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

[Lormar]

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.

See how we love one another!

 

[ProVobis]

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

Then why weren’t the consecrations invalidated? Answer: because the Archbishop was given the power to do so by God in continuing Apostolic Succession. There were no other bishops to ordain priests for the Latin Mass and the Archbishop knew he would die soon. Vatican didn’t say no but it was dragging its feet. Thus the fear and necessity.

, and it DOES tend to be harmful to souls in that it leads (and has lead) to either schism or a schismatic attitude.

Not a schism so therefore not applicable. But even if it had been harmful by any definition, the penalties are diminished if you read the latter canon.

And the Holy Father, again the source of the canon that speaks of grave necessity or fear, is perfectly competent to judge

Then he didn’t judge well, since the Archbishop did in fact die shortly afterwards as he claimed and the Church to this day has not consecrated a bishop to ordain priests to say the Latin Mass.

Fact is that the Archbishop beat the Vatican and the sex perverts at their own game, even if post-mortem. You and others can’t seem to accept that because clearly you think the Pope is God in matters of judging every person. That’s Papalotry and a serious sin. And you’re on ignore.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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

No but JPII was Pope and sole arbiter of Canon Law. It is for him to determine if some form of “grave fear” existed.

Which I find hard to believe that it did after all the Archbishop agreed to a compromise with the Holy Father then went against his word.

As for the pope not being God, you are correct but he is the Head of God’s Church on Earth.

Here are some interesting Canons.

Can. 15 §1 Ignorance or error concerning invalidating or incapacitating laws does not prevent the effect of those laws, unless it is expressly provided otherwise.

§2 Ignorance or error is not presumed about a law, a penalty, a fact concerning oneself, or a notorious fact concerning another. It is presumed about a fact concerning another which is not notorious, until the contrary is proved.

Can. 16 §1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.

 

[puzzleannie]

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

God Bless

uh well it looks to me like you consider dissident movements like SSPX in the same league as any traditional society or what you label “the traditional movement” encompassing anyone who reverences traditional forms of Catholic worship and practice.

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

when they are not in fact the same thing. Traditionally minded Catholics who adhere strongly to the values of obedience and unity called for by Christ on the night before he died are an entirely different phenomena than movements who express their distaste for Church teaching by forming dissident societies that verge into schism. so we would appreciate first adhering to forum rules about use of such epithets as “tradtional” and second, not being linked to such break away groups.

oh, and a small point of English usage and prose: telling the truth about a person or society is not the same thing as denigrating it

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Then why weren’t the consecrations invalidated? Answer: because the Archbishop was given the power to do so by God in continuing Apostolic Succession. There were no other bishops to ordain priests for the Latin Mass and the Archbishop knew he would die soon. Vatican didn’t say no but it was dragging its feet. Thus the fear and necessity.

Here’s where you simply do not get basic Catholic thought: they couldn’t be declared invalid any more than the apostolic succession and validity of Orthodox orders could be so declared. Honestly, where do you get your information?

Not a schism so therefore not applicable. But even if it had been harmful by any definition, the penalties are diminished if you read the latter canon.

Schismatic attitude is specifically warned against in Ecclesia Dei, so perfectly applicable. And ONE MORE TIME, with feeling, the POPE confirms the meaning and correct interpretation of canon law…and he confirmed the Archbishop had indeed excommunicated himself.

Then he didn’t judge well, since the Archbishop did in fact die shortly afterwards as he claimed and the Church to this day has not consecrated a bishop to ordain priests to say the Latin Mass.

Go buy a car, and refuse to make payments on it. They’ll call the deal off. Why WOULD the Holy See continue in a deal with an org. manifestly disobedient to it, headed by an excommunicate. He reneged on the deal, so the deal died.

Fact is that the Archbishop beat the Vatican and the sex perverts at their own game, even if post-mortem. You and others can’t seem to accept that because clearly you think the Pope is God in matters of judging every person. That’s Papalotry and a serious sin. And you’re on ignore.

WOW…if “sex perverts” isn’t calumny, I don’t know what is!

I don’t think the Pope is God, I think he’s the pope. Ignore away, it doesn’t change facts.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

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

The reason SSPX continues to be attacked is because some people think that Archbishop LeFebvre was nothing but dis-obedient. However, he was only trying to preserve Tradition. If it were not for him, the TLM would not still exist today.

 

[Frosty]

Then why weren’t the consecrations invalidated? Answer: because the Archbishop was given the power to do so by God in continuing Apostolic Succession. There were no other bishops to ordain priests for the Latin Mass and the Archbishop knew he would die soon. Vatican didn’t say no but it was dragging its feet. Thus the fear and necessity.

Not a schism so therefore not applicable. But even if it had been harmful by any definition, the penalties are diminished if you read the latter canon.

Then he didn’t judge well, since the Archbishop did in fact die shortly afterwards as he claimed and the Church to this day has not consecrated a bishop to ordain priests to say the Latin Mass.

Fact is that the Archbishop beat the Pope at his own game, even if post-mortem. You and others can’t seem to accept that because clearly you think the Pope is God in matters of judging every person. And that’s Papalotry and a serious sin.

The desire of Archbishop Lefebvre to ordain bishops for his society and the problems that would ensue had been festering for many years before the actual ordinations took place. Since you are so fond of quoting a certain comment by Cardinal Ratzinger as proof that he dislikes the OF, how about the comment he made in 1984 from the Ratzinger Report concerning the status of the SSPX. I don’t have my copy with me but in essence what he said was that if the Archbishop persisted in his determination to ordain any bishops without the approval of the Pope, a schism would result. He also said that it was to be hoped that things would not go that far but that basically the ball was in the Archbishop’s court as to whether or not he would obey the lawful authority. Four years later the Cardinal’s fears were answered. I would assume that as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith you would agree that the good Cardinal knew what he was talking about?
The Pope is the supreme lawgiver of the Catholic Church. He has every right
to judge that a person or persons have violated a canon of the Church. You may not like who he chose to sanction although I’m sure you would jump up and down with glee if the current Pope if he excommunicated one or more of the bishops you disagree with. It is not papalotry to believe the Church’s teaching that the Pope is the Supreme Lawgiver. Nor is it up to you to charge a person who believes that with commiting a serious sin.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

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:

The SSPX does not wish to be in full union with the modern-day Rome, but rather remain with the Traditional Rome. That doesn’t mean they have no respect for the Pope or want nothing to do with him, they are soon going to present him a rosary crusade to convert Russia.

And Traditional Catholics reject Vatican II because it goes against what the Church previously taught. As I’ve said time and time again, reading the documents doesn’t make any difference because the documents don’t admit anything about what they were really doing behind the scenes at Vatican II.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

uh well it looks to me like you consider dissident movements like SSPX in the same league as any traditional society or what you label “the traditional movement” encompassing anyone who reverences traditional forms of Catholic worship and practice.

when they are not in fact the same thing. Traditionally minded Catholics who adhere strongly to the values of obedience and unity called for by Christ on the night before he died are an entirely different phenomena than movements who express their distaste for Church teaching by forming dissident societies that verge into schism. so we would appreciate first adhering to forum rules about use of such epithets as “tradtional” and second, not being linked to such break away groups.

oh, and a small point of English usage and prose: telling the truth about a person or society is not the same thing as denigrating it

I completely disagree with your statement. You are making an assumption that you have formulated in your own mind. I did not label a traditionalist movement… It is well know throughout the Church that there is in fact such a movement. Apparently, you do not consider yourself part of the movement, which is absolutely fine, you are free to do as you wish.

I don’t believe that I disregarded any forum rules, in any way.

You are stating an un-truth about societies that “verge into schism.” As I have pointed out from several reliable sources, SSPX is not in schism.

And while I appreciate the english lesson, your statement above is exactly why I started this thread. Because of the false statements made my many, and the absurd theories assumed by many, and because of the ill words from uninformed critics, the term denigrating fits perfectly into my statement. Unless there is another meaning for the word denigrate, I stand by my original post.

God Bless

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

The desire of Archbishop Lefebvre to ordain bishops for his society and the problems that would ensue had been festering for many years before the actual ordinations took place. Since you are so fond of quoting a certain comment by Cardinal Ratzinger as proof that he dislikes the OF, how about the comment he made in 1984 from the Ratzinger Report concerning the status of the SSPX. I don’t have my copy with me but in essence what he said was that if the Archbishop persisted in his determination to ordain any bishops without the approval of the Pope, a schism would result. He also said that it was to be hoped that things would not go that far but that basically the ball was in the Archbishop’s court as to whether or not he would obey the lawful authority. Four years later the Cardinal’s fears were answered. I would assume that as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith you would agree that the good Cardinal knew what he was talking about?
The Pope is the supreme lawgiver of the Catholic Church. He has every right
to judge that a person or persons have violated a canon of the Church. You may not like who he chose to sanction although I’m sure you would jump up and down with glee if the current Pope if he excommunicated one or more of the bishops you disagree with. It is not papalotry to believe the Church’s teaching that the Pope is the Supreme Lawgiver. Nor is it up to you to charge a person who believes that with commiting a serious sin.

Keep in mind that the Vatican wanted SSPX to die out because they knew if it didn’t the TLM would be preserved. Archbishop LeFebvre violated no more things than Paul VI did when he went forth with the second Vatican Council.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Keep in mind that the Vatican wanted SSPX to die out because they knew if it didn’t the TLM would be preserved.

Is there actual proof of this or is this just more conspiracy theories?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Is there actual proof of this or is this just more conspiracy theories?

There is. They declared the SSPX to not even be existant, and then-Cardinal Ratzinger said he predicted that SSPX would die out.

 

[sulkow82]

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

I did list one thing as recognizing Ben-XVI as valid Pope. This website clearly does this. Thanks. To say such a thing greatly increases my respect for the SSPX.

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

I track on what you are saying here. Sedevacantists I find rather creepy. However, as for the SSPX…

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.

Here is where I disagree. I support the SSPX’s desire to hold all of their Masses in Latin. As for others, I think that should be left up to them. I do support Ben-XVI’s movement of the NO towards the TLM. When I did attend a Latin Mass, I couldn’t hear what the priest was saying and even with a translation card I “couldn’t say ‘amen’ to the blessing.” (see 1Cor 14: 16.)

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

Fair enough. One thing that would also be informative for me would be a concise list of what the issues are between the SSPX and the Vatican (of course, again, in charity).
Lastly, I did say that I would accept any corrections concerning the SSPX offered in charity. I would like to say that your post did this very well.

sulkow82 SFO

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

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

I don’t believe that this is the message of SSPX… No one in SSPX has declared that one mush choose or serve two masters. Again, this is exactly what my original post was all about, denigrating the Society on falsehoods.

I believe that SpiritusSanctus put it well when he stated that SSPX doesn’t wish to be in full communion with modern Rome. Rather, they would prefer to have dialogue to explain the contradictions of the post-concilliar Church with the pre-concilliar Church.

I suggest that all misinformed and mislead Catholics visit the Society’s website. You will get a more complete picture of the ongoing issues between the Vatican and SSPX. The society has never denounced the succession of the Popes, nor does it preach sedevacantism. As a matter of fact, the society released a literary work denouncing the sedevacantist position.

While, I admit, that there may be some extreme thinkers in the traditional movement, the same can be said of the modern day bishops and priests who preach about the ordination of women, look for the lifting of celibacy, condone abortion, abuse their jurisdiction, and teach by using their own private interpretations.

We are living in very difficult times and we have been warned many times about the errors of modernism entering into the Church. Specifically, Pope Pius IX and his Syllabus of Errors, Pope Saint Pius X and his Syllabus Condemning the Errors of Modernists. Even Pope Pius XII words as Cardinal Pacelli:

"*I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology, and Her soul… I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for her historical past… *(Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli when he was Secretary of State to Pope Pius XI, Pie XII Devant L’Histoire, pp. 52-53)

SSPX is merely taking the stance that the Church’s teachings brought about from Vatican II contradict what has been taught in the past. What is so horrible about that?

“Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.” Pope Saint Felix III (483-492 A.D.)

God Bless

 

[whatischarity]

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

One could question the wisdom of those traditionalist who have left the structure of the Roman Catholic Church in order to remedy the problems they see in the Roman Catholic Church. (I am sure the members of SSPX do not consider that they have left the church and would probably find such a statement very contentious whereas those who are not members of SSPX would find the statement to be factual.). And yet, it seems logical to assume that traditionalists who have remained in their parishes will have greater impact on improving the spirit in their parish than those traditionalists who have left their parishes to attend the SSPX parishes.

From a historical perspective, the Roman Catholic Church has had many, many crises. I am unaware of a crisis that was solved by a group that has left the structure of the Church. I am not saying that it is not possible, I just am unsure of it ever happening before.

In no way do I believe that the members of SSPX are enemies of the church and I would say that those who denigrate SSPX are not followihng the guidance of the Roman Catholic Church but rather are exacerbating an unfortunate situation which surely pleases satan. For instance, I think SSPX existence played a key role in the TLM once again being said in may diocese around the world. So good is coming from the movement, but still I do not think it to be wise for parishioners to leave their diosecan parishes to regularly attend a SSPX parish.

 

[whatischarity]

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.

I would say that you have hit the nail on the head with this practical example. Folks can argue nuance and canon law and extingencies all they want, but the bottom line is that the SSPX set up a structure that is seperate from the Roman Catholic Church which by nature is inherently devisive.

 

[wisdomseeker]

One could question the wisdom of those traditionalist who have left the structure of the Roman Catholic Church in order to remedy the problems they see in the Roman Catholic Church. (I am sure the members of SSPX do not consider that they have left the church and would probably find such a statement very contentious whereas those who are not members of SSPX would find the statement to be factual.). And yet, it seems logical to assume that traditionalists who have remained in their parishes will have greater impact on improving the spirit in their parish than those traditionalists who have left their parishes to attend the SSPX parishes.

From a historical perspective, the Roman Catholic Church has had many, many crises. I am unaware of a crisis that was solved by a group that has left the structure of the Church. I am not saying that it is not possible, I just am unsure of it ever happening before.

In no way do I believe that the members of SSPX are enemies of the church and I would say that those who denigrate SSPX are not followihng the guidance of the Roman Catholic Church but rather are exacerbating an unfortunate situation which surely pleases satan. For instance, I think SSPX existence played a key role in the TLM once again being said in may diocese around the world. So good is coming from the movement, but still I do not think it to be wise for parishioners to leave their diosecan parishes to regularly attend a SSPX parish.

well, if you went to a parish like mine, you would run into an SSPX regularly. i think that my parish is much anti Catholic than any traditionalist movements that wants nothing but to restore the Catholic Faith while many so called Catholic parish is destroying the Faith.
i am afraid to say but the people in my parish are very much against the pope and some wants to see him step down. i am pretty much alone in defending the pope.
sadly i know that those priests in my parish are causing the people to be against the pope.

 

[whatischarity]

SSPX is merely taking the stance that the Church’s teachings brought about from Vatican II contradict what has been taught in the past. What is so horrible about that?
God Bless

To me, this is the problem. It is the universal Church’s God given role to make this determination and to reform itself if necessary (As evidenced by the Catholic Reformation following the Protestant Revolt). The SSPX organization is usurping that role by determining that the teachings of the Council must be rejected. Many Protestants left the church because from their perspective certain teachings of the Church contradicted the Bible. In a nutshell, the SSPX has left the church because from their perspective certain teachings of the church contradict past teachings of the church. The similarity in both cases [IMHO] is that both parties have usurped the role of the universal church. This scenario is as old as Adam and Eve in the garden: don’t eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

All in all, I am just a rower. It is God’s Church and I am humble enough to know my role.