SSPX and the Five Pillars of Protestantism

 In a previous post I referred to the SSPX as heading towards a position of being Protestant. How is this possible since they believe themselves to be more Catholic than the Pope? In this analysis I will look at the five constitutive elements of traditional Protestant theology which underpin their ecclesiology.  In reality these pillars presume a Catholic context and were intended as a means of reform but ended up becoming effectively a separate religion. I do not believe this to necessarily be the case in practice today. This is reflected in the theology of Communion from Vaytican II to which SSPX objects so vigorously. A lot of water has flown under the bridge since 1517! Nevertheless, if we look at what has happened to the Old Catholics, who separated from the Pope in 1870, they end up drifting into full communion with the Anglican church and other ecclesial communities which adhere to a fundamentally Protestant position.

1. The Corruption of the Papacy

According to this pillar the papacy is a fraud. The true church is a fellowship of true believers who were suppressed by the papacy in its lust for money and power. SSPX, in their Profession of Faith, accuse all the popes subsequent to Pius XII of being guilty of heresy. The penalty for heresy is latae sententiae excommunication and the loss of office. If SSPX are correct the Papal See is now vacant since the papacy is both a personal charism and an office. This was illustrated when Pope Benedict XVI resigned but retired as Pope Emeritus.

Being sede vacantist not only means repudiating the present pope. It includes impugning the College of Cardinals and of Bishops. It means that the Holy Spirit has not guided the Church in electing true Successors of Peter to be the rock of unity and to strengthen his brothers. In sum, since the Petrine Office is constitutive of Church, properly speaking, the Catholic Church is considered as being effectively anti-Church and the present Poper as an anti-Pope or even an anti-Christ.

2. The Priesthood of the Baptized

Once apostolic continuity has been broken, since the College of Bishops no longer legitimately transmits apostolic power through legitimate ordination by the laying on of hands, where does priestly ministry finds its validity. It must do so through sacramental means. If ordination in communion with Rome is not possible the foundation for priestly ministry can only be located in baptism. Having lost the ontological connection to apostolic ministry, through the rupture with the Successor of Peter, ministry becomes functional. At the SSPX ordination of their bishops they replaced the pontifical mandate with a construction of their own and justified the action by the pastoral needs of the Society. This means that the role is a functional one. Protestant ministers do not differ from their flock on account of ontology or an essential difference (see LG 10) rather they serve in a different capacity ultimately based in baptism. They have a job not a ministry.

3. Sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone)

If connection with Apostolic authority has gone and the priesthood is a function founded in baptism from where can authority be obtained? It cannot be from Rome and the mandate given St Peter by the Lord. Authority must be derived from Sacred Scripture, the interpretation of which is handed down by leaders of SSPX. It is they who as self-appointed verifiers of Biblical data and tradition decide what is truly "Catholic" in the absence of the Petrine Office and the College of Bishops gathered around him. The Anglican Church, which is really an ecclesial community, speaks of a three-legged stool of Sacraments, Scripture and Reason. This approach has led them to ordain women to the priesthood and to accept same-sex marriage! Additionally, having repudiated the Second Vatican Council, which of the Ecumenical Councils is accepted? Again, the authority to determine this will be sheeted back to how these Councils truly reflect the scriptural data. The decision lies with the doctrinal watchdogs of the SSPX hierarchy who fulfil a function arising from the pastoral need of their community. This sounds a lot like the "reason" leg of the Anglican stool.

4. Sola Fide (by faith alone)

In the Catholic Church, unlike the Protestant ecclesial communities, faith is not merely that of the individual. We pray in the baptismal liturgy, after the baptismal promises: "This is the faith of the Church. We are proud to profess it in Christ the Lord." This is the collective faith handed down over the centuries by the popes. It belongs to everyone. It cannot be subject to arbitrary choice. SSPX have decided that faith is something that they get to choose and define and that we are saved by adhering to it. We are no longer saved through the sacraments of the Catholic Church since these are tainted by the heresy alleged of the popes since 1962. In short, if salvation does not come through the Catholic faith maintained by the Pope and College of Bishops it must be brought about through faith alone. This is faith primarily in our Lord Jesus Christ however, since in the Nicene Creed, we pray: "I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" one is led to believe that the SSPX belief in their own probity as guardians of Catholic tradition this is constitutive of their faith as individuals who choose to protest the legitimacy of the Roamn Catholic Church. Instead of having one Pope the individual and personal assent of faith means that each believer becomes his or her own pope!

