Why did SSPX split?

[Tomdstone]

When a bishop ordains another bishop without a papal mandate, he is violating the primacy of Peter.

What if a union were established between East and West. Would the Roman Church require that the Orthodox get a papal mandate before ordaining their bishops?

 

[numealinesimpet]

I was wondering why the SSPX split from the church. Did Vatican II make the Church “too soft”?

May I quote the following, from another thread on this forum?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10387011#post10387011
N.B. the SSPX deny that they split from the Church, and insist that their actions are consonant with Canon Law. Whether these claims can be supported by the evidence is valid matter for debate.

Originally Posted by Flimmy

Hello,
My question is this, what makes the SSPX so unhappy about Vatican II? Is it just the liberties many American priests have taken or how Vatican II has been interpreted?..
My understanding is that it’s mainly an argument about traditions and not necessarily doctrine, or else the SSPX would be schismatic (??).
–Flimmy
PS. I used to attend SSPX.
And this is probably a thick topic.
numealinesimpetar replied:

I think that there were 4 main issues on which Mgr Lefebvre challenged the proceedings of the Second Vatican Council -
(a) The Vatican Agreement with the Soviet Union not to condemn Marxist Communism;
(b), Collegiality (which was being used by the Rhine Group & followers to attack the Papal Primacy), - in fact in many exchanges, Mgr Lefebvre & followers have championed the primacy of the Papacy against those who would downgrade it.
(c) Ecumenism: the final paragraph of the document does lay out very clearly the true Catholic doctrine, but many passages in the body of the text have been used to promote the idea that we now no longer strive to convert our non-Catholic bretheren. I think that the SSPX have been urging a more explicit statement of the Catholic position - and
(d) Religious Liberty (which was being promoted during the council in a form previously explicitly condemned).
And also
(e) Mgr Lefebvre always maintained that the tension between ‘Doctrinal versus Pastoral’ led to endless confusion during and after the Council.

I do not think that the issue of the Liturgy was very high on the agenda at the time: the text of the Novus Ordo Missae, 1969, was very considerably different from that apparently being suggested in the appropriate Vatican II document. Note that, at first, Mgr Lefebvre was in favour of some modifications to the 1958 version of the Liturgy, and accepted the 1962 revision.

My understanding is that it’s mainly an argument about traditions and not necessarily doctrine, or else the SSPX would be schismatic (??).

Reply:

Well, if the SSPX had proclaimed doctrines that were contrary to Catholic teaching, and after having been reprimanded, had ‘pertinaceously’ refused to recant, they would be guilty of heresy. If they had denied the primacy of Peter, either by word or by invading his jurisdiction (such as appointing a rival bishop to a diocese) they would be guilty of schism. What they actually did was to refuse certain commands (notably the instruction to close their seminary), and to consecrate 4 bishops, assisted by Mgr de Castro Mayer of Brazil, against the express command of the Pope, stating that it was out of obedience to the Faith. But this takes the discussion away from your main point, which was the objections of the SSPX to Vatican II.

 

[numealinesimpet]

What if a union were established between East and West. Would the Roman Church require that the Orthodox get a papal mandate before ordaining their bishops?

 

[numealinesimpet]

. When a bishop ordains another bishop without a papal mandate, he is violating the primacy of Peter.

That cannot be supported by the historical evidence. Popes have occasionally (though rarely) issued commands such that the subject of the command has been forced to reply, “I must obey God before men”. Not every command of the Pope is of the same degree. This is fully consistent with the teaching on the primacy of Peter, which was explicated at Vatican I.

 

[GWright]

I was wondering why the SSPX split from the church. Did Vatican II make the Church “too soft”?

Hiya

The society was formed (by Archbishop Lefebvre) in response to some of changes introduced at Vatican II. It should be noted that Lefebvre and others were keen on *some *reforms of the Latin mass- and voted for this at the council - but they did not desire the vernacular (some say “protestantised”) mass which resulted.

Ultimately, the SSPX were excommunicated in 1988, when Lefebvre consecrated 4 Bishops, without the permission of the Pope (JP2). He consecrated these Bishops to continue the society after he died.

In a sense, Lefebvre and the others excommunicated themselves as they knew what the results of their actions would be, but still did it anyway.

The excommunications were revoked by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009, as a step towards the full reconciliation of the society with Rome.

One of the Bishops consecreated by Lefebvre (Richard Williamson, an Englishman) turned out to be a bit of a nutter, and has since been expelled from the SSPX.

Another of the four - Bernard Fellay (Swiss) - is now the leader of the society, and it is he who has been leading discussions with the Vatican regarding full reconciliation.

From what I have seen or heard of Bishop Bernad Fellay, he is a very impressive man and I sincerely hope and pray that the society can be fully reconciled.

As to the current status of SSPX clergy. The official Vatican view is that they are genuine Cathlolic clergy, but currently lack faculties (authorisation) to administer the sacraments. However, several Cardinals are on record as saying the SSPX can validly administer sacraments.

