The Latest Public Statement of the SSPX

[GloriaMaria]

Papal power

Certainly the authority of the Pope in the Church is a supreme authority, but it cannot be absolute and unlimited, since it is subordinate to Divine Authority, which is expressed in Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the ecclesiastical Magisterium (Denzinger 3116).

The authority of the Pope is subordinate to and limited by the end for which this authority was given to him. This end is clearly defined by Pope Pius IX in the Constitution Pastor aeternus of Vatican Council I (Denzinger 3070). It would be an intolerable abuse of power to modify the constitution of the Church and to claim to appeal to human rights against the Divine Right, as in religious liberty, as in the Eucharistic hospitality that is authorized in the new Canon Law, as in the assertion of two supreme authorities in the Church.

It is clear that in these cases and in other similar cases, it is the duty for each member of the clergy and every faithful Catholic to resist and to refuse obedience. Blind obedience is a misunderstanding and no one is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God (Denzinger 3115). This resistance must be public if the evil is public and an object of scandal to souls (Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 33, a. 4).

These statements are elementary principles of morality. They regulate the relations of subjects with all legitimate authorities.

Moreover this resistance is corroborated by the fact that henceforth those who hold firmly to Tradition and the Catholic Faith are penalized; those who profess doctrines which are heterodox, or who commit veritable sacrileges are in no way troubled. That is the logic of an abuse of authority.

I am posting these excerpts for the sole purpose of “unpacking” this letter. This is only a portion. This letter is the new rallying cry of the group. -GM

 

[Mrs_Sally]

henceforth those who hold firmly to Tradition and the Catholic Faith are penalized; those who profess doctrines which are heterodox, or who commit veritable sacrileges are in no way troubled

We hear this a lot from traditionalists. What isn’t discussed is what are the specific offenses and the “on the books” penalities for them.

As an example, a school may suspend a student for wearing a hat since it is in the dress code and that is the stated punishment. A school may decide to have a private talk with a disrespectful, loud-mouthed student.

The hat wearer could be a quiet, non-descript student who feels unjustly punished by a one-day suspension. And his family and friends would agree. The loud-mouth could be a hassle everyday who even other students would be happy to see gone, but his offense does not carry a suspension as punishment.

The issue then becomes, does the hat wearer go to the school board and ask to have the dress code changed, and comply with the decision that says no, or does he continue to wear a hat to school and act suprised every time he is suspended?

Even if the loud-mouth is a jerk every day, that doesn’t change the fact that wearing a hat is against the dress code.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

The problem is that individuals don’t get to determine for themselves what it means to be “subordinate to Divine Authority, which is expressed in Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the ecclesiastical Magisterium”.

Which is what the SSPX are doing. If they think the pope is wrong, then as part of the Church their duty would be to try to convince him so, but to do what he says in the meantime regardless of whether they immediately succeed or fail. The Church as whole is what has the power to determine what is expressed in Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated, not the isolated bishops of the SSPX - no matter how well meaning, pious, devoted to God, logical, intelligent, or anything else.

The Church is guided by God, and so will teach what is right, whatever that may be, and one’s obedience to the Pope is not waived simply because one personally thinks he hasn’t gotten to the right conclusion yet.

 

[Rich_C]

The problem is that individuals don’t get to determine for themselves what it means to be “subordinate to Divine Authority, which is expressed in Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the ecclesiastical Magisterium”.

Which is what the SSPX are doing. **If they think the pope is wrong, then as part of the Church their duty would be to try to convince him so, but to do what he says in the meantime regardless of whether they immediately succeed or fail. **The Church as whole is what has the power to determine what is expressed in Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated, not the isolated bishops of the SSPX - no matter how well meaning, pious, devoted to God, logical, intelligent, or anything else.

The Church is guided by God, and so will teach what is right, whatever that may be, and one’s obedience to the Pope is not waived simply because one personally thinks he hasn’t gotten to the right conclusion yet.

Well said.

 

[clem456]

It is clear that in these cases and in other similar cases, it is the duty for each member of the clergy and every faithful Catholic to resist and to refuse obedience. Blind obedience is a misunderstanding and no one is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God (Denzinger 3115). This resistance must be public if the evil is public and an object of scandal to souls (Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 33, a. 4).

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.

 

[Rich_C]

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.

 

[McCall1981]

The problem is that individuals don’t get to determine for themselves what it means to be “subordinate to Divine Authority, which is expressed in Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the ecclesiastical Magisterium”.