5. Sola Gratia (by grace alone)

Since individual faith, manifested in obedience to the programme and theology of SSPX, mediates salvation it follows that we are saved by grace alone. We do not cooperate with grace since our reasoning, represented by the development of doctrine at Vatican II, avails us naught. The antiquarianism of the Society determines that history has come to an end. The doctrine of the Church is preserved in amber, beautiful but inert. The sacraments of the Catholic Church no longer objectively mediate salvation. The society founded on the act of faith of Peter and his Successors is illegitimate, if not pernicious and sinful. The believer is therefore saved by grace since the sacraments serve merely a pastoral function when they are divorced from the authority of the Holy See. Those priests ordained by the Catholic Church are all suspect and thus the validity of the sacraments they confect. The Church they serve is not an extension of the Incarnation but a human construct subject to all the weaknesses that attend that condition. The infallibility of the Pope, ex cathedra, only holds with their permission. The infallibility of Ecumenical Councils on matters of defined doctrine likewise requires their imprimatur and nihil obstat. The sensus fidelium of the millions of Catholics who are obedient to the See of Peter and their bishops means nothing. Without the institution the means for justification can only be that of grace alone.

Conclusion

All of this points to the constitutive nature of the Petrine office as the essential guarantor of Catholic faith and sacraments - ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia (Where Peter, there the Church) The Marian Fiat and the Petrine Tu es Christus form the foundations of the Church as a society of divine origin which is in the world but not of the world. It cannot be treated as a museum piece immune to change. After all, Pope Pius XI allowed for the liturgy in the vernacular in the Syro-Malabar rite, and Pope Pius XII reformed the liturgy for Holy Week in 1955. The Hypostatic Union of the Saviour, Second Person of the Holy Trinity, also holds for the Church, human and divine. SSPX cannot usurp this reality no matter how sincere they are in their beliefs. There is no salvation in disobedience and protest.

15th Sunday in Ordinary Time

 Why is the reception of the Good News so inconsistent? For some the Mass is a grace filled moment of encounter with the God who loves them enough to die for them: "But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears for they hear. Truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it" (Mtt 13: 16-17) Yet others, including many cradle Catholics, remain indifferent to the Holy Eucharist? The Gospel gives the following reasons: "When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in the heart... a person who has no root, but endures only for a while, and when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, that person immediately falls away... the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the lure of wealth choke the word, and it yields nothing." (Mtt 13: 19; 21 and 22) I propose an additional reason, which St Paul gives to explain why the Jews refuse to accept the Gospel: "I can testify that they (the Jews) have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. For being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." (Rm 10: 2-4) If we substitute "values" for "law" we can understand that many people hope to serve God through living out values, many of which are received from or articulated by the Catholic Church. St Paul tells us that such an approach is futile and will not yield the fruit of the Kingdom: "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God." (1 Cor 2: 2-5) Let us, therefore, be sure to keep Jesus Christ at the centre of our faith.

Excommunication of SSPX

 By the time I write this, I expect that the illicit ordination of bishop by the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) will have taken place. Pope Leo XIV has told the Society: "I pray for you, because to tear the seamless garment of Christ is a sin of extreme gravity." When he uses the expression "extreme gravity" he is alluding to the canonical offences outlined under the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI as graviora delicta (more serious offences/crimes) which was codified in the new Book of Processes included in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that if SSPX do indeed proceed with the ordinations they will be excommunicated latae sententiae, that is, by the law itself. No trial is required. The Pope can choose to declare the excommunication to confirm that the penalty has been incurred.

How did we get to this? It is a long story. I will restrict myself to a brief narrative. When SSPX, whose founder had been present at Vatican II and signed the documents in the affirmative, illicitly ordained bishops, in defiance of Pope St John Paul II, the offending bishops were excommunicated. Subsequently, the excommunications were lifted in 1 July 1988 by Joseph Ratzinger the prefect for the CDF. When he became Pope Benedict XVI had talks with the Society. In those the society recognized him as the legitimate successor of Peter. This had the effect of recognizing his predecessors going back to Pope St John XXIII. Some of the members of SSPX refused to accept this and remain as sede vacantists, that is, they do not recognize the popes after Pope Pius XII as true popes. The Holy Father also granted the indult Summorum Pontificum in July 7, 2007 to give greater access to the Mass in the extraordinary form, as it was termed. Furthermore, once this agreement was reached Pope Benedict moved the discussion with SSPX from the competence of the Congregation for Divine Worship to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In other words, this was no longer a situation of disagreement over liturgy but one of potential heresy since SSPX refused to accept the decrees of an Ecumenical Council.

Recently, SSPX have sent an affirmation of faith to the Holy See. It is interesting that it mentions there a repudiation of errors stating: "I consequently reject all errors contrary to this Faith, and in particular those of liberalism, indifferentism, modernism, ecumenism, and laicism, condemned by Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII." In other words, it seems they allege these errors against all popes from Pope St John XXIII onwards. They have effectively returned to a sede vacantist posture. This is also a complete rejection of the Second Vatican Council which entails a rejection of canon 749 paragraph 2 in the 1983 Code declaring the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils, when they declare doctrine which is to be held as definitive by the faithful. The ordinations of bishops reveals a deeper truth. SSPX have a position that can only be maintained by those who repudiate the popes from Pope St John XXIII onwards. This position becomes more and more untenable as time passes. It is inconceivable that the Holy Spirit would deny the Church a pope for a long period of time. Such protests end up in the position of the Protestants which accuse the papacy of being a fraud perpetrated on the true Church which remain invisible and incorrupt. When you have one of the pillars of Protestantism the others will follow: faith alone, grace alone, Scripture alone and the priesthood of the baptized.

Given that there are congregations and religious orders, that celebrate the Mass in the extraordinary form and are in full communion with the Holy See, I anticipate that those who love the Mass in its pre-conciliar form will have to make a choice. They either follow the hierarchy of SSPX and risk schism along with them, or they adhere to full communion with the Catholic Church which maintains the legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council and the legitimacy of the popes. I do not think there is room for compromise. the theology of Communion which is fundamental to understanding Vatican II is not up for debate. As a dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, by definition, is fixed doctrine that has been stated by the Church to be free from error. The excuse of SSPX for the ordinations was to meet the pastoral needs of the people but the excommunication latae sententiae will damage the pastoral life as followers of SSPX will receive invalid sacraments from the hands of excommunicated bishops.

14th Sunday in Ordinary Time

 Catholics need to be alert, in contemporary culture particularly, about slipping into Deism. This type of religion denies the possibility of revelation and tends to think of God in terms of a nebulous divine energy. In the early centuries this was expressed in Gnosticism and in the present day by movements such as Unitarianism and Theosophy. Here Jesus is merely a teacher. He has a higher wisdom that emanates from the divine and is not expressed in his humanity. Today's Gospel tells us otherwise. Jesus reveals a God whom he refers to as "my Father." He says: " 'All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son'..." (Mtt 11: 27) This is an exclusive relationship which finds expression in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. We affirm this every time we pray the Creed at Mass. It is Jesus who reveals the truth about God in his own person. Jesus tells Philip elsewhere: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." (Jn 14: 9) What is amazing, however, is that Jesus does not keep this relationship to himself. He invites us to know the Father through him: " '... and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.' " (Mtt 11: 27) This is not a barren intellectual exercise. It bears fruit in believers of consolation, mercy and peace as they accept the invitation to participate in God's interior life, as revealed by the Son: " 'Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.' " (Mtt 11: 28-30) The process of divinization this relationship initiates, St Paul tells us, is brought about through the Holy Spirit: "If the Spirit of God who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through the Spirit that dwells in you."  (Rm 8: 11)

Solemnity of St Peter and St Paul

 Today's feast helps us to realize that the Catholic Church, like the Holy Trinity itself, is not a monolithic unity but a dynamic and synthetic unity. This is perspective is assisted by the theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar which was given magisterial approval by Pope St John Paul II in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when the Church teaches of the Petrine and Marian dimensions of the Church (CCC 773). It is significant that St Peter's Square, in the Vatican City, has a statue of St Peter on one side and a statue of St Paul on the other. The keys and the sword stand together.  In this theology, which was designed to affirm the unity of the Catholic Church, the Petrine dimension refers to the juridical and hierarchical nature of the Church, while the Pauline dimension is the missionary aspect of the Church. The other dimensions include the Marian, which is the holiness of the Church and the Johannine, which is the contemplative dimension. In my opinion, one could also add the Judas dimension, which is the sinful aspect of the Church, although this was never intended by the Lord. The stability and institutional memory of the Petrine dimension is given energy and exothermal energy by the missionary zeal of the Pauline. Neither of these is perfect. Both of them look to Mary. In the Second Reading today, st Paul writes in the context of a failing relationship with the churches in Galatia. The Gospel speaks of Peter meeting risen Christ after betraying him on Good Friday. In conclusion, we have the picture of the Apostles shaking hands to express their unity and affirm the holy order of the Universal Mission of the Church given by the Lord in the Great Commission (Mtt 28: 19--20): "... when they (Peter, James, brother of the Lord, and John) saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised. just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles) and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." (Gal 2: 7-10) 

How did the German Bishops get it so wrong, again?!

 In a previous post I asked the same question regarding the Synodal Path in Germany and the failed Synodal Council. Sadly, the German Bishops have been shown up again in the reply of the Holy See to them refusing the possibility of allowing non-clergy to preach homilies. Hence, I tag onto the title of the blogpost "again?!" Why can this be seen as such a humiliating situation? Surely, one might ask, they had the right to request such a dispensation from the liturgical and canonical law of a merely ecclesiastical provision?

