The Church and the SSPX - is the SSPX right?

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:

Doctrine: For the SSPX it is the Four Points that it holds are in contradiction with prior magisterium.

"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'."

The reforms that proceeded from the teachings of the Second Vatican Council

New Liturgy (primarily the New Mass)
New Catechism
New Canon Law

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

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making. It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX. The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience. The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members. It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

+ JMJ I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts. After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

Schism

There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches: "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...

The Episcopal Consecrations of 1988, 1991 and 2015 - Some Perspectives

+ JMJ In defense of the recent consecration of Fr. Faure by Bishop Williamson, some have argued that the 1991 consecration of Bishop Rangel (RIP) by the Bishops of the SSPX present an equivalent standard of action and principles. From this they conclude that the SSPX's condemnation of Bishop Williamson's action is flawed as the principles of the 1991 consecration and that of 2015 are equivalent.

Tradicat

Search This Blog