The Latest Public Statement of the SSPX

[GloriaMaria]

So far, not a single point Bishop Fellay has made has pointed to an actual departure of doctrine. These points that he makes are broad generalizations - as in when he states “it is the priests who act as if they no longer believed by hiding the Blessed Sacrament…etc”

That is a very serious accusation, and personally I have not seen this in the OF. Even if there are priests who do this, even so, it is not a fault which requires any sort of disobedience to “actual Rome”, it is not a point of doctrine which has changed. It is simply the fault of a single priest.

 

[GloriaMaria]

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.

As to the bolded question:

Those Churchmen haven’t set up a world wide Church with no jurisdiction against the express wishes of more than one Pope, so I’d say no they are not rejecting the Authority of the Magesterium.

 

[Scott_Alt]

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."

What B16 is getting at here is that both the SSPX and the “Spirit of Vatican II” crowd are wrong. SSPX reject Vatican II, which is wrong, but there are liberals who love Vatican II for the wrong reasons. Vatican II must be embraced under the “hermeneutic of continuity” stance and no other.

 

[PJM]

=GloriaMaria;10641867]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

So the “Line in the sand” seems have been drawen.

IMO [only]

Christ, our Perfect God, following the Traditions dating back to Abram has consistantly choosen ONE MAN to “BE IN CHARGE” [emphasis not shouting]

Abram
Noe
Moses
David
Jacob
The kings and Prophets
Peter and successors…

Jesus gave the Key’s to and always THROUGH Peter and ALL furture Popes]. I’m sorry if certain people don’t wish to accept and OBEY GOD’S mandated choice; but they will at some point have an opportunity to discusses [very briefly, I suspect]; with Christ their rationale.

 

[GloriaMaria]

So the “Line in the sand” seems have been drawen.

IMO [only]

Christ, our Perfect God, following the Traditions dating back to Abram has consistantly choosen ONE MAN to “BE IN CHARGE” [emphasis not shouting]

Abram
Noe
Moses
David
Jacob
The kings and Prophets
Peter and successors…

Jesus gave the Key’s to and always THROUGH Peter and ALL furture Popes]. I’m sorry if certain people don’t wish to accept and OBEY GOD’S mandated choice; but they will at some point have an opportunity to discusses [very briefly, I suspect]; with Christ their rationale.

Oh, I’m not sure about that, maybe the keys were given to Bishop Fellay? Further along, Bishop Fellay makes sure to tell the successor of Peter just what is expected of him! I quote in blue:

Compelled by the facts, it is necessary to conclude that the Council has favored, inconceivably, the diffusion of liberal errors. Faith, morals, and ecclesiastical discipline have been shaken to their foundations according to the predictions of all the popes.

**The destruction of the Church is rapidly advancing. By an exaggerated authority given to the episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself ineffectual. In a single year how many painful examples of this have we witnessed! Still, the Successor of Peter, and he alone, can save the Church.

Let the Holy Father surround himself with vigorous defenders of the Faith; let him appoint them in the important dioceses. Let him deign, by important documents, to proclaim truth, pursue error without fear of contradictions, without fear of schisms, without fear of questioning the pastoral guidelines of the Council.

May the Holy Father deign: to encourage the bishops to uphold faith and morals, each in his respective diocese, as befits every good pastor; to support the courageous bishops, encouraging them to reform their seminaries and to restore studies according to St. Thomas; to encourage the general superiors to uphold in the novitiates and communities the fundamental principles of Christian asceticism, especially obedience; to encourage the development of Catholic schools, a doctrinally sound Catholic press, associations of Catholic families; and, finally, to reprimand the instigators of errors and reduce them to silence. The Wednesday allocutions cannot replace encyclical letters, mandates, and letters to bishops.

Undoubtedly, it is bold of me to express myself in this way! But it is from a burning love that I write these lines, love of God’s glory, love of Jesus, love of Mary, love of the Church and of the Successor of Peter, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ.**

I don’t think there is a smiley to express how I feel about this particular passage. It would need sound effects.

 

[curlycool89]

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.

At this point, the SSPX have essentially become Protestant in their Ecclesiology.

It’s very ironic actually, because with all their talk about being “anti-modern”, they have themselves committed the greatest sin of the modern period: the authority of the self. The modern period (of philosophy especially) was characterized by people who believed that they had the right answer because they could reason it out. The SSPX is substantially saying the same thing: we reason this therefore we are right.

Sure, they make appeals to others and say “we’re going with what he said”, but it’s only because in their opinion they think that guys right instead of the Pope. Setting yourself up against the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium is really the beginning of becoming Protestant.

