Traditionalist Catholic priestly society (SSPX) well acquainted with new pope

Kansas City Star ^ | May 12, 2005 | STEVE BRISENDINE

[NYer]

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - For all its disagreements with the Roman Catholic Church - and the list is long - the Society of St. Pius X has always maintained its loyalty to the papacy.

Now, with the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the ultra-traditionalist priestly society - considered a breakaway group by the Vatican - sees "a gleam of hope" that the changes wrought by the Second Vatican Council will be undone.

One Catholic scholar doubts that will happen, though - especially given that the last time the society dealt with then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was trying to persuade its founder to accept those changes.

"To try to reconcile the traditionalists with the church would be an implicit rejection of Vatican II, and that's not going to happen," said William Dinges, associate professor of theology and religious studies at the Catholic University of America.

The Society of St. Pius X, founded in Switzerland in 1969 and first recognized by the Vatican in 1970, maintains its American headquarters in Kansas City. The movement, named for the pope who wrote against modernism in a 1907 encyclical, claims between 1 million and 2 million lay adherents worldwide, 20,000 to 30,000 in the United States.

The society's Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, welcomed Ratzinger's election in a statement issued April 19 from the society's international headquarters in Menzingen, Switzerland.

The statement, which appears on the society's American and international Web sites, said Fellay "sees there a gleam of hope that we may find a way out of the profound crisis which is shaking the Catholic Church, of which some aspects have been spoken of by the former Head for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."

A subsequent statement reiterates the order's loyalty to Benedict.

A lay secretary in Kansas City, who asked that his name not be used because of the society's rules, said the society would have no comment beyond anything published on the society's Web sites and in its newsletters.

"He knows who we are, and we know who he is," the secretary said of Benedict.

The Society of St. Pius X's profession of loyalty to the pope sets it apart from most other traditionalist movements, who either consider the position vacant or have elected "popes" of their own.

A former society seminarian, David Allan Bawden, has claimed to be "Pope Michael I" since 1990 and maintains his "Vatican in Exile" in Delia, Kan., about 90 minutes west of Kansas City.

Still, even a cursory review of the Society of Saint Pius X's positions shows how deep the divide runs between it and the post-Vatican II church.

The order's late founder, French-born Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, publicly rejected the church's new Mass, which replaced the 16th-century Tridentine Mass in 1971.

The new Mass may be celebrated in any language, while the Tridentine rite is celebrated only in Latin.

There are other differences: In the Tridentine Mass, the priest faces the altar - away from worshippers - and communion is given only in the mouth, never in the hand. There are no lay readers or communion servers.

The Society of St. Pius also opposes the Vatican's efforts to reach out to Orthodox and Protestant Christians and other religions. One statement on its Web site defends the Inquisition, while another expresses support for capital punishment.

The Vatican banned the Tridentine rite from 1971 to 1984, although Lefebre's followers and other traditionalist groups continued to use it. In 1984, Pope John Paul II said the Tridentine rite could be used in special circumstances.

The Society of St. Pius X dismissed the Vatican's move as a ploy to undermine traditionalists. Still, more than three dozen of the society's priests and seminarians did leave in 1988 to reconcile with the Vatican and form the Fraternity of St. Peter, which emphasizes the Tridentine Mass.

Lefebvre was suspended by Pope Paul VI in 1976, along with his newly ordained priests, and excommunicated in 1988 after consecrating four bishops - also excommunicated, along with a Catholic bishop who supported Lefebvre - against Pope John Paul II's orders.

Several months earlier, the archbishop and Ratzinger signed a protocol that made reconciliation with the Vatican seem imminent, but Lefebvre rejected the accord over a clause that gave Vatican representatives the majority on a commission to settle differences in interpretation of Vatican II documents.

He and his followers' excommunication is considered the church's first major schism since the "Old Catholics" broke from the Vatican after its proclamation of the doctrine of papal infallibility in 1870. The society denies a schism exists, however, saying Lefebvre's disobedience was necessary to deal with a crisis in the church and did not constitute an outright rejection of the pope's authority.

