PAGE COLLECTIONS -- CHECK THEM OUT!

Friday, July 14, 2023

Is the SSPX Position Really "indefensible?" Part 1

Cardinal Wojtyla and Cardinal Slipyj both ordained clandestinely
without permission from the Vatican violating canon law.

I'm currently reading SSPX Indefensible by Dom Dalmasso of the Logos Project. He was raised in the SSPX, spent two years in a Benedictine Monastery, and later joined the Marine Corps for a time. Twelve years ago, he transitioned his family into the FSSP and has joined the SSPX critics. His document on is really just a reiteration of points made by John Salza, ex-32nd degree Mason, Robert Siscoe, and Andrew Bartel, all of whom came out of the SSPX as Novus Ordo (NO) reverts and now attack the SSPX as schismatic and a danger to the faith.

As I read the works of these men (and I do read them because searching for the truth requires a careful look at what your philosophical opponents say), it emphasizes to me that the Church is, indeed, in crisis, a crisis of mass confusion (pun intended). 

The newly reformed Novus Ordo reverts seem to ignore the reality of the crisis and offer no solutions except to embrace what Bartel calls "Frankenchurch," a term he picked up from Fr. Anthony Cekada, a sedevacantist priest who died in 2020. Embrace the NO. Grin and bear it. Refuse to resist. 

That attitude smacks to me of quietism. Let the Holy Spirit work it all out. Just sit tight, oh, and don't forget to give to the Bishop's Appeal.

But the reality is that God uses us when a Church crisis arises. He used St. Athanasius, St. Dominic, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Augustine and many other saints who fought a crisis in their own times. God also, as the priest who witnessed our 1969 marriage told us, uses the laity. "The laity always bring things back on track," he said. Fulton Sheen often said the same thing.

So when I came across the article by Dom Dalmasso, which is long, I decided to read it, study it, and think about it. Is he right? Is the SSPX position really indefensible? Am I sinning by going to an SSPX chapel? 

I'll need more than one blog post to cover the article. 

Since this isn't the first time I've jumped into the murky waters of SSPX criticism, I'll just make a brief comment about one of the men mentioned above, Andrew Bartel. When I read his story in Catholic World Report a few years ago, my conclusion was that he came from a very troubled and divided family and was not an "authority" I could trust, or an authority at all for that matter. People can be stubborn; they can disagree. You can blame that on... whatever...and make the "whatever" the scapegoat. For Bartel, the scapegoat seems to be traditionalism and the SSPX. And so, in the end, he "returned" to the Novus Ordo. Here's what he wrote:

I informed my parents of my intention to return to the Church I had been baptized in. This is when hell broke loose in my family, and all semblance of false peace fell away. They were shocked, horrified, and embarrassed. They blamed themselves and blamed each other. Then they cemented themselves into their chosen Traditionalist foxholes, and it became a household war.

Wow! Talk about a dysfunctional family.

Frankly, I would never trust Andrew Bartel on anything at this point. To me airing dirty family laundry in public is repulsive. He's a young man who started high school in 2011 which, by my calculation, makes him about 26 years old. Presumably his parents and siblings are still living. How do you think they feel reading the description below of his family life and homecoming from the SSPX boarding school in France?:

Upon my return in 2012, my family was walking around with candles and believed the earth was the center of the universe. My parents had become enamored with the writings of Charles A. Coulombe and Solange Strong Hertz. These were two intelligent Traditionalists who had followed the logical trajectory of Traditionalist principles, and they were advocating ideas and doctrines which, interestingly, most Traditionalists would reject....Dad still trusted the leadership of Bishop Williamson, and so he leaned toward the Resistance. Mom thought that the chickens had finally come home to roost for Lefebvre’s Society, and she gravitated more toward the Sedevacantist groups. I was a Trad Non-Denom.

Dramatic, emotional stories and personal experiences, like soap operas, may be riveting. Whether they really point to the truth is another matter.

And then there are the other "experts," of course, like John Salza who went from 32nd degree masonry, to traditionalism, to the Novus Ordo, and now attacks the SSPX. Who will be his next dance partner I wonder? 

At any rate, these are the men who attack the SSPX as schismatic raising many issues that simply indicate the state of chaotic confusion in the Church. They talk about the disunity among the traditionally oriented as if that proves the SSPX is wrong. I find that laughable in view of the chaos and disunity in the NO Church. Can they really be serious?

But enough of that. On to the document.

