What Impact Has The SSPX Had On The Church?

[Lycorth]

Marie’s attacks on Archbishop Lefebvre are similar to Maureen Dowd’s on the Pope.

It sure seems like it.

I wonder what her agenda is…

 

[numealinesimpet]

So you’re saying that Pope John Paul’s direction to Archbishop Lefebvre that he NOT ordain the new bishops was contrary to Divine law? How so?

Yes, mariediana, the SSPX do say that & I believe that they are in the right. if it were not so, I don’t see how the SSPX case would be tenable. But instead, the SSPX can be seen to be following exactly what the church has taught down through the ages.

But before we get to the individual cases, may I recall the basic data?

The Law is more than the collection of “positive laws” – the list of individual “laws” in the lawbook.

Law is an objective thing, and it exists in the form of Boxes within Boxes. Each Box is a category of Law. As you go down into the smaller boxes, you come to individual cases.
On the Nature of Law:
Divine, Natural, Ecclesiastical, Civil, Positive

According to St Thomas Aquinas, a Law is
A precept of Right Reason
For the Common Good **
Promulgated by the legitimate Authority.**
Thus an attempt at a law that is either impossible, or unreasonable, or not directed to the Common Good, or not validly promulgated, is not a law at all but an abuse of authority which we are under a moral obligation to resist, otherwise we are participating in the sin by compliance with the offence against justice.
The law subsists in several categories, the later ones “inside” the earlier.
First is Divine Law which flows from the Nature of God Himself and the Nature of Reality…
e.g. All created things exist for the Glory of God. We must do Good and avoid Evil.
Within this is Natural Law which flows from the nature and structure of Creation, and within this the nature and structure of Man, body and soul.
e.g. Man must not practise homosexuality. Man must not practise cannibalism.
Within this again is Evangelical Law, which derives from the fact that Man is raised above his natural state and called to supernatural Life for eternity. It was to this end that Christ established His Church.
e.g. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, thy whole strength and whole mind: and thy neighbour as thyself.
These Laws contain general principles. God saw to it that we have, within this framework, more specific laws that apply to particular situations. These laws may be adapted to changing situations, unlike the more general laws already cited. These particular laws are termed
Positive Law which derives from the lawful authority, derived from Christ, of appointed lawmakers within the Church. In general, these are collected and set out in the Code of Canon Law.
Some of these laws were given from the mouth of Christ Himself, e.g.* “Going therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…”*
Others,
Ecclesiastical Laws, were delegated to His Church, of whom Peter and his successors are His Vicar on Earth:* “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven…”*
**Civil Law **is that part of Positive Law that “Renders unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. A Civil Law that contradicts or nullifies Ecclesiastical or Natural or Divine Law is ipso facto invalid.

Holy Mother Church helps us not least by providing Positive Laws to guide our daily conduct, and then enforcing them.

Subordinate laws sometimes fail to achieve their purpose. They are merely applications of higher general laws to particular situations. Yet the particular or concrete situation can vary infinitely. It is impossible for positive law to envisage and provide for all these situations, even exceptional situations. This is why dispensations from law have always been allowed, often even foreseen, even by God. [This paragraph adapted slightly from “The Episcopal Consecrations” by Rev. Fr. F. Pivert, ISBN 0-935952-54-3, page 4].

We must beware of the fallacy of believing that the collection of written, positive laws constitutes the whole of Law. They must not be stretched beyond their context. In every generation, new situations arise that must be dealt with by reference to the higher categories of law and justice. Then the Church in her wisdom may or may not enact new positive laws.

Examples that spring to mind in the modern age are: the question of the Just War given the existence of weapons of mass destruction: the question of which medical procedures, formerly unheard of, are licit and pleasing to God: organ donation? IVF?

In considering novel situations, we must be extra vigilant that we are hearing the authentic voice of the Bride of Christ, which can be none other than a faithful echo of that of the Bridegroom.

continued…

 

[mick321]

Because one is illicit and one is not.

You cite a technicality and a dubious one at best. The Congress of Bishops has already disabused itself of the excommunications. I think Society is headed for full communion and the temporary status - valid and illicit - is a legal fiction, applied to allow time for the parties to compose press releases which are acceptable all concerned. Do you really believe the Holy Father intended it be hurled as an insult against the Society by yourself and other Catholics? Give us all a break during Holy Week. Save the insults for Satan.

