Why did SSPX split?

[Gabriel_Serafin]

this act can be called schismatic only by re-defining the meanings of the word ‘schismatic’,

all you’re doing is spinning your own definition. Schismatics are those who bring division through disobedience to legitimate Church authority.

To repeat, what doctrinal or moral directive has been imposed by Vatican II which Mgr Lefebvre and the others have disobeyed?

They directly disobeyed the authority of the pope-- the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth. Furthermore, they put themselves above the Magisterium, that is— the pope in union with the bishops of the Church. As St. Thomas Aquinas said: “If obedience is lacking, even prayer cannot be pleasing to God.”

But I will let Pope John Paul II answer you:

"In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church . . .Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act . . .The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit . . . But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while **breaking the ecclesial bond **with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church…”

The problem with SSPX is that they reject the teachings of Vatican II, which they have no authority to reject. The SSPX interpretation of Church teaching is wrong just as Fr. Leonard Feeneys interpretation of *No Salvation Outside the Church *was doctrinally incorrect.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Contradicting the Holy Father is contrary to our policy. We exist to offer people a Catholic answer to their questions. A Catholic Answer cannot contradict the response of the Pontiff. Please abide by this policy.

 

[Dom_Desiderius]

**Michael Voris with Louie Verrecchio on (understanding) the SSPX. **

churchmilitant.tv/share/watch.php?vidID=roma-2012-02-19

This video was one of the single best ways to understand the situation presented in a seemingly sound reasonable manner.

angelqueen.org/2013/01/11/a-new-pentecost-dawning-by-louie-verrecchio/

A peculiar thing happened on the way to the present day from Pentecost; the Church suddenly stopped calling the Jews to conversion.

Sure, if we’re honest, we must admit that the Church in our day is reticent to explicitly call anyone who dwells beyond the fold into the one true religion that is the Catholic faith, but in the decades since Vatican II, the Jewish people have evidently become the “untouchables” in the minds of many a churchman.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2189

Do you, or do you not profess that Catholic doctrine is the objective religious truth entrusted to the Church by Christ the King; that it is superior to the lies and the errors of the heathens and the heretics, and that those who exercise civil authority are obligated to treat this objective truth as their rule and their guide in all things?

These are Catholicism 101 “softball” questions; at least they should be. Even so, I have no idea how many of our bishops would affirm sacred Tradition with a “yes.” That said, one thing seems absolutely certain; nearly all of them are rather comfortable regurgitating the starkly contrasting propositions enshrined in “Dignitatis Humanae”; among which is the undeniably strong implication that the doctrines and activities of the Catholic Church are worthy of no more consideration than those of any other religion.

Traditionally, the Church wasn’t nearly so bashful about proclaiming the Catholic faith as the one true religion.

culturewars.com/cwradio/Day%2014%20Segment%201%20How%20Catholics%20Ran%20Up%20the%20White%20Flag.mp3

John Courtney Murray leading into the “Declaration on religious freedom - Dignitatis humanae” 1965

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

1. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

No one is to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs (even those that are false and opposed to Christ), not just privately, but also publicly, within due limits as the “public order” may demand (Dignitatius Humane 2).

These give some insight into the reasons why the SSPX exists and how explains partly why many that support the pre-1962 mass do so.

 

[Dom_Desiderius]

The SSPX interpretation of Church teaching is wrong just as Fr. Leonard Feeneys interpretation of No Salvation Outside the Church was doctrinally incorrect.

I had thought that Fr. Leonard Feeney died in good standing with the Church and was not temporarily excommunicated specifically for that reason.

He (Feeney) was reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church in 1972, but was not required to retract or recant his interpretation of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”, which is inscribed on his tombstone.

 

[JM3]

I had thought that Fr. Leonard Feeney died in good standing with the Church and was not temporarily excommunicated specifically for that reason.

You are correct that he died in good standing, at least as far as the Church was concerned. His excommunication was for disobedience (failure to report to Rome to explain his position). His teaching of EENS was refuted by the CDF in a protocol. I’m on a different computer and don’t have it available right now. You can search CAF and find an old thread that has it or I can PM it to you when I get the chance.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

I had thought that Fr. Leonard Feeney died in good standing with the Church and was not temporarily excommunicated specifically for that reason.

One must be careful about what one reads as fact, especially on encyclopedias where anyone can write, spin, allude and conclude history, such as Wikipedia.

The fact is that Fr. Feemey’s not only was blatantly disobedient, but his view still contradicts Church teaching. Just look it up in your catechism. No Salvation Outside the Church does not mean what Fr. Feeney taught. Yet today he is a champion of the Sede Vacante groups who in turn have spawned Satanically inspired Traditionalist groups such as the Palmarian Catholic Church. who have elected their own “legitimate” pope.

 

[numealinesimpet]

*…

PaulinVA wrote on the thread Re: SSPX Update - Redux (p49) Feb 3, '13, 4:55 pm

numealinesimpet

, do you think that the SSPX’s ultimate position is that Pope Benedict is indeed a valid Pope, but that he is somehow blinded to the Truth? That seems to be the only way that his declaration that there is no emergency can be handled by the SSPX. His blindness is indeed the emergency? Or, he is blind to the emergency?

If not, I think the others here have laid out the case rather well. I’ve read through the SSPX web sites several times over the years, and I find them disturbing. Well meaning, but disturbing. The SSPX definitely uphold stoutly that Benedict XVI was the Pope in every sense of the word. A couple of years ago the priest at our Mass Centre invited any who did not accept this to leave (some had been handing out sedevac literature in the porch, against standing orders). One of them walked out then & there and did not come back.

They also maintain that there is an objective State of Emergency in the Church as a whole, resolving in individual cases to the ordinary layperson (and also Religious in particular situations - but they are under a different discipline from the laity) finding themselves unable to avail of spiritual assets of the Church to which they nevertheless have a right. Concrete evidence can be produced in favour of this thesis. They would maintain, I believe, that a ‘State of Emergency’ is not a ruling on Faith and Morals, not a disciplinary procedure subject to the Pope’s discretion in the same way that the appointment of a position in the Vatican would be. I don’t think they presume to read the pope’s mind or soul. I have never heard the least suggestion that they question his honesty or goodwill – or position of authority.

I think it would be fair to say that they maintain that a Thomistic, essentialist philosophical approach, if adopted by the Pope of the day, would clear much of the confusion in the current situation.

If it is an objective fact that there is no State of Emergency, then the SSPX are in the wrong.*