Dalmasso quotes canon law and statements of the SSPX basing his work on John Salza et al. I won't go into everything that made my antennae quiver, but here was the first biggie:

On July 23, 1976, Lefebvre received a suspension a divinis[9] for ordaining priests without dimissorial letters, which is in direct violation of Canon 1383:
A bishop who, contrary to the prescript of can. 1015, ordains without legitimate dimissorial letters someone who is not his subject is prohibited for a year from conferring the order. The person who has received the ordination, however, is ipso facto suspended from the order received.[10]

Why did I find this jarring? Because Pope John Paul II did exactly the same thing when he was Cardinal of Krakow as Peter Kwasniewski points out in a fascinating article on clandestine ordinations:

Cardinal Wojtyła and one of his auxiliary bishops, Juliusz Groblicki, clandestinely ordained priests for service in Czechoslovakia, in spite of (or perhaps because of) the fact that the Holy See had forbidden underground bishops in that country to perform such ordinations. The clandestine ordinations in Kraków were always conducted with the explicit permission of the candidate’s superior—his bishop or, in the case of members of religious orders, his provincial.... Cardinal Wojtyła did not inform the Holy See of these ordinations. He did not regard them as acts in defiance of Vatican policy, but as a duty to suffering fellow believers. And he presumably did not wish to raise an issue that could not be resolved without pain on all sides. He may also have believed that the Holy See and the Pope knew that such things were going on in Kraków, trusted his judgment and discretion, and may have welcomed a kind of safety valve in what was becoming an increasingly desperate situation.[2]

Remember, and I repeat, that the Vatican had forbidden clandestine ordinations. Cardinal Wojtyla performed them anyway. Hmm...sound familiar? Did he not incur suspension by his actions? Or, in fact is it not true that, sometimes a "desperate situation" requires desperate actions. Kwasniewski sums it up:

Whether or not we are among those who laud “John Paul the Great,” one thing is clear: what he did in Kraków was entirely justified, and adds to, rather than detracts from, the luster of his character.

Amen! He did what was necessary to preserve the faith.

That isn't the only example Kwasniewski offers. He talks about unapproved clandestine episcopal ordinations by Cardinal Josef Slipyj in the Soviet Union. Is there any discussion of the automatic suspension of these men and those they ordained? If you can find it, please share with us here.

Apparently some illicit ordinations of priests and bishops are more equal than others.

Neither Wojtyla or Slipyj was declared schismatic or excommunicate despite the "very grave" act of ordaining without Vatican permission. I'm not aware that any of the "experts" attacking the SSPX have addressed these violations of canon law by these two cardinals one of whom is now a canonized saint and the other whose cause is in process.

So is there a crisis in the Church? Was Archbishop Lefebvre justified in seeing and responding to the same kind of emergency that his two predecessors experienced? The same arguments used to condemn Archbishop Lefebvre's ordinations existed in the cases of Cardinals Wojtyla and Slipyj didn't they? And yet, we hear nothing about these cases. Why? Because they damage the arguments used to discredit Archbishop Lefebvre? Do Salza and company really not know about them? How honest are these men as they relentlessly trash the SSPX.

Kwasniewski summarizes the situation:

When the Church is under attack and her survival is at stake, or when her common good is gravely threatened, flagrant “disobedience” to papal commands or laws can be justified—indeed, not only justified, but right, meritorious, the stuff of sanctity. No one has ever questioned that rules concerning episcopal consecrations are the pope’s right to establish, and that Wojtyła and Slipyj unquestionably and knowingly violated ecclesiastical law, which should have merited them a place of opprobrium alongside Archbishop Lefebvre. Instead, we celebrate them as heroes of the resistance against Communism. 
The reason we do so is that we recognize a more fundamental law than that of canonical dictates: salus animarum suprema lex, the salvation of souls is the supreme law. It is for the salvation of souls that the entire structure of ecclesiastical law exists; it has no other purpose than ultimately to protect and advance the sharing of the life of Christ with mankind. In normal circumstances, ecclesiastical laws create a structure within which the Church’s mission may unfold in an orderly and peaceful way. But there can be situations of anarchy or breakdown, corruption or apostasy, where the ordinary structures become impediments to, not facilitators of, the Church’s mission. In these cases, the voice of conscience dictates that one do what needs to be done, in prudence and charity, for the achievement of the sovereign law.

My husband and I have seen nothing but wisdom and charity from the priests of the SSPX during COVID and in its aftermath. But we aren't naive. We've known many priests over the years who were unfaithful to their holy vocation and scandalized the flock. I used to carpool with a woman who ended up "marrying" my pastor, a liberal who dissented from many Church teachings. I had many disagreements with Father before he abandoned the priesthood. I have no doubt the SSPX has bad priests as well. No human institution is without its Judases. 

So is the SSPX "indefensible?" The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. Obviously John Paul II and Cardinal Slipyj believed their actions, which violated canon law and incurred automatic penalties, were justified. They were never punished or called out for disobedience. Archbishop Lefebvre did what they did at a time of serious crisis in the Church. Is the ascendancy of neo-modernism less serious than Communism? I don't think so. What about you?

TO BE CONTINUED.... SEE PART 2

17 comments:

  1. Re: john › 17-21. "that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me."

    There is a saying attributable to several saints to the effect that 'you can catch more flies with a little honey than with a barrel of vinegar'.

    I think that if a group, to some, appears not to be in full communion with Rome than we should pray that it is and if not will soon be.

