The Latest Public Statement of the SSPX

[Iron_Donkey]

Does CAF prohibit any defense of atheism?

Not in the proper places, no. Why do you ask?

 

[devoutchristian]

Possible implications of this are 1) The Church has failed, and so is false, and so Catholicism is wrong, or 2) the “true Church” survives elsewhere.

1. obviously is problematic.
2. has all kinds of problems as well, but the SSPX has specifically said that they don’t think that they ARE the Church, just part of it, so it doesn’t work by their own reasoning and doesn’t need to be argued against.

So it can’t be something so severe.

Then they need to spend the next 1000 years, if necessary, discussing it with Pope Francis and his successors from within the framework of obedience to the Church. And obviously, the current Church is the Church.

Obedient to past and present Popes is clearly false, because they aren’t obeying the present Pope. Obeying the present Pope only within the framework of obeying past Popes falls into relativism, whereby they decide what obeying the past Popes mean.

But they don’t decide. The Church, under the Pope, whoever the current Pope is, decides. And clearly it disagrees with them, or there wouldn’t be a separation.

We already had some people back in the 16th century decide that the Church wasn’t in accordance with what it had been in the past, as revealed in Scripture. Those people have a name. The SSPX is doing the same thing, they just either don’t realize it, or won’t admit it.

The guarantee of infallibility only applies to infallible statements. The problem with the SSPX is that they haven’t restricted themselves to disobeying certain “sinful” orders, but they have effectively set up their own ecclesiastical hierarchy.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

The guarantee of infallibility only applies to infallible statements. The problem with the SSPX is that they haven’t restricted themselves to disobeying certain “sinful” orders, but they have effectively set up their own ecclesiastical hierarchy.

True, but obedience doesn’t apply only to infallible statements. If the Pope orders you to murder someone, yeah you don’t do that. But you can’t just arbitrarily decide that being obedient to any teaching you dislike is sinful and so ignore them, even if you don’t form your own hierarchy.

But forming their own hierarchy makes it worse.

 

[gentle_atheist]

Does CAF prohibit any defense of atheism?

When you have a forum called “Traditional Catholicism” some readers might expect that the largest group of traditional Catholics – the SSPX and their followers – would be allowed to defend themselves when attacked.

Just a reminder that they are not.

 

[devoutchristian]

True, but obedience doesn’t apply only to infallible statements. If the Pope orders you to murder someone, yeah you don’t do that. But you can’t just arbitrarily decide that being obedient to any teaching you dislike is sinful and so ignore them, even if you don’t form your own hierarchy.

But forming their own hierarchy makes it worse.

Of course, my point was simply that their argument does have a somewhat valid basis (which doesn’t apply to their situation).

 

[agnes_therese]

When you have a forum called “Traditional Catholicism” some readers might expect that the largest group of traditional Catholics – the SSPX and their followers – would be allowed to defend themselves when attacked.

I seriously doubt that the SSPX and their followers are “the largest group of traditional Catholics.” Not by a long shot.

 

[dominic_aquinas]

Just a reminder to readers that CAF prohibits any defense of the SSPX.

If that’s the case, then I’ll be humbly bowing out of the conversation now. God bless!

 

[MarkThompson]

When you have a forum called “Traditional Catholicism” some readers might expect that the largest group of traditional Catholics – the SSPX and their followers – would be allowed to defend themselves when attacked.

Just a reminder that they are not.

“Error has no rights.” I think I read that somewhere.

 

[hudson]

“Error has no rights.” I think I read that somewhere.

Strange saying that as so many non Catholics with all of their errors have rights. I guess your saying only applies to people that practice Catholicism as it existed pre 1960s?

 

[MarkThompson]

Strange saying that as so many non Catholics with all of their errors have rights. I guess your saying only applies to people that practice Catholicism as it existed pre 1960s?

I suppose the moral of the story is, be careful what you wish for – you just might get it.

 

[otjm]

Strange saying that as so many non Catholics with all of their errors have rights. I guess your saying only applies to people that practice Catholicism as it existed pre 1960s?

Non-Catholics are held to a lower standard than Catholics are. And the matter is not about “practice(ing) Catholicism as it existed pre 1960’s”. It is about Catholics who insist that the Church has denied or changed doctrine, and who set themselves up as a magisterium in conflict with the magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit.

Let’s not engage in sophistry; the SSPX is at a juncture tipping point, and to tip the wrong way is to be declared in schism.

 

[PJM]

Strange saying that as so many non Catholics with all of their errors have rights. I guess your saying only applies to people that practice Catholicism as it existed pre 1960s?

For the record:

There are a GREAt many [likely the majority] of 60’s practicing who DO NOT support the SSPX in their Schism.

I’m one of them

 

[Cat]

Just a reminder to readers that CAF prohibits any defense of the SSPX.

? I can’t find any written “rule” stating this. Would you or someone else please post the link, or provide a cut-and-paste of this rule. Thanks!