Why is this such a humiliation for the bishops? For a start, there is already an authentic interpretation of the law from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Canonical Texts which was given on 26 May 1987. This denied the possibility of dispensing from the norm that the homily can be given by anyone other than the ordained. It is clear from canon 767 para 1 that the homily "is part of the liturgy itself" (lat. quae est pars ipsius liturgiae). I think we can also go on to point out that the proclamation of the Word, which includes the homily, is declared by the Church to be "the first duty" (lat. primum officium) for the ordained minister (Presbyterorum ordinis, 4). St Paul declares also: "and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel!" (1 Cor 9: 16). Hence, the homily is not only constitutive of the liturgy itself but also of ordained ministry. It is not impossible to dispense from divine law.

Again, how can the German Bishops get something so obvious wrong? Why do they wish to undermine the ordained ministry? How do they understand their own ministry especially as bishops who are called to proclaim the Word in their own cathedrals and elsewhere?

If we go back prior to Vatican II it was thought that the sermon or homily, being in the vernacular, was not a part of the Mass proper. Hence, priests would make the Sign of the Cross to indicated the start of the homily and repeat this at the conclusion to show that the sacred action was about to resume. There was provision in the liturgy for notices and other information pertinent to the congregation, also to be given at this time, which was referred to as Prone. In addition, the liturgical law grants the possibility that when the congregation is composed of young children and the priest is elderly or in some other way unable to communicate effectively with the youngsters that their teacher can speak. I would say that this provision comes under the canonical maxim "in cases of moral or physical impossibility the law does not bind." Or, it might be said that this provision is a liturgical norm that is, in fact, an anomaly which needs to be corrected given the interpretations given elsewhere. There was also given the opportunity to give an explanation of the context of the readings prior to their proclamation, as the Church transitioned from Latin to the vernacular. On occasions such an explanation might have been given to lay people just as they often do an introduction to the Mass or read out notices at the conclusion of the celebration. Most of all, however, I think the German Bishops are looking to circumvent the inability of the Church to ordain women to the priesthood. Given that there were deaconesses in the early Church, and that deacons can preach homilies, there was a possibility in their minds that lay women, deaconesses or otherwise, might take this role.

There is a necessary distinction, which also should be made for the homilist as for the lay person, between preaching in canon 766 and homilies. This is given in canon 767 para 1 itself where it is pointed out that the homily: "... the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year" (lat. in eadem per anni liturgici cursum ex textu sacro fidei mysteria et normae vitae christianae exponantur). To my mind the key words here are "the sacred text." This means that the homilist is not moralizing. teaching or lecturing the people. he is breaking open the Word which has just been proclaimed to the congregation by the ordained minister. he is not free to say whatever he likes. He is at the service of the Gospel. He preaches with apostolic authority given to the Apostles by the Lord and handed on by them to their successors to the ordained. This is attested to by St Justin Martyr who records about AD 150:

"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs [letters] of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president [the presiding priest or bishop] verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things."

Just as with the inability of the Church to ordain women, I think the proclamation of the Gospel and its interpretation within the liturgy of the Mass is a constitutive element of the apostolic nature of the Church. As a result, it cannot be compromised. Every time we recite the Nicene Creed, we affirm that: " I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." It is this Church to which the German Bishops belong, and I pray it stays that way.

Solemnity of the Nativity of St John the Baptist

 It intrigues me that the Church celebrates this feast day as a solemnity. There are only two other birthdays celebrated liturgically in the Roman calendar - Christmas on 25 December, which is a solemnity and holy day of obligation, and 8 September which is the Nativity of Our Lady which is classified as a feast. I would have thought that Our Lady's birthday would therefore be considered a solemnity. Instead, I think we have the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady which is a solemnity but not, in New Zealand, a holy day of obligation. The latter is related to the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary on 15 August which is the patronal feast of New Zealand and a holyday of obligation. The reason for St John the Baptist to have this honour I think is related to the high regard in which the saint was held by Our Lord who said of him: "Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater that John the Baptist." (Mtt 11: 11) Furthermore, in the second reading for the Office of readings for today in the Divine Office St Augustine tells us how St John the Baptist plays a pivotal role in the transition from the Old Testament to the New: " John marks the frontier between the Old and the New Testaments. The Lord speaks of him as the boundary line....". It is John who is the precursor: "John was a 'voice', but in the beginning the Lord was the Word. John was a voice for a time: but Christ, who in the beginning was the Word, is the Word in eternity."