Vatican Reminder: Sspx Ordinations Are Illegitimate

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1314836776' post='2298355']
The pope said the new mass is "banal, man-made thing"
[/quote]
BZZT Try again!
Cardinal Ratzinger said that. Not the pope.

[Skinzo]

As USAirways has noted that was not papal opinion. Nor is it even clear that Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to the "Novus Ordo" itself, or to the liturgical abuses which occurred after Vatican II.
It does not matter. At no time, as Cardinal Ratzinger or as Pope has he EVER endorsed the SSPX.

S.

[Lil Red]

moving to debate table.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Fight! Fight! Fight!

[Aloysius]

Skinzo,

the priests of the SSPX do not consider themselves to be in grave sin, they are not conscious of any grave sin before they perform the Eucharist; they go to confession like anyone else when they find themselves conscious of a grave sin. their sin of disobedience is obviously mitigated by their belief in a state of emergency; even if that belief is incorrect.

remember, I am not a supporter of the SSPX by any means. but the case is far more complex than those who throw harsh words like sacrilege at them would like to believe. their acts of disobedience against their a divinis suspensions are done with a sincere love of the True Faith, a sincere love of the Holy Father, and a misguided belief that there is a state of emergency, a misguided belief that the supreme court of the Church is incorrect in its canonical judgments against them. their culpability is obviously mitigated, any clear headed non-biased observer of this situation would see that... anyone who had ever taken a moment to listen to what they had to say would see their zeal and sincerity. when I see the Holy Father's hands outstretched to them in fatherly love, I see a man who understands all that. when I see a layman who cries "sacrilege", I see someone who does not understand that.

I absolutely oppose the use of the term "sacrilege" to refer to their Holy Masses. illicit, yes. disobedient, yes. but come now, where does anyone get off calling it sacrilege? it's such a cold, legalistic, bitter position to take, and I could hardly believe a soul on earth who loved Christ and His Church could stand in the back row of such a mass full of reverence and adoration of the Eucharistic Lord and proclaim it a "sacrilege" because of the canonical status of the priest's faculties.

now, some vicious attacks against the Holy Father have come from among the more extreme of their membership, Bishop Richard Williamson is perhaps the poster-boy for the most extreme stuff; but I highly recommend their superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, if you want to see a cool head in the midst of that chaos. they're not a bunch of pope haters; they expell sedevacantists from their society (which is where the much more misguided "SSPV" has come from) and pray for Benedict XVI in every mass, they pledge filial devotion to him. they are wrong in their disobedience, but they do love Rome and they love the Pope.

[bernard]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1314860555' post='2298520']


now, some vicious attacks against the Holy Father have come from among the more extreme of their membership, Bishop Richard Williamson is perhaps the poster-boy for the most extreme stuff; but I highly recommend their superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, if you want to see a cool head in the midst of that chaos.
[/quote]

Its odd that bishop Williamson is often described by mainstream Catholics as being "extreme". I think they would be better to explain why he is incorrect as whether he is extreme or not is beside the point.

[faithcecelia]

Sadly, it was reading the SSPX website, along with those of other dissenting groups, that put me off experiencing the tridentine Mass for so long - I simply cannot agree with disobeying the Church. Thankfully I am now in a position where I can attend a licit tridentine Mass once a week if work allows, and while I personally would not wish to have that as my only form of Mass (unless the Church insisted it be so) it is nice to have the variety. As a nanny, I find the hour of almost complete silence sheer bliss.

I do hope the situation with the SSPX is formalised soon - ideally to bring them back to the Church, but if not to make it a clearer 'no-no' as the current situation [i]is[/i] confusing and I am concerned others could be misled by them.

[Aloysius]

I have read +Williamson's stuff; I disagree with a lot of it, especially where he gets confused between political and/or historical positions and the Catholic faith (and he has said stuff that makes it seem like any true Catholic must agree with some of his political opinions like 9/11 conspiracy theories and holocaust minimalizing). in this particular thread I will only comment on the way in which he talks about the Holy Father and the Vatican; I think he talks about them in extreme melodramatic ways and that he is incorrect in his assessment of them, but this thread is not about +Williamson, who is in fact largely out of favor with the SSPX leadership especially the Superior General, Bishop Fellay... and you likely won't be able to have a very free thread about +Williamson on these boards anyway, it's outside the scope of the boards' mission... suffice it to say I think he is sometimes disrespectful towards Rome and the Holy Father in ways which are unwarrented, regardless of one's positions on things. I have no problem addressing his statements and where I think he is wrong and where I think he imprudently oversteps his bounds in a way which is an embarassment to the episcopal ministry Archbishop Lefebvre entrusted to him; but not here. there are places on the interwebs for that.