 

[Fransea]

Just joined the CAF and was reading some of the threads. I really don’t understand this situation.

I have not kept up with all the info about the SSPX but have read some on them. I am not a member of their group but I know some people who are. I am terribly confused as they say they are fully Catholic, from what I have read, I have to disagree. They “say” they want to bring the church back and be in full communion, yet they say they are in communion with Rome. They say the church has “fallen away”, yet they say they are Catholic?

Are they Catholic in the fullest sense or not? Are they in schism or fallen away Catholics? What is their “official” title?

The Pope keeps trying to have “talks” with them trying to “bring” them back in. They keep having talks to bring the “church” back in? I’m sure each have their own opinions, some good, some bad. But can the branch grow without the tree? Can the tree grow without the root?

I feel the best answer is to allow the SSPX to continue their path just as the protestants did
but not be allowed to call themselves Catholic if they are not in full communion with Rome.

Just my uneducated “two cents” worth.

 

[gentle_atheist]

? I can’t find any written “rule” stating this. Would you or someone else please post the link, or provide a cut-and-paste of this rule. Thanks!

In one thread attacking the SSPX I posted a single sentence which, as I recall, said, “If it were not for the SSPX the TLM would be extinct.” Brother Jay took issue with that, I responded, and my posts were deleted and I was banned for a month.

Here’s the notice that I received:

Dear gentle atheist,

You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums.

Reason: Contempt for the Holy See and Prosetlityzing for Archbishop Lefebvre​

Please read the rules concerning proselytizing for the SSPX and the rules regarding the respect that is due to the Holy Father. Your posts are disrespectful to the Holy Father and appear to approve of that which the Church has condemned, the illegal ordination of four bishops. This is not allowed on a Catholic forum. One can disagree, but one cannot justify what the Church condemns or make comments about the pope that are unsubstantiated.​

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

I do not believe that I was disrespectful of the Pope at all. But I learned my lesson: do not defend the SSPX … and do not cross the bro.

 

[RPRPsych]

? I can’t find any written “rule” stating this. Would you or someone else please post the link, or provide a cut-and-paste of this rule. Thanks!

I think the rule is only against proselytism, not against discussing the SSPX or defending some of their positions:

"In this forum then this means that while members are free to discuss the SSPX, adherents to that group are not allowed to proselytize for the SSPX, especially to members who have come to CAF searching for information about the Catholic Church. As a rule of thumb, discussion entails talking about a topic and expressing one’s opinion; proselytism entails encouraging others to join a non-Catholic religion or an irregular Catholic group. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. God bless."

Link here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=486782 (post #6)

There is a blanket ban on Sedevacantism, though.

 

[Lormar]

? I can’t find any written “rule” stating this. Would you or someone else please post the link, or provide a cut-and-paste of this rule. Thanks!

Here you go:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=486782

For those who wish to do so, you may again discuss the SSPX.

Thank you for your cooperation during the respite. It was great working with all of you on an honor system. We appreciate your cooperation. Before you take off and running, I’d like to say a few things.

Keep the conversation charitable.

1. Observe the rules of CAF

1. Avoid labels. They add little to a discussion.

1. Do not speak about each other.

1. Bullying is not allowed.

1. Make no comments that injure someone’s good name

1. Avoid arguments.

1. Don’t bait other posters.

1. If I send you a message, please cooperate.

** 9. Do not proselytize for the SSPX**

Thank You

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[dominic_aquinas]

I think the rule is only against proselytism, not against discussing the SSPX or defending some of their positions:

"In this forum then this means that while members are free to discuss the SSPX, adherents to that group are not allowed to proselytize for the SSPX, especially to members who have come to CAF searching for information about the Catholic Church. As a rule of thumb, discussion entails talking about a topic and expressing one’s opinion; proselytism entails encouraging others to join a non-Catholic religion or an irregular Catholic group. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. God bless."

Link here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=486782 (post #6)

There is a blanket ban on Sedevacantism, though.

If I can defend their position then I’ll be happy to rejoin this conversation. I just don’t want to go through a lot of work defending their position only to have all my posts deleted. I’ve got more important things to do.

The main issue it seems is whether you can still be Catholic without obeying what you perceive to be errors from superiors. But, clearly, St Thomas Aquinas and St Paul believed this was true. St. Thomas said that we should publically correct superiors who we believe are in error. And, the onus, is on them to humbly submit to the correction and mend their ways. This is because Truth trumps authority.

And Truth, otherwise known as Tradition, does not change. If it has been announced that Mary was Immaculately conceived, a future Pope cannot change that. This is true even in practices that are part of Tradition that have not been defined as dogma. For example, a prayer like the Rosary. Even though it is not an official prayer of the Church, it has been repeatedly declared good by many Saints, Popes and Doctors. Therefore a future Pope could not declare the Rosary as evil. It would contradict Tradition.

