What am I missing about the SSPX?

[rpp]

There is a great movie that can be seen as a parallel to this. It is called the Caine Mutiny featuring Humphrey Bogart, Van Johnson Fred MacMurray, Robert Francis and Jose Ferrar. Watch the movie and mentally replace the names of the Characters.

Capt. Queeg (Bogart) = Pope John Paul II
Lt. Kieffer (MacMurray) = Hans Kung, Gregory Baum or the liberal fruitcake of your choice.
Lt. Cmdr. Steve Maryk (Van Johnson) = Archbishop Lefebvre
Lt. Keith (Francis) = lay SSPX members
Lt. Greenwald JAG (Ferrar) = Cardinal Ratzinger when Prefect of the CDF. (okay, the analogy breaks down here a bit,but you will get at the very end.)

Such analogies help me to understand difficult situations. But DO NOT ignore the closing scene with Greenwald, Kieffer, Keith and Maryk.

In making the above post, I made a very grievous error. I compared the fictional Capt. Queeg to the eminent and holy Pope John Paul II. That I did this without explanation was not good. What I had in mind when I did this was that Queeg was the legitimate authority on the fictional ship USS Caine. It was a very serious lapse in judgment not to mention the limits of this comparison. I certainly never meant to imply that the holy Pope John Paul II suffered from any defect in character of any kind.

My humble apologies to all whom I offended.

 

[rpp]

And you think that the SSPX is going to save the Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, and has a billion souls - SSPX is going to save them in their schismatic state?

Why are we even bother to answer to nonsense?

Your Abbott

The SSPX has no mission from Jesus Christ. They are not in a position to save the Roman Catholic Church from falling over the precipice. The SSPX has already fallen over the edge. They are ‘outside the Church’ where there is no salvation.

We know what the issues are. You are a sheep in wolves clothing. You are a supporter of SSPX. How can you be called a Forum Supporter?

These long defenses telling us what the issues are? We know what the issues are. SSPX is outside the Church. Period. And you have embraced them.

Curious that you responded twice to the same post of mine.

To paraphrase Samuel Clemons, rumors of my support of or affiliation with SSPX are greatly exaggerated. In anticipation of your next post, I am not a Mason either.

As for being a “Forum Supporter”, that is because I donate money to Catholic Answers Forum each month. I claim “Radio Club Supporter” because I also donate money to their radio ministry.

The fact that I can speak logically, calmly, charitably about the terrible situation with the SSPX should not be interpreted as supporting the group. Just because I am able to speak without hurling invectives and using pejorative terms when referencing SSPX does not mean I support their actions. (For example, posts like this.) You see, I think using such language is not helpful to a reasoned discussion.

Additionally, the fact that I do not condemn them, only their actions, and want them back in the Church, is a charitable attitude. I want all people to come to the Catholic Church. Don’t you? The Catholic Church needs orthodox groups to balance out some of the nuttiness we see in some areas today.

As a guideline, if you feel angry, you should probably not post. Additionally, I would suggest that you read my posts. A more complete reading would have made my intent and feelings clear. You seem to be the only one who feels, incorrectly by the way, that I support what SSPX has done.

As to your invectives regarding SSPX. On June 3, 1993 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under then Cardinal Ratzinger, explicitly stated that SSPX is not in formal schism, but their relationship with the Holy See is “irregular”. (The Vatican web site search engine is down so I cannot get the document. The best I can do is this article discussing it. See here.)

Thus, while many people do use the word “schism” to describe SSPX, it is not accurate. Their priests are suspended, their Masses are valid, but not licit, priests cannot administer sacraments, but they are validly ordained.

Truth is always better than rhetoric. Truth spoken with charity is what the great holy father, Pope John Paul II asked all of to do.

 

[hasikelee]

hasikelee;3425351:

Well, there are wackos in every group. I’m just basing it on what I’ve read in the SSPX writings themselves. I’ve never, personally, run into an SSPXer who wanted the Church to die. They just want it it how they

think it ought to be. It’s pretty much the same with every schismatic organization. They think their way is the best.

But, dang it, I’m telling you, that Pope don’t know nothing!

Your words are wise. I see this happen at work, too. Such as when someone is deeply and openly hating a certain policy of the company. Well, gee, Mr.-I’ve-been-in-this-department-for-15-years-without-moving-or-even-getting-a-degree, why don’t you go be the CEO since you know it all.

 

[rpp]

This post is scandalous. Attacking the Holy Father as Queeg, and the other members of the cast.

It is clear now who you are and what you stand for. You should change your ID immediately.

Yes, you are right. I did make a very serious mistake in not properly qualifying what I wrote when comparing Capt. Queeg to the wonderful and holy Pope John Paul II. Please see post #41 for a more thorough explanation. As well as an apology.

As a point, all analogies have failings. The moral of the story, and I do not want to spoil the movie for those who have not seen it, is that one must submit to legitimate authority. Mutiny is never

 

[bear06]

Whether SSPX believes this or not I do not know, but I do not think it matters. However, I believe that statement, but it is not my argument. The statement I have seen in many documents described the council as “Pastoral, not doctrinal.”

What documents? SSPX documents? I don’t think you’ll find one Church document (or even comment from the Holy See) that says it’s not doctrinal. What is said was that it defined no new doctrine. This is quite different from saying that it’s not doctrinal.

 

[rpp]

What documents? SSPX documents? I don’t think you’ll find one Church document (or even comment from the Holy See) that says it’s not doctrinal. What is said was that it defined no new doctrine. This is quite different from saying that it’s not doctrinal.

Ahh. :newidea: Okay. I understand the distinction you are trying to make. You are correct. What I should have said (and what I meant somewhere in the dim recesses of my tiny brain) “Vatican II defined no doctrine and is often described as pastoral in nature.”

Thank you for helping me clarify that.

By the way, I generally do not like to use documents written by members or supporters of SSPX. I have encountered so many of dubious accuracy that I feel I have to fact-check every line in every one; I simply do not have time or patience to do that. Instead, I just avoid them. Except, of course, when I am trying to learn about what it is they are saying.

 

[bear06]

As to your invectives regarding SSPX. On June 3, 1993 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under then Cardinal Ratzinger, explicitly stated that SSPX is not in formal schism, but their relationship with the Holy See is “irregular”. (The Vatican web site search engine is down so I cannot get the document. The best I can do is this article discussing it. See here.)

Actually what he said was a whole lot different. The letter you were quoting was relating to the “Hawaii Six” not the SSPX.

not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism. Since [the Petitioner] did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the latae sententiae penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop [excommunicating these Catholics] lacks the precondition on which it is founded. This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu.

Thus, while many people do use the word “schism” to describe SSPX, it is not accurate. Their priests are suspended, their Masses are valid, but not licit, priests cannot administer sacraments, but they are validly ordained.

Not quite correct. The SSPX is a schismatic organization. Their hierarchy has been declared to be in schism. The priest have not but, according to the Ecclesia Dei Commission, are probably schismatic after so much time.

latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm

With regard to the schismatic Society of St. Pius X we can say the following:

The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See and also because those ordained after the episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop. They are also excommunicated if they adhere to the schism. While up to now the Holy See has not defined what this adherence consists in, one could point to a wholesale condemnation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council and a refusal to be in communion with it. Further, it is likely that these priests, after eleven years in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, effectively adhere to the schism.

Truth is always better than rhetoric. Truth spoken with charity is what the great holy father, Pope John Paul II asked all of to do.

Agreed. Conspiracy theories and accusations on both side are loopy. We should just be arguing the facts of the case.

 

[bear06]

Ahh. :newidea: Okay. I understand the distinction you are trying to make. You are correct. What I should have said (and what I meant somewhere in the dim recesses of my tiny brain) “Vatican II defined no doctrine and is often described as pastoral in nature.”

Thank you for helping me clarify that.

By the way, I generally do not like to use documents written by members or supporters of SSPX. I have encountered so many of dubious accuracy that I feel I have to fact-check every line in every one; I simply do not have time or patience to do that. Instead, I just avoid them. Except, of course, when I am trying to learn about what it is they are saying.

Yes, I agree. I do not like to use them either and if you’ll notice my signature, I agree with the fact checking. That said, I do think it important to know their stance to combat it.

 

[rpp]

Actually what he said was a whole lot different. The letter you were quoting was relating to the “Hawaii Six” not the SSPX.

** Not quite correct. The SSPX is a schismatic organization. Their hierarchy has been declared to be in schism. The priest have not but, according to the Ecclesia Dei Commission, are probably schismatic after so much time.**

latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm

Agreed. Conspiracy theories and accusations on both side are loopy. We should just be arguing the facts of the case.

Thank you very much for the clarifications. Especially the part in bold.

By the way, the excommunications of Archbishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln Nebraska of the parishioners and clergy of a local SSPX chapel were never challenged, to my knowledge.

 

[rpp]

Actually what he said was a whole lot different. The letter you were quoting was relating to the “Hawaii Six” not the SSPX.

Not quite correct. The SSPX is a schismatic organization. Their hierarchy has been declared to be in schism. The priest have not but, according to the Ecclesia Dei Commission, are probably schismatic after so much time.

latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm

Thank you very much for the clarifications. Especially the part in bold.

By the way, unlike those in Hawaii, the excommunications of Archbishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln Nebraska of the parishioners and clergy of a local SSPX chapel were never challenged, to my knowledge.

