Do you support the SSPX?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 6 2006, 11:17 AM']In fact, they would never be regularised under such circumstances.
[right][snapback]937624[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thank you for admitting that.

Which is why they will remain in schism.

[Amator Veritatis]

I failed to mention previously that Sedevacantism as such is not an issue for the regularisation of the SSPX, for their official position does not advocate this view whatsoever. An interesting historical fact is that members of the SSPX, at least in the early years, did not wear the biretta for a period of time either for Mass or other liturgical functions simply as a means of rooting out the Sedevacantists whom they knew to be within the structure. The impetus for this procedure was that the authorities within the SSPX knew that the Sedevacantists would not, in conscience, offer the holy Sacrifice of the Mass without wearing the biretta. Now, I completely disagree with this course of action, which would be considered objectively mortally sinful by nearly all traditional moral theologians, but I make this point simply to illustrate that the SSPX has no interest in furthering the Sedevacantist position. An additional point of interest is that the FSSP seminary in Wigratzbad, when founded as a replacement to the SSPX, retained the practice of not wearing the biretta as a result of this problem in the SSPX and, sadly, still maintains the practice today, just as they continue to have a silent Low Mass on Wednesdays rather than a Dialogue Mass, which originated from the time when American seminarians were sent there to study and were opposed to the Dialogue Mass. I simply wished to give some interesting inside information regarding the seminary at Wigratzbad in addition to the evidence that the SSPX, as an institution, does not further the Sedevacantist position but, in fact, at least historically, has worked to squelch it.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Peccator' date='Apr 6 2006, 08:37 AM']I'd be lying if I said I do not feel sympathies toward their cause...because I do. I however would not support them because they chose to go into schism rather than reform the church the right way - from the inside.

I do pray that they come back...
[right][snapback]937432[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Desert Walker]

As JPII's mentor once said:

"God's mill grinds exceedingly slow, but exceedingly thorough."

The SSPX schism is being used by God to put post-Vatican II milquetoast to death.

Don't forget that there is always SOME sliver of good in ALL things. Even Lucifer is good in the sense that he is part of God's creation. He is a filthy, repugnant, malicious hate monger, but he's still part of God's creation.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 5 2006, 09:36 PM']my prayer is that i pass my latin quiz tommorow.
[right][snapback]937223[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


good news everyone. i think i aced it.

[photosynthesis]

i don't support schismatic or heretical groups

[sidemunch88]

I do not support there ultra right ways

[Resurrexi]

[quote]My answer is contingent upon the clarification of the meaning of "support".[/quote]

I should have clarified this. By "support," I mean "to believe them not to be in schism, to believe in their positions, and to (if you are able to) attend their Masses"

[Amator Veritatis]

With the definition of support given by St. Thomas More, I answered in the affirmative. I maintain, with Cardinal Hoyos, that they are not in schism but perhaps in an irregular situation canonically. I believe in their positions--for they are precisely those of all who claim the title traditional Catholic--on essentially every issue except their canonical status, concerning which I withhold judgement, recognising that their arguments are strong canonically but contingent upon application. I do not assist at their Masses, for there is an FSSP parish which is in the same general vicinity. I have assisted at the chapel in our area once or perhaps twice, which assistance is sanctioned by Rome as acceptable.

[son_of_angels]

I do not reject, as is the teaching of the church, "anything that is holy and good" even if it derives from an irregular, or "schismatic" source. The SSPX fosters a genuine Catholic spirituality, offers valid sacraments (other than confession), upholds the essential episcopal constitution of the Holy Catholic Church, and recognizes the spiritual value of the Bishop of Rome.

While I would never pretend to support their current course of action, nor recognize them as a legitimately behaving branch of the Holy Catholic Church, nonetheless, it is important that we do maintain dialogue and share our prayer life with them as much as possible. I have a friend who is VERY much of the SSPX persuasion (unfortunately), but that doesn't keep us from saying the Rosary, visiting the Blessed Sacrament (at a Novus Ordo church), and praying both the Office and the Stations together. Surely growing together in prayer life will unite them in solidarity with Holy Mother Church, and lead them safely home? I can only hope....

