What Impact Has The SSPX Had On The Church?

[ProVobis]

Their excuse is that the Pope was wrong. Obviously he wasn’t because the Catholic Church thrives.

I see this argument all the time but it seems as if Protestant Churches and Muslims are thriving too. How do you explain that?

 

[mariediana]

I see this argument all the time but it seems as if Protestant Churches and Muslims are thriving too. How do you explain that?

Have you heard about the miracles attributed to Pope John Paul II? He will be a saint very quickly. Will you deny his sainthood, too?

What other proclamations from the Holy See are you going to decide aren’t to your liking? Obedience isn’t demanded of us at times when we agree with the directive. Obedience demands our faithful trust in the man Christ chose on earth to represent Him and trust that He is speaking as the Vicar of Christ. Otherwise, we’re all just pharisees.

…or in modern-day language, cafeteria Catholics.

 

[pnewton]

If you lived in those times you would be the first one to call Athanasius “disobedient” and order people to silently obey their legitimate (but Arian) bishops.

You do not know this (the amount of clairvoyance on the part of the SSPX this thread is amazing). While Athanasius was removed and restored many times, he had a more obedient actions through his trials than Lefebvre. St. Athanasius did not ordain his own bishops for his own little clan. He was fighting for a concrete reality that was being denied, the deity of Christ. Yes, I think I could recognize the difference, as I do not. Lefebvre is no Athanasius. But then I am not a member of the SSPX. Again, his example is a begging of the question, whether it is accepted or denied.

And yes, I consider the SSPX issues of much less importance. Denying the Eucharist? When has one SSPX priest ever been asked to deny the Real Presence of the Christ in the Eucharist? That would be parallel to the time of St. Athanasius. While the theology of the SSPX is not mainstream among the Church it is accepted. Pretty much everything they teach you can find someone in the Church that also believes what they do, yet remains in full communion with Rome.

Yes, there are some priests that are serious denial of Catholic truth. Some have been excommunicated. Yet a physician does not withdraw to help the sick. The prayers of the SSPX are as helpful as anything being done, and probably qualify as their greatest contribution, but they could pray while obedient to the Church. In fact, every action taken in disobedience could have been avoided and all the good works remained.

In the end, Athanasius won the day in his lifetime (another difference).

 

[pnewton]

It was Athanasius against the world. He was certainly a ‘sliver’ of the college of bishops,

Oh yes it was. The whole World of Power was, at any rate

Are you telling us you don’t know that the Arian crisis dragged on for more than a century?

Perhaps our disagreement can be seen in the changes you made to the arguments I made. I show a difference, then you change a word here or there and then you right. For example, I say a sliver of the Church, you say a sliver of the bishops (at a particular time). I say the whole world was not Arian, you say "the world of power. I say that this I say that the SSPX crisis lived longer. You point out the length of the Arian Crisis. If you were to do a legitimate comparison, you would have compared the length of Athanasius battle against Arianism (which was not a century). Arianism was around before him. Humanism was around before the SSPX.

In your desire to see a parallel, you change the differences to match. And then you suggest that I need to study more history based on this error.

 

[pnewton]

It’s amazing to witness the wrath some Catholics have towards Archbishop Lefevbre and the SSPX. You would think he was preaching against the Church, trying to legitimize liturgical abuses, attacking doctrine or dogma. From my understanding he consecrated the four bishops after a long delay from the Vatican and nearing death. Had AB Lefevbre died there would not have been a traditional bishop left to consecrate new ones.

Where is the furour over Cardinal Mahony, Richard McBrien or Hans Kung? Why aren’t they excommunicated?

For one thing, the Church does not excommunicate by popular acclaim. So furor does no equate to canonical penalty. At this point, this site does not want us calling out bishops by name. When the activities that you are referring to are referenced, there is indeed a great deal of furor. As far as wrath toward the SSPX, I encourage you not to fall into the trap of our media today and equate disagreement with wrath, anger of hatred. You are not the first to ask why the SSPX is hated by those who do not agree with the actions it has taken. Political correctness can cut both ways.

 

[Ockham]

You are not the first to ask why the SSPX is hated by those who do not agree with the actions it has taken. Political correctness can cut both ways.

Yet the hatred remains. Marie keeps making the same point over and over again. Ok, Archbishop Lefevbre consecrated four bishops without the seal of approval from the Vatican and was excommunicated for it. The excommunication has been lifted. What more is there to comment on? This intensity begs the question as to motive.

