Is the SSPX Position Really Indefensible? Part 2

I'm continuing to read and reflect on the article claiming that the SSPX position is "indefensible." I wrote in part 1 about clandestine ordinations forbidden by Rome but performed by both John Paul II when he was bishop of Krakow and Cardinal Josyf Slipyj, a prisoner of Russia. Rome explicitly forbade the clandestine ordinations during the Cold War battle with Communism. The bishops did it anyway. Sometimes, crisis situations necessitate disobedience. John Paul II never expressed any regret over his deliberate disobedience of the pope's directives and he never suffered any consequences despite the automatic punishments defined in canon law. He is now a canonized saint and Cardinal Slipyj's cause is in progress.

So the criticism of Archbishop Lefebvre for doing the same thing during our modernist crisis rings a bit hollow, not to mention a bit hypocritical. Since none of the SSPX detractors mention these acts, one can only conclude that they either didn't do their homework; or they deliberately ignore what doesn't assist their agenda of attacking the SSPX.

But now I'll move on to another issue in the article that struck me. He asks, "Were the episcopal consecrations justified?" and draws the conclusion that they were not, claiming that:

Lefebvre’s motivation to save the Church stemmed from an erroneous ecclesiology.... He failed to understand (1) the indefectability of the Catholic Church as promised by Christ Himself and (2) the meaning of Catholic Tradition. Paul VI recognized this as early as 1976 when he wrote a letter to Lefebvre exhorting him to submit to the Church’s authority and abandon his false position.

Really? 

Archbishop Lefebvre didn't understand the history of the Church or the meaning of Sacred Tradition or the indefectability of the Church? Seriously? I find that a bit of a head-shaker.

The 1976 letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre quoted in the article warned the archbishop against ordaining four priests at the seminary in Econe which took place on June 29, 1977. Much of the pope's long letter contains verbiage that echoes modernist ideas condemned by Pope Pius X. Here's the brief portion quoted:

A fortiori, a single bishop without a canonical mission does not have in actu expedito ad agendum, the faculty of deciding in general what the rule of faith is or of determining what tradition is. In practice you are claiming that you alone are the judge of what tradition embraces. [This is inaccurate since Archbishop Lefebvre always referred to the unchanging doctrines passed on by papal predecessors, not his own authority. He emphasized that he was only doing what he had done for his entire apostolic life that was now being forbidden.] You say that you are subject to the Church and faithful to tradition by the sole fact that you obey certain norms of the past that were decreed by the predecessor of him to whom God has today conferred the powers given to Peter. [The pope's "power" is not unlimited. He is the "vicar of Christ" not Christ Himself.]  That is to say, on this point also, the concept of “tradition” that you invoke is distorted. Tradition is not a rigid and dead notion, a fact of a certain static sort which at a given moment of history blocks the life of this active organism which is the Church, that is, the mystical body of Christ. [The language of "living" tradition implies the progress and demand for novelty inherent in modernism. And, obviously, that was the rotten fruit harvested after the council. The debate is whether it was because of the council or because of deliberate distortions of the council.] It is up to the pope and to councils to exercise judgment in order to discern in the traditions of the Church that which cannot be renounced without infidelity to the Lord and to the Holy Spirit—the deposit of faith… Hence tradition is inseparable from the living magisterium of the Church, just as it is inseparable from sacred scripture. 

In a section of the letter not quoted, Pope Paul wrote:

Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that we enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable....You say moreover that you do not always see how to reconcile certain texts of the Council, or certain dispositions which We have enacted in order to put the Council into practice, with the wholesome tradition of the Church and in particular with the Council of Trent or the affirmations of Our predecessors.... [And then he makes the demand which was what all of attack on Bishop Lefebvre was about - relegating the Mass of the Ages to the ash heap of history.]...you must explicitly recognize the legitimacy of the reformed liturgy, notably of the Ordo Missae, and our right to require its adoption by the entirety of the Christian people.

 And herein lies a serious problem. Certain teachings of Vatican II did, in fact, contain things "opposed to what the 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable." The statements of Pope Francis opposing evangelization, the tendency toward syncretism, etc. are the natural result of positions on ecumenism adopted by the Council. The meetings at Assisi, the Amazon Synod, Pachamama, and the Abu Dhabi statement on human fraternity all imply that the Catholic faith is equal to, not only other Christian religions but pagan religions as well. This was an unsurprising outcome from the document on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, and the document on non-Christian religions, Nostra Aetate. One can argue that the results are due to misinterpretations, ambiguity, and deliberate distortion rather than integral to the council documents; but the fruits harvested over the 40 years since Vatican II are certainly, in many cases, rotten. The loss of faith among Catholics witnesses to those rotten fruits!

The pope mentioned in his letter that the first Eucharistic prayer is the Roman Canon, the only canon used for millennia previous to the implementation of the Novus Ordo Missae. That seems to be his argument for claiming no break with the past. However, in 1976 many dioceses were creating dozens of different unauthorized canons with some priests making up their own. Anyone who lived through those chaotic days knows exactly how the laity were abused and scandalized by dissenter-priests using unauthorized and sacrilegious liturgies. It was rare to see any of them disciplined for their rebellion. In fact, many were rewarded and even made bishops!

As for the Roman Canon, how often today is it selected at Novus Ordo Masses? Rarely! The most common prayer is Eucharistic prayer II which is the shortest and least orthodox among the four options. 

It's eye-opening to read the exchange between Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre during the "hot summer of 1976" and then to read the pope's follow up letter to the archbishop, the letter quoted in the article. 

Pope Paul VI was obviously stung by Archbishop Lefebvre's public criticism. He also believed falsehoods about the archbishop, like his accusation that the seminarians in Econe were being instructed to sign an oath against the pope, a lying defamation to which Lefebvre responded in shock!

Clearly there was much Vatican intrigue going on with the development of the Novus Ordo by wolves in the curia who could not abide any dissent defending the traditional Latin Mass. The NO architect, Annibale Bugnini, a probable freemason, played both sides as he dismantled 1500 years of tradition. He told the pope the commission designing the new Mass wanted certain things while he told the commission that the pope wanted certain things. The one who really wanted them was Bugnini and his allies. 

Some things never change and the traitorous enemy within is always the most dangerous.

Unfortunately, many accept all the slanders against the SSPX without ever researching the truth. I confess to my own guilt in that department. I accepted uncritically for years that the Society was schismatic. It's only been in recent years, because of the COVID shutdowns, that I began to study both sides of the debate and realized most of what I believed was a lie. 

What's next? 

I believe the voice (and feet) of the faithful calling for restoration of the TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) will bear an abundant harvest of holy fruit. And it will have the positive effect of leavening also the Novus Ordo. I'm already hearing of examples of this fact in the Diocese of Arlington.

No doubt the battle will continue. The devil always seeks to repress holy works. In every Catholic movement my husband and I have served, there has been internecine warfare. Why? Because if you are doing something good, the demons will keep trying to stop it. Catholic fighting against Catholic? How delightful to Satan and his minions! It is no surprise, but rather to be expected. We just tighten our seatbelts, keep the faith according the Fathers of the Church, holy popes, and the saints, and practice charity. 

Let the storm rage. It will pass in God's time. Jesus is in the boat and whether He is awake or asleep matters not as long as we refuse to let our faith falter.

My questions for those who persist in condemning the SSPX are these:

Is there a crisis in the Church? 

If there is a crisis in the Church, what caused it?   

What measures need to be taken to fix the problem? 

Who is working the problem? 

One answer I know to be the wrong one is the upcoming synod which every faithful Catholic should oppose. Gerard O'Connell wrote this for America Magazine, the Jesuit's scandalous screed sheet with editor at large Fr. James Martin:

The Synod on Synodality is officially the 16th ordinary assembly of the synod of bishops, but it promises to be radically different from any of its predecessors. Having reported on all the synods since 1985, I have come to believe that this synod—articulated in two sessions—could well be the most transformative event in the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council.

Well, there's no doubt that's true! Radical is the right word. Fr. Martin, one of the synod participants personally selected by the pope, publicly stated his intention to promote LGBT voices at the synod. No surprise from a champion of sodomy. Will the synod approve a blessings for gay unions or even gay marriage? 

As Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Mueller, Archbishop Schneider and others have warned, the synod is lining up to be one more disaster for Holy Mother Church. Linking the synod, decried by many authoritative voices in the hierarchy, to Vatican II is another indication that the crisis in the Church was rooted in the Council and its aftermath of chaos. 

As for the SSPX, they seem to me and many other laity, to echo the voice of the Holy Spirit. Time and God's Providence will reveal whether they are part of the solution to the crisis in the Church. I believe they are.

Come, O Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Thy faithful and kindle in them the fire of Thy love!