessantly over the hootenany they have made of the Holy Sacrifice.

+Marcel Lefebvre, pray for us.

There are no Heretics here. If you think that the Charismatic renewal is heretical, then you are ignorant of Tradition.

 

[excubitor]

But you, Catharina are in effect accusing the current earthly head of the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH of mis-perceiving the disobedience. The current Pope has first freed the Holy Mass from indult
then lifted the excommunications, and then began bi monthly doctrinal talks with this disobedient crowd. It seems you may be the one with the misperceptions.

The initiatives of the Pope toward the Mass is in no way an endorsement of the SSPX.
The excommunications may have been lifted but the bishops are still suspended. They have no authority to exercise any priestly function within the church. They even have no authority to teach the faithful. Their teachings cannot be relied upon by the faithful because they have no canonical status in the church.

The fact that the Pope meets with the SSPX for talks is not an endorsement of their church. If you think that, then you must think that his meetings with Jewish and Islamic religious leaders is also an endorsement of their religions.

Actually the Pope has had better success with the Anglican church. His initiative APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS was received with joy and many Anglican groups such as the TAC have actually signed the Catechism and are desiring to be in full communion with the church. The SSPX should hang their heads in shame if the TAC pips them at the post and end up being in full communion with the Pope before the SSPX are.

And may I please request that you stop all these accusations of judging? All you have done is judge. And not quite correctly.

I haven’t judged. I have merely restated the clearly stated rulings of the Pope which he has made directly and through his Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. That is that the SSPX have a schismatic mentality, that they have no canonical status in the church, that they are suspended from any priestly ministry, that their Masses are illicit, that their weddings and Confessions are invalid and illicit, and that Catholics are to avoid frequenting their masses.

No judging there. No interpretation there. Simply clear, direct, unequivocal even to the point of blunt statements from the Pope and his pontifical commission.

As for the SSPX talks. Cardinal Casper calls them “difficult”, and you can bet that is a gross understatement. cathnewsusa.com/article.aspx?aeid=21181
The Cardinal stated.
“I’m for a dialogue, but on our conditions, not on the traditionalists’ conditions,”
“Dialogue with them is not easy”
“Their problem is with their concept of tradition. Do we want a living tradition or a petrified one?” (I like that. Nice bit of humour their Cardinal)

Apparently German theologian Wolfgang Beinert, told Der Spiegel magazine last month that the pope had told him the SSPX issue “robs him of his sleep.”

I can believe it. The SSPX is the gravest crisis since the reformation in my view. The modernist problem I can see an eventual solution for, as the pendulam swings back to a more conservative orthodox catholicity, but the SSPX will forever be cementing a hyper-traditionalism in order to for ever appear more traditional than the church. They will forever be dogging at the heels at the church picking fault with every apparent modernist fault with the church to constantly undermine her in order to justify for ever their seperation.

To say that the SSPX is a hard nut to crack is an understatement. The fact is that the SSPX is a hard nut to crack because they DON’T want to be cracked. Msgr. Fellay has these talks with the Vatican merely to sate the demands of the liberal factions in the SSPX who want reunification. Then he goes and tells them how positive the talks were and how kindly the Pope received him. Then when he goes and talks with the hard line traditionalist faction of the SSPX he tells them about how implacable the Pope is and how little hope there is of reconciliation because the Pope is corrupted with modernism. In this way he juggles the factions to keep the whole sorry show from falling in a heap. So who then is the Msgr. F. working for? The church or the SSPX? Clearly his allegiance lies first with the SSPX and secondly with the Pope. Hang on. That’s not obedience. That’s disobedience. No man can serve two masters. He will love one and hate the other.

Any wonder the Pope is losing sleep about the problem. Who would want to have to deal with the SSPX?

As Cardinal Casper said words to the effect of. The SSPX has to accept the Council reforms, the “sine qua non” of any accord.

That is to say that the Vatican will not budge ONE IOTA from its stance on Vatican 2. There will be no accord unless you accept the Churches teachings of Vatican 2 and that’s final, and that’s from the sovereign pontiff. So SSPX hang up your boxing gloves. You are dashing yourself against an immovable rock. Give up now and come back to the church.