Vatican Reminder: Sspx Ordinations Are Illegitimate

[Aloysius]

I agree that many of the liberal errors do not have any legitimate foundation in the Council itself. the so-called "Spirit" of Vatican II.

[quote]"The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts." -Benedict XVI[/quote]

However, I think there are ambiguities that do lead to problems. The use of the word "subsistet" is one such ambiguity, and despite some clarifications from the CDF (which the SSPX holds contain the "2+2=4 or 5" logic) there is widespread error on the topic wherein the Catholic Church is seen as only a part of the One True Church of Christ. mostly it is in the "impulse towards the new" coupled with wording that was designed to appease both liberal and conservative factions within the Church that leads to problems. but I agree that restricting oneself to the words themselves does undercut a large majority of the more extreme problems.

[MithLuin]

Yeah, things aren't perfect. But that's no reason to give up communion with Rome. For the sake of the people who attend SSPX chapels, I sincerely hope that reconciliation is in the future for them.

[dominicansoul]

i find it ironic we go through so much to explain how much the SSPX is still "Catholic" and a part of the Church, and yet, the SSPX would deem most of us here not "true" Catholics.

Here is how one member of the SSPX described the post-Concilliar Catholic Church:

we celebrate a "bastard" Mass
+ we follow a tragic rupture away from tradition
+we are all progressive modernists
=
We are not the true Catholic Church

I find this all very interesting... SSPX and those who sympathize with them have no problems calling the Pope and the rest of the Post-Concilliar Church "in error" and yet, they cry and whine when they are considered "outside" the Church...

The Catholic Church has the Fraternity of Saint Peter... if that's not good enuff for the SSPX to return to the Church, then I don't know exactly what they are asking the Pope to accept? the Novus Ordo is not going away any time soon... Vatican II is not going to disappear...

Perhaps we really don't know what is going on underneath the surface of the SSPX... its easy to love their EXTERNALS, but underneath, what makes up their INTERNAL spirit? we already know one characteristic: disobedience...

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1315154521' post='2300042']
Perhaps we really don't know what is going on underneath the surface of the SSPX... its easy to love their EXTERNALS, but underneath, what makes up their INTERNAL spirit? we already know one characteristic: disobedience...
[/quote]
While I agree with this and do not support the SSPX, people way above our paygrade have made the judgement that they are still within the Church. And lest I fall into the same error that they have, I choose to defer to and accept the decisions of my superiors in this matter.

[faithcecelia]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1315154521' post='2300042']
i find it ironic we go through so much to explain how much the SSPX is still "Catholic" and a part of the Church, and yet, the SSPX would deem most of us here not "true" Catholics.

Here is how one member of the SSPX described the post-Concilliar Catholic Church:

we celebrate a "bastard" Mass
+ we follow a tragic rupture away from tradition
+we are all progressive modernists
=
We are not the true Catholic Church

[/quote]


It is things such as this that make me have some sympathy with those who say that the SSPX are 'worse than protestants' and why I think they are potentially such a dangerous group.

[Aloysius]

if some SSPX members' more extreme (and I would argue generally hyperbolic) rhetoric hurts our feelings, it doesn't mean they're not Catholic.

[Aloysius]

in addition, I would say that the harsher words of extreme SSPX members are paralleled by words from within the Church, that the smoke of satan has entered the sanctuary (Paul VI), that there is a widespread "silent apostacy" (John Paul II), that there is a widespread liturgical crisis. so you have a more vulgar wording about how modernists are rampant throughout the Church, how many in the Church are not true Catholics (they have silently apostacized), how the masses being celebrated are 'bastard masses'.

I think it also wise to remember that the atmosphere has been completely different since Castrillion's 5 points which ultimately led to the lifting of the excommunications. the leadership of the SSPX were asked to: commit to a response proportionate to the generosity of the Holy Father, avoid public interventions which do not respect the person of the Holy Father, to avoid a claim to a magisterium superior than that of the Holy Father, to commit to act honestly in full ecclesial charity for the authority of the Vicar of Christ, and to respond positively by the end of June 2008.

the SSPX responded "The Fraternity of Saint Pius X does not claim to exercise a Magisterium superior to that of the Holy Father, neither intends to oppose itself to the Church. Following its founder, it intends to transmit that which it has received, that is, "that which has been believed always, everywhere, and by all". It makes its own the profession of faith which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre addressed to Paul VI on September 24, 1975: "It is to His Vicar whom Jesus Christ entrusted the mission to confirm his brothers in the faith and whom He demands to watch so that every bishop will faithfully guard the deposit, according to the words of Saint Paul to Timothy." -Father Alain Lorans. spokesman

and then in January 2009 the Holy Father lifted the excommunications, in response to statements from December 2008 such as these:
"We are always firmly determined in our will to remain Catholic and to place all our efforts at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept its teachings with filial disposition. We believe firmly in the Primacy of Peter and in its prerogatives, and for this the current situation makes us suffer so much."

anything before these events is history, it is a completely different era for relations with the SSPX.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1315178942' post='2300250']
in addition, I would say that the harsher words of extreme SSPX members are paralleled by words from within the Church, that the smoke of satan has entered the sanctuary (Paul VI), that there is a widespread "silent apostacy" (John Paul II), that there is a widespread liturgical crisis. so you have a more vulgar wording about how modernists are rampant throughout the Church, how many in the Church are not true Catholics (they have silently apostacized), how the masses being celebrated are 'bastard masses'.

I think it also wise to remember that the atmosphere has been completely different since Castrillion's 5 points which ultimately led to the lifting of the excommunications. the leadership of the SSPX were asked to: commit to a response proportionate to the generosity of the Holy Father, avoid public interventions which do not respect the person of the Holy Father, to avoid a claim to a magisterium superior than that of the Holy Father, to commit to act honestly in full ecclesial charity for the authority of the Vicar of Christ, and to respond positively by the end of June 2008.

the SSPX responded "The Fraternity of Saint Pius X does not claim to exercise a Magisterium superior to that of the Holy Father, neither intends to oppose itself to the Church. Following its founder, it intends to transmit that which it has received, that is, "that which has been believed always, everywhere, and by all". It makes its own the profession of faith which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre addressed to Paul VI on September 24, 1975: "It is to His Vicar whom Jesus Christ entrusted the mission to confirm his brothers in the faith and whom He demands to watch so that every bishop will faithfully guard the deposit, according to the words of Saint Paul to Timothy." -Father Alain Lorans. spokesman

and then in January 2009 the Holy Father lifted the excommunications, in response to statements from December 2008 such as these:
"We are always firmly determined in our will to remain Catholic and to place all our efforts at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept its teachings with filial disposition. We believe firmly in the Primacy of Peter and in its prerogatives, and for this the current situation makes us suffer so much."

anything before these events is history, it is a completely different era for relations with the SSPX.
[/quote]

I would offer some clarification here. One should not get the impression that John Paul II's use of the phrase "silent apostasy" was directed at the situation in the Church. He was rather referring to a Europe that has secularized itself as the full quotation bears out:
"European culture gives the impression of “silent apostasy” on the part of people who have all that they need and who live as if God does not exist."

If the SSPX is going to " avoid public interventions which do not respect the person of the Holy Father" I wonder when they are going to start? With respect to the upcoming gathering at Assisi, Bishop Fellay said this:
[font=Verdana][size=2]"Pray that the Good Lord intervenes in one way or another so that it doesn’t take place, and in any case start making reparation now![/size][/font]"

http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/54_answers_from_bishop_fellay_feb_2011/54_answers_bp_fellay3.htm

The obvious implication here is that the Holy Father is about to do something for which the rest of us should be doing "reparation". This hardly is an instance of respecting Benedict XVI. Fellay is very much still taking the role of judging the Pope (and in this case it's a pre-judgment!).
Yes, he may claim as the SSPX does that we accept Benedict XVI as pope but when words such as these contradict such assertions, what else can we say? The problem with the SSPX is that they issue declarations of loyalty and then continue sniping at the Pope and Vatican II. However much Fellay may carry on about the lack of discipline within the Church one sees much the same in the SSPX itself. Despite having agreed to respect the Holy Father, Bishop Williamson continues to assault the pope. Fellay has not silenced him. A really "traditional" order would have done so.
In the same interview Fellay casts doubt on the canonizations done since Vatican II which of course there can be no doubt of. I don't think we are in a "new era" yet but we may get there. But that will only happen when the SSPX fulfills the conditions laid down by Pope Benedict in his letter to the bishops that the SSPX must 1) realize that the Magisterium cannot be frozen in 1962. 2) accept Vatican II and the post conciliar Magisterium of the popes.

S.

[Aloysius]

The Assissi meetings are the subject of a whole other debate. No orthodox Catholic should have to agree that they are prudent, nor should they have to keep silent about their imprudence in public.

fellay's answer here is actually very well put:
"In one respect, and only in that respect, no. To call other religions to work for peace—a civil peace—there is no problem with that, but in that case it is not at the religious level, it is at the civil level. It is not an act of religion, it is quite simply an act of a religious society that works civilly to promote peace. It is not even religious peace being sought, but rather civil peace among men.
In contrast, to ask people to perform religious acts during that gathering is absurd, because there is a radical lack of understanding among the various religions. In those circumstances, it is not clear what aspiring to peace is supposed to mean, when there is not even any agreement about the nature of God, about the meaning that you ascribe to divinity. Really, you wonder how you could achieve anything serious."

A group of Italian intellectuals not affiliated with the SSPX published a letter also calling upon Benedict not to participate in Assissi; their arguments cited Ratzinger's own book and the Second Vatican Council; here's the full letter:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/italian-catholic-intellectuals-beg.html

anyway, Fellay was actually very respectful towards the person of the Holy Father in that interview, IMO; he fears the Holy Father is under influences and pressures, he acknowledges the Holy Father is likely motivated by things like anti-Catholic violence around the world; he agrees with the Holy Father's views from his Ratzinger book [i]Truth and Tolerance[/i] (great book by the way, I remember reading it a while ago). I don't see what your major problem is with it; within the Church there is divided sentiment regarding the Assissi meetings. I think the best critique was the one offered by the Italian intellectuals in the link above (of whom Fellay simply said "they are right").

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1315185482' post='2300285']
The Assissi meetings are the subject of a whole other debate. No orthodox Catholic should have to agree that they are prudent, nor should they have to keep silent about their imprudence in public.

fellay's answer here is actually very well put:
"In one respect, and only in that respect, no. To call other religions to work for peace—a civil peace—there is no problem with that, but in that case it is not at the religious level, it is at the civil level. It is not an act of religion, it is quite simply an act of a religious society that works civilly to promote peace. It is not even religious peace being sought, but rather civil peace among men.
In contrast, to ask people to perform religious acts during that gathering is absurd, because there is a radical lack of understanding among the various religions. In those circumstances, it is not clear what aspiring to peace is supposed to mean, when there is not even any agreement about the nature of God, about the meaning that you ascribe to divinity. Really, you wonder how you could achieve anything serious."

A group of Italian intellectuals not affiliated with the SSPX published a letter also calling upon Benedict not to participate in Assissi; their arguments cited Ratzinger's own book and the Second Vatican Council; here's the full letter:
[url="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/italian-catholic-intellectuals-beg.html"]http://rorate-caeli....ctuals-beg.html[/url]

anyway, Fellay was actually very respectful towards the person of the Holy Father in that interview, IMO; he fears the Holy Father is under influences and pressures, he acknowledges the Holy Father is likely motivated by things like anti-Catholic violence around the world; he agrees with the Holy Father's views from his Ratzinger book [i]Truth and Tolerance[/i] (great book by the way, I remember reading it a while ago). I don't see what your major problem is with it; within the Church there is divided sentiment regarding the Assissi meetings. I think the best critique was the one offered by the Italian intellectuals in the link above (of whom Fellay simply said "they are right").
[/quote]

I think you are simply avoiding the point I made about Fellay's remarks that the rest of us having to do "reparation" for something which has not even happened yet! That remark is anything but respectful to the Holy Father. If you want to just deflect my attention to other things rather than answer my points that's useless. I think this horse is pretty well dead now and I am unsubscribing from this thread.

S.

[Aloysius]

I have no problem with the call to pray for reparation either. such prayer for reparation would certainly be directed towards the Assissi meetings that have already happened, and prayer that this one does not go through like those ones did and for reparation for if it does. what's the problem there?

[Aloysius]

well in any event I agree with you that the topic has been exhausted; I hope I have provided a good balance to the discussion of this particular topic which often has a tendency to become free-for-all bash fests against the SSPX which are not conducive to the movement towards regularization and often serve to help harden the hearts of those who follow them.

while tradition must not be frozen in 1962, every effort should be made to grant freedom to pre-1962 theological opinions... especially considering there have been no anathemas against such positions. while this alone would not solve the SSPX problem (as they also hold that other positions ought to be condemned based upon their understanding of the pre-1962 magisterial teachings, a problem of the hermeneutic of rupture that must be resolved) it is an important thing to keep in mind. what was sacred then is sacred now, what was orthodox then is orthodox now.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Aloysius

[Socrates]

Just a question: honestly, what good purpose does the SSPX even hold?

We've got the FSSP, which has all the good aspects of traditionalism and the old mass, without the disobedience.

With the FSSP a legitimate entity fully in communion with and obedience to the Church, what point is there in a Catholic having any involvement with the SSPX?

Yes, it would be wonderful to have all the people in the SSPX return fully to the fold, but until they decide to return, I don't see any reason to have anything to do with them.

[MIKolbe]

someone pinch me... i agree with so-crates.

[bernard]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1315250858' post='2300576']
Just a question: honestly, what good purpose does the SSPX even hold?

We've got the FSSP, which has all the good aspects of traditionalism and the old mass, without the disobedience.

With the FSSP a legitimate entity fully in communion with and obedience to the Church, what point is there in a Catholic having any involvement with the SSPX?

Yes, it would be wonderful to have all the people in the SSPX return fully to the fold, but until they decide to return, I don't see any reason to have anything to do with them.
[/quote]

I think because the ordinations of the SSPX are in the old rite. Obviously everyone here has no doubts as to the validity of the new rite of ordination however many people do.

Priests ordained before 1969 or in the old rite by traditional groups is the rule many Catholics go by.