What Impact Has The SSPX Had On The Church?

[Lormar]

I, too, lived through it all and experienced things very differently.

Had it not been for the SSPX, I doubt very much whether you’d have much of any “tradition” today.

I don’t think most of you realize how absolutely wiped out the Church was in the sixties. Yes, the winds of change were more like a tornado. Even if you could find a church here or there that still retained the old, eventually that went the way of the dinosaur as well. The severe penalties inflicted on priests and relligious who even showed a semblance of pre-Vatican II in their demeanor, teaching and/or Mass, were meted out without a flinch of the eye. ( Would that the church-men had treated their sodomozing priests in the same fashion.)

The SSPX kept it all alive. I don’t care what your personal opinion is about them. I don’t like them either but not for the reasons most here don’t.

As for “staying in and fighting”…please! You know not of what you speak. Doesn’t it ever occur to you that we did try to fight it? You people really have no idea how brutal they were. They came in and took EVERYTHING over. We were not as organized as the liberals and, even if we were, we couldn’t fight back using their own devices because their way of dealing with us was, well, not exactly Catholic. Doi you have any real idea of what it was like? How many millions either walked away from the Church or just lost their faith all together?

Someday, long after all of us here at CAF are long gone, books will be written about this time in the Church’s history and people will wonder how anyone lived through it and retained the Faith at all.

 

[Ockham]

It is a good analogy and fits with what puzzleannie said. The SSPX are the ones who jumped in the life raft to save themselves and left the rest of the Church to the bailing and the repairs. Then they stay along side to cheer the workers on.

What are you saying, newt? Should the SSPX just gone along with the NO and all its novelties? Are we obedient to the Truth or the whims of man? How many parishes are bailing and making repairs right now? How many non-SSPX/FSSP parishes have TLMs?

 

[pnewton]

What are you saying, newt?

It is pnewton, not “newt.”

 

[Lycorth]

What are you saying, newt? Should the SSPX just gone along with the NO and all its novelties? Are we obedient to the Truth or the whims of man? How many parishes are bailing and making repairs right now? How many non-SSPX/FSSP parishes have TLMs?

The assertion that the SSPX “jumped ship” is ridiculous. Jumping ship would imply that they went off and began a new religion, like the protestant heretics who founded the Lutheran sect. That’s “jumping ship”, not holding fast to established traditions that were not dogmatically done away with and could not be.

 

[Ockham]

To play along with this analogy, the Lutherans left our ship, got on board another, and sailed off in a different direction. Maybe the only way the SSPX could protect the Mass and traditions was to detach and ride along side for awhile. Whatever the case, I’m glad to have them and the FSSP.

 

[mariediana]

What did they save themselves from?

Lefebvre and the four Bishops were all automatically excommunicated from the Church. No greater evil can befall a Catholic; nothing is worse than excommunication. The other priests and laity have been labelled schismatic, divisive and disobedient for years; they have been shunned by their Catholic brothers.

Why did Lefebvre consecrate four Bishops without papal approval? This is the question. I do not believe that Lefebvre, who had a distinguished career in the Church, would deliberately excommunicate himself. The need for Bishops must have been great in his mind; he sincerely thought that there was a crisis in the Church.

I don’t think the SSPX jumped into the life raft to save themselves. They sincerely believed their actions were in the service of the Church.

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.

 

[Ockham]

Pope John Paul II, who is Christ on earth.

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

 

[pnewton]

The ship analogy was not mine and it was just an analogy. I merely expanded it to a point that reflect my opinion and that of puzzleannie, where I think that their impact would have been greater on the Church as a whole if they had not have separated themselves to the degree they have. Thus, I was only expressing by opinion of the impact they have had on the Church, that is, the Catholic Church.

 

[Lycorth]

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.

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.

 

[Lormar]

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.

 

[ProVobis]

He deserved his excommunication.

As did many other bishops who did more than just let liturgical abuses go unchecked.

 

[Onegin]

They were wrong to leave. They were arrogant to leave. Marcel LeFebvre was prideful and disobedient to the Pope. He deserved his excommunication.

You do realize the irony in this statement, right?

Regardless of what you think of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, this is not a Catholic attitude.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I know I’m hijacking the thread here, but this needs to be said. No Catholic may disagree with Vatican II – certain interpretations of it, yes, but never outright disagreement.

But what exactly does “disagree with Vatican II” actually mean? Mgr Lefebvre & the SSPX agree that it was a valid Ecumenical council. Over the years, on CAF and elsewhere, I have challenged people to tell us in black and white what it is that we are required to “obey” in Vatican II. To date I have never been given an answer.

The fact that it’s pastoral makes no difference. Pope Paul VI said the following to Archbishop Lefebvre:

"You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith.

It was Paul VI himself who ordered the inclusion of the “Nota Praevia” which affirmed that documents of the council were infallible only where explicitly stated – which, in the event, was nowhere at all.

But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application" (Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, Nov. 10, 1976).

