Context for the Vortex SSPX-Fest

+

JMJ

So now Michael Voris' week long tribute the SSPX has concluded.

As I write this ( September 15, 2015), the fest still rages on, but I came across one Harvard lesson that I read today that I think bears repeating here before I examine Mr. Voris' potential motivations for spending a whole week on the SSPX, when the Synod is just around the corner.

Even if an opponents actions make no sense to you, they apparently make sense to him!

Something to keep in mind as we examine what I suspect will be the same old arguments against the SSPX: Schism.



Speculation
Here is my speculations (given prior to reading the attached transcripts etc in depth).  The timing of this series - a week before what potentially will be a very bad Synod - is curious?

Perhaps it is because the Pope is sponsoring it that Michael feels he cannot do his normal song and dance about the liberal bishops and including Cardinal Dolan (nts: Maybe I missed a rant about the synod).

An alternative is that he fears the Pope's actions will convince people that the SSPX response to the crisis is indeed reasonable.  Since he can't criticize the Pope, he will lash out at the SSPX (whom everyone loves to hate).

Opinion and Schism
Now I'm not going to subscribe to one of their channels just so I can hear MV attack the SSPX.  But I will venture the following: Everything that he will say is his opinion.  The question is whether or not the opinion has legs and can stand up against legitimate critiques. (NB: I understand the CMTV's moderators are particularly fervent in nuking any such critique).

Let's approach the question of Schism.

First we need to note that the SSPX is a work of the Church. In other words, it was founded within the Church according to Church law.  It is not some spurious rebellion that didn't like the Second Vatican Council.  Au contraire, the founder of the SSPX voted non-placeat on a number of the documents, but did - as a sign of communion - place his signature on the final documents.  What spurred on the foundation of the SSPX was the crisis that emerged in all its fury immediately after the Second Vatican Council, when a little band of seminarians approached the Archbishop to help them in obtaining a truly priestly formation.

So we know as a fact that the SSPX was founded within the Church and therefore in order to be labelled as schismatic, it needs to perform a schismatic act.

I'm going to assume that Mr. Voris will point to the letter Ecclesia Dei written by Pope St. John Paul II in 1988.  I have discussed and analysed this argument in this article which bears reading as it provides a context for the old argument that Mr. Voris has dredged up from the deep.

In short, there was no schismatic act, and the Pope's merely writing (or more likely someone writing for him) that it is after the fact does not change the reality that the act of consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate is not in and of itself a schismatic act.

In short, it was an act of disobedience in a grave matter, but falls short of a schismatic act.  As Cardinal Lara stated something more is needed - the denial of the Pope's divine right to command.

Now the next proof is not one of opinion but of authority. When faced with this same opinion from other Catholics (ie that the SSPX is in schism) I sent a carefully worded letter to the CDF.  The letter and its reply can be found here.  The answer is that those who adhere to the SSPX are considered 'not in full communion'.

Period - end stop.

So all of Mr. Voris' speculation and opinions run up against and official reply of the CDF.  The most that Mr. Voris can state is that the SSPX is 'not in full communion'.

If he has a letter from the CDf that states that the SSPX is in schism - then let him produce it.

Motivations
A number of people are asking what is behind this apparent obsession with the SSPX.  Some ascribe a financial motivation, some others a midirected fervor to save the souls of those who, because of Pope Francis, will seek refuge in the chapels of the SSPX.

I would like to repeat my own personal opinion.

Mr. Voris holds a belief, I assume that the SSPX is in schism or perhaps the alternative belief that the SSPX response to the crisis of the Church is wrong. 

In either case, the actions of the leaders of the Church are inconsistent with his belief.  I could list the various decisions of the CDF, statements of Cardinals in positions of responsibility of this docket etc but others have already done so elsewhere.

This creates a headache for Mr. Voris and he has three options: change belief, change action or change the perception of the action. Mr. Voris has been working heavily on the changing the perception of the action by repeating opinions that 'the SSPX is in schism but they don't want to jeapardize a reconciliation by saying so ...'. The defense of this perception is so important that any disconfirming views on the Churchmilitant forums are 'moderated' into oblivion.  

 Nice, but they are just opinions.  

That he has recourse to using 'confirmation bias' is also apparent to others who normally abstain from the SSPX / Rome narrative.  

