why condemn the SSPX

[Walking_Home]

I think in that the Church distinguishes between formal and material schism, it matters (and let’s be frankly honest, Walking Home, I’m not going to accept your interpretation of the mind of the Servant of God Pope John Paul II any more than you’re going to accept my interpretation of the situation with SSPX).

---

I am not the one doing the interpreting. JPII signed the agreement --that is in writing. The rest— is becoming history.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

I am not the one doing the interpreting. JPII signed the agreement --that is in writing. The rest— is becoming history.

Well, then, he signed Ecclesia Dei, too. So I guess the SSPX are in WORSE shape than the Orthodox. Go figure.

 

[Walking_Home]

Well, then, he signed Ecclesia Dei, too. So I guess the SSPX are in WORSE shape than the Orthodox. Go figure.

---

He signed it–yet they continue to have apostolic succession so they still seem to be in the same boat as the Orthodox. Give it time–and more than likely a future Pope will be apologizing to the SSPX for how they were treated.

 

[Thursday1]

[sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_v_1988_consecration_sermon.htm](http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_v_1988_consecration_sermon.htm)

An interesting fact: Archbishop Lefebvre signed the documents of Vatican II that most traditionalist would deem the “errors of modernism”
http://www.crc-internet.org/images/sig.jpg
I + Marcel Lefebvre, titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia. (On the next line, Mgr Lefebvre signed in the name of Mgr Auguste Grimault, titular bishop of Maximianopolis in Palestine.)

If he had thought the documents contained heresy, he could have put a note in the margin, stating he was not signing such and such document, but no note is given.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[otjm]

I should’ve had this question posted with the others originally but, let’s say that Pope Benedict, or his successor, were to declare the excommunications unjust and invalid, would you still refer to the SSPX as evil? I’m not trying to smart off, it is a sincere question.

Considering that As Cardinal Ratzinger he was head of the dicatery where at least part of the fracas passed through, and given that there was a direct command not to consecrate the bishops, which command is acknowledged as legitimately soley the discretion of the Pope - John Paul 2 at the time, the excommunications will not be declared either unjust or invalid. There is absolutely no question as to the validity; anyone who holds otherwise is simply putting themselves as superior to the Pope and to the curial offices responsible.

As to unjust, it was a direct order and did not come out of “left field”; LeFebvre at one point agreed not to go forward, and then did an about face and did so. It was deliberate, knowingly done, and in direct violation of a specific order.

The excommunications could be lifted; I have my doubts they will if the SSPX bishops continue their cat-and-mouse game with both the Pope and the curial offices.

 

[Walking_Home]

Archbishop Milingo’s ordinations would be only invalid insofar as he used improper matter (married men), would they not? Given the proper matter (an unmarried man), he could still validly, but illicitly ordain, could he not?

No, the SSPX do not promote free choice, but neither do lots of groups. What’s right with them doesn’t negate what’s wrong with them.

---

If you search for the Pope response to Milingo’s ordinations—I believe the Pope stated the Church would not recognized any of Milingo’s future ordinations. Milingo was cut off.

 

[otjm]

Formosus;2744380:

The SSPX’s Bishops are in schism, its plain and simple. Why would priests want to subject themselves to Bishops who were ordained illicitly? SSPX confessions and marriages are not valid because of the lack of jurisdiction. QUOTE]

Why, then, do we recognize protestant marriages?

Canon law specifically binds Catholics to the form the Church requires - the marriage must be witnessed by a priest. Non-Catholics are not bound by the form. Further, a Catholic prist does not administer the Sarament of Marriage; he only is the official witness. The couple adminstre the Sacrament; so a Protestant couple could also adminster the Sacrament, and not be bound to the requirement to have it witnessed by a priest.

What about Baptisms? While the Church holds that the priest is the offical to adminster Baptism, it is not absolute; in an emergency anyone can; the Church even recognizes Baptism adminstered by an atheist or a pagan, so long as they intend to do wht the Church intends (and they do not have to understand the intent; only that they have the intent). So Baptism following the Trinitarian formula and water at least poured over the head (immersion is ok too) suffices.
jabelltulsa;2744867:

So, if I was confirmed by Arch Bishop Lefebvre, would I need to be re-confirmed?

That is a Canon law question as to whether the sacrament was invalid or just illicit.

If I had received Absolution from a SSPX priest, you would say it was invalid?

