(1) What is the SSPX controversy all about?

Here is my contribution to the question, 'What's this SSPX business all about? Can somebody couch it in simple terms?'

On highly controversial matters is is wise to be very meticulous and thorough in backing up one's statements. In this posting, if readers will be indulgent, I'll just set down what I understand of the situation. I will work at providing links. I hope I don't misrepresent anybody.

Vatican II closed in 1965. There were changes in every aspect of Catholic life, including progressive changes to the Latin Mass about every 2 years from 1962 until the Novus Ordo Missae was imposed in 1969. Archbishop Lefebvre had retired as Superior of the Holy Ghost Fathers and was living in Rome.

Now there are two views about what happened next.

VIEWPOINT (1) Those who hold this perspective generally state that the situation is extremely simple and clear-cut: Mgr Lefebvre and the others were disobedient to the point of schism, and as a precondition to re-entering full communion they must be expected to submit unreservedly to the authority of the pope.

As far as I know, nobody who is informed will dispute the following facts:

Mgr Lefebvre refused to say the New Mass, founded a Priestly Fraternity and opened a seminary, which completely ignored the teachings of Vatican II. He was told to follow the new orientations. When he continued to refuse, he was rebuked, and then suspended, and then told to close his seminary. He continued to refuse. Matters simmered along until 1988 when he consecrated 4 bishops against the specific command of Pope John Paul II. The following day he was excommunicated, but continued to function as before. At this point about a dozen of his priests left the Fraternity (the SSPX), went to Rome, and asked to be given a canonical place in the Church that would be in good standing. The Fraternity of S. Peter (FSSP) was erected within a fortnight. The SSPX slowly but steadily increased in numbers, led by Mgr Lefebvre, and when he died the SSPX continued its work. At first none of the SSPX bishops were in charge but after some years Bp Fellay was elected superior General, a position he holds to the present day. Matters continued until 2000 AD when Pope John Paul gave Cdl Castrillon Hoyos the task of seeking a way to reconcile the SSPX with the Church. The SSPX have not yet accepted a formal structure within the Church. When Pope Benedict ascended the Chair of Peter he unexpectedly issued a decree permitting the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, which he styled The Extraordinary Form, as contrasted with the Novus Ordo as the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite. Then a couple of years later he, again unexpectedly, rescinded the excommunications of the SSPX bishops, but to date the SSPX have not yet agreed with the Vatican on a 'Canonical Structure'. Meanwhile the Vatican held talks with the SSPX, lasting several years, on the disagreements which the SSPX expressed with some aspects of the teachings of Vatican II. Matters continue in this situation. Recently one of the four SSPX bishops, Bp Williamson, was either expelled or resigned from the Fraternity, and is now a 'vagus' or prelate with no canonical place in the hierarchy, although he is still a validly-consecrated bishop.

I will now state, as simply and as concisely as possible, what I understand of the 'trad' position - although I do not claim any authority to speak for anybody else.

VIEWPOINT (2) Those who hold this perspective generally state that the present situation in the Church is the fruit of destructive processes that have being going on steadily since the breakup of Christendom with the Protestant Rebellion, and that the case of the SSPX cannot be seen in a vacuum. In a word, the crisis is being perpetuated in part by a confusion about the dogmas of the Faith, compounded by a misunderstanding of the scope, meaning and limits of Obedience. The Faithful are being asked to abandon essential bastions of the Faith in the name of Obedience, a situation which cannot be permitted. In the last resort, one must say "I will serve God before men". When Obedience is pitted against Faith, then Faith must prevail. Obedience is at the service of the Faith, not Faith at the service of Obedience.

Many who support the stance of the SSPX further believe that the entire situation is intimately related to the Message of Fatima - something which is also being systematically distorted by powerful figures, but the truth of this too is emerging, especially in very recent years.

Those holding VIEWPOINT (2) state that the Church is enduring one of the most serious and dangerous crises the Church has ever had to pass through. In particular, the proponents of Modernism, - 'the synthesis of all heresies' - despite the most strenuous efforts of the popes since the eighteenth century, have succeeded in gaining high positions of power within the Church, and are now trying to obliterate the Faith which has been handed down from the Apostles. In particular, a version of Religious Liberty and Ecumenism which was repeatedly condemned in the strongest terms is now being promoted, not to say imposed. These forces are working to establish a man-centred religion instead of the God-centred religion that we have been given by Christ. In the face of this, the actions taken by Mgr Lefebvre & the others are fully justified within the Mind and Law of the Church: the sanctions imposed on the SSPX are null and void, in most cases being an escalation of an already untenable situation, being penalties for refusing to accept a sanction that was null and void in the first place; and that therefore the entire edifice of condemnation falls to the ground. This is not to justify each and every statement or action of the SSPX. Before the advent of the internet, it was next to impossible for the SSPX to have their case heard. They have been systematically excluded from official Catholic forums, while the secular press were either hostile or apathetic. Forces within the Church are extremely hostile to the vision of the Church espoused by the SSPX, and many senior prelates do not understand the real reasons for the SSPX's actions, which are nothing other than the continued fight for the integrity of the Faith. There is a discernible pattern of statements and sanctions that have the appearance of authority, but on closer examination are nothing of the sort. For different reasons, the popes themselves have taken action against the SSPX, but these actions too are such that they must be resisted, in true obedience, for the sake of the Faith. Astonishing as this may seem to many faithful Catholics, the theology is well established and there are historical precedents. This viewpoint has scandalised many, but nevertheless has been persuasive enough that the SSPX has continued to grow year by year, steadily adding at least 20 priests annually to the Catholic Church, despite every sanction up to and including an alleged excommunication that has been attempted. The SSPX have strenuously denied that they are against the Pope or the Church, and believe that the Pope and the Church will realise that the SSPX are among the truest friends of the Papacy and the Church; and that the time will come when the Church will be asking for their help in the restoration of the Mystical Body. From the beginning, concerned seminarians and priests have been, like Nicodemus, visiting SSPX priories by night. This is done with discretion. The SSPX leadership do not see a formal, canonical reconciliation as the first priority: while there remain fundamental disagreements about Catholic dogma, any agreement is bound to unravel, sooner rather than later. That is why they have pressed, for decades, for a thorough consideration of the doctrinal issues in the Church since Vatican II.

From the beginning of the rift, the SSPX have been given quiet encouragement by many, not only laypeople but prelates up to the level of Cardinal; concrete actions have been taken by the mainstream Church that would be impossible if the SSPX were really excommunicated or in schism; and very recently, faced with the continuing decline in their dioceses, SSPX priests are being asked by diocesan bishops to take an active part in priestly formation.

This is, I believe, a summary of the Viewpoint of those who support the SSPX. In presenting it I am not denying the heroic work of those other souls who are working in The Lord's vineyard and who cannot agree with the SSPX's position.

Whole books have been written on this situation, both on the current crisis in the Church and on the SSPX in particular. I hope the above will contribute to a debate that will clear the air.

numealinesimpetar