SSPX to receive an apostolic administration?

"Reuters and AFP (France Presse)…

"Paris, January 13, 2006 (Apic). The Superior-General of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X has wished to minimise the oppositions between the latter and the Vatican. Bishop Bernard Fellay has expressed the certainty that the conclusion of the conflict begun in 1988 between John Paul II and Archbishop Lefèbvre will be reached under the reign of the new pope.

Question: Where is your dialogue with Rome after August 29, date of your meeting with Benedict XVI?

Bernard Fellay: It continues slowly. In fact, it takes time to overcome the reciprocal mistrust. But I am convinced, for my part, that we will reach a conclusion. We have had a long discussion, the most fruitful of all of them, and have discussed the deep issues. Rome wishes to settle the problem quickly and the papal audience, for which we had asked last May, was rapidly granted to us. The Magisterium privileges a pragmatic approach. We are slowing things down because we do not wish a superficial solution. The pope has charged Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos to dialogue with us. The latter has explained, in an interview to an Italian television, that we are not heretics, but that we must, both sides, reach for a more perfect communion. It is a new language.

Q.: Differently from you, Benedict XVI defended, on his speech to the Curia of December 22, 2005, that the Church has been constant in this question… [of religious liberty]

B.F.: Not at all, for he introduces a distinction between a rupture in the action and a continuity in principle. In any case, the pope has the will to re-read the Council, to present it otherwise.

Q.: Has this papal speech pleased you?

B.F.: Yes, because of its clarity, its precision, and the will to propose true questions. Though, in my opinion, it does not go today far enough.

Q.: Do you ask for a peculiar [canonical] position inside the Catholic Church?

B.F.: Rome will probably grant it to us. …]

Q.: What will be the [canonical] status which Rome could grant you?

B.F.: That of an Apostolic Administration. Regarding the authority of the bishop, we would have a regime of exemption, as it is the case in the diocese of Campos, Brazil. Rome would allow the faithful of the Fraternity Saint Pius X to enjoy the benefit of a parallel authority, but still under the local bishop.

Hi USMC,

We don’t find in these words any inkling that the SSPX people are ready to admit that they are wrong.

As long as they retain that attitude, they will remain in schism.

Verbum

[quote=Verbum]Hi USMC,

We don’t find in these words any inkling that the SSPX people are ready to admit that they are wrong.

As long as they retain that attitude, they will remain in schism.

Verbum
[/quote]

I’m just curious what exactly they are wrong about? Do they reject any doctrines? If so, which ones?

[quote=USMC]I’m just curious what exactly they are wrong about? Do they reject any doctrines? If so, which ones?
[/quote]

Courtesy of Sean OL in another thread:

jloughnan.tripod.com/ad2000_1.htm
jloughnan.tripod.com/chetshet.htm

The SSPX’ers do not deny even one dogma of the Catholic faith.
Their action in disobeying John Paul II by ordaining four bishops when he told them not to, is why JPII declared them to have incurred the penalty of excommunication for schism.
Jaypeeto3

[quote=USMC]I’m just curious what exactly they are wrong about? Do they reject any doctrines? If so, which ones?
[/quote]

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Vatican I - Pastor Aeternus

They have seemed to reject that one pretty well.

If the SSPX gets an Apostolic Administration, I hope that the Vatican makes sure that the leaders of the AA promise to submit to Rome.

Do they reject any doctrines? If so, which ones?

I used to be associated with SSPX, but no longer. I only attended one SSPX parish, located in an isolated location in the Pacific Northwest.

I had private catechism lessons with an SSPX priest. To give him credit, he was very non-political in the private lessons, and taught all the doctrines correctly. I actually wish he were in union with Rome, because he’d make a very good addition to the church as she is presently.

Anyway, I had asked this pastor in my private catechism class if Papal Encyclicals are considered infallible. He said yes. The book we used, the Baltimore Catechism and Mass No. 3 by Father Connell also said ‘yes’ to this question. He helped me look it up in that catechism.

Later on in the year, the same pastor was giving a one day adult education class on Papal Infalliblity, which I attended. He was asked by another person (not me) this question, “If Papal Encyclicals are infallible, how does this apply to the present pope?” (At the time it was Pope John Paul II). The pastor answered, “We are bound to obey authority when that authority is loyal to the source of his authority, that is God. We are not bound to obey our superiors if those superiors have broken from the Traditions of the church. I hope this answers your question.”