The Society of St. Pius X also contends that as a cardinal, Benedict agreed in principle in 1988 that the order had the right to ordain priests and bishops for service to the larger church.

However, in a 1986 letter, Ratzinger insisted that Lefebvre accept the reforms of Vatican II, "the texts of which are magisterial and enjoy the highest doctrinal authority."

And there, Dinges said, lies the stumbling block for traditionalists.

"The society is intransigent on the liturgy issue and the (Vatican) council issue," he said. "Those are two - in my mind - insurmountable issues to any long-term reconciliation."

ON THE NET

U.S. site: http://www.sspx.org

International site: http://www.fsspx.org

Society's international news site: http://www.dici.org

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "SSPX has done so, or they would not have been declared schismatic. Clergy-members of SSPX are schismatic. SOME of the laity who become 'attached' to SSPX's position are also schismatic."

The core fault in your thinking is your statement is meaningless per the current attitudes in the Church. It is only meaningful if you are correct in saying they are schismatic (you are incorrect but for the sake of making a point...) and you reject your Pope and the one who just passed. In other words you have to get just as disobedient as the nearest Bishop who refuses to allow the Indult.

Allow me to elaborate. OUR late Pope have said these other religions are just another path to God. Be you a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Pagan witchdoctor you are fine in your relationship with God. The Catholic is just the best of many paths to Holiness. I am sure you have seen quotes along these lines, I am sure you can write them yourself. Needless to say other Christian religions are okay as well. In other words your charge of schism is without significance, or you are rejecting the "teachings" of your superior in the Faith. You simply must pick one there is no half of one and half of the other. To try is just another example of picking how one feels without a logical or rational connection between the two desperate notions.

Let us presume you took the position well it is okay to be Anglican (a schism from the 16th century) because the people who sinned in their schisim have long since died. Those raised in the Anglican faith are okay in God's eyes. If it was to be your position I would be able to see a line of logic but even so it has consequences, are you prepared for them.

First off what does that say about the lapsed Catholic who went Episcopalian when he married the Baptist girl. Is he a schismatic and is there consequences for him? What about the Episcopalian who converted to Catholic via SSPX? I have often asked how it is I became Catholic and suddenly got called schismatic by NO Catholics? Perhaps you will be the first to really try to answer these kinds of question. Because so far...I get nothing. These are not mean spirited questions they are very reasonable but invariably they provoke more bilge and bile than real thought and truth.

[ninenot]

Let me attempt to answer some of your responses.

First of all, it is absolutely true that clergy-members of SSPX are in schism. JPII said so, in writing, he was the chief judge, etc., etc.--they ARE in schism.

SOME laypeople, who are "attached" to SSPX, are also in schism. I won't presume to judge--but judging by their postings, there may well be some schismatic layfolk/SSPX on FR threads.

One who leaves the Faith is apostate, not schismatic. Go from RC to Lut'ran--you're an apostate. Different than schismatic. If you don't have one, get one of Hardon's "Catholic Dictionary"--it's very useful.

While the Pope may have said something to the effect that 'other religions are another path to God,' he certainly did not "baptize" those other religions. Given that, we must also recall that only a rejection of the Truth is significant here--one who is NOT presented with the truth of Catholicism could hardly reject it. Some argue that it is the business of all to seek the true Faith above all other things--which strikes me as unrealistic--but certainly, if one has not HEARD of the Faith, one cannot reject it.

The disobedience of Bishops is not an excuse for disobedience on the part of laypeople. Were it only so!!! The 6th Commandment would be voided...and probably the 7th. Ah, well.

I suggest that you procure the precise quotations from JPII which you dispute (in ALL the context) and point out specifics before you determine that the Pope was a syncretist.

[Gerard.P]

"First of all, it is absolutely true that clergy-members of SSPX are in schism. JPII said so, in writing, he was the chief judge, etc., etc.--they ARE in schism."

How do you come to that conclusion? Let's re-write that sentence and see how it looks:

First of all, it is absolutely true that clergy-members of SSPX are all vegetarians. JPII said so, in writing, he was the chief judge, etc., etc.--they ARE vegetarians.