Which is what the SSPX are doing. If they think the pope is wrong, then as part of the Church their duty would be to try to convince him so, but to do what he says in the meantime regardless of whether they immediately succeed or fail. The Church as whole is what has the power to determine what is expressed in Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated, not the isolated bishops of the SSPX - no matter how well meaning, pious, devoted to God, logical, intelligent, or anything else.

The Church is guided by God, and so will teach what is right, whatever that may be, and one’s obedience to the Pope is not waived simply because one personally thinks he hasn’t gotten to the right conclusion yet.

I don’t agree with the SSPX’s position, but for the sake of being fair, I think their response to this would be that the Church/Pope is more than just “wrong” or “hasn’t gotten to the right conclusion yet”. They believe that the Church has deviated from doctrine/Truth.

Think of it this way. If the Pope made administrative decisions we didn’t like, or pursued some kind of policy we thought was ineffective, then yes we have the obligation to obey while trying to convince him otherwise. But, if the Pope flatly declared something that is objectively contrary to Church teaching (like the Trinity is now considered three separate gods or something like that) then the situation changes.

I don’t believe there has been this objective break with Church teaching so any decision on a policy that I “don’t like” I need to obey out of obedience. But the SSPX does believe a break like this has occured (in my understanding of their position).

So, for them it’s not a matter nitpicking policies they don’t like, its a matter of who do you follow when the Church itself breaks with Church teaching. They may be wrong in thinking there has been this break (I think they’re wrong about this) but, for them at least, its a more complex issue than just obedience/disobedience.

 

[dominic_aquinas]

We hear this a lot from traditionalists. What isn’t discussed is what are the specific offenses and the “on the books” penalities for them.

They are “on-the-books” denied canonical standing in the Church and are not permitted to use the name ‘Catholic’ publically. Meanwhile, many unorthodox priests and bishops who abuse the Mass and support LBGT organizations are in full communion and are permitted to refer to themselves as ‘Catholic’ in good-standing.

Also, in many cases, they are singled out and treated like lepers. Here is one case “on-the-books”, where Protestants are allowed to use Catholic churches but not the dreadful SSPX vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrianslefebvrianos-21883

As an example, a school may suspend a student for wearing a hat since it is in the dress code and that is the stated punishment. A school may decide to have a private talk with a disrespectful, loud-mouthed student.

This is a bad analogy. Their arguments aren’t about minor disciplinary issues, but about profound doctrinal changes: separation of Church and State, ecumenism, etc.

Changes to Church doctrine to appease the modern world are not new concerns. Saint Pope Pius X was extremely worried about enemies within the Church changing doctrine to advance a modernist agenda. He wrote many encyclicals and letters about it.

It would be a good idea for everyone today to read those encyclicals to get an idea of what he was trying to prevent and why he was so worried about it. This might help people understand the position of the SSPX.

Their main argument for disobedience is that the enemies of the Church are inside now. But isn’t that exactly what Pope Saint Pius X was so worried would happen?

Think about it. If an enemy of the Church wanted to destroy it, wouldn’t that be a good strategy: infiltrate it, weaken it from within, discredit it. The signs that this could be happening would be 1) doctrinal and disciplinary changes that would weaken people’s faith; 2) declining Mass attendence; and 3) attacks on orthodox members while promoting unorthodox members. Of course, some people might notice what was happening and resist but the answer to them would be simply “keep quiet and obey”. To this the society says “No!” That is why they say they didn’t sign the agreement with Pope Benedict. They believed it required them to “keep quiet and obey”.

I wanted to point this out since if anyone want’s to attack the SSPX, they should not attack a strawman version of their argument, but should try to understand what the society’s real objection is.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Do you have a link to the full text of the letter?

Thank you.

 

[GloriaMaria]

I don’t agree with the SSPX’s position, but for the sake of being fair, I think their response to this would be that the Church/Pope is more than just “wrong” or “hasn’t gotten to the right conclusion yet”. They believe that the Church has deviated from doctrine/Truth.

Well, yes, Bishop Fellay began his recent letter with just that assertion. Below:

As you know, the Society found itself in a delicate position during most of the year 2012, following the final approach of Benedict XVI in attempting to normalize our situation.

