The Latest Public Statement of the SSPX

[JM3]

And Truth, otherwise known as Tradition, does not change.

Glorification of “Tradition” seems to be a main theme. When you obscure Truth in this way, does it become an idol?

 

[JReducation]

One has to be very careful with how and to what one applies the word tradition with upper case T. There is Sacred Tradition, which is revealed truth. Then there is tradition, which has developed or been imposed. They’re not the same.

In Traddom, there are people who subscribe to lower case traditions as if they were revealed truths, for example: vestments worn at liturgy or the language of the liturgy.

There is also a hierarchy of truths and a hierarchy of traditions. My guess is that not understanding this hierarchy is the reason that people get upset because the priests of the SSPX are suspended while someone like Fr. Kung is still in active ministry. In the hierarchy of law, Fr. Kung’s offenses are not up there with those of the SSPX priests. There is a whole logic to how this is determined, but we can’t go into it here. It’s the subject for a PhD dissertation.

 

[GloriaMaria]

Here is a part of the letter from Bishop Fellay that some of the press is publishing. It criticizes the Holy Father for his charitable works. He somehow accuses the Holy Father of leading souls to hell because of his service to the poor. It is very outrageous.

**Today, along the same lines, we can only repeat what Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Schmidberger in turn declared. All the errors that they denounced, we denounce. We beg Heaven and the authorities of the Church, in particular the new Supreme Pontiff, Pope Francis, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, not to allow souls to perish because they no longer learn sound doctrine, the revealed deposit of the faith, without which no one can be saved, no one can please God.

What good is it to devote oneself to serving people if one hides from them what is essential, the purpose and the meaning of their life, and the seriousness of sin that turns them away from it? Works of charity done for the poor, the needy, the infirm, and the sick have always been a true concern for the Church, and we must not excuse ourselves from it, but if it becomes merely man-centered philanthropy, then the Church is no longer carrying out her mission, she is no longer leading souls to God, which can really be done only by supernatural means: faith, hope, charity and grace. And therefore by denouncing anything that is opposed to them: errors against faith and morality. Because if people sin, for want of that denunciation, they are damned for eternity. The Church’s reason for being is to save them and to help them avoid the misfortune of their eternal perdition.**

 

[Lormar]

There is also a hierarchy of truths and a hierarchy of traditions. My guess is that not understanding this hierarchy is the reason that people get upset because the priests of the SSPX are suspended while someone like Fr. Kung is still in active ministry. In the hierarchy of law, Fr. Kung’s offenses are not up there with those of the SSPX priests. There is a whole logic to how this is determined, but we can’t go into it here. It’s the subject for a PhD dissertation.

I, for one, would appreciate an explanation of how the offenses of the SSPX are worse than those of Fr. Hans Kung.

 

[JM3]

In Traddom, there are people who subscribe to lower case traditions as if they were revealed truths,

This is what I thought I was referring to. Shouldn’t have capitalized the ‘t’, I guess.

Thank you for the correction, Bro. JR.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

One has to be very careful with how and to what one applies the word tradition with upper case T. There is Sacred Tradition, which is revealed truth. Then there is tradition, which has developed or been imposed. They’re not the same.

In Traddom, there are people who subscribe to lower case traditions as if they were revealed truths, for example: vestments worn at liturgy or the language of the liturgy.

There is also a hierarchy of truths and a hierarchy of traditions. My guess is that not understanding this hierarchy is the reason that people get upset because the priests of the SSPX are suspended while someone like Fr. Kung is still in active ministry. In the hierarchy of law, Fr. Kung’s offenses are not up there with those of the SSPX priests. There is a whole logic to how this is determined, but we can’t go into it here. It’s the subject for a PhD dissertation.

The school dress code vs the loudmouth was my attempt at describing that hierarchy of rules. Being mouthy is not the same as violating a published rule like a school dress code. It may seem that simply wearing a hat in a school is no big deal vs a student who talks back to a teacher. But dress code violations carry specific consequences that just being mouthy do not. The school will send the student in a hat home. The mouthy student will get a talking to by an assistant principal but stay in school.

Now we say that the SSPX is like the hat wearing student and Fr Kung is the mouthy student.

 

[Melchior_1]

I, for one, would appreciate an explanation of how the offenses of the SSPX are worse than those of Fr. Hans Kung.

As sympathetic as they may be to some, the SSPX still offers;

• Illicit Masses.
• Invalid confessions.
• Invalid marriages.
• Illicit ordinations.
• Hold an irregular canonical status.
• Views that the OF is sacrilege.
• Views that attending the OF is at least a venial sin.
• Views that anyone who willingly participates in the OF “while knowing better” is in sin.
• Questions the intent of any priest who performs any Sacraments using any materials from post-1962, with the implication meaning no one can be sure of the validity of any Sacrament post-192, as they say the lack of intent of the priest would invalidate.
• Questions the authenticity of the CCC.

Meanwhile, Fr. Kung offers heterodox views, and maybe a couple of others on the list above. But certainly not all ten.