faithcecilia, yeah as it stands the SSPX's situation does damage to the cause of tradition. over the course of its history, it has brought about some good things for the cause of tradition (as many of the good provisions for the traditional mass have come as a response to the SSPX; this obviously doesn't justify their actions, but we must recognize that good things have come out of that bad situation), but being where it is now is bad for tradition in the Church. hopefully it will be canonically regularized. pray that the September 14th meeting between Bishop Fellay and the CDF goes well and that relations continue to strengthen between Rome and the SSPX. behind the scenes Rome does interact with the society in friendly terms with paternal concern; I think Rome takes the SSPX's objections seriously because the current Holy Father is working hard to ensure that, going into the future, the Church has a clear hermeneutic of continuity and not one of rupture. there are very serious points raised by the SSPX which absolutely need to be addressed in order to sure up a true and lasting hermeneutic of continuity; because you have the SSPX camp in the doctrinal talks basing its theological and doctrinal opinions on pre-1962 magisterial teachings, it is a very unique and powerful opportunity to negotiate, as it were, from the post 1962 era with the pre-1962 era and try to iron out something clear and decisive that shows continuity with tradition in the Church.

it is a very long road ahead for those doctrinal discussions between Rome and the SSPX; but, IMO, it is a necessary discussion to have regardless of the SSPX's situation. the resolution of the talks between Rome and the SSPX has the potential to be a very important thing not just for the SSPX, but for the whole Church moving forward in the post Vatican II era. some sort of joint document that settles certain controversial questions where there is an apparent rupture if not in substance, at least in terminology, would go a long way to ensuring that future generations are passed on a faith that is in full continuity with previous generations.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Aloysius

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1314860555' post='2298520']
Skinzo,

the priests of the SSPX do not consider themselves to be in grave sin, they are not conscious of any grave sin before they perform the Eucharist; they go to confession like anyone else when they find themselves conscious of a grave sin. their sin of disobedience is obviously mitigated by their belief in a state of emergency; even if that belief is incorrect.

remember, I am not a supporter of the SSPX by any means. but the case is far more complex than those who throw harsh words like sacrilege at them would like to believe. their acts of disobedience against their a divinis suspensions are done with a sincere love of the True Faith, a sincere love of the Holy Father, and a misguided belief that there is a state of emergency, a misguided belief that the supreme court of the Church is incorrect in its canonical judgments against them. their culpability is obviously mitigated, any clear headed non-biased observer of this situation would see that... anyone who had ever taken a moment to listen to what they had to say would see their zeal and sincerity. when I see the Holy Father's hands outstretched to them in fatherly love, I see a man who understands all that. when I see a layman who cries "sacrilege", I see someone who does not understand that.

I absolutely oppose the use of the term "sacrilege" to refer to their Holy Masses. illicit, yes. disobedient, yes. but come now, where does anyone get off calling it sacrilege? it's such a cold, legalistic, bitter position to take, and I could hardly believe a soul on earth who loved Christ and His Church could stand in the back row of such a mass full of reverence and adoration of the Eucharistic Lord and proclaim it a "sacrilege" because of the canonical status of the priest's faculties.

now, some vicious attacks against the Holy Father have come from among the more extreme of their membership, Bishop Richard Williamson is perhaps the poster-boy for the most extreme stuff; but I highly recommend their superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, if you want to see a cool head in the midst of that chaos. they're not a bunch of pope haters; they expell sedevacantists from their society (which is where the much more misguided "SSPV" has come from) and pray for Benedict XVI in every mass, they pledge filial devotion to him. they are wrong in their disobedience, but they do love Rome and they love the Pope.
[/quote]