In comparison to things cardinals and bishops have done since 1988, Lefevbre’s actions were relatively minor.

 

[Tsuwano]

Yet the hatred remains. Marie keeps making the same point over and over again. Ok, Archbishop Lefevbre consecrated four bishops without the seal of approval from the Vatican and was excommunicated for it. The excommunication has been lifted. What more is there to comment on? This intensity begs the question as to motive.

There is nothing more to comment on except to note that the SSPX is not in full communion with the Church and Catholics should not associate with them until they are.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

So the crisis is over? Have you seen the recent Mahoney Mass video?

youtube.com/watch?v=nZ5it20gKqw

The consecrations were necessary to preserve a truly Catholic priesthood and Catholic Tradition. The excommunications have been remitted, so it seems ABL took the right course.

Obedience is never absolute and is a lesser virtue than Faith. Obedience can only work for the purpose of the Faith not to destroy it.

Do you seriously think if ABL consecrated one or two Bishops the reaction from Rome would not have been the same? If so you don’t comprehend the reality of the situation in '88.

The Society has not “exercised a legitimate (licit) ministry in the Church” in the eyes of the Vatican since the 1970’s. The statement by Benedict was actually in defense of the Society. Ill-intentioned Neo-Catholics with an axe to grind have taken that benign sentence in the Pope’s letter and tried to turn it into some sort of “revelation” of new condemnation. It is absurd. In the eyes of Rome, Society Bishops and priests are fully Catholic, they simply don’t yet have a juridical structure to operate under and thus are currently acting illicitly (just the same as they have since the 70’s) but validly (valid Eucharist and sacraments).

I have seen that video. Freightening.

That shows you what has happened since the Vatican II Council.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

With every post from an SSPX the pride is glaring. It is their way and no one else could possibly be right. The posts bring to mind Pontius Pilate’s “What is truth”?

The truth is with the Vicar of Christ. “He who hears you hears ME.” My diocese has had an average of 40-50 seminarians for the past three years. How many does yours have? And these seminarians are about as traditional as any priest could be.

I find it interesting that the SSPX call themselves traditional when they broke tradition by disobeying the Vicar of Christ and doing things the way THEY saw them instead of waiting for direction from Rome. Their excuse is that the Pope was wrong. Obviously he wasn’t because the Catholic Church thrives. Jesus told us that He would be with us until the ending of the world, and He’s still here on the altar every day of the week.

There is no way these negotiations with the Pope can go on until there is repentance of some kind from those who left, or at least a promise of obedience in the future.

Didn’t Pope Paul VI and everyone else involved directly in Vatican II break tradition by throwing a Mass that we had for centuries out the window and replacing it with a New Mass? Did Christ not say that His church would never change? You seem to missing the meaning of “tradition” here. The “Traditional Latin Mass” is celebrated by SSPX, the primary reason they reffer to themselves as traditional. They stuck with a tradition that everyone else had abandoned, a tradition that had nothing wrong with it all, a tradition that was the true church before Vatican II. Only God can change HIS church. No one else, not even the Pope, can make any huge changes. Even little changes would be very questionable and wrong unless they helped the Mass in some way.

SSPX does not need to repent. Archbishop LeFebvre feared punishment from God more than punishment from the Pope, which in my book will certainly make him a saint one day.

 

[At_Trent]

There is nothing more to comment on except to note that the SSPX is not in full communion with the Church and Catholics should not associate with them until they are.

That sounds strange. Catholics should not associate with Catholics ? Why do you stand in judgement and make such a statement when it has been said that attending a SSPX Mass out of spiritual hunger for the EF is permissible ?

I don’t see how one can pick on one group of Catholics who are not “going by the book”, while ignoring other groups who are not. Such as the twirly girl thing in L.A.

To do so is to promote a double standard. What you say regarding the suspensions is true, but to add judgmental comments to the fact takes it into that realm.

 

[Dempsey1919]

They stuck with a tradition that everyone else had abandoned, a tradition that had nothing wrong with it all, a tradition that was the true church before Vatican II.

It must be remembered that all Popes have the authority to change or alter the Mass. Changing the Mass does not mean that the Pope is abandoning the faith. Furthermore, the Church did not end with Vatican II. The Church will never end. The Church was the true church before Vatican II and after Vatican II.

Archbishop Lefebvre thought the liturgical reform was a disaster and I agree with him. I think the reformers went too far. I accept the fact that the Mass often requires change over time, but this should be done gradually. It was wrong to completely change the Mass.