 

[JReducation]

I, for one, would appreciate an explanation of how the offenses of the SSPX are worse than those of Fr. Hans Kung.

Father Kung has never violated the sacraments.

Accepting ordination from a bishop who does not have the right to ordain is a violation of the sacrament.

There is an entire argument about the difference between what one says and what one actually does. The doing is more serious than the saying.

Fr. Kung says many things that are problematic, but does very few of those things and the one that he has never done is violate a sacrament.

A bishop can only ordain a priest when he has permission to ordain him. Being a bishop does not give him the power to ordain. That power is given to him by the bishop of the diocese or a male religious superior. To ordain without this permission is to assume that one is an authority unto himself. To accept ordination from one who makes such an assumption is also a false assumption. I cannot accept sacraments from anyone whom I so choose to do. In that case, I should be able to go to Communion at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. Afterall, the sacrament is valid and licit. Yet, we know that Catholics do not have the freedom to accept sacraments from Orthodox priests except in cases of necessity. Only the Vatican can define necessity.

The truth is that Catholics cannot receive sacraments from anyone who is not authorized to administer them. A sacrament is far higher on the scale than birth control, which Fr. Kung believes is right, but he does not practice anyway. For all of his rants and faults, the man has never been suspected of a sexual impropriety. He hasn’t even participated in a woman’s ordination.

 

[Lormar]

Father Kung has never violated the sacraments.

Accepting ordination from a bishop who does not have the right to ordain is a violation of the sacrament.

There is an entire argument about the difference between what one says and what one actually does. The doing is more serious than the saying.

Fr. Kung says many things that are problematic, but does very few of those things and the one that he has never done is violate a sacrament.

A bishop can only ordain a priest when he has permission to ordain him. Being a bishop does not give him the power to ordain. That power is given to him by the bishop of the diocese or a male religious superior. To ordain without this permission is to assume that one is an authority unto himself. To accept ordination from one who makes such an assumption is also a false assumption. I cannot accept sacraments from anyone whom I so choose to do. In that case, I should be able to go to Communion at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. Afterall, the sacrament is valid and licit. Yet, we know that Catholics do not have the freedom to accept sacraments from Orthodox priests except in cases of necessity. Only the Vatican can define necessity.

The truth is that Catholics cannot receive sacraments from anyone who is not authorized to administer them. A sacrament is far higher on the scale than birth control, which Fr. Kung believes is right, but he does not practice anyway. For all of his rants and faults, the man has never been suspected of a sexual impropriety. He hasn’t even participated in a woman’s ordination.

Isn’t he the one who wants the papacy dissolved?

In any event, thank you for your explanation. I am glad I asked.

 

[Lormar]

As sympathetic as they may be to some, the SSPX still offers;

• Illicit Masses.
• Invalid confessions.
• Invalid marriages.
• Illicit ordinations.
• Hold an irregular canonical status.
• Views that the OF is sacrilege.
• Views that attending the OF is at least a venial sin.
• Views that anyone who willingly participates in the OF “while knowing better” is in sin.
• Questions the intent of any priest who performs any Sacraments using any materials from post-1962, with the implication meaning no one can be sure of the validity of any Sacrament post-192, as they say the lack of intent of the priest would invalidate.
• Questions the authenticity of the CCC.

Yes, thank you, I know all of those things as I spent many years with them.

 

[Saints_Alive]

Father Kung has never violated the sacraments.

Accepting ordination from a bishop who does not have the right to ordain is a violation of the sacrament.

BXVI forgave them that offense. Why won’t you ?

See, the trouble is, guests and the average mainstream Catholic see these threads and they way you and others keep harping on the excommunications, it’s very misleading. If a person knows very little about the SSPX but has at least heard of them, there is a very good chance they believe they are excommunicated and in schism.

They are neither.

Isn’t the fact that they are suspended at this time enough ammo for the “let’s pile on the SSPX” threads ? There are other things you can use as well without being deceptive.

 

[agnes_therese]

BXVI forgave them that offense. Why won’t you ?

See, the trouble is, guests and the average mainstream Catholic see these threads and they way you and others keep harping on the excommunications, it’s very misleading. If a person knows very little about the SSPX but has at least heard of them, there is a very good chance they believe they are excommunicated and in schism.

They are neither.

Isn’t the fact that they are suspended at this time enough ammo for the “let’s pile on the SSPX” threads ? There are other things you can use as well without being deceptive.

Which part of Brother’s statement you quoted was deceptive? “Father Kung has never violated the sacraments”? or “Accepting ordination from a bishop who does not have the right to ordain is a violation of the sacrament”?
I can’t see where either statement was deceptive in the least. You obviously don’t like the fact that the SSPX is in an irregular status, but they are. And the keys to ending that are in their hands. Our Pope Emeritus did what he could

 

[Denise1957]

BXVI forgave them that offense. Why won’t you ?

