why condemn the SSPX

[historybrat]

I think we can go back and forth debating point by point. The SSPX and their supporters will claim that they are completely loyal to the pope and only did what they did because they felt it was an emergency. You have others who will disagree like in More Catholic Than the Pope, I think by Patrick Madrid.

I don’t hate, despise, or truly condemn the SSPX. I think they might have had good intentions at the beginning. However, as catholics our loyalty, outside of Jesus of course, is the church and the pope. I’ve looked at both sides and it seems to me that no matter what they may say the actions of the SSPX indicate that they will only follow the pope if he does things their way. I do not see any reconciliation until they can move past their pride and submit. That being said again I don’t hate, despise, condemn, etc. them. I speak out against them as I would any group that does not follow the pope including most liberals.

Historybrat

 

[Sure]

---

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.

Perhaps despise is too strong a word. I apologize.

The difference between the protestants and the Orthodox is that they have (for the most part) been born and raised outside the Church. The SSPX have not. They are highly intelligent and were given the great gift of the fullness of the Truth. They chose to walk away from that, to disobey the lawful commands of their Church. I think such behavior is sad and shameful and I pray for their return to the fullness of the Church. God forbid the SSPX continue for 100 years more and then their situation will be more similar to the Orthodox.

 

[ncjohn]

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.

I personally neither condone nor condemn them. I admire the devotion and zeal shown by many and will let God sort out whether their objections materially affect their salvation.

That being said, what I DO have a problem with is those who do not identify the foundation they are coming from and then try to argue doctrinal and disicplinary actions of the post-conciliar Church as if they were a part of it, attempting to convince those they are debating with that they are simply misinformed as to what the Church really teaches.

This is almost always coupled with extensive quoting of old documents with the implication that Vatican II is in conflict with those documents, when in fact the Chruch has stated otherwise. At the least this creates great confusion and division. At worst it fractures the Body of Christ as if Christ were divisible between “those who follow Paul and those who follow Apollo.”

To me that just becomes a question of intellectual honesty. If one is outside communion and wants to show why and argue that old documents overrule the Church’s current understanding, that’s fine and dandy. But to pretend to be in communion and then act as if others in communion just aren’t “with it” is both misleading and dishonest.

That would be the only complaint I would have about those, SSPX or otherwise, who are outside of communion, and I think it only fair and honest in any discussion to be honest about the premise and foundation one is arguing from so the receiving party can decide what weight to give those arguments.

And yes, I would apply the same criteria to the Orthodox and Protestants, as well as those outside communion in the other direction. Stating that one believes the Church SHOULD teach something is one thing; stating that it DOES teach something it does not is not honest.

Peace,

 

[Walking_Home]

Perhaps despise is too strong a word. I apologize.

The difference between the protestants and the Orthodox is that they have (for the most part) been born and raised outside the Church. The SSPX have not. They are highly intelligent and were given the great gift of the fullness of the Truth. They chose to walk away from that, to disobey the lawful commands of their Church. I think such behavior is sad and shameful and I pray for their return to the fullness of the Church. God forbid the SSPX continue for 100 years more and then their situation will be more similar to the Orthodox.

---

Do you not think that children have been born and are being born within the SSPX. Basing your argument on protestants and Orthodox being born on the outside — does not hold water–when taking into account that children are also being born within the SSPX community.

 

[Sure]

---

Do you not think that children have been born and are being born within the SSPX. Basing your argument on protestants and Orthodox being born on the outside — does not hold water–when taking into account that children are also being born within the SSPX community.

Since the SSPX does not have lay members (to the best of my knowledge) when I am speaking of the SSPX, I am speaking the priests and most importantly the bishops since they are the ones who are clearly excommunicated. The bishops and priests are not unaware of their canonical status, they just choose to disregard it and commit grave sins of disobedience. As Archbishop Burke (surely a great ally of Tradionalism) has stated any excommunicated priest who confects the Eucharist commits a grave mortal sin. So, how wonderful can a movement be if it’s leaders are commiting grave mortal sins every day? That would seem to be fertile ground for the devil to lay his traps.

 

[Walking_Home]

Since the SSPX does not have lay members (to the best of my knowledge) when I am speaking of the SSPX, I am speaking the priests and most importantly the bishops since they are the ones who are clearly excommunicated. The bishops and priests are not unaware of their canonical status, they just choose to disregard it and commit grave sins of disobedience. As Archbishop Burke (surely a great ally of Tradionalism) has stated any excommunicated priest who confects the Eucharist commits a grave mortal sin. So, how wonderful can a movement be if it’s leaders are commiting grave mortal sins every day? That would seem to be fertile ground for the devil to lay his traps.