He sort of skirted around the answer, as you can see. I took his words to mean, we are bound to obey all the Papal Encyclicals except ones from the pontiffs after Vatican II.

I didn’t agree with this. It was contrary to what he’d originally taught me. It was at this point that I finally broke with the group. He was the one, by his own words, that convinced me that SSPX was truly in schism.

It appears that there are some people within SSPX who question the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Like I’ve already said, I can only attest to this fact on a local level, not on a global or national level.

On the same note: I truly detest the schism of SSPX. I’ve made this clear in prior posts. However, I actually really love my SSPX pastor (not in a funny way, LOL!) and I love the other SSPX parishioners. I hope and pray that SSPX and the Roman Catholic Church resolve their differences. I also hope and pray that if there is reconcilliation, that all the SSPX priests obey the leader of SSPX, instead of breaking off into another schism. (Example: SSPV is a breakoff group of SSPX). The last thing we need is another SSPX variant.

USMC wrote - quoting Cardinal Hoyos:

“The pope has charged Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos to dialogue with us. The latter has explained, in an interview to an Italian television, that we are not heretics,”

But, the SSPX was NOT excommunicated for heresy - but for schism. In this passage Cardinal Hoyos diplomaticly expresses himself positively - avoiding saying “but they ARE schismatics.”!

Elsewhere he speaks of "separation (which DOES equate with “schism” and adds) “even if not formal schism.”

SSPXers try to twist plain statements to their own destruction, thst is, to a perpetuation of the schism.

GoldenArrow wrote:

On the same note: I truly detest the schism of SSPX. I’ve made this clear in prior posts. However, I actually really love my SSPX pastor (not in a funny way, LOL!) and I love the other SSPX parishioners. I hope and pray that SSPX and the Roman Catholic Church resolve their differences. I also hope and pray that if there is reconcilliation, that all the SSPX priests obey the leader of SSPX, instead of breaking off into another schism. (Example: SSPV is a breakoff group of SSPX). The last thing we need is another SSPX variant.

AMEN!!!

With the SSPX “negotiations” it is a matter of “festina lente” (hasten slowely) in expectations of reunion - for there are just so many ill-willed persons in that camp - as is evidenced by perusing the likes of Angel Queen Forum.

But, we can hope and pray for our separated brethren.

[quote=Jaypeeto3]The SSPX’ers do not deny even one dogma of the Catholic faith.
Their action in disobeying John Paul II by ordaining four bishops when he told them not to, is why JPII declared them to have incurred the penalty of excommunication for schism.
Jaypeeto3
[/quote]

You just contradicted yourself. Schism is denying the Catholic faith.

Semper Fi wrote:

Schism is denying the Catholic faith.

Actually, schism is not denying a Dogma of the Faith; it is a rupture of the unity of the Church in a very grave (mortal) way.

However, in practice, the SSPXer will (and I use the term euphemisticaly!):

  1. “prefer” the Council of Trent to the Second Vatican Council.

  2. “prefer” the Catechism of the Council of Trent to the Catechism of the Catholic Church;

  3. “prefer” the pre-Vatican popes to the post Vatican II popes - using generalized phrases such as : “I am obedient to Eternal Rome”, and “I am in union with ALL the Catholic Popes,” etc.

  4. “prefer” not to recognize canonizations by post vatican II popes - yet, assume the temerity to claim “Saint” Marcel!

  5. At the same time, denying (at a minimum) the sacramental efficacy of the post Vatican II liturgical Rites, Sacraments and Magisterial acts of discipline and governance.

But, when it comes to putting them on the spot by asking them whether - in accordance with the canons and Decrees of the very same Council of Trent - they acknowledge that, for example,

IS the normative liturgy of the Roman Rite (the so-called “Novus Ordo” Mass) a “true and proper sacrifice” and a “propitiary sacrifice”?

Then, like craven cowards - they refuse to answer; but still continue with their abuse. If they were to answer in the negative, then logically - in accordance with the Canons of Trent (if they believed that they still applied today!) then they would be subject to the anathemas in those very same canons!

  1. “prefer” not to recognize canonizations by post vatican II popes - yet, assume the temerity to claim “Saint” Marcel!