I would not go so far as to pretend everything is wonderful as you seem to suggest. Truthfully, no one knows their state. We do know we are bound to obey the Pope and that to be in communion with him is necessary for salvation. They are not in communion with the Pope and have flagrantly defied Rome for 40 years now. ( It is quite obvious you have a lot of emotion invested in this so I won't spend much time on it. That kind of approach does not lend itself to clear thinking. To pretend everything they do is somehow mitigated is not something we can definitively know, indeed it is not at all as obvious as you claim. Only God can say to what extent their culpability is mitigated.) People who love the Holy Father do not go around spreading the stuff the SSPX has and puts on their website. And don't tell me it's just some of their followers. The words of Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay drip with condescencion and a judgmental attitude towards Rome. Fellay even has the audacity to call into question the canonizations done since Vatican II, John Paul II's beatification, the Holy Father's meetings at Assisi, to name only a few. It seems you are really not aware of what the SSPX spreads.
What I see on their website and hear from the mouth of Fellay is that of a very prideful and arrogant group, not a sincere one at all. They state on their website that Vatican II is a "new religion", the Church now is no longer the church at all. They believe they are the remnant of the true church. As Fellay stated in his February 2010 interview he saw the doctrinal talks with Rome as purely an opportunity for the SSPX to teach Rome! You speak of the "love" they have for the Holy Father and the Church, but those who love the Holy Father do not say such things about him. Go back and read the correspondence between Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. At one point Lefebvre accused the Pope of being part of a "Masonic plot" to destroy the Church. (!) To think that you can sit in judgment on every Pope since Vatican II is nothing short of monumental arrogance, but that is the stock in trade of the SSPX. When the Pope released the motu proprio allowing priests to say the Traditional Latin Mass, Fellay announced that people should not go to such Masses but go only to those said by the SSPX! I guess even Traditional Latin Masses said by anyone from the "conciliar Church" are somehow suspect. Where you got the "starry eyed" view of Fellay is beyond me. You didn't get it from reading his own words, that's for sure.
You may oppose the use of whatever terminology you wish, others are of course entitled to their opinions as well, and they are well justified. Read my post again, or perhaps for the first time. It is quite possible they are some sacrileges taking place as disobedience to the Holy Father is not a light matter. One cannot offer a defintive judgment on any particular case but objectively speaking one does have to wonder, it's hard to avoid that given the fact that they have been told repeatedly to end their rebellion and obey the Pope and still persist in it.
You say the Holy Father sees things the way you do? I see no signs of that. He is willing to overlook certain faults perhaps, but he is quite clear the issues are doctrinal and that the SSPX must accept the postconciliar Magisterium. I cannot imagine why you recommend Fellay as I've shown his own words and attitude are far from what you suggest they are. I can only assume you are rather ignorant of Fellay's work and words but that is a subject of a different thread. There is certainly nothing that would "highly recommend" Fellay to anyone. It is Fellay that is the "poster boy" of the SSPX, and he is of the same stripe as Lefebvre. It's about arrogance, pride, and the cry "Non serviam"!

S.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Skinzo

[Aloysius]

accusing my arguments of being based on emotion is incredibly insulting. I do not support the SSPX, I don't even know a single person who goes to an SSPX chapel (except a few people online I suppose); this is my objective, disconnected, disinterested opinion on the subject.

anyway, that's not at all the sense I have gotten from Fellay, and I have indeed read his own words (and I did read your post too, thank you very much for that insulting accusation) and seen him in videos, I have seen a profound humility in the man, and a definitely gracious attitude towards the Holy Father, wrong though he may be in the situation he is in. you have not "shown from his own words", you have strung together an emotional tirade against Fellay with a couple of disconnected disjointed statements interspersed with a few things about Lefebvre's heated arguments with Paul VI and declared the man proud and conceited. I'm not going to go through everything Fellay's ever said; he's said some things that were wrong and some things that were right; I maintain that he has been level headed, however. his criticism of the canonization of John Paul II is perfectly acceptable for any Catholic to hold, though I disagree with it, he definitely has a right to that opinion. his criticism of the Assissi meetings is perfectly acceptable for any Catholic, I tend to sympathize with some of the objections he raises to them, though I think this time around it's been handled better than it was last time.
you have projected a pride and arrogance into his words that has not been there IMHO. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that issue, because we can't get too deep into this topic on this phorum.

there was a good artical from an SSPX source I read once about why they used terms like "new church" and all that, which was actually quite more balanced than you would think; the "new church" they refer to consists of those in the Church who hold to heretical views, who are basically heretics, who run a sort of subculture within the Church which directly teaches heresy. such people are indeed everywhere within the Church, and it is easy to see why one might see them as composing some seperate distinct religion.

in any event, I am not an SSPX supporter and I do think they are wrong in much of their rhetoric; but I think you are profoundly wrong in your judgment of them, and that you are missing the complexity of the issue entirely. anyway, I'll end with a couple points you seem to have failed to understand about my position:

#1 I agree the problems are indeed doctrinal. the particulars of that doctrinal disagreement are above either of our paygrades, but they are subtle and complex, and the issues they surround cut at the very heart of what it means to have a hermeneutic of continuity.
#2 I do indeed hold the SSPX to be in the wrong.
#3 I do not think everything is just fine and dandy in the SSPX; I think Catholics should not go to SSPX chapels, and I agree that the SSPX priests are being disobedient by ignoring their a divinis suspensions.

just because I take a more balanced approach to them, doesn't mean I do not believe the SSPX must submit to the magisterium.

I would ask that you not get so heated up, you'll end up getting the topic shut down. we're two faithful Catholics who agree that the SSPX is in the wrong; I simply hold that your approach towards them is far harsher and more legalistic than it ought to be. where are the statements from the Vatican declaring that the SSPX is committing grave sacrilege? you won't see them; you'll instead see a Vatican that refuses to consider them to be in formal schism at all, a Vatican that continues to reach a paternal hand in love and charity towards them, seeking to bring the whole priestly society into the Church en masse. the Vatican isn't out there asking the SSPX to stop holding Holy Masses, they're out there trying to bring those Holy Masses back into the canonical ministry of the Church if the doctrinal issues can be settled.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Aloysius

[Skinzo]

Aloysius,
I'm sorry if you think you are being accused of being too emotional in your approach or that you think that is insulting. I don't think it is insulting really, some people are just wired that way.
I will start a separate thread about Fellay and what's wrong with him when I have some time. I made very specific remarks about Fellay, not an "emotional tirade" at all. Though faithful Catholics cannot avoid some emotion on the subject. Some of us just don't like hearing the SSPX trash Vatican II and our recent popes. It makes us angry and it should.
When I make a thread on Fellay, I will use all that is provided by the SSPX. . And no, he is not entitled to his own view of the canonization of John Paul II. When and if John Paul II is canonized he will not be entitled to think of the late Pope as anything else but a saint. But he has indeed questioned other canonizations done since Vatican II, and no he does not have a right to question those. Canonizations are infallible acts, as most theologians would hold.
It is odd you would admit that you don't know anyone who attends an SSPX liturgy but are somehow able to vouch for the sincerity of ALL their priests? That I will say again is known only to God.
It is odd that you consider Fellay "level headed" yet you admit he does say some wrong things. So which is it? From where I sit those who are in the wrong are never people I would describe as "level headed."
The particulars of the "doctrinal disagreements" are not as you put it, above our pay grades. They've always been terribly obvious really. And how exactly does one have "doctrinal disagreements" with Rome? That is simply inconceivable for a Catholic.
As to getting heated up, I'm not even close. The moderators may exercise their judgment to shut this down. That's their call.
No, the Vatican has not said much lately on the subject as no doubt they had some hopes that something would be accomplished in the doctrinal talks. Nonetheless, Lefebvre was warned by Rome long ago of the gravity of his actions, and that he was leading others into
a "criminal situation". Those are serious words, and they were Rome's words. And Fellay would be well advised to reflect on that and forty years of disobedience and assaults on the Church.
I do not think that to defend the Church here is "legalistic". It is common sense. The Vatican lifted the excommunications of the bishops under the condition that a dialogue was beginning with the SSPX. That dialogue is just about over and we will see in good time what happens next. But after 40 years of self governance and sniping at the "conciliar" Church, one has to be skeptical the SSPX is really ready to obey anyone. Functioning as your own pope is part and parcel of their schismatic mentality.

S.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Skinzo

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1314879686' post='2298555']
.... The Vatican lifted the excommunications of the bishops under the condition that a dialogue was beginning with the SSPX. That dialogue is just about over and we will see in good time what happens next. But after 40 years of self governance and sniping at the "conciliar" Church, one has to be skeptical the SSPX is really ready to obey anyone. Functioning as your own pope is part and parcel of their schismatic mentality.

S.
[/quote]

I must say up until this paragraph, I was agreeing, more than disagreeing with Skinzo. On the whole, those of more traditionalist leaning have a greater tendacy to be apologists for the SSPX, perhaps stating what they are doing/have done is wrong; but nodding their head in some quasi separated agreement for the SSPX's reasonings behind their actions. I think they feel a solidarity of sorts with the intellectualness of it all, but may (or may not) disagree with 'the way they went about it'.

But Skinzo, that last paragraph really strikes me. It sounds SSPX-ish in tone. Can we not defend Holy Mother Church [u][b]AND [/b][/u]be hopefull in the ongoing talks and communications? Why does one [b][u]HAVE[/u][/b] to be skeptical? Is your faith in love, hope..and ultimately Christ that weak that you need to 'score points' by ending an otherwise decent argument with that croutons? Does talk like that really heal anything? Or does it just serve your anger and vengence (under the gise of protecting the Church)?

One has to wonder when the SSPX and Rome reconsile, if that will be good enough for you? Or will they only be "agreeing because of this or that and they really haven't changed"?

Have some more hope, brother.

[Aloysius]

you didn't think you were being at all insulting when you suggested that my approach was not based in clear thinking? when you accused me of not reading your posts? alright, that's fine, I'll let it drop; I generally try to avoid getting into these types of personal quips but I did feel attacked by your posts. but I'll drop it and assume it was all misunderstanding.

the first phase of the talks is completed, and Fellay will be going over them with Levada in Rome on September 14th.

I know many level-headed people who are fundamentally wrong about this or that thing. I know many people who are right about this or that thing who are NOT level headed. I respect Bishop Fellay's leadership of this society. it is like someone who absolutely disagrees with the IRA who looks to Gerry Adams and says that without that man, who himself had all the credibility and respect of radical IRA followers, peace could not have been achieved. sure Gerry was in the trenches once, but he got everyone to lay down their arms. sure Fellay is in the trenches, as it were, but I still respect his leadership even though I consider him to be wrong on many counts. (now, I suppose I picked a relatively controversial topic for an analogy, it was just the best way I could express it, no need to start talking IRA issues if one disagrees with something I said about that in the analogy, eh?)

I respect him even more for holding to his principals and not seeking a superficial on-paper-only type of deal. it's about clarification of the doctrinal issues, or it's about nothing.

"We are always fervently determined in the will to be and to remain Catholics and to place all of our strength at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept all of her teachings with a filial spirit. We firmly believe in the primacy of Peter and in his prerogatives and because of this, the present situation makes us suffer so much." -Bishop Fellay
"We express our filial gratitude to the Holy Father for this gesture which, beyond the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, will benefit the whole Church. Our Society wishes to be always more able to help the pope to remedy the unprecedented crisis which presently shakes the Catholic world, and which Pope John Paul II had designated as a state of "silent apostasy."" -Bishop Fellay

[BG45]

It was kinda inevitable this would end up Debate Table after it was necro'ed, wasn't it?
[img]http://cdn.head-fi.org/7/73/1000x500px-LL-7329b4cf_threadNecromancy.jpg[/img]

[Papist]

Just this past weekend, we[family] went to Saturday Vigil and got there early for confession. We were sitting in the pew waiting for Mass to begin. For some reason, people have conversions in the church like they are in their kitchen, but I digress. Anyway, near me I heard a conversation where this man was spitting out nonsense about there’s going to be a Catholic Church of North America and such. What my wife heard that he started to talk about a certain priest(pastor of another parish) who is asking our bishop if he can have a Latin Mass every Sunday. Here’s the part my wife heard, that I did not, he said this priest was a Lefebvreist priest. If I would have heard this I would have challenged him on that statement. Sometimes I think God does not allow me to hear such things b/c He knows I’ll go off. He also said the he supports Vatican II, whatever that means.

Point is that this guy, ignorant as he is, believes the Latin Mass and SSPX are basically synonymous, and one is disobedient as SSPX by accepting the Latin Mass. Maybe this is conjecture, but I don’t think so. I believe b/c of the SSPX some faithful Catholics are not open to the Latin Mass. There’s a subconscious association there that people think the Latin Mass is a SSPX thing, which is a sad consequence of Lefebvre’s and SSPX’s disobedience b/c the Latin Mass is so beautiful.