---

Bishop Burke can have his opinion—but the Church Herself has stated that we can approach an SSPX priest just as we can approach an Orthodox priest when it is appropriate. Do you think the Church would lead us to participate in an act derived from mortal sin. Furthermore—I believe it was Msgr. Perl who stated that people could for the love of the TLM could attend an SSPX Mass and this would not be a sin. Again—this would mean the Church has allowed people to participate in an act derived from mortal sin–by what Bishop Burke has proposed.

 

[latinmasslover]

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.

What exactly do you mean by “get a free pass?”

[Edited by Moderato]

As to their excommunication, I honestly don’t know what to think; I’m still studying the situation and putting a lot of prayer into it. I do believe that they were definitely unjust, and very likely invalid.

No, I would not be as tolerant as a Modernist bishop who did the same thing, simply because a Modernist isn’t Catholic.

As to the hypothetical statement you give later, it’s ludicrous. Any bishop who felt that way wouldn’t need to ordain priest to continue the Novus Ordo…God allowed the Anglican Church for that.

 

[Sure]

---

Bishop Burke can have his opinion—but the Church Herself has stated that we can approach an SSPX priest just as we can approach an Orthodox priest when it is appropriate. Do you think the Church would lead us to participate in an act derived from mortal sin. Furthermore—I believe it was Msgr. Perl who stated that people could for the love of the TLM could attend an SSPX Mass and this would not be a sin. Again—this would mean the Church has allowed people to participate in an act derived from mortal sin–by what Bishop Burke has proposed.

So, you are stating that a suspended priest commits no sin by confecting the Eucharist??? Sorry, that’s just not the case.

Interesting that no one has commented on what their opinion would be if a modernist bishop did the exact same thing as Lefevbre.

 

[latinmasslover]

So, you are stating that a suspended priest commits no sin by confecting the Eucharist??? Sorry, that’s just not the case.

Interesting that no one has commented on what their opinion would be if a modernist bishop did the exact same thing as Lefevbre.

I think that walkinghome’s point was, if what these bishops are doing is in fact such a serious sin, why are not the laity committing sin by receiving the sacraments from them, in full knowledge of the “schism?”

 

[Sure]

No, I would not be as tolerant as a Modernist bishop who did the same thing, simply because a Modernist isn’t Catholic.

As to the hypothetical statement you give later, it’s ludicrous. Any bishop who felt that way wouldn’t need to ordain priest to continue the Novus Ordo…God allowed the Anglican Church for that.

But according to the argument made by SSPX, the only thing that matters is that the BISHOP thinks there is a necessity. They argue that Lefevbre thought there was necessity therefore it is permissible. So, it wouldn’t matter that YOU thought there was no necessity. You would logically have to accept the modernist bishops and the SSPX bishops as there is no difference, unless of course your acceptance of bishops as licit is tied only to your personal opinion of them.

 

[latinmasslover]

But according to the argument made by SSPX, the only thing that matters is that the BISHOP thinks there is a necessity. They argue that Lefevbre thought there was necessity therefore it is permissible. So, it wouldn’t matter that YOU thought there was no necessity. You would logically have to accept the modernist bishops and the SSPX bishops as there is no difference, unless of course your acceptance of bishops as licit is tied only to your personal opinion of them.

Modernists oppose the Church, the SSPX doesn’t. That’s the difference, and it has nothing to do with personal opinion. The SSPX (their “teachings”) are backed by 2000 years of Catholicism, the Modernists can only go back to a very corrupt interpretation of Vatican II.

 

[stmaria]

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:

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?

I didn’t make up Canon Law 1324. It is there for a reason.
In your hypothetical example if Cardinal Mahoney truly believed with all his heart and soul and had “grave fear” and “necessity” then I believe it is possible that the following canon would apply.

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;

There would be a penalty but it would be tempered. It will be interesting to see how Pope Benedict handles this. I do not see the SSPX backing down from their rejection of the teachings on Religious Liberty, Collegiality, and false ecumenism.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

The thread is going off topic. I will have to close it if the discussion doesn’t return to the OP’s original topic. Thank you all.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

Similar to Bear06, I am fortunate to live in an area where we have numerous fine liturgies inlcuding access to several Extraordinary form Masses.

I am always greatly disheartened by the SSPX because what they do is so very destructive. They are very much a tool of evil in that they find a way to separate very devout, holy, and intelligent people from the Pope and the Magisterium. Certainly, there are liberal organizations that do the same and they are evil as well. What is disheartening is that the very people who fall prey to the SSPX would likely be the strongest and most devout within a Catholic parish. By taking their families elsewhere, they are missing out on the great opportunity to show other “mainstream” Catholics that a love for tradition ought to be a fundamental part of every Catholic’s life.

It is easy for the Devil to conquer the lukewarm, but through the SSPX, he has managed to conquer many of the strongest and most devout.

Just like Bishop Bruskewitz, I am opposed to SSPX and also Catholics for Free Choice and other such liberal organizations.

YUP! Exactly.

