What am I missing about the SSPX?

[bear06]

…continued

The Lefebvrite argument that Lefebvre acted under grave fear in order to resolve a state of necessity is problematical for many reasons. First of all, to reiterate the principle of c. 16 §1, laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator. In the case of Lefebvre, to sustain an argument based upon cc. 1323, 4o and 1324 §1, 5o, 8o his followers must maintain that the supreme legislator has inauthentically interpreted his own law, while Lefebvre somehow came across the authentic interpretation of what the Supreme Pontiff legislated. The contradictory nature of such a position has been noted by the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts in the following statement:

However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei] and the Decree [of excommunication against Lefebvre]. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances (cf CIC, can 1323-1324). As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of ‘serving’ the Church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.(93)

Therefore, one sees that a state of emergency cannot be invoked against the expressed judgment of the Holy Father, especially on such an important issue as the consecration of bishops. One also sees that the mind of the legislator does not favor the Lefebvrite argument. Therefore, on the basis of c. 16 §1, Lefebvre’s followers cannot sustain an argument in favor of the illicit consecration of bishops based upon cc. 1323, 4o and 1324 §1, 5o, 8o, for such an argument ignores the authentic interpretation of the supreme legislator regarding the content of his legislation.

Yet as most of Lefebvre’s followers reject the interpretation of the Supreme Pontiff with regards to the latae sententiae excommunication of Lefebvre, the situation must be examined in light of canonical tradition. For as c. 6 §2 dictates, “to the extent that the canons of this [1983] Code reproduce the former law, they are to be assessed in the light also of canonical tradition.” Under the pontificate of Pius XII, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office decreed that, “Episcopus, cuiusvis ritus vel dignitatis, aliquem, neque ab Apostolica Sede nominatum neque ab Eadem expresse confirmaum, consecraus in Episcopum, et qui consecrationem recipit, etsi metu gravi coacti ([c*.] 2229 §3:3o [CIC/17]), incurrunt ipso facto in excommunicationem Apostolicae Sedi specialissimo modo reservatam.”(94) In short, the former law decrees that grave fear does not mitigate from the penalty of excommunication when one consecrates bishops without papal mandate - a fact which also refutes the Lefebvrite argument that the “1917 [Code of] Canon Law inflicted only a suspension” for the act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate.(95) Therefore, under pre-conciliar legislation the consecration of bishops without papal mandate, even when coerced by grave fear, did not mitigate one from incuring a latae sententiae excommunication.

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

So in other words, you have no source for it.

Excellent point.

Except the fact that you missed it completely. The point is that you listen to the ruling in place unless you’re going to a hypocrit later.

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 don’t throw out everything he says. I throw out the illicit actions he took. Big difference.

How so?

He oringinally said that SSPX **did **believe the three points.

 

[catharina]

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?

holden, to the best of my knowledge:

• While stating ‘compliance’ with Vatican II, their founder Marcel Lefebvre proclaimed Pope John Paul II to be guilty of heresy.
• While claiming to follow Pope Benedict XVI, they await his definitive reversal of the formally recognized and proclaimed excommunication of their founder Marcel Lefebvre. With that reversal not coming, it seems a likely eventuality that sspx will make a formal break with Rome.
• Although sspx has not been declared in schism (meaning its priest-members), they continue to follow the direction of their excommunicated bishop-leader (one of four bishops who are in schism and who were excommunicated with M. Lefebvre). sspx has been cautioned about this.

Will the entire society be excommunicated or will it return in humility and obedience to union with Rome? Time will tell. Are you “wrong?” If you’re considering sspx to be worthy of your attention or devotion, I am certain that you can spare yourself that concern.

 

[Dioscorus]

Ahh. : “Vatican II defined no doctrine and is often described as pastoral in nature.”

That is ‘code’ for SSPX dogma. It is to get people to ignore the Second Vatican Council, or to have it rolled back.

Vat 2 was a teaching Council, so as Catholics, we have an obligation to listen to it.

 

[bear06]

That is ‘code’ for SSPX dogma. It is to get people to ignore the Second Vatican Council, or to have it rolled back.

Vat 2 was a teaching Council, so as Catholics, we have an obligation to listen to it.

Well actually, that is a quote from the Pope. That said, it has been taken to mean something outside of the scope of what it says buy radical traditionalists. It never says that it wasn’t doctrinal. It just said no new dogma was defined. Pastoral doesn’t exclude doctrine.

 

[rpp]

That is ‘code’ for SSPX dogma. It is to get people to ignore the Second Vatican Council, or to have it rolled back.

Vat 2 was a teaching Council, so as Catholics, we have an obligation to listen to it.

No post that I have ever made should be interpreted to infer that I think that Vatican II should be abrogated or ignored. I agree with you that we do have an obligation to listen to.

I will state unequivocally that Vatican carries the full magisterial authority of the Church. The fact that it appears to have defined no new doctrine is not material to the fact that the documents produced are infallible in nature.

 

[latinmasslover]

…continued

So in other words, you have no source for it.

I know I’d like an official document saying that an official document will cover every single thing happening in Rome.

Except the fact that you missed it completely. The point is that you listen to the ruling in place unless you’re going to a hypocrit later.

No, I got your point. I just chose to recognize another.

I don’t throw out everything he says. I throw out the illicit actions he took. Big difference.

I didn’t think you did, but there is a certain other person, who shall remain unnamed, that does all the time, sort of a papal-thumper, for lack of a better word (of course, this person seems sedevacantist regarding every pope before V-II).

 

[richardwy]

Is it just me? I have to force myself to read some of these threads. Looking for something other than folks firing oblique shots across each other’s bows.

