L
- Status
T
Timothysis
Guest
Yes, really. If you look at their website they have nothing but bad things to say about Pope John Paul II.Get out! Really?
I
Iotaunum
Guest
This thread is like so many others, but I feel the need again to try and clear up some confusion:
1/ The SSPX is not schismatic. A Bishop consecrating without a pontifical mandate is not a schismatic act. Nor is “disobedience” in certain matters nor rejecting certain teachings a schismatic act. Schism demands that one reject the authority of the pope to command but disobedience consists only in disobeying a command while the person still recognises the authority of the Pope. The SSPX fully accept the authority and primacy of the Pope as the Church teaches it. There is no question therefore of “leading others into schism” since the SSPX is not schismatic.
2/ Attending Mass at an SSPX chapel is not a schismatic act, I now attend one and I am most certainly not in schism. If anyone feels they can accuse me of schism, then they should be able to prove it.
3/ The excommunication of the Archbishop, the co-consecrating Bishop, and the four new Bishops was never accepted as valid by the SSPX or the Archbsihop and many others on canonical gounds. The SSPX presents a solid case for the nullity of the penalty which is yet to be refuted. Canon law itself made provisions, which can be seen by anyone, which nullify the penalty of excommunication even if there was one, since everyone will at least admit that the Archbishop thought there was a state of necessity then by canon law any exommunication was nullified. I have wrote on more depth on this in another thread.
4/ The whole “the SSPX reject Vatican II, a valid and binding Ecumenical Council” accusation is not only a sweeping generalization, but displays a lack of knowledge of the position of the SSPX. The position of the SSPX is this: Vatican II was not supposed to be a dogmatic council, as Pope John XXIII aand Paul VI stated. Vatican II did not define any new dogmas, but is only infallible in those definitions and portions of the documents which were already previously infallible. Therefore, where all is not infallible there is at least the possibility of error. Now normally, any teaching and pastoral direction which is not even infallible must be obeyed and held to by all Catholics unless it contraditicts previous dogmatic definitions by the Popes and Councils and therefore the constant teaching of the Church.
I will give a common example - the SSPX may say: "Lumen Gentium teaches (No.16) that ‘Muslims, together with us, worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day’ - But since it is a dogma that Christ will judge mankind on the last day, and that it is equally certain that Muslims do not worship Christ -They cannot possibly worship with Catholics the one God who will judge mankind on the last day. Even if it were possible to reject Christ as God while continuing to worship the God who, on the last day, will judge mankind, then we still know that “anyone who reject me, rejects him who sent me” - which is of course God. When the SSPX therefore reject this statement of Lumen Gentium, they are rejecting an new and non-infallible teaching of this document which is not binding on Catholics nor is part of the deposit of faith.
The SSPX indeed feel conscience bound and that it is their duty to uphold traditional Catholic teaching and rejecting new non-infallible teachings which cannot be reconciled with Church teaching. It is not as though they pick and choose what seems traditional and what they like or prefer. The Priests who objected to the New Mass did so, and do so on doctrinal grounds, not as a matter of preference.
The talks of the SSPX with the Pope were not:
Pope: Accept Vatican II and say the New Mass
SSPX: Scrap Vatican II and say the traditional Mass
This is an oversimplistic and unrealistic view of the talks. The talks would be issues like Lumen Gentium No.16, as the above example, and the Pope May ask what objections the SSPX have to this, and the SSPX will say: “Holy Father, if you can reconcile this with Catholic dogma and teaching then we will accept, if not then we can not be expected to hold this doctrine - if our objections can be answered then we will accept it.” The New Mass was also to be discussed, the doctrinal objections etc as well as issues like Assisi etc. The SSPX have not entered discussions with a closed and stubborn mind, but they will certainly not accept the new teachings which they still feel are in contradiction to Church teaching for nearly 2000 years. It is not a question of obedience or disobedience, since true obedience does not consist in following error.
1/ The SSPX is not schismatic. A Bishop consecrating without a pontifical mandate is not a schismatic act. Nor is “disobedience” in certain matters nor rejecting certain teachings a schismatic act. Schism demands that one reject the authority of the pope to command but disobedience consists only in disobeying a command while the person still recognises the authority of the Pope. The SSPX fully accept the authority and primacy of the Pope as the Church teaches it. There is no question therefore of “leading others into schism” since the SSPX is not schismatic.
2/ Attending Mass at an SSPX chapel is not a schismatic act, I now attend one and I am most certainly not in schism. If anyone feels they can accuse me of schism, then they should be able to prove it.
