Does the SSPX not deny this?

[MagisterMusicae]

I, too, am not interested in a debate, but wish to share a few thoughts, if I may.

1. The SSPX position is a very fine line between what would constitute true schism and what would constitute "compromise". Certain actions do not always fall safely on that line. The SSPX is not perfect, infallible or anything near this.
2. I have never concerned myself with the validity of marriage or confession with regard to the SSPX. The Spirit of the Law in regard to the Canons cited in the argument were never intended to deal with the SSPX situation. The argument was never a major issue before Pete Vere made it so following his falling out with the SSPX.
3. If the issue of Confessions and Marriages is of such an immediate and overwhelming problem, why has the Holy See not intervened, clearly warning the faithful of the problem. Over a million people (the SSPX claims at least a million faithful presently) have confessed to an SSPX priest. If all these confessions are certainly invalid, then the new prayer for the Jews hardly compares to the immorality of inaction here.
   
4. The SSPX situation is not normal and does lean toward a schismatic attitude. Anyone who would deny this is foolish. Unfortunately, the situation is this way because the authorities in the Church have made it this way. Whatever faux pas one can attirbute to the SSPX or Archbishop Lefebvre is equally if not more clearly the result of the unwillingness of Pope John Paul and other Church authorities to be as generous the SSPX and the Archbishop as they are and have been to pagans, heretics, real schismatics and Jews.
   
5. Because of the irregular situation, the faithful who support the SSPX must be vigilant to always keep before them the understanding that the situation is irregular. They should always want normalcy as soon as morally possible, and, when morally possible follow the direction of the Church authorities who are their legitimate superiors.
   

For those who were unable to go to Mass today (Wednesday after the Third Sunday of Lent) a read of today's Gospel is prudent and highly applicable.

Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: Why do thy disciples trangress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said: Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death. But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee. And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition. Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. And having called together the multitudes unto him, he said to them: Hear ye and understand. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized? But he answering, said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit. And Peter answering, said to him: Expound to us this parable. But he said: Are you also yet without understanding? Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy? But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man. But to eat with unwashed hands doth not defile a man.

Our Lord clearly says that it is the cleanness of the movements of the heart which are important, not the cleanliness of the hands. Clean Hands + Dirty Heart = Perdition.

The faithful of the SSPX and its priests are, generally, living Catholic lives, receiving the Sacraments, praying (millions of Rosaries for the Pope and others) and furthering the love of Our Lord and Our Lady. Even those who hate the SSPX cannot deny this. I am at a loss then as to why good people are willing to become overly scrupulous regarding a technical point of Canon Law (Human Law) never intended to apply to the situation under consideration.

The Church's mission and highest law is to save souls, not to play Johnnie Cochrane with the Sacraments.

I have always had a great respect for you, Catholicmilkman. If your conscience bothers you enough, then you must do what you must. May I ask, however that you not turn into just another "I'm going to take swipes at the SSPX whenever I can" type. You're insights are always helpful, but if you intend to make your mission in life to attack the SSPX, you're wasting good time that could be spent furthering your spiritual life or doing something else far more productive.

[Jenn]

I was frighten by the fear that my confessions might be invalid and that I would go to hell. That's the reason. McMaster had little to do with it nor anyone else. It was my decision alone to go to only diocesian/approved Tridentine Masses. I do not hate the SSPX nor do I disagree with them for the most part (though on Vatican II) they gave me the Catholic faith.

I can respect that, Catholicmilkman.

I agree with all they do on the practical level but I can no longer believe that Vatican II has any real errors. It's a matter of means and I do not think the means justify the ends. Just think how much different things may have been if the Archbishop had not consecrated the four Bishops. There'd be no accusations of schism. I still pray and hope that it's declared that no excommunications ever happened since they obviously thought they were doing right.

It is not easy trying to understand all of this with so much confusion nowadays. One phrase that I try to keep in mind when my head is about to explode from trying to figure some of these things out is this: "child-like faith". In other words, have faith, pray, and trust in Our Lord. We cannot all be theologians. Some of the greatest Doctors of the Church had trouble understanding some things. If those great Saints had trouble, how can we expect to always have a clear understanding of everything --especially in times like these? We cannot.

I myself attend an ICK chapel, but I have no problem occasionally attending our local SSPX chapel when I can. I do not think they are schismatic, therefore I see no reason not to attend their Masses. However, each person must make their own decisions on this matter. There is nothing wrong with you only wanting to attend diocesan-approved TLM's. Nothing at all.

[HMiS]

You are getting way too reactive, Catholicmilkman. Even if McMaster will be proven right on Dignitatis Humanae in future, and if the Holy See abandons the post-1970 laicist implementation of it and the laicist interpretation of it (like Benedict XVI speaking about Italy as a "healthily laicist state"  - such a treason to the Papal States), even in such a scenario you are not allowed to calumniate your fellow SSPX Roman Catholics as heretics denying a Dogma of the Catholic Faith.