 

[numealinesimpet]

continued…

In the very nature of things, a Law cannot contradict one on a higher level of this hierarchy. An attempt to promulgate a Positive Law that contradicted the Natural or the Divine Law would be ipso facto invalid. Thus no conceivable Positive Law could legalise direct abortion.

The crisis precipitated by the situation in the Church and the World after Vatican II – which it is absurd to say was actually foreseen and intended by the majority of the Council Fathers (if by any at all) – requires very careful contemplation on these things.
(Compiled from various sources, principally S. Thomas Aquinas).

The Keys were given to Peter and his successors to keep and to safeguard the Faith until the end of time. At no time, repeat, at no time since the Apostles has any pope attempted to impose by “obedience” a programme of novelty while simultaneously attempting to extinguish immemorial traditions that had been held to be sacrosanct. On the contrary, the Saints and doctors have always – always – said: in cases of doubt, do what the Church has always done in the Past. In the Past is to be found safety and certainty.

When a new situation arises not covered by the current set of positive laws, what the church must do is to go back up through the hierarchy of levels to find the correct guidance. It would normally result in a new series of Positive Laws. The attempt by Vatican officials since Vatican II – up to and including the Pope – is strictly unprecedented, as history will show abundantly. It is erroneous to simply apply a set of positive laws that presuppose that the Pope and the curia are safeguarding Tradition, as they have always done in the past.

This is quite apart from the irregular, hence illegal and invalid, way these things were attempted to be done. The SSPX, by standing fast and refusing illegitimate pressures, has brought these things into sharper and sharper focus. They have done the Church an incalculable service. And no, they are not disobedient within the meaning of either Law or True Obedience.

 

[mariediana]

You cite a technicality and a dubious one at best. The Congress of Bishops has already disabused itself of the excommunications. I think Society is headed for full communion and the temporary status - valid and illicit - is a legal fiction, applied to allow time for the parties to compose press releases which are acceptable all concerned. Do you really believe the Holy Father intended it be hurled as an insult against the Society by yourself and other Catholics? Give us all a break during Holy Week. Save the insults for Satan.

However, it is not there yet. Why attend an illicit Mass when you can attent a licit one? It doesn’t make sense.

I am merely encouraging Catholics to attend LICIT Masses. When the SSPX is back in full communion, their Masses will be licit. Until then, I’ll stay where I am. It’s nothing personal. Additionally, what insults?

 

[mariediana]

What “illegitimate” pressures?

 

[mariediana]

Yes, mariediana, the SSPX do say that & I believe that they are in the right. if it were not so, I don’t see how the SSPX case would be tenable. But instead, the SSPX can be seen to be following exactly what the church has taught down through the ages.

But before we get to the individual cases, may I recall the basic data?

continued…

I’m sorry, but I believe it is arrogant to disobey the Pope, the Vicar of Christ. And here we are back again with the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre. Deserved? Absolutely.

Saint Thomas More and St. John Fisher, pray for us.

 

[numealinesimpet]

What “illegitimate” pressures?

The Decree of Excommunication was issued by way of a newspaper article, not by an official document with a protocol number. Lefebvre’s request for a Canonical appeal, when he was ordered to close the Seminary, was blocked by the Cardinal Secretary of State Cdl Villot, which was illegitimate. The Balamand Declaration (forbidding evangelising the Orthodox Churches) was a press conference, not an official, binding statement. And the list goes on.

 

[mariediana]

What “illegitimate” pressures?

The Decree of Excommunication was issued by way of a newspaper article, not by an official document with a protocol number. Lefebvre’s request for a Canonical appeal, when he was ordered to close the Seminary, was blocked by the Cardinal Secretary of State Cdl Villot, which was illegitimate. The Balamand Declaration (forbidding evangelising the Orthodox Churches) was a press conference, not an official, binding statement. And the list goes on.

I give up. This has been the problem all along with sedevacantists/separatists/protestants. They will never admit to any wrongdoing whatsoever. When your own leader is excommunicated, that’s a serious thing.

Archbishop Lefebvre was no better than Martin Luther. They both thought they knew better than the Pope and their followers did as well.

The SSPX has taken all the pomp and circumstance with them but have left the substance behind.

I pray for your full communion with the church.

Until then, there is no more to be said.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I’m sorry, but I believe it is arrogant to disobey the Pope, the Vicar of Christ. And here we are back again with the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre. Deserved? Absolutely.

