To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.
 |
| SSPX was right about Vat2; remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/ |
All the questions your average Catholic ever wanted to know about the Society of St Pius (SSPX), but had only Novus Ordo priests to ask, are answered below in a brief, cogent article by a priest of the Society. With the perfect storm gathering over the Vatican in the lead-up to the SSPX's consecration of bishops without the approval of 'Pope Leo XIV', your average Catholic needs to know what's what.
The tragic reality is that in the conciliar, Novus Ordo, Synodal counterfeit church of 'Pope Leo' your average Catholic has simply no idea. They're kept in ignorance which is anything but bliss, by priests and bishops who've known nothing but Paul VI's Mass for 60 years. The truth of “Ignorantia juris non excusat” ( ignorance of the law is no excuse") will be borne in on us all at our particular judgment if not before.
Take the "Stations of the Cross" attended by a reader of this blog this evening, at a provincial Novus Ordo church. About half last week's number turned up and no wonder. The booklets were expensively printed but bore little relation to the prayers recited by the faithful on Fridays in Lent for hundreds of years. No lyric poem celebrating the Co-Redemptrix. No Our Fathers, Hail Marys or Glory Be's. No priest.
And greeting our reader and the 20 or so who came, the foyer of the church (dedicated to St Patrick) featured a gross green cardboard cartoon leprechaun extending a glass, an invitation it seemed to a party to celebrate their patron saint.
Below, we read the 'Dubia' submitted by Catholics to an SSPX priest. 'Dulia' on the other hand, means veneration of the saints whose lives teach Catholics the knowledge and love of God. Both words are unknown in the false conciliar religion but they're both preached by priests of the Society of St Pius X.
 |
| self-explanatory |
Recently, Crisis Magazine published an article titled “A Catholic’s Dubia for the SSPX,” in which the author, Daniel Waldow, asked a number of questions regarding the status of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) as well as its views on some questions of concern in the postconciliar Church. The answers below were written by an SSPX priest and have been approved for publication by his superiors.
Dubium I: Why does the SSPX stay in irregular canonical communion with Rome when other groups that exclusively celebrate the TLM, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King, currently exist? Why does Rome approve of the FSSP and the ICK but not the SSPX?
The SSPX’s legal status with regard to Rome is considered canonically irregular because it operates as a Priestly Society of Common Life Without Vows despite having been officially suppressed on May 6, 1975, by Bishop Mamie of Fribourg. The SSPX has always maintained that this suppression was of no canonical value on account of its motives and irregular form. Subsequent sanctions were imposed on the Society’s founder and upon the bishops he consecrated without a mandate in 1988, but these relate to persons rather than the institution.
With regard to the FSSP and the ICK, it seems that they are tolerated by Rome:
- in part because they restrain their public activity to championing the traditional liturgy of the Church merely as a preference for an anterior form of worship rather than as a strict right and a doctrinal imperative;
- in part because they make no public stand
- against the doctrinal errors that presently ravage the Church;
- and partly because the Roman authorities, in consequence of their silence on doctrinal issues, are happy for them to minister to traditional Catholics who might otherwise turn to the SSPX.
 |
| Fr. Z: “The real import of the consecration of ‘The Immaculata’ church of the SSPX (Kansas, US) is not just that it was jammed & the consecration viewed by many. It’s that they DID it. They BUILT that. Now that they have demonstrated that they can build it, they will build others.” |
Dubium II: Why did Pope Benedict XVI state, in a letter to all Catholic bishops, that the reason the SSPX does “not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church…is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons?” What are these doctrinal reasons and “doctrinal questions”?
Dubium III: Does the SSPX teach that the following are intrinsic evils—i.e., actions which are always and everywhere evil in virtue of their object and which, thus, can never be justified regardless of intention or circumstances: (1) reception of the Eucharist under the species of bread by the laity on the hand, (2) distribution of the Eucharist by a lay extraordinary minister during or outside of Mass?
Dubium IV: Does the SSPX deny the sacramental validity of the Eucharistic consecration in the Mass of Pope Paul VI?
The SSPX does not deny the sacramental validity of the Eucharistic consecration in the Mass of Pope Paul VI when the due matter, form, and intention are present.
Dubium V: Does the SSPX think that priests and laity commit a sin, either due to object or circumstances, by celebrating and assisting at a Mass of Pope Paul VI?
The SSPX teaches that the Mass of Pope Paul VI is defective as a liturgical rite and, even if valid and offered with reverence, it will tend to weaken faith over time. A Brief Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, also known as “The Ottaviani Intervention,” remains the seminal work of explanation in this regard, and the experience of the last half-century confirms its conclusions.
So, does the SSPX think that priests and laity commit a sin, either due to object or circumstances, by celebrating and assisting at a Mass of Pope Paul VI? The SSPX answers, “not necessarily,” because it distinguishes between the evil of a defective rite and the act of attendance at such a rite. The rite is objectively deficient and will necessarily erode faith over time. Attendance at such a rite is not intrinsically evil because circumstances may exist—ignorance, charity, coercion, etc.—to make it excusable.