So far, not a single point Bishop Fellay has made has pointed to an actual departure of doctrine. These points that he makes are broad generalizations - as in when he states “it is the priests who act as if they no longer believed by hiding the Blessed Sacrament…etc”

It’s quite smart actually.

1. You start with agreed principles and then you spin it in the way you think it should be interpreted.
2. Then just to emphasize the point, set up a straw man between your group and “the others”. That’s what he’s really doing, setting up a straw-man of those in the Church to “prove” that his group is the righteous one (by taking incidents that may have happened once and then painting the entire Church as being that way). It’s essentially a large intuition-pump when his group already believes these things anyways, so he’s just stoking his group’s fears. Always go after the emotions, because those are easy.

It’s Propaganda 101. We’d like to think otherwise, but it’s really not that hard to manipulate people.

The first point is often abused in philosophy by very smart men. Leibniz used it to “prove” his monadology, and Berkeley used it to make reductio ad absurdam arguments to “prove” that the existen of an external world was a self-defeating idea.

This just might be the final straw that gets the SSPX kicked out. Even then, I don’t think they’d listen.

 

[Saints_Alive]

Saints Alive;10642758:

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.

"

What B16 is getting at here is that both the SSPX and the “Spirit of Vatican II” crowd are wrong. SSPX reject Vatican II, which is wrong, but there are liberals who love Vatican II for the wrong reasons. Vatican II must be embraced under the “hermeneutic of continuity” stance and no other.

No, sorry. He did not say or imply the “Spirit of VII”. Re-read it.

He is referring to anyone who defends the Council. A simple reminder that what Doctrine and Dogmas that came before still stand. He’s telling the SSPX the teaching authority didn’t end in '62 and he’s telling everyone who defends VII to stay orthodox.

 

[Scott_Alt]

Saints Alive;10642820:

No, sorry. He did not say or imply the “Spirit of VII”. Re-read it.

He is referring to anyone who defends the Council. A simple reminder that what Doctrine and Dogmas that came before still stand. He’s telling the SSPX the teaching authority didn’t end in '62 and he’s telling everyone who defends VII to stay orthodox.

You and I are saying the same thing. When B16 mentions “some” who put defend the Council, that’s a reference to the “Spirit of Vatican II-ers.” It is absolutely true that everyone who defends VII needs to stay orthodox, but there is no contradiction between these two things: That’s B16’s point. B16 is a defender of VII, rightly understood.

The problem with the SSPX is that they accept the liberal misunderstanding of VII, it’s just that the liberals celebrate it and the SSPX rejects it. In this, actually, the SSPX is closer to the truth than the liberals are.

 

[godisgood77]

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.

Orthodox: adj. 1. of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.

This is by far the most misused word on this forum…

 

[Saints_Alive]

Saints Alive;10642888:

You and I are saying the same thing. When B16 mentions “some” who put defend the Council, that’s a reference to the “Spirit of Vatican II-ers.” It is absolutely true that everyone who defends VII needs to stay orthodox, but there is no contradiction between these two things: That’s B16’s point. B16 is a defender of VII, rightly understood.

The problem with the SSPX is that they accept the liberal misunderstanding of VII, it’s just that the liberals celebrate it and the SSPX rejects it. ** In this, actually, the SSPX is closer to the truth than the liberals are**

.

Fair enough then. You are one of the rare few that admits it.(the bold part)

I always saw the term “Spirit of VII” to mean a term that authorized a a nonexistent permission to pray the Mass as you please and teach as you please. Obviously, many clergy saw it to mean that as well.

The Council itself, I have no issue with. Bishop Fellay himself stated he is fine with 95% of it.

 

[Saints_Alive]

At this point, the SSPX have essentially become Protestant in their Ecclesiology.

It’s very ironic actually, because with all their talk about being “anti-modern”, they have themselves committed the greatest sin of the modern period: the authority of the self. The modern period (of philosophy especially) was characterized by people who believed that they had the right answer because they could reason it out. The SSPX is substantially saying the same thing: we reason this therefore we are right.

Sure, they make appeals to others and say “we’re going with what he said”, but it’s only because in their opinion they think that guys right instead of the Pope. Setting yourself up against the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium is really the beginning of becoming Protestant.

It’s quite smart actually.

1. You start with agreed principles and then you spin it in the way you think it should be interpreted.
2. Then just to emphasize the point, set up a straw man between your group and “the others”. That’s what he’s really doing, setting up a straw-man of those in the Church to “prove” that his group is the righteous one (by taking incidents that may have happened once and then painting the entire Church as being that way). It’s essentially a large intuition-pump when his group already believes these things anyways, so he’s just stoking his group’s fears. Always go after the emotions, because those are easy.

It’s Propaganda 101. We’d like to think otherwise, but it’s really not that hard to manipulate people.

