Skip to main content

Fisher-More, FFI, SSPX - What connects the dots?

+
JMJ

There has been a lot of chatter about the latest events at Fisher-More.  You can read about it here , here, here and here.

What triggered the reaction against F-M?



As far as I can determine it comes down to two things:

  1. Second Vatican Council
  2. Reforms emanating from it.
What must the Ecclesia Dei institutes accept in order to be canonically regular?

  1. Second Vatican Council
  2. Reforms emanating from it.
What is the rallying point around which the authorities consistently have struck for the last fifty years?

The Tridentine Mass

All I want to know is the answer to one question: Why?

We know what the SSPX hold as being contrary to previous doctrine :
  • "The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration 'Dignitatis humanae,' contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in 'Mirari vos' and of Pius IX in 'Quanta cura' as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in 'Immortale Dei' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Quas primas.'
  • "The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in 'Mystici corporis' and 'Humani generis.'
  • "The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of 'Lumen gentium' and no. 3 of the Decree 'Unitatis redintegratio,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the 'Syllabus,' those of Leo XIII in 'Satis cognitum,' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Mortalium animos.'
  • "The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' including no. 3 of the 'Nota praevia' [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution 'Pastor aeternus'."
We further know the issues that they see with the reform the emanated from the Second Vatican Council.

Setting aside the issues with the N.O.M. and focusing on the doctrinal issues.

If  ...
  • the SSPX has a correct understanding of the pre-conciliar doctrines noted above
  • the Second Vatican Council did not change doctrine
Then what is the fuss about?

Logically, if the SSPX 'position' is not against pre-conciliar doctrine and that doctrine was not changed by the Council, what is the problem?

I think the problem revolves around what seems to happen as people have their culture reformed by exposure and participation in the Tridentine Liturgy.  They seem to realize that there are issues with the N.O.M. as well as the Council documents.

Maybe there is a method to the madness of the Bishops who reject the Tridentine Mass.

What would be the consequences for the Pope, Bishops and Catholic Church if the SSPX position is the right one?

Off the top of my head here of some pieces of low hanging fruit:
  1. Our Lord Jesus Christ is God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity
  2. The Church of Christ IS the Roman Catholic Church
  3. Membership in the Church of Christ (actual or by desire) is necessary for salvation
  4. Religious organizations that are do not form part of the unity of faith or government of the Roman Catholic Church are not part of the Church of Christ
Not a bad start.

Of course, when they are no longer afraid to say such things, then life for Catholics will be very interesting.

No wonder they are afraid

No wonder they attack anyone that crosses the red-line of V2 and the N.O.M.

There's more to think of here ... put perhaps after the Ascension.

P^3









Comments

  1. Can anyone verify or disprove the claim some are making that Fisher More College currently has an SSPX filling in?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The myth of the Hermeneutic of Continuity - Rorate Caeli

+ JMJ Interestingly the complete acceptance of the Second Vatican Council (without reservations) is required of the SSPX. Just when people are starting to wonder how it came to this! Courtesy of Rorate Caeli P^3

A Look Back: Archbishop Lefebvre’s Prophetic Address to The Remnant, 1976

 + JMJ  Looking back is important to understand why we are where we are in this crisis. Courtesy of RemnantNewsPaper  P^3 FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLINE: Archbishop Lefebvre’s Prophetic Address to The Remnant, 1976 Written by  Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Introduction by Michael J. Matt More than forty years ago—during the disastrous reign of Pope Paul VI, the latest candidate for a Vatican-issued Halo Award, by the way—my father, Walter L. Matt, organized the first large scale public reception in the U.S. for the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It was held at the Radisson South Hotel, Minneapolis, on Tuesday, May 12, 1976, and its stated purpose was to assist the Archbishop in gaining a stronger foothold for the Society of St. Pius X in the States during the unprecedented crisis Blessed Pope Paul had helped unleash on the Church. On that occasion Archbishop Lefebvre delivered ...

Of the Church and the Pope - Fr. Calmel O.P.

+ JMJ Once again, looking back to see if the 'Traditional Catholics' in the early days of this crisis of the Church had a sufficient view to realize the roots of the crisis. The root: The Pope Hence when the Pope is 'righted' the Church will be 'righted'. P^3 Courtesy of SSPXasia Fr. Roger Calmel, O.P. This essay by Fr. Roger Calmel, O.P. (1914-75) helps us in these difficult times to preserve our love of the Church. More than 30 years after its first publication, this article retains all its relevance, so much so that it even seems to have been written for our time, in which the crisis in the Church deepens at an unprecedented pace. This essay will help the reader to think clearly, keep the Faith, and maintain serenity in the troubled times we are navigating. “My country has hurt m e,”wrote a young poet in 1944 during the purge 1 when the head of state [Charles De Gaulle] implacably pursued the sinister job that had been in the wo...

Canonical Mission and State of Emergency - A Response to Mr. John Salza - Part B

 +  JMJ  I was trying to think of a way to map out the time course I discussed in Part A of this article.  Early this morning it came to me that this is more about obedience and duty than canon law.  As is my wont, I mapped out my thoughts (see image) to draw linkages between the core concepts. My conclusion is that, at least subjectively, Archbishop Lefebvre had sufficient information to make good decisions concerning whether or not he was obliged to obey.  I know that the Jesuits, some Sedevacantists and the priests that left over the years will not agree with my thoughts. So be it.  The core pieces of information include: Attacks against the SSPX were launched because they kept the Tridentine Mass and the pre-conciliar understanding of the Truths of the Faith. The authorities in the Church were willing to go against the laws of the Church. The same authorities encouraged the various dangers to the Faith embedded in popular interpretations of ambiguo...

Validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations - Courtesy of SSPX.org

+ JMJ In the blogosphere there are number of responses to this crisis in the Catholic Church that lead to conclusions that run counter to Catholic Doctrine and Dogmas - if taken to their logical conclusion. The validity of the New Rite of Episcopal consecrations is one such hotspot within more extreme sections of the 'traditionalist' culture. Validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations Courtesy of SSPX.org Why the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid Introduction This comprehensive study was compiled to settle a debate that has been circulating in traditional Catholic circles. Some writers have examined the new rite of episcopal consecration and concluded that it must be invalid. Since this would cause manifest problems if it were true and due to the heightened awareness of such a theory, we present a study of this question concluding that it is valid. Following the Council, in 1968 a new rite for the ordination of bishops was promulg...