Saint Thomas More and St. John Fisher, pray for us.

But there have been precedents. Not many, but enough to show that what you are suggesting is too simplistic.

Bp Grosseteste of England, during the Middle Ages, was commanded by the pope to confer a “benefice” (a plum ecclesiatical post with a regular salary) on a favourite of the pope, but he was a man whom Bp G. knew to be unworthy. The Bp. tried every normal legal route to evade having to appoint this hierling, but each time the pope and the Vatican bureaucracy outmanoeuvered him. In the end, when Bp G. was fully backed into a corner, he sent the Pope a letter once again repeating the facts of the case, and then saying, “… and therefore, as a faithful son of the Church I contradict, I disobey, I rebel. You cannot take action against me …” the Pope was beside himself when he received this message, but his cardinals had to say, "My Lord, [they didn’t say “Your Holiness” then] he is right’. In this case Divine Law had a right to supercede the “positive law” of the pope.

Have you taken in what S. Thomas Aquinas said on Law and Obedience? It is not simply equivalent to complying with each and every command of a superior, although the exceptional cases have mercifully been rare – until the present age.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The Decree of Excommunication was issued by way of a newspaper article, not by an official document with a protocol number. Lefebvre’s request for a Canonical appeal, when he was ordered to close the Seminary, was blocked by the Cardinal Secretary of State Cdl Villot, which was illegitimate. The Balamand Declaration (forbidding evangelising the Orthodox Churches) was a press conference, not an official, binding statement. And the list goes on.

Well, for the sake of other readers, I cannot leave that unresponded to.
I have never said or believed that Mgr Lefebvre was “innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever.” I was asked what irregularities existed in his case, and I gave three clear, objective examples. The Vatican has broken its own rules. I don’t see that this equates Mgr Lefebvre with Luther. And I think you should learn a little more about the latter before you compare anyone else to him. But I will spare the gory details here.
S. Athanasius was excommunicated by Pope Liberius during the Arian Crisis, for refusing to compromise with the Arian heresy. Athanasius did not ‘obey the pope’ but continued with his work as a bishop. It was he who was canonised, while Pope Liberius was the first pope ever who was not canonised. This is not to say that the two cases are identical, but it shows that even these extreme situations have had parallels in the past.

 

[mick321]

However, it is not there yet. Why attend an illicit Mass when you can attent a licit one? It doesn’t make sense.

I am merely encouraging Catholics to attend LICIT Masses. When the SSPX is back in full communion, their Masses will be licit. Until then, I’ll stay where I am. It’s nothing personal. Additionally, what insults?

I encourage fellow Catholics to assist licit Extraordinary Form Masses as well. I actively promote and support the expanded use of the EF in my diocese and beyond. I am profoundly grateful for the support of our local bishops in allowing our common Catholic culture to flourish. My own parish’s EF liturgies are absolutely top-notch and I assist twice weekly.

Why would I visit the nearest SSPX chapel? I’m often in the neighborhood. The parishioners are very nice. They have a fantastic bookstore. Their EF liturgy is clean, precise, and word-for-word from the 1962 Roman Missal. I have never heard politics preached from the pulpit. Sometimes their bishops visit and offer Holy Mass as Bernard Tissier de Mallerais did on Palm Sunday.

If you really think that “…The SSPX has taken all the pomp and circumstance with them but have left the substance behind…”, you owe it to yourself to visit one of their valid EF Masses today, if you can still get a seat.

 

[Dempsey1919]

It is commonly said that Archbishop Lefebvre simply continued doing what the Church had always done. The SSPX claim that Lefebvre held fast to the apostolic traditions of the Church.

My question: Why was the Lefebvre the only Archbishop to rebel against the reforms that came in the wake of Vatican II?

If the reforms after Vatican II were wrong, why did 99.9% of the clergy obey? Why was Lefebvre the only one who had problems?

In the past, I have read that Archbishop Lefebvre was perplexed by the actions of his contemporaries, especially the French Bishops. He claimed that he was remaining faithful to what he had been taught at the French Seminary in Rome; the other French Bishops received the same education at the French Seminary but they did not react the same way as Lefebvre. Why was the Lefebvre the only one to find problems with the reforms in the wake of the Council?

numealinesimpet - I would be particularly interested in reading your answer to this question.

 

[Lormar]

Maria

You didn’t answer my question as to where you got the Pope St. Pius X quote. Please refer me to the document it is from.

