SSPX

[RedCaves]

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.

Michael Davies, a Traditionalist writer who was given condolences by then-Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004, wrote a detailed timeline on Lefebvre’s interactions with Rome in the 1980’s. The French hierarchy really hated him and it was unfortunate that the two Belgian priests opened their mouths and gave him a reason to go overboard. His clash with Paul VI was a bit bizarre and gave me the impression that he knew something others didn’t.

 

[ProVobis]

I understand he was building (or financing) chapels in which the traditional Mass could be celebrated.

 

[ProVobis]

Michael Davies, a Traditionalist writer who was given condolences by then-Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004, wrote a detailed timeline on Lefebvre’s interactions with Rome in the 1980’s. The French hierarchy really hated him and it was unfortunate that the two Belgian priests opened their mouths and gave him a reason to go overboard. His clash with Paul VI was a bit bizarre and gave me the impression that he knew something others didn’t.

I was reading the Wiki article on this. It reads like a conspiracy but it seems the opposition to the TLM was very strong so it’s very likely it was more than those two priests who reported his every activity with a bias to the Vatican. Paul VI had been obviously open to at least allowing the TLM on an indult basis.

 

[RedCaves]

(name removed by moderator), Mel Gibson’s case is a bit mysterious. He never was SSPX but it seems that he’s more of an “Independent” Traditionalist Catholic. Neither SSPX, nor, SSPV, nor CMRI, nor any official group.

His father, Hutton Gibson, is a bit of a wacko and is a die-hard Sedevacantist. Heck, he thinks Lefebvre was a fake archbishop. Yeah…

I was reading the Wiki article on this. It reads like a conspiracy but it seems the opposition to the TLM was very strong so it’s very likely it was more than those two priests who reported his every activity with a bias to the Vatican. Paul VI had been obviously open to at least allowing the TLM on an indult basis.

According to Michael Davies, the report of the two Belgian priests was favorable to the Society. What really destroyed the peaceful discussion was when they stated three heretical beliefs to Lefebvre and his seminarians:

1. Truth changes with the times, aka, NO IMMUTABLE TRUTH
2. Married priests will be inevitable
3. There is doubt as to whether Jesus Christ was Resurrected

This happened in 1974.

When Lefebvre made his declaration about Catholic Rome vs. Modernist Rome, the favorable report went out the window and gave the Hierarchy in Rome a reason to shut down the Society

The French Bishops hated the Society Seminary, due to it’s success and preference for the Latin Mass, so much that they called it a “wildcat seminary”

Eventually, Lefebvre met Paul VI in 1976 and His Holiness took the entire event as a personal attack. He accused Lefebvre of making his seminarians take an Oath against the Pope, a charge that Lefebvre vehemently denied. When Lefebvre asked for proof an alleged oath, it was denied.

One of the strangest things I read about the whole ordeal was when the L’osservatore Romano, under Fr… Panciroli, the Director of the Vatican Press Room denied that Paul VI accused Lefebvre of saying that he had an Oath against the pope.

Yeah, things got weird at the end…

 

[Oneofthewomen]

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?

The OP asked what “was up” with the SSPX, and I think that Andy gave a wonderful response. How is it “not related”?

 

[2HeartsSlave]

The OP asked what “was up” with the SSPX, and I think that Andy gave a wonderful response. How is it “not related”?

My point was that I wasn’t going to respond to his comments and hijack this thread by debating the spirituality of the Society or it’s members. It seems to me that you’ve been very hostile, do you have some kind of axe to grind? I think it would be better for you to communicate it directly.

I sympathize with the society. That’s the last thing I will say, and this will be my last post on this thread, probably for my own good. But if someone has a genuine question about this, please private message me
God bless

 

[otjm]

I was reading the Wiki article on this. It reads like a conspiracy but it seems the opposition to the TLM was very strong so it’s very likely it was more than those two priests who reported his every activity with a bias to the Vatican. Paul VI had been obviously open to at least allowing the TLM on an indult basis.

I think that without an understanding of the political world that the Archbishop was in, one can presume this was totally an issue driven by Church issues. There is a tendency in America to presume that the rest of the world looks at issues as we do. Failure to truly understand issues people are facing in another country leads to presumptions as to what the motivations may be.

 

[Dempsey1919]

**APOLOGIA PRO MARCEL LEFEBVRE BY MICHAEL DAVIES:
**sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/

Everyone should read this book.

 

[AllSeasons]

I use to belong to them. What is the whole thing going on with them now?

I’m dating a girl who was brought up in the SSPX, and I hope to marry her someday. The SSPX folks I’ve met are godly and good people. That said, as you can probably imagine, they’re not fans of modernism, and perceive Vatican II and the NO Mass as major steps backwards. I think their intentions are good, but disobedience to the Church is something that I cannot agree with. I do empathize with them, in that I think they truly believe in their cause, and I can understand where they’re coming from. They have many good qualities that I do not see in many other Catholics, who exercise disobedience by rejecting many of the Church’s teachings. If the state of the SSPX became regularized, I’d go to their Mass in a heartbeat.

But you know, this is from a guy who’s in love with an SSPX girl, so read into it what you will.

 

[RedCaves]

I’m dating a girl who was brought up in the SSPX, and I hope to marry her someday. The SSPX folks I’ve met are godly and good people. That said, as you can probably imagine, they’re not fans of modernism, and perceive Vatican II and the NO Mass as major steps backwards. I think their intentions are good, but disobedience to the Church is something that I cannot agree with. I do empathize with them, in that I think they truly believe in their cause, and I can understand where they’re coming from. They have many good qualities that I do not see in many other Catholics, who exercise disobedience by rejecting many of the Church’s teachings. If the state of the SSPX became regularized, I’d go to their Mass in a heartbeat.