The SSPX does not deny the Power of the Holy Papacy at all. Moreover, it defends it against a false implementation of the dubious Vatican II concept of collegiality (possibly conciliarist heresy in another coat).

It is truly neo-con and neo-trad calumny to call the SSPX by such evil names as heretics and schismatics. Most of the establishment (parish priests, bishops) etc. in the Conciliar church deny one or more or even all dogmas of the Faith, yet they pose as Catholic shepherds, whereas none of the SSPX clergy ever dare to contradict a dogma of the Faith.

If you continue with these calumniating posts, I think the moderators need to intervene.

[Papal_Follower]

This may sound like an odd question but does the Successor of Peter's authority end with his death? This is a question pertaining to Bulls and Encyclicals, does their power die with the author?

[GrumpyTroll]

This may sound like an odd question but does the Successor of Peter's authority end with his death? This is a question pertaining to Bulls and Encyclicals, does their power die with the author?

I understand that it is not so, because each and every Pope acts, so to say, in the person of Saint Peter, and Popes’ bulls and encyclicals bear Saint Peter’s authority.

[austinemarie]

To better state it, each legititmate pope has the same authority as St Peter himself.

[StevusMagnus]

From the First Vatican Council.

Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6

It's ironic that Vatican II gutted #2 by instituting collegiality of bishops. The current Pope is a prisoner in a democratic/ administrative system imposed on him by VCII.

Of course the SSPX agrees with VCI. Their point is that no Church authority, even the Pope, or a Council, can teach a new dogma or contradict Tradition. In the sense that a Pope acts to uphold the deposit of faith, he is of course to be obeyed. In the case where he or a Council should use the authentic magisterium to impose a non-infallible personal opinion or orientation upon the faithful that has no basis in Tradition, this decision must be resisted.

For instance, Popes and Bishops from the New Mass institution of 1969 through the recent  Motu Proprio denied priests the right to say the Tridentine Mass. This decision was contrary to Tradition including a previous Papal Bull, yet it was exercised by the Authentic (but non-infallible) magisterium. JPII in Ecclesia Dei, stated that priests needed the permission of their bishop to say TLM. It was an exercise of the authentic but non-infallible magisterium that was wrong and in conflict with Tradition.

The priests who resisted this decision were persecuted, suspended, and sent to re-education camps. The rest of the priests went along in a false sense of obedience and did not say the Mass of all Time.

In the end the SSPX and Traditional Priests who continued to say TLM without permission were vindicated by Benedict XVI.

I predict in the future the current priests of the SSPX and Abp. Lefebvre will be vindicated. A Pope cannot excommunicate Tradition or declare it schismatic. The most the Abp. will be found guilty of is disobedience, but it will be found to have been justified in time.

[SemperFidelis]

It's ironic that Vatican II gutted #2 by instituting collegiality of bishops. The current Pope is a prisoner in a democratic/ administrative system imposed on him by VCII.

Of course the SSPX agrees with VCI. Their point is that no Church authority, even the Pope, or a Council, can teach a new dogma or contradict Tradition. In the sense that a Pope acts to uphold the deposit of faith, he is of course to be obeyed. In the case where he or a Council should use the authentic magisterium to impose a non-infallible personal opinion or orientation upon the faithful that has no basis in Tradition, this decision must be resisted.

For instance, Popes and Bishops from the New Mass institution of 1969 through the recent  Motu Proprio denied priests the right to say the Tridentine Mass. This decision was contrary to Tradition including a previous Papal Bull, yet it was exercised by the Authentic (but non-infallible) magisterium. JPII in Ecclesia Dei, stated that priests needed the permission of their bishop to say TLM. It was an exercise of the authentic but non-infallible magisterium that was wrong and in conflict with Tradition.

The priests who resisted this decision were persecuted, suspended, and sent to re-education camps. The rest of the priests went along in a false sense of obedience and did not say the Mass of all Time.

In the end the SSPX and Traditional Priests who continued to say TLM without permission were vindicated by Benedict XVI.

I predict in the future the current priests of the SSPX and Abp. Lefebvre will be vindicated. A Pope cannot excommunicate Tradition or declare it schismatic. The most the Abp. will be found guilty of is disobedience, but it will be found to have been justified in time.

Great post StevusMagnus!  Thanks.