 

[numealinesimpet]

When a bishop ordains another bishop without a papal mandate, he is violating the primacy of Peter.

Is this not an allegation of formal schism? The Catholic Encyclopaedia notes that an act of disobedience (which in the present case, that of the SSPX, merits the present separate discussion) does not, of itself, constitute an act of schism:

Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command"

To my knowledge, Mgr Lefebvre, Bp Fellay and the others have never done this, in fact they have strenuously declared that they are acting out of ‘true loyalty’ to the Chair of Peter. (I haven’t any links to hand at this moment, but they can be found). * … To refuse a particular command for a particular reason is not to deny the very position of the one issuing the command.
The following quotes are relevant:

CARDINAL CASTILLO LARA,
President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, explained that, “The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope’s permission) is not in itself a schismatic act” (La Repubblica, October 7, 1988).
COUNT NERI CAPPONI, D.Cn.L., LL.D
The retired Professor of Canon Law at the University of Florence, well-known in Vatican legal circles and accredited to argue cases before Rome’s highest juridical body, the Apostolic Signatura, explains that for a schismatic act, it is not enough to merely consecrate a bishop without papal permission. “He must do something more. For instance, had he set up a hierarchy of his own, then it would have been a schismatic act. The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre said ‘I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.’ Therefore this act was not, per se, schismatic” (Latin Mass Magazine, May-June 1993)
PROFESSOR GERINGER,
Canon Lawyer at the University of Munich
"With the Episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre was by no means creating a schism."
FR. GERALD E MURRAY of the Archdiocese of New York, working for his Canon Law doctorate, received his license in Canon Law at Rome’s famous Gregorian University, probably the Church’s most prestigious institution of higher learning, in June, 1995, with a lengthy thesis entitled, “The Canonical Status of the Lay Faithful Associated with the Late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X: Are they Excommunicated as Schismatics?” In his interview with Latin Mass Magazine, he says: “I have received a license in canon law and I’ve studied this topic, the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, for my license thesis … I come to the conclusion that, canonically speaking, he’s not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law. He’s guilty of an act of disobedience to the Pope, but he did it in such a way that he could avail himself of a provision of the law that would prevent him from being automatically excommunicated (latae sententiae) for this act.”

Fr Murray is presumably referring to canons 1321, 1323 & 1324, New Code of Canon Law…

Therefore, neither Archbishop Lefebvre, nor any of the bishops he consecrated, is excommunicated.
“In the case of the Society of Saint Pius X lay people or the priests, the Vatican never declared any priest or lay person to have become a schismatic.” Therefore the priests and faithful are not excommunicated. “As far as I can see, the Holy See has never stated that mere attendance at a Mass said by a priest in the Society of Saint Pius X constitutes a schismatic act … Let’s say that you knew that the priest at your parish was teaching things contrary to the moral law or Catholic doctrine. Let’s say he denied the existence of hell, or taught that divorced and remarried people could receive Communion. Could you go to a Society of Saint Pius X chapel to receive good doctrine? That seems better to me than hearing truly heretical sermons.” (Latin Mass Magazine, Fall, 1995).
FR.PATRICK VALDINI,
Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris said that Archbishop Lefebvre did not commit a schismatic act by the consecrations, for he didn’t deny the Pope’s primacy. “It is not the consecration of a bishop which creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission.” Which is something Archbishop Lefebvre never did (Question de Droit ou de confiance, L’Homme Nouveau, Feb.17, 1988).

 

[pollycarp]

Just throwing in my :twocents and I apologize for not reading the whole thread, I have to go out. I read this today in my missal about St. Peter Damian who was a doctor of the Church. He often said “We can never restore primitive discipline when once it is decayed; and if we, by negligence, suffer any diminution in what remains established, future ages will never be able to repair the breach.” It made me think of the SSPX.

 

[Lormar]

So far, on these boards, there is more about winning than about helping.

That sums it all up.

 

[Zekariya]

As to the current status of SSPX clergy. The official Vatican view is that they are genuine Cathlolic clergy, but currently lack faculties (authorisation) to administer the sacraments. However, several Cardinals are on record as saying the SSPX can validly administer sacraments.

They can validly administer the Eucharist. They have no faculties to hear confessions and preform weddings from the Ordinary and, therefore, their confessions and weddings are invalid. Confessions would be valid if it was a state of emergency.

 

[numealinesimpet]

They can validly administer the Eucharist. They have no faculties to hear confessions and preform weddings from the Ordinary and, therefore, their confessions and weddings are invalid. Confessions would be valid if it was a state of emergency.