It’s really pretty straightforward: listen to what the Vatican says. Do as the Pope tells you. Be obedient to the bishops. Pray for the Church and realize that there will always be people doing things we don’t like in the Church.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

---

So to you the SSPX is in the same boat as those heretics.

Yes. I think so, absolutely.

 

[Sure]

I think that walkinghome’s point was, if what these bishops are doing is in fact such a serious sin, why are not the laity committing sin by receiving the sacraments from them, in full knowledge of the “schism?”

For that, we can look to Archbishop Burke in St. Louis one of the foremost canonists in the Church and a member of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (who, by the way, just published a paper on why pro-abortion politicians should be refused Communion - excellent!) His Excellency had a parish that is now led by an excommunicated priest because the priest failed to obey a valid authoritative order (sound familiar?). His Excellency wrote published a letter making the excommunication known and explaing that an excommunicated priest who confects the Eucharist commits a grave sin AND people who attend these Masses commit a grave sin, as well. Of course he supports this all with a keen understanding of Canon law. You can read the letter here: stlouisreview.com/abpcolumn.php?abpid=9772

A priest, who knowingly and willingly chooses to attempt to exercise priestly ministry outside of the communion of the Church and, thereby, assists and encourages others in breaking communion with the Church, clearly also commits the ecclesiastical crime of schism. To be clear, it is not only the members of the board of directors of the civil corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish who are in schism, but also the priest whom they have presumed to hire and who has agreed to be hired.​

Those who commit the ecclesiastical crime of schism incur automatically the penalty of excommunication (cf. can. 1364, §1; and 1314). The excommunicated person is forbidden “to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the Sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever” (can. 1331, §1, 1º); “to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals, and to receive the sacraments” (can. 1331, §1, 2º); and “to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance” (can. 1331, §1, 3º). The various elements of the penalty underline the fact that the party in question has broken communion with the Church. The prohibition of receiving the sacraments or sacramentals is suspended when the party under sanction is in danger of death, given that he is otherwise properly disposed (cf. can. 1352, §1).​

The ordained priest who goes into schism, in addition to being bound by the above-listed prohibitions, is also rendered irregular for the exercise of Holy Orders (cf. can. 1044, §1, 2º). In other words, he may not exercise the Sacrament of Holy Orders which he has received. Any Mass celebrated by a suspended and excommunicated priest is valid, but illicit. **To knowingly and willingly celebrate the Holy Mass, when one is legitimately prohibited from doing so, is a most grave sin. A priest under the penalty of excommunication does not give valid sacramental absolution (cf. can. 966, §1). Neither can he validly officiate at a wedding (cf. can. 1108, §1). **​

The faithful who approach a schismatic priest for the reception of the sacraments, except in the case of danger of death, commit a mortal sin. All of the faithful of the archdiocese should guard against any participation in the attempt to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals at St. Stanislaus Kostka Church. Also, they should caution visitors and others who are unaware of the status of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, lest they unknowingly participate in the schismatic acts.

So, here we have a very succinct and well reasoned explanation of excommunications and the effect upon both the priest as well as those who approach him for the Sacraments. It is this line of reasoning and these facts that I use to “condemn” or speak out against the SSPX.

 

[Sure]

I didn’t make up Canon Law 1324. It is there for a reason.
In your hypothetical example if Cardinal Mahoney truly believed with all his heart and soul and had “grave fear” and “necessity” then I believe it is possible that the following canon would apply.

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;

There would be a penalty but it would be tempered. It will be interesting to see how Pope Benedict handles this. I do not see the SSPX backing down from their rejection of the teachings on Religious Liberty, Collegiality, and false ecumenism.

Thank you for the direct answer. I disagree with you but respect the fact that you are totally consistent in your thinking.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Bishop Burke can have his opinion—but the Church Herself has stated that we can approach an SSPX priest just as we can approach an Orthodox priest when it is appropriate. Do you think the Church would lead us to participate in an act derived from mortal sin. Furthermore—I believe it was Msgr. Perl who stated that people could for the love of the TLM could attend an SSPX Mass and this would not be a sin. Again—this would mean the Church has allowed people to participate in an act derived from mortal sin–by what Bishop Burke has proposed.

That has been REPEATEDLY refuted. Msgr. Perle’s letter addressed a specific situation and it was NOT a blanket permission.

 

[Walking_Home]

That has been REPEATEDLY refuted. Msgr. Perle’s letter addressed a specific situation and it was NOT a blanket permission.

---

No it hasn’t — It was by Ecclesia Dei’s request that that Msgr. Perl’s statements be published. So this takes it outside the realm of addressing a specific situation.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

As to the hypothetical statement you give later, it’s ludicrous. Any bishop who felt that way wouldn’t need to ordain priest to continue the Novus Ordo…God allowed the Anglican Church for that.

Sorry, but are you comparing the OF of the Mass to the Anglican service? I see a back handed slam at this form of the Holy Sacrifice, I hope I’m mistaken.