Readers may recall that an appeal to correct the errors found in Amoris Laetitia, signed by 45 theologians, was sent to Rome back in June of 2016.
The contents of their evaluation of Francis’ love letter to Satan (aka Amoris Laetitia) was supposed to be kept confidential, but the document was leaked shortly thereafter and made available on various websites. (LifeSite News was one of them, but they subsequently, presumably at the request of its authors, took it down.)
Well, the full text of the theologians’ critique is once again available on the internet; including on the website of the Society of St. Pius X – oh, and without commentary.
I, for one, find this rather telling.
Recall that in the spring of this year, Fr. Jean Michel Gleize, SSPX, offered a detailed critique of his own wherein he concluded that Amoris Laetitia contains nothing properly heretical.
It was only after seeking clarification from the U.S. District House that I was able to report to readers that this is the Society’s official position.
The 45 theologians, however, have a different take.
I will have more to say on their evaluation in a later post, but for now let it be known that they have concluded that no less than eleven of the propositions set forth in Amoris Laetitia should be “censured as haeretica.”
The definition of haeretica provided by the 45 theologians is essentially the same that Fr. Gleize used in the process of making the Society’s case.
The theologians write:
Heretical propositions, censured as ‘haeretica’, are ones that contradict propositions that are contained in divine revelation and are defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
I invite you to read the full text of the 45 theologians’ evaluation for yourself. It has some flaws that we will discuss later, indeed, but they are to be applauded for not shying away from calling heresy by its true name.
With respect to the SSPX, their publication of the 45 theologians’ critique, offered without any commentary much less a rebuttal, raises some serious questions:
For one, does the Society now wish to modify its previous position; i.e., does it wish to endorse the conclusion of the 45 theologians that Amoris Laetitia is deserving of no less than eleven censures for heresy?
My sense is that they do not, which is a pity for more than one reason.
The question that remains, therefore, is why would the SSPX publish any text on its official website – without any qualification whatsoever – unless it is willing to place its own stamp of approval on its contents?
Before we attempt to answer that question, let it be known that the Society’s publication of a paper that departs from their own position, in this case that of the 45 theologians, is not an isolated occurrence.
In May, I called readers’ attention to the fact that the SSPX had published an article under the title, Why is the pope silent on the dubia, that consisted of excerpts from a presentation given by Claudio Pierantoni at the laity-led conference on Amoris Laetitia held in Rome on April 22, 2017.
In it, one will find such ridiculous assertions as “[Francis] is the victim of a general historical alienation that affects large sectors of theological teaching” (a victim!), and Amoris Laetitia doesn’t even contain anything that is “directly heterodox.”
Does the SSPX really wish to make these positions their own?
Personally, I don’t believe that it does.
I also recently pointed out that the SSPX published (again, without any commentary of its own) the LifeSite News article raving about Cardinal Burke’s Roman Life Forum speech wherein he held up John Paul the Great Ecumenist, Vatican Council II and the New Evangelization as examples of faithfulness to the message of Fatima.
Does the SSPX really wish to make these positions their own?
Personally, I don’t believe that it does.
Now, back to the question at hand:
Why does the Society publish any content on its official website that clearly does not represent its own position?
The only answer that I can come up with is that the SSPX of today is severely lacking in conviction; i.e., it is pleased to play, or at least to give the appearance of playing, on both sides of the fence.
At this, let’s recap just some of the disparate positions found on the SSPX official website as mentioned in this post:
– Amoris Laetitia does not contain anything deserving of the censure of heresy.
– Amoris Laetitia contains statements that simply “favor heresy.”
– Amoris Laetitia does not contain anything that can even be considered “heterodox.”
– Amoris Laetitia contains no less than eleven propositions that deserve the censure of heresy.
– Francis, the author of Amoris Laetitia is a victim of the age.
– Our Lady’s appeal as given at Fatima, including for the consecration of Russia, “is not for just once … [but] must be taken up by generation after generation, in accordance with the ever new ‘signs of the times.’”
Could an innocent soul browsing the website of the SSPX be blamed for coming away wondering exactly what the Society actually believes? More importantly, could such a person be expected to come away knowing the truth?
How tragic it is that the Priestly Society that once published the journal Si, si, No no – a name taken from Matthew 5:37, “But let your speech be, ‘Yes, yes,’ ‘No,no’; and whatever is beyond these comes from the Evil One.” – now finds itself in such a pitiable state.
Let us pray that the SSPX recovers the zeal that it once possessed, and soon.