It is my understanding that a priest has to not only bo ordained, but also have the specific permission of the bishop geographically to be able to validly absolve. That is called faculties, I believe.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

He signed it–yet they continue to have apostolic succession so they still seem to be in the same boat as the Orthodox. Give it time–and more than likely a future Pope will be apologizing to the SSPX for how they were treated.

I guess we’ll have to see. But here’s the thing. Despite how much they may crow and cackle triumphantly at that possible eventuality, it won’t be a moment of vindication for traditionalists or of shame for those who said that there was a schism, because from the Lord God’s eye view (for us, unknown) in terms of eternity, what is simply IS. If the Archbishop and the Pope both are in heaven, I’m sure they’ve been reconciled. If they’re in Purgatory, I’m sure they’re on their way to BEING reconciled. And if they’re in Hell, they aren’t going to be able to dust the ash off their robes and check out as a result of a technicality (“Boy, am I chagrined!” said the gatekeeper of Hell,“but here’s a lovely parting gift, so no hard feelings”). We won’t know until we stand in the Holy Presence (if we make it). And that won’t change even if the pope lifts the excommunications. Until then, the only OBJECTIVE thing we have to go on is a ruling by the Vicar of Christ: the Archbishop and the bishops are excommunicated, the priests are suspended ad divinis, and the faithful are warned against the sin of schism. That’s not pope worship (I can hear it coming), that just the safest path, objectively. AND I don’t think that the final judgment on any soul is going to be “Lefebreve: Saint or schismatic? Five seconds, go!” But in the here and now, objectively? I’m going with the pope, esp. since it was a matter of Church discipline.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

If you search for the Pope response to Milingo’s ordinations—I believe the Pope stated the Church would not recognized any of Milingo’s future ordinations. Milingo was cut off.

Good to know. Was it because he’s a nutter?

 

[Walking_Home]

I guess we’ll have to see. But here’s the thing. Despite how much they may crow and cackle triumphantly at that possible eventuality, it won’t be a moment of vindication for traditionalists or of shame for those who said that there was a schism, because from the God’s eye view (for us, unknown) in terms of eternity, what is simply IS. If the Archbishop and the Pope both are in heaven, I’m sure they’ve been reconciled. If they’re in Purgatory, I’m sure they’re on their way to BEING reconciled. And if they’re in Hell, they aren’t going to be able to dust the ash off their robes and check out as a result of a technicality (“Boy, am I chagrined!” said the gatekeeper of Hell,“but here’s a lovely parting gift, so no hard feelings”). We won’t know until we stand in the Holy Presence (if we make it). And that won’t change even if the pope lifts the excommunications. Until then, the only OBJECTIVE thing we have to go on is a ruling by the Vicar of Christ: the Archbishop and the bishops are excommunicated, the priests are suspended ad divinis, and the faithful are warned against the sin of schism. That’s not pope worship (I can hear it coming), that just the safest path, objectively. AND I don’t think that the final judgment on any soul is going to be “Lefebreve: Saint or schismatic? Five seconds, go!” But in the here and now, objectively? I’m going with the pope, esp. since it was a matter of Church discipline.

---

As you said —guess will have to wait and see. The Orthodox have survived the last 1000 years and even though they now reject the papacy they continue with succession, —will see with the SSPX.

 

[Aramis]

Why is it that many Catholics condemn the SSPX with such vehemence and yet say very little, if anything, about the liberals who are trying to rid the Church of all things Catholic? Why do they condemn the SSPX as being outside the Church, while at the same time praising God for the faith being taught at heretic ecclesial communities?

This is question is for anyone, but especially for those Catholics that are in fact orthodox, but still dislike the SSPX.

Please remember Christian charity in your responses.

The SSPX started off with good intent.

But when ABp. Lefebvre disobeyed direct instructions to only consecrate one bishop, and consecrated three, and those three also knew that only one was to be consecrated… by this defective act, all four excommunicated themselves. The formal declaration was for the benefit of the rest.

They ignored canon law as a group by electing, as a priestly society, a formally and manifestly excommunicated bishop as their general superior.

When given the chance to repent these errors, they chose instead to make demands.

They claim to be part of the Church, and yet reject the authority of the one they claim is the head of the church. In short, they have, as a group, lied about being in union. THey have lied about a desire to remain a part of the church.

For the priests, their only hope is in returning to the Church, and to formally reacquaint themselves with the church and its rules.

