Why do people continue to denigrate SSPX and the traditional movement?

[SGT_ROCK_33]

It is appalling to me, to see so many people speak ill of the traditional societies, namely SSPX, and the traditional movement. What I don’t understand is why people continue to call SSPX schismatic even after Cardinal Hoyos AND (then) Cardinal Ratzinger have proclaimed that they are not schismatic!!!

In a much overlooked and little discussed interview published February 8, 2007, in the German Die Tagespost, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos said the following:
“Please accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra.” The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics… The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.”

On May 1, 1991, Bishop Ferrario of Hawaii “excommunicated” certain Catholics of his diocese for attending Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX, and receiving a bishop of the Society to confer the sacrament of Confirmation. Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, overturned this decision:
“From the examination of the case… it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity.” (June 28, 1993) Cardinal Ratzinger
Another:
(But there is no disobedience, cf. An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, pp. 129-136, Cf. ***"The act of consecrating a bishop ***(without the pope’s permission) is not itself a schismatic act," Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988)

What further proof is necessary for people to stop attacking and denigrating SSPX and the traditional movement?

God Bless

 

[Holly3278]

I’d say that the reason why the SSPX are denigrated is at least partly due to the fact that they are not yet in full communion with Rome. (If I am wrong on this, please let me know.)

As for other traditionalist groups, I don’t know. But as for the traditionalist group called the “Sedevacantists”, it is right to criticize them because they are clearly in a current state of heresy.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

I’d say that the reason why the SSPX are denigrated is at least partly due to the fact that they are not yet in full communion with Rome. (If I am wrong on this, please let me know.)

As for other traditionalist groups, I don’t know. But as for the traditionalist group called the “Sedevacantists”, it is right to criticize them because they are clearly in a current state of heresy.

I would consider the sedevacantists as a movement all in itself. There are several different types of sedevacantists from what I understand, three different theories, but I don’t know if their views are necessarily heretical… While I don’t tend to see their point of view, I would have to have someone prove me wrong about that.

God Bless

 

[sulkow82]

It is appalling to me, to see so many people speak ill of the traditional societies, namely SSPX, and the traditional movement.

I don’t know who “threw the first punch” on this issue. However, I can say a couple of things here. Please keep in mind that I will be expressing is simply what I have heard and seen. It is intended to be this only. If what I describe is not the beliefs of the SSPX or the Traditionalist movement in general, please tell me in charity.

Traditionalists (and members of the SSPX) have gone so far as to tell me that all of the Popes after the 1950s are anti-Popes. According to these statements, there has never been a valid Pope since 1956(?).

I have also received statements advocating the complete cancellation of Vat-II Furthermore, such statements have stated that Benedict XVI did not go far enough in bringing back TLM. There have been calls for complete deletion of the N.O. Mass from 100% of all services celebrated (in favor of returning to TLM) in the Latin Rite.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. When such statements are the norm, it becomes hard for me to see the movement as an extremist organization.

What further proof is necessary for people to stop attacking and denigrating SSPX and the traditional movement?

I don’t denigrate SSPX, however, in order for me to say that “the issue is closed” I would accept a joint announcement between the Vatican and the SSPX that all differences are settled. Furthermore that the SSPX advocates that Benedict XVI is the true Vicar of Christ and Successor of St. Peter.

 

[Ockham]

It will take generations to repair the damage that has been done these past forty years or so. The SSPX is a lifeboat sailing along side the Mother Ship taking on water in a nasty storm. Jesus said a prophet has no honor in his native place so its no surprise the SSPX have their detractors.

Of course there are other traditional orders besides the SSPX (FFSP,ICKSP). Archbishop Levebre had the courage to openly reject the radical liberal onslaught the Me Generation racked upon the Church. It’s not the first time people have acted selfishly as Scripture tells us. He will be seen as an opponent as long as the wayward attitudes continue and a saint by those faithful to the tradition.

Looking at the big picture, most Western Christian nations are sinking in debt with birth rates dropping below self sustaining levels. The cultural change brought on by the Sexual Revolution/Baby Boomers generation has not been good to our overall interests. Short sighted narcisism exists because God gives us free will and as proven in the Garden of Eden we are suseptible to temptation.

 

[HumbledCatholic]

The good thing about our little ‘cultural revolution’ in the West is that it gives us a window to its own frailty.

If the centuries-old European culture in which every man, woman, and child was immersed entirely for the greater part of 500 years (at least, and whose basic assumptions go back much further) can be for the most part wholly disintegrated in 50 years and replaced, then:

1. No matter how thick the fog of the secular age may seem, it too is as frail as the whims of the men who sustain it. You cannot perhaps see through it, but it is no solid barrier.
2. Preserving a living tradition is as important as having a heritage. We’re learning this as Catholics the hard way. If 50 years of simply ignoring and living contrary to our cultural heritage has destroyed it, how much more important is it to live the Church’s tradition, that it might live?

 

[Onegin]

Hi sulkow,

I wanted to correct a couple misunderstandings in your post, in charity, as you requested.

If what I describe is not the beliefs of the SSPX or the Traditionalist movement in general, please tell me in charity.

that all of the Popes after the 1950s are anti-Popes. According to these statements, there has never been a valid Pope since 1956(?).

This is not a belief of Traditionalists in general. However, these beliefs are often espoused by those who adopt the sedevacantist position.

To see what the SSPX says about the sedevacantist position (spoiler: It rejects it) please see:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/little_catechism_on_sedevacantism.htm

I have also received statements advocating the complete cancellation of Vat-II Furthermore, such statements have stated that Benedict XVI did not go far enough in bringing back TLM. There have been calls for complete deletion of the N.O. Mass from 100% of all services celebrated (in favor of returning to TLM) in the Latin Rite.

Some Traditionalists do think that the TLM should be the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, yes. Most advocate a “phasing out” process whereby the OF would be celebrated in Latin ad orientem and then, eventually very rarely or not at all.

Furthermore that the SSPX advocates that Benedict XVI is the true Vicar of Christ and Successor of St. Peter.

Please see: sspx.org/superior_generals_ltrs/papal/on_the_election_of_pope_benedict_xvi.htm

Again, do not fall into the trap that many do and confuse the sedevacantists with the SSPX!

 

[JMJ_coder]

The SSPX is still not in full union with Rome. While it has been noted that they are not schismatics in the strictest sense, I wouldn’t want to associate with a group that was schismatic in any sense, or that is so commonly thought to be – especially when there are completely ‘kosher’ alternatives, like the FSSP.

Aside from that, I have to laugh at the small minority of traditionalists who claim that at the Last Supper, Jesus said a Tridentine High Mass. That claim is on the same intellectual level as the Protestant who claims that when Jesus ascended to Heaven, the KJV came down in his stead.

In the same vein, those who claim that the Mass cannot change, period, are in fact very similar to those who want everything to be completely relativistic and optional. Besides that, it completely denies all the historical changes in the Mass since the time of St. Pius V (not to even begin to mention the changes introduced via the Council of Trent and the countless liturgical changes before).

The Sedevacantists, even if separate from most traditionalists, get lumped in all the same.

And those who adamantly reject the teachings of the Second Vatican II Council, in my opinion, either haven’t read the documents and are going by what others have told them or by observance of the “spirit of Vatican II” (which is generally not what the Council taught), or don’t know their faith well enough to see that it really doesn’t contradict or compromise the Catholic Faith.

:twocents:

 

[whatischarity]

I would consider the sedevacantists as a movement all in itself. There are several different types of sedevacantists from what I understand, three different theories, but I don’t know if their views are necessarily heretical… While I don’t tend to see their point of view, I would have to have someone prove me wrong about that.

God Bless

Perhaps not heretical but I would imagine you would agree that their view is schismatic. From the group I have 40 years experience with, they have declared all popes followng Pope Jophn XXIII to be heretical, the Vatcian II council to be heretical, the Novus Ordo to be heretical, and they do not believe the orders of priests ordained since Vtican II to be valid. In my opinion, by naking these declarations and setting themselves up as a substitute for the Roman Catholic Church they have usurped the role of te Roman Catholic Church and for this reason are schismatic.

In short, even though the Roman Catholic Church has never officially declared the Novus Ordo invalid, Vatican II a heretical concil, etc; this is the fundamental teaching of the sedevacantist organization with which I am familiar.

 

[whatischarity]

Yes, it is critical to understand the difference between the sedevacantist splinter groups and the Society of St Pius X. Although they both fall under the general heading of Tradionalists, there are key differences in their theology and the first task for someone who wants to discuss hte traditional movement is to educate themselves on those fundamental and critical differences.

Besides the fact that at one point SSPX placed the value of tradition over unity with Rome, (happily now showing gradual signs of resolution) the main issue I have with SSPX is, I wouldn’t even say it is their official teaching and I must admit I don’t know how to phrase it succinctly, there is a sentiment in their perspective that the Roman Catholic Church’s worship and priests are substandard in God’s eyes ie. the Novus Ordo is below the bar, the confession of its priests are doubtful, its parishes lack the required fundamental respect for the Blessed Sacrament, etc. To me, the SSPX movement isn’t saying that humans are doing poorly but that the structure itself is flawed so badly that they had to step in a provided the correct structure. Perhaps my impression is incorrect, but that is my perception based on what I have heard from parishioners I have encountered over the years who belong to a nearby, thriving SSPX parish. To me, there is a big difference between believing that we are living through an era that is in a great need of re-aligning itself with the teachings of Jesus and saying that the Roman Catholic Church is the cause of this sad (and in my opinion not unique to the historic human condition) situation.

 

[Onegin]

… there is a sentiment in their perspective that the Roman Catholic Church’s worship and priests are substandard in God’s eyes ie. the Novus Ordo is below the bar, the confession of its priests are doubtful, its parishes lack the required fundamental respect for the Blessed Sacrament, etc. To me, the SSPX movement isn’t saying that humans are doing poorly but that the structure itself is flawed so badly that they had to step in a provided the correct structure.

This is a pretty accurate estimation. While the SSPX doesn’t deny the validity of a Novus Ordo that is celebrated with proper form, matter and intent, they do believe that there is a crisis within the Catholic Church itself and that the Novus Ordo Mass - a product of this crisis - isn’t properly equipping Catholics to do battle with the modern world.

This, I think is crucial to understanding the SSPX position regardless of whether or not you agree with it. It ultimately boils down to the question: is there a crisis in the Church?

The best place to get information on what, precisely, the Society believes is on their website rather than second-hand claims from message boards. I’d say the same for the sedevacantists, though they tend to be less organised and fall into too many categories to classify as a unified group.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The SSPX is still not in full union with Rome. While it has been noted that they are not schismatics in the strictest sense, I wouldn’t want to associate with a group that was schismatic in any sense, or that is so commonly thought to be – especially when there are completely ‘kosher’ alternatives, like the FSSP.

Aside from that, I have to laugh at the small minority of traditionalists who claim that at the Last Supper, Jesus said a Tridentine High Mass. That claim is on the same intellectual level as the Protestant who claims that when Jesus ascended to Heaven, the KJV came down in his stead.

In the same vein, those who claim that the Mass cannot change, period, are in fact very similar to those who want everything to be completely relativistic and optional. Besides that, it completely denies all the historical changes in the Mass since the time of St. Pius V (not to even begin to mention the changes introduced via the Council of Trent and the countless liturgical changes before).

The Sedevacantists, even if separate from most traditionalists, get lumped in all the same.

And those who adamantly reject the teachings of the Second Vatican II Council, in my opinion, either haven’t read the documents and are going by what others have told them or by observance of the “spirit of Vatican II” (which is generally not what the Council taught), or don’t know their faith well enough to see that it really doesn’t contradict or compromise the Catholic Faith.

:twocents:

people dont reject the VII teachings but we reject what was done to it.

here by fr Trigilio:
renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100414

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It is appalling to me, to see so many people speak ill of the traditional societies, namely SSPX, and the traditional movement. What I don’t understand is why people continue to call SSPX schismatic even after Cardinal Hoyos AND (then) Cardinal Ratzinger have proclaimed that they are not schismatic!!!

In a much overlooked and little discussed interview published February 8, 2007, in the German Die Tagespost, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos said the following:
“Please accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra.” The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics… The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.”

On May 1, 1991, Bishop Ferrario of Hawaii “excommunicated” certain Catholics of his diocese for attending Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX, and receiving a bishop of the Society to confer the sacrament of Confirmation. Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, overturned this decision:
“From the examination of the case… it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity.” (June 28, 1993) Cardinal Ratzinger
Another:
(But there is no disobedience, cf. An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, pp. 129-136, Cf. ***"The act of consecrating a bishop ***(without the pope’s permission) is not itself a schismatic act," Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988)

What further proof is necessary for people to stop attacking and denigrating SSPX and the traditional movement?

God Bless

First, can you define what you mean by “denigrate”.

Also do not forget that the Pope has stated that the SSPX have no legitimate ministry within the Church.

Ecclesia Unitatem
4…However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.

As for the comment you post saying that the consecration of a bishop without papal mandate is not a schismatic act the act of Archbishop Lefebvre doing so was because Pope John Paul II said it was and he is the final arbiter in matters of Canon Law.

 

[puzzleannie]

It is appalling to me, to see so many people speak ill of the traditional societies, namely SSPX, and the traditional movement.

perhaps because they very properly differentiate between movements whose participants and leadership actually did move into schism, hopefully soon to be healed and reunited with the Church, and those who can truly be described as traditional, that is, holding fast to the traditions received from the apostles, foremost of which is obedience to Christ and his Church. Please do not equate all those who love the traditional forms of worship with those who felt compelled to actually leave the Church over these issues. It is unfair to all concerned.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

This, I think is crucial to understanding the SSPX position regardless of whether or not you agree with it. It ultimately boils down to the question: is there a crisis in the Church?