It’s just not good enough, you know – even coming from the Pope. Catholic teaching is that these other statements must be treated with very great respect, but if such an exortation were to contradict plain facts, or common sense, they must be fitted into a hierarchy of probablilties. For example, we are told that “Modern Man” (whoever he is?) is nowadays 'spontaneously rejecting" error and destructive ways – and we are expected to behave accordingly. Well, with the greatest respect, this is not what was happening in the 1960s, and it is not happenning now. We have original sin, and we need to be on a lifelong alert against falling into sin and error. The Church is there to help us. If we followed this too closely, we would be throwing away our weapons in the middle of the battle. It is different with a formally infallible statement. There, to reject it is an act of apostasy from the Church. But prudential exortations may be made erroneously, and we who are not under an explicit vow of obedience – and who therefore have voluntarily sacrificed our free will – are not allowed to be so imprudent as to follow what our common sense and experience tells us would be disastrous.

Actually, as we have discussed on several threads of CAF, many of the key documents are so full of loopholes that they actually can’t be followed. Simply to consider the present topic: in the document on the Liturgy it says,

“with due regard to particular law, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved”

and

“other things being equal, Gregorian chant is to have pride of place” …

Fine? Look more closely…

“*with due regard to particular law … * What particular law? Who issues it? … the use of the Latin language is to be preserved”

and

other things being equal, What other things?? Gregorian chant is to have pride of place"

Look carefully at this document and you will see that it says* nothing at all.* Yet for years, people have believed that it actually safeguarded the traditional liturgy, while others seem to believe it mandated the New Liturgy in the form we now have it… Mgr Lefebvre and his SSPX saw from the beginning the chaos that this loose talk would engender. That is why, granted we can’t “go back and do it again” to check our convictions, I believe that Our Lord’s Providence was operating in a very special way through Mgr L. and the SSPX.

 

[Timothysis]

Tim, by the very fact that this is going on means that the documents themselves, presented by Rome, were pretty ambiguously drafted to begin with.

It means nothing of the sort. It means that the Holy See is bending a sympathetic ear to the SSPX to resolve any conflicts and show them that the documents of Vatican II, when interpreted according to Tradition, are part of the constant beliefs and doctrines of the Church. They are not going to rewrite or dispose of anything based on the acceptance or rejection of the SSPX.

It wasn’t until the SSPX started hounding Rome about meeting and clearly interpreting the documents that they have finally admitted the point that something needs doing…Which it clearly does…Thank you, SSPX. But I have to ask: why did it take pressure from the SSPX to do this?

It was Pope Benedict who made the overtures of lifting the excommunications and initiating the discussions with the SSPX, not the other way around! Apparently, he would like to see a resolution to this conflict but don’t expect him to kow tow to the demands of the SSPX. Really, I don’t understand this notion that the SSPX is going to Rome to “clean house.” They are simply an order (and one with no active ministry in the Church) who has been causing confusion among the faithful for a long time and it seems that Pope Benedict wishes to end the confusion.

This is to be expected. Only this time I hope they have both eyes trained on the same target :whacky:. The last thing the Church needs is more breeding ground for misconceptions.

Do you really thing that if the SSPX delegation were to say that they were satisfied with the outcome of the discussions and that they wish to be incorporated into the Church that you wouldn’t see a civil war among the various SSPX communes? Talk about a "breeding ground for misconceptions…"

 

[h1478971]

Maybe not directly on your or many Catholics. But, I think they have a large and definite impact indirectly.

For example, who bombarded Heaven with rosaries for the liberation of the TLM? The SSPX

The SSPX’s role is to ensure their are traditional priests to celebrate the TLM. They are a missionary order, and a very successful one at that. “Out of Africa.”

Without the SSPX, the TLM would have died out long ago. It is because of them that JPII granted the indult and formed Ecclesia Dei.

I agree wholeheartedly. SSPX saved the Latin Mass.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I apologise for this. I realise that I expressed myself incorrectly. I typed this thread very quickly and I should have read the post before I hit the submit button. I know the SSPX does not disagree with Vatican II; they disapprove of certain interpretations of the Council and are currently in talks with Rome about this.

Hey Dempsey.

Noted. Thanks. I think it is a needed qualification.

Somebody else is carping now about how the Society is uniquely disobedient to Vatican II. He can’t have read the Vatican II document on priestly formation or he would know 99% of diocesan bishops are disobedient to Vatican II with their seminaries. It never ends. Its just so weird to me

I have assisted at SSPX Masses since 2005. I understand the reticence about it. I was initially reticent. It took me about ten years to find my way to a clear conscience about it. I am not unsympathetic to concerns about the legitimacy of the Society. But then these lay people here who don’t seem to know the history behind the Council, the actual words of the Council, the Society, or the consecration of the bishops just drone on and on about disobedience and non-acceptance of Vatican II. The bishops they recommend disobey Vatican II in the seminaries, with liturgical abuses, and diocesan programs as much or more than any of the works or programs associated with the Society of St. Pius the Tenth!

Thanks again for the clarification. Peace and a Blessed Holy Week to you and yours across “the Pond.”

Rory

 

[ProVobis]

But what exactly does “disagree with Vatican II” actually mean?

Num, good to see you back.

