Replies

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered

From the text:"The primary charge is that the SSPX contradicts or seriously distorts the Word of God as interpreted by the Magisterium..."

Interesting. I've never been a member of any traditionalist organizations, but I can say this - there are NUMEROUS "Catholic" institutions in this country where the clergy distort or contradict the Word of God. As far as I know, many of these have never been subject to penalties of any kind. The Catholic colleges, universities, and seminaries where such distortions and contradictions exist constitute a much larger menace to "the Word of God" than the rather small sect of the SSPX. And these do so while paying apparent lip service to "the Spirit of Vatican II." The U.S. bishops as a group really ought to have uniform policies for such matters.

One might argue that the network of liberal Catholic and Jesuit colleges and universities in the U.S. pose a greater menace in terms of distorting and contradicting "the Word of God." Maybe the bishops should look into this when they are finished with the current legal paperwork on sodomy abuse cases by Vatican II clergy.

Good article. Some of the criticisms of SSPX could also be applied to the Church. One example is that Scripture has it that women are not to dress like men and are to have their heads covered. The Magisterium has allowed a complete contradiction of Scripture in today's church. As servant given proper authority as regards Scripture this causes some concern. I am aware that this is not the most pressing problem in the Church, so please do not miss the point; when the Magisterium is acting Contra Scripura who you gonna call? I am still in the Roman Catholic Church but I do sympathise with the SSPX. I believe BB is a good bishop but I find his equating the SSPX with a dozen liberal dissenting groups disingenuous. The problem with the Church is not that we've been too traditional. I am also uncomfortable with his dismissal with the SSPX: "We've moved on." This attitude is a signal to future Traditionalists who will "move on" away from Vatican II and the AmChurch.

This long screed is intellectually muddled. It charges the SSPX is trying to have it both ways by claiming to be traditionally Catholic while supporting disobedience to the Pope.

This is an easily discredited claim. After all, the Pope only represents the Church when he is in harmony with its tradition. If he departs from Catholicism, he no longer can claim to be owed obedience and it would be quite proper to disobey him, especially if he is doing demonstrable harm to the Church and its deposit of faith. This can be proven in a hundred different ways.

I suspect much of the confusion about SSPX derives from the latae sententiae excommunication pronouncement coming out of the Vatican. The word was gleefully spread about by the enemies of Catholic Tradition. But such an excommunication would have been valid automatically only if the subject charged with schism actually intended to perpetrate a schismatic act.

It is well known that such a break was never intended by Archbishop Lefebvre who never wished in any way to set up a parallel religion with a new body of doctrine, but merely wished to retain the beliefs and practices Catholics had believed and practiced for twenty centuries. Nor did his newly consecrated bishops usurp any other bishop's jurisdiction--such as the Chinese do routinely. The charge was therefore false.

It is true Archb. Lefebvre and his newly ordained bishops were disobedient--but disobedience is not schism any more than a disobedient child thereby denies his family. The charge on the surface is ridiculous.

It is true that in a letter JnPII affirmed an automatic excommunication had been incurred and declared Lefebvre guilty of schism--but that does not make the declaration correct. The problem is the letter contradicts the Pope's own Canon Law which expressly permitted a subject to disobey a superior's command in a time of emergency.

Nor is it necessary, according to Canon Law, for the subject to have been right about such a State of Necessity, as it is called. He need only have believed in good conscience that such a state existed in the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre availed himself of this canon, sincerely believing the Church to be in state of crisis, and so disobeyed in good conscience. That he was, in fact, right about this has been proven over the years. It was the Pope who had been wrong--as he has been about much else in his conducting of Church affairs.