Where did I get the idea that you avoid non-Catholics? From you…you said that the SSPX are to be “avoided” and I took that to mean that you shunned anyone not in “full communion.”

 

[numealinesimpet]

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.

It is not Catholic teaching that each and every pronouncement of the pope is the direct voice of God. Otherwise every papal shopping list would be an infallible document. If there were any confusion about that before, it was resolved at the First Vatican Council, which specified the nature and limits of infallibility. In fact, we could say that it was in God’s Providence that this was done at that time. It helps us find our way through the current crisis.
It is not Catholic teaching either, that we may simply ignore anything but infallible pronouncements. this has sometimes been falsely alleged against the SSPX. the true teaching is that any statement from the Pope must be accorded the greatest respect, and “other things being equal” we are under an obligation to follow them, giving the benefit of the doubt if there is any. And yet … we are not promised that there will never arise a time when a pope makes a grave error, or even that he will never command a sin. Both have in fact happened in history. In these extreme circumstances, we are not allowe to take refuge in “indiscreet” of “indolent” obedience. Instead, when a pope has set himself in opposition to God (unintentionally or otherwise) “we must obey man rather than God”.
The deliberations of Vatican I are on record. They are in the city library near where I live, but I have not been able to find them online.
There were different viewpoints thrashed out during the Council. One group of bishops was against any pronouncement being made at all. Their reason was: that ordinary laypeople would misunderstand it, and would erroneously come to believe that every pronouncement of a pope was infallible and not subject to discussion. let alone disputation. Yet the plain facts of Church history showed that this could not be the case. In the end, the definition we know, was passed.

No promise was given to Peter or his successors that they would never sin, or never make a mistake. Remember the portentious words Our Lord addressed to Peter on the very night we commemorate tonight. “Simon, Simon, Satan has earnestly desired to have ye [plural] that he might sift ye like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, Simon that thy faith fail thee not;and when thou hast turned again, strengthen thy bretheren”.
In several places in the Traditional Liturgy, there is a prayer that the pope will not fail in his duty over his flock. This proves that this is a possibility, because it is blasphemous to pray for the absolutely impossible.

Now, in “normal” times, these subtle distinctions need never concern the ordinary layperson. But there exists the possibility that the pope will in fact err. It has happened in the past. When it happens, the repercussions for the Church are very serious. It is not arrogant or prideful to point these things out: it is repeating Catholic teaching. It is always dangerous to operate on a simplified scheme, a simplified model, of Reality. The Church might possibly have been justified in making certain adaptations to fit the circumstances of the age - to some extent this has happened in every generation - but the individuals running the Church had no moral right, and no power, to try to forcibly abolish the immemorial traditions that had always nourished the faithful. Once again, it is not pride or arrogance to point this out.

 

[numealinesimpet]

It is commonly said that Archbishop Lefebvre simply continued doing what the Church had always done. The SSPX claim that Lefebvre held fast to the apostolic traditions of the Church.

My question: Why was the Lefebvre the only Archbishop to rebel against the reforms that came in the wake of Vatican II?

Actually, there was an informal lobby of either 200 or 500 bishops who opposed the direction the Council was taking. (Sorry, I can’t check that number here - I’ll post again when I dig it up). Mgr Lefebvre, let it be remembered, was the head of the largest religious congregation in the Catholic world before the Council - the Holy ghost Fathers who were evangelising Africa. He was appointed one of the Experts who drafted the original “schemas” for the council. This occupied the entire corpus of expertts for two years. On the very first session of the council, by a procedure that went against the Rules of the council, a vote was taken that led, two days later, to throwing the entire aganda in the bin. this leeft the council wide open to manipulation by the highly organised pressure-group called ‘The Rhine Group’. the conservative group was mostly led by Mgr Lefebvre, and they fought a constant rearguard action throughout the sessions of the council.

(Lest anybody be shocked at this, it is only fair to point out that, apart from direct flaunting of procedure, there was nothing actual illegal in the bishops forming themselves into pressure-groups. that is how any large organisation would conduct business).
It was Lefebvre who organised the petition to have Marxist Communism condemned. In fact, a deal had been arranged by which communism would not be mentioned, in return for two Russian Orthodox Archbishops to be present as Observers. this is hardly secret: it was reported in the daily papers at the time. The petition to the Pope was “lost” and never presented to the Council.

