SSPX/Vatican II

Greetings,

It would be greatly appreciated if perhaps somone could shed some light on the following issues for me: sects within the Catholic Church (are they all schismatic) and their reluctance to follow Vatican II. I was unaware of the group SSPX until I saw it in a threaded discussion and then did some research. I have also heard that Mel Gibson was to belong to some group that was not in step with Rome, but was later to find out that was not true–I guess my point is that I was unaware that there were these types of groups out there.

With regard to Vatican II, my understanding is that Vatican II is Vatican II. There is no, “In the Spirt of Vatican II…” it simply is what it is, and we are bound to follow.

So, is there a place where a beginning apologist can find the scoop on these issues.

Pax,

Jeff

Status of the SSPX.

ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/
ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/eccldei.htm

Bob,

Good informative sites.

Thanks,

Jeff

[quote=ssgt4429]With regard to Vatican II, my understanding is that Vatican II is Vatican II. There is no, “In the Spirt of Vatican II…” it simply is what it is, and we are bound to follow.
[/quote]

I’m no VCII expert, but . . . (that’s never stopped me before :stuck_out_tongue: ) . . . in my readings, it has been broadly described as a clash between modernists (self-styled “reformers”) and traditional orthodoxy. The “reformers” controlled much of the agenda and thus many first drafts were filled with novel teachings. The orthodox got their 2 cents in by adding orthodox teachings to the documents as a rule for implementation contexts (but in many cases not replacing the novel wordings). Thus the modernists proclaimed “the new spirit” of VCII yet the documents remain orthodox. However, that means that the documents can be selectively quoted to say almost anything. One section talks about novel directions, but another reminds us that it must be done within the context of Magesterial teachings. Apparently this dichotomy opened the door for some rather odd nonsense, but the orthodox are slowly purging the bad while retaining the good. At the other end of the spectrum, the nonsense of the last 40 years resulted in pockets of VCII rejectionism – essentially “the spirit of VCII is bad” so therefore “VCII is bad.” This too must be resisted.

The best book on this subject is Philip Trower’s Turmoil and Truth: The Historical Roots of the Modern Crisis in the Catholic Church.

Stumbler’s pretty right-on-the-money.

Well, interesting. I have been studying the phenomenon for the last year. I enjoy the Latin/Tridentine mass. I have been looking for a place where this sacrifice is celebrated and is also accepted as in communion with Rome. The journey has been somewhat difficult. There are the independent groups that claim that Vatican II was designed by protestant advisors to the Pope and that we have lost our true Catholicism and therefore the “seat is empty” (sede vecantism). These folks appear 100% in schism with Rome despite the fact that many have been validly ordained and therefore may celebrate the holy liturgy as well as deliver a valid Eucharist. Other groups are more difficult to discern such as the one that you mention … sspx, they seem to pledge obedience to Rome while being highly critical of the novus ordo mass. There are the CMRI that may even be a bit less critical. Finally the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter is a Prelate of Rome and is in full communion with the Church and has the blessing of the Holy Father to continue the Tidentine mass. :thumbsup:

[quote=bigtimecatholic]The fruits of Vatican II are all around you…enjoy church clustering and wearing you bermuda shorts. THe identity of the church went protestant at Vatican II, we now have reaped the God’s reward for allowing what LeoXIII saw in his vision to happen…tsk tsk

Satan won round (vatican) II…

Just think Luther was a schizmatic, heretic, anathema for 450 years and the masonic lodge was occultic per soooooooo many Papal decrees among others then ‘poof’ Vatican II erases 1900 years of CATHOLICITY and we now get lost identity form priest and nuns iun levis to bermuda shorts like the protestants in church, I am wating for the first pieced priest to show his tongue piercing to the crowd after announcing marrying a lesbian couple. Satan win round (vatican)II…bwahahahhahahaha
[/quote]

Council in communion with Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit.

If you feel otherwise, do follow where the “Holy Spirit” went according to you.

