What Impact Has The SSPX Had On The Church?

[numealinesimpet]

This shows their unbelievable pride in assuming they know more than the Vicar of Christ. Archbishop Lefebvre OWED Pope John Paul II, who is Christ on earth, absolute obedience. Just as Eve thought she knew better, so did Lefebvre. This is a classic case of the sin of presumption.

Well, we could discuss the case of Adam and Eve … according to S. Paul, Eve was deceived, but Adam was not. He went along with the sin, against his better judgment. The sin of Eve was pride, but the sin of Adam was sloth.

But to comment on your posting: the position you put seems to be a very common one, but it is based on a misunderstanding of the true Catholic position on Obedience (not to mention making unwarranted assumptions about the state of Mgr Lefebvre’s soul.) I really do wonder whether people who speak like this have studied the case at all deeply. The info. is by now all over the public forum. Mgr Lefebvre was treated outrageously badly by the Vatican over a period of decades, and so were the SSPX. The double standards entailed in being generous and charitable to everybody outside the church, up to and including Fire-Worshippers at the Assisi meeting, while denying it to “Traditionalists”, was harming the Church’s credibility, as was evidenced by many non-Catholic commentators.

But on the topic of Obedience:
Interestingly, the Sedevacs are using precisely the same argument as the Catholics who reject the SSPX out of hand. Indeed, they make the same error, based on a misunderstanding of the definitions and limits of true obedience. When I say this I am not imputing bad motives to anybody.

The clearest statement of this is to be found in S. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (II-II-104 ), where he discusses it with his usual thoroughness:

Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?
Objection 1. It seems that subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things.
…
But on the other hand, It is written (Acts 5:29): “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.
…
Reply to Objection 1. When the Apostle says “in all things,” he refers to matters within the sphere of a father’s or master’s authority.
Reply to Objection 2. Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.
Reply to Objection 3. Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.
Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.

.

It is clear that some believe that all obedience must be what S. Thomas calls ‘indiscreet obedience’. Thus they paint themselves into a corner: The “Obey the Pope absolutely” Catholics sometimes find themselves trying to justify the unjustifiable, while the Sedevacs lose faith in the papacy altogether. It is the so-called Traditional Catholics who, in following correct Catholic teaching, are able to find their way through the post-Vatican II confusion.

 

[mariediana]

Source? I thought the pope was Christ’s representative on Earth.

Have you never heard the term Alter Christus? Meaning “another Christ”? The Pope and all the priests are Alter Christus.

“What you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. What you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Alter Christus.

 

[Ockham]

That’s a term most commonly used in reference to the priesthood, of which Archbishop Lefebvre was a member. Perhaps your rage against the SSPX clouded your choice of words. It is also a term the Protestants love to use against us so if you are going to use it you should do so properly and know how to explain it.

 

[Dempsey1919]

On one hand, we have well-known dissident Bishops and priests who, despite spreading heresy and causing scandal, are able to exercise legitimate ministry within the Church. Many of these individuals constantly refer to the “Spirit of Vatican II” in order to justify their positions. They claim to believe in Vatican II, but they do not implement the mandates of the Council; just look at the way the seminaries are operated (as somebody already mentioned.) Then there is the SSPX. The Society is widely slandered by many within the Church; they are labelled disobedient schismatics. They are labelled disobedient because they refuse to accept certain interpretations of Vatican II; they are labelled disobedient because they reject the false “spirit of Vatican II.”

The supporters of the Spirit of Vatican II are against the real Vatican II. They have hijacked the Council, and their actions are contrary to Council mandates. Despite this, they still exercise legitimate ministry within the Church. The SSPX, because of their refusal to accept the faulty interpretations of the spirit of Vatican II, exercise no legitimate ministry within the Church. The dissidents are able to maintain their positions within the Church because they pay lip-service to Vatican II. The SSPX are outcasts because they refuse to pay lip service to false interpretations of Vatican II.

In the end, the actions of the SSPX will be vindicated because they will help rid the Church of the false interpretation of Vatican II. It is not fair to label the SSPX disobedient for rejecting false interpretations of the Council while saying nothing about dissident priests and Bishops who only pay lip service to the Council.

 

[pnewton]

On one hand, we have well-known dissident Bishops and priests who, despite spreading heresy and causing scandal, are able to exercise legitimate ministry within the Church.