Yet, as Lefebvre writes in his memoirs, “I did expect that about 200 bishops would refuse the changes” In the end there were only two, himself & Bp de Castro Meyer of Brazil (who is often firgotten about) - one missionary Bishoop and one Diocesan bishop. So why? Most never did disclose their reasons. The charitable suggestion is that they believed they would do more good by staying with the mainstream and working from within. How much good did that do? As in other situations, they often faound themselves simply doing the dirty work of policies they personally vehemently opposed.

Just one other example: during the sessions of the council, when National Bishops Conferences were being mooted, Lefebvre stood up and warned them all, “You think you are bringing in democracy: but you will find when you return home that you are no longer in charge of your own diocese”… They ignored his warning and, when they got home, found it was precisely as Lefebvre had warned.

If the reforms after Vatican II were wrong, why did 99.9% of the clergy obey?

Out of a misunderstanding of true Catholic obedience. Lefebvre wrote (these are strong words, but I must quote as he wrote) “It was the master stroke of Satan to intorroduce lapsation from the Faith in the name of Obedience”.

Why was Lefebvre the only one who had problems?

Many came to him privately, but he, & the others, were the only ones to have the courage to take the consequences of telling the truth. the church was in denial of the post-Vatican II wreckage for decades.

In the past, I have read that Archbishop Lefebvre was perplexed by the actions of his contemporaries, especially the French Bishops. He claimed that he was remaining faithful to what he had been taught at the French Seminary in Rome; the other French Bishops received the same education at the French Seminary but they did not react the same way as Lefebvre. Why was the Lefebvre the only one to find problems with the reforms in the wake of the Council?

some were afraid, as I have said. For many others, the new teachings were so much in tune with the mood of the times that they believed them. Let it not be saaid that there were no honest would-be reformers.

The SSPX is holding fast to the certain truth. If other Religious Orders do not agree, that is not the SSPX’s responsibility.

numealinesimpet - I would be particularly interested in reading your answer to this question.
As a character says in The Lord of the Rings: “Such work as this The enemy loves: friend slaying friend in an agony of conflicting loyalty”. This is what we have lived through, and I cast no stones. Yet, my own position is this: I am just a Catholic dad. I take my children to the Sacraments, teach them the catechism, and try to arm them against the deceits of The World. After 13 years, I realised that the SSPX had got it ritght (not that everybody else was 100% wrong). and if my plan for my family is not approved by others, that is not my responsibility.

 

[Onegin]

Archbishop Lefebvre was no better than Martin Luther. They both thought they knew better than the Pope and their followers did as well.

The SSPX has taken all the pomp and circumstance with them but have left the substance behind.

I pray for your full communion with the church.

Until then, there is no more to be said.

Why are you harping on Archbishop Lefebvre’s excommunication? He is no longer excommunicated, so who cares? Excommunication is irrelevant to the SSPX status as they exist today.

Secondly, don’t bother “praying” for anyone’s “full communion with the Church”. ***The canonical status of the SSPX clergy has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the status of Catholics who assist at their chapels. ***

This detraction is tiring.

 

[Lycorth]

I give up. This has been the problem all along with sedevacantists/separatists/protestants. They will never admit to any wrongdoing whatsoever. When your own leader is excommunicated, that’s a serious thing.

Archbishop Lefebvre was no better than Martin Luther. They both thought they knew better than the Pope and their followers did as well.

Give me a break. I’m getting more than a little sick of your baseless hatemongering.

Disagreeing with papal opinions is not remotely the same as schism or heresy. Just give it a rest, already.

The SSPX has taken all the pomp and circumstance with them but have left the substance behind.

More baseless hatemongering. The SSPX, be they schismatic or not, are clearly passionate about Catholic tradition and traditional practices. It’s not at all hollow or meaningless on their end. Any non-SSPX member can plainly see that, when they’re not so puffed-up with pride they can’t admit to the slightest error of judgment.

I pray for your full communion with the church.

Until then, there is no more to be said.

I pray you will take the time to look at the plank in your own eye.

 

[Lormar]

Right on, Lycorth!

Maria sounds to me like she was involved in some kind of a cult at one time.

 

[ProVobis]

My question: Why was the Lefebvre the only Archbishop to rebel against the reforms that came in the wake of Vatican II?

Which, given the fact that he was soon to die, is precisely why he felt he needed to consecrate other bishops to ordain priests to preserve the TLM and the Catholic faith.