But you know, this is from a guy who’s in love with an SSPX girl, so read into it what you will.

That’s really interesting.

How did you meet her?

What has her family said about you dating her?

Eventually, you’ll be in awkward situations.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

My point was that I wasn’t going to respond to his comments and hijack this thread by debating the spirituality of the Society or it’s members. It seems to me that you’ve been very hostile, do you have some kind of axe to grind? I think it would be better for you to communicate it directly.

I sympathize with the society. That’s the last thing I will say, and this will be my last post on this thread, probably for my own good. But if someone has a genuine question about this, please private message me
God bless

I am not hostile, nor do I have an axe to grind.

I guess you could call it “stunned amazement” at the number of people who identify as “traditional” who have any sympathy for any one who would commit acts of dissent against the Church.

As I have said before dissent is dissent, it does not matter what side you’re on, it’s always outside of the Church. The people who choose this need our prayers, not to be enabled to continue to commit error.

 

[digitalpapist]

I am not hostile, nor do I have an axe to grind.

I guess you could call it “stunned amazement” at the number of people who identify as “traditional” who have any sympathy **for any one who would commit acts of **dissent ****against the Church.

As I have said before dissent is dissent, it does not matter what side you’re on, it’s always outside of the Church. The people who choose this need our prayers, not to be enabled to continue to commit error.

What doctrines of the Church do the SSPX dissent from?

 

[commenter]

What doctrines of the Church do the SSPX dissent from?

Adherence to the Magisterium - obedience to the current pope and one’s current bishop-ordinary.
This means more than acknowledging that in some technical sense Francis may have some official claim to be pope. It means obeying him and one’s current bishop-ordinary on faith and morals. Doing otherwise is dissent.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Adherence to the Magisterium - obedience to the current pope and one’s current bishop-ordinary.
This means more than acknowledging that in some technical sense Francis may have some official claim to be pope. It means obeying him and one’s current bishop-ordinary on faith and morals. Doing otherwise is dissent.

Thanks, commenter, I could not have said it better myself.

And then not to mention that the Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Faith has stated emphatically that the SSPX has NO OFFICIAL CANNONICAL POSITION in the Church and will not have any unless/until they agree to obey the current magisterium. Seems to me that this is the dictionary definition of “dissent”.

And, oh look, Merriam-Webster agrees with me!!

 

[ProVobis]

Adherence to the Magisterium - obedience to the current pope and one’s current bishop-ordinary.
This means more than acknowledging that in some technical sense Francis may have some official claim to be pope. It means obeying him and one’s current bishop-ordinary on faith and morals. Doing otherwise is dissent.

And then not to mention that the Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Faith has stated emphatically that the SSPX has NO OFFICIAL CANNONICAL POSITION in the Church and will not have any unless/until they agree to obey the current magisterium. Seems to me that this is the dictionary definition of “dissent”.

OTOH, in a technical sense, the priests could just pretend they’re not priests, find another line of work, and be in good standing with the Church. After all, they’re not excommunicated. Just saying.

 

[RedCaves]

Adherence to the Magisterium - obedience to the current pope and one’s current bishop-ordinary.
This means more than acknowledging that in some technical sense Francis may have some official claim to be pope. It means obeying him and one’s current bishop-ordinary on faith and morals. Doing otherwise is dissent.

Not unless there are contradictions in doctrines or denials of dogmas.

 

[Brooklyn]

No matter who comprises the SSPX, it is motivated by a worldly spirit of disobedience. At some level, human pride and ego facilitate the defiance.

That, unfortunately, is a very true statement. As we are told in the Word of God, He desires obedience rather than sacrifice. I do hope the SSPX learns that.

 

[digitalpapist]

Adherence to the Magisterium - obedience to the current pope and one’s current bishop-ordinary.
This means more than acknowledging that in some technical sense Francis may have some official claim to be pope. It means obeying him and one’s current bishop-ordinary on faith and morals. Doing otherwise is dissent.

I would make a rather large distinction between schismatic acts (like the consecrations) and acts of dissent (which are deviations from doctrine). One can fairly call the SSPX schismatic, but to call them dissenters seems a bit much.

On the note on obeying bishops on faith and morals: certainly, provided they they properly teach the Faith. That, sadly, has been a rather large issue.

 

[Brooklyn]

Thanks, commenter, I could not have said it better myself.

And then not to mention that the Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Faith has stated emphatically that the SSPX has NO OFFICIAL CANNONICAL POSITION in the Church and will not have any unless/until they agree to obey the current magisterium. Seems to me that this is the dictionary definition of “dissent”.

And, oh look, Merriam-Webster agrees with me!!

Last year, Bishop Fellay gave a long speech on October 13 which you can find on Youtube. In it he said that although we must acknowledge Pope Francis, we should not follow him. This was the speech in which he made the infamous accusation of calling Pope Francis a “modernist.” He also said in this speech that the day may come when they will have to denounce Pope Francis as being a false pope, although he is not saying that now.

Very disturbing.

 

[felsguy]

On the note on obeying bishops on faith and morals: certainly, provided they they properly teach the Faith.

Perhaps so, but neither you…nor I…nor they get to determine what is “properly taught.”

.