There are also dissident Bishops who spread heresy and scandal who have been excommunicated.

There are also priests who promote and celebrate the TLM, who hold to a very traditional understanding of Vatican II who are able to exercise legitimate ministry within the CHurch.

Neither of these four groups, the two I mention, the you mention, and the topic at hand, have any bearing on the other, except to show that one can be far one way or the other, one can be separated or united to the Church.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Neither of these four groups, the two I mention, the you mention, and the topic at hand, have any bearing on the other, except to show that one can be far one way or the other, one can be separated or united to the Church.

They may not have any bearing on each other, but I object to the fact that the SSPX is criticised far more than the others. It just seems that a lot of Catholics are hypocritical in their views about the SSPX; and this hypocrisy seems to colour their opinions of the impact the SSPX has had on the Church.

I think the impact of the SSPX has been great; but I think the impact they will have in the future will be far greater. The SSPX will be remembered for what they do in the future.

 

[Timothysis]

It was his immediate predecessors who started the confusion to begin with. New springtime indeed. Yeah, I guess Lefebvre’s really the evil one here, trying to stick with what works and all…

Ah, yes, so it is really Pope John Paul’s fault, not disobedient bishops…okie dokie.

 

[Ockham]

Tim, are you surprised to find defenders of Archbishop Lefebvre in the “Traditional Catholic” forum? Is it any wonder people here believe the TLM is more reverent than the Novus Ordo?

 

[Timothysis]

Tim, are you surprised to find defenders of Archbishop Lefebvre in the “Traditional Catholic” forum? Is it any wonder people here believe the TLM is more reverent than the Novus Ordo?

Ockham, I am convinced now more than ever that many of the adherents of the TLM are more about the rituals and the language than they are about what the Mass is. I am not insinuating that those who favor the EF are not true, sincere and devoted Catholics; on the contrary, I think very much that they are. However, when I see the seething and the hostility to the OF by some here, the writings of the SSPX against it, and the many claims against it (written by protestant ministers, pushed by “liberals” and “modernists”) I have to wonder what, exactly, is at the heart of the issue. My parents, their families and friends who grew with the latin Mass have never, never voiced the issues that are voiced here. As it is, the only person I know who attends the EF exclusively is my neighbor who is a Catholic convert and who once belonged (and may still belong) to a group who would write letters to Rome every time they would see something that they didn’t like (sound familiar?). I once mentioned to a priest who works with my sister how some people believe that you aren’t really practicing the faith unless you are attending the TLM and praying in Latin. He said in reply, “the Church is only as small as people make it.” I believe that there is a lot of wisdom in what he said.

Also, while there has been more than enough scorn, ridicule and hostility towards the OF here, I have never witnessed the same said about the EF. For myself, I don’t have a problem at all with the TLM and hope that it grows and endures forever, for it is a part of the classic Traditions of the Church. Having said that, I don’t think that it is any more efficacious than any other form; how can it be? Christ is either present in the Eucharist or he isn’t. It isn’t, as another poster once said, that the EF "makes more joo joo than the OF." If any of us could truly understand the presence of Christ in the Eucharist we wouldn’t be arguing about any of this.

Lastly, I will say to you what I said to one of the moderators who suggested that I didn’t “belong” in the Traditional Catholicism forum. I am a Catholic. I was born Catholic, raised Catholic and practice the Catholic faith as my parents and their families before them. If there is a suggestion that those who attend the OF are not “Traditional” Catholics, then the forum titled should be changed to something more reflective of this perception. Not directed at you, but it is a very arrogant mind to decide who is and who isn’t a Traditional Catholic.

Incidentally, I would be more surprised to find members here who are defenders of the Church than I would be of Archbishop Lefebvre.

 

[Ockham]

Ockham, I am convinced now more than ever that many of the adherents of the TLM are more about the rituals and the language than they are about what the Mass is

Well, I hope you can search your heart and open you mind as I will too. It is exactly why things are done the way they are in the EF that makes them important: more Catholic theology and practices. I’ve seen some people who seem more interested in ‘smells and bells’ but the majority understand why the Mass is constructed the way it is.

The direct correlation I see is the removal of prayers, reduction in rubics, simplification of ritual, and redirected focus from God to man combined with a near absence of catechesis has resulted in a watered down faith among us. Recent surveys indicate the majority of Novus Ordo Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence. In my own family this is true. After studying the two liturgical forms I honestly can’t blame them rather I’m surprised so many Novus Ordo Catholics actually do believe.