[Arun]

I think, for anybody who doubts specifically Archbishop LeFebvre's loyalty to Rome, and his stance, could well benefit from reading the articles published in the Angelus issue following his death, commemorating him.
Having heard His Lordship Bishop Fellay speak live in conference just last year, clarified a great deal in regards to the SSPX's stance on things. I believe, with the way the Modernists are steering, it is only a matter of time until Mother Church looks to the Society to heal the ravages of Vatican II.
In regards to the council itself, there is documented evidence showing a Masonic plot as early as the 1800s, which planned to infiltrate the Church. There is documented evidence of false seminaries set up in Communist Russia. Is it so hard to believe that there is at least the slightest possibilty of infiltration and corruption on some level? Archbishop LeFebvre was there. He seemed to think so. As did Bishop DiCastro-Meyer and many others.
In many places the SSPX are the only source of Tradition - I have even heard reports from somebody who attended an FSSP Seminary, that the prayers at the foot of the Altar are optional, and Communion in the hand is permissible!
As much as people would doubt and attempt to cast a shadow on the Archbishop's loyalty to Rome, this was the man who said he had noo need of pilgrimage to the Holy Land; for him, Rome was the Holy Land.

[Catholicmilkman]

It's ironic that Vatican II gutted #2 by instituting collegiality of bishops. The current Pope is a prisoner in a democratic/ administrative system imposed on him by VCII.

References, please! Show me how "friendliness" of bishops makes the Pope a prisoner. Please, you cannot show me how Vatican II did such a thing because it didn't, it only restated the fact that the Pope is a bishop like all the rest (it didn't deny that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peter's Successor with Universal Jurisdiction in the Church and Infallibility), it was talking about the nature of Orders not the nature of Authority or Jurisdiction nor of Petrine Office.

Of course the SSPX agrees with VCI. Their point is that no Church authority, even the Pope, or a Council, can teach a new dogma or contradict Tradition. In the sense that a Pope acts to uphold the deposit of faith, he is of course to be obeyed.

So they should follow with the right conclusion, that Vatican II taught no new dogma nor contradicted past teaching at all.

In the case where he or a Council should use the authentic magisterium to impose a non-infallible personal opinion or orientation upon the faithful that has no basis in Tradition, this decision must be resisted.

This is a false conclusion: if a pope or council can't contradict the faith in their official teaching then it ought to be assumed first that they did not in fact contradict it.
This also comes from a false premise that popes and councils are not infallible by the ordinary magisterium in the first place. But they are, so (as St. Augustine taught) the error ought first be thought in our own reasoning, that is, our false interpretation of what the council actually meant. Do you not yet understand that the authentic magisterium is always infallible and never a personal opinion? Or is the Pope not infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals? Is the magisterium not the teaching of authority of the Church?

For instance, Popes and Bishops from the New Mass institution of 1969 through the recent  Motu Proprio denied priests the right to say the Tridentine Mass. This decision was contrary to Tradition including a previous Papal Bull, yet it was exercised by the Authentic (but non-infallible) magisterium. JPII in Ecclesia Dei, stated that priests needed the permission of their bishop to say TLM. It was an exercise of the authentic but non-infallible magisterium that was wrong and in conflict with Tradition.

First John Paul II said that it was the right of every Catholic to attend Mass according to the Tridentine Missal ("rightful aspirations"). Second, every priest does need the permission of their bishop to say Mass, any Mass, for priests can only say Mass licitly with the faculties to do so. A priest cannot just enter another diocese and offer Mass, they need the faculties and permission (Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction) to do so from the Ordinary (bishop) of that diocese.

The priests who resisted this decision were persecuted, suspended, and sent to re-education camps. The rest of the priests went along in a false sense of obedience and did not say the Mass of all Time.

The crimes and sins against those priests are horrible but nonetheless it was not the official teaching of the Church but the personal sins of bishops and other priests and such, even of disobedience to the pope.

In the end the SSPX and Traditional Priests who continued to say TLM without permission were vindicated by Benedict XVI.

When was this? You're to have to show me that document. There's a priest I know who needs to see that right away. The fact is Pope Benedict XVI has done no such thing nor could he because he'd deny the very nature of the Church's hierarchical structure of jurisdiction. Priests cannot say Mass without the faculties to do so, it's that simple. H.H. was also very clear that the problem with the SSPX is something much deeper (ie. they see heresy and error where there is none and following that belief that they deny the authority of the Church-at least concerning the council). Please read his letter to the bishops that accompanied SP.

I predict in the future the current priests of the SSPX and Abp. Lefebvre will be vindicated. A Pope cannot excommunicate Tradition or declare it schismatic.

I hope so but I don't think so if they continue to refuse to accept that Vatican II is not the problem but that it is only persons in positions of authority in the church. The Archbishop was even willing to accept that since he clearly said that he would accept the council in the light of Tradition.

...the Abp. will be found....to have been justified in time.

Absolutely! But not for the reason you think. Not because Vatican II has error (because it doesn't) but because the Church really was and is in a crisis caused by Modernism and Liberalism.