I really like Dr. Taylor Marshall’s two analogies.
The first is two brothers at a barbecue and one brother says to the other. I don’t like how Dad is doing such-and-such and I think you should support my decision to disobey him. But, this brother wants to remain obedient to his Father.
The second analogy is that both of these brothers have a third brother who is doing all kinds of weird stuff and Dad turns a blind eye to it, while reprimanding the other brother for what he’s doing, which is what traditionally had been done long before this third brother came along.
So, we have Bishops and Priests celebrating PRIDE Masses and crickets from the Holy Father. But, the SSPX wants to ordain new Bishops, because the others are growing old, and they want to celebrate the Sacred Liturgy how it has been done for centuries and that is now seen as a no-no.
Dr. Marshall goes on to explain how what happens is that the brother who is disproportionately disciplined will become rebellious. He will make his Father’s life hell.
And the brother doing all the weird stuff and receives little-to-no discipline will become entitled, spoiled, and rotten. And when the Father eventually tries to discipline this child, he too will make his Father’s life hell.
“The kids lose and the Father loses. It is bad for everyone.”
Rebellious clergy, priests and Bishops, excommunicate themselves. They need not the help of the Church for an official Declaration of Excommunication. They know precisely what they’re doing, and have been adequately warned. Our Holy Father, in his Papacy Seat of St. Peter, has provided them with sufficient warning, and invitation to return back to the Church.
They refuse. Thus, their excommunication is of their own doing, not that of the Church.
So the SSPX has been excommunicated for praying the Mass that led countless saints to heaven. Has he also excommunicated these saints? I don’t believe it’s possible to excommunicated those already in heaven. So the mass isn’t the issue. I have been told that obedience is the issue. A Catholic should be obedient to our Holy Father the Pope, no matter what. But a Pope is not infallible. In certain matters he is, but in others he isn’t. So if the Pope tells us to do a great wrong - like kill all the baby boys 2 and under (to use a biblical example), and said if we didn’t do this then we would be excommunicated, would it be a sin not to kill all the baby boys? Would we be morally obliged to kill them because the Pope told us to and we must obey the Pope, or morally obliged not to kill them because the 10 commandments, goven by God to Moses, tells us “thou shalt not kill”?
I cannot obey the Pope if what he is saying is manifestly wrong. I don’t even go to the SSPX, but what he has done is hugely tragic. For me excommunicating the Mass of Ages, the Mass of the Saints, is pretty close to killing all the baby boys.
I thought the excommunication was for ordaining bishops without authority. Also, I don’t agree with restricting the Latin Mass, but in no way would I equate that with slaughtering innocents.
I share your frustration with both Pope Leo and his predecessor, Pope Francis.
This being said, the SSPX have excommunicated themselves (rightly or wrongly).
I agree with you that this is different when that rogue Bishop tried to ordain women on a boat years ago. They were trying to subvert/pervert the historic teachings of the Church. Whereas the SSPX are simply trying to preserve the historical teachings and practices from being perverted. Which is why I still believe good can come from this.
But, of those not in schism with the Church continues to pervert the teachings of the Church, then there may come a time when millions of the faithful do something massive to correct this.
I know that some believe these men (referring to the Pope, Cardinal Fernandez (whom I think should be replaced), and others are incapable of making mistakes, but they can and do make mistakes when they are not taking their role of preserving the Apostolic Faith which they have been untrusted serious!
And I also have a problem with how someone can be for the so-called “synodal way” and ecumenicalism with non-faithful individuals, but then not have genuine conversations with those who are concerned with protecting the Faith. It is frustrating and mind boggling.
I will keep Praying that God’s will be done and not the will of perverted men (and I mean this in the true sense of the word, not in a derogatory way).
My Lutheran co-worker, who listens to mostly NPR News most of the time, asked me about the SSPX. So here are some interesting facts and you may add or correct any of these:
The SSPX is a Priestly society and there are currently about 1,480 formal religious members.
They are named after St. Pope Pius X, who was elected Pope on August 4, 1903 and served until his death on August 20, 1914.
Pope Pius X was canonized a Saint on on May 29, 1954 under Pope Pius XII.
The Society of Saint Pius X was founded in 1970 and their core mission is the preservation of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Priesthood, tradition, and Liturgy.
The letter also says that the Society will not respond to the excommunication with bitterness or revolt. Instead they will offer it up as suffering for the good of the Church and the Pope.