Certainly there are people hostile to the NO, but I’m not one of them nor are most Traditionalists I know. What I find is any criticism of the NO or even plain statements of fact get met with cries of intolerance, division, and hostility. Me doth thinks they protest too much. Yet, after watching this year’s installment of Cardinal Mahony’s so called religious education congress I can understand why hostility towards the NO exists. I realize it’s not the form as much as those who abuse it, but it does lend itself towards customization.

As a post-V2 Catholic, I’ve had to study the TLM and pre-V2 Church. It is a very different Church and in some ways I feel like a conversion has taken place. You appear quite knowledgeable which is to be commnended in regard to its rarity among NO attendees. What this world needs today is stronger Catholics and a good way to produce them is weekly participation at the most Catholic liturgy available.

 

[mariediana]

No, this is not anything of the sort. The only actual problem was the appointments of Archbishop Lefevbre in 1989 without JPII’s approval. That has been resolved; it is moot and unproductive to act as if the excommunications are still in force.

And the pope is not Christ on earth. The pope is Christ’s vicar, not Christ.

The Pope is “Alter Christus” - “another Christ.” Have you not heard the term? Also, if you want to call him just “vicar,” what is a vicar? He’s the one who is here to explain to us God’s law - one who takes the place of God here on earth. No difference. It’s semantics. It doesn’t matter what the dispute was - Archbishop Lefebvre was disobedient after he was told TWICE NOT TO ORDAIN THESE BISHOPS. He’s no better than Martin Luther who thought he had a better idea, too.

Does anyone remember St. Thomas More who went to his death rather than disobey his Pope?

Again, I say, the pride of the SSPX group is astounding.

 

[mariediana]

I can’t help but be reminded of that old and true saying: People that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Mariediana, we have enough of our own recalcitrant cardinals, bishops, priests, religious and laity to worry about without pointing fingers at the SSPX.

I am merely pointing out disobedience. If you accept it for one bishop, you must accept it for all.

Direct disobedience to the Vicar of Christ is an offense against the church which deserves excommunication. We must understand how this deliberate disobedience removed thousands from the one, true church. Now they want back in. I hope they are accepted, but first they must get rid of their pride and learn to be obedient and submissive to the Pope. We don’t need any more cafeteria Catholics.

 

[mariediana]

Well, we could discuss the case of Adam and Eve … according to S. Paul, Eve was deceived, but Adam was not. He went along with the sin, against his better judgment. The sin of Eve was pride, but the sin of Adam was sloth.

But to comment on your posting: the position you put seems to be a very common one, but it is based on a misunderstanding of the true Catholic position on Obedience (not to mention making unwarranted assumptions about the state of Mgr Lefebvre’s soul.) I really do wonder whether people who speak like this have studied the case at all deeply. The info. is by now all over the public forum. Mgr Lefebvre was treated outrageously badly by the Vatican over a period of decades, and so were the SSPX. The double standards entailed in being generous and charitable to everybody outside the church, up to and including Fire-Worshippers at the Assisi meeting, while denying it to “Traditionalists”, was harming the Church’s credibility, as was evidenced by many non-Catholic commentators.

But on the topic of Obedience:
Interestingly, the Sedevacs are using precisely the same argument as the Catholics who reject the SSPX out of hand. Indeed, they make the same error, based on a misunderstanding of the definitions and limits of true obedience. When I say this I am not imputing bad motives to anybody.

The clearest statement of this is to be found in S. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (II-II-104 ), where he discusses it with his usual thoroughness:

.

It is clear that some believe that all obedience must be what S. Thomas calls ‘indiscreet obedience’. Thus they paint themselves into a corner: The “Obey the Pope absolutely” Catholics sometimes find themselves trying to justify the unjustifiable, while the Sedevacs lose faith in the papacy altogether. It is the so-called Traditional Catholics who, in following correct Catholic teaching, are able to find their way through the post-Vatican II confusion.

When you quote that we must obey God, not men, is not the Pope God’s voice on earth? If you don’t believe that, then I don’t know what else needs to be said. The Pope speaks for Christ. He’s not just “man.” He is (and again I use the term) alter christus.

