A plea to the SSPX and SSPXers

  • Thread starter Thread starter JNB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of my concerns is that since “outside the Church there is no salvation” and since many of the SSPX are knowledgable of the Catholic Church that they are putting their soul in jeapordy by withdrawing from the Church Jesus founded and into a splinter group, that is out of communion with Rome.

Jesus established a Church for all eternity, he did not establish a certain liturgy to last all eternity. To leave this Church for any reason is to put yourself in the company of others that have left in protest.

You may not feel that SSPX is in schism. Remember that it is reality not feelings or perceptions that matter. Why would anyone take such a chance?
 
tru devotion - thanks for the link. So their claim that they are loyal to the Pope is just another lie?

What puzzles me most is why they continue to come to True
Catholic sites like this one and others and harass us - if they truly believe they are right and we are wrong, why don’t they spend their time praying for our salvation instead of posting all this trash on our sites? I pray for theirs as a whole but get really fed up with the individuals who just like to come here to debate. I often wonder who they are trying to convince?
 
Interesting historical and eastern analogy between Pope Paul VI, his liturgical reform and opponents who favor older forms of devotion (Society Pope of Rome Pius X). In Russia in 1630 Patriach Nikon forced changes in Divine Liturgy to match adaptations made by Greeks. Many Russians prefered “old devotion” (staroye blagochestiye). These Old Believers became “schismatics” because of their love of the old devotions. They have persisted for 300 years and have resurrected after complete suppression under communist government.

Old Believers were violently persecuted in Russia from 1600s to 1905. Tsar Aleksei in support of Patriarch Nikon at time had main supporter of Old Devotions Protopop Avvakum burned, and main laywoman supporter Bojarina Morozova and her sister thrown into a pit and starved to death. All done to force acceptance of the “new rite.”

Roman church is now having difficult with Pius X Schismatics who prefer “old devotion.” Be careful!! Old Believers do NOT go away. If a church cannot maintain unity with its Old Believers (traditionalists) then there is little chance of unity of Christians of other Churches.
 
Im looking for cardinal ratzinger’s announcio to the united states, because I was told in that writing he says that sspx is in communion with the vatican.
 
40.png
aspawloski4th:
Im looking for cardinal ratzinger’s announcio to the united states, because I was told in that writing he says that sspx is in communion with the vatican.
Click to expand...
I’d ask the person who told you this to produce the document. I’ve never seen it and I googled and couldn’t find anything close. When did this document supposedly come out? Sometime I can figure out by the date and what’s happened in the schismatic world what writing they are deciding provest their point.
 
40.png
pnewton:
One of my concerns is that since “outside the Church there is no salvation” and since many of the SSPX are knowledgable of the Catholic Church that they are putting their soul in jeapordy by withdrawing from the Church Jesus founded and into a splinter group, that is out of communion with Rome.

Jesus established a Church for all eternity, he did not establish a certain liturgy to last all eternity. To leave this Church for any reason is to put yourself in the company of others that have left in protest.

You may not feel that SSPX is in schism. Remember that it is reality not feelings or perceptions that matter. Why would anyone take such a chance?
Click to expand...
Lets look at it this way:
When a body is in schism:
  1. Mass is illicit - illegal collection of money takes place
  2. Marriages are invalid.
  3. Confessions are invalid.
The people who went to parishes under Campos did not have to convalidate their marriages, rehear confessions and return all the money from the “illicit” Traditional Mass?

I simply cannot fault people who join the SSPX Masses because the local parishes do not offer reverent Masses or Bishops who refuse to generously offer the TLM. Of course going to an SSPX chapel should be the last option, but for many people it may be the only option if they want the Catholic faith.

And a layman cannot join the SSPX by simply attending one of their chapels, they have to either become a priest or join the third order.
 
40.png
Iohannes:
I simply cannot fault people who join the SSPX Masses because the local parishes do not offer reverent Masses or Bishops who refuse to generously offer the TLM. Of course going to an SSPX chapel should be the last option, but for many people it may be the only option if they want the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
So who decides if something is “reverent” enough? This is rather subjective.

The SSPX, through their entering Schism, are no longer part of the Catholic Church. So I guess you wouldn’t have any problem with those who attend other churches but still call themselves Catholic.

The SSPX is no option for a Catholic.
And a layman cannot join the SSPX by simply attending one of their chapels, they have to either become a priest or join the third order.
Click to expand...
Still a lay person attending the SSPX services is contributing material support (if they give money) or at least they appear to be lending their support with their attendance to a schismatic group.

And as you said, if they go to confession there or get married there then it is wrong. As would be baptism and confirmation. A baptism at an SSPX chapel is no different than a lay person doing a baptism. It is not a baptism in a Cathoic Church by a Catholic priest.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
So who decides if something is “reverent” enough? This is rather subjective.

The SSPX, through their entering Schism, are no longer part of the Catholic Church. So I guess you wouldn’t have any problem with those who attend other churches but still call themselves Catholic.

The SSPX is no option for a Catholic.

Still a lay person attending the SSPX services is contributing material support (if they give money) or at least they appear to be lending their support with their attendance to a schismatic group.

And as you said, if they go to confession there or get married there then it is wrong. As would be baptism and confirmation. A baptism at an SSPX chapel is no different than a lay person doing a baptism. It is not a baptism in a Cathoic Church by a Catholic priest.
Click to expand...
The fact is that they are real priests whether you like it or not,

Tell me why has the Holy See not force the SSJV(Campos) folks to convalidate their marriages, and rehear confessions then? This is one reason why it is not really clear that the SSPX are in schism as an organization. They are disobiedent, but in schism? That is not clear.

