SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blessed_is_He
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MODERATOR NOTICE

We are a Catholic apostolate in good standing with the Holy See. We expect our Catholic posters to stand by and with the Holy See when speaking on matters on which the Holy See has spoken. Please refer to the statement by Cardinal Elect Mueller for the current and correct status of the SSPX. No one has the authority to contradict the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Faith except the Holy Father. Please remember that other than the Holy Father the current prefect is the highest ranking authority on these matters.

Cardinal Elect Mueller’s last known statement on SSPX
 
This makes sense, because the prefects are “deputized” to speak for the Holy Father, unless he decides to speak for himself or to say something different.
 
How about we start with the fact that 3 Popes now have said that they were wrong regarding their views on the OF of the Mass & Vatican II, and the leadership of the SSPX has decided that they are right and refuse to obey the current Magisterium.

It doesn’t matter what side of the fence you are on, disobedience is disobedience.
And it is most certainly not “Catholic teaching”.
 
Archbishop Lefebvre started the SSPX to train priests, not to preserve the Mass. Seminarians had come to him dissatisfied with what was going on in other seminaries and begged him to train them for the priesthood.
 
When someone can give me evidence that the Society is less faithful to Catholic Teaching than the majority of parishes/dioceses in the world, I will believe that there will no longer be a need for it to exist.
 
When someone can give me evidence that the Society is less faithful to Catholic Teaching than the majority of parishes/dioceses in the world, I will believe that there will no longer be a need for it to exist.
What more evidence do you need than the the Magisterium saying that the SSPX has no cannonical status within the Church? 🤷

Being a “faithful” Catholic, in part, means being obedient to the Pope. Sorry, but the SSPX (or insert any other organization who claims to be Catholic, but fails to follow the current Magisterium) cannot have it both ways.
 
What more evidence do you need than the the Magisterium saying that the SSPX has no cannonical status within the Church? 🤷

Being a “faithful” Catholic, in part, means being obedient to the Pope. Sorry, but the SSPX (or insert any other organization who claims to be Catholic, but fails to follow the current Magisterium) cannot have it both ways.
Who said that the Society had canonical status?

The people who can’t “have it both ways” are modernists within the Church who want to maintain the facade of Catholicism, but stand in opposition to the historical Church. No one has said that the Society is perfect; I’ve never heard anyone, priest, bishop, or lay associate, of the Society make this claim either. The OP simply asked how the fraternity was doing, and the answer to his question, as I see it, is that they are striving to be good Catholics as hard as, or harder than, everyone else, with or without diocesan approval.
I don’t think that hateful and condemning words offered to heretics, schismatics, pagans, or anyone else is looked upon kindly in this forum. Why then, would it be okay to treat fellow Catholics, and clergy at that, with such contempt.
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

We are a Catholic apostolate in good standing with the Holy See. We expect our Catholic posters to stand by and with the Holy See when speaking on matters on which the Holy See has spoken. Please refer to the statement by Cardinal Elect Mueller for the current and correct status of the SSPX. No one has the authority to contradict the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Faith except the Holy Father. Please remember that other than the Holy Father the current prefect is the highest ranking authority on these matters.

Cardinal Elect Mueller’s last known statement on SSPX
Here are the relevant quotes from that article:

Asked about the position of the Society of St. Pius X, Archbishop Müller said that while “the canonical excommunication” was revoked, “the sacramental one remains, de facto, for the schism: because they have removed themselves from communion with the Church.”

“Having said that, we do not close the door, ever, and invite them to reconcile. But they also must change their approach, accepting the conditions of the Catholic Church and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion of belonging [to it].”

I can see how some are confused as to the status of the SSPX. I don’t think it will go on ambiguously forever, though. At some point, the SSPX is either going to have to (1) accept the conditions of the Holy See; (2) once again illicitly consecrate more bishops to keep the society going; or (3) simply fade out of existence as all of their bishops pass on.

I pray they choose option 1. If they choose option 2, it’s going to be much more difficult for them to claim “irregular status” rather than admitting to schism. Option 3 is sort of a non-choice. I don’t really see things going that route.
 
Here are the relevant quotes from that article:

Asked about the position of the Society of St. Pius X, Archbishop Müller said that while “the canonical excommunication” was revoked, “the sacramental one remains, de facto, for the schism: because they have removed themselves from communion with the Church.”

“Having said that, we do not close the door, ever, and invite them to reconcile. But they also must change their approach, accepting the conditions of the Catholic Church and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion of belonging [to it].”

I can see how some are confused as to the status of the SSPX. I don’t think it will go on ambiguously forever, though. At some point, the SSPX is either going to have to (1) accept the conditions of the Holy See; (2) once again illicitly consecrate more bishops to keep the society going; or (3) simply fade out of existence as all of their bishops pass on.

I pray they choose option 1. If they choose option 2, it’s going to be much more difficult for them to claim “irregular status” rather than admitting to schism. Option 3 is sort of a non-choice. I don’t really see things going that route.
My worry, related to this I guess, is that the Society will succumb to internal divisions and splinter into so many factions that it can’t be taken seriously anymore.
 
My worry, related to this I guess, is that the Society will succumb to internal divisions and splinter into so many factions that it can’t be taken seriously anymore.
True. No matter which way they go, it would surprise me if the whole society moved uniformly in the same direction. I suppose that is true in most things, though.
 
My worry, related to this I guess, is that the Society will succumb to internal divisions and splinter into so many factions that it can’t be taken seriously anymore.
Why should they be taken seriously now?

Ok so they have all the appearances of being good people. Their priest give all of the appearances of being holy. Their masses are beautiful and reverent without liturgical abuse. The large catholic families that go to their masses are well dressed and behave appropriately. All these things and others make their dissent seem like a small thing. In fact they make it worse because to many tradition minded catholics it seems to turn their dissent into a virtue. Many of their sacraments are illicit and some like confession and marriage are not valid. Depending on the intent and knowledge of the person having their confession heard not only is there no real absolution but the may be committing a further mortal sin of a fake sacrament. All the while they try to sow doubts about the hierarchy of the Church, the teaching of the magistirium and the Pope. They try to lure people from the main body of the church and spread their errors. What is so good about that.
 
Why should they be taken seriously now?

Ok so they have all the appearances of being good people. Their priest give all of the appearances of being holy. Their masses are beautiful and reverent without liturgical abuse. The large catholic families that go to their masses are well dressed and behave appropriately. All these things and others make their dissent seem like a small thing. In fact they make it worse because to many tradition minded catholics it seems to turn their dissent into a virtue. Many of their sacraments are illicit and some like confession and marriage are not valid. Depending on the intent and knowledge of the person having their confession heard not only is there no real absolution but the may be committing a further mortal sin of a fake sacrament. All the while they try to sow doubts about the hierarchy of the Church, the teaching of the magistirium and the Pope. They try to lure people from the main body of the church and spread their errors. What is so good about that.
I would be happy to respond to you, Andy, but not on this thread since your statements are not related to the original post. Maybe start another thread?
 
There are holy people in the SSPX. That’s not surprising, since they seem to target only those who are already committed to Catholicism, they don’t target former Catholics, Protestants, or non believers. But I don’t think anyone is holier because of their involvement in the SSPX.

I think someone can start out as "I will be obedient to the Church on everything EXCEPT this one or two areas where novelties have temporarily crept in. And that’s ok for awhile. Then it slowly becomes easier to reject this other aspect of Christianity, not because it is a novelty but because I personally don’t like it. It’s a lot easier to pick and choose which papal statement you will follow when you have dozens of popes, hundreds of statements to choose from, rather than relying on any current pope.

Disobedience grows on you. It takes you to positions you would never anticipate. It is the biggest obstacle to conversion, because you deny you are disobedient, you claim you are the really obedient one.
 
Disobedience grows on you. It takes you to positions you would never anticipate. It is the biggest obstacle to conversion, because you deny you are disobedient, you claim you are the really obedient one.
Yes, it does grow on you.
 
I use to belong to them. What is the whole thing going on with them now?
From another thread of a month or so ago, it would appear that a statement was made - whether officially by the SSPX or unofficially, that they were not going to reconcile with Rome (presumably, in response to Rome’s last specifications as to what the Society) would have to do to reconcile.

Coupled with that is the issue that keeps bouncing around, stated as “They are not in schism”.

There are two aspects to schism; de facto and de jure. De facto schism is a factual (as opposed to judicial) status. In other words, someone factually, by their stance, no longer is part of the Catholic Church because of their refusal to follow the directions of the Pope. From Wikipedia: “the offence of schism concerns not differences of belief or doctrine but promotion of, or the state of, division”.

That is a fairly good definition, and within the issue of the SSPX, seems to fit the facts; they have been refused recognition in that their bishops have no authority or jurisdiction; and their priests likewise, as well as not being able to be granted legitimate faculties to administer sacraments. It also appears to go along with Archbishop Mueller’s statement.

De jure schism is a legal determination, by the Pope (most likely through the appropriate dicastery, but clearly at his direction or acknowledgement) that the group is legally determined to have broken off from the Church.

It would appear that Rome holds out the hope and possibility of reconciliation; but Rome is not going to chase them down, nor is it going to back off on what it requires for reconciliation. Granted that the talks seemed to be primarily between them and Benedict 16, the issues go back to John Paul 2. And there is no reason to presume that Francis, or any popes after him, are going to change their stance. That leaves it up to the SSPX, and unless there are some secret talks going on (possible if a part of the SSPX were seeking regularization, as the FSSP did), nothing seems to have changed from the statement noted earlier.z

In other words, the ball is in their court; it has been in their court for well over a year, and it appears they are not making any moves to regularize. And it appears that Rome is now willing to speak in terms of de facto separation, or to put it in Church terms, de fact schism.

As another poster noted, that leaves open the possibility of reconciliation. And if their stance does not change, they will be faced, eventually, with the issue of consecrating more bishops; should that happen, it would appear the distinct possibility that they would be declared de jure schismatic.
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

We are a Catholic apostolate in good standing with the Holy See. We expect our Catholic posters to stand by and with the Holy See when speaking on matters on which the Holy See has spoken. Please refer to the statement by Cardinal Elect Mueller for the current and correct status of the SSPX. No one has the authority to contradict the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Faith except the Holy Father. Please remember that other than the Holy Father the current prefect is the highest ranking authority on these matters.

Cardinal Elect Mueller’s last known statement on SSPX
 
The SSPX chapel I attended rarely mentioned any controversies, but inculcated strong devotional and moral life among the faithful, though this wasn’t the case in the mid-1990s.
Though against modernism, the SSPX concur with the modernist interpretation of Vatican II, that it was a rupture with tradition, rather than in continuity with tradition, largely because any time some abuse gained currency in a diocese or a country or a continent, it was always 'in the spirit of the Council'. The Society and its adherents are quite self-enclosed in the manner that Pope Francis has frequently deplored in the general Church. And, sadly, even when the point out abuses properly, they maintain slanderous caricatures of Paul VI, who, in Archbishop Lefebvre's memoirs of him, comes across as self-pitying demi-heretic, which is very foreign to the real Paul VI.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top