To those of you who call me unchristian for saying that Archbishop Lefebvre deserved to be excommunicated - it is Christian to say anyone deserved it? Or is it just Archbishop Lefebvre? Did Martin Luther deserve his excommunication? Or any other apostate?

 

[Dempsey1919]

The direct correlation I see is the removal of prayers, reduction in rubics, simplification of ritual, and redirected focus from God to man combined with a near absence of catechesis has resulted in a watered down faith among us. Recent surveys indicate the majority of Novus Ordo Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence. In my own family this is true. After studying the two liturgical forms I honestly can’t blame them rather I’m surprised so many Novus Ordo Catholics actually do believe.

Exactly. This is why I support the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Before I say more, I would like add that I also attend the OF Mass.

In my opinion, the EF Mass more clearly expresses Catholic doctrine. Pope St. Pius V and those at the Council of Trent deliberately and purposefully codified the EF Mass to preserve Catholic doctrine from the assault of the protestant reformers. The Council of Trent was a reaction to the protestant reformation, and the Tridentine Mass was codified in order to ensure that it was not influenced by protestants. The Fathers of the Council of Trent were all familiar with the old adage: the law of prayer is the law of belief.

If you change the way people pray, you change what they believe. I think the OF Mass is beautiful, but it does not express Catholic doctrine as clearly as the EF Mass; an examination and comparison of both forms will prove this to be true.

I think Archbishop Lefebvre understood that changes to the Mass could result in loss of faith. The SSPX do not question the validity of the OF when celebrated according to the rubrics, but as I understand it, they have problems with the theology that the OF Mass presents to the faithful. However, I trust in the Magisterium of the Church; if there are any problems with the Mass, I know that the Pope will eventually fix them; I humbly submit to his decisions and I respect all legitimate Masses of the Catholic faith.

However, I personally believe that the Church needs the EF Mass; the EF Mass will positively influence the OF Mass. When they created the OF Mass, they threw the baby out with the bathwater, and Marcel Lefebvre knew this. His actions saved the Tridentine Mass.

 

[Ockham]

The Pope is “Alter Christus” - “another Christ.” Have you not heard the term? .

So are priests. I suggest you do a little research on the term.

The Pope is infallible on matters of doctrine. If the faithful always obeyed we wouldn’t have Communion in the hand today, the NO would be said in Latin and chant would be prominent.

 

[Onegin]

I am merely pointing out disobedience. If you accept it for one bishop, you must accept it for all.

Direct disobedience to the Vicar of Christ is an offense against the church which deserves excommunication. We must understand how this deliberate disobedience removed thousands from the one, true church. Now they want back in. I hope they are accepted, but first they must get rid of their pride and learn to be obedient and submissive to the Pope. We don’t need any more cafeteria Catholics.

Do you think that Cardinal Mahoney deserves to be excommunicated?

 

[Dempsey1919]

When you quote that we must obey God, not men, is not the Pope God’s voice on earth? If you don’t believe that, then I don’t know what else needs to be said. The Pope speaks for Christ. He’s not just “man.” He is (and again I use the term) alter christus.

With respect, you seem to have a very simplistic and childlike view of the papacy. I urge you to investigate the nature and role of the Papacy. Your posts give the impression that you believe every action and word of the pope is directly from God. This is not the case. Popes can, and do, make mistakes; there have been terrible popes in the past. The Holy Spirit prevents the Pope from teaching error in matters of faith and morals, but the Pope still has free will and can make bad decisions.

Please re-read the words of St. Thomas Aquinas on obedience.

 

[ProVobis]

There are also dissident Bishops who spread heresy and scandal who have been excommunicated.

Hardly. Consider this letter from then-Cardinal Ratzinger to the bishops in Chile following Ecclesia Dei:

In recent months we have put a lot of work into the case of Lefebvre with the sincere intention of creating for his movement a space within the Church that would be sufficient for it to live. The Holy See has been criticized for this. It is said that it has not defended the Second Vatican Council with sufficient energy; that, while it has treated progressive movements with great severity, it has displayed an exaggerated sympathy with the Traditionalist rebellion. The development of events is enough to disprove these assertions. The mythical harshness of the Vatican in the face of the deviations of the progressives is shown to be mere empty words. Up until now, in fact, only warnings have been published; in no case have there been strict canonical penalties in the strict sense. And the fact that when the chips were down Lefebvre denounced an agreement that had already been signed, shows that the Holy See, while it made truly generous concessions, did not grant him that complete license which he desired. Lefebvre has seen that, in the fundamental part of the agreement, he was being held to accept Vatican II and the affirmations of the postconciliar Magisterium, according to the proper authority of each document.