I think the liturgical reform caused many people to lose the faith, and it caused apostasy. If the Mass could be changed, then everything else could be changed, even the faith. The Mass of Paul VI was not the cause of apostasy; but the liturgical reforms gave the impression that nothing was constant; people saw the changes and thought that doctrines could change as well; perhaps this is why many people revolted so violently against Humane Vitae?

The Tridentine Mass clearly expresses Catholic doctrine and confirms and strengthens the faith. It promotes Catholic doctrine and repels heresy. Archbishop Lefebvre knew this, and that is why he fought so hard to save it. I sincerely believe that the EF Mass has the ability to bring dissent to an end. The Catholic world would become more devout and faith would increase if all Roman Catholics attended the EF Mass. The prayers and gestures of the EF Mass would increase the faith of many people.

 

[mariediana]

The “traditional Mass” is what the Vatican Council, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, says it is. You hold on to meaningless minutia. Yes, you have beautiful golden chalices and silken chasubles. Yes, you hear the Mass in Latin instead of in the vernacular. Yes, you have lots of pomp and circumstance. And you know what? So did Henry VIII! He had even more gold and silk after he ravaged all the monasteries. I’ll bet those ceremonies were absolutely stunning!

Those of us who grew up and loved the Latin Mass missed it for many years. In fact, when I travel, I really wish it were still in Latin because it unifies us. HOWEVER, those things are incidental. The important part of the Mass is the Word and the Eucharist. THOSE have never been changed! We still have them LICITLY, yet the SSPX people chose to receive the Eucharist illicitly because their nice, comfortable surroundings were tweaked a bit.

A Catholic cannot go through his life hating other Catholics. I can imagine the disdain your chldren see as you pass one of our churches and I can hear the criticisms of the style, dress, sacred vessels in your cars as you go by. I can also imagine your children doing the same thing without even knowing why they hate such a place. It’s all very sad.

I do not attend SSPX Masses because they’re illicit. Yes, I know that if nothing else is available, I can still attend and receive the one, true Christ in the Eucharist. But why do so when we can attend a church in full communion with the Vicar of Christ, flaws and all?

Yes, we understand that there are abuses and abusers. We must pray for them. We must pray for unity among all Catholics because we’re going to need each other as our secular society removes our rights and privileges to worship as we please.

We must stop concentrating on the failings of the church and start concentrating on correcting them, but with charity.
.

This teaching was stated in its most explicit form by the First Vatican Council (1870):

“If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those things which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the pastors of the faithful; let him be anathema” (Pastor Aeternus,).Ch. III; Denz. 1831)

These same truths are reiterated by the Second Vatican Council, both in Chapter III of Lumen Gentium and in the preface to Christus Dominus.

The pope’s power comes with his office and therefore, comes directly from Christ. He is the rock on which Christ built the Church. As St. Ambrose puts it: “Where Peter is, there is the Church” (Enarratio in Psalmum xl. 30; P.L 15. 1848). Further, the pope exercises his power in his own right and not as a delegate of a council or some other group.

The pope, then, possesses supreme legislative, executive, and juridical power. Because the pope is the supreme lawgiver of the Church, he is not legally bound by past ecclesiastical laws, but by divine law alone. As the supreme Judge of the Church, he himself is Judged by nobody because there is no higher judge on earth than he. He has the right to decide all Church disputes, and there is no appeal to a higher court against the Judgment of the pope. “Roma locuta est, causa finita est” (Rome has spoken, the cause is finished) is the Catholic standard.​

Archbishop Lefebvre made three promises: (a) He promised that he would keep to what the Church has always done.

“This is why we are submissive and ready to accept everything that is in conformity with our Catholic Faith, as it has been taught for two thousand years. . .” (“Open Letter to Confused Catholics,” p. 134).

(b) He promised to obey the pope each time that the pope confirmed the tradition.

“We are attached to the pope for as long as he echoes the apostolic traditions and the teachings of all his predecessors.” (Ibid).

(c) He promised: “If a bishop breaks with Rome it will not be me.” (letter to the Abbe Georges de Nantes, dated l9th March, 1975, reprinted in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume One, pp. 50-51).

By consecrating bishops without a papal mandate, it was Archbishop Lefebvre who broke with Rome and was the innovator and Pope John Paul II who kept to what the Church has always done and confirmed the tradition.

Did not Archbishop Lefebvre go back on his word? In light of this, how can it be maintained that he was the defender of Catholic tradition?