The requirement for dialogue here is more important than dialogue with the Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans combined, because these involve our own, our precious children, the lost sheep for which the pastor abandons the other sheep to find.

We need to pray really hard.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 6 2006, 10:28 PM']With the definition of support given by St. Thomas More, I answered in the affirmative. I maintain, with Cardinal Hoyos, that they are not in schism but perhaps in an irregular situation canonically. I believe in their positions--for they are precisely those of all who claim the title traditional Catholic--on essentially every issue except their canonical status, concerning which I withhold judgement, recognising that their arguments are strong canonically but contingent upon application. I do not assist at their Masses, for there is an FSSP parish which is in the same general vicinity. I have assisted at the chapel in our area once or perhaps twice, which assistance is sanctioned by Rome as acceptable.
[right][snapback]938220[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Your view of Cardinal Castrillion-Hoyos' words are misunderstood. This is how it is to be viewed.

What does Card. Hoyos say? This:
[quote]HOYOS: It can cause distress, but at bottom I’m not surprised by the fact that words, articles, letters may appear that use a rather crude language. Including some statements attributed to His excellency Monsignor Fellay. [b]Until there is full unity,[/b] and so full mutual charity, one can’t be scandalized if there is still some verbal intemperance. It’s always well to keep in mind Augustine’s saying: «In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas».[/quote]

In a 2002 meeting with Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos and Bishop Fellay there was discussion about a protocol for "regularizing" the SSPX. At the end, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos suggested to the Holy Father that if the protocol was approved, the excommunication of the St. Pius X Fraternity should be lifted. He also suggested that the fraternity be recognized as a society of apostolic life with a special rite, and that the protocol be enforced that was signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre, which the latter later rejected, proceeding with the illegal ordination of bishops.

A few days later, Bishop Fellay sent the fraternity's secretary to Rome to meet with Cardinal Castrillón, to make criticisms of the present rite of the Mass, and to call for a halt in the process of reconciliation, unless the fraternity's excommunication were first lifted and every priest allowed to celebrate Mass with St. Pius V's rite.

Although he authorized the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, Pope John Paul II has worked for years to reconcile the traditionalists, and in 2000 he authorized Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos to proceed with direct negotiations with traditionalist prelates. In January 2002 those talks bore their first fruits when a separate Brazilian traditionalist group, located in the Diocese of Campos, reached a full agreement with the Holy See and was restored to communion with Rome.

Questions asked by my friend F. John Loughnan and answered directly from the office of then-Cardinal Ratzinger:

Was the declaration of Pope John Paul in Ecclesia Dei as to who was NOT in communion with him then legislatively Authoritative, binding and now still in effect? That is: are Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Malleais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta current excommunicates?
[quote]The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).

Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.[/quote]

What is the status of all the priests, seminarians and "those who adhere" to the SSPX?
[quote]While the priests of the Society of St Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and to the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St Pius X.[/quote]

[b]What does "adherence" constitute?[/b]
[quote][b]Thus far the Church has not officially declared what constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as 'the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751).[/b][/quote]

How authoritative is your response?
[quote]We must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicæ Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the various dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.[/quote]

I understand Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos and the office of then-Cardinal Ratzinger to be consistent. I also consider them to be consistent with the late Holy Father. As is stated by then-Cardinal Ratzinger's office. I also understand this to be that the words of Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos were misused. Because there has been no formal definition of adhere in this sense, but only the common understanding of the word, the deciphering should remain with the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei and with the CDF until such time as it is formally defined.

As then-Cardinal Ratzinger so aptly stated, and is the most compitent statement:
[quote]Those mentioned above [the SSPX bishops] who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.[/quote]

[dspen2005]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 6 2006, 09:11 AM']They are by no means heretics. Quite the contrary, they are one of the few organs within the Church still defending Truth, their canonical status notwithstanding. If one were to argue against supporting them as a result of their canonical status, that position would be more tenable.
[right][snapback]937562[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

but being in schism, aren't they separated from the Church?

[Peccator]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Apr 7 2006, 02:05 PM']but being in schism, aren't they separated from the Church?
[right][snapback]938759[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]They are in schism...the Pope has confirmed this numerous times. I still don't get how they want to argue against that. If there is no schism, then why is there work being done to fix something that apparantly does not exist.

Edited April 7, 2006 by Peccator

[dspen2005]

i found it puzzling when Amator mentioned that "they are one of the few organs WITHIN the Church still defending Truth"....

[Peccator]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Apr 7 2006, 02:08 PM']i found it puzzling when Amator mentioned that "they are one of the few organs WITHIN the Church still defending Truth"....
[right][snapback]938765[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Allot of Traditionalists argue that they are not truly in schism and that the Pope (and the Magesteruim) is imagining themselves.

[Desert Walker]

Well Cam's post clarifies a lot.

Btw. I recently read Ecclesia Dei. If, after reading that document, you still think that Peter doesn't really have a bone to pick with the SSPX, and that supporting that society is NOT spiritually dangerous, then you really are intentionally lying to yourself.

But it's important to remember that the SSPX, and even its schism, is "valuable" in at least ONE way, on which Ratzinger elaborated in his address to the Bishops of Chile.

[quote]We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally. It will not do to attribute everything to political motives, to nostalgia, or to cultural factors of minor importance. These causes are not capable of explaining the attraction which is felt even by the young, and especially by the young, who come from many quite different nations, and who are surrounded by completely distinct political and cultural realities. Indeed they show what is from any point of view a restricted and one-sided outlook; but there is no doubt whatever that a phenomenon of this sort would be inconceivable unless there were good elements at work here, which in general do not find sufficient opportunity to live within the Church of today.

For all these reasons, we ought to see this matter primarily as the occasion for an examination of conscience. We should allow ourselves to ask fundamental questions, about the defects in the pastoral life of the Church, which are exposed by these events. Thus we will be able to offer a place within the Church to those who are seeking and demanding it, and succeed in destroying all reason for schism. We can make such schism pointless by renewing the interior realities of the Church.[/quote]

Edited April 7, 2006 by Desert Walker

[goldenchild17]

An interesting discussion would be: Did John Paul II ever expressly forbid Lefebvre from consecrating the bishops? So far I have not found one document or quote of his making this clear. Not that this would change their canonical status because if JPII said they were in schism(whether the right decision on his part or not) then they are, until another Pope says otherwise. But did JPII ever expressly forbid him from making these consecrations?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 7 2006, 12:00 PM']An interesting discussion would be: Did John Paul II ever expressly forbid Lefebvre from consecrating the bishops?  So far I have not found one document or quote of his making this clear...But did JPII ever expressly forbid him from making these consecrations?
[right][snapback]939166[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It is against canon law to consecrate bishops without permission. I can look up the canon for you if it would help.

[goldenchild17]

That would be of help yes thank you.

[Era Might]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 7 2006, 03:00 PM']An interesting discussion would be: Did John Paul II ever expressly forbid Lefebvre from consecrating the bishops?  So far I have not found one document or quote of his making this clear.  Not that this would change their canonical status because if JPII said they were in schism(whether the right decision on his part or not) then they are, until another Pope says otherwise.  But did JPII ever expressly forbid him from making these consecrations?
[right][snapback]939166[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, he did. Pope John Paul II sent a letter to Lefebvre on June 9, 1988. He warned him not to renege on the previous agreement with the Holy See. I have not been able to find to full text of the letter online, but it was made public soon after John Paul sent it. In part, it read:

[quote][The illicit consecrations] would be seen as nothing other than a schismatic act, the theological and canonical consequences of which are known to you.[/quote]

Lefebvre ignored a direct order from the Supreme Pontiff, and consecrated four Bishops on June 30th, 1988. John Paul declared this schism formally with his Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei" on July 2nd.

Edited April 7, 2006 by Era Might