The phrase is baffling me too, especially in light of the Pope apparently blaming secularism and Vatican II for the scandals. Addressed to people in Ireland too.

archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2010/03/pastoral-letter-of-holy-father-pope.html

 

[Abenadar]

I believe that if those who split off had stayed with us, we’d never have had any of the “modernist” problems we do today.

I’d contend that not only would we have them, but we wouldn’t have any EF to fall back upon.

They ran away instead of stayed and faced the problems that the rest of us had to face - alone.

Nobody “ran away” as far as I can tell…Rather, they continued doing what the Church has always done. For those who weren’t born into the EF, I still don’t think that “running away” is an accurate term. For those of us who don’t attend the OF it’s less about “running away” from the problems and more about “running toward” a perceived better option.

They were wrong to leave.

They never left in spite of the fact that they were shown the door and given the boot.

They were arrogant to leave.

Again, they never left. Whether you agree with their method or not, they simply attempted to preserve the traditional sacraments and the Faith as it had been taught to them. It wasn’t arrogance…It was “holding fast”.

Marcel LeFebvre was prideful

This is your claim and your opinion.

and disobedient to the Pope.

And he felt he had good cause to be, and clearly laid out his argument and reasoning for his actions.

He deserved his excommunication.

Spoken like a true Catholic.

I do not admire anyone or any group who thinks they know more than the Vicar of Christ.

Then, indeed, you may feel free to admire Archbishop Lefebvre.

I do hope that one day they’ll repent and come back to the true Catholic Church.

The SSPX is in the Church, in case you hadn’t heard…

 

[Abenadar]

This shows their unbelievable pride in assuming they know more than the Vicar of Christ.

This shows an unbelievable lack of charity and pride in the way you condemn…Especially since you assume you know more than the Vicar of Christ; your condemnations and assumptions don’t look anything like what Rome has said about the SSPX. Perhaps you should get in line?

Moreover, your condemnation is absurd. When has the SSPX ever quoted anything other than scripture, papal documents and councils, or canon law to substantiate their position? All they ever did was hold fast to traditional practices. The Society was almost twenty years old at the time of the episcopal consecrations, and they had witnessed, since the council, a strong tendency in the Church for horrible novelties. The attempt to hold fast in light of all the junk that was going on should be greeted by more Catholics as being a very Catholic thing, rather than being the work of some evil, raving, proud idiot.

Archbishop Lefebvre OWED Pope John Paul II, who is Christ on earth, absolute obedience.

Wow…Just, wow. Christ on earth??? Absolute obedience???

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Do you realize how wrong you are?

Just as Eve thought she knew better, so did Lefebvre. This is a classic case of the sin of presumption.

THIS is a classic case of something…Care to think about it?

 

[Abenadar]

It means nothing of the sort. It means that the Holy See is bending a sympathetic ear to the SSPX to resolve any conflicts and show them that the documents of Vatican II, when interpreted according to Tradition, are part of the constant beliefs and doctrines of the Church.

A sympathetic ear? So they’re just doing this for the SSPX, and not the rest of the Church? The rest of the Church is crystal clear on the VII docs? Suuuure, buddy.

They are not going to rewrite or dispose of anything based on the acceptance or rejection of the SSPX.

I never meant to insinuate that they were. That’s why they’re having discussions…To clarify (since it is, as I have stated ad nauseam, replete with ambiguities and obfuscations…) what nobody has bothered to clarify in 40 years. I just find it surprising that out of over a billion Catholics, it’s this little “fringe” group that has made them realize that there are issues (to say the least).

It was Pope Benedict who made the overtures of lifting the excommunications and initiating the discussions with the SSPX, not the other way around!

This is extreeeeemely incorrect. The SSPX has been making overtures since before the Church was led by BXVI. It was the SSPX who asked several times to have the excommunications resolved. The overtures were made by the SSPX…The good will gesture of lifting by the pope was the result.

Apparently, he would like to see a resolution to this conflict but don’t expect him to kow tow to the demands of the SSPX.

Nobody (but you) is talking about kowtowing. It’s all about ejecting the elephant in the room which the SSPX has finally successfully pointed out to everybody else.

Really, I don’t understand this notion that the SSPX is going to Rome to “clean house.”

Did I say that?

They are simply an order (and one with no active ministry in the Church) who has been causing confusion among the faithful for a long time

Ooooh, now I finally understand! It is the SSPX, not the ambiguities sewn into the council docs and the nebulous “spirit of VII” that has been causing the confusion.

and it seems that Pope Benedict wishes to end the confusion.

And justly so. 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…

Do you really thing that if the SSPX delegation were to say that they were satisfied with the outcome of the discussions and that they wish to be incorporated into the Church that you wouldn’t see a civil war among the various SSPX communes?

Communes??? Anyway…The SSPX isn’t sedevacantist. As far as I know, everybody wants a good conclusion to the doctrinal discussions. Are there sedes among the clergy? Doubtful but possible, I guess. Are there sedes among the faithful? I have known literally “a few”. But hey, if they don’t want to acknowledge the supreme pontiff, let 'em…That’s their right, according to VII.

Talk about a "breeding ground for misconceptions…"

Thanks for mentioning the mote in the SSPX’s eye…