The difficulties resulted, on the one hand, from requirements that accompanied the Roman proposal - to which we could not and still cannot subscribe - and, on the other hand, from a lack of clarity on the part of the Holy See that did not allow us to know precisely the will of the Holy Father or what he was ready to concede to us. The trouble caused by these uncertainties vanished as of June 13, 2012, with a clear confirmation, on the 30th of the same month, by a letter from Benedict XVI himself clearly and unambiguously spelling out the conditions that were being imposed on us for a canonical normalization.
These conditions are of a doctrinal nature; they entail the total acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and of the Mass of Paul VI. And so, as Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Vice President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, wrote in a letter addressed to the members of the Society of St. Pius X at the end of last year, on the doctrinal level we are still at the point where we started out in the 1970’s. Unfortunately we can only agree with this observation by the Roman authorities and acknowledge the current relevance of the analysis by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of our Society, which was unwavering in the decades following the Council, until his death. His very accurate insight, which is at the same time theological and practical, is still valid today, fifty years after the start of the Council.

 

[GloriaMaria]

Do you have a link to the full text of the letter?

Thank you.

As far as I know, it is against forum rules to link to the SSPX site. You could find the letter in full on their USA district website. It is the most recent “Letter to Friends and Benefactors” written by Bishop Fellay.

 

[dominic_aquinas]

If they think the pope is wrong, then as part of the Church their duty would be to try to convince him so, but to do what he says in the meantime regardless of whether they immediately succeed or fail. The Church as whole is what has the power to determine what is expressed in Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated, not the isolated bishops of the SSPX - no matter how well meaning, pious, devoted to God, logical, intelligent, or anything else.
.

They have spent the last three years discussing their position with Pope Benedict and Ecclesia Dei.

They are not determining what is Tradition. They are exactly as Catholics were all over the planet in 1962. Remember, it wasn’t the SSPX that changed anything. Their position is that they obey the present Pope together with all previous Popes.

 

[GloriaMaria]

They have spent the last three years discussing their position with Pope Benedict and Ecclesia Dei.

They are not determining what is Tradition. They are exactly as Catholics were all over the planet in 1962. Remember, it wasn’t the SSPX that changed anything. Their position is that they obey the present Pope together with all previous Popes.

However, the present pope is the highest authority in the Church. What he teaches will trump previous popes. Obviously doctrine does not change. This is the Catholic church after all but this is not a Church frozen liturgically in 1962. It seems to me the SSPX has changed something. They have changed the definition of the Church to mean something that it did not mean before - in their concept of “Eternal Rome”.

 

[GloriaMaria]

OK, here’s more…Again quoting Bishop Fellay in this same letter.

Whether it be the transmission of the bishops’ jurisdiction, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last things, etc.: on all these fundamental points, the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous Conciliar documents on these truths henceforth allow doubts.

The consequences have been rapidly drawn and applied to the life of the Church:

Doubts about the necessity of the Church and the sacraments lead to the disappearance of priestly vocations.

Doubts about the necessity and the nature of the ‘conversion’ of every soul lead to the disappearance of religious vocations, the ruin of traditional spirituality in the novitiates, and the futility of the missions.

Doubts about the legitimacy of authority and the duty of obedience provoked by the exaltation of human dignity, the autonomy of conscience, and of freedom shake all societies starting with the Church, religious societies, the dioceses, civil society, and the family.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

They are “on-the-books” denied canonical standing in the Church and are not permitted to use the name ‘Catholic’ publically. Meanwhile, many unorthodox priests and bishops who abuse the Mass and support LBGT organizations are in full communion and are permitted to refer to themselves as ‘Catholic’ in good-standing.

This is a bad analogy. Their arguments aren’t about minor disciplinary issues, but about profound doctrinal changes: separation of Church and State, ecumenism, etc.
Their main argument for disobedience is that the enemies of the Church are inside now. But isn't that exactly what Pope Saint Pius X was so worried would happen? I wanted to point this out since if anyone want's to attack the SSPX, they should not attack a strawman version of their argument, but should try to understand what the society's real objection is.

You misunderstood my example. The SSPX deliberately and knowingly disobeyed a specific order from the Pope. That sounds like enemies inside the church to me.

And again, what someone else does wrong has no bearing on my own sins. That is a very traditional thought that the SSPX should be able to get behind.

 

[dominic_aquinas]

You misunderstood my example. The SSPX deliberately and knowingly disobeyed a specific order from the Pope. That sounds like enemies inside the church to me.