But this is what the SSPX is saying happened with Vatican II. They say that many particulars of faith which were part of Tradition have been changed. Pope Benedict tried to lessen the trauma of that change by introducing the notion of a “hermenutic of continuity”. But if Vatican II was part of Tradition then why is there the need to introduce a “hemenutic” to explain the drastic changes? It seems like he admits their is a rupture by his very attempt to explain it away.

He could possibly attempt to blame the rupture on the “Council of the Media”, but it wasn’t the media that ushered in within the span of single generation such sweeping changes never seen in the enitire history of the Church: new Mass, new vestments, new Rosary, new Code of Cannon Law, new Rites of Ordination, new Baptism, etc., etc. If you read the Council documents it mentions how all these changes must be made “quickly”, and “as soon as possible”. Why? What’s the rush? It seems that the rupture was not just due to a media council.

Finally, it is possible to be Catholic and go to Heaven without obeying everything the current Pope says. For instance, St Vincent Ferrer is in Heaven and he obeyed the Pope in Avignon, not the Pope in Rome. The SSPX does not go this far. They do obey the Pope, that’s why they switched to the 1962 missal when the Pope issued it. But, their position, is that cannot obey superiors in error. Take for example, Bishop Gumbleton who is in good standing in the Church. He has told his parishoners that people promoting same-sex partnerships should go receive our Lord. He is in error and should not be obeyed. In fact, he should be publically corrected. Is his superior doing that? Why not? These are the problems that SSPX are attempting to grapple with.

 

[JReducation]

Wow! Directly obedient to God. That sounds great! Evidently someone has seen God directly then, or had a private revelation, so as to be directly obedient to him without the interference of mere humans? Should be a big news story on this then.

Actually the part of their argument you’re mocking is the part that is the most orthodox, as far as I know. I’m pretty sure Catholics are not bound to belief heresy if the pope fallible proclaims it. But they misuse this fact by calling things heretical that aren’t.

They claim they cannot be asked to obey what previous Popes have infallibly condemned. It would be like a Pope commanding someone to not believe that Mary was Immaculately conceived. They do not wish to disobey a command like this. They deplore disobedience, but they say “What choice do we have?”

Since no one has asked them to believe heresy, their choice is obedience.

Of course, you are not held accountable for what someone else does that is wrong? Unless, it is a superior that is trying to change the definition of wrong and compelling you to obey them in that error.

First, one has to prove that this is what the Church has done. Second, one has to prove that the new definition is inaccurate.

It would then be a sin not to correct them.

Correction. A subordinate has not moral obligation to correct a superior. It is a choice the he is free to make. Aquinas said that he does. The Church says that he does not. This is in the Modus Procedeni of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The Congregation trumps Aquinas.

Also, their orders would be leading you into commiting actual sin if you follow them.

This only applies if one knows for certain that an command will lead to sin. Speculation does not count. This was argued by St. Augustine. One may not act when there is a doubt. If disobedience is based on dubious speculation and assumption, one has no right to disobey.

For instance, if a superior would tell you not to pray the Rosary since he considers it to be vain repitition.

Just a correction here, not that this is a major issue. A superior can order a religious not to pray the rosary. Praying the rosary is not a right. A superior cannot order a religious to refrain from the sacraments. The sacraments are a right.

The problem with this way of thinking is that it’s very Thomistic. Thomism is very good as long as we subscribe to those parts of Thomas that the Church has incorporated into her law.

We have to be very careful with the Doctors. There are matters of doctrine and matters of law. What they say on matters of doctrine must always agree with what the Church says. The Church does not have to agree with her doctors. The doctors must agree with the Church.

Secondly, anything that they say that implies a rule or a law can only be imposed when the Church incorporates it into her law or when a religious community incorporates it into its proper law. Otherwise, it’s the opinion of the doctor. It may be a wonderful opinion, but has not binding power.

There is a tendency in traditionalism to overstate Aquinas, which is contrary to his mind. He did not intend to write the definitive legal code for the Catholic Church. In fact, he was quite certain that the popes would gradually go through his work and sort out what was useful and discard what was not useful. In Traddom, we tend to pull Aquinas out each time we want to win an argument. If the other person does not know which part of Aquinas the Church follows and which parts she simply allows to sit on the shelf, that second person can be led to believe that the Church is going to hell in a hand basket.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

A clarification is needed.

A member may agree with the SSPX.

Said member can explain why he agrees.

The member cannot judge, condemn or bash that which the Church holds, be it a law, discipline, custom, practice, ministry or other.

Said member may not judge or question the motives of another person, especially not a bishop or the pope.

Said member may not encourage others to subscribe to the position of the SSPX or any other group not in full communion with the Holy See.

Said member may not encourage others, either on the thread or via PM, to join a group that is not in full communion with the Holy See.

Language must be respectful of persons, opinions and situations.

ALL OTHER POSTERS MUST TREAT THE AFOREMENTIONED MEMBER WITH RESPECT.

If there is a breach of charity on either part, DO NOT take it upon yourself to correct the other person. Report the post and allow the moderators to do our job.