First of all, it is absolutely true that clergy-members of SSPX are all four feet two inches tall with purple tusks. JPII said so, in writing, he was the chief judge, etc., etc.--they ARE four feet two inches tall with purple tusks.

As you can see, facts do not bend to the judgement of the Pontiff. In order to be correct, he must bend to them. And he has no charism to protect him from being wrong in this matter.

The second point is Ecclesia Dei is worded that JPII did not actually say they were in schism. He said there was an "implied" schism. What JPII was actually saying was that he "inferred" a schism. So, there are multiple problems with the document itself when it comes to JPII being clear. (shocking!!)

The point of JPII being the chief judge is actually irrelevant. All that means is that no one can reverse his error except for another Pope.

[ninenot]

OK. Another sede speaks.

BuhBye!

[Gerard.P]

Ah! I see. You don't want to answer a question based on reason and then you want to lie by calling me a sede?

Have you considered what the Catholic Church actually teaches? Ever? Or do you just make it up as you go along?

[MegaSilver]

The Latin Mass, for starters. They do not recognize the post Vatican Council II liturgy. Like it or not, it's here to stay.

I do know some people believe that only the Tridentine Rite is valid (not even the Byzantine or Armenian Rites). That is more provincial ignorance than anything else.

I don't buy the arguments that the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid (all the right stuff for the consecration is present), but I never know what I'm going to get with it. There are really good, reverent priests--and then there are electric guitar Masses and processional sambas. You're probably right that it's here to stay. I just wish they'd come out with a version of it that's less easy to desecrate.

[MegaSilver]

Protestantism is denial of Catholic dogma (articles of Faith).

Well, by that definition, Eastern Orthodoxy would be a form of Protestantism. I think it'd be best to confine the use of that term to those bodies without valid orders and sacraments.

[MegaSilver]

SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

Read this part over a few times. If defending the traditional catechism and the Old Mass "therefore" amounts to an attack on the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, and the New Catechism, than is it not reasonable to ask why? Or does the Vatican mean to say that Novus Ordo, Vatican II, and the New Catechism contradict the traditional catechism and the Old Mass? If that is the case, then is an adherent to the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, and the New Catechism claim undermining the unchangable Catholic faith?

(By the way, two things. First, sorry for jumping back on ship so late in the game. I rarely have time to check this thing anymore, sadly. Second, I mean no ill will to anyone. Just a friendly discussion--and I welcome a good challenge any day. Helps me grow in my own faith.)

[Mark in the Old South]

First off let me thank you for at least trying to answer my questions. Most find them too hard and then turn the debate personal or completely side step the issue. That never goes very far in convincing me of anything let alone something so important.

Let us go over your points one by one.

“First of all, it is absolutely true that clergy-members of SSPX are in schism. JPII said so, in writing, he was the chief judge, etc., etc.--they ARE in schism.”

JPII said so, so it is so. Does that pretty much sum it up? I think this is a misunderstanding of the power and role of the Pontiff and even less of the nature of infallibility which I gather is the bases for your viewpoint. Do you know that many Catholics were shocked by Vatican I when the doctrine of Infallibility was promulgated? Many had no idea there was any limits on the Pope’s infallibility but the doctrine does set limits and conditions and every utterance and even his writings have to meet these conditions to be covered. While Vatican I defined these limits the old notion does not die easily even though the Doctrine obligates the Catholic to believe it.

As far as I know there is not one encyclical or declaration by JPII that the Vatican claims are infallible. Not one that I know of. He never evoked infallibility during his papacy and he had the authority. Neither you nor I have that right when he did not claim it himself. This includes the statements you use to justify your opinion. You are free to hold it and in of itself are no mortal sin but could be if you are imprudent in promoting a calamity against the innocent.

“SOME laypeople, who are "attached" to SSPX, are also in schism. I won't presume to judge--but judging by their postings, there may well be some schismatic layfolk/SSPX on FR threads.”

I will not address the status of other posters. I don’t know your intention but it could be viewed as a cheep shot. If you want to talk to the people you suspect I suggest you talk to them about their status and leave me out of it. Thank you.