3/ The excommunication of the Archbishop, the co-consecrating Bishop, and the four new Bishops was never accepted as valid by the SSPX or the Archbsihop and many others on canonical gounds. The SSPX presents a solid case for the nullity of the penalty which is yet to be refuted. Canon law itself made provisions, which can be seen by anyone, which nullify the penalty of excommunication even if there was one, since everyone will at least admit that the Archbishop thought there was a state of necessity then by canon law any exommunication was nullified. I have wrote on more depth on this in another thread.
4/ The whole “the SSPX reject Vatican II, a valid and binding Ecumenical Council” accusation is not only a sweeping generalization, but displays a lack of knowledge of the position of the SSPX. The position of the SSPX is this: Vatican II was not supposed to be a dogmatic council, as Pope John XXIII aand Paul VI stated. Vatican II did not define any new dogmas, but is only infallible in those definitions and portions of the documents which were already previously infallible. Therefore, where all is not infallible there is at least the possibility of error. Now normally, any teaching and pastoral direction which is not even infallible must be obeyed and held to by all Catholics unless it contraditicts previous dogmatic definitions by the Popes and Councils and therefore the constant teaching of the Church.
I will give a common example - the SSPX may say: "Lumen Gentium teaches (No.16) that ‘Muslims, together with us, worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day’ - But since it is a dogma that Christ will judge mankind on the last day, and that it is equally certain that Muslims do not worship Christ -They cannot possibly worship with Catholics the one God who will judge mankind on the last day. Even if it were possible to reject Christ as God while continuing to worship the God who, on the last day, will judge mankind, then we still know that “anyone who reject me, rejects him who sent me” - which is of course God. When the SSPX therefore reject this statement of Lumen Gentium, they are rejecting an new and non-infallible teaching of this document which is not binding on Catholics nor is part of the deposit of faith.
The SSPX indeed feel conscience bound and that it is their duty to uphold traditional Catholic teaching and rejecting new non-infallible teachings which cannot be reconciled with Church teaching. It is not as though they pick and choose what seems traditional and what they like or prefer. The Priests who objected to the New Mass did so, and do so on doctrinal grounds, not as a matter of preference.
The talks of the SSPX with the Pope were not:
Pope: Accept Vatican II and say the New Mass
SSPX: Scrap Vatican II and say the traditional Mass
This is an oversimplistic and unrealistic view of the talks. The talks would be issues like Lumen Gentium No.16, as the above example, and the Pope May ask what objections the SSPX have to this, and the SSPX will say: “Holy Father, if you can reconcile this with Catholic dogma and teaching then we will accept, if not then we can not be expected to hold this doctrine - if our objections can be answered then we will accept it.” The New Mass was also to be discussed, the doctrinal objections etc as well as issues like Assisi etc. The SSPX have not entered discussions with a closed and stubborn mind, but they will certainly not accept the new teachings which they still feel are in contradiction to Church teaching for nearly 2000 years. It is not a question of obedience or disobedience, since true obedience does not consist in following error.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Doesn’t really matter what they said at the time. The supreme legislator, the pope, said they were excommunicated, that is all the matters for the Church.
Also doesn’t really matter as Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council and all Ecumenical Councils require the assent of the faithful.
A
AthosVII
Guest
Exactly.
G
GWright
Guest
Purely out of curiosity, how big (globally) is the SSPX, and where are most of their worshippers concentrated?
The actually have a small church around the corner from me, (Glasgow, Scotland), with only one service a week.
Ive always been curious about the church (it is a lovely little building - hidden away in the city) and who actually goes to it. (I personally go to the Jesuit Church in the next street).
Thanks if anyone can advise.
The actually have a small church around the corner from me, (Glasgow, Scotland), with only one service a week.
Ive always been curious about the church (it is a lovely little building - hidden away in the city) and who actually goes to it. (I personally go to the Jesuit Church in the next street).
Thanks if anyone can advise.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Were as they may not say that they are schismatics, One could be going as i a state of mind that they believe the Chruch wronge and that there has been a breach in the chruch since the council thus making a schism. That why it is word as “in the spirit of schism” neither I nor anyone here in this thread has said that the SSPX are in schism, but because of the ilregular status that they are in it could give the impression of being in schism and therefore one realy needs to examine why they are going to those chaples, as well as if they maybe a stubbiling block to others.
A
AthosVII
Guest
I am not sure about that. SSPX has actually just processed a census count a couple of months ago but I have yet to hear the results. However, the largest seminary for SSPX is the St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, MN. They’re priesthood is getting bigger, they have to build a new structure to house more priests. SSPX is also international, the HQ is in Econe, Switzerland.
G
GWright
Guest
Thanks for the info Athos!
