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

"Father, Should I Attend That Mass?" Advice on Attending Non-SSPX Latin Masses

 + JMJ I see that the 'resistors' are in a tizzy because Fr. Robinson used them as an example instead of the sedevacantists. What is interesting is that you can apply the exact same reasons against going to a sede mass as that of the 'resistors'. Namely: On the other extreme are those situations where an SSPX priest knows that a certain non-SSPX traditionalist venue is a grave danger to the faith . Frankly, most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses would fall into this category. In many cases, the behavior of these priests has been and continues to be scandalous, by their (A) spirit, their (B) preaching, and their indiscriminate conferral of the (C) priesthood and (D) episcopacy. To attend a Mass with such ongoing scandals poses a serious danger to the souls of the faithful. Yep, looking at A,B,C and D the shoe fits. On this basis the "resistors" = "sedevacantists". P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org   A companion article to a recent "Questions with ...

Correcting Caricatures of the SSPX

 + JMJ Introduction First, a little background on the FSSP St. John Vianney Chapel in Mission Hill Kansas.  After the 1988 consecrations and the foundation of the FSSP there was a consistent trend of Dioceses allowing the SSPX to run chapels and churches near SSPX locations. As with any 'organizational change' there were those who didn't agree with the change and no longer sought the sacraments from the SSPX. I heard from friends that in that era there was a lot of anger and tension (on both sides) between the St. Mary's SSPX and Mission Hill FSSP.  Second, there have been caricatures of the SSPX position (some are evident below) in which personal opinions of SSPX priests and laity are taken as the official position or conflated with those of sedevacantists or 'resistance'. Recent Perspectives of the SSPX Position In the shadow of the consecrations a fever pitch accusations and opinions how surfaced - many of which include caricatures of the SSPX positions, of w...

SSPX: Why Is the SSPX So Criticized?

 + JMJ As long as you are ok with what happens in other Catholic Churches, Traditional Catholics will be left 'alone'.  This is a paraphrase of words spoken by an Archbishop to Traditional Catholics (with a sprinkling of SSPX) who had requested the Traditional Latin Mass under Summorum Pontificum. This reflects that attitude of the Church towards anyone who takes issue with some of the ambiguities of Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium.  If you reject the papacy but are ok with V2, the New Mass, and what Rome has stated since 1965 - then you are welcome. Question some of the more abiguous statements and ask for Rome to realise that a circle is not a square - then you are in for a world of hurt. This is where the SSPX exists and has existed from almost its very first moments. Pointing out contradictions with previous magisterium is not acceptable - under any condition. Why? Because it will cause the whole V2 house of cards to fall. I guess only when the contradic...

Stories: Early Days of Tradition Part 8 - Convention Centre Chapel

 + JMJ I came to Tradition a few years after they had bought a chapel. My wife told me of the earlier years when Fr. Normandin would come to town and Mass would be held in a room at the convention centre.  He'd start by blessing the room and then proceed with Mass. This went on for a while before the one of the faithful found a small hall that would suit just fine. They pooled their money and bought the building.  Then came the work as the retiree's refinished the floor, setup the sactuary. Oh, did I mention that I heard that the hall had been used by a motorcycle gang? The floor needed a lot of work.  I remember seeing pictures of the founders working to make the hall into a fitting place for the Sacrifice of the Mass. That little chapel would be a refuge like many others serviced by Fr. Normandin.  From Thunderbay, Ontrario to Nanaimo, British Columbia - the SSPX chapels are all the results of Fr. Normandin's missionary work in those desperate times. Without h...

How many more must die for the throne? or How to combat FUD!

 + JMJ How many more must die for the throne? (Movie Quote: Prince Caspian) The Spread of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt I've seen a lot of FUD spreading across the intergnat on various stats etc.   So let's put this in context ... especially the perspective of those people in positions of authority who need to make decisions to protect the lives of their citizens. Yep, this is going to be that type of post.  Like it or not the leaders of our governments have their authority from God.  So, as Catholics should know, you need to have a very good reason to deliberately disobey the orders of their superiors. This is basic St. Thomas Aquinas ... so don't blame me for discussing things from a Catholic perspective. The leaders of our countries have taken action to protect the vulnerable of our countries.   As much as the young and not-so-young may whine and complain - I have to ask how many more of our elderly have to die? What the armchair virologists and ec...