What Impact Has The SSPX Had On The Church?

[gospel_life]

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?

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.

Ah yes, the same argument that any traffic cop hears. “What about all those other people speeding? Why aren’t you stopping them?” Or it’s alternative, “Why aren’t you doing important work like catching criminals instead of harassing me?”

What gives you any indication that we aren’t railing against every type of division and dissension we see? The fact that we’re addressing the topic at hand doesn’t mean that we’re not simultaneously fighting other problems where they arise.

The topic at hand is whether the SSPX has had a positive impact on the Church. My simple answer is that it has supported some good things but has done so in wrong ways and has probably created more ills than it has solved because of that by seeking to divide the Body of Christ.

The basic principles of morality state that one can’t use a moral evil to accomplish a moral good. Acting in direct disobedience to the Pope when he is exercising his rightful authority is a moral evil by any definition.

However worthy some of their goals may be, though some of them are quite frankly not worthy at all in my opinion, using direct disobedience to achieve them has done great damage to the Church and to the credibility of the SSPX. The great saints have known how to deal with problems in the Church. The Church at the time of Francis was incredibly corrupt but Francis didn’t leave, he simply modeled humility and the poverty of spirit the Church is called to. Catherine of Siena didn’t leave during the Great Western Schism but urged the Pope back to Rome to resolve the conflicts. By comparison we have seen the SSPX act more like the Old Catholics and other dissenting groups who believe themselves to be the “Remnant” and believe themselves to know better than the Church.

Like many others here, I pray for regularization and that the division will cease. That doesn’t mean though that we are applaud the dissent on either side of the spectrum.

 

[Lormar]

Who’s arguing? I’m pointing out a fact against which no argument is possible.

Special animosity is reserved for the SSPX whether you want to accept that fact or not. The cause is by-passed to rail against the effect.

 

[mariediana]

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.

Yes, that is true about priests. They are alter christus. However, I have not made specific promises to my priest to obey him in all things as priests and bishops do on their ordination day.

I suggest you read up on what a priest really is. Here is an excerpt from the Rite of Ordination: •

Before being ordained, the candidates are asked to declare their intentions in undertaking the priestly office.

Promise of Obedience
• Each candidate places his joined hands in the hands of the Archbishop and promises obedience and respect to his Ordinary and his successors.

There is no question that Archbishop Lefebvre broke his promise of obedience. Disobedient priests are disobedient priests. It doesn’t matter the reason.

 

[mariediana]

Ah yes, the same argument that any traffic cop hears. “What about all those other people speeding? Why aren’t you stopping them?” Or it’s alternative, “Why aren’t you doing important work like catching criminals instead of harassing me?”

What gives you any indication that we aren’t railing against every type of division and dissension we see? The fact that we’re addressing the topic at hand doesn’t mean that we’re not simultaneously fighting other problems where they arise.

The topic at hand is whether the SSPX has had a positive impact on the Church. My simple answer is that it has supported some good things but has done so in wrong ways and has probably created more ills than it has solved because of that by seeking to divide the Body of Christ.

The basic principles of morality state that one can’t use a moral evil to accomplish a moral good. Acting in direct disobedience to the Pope when he is exercising his rightful authority is a moral evil by any definition.

However worthy some of their goals may be, though some of them are quite frankly not worthy at all in my opinion, using direct disobedience to achieve them has done great damage to the Church and to the credibility of the SSPX. The great saints have known how to deal with problems in the Church. The Church at the time of Francis was incredibly corrupt but Francis didn’t leave, he simply modeled humility and the poverty of spirit the Church is called to. Catherine of Siena didn’t leave during the Great Western Schism but urged the Pope back to Rome to resolve the conflicts. By comparison we have seen the SSPX act more like the Old Catholics and other dissenting groups who believe themselves to be the “Remnant” and believe themselves to know better than the Church.

Like many others here, I pray for regularization and that the division will cease. That doesn’t mean though that we are applaud the dissent on either side of the spectrum.

Bravo! This is what I’ve been trying to say all along. Obedience! Obedience! Obedience! All priests pledge obedience to their bishops, who in turn pledge obedience to the Vicar of Christ.

 

[mariediana]

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.

Reading these words, I am beginning to understand the campaign by the dissident bishops against John Fisher and Thomas More. Words, however efficaciously arranged, are just words. Faith is paramount here, not words. Those who held to their faith and did not supersede the authority of the Pope remain in good standing. Those who did not remain in excommunication.