See, the trouble is, guests and the average mainstream Catholic see these threads and they way you and others keep harping on the excommunications, it’s very misleading. If a person knows very little about the SSPX but has at least heard of them, there is a very good chance they believe they are excommunicated and in schism.

They are neither.

Isn’t the fact that they are suspended at this time enough ammo for the “let’s pile on the SSPX” threads ? There are other things you can use as well without being deceptive.

Well said. And I would add that the SSPX and traditionalists receive a great deal of attention, considering that they are a very small percentage of Catholics. As much as I disagree with most of the SSPX states, they are right about a few things. So are the liberals. But some here are far less concerned with the damage the liberals do, even though they represent a much higher percentage of Catholics. Here’s an explanation and drawing to show what I mean.

unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2012/04/comparing-trad-and-liberal-dissent.html

 

[Saints_Alive]

Which part of Brother’s statement you quoted was deceptive? “Father Kung has never violated the sacraments”? or “Accepting ordination from a bishop who does not have the right to ordain is a violation of the sacrament”?
I can’t see where either statement was deceptive in the least. You obviously don’t like the fact that the SSPX is in an irregular status, but they are. And the keys to ending that are in their hands. Our Pope Emeritus did what he could

I could care less what their status is. I prayed for years that they would return. Now it’s obvious they are not going to return to full communion as a group. They will have to splinter and that’s not what the SSPX nor Rome wants. It’s over. Not gonna happen.

+Fellay is treated like a dog by many of his own for entertaining the idea of a return to full communion. He’s treated like a dog by the mainstream as is plain as day in this thread and the rest of the various SSPX thread open for posting on this forum.

Boy oh boy did H.H. BXVI hit the nail on the head when he wrote this, concerning the lifting of the excommunications…

“Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.”

Fact is, the lifting of the excommunications wasn’t enough to drop the matter. The pope did but many here won’t. Guess the SSPX are too easy to attack and hate here. Especially here where the discussions are a one way street.

Ok, with that out of the way, let’s get back to our discussion of being in “full communion with the pope” !

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Well said. And I would add that the SSPX and traditionalists receive a great deal of attention, considering that they are a very small percentage of Catholics. As much as I disagree with most of the SSPX states, they are right about a few things. So are the liberals. But some here are far less concerned with the damage the liberals do, even though they represent a much higher percentage of Catholics. Here’s an explanation and drawing to show what I mean.

unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2012/04/comparing-trad-and-liberal-dissent.html

Here’s the thing with those types of blogs - it is a childish defense. As well-catechize adult Catholics, they should defend themselves by saying “but someone else did something bad!” It does no good to basically be saying “well we may be wrong, but they are worse”. I rather expect them to fix their own error before starting in on anyone else’s.

 

[Denise1957]

Here’s the thing with those types of blogs - it is a childish defense. As well-catechize adult Catholics, they should defend themselves by saying “but someone else did something bad!” It does no good to basically be saying “well we may be wrong, but they are worse”. I rather expect them to fix their own error before starting in on anyone else’s.

What part of the article is childish? Did you read it?

 

[Denise1957]

And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint."

Oh so true. And I’m not even an SSPX supporter.

 

[agnes_therese]

Fact is, the lifting of the excommunications wasn’t enough to drop the matter. The pope did but many here won’t. Guess the SSPX are too easy to attack and hate here. Especially here where the discussions are a one way street.

The Pope didn’t “drop the matter.” If he had, the SSPX would have been regularized, and this would all be over.
I haven’t seen “hate” for the SSPX here. Just insistence on accurate representations of why their status is what it is.
Generally speaking, when you “hate” someone, you’re not going to be hoping and praying for their spiritual welfare, as so many here do for the SSPX.

 

[Denise1957]

The Pope didn’t “drop the matter.” If he had, the SSPX would have been regularized, and this would all be over.
I haven’t seen “hate” for the SSPX here. Just insistence on accurate representations of why their status is what it is.
Generally speaking, when you “hate” someone, you’re not going to be hoping and praying for their spiritual welfare, as so many here do.

Hatred doesn’t necessarily manifest itself in an overt and obvious manner. I doubt that those who here who have such feelings for the SSPX and traditionalism are going to come right out and say…“I hate the SSPX and tradition.” They might get banned, for one thing.

 

[dominic_aquinas]

Here is a part of the letter from Bishop Fellay that some of the press is publishing. It criticizes the Holy Father for his charitable works. He somehow accuses the Holy Father of leading souls to hell because of his service to the poor. It is very outrageous.

Please read the text you quoted carefully. I think you may be reading something into it. In the text, Bishop Fellay is merely stating what Pope Benedict stated in his letter that charitable orgranizations and activity must be in conformity with Catholic Doctrine. If they are not, then although they are providing material help they are causing spiritual harm. For instance, a charitable orgranization that provides material help to poor people but it does so by contributing to organizations that promote abortion or same-sex “marriages.” Both Bishop Fellay and Pope Benedict are saying that a mere philanthropic organization that is not consistent with Catholic teaching is not really helping people.