The best place to get information on what, precisely, the Society believes is on their website rather than second-hand claims from message boards. I’d say the same for the sedevacantists, though they tend to be less organised and fall into too many categories to classify as a unified group.

There is no doubt a crisis in the Church, evident by a lot of the threads posted on CAF. I would encourage those who wish to speak ill of traditionalists, specifically SSPX, to do as you have stated above…check out the website and see what they really stand for. It’s not hard to see where most traditionalists are coming from when debating the crisis in the Church. We all need to pray that our Lord and the Holy Spirit will enlighten the minds of men and put an end to this divisiveness…

God Bless

 

[Dorothy]

There was a gentleman from our parish who used to be a daily communicant. He made no bones about being disappointed with VII, and frequently spoke about it.

Then one day a group of SSPX members got to talking to him, and he is no longer a daily communicant, nor does he go to Mass on Sundays. He even hinted that the Mass I attend may not even be valid.

He now travels, once a month, to another state to attend an SSPX Mass there.

Something is just plain wrong with that.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Please do not equate all those who love the traditional forms of worship with those who felt compelled to actually leave the Church over these issues. It is unfair to all concerned.

I don’t believe that I did… Can you elaborate on how you believe I did?

God Bless

 

[ProVobis]

As for the comment you post saying that the consecration of a bishop without papal mandate is not a schismatic act the act of Archbishop Lefebvre doing so was because Pope John Paul II said it was and he is the final arbiter in matters of Canon Law.

Say what you want, but it would seem that God would be the final arbiter in matters of compulsion. And JPII wasn’t God.

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:

1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;

2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance

3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chanceoccurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;

4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

5° acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self�defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor;

6° lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325;

7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.

Can. 1324 §1 The perpretrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offence was committed by:

1° one who had only an imperfect use of reason;

2° one who was lacking the use of reason because of culpable drunkenness or other mental disturbance of a similar kind;

3° one who acted in the heat of passion which, while serious, nevertheless did not precede or hinder all mental deliberation and consent of the will, provided that the passion itself had not been deliberately stimulated or nourished

4° a minor who has completed the sixteenth year of age;

5° one who was compelled by grave fear, even if only relative, or byreason of necessity or grave inconvenience, if the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

6° one who acted in lawful self�defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor, but did not observe due moderation;

7° one who acted against another person who was gravely and unjustly provocative;

8° one who erroneously, but culpably, thought that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in Can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5;

9° one who through no personal fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or precept;

10° one who acted without full imputability, provided it remained grave.

§2 A judge can do the same if there is any other circumstance present which would reduce the gravity of the offence.

§3 In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.

 

[Adeodatus]

The problem with the SSPX, and I say this speaking as a traditionalist myself, is that it’s shot through with Feeneyites, semi-Marcionites, Sedevacantists and Anti-Semites… i.e. “nuts”.

You only have to meet one of these people to set you on the war path. After a run-in with one of these individuals, it has taken me years to forgive the group as a whole. The nut was so nutty, I wished destruction upon the whole society. And part of me still thinks I should have punched that dude.

Some of the fault lies with the SSPX itself. If it fails to police and catechize its members then it will end up enduring the wrath of those whom they wrong. I mean, we all know that you can run into a clown who calls himself Roman Catholic. But the SSPX claim to be the “faithful remnant”… and then the first representative of the group you meet turns out to be a heel. Kind of undermines the claim.

To me, it’s not hard to understand at all why people denigrate the SSPX. It’s too bad, since I’m sure there are some good folks involved with it. On the other hand, before the Williamson scandal was in full force, they had a document on their website that was practically the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Crucifix or swastika, boys. Pick one. Man cannot serve two masters.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Say what you want, but it would seem that God would be the final arbiter in matters of compulsion. And JPII wasn’t God.

It IS intrinsically evil to consecrate bishops without the Holy See’s approval WHEN the Holy See has directly commanded you not to do so, and it DOES tend to be harmful to souls in that it leads (and has lead) to either schism or a schismatic attitude. And the Holy Father, again the source of the canon that speaks of grave necessity or fear, is perfectly competent to judge whether such is warranted (and the fact that it wasn’t is richly evident in the agreement reached with the Archbishop in which he was given a great deal of what he wanted, but which he reneged on). Your horse won’t run ProVobis, no matter how many times you trot him out.