Skip to main content

SSPX and the Resistance - A Reader's Thoughts

+
JMJ

The following is a reader's analysis of the 'resistance' position that I posted here.


I)Objections of resistance
II)Problems that have resulted
III)Questions that come from it
IV)Sspx position
V) Final remarks


I) Objections of the resistance

1) That the church which is commonly called the catholic church, is no longer the catholic church because it teaches a doctrine that goes against what the catholic church has consistently taught for centuries...new doctrine, new liturgy etc. therefore, new church.

2) That, since the so-called modern day catholic church is no longer the true Catholic Church as Christ has founded it, faithful Catholics should have nothing to do with this false church. They should not dialogue or make any effort to be accepted by its leaders. Doing so is a betrayal of the true Catholic Faith

3) That the founder of the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre also held this opinion, and so those who agree to this are being faithful to the work of preserving the true faith which he began.


4) That the present day head of the SSPX, in having talks with Rome and even considering a regularization within this false church has betrayed the SSPX

II) Problems that have resulted from these objections

1) The attacks on the leaders of the SSPX have spread suspicion and anger among those who frequent SSPX chapels, yet in many cases, there is no other place for these people to go for the sacraments.

2)  As a result, many of those laity continue to make use of the sacraments which the SSPX provides, while at the same time spreading their suspicion and anger to others around them.

3) This state of affairs has caused much interior suffering for all associated with the SSPX

a)For those who agree with the objections since they are forced to go to the SSPX, which they no longer trust, or else go without the mass and the sacraments.

b)For those who go to SSPX chapels who are unsure of what to believe, as they find their confidence in the SSPX under attack.

c) For those laity who whole heartedly support the SSPX, as they find themselves in opposition to people they formerly considered friends and supporters in their fight for tradition.

d)Finally, the priests of the SSPX themselves suffer, as they see their life's work undermined. Laity no longer trust them. Children in the schools they run suddenly turn insubordinate under the guidance of their parents.

Is it worth this suffering? The real question, then, is whether the attacks are true- is the present day Catholic church no longer the Catholic church?

The resistance seem to have a reasonable answer -new doctrine, therefore, new church. End of story. They say the SSPX doesn't have to worry about being accepted by this church because it isn't truly Catholic anyway.
Actually, this outlook causes more problems than it solves..

III) Questions that come from these objections

1) Our Lord promised that the Catholic Church would last until the end of time,
"thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it..." (Matthew 16 v18)


-if the church today is no longer the Catholic church, then where is the Catholic church? Where is the "rock" upon which the true church is built?

There are 3 possible answers-

a) There is no valid pope at present and the seat of Peter is vacant-(this is what sedevacantists believe, and in fact there are some who have initially agreed with the resistance only to become sedevacantist later)

 The problem with this is that it makes Our Lord out to be a liar, or false prophet...if there hasn't been a true pope since the crisis in the church then it sure looks as if the devil has won, brother. (this goes for  the idea that the present day church is not the true  church)

b) You don't need the pope to have the Church-
Some may say that the only thing essential to the Church is the true faith. That the Church does not have to be visible in order to be the one true Church

The problem with this is that it goes against Catholic church teaching (Catechism of Trent, First Vatican Council)

c) The pope is not who we think he is! The true pope lives somewhere else.

Problems-who elected him?
Apostolic succession - the only validly elected pope is the obvious present day Pope Francis.

At this point, the resistors themselves may have a thing or two to say, such as;
"How, then, has the Church been preserved from error in light of the present crisis of faith? Has not the devil prevailed?"


Answer-
The Church is protected from error by the Holy Ghost when it makes use of its power of infallibility in the solemn declaration of teaching to which it binds all Catholics to believe. 


In all the time since Vatican II, no pope has made use of this infallibility to compel Catholics to believe something that contradicts former Church teaching.

2) Our Lady of Fatima has asked for the consecration of Russia by the Pope in union with all the bishops of the world-she promised that in the end, her Immaculate Heart would triumph...the consecration would be done as she asked....how is that possible if the present day church is no longer the Catholic church?