 

[mariediana]

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.
.

Why is it that if we agree with the Pope in his excommuication of Archbishop Lefebvre that we’re all of a sudden for women priests, gay marriages, etc? This is such a generalization.

I’m for obedience to the Vicar of Christ, period. I’m extremely traditional - I enjoyed the Latin Mass, in fact, LOVED the Latin Mass - and mourned its loss when we started hearing Mass in English. HOWEVER, I also believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and that the Councils are inspired by the Holy Spirit. I am merely one of Christ’s sheep. I’m not one to question edicts which come from the Holy See. Obedience is paramount in church teachings. My special objection means nothing compared to the whole body of Christ. I have learned to love the Mass, yes, in English. There’s nothing more reverent than the words of the consecration and I listen to them almost every day.

I don’t want women priests. In fact, I work very closely with our seminarians here who are for the most part extremely traditional, and I’m proud to be a part of this particular group.

I believe gay marriage is morally wrong, as is abortion, birth control, and all other things taught as evil by our Holy Catholic Church.

I will NOT follow a disobedient bishop just as Thomas More and John Fisher would not follow disobedient bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre should have been an example to the rest of us by demonstrating his humble obedience to the Vicar of Christ, even though the decision made by the Vicar of Christ didn’t match his own.

Humility was missing all around. Humility and obedience. We must focus on the important things, not on the minutia which seems to be gnawing at the SSPX adherents.

 

[Lormar]

Since I am not an SSPX adherent that is gnawing at minutae, I will let your remarks against them be defended by them. They’re not worth it to me.

I’m all for humility and obedience in our Church. Sadly, both are sorely lacking.

Two of my favorites:

“Let he who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.”

and

“Pride goeth before a fall.”

 

[pnewton]

Why is it that if we agree with the Pope in his excommuication of Archbishop Lefebvre that we’re all of a sudden for women priests, gay marriages, etc? This is such a generalization.

No one here has said this or made this generalization.

 

[Ockham]

There is no question that Archbishop Lefebvre broke his promise of obedience. Disobedient priests are disobedient priests. It doesn’t matter the reason.

Was he disobedient to the Magisterium?

 

[Lycorth]

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.

Priests are “alter Christus” as well. That is beside the point.

“Vicar of Christ” is an official designator for the Holy Father’s office. Have you not heard the term?

Yes, the pope speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. The disagreements with the SSPX were not ex cathedra statements on faith and morals.

It matters very much what the dispute was, and even more that the dispute has been officially ended. Pope Benedict XVI overturned the excommunications of the bishops that Archbishop Lefebvre ordained. This point of contention does not exist anymore. To continue to bring it up as if it does is divisive and wrong - and prideful.

The SSPX and the Pope are in talks regarding full restoration of the Society within the Church. They are in irregular status with the Holy See - not fully restored but neither schismatic. To act as if they are is to ignore current events in the Church as regards the SSPX and act as if 1989 is still here.

The pride of anti-SSPX people is what is astounding.

 

[mariediana]

The Society deceitfully claims to follow the teachings of Pope St. Pius the Tenth. Hear then what this great Pope had to say about Modernists when speaking of Obedience to the Church.

Jesus said to His Apostles, “Whoever listens to you, listens to Me; Whoever rejects you, rejects Me; And Whoever rejects Me, rejects Him who sent Me.”

Obedience to the Magisterium of the Church and especially to Her visible leader, the Pope, is an essential criterion for faithfulness to God. Pope St. Pius X emphasized this in a speech on May 10, 1909, when he said “Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her… But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments…, then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.” (Eph. 2:20)

 

[numealinesimpet]

…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.

Here is what was said about it at the beginning by those in some of the highest positions in the Church. Originally, 15 Cardinals were going to sign this document, but a very imprudent priest leaked it before publication, and only two Cardinals signed. Nonetheless, you will note the contents. I have given only the two introductory paragraphs, of course.
This letter was never replied to by Pope Paul VI or any of his successors.

fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

LETTER OF THE CARDINALS

ALFREDO CARDINAL OTTAVIANI
ANTONIO CARDINAL BACCI

TO HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI

COMMONLY CALLED “THE OTTAVIANI INTERVENTION”

[On September 25, 1969, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect-Emeritus of
the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, sent a letter to Pope Paul VI.
Accompanying the letter was a theological Study of the New Order of the
Mass (Novus Ordo Missae), written by a group of Roman theologians.
Cardinal Ottaviani’s letter was a plea to His Holiness “not to deprive
us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful
integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by
Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic
world.” It was apparently in response to the Ottaviani Intervention
that Pope Paul subsequently ordered a delay of two years in the deadline
for mandatory implementation of the new Ordo.
[COLOR=“Green”]
[Note that the Cardinal is speaking here of the defects not of any
vernacular translation, but of the original Latin draft, that is, the
New Mass in its best, in its purest form.]

============
Rome
25 September 1969

Most Holy Father:

Having carefully examined and presented for the scrutiny of

others the New Order of Mass prepared by the experts of the Committee
for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and
after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel obliged before God and Your
Holiness to set forth the following considerations:

1. The accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group of
   bishops, theologians, liturgists, and pastors of souls. Despite its
   brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo
   Missae–considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely
   different interpretations which are implied or taken for
   granted–represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking
   departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in
   Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite
   definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier
   against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even
   if such reasons could still hold good in the face of doctrinal
   considerations, do not seem sufficient. The innovations in the Novus
   Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor
   place–if it subsists at all–could well turn into a certainty the
   suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which
   have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or
   ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which
   the Catholic faith is bound forever. The recent reforms have amply
   demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without
   leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who
   already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their
   faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis
   of conscience, numberless instances of which come to us daily.

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.

I promise you, there was plenty in the 70s, often from priests.

 

[Lycorth]

The Society deceitfully claims to follow the teachings of Pope St. Pius the Tenth. Hear then what this great Pope had to say about Modernists when speaking of Obedience to the Church.

Jesus said to His Apostles, “Whoever listens to you, listens to Me; Whoever rejects you, rejects Me; And Whoever rejects Me, rejects Him who sent Me.”

Obedience to the Magisterium of the Church and especially to Her visible leader, the Pope, is an essential criterion for faithfulness to God. Pope St. Pius X emphasized this in a speech on May 10, 1909, when he said “Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her… But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments…, then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.” (Eph. 2:20)

From the Wikipedia entry for Canonical Situation of the SSPX:

*By the power expressly conferred on him by Pope Benedict XVI, the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops issued a decree on 21 January 2009 remitting, at their request, the excommunication of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta.[30] **L’Osservatore Romano of 25 January 2009, spoke of “the excommunication that they (the four bishops) had incurred twenty years ago”,[31] said that they “had incurred **latae sententiae excommunication”[32] and declared that, by means of the decree, the Pope "remits the excommunication that lay upon the Prelates in question".

%between%*I have bolded the most relevant excerpt.

The excommunications are remitted. Whatever disobedience the Archbishop may have committed is now moot as far as the Vatican is concerned. What axe do you have to grind with the SSPX?

Talks are underway for getting the Society back into full communion with Rome. They are not in schism, though they are in irregular status with the Church and there are still issues of complete obedience that need to be worked out. Citing chapter and verse from Holy Scripture does not change this.

The hate some folks have for the SSPX is amazing.

 

[Timothysis]

Here is what was said about it at the beginning by those in some of the highest positions in the Church. Originally, 15 Cardinals were going to sign this document, but a very imprudent priest leaked it before publication, and only two Cardinals signed. Nonetheless, you will note the contents. I have given only the two introductory paragraphs, of course.
This letter was never replied to by Pope Paul VI or any of his successors.

I promise you, there was plenty in the 70s, often from priests.

For your consideration:

*"The first thing to note that this criticism was leveled before the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass was completed. However, few of those in the schismatic circles who circulate the “Ottaviani Intervention”, publish Cardinal Ottaviani comments on the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass AFTER IT WAS OFFICIALLY PROMULGATED. Pope Paul VI gave two general audiences in regards to the Pauline Rite Mass. Cardinal Ottaviani responded to this by writing: *

“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

The Cardinal Ottaviani published later yet another very relevant public statement in which he said: “The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS." (In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)”

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm

 

[At_Trent]

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.

I can provide a citation from a Cardinal who did so, but I’m not going to post it. Certainly not during Holy Week.

Everyone should cool it for the next few days, including myself.

 

[Timothysis]

I can provide a citation from a Cardinal who did so, but I’m not going to post it. Certainly not during Holy Week.

Everyone should cool it for the next few days, including myself.