Now that I have that out of the way let me point out in a manner of speaking the SSPX would agree with you on this issue. It may surprise you to learn that the SSPX has said if you believe the SSPX is in schism (and a sin to attend) then to attend one of their Masses puts you in a state of mortal sin. That is not to say they agree with the conclusion on schism. Therefore it is possible for your statement to be true about some people and yet still be wrong about schism and SSPX. Still I must say I suspect your statement has an agenda that is not admirable.

“One who leaves the Faith is apostate, not schismatic. Go from RC to Lut'ran--you're an apostate. Different than schismatic. If you don't have one, get one of Hardon's "Catholic Dictionary"--it's very useful.”

It is possible to be both an apostate and a schismatic.

“While the Pope may have said something to the effect that 'other religions are another path to God,' he certainly did not "baptize" those other religions. Given that, we must also recall that only a rejection of the Truth is significant here--one who is NOT presented with the truth of Catholicism could hardly reject it. Some argue that it is the business of all to seek the true Faith above all other things--which strikes me as unrealistic--but certainly, if one has not HEARD of the Faith, one cannot reject it.”

No he did not baptize them; it is current thought to assume they need no Baptism. The Evangelization of the apostate and the schismatic and the pagan is over, except it seems for SSPX. Your point really does not address the problems with Assisi I and II. I am not entirely sure just what you mean here but I gather you are saying a person presented with Catholic Truth will see the light and convert. They can not reject it. If this is an adequate summation than I have to say you could not be more wrong. The Truth was spoken to real people by the Real Christ in Real Time and they killed him. It is pretty clear some had no clue what Truth was such as Pilate’s “What is Truth?” Consider the dramatic miracles of Moses, the fear they had at Mount Sinai and still the Hebrews worshiped the Golden Calf, someone was rejecting something there and it wasn’t what should have been rejected. Clearly it is possible to reject the Truth and 2000 years of Church history proves my assertion. We have way more martyrs than we need if you were correct. I was tempted to ignore this line of yours but it was just not possible to let it go, I wonder if it tells me more about your thinking in these matters than you intended. If you can assert this it is no wonder you can believe something false about SSPX. This is an error in thinking that is far more serious than thinking I or SSPX is schismatic.

5. “The disobedience of Bishops is not an excuse for disobedience on the part of laypeople. Were it only so!!! The 6th Commandment would be voided...and probably the 7th. Ah, well”

I agree two sins do not make a sacrament. Keep in mind there is a movement in the Church to reduce the status of the Pope to just the most distinguished of Bishops. These people within the Church are the ones undermining the foundation that your views of SSPX are based. It is an irony that the most ardent defenders of the Papacy as distinct from other Bishops is the very group you find schismatic. I will let time convince you of this.

“I suggest that you procure the precise quotations from JPII which you dispute (in ALL the context) and point out specifics before you determine that the Pope was a syncretist”

Be my guess, point out my error. For simplicity sake let us stick with Assisi I and II. You tell me what I should know about these events and how it is not a failure of the men present to defend Church Doctrine, including John Paul the Great.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "OK. Another sede speaks"

I'm not a sede, nor do I recommend it but I know when a retort completely fails to address the point raised. One may get the impression you can not address it. Educate us. For the love of God educate us if you believe Gerald P's points to be wrong.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "I do know some people believe that only the Tridentine Rite is valid (not even the Byzantine or Armenian Rites). That is more provincial ignorance than anything else."

I do not doubt you are tell the truth, the back pew theologians do a lot of damage and often know less than they realize. Some go so far that their rule making ventures into heresy. It reminds me of the rule when the Hebrews were wandering in the desert and had to pass thru hostile territory they were told to venture neither to the right nor to the left. Good advice don't you think?

Most I know are bemoaning the changes that is beginning to creep in those rites that you mention. I am glad most I run into do not fit your description. But I know they are about.

[ninenot]

I think this is a misunderstanding of the power and role of the Pontiff and even less of the nature of infallibility which I gather is the bases for your viewpoint

It has nothing whatsoever to do with infallibility. It has to do with Canon Law. You may argue that JPII is wrong--but canonically, there's no argument whatsoever. If you don't wish to accept the authority of JPII in this matter, you have a problem.

It may surprise you to learn that the SSPX has said if you believe the SSPX is in schism (and a sin to attend) then to attend one of their Masses puts you in a state of mortal sin.

Well, that's incorrect.

It is never a mortal sin to attend a Mass (unless it is some sort of Black Mass...not part of this discussion.)

It is an OCCASION of sin--but not a sin, per se.

Under ordinary circumstances, a Catholic who attends SSPX Masses is even allowed to make a small contribution to defray pro-rata expense.

The Evangelization of the apostate and the schismatic and the pagan is over

Really. Then you can explain the presence of a missionary nun at our High Mass this AM, right? (Hint: she was not selling Girl Scout cookies.)

Are you going to cite SPECIFICS of JPII's "erroneous teaching" or are you going to wave pictures of Assisi around the room?

It is possible to be both an apostate and a schismatic.

I'll bite. How?

[MegaSilver]

Most I know are bemoaning the changes that is beginning to creep in those rites that you mention. I am glad most I run into do not fit your description. But I know they are about.

That's true; a lot of ethnic Eastern parishes do seem to be buckling under the cruel hand of the Novus Ordo establishment. Really a shame. I've never been to one, but from what I've heard a Byzantine liturgy makes even a Tridentine Mass seem kind of plain.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "It has nothing whatsoever to do with infallibility. It has to do with Canon Law. You may argue that JPII is wrong--but canonically, there's no argument whatsoever. If you don't wish to accept the authority of JPII in this matter, you have a problem."

Thank you that clears that up. You did not mention this in your previous post so I had to take a guess where you were coming from. They (SSPX) violated canon law you say. However canon law also allows for this sort of consecration of Bishops if the Bishop perceives an emergency or danger to the Faith. He can even be in error in his judgment but if he honestly saw things in that light at the time it is permitted.

Since you mention canon law it is only fair to look at the sentence of excommunication in light of canon law. Did this passing of judgment follow canon law? Pick any version of canon law you like, the old one or the new. There is a process to a sentence of excommunication and not one stage of that process was honored beyond the accusation and the sentence which was unified in one concise letter. Hardly a shining moment of Church traditions but it does feed into the worst stereotypes of the Inquisition.

Re: "Really. Then you can explain the presence of a missionary nun at our High Mass this AM, right?"

Good to hear but officially they are on record about not converting Russia to the Catholic Faith nor the numerous Protestants. Besides you didn't give details. Who is she working with and is she actively seeking converts or is a soup kitchen type thing hoping a few convert on the sly. There has been a real duplicitous way of dealing with this sort of thing. It is not being done with real honesty IMHO. They tell governments "Convert people who me?"; While they leave the real work to the laity, with a wink and a nod about the best encouragement they can muster. I doubt you can claim it is as it once was.

Re: "It is never a mortal sin to attend a Mass (unless it is some sort of Black Mass...not part of this discussion.) It is an OCCASION of sin--but not a sin, per se. Under ordinary circumstances, a Catholic who attends SSPX Masses is even allowed to make a small contribution to defray pro-rata expense."

Well that is good to hear so you are free to attend, would you like me to send you a location of the nearest SSPX Chapel? :-) Or at least an address where you can send a check?

You read more into my statement then was there. The SSPX statement was addressing the concerns of people who BELIEVED it to be a sin. The error of that I am glad to see you agree with. Your rebuttal that is an occasion of sin is better directed at those who hold an erroneous belief but I am not sure that is that much of an improvement but it is heading in the right direction.

Re: My: "It is possible to be both an apostate and a schismatic." Your: " I'll bite. How?"

Excuse I meant to say it is possible to be in apostasy and schism. Pardon Moi.

One final note I see you did not address my point about a person exposed to the Truth is able to reject it. Since you did not refute my points on the matter am I to assume you will get back to me, or do you wish me to drop it?

[Petronski]

That's got to be one of the most idiotic posts I've ever seen on Free Republic.

[Gerard.P]

Why do you state that?