As against that, see

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1031-mccall-fellay.htm

[Bp Fellay] mentioned the issue of SSPX confessions.* As most Catholics know, there are certain grave sins, the remittance of which is reserved to the Holy See alone.* Under Church law if a priest hears the confession of a person who has committed one of these reserved sins, he is obligated to report the matter to the Holy See within thirty days to receive permission to absolve as well as guidance for the imposition of an appropriate penance.* His Excellency indicated that from time to time Society priests have heard such confessions, and that, in every case, the required notification was sent to the Holy See.* In each of these cases, the response received from the Vatican was that “all was good and licit” and that the permission for the SSPX priest to absolve was granted.**
What inference are we to draw from this?* Obviously, the Society priests can validly hear confessions.* If the Society priests lacked any form of jurisdiction to hear confessions, the Holy See would have replied that the penitent needed to confess to a priest with legal jurisdiction to hear confessions. By definition, we are here dealing with grave matter and hence mortal sin (assuming all other conditions are present). Yet even still, the Holy See replied to the SSPX that “all is good and licit.” The Holy See is thus making a de facto recognition of SSPX jurisdiction to hear confessions, a position that the Society and a number of canonical experts have maintained for years in the face of what is obviously a difficult legal situation.*

 

[Zekariya]

As against that, see

I see. In those cases they got permission from the Holy See to validly absolve the sin in question.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

I get the distinct feeling that a good number of people would love to see SSPX and the Vatican come to terms and immediately seek out SSPX chapels. Too bad FSSP chapels are few and far between.

I know a good number of SSPX people, and they (can’t speak for all of 'em) are praying for the same thing.

Charity
HUMILITY
Prayer

 

[numealinesimpet]

I see. In those cases they got permission from the Holy See to validly absolve the sin in question.

There is no impression given that the other confessions are invalid; in fact, what sense would that make?

 

[Lormar]

I get the distinct feeling that a good number of people would love to see SSPX and the Vatican come to terms and immediately seek out SSPX chapels. Too bad FSSP chapels are few and far between.

I know a good number of SSPX people, and they (can’t speak for all of 'em) are praying for the same thing.

Charity
HUMILITY
Prayer

Don’t forget Obedience.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I get the distinct feeling that a good number of people would love to see SSPX and the Vatican come to terms and immediately seek out SSPX chapels. Too bad FSSP chapels are few and far between.

I know a good number of SSPX people, and they (can’t speak for all of 'em) are praying for the same thing.

Charity
HUMILITY
Prayer

At the risk of the Moderator’s ire, that’s most definitely what I hope and pray for those people. The FSSP at one point were being run by a Cdl [Innocenti? the second one to be appointed] who, according to the then Bp of Kerry, Bp O’Sullivan, told him personally that ‘the aim of the Ecclesia Dei organisation is to put itself out of business’ by easing the transit to the Novus Ordo. That is why, as Bp O’Sullivan explained in a letter of which copies were at the back of the church, he did not grant permission for the Tridentine Mass under the terms of Ecclesia Dei - {even though Bl. John Paul II had stipulated in Ecclesia Dei that a generous provision ‘must’ be made for those requesting it}. I found it highly instructive to see a cardinal and a diocesan bishop thus set aside a Motu Proprio of the reigning pontiff.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Don’t forget Obedience.

For purposes of the debate, how do you define ‘obedience?’

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Don’t forget Obedience.

Ahh…yes.

Flows from humility or is it separate? Hmmm…

 

[numealinesimpet]

Ahh…yes.

Flows from humility or is it separate? Hmmm…

Can you say what it is?

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Can you say what it is?

Obedience I suppose is to submit your will to the proper authority and your actions to the activities prescribed by the proper authority. Or something like that.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Obedience I suppose is to submit your will to the proper authority and your actions to the activities prescribed by the proper authority. Or something like that.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in “Summa Theologica”
II-II-104, deals with the topic of Obedience in his usual exhaustive fashion.
The full text can be found on the web, e.g. at kensmen.com/catholic/summa22104.html
I have given below the main points, deleting some passages but adding nothing to his words. When St Thomas speaks of “subjects” and “superiors” he refers to anyone under authority, not only those in Religious Orders.
With respect to all on this forum, if we are to use words we must be clear what meaning we are giving to them, otherwise we will be shooting past each other, achieving nothing.

Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?

Objection 1. It seems that subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things. For the Apostle says (Col. 3:20): “Children, obey your parents in all things,” and farther on (Col. 3:22): “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh.” Therefore in like manner other subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things.

Objection 2. Further, superiors stand between God and their subjects… Therefore the commands of a superior must be esteemed the commands of God, …(1 Thess. 2:13): “When you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it, not as the word of men, but, as it is indeed, the word of God.” Therefore as man is bound to obey God in all things, so is he bound to obey his superiors.

Objection 3. Further, just as religious in making their profession take vows of chastity and poverty, so do they also vow obedience. Now a religious is bound to observe chastity and poverty in all things. Therefore he is also bound to obey in all things.

But on the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

I answer that … there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things.
First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Rm. 13:2, “They that resist [Vulg.: ‘He that resisteth’] the power, resist the ordinance of God” (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). “If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God.”
Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): “It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted.” His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.
… servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.

Reply to Objection 1. When the Apostle says “in all things,” he refers to matters within the sphere of a father’s or master’s authority.

Reply to Objection 2. Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.

Reply to Objection 3. Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.

Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.