 

[ProVobis]

Say, for example, that the four SSPX bishops are never formally admitted back to the Catholic Church. Can an SSPX priest appeal to Rome to be out of suspension? Or does he need to find another bishop to sponsor him? Seems as if the MP has made it very easy for him to say the Latin Mass and still be in full communion with the Pope. Or is there hesitation since he feels he may have to make some Novus Ordo compromises? Opinions?

 

[Chuck_H]

In making the above post, I made a very grievous error. I compared the fictional Capt. Queeg to the eminent and holy Pope John Paul II. That I did this without explanation was not good. What I had in mind when I did this was that Queeg was the legitimate authority on the fictional ship USS Caine. It was a very serious lapse in judgment not to mention the limits of this comparison. I certainly never meant to imply that the holy Pope John Paul II suffered from any defect in character of any kind.

My humble apologies to all whom I offended.

Don’t worry about it. Captain Queeg suffered from battle fatigue not a defect in character and Pope John Paul II probably felt a little battle fatigued as well. To his credit he never tried to hide his age problems from anyone.

 

[rpp]

Say, for example, that the four SSPX bishops are never formally admitted back to the Catholic Church. Can an SSPX priest appeal to Rome to be out of suspension? Or does he need to find another bishop to sponsor him? Seems as if the MP has made it very easy for him to say the Latin Mass and still be in full communion with the Pope. Or is there hesitation since he feels he may have to make some Novus Ordo compromises? Opinions?

While I am not certain about the process, the Society of the Good Shepherd received Papal approval a few years ago. (Sorry I cannot recall what it is called when that happens.) It was started by former members of SSPX and many speculate it was granted official status as a means of inviting priests caught up in the whole SSPX mess back into full communion with the Church and normalize their status.

Here is an article. cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46364

 

[ghost8108]

I fear the words of this said “Abbott”. SSPX does recognize Vatican 2 they just don’t condone it, nor do they condemn it, your mistaking them for that other group of Priest’s that were tossed of the society back in the 80s These traditionalist’s Hate, and I do mean Hate the Pope, and they condemn Vatican 2, And all it’s teachings.
SSPX prays for our Holy Father, Holy Mother the Church, and all who live and practice within her.
I am a saved soul of SSPX,as a child I left the Catholic Church, during Vatican 2’s second decade in existance, and by the grace of God my father died with the Latin rite, and my whole family adopted the traditional faith, after leaving the modern church, I have had to leave the SSPX, not by choice, but because my job has me living in central Ohio, where there is no SSPX church, but in retaliation to this so called Abbott, who has so much contempt for the SSPX. I just want him and all to know that a SSPX Priest directed me to Holy Family Church, in Columbus, Ohio. That is an Archdiocese sanctioned church, that celebrates the Latin Mass. I have been attending Holy Family for over 3 years now. thanks to the SSPX.

 

[ProVobis]

rpp, thanks for that bit of information. At least it sounds as if there is hope, after all. It would be, of course, ideal if these priests could still stay in their current SSPX parish but these, of course, may have to be compromised. A lot of the buildings didn’t come cheap and church property would probably be a major issue.

 

[latinmasslover]

I don’t understand why everyone hates them so much. What do they do that is wrong. I could see how they are annoying if they have a “im better than you” attitude, however what do they do that’s wrong. I don’t understand. The way I see it:

• They follow Vatican II
• They follow Pope Benedict XVI
• They are not in schism.

Am I wrong about something?

The Archbishop ordained 4 bishops against the wishes of the Pope. Many consider his reasons invalid, even though the New Code of Canon Law does not. Anyway, John Paul II said that the act of disobedience was an act of schism, and the truth of this is being debated in Rome now.

Some “SSPXers” are extreme, by:
Attacking the Pope, rather than specific unorthodox words/actions
Attacking the Mass, rather than the Rite
Some do make the Archbishop into a mini-Pope, so to speak, taking every word he says as Gospel
Not praising the good the Pope is trying to do, just ranting about how slow he’s going about it

There’s probably more that turn people away, but these are just a few things that I’ve noticed and do not like, especially since I’m very pro-SSPX.

Your three points are not incorrect, unless of course, you look only to the extremists.

 

[latinmasslover]

I fear the words of this said “Abbott”. SSPX does recognize Vatican 2 they just don’t condone it, nor do they condemn it, your mistaking them for that other group of Priest’s that were tossed of the society back in the 80s These traditionalist’s Hate, and I do mean Hate the Pope, and they condemn Vatican 2, And all it’s teachings.
SSPX prays for our Holy Father, Holy Mother the Church, and all who live and practice within her.
I am a saved soul of SSPX,as a child I left the Catholic Church, during Vatican 2’s second decade in existance, and by the grace of God my father died with the Latin rite, and my whole family adopted the traditional faith, after leaving the modern church, I have had to leave the SSPX, not by choice, but because my job has me living in central Ohio, where there is no SSPX church, but in retaliation to this so called Abbott, who has so much contempt for the SSPX. I just want him and all to know that a SSPX Priest directed me to Holy Family Church, in Columbus, Ohio. That is an Archdiocese sanctioned church, that celebrates the Latin Mass. I have been attending Holy Family for over 3 years now. thanks to the SSPX.

DEO GRATIAS! I know what you mean. When I came back into the Church, after study my thoughts were “Where the heck is the Catholic Church?!” Thank God for the SSPX, what an inspiration that there existed those who were willing to undergo whatever was necessary for the Lord and His flock. If it wasn’t for them, I would’ve left again and, likely, not ever come back. The Church today is Calvary all over again.

 

[bear06]

QUOTE=latinmasslover;3428904]The Archbishop ordained 4 bishops against the wishes of the Pope. Many consider his reasons invalid,

Many or few don’t matter, what the Church considers invalid does.

even though the New Code of Canon Law does not.

Now you have the authority to intepret and apply canon law? Lefebvre evoked the necessity clause and that was rejected. Just because someone claims necessity, doesn’t mean they actually have it.

Anyway, John Paul II said that the act of disobedience was an act of schism, and the truth of this is being debated in Rome now.

What’s your source for that. Again, there is no official document saying that. There isn’t even a special commission called to discuss the issue. Until there is, it’s quite unwise to put our eggs in the opposing basket. If (and I know people like to deal with this if so that’s why I’m addressing it) the SSPX was declared to never be in schism then I’m pretty darn sure that the SSPX supporters are going to scream from the rooftops that we have to obey the current teaching of the Holy See and that anyone who doesn’t is wrong which is rather hypocritical since, at this point, everyone is saying we can ignore it now.

Some “SSPXers” are extreme, by:
Attacking the Pope, rather than specific unorthodox words/actions
Attacking the Mass, rather than the Rite
Some do make the Archbishop into a mini-Pope, so to speak, taking every word he says as Gospel
Not praising the good the Pope is trying to do, just ranting about how slow he’s going about it

Well, we’re in agreement here although I think that even those who aren’t overboard do far more than attack his words and actions. They attack his teachings and the teachings of VII that he has upheld.

Your three points are not incorrect, unless of course, you look only to the extremists.

I’d agree with you but I think that’s because you read the post wrong.

 

[latinmasslover]

Many or few don’t matter, what the Church considers invalid does.

Now you have the authority to intepret and apply canon law? Lefebvre evoked the necessity clause and that was rejected. Just because someone claims necessity, doesn’t mean they actually have it.

Does not Canon Law cover the claim, even though the necessity may not have truly existed?

What’s your source for that. Again, there is no official document saying that. There isn’t even a special commission called to discuss the issue. Until there is, it’s quite unwise to put our eggs in the opposing basket.

I didn’t know that documents were issued for every single act or consideration of Rome.

If (and I know people like to deal with this if so that’s why I’m addressing it) the SSPX was declared to never be in schism then I’m pretty darn sure that the SSPX supporters are going to scream from the rooftops that we have to obey the current teaching of the Holy See and that anyone who doesn’t is wrong which is rather hypocritical since, at this point, everyone is saying we can ignore it now.

Excellent point. For now, all I have to say is that I hope this is a lesson for future popes to discourage rash judgments.

Well, we’re in agreement here although I think that even those who aren’t overboard do far more than attack his words and actions. They attack his teachings and the teachings of VII that he has upheld.

What can I say except: we’re not perfect. Many throw out everything the Archbishop says, not caring if it’s true, simply because the Pope excommunicated him. Many traditional Catholics do the same thing with the Pope, throw out everything because of some questionable statements/actions. It’s not right in either case, but I hope it’s at least understandable (I’m not making an excuse).

I’d agree with you but I think that’s because you read the post wrong.

How so?

 

[bear06]

Does not Canon Law cover the claim, even though the necessity may not have truly existed?

Absolutely, that said, you lose that claim when the Supreme Legilator has told you that necessity doesn’t exist. One is either going to listen to the Supreme Legislator or one is not. You do realize that Lefebvre had approval for one bishop to be ordained on August 15th of that year whether it was done by him or by some other bishop (which was the answer to the Lefebvre dying before it was done)?

Pete Vere has gone through why this canoically doesn’t apply using that pesky canon law stuff. Here it is:

Yet in the period after Lefebvre’s excommunication many of his followers still dispute, both in print and in public debate, the validity of his excommunication because they claim that in consecrating bishops without papal mandate, he was acting under the compulsion of grave fear in a state of emergency,(91) as provided for in cc. 1323, 4o and 1324 §1, 5o, 8o. The first canon cited by Lefebvre’s apologists, c. 1323, 4o, states: