From time to time on the Catholic Internet, some new controversy arises pertaining to the Society of Saint Pius X. I’ve written before about the beauty of their liturgies and the strangeness of their canonical status. For most Catholics, the SSPX are not even on the radar. For those who find themselves newly drawn to the Church’s ancient liturgy, it’s often difficult to know what to make of them. The lack of clarity from the Vatican on how the faithful should view the Society — and whether or not they may participate in their sacramental life — has not helped the situation. Neither does it help that some have become so histrionic in their opposition to the SSPX that one would think they were fighting the Devil himself.
A reasonable approach is obviously more appropriate. There have been many long and legal arguments made about this topic, and I have no desire to reproduce those efforts. Rome has been clear, at least, in one thing: the Society lacks “canonical status” and thus its ministers do not “legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.” While this seems definitive, it’s hard to say exactly what it means, practically speaking. Priests of the SSPX were allowed to say Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica just last year, so it’s difficult to take this as a total proscription on their activities. Still, prudence has led me (and many others) to refrain from participating in SSPX activities or attending their chapels. On the other hand, I find their doctrinal arguments compelling, and have met individuals affiliated with them whom I think very highly of. I believe that honesty and fidelity to Christ demand that we consider the particulars of this unfortunate situation with fairness.
The Church is not well. Neither is the Society. Their mutual separation, to whatever degree it exists, seems to have hurt both.
With this in mind, I would say to those who would treat the bishops and priests of the SSPX and the faithful associated with them as enemies of the Church: read the words of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI — a pope who was attacked with “bitterness” because he lifted the excommunications of the Society bishops and tried to bring the group into full reconciliation.
In his 2009 letter to the Catholic bishops explaining his actions, he wrote:
So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who “has something against you” (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?
Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: “Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another.” I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this “biting and devouring” also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide – even in turbulent times.
Pope Benedict asked for charity towards the SSPX, whose priests, he surmises, must “have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God.” He spoke against “biting and devouring” one another. He clearly saw this as a complex situation, not a black and white one. He did not condemn them. He did not compare their Masses to blasphemy. He did not tell the world of their sinfulness.
He showed sympathy to them. He showed a desire to unite them fully within the bosom of the Church. He expressed towards them a paternal sentiment that can only be described as love.
I encourage you not to listen to those who opportunistically use this situation to create division, or cast judgment. This is not an “us” or “them” situation. The members of the Society are, in a very real sense of the word, Catholic. We are Catholic. The differences between us are not insignificant, but neither are they insurmountable. They are closer to us in practice and belief than any other group considered to be “separated” from the Church — and we treat these others, whether Protestant or Orthodox — with much greater kindness and respect. This is an injustice. Any true love of souls demand that it be rectified.
In the mean time, we have real evils to fight. There are things on the horizon that should have us all on our knees, praying with fervor for God’s assistance and mercy. The SSPX, for all their faults, are allies in this effort, not enemies. It would be wise for us all to pray that the confusion about their situation can be cleared up, that their doctrinal concerns be addressed, and that full reconciliation can be established. The Church may well become stronger for all of it.
There are many, many souls in the Church who are in serious conflict with Church teaching and are in fact heretics. Most liberals are heretics or apostates and from this group we hear the most vitriolic attacks against members of the SSPX. I think the heretics, many priests and Bishops included should be shunned and not the meek and holy people of the SSPX. Recently our parish brought a large group of about 40 people into our Church who were attending an SSPX church. They are holy, humble, generous and knowledgeable in the Faith and are firmly planted in it. Thanking God he preserved these souls for our good.
Within the Church there are heretics and schismatics not only on the liberal side, but also on the conservative side. So we must be alert.
Use your Bible and CCC to know the truth.
Church definitions:
CCC: ” 2089 INCREDULITY is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
HERESY is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.
APOSTACY is the total repudiation of the Christian faith.
SCHSIM is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
Yes, MIKE, use your bible to know the truth. And keep your eyes open to realities, not opportunities to marginalize and calumniate those who have helped the Church tremendously.
Neiter, incredulity, heresy, apostasy, or schism is appropriately applied to the SSPX. The threat of schism is not schism, friend And your preemptive fear mongering goes beyond even the “official” position of the Church in this matter.
Why is that, MIKE? Are you claiming superiority to the Church’s “official” position in declaring/implying judgment?
Perhaps you should tread more carefully for there are many who like to play Pope in the Church, and I’m not speaking of those in the SSPX.
So indeed, MIKE,we ALL must be careful. Look to it.
Are you the same Ann Malley who denigrates the Ordinary Form of the Mass in promotion of the SSPX,
and calls faithful Catholics names on “California Catholic Daily” such as “modernists” etc.,
and who also bad mouths the Vortex in her posts ?
http://cal-catholic.com/?p=18326#comment-757340
I did not state the SSPX are heretics. You lied again.
MIKE, the Vortex falsely asserts an authority to pronounce schism – which is an overreaching of the “official” position of the Church.
Also, I promote the TLM. I denigrate no one. Rather I take issue with rampant disinformation and pot-stirring and sound-byte proclamations that are dividing solid Catholics to the detriment of Holy Mother Church.
If you are being taught by ChurchMilitantTV to overreach “official” Church position in intimating the error that you do and then back pedaling when called on it, perhaps you should look to balancing your own information sources.
I know you do not like Voris because of your support for the SSPX over the Church’s official position – that the “SSPX holds no ministry within the Catholic Church” –
But you will have to take that up with him.
Again you are playing games.
I fully support the Church’s “official” position, MIKE. That is why I don’t go off calling others schismatics without the authority to do so.
Good, now you can go to another Extraordinary Form of the Mass where the Priest does hold a ministry within the Church, rather than the SSPX .
MIKE, you again make the overreach that accepting the Church’s “official” position leads one to not be able to attend the SSPX when needs must.
Please, stop making “unofficial” leaps, trying to simplify that which, for a great many, is not what “you” perceive it to be.
God bless you for your zeal, but keeping it in check in not asserting the next step for those who are fully on-board with the Catholic Faith and the teachings of Holy Mother Church would be more helpful.
There is no, “…NOW, you can…or… NOW, you will!” I’ve known of and understood the words you keep reiterating for some time. That said, as Steve suggests, perhaps you should look to the whole of what Pope Benedict advised in moving forward.
Perhaps NOW you can understand that coming across as dictatorial is not in order and not your place.
Please let me know your Diocese, I will help you find an EF Mass where the Priest holds a ministry within the Church.
And/or will help you write to your Diocese Bishop so that an EF Mass can get started.
In the meantime if there is no EF Mass in your Diocese, certainly there are OF Masses.
And since you fully support the Church’s position, you will no longer denigrate the OF Mass on other web sites.
MIKE, I do not seek your help as I am fully capable in the areas you describe. That said, there is no “bad mouthing” when one asks for a critical analysis of a rite of mass. If that were the case, then you would have to admit that those who sought to invent the Novus Ordo were badmouthing the TLM. Is that what you’re saying? Was +Bugnini denigrating the TLM by pushing for change?
Please read for understanding. If I should need your help, and thank you for the offer, I will ask for it.
I only attend the TLM. And you can make of that what you will.
God bless.
I am blessed because we now have a Latin Rite Parish Church under the Bishop of Birmingham in Alabama. This parish was built by the outcasts of the parishes that let radically unfaithful, disobedient souls run them. Together with reunited catholics from Pius V and Pius X we are the happiest souls on earth! Our Lady Help of Christians, Huntsville, AL. Please come visit us if ever you get the chance.
My goodness, but that is stellar news Isabel. I’d heard of the goings on in Huntsville, and many were nothing but torn up about exactly what you describe. Glad to know of the update.
God bless.
Anne, our Pastor is known to say that our Parish is a miracle and I believe it really is. You are a brave soldier of Christ and I am proud of you. I will pray that God will reward you for all of your efforts and all you have had to endure. The reward of having a parish where you don’t have to worry about what your children are being taught and what strange changes will happen this week is incredibly peaceful and joyful. You can go to Mass to Adore and Worship God and nothing detracts from that! It is so wonderful.
…thanks, Isabel. Not having to worry so much about what one’s children hear and/or don’t is a huge help. Especially when in Church!
God bless and enjoy 🙂
No one on any site I have seen has ever asked for “Ann Malley – to give a critical analysis of a rite of mass”.
You can’t read, you misquote, and refuse to give real “quotes” when asked.
Good, now you will attend EF (Latin/TLM) Masses by Priests who hold legitimate ministries within the Church, rather than that of the SSPX.
Pope Francis Announces Encyclical on DeflateGate
Holly Beth Golightly
National Catholic Distorter
May 12, 2015
Rome, Italy – Pope Francis announced today that he will be issuing a
papal encyclical addressing DeflateGate, the penalties imposed by the
NFL on Tom Brady and the New England Patriots, and whether the air
pressure in footballs affects climate change and global warming. Father
Guido Sarducci, S.J., a Vatican observer at the Gregorian University in
Rome cautioned that lay Catholics should hold back on judging “what
might be proclaimed by the Holy Father in this encyclical on clearly
non-infallible matters.”
“We’ve seen a lot of bloggers complaining about what they think the
pope will say in the encyclical on climate change and also a lot of
Catholic journalists and overbearing, condescending, self-appointed
neo-Catholic experts lecturing to them about how far removed they are
from inside gossip at the Vatican and bishops conferences intrigues
which provide third-hand rumors for issuing their own prognostications
on the Holy Father’s opinions and state of mind. So people need to sit
back and wait and see what the Holy Father says about the recent slap on
the wrist the NFL handed down to Tom Brady and the Patriots for
cheating by deflating football air pressure.” Father Sarducci also
cautioned New York Jets and Buffalo Bills fans to reserve their judgment
if the Holy Father offers words of encouragement to the New England
Patriots as they struggle to deal with antinomian rules bending and
Situation Ethics. Expectations that the Holy Father may place telephone
calls to the fired equipment managers appointed by Tom Brady to deflate
the balls was riding high in the cafeteria at the Gregorian University
in Rome. The Holy Father is expected to offer words of encouragement and
to send the equipment managers autographed footballs. He may also
recommend reducing the suspension from four games to two in another “Who
am I to judge?” Come to Jesus moment.
Tom Brady suspended for four games
Monsignor Antonio Fettuccine, a Vatican insider close to the papal
staff, who visits several Opus Dei chapters in the United States
regularly to confer with professional Protestant converts who run their
own blogs offering expert advice on Catholic matters, said that lay
Catholics should “exercise caution and reserve judgment until the
encyclical is completed. We can’t have Catholics who are New York Jets
fans jumping the gun on this, as if the Holy Father isn’t aware of the
complexities of the science concerning football air pressure. The last
thing we need is lay Catholics offering their own opinions on
DeflateGate and other non-infallible controversies on which there is no
clear Catholic teaching.”
George Weasel, a former seminarian and executive director of the
Catholic Center for Democracy and Modern Progress, suggested that
bloggers complaining about what they think the pope will say in his
encyclical on DeflateGate should “shut up and listen to modernist
ex-seminarians and experts who know what they’re talking about. We can’t
have lay Catholics offering their opinions on everything under the sun
as if they were high school chemistry teachers from Buenos Aires stuck
in the 1970s.”
Pope Francis checking wind speed and air pressure in St. Peter’s Square
Pope Francis is expected to recommend lowering regulation air gauge
pressure in footballs used for NFL games, currently at 12.5 and 13.5
pounds per square inch (psi) or 86 to 93 kPa, to possibly as low as 12.2
pounds or 12.175 pounds, in a spirit of ecumenical dialogue, after
checking with climate change experts and climatologists. Monsignor
Fettuccine, when asked whether Pope Francis would personally be checking
air pressure in footballs before games, said “We will have to wait and
see what he says in his encyclical.” Modernist theologian and celebrity
dissenter Father Hans Küng commented,”The Holy Father probably will not
come down on one side or the other on the science of football air
pressure, but will lay out general moral principles, particularly the
principle of subsidiarity as it applies to NFL games. This is in keeping
with the Spirit of Vatican II guiding his pontificate.”
Thank you for making that clear for me. I am grateful. However, I only know what I witness regarding those who have in humility joined our parish. They are neither heretics nor apostates nor schismatics and certainly they are not guilty of incredulity. I am so glad to welcome them. They have come for my benefit and I really am rejoicing in their example of Christian life which I have failed to see in many years among Catholics. I don’t know much about them politically. I just know that they love for REAL! They offer you their veil or to make you one and they make it!!! They remember your name and they pray for you. I once asked a girl to pray for my son and she immediately went back into the Church and knelt for an hour in prayer before the Altar!!! I just don’t even know what you are talking about. I have met Piux V people who joined our Church and gave the entire monastery to our Bishop. It is very hard to find holy Catholics nowadays. When you meet them you know it and you are changed. Nothing in this world could ever make me fear those who are members of the SSPX or dislike them or not be willing to welcome them. I Love them!
My response to you had nothing to do with the SSPX. I did not mention the SSPX in my response to you.
I responded to the part of your post where you labeled only “liberals” as heretics.
By using Church definitions, we can see truth for all.
For example there are ultra-conservatives who call themselves “Traditional” Catholics who are “sedevancantists”. They do not believe in the election of the last several Popes, and therefore teach that the Chair of Peter is vacant. Yet they mimic the Catholic services.
This is only one example of a conservative heretical group.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has publicly stated the need for the clarification of specific portions of VII document. Surely, you are not accusing him of heresy/schism, MIKE. Or are you implying that he just doesn’t understand the documents?
Cardinal Kasper has also acknowledged quite clearly that there are compromise formulas embedded in VII documents. And Germany seems rather pleased to be running with them. Are you denying then that Cardinal Kasper has the ability to read what is written – not what was intended?
You also revert to calling out Sedevecantists as being the “traditionalist” group you were cautioning folks against when saying there was schism/heresy on both ends inside the Church.
Do you realize by what you said that you are implying that Sedevecantists are inside the Church? They are not, MIKE. The SSPX, however, is part of the Church. That is one reason why Sedevecantists have no love of the SSPX.
Please understand that Pope Benedict advocated the hermeneutic of continuity approach when reading VII. Well, MIKE, there would be no need for the Holy Father to promote an interpretive “approach” if, in fact, the documents were clear and precise in their meaning. This is why Bishop Athanasius Schneider has been speaking up. And this is why, Cardinal Kasper can freely speak of compromise formulas while doing what he wills and not be corrected. This crisis has roots.
Again, I am so glad to know that you are looking to only “official” positions. Navigating this crisis is hard enough.
You are an evil woman.
Neither Bishop Athanasius Schneider or Cardinal Burke attend any SSPX Masses,
nor to they ordain any SSPX Priests (like both have done with the FSSP and Diocese Priests).
Nor do they encourage anyone to do so.
Don’t believe what Kasper says. He has his own agenda.
Stick to “Official” church documents.
MIKE, since you cannot discuss rationally without calling folks liars and/or evil, I’m going to suppose that this discussion is beyond you.
What you fail to understand is that both Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Burke identify the SSPX as Catholic and have not behaved the way you do in approaching them. Please, look to Pope Emeritus Benedict, Bishop Schneider, and Cardinal Burke – heck – even look to Pope Francis who clearly stated when he was a Cardinal that the Society is, in fact, Catholic. And even Pope Francis hasn’t engaged in the vitriol you promote.
That is very simple.
God bless
Who said the SSPX Priests are not Catholic ?
Please provide the “quote”.
….MIKE, let’s not go down the road of arguing again. Look to what Steve wrote and take the spirit of it. If the idea is union, then look to it.
Don’t waste your time arguing with “Mike”…..notice how he declares you “evil”. He is a sick man…pray for him. He is not in touch with reality. He has also declared myself and others to be heretics, schismatics and sedevacantists and of even having our own “church”. “MIKE” always diverts from facts and direct questions and then moves into ad hominem attacks. I haven’t been declared “evil”(yet)….you are most impressive with that coveted title from “pope” “MIKE”.
God bless you and the SSPX!!!!!!!
He does this on other websites, too, Tim. It’s a real shame.
That’s why I’m glad to read Steve venturing forth in an investigative way, minus the stereotypes. Accurate information and honest analysis are key to not only understanding a problem, but rooting it out!
God bless you, the SSPX, and *all* solid Catholics who want the Truth!
Once again, you are in error:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/02/bishop-athanasius-schneider-visits-sspx.html
From your source (which is accurate). –
” These meetings (taking place in 2015)
are a way of continuing the doctrinal discussions between the Society of St. Pius X and the Roman authorities « in a larger and less formal context than that of the preceding meetings », according to the decision made during the meeting of Bishop Fellay with Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on September 23, 2014.”
The Bishop is not ordaining SSPX Priests, or encouraging others to attend SSPX Masses.
….good idea posting the link here, Tim.
Perhaps this exchange between the Society and +Schneider will result in the necessary clarification of VII documents (or throwing them out ;^) in time. “Time” will tell.
One thing is certain. Hardlining folks into submitting their conscience to that which has so obviously and publicly proved problematic is no solution. Even if it were only a matter of 5-6 lines.
After all, it was only a pinch of incense that would have kept early Church martyrs alive. But their conscience? Not so good.
Vatican II was not a dogmatic infallible Council. In fact, none of the documents of Vatican II carry and infallible definitions or are infallible themselves. It was a pastoral council with pastoral documents that do not require any assent. Every Catholic is free to accept or reject these documents as they see fit.
As far as Sedevacantism, that is a heresy, but they don’t mimic Catholic services, they can have actual Masses, because their liturgy and priesthood is valid. The Orthodox church is schismatic, but because they have a valid priesthood, they can have a valid Mass.
No Ashbury – just because something has not been pronounced “infallible” – which includes most of the Doctrine of the Catholic Faith
does not mean Catholics are absolved from adhering to the Doctrine of the Faith.
Unlike Protestants,
Catholics have 1) Sacred Scripture, 2) the Apostolic Tradition and the 3) Church’s Magisterium.
You can check this out on the Vatican web site:
Vatican II Documents include:
4 Dogmatic Constitutions;
3 Declarations;
9 Decrees.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm
Many of us would like to see the Church clarify 5 or 6 sentences in the VII Docs.
Some Catholics like me, would like to see all the documents thrown out. The best case will be for a future Pope or future Council to fix or reject Vatican II.
None of these documents belong to the Ordinary Magisterium.
Who do you think they belong to?
And please define ‘Ordinary Magisterium’ as you know it so that we can be on the same page to correspond.
Since these documents contain error, they are not part of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is the teachings and doctrines of the Church taught by Popes, bishops, and priests throughout the centuries held by the Church always and everywhere.
You are confusing “Apostolic Tradition” with “Ordinary Magisterium”.
The Magisterium is not teaching. The Magisterium is high-ranking Clergy – ie Pope in communion with Bishops.
As you can see from the V II Docs – at the heading of each Document, they were promulgated by Pope Paul VI in the 1960s.
(I agree with Bishop A. Schnieder that there are 6 or 7 things that need clarification out of the 16 V II Docs.)
Here is an excellent explanation of: Extraordinary Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-are-extraordinary-magisterium-and-ordinary-ma.html
Who are the Bishops who ordain Sedevacantist priests?
There are different bishops belonging to different Sedevacantism groups. These bishops were consecrated by other Catholic bishops who had valid orders.
Any 2 or 3 names of these Bishops will do.
I will check their credentials.
Bishop Kelly a sedevacantist bishop was consecrated by Bishop Alfredo Méndez-Gonzalez the former bishop of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Bishop McKenna was another bishop consecrated by a bishop from the Thuc line. Bishop Thuc being a Vietmanese bishop who consecrated men as bishops.
Thank you for the info – regarding the SEDEVACANTISTS.
Kelly was consecrated as a bishop in 1993, in Carlsbad, California, by Alfredo Méndez-Gonzalez, the retired Bishop of Arecibo, Puerto Rico who is now excommunicated.
Nine priests formed the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV), which held that it is, at least, a debatable question whether the popes since 1958 have in fact been legitimate Roman Pontiffs and, subsequently, whether the revisions of the Roman Missal after 1958 were legitimate.
Although they call themselves “Traditional Catholics”, they are in fact heretics and schismatics.
They do not recognize Papal succession after 1958. Hence the name “vacant” in their name of Sedevacantist.
Of course, this blog post ignore the major part of Pope Benedict XVI’s letter to the Bishops, where Pope Benedict writes:
“In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church…In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes.”
Implied in Pope Benedict XVI statement is SSPX’s non-accceptance to submit to the Supreme Pontiff – their rejection “of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes.” (Non-acceptance of the magisterium of popes is “refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff.”)
Definition of schism: “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI describes SSPX as being in schism BY DEFINING SCHISM instead of explicitly saying “schism.” This is not something to take lightly, as the author of this post and others have written.
Head of CDF, Cardinal Mueller confirmed the Pope Benedict XVI’s statement in Dec. 2013: “The canonical excommunication of the bishops for their illegal ordinations was revoked, but a de facto sacramental excommunication remains for their schism; they put themselves out of communion with the Church. After that we are not closing the door and never will, but we are inviting them to be reconciled. But they too must change their attitude, accept the conditions of the Catholic Church, and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion for membership.”
SSPX is in schism. Do not downplay that, or you are complicit in their disobedience. There are many reasons to not be sympathetic to SSPX – the main reason is their habitual disobedience, which is a major, major read flag. In the future God will likely reveal the reasons why SSPX cannot be reconciled with the Church. They choose to be in schism, but they pretend that they are not in schism, and then they continue to perform ILLICIT Masses. They intentionally use double speak to muddy the waters and draw Faithful Catholics away from the Roman Catholic Church. “We’re not in schism!”
But yet, they disagree with the beatification and canonization of St. John Paul II? You have to do more research on their heretical stances.
Any questions?
Yes, I have a question. I know that the Church can have no traffic with evil or error. I also know that the Church is a tender, loving and merciful mother full of compassion. How does the Church fulfill both of her obligations at once so that souls will be saved and the family united in truth, giving glory to God?
It seems to me that a lot of evil and error has been tolerated and even given license while a real hate has been allowed to fester against those who refused to take part in it. I hate the abuses I have witnessed. I hate the violence against souls I have seen. I can not blame people who want to worship God in spirit and in truth but who have not found a place in the Church to do that. God judges us by our intentions. I believe their intentions are pure and holy. If you want them to come home, you are going to have to clean the house and make a place for them. They may be in schism but millions of souls in the Church are in obstinate mortal sin, intentionally depriving souls of the gospel, the sacraments and the liturgy! They deprive them of knowledge of the faith, their obligations and how to grow in holiness. They close down churches, and silence entire orders of holy people who give good example. They give the donations of the faithful to evil organizations and help in the murder of millions of children. They have mercy on homosexuals who are actively engaged in a sinful way of life but to a mother of seven children who has to get up at four in the morning to worship God a hundred miles away, there is no place . Whoever is responsible for this should be very worried.
I don’t have to do any research at all. I love them! I want them home and I believe I can learn a great deal from their beautiful example of remaining steadfast against the evils of our day. I am already united with them in so many ways. It is just a grace away before Jesus will purify his Church and they will believe it is clean enough to enter even with their children! Until then I have to fight, pray and be merciful.
I wonder how Fr. Nichols would reply to your post and the words of the previous Pope?
With a humble admission that he was wrong and a plea for forgiveness from those in the SSPX he calumniated with his words.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
No seriously. With hatred and vitriol, the two things Fr. Nichols excels at.
This is what Pope Benedict wrote to the Bishops of the world regarding the SSPX on March 10, 2009.
(End of paragraph 3. It can be found on the Vatican web site.)
This is the official decision until something new is officially posted by the Pope on the Vatican web site.
” The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons.
As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved.
In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. “
Those who want to attend Extraordinary Form of the Mass should attend FSSP Masses which can be found on the internet,
or an EF Mass said by a Priest who holds a legitimate ministry within the Church.
Also contact your Diocese for EF Masses closest to you.
Until/if the Pope changes the status of the SSPX, yes we should pray for unity.
I agree, Mike – thank you and God bless you.
I hope you only agree with the “official” statement from lawful Church authority and not MIKE’s obvious pot-stirring extrapolations.
Why don’t you want people to know the exact wording of Pope Benedict’s official statement ?
I do want everyone to know the wording of Pope Benedict’s official statement.
What I take rightful issue with is the fanciful, expanded editorial of Magisterium MIKE.
Stick to the “official” position. It’s okay.
Then here it is again as I originally posted it.
” This is what Pope Benedict wrote to the Bishops of the world regarding the SSPX on March 10, 2009.
(End of paragraph 3. It can be found on the Vatican web site.)
This is the official decision until something new is officially posted by the Pope on the Vatican web site.”
QUOTE: ” The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons.
As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved.
In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. ” UNQUOTE – Pope Benedict XVI.
Thank you. And as you can see there is no declaration of incredulity, schism, apostasy, and/or heresy.
Nor was there in any of my posts regarding the SSPX.
What is wrong with you ?
What is wrong is that, as a believing Catholic, I object to the false innuendo of your initial post. But I am wholly gladdened by your clear communication that you do not believe the Society guilty of incredulity, heresy, schism and/or apostasy,MIKE.
You may want to clarify that with others who seem to, if people are actually writing what they believe, defend what they believe to be your “analysis” of the “official” position of Pope Benedict. See the following:
Mara319 Ann Malley • 3 hours ago
Mike quotes from official statements and gives pitch-perfect interpretation, not “pot-stirring extrapolations.” SSPX Masses are valid because their bishops and priests have been validly ordained, but their sacraments of Penance and Matrimony are at best dodgy, considering they lack ministerial faculties.
**********
So if you are for the Truth, MIKE, and only “official” statements, you may want to clarify your perceived “interpretation” of said positions. But I see no post from you to Mara319 asking her, “What is wrong with you?”
I hope you see to clearing up all the miscommunication and disinformation for which you are responsible. That, too, would be refreshing.
God bless
What is wrong with you.
Here again is my initial post.
What is objectionable about it?
– – – –
This is what Pope Benedict wrote to the Bishops of the world regarding the SSPX on March 10, 2009.
(End of paragraph 3. It can be found on the Vatican web site.)
This is the official decision until something new is officially posted by the Pope on the Vatican web site.
” The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons.
As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved.
In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified,
the Society has no canonical status in the Church,
and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. “
Why continue to argue. Like Jesus says, “shake the sand from your feet and move on”.
Excellent point.
She won’t tell the truth or accurately “quote” me anyway.
“She” does tell the truth Mike, but only asks for clarity regarding your position. And again, thank you for restating that you uphold only the “official” Church position.
That is helpful and an excellent basis to move forward.
….why keep asking why, MIKE. I answered your question. But if you have no concern about leaving false impressions with others, that is also your affair.
Please read for understanding, complete understanding. Or else your continuing to ask “why” and “what” could be construe as disingenuous
Again, I’m heartened by your standing only for the “official” Church position. Great!
Mike quotes from official statements and gives pitch-perfect interpretations. SSPX Masses are valid because their bishops and priests have been validly ordained, but their sacraments of Penance and Matrimony are at best dodgy, considering the lack of ministerial faculties.
Also, not sure if it’s true, but I heard that SSPX has its own marriage tribunal, thus making a parallel with the official one?
Mara319,
You prove by your words, “….also,not sure if it’s true, but I heard…” that you are a pot-stirring reactionary.
MIKE is only pitch-perfect when he reiterates the Church’s “official” position. Not when he pitches a slur in the hopes that others who are, “…not sure it’s true, but,” fill-in-the-blank.
For while MIKE may supply the “official” position,he makes his own colorful and damning interpretation which could be construed as fear mongering and calumny.
I thought by saying “not sure” would spur you to do your own research, sorry.
“A pot-stirring reactionary?” – that’s all you’ve got? Google ‘SSPX marriage tribunal’ and see for yourself if it exists. It’s true SSPX has a parallel marriage tribunal.
Okay, here’s from one of their own websites [I want to give the link but this forum does not allow]:
“The legitimacy and status of our tribunals. A lecture given on August 25th, 1998 by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais given at the Canon Law Seminar on Marriage Cases at Econe, Switzerland Status quaestionis
“The declarations of nullity given by post-Conciliar ecclesiastical tribunals are often doubtful. Do we have the right to supply for this deficiency, by the means of tribunals functioning within the Society of St. Pius X?
“Archbishop Lefebvre foresaw the necessity of creating a Canonical Commission, in particular in order to resolve marriage cases after an initial judgment by the district superior. The following text from a letter that he wrote to the Superior General on January 15, 1991, is quoted in the Society’s Regulations:
“Inasmuch as the present Roman authorities are imbued with ecumenism and modernism, and that their decision and the new law are as a whole influenced by these false principles, we must institute authorities to supply for these deficiencies, which faithfully adhere to the Catholic principles of Catholic Tradition and Catholic law. It is the only way to remain faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Apostles and to the deposit of the Faith, transmitted to their legitimate successors, who remained faithful until Vatican II…”
And it goes on from there….
Yes, Mara319, do your own research. This is a good thing.
And current research would indicate that it is not 1991. So, yes, a pot-stirring reactionary is what I see in your statements. Especially when you encourage someone like MIKE in his “interpretations”. Interpretations from which even he is backpedaling for they do not conform to the “official” position of the Church.
If the desire of the Church is union, please seek it on all levels. Encourage false and or outdated assumptions, reports, etc helps no one except those who “desire” the Church to be divided.
That is why Steve’s article is timely and worthy of sincere reflection. Not inflammatory statements that seem more concerned with being “right” than being fully informed.
As you wish, Sir, since you’d rather carp than do your own research: http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/canonical/Canonical_Commission/legitimacy_and_status_of_our_tribunals.htm
And here’s what Fr. Z has to say about the canonical status of SSPX marriages:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/07/quaeritur-validity-of-sspx-marriage/
“The marriage would be (most likely) invalid not because of a lack of form, but rather a defect of form.
“Even though canonical form was followed, there was a defect affecting validity because the priest who officiated lacked delegation (c. 1111) from the parish priest or local ordinary.
“Moreover, the priest (if he was a priest of the SSPX) is suspended a divinis. He therefore cannot be delegated to officiate at a wedding (cc. 1109 and 1333).
“Some argue that c. 144 (on common error and probable doubt) applies. This argument is without merit, since it does not cover willful ignorance.”
From Canon Lawyer Cathy Caridi’s website:
http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/08/15/are-sspx-sacraments-valid-part-ii/
“Can an SSPX priest validly hear confessions, and celebrate weddings, because Ecclesia supplet?
“In general, SSPX clergy certainly think so! Available on the internet are numerous tedious (and invariably fallacious) analyses of canon law, usually citing the abrogated 1917 Code of Canon Law, asserting defensively that SSPX priests have full faculties like all other Catholic priests. Frequently they term it ‘supplied jurisdiction,’ and invent convoluted justifications for their claims—justifications which in fact are sheer fantasy, pure and simple. As a general rule, they reference Ecclesia supplet as the basic foundation for their argument.
“Conveniently missing from these sorts of analyses is any acknowledgement of the fact that the Holy Father himself reasserted just a few years ago that the SSPX clergy have no canonical status in the Church, and thus do not legitimately exercise any ministry. Such an unequivocal statement by the Vicar of Christ inherently carries with it the assumption that these canonically unrecognized, illegitimate ministers have no faculties! Why, then, do they suggest that the Code of Canon Law can somehow give them something that the Supreme Legislator—the Pope—has publicly declared that they lack?”
Ya think these opinions are outdated? No, Sir, they’re backed up by the Code of Canon Law, unchanged since 1983.
Thank you, Mara319. Although I don’t know why you would refer to me as a “Sir”. I appreciate the links.
I also follow Fr. Zuhlsdorf so am aware of his position. I actually provided a link to his website on this very thread. That’s how I knew that providing links was possible.
As for MIKE’s pitch perfect assessment, he seems to be making no assessment now. As to marriages and their validity, I understand your concerns. But again, reality on the ground, that is how dioceses treat those married within the SSPX, much like what Steve revealed as the Vatican’s giving jurisdiction in rather serious cases involving the confessional, there is a decided disconnect as to what is “said” and what is “done” and/or “supplied.”
God bless and thank you for the links! I’m looking forward to Steve’s articles.
An even handed, cool-headed treatment of this issue is well warranted.
The Vatican has already said one can attend SSPX Masses. FSSP has very limited presence. Without SSPX, Tradiation would be extinct. They aren’t sede quacks, and teach the Faith as handed down from the Fathers. You don’t have to worry about being infected with the Freemasonic garbage prevalent in VII Church when you attend their Mass.
Please provide the official Church document, whereby the Vatican officially stated that one can attend the SSPX Masses.
Document name, page, and paragraph numbers, and where I can find it.
It is a matter of being obedient to the Church/Pope.
Why should I go to a Mass or Service of a Priest who holds no ministry within the Catholic Church? – per the Catholic Church.
What does that do for me ?
MIKE:
The Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church says:
can. 1248 1. The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.
*********
This means that if you go to a chapel of the SSPX on the day of precept or the evening before and attend Holy Mass, you fulfill your obligation. The SSPX celebrate in a Catholic Rite.
This comes off of Fr Z’s bog. The link is below:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/10/quaeritur-sspx-and-fulfilling-sunday-mass-obligation/
As to “what one can get”. In a situation wherein the options are not present for solid liturgy and consistent practice in the diocese, what one can “get” is the Catholic Faith.
Thank you for the link to Fr. Z’s site.
And this is what he stated in the same article.
” However, I do not recommend that people do this frequently, because frequency can undermine their unity with the Roman Pontiff. The risk of this erosion of unity could in part depend on the manner of preaching and many other factors.
Also, I will not recommend reception of Holy Communion at an SSPX chapel at this time,
unless the conditions of your life are such that it would be very difficult to get to another church or parish actually in union with the local diocese and Rome.
The obstacles must be serious, but they cannot be easily spelled out because the circumstances of people’s lives differ so much. ”
In the USA in most cases there is no “need” to attend an SSPX Mass.
You are welcome, MIKE. Please refer to the, “The obstacles must be serious, but they cannot be easily spelled out because the circumstances of people’s lives differ so much.”
This last reality seems to escape you as you continue to enforce understanding on others when even Fr. Z does not. Perhaps you should take a cue and judge your own situation according to what you read.
Your discontinuing to make enforce simple that which is “simple” for you in order to cement division and calumniate others would be most appreciated.
I’m glad you read the article.
And – ” Also, I will not recommend reception of Holy Communion at an SSPX chapel at this time,
unless the conditions of your life are such that it would be very difficult to get to another church
or parish actually in union with the local diocese and Rome. ”
Please – Take Fr. Z’s statement in entirety.
In the USA today it would be very rare that someone could NOT get to another Church or Parish actually in union with the local diocese and Rome.
And yet you even overstep Fr. Z, MIKE. That said, Father Z is making a recommendation as to how ‘he’ would advise.
Try not to judge the circumstances of the lives of others.
You can recommend, but you have no authority to make pronouncements.
I have made zero pronouncements.
You still refuse to “quote” me, and continue to make things up.
Great! So you do not believe and are not promoting that the Society is guilty of incredulity, schism, heresy, or apostasy.
Thank you for being clear.
I never have taken any public position on the SSPX.
I do take one on you through based upon your own posts.
You are dishonest; misquote people; and take things out of context.
And you absolutely refuse to prove your wrong statements, by using “quotes” as requested.
You and people like you are the problem.
….we should also act as if we desire unity in truth and charity, MIKE. That is not accomplished by overstepping your authority and throwing erroneous charges at others just because we are fearful.
What erroneous charges has Pope Benedict stated ?
QUOTE: ” In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. “
MIKE, the position of Pope Benedict was made clear, but you continue to insinuate falsely charges of schism, apostasy, and incredulity by way of association.
Nobody is discounting the “Official” position you continue to post We’ve read it, MIKE. And that is why it is so confusing why you would continue to berate erroneously a solid group of fellow Catholics.
That is neither charitable, wholly honest, or conducive to union.
Again, you are lying.
I have asked you to accurately “quote” me specifically from anywhere in this thread.
And you refuse to do so.
You are lying to yourself, MIKE. Look to your first posting on this thread and you’ll have your answer. But you refuse to look.
That is why, personally, I cannot respect your assertions and/or look to your example. It falls short. Especially as pertains to being accountable for one’s own words and insinuation.
The Church cannot afford that kind of leadership, not in any level of society.
You are acting as the prosecutor, judge and jury of me.
It is up to you to prove your statements by using “quotes” of mine.
Stop playing games.
If asking you to back up your insinuating posts with the “official” Church position is tantamount to game playing, you may want to look to that yourself, MIKE.
I am just proud of you indicating that you do not believe the Society guilty of incredulity, heresy, schism and/or apostasy.
Thank you. That’s a great step forward!
I said that I have never taken a public position about the SSPX. PERIOD.
Stop playing games.I have no clue if the SSPX is guilty of incredulity, heresy, schism and/or apostasy.
So I will not say they are, or are not.
So stop lying again.
If you are an example of an SSPX follower, you are part of the problem.
I am a follower of the Faith, MIKE, and the fullness of the Truth. Something supported via CLEAR communication and accountability for one’s actual statements.
If you consider clarity and accountability to be problematic, that is the real issue. Not this, your-team my-team distraction.
Here is the OFFICIAL CHURCH statement again for your edification and for your knowledge.
Hopefully you will gain understanding of it, and learn to understand that this is Pope Benedict speaking as head of the Church to all Bishops, and not an individual speaking.
QUOTE: ” The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons.
As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved.
In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church,
and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. ” – Pope Benedict 2009.
MIKE, thank you for posting the “official” word. There is nothing of the charges you enumerated in you previous post. So, please, for the sake of unity, stop leveling false charges.
Ann Malley, there are no false charges.
Unless you are blaming Pope Benedict of false charges.
I did not author it.
Here is the link to the Vatican web site, and Pope Benedict’s official statement to the Bishops of the Catholic Church.
See the last several sentences of paragraph 3. http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
Mike. I suggest you tune into the The Remnant web site: http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php It is truly outstanding. Another is: https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/
We are already on OnePeterFive.
Let’s remember that blog sites are not “official” Church teaching.
Good catch Mike. I sometimes get lost in all of these commentaries Sorry about that. Time for a break..
Thanks again for standing up for the “official” Church position!
And the reminder that all else….well… is unofficial.
You have a very short memory.
I was the one who posted the official Church position.
What is wrong with you ?
I have a very long memory, MIKE, and an admittedly critical eye when it comes to rooting out inconsistency. That is why I caught the interpretive spin that you lent to the conversation and took issue with it.
But I am glad that you have disavowed any connection between the SSPX and your post about incredulity, schism, heresy, and apostasy. This is a good sign. We must acknowledge the fidelity of others and work together.
I hope you will continue with that legitimate position on CCD as well. There is a mounting crisis within Holy Mother Church and believing Catholics must ban together to fight for Truth, all of it, MIKE.
I’m glad to know again that you can be counted on to only look to that which is “official” and not seek to malign and marginalize by zealous overreach. This is very good. I hope you are also among those who will stand for marriage and support all Catholic priests in standing for marriage as October approaches.
I pray there is no “official” position that would counter Church teaching – but something must be in the works when faithful priests are called to begin petitions and/or publicly declare their willingness to remain faithful before a Church sanctioned synod.
God bless
God bless.
Stop lying Ann.
Anyone who refuses to put something in “quotes”, and misrepresents what others say – is hiding something.
I would like to see UNITY, however people like you make things very difficult since you act as an advocate for the SSPX.
I would be surprised if the SSPX would support your antagonistic attitude toward the OF Mass ( on CCD), or your disingenuous positions about the posts of others.
Or your position that most problems within the Church, are due to V II.
If you are not lying about supporting the position of the Church, we will see an abrupt change in your actions.
…MIKE, feel at liberty to stop lying to yourself. I act as an advocate for the fullness of the Faith and the idea that the TLM is a more reliable rite that is proved effective in forming solid Catholics. (I don’t like seeing the SSPX attacked unfairly. Perhaps you do. I do not share that mindset. I don’t like the knee-jerk defense of other rites of mass which could preclude possible improvement. I don’t like the FSSP being attacked either – and they ARE in many circles. They are certainly not embraced by every Bishop in the United States to be sure. But as I’ve stated on CCD endless times, if ones faith, in all fullness, is confirmed and fed in the Novus Ordo – great.)
If you were being honest and supportive of what the Church seeks – that is union of “believing” Catholics – you would cease attempting to put words into people’s mouths for the purpose berating others. There is nothing untoward about wanting to review the NO rite and strive for improvement,
That said, I’m not seeking your approval or even the approval of the SSPX in making observations. That is your assumption. And it is incorrect. Having said as much, if your objective is to promote the truth and only the truth, then I hope to see a change in your posting habits. It would be truly inspiring to see you stop implying and our encouraging those who level false charges of incredulity, schism, heresy and apostasy where there is no official basis for doing so.
But if you did so on other forums you would absolutely not receive the approval you seem to seek. Maybe that is the problem in our communications.
Ann Malley, you are responsible for your OWN actions.
Stop trying to justify your bad acts with what others do or not do..
….indeed, I am responsible for my own actions and words. I pray you would take the same course.
God bless
MIKE, your innuendo of the charges of incredulity, heresy, schism, and apostasy were very clearly received. Those were not part of Pope Benedict’s position.
If you would like to clarify that you were not leveling those charges and subsequently using Pope Benedict’s “Official” statements as backup for your erroneous intimations, feel free to do so. That would be refreshing.
But understand that your fear mongering tactic of placing egregious assertions in close proximity with “official” statements is not the basis for an honest analysis. That followed by your proclamation that there is never necessity in the US would indicate that you fancy yourself higher than even those given the authority to make such distinctions.
Union is not accomplished by fear mongering,MIKE, and/or falsehood of any kind. For the union within Holy Mother Church is that of the fullness of Truth. And when you assert yourself against that reality by lying, even because you “feel” certain “you” know, that works against the good and divides Catholics from those other Catholics who could and should be their staunchest ally in this fight against the Powers and Principalities.
Again, stop lying and “quote” me accurately.
Choose anything anywhere in this thread.
ANOTHER
NEW
FORT
Such names they call us
That’s not what we are
We are Roman Catholics
At the front of the war.
Some just go AWOL
Others defect
Copying our stance
Then say we’re a sect.
A lot like in England
Saint John Fisher’s day
When his brothers said, “yes”
This Saint replied, “nay”.
All alone in the Fort
St. John Fisher stood
Preserving, defending
For the whole all that’s good.
Not just for himself
Those attached to what’s old
Or reformers, reforming
Pretending they’re bold.
We’re simply preserving,
Once again the True Fort
While those with new orders
Relinquish support.
And with promises made
To men hungry for power
They mock, stand and point
At us in the tower
Hoping for all
Diverse democracy –
When in fact their new fort’s
A catastrophic kleptocracy.
I agree completely with Steve on the proper (charitable) posture towards SSPX. They do good work. On the other hand the work coming out of the Vatican nowadays is not so good.
I have no comments on the work of the SSPX.
I only know what the official position of the Church is in the matter, since it was published by Pope Benedict and is on the Vatican web site for all to see.
What I find disturbing is some of their followers who blog against teachings of the Church,
and promote the SSPX over other Orders that adhere to the EF (TLM/Latin) of the Mass.
And call those who do not support their positions – derogatory names.
You will find a couple of them on this web site.
…then why continue,MIKE, to comment on a public forum that the SSPX are anything but the “official” position issued by Pope Benedict.
Your continuing to comment based on what you find disturbing only adds to a stereotype that does not encompass the whole or the entire truth of the situation. That is why the “official” statement of Pope Benedict does not go so far as to state what you imply.
To use your logic, others could take on a bias against the official Church and Her teachings because of the rampant blogging and public pronouncements (which go uncorrected) of those advertised as being in full communion with the Church. Or do you hold to the positions of the German Bishop’s council? These positions, friend, are truly what should disturb believing Catholics. And the “official” position of the Church at present is that all is well in Germany.
And that is why I, for one, am wholly grateful to Steve for taking a manly attitude. Proceed with caution, yes, but proceed blindly, smacking down allies in a brewing storm? Not prudent.
When the shoe fits wear it.
In the light of Pope Benedict’s words, and his lifting of the 1988 excommunication, the recent, repeated, hysterical attacks from Michael Voris–“Schismatic! Schismatic! Schismatic!”–seem all the more pathetic and vicious. And suspicious. Who is pulling the strings.
The Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Mueller, says the SSPX is a schism whereas Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger has no authority at all.
The SSPX is never coming home and the celerity with which they have changed the traditionalists spiritual weltanschauung about schism is a crisis in and of its own self; talk about diabolical delusions and mephitic novelties.
Schism has always been severely condemned but now, far too many traditionalists think it is not only a permissible act but a praiseworthy one.
The SSPX has annealed into a permanent schism and one day all of its sacraments will be valid – just like the sacraments of the schismatics of the east; ironies abound.
It has always been thought that the sine qua non of catholicism is the threefold bonds of unity: worship, doctrine, and authority and, thus, the protestant praxis of the sspx schism visa vis discipline is simply indefensible.
Like protestants, the sspx has arrogated to itself the authority to decide for its own self what disciplines it will accept and will not accept and it simply will not accept disciplines that are contrary to its own will.
Further, it resurrects malign aspects of Donatism in that it refuses communion with those it considers doctrinally impure; it refuses to be in communion with legitimate Bishops who have legitimate jurisdiction.
The sspx schism has orders but not jurisdiction and it is a cadre of vagus bishops and priests and such extra-ecclesial status/praxis was specifically condemned by Trent.
The sspx are protestants in Fiddlebacks and Satan has successfully detached many from the Church established by Jesus via the schism and his tool of detachment was the Holy Mass.
Forty years ago, who would have predicted Satan would use the Mass in such a way.
O, and be careful about asking who is pulling the strings for that question can be asked of the SSPX and a certain source of their money.
The “official” written position of the Church, however, does not state that there is schism, MJY. So while you rush to judge and declare “never” where you have no authority, and no omniscience, you decry those whom you perceive are not adhering to proper authority.
Hypocritical, MJY, and uselessly divisive.
Perhaps one should question who is pulling your strings. You certainly seem bent on defining by way of repetition that which is not true. Trying to make your calumny stick, MJY?
Your assertion, “…The SSPX has annealed into a permanent schism and one day all of its sacraments will be valid – just like the sacraments of the schismatics of the east; ironies abound,” is prickly with an impotent rage. And one can only wonder – why.
Are they robbing you of market share or something?
“The Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Mueller, says the SSPX is a schism whereas Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger has no authority at all.”
No, the prefect of the CDF has said there is a “de facto” schism, which is arguable, and is based a non-authoritative statement. The Pope’s words in 2009 carry significantly more weight.
“The SSPX is never coming home and the celerity with which they have changed the traditionalists spiritual weltanschauung about schism is a crisis in and of its own self; talk about diabolical delusions and mephitic novelties.”
This is something you simply have no basis to say. There was serious interest in reconciliation after Summorum Pontificum, but the bait-and-switch at the signing table on which concessions they had to grant as opposed to what had been negotiated was considered unacceptable. I don’t think it was an accident. It seems that there are parties in the Church with a vested interest in keeping the Society at arm’s length.
“Schism has always been severely condemned but now, far too many traditionalists think it is not only a permissible act but a praiseworthy one.”
It’s impossible to determine whether this statement has any real merit, or what the quantity of “traditionalists” would need to be to qualify as “far too many.” One? Ten?
As for schism, again, this is a situation not aptly described as one of schism. In the Catholic Encyclopedia, there’s an excellent quote from: “Between heresy and schism”, explains St. Jerome, “there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10).
But there is no heresy here. The SSPX believes what Catholics have always believed; they worship as Catholics always have worshipped. The excommunications for the illicit consecrations have been lifted, what remains are the same doctrinal issues that I think it’s safe to say you and I would both agree demand redress.
So what is the problem?
“The SSPX has annealed into a permanent schism and one day all of its sacraments will be valid – just like the sacraments of the schismatics of the east; ironies abound.”
Their sacraments are valid *now*.
I don’t have time to go on and on with the rest of your points. Your vitriolic condemnations of the SSPX are exactly what I am asking for us to move away from.
I have never denied that there are problems within the Society. But I will not deny that there are good things as well, and that their concerns transcend discipline and, as Pope Benedict pointed out, concern matters of doctrine.
We *all* need those things worked out, not just the Society.
Do not take my posts on this topic as a blanket endorsement. They are not. I’m merely asking for us to treat the situation justly and honestly. The institutional Church is falling apart at the seams; the SSPX appears to be bursting at theirs. Despite their problems with obedience and a certain genus of pride that seems to have festered in isolation, the traditional doctrines and praxis they embrace are the same that we have abandoned. The correlation merits investigation and action.
I will never endorse against the statement of Pope Benedict either.
And I also would like to see a few things clarified, and Unity within the Church.
(Some German Bishops such as Kasper, are real heretics.)
Have you heard any recent movement toward unity with the SSPX ?
If it takes too long, their Bishops will grow too old and die out, and then there will be no more priestly ordinations – causing the eventual dying out of the Order.
Since the negotiations fell apart withe the Levada mischief (is it fair to call it that? It seems so.) there has been little movement.
Bishop Schneider, whom I have gotten to know a little bit and whom I believe to be an intensely intelligent, knowledgeable, and holy man was sent to visit the SSPX in Winona as an official delegate last February.
He is perhaps the best person to speak to their current situation. I don’t believe he has done so publicly.
This is such a shame.
Let’s all join in prayer for unity tonight.
MIKE, there have already been 2 meetings that I know of THIS YEAR regarding working out a possible reunification between Rome and the SSPX. (In Europe and here in the States.. one was the visitation of Bishop Athanasius Schneider. The very same who is actively, and in full communion w/Rome,advocating for a clarification of VII documents.) There are other positive signs as well – like the recognition in Buenos Aires of the SSPX by Cardinal Mario Poli. Yes, it was for reasons of visa status, but it is still an outward sign that the Society IS Catholic. And since there is a large Society seminary right there in Buenos Aires, I’m thinking Cardinal Poli is helping not only because the Society is Catholic, but to help the Society who forms solid, Catholic priests. That, after all, is and always was the Society’s main charter.)
That is why the continued and erroneous hammering of schism/heresy, even by intimation, is not prudent and works against reunification efforts.
I am glad to read your post.
Ann, Cardinal Mario Poli does not represent the entire Catholic Church, and does not speak for the Pope.
Please do not address me again.
If you don’t want me to address you again, please refrain from your egregious attempts to continually misrepresent what I write.
I pray you will pay heed to what Steve is saying with a mind focused on the Faith.
In future, however, I would ask the same courtesy from you – that of not addressing me or attempting to misrepresent my posts.
You really need to go back and read this entire thread -you were the one who was constantly misrepresenting, refusing to “quote”, etc, and the first to engage and continue engaging.
Please read this entire thread for your own memory. Thx.
MIKE, Steve has asked for civility. Please, attempt to understand that the comments you made regarding incredulity, schism, heresy, and apostasy were confused with your position on the SSPX.
I am not the only poster who received this impression. (As I said, I am glad to know that you do not hold these false charges against the Society.)
You also were not aware of the current reunification efforts going on between the Society and Rome or the machinations at work that derailed previous attempts. I understand that. But now you are. I hope you continue to look to Steve for an unbiased view of what is actually occurring.
You stated we should pray for unity. Well, unity can and should also begin by treating each other fairly – understanding what each other’s position “really” is, not just what we’ve been led to believe and/or misinterpreted it to be in the heat of the moment. I cannot help but conclude that your honest post to Steve is representative of your desire for knowledge, understanding and true unity. I hope this is the case.
So going forward, if you want civility and honest exchange, great. If not, please extend me the same courtesy you asked, that of not addressing me.
God bless.
Please take your own advice. You need it.
Okay, MIKE, now you can get to the business of not addressing me.
Thanks and God bless
Enough. Please. If neither of you can stand not having the last word, then let me have it.
Steve–
Thanks for your act of Mercy and patience. Blessings to you always. I imagine you want your site informative not penitential for your followers.
You imagine correctly, my friend.
I posted what their main heresy is- rejection of the bolded part of Vatican 1 – and you simply ignored it.
Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger has zero authority and, thus, the public statement of the Prefect of the CDF is not only more recent, but more authoritative and definitive.
Steve the responses here, and elsewhere, about the sspx as a schism is no big deal are legion and, in fact, echo just what Mons Lefevbre said prior to his establishment of his petite ecclesia.
“I posted what their main heresy is- rejection of the bolded part of Vatican 1 – and you simply ignored it.”
I actually read it after I responded. The comments are not nested in chronological order, and I don’t usually have time to referee the comment boxes in detail.
But there is a serious problem in the declaration of Vatican I, vis-a-vis the misleading or erroneous statements promulgated by the Second Vatican Council. See today’s post for more on that topic. The teachings on ecumenism, inter-religious-dialogue, religious liberty, etc. were all well established before the council all but contradicted them.
And the liturgical revolt, which has had disastrous consequences, was little better. That Pope Benedict admitted the fact that the TLM was never abrogated and always a valid option for priests lends no small credibility to the arguments made in the 1980s by groups like the SSPX.
The long and short of it is: we don’t have the final answer on any of this. These matters remain in dispute. Competent and qualified theologians are working even now to find ways to address them. They have not gone away.
To make accepting the very doctrines and liturgical practices which are legitimately in question the condition of reconciliation is to impose an impossibility on anyone of conscience who disagrees and would like to see these issues addressed. And that’s exactly the impediment that was placed before them. It isn’t, and has never been, a case of the Society rejecting the pope’s authority or wanting to stay outside of perfect communion; but rather a desire to remain fully Catholic and still be accepted as a part of the modern Church. Even the consecrations, which I have always condemned, have at the very least the basis of a canonical argument behind them. Wherever the Society stands in resistance, they have at least had the decency to point to some aspect of Church teaching which justifies that action – whether or not their arguments are persuasive. It’s more than those who want to keep them outside the Church have done.
“Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger has zero authority”
Please stop using this phrase. It’s one of your own construction, and you have, to borrow your term, “zero authority” to impose it. If he says he’s “Pope Emeritus” and Pope Francis agrees, then that’s his title. If the very concept gives you nightmares about dividing up the Petrine office, all the better. It should.
As for his authority, the statement he made in 2009 AS POPE was without question of greater authority than an off the cuff statement from Mueller about a “de facto schism” – which is not even an identifiable ecclesiastical status.
I want to know why anything they hold true prohibits them, right now, from being accepted into the Church as an institute of religious life attached to the traditional Mass and sacramental forms. Even the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, who retain the positions of Fr. Feeny on EENS, are not excluded.
There is an agenda at work here, I’m afraid. Pope Benedict admitted as much when he spoke of the “bitter” protests he received for his attempt at reconciling them. And it does no good for anyone.
Steve. You switched the target for Vat ! and its infallible teaching on Universal Jurisdiction and the requirement of obediance to other matters but the heresy of the SSPX is PRECISELY that of its repudiation of that infallible dogma.
The SSPX clearly is in heresy when it comes to what I posted in bolded text.
It is not arguable they are not in profound and pertinacious heresy as regards that infallible Dogma.
It is necessary that they do repudiate that infallible dogma – and to teach its supporters to do also so – so they can continue to pretend they have saved tradition – ln the same sense that we had a General call for the destruction of a small town in Vietnam so as to save it.
“It is not arguable they are not in profound and pertinacious heresy as regards that infallible Dogma.”
Certainly it is arguable. If it were so, would Rome really – after spilling so much ink over the years about their status – not say as much? Multiple competent members of the Ecclesia Dei commission — including their prefect — the pope himself, prefects of the CDF, etc. have all somehow missed the opportunity to make this observation?
You arrogate too much authority on this matter to yourself. My call is and has been for civility, for fraternal solicitude and charity, for redress of their doctrinal concerns, and for (ultimately) reconciliation.
As I said in my original post, I am entirely disinterested in engaging in a long (and most likely tediously unproductive) legal debate over these issues. It’s above my pay grade. But when I see people treating those within or affilated with the SSPX as pernicious devils, it strikes me as wrong. Pope Benedict saw the merit in their organization and their love of God, and clearly wanted them removed from their irregular situation.
I’m not interested in your litany of grievances. So what? The German cardinals alone represent a far greater danger to the faith, and they remain in good standing. Let’s move beyond this and pray for it to be put right.
Steve. Rome is still pursuing a reconciliation with the schism and so they are being patient and using the language of diplomacy and ecclesiastical romance; that is, they are treating them like the material heretics of other protestant sects but you can surely see the sspx is heretical vis a vis the bolded part of Vatican 1.
You are not blind.
There is also their manifest heresy of repudiating the recent Canonisations even though the matter of those Canonisations are ineluctably infallible in form and content so just how is it that you are able to claim they hold the same Faith Catholics always have ?
If the sspx are Catholics, then so are the so-called orthodox and so are other protestant sects and, thus, the complaints about the vague documents are dissolved for if the Infallible Dogmatic Denying SSPX is Catholic, then who isn’t Catholic?
Back when by Grandfather was alive, it was enough that even one Dogma denied meant one was not a Catholic but here we have an outfit that denies TWO Infallible Doctrines/Acts and yet we are supposed to consider that outfit, Catholic?
And, thus we can see the unbelievable amount of damage they have done to the spiritual truths once firmly possessed by soi distant traditionalists.
Steve, if they can get you to defend their protestant perfidy and to call them Catholic, what about the average Joe ?
No, we must not be silent about the SSPX and their heresies for we are called to defend the Faith against ALL attacks
The TLM was never abrogated but it was forbidden by papal legislation.
Sure, I wasn’tt happy about that but schism is never a justified response to a prudential disciplinary decision.
The sspx sacraments of marriage and confession are not valid.
Worse, Lefevbre and his minions established tribunals that, they claim, superseded the authority of the roman rota and they claim universal jurisdiction over ALL catholics not just those who succor their schism
I’ve actually been told by several reliable sources that Rome has confirmed jurisdiction in a number of instances where appeals to Rome had to be made on sins that required the lifting of excommunication. It only adds to the confusion that there is so little consistency in any of this.
Steve. What the SSPX tribunals do has resulted in the reality that they have approved of divorce and remarriage and have distributed communion to those they have ruled the marriage was a nullity and so those men/women get remarried and receive communion as adulterers.
That is, long ago they beat the Synod to the punch
OK, and now I will back off.
You’ve got a great blog but a real weakness when it comes to a schism and the evil they produce.
One doesn’t t get information about a schism from the schism itself for what schism admits OK, ya got us we are in schism
No, one gets seli-justifying propaganda from a schism
Thank you, Steve, for calmly exploring this topic without bias. It is most appreciated.
It was the Abbe de Nantes who exposed to the trad world the facts about Mons Lefevbre’s petit ecclesia.
I can’t copy and paste in here but one can read the facts by googling
I am not Spartacus: Mons. Lefevbre’s petit ecclesia exposed
The claim about bait and switch in regards to a proposed reconciliation issue from whom?
O, and my vitriol is in response to more than two score of years of vitriol issuing from the schism.
Lefevbre called the Pope and the Hierarchy antichrists; the very worst they called him was a schismatic and an excommunicate.
They can not roar like lions when they attack and then mewl like kittens when they are responded to in kind and be taken seriously for such a tactic is clearly a jejune manipulative tactic.
Thank you for this balanced and truly Catholic commentary. For all the individual opinions on the SSPX, whether by priest, Bishop or Layman, it remains what you said – the SSPX is not the enemy, though many would have us believe so. The enemy is Satan, under the guise of Modernism, and to which the men of the Church seemingly run toward and have for decades.
We should continue the prayers for this matter to be resolved quickly, to the benefit of Holy Mother Church. Whether with Francis or his successor, it can’t come too soon.
The Church is in a disastrous state. The SSPX is its brightest beacon of hope.
Thank you once again, Steve, for a level headed and non-reactionary analysis.
It is critical in these times to recognize one’s true friends and one’s true enemies.
Baltimore Catechism 196 E illustrates that Pope Saint John Paul II was spot on when he wrote that the sspx was a schism (see Ecclesia Dei)
The Baltimore Catechism entry is notable in that it refers to full incorporation which is a Catholic concept routinely and resolutely mocked by The Remnant and The SSPX and their echo chambers: There is no such thing as partial communion
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger referred publicly to the schism of Lefevbrfe in his 1983 speech to the Bishops of Chile.
It has always been part of Tradition to observe that schism is proximate to heresy and the sspx is proof of the truth of that old adage.
The SSPX arrogates to itself the authority to obey or disobey the Universal Jurisdiction of the Popes and the decisions/disciplines taken by them and that is a material heresy – whether or not it is formal heresy is problematical owing to the low information status of the schism.
They clearly do not know Tradition and they are teaching heresy every tjme they tell their dutiful followers that the Pope not only can be disobeyed but must be disobeyed as a way to actualise proper obedience.
Yeah, I know. It is insane, but insane heresy is an illuminated storefront in their bailiwick.
The infallible teaching of Vatican 1: …Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to the power by the duty of hierarchal subordination an true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion an din profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd. The is the teaching of the Catholic truth and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
But the heretical schism of the SSPX teaches that true obedience consists in obeying and defending the sspx schism when it refuses submission and obedience to the Pope if that obedience opposes the will of the heretical schism.
Yes, of course, this is madness but that is the fruit of schism – malign madness actualised by malicious miscreants who are now in their third generation of teaching the children of those who succor it that the way of Tradition is to repudiate Infallible teaching.
I don’t know who it was who first thought it part of Tradition to teach children that the Pope and the Church are unworthy of trust and must be opposed – unless it was Luther.
The SSPX clerics are protestants in Fiddlebacks and they have successfully sown doctrinal darnel in the midst of the pure wheat of Divine Revelation and infallible Dogma and we are supposed to be silent in the face of such pertinacious perfidy?
Ladies and gentlemen of the comment boxes, I’d like to issue a general call for civility, please. I don’t do heavy-handed comment moderation – I believe in allowing people enough rope to hang themselves in the court of public opinion – but a poisoned well is no place for others to drink from.
In other words: please don’t scare other commenters away with the endless bickering. It grows tiresome, and is far too close to the low expectations most people have about any discussion on this topic.
Just wondering folks. Maybe someone could answer my question:
The SSPX priests are in schism because they refused to obey the Pope that told them not to say the Tridentine Latin Mass is that correct? (That was basically what started the SSPX. Of course there is much more.)
Now what about the majority of bishops who refuse to allow Latin Masses in their diocese despite the fact that Pope Benedict in Sumorum Pontificam stated that any priest in any diocese around the world MUST be allowed to say the Tridentine Latin Mass. Would those many bishops be in schism since this disobeyed the Pope?
What is the difference? What about all those priests that were removed simply because they continued to say the Tridentine Latin Mass. There are thousands.
Because somehow Modernist Rome can’t be wrong about the SSPX. Somehow, despite all of the heresy and scandal of the past 50 years, its infallible regarding its decisions about the SSPX. Ya know, maybe Modernist Rome is wrong? Maybe they are so far gone from the faith they would consider anybody to adhere to the true Catholic Faith as outside their idea of communion (which is heretical).
Cant wait to see you all defend the worship of the Antichrist when he arrives. Good luck with that!