SSPX: Right, Wrong, Radical, or Reverent?

 In recent weeks, there has been a growing obsession with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (SSPX), due to the announcement that they will be pursuing the consecration of new bishops for their society in July.   Ever the fraternal, loving, ecumenical, "God wants us all to be together in love" crowd; the mainstream Roman Catholic Hierarchy have taken to staunch denouncements of the society, proclaiming them schismatics, heretics, and worse.  For daring to presume that they have the right to have their own bishops; a number of otherwise intelligent and decent Christian people are quite legitimately threatening the SSPX with the fires of eternal damnation. 

The crux of the matter is the breakdown in communications between the society and the prefect for the congregation of the doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Fernandez.  Specifically, it is known that Cardinal Fernandez himself has prevented the SSPX from being able to meet with the Roman Pontiff themselves, and has also prevented further discussions with them in the latter years of Pope Francis' pontificate.  In that, he was fulfilling that most Roman of curial duties, presuming to run the church himself while slapping the label of "Pope says so" on his work.  The Roman Curia (men who run the church in Rome) is a stagnant bureaucracy, more concerned with its own prestige and survival; than the good of souls or the church itself.   It is known that the SSPX has been trying, since 2009, to have their positions under the Roman Pontiff regularized so that they could continue in full union with Rome and its Pope.  Sadly, they have been prevented from doing so by theological bureaucrats who tell them "we can dialogue", but have no intentions of making any concessions; because they have already made determinations about the matters before the discussions ever take place. 

At heart of the debacle over the planned episcopal consecrations, is the age-old argument about papal supremacy and the myth of the "Apostolic Mandate".  I will address this in short, however for further and more detailed historical information in support of my thesis; I direct you to a wonderfully composed article on the matter here- https://onepeterfive.com/clandestine-ordinations-against-church-law-lessons-from-cardinal-wojtyla-and-cardinal-slipyj/

The modern argument that one MUST have Papal approval and mandate for any bishop to be consecrated is exactly that:  a MODERN argument.  Throughout the history of the church, there has never been a time in which all bishops were required to be approved by Rome; even those churches which were under their jurisdiction.   While it is certainly true that major appointments such as the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Patriarch of Venice were often presented to the Pope, he regularly held little sway or choice in the matter at all.  A case in point of this would be when Henry VIII of England had Thomas Cranmer consecrated as Archbishop of Canterbury.  Though the Pope may not have liked or agreed with it, he ultimately accepted it as a conciliatory act, in the hope of preserving the relationship between England and the Roman Church.  

The next point is the ordination of priests for Czechoslovakia during the Soviet Union era by Cardinal Wojtyla of Poland.  Pope Paul VI had continued a policy of dialogue with the communist Soviets, which imposed a ban on priestly ordination in Czechoslovakia.  Despite this ban, Cardinal Wojtyla and an auxiliary bishop regularly, and secretly, ordained priests to serve in  Czechoslovakia in Poland.  Likewise, Cardinal Josyf Slipyj, Patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Church; was in exile in Rome from Ukraine by the Soviets in 1976, where he clandestinely consecrated 3 bishops for Ukraine without papal mandate or approval despite being quite literally in the Pope's own backyard.    Yet despite both of these Bishops performing ordinations which they knew were not approved of by Rome and in fact actively barred from occurring by Rome; they went ahead, for the preservation of both the church and the faith.   The SSPX's principal founder Archbishop Lefebvre found himself in an equally unenviable position where he could neither garner Rome's direct approval nor endorsement, but needed to preserve the church and the faith as best as he could manage.   Despite all 3 of these notable figures of the 20th Century church being faced with essentially the same choice, only one of them was punished for it.  

If the law of the church regarding ordinations without papal approval and going against direct orders from the Vatican is so set in stone and such an unforgivable offense, then why did the Vatican only punish ONE of the men guilty of such a "crime", while promoting another to the office of Bishop of Rome?  It seems to those who actually know the stories, that the Vatican's punishment of the SSPX was more of a political statement than anything to do with what was inherently right or wrong in Holy Religion; and certainly nothing to do with 'obedience' to the church.  

