The Latest Public Statement of the SSPX

[Mrs_Sally]

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

I am talking about the general reaction, not that specific article.

 

[dominic_aquinas]

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

But isn’t Americanism, the separation of Church and State, a condemned heresy? Aren’t the SSPX asked to believe in this heresy? They certainly claim that they are.

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.

Sorry, I probably wasn’t clear enough in my example of the rosary. Please correct me if you think I’m wrong. I meant to say that a superior could not issue a blanket statement that no one in their Order is to pray the Rosary BECAUSE he believes the Rosary is evil. His command would then be based on an errononeous belief that contradicts the entire Tradition of the Church. Also, it is my understanding that the Rosary is part of Sacred Tradition even though it is not a dogma of the Church.

What I’m tryin to get at with this is that Sacred Tradition is not always found in Church documents. Also, the current Magesteria does not have the authority to denounce universally accepted instances of Sacred Tradition.

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. …
There is a tendency in traditionalism to overstate Aquinas, which is contrary to his mind.

Again, correct me if I’m wrong but I believe Pope St. Pius X said just the opposite in his encyclical Doctoris Angelici where he declared that Thomism is to be emphasized above all other philosophies. In fact, in that encyclical he forbade any schools of theology that did not teach theology from the Summa Theologica from issuing degrees. The schools had three years to all change to Thomism or lose their degree granting status. He was that serious about it. So, hopefully, you can forgive my shock when I read your sentence “The problem with this way of thinking is that it’s very Thomistic.” I’m sorry but this is yet another example of the “changes” that the SSPX complain about. The SSPX still follow the command of Doctoris Angelici in their seminaries. This is not a matter of minor discplinary changes. As stated in Aeterni Patris, an understanding of Thomism is critical to an understanding of the Catholic faith.

 

[dominic_aquinas]

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

Fr. Hans Kung has been accused of publically teaching and holding the heretical view that the Pope is not infallible as defined by Vatican I. He has written books about this position, which he still holds.

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, … is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals…

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be ANATHEMA.

According to Vatican I, anyone that holds such a view is OUTSIDE the Church. The SSPX are INSIDE the Church although they are in an irregular status. I think being outside (and thus not saved) is a worse condition than being inside and irregular. Officially, he has not been condemned as a heretic but only had his teaching license revoked.

Incidentally, there is no such definitions of ANATHEMA anywhere in the documents of Vatican II. Nowhere in Vatican II do we read, “If anyone does not believe X; let him be anathema.”

 

[Saints_Alive]

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

I’m not either. I want nothing to do with my local SSPX chapel. I’m not into the drama.

But like yourself, I get tired of seeing the way the SSPX clergy are treated. If members here want to point out they have no active ministry at this time, fine. That’s the truth. But waving the excommunication card around is indeed misleading.

 

[Saints_Alive]

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.

I’m sorry, but it’s just not possible to converse with someone who won’t accept the fact that the bishops of the SSPX are not excommunicated.

Let’s split the difference on the “attacked and hated”. They are attacked here on a regular basis.

 

[agnes_therese]

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.

So everyone who doesn’t support the SSPX secretly hates them?

No.

 

[Melchior_1]

I’m sorry, but it’s just not possible to converse with someone who won’t accept the fact that the bishops of the SSPX are not excommunicated.

Some people may not know, or they have inaccurate information.

The only bishop who remained excommunicated is the founder, and he’s passed on.

 

[ProVobis]

Only the Vatican can define necessity.

But BrJR, we already saw that the Vatican agreed to one consecration and made some other concessions, including the lifting of all priestly suspensions. I guess what’s really in dispute is why exactly four bishops were necessary; that IMO was and is hard to show. It certainly wasn’t worth it. As it turned out, one bishop would have been better.

 

[JReducation]

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

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

I’ve never heard him say that. I’ve read his position on infallibility. His definition is so narrow that it may as well not exist. He certainly does not deny the primacy of Peter or the office. In fact, he and Pope Benedict remain very good friends. Pope Benedict has always expressed a great respect of his brilliant mind. The man is not wrong on everything. His method for doing moral theology is very good. It’s his position on certain issues that are unorthodox.

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.

I never said that they are excommunicated or in schism. In fact, if you backtrack. You will find many of my posts correct the misunderstanding that people have concerning the excommunication and the schism.

I don’t see where you get the excommunication and schism from what I posted above.

Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication of the four bishops. This is true. He did not lift the suspension of the bishops, priests and deacons.

Lifting an excommunication is not absolution. The only way that one can be absolved is by making a confession to the Holy Father himself and admitting that one was wrong to ordain or to be ordained in this case. This is the kind of sin that is reserved to the Holy See. No one can absolve a bishop who ordains illegally or a priest who accepts the ordination. To be absolved, one must a) admit that he has sinned; b) confess the sin: c) ask for forgiveness and d) receive absolution from one who has the power to absolve. In this case, that power is reserved to the Holy Father. If they had gone to confession to the Holy Father, they would no longer be suspended.

The other way that the Church often gets around this is by radical sanation. In that case, the Church declares that once the proper steps are taken, she lifts the penalty.

In either case, I’m not condemning. I was asked a question and I answered honestly and without prejudice.

I’m sorry, but it’s just not possible to converse with someone who won’t accept the fact that the bishops of the SSPX are not excommunicated.

Let’s split the difference on the “attacked and hated”. They are attacked here on a regular basis.

What do you consider an attack?

 

[Saints_Alive]

I explained what I meant. Once is enough.

 

[Dee_S]

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

:curtsey:-** “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.” PJM
**
it tends to be forgotten that unity with & obedience to the Pope is the ‘litmus test’ and it is also Dogmatically defined. As on other threads discussing the SSPX, the bottom line is obedience to the authority of the living (alive) Pope who presently holds “the Keys” - and not to the myth of Eternal Rome or to previous Popes.

 

[GloriaMaria]

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.

I read it again. He isn’t speaking about Catholic charities. He’s speaking about the Pope. And I read into it that he is criticizing what stands out to most people about this Pope, his charity in actions. I read that he’s making an accusation that the Holy Father offers Charity without offering the Faith. Am I missing something? This is a big accusation.

 

[Fransea]

I have read this entire thread and one thing stands out more than others. there are so many references of what Bishop Fellay says is the meanings of certain articles.

Maybe, just a thought, each one should pray for God’s guidance in interpreting what the articles really are saying. Not relying on someone’s interpretation or impressions.

If we stop trying to convince others of what is right or wrong and seek God’s help in allowing the “scales to fall from our eyes”, we might see things in a totally different light.

Sacred Tradition has always held the keys are in the hands of the Pope. Let God have a chance to have those keys unlock the truth.

Being critical of each other, the Pope, Bishop Fellay, the “modernist”, the “Traditionalist” is the very nature of evil. Are we allowing evil to take a stand in our lives?

Only God can change our hearts, our minds. Let our prayers to have God in our lives and He will led us in the right direction .

Being “modernist” or “Traditionalist” is letting evil get a good hold on our lives. Let’s just be God’s children. Let’s let this “sibling rivilry” go. There IS no one completely right and NO one completely wrong when we are just God’s children. We all make mistakes.

But to keep pointing out those mistakes keeps evil alive. Is this what we really want?

 

[GloriaMaria]

Indeed, we must act with true charity, and being human we do not always do this. My intent in starting this thread, was to shed light and truth on this new article. I know personally, that this article that I am quoting is being given to some faithful of the SSPX as the “last word” on the Doctrinal discussions of the SSPX with Rome.

In this article Bishop Fellay levels some serious accusations at priests, Bishops, and Pope Francis.

It attacks, as ever, the OF (what they call the “New Mass”), and the Documents of Vatican II.

If someone who is more erudite than I, and more patient, can clearly point out the faults than perhaps it can help someone reading to discern truth. But I have noticed that there is not much attention or effort being paid to the excerpts of the article themselves.

I don’t know. We *have *been beating the subject to death. But, reading here in the past has certainly helped clear things up in my mind. Prayer and personal humility have also helped, or at least my own feeble attempts.

 

[curlycool89]

Again, correct me if I’m wrong but I believe Pope St. Pius X said just the opposite in his encyclical Doctoris Angelici where he declared that Thomism is to be emphasized above all other philosophies. In fact, in that encyclical he forbade any schools of theology that did not teach theology from the Summa Theologica from issuing degrees.

Thomas Aquinas says that arguments from human authority are the weakest kind of arguments. (cf. ST 1a, q.1, a.8, ad.2)

I just took a class on Thomas Aquinas this past semester (on his philosophy), so I happen to have a little more than a passing familiarity with him.

Thomism is not so much a philosophical system as a way of describing things. The thing about any philosophical system is that you have to understand that it is a way of talking about how things are, but in my opinion it doesn’t have to describe the world perfectly. Is everything really made up of form and matter, or is it just a way of trying to understand the world?

Thomism is really neo-Aristotelian (probably the most triumphant example). In Aristotelean physics (this is a bit of a misnomer post-Galileo, because it’s not physics in the way of Galileo or Newton or Descartes or Einstein), everything is described according to potentialities and actualities. It’s just a way of talking about how things seem to work. That’s why it was discarded in the Modern period, because it was all a descriptive account without any why. Modern-period philosophers were very much interested in “whys” more than “hows”.

There are also several problems with Aquinas’ philosophical system. His embryology is downright wrong for starters (this was the same one Joe Biden tried to appeal to to defend his pro-choice stance by the way. Biden’s interpretation of Aquinas was not incorrect) because according to his system the human person does not possess a rational soul (form, the soul is the form of the body) at conception, but only a nutritive (plant) soul. Only later does a embryo gain a sensitive (animal) and rational (intellectual, or human) soul, when the matter is ready to actualize the powers that come with such souls/forms (movement and understanding, respectively). It is the rational soul that God creates and is the thing that makes us different than animals; its the thing that gives us our human dignity.

Nor can a proper embryology (that we are fully human and have human dignity from conception) be bootstrapped to Aquinas’ account, because that would violate key Aristotelean principles (that forms cannot be united with matter that is unable to actualize the powers of that form, namely understanding).

Don’t get me wrong, Aquinas was a genius and a Saint, but certain things that came as a natural part of his philosophical system are wrong. Not everything Aquinas said was infallible after all; he wasn’t the Pope. At the end of his life he even said “It’s all straw”, because he realized how little he was able to write compared with the glory of God and creation. Because of his writings, we can definitely say that Christianity is not unreasonable. I don’t think you count it as “proven” in some robust way though (not in the post-Cartesian internalist way).

 

[JReducation]

Again, correct me if I’m wrong but I believe Pope St. Pius X said just the opposite in his encyclical Doctoris Angelici where he declared that Thomism is to be emphasized above all other philosophies. In fact, in that encyclical he forbade any schools of theology that did not teach theology from the Summa Theologica from issuing degrees. The schools had three years to all change to Thomism or lose their degree granting status. He was that serious about it. So, hopefully, you can forgive my shock when I read your sentence “The problem with this way of thinking is that it’s very Thomistic.” I’m sorry but this is yet another example of the “changes” that the SSPX complain about. The SSPX still follow the command of Doctoris Angelici in their seminaries. This is not a matter of minor discplinary changes. As stated in Aeterni Patris, an understanding of Thomism is critical to an understanding of the Catholic faith.

The problem here is not what Pope Pius X said. The problem arises when one juxtaposes one pope against another. While it is true that Pope Pius said this, it is also true that later popes have moved away from this rule. Today, this is no longer the rule. Pope Benedict himself admitted that he does not like St. Thomas and often finds Thomism to be self-serving and that he prefers Augustine and Bonaventure. Pope John Paul also said that he did not like Thomism, though he never explained why not. Pope Francis was not educated in the Thomist school, because the rule concerning the teaching of Thomism to priests did not bind Franciscans, Benedictines and Jesuits. It never did. These religious formed their own men. They did not send them to seminaries perse. Rather, they often ran their own seminaries or what are today known as theologates. In those houses of theology, they often taught from Augustine and form their own doctors.

One pope cannot bind the entire Church of the future. That’s the problem that some are having. They are taking it upon themselves to rule and govern in place of Pope Pius X, even attempting to dictate to popes. You cannot dictate to Pope Francis that he must do A, B. and C because Pope Pius X said so. The Church does not work that way, just as we don’t dictate this or that, because Peter said so. The pope is free to choose from what his predecessors taught and said that which is still binding and that which continues to meet the needs of the Church as HE understands those needs, not as a group does.

It is precisely for this reason that Pope Francis and others before him, use advisory boards. If the bishops of the SSPX want to advice the pope on what the Church needs to do today, the solution is simple. Reconcile with the Vatican and then offer their services as advisors on the new advisory board that the Holy Father has just created. But to try to advise from the outside is not an effective way of helping. It helps even less when that same group doing the advising from the outside continually refers to Archbishop Lefebvre as if he were a Doctor of the Church or as if he hever had any authority over the universal Church, which he did not and the pope does. It comes across as offensive to the popes. It comes across as if they’re asking the pope to convert to Bishop Lefebvre’s worldview and Bishop Lefebre’s ecclesiology; but on the other hand, they complain because the pope has “surrendered” authority. It can’t be both.

The pope cannot keep his authority and surrender to Bishop Lefebvre’s and the Lefrebvrian worldview and ecclesiology. Either he submits to that point of view and surrenders some authority or he resists that point of view and exercises his right and authority to do things his way. There is always room for a pope to say, “This point makes sense,” or “this is worth trying.” But to expect a complete surrender is unreasonable.

As to the letter, I don’t see anything in this letter that the SSPX had not said in the past. Pertaining to the comment on charity, I’m not sure what the good bishop is trying to say. On the one hand, I don’t see him saying anything that Pope Francis has not already said. Pope Francis explicitly mentioned that the Church is not an NGO. On the other hand, I’m not sure why he brings this up at this time. He’s not explicit as to what or whom he’s talking about.

 

[PJM]

=Saints Alive;10647972]I’m not either. I want nothing to do with my local SSPX chapel. I’m not into the drama.

But like yourself, I get tired of seeing the way the SSPX clergy are treated. If members here want to point out they have no active ministry at this time, fine. That’s the truth. But waving the excommunication card around is indeed misleading.

Agreed to a point.

BUT there is Just One God; One truth and One TRUE church of God; protected, guided and guarded from error on ALL FAITH and Moral issues.

SSPX is is SCHISM; there is no grounds, no excuse and to valid reasons possible for this. Amen

 

[agnes_therese]

SSPX is is SCHISM; there is no grounds, no excuse and to valid reasons possible for this. Amen

No, the SSPX has NOT been declared schismatic. It remains possible that they may go there, but we hope and pray not.

 

[JReducation]

But isn’t Americanism, the separation of Church and State, a condemned heresy?

The separation of Church and State is not the condemned heresy. The condemned heresy is the alleged right of the state to make laws without regard to moral law. When the State makes a just law, even though it acts on its own, it’s not a heresy. When the state makes a law contrary to the law of God, then we have a problem. In Americanism, the state always claims the right to ignore revealed law in the name of separation of Church and State. The problem is not the separation. The problem is how the separation is invoked.

Sorry, I probably wasn’t clear enough in my example of the rosary. Please correct me if you think I’m wrong. I meant to say that a superior could not issue a blanket statement that no one in their Order is to pray the Rosary BECAUSE he believes the Rosary is evil. His command would then be based on an errononeous belief that contradicts the entire Tradition of the Church. Also, it is my understanding that the Rosary is part of Sacred Tradition even though it is not a dogma of the Church.

The Rosary is not part of Sacred Tradition. Actually, the Rosary is of Latin roots. Some of the Eastern Churches have a similar prayer form that developed independently of the Dominican Rosary. In the Latin Church, several rosaries developed. The Dominican form is the best known, but not used by everyone in the Latin Church.

For something to be part of Sacred Tradition, it must be universal.

Again, correct me if I’m wrong but I believe Pope St. Pius X said just the opposite in his encyclical Doctoris Angelici where he declared that Thomism is to be emphasized above all other philosophies. In fact, in that encyclical he forbade any schools of theology that did not teach theology from the Summa Theologica from issuing degrees. The schools had three years to all change to Thomism or lose their degree granting status. He was that serious about it. So, hopefully, you can forgive my shock when I read your sentence “The problem with this way of thinking is that it’s very Thomistic.” I’m sorry but this is yet another example of the “changes” that the SSPX complain about. The SSPX still follow the command of Doctoris Angelici in their seminaries. This is not a matter of minor discplinary changes. As stated in Aeterni Patris, an understanding of Thomism is critical to an understanding of the Catholic faith.

St. Pius did say this. But other popes have not subscribed to this.

Agreed to a point.

BUT there is Just One God; One truth and One TRUE church of God; protected, guided and guarded from error on ALL FAITH and Moral issues.

SSPX is is SCHISM; there is no grounds, no excuse and to valid reasons possible for this. Amen

No no no, please don’t make this mistake. It would be very unfair to the SSPX. Ordaining four bishops contrary to the will of the pope is a schismatic act. Ordaining priests when you (the bishop) is suspended and you do not have a dimisorial letter from a religious superior is also a schismatic act. However, an act may be schismatic, but you are not necessary in schism.

The leadership of the SSPX has committed schismatic actions, but they are not in schism.

 

[godisgood77]

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

Not to mention that is debatable whether or not they can call themselves Catholics.