The first point is often abused in philosophy by very smart men. Leibniz used it to “prove” his monadology, and Berkeley used it to make reductio ad absurdam arguments to “prove” that the existen of an external world was a self-defeating idea.

This just might be the final straw that gets the SSPX kicked out. Even then, I don’t think they’d listen.

Would you apply this condemnation of the Protestant SSPX to all Protestant denominations ?

 

[Scott_Alt]

Saints Alive;10642922:

Fair enough then. You are one of the rare few that admits it.(the bold part)

I always saw the term “Spirit of VII” to mean a term that authorized a a nonexistent permission to pray the Mass as you please and teach as you please. Obviously, many clergy saw it to mean that as well.

The Council itself, I have no issue with. Bishop Fellay himself stated he is fine with 95% of it.

Exactly. There is no such thing as “The Spirit of Vatican II”; it is just what you say it is. As I put it in my blog article (linked to above), SV2 was just an excuse for wild innovation that was not in fact authorized by the Council. You won’t find clown masses mentioned in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

I hope the SSPX can come back into full communion as Benedict XVI so desired, I just think that right now there’s too much kicking against the goads taking place within the Society. But they would be of real value to the Church. The SV2 liberals, not so much.

 

[ProVobis]

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

Since no one asked the question, I will. Did the two FSSPX camps become united again?

 

[GloriaMaria]

Since no one asked the question, I will. Did the two FSSPX camps become united again?

Not at all, they are deeply divided. The splinter group SSPX-SO or whatever they have decided to call themselves still consider Bishop Fellay a “sell-out” to “modernist Rome”. The Society is losing some of it’s affiliated religious, most recently a group of German cloistered Carmelites. This group attaches to Bishop Williamson, more or less.

 

[Dee_S]

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.

BIG NEWS

Now I finally know why the SSPX have never liked Lumen Gentium - this extract proves that they have ‘no voice’ nor do they exercise any legitimate authority in the Church (besides having no canonical status in the Church) - - until such time they submit themselves to the Vicar of Christ.

“But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact.** In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. *The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) **This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156)”
**vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[PJM]

Oh, I’m not sure about that, maybe the keys were given to Bishop Fellay? Further along, Bishop Fellay makes sure to tell the successor of Peter just what is expected of him! I quote in blue:

Compelled by the facts, it is necessary to conclude that the Council has favored, inconceivably, the diffusion of liberal errors. Faith, morals, and ecclesiastical discipline have been shaken to their foundations according to the predictions of all the popes.

**The destruction of the Church is rapidly advancing. By an exaggerated authority given to the episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself ineffectual. In a single year how many painful examples of this have we witnessed! Still, the Successor of Peter, and he alone, can save the Church.

Let the Holy Father surround himself with vigorous defenders of the Faith; let him appoint them in the important dioceses. Let him deign, by important documents, to proclaim truth, pursue error without fear of contradictions, without fear of schisms, without fear of questioning the pastoral guidelines of the Council.

May the Holy Father deign: to encourage the bishops to uphold faith and morals, each in his respective diocese, as befits every good pastor; to support the courageous bishops, encouraging them to reform their seminaries and to restore studies according to St. Thomas; to encourage the general superiors to uphold in the novitiates and communities the fundamental principles of Christian asceticism, especially obedience; to encourage the development of Catholic schools, a doctrinally sound Catholic press, associations of Catholic families; and, finally, to reprimand the instigators of errors and reduce them to silence. The Wednesday allocutions cannot replace encyclical letters, mandates, and letters to bishops.

Undoubtedly, it is bold of me to express myself in this way! But it is from a burning love that I write these lines, love of God’s glory, love of Jesus, love of Mary, love of the Church and of the Successor of Peter, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ.**

I don’t think there is a smiley to express how I feel about this particular passage. It would need sound effects.

READ VAtican 1 & and current Code of Canon Law; then READ again Mt. 16;15-19. There is no ambiguity here. Nor is Sacred Tradition to be Ignored.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

"MsCall1987:

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[PJM]

=Dee S;10643177]BIG NEWS

Now I finally know why the SSPX have never liked Lumen Gentium - this extract proves that they have ‘no voice’ nor do they exercise any legitimate authority in the Church (besides having no canonical status in the Church) - - until such time they submit themselves to the Vicar of Christ.

"But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact.** In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. *The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156)"
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

for those who struggle with this well statedTRUTH; please read on.

Its ALSO Canon Law; and the truth as Christ mandated it.

Read Mark 16:14-15 and Matt. 28:18-20 very carefully.

Great Post; thank you!

 

[gentle_atheist]

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

 

[hudson]

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

Does CAF prohibit any defense of atheism?