Questions concerning SSPX

[gladius_veritatis]

"...for any just reason it is lawful to make such a request."

Note that it does not say, "for just any reason...", but "for any just reason..."

 

There is a big difference.

[Marybonita]

Well, GV, the priesthood and the traditional Mass was and is certainly under full frontal attack. If that wasn't at that time and continues to create a "state of emergency" what would qualify?

 

The emergency is what drives the action, the charge that an ulterior motive on behalf of the Archbishop was the basis of the disobedient act is without foundation.

 

I assume that you must agree that such a state exists or you would not adhere to the sedevacantist error and you would be attending your local parish services.

 

~In JMJ

[gladius_veritatis]

Well, GV, the priesthood and the traditional Mass was and is certainly under full frontal attack. If that wasn't at that time and continues to create a "state of emergency" what would qualify?

If one takes the new rites of ordination and consecration, as well as the NOM, to be valid, then where is the "state of emergency"?  Just work to eradicate the "abuses"...

The emergency is what drives the action, the charge that an ulterior motive on behalf of the Archbishop was the basis of the disobedient act is without foundation.

 

There was no "charge", although I understand why those who think the man was a Saint tend to be sensitive about all discussion of his actions.  I personally believe that much of what he did was courageous and I am grateful that he acted in a time of trouble, but I think it is also reasonable to examine some of the decisions with the benefit of hindsight, pointing out any deficiencies or inconsistencies that are present.  Most take this as a personal attack, although it is not.  May he rest in peace.

 

I assume that you must agree that such a state exists or you would not adhere to the sedevacantist error and you would be attending your local parish services.

 

Ah, but to deduce such things as part of my "sedevacantist error" is perfectly logical and consistent - not so for those who accept the new rites and the NOM as valid (albeit full of "abuses").

 

Btw, I would not adhere to the sedevacantists "error" if I actually thought it was an error. 

[Send_us_PiusXIII]

Just remember, if it wasnt for Archbishop Lefebvre, and his episcopal consecrations there would be no indult.  The Indult is a direct result of the consecrations, period.

 

The Modernists would have just waited for all of the older priests to die out, and our religion's tradition would have been eradicated.

 

[lumengentleman]

The Indult is a direct result of the consecrations, period.

 

That's not completely true.  The consecrations took place in 1988; the Indult was made available in 1984. 

 

However, it is true, I think, that the Indult is the direct result of the SSPX's existence; the Indult was made available because, after polling the bishops of the world, the Holy See discovered the "problem" that the Novus Ordo had not been universally accepted, and that a good many people had opted for the Tridentine Mass instead.  Now, since there was no Indult at that time (obviously, since it was just about to be created), you'd have to ask: where were these people going for the Tridentine Mass?  I don't know how wide-spread Independent priests and Sedevacantist chapels were in 1984, but I do know the SSPX was quite well-known and quite popular ... so it's probably safe to say that the document promulgating the Indult Mass is primarily referring to the "problem" of the SSPX.

[Paul_VI]

 

So far there are two things that prevent me from supporting the SSPX. If any SSPXers would like to try and remove these stumblingblocks, please do so. I don't intend to cause any offense. This is so I can grow in knowledge and understanding.  

 

1. Cnons 1013 and 1382 of the Catholic Code of Canon Law say that the consecration of a bishop requires papal approval. Consecrating bishops without papal approval, and even more so a warning from the pope, was condemned by Pope Pius XII, who described the sacramental activity of bishops who had been consecrated without approval as "gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious."

 

 

 

Indeed, as posted elsewhere, the CPA was the target of Pius XII's modification of the 1917 code. He did this in, as I recall, 1954 and his aim was indeed the threat of schism from Chinese Catholics...not Arb. LeFebvre. One must understand the intentions of the laws. At that time in 1954 who would have thought that the Catholic Church was going to depart from tradition? The LeFebvre incident was not even conceived or thought of.

 

We, however, have the new code of canon law and LeFevre is, by that very same law, held not guilty. Only the pope can change canon law. I am sure the intention of the modernists who drafted the new code, and JP2 who authorized it, was to make room for what liberal bishops might do "in the future" yet they never suspected the case of LeFebvre. Even under the 1917 code LeFebvre is innocent of any charges that could be leveled against him, because there was a grave danger and this was so stated by Paul VI and JP2. In fact, JP2 made an historic announcement when he apologized for the appalling state of affairs in the Catholic Church at that time. (1984 as I recall.)

 

Was there a state of emergency?....two popes said there was...and so did Ratzinger. Last year Cardinal Hoyos (sp) said the same thing. Numerous papers were written about this and...LeFebvre was found innocent. The reason we do not have a public, Roman statement on this fact is because it would place shame on the modernists in Rome today.

 

The consecrations are valid and Rome recognizes them as such. 

 

 

[Paul_VI]

 

The emergency is what drives the action, the charge that an ulterior motive on behalf of the Archbishop was the basis of the disobedient act is without foundation.

 

There was no "charge", although I understand why those who think the man was a Saint tend to be sensitive about all discussion of his actions.  I personally believe that much of what he did was courageous and I am grateful that he acted in a time of trouble, but I think it is also reasonable to examine some of the decisions with the benefit of hindsight, pointing out any deficiencies or inconsistencies that are present.  Most take this as a personal attack, although it is not.  May he rest in peace.

 

I assume that you must agree that such a state exists or you would not adhere to the sedevacantist error and you would be attending your local parish services.

 

Ah, but to deduce such things as part of my "sedevacantist error" is perfectly logical and consistent - not so for those who accept the new rites and the NOM as valid (albeit full of "abuses").

 

Btw, I would not adhere to the sedevacantists "error" if I actually thought it was an error. 

The correct reaction to the crisis in the Church taken by LeFebvre was the first step in the traditional movement for the preservation of the Mass and traditions. At this time we see the radical left and the radical right splitting further from the core of our faith...held constant by the SSPX.

 

The errors made by the two are, as you know, based on the moral virtue of obedience. In our case, obedience to the faith and what was laid down in our traditions.

 

The modernists practice no obedience to the faith while the sedevacant doctrine practices strict obedience.

 

The problem is this:

 

Other that the theological virtues, all other virtues, including obedience, are perfectly practiced when the center point is targeted. One can err with too much obedience, and one can err with not enough obedience. This is the difference between the radical left and right...the modernist and the sedevacantist. Both are wrong and at fault.

 

 

[CounterRevolutionary]

  

We, however, have the new code of canon law and LeFevre is, by that very same law, held not guilty. Only the pope can change canon law. I am sure the intention of the modernists who drafted the new code, and JP2 who authorized it, was to make room for what liberal bishops might do "in the future" yet they never suspected the case of LeFebvre. Even under the 1917 code LeFebvre is innocent of any charges that could be leveled against him, because there was a grave danger and this was so stated by Paul VI and JP2. In fact, JP2 made an historic announcement when he apologized for the appalling state of affairs in the Catholic Church at that time. (1984 as I recall.)

 

Was there a state of emergency?....two popes said there was...and so did Ratzinger. Last year Cardinal Hoyos (sp) said the same thing. Numerous papers were written about this and...LeFebvre was found innocent. The reason we do not have a public, Roman statement on this fact is because it would place shame on the modernists in Rome today.

 

The consecrations are valid and Rome recognizes them as such. 

 

 

[/QUOTE]

can you provide some sources? that would make me very comftorable with the SSPX. Especially a quote of any of those men saying the ArchBishop LeFebvre was innocent...

 

 

 

[Marybonita]

can you provide some sources? that would make me very comftorable with the SSPX. Especially a quote of any of those men saying the ArchBishop LeFebvre was innocent...

 

Perhaps you will be provided with those quotes but it will bring more assurance than the average traditional Catholic enjoys. The present crisis forces us to employ discernment. If the state of the church and referrals to Church laws are not sufficient then you may need to put your hand into Christ's side for confirmation. Or perhaps Dives needs to visit you.

 

The evidence is there, few of us have the privilege to be taken to the third Heaven and shown the truth.

 

~In JMJ

[ChantCd]

 

The action of the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre in consecrating the Bishops is allowed under Church Law by the same provision of state of emergency.

It was specifically forbidden by the man Abp Lefebvre took to be Roman Pontiff - Christ's own Vicar - and as he apparently took the new rite of consecration to be valid, there would actually be no reason to assume there was a real "state of emergency" (e.g., that the episcopacy would soon die out, etc).

 

You greatly misunderstand.

He didn't think that the episcopacy would die out -- that's the position of the sedevacantists ("new forms of ordination, etc. aren't valid") Just because you think the SSPX is schismatic, please don't assign them positions they don't hold.

 

He consecrated the four bishops when it became obvious that Rome was merely waiting for him to die -- and then tradition would be without a bishop to ordain good well-formed priests. There was/is a crisis in the priesthood -- which is the heart of the Catholic Faith. The crisis isn't just about Latin vs. English, or beautiful liturgical songs or vestments.

 

The SSPX itself is a priestly society -- it was founded to form good priests, and Rome heartily approved of their work at first -- until they realized that Abp. Lefebvre wasn't going to play the modernist game. The archbishop didn't change at all -- Rome did.

 

The Archbishop was a well respected and faithful Bishop of the Church. He didn't change. I recommend you read his biography, and see how humble, charitable, and patient he was. Most men would have ordained the 4 bishops FAR SOONER than he ever did. He spent years in negotiations with Rome. He held out hope when there was no hope. Again, read his life to see what I mean.

 

You can't find the right path by keeping your nose in books of Canon Law and ancient writings of the Church Fathers. The reason is: The current crisis in the Church has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE, is NOT normal, and there is NOTHING ON THE BOOKS that will solve it simply. It is not simple.

 

You need to read the history of the Church, lives of the Saints, spend much time praying/meditating, etc. and ask God where you should go to attend Mass to preserve your faith during these times.

 

I did all this, and that is why I attend the SSPX.

 

In Christ,

 

Matthew