3) Outside the church there is no salvation.- this is a dogma. All Catholics must believe this. those who believe that the present day church is no longer the Catholic church and therefore want nothing to do with it are putting themselves in grave danger of being outside the Church if they are mistaken.

IV) What the SSPX thinks about this whole mess;

1)There is a crisis of faith in the Catholic church, which has its roots in the faulty documents of Vatican Council II.

2)Error is present within the church as a sickness, causing suffering to the Church, but not making the Church something else entirely. The work of Archbishop Lefebvre was in fighting error within the Church. The visible hierarchy is the hierarchy of the true church of Christ. For this reason the SSPX refuses to separate from Rome, and while it must disobey the Pope when the faith demands, yet always recognizes the legitimate authority of the Pope. This is why Bishop Felley was willing  for the SSPX to be regularized by the church as long as he could do so without compromising the faith.


When Rome made it clear this was impossible, then he could refuse in good conscience, but as long as there was a chance that Rome would accept the SSPX, 'as they are' then there was no good reason to disobey. Such an action would have then been legitimately seen as a denial of the authority of the Pope, and therefore, an act of schism.

What did Archbishop Lefebvre think?


The Archbishop has been quoted here and there by the resistance to demonstrate that he thought the present day church was no longer Catholic.

Perhaps the best way to look at this is to look at what he said at the most solemn moment in his life...just before he consecrated 4 bishops, in disobedience to the Pope. At the sermon of that day, with the world looking on, it seems reasonable that he would do his utmost to make clear his real intentions. 


Here he goes out of his way to show that he had no intention to separate himself from Rome, or the present day Pope. Why would this be important to him if he believed that the present day church was no longer Catholic?

It's because he did believe the Church to be the Catholic church and to separate himself from it would mean eternal damnation!

V)Final Remarks

The sspx is a thorn in the side of present day Church leaders who wish to make the Catholic Church into something it is not.


While these leaders promote a false impression of the Church as a place of ecumenical dialogue, where people of all religions are appreciated for what they can contribute to world peace,  the SSPX continues to speak out from its corner the true teaching of the Church; that true and everlasting peace can only come to the world when all nations and people recognize the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the right of the Catholic Church to call itself the One True Church established By Christ to save souls. (BIG difference!)

 Time and again, church leaders try to deal with this problem...by ignoring the SSPX, or trying to get rid of it. Yet, those same leaders cannot accuse the SSPX of heresy, for they have not denied any dogma! They cannot rightfully accuse of the SSPX  of schism, because the SSPX maintains that the Pope is the legitimate authority, and only refuses to obey on the principle that they must when they faith would otherwise be compromised. (see St. Thomas Aquinas)

So Church leaders can't get rid of the SSPX and the SSPX won't leave. It refuses to leave the Church, clinging ti it as the ark of salvation, while continuing to fight error. I had to chuckle today as the slogan came to mind, "Hell, no! We won't go!" Only in this case, the SSPX is not refusing to join a war, but refusing to give up the fight!

Church leaders would be more than happy if the SSPX would just say "This ain't the True Church!" and pick up and leave. Then they could finally dust their hands of the whole problem! They could say, "You see? We always knew they were schismatic!"

There's nothing the devil would like better, either!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX.  This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

The Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

 + JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them.   I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest.  This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis?  When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due.   This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too thin

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent wrot

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Gary Campbell - Former SSPX Priest

 + JMJ I've come across Gary Campbell's articles on Where Peter Is and noticed that he seems to have very strong biases, assumptions and reactions to anything that runs against these. Driven by curiosity I have found a copy of his letter to Bishop Fellay explaining his reasons for leaving the SSPX only five years after his ordination in Winona. I was surprised to learn that I was present for his ordination. Given this, I was interested in reviewing his letter to Bishop Fellay. There will be two versions in this post. The unblocked and blocked letter. The unblocked is, obviously the full letter. The block, meaning unnecessary text will be blocked out, is a technique I use to remove ancillary text while focusing on key phrases. After completing my read, I believe that the root of much of what caused the issues with Fr. Campbell could be the seeds of the 'resistance' that, when the same perceptions were challenged by continued negotiations with Rome resulted in the necessa