If you want PCED response here it is:
unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm
 
40.png
Iohannes:
Tell me why has the Holy See not force the SSJV(Campos) folks to convalidate their marriages, and rehear confessions then? This is one reason why it is not really clear that the SSPX are in schism as an organization. They are disobiedent, but in schism? That is not clear.
Click to expand...
I find the evidence presented by the CA apologists linked above far more compelling than this line of reason. Whether sacraments are valid or licit is irrelevant to the relationship of communion with the Catholic Church.

Most protestant denominations have at least a valid baptism. Some have a valid Eucharist. This does not affect there status of being out of communiom with Rome. Any couple married in a Protestant Church, and yet converts, does not need a convalidation.

I do not see a link between the two that can be applied universally. I can see a need for a case-by-case analysis of each situation to determine if a person has left the church by a formal act.

I, too, sympathize with the desire on the part of some for a Mass that they have come to love and would hope that a greater effort be made to accommodate these people in a licit manner.
 
albert cipriani:
OK. Testing testing, 1, 2, 3. Which seems more reverent, doctrinally accurate, and just plain Catholic to you?
– Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
Click to expand...
Tridenting Mass (Offering of the Host)
**Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen. **
Quote:
Novus Ordo Mass (Offering of the Host)**
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.
I (who came into the Church under the Mass of Paul VI or NO Mass) have always thought the first was more lovely. I’ve heard Carmelite priests say it in English. But I was told that the latter was the ancient Jewish blessing over bread and wine and thus what Our Lord would have actually said at the last supper. For me, it seems a question of obedience to the Holy Father. Sounds like SSPX got a good offer. The Holy Father didn’t/doesn’t have to bargain with them anyway.
**
 
40.png
pnewton:
I find the evidence presented by the CA apologists linked above far more compelling than this line of reason. Whether sacraments are valid or licit is irrelevant to the relationship of communion with the Catholic Church.

Most protestant denominations have at least a valid baptism. Some have a valid Eucharist. This does not affect there status of being out of communiom with Rome. Any couple married in a Protestant Church, and yet converts, does not need a convalidation.

I do not see a link between the two that can be applied universally. I can see a need for a case-by-case analysis of each situation to determine if a person has left the church by a formal act.

I, too, sympathize with the desire on the part of some for a Mass that they have come to love and would hope that a greater effort be made to accommodate these people in a licit manner.
Click to expand...
Protestants have no eucharist silly.
 
40.png
JNB:
As I have stated in other threads, I love the tradityional mass, and while I am open to some changes in the missal(though I would want the rubrics intact) such as the 65 missal, my sympathies lay with tradition. That said, this is a plea to the SSPX and all associated with the SSPX. . . . come back to Rome with a regularized status.Faithful Catholics. . . . would jump to a licit tridentine mass, but because out of respect for the magesterium, will not attend SSPX and “independent” chapels, and continue to suffer, silently. There is so much good that could come with a regularized status with the SSPX, people would flock to their chapels, the forces for restoration would become far stronger with the presence of the SSPX on 6 continents and 5 SSPX seminaries.
Click to expand...
How would this be possible? I mean, what would be the mechanism for the reconciliation to occur?
 
pnewton,

-The people who attends SSPX are Catholics not protestant, so if they decide to join a regular parish church there would be no need for RCIA, conversion, and all that stuff.

-The SSJV(Campos) folks are Catholics. You cannot say that they were not Catholic during their “irregular” or “schismatic” period. Again, Rome did not force them to renounce anything at all. They basically kept the same positions of Bishop Castro de Mayer*. Again, Catholics, not protestants, who go attend a schismatic church will not recieve a valid Marriage or confession.There was no conversion to the Church, when Campos was regularized.

Yet, Campos was never treated as a schismatic even though they offered the Traditional Latin Mass without an indult, permission and had a parallel diocese, and yes for sure, they did have a parallel diocese during their alleged “schism.” How do you explain that? You cannot compare them to protestants because they are not protestants, it is the wrong approach to this situation.

*Co-consecrator of the SSPX Bishop and Bishop Rangel without a papal manadate, and yet Bishop Rangel ordination was declared valid, which means the SSPX Bishops are valid bishops.

NO protestants have valid Eucharist, All the Anglican, lutheran ordinal have been declared invalid null.
 
Tridenting Mass (sounds like a chewing gum commercial).
You probably mean Tridentine - although this is as much a misnomer as is Novos Ordo.
 
When we have a Catholic Pope again then I will be happy to submit.

IF WE WHERE WRONG THEN, THEN WE ARE WRONG NOW!
 
Did it ever dawn on people that the flood gates opened after Vatican II? Perhaps the only thing holding them back was the TLM.

FACT: Today we have the murder of Millions of innocent Babies every year!

FACT: For the first time in history Gays are recognized as legal married people.

FACT: Europe is now a pagan waste land.

FACT: Mass attendance is down, vocations are down, confessions are down, people who believe in the real presence are down.

FACT: Wicca and the occult are on the rise.

FACT: We have churches the look like this:
stmarysrockledge.org/new_church.htm

Instead of this:
arch.columbia.edu/DDL/projects/amiens/slides.html
 
40.png
OrthoCath:
Did it ever dawn on people that the flood gates opened after Vatican II? Perhaps the only thing holding them back was the TLM.
Click to expand...
There is no way to prove such a link.

Just as has been said before. Everyone drinks water, everyone dies. So by your logic, that all this happened after Vatican II I can say that drinking water causes death.
 
General Reminder:

The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top