It ends by expressing hope that a future Pope will adopt St. Pius X’s passion to “restore all things in Christ,” and that he will recognize the SSPX as loyal sons ready to help in that restoration.
I have learned more about this and it is not good. Apparently there is part of the Liturgy of Consecration of Bishops that requires the presentation of the approval by the Pope and the SSPX presented something other than, which, in my opinion, renders these Consecrations invalid—or rather illicit at best.
The older form of the Mass has not be excommunicated. In fact, under Pope Leo, dispensations from Traditiones Custodes have increased (i.e. more priests who are in communion with the Holy See are receiving permission to celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Missal).
I would also take the opportunity note that the very public act of schism by the SSPX does not help the cause of traditional Catholics who are already looked upon with suspicion by many leaders of the Church. Because of what the SSPX has done and the way many have come out to defend them, traditional Catholics just look (to the eyes of many in leadership positions) like a bunch of modern Donatists who don’t need to have anything to with the rest of the Church, which seems so impure.
I wish this were not so and that we could go back to Summorum Pontificum and a gradual spreading of more traditional aspects of the liturgy, just as I wish the SSPX would actually behave like traditional Catholics (i.e. maintain unity with the Supreme Pontiff).
P.S. I’m not sure if you think that if the SSPX humbly decided not to illicitly consecrate bishops that it would be like killing a bunch of infant boys. What you posted reads that way, but I am going to assume that this was not your intention.
Lord Varys in Game of Thrones commits “treason” by suggesting that the Dragon Queen was not a good queen, and that her nephew, commonly known as Jon Snow, should claim the throne instead.
Because of this act of treason, he is condemned to death by dragon fire. Before his execution, he says to his friend, Tyrion, who revealed his treasonous designs: “I hope I am wrong, I hope I deserve this.”
Some acts of disobedience are grave and serious and can only be excused for the gravest reasons. But these gravest of reasons are also reasons which are likely to be very contentious, and about which even good men may not agree.
Eventually - and tragically - Lord Varys is proved right.
[quote]
Because of what the SSPX has done and the way many have come out to defend them, traditional Catholics just look (to the eyes of many in leadership positions) like a bunch of modern Donatists who don’t need to have anything to with the rest of the Church, which seems so impure.
[/qutoe]
I do not disagree with the optics of all of this. I also get the frustration on the part of their supporters though. We see many abuses in the Church (LGBTQA.i.+ Mases) and it seems that faithful Catholic Bishops who are calling it out are getting reprimanded. It feels perverted.
Well said. There is irony in the fact that the SSPX had to skirt around Tradition to consecrate these Bishops. And that they swore loyalty to the Bishop of Rome while actively disobeying him.
It is like when my Wife or I call out our youngest for doing something that she should not be doing and she rebuts “I’m not” (while she is doing the very thing that we are asking her not to do). She is old enough to know better. And grown Bishops are absolutely old enough to know better.
I know that your response was directed to @EmmaDixo, but I think she was comparing latae sententiae to the automatic excommunication of the SSPX’s actions. How under Canon 1398 it is stated that any Catholic Christian who procures or assists in an abortion are automatically excommunicating themselves. I do not think she was comparing the gravity of the actions, but I too was confused by her comparison until I heard Dr. Taylor Marshall talk about how the two relate.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I wonder if you could spell out what you have in mind by “the cause of traditional Catholics” ? Because your post only mentions liturgy, I wonder if you take the aforementioned cause to be principally liturgical.
From the perspective an SSPX faithful and supporter, something I find noteworthy is that there is a significant number of Catholics who may substantially agree with what the SSPX stands for in terms of doctrinal and liturgical fidelity, but who draw the line at the Consecrations. In their view the profession of faith and the sanctification of souls could never be worked out by overt disobedience to the pope in the serious matter of episcopal consecrations. What is your view on this and why?
The SSPX bishops did not deny that they were doing Consecrations against the will of the Holy Father. What they deny is that it was a schismatic act and a validly excommunicable offence: because it did not come from a rejection of the pope’s authority in principle, because the papal mandate is not required by divine law but only by ecclesiastical law (and so it at least in principle possible to legitimately consecrate without it), and because it was necessary to do so.
Of course, by hypothesis, if there is a state of necessity that requires obvert disobedience, then the authority in question will not recognize the necessity. But the same pope at a later time, or another pope could recognize that these actions were justified.