I do find posters whose words I want to read again. Not so much because I necessarily agree with them or not, but because they come off a thoughtful and desire to be obedient to the Church.

But my it’s such awful going.

Ugh.

 

[bear06]

I know I’d like an official document saying that an official document will cover every single thing happening in Rome.

It would be nice to have some source for your assumption. I mean, I could say that the entire curia is planning on going to Disneyland, I’m sure that there would be no document on that either but it’s highly doubtful I wouldn’t have a source…

I didn’t think you did, but there is a certain other person, who shall remain unnamed, that does all the time, sort of a papal-thumper, for lack of a better word (of course, this person seems sedevacantist regarding every pope before V-II).

 

[bear06]

Is it just me? I have to force myself to read some of these threads. Looking for something other than folks firing oblique shots across each other’s bows.

I do find posters whose words I want to read again. Not so much because I necessarily agree with them or not, but because they come off a thoughtful and desire to be obedient to the Church.

But my it’s such awful going.

Ugh.

 

[piouswoman]

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?

Unless you research and read for yourself the history behind the SSPX, you will never get anything but the opinion of OTHERS. And most of those opinions are based on misinformation, bias, or uneducated guesses. I suggest you read the historical facts of the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre, and draw your own educated conclusions. Don’t expect to get the truth or to be educated in one thread, on a forum like this.

 

[latin_rite]

If they are so “evil” then why is it their mass is valid?

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

If they are so “evil” then why is it their mass is valid?

Their mass is valid because they have validly ordained priests and bishops, and they use the correct form and matter, with the correct intention.

But, that doesn’t mean they’re in union with Rome. Their relationship is, at best, irregular.

As for “evil” - I think that’s a pretty strong word. But, some of the things I’ve seen around the SSPX are absolutely evil.

 

[lightsabre]

In a Catholic Herald investigation published today, Bishop Richard Williamson, a senior English prelate of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), is exposed as a poisonous anti-Semite and 9/11 conspiracy theorist who believes that Jews are working on behalf of Antichrist.

Scandalously, the SSPX a breakaway Catholic sect founded by the ultra-traditionalist French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is supporting Bishop Williamson. Moreover, a spokesman for the Society has refused to condemn The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious anti-Semitic forgery circulated by the Nazis and endorsed on the record by Bishop Williamson.

Here is the Herald’s report, which is based on our tape-recorded transcript of an interview with Bishop Williamson, one of four priests ordained bishop by Lefebvre in 1988 and excommunicated by John Paul II as a result.

Williamson, 67, a former Anglican educated at Winchester and Cambridge, has left his anti-Semitic rantings all over the internet. In this pastoral letter, for example, he writes: “However, until [the Jews] re-discover their true Messianic vocation, they may be expected to continue fanatically agitating, in accordance with their false messianic vocation of Jewish world-dominion, to prepare the Anti-Christ’s throne in Jerusalem.”

You can see and hear Williamson in action on YouTube, in a series of films in which he claims that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled explosions. This is a man who never met a conspiracy theory he didn’t like. Yet, for 20 years, the Society of St Pius X has afforded him a place of honour as one of its four senior bishops.

The SSPX is currently negotiating with the Vatican about returning to full Communion with the Holy See. It should have expelled Williamson before the talks started. Now it is too late.

 

[ProVobis]

Does Bishop Williamson speak for all those SSPX priests and congregationists who attend their masses? I mean, so what about his personal opinions and positions? Why should everyone else be penalized?

 

[maurin]

Does Bishop Williamson speak for all those SSPX priests and congregationists who attend their masses? I mean, so what about his personal opinions and positions? Why should everyone else be penalized?

When the Bishop in California gave Holy Communion to drag queens dressed as nuns and then the episode offered as proof of the decadency of the Novus Ordo Church the liberals ranted that one bad apple doesn’t spoil the barrel.

Go figure.

 

[thistle]

When the Bishop in California gave Holy Communion to drag queens dressed as nuns and then the episode offered as proof of the decadency of the Novus Ordo Church the liberals ranted that one bad apple doesn’t spoil the barrel.

Go figure.

There is no such thing as the Novus Ordo Church. There is only the Catholic Church which offers NO and TLM Mass, both being valid.

 

[Seamus_L]

You’d be better off attending an SSPX parish then quite a few within the Church as it is, but fortunately that is become less and less a necessity now as we witness the growth of Traditional Catholic parish. My advice to anyone considering joining the SSPX would be to go to your nearest parish offering the Latin Mass and become active in reclaiming our church.

 

[Jacafamala]

There is no such thing as the Novus Ordo Church. There is only the Catholic Church which offers NO and TLM Mass, both being valid.

You’re right; we have one Church, but the two forms really are such a dichotomy. They are like two whole different cultures that can’t really very easily be reconciled. The SSPX is caught on the fringe of the traditional Church, but the society does have a role to play within the larger Church. If it weren’t so, the Holy Father would never have offered them an olive branch.

 

[maurin]

There is no such thing as the Novus Ordo Church. There is only the Catholic Church which offers NO and TLM Mass, both being valid.

Forgive me thistle, you are quite right to make this correction.

Consider my statement amended to “the decadency of the liberal modernist Bishops who have, in the spirit of a false ecumenism, watered down the Faith in the attempt to make it more attractive to those who continue to hate It in spite of the attempts to make it more attractive to themby these liberal modernist Bishops, and then who mock those same Bishops for not being true to the Faith they claim to profess.”

 

[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?

They don’t worship the ground John Paul II walked on. That simple.