I said that I never witnessed anyone stating anything disparaging toward the EF here, on this forum.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Yes, that is true about priests. They are alter christus. However, I have not made specific promises to my priest to obey him in all things as priests and bishops do on their ordination day.

I suggest you read up on what a priest really is. Here is an excerpt from the Rite of Ordination: •

Before being ordained, the candidates are asked to declare their intentions in undertaking the priestly office.

Promise of Obedience
• Each candidate places his joined hands in the hands of the Archbishop and promises obedience and respect to his Ordinary and his successors.

This presupposes that the Superiors act within their brief. See S. Thomas Aquinas again. Not all commands of legitimate superiors are lawful. If the command of a superior is contrary to Divine law (I am not jumping the gun here by discussing the individual case of the SSPX, but stating the general principle) then it is a Christian duty to refuse compliance, because the alleged law is not a law but an abuse of authority, and to comply would be to be complicit in the sin against justice. This also is in Aquinas.

There is no question that Archbishop Lefebvre broke his promise of obedience. Disobedient priests are disobedient priests. It doesn’t matter the reason.

This is indeed the nub of the matter. I believe that the stronger argument here lies with the SSPX.
Archbp. Lefebvre said, in effect, “I must obey God before Man”. In his book, “Open Letter to confused Catholics” (ISBN 0-935952-13-6) he writes, “In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith”. He was not a private individual, and as a bishop he was bound under pain of Mortal sin to uphold, preach, and propagate the Faith. All around, the seminaries, schools and parishes were disintegrating. The Latin Mass was only the most visible facet of the Modernist problem. The Pope’s actions were effectively stifling the traditions that had always maintained the Church. Mgr Lefebvre was right to have invoked the “Emergency Clauses” of canons 1323, 1324 +1321 of the New Code of Canon Law, both because of the meaning of Obedience (see previous posting, quoting St Thomas Aquinas) and of the nature of an Emergency – which is, that a State of Emergency exists when a Necessity is not available and cannot be obtained by “normal” means.

 

[numealinesimpet]

For your consideration:

"The first thing to note that this criticism was leveled before the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass was completed. However, few of those in the schismatic circles who circulate the “Ottaviani Intervention”, publish Cardinal Ottaviani comments on the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass AFTER IT WAS OFFICIALLY PROMULGATED. Pope Paul VI gave two general audiences in regards to the Pauline Rite Mass. Cardinal Ottaviani responded to this by writing:

“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

The Cardinal Ottaviani published later yet another very relevant public statement in which he said: “The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS." (In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)”

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm

Not the point, I am afraid. After it was pointed out that the “Introduction” to the NO contained explicit heresy in the definition of the Mass, Pope Paul VI altered the Introduction, but not one word of the Text of the Mass. The comments in the “Ottaviani Intervention” are directed at the text itself, and not at the Discourses of the Pope.
(P.s. I am not, and never have been, a schismatic. )

 

[mariediana]

From the Wikipedia entry for
The hate some folks have for the SSPX is amazing.

Do you feel that everyone who disagrees with you hates you? I know of no hatred spewed here. We were discussing the original excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and his disobedience to the Pope. Since the SSPX is not entirely in communion with the church as yet, they are still to be avoided.

Why attend a Mass which isn’t in full communion YET when you can attend one which has always been in full communion?

I’m glad the SSPX people are coming back. It’s about time.

 

[Lycorth]

Do you feel that everyone who disagrees with you hates you? I know of no hatred spewed here.

Me? I’m not a member of the SSPX. Neither am I grinding an axe against them.

We were discussing the original excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and his disobedience to the Pope.

Which is immaterial and moot, since Pope Benedict overturned the excommunications, at least of the bishops he consecrated. We are talking about the impact the Society had on the Church, not rehashing the Econe consecrations.

I do not know if a living man who is excommunicated and passes away can have his excommunication overturned as well, though. That one is beyond me.

Since the SSPX is not entirely in communion with the church as yet, they are still to be avoided.

They are not in schism, though due to their irregular status, SSPX priests cannot validly perform marriages or hear confessions.

Only those who are excommunicated and have the status of vitandus are to be avoided. Following the 1983 Code of Canon Law, vitandus and toleratus are no longer in use for the excommunicated.

Why attend a Mass which isn’t in full communion YET when you can attend one which has always been in full communion?

Who said anything about attending Masses at SSPX chapels?

I’m glad the SSPX people are coming back. It’s about time.

I’m glad the *SSPX *is coming back, people and Society both. They both belong in the Church.