I don’t believe that this meets the “state of necessity” in the way that it was intended. It think it is a slippery slope.
When the Anglicans allowed artificial birth control, but only in extreme cases of necessity, it opened the flood-gates and we now see where that has taken mainline Protestantism when it comes their embrace of artificial forms of contraception. What started off as an exception, has been abused.
What happens when a group you don’t like comes along and does what the SSPX just did? Are they not then justified in doing the same? I am not anti-SSPX, but I do see where this can lead if not taken seriously. I just wish the Pope and the DDF took other abuses by other groups (like the Council of German Bishops, among others) just as serous.
In that case, even if there is a necessity (e.g. the mother in poor health with an uncooperative husband), there is no possibility of doing so because artificial birth control is against the natural (and hence the eternal) law. This is not the case for episcopal consecrations without mandate.
Of course it’s a precarious path! I made the analogy with committing treason earlier… When authority fails, it becomes extremely difficult to know what to do. And the failure may not be recognized by all at the same time. I couldn’t give you a recipe for judging other groups in general.
I acknowledge that the term “traditional Catholics” could be understood in different ways, just as I understand that the dispute between the Holy See and SSPX is not only about the liturgy. When I wrote the phrase you have quoted, the liturgical position was most on my mind. That is, I was speaking of pretty much anyone who favours the Tridentine Mass.
When I spoke about their “cause”, that may have come across too much as meaning a “campaign”. Though I didn’t have any other cause in mind apart from accepted by the leadership of the Church and perhaps to make the Tridentine Mass more widespread within the Church.
I would not phrase things this way, though I think it is correct to say that illicitly consecrating bishops is wrong and harmful. This is a wound in the unity of the Church. It gives the impression that the SSPX is establishing a parallel or competing hierarchy (though I know that they acknowledge that Leo XIV is truly the pope, unlike sedevacantists). Furthermore, they don’t look like they are faithful to the liturgy if they don’t have an apostolic mandate to present when the liturgy of ordination requires it.
The reason I would not phrase things in the same manner stated in the sentence I have quoted is that God brings good out of evil. St. Paul, for example, acknowledged that sometimes the Gospel is preached by people with impure motives, but that nonetheless can bring about good.
The divisions of Christianity are most unfortunate. And this includes SSPX. The leadership of others carries a heavy weight, and responsibility.
The Final Judgement against those of us who lead others to rebel against the Church, the cost is going to be heavy, possibly with one’s own condemnation by Jesus’ words of “depart from me, for I never knew you.”
And those who freely choose to separate themselves from the Church, also choose to separate themselves from Christ and His Body – us.
Yes, God is merciful and He delights in mercy. But He is also very clear of the consequences of rebellion and the choices we make. Judas Iscariot is a perfect example of how God allows us to condemn ourselves. Jesus knew that Judas was a traitor, yet, Judas was invited as an Apostle and journeyed with Christ throughout His ministry.
Most often, the Church doesn’t have to issue an Excommunication, because we excommunicate and condemn ourselves, exactly like Judas Iscariot did to his own self.
Those of us members or faithful who have been excommunicated and declared schismatics consider ourselves faithful sons of the Holy Father, and are attached to One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church with all of our hearts, and would rather suffer all things than be separated from our Mother.
But in the end, it doesn’t matter what we think of ourselves. It only matters how faithful and obedient we are to the Word as revealed by Christ and handed down by the authority of His Church through the Aposles.
I don’t believe we can be both “excommunicated” yet “faithful” at the same same time. One contradicts the other. Faithful to the Father doesn’t resemble denying the Church or schism – there is no “One”, Holy, Catholic, and “Apostolic” Church in schism. That in itself has lost 2 of the 4 pillars of the Church (it looses the “One” and “Apostolic” aspects).
However, if I were to receive personal advice from the Church’s clergy (and hierarchy) that what I’ve been misled into is schism and excommunicated myself from, this would probably be a very good time for myself to re-evaluate. I would ask myself, “do I really want to be seperated, excommunicated, declared as a schismatic?”
For those who have received such same advice, I too invite reconciliation with the Church, would humbly admit the error of my ways, and be open to absolution. Pride and ego are what we pray to take a back seat and renounce when we ask in the Our Father “to deliver us from the Evil One” – the father of Lies.