[ninenot]

Since you mention canon law it is only fair to look at the sentence of excommunication in light of canon law. Did this passing of judgment follow canon law?

The Pope is the final Judge on all Canon Law arguments.

He has the authority, and the FINAL authority, to declare someone(s) to be in schism, or excommunicated. Arguments to the contrary are arguments which deny the "bind/loose" charge Christ gave to the Apostles and the supremacy of Peter.

It is possible that some judgments of the Pope are erroneous--but that will be resolved only at the 'victim's' Particular Judgment. Not MY paygrade, not YOURS, and certainly not LeFebvre's.

I know exactly where the local SSPX is located. I don't go there--thus I have no obligation whatsoever to defray their expenses.

As to missionaries--IIRC, before the Sermon on the Mount was delivered, JC FED the crowd. If you don't like the way HE did it, take it up with Him. I don't have the effrontery to question the methods of missionaries who appear at our parish to solicit donations.

Enlighten me: how can one be BOTH in apostacy and schism? (Hint: one cannot. It's either/or.)

No one exposed to the Truth may reject it out-of-hand; one is expected to continue investigation until one finds satisfaction.

Since we know that there are several OT figures who are in Heaven (Abraham, Isaac, Moses---perhaps more), you would deal with that apparent contradiction exactly how?

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "The Pope is the final Judge on all Canon Law arguments. He has the authority, and the FINAL authority, to declare someone(s) to be in schism, or excommunicated. Arguments to the contrary are arguments which deny the "bind/loose" charge Christ gave to the Apostles and the supremacy of Peter."

This sounds like a defense of the process used in this case. Here is a Pope that claims SSPX is excommunicated yet clear heretics continue to teach in Catholic Universities and this is just to you? And the justice of the matter is just what is at issue.

Remember your views have consequences. Based on your line of reasoning; if (not that this is likely but if) the Pope sent you a letter saying you are excommunicated right this moment it is your position that you are in fact excommunicated from the Holy Trinity despite the fact you have done no wrong other than he said so. Remember it is possible for a Pope to commit a mortal sin and suffer eternal damnation. There have been excommunications of bonified saints who died while the sentence was still on their head. Are you suggesting those saints are burning in hell as we speak or are you suggesting those saint were in hell up until the excommunication was lifted. For information purposes there is a man (Savonarola) who was charged with heresy, excommunicated and burned at the stake who is even now being considered for sainthood.

Re: "It is possible that some judgments of the Pope are erroneous--but that will be resolved only at the 'victim's' Particular Judgment. Not MY paygrade, not YOURS, and certainly not LeFebvre's."

Clever ploy to avoid answering follow up questions but you started this and ducking the question is not going to work now. If you felt this was "out of your paygrade" you would have been wiser to shut your mouth entirely since you felt unqualified to explain the rational of your claim. Since you did not, you have an obligation to state, you do not know and acknowledge there may be aspects of Heaven's judgment in this matter that does not bode well for any or all (you don't have to pick a side) in this case. Alas that is not what you did, you went for the party line and now you don't want to back it up. The only other reasonable position I can think of is to express regret for even mentioning it.

Re: "No one exposed to the Truth may reject it out-of-hand; one is expected to continue investigation until one finds satisfaction."

Now this is better, but it is not the wording you used. The above implies a voluntary acceptance of Truth while your original statement was a command. I will admit there is consequences to refusal in the next life and possibly this one as well for refusal but no unavoidable refusal which you implied in your first statement.

Re: "Since we know that there are several OT figures who are in Heaven (Abraham, Isaac, Moses---perhaps more), you would deal with that apparent contradiction exactly how?"

I do not follow you. What is your point here? I can not see how the above statement relates. Your not going off topic on me are you?

[Mark in the Old South]

He is making a point using the ridiculous to illustrate it. If you do not like that style fine but the rest of the post is without such rhetorical style. What is the matter can't you respond to it with logic and reason using a style you prefer? Putting it down is not usually a position of strength.

[ninenot]

Go find all the LeFebvre threads.

He's an ex-comm. You don't have to believe it. But don't tell me you are a Traditional Catholic while you raise your objections to the Pope's decisions.

Bye.