Others have noticed Church Militant's attack

Here's a sampling of some Remnant commentary on CMTV's SSPX-fest:

Remnant: lies-and-falsehood-sspx-under-fire

Remnant: voris-sspx-mass-fulfills-sunday-obligation

Remnant: voris-jumps-shark-hunts-sspx-white-whale-as-church-braces-for-apostasy

LMS Chairman: michael-voris-on-sspx-not-charitable

Blog: charlescarrollsociety.com :the-sspx-is-not-in-schism-sspx-catholic

Regarding ChurchMilitant's silence on the controversial items that the Pope says / does.  I offer the following principle:

Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations” – Melchior Cano O.P., Bishop and Theologian of the Council of Trent. (h/t: Suscipe Domine Forum: HelpThisCatholic)

To this I would add the following from the Summa:

Reply to Objection 2. To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: "Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry [Vulgate: 'Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.' Cf. 2 Timothy 4:5." It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects."(Summa: Whether a man is bound to correct his prelate)

Finally, Rorate has posted something that Mr. Voris should read:

The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope's ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God's Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism. (Rorate: Benedict XVI Pope is not an absolute monarch)

Getting to the root of Voris / CM's belief

So whatever reason, Voris has firmly embraced the old belief that the SSPX is in a state of schism.  He bases this on Ecclesia Dei and Canon Law.  I've already discussed the issues with Ecclesia Dei as a justification for calling the consecrations a 'schismatic act'.  The fact is that it is not a schismatic act, one section of the Code ... sorry but that's life.  Who ever wrote ED for Pope St. John Paul II, was obviously wanting an excuse to add 'schism' to the list.

How about a little canon law before lunch?

Can. 751 ...schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

That are two elements to this canon.

The first is the refusal of submission.  Like many arm-chair lawyers, Mr. Voris launches off with what he 'believes' is the correct connotation of submission - ie obedience.

That, fortunately, is not the case.

Submission is refusing obedience as a matter of principle - denying the Pope's authority to issue commands.

That is not the position held by Archbishop Lefebvre, nor the congregation that he founded (SSPX).

SSPX's Position of Conscience The issue revolves around a number of issues of conscience that many have outside the SSPX also concluded.

First that the New Mass departs significantly (even as promulgated) from the Theology of the Mass. I believe the Bishop's who rejected the prototype Mass stated that it was 'Calvinist Mass'.  
Second, on four points the Second Vatican Council has deviated from the pre-conciliar doctrine of the Church.

On these two issues the SSPX will not compromise.

For example, they will not say that the New Mass (ie the Rite) is good. Even if you strip away all the abuses and look just at the Mass as promulgated, we are still left with a rite that feebly manifests the theology of the Mass.

Concerning the "four points", it is simple to make a comparison between the pre and post conciliar texts and note the difference.
Case in point, how can their be two supreme authorities in the Church?  That is, my friend, a contradiction.

So the SSPX holds to the truths of the Church as understood and explained by the Church prior to the Council.  To deny these previous truths is to admit a rupture, to hold that they evolved leads to modernism.

Simply put, following their consciences, the SSPX cannot obey orders that it understands as damaging to the faith.

So the first article of the canon does not hold.

Now the for the second part, that the SSPX refuses communion with other members of the Church.  I've examined some commentaries on the code and have been unable to determine exactly what they mean.

So let's try to reason through this part.

Does the SSPX refuse to talk to Rome?  Nope.  In fact, I know that that on several occasions they have contacted and met with the local ordinaries.

So what do we have?

The SSPX does not refuse communion with Rome. It would abstain from participating in sinful actions (were they invited?) such as Ecumenical prayer meetings in Assisi etc.

What about their position on the Mass, are they telling people to refuse communion with other Catholics? Nope.  They're saying that if one realizes that the New Mass presents a danger to their faith then they need to abstain from going to Mass.

Refuse communion? Nope.

Safeguard your Faith from the occasion of sin? Yep.

Schismatic? Nope.

Conclusion
ChurchMilitant has missed the boat.

They are attacking the SSPX for some irrational reason and ignoring the damage to souls being perpetrated by the Vicar of Christ.  

Their exposure of the wrongs of the Bishops is likewise in violation of their principle because the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and likewise deserve respectful correction (note: not criticism).

With the advent of a Pope who is decidedly liberal (see annulments moto proprio) and dictatorial, the flaws in their principles have been exposed.

They have painted themselves into a corner.  I only hope the paint dries before they implode.

P^3