1. Finally, the Society of St. Pius X denies that Archbishop Lefebvre was ever in a state of schism. The Society presumably accepts that there is, in fact, such a thing as schism; that there is some point when a schism is consummated. Our question for the Society and its supporters is: in their view, what exactly would Archbishop Lefebvre have to have done in order to have been in schism? What step would have put him in that position?

---

So…I cannot understand why anyone would want to affiliate himself with a founder who was in error on so many things.

Yes, I know. The article, you think, was written with another “hater.” However, I saw no hate in the article, just facts that any good Catholic recognizes. Come back and be in FULL communion with our Catholic Church and look to our Holy Father for the guidance one expects from Jesus Christ himself!

 

[pnewton]

? Did Christ not say that His church would never change?

Where did you get that? I am not familiar with any such statement.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Obviously he wasn’t because the Catholic Church thrives.

The Catholic Church is “thriving” right now?

That’s funny. JPII said it was in a state of silent apostasy! Paul VI said it was in the process of “auto-demolition”. Cardinal Ratzinger had said it was undeniable that the post VCII period had been an unfavorable one for the Church.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Have you heard about the miracles attributed to Pope John Paul II? He will be a saint very quickly. Will you deny his sainthood, too?

What other proclamations from the Holy See are you going to decide aren’t to your liking? Obedience isn’t demanded of us at times when we agree with the directive. Obedience demands our faithful trust in the man Christ chose on earth to represent Him and trust that He is speaking as the Vicar of Christ. Otherwise, we’re all just pharisees.

…or in modern-day language, cafeteria Catholics.

This non-Catholic “blind obedience” rationale is the same poison that leads well meaning Catholics to lose their faith attending the sorts of Masses in the Mahony video out of “obedience”.

Marie, would you stop praying your rosary out of obedience if your Bishop told you to?

 

[stevusmagnus]

pnewton,

Your rule is to follow legitimate authority. Following this rule and applying it, you’d be Arian in those days. Doesn’t take much clairvoyance to figure that out.

 

[Ockham]

A Catholic cannot go through his life hating other Catholics.

That’s true. So why don’t you get over your hatred towards the SSPX? You aren’t contributing anything new to this discussion, only continued attacks on a group of fellow Catholics.

 

[Lormar]

Is there still a crisis in the Church? Had you been at the same Easter Mass I was at yesterday and hadn’t been subjected to forty years of desensitizing, you’d know the answer to be an emphatic YES!!! You don’t recognize it anymore because you have absorbed it. I realized that this morning. The way the people conducted themselves yesterday was blasphemous. I said to myself, “It’s not so much the Mass as the people,” and then I realized that the Mass was precisely the reason WHY the people had become so bad.

This morning I ran into a parishioner. She thought the Mass and homily were “awesome.” She also considers herself a “conservative.” Do you know what the “homily” was about? One religion isn’t any better than another! This 71 year old woman has absolutely no idea of how much she’s been changed simply by absorbing the liberal atmosphere in the Church for the past forty-five plus years. She still thinks she is the same Catholic. She’s not. And she doesn’t even realize it.

Yesterday, if you closed your eyes, you would have thought you were in a Piano Lounge in New York City instead of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Compare this to what most SSPX folks experienced yesterday -the Haec Dies and that beautiful sequence “Victimae Paschali Laudes.” And everyone was apparently in the state of Sanctifying Grace because they all received Holy Communion.

There is a crisis. And it’s worse than ever…made so because no one recognizes it anymore so used to it you’ve all become.

 

[stevusmagnus]

The “traditional Mass” is what the Vatican Council, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, says it is.

Wrong.

You hold on to meaningless minutia. Yes, you have beautiful golden chalices and silken chasubles. Yes, you hear the Mass in Latin instead of in the vernacular. Yes, you have lots of pomp and circumstance. And you know what? So did Henry VIII! He had even more gold and silk after he ravaged all the monasteries. I’ll bet those ceremonies were absolutely stunning!

It is about the Faith, not “minutiae”.

Those of us who grew up and loved the Latin Mass missed it for many years. In fact, when I travel, I really wish it were still in Latin because it unifies us. HOWEVER, those things are incidental. The important part of the Mass is the Word and the Eucharist. THOSE have never been changed! We still have them LICITLY, yet the SSPX people chose to receive the Eucharist illicitly because their nice, comfortable surroundings were tweaked a bit.