Fast forward to today.  The Mainstream Roman Catholic bishops are all baying for blood of the SSPX over their intention to consecrate new bishops to continue their work.  They claim that bishops can NEVER be consecrated without papal approval or mandate; and that anyone who does so is not Catholic and should never be welcomed in the church.   AND YET- they gleefully threw open their arms and welcomed the Bishops of the Chinese Catholic Church; who were elected and appointed by the communist party and installed without papal approval or mandate.   This raises the very thorny question that the Curia of Rome will never answer because it exposes them as true hypocrites:  If it is perfectly simple and agreeable for the Vatican to accept Communist Bishops who are imposed without Rome's approval, why then can they not agree to allow the SSPX to have bishops who WOULD be approved by Rome?   The SSPX's situation is not that they want rupture from the church just for the sake of having bishops, but rather that they recognize that they need bishops so that they can continue being part of the church.   This though is the real underhanded intention of the Roman Curia though, that they would rather the faithful spiritually suffer and starve for sacraments; then accept the continued existence of the SSPX.  And that in turn, demonstrates that the Curial goal is not the preservation of the faith or "fidelity to Peter" as they claim; but rather an extraordinary level of hubris in believing that they should be allowed to deprive the faithful of sacraments simply because they say so. 

Depriving the faithful of what they are entitled to by virtue of their baptism and faith; is a smack in the face of all the other apostles who founded the particular churches of the world, and not just Rome.  There is an age-old saying the staunch Vatican supporters I've known over the years like to quote on matters of discipline in Holy Religion:   "roma locuta causa finita"  which means "Rome has spoken, the case is closed".   Unfortunately, Rome is not the source of Mankind's salvation; nor is it the arbiter of who the Lord shall redeem and make his own.  To this I respond:   Rome may have Spoken, but she has never truly listened.  





Popular posts from this blog

Bishop Bans Belief, Promotes Paltry Participation Pledge

Image
 Recently, the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Charlotte, NC has taken it upon himself to fully implement the Motu Proprio "Traditionis Custodie" of the late Bishop of Rome.  Apart from banishing all adherents of the Latin Mass to a single parish as of July 8th, which won't even open until late in the Fall; an even more disturbing document was leaked from the bishop's office this week.  In the letter that Bishop Martin had planned to issue to the diocese, he makes a multitude of uninformed and personal liable claims against traditional liturgy and people who worship in that manner; as well as theological arguments which have no basis in Catholic teaching, and would be more at home in a Baptist church than a sacramental one.  He has a desire and plans to ban every semblance of tradition from all parishes in the diocese: From banning altar rails, to telling priests they cannot cross their stoles or say vesting prayers for specific vestments (which he claims cau...
Read more

The Seal and the State

Image
 The state of Washington today instituted a new law which claims to seek protection for victims of child abuse; however in reality is a bill that seeks to compel clergy to violate pastor-penitent privilege in order to gain information.  On the surface, and indeed according to the supposedly Catholic governor of Washington state; it would seem a noble thing that there is now a law which requires clergy to break the seal of confession to report any and all instances of abuse brought to the confessional.  In reality though, such a law not only violates federal law ensuring free practice of religion; it also violates the constitution of the United States, which ensures a separation of church and state and also freedom of religious observance.   The long and the short of the sacrament of confession is this- no matter what sins may be uttered, what horrors of a past life divulged; the sins that are brought to the foot of the cross in confession do not belong to the pr...
Read more

In Defense of the Priesthood

Image
 In recent decades, more so since about 2007; there has been an increasing demand from people in the world for all churches to open up the ministry to women instead of just men.  While there are some denominations where such a shift would not matter greatly, as they are focused primarily on the written word instead of any actual service; to make such a demand of the sacramental priesthood is a problem which cannot be simply overcome by political ideology or social justice cause.  To put it bluntly, women cannot be priests.   Having nailed the colors to the mast with that statement, I will elaborate: From the beginnings of the Christian Church, the services and means of worship were never intended to be divorced from their Jewish origins.  To this day, within traditional sacramental worship, there are elements of the service which correlate to ancient Jewish temple practices; from the manner in which the priest holds his hands in prayer, to the way in which ...
Read more