Skip to main content

SSPX vs ... everyone ... or so it seems.

+
JMJ

In the battle of the Church vs the World, bet on the SSPX.

This is only tongue in cheek so please keep your sense of humour.

It would appear the Bishop Schneider's little interview has prompted the 'opponents' of the SSPX into action ... once again.

This is very similar to the time when Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications.

First we had Mr. Voris' spin of the clarification provided by Bishop Schneider.  Interestingly, how Mr. Voris et al didn't refer to what the SSPX ACTUALLY stated concerning the interview. Instead, they decided to focus on people who don't speak for the SSPX.



Funny that ...

In fact, as usual, a discussion on the SSPX has resulted in many people stating their opinion on the matter.  Then the SSPX posted their pre-planned video on the New Mass.

  • Corbinians Bear: Doesn't agree with the SSPX position on the New Mass
  • Mr. Voris et al: Call them schismatic and  jumps on the easy target (don't go the New Mass).  There's a fallacy for this which is called a 'diversion'. 
  • OnePeterFive: Clarifies his position on the SSPX (without discussing the New Mass)
  • Fr. Greiger: Again misses the point, while trying to make his own point.

Let's examine the key points for Voris and Fr. Greiger.

Fr. Greiger first, because it is the most intellectually engaging (but not for the reason one may suspect):
They remain without a ministry because their own definition their ministry is to expose the Council of Freemasons, Modernists and Jews and oppose the New Mass, which they believe is valid but evil. - See more at: http://airmaria.com/2015/08/20/sspx-accept-them-as-they-are
Here Fr. Greiger says everything and nothing.  Which surprises me as I had expected someone pursuing a doctorate to put forward a better argument. In this paragraph he has attached a link in the word expose to a conference provided by Bishop Fellay.  In this conference Bishop Fellay stated:
Who during that time was the most opposed that the Church will recognize the Society? The enemies of the Church:  the Jews, the Masons and the Modernists. 
From this Fr. Greiger has deduced (wrongly) that the SSPX defines their ministry to expose a conspiracy theory that was perpetrated at the Second Vatican Council.  Actually, what Fr. Greiger has missed is that the SSPX's ministry is focused on the priesthood and everything that pertains to it.  It is because of this fidelity to the Priest, the Mass and Preconciliar doctrine that they are at odds with the hierarchy of today, but not 'yesterday' - meaning the pre-conciliar hierarchy.

What we have in Fr. Greiger's analysis is, simply, a confirmation bias. He is seeing what he wants to see, taking things out of context.  I find this interesting, because Fr. Greiger 'sees' crypto-lefebvrians elsewhere.  This has caused him to take action against his own religious family. The rest of his commentary reflects this narrowed perspective.

Now to the hottest or at least loudest, commentary on the SSPX.

Here's the highlights:
By the way, that assessment of the SSPX is that of Pope Benedict, merely repeated by ChurchMilitant.com.
Wow, I don't recall Pope Benedict saying that the SSPX was schismatic or in a state of schism.  As already demonstrated, when asked a direct question of formal schism - all the CDF would reply is the 'not full communion'.  So even though Mr. Voris believes that this phrase is "which is shorthand for schism", the facts don't agree with his opinion.

Then we get to the 'heart' of the matter:
Earlier the priest says the New Mass is a danger to souls.... Now stop for a moment and consider what this priest is saying: The New Mass, meaning the Mass of Pope Paul VI, the Novus Ordo, is an offense against God. A Mass approved by and offered by the popes of Our Blessed Lord’s Holy Catholic Church and nearly every single bishop is an offense against God. Further, you are instructed not to go to Mass on Sunday if you must go to a Novus Ordo, New Mass.
This is key for two reasons. First of which is that Mr. Voris presents a logical fallacy in that he appeals to the Popes et al saying the New Mass as (presumably) proof that the SSPX is wrong in its opinions and conclusions about the New Mass.

In essence he states that "The Pope and Bishops say it ... so it can't be flawed." therefore the SSPX is wrong and schismatic etc.

I don't know where Mr. Voris got his S.T.D., but I think he needs to get a refund.

The points that Mr. Voris doesn't address are the New Mass is:

  • a danger to souls
  • an offense against God
He forgot to mention evil.

What is the position of the SSPX against the Novus Ordo as promulgated?
  1. It is evil in that there is an absence of a due good. Specifically, the rite (not the sacrifice itself) suppresses and makes ambiguous numerous aspects of the theology of the Mass.
  2. This ambiguity is manifestly a danger to the Faith of those attending, as the rites are supposed to make clear and reinforce the truths of the Faith. ie. Lex Orandi, Lex Credidi.
  3. As such, because the New Mass is designed to be acceptable to the protestants by the suppression of these truths - the rite is offensive to God because the rites of the Church are supposed to be a clear expression of the Faith.  
Sad that Mr. Voris didn't try to answer the actual issues. But that leads us to the second point.  Michael Voris et al have staked their claim (against all comers) that no one should ever publicly criticize the Pope.  Because of this, they are now defending the banal rite of Mass.

At the end of the tir he states the following:

Even in the face of the Pope himself, they say they pray for him and put his picture up in their buildings, and they obey him — until they don't. They decry the Mass. They encourage people to mortal sin. They defy the Pope. They refuse the obedience due him. ... If that doesn't constitute a schism, pray tell, what does?
So where does Mr. Voris' principles lead? Well, first of all a warped understanding of obedience, what constitutes sin, 'defiance', and lastly (as usual) schism.  I won't waste electrons discussing what actions are schismatic.

This is where Mr. Voris' principles have led him, I wonder what he will do when the Pope does something else  reprehensible - prompting Cardinals to criticize the Pope's actions.

 Life is going to be very interesting for Mr. Voris in October.  I think it will be pretzel time.



Pray for Mr. Voris and those like him who have nice ideas, but faulty principles.  Their faith will be sorely tried like the Sedevacantists who have an equal opinion, but have reached an opposite conclusion.

P^3


▬ Spectrum of Opinions ▬

Corbinians Bear



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law – Part I: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ Is a Traditional Catholic who abandons the doctrine of the Catholic Church - are they truly worthy of the name of Catholic? This is why it is important to understand Catholic Doctrine so we don't knowingly abandon it! This is a lecture provided by Dr. Lamont that touches on the topic of obedience. Obedience is one key to emerging from this crisis. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May 2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law – Part I By John Lamont (Lecture given in New York on Friday, April 4, 2014)

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...

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...

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

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...