When I was with still with SSPX, a lady at church gave me a prayer card for the canonization of Archbishop Marcel Lebefevre. I didn’t pray for him though. Something about it seemed “off” at the time. Now I know why. HA!

They also had a picture of Marcel on the wall, and no picture of the Pope. I also thought that strange, too.

**With the SSPX “negotiations” it is a matter of “festina lente” (hasten slowely) in expectations of reunion - for there are just so many ill-willed persons in that camp - **

The same can be said for the Eastern Orthodox camp, too.
While there are many Orthodox working for reunion, there are many, many others who regard our church, the Catholic church, as ontologically false and do not even recognize the validity of Catholic Holy Orders, Baptisms, Eucharist, etc. So if Rome can go out of it’s way to try and bring the stubborn Orthodox back home, it should have less trouble with the SSPX since the SSPX believes at least in the doctrine of the Papacy, which the Orthodox flatly reject.

Love,
Jaypeeto3

Jaypeeto3 wrote:

The same can be said for the Eastern Orthodox camp, too.

That is recourse to the “Hey, mummy - that man over there is doing nasty things; why can’t I do the same?” argument!

The facts are that the originators of schism and heresy are more liable for their errors than their descendents who are born into that state. It is more difficult for the originators to recant and revert.

All the more reason, of course, for the good of souls to make all possible attempts to facilitate the reconciliation of as many as possible as quickly as possible.

[quote=USMC]I’m just curious what exactly they are wrong about? Do they reject any doctrines? If so, which ones?
[/quote]

I believe they hold the erroneous proposition, already condemned by Pius VI Auctorem fidei (1794), that approved ecclesiastical discipline can be dangerous and harmful to the faithful.

From the SSPX web page, citing MSgr Marcel Levebvre:“The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules…bears within it a poison harmful to the faith” (Marcel Levebvre, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 29)See more here:

How are the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in error?
itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/10/how-are-society-of-st-pius-x-sspx-in.html

[quote=Semper Fi]You just contradicted yourself. Schism is denying the Catholic faith.
[/quote]

That is not the definition of schism. Where do you get this from?

+JMJ+

Semper Fi,That is not the definition of schism that is the definiotion of heresy.

“HERESY is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith,or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.”

"SCHISM is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

These quotes were taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2089.Hope this helped clarify the definition of schism.

 God bless you and Mary keep you! :)

Heresy and schism are usually the same thing. If someone causes schism they are usually causing heresy as well. Like for example the SSPX have caused a schism but this also causes heresy in regard to the papal infallibility. THey reject Vatican II but the pope has declared VII to be ecumenical. They are denying the infallibility of the pope.

+JMJ+

I would disagree with that.Heresy and shcism are not the same thing but yes I wil admit they do go hand in hand,and yes sadly you are right by denying infalibilty of the pope they have commited heresy. :frowning: When will they understand they are doing more harm than good! :mad: I have a sspx chapel in my town just 5 minutes down the road.I originaly went there when I decided to convert to the Holy Catholic faith,but some of the teaching’s were just not right so I left.Later I found out they were in schism and yes have commited heresy as you said.Thank God I found my way out and on to the safe path! :slight_smile:

God bless you and Mary keep you! :slight_smile:

I suspect it’s very difficult for the SSPXers to even suspect they may be doing more harm than good.
I see them compared to Luther, Calvin, and the other Protestants often because of their disagreements with the post-Vatican II magisterium. But seriously, there is a difference.
For example, when the Old Catholics claimed to be upholding tradition in rejecting Papal infallibility, they didn’t have a leg to stand on. Why not? Simple. Prior to Vatican 1 there were no Papal encyclicals claiming that the pope was NOT infallible. Thus Vatican 1’s definition of papal infallibility didn’t contradict ANY previous magisterial teaching.
Prior to Vatican II, however, there were lots of magisterial papal encyclicals which:
explicitly condemned religious liberty as fale and even INSANE, explicitly condemned the Ecumenical movement as APOSTASY, etc. etc. Yet these previously papally-condemned things were EMBRACED at Vatican II and by the post-conciliar magisterium. So, while I won’t and don’t endorse the Schism of the SSPX, I can see why they don’t trust the “conciliar” church, as they call it.
Jaypeeto4

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.