    These mutual excommunication societies lead to no good.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  2. St. Athanasius became bishop at least 5 years after Nicea and was fighting Niceans (libelled as semi-Arian) who opposed his heresy of absolute equality between Father and Son (otherwise knien as Modalism). Athanasius was a modalist; read the Fathers for yourself and stop buying the propaganda. Starting with the 2nd all the "ecumenical councils" are heretical.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Every position is defensible because popes are antichrists. Jan Hus was right. There were 3 popes in his lifetime each rending the church with his pointy mitre. And the council that burned him at the stake (Constance I think) also deposed all 3 popes and elected a new pope, and it declared councils to be higher than popes. But heretical ultramontanist Vatican One claimed it could rescind that and proclaim the pope to be God on earth. The papacy is the mystery of lawlessness Paul predicted.

    ReplyDelete
  4. John Salza, ex 32nd degree Mason - MAYBE ex!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you for your dive into this and the past few week post. Keep them coming.
    Very informative and helpful.
    Don’t worry about the pushing rubber blogger. Although I think he’s generally got a good head on many things, he’s a bit crude on others. Sad to know he’s a VII sede, but I’m now one now with AnnB.
    The ape of the church is present, clear to see…

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr Hussite
    Re: 2 Thessalonians 2: Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

    Please make up your mind. First you claim that all "popes are antichrists". Then you cite St Paul. But St Paul places the "man of lawlessness" in the future.

    BTW your Hussites ended up slaughtering each other with wild abandon.

    Kindly reflect.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All popes are future to St. Paul because the papacy is poat-Constantinian.

      "BTW your Hussites ended up slaughtering each other with wild abandon."

      And it wasn't the FBI who were violent on J6.

      Delete
  7. Excellent article. I agree with your point completely. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Unfortunately, ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority, like those found in this rebuttal, only serve as further proof of the rotten fruits of the SSPX.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually, the argument from authority is a fallacy where the opinion of a non-expert on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument. You've turned the fallacy on its head.

    Many of those attacking the SSPX have no expertise whatsoever, i.e., they exhibit the "rotten fruits" of modernism by attacking fellow Catholics at a time when the crisis in the Church has created a tsunami of confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mr Jason:
    Re: "And it wasn't the FBI who were violent on J6."

    The federal Courts now disagree with you. 9 of the 15 Oath Keepers who were targeted by the FBI turn out to be either FBI agents or informants. Before a federal Judge the government has reluctantly admitted that federal law enforcement acted violently and unlawfully on J6.

    The feds led the so-called insurrection. They murdered 5-innocent American citizens.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jason said: "All popes are future to St. Paul because the papacy is poat-Constantinian."

    The Emperor Constantine disagrees with you. Prior to his victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 AD the Augustus Constantine recognized the existence of the Papacy.

    Although there may not have been a Vatican gift shop prior to 312 AD the bishops of Rome existed and were recognized as the successors to Peter. Possible martyrdom was then part of the job description.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  12. And the character assassination in this article isn't "attacking fellow Catholics"? Seems like "rotten fruit" to me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A bishop of Rome and a papacy are two different things. Bishops were originally nothing but one of the presbyters that the presbyters voted to be the president of their presbytery. Constantine doesn't even recognize a pope later, as Constantine IS the pope. The bishop of Rome, like the bishops of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople is only a governor on behalf of the Pontifex Maximus that is the Emperor himself. After the Empire fell and there was no more emperor, the bishop of Rome took to himself the powers that the pagan emperors had claimed over the churches when they existed.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm still waiting for John Salza to explain how he managed to escape the world's most powerful secret institution, live to tell about it, AND expose all of its secrets. Anyone else who had done that (like Sammy "The Bull" Gravano) would have to had to go into witness protection and change their name. Salza, instead, became a celebrity.

    As I wrote previously (see link below), some of us suffer, others rot, and still others go somehow unscathed . . .

    https://zero-zombies.blog/2023/06/02/catholics-are-you-suffering-or-merely-rotting/

    ReplyDelete
  15. The SSPX is the only group umbrella under which I'd like to join a religious order. I don't trust that Rome will allow TLM to be said in the old Ecclesia Dei groups forever...

    ReplyDelete

  16. Ms Paulina:
    Re: "After the Empire fell and there was no more emperor, the bishop of Rome took to himself the powers that the pagan emperors had claimed over the churches when they existed."

    After Constantine most of the Emperors were not pagans but Christian.

    Theodoric the Ostrogoth, after a power struggle with other Germanic invaders, ruled Rome and Italy after the 'Fall of the Western Roman Empire' - not the Pope. Theodoric acknowledged the Byzantine Emperor as the formal ruler of both East and West.

    The Byzantine's later retook Rome and Italy from the Goths. But could not hold it. The Normans eventually booted the last Byzantines out of Italy. Many of these Normans (Tancerd, Bohemond and all) led the First Crusade.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete