The Sspx

[Resurrexi]

Moderators, if this poll breaks any phorum guidelines, feel free to delete it.

Edited November 2, 2007 by StThomasMore

[goldenchild17]

My first reaction to the poll is yes, yes, and no. But I'm sure glad they don't, at least not yet.

[dUSt]

Adult members of the SSPX are worse off than today's Protestants, because they were part of the One True Faith and chose to reject it.

[Aloysius]

only priests can be members of the SSPX

those who attend them may be committing semi-schismatic acts, but Cardinal Hoyos has made it clear that this is an internal matter to be resolved within the Churuch, not a formal schism like the Protestant Reformation was. Moreover, it has been said around Rome that it would be more difficult for the Pope to issue his recent Motu Proprio than for him to lift the lefebvrite excommunications. One should expect these excommunications to be lifted soon; the most recent news was that a commission was set up for certain members of the SSPX to critically analyze the documents of Vatican II in the light of tradition.

the SSPX is certainly not in the same boat as the reformers. they're not even in the same boat as the schismatic Old Catholics were a century ago. Why? Because the reason they have fallen into their current canonical status is that they are so vehemently committed to the traditional doctrines of the Faith and are appalled at the liturgical crisis in the modern Roman Church as well as the crisis of faith. It is becoming ever more clear that history will judge the Lefebvre schism as something which acted as an anchor to the Church during troubling times until it finally came back within the Church to strengthen it during a period of great restoration.

There are currently no excommunications leveled against anyone who attends their chapels, and it does indeed fulfill the Sunday obligation. The excommunications are directed solely at the priests and bishops of the SSPX, and I would not be surprised if those excommunications are lifted very soon (ie within the next few years; rumors now are about as credible as the rumors about the Motu Proprio were a couple of years ago)

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1413376' date='Nov 2 2007, 07:47 PM']I would not be surprised if those excommunications are lifted very soon (ie within the next few years; rumors now are about as credible as the rumors about the Motu Proprio were a couple of years ago)[/quote]

Based on different things that I have heard this definitely seems to be likely relatively soon, at least that's the impression I'm getting over here. Depending on the conditions of that agreeement it could come out either really bad, or really good (from my philosophical perspective that is.)

[Justin86]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1413376' date='Nov 3 2007, 10:47 AM']the SSPX is certainly not in the same boat as the reformers. they're not even in the same boat as the schismatic Old Catholics were a century ago. Why? Because the reason they have fallen into their current canonical status is that they are so vehemently committed to the traditional doctrines of the Faith and are appalled at the liturgical crisis in the modern Roman Church as well as the crisis of faith. It is becoming ever more clear that history will judge the Lefebvre schism as something which acted as an anchor to the Church during troubling times until it finally came back within the Church to strengthen it during a period of great restoration.[/quote]
Which saint manged to reform the Church through disobedience though?

I'm not trying to argue that they're in the same boat as Protestants, but I don't think any schism is ever justified. I certainly don't see how God would use it as "as an anchor to the Church during troubling times" anyway.

Edited November 3, 2007 by Justin86

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1413432' date='Nov 2 2007, 10:07 PM']Which saint manged to reform the Church through disobedience though?

I'm not trying to argue that they're in the same boat as Protestants, but I don't think any schism is ever justified. I certainly don't see how God would use it as "as an anchor to the Church during troubling times" anyway.[/quote]


Not to get into an argument, but St. Vincent Ferrer comes to mind. He withdrew his support of both claimants to the papacy during the time of the reign of Avignon papacies (becoming for a time, sedevacantist). This effectively ended the schism and brought things back to the way they were before that difficulty. Admittedly there aren't a lot of such cases, but he is an example.

Edited November 3, 2007 by goldenchild17

[Justin86]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1413448' date='Nov 3 2007, 01:36 PM']Not to get into an argument, but St. Vincent Ferrer comes to mind. He withdrew his support of both claimants to the papacy during the time of the reign of Avignon papacies (becoming for a time, sedevacantist). This effectively ended the schism and brought things back to the way they were before that difficulty. Admittedly there aren't a lot of such cases, but he is an example.[/quote]
I looked him up in the Catholic Encyclopedia and the closest thing I found was this:

[quote]After Martin's death, the representatives of the Kingdoms of Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia appointed Vincent one of the judges to determine the succession to the Crown. At the judgment, known as the Compromise of Caspe, he took the leading part and helped toelect Ferdinand of Castile. Vincent was one of the most resolute and faithful adherents of Benedict XIII, and by his word, sanctity, and miracles he did much to strengthen Benedict's position. It was not until 1416, when pressed by Ferdinand, King of Aragon, that he abandoned him. On 6 January, preaching at Perpignan, he declared anew to the vast throng gathered around his pulpit that Benedict XIII was the legitimate pope, but that, since he would not resign to bring peace to the Church, Ferdinand had withdrawn his states from the obedience of Avignon.[/quote]
It sounds more like he was just being the PR guy for Ferdinand here and never actually withdrew support for the Avignon Popes.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15437a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15437a.htm[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1413311' date='Nov 2 2007, 04:39 PM']Moderators, if this poll breaks any phorum guidelines, feel free to delete it.[/quote]
I haven't given their site a good read in years. Are there explicit doctrines that have been definitively taught by the Church that the SSPX formally rejects? If so what are the details on this? Just curious.

[goldenchild17]

I couldn't tell you why this detail was left out of the new advent account. The issue of sedevacantism wasn't as big a deal before V2 as it has become lately, so I could imagine it being left out for lack of thinking it that significant. There are a couple good sources to go to in order to find this other bit of information. One of which is a biography by Henri Gheon. I think I have a relevant passage, let me look it up real quick...

Here 'tis. Sorry if it's just a little bit lengthy, but the context of the times is quite interesting to read about in this biography:
________________________________________
___________________________

Henri Gheon, [u]St. Vincent Ferrer[/u], trans. by F.J. Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London, 1939, pp. 138-147


He … was getting ready to cross the Pyrenees when the Pope and the King combined to stop him at Morella. The Schism, of course: always the Schism. He laid down his satchel and consented for a time to a change of occupation.

The situation had grown terribly worse. The Roman Pope, Boniface, was dead; the Roman cardinals had elected to the throne of Peter, Innocent VIII, who did not make old bones. They elected Gregory XII in his place. He met the rival Pontiff Benedict at Savona and their negotiations might — who knows? — have issued in a settlement: but unhappily the capture of Rome by Ladislas, King of Naples, had as one result the birth of a third party who had the bright notion of calling a new Council and electing a third pope — as if two were not enough. This third man, Alexander V, elected and crowned at Pisa, died within ten months and his place was taken by John XXIII. Between Gregory and John there was war to the knife, ending in the Sack of Rome, after which things grew a little calmer — thanks to the intervention of the Emperor. On November 5, 1414, a Council held at Constance announced the abdication of the two pontiffs — Gregory and Alexander — on condition that the third, Vincent Ferrer’s man Benedict XIII, should also abdicate. This was the hardest nut. So the Emperor Sigismund decided to try to crack it himself. On the invitation of King Ferdinand of Aragon, on the urging of Master Vincent Ferrer, he consented to come to the Council of Perpignan. As a proof of good-will, Benedict XIII presided and it was for this that the Angel of the Judgment had to interrupt his voyage.

The Emperor Sigismund brought with him seventeen bishops and a numerous court. All countries were represented by the flower of their princes and the most resplendent embassies; there was even a Moorish king — in chains. In the midst of this amazing assemblage of prelates and princes, picture to yourself Pedro de Luna now eighty but still solid and tenacious, cunning as a fox, obstinate as an Aragon mule, a man who had grown harder as he grew older: and over against him the poor friar, emaciated, limping, worn to a shadow, but all radiant with learning and genius and charity — the heart and soul of the Council, officiating, preaching, praying, making everybody pray, associating his flagellants with the universal prayer and penance.

In truth the world was hanging on his lips; the unity of the Church depended on him. In this last effort, he was at the high point of his extraordinary renown. He addressed the Pope as legate of Christ, as a friend, as a theologian, as a man. From the pulpit and in private, for a whole month, he implored Benedict to resign. “He recognised him as true Pope, but it was precisely that quality which imposed on him the gesture that the whole of suffering Christendom expected of him—the sacrifice of his just cause, his just elevation, his see and his authority.”

All in vain. Benedict held his ground obstinately. He was backed by a party still powerful, which represented half the Christian world and would lose all its privileges with him. Against the decisions of Constance, he meant to have himself confirmed by Perpignan. “If the three Popes are doubtful,” was the substance of his argument, “then all the cardinals they have created are doubtful too — I am the only certain cardinal for I received the hat before the Schism and therefore only I can elect another Pope. I should have a perfect right to re-elect myself, even if I resigned.” Every evening they left the palace of Majorca, some way from the town, more divided than when they went in. Vincent exhausted himself in fruitless negotiations.

The Emperor lost his temper. He gave an ultimatum. Benedict rejected it. Sigismund left Perpignan with his court and his bishops, threatening to impose by force what he had been unable to obtain by reason. Then the preacher collapsed under the crash of all his hopes. Several days he was ill with his anguish in the cell of the convent of his Order where the toil of his days had laid its burden on the silent prayer of his nights. It was even thought that he was dying.

“It is not from earth,” he told the doctor who was looking after him, “that my remedy must come; I shall be back in the pulpit on Thursday.”

But what argument was left for him to state, develop, urge which he had not already hammered away at these weeks past? He was running his head against a wall. But the rumour spread that he was preaching again; the crowds thronged into the square, not in thousands but in tens of thousands. Exactly on time, filled with a new vigour due to the certitude, the inevitableness of the last dolorous duty that he must perform, he announced the terrible text:

Ossa arida, audite verbum Domini!

The very words used by Ezechiel in the field of the dead, in the seventh prophecy sung in the office of Holy Saturday.

“Dry bones, hear ye the word of the Lord. I will send spirit into you and you shall live.” It was suddenly seen that it was necessary to revive the Pontiff who was enthroned facing the preacher. [b]The peacemaker had become the accuser. He did not plead now, he thundered. There could be no half-measures now. He turned upon his friend and master in the name of a Friend and Master more powerful than any creature, even the creature He had invested with His powers. … Benedict’s duty was to render up the keys and the tiara; he had tricked and trifled too long with the plain will of God. From a worthy Pontiff he had become an unworthy one, responsible henceforth for all the evils of the Church if he did not yield instantly.[/b]

How much it cost Vincent, we can guess. But nothing short of an act of heroism — an agony to his heart, his fidelity, his filial submission — was needed, with God’s aid, to break an obstinacy for which his own too long patience and perhaps his cowardice seemed in part responsible. [b]Upon Vincent himself would be the guilt of the Schism if he did not use all the means in his power to bring it to an end — [u]even if it meant treason and rebellion against his sovereign and benefactor. Furthermore, his reason, which never failed him, saw clearly that if Benedict resisted, he would be deposing himself.[/u][/b]

The crowd were thunderstruck: in the midst of them Benedict on his throne was torn between rage and something very near to panic. If he did not do as his legate demanded then [b]that legate would withdraw from his obedience[/b]: who would hesitate to follow him? Would it not be better to yield? But for a Pedro de Luna it is all or nothing. No! No! There was a murmur in the crowd swelling to a roar. Master Vincent had the whole world with him. King Ferdinand of Aragon made it clear to Benedict that his life was in danger, unless he left without delay. Benedict fled for refuge to Peniscola, a fortified rock which was his own property, surrounded on all sides by the sea. Alone between sea and sky, exiled from the world of living men, rejected by all Christians, he would remain Pope. “I made you king,” he said to Ferdinand, “and you have sent me into the desert.”

[b]On January 6, 1416, Master Vincent in front of the Castle of Majorca officially proclaimed the withdrawal of obedience of the last princes who still accepted Benedict XIII — the King of Navarre, the Comte de Foix, and the King of Aragon. This last gave assurance of the adhesion of the other Spanish sovereigns.[/b] The Schism was stricken to death and it was Master Vincent who had dealt the death stroke. He took part in the labours of the Council at Constance only from a distance, though all wanted him there. But the main task was accomplished. He had better things to do before he died.

The Cardinals spent several years straightening out all the complications of the position, taking account of all the interests involved. John XXIII fled: Gregory XII confirmed his resignation; [b]Benedict XIII was deposed[/b]: the place was free for a single master. In 1419, Cardinal Colonna was elected under the name of Martin V. He excommunicated Benedict XIII, who, thundering to the empty air, lived seven years more on his rock with two Cardinals who remained faithful to his memory. On his death these two elected one Clement VIII who resigned five years later. And so ended Pedro de Luna. In spite of all he was a great man: but he was swept away by the delirium of his grandeur.

Brother Vincent had not paid too high a price for the hope which slowly and surely had come to be realised: the seamless robe repaired by his hands was to be seen once again in its integrity in the one chair of Peter! But his friendship suffered as much as his faith rejoiced. As a saint must, he offered his suffering to God, to dispose of at His will; his preaching was all the more powerful for it. Never did he feel himself more filled with God than when he felt and measured in himself the natural weakness of man. He was laden with offers of honours by princes, kings, bishops, the celebrated Gerson. He refused them all, but politely. Honours he did not want: the poor souls of France were calling him. Nothing could hold him back — not even his friendship for the King of Aragon, who though still a young man was on the point of death. He must march on, keep marching: that was his mission. One field reaped, he must take his sickle to the next.

When he reached Narbonne, it was in the midst of a drought from which plants and animals and even men were dying. He won from heaven two glorious days of rain. At Béziers, on the other hand, he had to stop a flood. He went on to Montpellier, Castelnaudary, Pamiers, and once more, to Toulouse. There he was so popular that to save him from being literally crushed to death, he and his ass were placed between two rows of stout stakes carried by strong men. It was Palm Sunday; they did everything but strew flowers and green branches in his path! For six hours without a break he spoke on the Passion before thirty thousand people. The Place St. Etienne was packed, men were piled on the roofs.

“Arise, ye dead! Come to Judgment!”

The whole crowd fell on its face, crying for mercy. I have already told of the terrible flagellations followed by extraordinary conversions which marked this last time in Toulouse.

Then Muret, Castres, Albi: a man of that place who saw him describes him as “very old, pale, broken; but when he had said Mass and when he was preaching, he appeared young, in his prime, alert and full of vitality” — you would have given him thirty.

Villefranche, Rodez, Millau, Saint-Flour, Le Puy, Clermont, Montferrand —— the whole of Auvergne — where it was so cold that they had to light the braseros. Then Moulins, Lyons, Macon, Bezançon where in her convent of St. Clare he met Colette de Corbie (July, 1417). We do not know if he had already met her but certainly he had long hoped to. She had appeared to him, we are told, while he was at prayer in Saragossa, at the feet of Jesus Christ, pressing him to end the Schism: and the Saviour had given Vincent the order to discuss the matter with her as soon as possible. The day had come. They drew up a joint letter to the Council of Constance. They must also have talked of France and its woes — we know that both were inclined to the English side: we shall come back to this.

There is a respectable tradition that the son of St. Benedict gave the daughter of St. Francis his great mission crucifix with the Crucified carved in wood: and that he venerated the little gold cross, encrusted with precious stones, which she had received from Jesus Himself by the hands of St. John. These two witnesses of their immense love of the Cross are still preserved at the Convent of Poor Clares. St. Colette, it seems, foretold St. Vincent’s coming death, barely two years away.

“In Spain?” he asked.
“No, in France.”

When the moment of separation came their emotion was so great that they could not utter a word.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1413473' date='Nov 2 2007, 11:16 PM']I looked him up in the Catholic Encyclopedia and the closest thing I found was this:
It sounds more like he was just being the PR guy for Ferdinand here and never actually withdrew support for the Avignon Popes.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15437a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15437a.htm[/url][/quote]


It seems from the context of the biography I posted he was in much more than a PR position. Judging by the authority many at that time felt he had, it seems more likely that he made this decision, and then the king (and other leaders) followed him.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1413515' date='Nov 3 2007, 12:24 AM']I haven't given their site a good read in years. Are there explicit doctrines that have been definitively taught by the Church that the SSPX formally rejects? If so what are the details on this? Just curious.[/quote]

I'm not sure what the Vatican considers to be infallible teachings of their's from Vatican II onwards, but according to the site they reject the Novus Ordo Mass and Vatican II on the grounds that they were not infallible teachings and thus not requiring of our adherence. For the most part they accept the New Code of Canon Law, believing that it is vague and has a loss of integrity, but not enough so to make it invalid. They do take particular issue with canon 844, §4, - canon 1055, §1 - canon 336. Though whether they consider any of them heretical or not it doesn't really say either way. They also reject the CCC as it is a support for Vatican II. Again, whether or not they consider it, or anything within it heretical directly, I'm not sure. All of the problems they address from the catechism they simply call "novelties" and argue that it, and any statement within it, also does not hold any infallible authority of any kind and so one is free to reject it and still be a good Catholic. They seem to argue for the validity of the new rite of ordination, but believe the vernacular texts are messed up. They have a long thesis arguing that the episcopal rite of consecration for bishops is also valid. It is very long and haven't read it in quite awhile, so I can't remember what else is in that work. They've got something against the Catholic charismatic renewal though I haven't read that article. They are adamantly opposed to both the Feeneyite and Sedevacantist positions and seem to make both quite clear. They have some articles on just war, and support Capital Punishment and I believe they are also against NFP, though may allow for it in extreme circumstances.

There's other stuff but I think that covers the basics. As I already said, I'm not sure how much, if any, of these things the Vatican (since Paul VI) considers to be infallible, but that's just what I could find on a short scan of the site.

Don't shoot the messenger

Edited November 3, 2007 by goldenchild17

[XIX]

bang!

[goldenchild17]

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1413376' date='Nov 3 2007, 01:47 AM']There are currently no excommunications leveled against anyone who attends their chapels, and it does indeed fulfill the Sunday obligation. The excommunications are directed solely at the priests and bishops of the SSPX, and I would not be surprised if those excommunications are lifted very soon (ie within the next few years; rumors now are about as credible as the rumors about the Motu Proprio were a couple of years ago)[/quote]

I am puzzled. Is it possible for a priest to celebrate Mass if he has been excommunicated? If that's the case, how can congregants at an SSPX Mass fulfil their Sunday obligation?

I know very little of the SSPX. I've tried to read about them, but ended up more confused than when I started.