And again, what someone else does wrong has no bearing on my own sins. That is a very traditional thought that the SSPX should be able to get behind.

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?”

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. It would then be a sin not to correct them. Also, their orders would be leading you into commiting actual sin if you follow them. For instance, if a superior would tell you not to pray the Rosary since he considers it to be vain repitition.

 

[Scott_Alt]

I haven’t read the full statement of Bp. Fellay yet, though I will likely do so this weekend and post some comments regarding it on my blog.

However, from what I have known of the SSPX in the past, I am struck by an essential contradiction in their claim to be Catholic. Specifically, it is this: A Catholic believes in the authority of the Magisterium of the Church, not only to teach infallibly but to properly interpret prior teachings. Vatican II would be included in that, right? JP2 and B16 have both emphasized a “hermeneutic of continuity” with respect to the Vat2 documents; that is to say, there is no rupture between post-conciliar and pre-conciliar teachings.

However, the SSPX insists that there is a rupture, which essentially amounts to a statement that their interpretation of Vat2 supersedes the interpretation of the Magisterium.

You can’t claim Catholicism for yourself if you reject the authority of the Magisterium. That just makes you a Protestant in Catholic clothing.

I have some further thoughts on all this here: bit.ly/UNjJ6o

 

[GloriaMaria]

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?”

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. It would then be a sin not to correct them. Also, their orders would be leading you into commiting actual sin if you follow them. For instance, if a superior would tell you not to pray the Rosary since he considers it to be vain repitition.

That’s an odd example. For one thing the Rosary is not a doctrine of the Church. You can take it or leave it unless it’s part of, for instance, your Rule and you are bound to pray it. It’s otherwise a private devotion, sometimes prayed publicly. So, let’s get that straight.

As to your point, what is the Holy Father, through the CDF, asking them to do that is condemned by the Catholic Church?

And please, tell me about the SSPX’s novel and, in my opinion, liberal definition of Eternal Rome to which they claim to be in obedience - which causes actual disobedience to actual Rome in all objectivity?

 

[GloriaMaria]

Here’s more from Bishop Fellay:

The normal result of pride is the burgeoning of the concupiscence of the eyes and of the flesh. Perhaps one of the most frightful observations to be made about our epoch is to note to what a level of moral degradation most Catholic publications have descended. They speak without the least reticence about sexuality, birth control by any means, the legitimacy of divorce, about co-education, dating, dances as a necessary part of Christian education, about priestly celibacy, etc.

Doubts about the necessity of grace in order to be saved provoke the undervaluing of baptism and its postponement, and the abandonment of the sacrament of penance. Moreover, this especially involves an attitude of priests and not of the faithful. The same goes for the Real Presence: it is the priests who act as if they no longer believed by hiding the Sacred Host, by suppressing all marks of respect towards the Blessed Sacrament and all the ceremonies in Its honor.

Doubts about the necessity of the Church as the unique source of salvation and about the Catholic Church as the only true religion originating in the Declarations on Ecumenism and Religious Liberty, destroy the authority of the Church’s Magisterium. Indeed, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary “Magistra Veritatis” “Mistress of Truth”].

 

[Saints_Alive]

I haven’t read the full statement of Bp. Fellay yet, though I will likely do so this weekend and post some comments regarding it on my blog.

However, from what I have known of the SSPX in the past, I am struck by an essential contradiction in their claim to be Catholic. Specifically, it is this: A Catholic believes in the authority of the Magisterium of the Church, not only to teach infallibly but to properly interpret prior teachings. Vatican II would be included in that, right? JP2 and B16 have both emphasized a “hermeneutic of continuity” with respect to the Vat2 documents; that is to say, there is no rupture between post-conciliar and pre-conciliar teachings.

However, the SSPX insists that there is a rupture, which essentially amounts to a statement that their interpretation of Vat2 supersedes the interpretation of the Magisterium.

You can’t claim Catholicism for yourself if you reject the authority of the Magisterium. That just makes you a Protestant in Catholic clothing.

I have some further thoughts on all this here: bit.ly/UNjJ6o

My days of defending the SSPX are long over, but I do have to ask a question,

What of the Churchmen, some of which are in the Curia, say similar things that the SSPX says ? Are they rejecting the authority of the Magesterium ?

Was Pope BXVI rejecting it when he wrote "The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 - this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life."

Those are the words of a pope who understands what the word Tradition means. A realistic view of the issue.