[quote=bigtimecatholic]I am the Lord thy God and I change NEVER…!
[/quote]

I hope you’re quoting Scripture there! :slight_smile:

Since Vatican II Catholics are more confused then ever especially with the change…deny this and you deny TRUTH.

That’s not a result of Vatican II, but a result of secular society’s influence on the hierarchy and fellow Catholics. When the outside world says “selfishness is good” many people fall for that tripe.

F.O.G.

What’s that mean? (Maybe I need a FOGlight to figure it out? :slight_smile: )

Jeff,

You are asking some intriguing questions. I do not consider myself an expert but none the less interested. Well actually it’s more like a quest for the “Truth”. I have several family members that are involved in the SSPX, I have been debating them for years so I am think I understand their position with the Church and why they feel justified in that position. SSPX blames all the problems in the Church on Vatican II and people have been using Vatican II to justify their social/political dissent from Church teachings claming that the Vatican II “duty to conscience” allows or even mandates their dissent.

SSPX when originally founded was approved by the Holy See. Their problems with Vatican II and the exclusive use the Tridentine Liturgy (1962 Latin Missal) come to a head in 1987 when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained bishops without the permission of the Holy Father. This was in violation of canon 1382 (Cann. 1378 - 1389) and incurred latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication for the him and the bishops. This was also perceived as schematic act. Technically now SSPX could continue to validly ordain bishops and priest outside the authority of Rome (essentially their own church). Hence the ongoing debate on the valid but illicit status of SSPX and the sacraments.

The Holy See responded with Ecclesia Dei, The Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei and the
Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”

Ecclesia Dei also warns that “Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”

Currently there are several new Religious Orders that use the Tridentine Liturgy exclusively. Also each bishop was encouraged (or possibly mandated) by the commission to offer the Tridentine Liturgy to the faithful in their diocese that wish it.

Some societies and orders include: Society of St. John, Priestly Fraternity Of Saint Peter, Opus Mariae Mediatricis, Institute Of Christ The King, Sovereign Priest

Here are a few more good recourses for the Tridentine Liturgy.
Una Voce, LatinMass.org, The Latin Liturgy Association, Coalition In Support Of Ecclesia Dei

Even though SSPX are using the same 1962 missal the problem comes back to their excommunication and Vatican II. SSPX although they claim allegiance to the Holy Father justify their disobedience by maintaining the crisis in the church mandates that they uphold the true traditions of the Church and its liturgy. SSPX believes the Church is in error with Vatican II and the current liturgy while the approved societies acknowledge their validity.

Vatican II
“Vatican II” seems to be the most abused phrase ever. Vatican II says this, Vatican II says that, it’s all changed “since Vatican II”, and you have mentioned the big one “in the spirit of Vatican II”. I recently decided to read all 16 of the Vatican II documents for myself. Wow! What a big eye opener. I’m not sure what I was expecting but I certainly did not find some watered down version of Catholicism or any justification of “conscience” to disagree with Church Doctrine. I still have a few more documents to go but again nothing contrary to Tradition and Traditional Church teaching as SSPX would have you believe.

I do believe that the Church is in a tremendous crisis and there are countless souls including myself that are lost. There is no doubt that there is a lack of Catecheses, Reverence to the Eucharist and Liturgy, Catholic Social and Political duty and a basic lack of awareness of sin (just to mention a few). I am certain that this is NOT because of the Teachings of Vatican II but the lack of adherence to those teachings. It can only be the work of the Evil One for propagating such lies and influencing these falsehoods that are blamed on Vatican II. But then again I don’t think the Devil exist any more “Since Vatican II”.

Documents of the Second Vatican Council

Sorry but I get a little carried away on these issues. I don’t know if this is too much or not enough but I hope you find some usefulness in it.

I think this site might help in explaining the traditionalist movements that have sprung up since Vatican II: Roman Catholic Traditionalism?.

This site doesn’t promote the movement (I don’t even think the guy or gal who wrote this stuff is even Catholic) but it does give you a basic overview of various traditionalists from SSPXer’s to Sedevacantists.

There’s plenty out there on the net as well, just google “Catholic Traditionalism” and you’ll find a host of sites that are for and against the movement.

Miguel.

Hey, y’all forgot to mention the compleely Catholic, completely orthodox, Society of Saint John Cantius, of which I used to be postulant.

Thanks for the link. It was nice to see an unbiased basic outline of Catholic traditionalism, those in and outside the mainstream of the Church. It was very informative in separating the traditionalist into factions.

But now I’m confused. Here I though I was just a Roman Catholic that occasionally liked to go to an Indult traditional mass but I may actually be a Pan-Traditionalists / Drifter :confused:

I followed the link to the Saint John Cantius Parish Website . What a blessing, I wish I had such a parish in my diocese. There is a unique parish in NJ (about an hour away) that I go to occasionally that is traditional liturgy only. Mater Ecclesiae

I may be getting off of Jeff’s original topic but it may be of interest to pursue the indult or orthodox traditional movement; availability, where it is eventually going etc. It seems as if the Church has a growing duplicity problem with having two very different Liturgical Rites within the same overall Latin Rite Church. The Paul VI (Novus Ordo Missiae) seems to be the official or standard liturgy from Vatican II but with an indult the Tridentine Liturgy (1962 Missal) is growing in demand. Do you think all parishes will eventually be like Saint John Cantius Parish and offer both Liturgies (at least one like parish in each Diocese) or will the Church eventually force one or the other? If we didn’t have liturgical abuses and the Mass was offered as prescribed by the rubrics would there be such a demand for the Tridentine Liturgy?

Sorry but I get a little carried away on these issues. I don’t know if this is too much or not enough but I hope you find some usefulness in it.

John,

Thank you for a thoughtful and comprehensive answer!

Blessings,

Jeff

I may be getting off of Jeff’s original topic but it may be of interest to pursue the indult or orthodox traditional movement; availability, where it is eventually going etc. It seems as if the Church has a growing duplicity problem with having two very different Liturgical Rites within the same overall Latin Rite Church. The Paul VI (Novus Ordo Missiae) seems to be the official or standard liturgy from Vatican II but with an indult the Tridentine Liturgy (1962 Missal) is growing in demand. Do you think all parishes will eventually be like Saint John Cantius Parish and offer both Liturgies (at least one like parish in each Diocese) or will the Church eventually force one or the other? If we didn’t have liturgical abuses and the Mass was offered as prescribed by the rubrics would there be such a demand for the Tridentine Liturgy?

A very good question.

I think its a very odd, in fact non-traditional, position for one Church (in this case, the Latin) to have more than one rite (in this case, two variations of the Roman). Historically, variable rites have existed in local territories (like the Ambrosian in Milan or the Mozarabic in Toledo, as well as rites peculiar to certain religious orders), but never two rites for the whole Church.

I fear that liturgical Catholicism may develop similarly to Anglicanism. Will we one day have “High-Church” Catholics, preferring the Tridentine Rite, and “Low-Church” preferring the “Novus Ordo”? I would hope not, but it seems that sometimes the indult supports this kind of mentality.

I think the indult is only a temporary provision. There will be a time when the 1962 Missal will cease to be celebrated. I think a new missal will be produced, which will correct some of the flaws in the current Missa Normativa, and maintain a closer link with the Latin Church’s liturgical tradition.

I think a model for this future rite may be sine with the Benedictine Abbey of Fontgombault, and their own version of the Tridentine Mass.

The Abbey is a member of the Benedictine Congregation of Solesmes. They have a daughterhouse here in the USA, in Hulbert, OK: Our Lady of the Annunciation of Clear Creek Monastery.

They celebrate the Tridentine indult, but with some Benedictine variations. Many of these variations were actually established in 1965, in the interim period between the Council and Paul VI’s promulgation of the Novus Ordo.

This Benedictine version of the Tridentine rite is identical to the 1962 Missal, except for the following differences:

  1. The priest does not say the Ordinaries (i.e. the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo) while the choir is chanting them. This practice seemed by many of the pre-Conciliar period to be redundant. Why does the priest need to say the Credo, for example, while the choir and people are singing it?

  2. Deacons and subdeacons are not needed to have a Solemn High Mass. At Clear Creek Monastery, except on the more solemn occasions, the Epistle is chanted, not by a subdeacon, but by one of the monks. The ceremonies are identical to those of a solemn High Mass, just without the clergy of the “minor orders.” Sometimes, they have only a priest or deacon, with no subdeacon at all.

  3. The Epistle and Gospel are chanted towards the congregation, not the altar.

  4. The altar is free-standing. Although Mass is not said facing the people, during the incensing, the priest will incense the entire altar by going “all around it.” The altar actually looks more like a sacrifial altar, and less like a liturgical fireplace!

  5. The Secret (i.e. the “Prayer over the Gifts”) is sung aloud, not said “silently.”

  6. Provision is made for a concelebrated Mass, with a chanted Roman Canon; this, however, is not common.

  7. The entire doxology of the Canon is chanted, not just the “per omnia saecula saeculorum.”

  8. At the minor elevation, the gifts are actually elevated, not just crossed several times!

  9. The “Our Father” is sung by both priest and congregation.

  10. The Final Blessing is chanted, not said silently.

  11. The Last Gospel is ommitted.

What results is a traditional Mass that’s very solemn, and follows closely many of the teachings and suggestions of Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium. I think this Benedictine variation of the Tridentine Mass could cerve as a model for a future Roman rite for the Church universal.

However, I think you will always have radical traditionalists who will never be pleased. There are actually schismatic, radical traditionalists who think the 1962 Missal is Modernist, and refuse to celebrate or assist at it. They go by the 1958 Missal.

[quote=DominvsVobiscvm]A very good question.

However, I think you will always have radical traditionalists who will never be pleased. There are actually schismatic, radical traditionalists who think the 1962 Missal is Modernist, and refuse to celebrate or assist at it. They go by the 1958 Missal.
[/quote]

Probably true. It has been so since the beginning. Every council has had it’s critic’s and every group wants their own way. Thats life in Politic’s and Religion as usual I suppose.

Thanks for the insight. It will be interesting to see where the Roman Church ends up with its Liturgy. But most likely it will not be for generations to come before anything officially is done. Just look at how long we have been with the current Liturgy and it still (for the most part) is not being offered as prescribed.

Hopefully if I have time I can post some more questions in the Liturgy category.

Thanks again for the input I really appreciate it.

“If we didn’t have liturgical abuses and the Mass was offered as prescribed by the rubrics would there be such a demand for the Tridentine Liturgy?”

Yes, because the problems with the NO are inherent, not just the abuses. Moreover, we can only hope and pray that we will return to one missal: the Traditional Mass, free from fabrication and innovation (notone written by 6 heretics [calvinists]). Moreover, I would much rather see us return to the pre-1950s missal, the missal that was unchanged since Trent (which was substantially the same since St. Gregory the Great).

“If we didn’t have liturgical abuses and the Mass was offered as prescribed by the rubrics would there be such a demand for the Tridentine Liturgy?”

Yes, because the problems with the NO are inherent, not just the abuses. Moreover, we can only hope and pray that we will return to one missal: the Traditional Mass, free from fabrication and innovation (notone written by 6 heretics [calvinists]). Moreover, I would much rather see us return to the pre-1950s missal, the missal that was unchanged since Trent (which was substantially the same since St. Gregory the Great).

[quote=Trad_Catholic] Moreover, we can only hope and pray that we will return to one missal…
[/quote]

I think those who prefer the Tridentine Mass should still be allowed that indult for now.

You realize of course that what you disparagingly call the “NO” is actual the current mass, not the new mass. Even the time table you give recognizes that the Mass has changed somewhat since apostolic times. I just can not fathom the point of view that something is “inherently wrong” with the current Mass. I trust the Holy Spirit will never allow such a circumstance.

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.