For the people deceived by them, simply returning to a true catholic church and hitting the confessional is enough.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

As you said —guess will have to wait and see. The Orthodox have survived the last 1000 years and even though they now reject the papacy they continue with succession, —will see with the SSPX.

Oh, I don’t argue that they don’t have valid succession. Not at all.

 

[Walking_Home]

Oh, I don’t argue that they don’t have valid succession. Not at all.

---

I don’t agrue it either.

 

[HenryV]

The SSPX started off with good intent.

But when ABp. Lefebvre disobeyed direct instructions to only consecrate one bishop, and consecrated three, and those three also knew that only one was to be consecrated… by this defective act, all four excommunicated themselves. The formal declaration was for the benefit of the rest.

They ignored canon law as a group by electing, as a priestly society, a formally and manifestly excommunicated bishop as their general superior.

When given the chance to repent these errors, they chose instead to make demands.

They claim to be part of the Church, and yet reject the authority of the one they claim is the head of the church. In short, they have, as a group, lied about being in union. THey have lied about a desire to remain a part of the church.

For the priests, their only hope is in returning to the Church, and to formally reacquaint themselves with the church and its rules.

For the people deceived by them, simply returning to a true catholic church and hitting the confessional is enough.

How many Catholic Bishops in China are recognized by the Vatican??? The faithful of the Patriotic Association are not Catholic???
It seems it’s a bit more complicated.

 

[bpbasilphx]

It cannot be denied that the relationship between SSPX (and its Byzantine equivalent, SSKJ) are strained. Whether they are strained to the breaking point I don’t presume to know.

At best, their status is irregular.

if wishing to see them regularized and full, undisputed communion restored is “condemning them,” then I guess they stand condemned.

 

[Aramis]

How many Catholic Bishops in China are recognized by the Vatican???

A significant but unpublished fraction.

The faithful of the Patriotic Association are not Catholic???

In the sense of being part of the Visible Catholic Church? None.
In the sense of being hidden uniates? A significant fraction.
In the sense of being in similar status to the Anglicans? the rest.

It seems it’s a bit more complicated.

It is.

It is a situation where the Peoples National Patriotic Church was driven into scism not by choice, but by government dictate. That some are still in secret union is a miracle.

The SSPX chose to continue to follow a man formally Excommunicated. and then to Elect another excommunicated in the same bull to replace him as the Superior General of their society.

The PNPC clergy had to chose between martyrdom but leaving the people with no true route to God, or accepting schism but leaving a path to God for the faithful. I repsect their individual choices… both were followed.

The SSPX had no such situation. From where I sit, the whole SSPX should be excommunicated formally (mind you, there technically are no laymen in the SSPX, as they are a clerical fraternity) for disobedience and breaking canon law. But since, by voting for Felley, and accepting Fellay as superior General, they engaged in direct violations of canon law, and thus have excommunicated themselves, too.

I can understand why they are not formally excommunicated, but it creates confusion. As it stands, any bishop can receive them back (save for Fellay and his three fellows formally excommunicated for their illicit episcopal Ordination). Formal clerical excommunicants require papal acceptance back.

 

[Sure]

To those who are apologists for the SSPX,

Why do they get a free pass?
Is it because their Masses seem pretty and traditional so, therefore we must not judge them harshly?
Do you believe Lefevbre and his bishops are excommunicated?
If so, how can you abide excommunicated men continuing to confect sacraments in direct disobedience to a valid Pope?
Would you give a modernist bishop the same sort of latitude?

It seems that I get painted as a liberal despite my strong orthodoxy just because I despise the SSPX and what they do to Catholics.

 

[stmaria]

A significant but unpublished fraction.

The SSPX chose to continue to follow a man formally Excommunicated. and then to Elect another excommunicated in the same bull to replace him as the Superior General of their society.

The SSPX had no such situation. From where I sit, the whole SSPX should be excommunicated formally (mind you, there technically are no laymen in the SSPX, as they are a clerical fraternity) for disobedience and breaking canon law. But since, by voting for Felley, and accepting Fellay as superior General, they engaged in direct violations of canon law, and thus have excommunicated themselves, too.

I can understand why they are not formally excommunicated,

It is my understanding that there never was a formal excommunication. By his disobedience Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated himself. However he believed that the Church was in a time of crises and it was his duty to consecrate the Bishops. He believed that the following canons allowed him do this.
Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:
/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls"

Read his Consecration Sermon and you can see that he acted out of grave fear. He believed that Pope John Paul had two years earlier broken the First Commandment by inviting false religions to pray to the devil in a Catholic Church for peace. He also believed that the prophecy of Our Lady at La Salette and Fatima was being fulfilled.
From his Sermon:
“….And I really believe that there has never been a greater iniquity in the Church than Assisi, which is contrary to the First Commandment of God and the First Article of the Creed. It is incredible that something like that could have ever taken place in the Church, in the eyes of the whole Church —how humiliating! We have never undergone such a humiliation! … And Our Lady prophesied for the 20th century, saying explicitly that during the 19th century and most of the 20th century, errors would become more and more widespread in Holy Church, placing the Church in a catastrophic situation. Morals would become corrupt and the Faith would disappear. It seems impossible not to see it happening today.
I excuse myself for continuing this account of the apparition, but she speaks of a prelate who will absolutely oppose this wave of apostasy and impiety —saving the priesthood by forming good priests. I do not say that prophecy refers to me. You may draw your own conclusions. I was stupefied when reading these lines but I cannot deny them, since they are recorded and deposited in the archives of this apparition.
Of course, you well know the apparitions of Our Lady at La Salette, where she says that Rome will lose the Faith, that there will be an “eclipse” at Rome; an eclipse, see what Our Lady means by this.
And finally, closer to us, the secret of Fatima. Without a doubt, the Third Secret of Fatima must have made an allusion to this darkness which has invaded Rome, this darkness which has invaded the world since the Council. And surely it is because of this, without a doubt, that John XXIII judged it better not to publish the Secret: it would have been necessary to take measures, such steps as he possibly felt himself incapable of doing, e.g., completely changing the orientations which he was beginning to take in view of the Council, and for the Council.”

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_v_1988_consecration_sermon.htm

 

[Sure]

It is my understanding that there never was a formal excommunication. By his disobedience Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated himself. However he believed that the Church was in a time of crises and it was his duty to consecrate the Bishops. He believed that the following canons allowed him do this.
Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:
/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls"

Read his Consecration Sermon and you can see that he acted out of grave fear. He believed that Pope John Paul had two years earlier broken the First Commandment by inviting false religions to pray to the devil in a Catholic Church for peace. He also believed that the prophecy of Our Lady at La Salette and Fatima was being fulfilled.
From his Sermon:

So, if Lefevbre’s excommunication is not valid you would also accept that this completely hypothetical excommunication would also not be valid since it uses identical reasoning:

"LOS ANGELES-April 25, 2009

This morning in a Mass at the Cathedral of Los Angeles, Cardinal Maloney of Los Angeles consecrated 4 bishops against the explicit direction of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. Cardinal Maloney claims that he acted out of grave necessity in order to preserve the “Novus Ordo” Mass.

Cardinal Maloney stated: “It is clear that a vast overemphasis has been placed on the tridentine Mass by people in the Vatican. Priests within my diocese are moving en masse to reduce the number of Novus Ordo Masses. Therefore, out of grave necessity, I must consecrate these bishops immediately so that the Novus Ordo Mass may continue in Los Angeles and throughout the world.”

The Vatican, in a document issued by Pope Benedict XVI, responded that the unfortunate consecrations performed by Cardinal Maloney against the express will of the Holy Father ‘constitute a schismatic act’ and, as such, Cardinal Maloney and the 4 new bishops have ‘excommunicated themselves under the penalty envisaged under canon law.’"

If you hold that Lefevbre’s excommunication is invalid according to the SSPX, then you would have to agree that should some modernist bishop decide to consecrate more bishops because he felt there was necessity, that would be moral and not an excommunicable offense.

You can’t have it both ways and what happens to the Church if anyone who has “grave fear” and “feels necessity” decides to consecrate some bishops?

 

[Walking_Home]

To those who are apologists for the SSPX,

Why do they get a free pass?
Is it because their Masses seem pretty and traditional so, therefore we must not judge them harshly?
Do you believe Lefevbre and his bishops are excommunicated?
If so, how can you abide excommunicated men continuing to confect sacraments in direct disobedience to a valid Pope?
Would you give a modernist bishop the same sort of latitude?

It seems that I get painted as a liberal despite my strong orthodoxy just because I despise the SSPX and what they do to Catholics.

---

Do you also “despise” the protestants. This protestants affect us at levels beyond and over the SSPX. How about the Orthodox.
Do you “despise” the Orthodox. Or do you exhaust all your despising on the SSPX.