Not every statement issued by a council is equally binding. The SSPX in part make this mistake when interpreting Vatican II. Vatican II issued many new laws that superseded many temporal laws issued by previous councils. The SSPX were troubled by this wholesale change, and sought to preserve traditional Catholicism in the wake of changes they did not understand.
Ave Maria runningdude!
I think it is unfair to accuse the SSPX here of making the mistake in not understanding that not every statement is equally binding. In fact, the SSPX are constantly begging for some clarification on what is or isn’t binding from the documents of Vatican II - not so much now but certainly in the 70’s and 80’s. Rather, at least during that period, it was some of the higher-ups dealing with their situation that refused to acknowledge that VII wasn’t some kind of superdogma as (then) Cardinal Ratzinger once mention.
It’s not that they didn’t understand the changes in themselves. It’s that they saw the danger that was coming and couldn’t understand why they were the only ones to see it. Dare we say that in seeing these dangers they were wrong? I don’t think we can. Reading some of the stuff from the early days and one can see just how right they were regarding a few things. I think Pope Benedict agreed both as Pope and Cardinal that they were right to be alarmed. Archbishop Lefebvre absolutely loved the faith. He saw some of the madness. He saw what ambiguous statements can do. But he also accepted many of the statements - it is important to remember that. He actually thought some documents in some places were excellent - and we must say that this is true.
During the early days, and to some extent now, I don’t think it’s the SSPX that doesn’t understand the council in some areas. I think it’s the opposite. I remember reading a letter the Archbishop sent to PP Paul VI saying something like - “regarding seminary formation, liturgy and sacraments I seem to be the only bishop in the world actually obeying the council on this point, so how can you accuse me of not obeying?” There is some truth in that protest even now.
Their situation has changed since the consecrations. I don’t think that was excusable. I also don’t think it’s excusable that they continue in their situation - even having the cheek to build more seminaries and set up more chapels and pretend to have supplied jurisdiction when the FSSP are a few blocks away from their Church. But the history of it is complicated and fascinating.
Had they not insubordinately ordained several bishops without a papal mandate, they may have been allowed to proceed indefinitely
Historically speaking this is not true. Already in the late 70’s they were under immense pressure because of their adherence to traditional liturgy and doctrine. The consecrations in 88 were the outcome of years of turmoil for the Society and for the Archbishop personally. They were treated as outcast heretics. Pariahs. The Archbishop got scared and decided to do something silly. But by that time it almost didn’t matter since they were already, in some sense, in the same situation. It probably just sped-up the proccess a bit, but by the time 88 came around they weren’t going to stick around waiting to get hammered when the Archbishop died. What he did was wrong but one can understand his thinking.
The lack of heresy on their part may explain the great patience displayed by the previous pope when working with them.
I agree they aren’t manifest and bad-willed heretics in the same way as, say, Luther was. But in practice at the very least they deny the declarations of Vatican I regarding papal authority and supremacy as well as the necessity of being allied with Peter no matter what. It doesn’t make them heretics (only the Church can judge that) but they don’t have a clean sheet despite their protestations that they do. There are other ways of being a heretic than denying dogma outright. I forget what they are though, but I think Ludwig Ott outlines them somewhere in his book. They are also, I believe, in some specific instances, in schism - it depends on the priest and the local superior. Setting up seminaries outside of Econe was also naughty and schismatic. But I reiterate that as a whole they aren’t schismatics (all in my opinion since the Church hasn’t declared it outright) - only in certain locations where they behave as if the FSSP Masses one block away are strictly not to be attended because the FSSP are in league with “New Rome Modernists” or what have you.
Anyway, just my thoughts but I am an idiot and not as educated on these matters as I pretend to be so please don’t take me too seriously!
God Bless +