There is a glaring contradiction in the fact that it is just the people who have let no occasion slip to allow the world to know of their disobedience to the Pope, and to the magisterial declarations of the last 20 years, who think they have the right to judge that this attitude is too mild and who wish that an absolute obedience to Vatican II had been insisted upon. In a similar way they would claim that the Vatican has conceded a right to dissent to Lefebvre which has been obstinately denied to the promoters of a progressive tendency. In reality, the only point which is affirmed in the agreement, following Lumen Gentium 25, is the plain fact that not all documents of the council have the same authority. For the rest, it was explicitly laid down in the text that was signed that public polemics must be avoided, and that an attitude is required of positive respect for official decisions and declarations.

It was conceded, in addition, that the Fraternity of St. Pius X [Ed. note: known in the U.S. as the Society of St. Pius X] would be able to present to the Holy See – which reserves to itself the sole right of decision – their particular difficulties in regard to interpretations of juridical and liturgical reforms. All of this shows plainly that in this difficult dialog Rome has united generosity, in all that was negotiable, with firmness in essentials. The explanation which Msgr. Lefebvre has given, for the retraction of his agreement, is revealing. He declared that he has finally understood that the agreement he signed aimed only at integrating his foundation into the “Conciliar Church.” The Catholic Church in union with the Pope is, according to him, the “Conciliar Church” which has broken with its own past. It seems indeed that he is no longer able to see that we are dealing with the Catholic Church in the totality of its Tradition, and that Vatican II belongs to that.
…

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3032&repos=1&subrepos=&searchid=292734

 

[Lormar]

If all of you anti-SSPX people fought as hard against your own dissidents who hold and promote heretical ideas as you do against the SSPX in particular and traditionals in general, maybe things would be better in the Church.

But, no, you direct all of your ire in the wrong direction. Why don’t you go after the priests and religious who are fighting vehemently against Benedict XVI and calling for his resignation? Where’s your outrage at the blasphemy and sacrilege that occurred during the recent travesty a couple of weeks ago in Los Angeles? Where’s your indignation against that Prince of the Church in good standing who allowed this outrage to take place in his diocese?

But, no, you just save it for the sedevacantists, SSPXers and all the traditionals that rub you wrong way, and excuse away and whitewash the rest.

Aside from Archbishop Lefebvre (who, by the way, I do not like at all lest I be accused of being partial), who has been excommunicated in the past fifty years? Not even that troublemaker Charles Curran, and it took the Vatican TWENTY YEARS to simply remove him from his teaching post. How about the king of error Hans Kung? Nope. Still in good standing. The only crime was and is to uphold tradition. And now there is a new crop of problems with those promoting neo-pagan and new age ideas cleverly disguised in catholic terminology.

So, go practice what you have preached to us, Maria. Fight and speak out against the source of all of the confusion in the post Vatican Church. We weren’t and aren’t the creators of the “Spirit of Vatican II” - we simply reacted against it. And now we are the only ones taking any guff.

I’m tired of it all.

 

[pnewton]

They may not have any bearing on each other, but I object to the fact that the SSPX is criticised far more than the others.

I think that happens for two reasons. First, the SSPX is an organized group. The women priest, gay marriage, and like-minded folks are dispargent and tend to fall one church or one priest at a time.

The second and greater reason the nature of this forum and these threads. One is allowed to say “the SSPX should do X, Y and Z” but one is not allowed to criticize active Cardinals by name, at least to the point. In other areas of CAF people have been shown great disdain for those of the Church who promote abortion, homosexual marriage or women priests. This forum is also a Catholic forum. Someone like me can come on and try to speak only as far as the Church speaks, and it is seen as being in opposition to the SSPX. I would think this is to be expected. If you go back to October when the talks started with the SSPX, they received almost 100% support. Few people even commented on changes the SSPX needed to make. We just wanted things normalized, just like they are.

Let’s get things normal and let the SSPX take its rightful place as promoting a fully Catholic spirituality. Then all can be conscienciously free to participate to any degreee and let the next generation answer this question for us. On this, I could care less if my opinion proves right or wrong.