I
Iotaunum
Guest
I have answered you point in detail on another thread, but to repeat whaat I said a few days ago: the opinion of even the Pope is superfluous to whether or not an excommunication occurred. When St Athanasius was excommunicated, the Pope may well have believed that it was an actual excommunication. Likewise with other wrongful excommunications in history. Whether the bishop or the Pope believes it to be or not has no direct effect on the validity of the excommunication. Whether the excommunication was valid or not is therefore a matter of canon and divine law. Consecrating without a mandate or against the express wish of the Pope is not a schismatic act - it would be disobedience at the most. Schism demands that one reject the authority of the pope to command but disobedience consists only in disobeying a command while the person still recognises the authority of the Pope. The SSPX and the Archbishop recognised the authority of the Pope but the consecrations were done because the Archbishop felt he had a duty to do so. Again, canon law recognised what is in the mind of the offender - not the Pope. No positive law binds when there is grave inconvenience and the Archbishop saw a grave inconvenience to the salvation of souls if he observed. The salvation of souls must always be the supreme law of the Church - canon 1752. Also, the Pope cannot change a law after the fact and give a penalty retroactively: a law comes into existence when it is promulgated - canon 7. The Code as it stood at the time nullified any excommunication since it provided for cases such as this, and even if the Archbishop thought there was a necessity when there was not (which is not the case) then the penalty would still be nulled by canon law itself. Everyone has a right to a fair trial and to be judged by the law as it is written. I have wrote in more depth on this in another thread on the consecrations.
Yes it does, and as I explained; the only valid reason one could reject an non-infallible teaching in a document, is if it is objectively in contradition to previous dogmatic teaching and doctrine on the matter. In this case it is certainly not binding. I gave an example.
T
Timothysis
Guest
This is absurd! Your opinion is superfluous as it has zero significance on the issue. It wasn’t a pope’s “opinion” but an act of the office as the head of the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II declared the excommunications for disobedience in consecrating bishops without a papal mandate. The Archbishop was duly warned, flaunted the warning and proceeded on his own and was summarily excommunicated the next day. To say that one can act in such a manner without consequence is to undermine the entire rule of law of society itself. Pope Benedict’s lifting of the excommunication is further proof of the effectiveness of it, for one cannot lift what he doesn’t believe to be there in the first place. The Archbishops defense was ruled to not apply by the supreme interpreter of Canon law. To say that all are wrong and you are right is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I’m not listening, I’m not listening."
T
The_Curt_Jester
Guest
Sounds about right!
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Does this mean that you can reject the non-infallible portions of Trent as well?
In all seriousness, you cannot reject Vatican II while accepting Trent. Both are founded on the same authority.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Can someone on the SSPX side please explain this part to me? I mean how the SSPX can be against the beatification of the most Marian Pope in my lifetime? A Pope who has a Church verified miracle?
Not meant in an in your face way, ie, it is a genuine question.
P
ProVobis
Guest
No one should be opposed to his beatification but human nature being what it is, there are probably still some bitter feelings resulting from being publically excommunicated by that same Pope. Just my hunch.
As for Assisi, I understand the Pope has now dropped plans for inter-faith prayer, so that should soften the anti-Assisi argument somewhat.
S
Shin
Guest
Well here’s what the SSPX says, though only briefly.
I tend to think it’s more fully covered like this though.
Regarding the miracle, here’s 'The Remnant’s statement of reservations. One section covers ‘a miracle open to doubt’.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Of course “Tradition in Action” is hardly what one could call “reliable”
P
PA650
Guest
The following is an useful article from RenewAmerica.com regarding the state of the Society of Pope Pius X:
renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410
renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410
I
Iotaunum
Guest
Its very late now here, so I will be brief. I said “the opinion of even the Pope is superfluous to whether or not an excommunication occurred”. This is an objective fact, not only for this case, but for all others. If a judge decides that someone committed a crime when they did not, then the fact that they did not will not change. The judge has simply got it wrong. I did not simply give an opinion, as I explained before; When Pope Liberius excommunicated St Athanasius, he no doubt thought he was excommunicated – but he was not, infact St Athanasius was canonised and the Pope was not. The Pope was simply wrong in this case, and in other cases in history when Popes and Bishops excommunicated wrongly. There were no excommunications in these cases in reality. What the objective fact is, is this: The fact of excommunication and the opinion of the Pope are not necessarily the same, as history shows. I have addressed your other points in depth along with the relevant canons on another thread and I do not want to derail this one. If you would like to start a new thread or send a private message I will be happy to discuss the issue indepth.
Pax Christi
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
I appreciate your response. Thank you
- Status