NOTE: I am still awaiting a response to the inquiry that I sent to the U.S. District House asking if any of the money collected from their faithful is sent by the SSPX to Rome; either directly to Peter’s Pence or otherwise. If you who are reading this belong to a Society chapel, given the kinds of activities in which the “Holy” See in our day is engaged, you may consider pressing the matter in whatever way you can in the hope that the answer received will be, “No, not one nickel.”
SSPX: Where is thy conviction?
Ordaining Catholic Priests, teaching correct Catholic morality and making the Latin Rite Liturgy and Sacraments available to as many souls as possible. A reconciliation with Rome (no strings attached), would allow the SSPX to reach more souls. I’m hoping that this is the reason that the SSPX is not rocking the boat at present.
It has been 5 years since I have given anything to the SSPX, though I had been a generous parishioner for many years. However, I no longer trust the leadership and I would bet dollars to donuts they give to Rome as a sign of submission. And that is unacceptable. Now I support priests who were forced OUT of the SSPX because they questioned the new direction. I feel certain it will only be scattered priests saying the true Mass in the future if the SSPX put itself under Francis’ thumb.
If they stopped insisting that Francis was the Pope or even a Catholic, things would clear up for them.
I have come to the conclusion that, in lieu of an official pronouncement of regularization, a silent deal has been made between the SSPX and Rome. The SSPX will behave nicely toward Vat2 and this papacy and be grateful for any “concessions” in return for what— I don’t know. Time will tell.
“teaching correct Catholic morality”
That is debatable depending on which individual Priests we are talking about. I know that at the SSPX parish I belong to, immodesty is permitted and rarely mentioned and never corrected . I have written to the local Priests, District Superior and Bishop Fellay and not one has any counter argument to show that I am wrong, because I am just repeating the demands and directives of Pius XI and Pius XII. All I get is a polite version of “oh well, what can we do?” Although, to be fair, there are a couple of Priests that see the problem and the bigger problem of their fellow Priests keeping silent. They should see how it is done correctly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS7chsI0iLk
2013 NCR article “Archbishop Di Noia urges SSPX to take new attitude in unity talks” :
“Even if we are convinced that our perspective on a particular disputed question is the true one, we cannot usurp the office of the universal pontiff by presuming publicly to correct others within the church,” Di Noia wrote.
For priests, including those of the SSPX, he said, “it is the faith that should be preached from our pulpits, not the latest interpretation of what we take to be problematic about a magisterial document.”
He said the SSPX originally was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and approved by the Vatican “to form priests for the service of the people of God, not the usurpation of the office of judging and correcting the theology or discipline of others within the church.”
Bishop Fellay (April 2017):
“So while, and as long as there are voices in the Church who talk in the right direction, to say that one day or another, I would have spoken more softly, does not change anything in the big picture, in the big fight which is still there. That’s very, very clear. And it absolutely does not mean that we would, by politics, in order not to jeopardize a possible agreement—which is not the correct word—or canonical recognition, lower our voice is simply not true. If someone would be careful and look at all I write and say, they would say that I just continue. We are still the same.
And I insist in Rome to say we are like this and we are not going to change. We may be a little bit less controversial in attacking the persons. But our reason would not be just a personal gain. What we look for is the most efficient way to have a benefice for the whole Church. Sometimes you gain more by giving a simple argument than by barking it. You have to look at the cases. We are still in a fight, we know that, and it’s definitely not over. It’s not just for the pleasure of fighting, but we belong to the militant Church.”
Archbishop Lefebvre
“It is not with a light heart that we have had our difficulties with Rome. It is not for the pleasure of it that we have had to fight. We have done so for the sake of principles, to keep the Catholic Faith. And they agreed with us. And suddenly they abandoned the true fight to make an alliance with the destroyers, on the pretext that they are being given certain privileges. That is unacceptable. In practical terms they have abandoned the fight of the Faith. They can no longer attack Rome.”
Archbishop Lefebvre
“It is not with a light heart that we have had our difficulties with Rome. It is not for the pleasure of it that we have had to fight. We have done so for the sake of principles, to keep the Catholic Faith. And
Archbishop Lefebvre (Sept 4, 1987):
“And nobody says anything. And no one raises his voice. And no cardinal raises his voice. And everyone is silent. And all the Roman Curia is behind all this. It is abomination, indeed abomination.”
Oops.
Archbishop Lefebvre (Sept 4, 1987):
“And nobody says anything. And no one raises his voice. And no cardinal raises his voice. And everyone is silent. And all the Roman Curia is behind all this. It is abomination, indeed abomination.”
Rushintuit — this is my thought (and hope) too.
Rush, how can SSPX be part of an institution that they have no unity of faith with?
Quote from statement of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop De Castro Mayer, Dec. 1986:
“For us, remaining unwaveringly attached to the Roman Catholic Church and always, we are obliged to note that this modernist and liberal religion of modern and conciliar Rome is increasingly moving away from us, who profess the Catholic faith of the eleven Popes who have condemned this false religion.
The rupture does not come from us, but from Paul VI and John Paul II, who break with their predecessors.
This denial of the whole past of the Church by these two Popes and the bishops who imitate them is an inconceivable impiety and an unbearable humiliation for those who remain Catholics in fidelity to twenty centuries of profession of the same faith.
We therefore consider as null all that has been inspired by this spirit of denial: all the post-conciliar Reforms, and all the acts of Rome which are accomplished in this impiety.
We count with the grace of God and the suffrage of the faithful Virgin, of all the martyrs, of all the Popes until the Council, of all the Saints and Holy founders and founders of contemplative and missionary orders, to help us [in the] renewal of the Church by integral fidelity to Tradition.”
Buenos Aires, 2 December 1986.
Bishop de Galarreta, SSPX (quotes from July 2, 2016 ordinations):
“So the priest teaches the true faith and confesses it before men. “He that is ashamed of me and of my doctrine before men, and I will be ashamed of him before the Father.” And even more so of the priest who does not confess, who does not defend this Faith. For if there is the truth revealed by Our Lord, there is also error, there is heresy, there is lies, and this throughout the life of the Church.
So the priest must not only defend the Truth but fight the error publicly. And he must not only denounce the mistakes, but he must denounce those who spread the mistakes. A pastor can not, when speaking to the sheep, tell them to pay attention to the wolves. He must tell them when the wolf is in the sheepfold. So the priest is made to preach the Truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Same sermon, Bishop de Galarreta:
“you see, today we have authorities in the Church, which of course we recognize as authorities of the Church, but authorities that approve and teach what is sin . The communion, for example, of divorced persons who have remarried by civilian, and therefore simply by speaking truth, adulteries and concubines: they are allowed to receive confession, absolution, without repentance, Eucharist Our Lord Jesus Christ while they are in a situation that is precisely contrary to the sacrament of marriage.
Communion, in cases of mixed marriage, is allowed to the non-Catholic part. The non-Catholic part of some mixed marriages can receive communion in the Catholic Church!
Until last week’s hearing that the fidelity of the cohabitants is a sign that there is a real marriage and that they really have the grace of the sacrament . And this is said by the Sovereign Pontiff! You see, this is a new morality, contrary to two thousand years of teaching of the Catholic magisterium, constant, unanimous. They are affirmations contrary to what is said to us in the Epistles, in the Holy Gospels, by the Apostles, in Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Then, of course, we must do as St. Paul did before St. Peter. St. Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians explains, and this is the word of God, that he had to resist therefore publicly to St. Peter because he did not walk in accordance with the Gospel. Today, every Catholic, and especially every priest, must defend the Faith and must publicly oppose those who destroy it , and we must say as St. Paul: we resist publicly because there is a profound problem of Faith. Because we no longer work in accordance with the Magisterium of always, with Tradition. See St. Paul held traditions, kept Tradition.
So it is a struggle at the same time for the truth, for the doctrine, for the true Faith, but also for the sanctity, the holiness of souls, the families, the marriage, the holiness of the holy Church: Holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman.”
“Those who want to live piously in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.”
This schizophrenia of the SSPX is disturbing. It must be admitted that the source is Archbishop Lefebvre. The Archbishop vacillated between obedience to Rome and disobedience to Rome, between loyalty to the Pope and independence from the Pope, between sedevacantism and rejecting sedevacantism. He invented the fine line which has absolutely no place or precedent in Catholic doctrine or tradition. The reference is always given to Paul who opposed Peter. This reference is taken out of context and has nothing to do with the present day situation of modernist openly blatently pertinacious heretics who pretend to be the Magisterium. As it was in the Archbishop’s day so it is in our day. It’s time for the SSPX priests and the faithful who support them to go back to true Tradition, get out their theology books from the 1950’s and before, correct their grievous errors regarding the Church and the Papacy. No matter if they have to contradict the dear Archbishop. Better to offend him than to offend our Lord. No, it’s not time—–it’s past time!
Dearest Tom A,
Your question is as incisive as it is clear. Just as our Blessed Lord Jesus the Christ commanded: You think I came to bring peace. I came to bring the sword. [as it is in division that the truth springs forth and is plainly seen]. In caritas.