The SSPX (without a flamewar)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
He nullified the decree that excommunicated the 4 Bishops. That is it.
LeFerebvre is not mentioned. I don’t know how to make it any clearer.
 
Note: I have never attended an SSPX mass or even support them. I am not a traditionalist either. I’m just a simple Catholic. I do think that they went too far. However I do sympathize with some of their concerns.
 
Last edited:
Not to harp on a minor detail, but they were in fact validly consecrated. They were not done licitly, which is what I think you meant, but they were certainly valid. The Church does in fact accept that those 4 men are true bishops, but does not grant them any ministry.
 
He nullified the entire decree which included the excommunication of Lefebvre.

I pass a decree that says:
“A is B.
B is C
C is D”
Then I later write another decree that says:
“A is not B, and I nullify the entire previous decree.”
Then just because I specified A is not B does not mean that B, C, and D are still the same. I lifted the entire previous decree.
 
FThat’s actually untrue. Heresy only applies when someone explicitly rejects dogma. Therefore, apart from any verbiage restating de fide teaching or proposing new teaching as divinely revealed, no part of Vatican II (or any other exercise of the magisterium, for that matter) “binds” to that degree.
 
Last edited:
Excommunicate means “to cut off from communion with a church or exclude from the sacraments of a church by ecclesiastical sentence.”

Martin Luther and LeFebvre have already died, so the sacraments cannot be restored to them by lifting the censure.
 
Uh? Vatican II is a legitimate concil of the Church to reject that is to separate oneself. I never spoke of heresy. Or are you accusing the post-VII Church of heresy?
I am very confused as to your point.
 
Well then you need to call the Vatican and let them kmow they were not able to lift the excommunications of the Great Schism.
 
Above, you stated:
So? That doesn’t mean it is still not a valid, teaching council.
If you do not accept it, you are separating yourself from the Church, just like the SSPX did, hence this thread.
Click to expand...
The SSPX never “rejected the council” in the sense that they deny it was a legitimate Ecumenical Council convened by a legitimate Pope gathering legitimate Bishops. They simply do not believe that there was any exercise of any of the extraordinary magisterium (which is debatable.) In any case, the ordinary and authentic magisterium do not declare new teachings, they can only hand down and restate existing doctrine, and the SSPX’s concerns are almost entirely to do with the way the authentic magisterium was used to reformulate existing doctrine in a more modern (the SSPX would argue modern_ist_) way.

The conciliar output does not require the assent of faith where it doesn’t explicitly define divinely revealed truth (this is the case of all documents where the extraordinary magisterium is invoked.) As an example, if Pope Francis were to write an encyclical that stated:
A. We solemnly define as divinely revealed truth that women cannot be ordained.
B. Most atheists actually go to heaven.

Only item A binds as dogma. The rest of the letter only requires intellectual assent so far as it doesn’t contradict tradition (magisterium cannot contradict magisterium). In the case of item B, this is so alien to existing teaching that it wouldn’t carry much weight all on its own without further exposition in the future.

The analogue with VII is that none/little of the conciliar output looks like A, but the SSPX (and certain traditionalists) hold that some/much of it looks like B.

I think it might help to read some more on how the magisterium works and when and what kind of assent a Catholic must provide to a given teaching. Documents (or Councils) as integral wholes never command absolute acceptance - assent is given in the proper form to the teachings/statements contained within.

PS: I’ve never attended an SSPX mass in my life and actually hold Vatican II in high regard myself.
 
Last edited:
It’s true that there have always been problems in the Church. I believe we have some more serious problems nowadays. I’m one who believes that we need to return to the traditions of the Church. There needs to be a reform of the reform.
 
Here’s something curious though. Here’s the text of that decree. The bolded parts are of interest.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html
“On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on 1 July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today’s date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect.”
Click to expand...
It didn’t nullify the entire decree. It nullified the judicial effect, whatever that means, which I would say is different than outright nullification. Not only that, but Archbishop Lefebvre’s name is not mentioned among those whose excommunications were explicitly remitted.
 
Fauken said:
Not only that, but Archbishop Lefebvre’s name is not mentioned among those whose excommunications were explicitly remitted
Click to expand...
If all he was doing was remitting the excommunication of those 4 bishops than why did he nullify the entire decree?
 
Infallible doctrine is not defined at the ordinary or authentic levels of magisterium. What does happen however, is that non-infallible (read: never explicitly declared to be dogma) teachings become more authoritative as they are expressed at those levels. In the case of VII, the SSPX have issues with the formulations of existing teaching, which they viewed were too loosely written and too easy to subvert in a way that would contradict Tradition. The argument then is whether those formulations are still expressions of magisterium since they still objectively express truth (most of our position) or whether they aren’t since the writers supposedly wished to push a modernest agenda by undermining the teaching (the position of the SSPX).

Additionally, the assent of faith is not the same as intellectual assent. There are different levels of authority in teachings and to each demands a different level of assent.
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
Max,
This is not exactly true the way you wrote it.

SP allows a priest to “privately” say the EF at any time. A Bishop’s permission may be needed to celebrate it publically. It depends on the Bishop.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, a priest cannot eliminate an Ordinary Form Mass for an Extraordinary Form mass if the numbers don’t work out.

For example: Lets say the church sits 500 people for Mass. The parish has 5 weekend Masses and 2500 people attend each week.

1 Mass on Saturday evening and 4 Masses on Sunday. The parish has 2 priests, and they are only allowed to celebrate a max of 2 masses a day (in that dioceses) without special permission from the Bishop.

Now, let’s assume that only 100 people want the Extraordinary Form mass.

So they presents a problem, because the only possible time slot to add another public mass (unless the bishop gives permission for a priest to celebrate 3 masses) is to add a second Saturday night mass.

However, adding a 2nd Saturday mass could become a potential problem due to weddings, funerals, and Saturday morning masses.

Also, what happens when the priest who celebrates the Latin Mass is sick, or retreat, etc? Will the parish have coverage? Because a regularly scheduled, public mass really isn’t supposed to be canceled.

However… in that same scenario, if 500 people want the Latin Mass, then it’s not an issue to convert one of the OF masses to the EF (if there is priest coverage).

From what I understand, this is why many priests are in favor of Personal Parishes dedicated to the Extraordinary Form.

I pray this helps.

God Bless
 
Where in the text of that document does it say the entire decree is nullified?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top