Why The SSPX Is Wrong On The Heresy Letter

The SSPX has issued a statement on the letter, mentioned here many times, calling for the Bishops to invite Francis to recant his many heresies or depose him. The letter is very critical. I think it is, also, a big mistake.

The Society obviously points out to the many heresies of this Pontificate. They stress the point that Francis is the result of a movement, V II, that has been going on for decades. But then they condemn the letter based on the argument that the chances of success are non-existent, and the recipient Bishops not instructed enough and not willing to act anyway.

With this reasoning, my question to the SSPX is why they, themselves, think that they should exist in the first place. The probability of the College of Cardinals (much less the Bishops of the world) converting to Traditional Catholicism are even smaller than the probability of them accusing the Pope of heresy.

If it is enough to pray and do nothing, awaiting for God to change the situation, then the SSPX might as well disband and explain to all their followers that ” it is highly probable, even certain, that the vast majority of bishops will not react” to their invitation of throwing away Vatican II’ s innovations.

Not can the SSPX say, in their defence, that they act hoping that future generations will come back to sanity; because this is exactly what the signatories of the letter are doing.

The basic principle, that utterly escapes the authors of the letter, is that things are done because they are right. The probability of success is neither here nor there. I cannot imagine Athanasius, or the French Partisans fighting against Nazi occupation, or many fighters in many wars, physical and spiritual, thinking of the “probability of success” as the decisive element to decide whether to fight or not.

When Archbishop Lefebvre refused to shut down his seminary, or when he appointed his bishops, he did so because it was the right thing to do. This was the guiding light behind decisions that were, in a way, new in the history of the Church. But if we look at the world, though, we can’t certainly say that the SSPX has been ” a success”, as almost fifty years later the Church has become only more corrupt. Shall we, then, say, concerning the SSPX, that “the failure of such an initiative has ridiculed the author (Lefebvre) and his cause” ?

Certainly not.

You do what you have to do. If the result is zero in this day and age, heaven will still notice the action. Besides, all these initiative are like a leaven that, by God’s grace, will bring results one day. 

One day, history will record that courageous voices were raised to demand action for the astonishing spectacle of a heretical Pope. They will know that not everybody was silent, and not everybody was ready to accept the inaction of the Bishops as acceptable. They will know that the signatories of the letter, together with all their sympathizers, wanted to expose the shame of their bishops’ inaction for all future generations to see. They will know that such initiatives want to give a testimony that the Church is indefectible and, whatever the troubles, those staying true to the true faith will always be there.

This is, once again, the reasoning underpinning the very existence of the SSPX. That they criticise it, and even go as far as to say that this initiative “might ridicule the authors and their cause”, is deeply unfortunate and should, if you ask me, be cause for deep embarrassment inside the organistion.

The SSPX should not criticise this letter. They should have been the ones who issued it.

Not with any hope of “success”, of course. But in order to give testimony to future generations of the fight of the faithful, and the shame of the hirelings.

 

 

Posted on May 19, 2019, in Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 16 Comments.

  1. Mundabor is correct. SSPX is wrong to dismiss the letter to the Bishops asking them to do their job as regards Francis actions and heresies based on the worldly supposition that the Bishops will disregard it. My guess is that those who sent the letter assumed as much themselves, Success is beside the point. The point is doing the right thing.

    World success and Christianity are often in conflict. Not concerning ourselves about success is the meaning of faith. Let God determine what success means and how it is to be accomplished. Doing the next right thing is all that should concern us. Right now God is wondering how many are going to be on his team.

  2. I fully agree, Mundabor.
    The SSPX letter is illogical and self contradictory in other ways, too.
    Criticising the authors of the letter to the bishops, it gives as a counter example an archbishop who did have the courage and faith to stand up for the truth, and also the authority to consecrate bishops to ensure the old, true faith would not be obliterated for lack of properly formed priests. The first letter’s authors do not have that authority, so that course is not open to them.
    At the moment, there seems only to be one retired bishop, Bp Rene Henry Gracida, who at 95 is prepared publicly to rebuke Bergoglian heresy without equivocation. Maybe, just maybe, the letter to the bishops could wake one or more of the active non-heretical archbishops and bishops from their terminal slumber.
    Meanwhile, the SSPX letter doesn’t offer any constructive suggestion, indeed implying we should all wait and observe patiently from psuedo safe sidelines as the V2 warhead continues to explode in slow but accelerating motion.
    The end of the paragraph accusing the letter to the bishops of being (too) radical, states that it is not radical enough – “We cannot uproot an evil tree by only cutting off the last branch …”
    St Paul is quoted to support Abp Marcel Lefebvre, but the same quotation applies no less to many of the authors of the letter to the bishops, for whom this is not their first intervention: ““Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine” (II Tim 4:2)”
    And the SSPX do not seem to take account of the first letter’s signal to and influence on faithful Catholic laity (whether TLM or NO), which has almost certainly woken many from their slumber and “red pilled” others.
    “Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, and the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops act like bishops, and your religious act like religious.” Abp Fulton Sheen, 1972.
    Or perhaps the SSPX authors (presumably clerical) truly believe that only they and their followers have sufficient formation to request the putative pope be investigated for heresy and to rebuke the non-heretical archbishops, bishops and cardinals for inaction or inconsequential action thus far?

  3. Excellent refutation of the SSPX letter. Thank you for posting it.

    Some who support the legacy and work of Archbishop Lefebvre (as I do) have seen that the current leadership of the SSPX seem embarrassed by the actions of +ABL. It seems, too, that the SSPX may be worried that sedevacantism will be a problem, and they are heading it off before it becomes a larger problem. But +ABL was not too worried about that when speaking up for the truths of the Catholic faith. Sedevacantism is a problem, but it can’t stop us from speaking the Truth.

  4. Thank you, thank you! The official response of the SSPX was very disappointing—so fussy and hair-splitting. Here we have brave Catholic men coming forward for Christ and His Church and the SSPX are stonewalling! Lord have mercy!

  5. Up there, in heaven, saint Marcel Lefevbre is sad because, very poor reflections coming from the mouth of this FSSPX leadership, are destroying Catholic, real Catholic initiatives.

  6. Hilary McRee Flanery

    “One day, history will record that courageous voices were raised to demand action for the astonishing spectacle of a heretical Pope. They will know that not everybody was silent, and not everybody was ready to accept the inaction of the Bishops as acceptable. They will know that the signatories of the letter, together with all their sympathizers, wanted to expose the shame of their bishops’ inaction for all future generations to see. They will know that such initiatives want to give a testimony that the Church is indefectible and, whatever the troubles, those staying true to the true faith will always be there.

    This is, once again, the reasoning underpinning the very existence of the SSPX. That they criticise it, and even go as far as to say that this initiative “might ridicule the authors and their cause”, is deeply unfortunate and should, if you ask me, be cause for deep embarrassment inside the organistion.

    The SSPX should not criticise this letter. They should have been the ones who issued it.”

    They already issued criticism years ago of what was going on in the Church and many of you did not listen!!

    They have said what wast wrong and then went on to build Seminaries, Convents, Schools, Retreat houses, Monasteries, etc. The rest of you have a Latin Mass here and there but the traditional Orders won’t build schools, etc.

    There’s not much more the Society can do to please you…they grow and grow, Deo Gratias!

    OUR
    LILIES
    OF
    THE
    FIELD

    Who told you that ?
    It was just pride
    To wear the Habit
    As His bride.

    Who told you that?
    The whisperer lied
    The Habit draws
    All to your side.

    Who told you that?
    Some fashion guide
    Sycophants
    Your chic they chide.

    Who told you that?
    Your trending tried
    “To be like us”
    Vocations died.

    Who told you that ?
    “Abuse!” they cried
    The serpent strikes
    All pure deride.

    So 60’s religious
    A suicide-slide …
    But “Merci” Marcel
    Did truth abide.

    Cassocks and Habits
    God’s grace purified –
    And His lilies of the field
    Have now multiplied!

    • Oh, I can tell you very easily what else the SSPX can do to please me: avoid criticising good Catholics for being good Catholics.
      Your argument that the SSPX has already issues criticism of Francis does not stand. They do not have exclusive rights to criticism. Besides, they should have been more incisive.
      As it is, and if they don’t start changing their tack, history will record that when brave Catholics accused the Pope of heresy, the SSPX criticised them.

  7. Hilary McRee Flanery

    “Your argument that the SSPX has already issues criticism of Francis does not stand.”

    Not of Pope Francis but the WHOLE Church since Vatican II. Of course these are good Catholic men, and the Cardinals are & were good Catholic Cardinals who wrote the Dubia, etc. but the modernist just ignore!

    ” As it is, and if they don’t start changing their tack, history will record that when brave Catholics accused the Pope of heresy, the SSPX criticised them.”

    Good grief, no matter what the SSPX does they’re criticised. They are just giving their opinion on the fact that not much good is coming out of all these petitions, letters, Dubias. BUT – they continue bravely to do the most positive and important thing for souls, preserve the Catholic Priesthood and Church. They are feeding the sheep! Deo Gratias!!

    • My problem is not that they are feeding the sheep. I admire them greatly. The problem is that they criticise those whom they should criticise themselves.

  8. “The SSPX should not criticise this letter. They should have been the ones who issued it.”

    Exactly, and thank you for this article. I’m afraid the SSPX has lost its sense of mission, and become quite comfortable with their role as a sort of parallel church who wants nothing to do with Rome (ironically, the same position as the so-called “Resistance.”). They are, it seems, content to keep to themselves, cling to their completely one-dimensional distortion of Tradition, attract an assortment of bizarre and infantile personalities (along with some very good people), and congratulate themselves that they are far superior to any other attempt to preserve Tradition – to the point where they urge their laity not to attend any TLMs except those offered by the SSPX. I’m glad I got away from them, and I think their comments on the heresy letter are disgraceful and cowardly.

    • Ignatius Xie

      “We risk being captivated by the present evil, forgetting that it has roots, that it is a logical result of a tainted process at its origin. Like a pendulum, some believe they can magnify the recent past to better denounce the present, including counting on the magisterium of the popes of the Council—from Paul VI to Benedict XVI—to oppose Francis. This is the position of many conservatives, who forget that Pope Francis is only drawing out the consequences of the teachings of the Council and his predecessors.”

      The open letter mentions nothing about the fact that the Second Vatican Council is just as heretical, teaching articles explicitly condemned by half a dozen encyclicals prior. The root of the problem is still untouched. If all the so-called “conservatives” get to the root of the problem then the crisis of the Church will be over. At this point converting the liberal Catholics is as easy as converting the Al-Qaeda.

    • Whilst the idea that all this comes from V II is right (and I have written it many times) it does not justify the criticism of those who do good. Besides, I know for sure that some of the signatories do recognise the role of V II in all this.

    • well, it seems to me, based on the excerpt I quoted, that whoever wrote the sspx commentary was directing criticism at the “conservatives” who continue to defend the Ratzinger faction and the nonsense that V2 was somehow good but misinterpreted. Perhaps this commentary was too hasty in assuming that these were the majority of the authors of the open letter. After all, Bp Fellay was preparing to sign the Personal Prelature agreement with the 1962 profession of faith, until Cd Mueller suddenly demanded they “accept the whole council” and give “unrestricted commitment” to ecumenism: the sspx is unsurprisingly unsupportive of “conservatives”. I’m sure that if the authors also published a statement rejecting the council, the sspx will congratulate them. the reasons that sspx priests give for discouraging people from going to other TLMs are invariably due to their personal experiences seeing diocesan TLMs with V2 doctrine sermons, hand communion etc.: particularly insidious, being advertised as “traditional”, so I’m surprised that the other commenter is so scandalized by such a stance.

    • No, this is not the main issue.
      They criticise the letter qua letter, in its purpose and intent. They condemn it because of its chances to succeed.
      If they wanted to direct criticism at fake conservatives, they would have done just that.
      The letter is everywhere on the internet for you to read it in its entirety.

%d bloggers like this: