Skip to main content

The Church and the SSPX - is the SSPX right?

Image
By
+
JMJ

Some time ago I was challenged with the above statement.
You have to be right otherwise ...
The person at the time was trying to make the point that I was subject to a confirmation bias.

These words have replayed in my mind over the last two years since they were uttered, but not exactly with the result intended.

Is the SSPX right?  Are Traditional Catholics right?

The question behind these question is: Right about what?



I think that the subject comes down to three things:

  1. Doctrine: For the SSPX it is the Four Points that it holds are in contradiction with prior magisterium.
    1. "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.'
    2. "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.'
    3. "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.'
    4. "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'."
  2. The reforms that proceeded from the teachings of the Second Vatican Council
    1. New Liturgy (primarily the New Mass)
    2. New Catechism
    3. New Canon Law
  3. The response to the crisis in the Church
Point one is simple, since the SSPX bases their theological position on prior teachings and the Second Vatican Council limited itself to pastoral applications of doctrine - then logically proving the SSPX wrong is a simple matter of demonstrating continuity between the pre and post conciliar teaching.

Likewise, as the SSPX is adhering to the pre-conciliar teaching that was clear, versus that conciliar (V2) teaching that is riddled with compromise expressions (see Cardinal Kasper's admission) then the SSPX should not be held as a theological pariah.

Point two is a little more problematic and it is important to understand what exactly is the SSPX position vis-a-vis the 'reformed' liturgy. 

Basically they say it is evil - in that it is the absence of a due good. The liturgy is supposed to be a clear expression of the Catholic Faith.  

Objectively, comparing liturgy of 1962 to that of 1969, we find a significantly stripped down liturgy.  I am of course speaking of the liturgy as promulgated, not that which is put into action.  

As the Catechism and Canon Law are the embodiments of the Second Vatican Council (particularly the above four points), it flows that again if the doctrine was not changed - then in these points the SSPX should be not be at variance for hold prior magisterial teachings.

Lastly, we reach the main issue: The response of the SSPX.

The first thing that most critics mention is the consecrations.

This however will never do since there is a number of years and many events that led upto the consecrations of 1988.  There are also many events that have occurred to support the conclusion that it was a necessary action.

I think that while critics of the SSPX's response need to answer a question or two on their own:

Given all the history and events leading upto the consecrations: What would they have done?

Given all the history and events that have transpired since the consecrations: Was there no justification for the action?

All this comes down to context.  Without a sufficient context people are prone to falling into confirmation biases.

Comparing the actions with principles is a short-cut.  If the principles are good and are followed faithfully, then the actions should likewise be good.

What are the principles that the SSPX follows?  Are they good?  Where in their principles of they left the path of the Church?

Questions worth pondering as the October Synod may set the Church of Christ lurching in another direction on another path.

Tradical
P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is Tradition?

By
 + JMJ What Is Tradition? The basic premise, from my perspective, is that what was taught before cannot be contradicted by the 'present' magisterium, only deepened and expanded upon. I recall the Roman theologians called the SSPX protestants while the SSPX called them modernists.  I believe this was all surrounding the concept of Traditon. SSPX's Understanding of Tradition One accusation made against the SSPX is that they don't have a correct understanding of 'Tradition'.  This is how the SSPX understands Tradition: I finally profess that Tradition is not a dead memory, but the living transmission of the doctrine received from the Apostles. It remains living, in distinction to Revelation, which is closed. It is so both in the activity of the Magisterium of the Teaching Church and in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, of which the sentire cum Ecclesia is the result of the teaching of the Magisterium. Tradition may be called ‘living’, not in the sense t...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX.ca: What is the position of the SSPX on Vatican II???

By
 + JMJ With all the mis-information about the SSPX rejecting the Second Vatican Council, I thought it would be useful to publish an article that focuses on the real issues that the SSPX has identified. Update: Why Did the SSPX Consecrate Bishops? ( Neither Schismatic, Nor Disobedient link ) In the linked document the SSPX outlined the key motivation and core issues with Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium (see above link for full document): 4. The Society Acted Precisely Because of the State of Necessity in Which the Faith Finds Itself  In the present situation of the Church, if the Society of Saint Pius X had not carried out the consecrations of July 1st, it would have found itself facing an inevitable alternative: either to disappear gradually, or to accept, at least in fact, the new liturgy as well as the false doctrines of Vatican II and the post-council. Without the consecrations of July 1st, the Fraternity would have found itself, in a few years, without bishop...
1 comment
Read more

Thoughts on: Finding Common Ground Between Rome and the SSPX

By
 + JMJ In the ramp up to the consecrations the noise floor in the intergnat grew to a constant din.  This was one of the few the peeped its signal over the noise. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/finding-common-ground-between-rome-and-the-sspx The key issue is contained in this paragraph: In the lead-up to the planned July 1, 2026, episcopal consecrations,  the SSPX rejected Rome’s offer  of doctrinal dialogue on the grounds that “we both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” Fr. Pagliarani also said that his previous attempt at dialogue in 2019 was shut down by Rome because of an assumed irreconcilability. It seems that, from the Society’s perspective, and perhaps from Rome’s too, their positions are incompatible. If memory serves, Rome killed any opportunity for an open discussion by stating that Vatican II was not up for debate. So it was a still-birth and ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thoughts on the Thoughts of a former SSPX priest

By
 + JMJ Well Gary Campbell, former SSPX Priest and now laicised has posted a new article on WherePeterIs. https://wherepeteris.com/thoughts-of-a-former-sspx-priest-on-the-july-1-consecrations/ These words stuck out: Heck, they have built a five-star hotel, wine bar, and Walmart on the opposite bank of the Rubicon! They are not in danger of entering a state of schism, for they are  already  in a state of schism. I believe he doth protest too much. All the actual facts indicate that the SSPX was not in a state of schism before July 1st and an examination of the decree of excommunication highlights the either ineptitude of those in charge or a desire to leave the barn door open. The chasm between an act of disobedience and act of schism remains just what is has always been - an inconvenient barrier that person(s) in Rome seek to bridge but appear incapable of succeeding. The SSPX re-stated that they recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and feel obliged by conscience...
Post a Comment
Read more

The News is an Addiction ...

By
 + JMJ People seem to be mesmerised by train wrecks.   They just can't turn away as the disaster creeps forward along train tracks towards the crossing where a car, truck, bus, trailer awaits its destruction. Trads have been watching the train wreck that is this crisis of the Catholic Church for decades. The trade war between the Canada and the US has reminded me that the news is addictive.   The first time I was addicted what from 2009 to  2014 when I was closely following the Rome / SSPX discussions.  I was at work watching a live-stream as Bishop Fellay disappeared into the Vatican. The lead-up to this moment had been intense as the 'resistance' got freaked out and the cultural cracks between doctrine and conspiracy theory widened. In the decade since then other things have emerged, wars, rumours of wars, conspiracies, celebrity Catholics etc. Now we have a new addiction and its name is Trump. Lately, no matter how much I try, I find myself wonderin...
Post a Comment
Read more