For example, a soul with a genuine desire for sanctity who has never heard of the TLM, or has never been in a position to understand the nocive effect of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, would not sin by attendance at this rite on account of what the moral theologians call invincible ignorance. Indeed, the soul might spiritually benefit by attendance, but this is not on account of the rite per se, only per accidens. On the other hand, if a soul perceives the deficiency of the Mass of Pope Paul VI and has no sufficient reason to justify attendance, then that soul would sin.
Dubium VI: Does the SSPX think that Catholics should attend a Mass of Pope Paul VI on a Sunday or holy day of obligation if that is the only Mass which they have access to?
With reference to the Dubium V response, because the Mass of Pope Paul VI is a defective rite that puts the faith of its attendees in peril, the SSPX counsels that no one should attend the rite, noting that the obligation to attend Mass cannot override the common good.
Now, emphasizing the distinction between the morality of the rite in itself and the morality of attending the rite, circumstances may excuse attendance and sometimes even render it necessary. Aside from the case of invincible ignorance, attendance at a Mass of Pope Paul VI might be necessary to avoid an imminent greater evil, such as family disunity.
In such cases, logically, one must make a further distinction between “being present at” and participating in the rite. The Catholic who is not invincibly ignorant should not participate in the rite. A comprehensive article treating the question may be found here.
The first two dubia seek to identify, in a general way, why the SSPX does not have full papal approval. From an outsider’s perspective, the fact that other traditional groups such as the FSSP and ICK are fully approved by the pope suggests that a love for the TLM and all of the traditional liturgical rites is not the issue.
 |
| A worker installing Mary's statue on the SSPX's Immaculata church (20230 kneels for a prayer |
So what is the issue? Is it doctrinal, disciplinary, both, or neither? The second dubium identifies Pope Benedict XVI’s answer to these questions. Benedict claimed that doctrine, not discipline, was the reason why he did not approve of a ministry for the SSPX within the Church.
This was a significant change by Benedict, since doctrine is what defines Catholicism and unites one Catholic with another. Doctrine refers to truths about faith and morals which are divinely revealed by Christ and handed on and clarified by Scripture and the magisterium.
All Catholics are meant to profess the same doctrine, the one universal Catholic faith. We do distinguish between infallible and non-infallible teachings of the magisterium, but even the latter are binding upon the faithful unless there are grave and evident reasons to question such a teaching (see Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium 25 and the CDF’s Donum Veritatis 24-31).
What unites Roman Catholics and Byzantine Catholics, for example, is doctrine, not discipline. We are all Catholic despite our very different liturgical and ascetical practices. Conversely, Byzantine Catholics are not in full communion with Orthodox churches—with whom they share liturgical and ascetical disciplines—precisely because Orthodox Christians reject aspects of our Catholic doctrine.
And so dubia III-VI seek to clarify matters of faith and morals and distinguish them from disciplinary issues. These dubia focus on questions regarding sacramental theology and the morality of liturgical acts. From what I can tell, these are the prominent topics which divide members of the SSPX from the wider Church.
So, what are the bare minimum doctrinal truths which Catholics must affirm in these areas? What are the bare minimum doctrinal truths which all Catholics—SSPX or otherwise—must agree on?
It seems to me that all Catholics must affirm the following: (1) lay reception of Communion on the hand and service as an extraordinary minister, while perhaps less fitting, is not evil in itself—its morality depends upon intention or circumstances; (2) the consecration at Novus Ordo Masses is valid; (3) the official prayers and actions of the Novus Ordo Mass, while perhaps less fitting than the TLM, are not intrinsically evil, and so they can be celebrated and assisted in without sin; (4) Catholics must attend Mass on Sundays and holy days so long as they can do so at and celebrated in a licit and noa Eucharistic liturgy which is approved by the pope n-sacrilegious manner; failure to do so is a grave sin.
 |
| Growth in number of SSPX priests |
I am sincerely open to correction, but it is not clear to me how denial of any of the above statements would be consistent with Catholic doctrine. At the same time, one can affirm all of these statements and still have ample room for argument regarding important disciplinary issues.
For example, one could argue that, given that reception of Communion on the hand is a less fitting act of reverence toward the Lord, then the Church’s discipline should never permit it, and that the decision to permit it is a prudential error.
Such an argument would not in any way contradict the view that lay Communion on the hand is not an intrinsic evil. Analogously, the Roman Rite requires kneeling during the Eucharistic prayer—one could insist upon this discipline without insisting that standing during the Eucharistic prayer (as Byzantine Catholics do) is sinful.
I emphasize that I want all baptized Catholics to be united in professing the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Faith. In order to do that, we need to share certain doctrinal commitments, including commitments regarding the nature of the sacraments and the moral character of liturgical acts.
My hope and prayer is that the SSPX share the above commitments with me. And if they don’t, I humbly ask them to explain why. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/a-catholics-dubia-for-the-sspx
Author
Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation (Heb 13:7)
Hail glorious St Patrick! Please pray for the Church