This shows a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Mass and assumes Society faithful are so naive as to stake their lives on “having comfortable surroundings” on Sunday. This is like saying the martyrs of England were fools to die because they wanted their “comfortable” Mass instead of the Mass of Cranmer.

A Catholic cannot go through his life hating other Catholics. I can imagine the disdain your chldren see as you pass one of our churches and I can hear the criticisms of the style, dress, sacred vessels in your cars as you go by. I can also imagine your children doing the same thing without even knowing why they hate such a place. It’s all very sad.

This quote preaches against “hatred” and then rashly accuses Traditional Catholics of hate and instilling hate in their children. Who is showing hatred here? Love of the Faith is now turned to “hatred” in the liberal mind.

I do not attend SSPX Masses because they’re illicit.

I don’t attend my local Novus Ordo because it’s not Catholic.

Yes, I know that if nothing else is available, I can still attend and receive the one, true Christ in the Eucharist.

You can attend a Society Mass even if there is a Novus Ordo available.

latin-mass-society.org/perl-011803.htm

Please educate yourself and be obedient to Church. Don’t make up your own rules.

But why do so when we can attend a church in full communion with the Vicar of Christ, flaws and all?

Because the vast majority of churches “in full communion with the Vicar of Christ” conduct non-Catholic Masses riddled with inanity, novelty, abuse, error and sacrilege.

Yes, we understand that there are abuses and abusers. We must pray for them. We must pray for unity among all Catholics because we’re going to need each other as our secular society removes our rights and privileges to worship as we please.

The abuse is institutionalized now (CITH, girl altar boys, rock Masses). We must pray for them and…? Let them continue until we are slowly absorbed into their modernism as we faithfully attend Fr. Teilhard’s charismatic Mass? Yes, that’s what I thought.

We must stop concentrating on the failings of the church and start concentrating on correcting them, but with charity.

And we correct them by? Apparently giving support to them.
.

This teaching was stated in its most explicit form by the First Vatican Council (1870):

“If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those things which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the pastors of the faithful; let him be anathema” (Pastor Aeternus,).Ch. III; Denz. 1831)

This quote from VCI can only be understood in light of this unquoted VCI line…

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Vatican II nor the Pope himself can change this.

---

Archbishop Lefebvre made three promises: (a) He promised that he would keep to what the Church has always done.

“This is why we are submissive and ready to accept everything that is in conformity with our Catholic Faith, as it has been taught for two thousand years. . .” (“Open Letter to Confused Catholics,” p. 134).

(b) He promised to obey the pope each time that the pope confirmed the tradition.

“We are attached to the pope for as long as he echoes the apostolic traditions and the teachings of all his predecessors.” (Ibid).

(c) He promised: “If a bishop breaks with Rome it will not be me.” (letter to the Abbe Georges de Nantes, dated l9th March, 1975, reprinted in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume One, pp. 50-51).

By consecrating bishops without a papal mandate, it was Archbishop Lefebvre who broke with Rome and was the innovator and Pope John Paul II who kept to what the Church has always done and confirmed the tradition.

Incorrect. By consecrating Bishops he perpetuated the Church’s Tradition as was his duty as a Catholic Bishop.

 

[stevusmagnus]

1. Finally, the Society of St. Pius X denies that Archbishop Lefebvre was ever in a state of schism. The Society presumably accepts that there is, in fact, such a thing as schism; that there is some point when a schism is consummated. Our question for the Society and its supporters is: in their view, what exactly would Archbishop Lefebvre have to have done in order to have been in schism? What step would have put him in that position?

Schism is a denial of the Pope’s authority in principle. (Orthodox Churches/ Protetstant Churches) It does not consist in justified particular disobedient acts. Schism would be similar to denying your father has any authority over you as opposed to refusing to lie if he commanded you to.

---

So…I cannot understand why anyone would want to affiliate himself with a founder who was in error on so many things.

The Arian faithful in the early centuries would have said the same thing about St. Athanasius… as they followed their “obedience” into heresy.

Yes, I know. The article, you think, was written with another “hater.” However, I saw no hate in the article, just facts that any good Catholic recognizes.

You saw no hatred in presupposing Traditionalists are haters, assuming that they pass hate to their children, and then judging them for it?

Come back and be in FULL communion with our Catholic Church and look to our Holy Father for the guidance one expects from Jesus Christ himself!

We are in FULL COMMUNION with the Catholic Church and look to the united voices of 1960 years of Popes and doctrine and look with healthy suspicion on a novel mindset and program that has borne nothing but rotten fruit for 50 years.