Quo Vadis SSPX?

July 5, 2012

The Vatican continues to expose its intentions concerning the SSPX in an unabashed and frank manner. Archbishop Di Noia and Bishop Muller have made no bones about their monumental task of converting the SSPX to conciliarism.

Archbishop Di Noia states “Nobody can deny that Karol Wojtyla’s pontificate marked a major shift in the theological understanding of Judaism within the Catholic Church.

I would counter that there is nothing about the theology of Judaism that has escaped the Catholic Church for the past 2000 years. What the Wojtyla pontificate exposed was how that particular pope (mis)understood Judaism and the Old Covenant in contrast to how the church, as early as the Florentine Council taught. Somehow, that misunderstanding has become de fide in the oxymoronic “living tradition” which modernists have created to justify conciliar clashes with the Deposit of Faith.

The Archbishop goes to state “Our difficulty with the SSPX is that they isolate passages of Vatican II documents from the context and main message of the Council. In Jewish terms, the error is similar to trying to interpret a Biblical passage without referring to the centuries of oral and written rabbinical commentaries on its meaning. The message becomes distorted and problematic … This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept .. convincing them will take time

Apparently Roman Catholic terms are inadequate to describe how Vatican II documents support the traditional faith or the unspoken main message of the Council to the extent that it has now become necessary to explain it in Jewish terms. I guess the analogy is lost on me since I am not a Jew. I would ask my attorney but I just don’t know if I can trust his answer. Most important here is that arduous job of “convincing” the SSPX.

Bishop Muller easily raises the small hairs on the back of one’s neck. He states “The Congregation (CDF) has the task of supporting the pope in his Magisterium. We must guide ourselves based on the emphases he makes in his pronouncements.”The obvious intent is that this pope owns a different Magisterium from his predecessors. We should all be grateful for his candor – it is a great gift to us, so to speak. Apparently, according to CathCon, the SSPX German District today called on Bishop Muller to make a statement on his controversial (read heretical) statements and correct his positions. Torpedoes away!

He goes on to say “[The] Second Vatican Council was a wonderful event, albeit from a somewhat different type than some previous councils. It was its legitimate intention to respond not only to certain errors and correct them, but to provide an overall view of the Catholic faith. It was not so much concerned with individual elements, but with the big picture..”. This is from the man now in charge of the congregation protecting the faith and bringing the SSPX into regularity.

So day by day it appears that we get more discouraging news both internally from SSPX via sermons that equate ANY attempt at reconciliation as a doomsday deal with Satan or externally from those who will take new positions in the Vatican hierarchy and are challenged with bringing this obstinate problem child into compliance.

The prelature is apparently a done deal and even has an official title. Aside from the requirement to get diocesan permission to open new missions, it apparently contains none of the other alleged bogeymen of closing three year old chapels or turning over deeds to properties. The former requirement, if true, is not insignificant. But it is also not insurmountable. The SSPX, in my experience, has been the opposite of weak-kneed lukewarm prelates. If they were to call me up (which they have never done to date) and ask my opinion on what to do about a non-cooperative bishop, I would say, do it anyway. The bishop would have to take the Society to (Roman) court. That might take a few years and expose some troublesome bishops. I would bet they wouldn’t much like the publicity. Can you conceive of a creditable response to “Excellency, why would you deny a chapel to a stable group of faithful “attached” to the E.F. when you do not have to pay for the chapel nor provide a priest to support it?”

So, if the prelature is not an insurmountable problem, that would leave the preamble which apparently has some old language reinserted, most likely concerning the SSPX ‘treatment’ of the Novus Ordo. The SSPX has held that the Mass of Paul VI contains a valid Consecration assuming the matter, form, and intent are in tact. Since it has been promulgated by a valid Pope, we usually do not argue whether it is licit as it does not conflict with canon law and the sole arbiter of canon law is the pope. What about its legitimacy? There are those that will argue this point but this term does not enjoy the precise definition that ‘valid’ and ‘licit’ do. Is the Novus Ordo intrinsically evil? The confection of the Blessed Sacrament is not evil although it may certainly be abused for evil purposes. The intent behind the construction of the Novus Ordo may be intrinsically evil if it was intended and designed to conform or deform the Catholic belief in the True Presence to the heretical views of Luther and Calvin. If it is allowed to continue with the intent of achieving the same goals, then its toleration is intrinsically evil.

Then, Quo Vadis, SSPX? What shall we do? Do we shun the pope and the visible church in fear that we will not be able to withstand the conversion they are planning?

Will we likely draw more adherents to the True Faith as a regularized and militant defender of the faith both from within and from without the church? Are we more effective challenging the likes of Bishop Muller as part of the Visible Church or as an outsider looking in?

Conversely, if we avoid regularity at any cost and are declared “schismatic” by the pope, will more non-traditional Catholics or converts be attracted to us? In essence, what path benefits our missionary charism assuming we would never compromise on an article of the faith?

Get AQ Email Updates

7 comments on “Quo Vadis SSPX?

  1. I can count on one hand the “opinion” writers that I bother with. This blogger however is an exception. Unlike many of his counterparts, he somehow manages to be thoughtful and relevant.

    Our difficulty with the SSPX is that they isolate passages of Vatican II documents from the context and main message of the Council In Jewish terms, the error is similar to trying to interpret a Biblical passage without referring to the centuries of oral and written rabbinical commentaries on its meaning.

    I read this when the interview was first posted here. I didn’t comment on it directly for fear of being infinitely more uncharitable than my usual uncharitable state when faced with such an astounding outrage.

    Leaving aside this prelate’s talent – on more than one occasion – for favoring Jewish concepts over Catholic ones, he seems incapable of simple linear logic. Isolating specific issues was exactly the purpose of docrinal discussions. It’s the purpose of any debate, contract or negotiation in law, politics, marriages or any other thing where people disagree, or, wish to come to an agreement.

    “Oh don’t ‘isolate’ the occasional beatings you’ve been receiving honey, we have a lovely home, two kids, a dog and lots of friends.”

    Our problem as Catholics, specifically traditional Catholics, is that we don’t even have the home, kids, dogs and friends. We have had nothing but an historic, abject DISASTER from the very moment the council documents were put into place. Fifty years later they’re still telling us that they haven’t been interpreted correctly. How long does it take to read something and interpret it?

    I’m serious when I say these people are insane. In their interviews, when called upon to speak to Catholicism, Catholics, Catholic doctrine, nearly every other word out of their mouths is “Jewish.” They speak so ambiguously that you can read their interviews mulitiple times and still not understand what it is they’re trying to impart. They’re so uninspiring and lacking in any zeal for the faith that one cannot possibly see them as leaders, or want to follow them under any circumstances whatsoever.

    These developments are actually very good in many ways, in that they’re exposing to good Catholic minds exactly how twisted most of our Vatican II bred leadership has become. Until very recently, so many the world over had extremely high hopes that a solution was at hand. “Conservitive” Catholics, traditional Catholics, confused Catholics within and without the SSPX. Now, suddenly, it’s as if an explosion has happened, and all of the stupidity, frowardness, false theology, heterodoxy and betrayal surfaces all at once. This can’t be from anywhere else but HELL.

    Anyone who’s read even some picture-heavy child’s version of the Baltimore Catechism should be able to see this for what it is. Any business person who’s done deals on a handshake understands when someone has been Stabbed in the back, as is clearly what happened to Bishop Fellay the last time he went to Rome.

    It is impossible that any well-formed Catholic who’s been following the events with Rome and the SSPX (from the surprise “poison pill” to the appointments of Di Noia and Muller) to not shake his head and wonder what on earth has gone wrong?

    • With The Abp of Berlin’s comments reported today, Serv, it seems like some type of “signal” has been given for a full court press to once and for all secure the post-conciliar culture: on-going revolution theologically and ecclesiastically.

    • Serv said, “It is impossible that any well-formed Catholic who’s been following the events with Rome and the SSPX (from the surprise “poison pill” to the appointments of Di Noia and Muller) to not shake his head and wonder what on earth has gone wrong?”

      I think for the third time Our Blessed Mother has graciously responded to the rosary crusades called for by the SSPX; this time exposing a well laid trap.

      • I agree with you, Irish! Many of us who support the SSPX also supported the other 3 Bishops and priests who spoke out about Bishop Fellay making a deal with apostate Rome. Our prayers were indeed answered! Deo Gratias! Its been said by some priests of the SSPX that Archbishop Lefebvre told them (not a quote) not to make a deal with Rome until they came back to the faith. Obviously this hasn’t
        happened yet.

    • Serv,
      I couldn’t have said it so well; and I agree with everything you’ve stated.

  2. tradical on said:

    I think “Quo Vadis CDF” may be a more appropriate appropriate title.

    Obviously the fault lines inside the Vatican and SSPX as well as between them are more pronounced.

    The interviews by ++De Noia and ++Muller seem to indicate a resurgence of the neo-modernism.

    I find the parallels in this multi-year process to communist techniques a little unsettling.

  3. Well said Serv !

    Yes, indeed, these conciliar nut cases are insane – such is a consequence (punishment) for rejecting logical truth.

    These developments are good as you point out. I think they are also good for several other reasons.

    1. The free publicity for Tradition has been great – we could not have ever paid for that sort of publicity.

    2. The SSPX and what it stands for is beginning to make head ways. More conciliar conservatives are beginning to wake up.

    3. More and more clergy/theologians within the conciliar church are starting to see that what Tradition stands for isn’t merely about smells and bells. It is beginning to make them think and question the conciliar religion.

    4. In Rome, the SSPX is a red hot issue which means many are beginning to be for or against.

    5. It has served as a reminder to Trads what the cause is all about and encouraged them to keep up the fight.

    What is more is that I think that as much as so many of want a recognition of the work of the SSPX by Rome, yet bishop Fellay’s being stabbed in the back by the Conciliarists and the recent appointment of the modernists Muller and Di Noia are (in my opinion) God’s providential way of helping Tradition from being deceived by the conciliarists. – In all this despite what it might seem; God is at work.

Leave a Reply