an open letter to confused catholics-questions

[Ockham]

Unlawful episcopal consecration is THE WORST CRIME against the unity of the church that can possibly be imagined. It is the ultimate desire and goal of the spiritual powers of darkness to manipulate events to this very end in order to divide and conquer the body of Christ. How can men who claim to be traditional Catholics stoop to such an appalling sacrilegious crime which is against everything that the Popes of old believed in, and the Popes of this age as well. It strikes at the heart of traditional Catholicism to illegally consecrate bishops. The SSPX have pierced their consciences and everything they believe in to illicitly consecrate bishops. They have an appearance of traditional Catholicism which is proved to be mere trappings, because they are belied by their gross misdeeds which is illegal consecrations and continual disobedience and defiance of several Popes.

Really? I’m sure you have an explanation as to why the Vatican ignored Archbishop Levebvre’s application to ordain four bishops.

 

[excubitor]

Really? I’m sure you have an explanation as to why the Vatican ignored Archbishop Levebvre’s application to ordain four bishops.

What’s it to you? Who are you to second guess the Pope? Who is Archbishop L?.

Are you saying that we only need to obey the Pope if we are happy with his reasons for giving commands. That is not obedience. In fact the Pope needs give no reasons to his underlings for his decisions. In the old days ABL would have been lying prostate on the floor before one of the Popes cardinals booming at him to recant.

ABL started to treat the Pope like an equal instead of like the Sovereign Pontiff. And to this day Msgr. Fellay looks down on the Pope with a big grin and a pumping handshake. Who does he think he is? Who do you think you are? Just obey the Pope whether you like it or not. For the sake of your soul, because the Pope guards after our souls. Obey him so that he may have joy and not grief.

Sadly that is all the SSPX do for the Pope, give him constant grief. Poor Pope. Let us pray for him that he might find some joy in the willing obedience of his flock.

*Heb 13:[17] Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief.
*

Which prelates do the SSPX obey? None. They disobey their local parish priest because he is a modernist. They disobey the Bishop because he is a modernist. They disobey the Archbishop because he is a modernist. SURELY they will obey the Pope. But no. Not even the Pope is obeyed by the SSPX. “Obey your prelates” what a joke. No thanks Apostle Paul. We will erect our own prelates which are patterned after our own liking. Them we will obey if we feel like it. And if we don’t feel like obeying them we will break off in a screaming fit and join the SSPV or the SSPY or SSPZ.

Is that Catholic? Is that obedience?

 

[Genesis315]

In regards to a Council being considered invalid or illicit due to it being observed by non-Catholics, the Council of Trent allowed Protestants to argue their case at it, the Council of Florence had a pagan participate (George Gemistos aka “Pletho,” he was brought as a philosophy expert, was the official spokesman of the Greek delegation and very influential behind the scenes), and the Orthodox were invited to Vatican I but declined.

 

[Ockham]

What’s it to you? Who are you to second guess the Pope? Who is Archbishop L?.

So you don’t have an explanation only more fury towards the SSPX?

I’ll ask again, why did the Vatican not respond to the Archbishop’s application?

It amazes me how much anger is thrown towards this order. It is not the Catholic way.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Not a bit of it. Luther and his protestant compadres were invited to attend the Council of Trent, and if memory serves would’ve gone but for the fact that the Holy Roman Emperor refused them safe passage through his territories, making it unsafe for them to travel.

The Church has never shied away from face to face dialogue with even those most different and estranged from it. Most parents adopt the same attitude with recalcitrant children.

Invitations to Protestants to attend and observe councils don’t affect their legitimacy any more than the attendance of lay Catholic ‘observers’ would do. The Emperor Constantine, who in fact called the Council of Nicea (one of the most important in Church history) attended as an observer. He wasn’t even officially Christan (only being baptised on his deathbed)!

There are many , myself included , that are of the opinion that Vatican II was Pastoral not Ecumenical. There is not a single anathema. Vatican II presents a view of the Faith. But nowhere in any of the documents do we see the Church saying - “Anathema” if you do not share that view.

Trent does.

Pax

 

[Greg57]

I just finished reading it today and I was very impressed with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I agreed with almost everything he had said and predicted- the meaning of the mass, the meaning of the priesthood, dangers in ecumenism, modernism, the real presence, and tradition itself. The more I read about him the more I think he is a Saint. Does anyone else believe the third secret of Fatima revealed by Our Lady had to do with Vatican II? Not all of it, but parts of it? Does the fact that Vatican II involved protestant and jewish “observers” make it invalid? Is it really true that Pope Benedict says the mass of all times in private? Is this somewhat ironic considering he was actively pushing Vatican II? Am I the only one who thinks the new mass and the new church resemble protestantism with its lack of alter rails, priest facing the people, casual dress, abandonment of confession, new modern architecture that looks like a mega-church? Could someone give me some insight into the differences between the FSSP and the SSPX and how the formed? Finally, is it a sin for me to go to the mass of all times in a SSPX church when the only other one offered within the church is 45 miles away?

Thank you

Lefebvre certainly is not a saint. If he were, he would have, in humility, been obedient to the Church. Instead, he broke with the Church and became schismatic. Just because one agrees with many of his arguments does not mean he is not in error. What he says about the priesthood, Mass, the dangers of certain ‘isms’ etc., are traditional understandings that have been part of the Church for centuries.

The 3rd secret of Fatima had nothing to do with Vatican II. It had to do with a great persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father, and how the Blessed Mother has stayed the hand of God from a great chastisement through her intercession.

Just because there were protestant and jewish ‘observers’ had nothing to do with Vatican II. They were observers, not participants.

The pope says Mass in his private chapel everyday.

The SSPX is a renegade group of schismatics who broke with the Church by rejecting the Novus Ordo and Vatican II. They have a valid but illicit Liturgy; the same goes for their sacramental structure. They are not in communion with the Church. The FSSP is the Church’s response to SSPX and is the valid organization that encourages the extraordinary form of the Mass under the auspices of the Church. They are in communion with the Church.

I don’t know if it is a sin or not for attending a Mass offered by a SSPX priest. Again, the Mass is valid but it is illicit because the movement is not in communion with the Church. I would rather travel the 45 miles to attend an official Liturgy, actually.

 

[PJM]

=excubitor;6906249]It is you that are making a false statement. I even quoted from the SSPX web site although I gave an incorrect link.

Here is the link, read it for yourself sspx.org/sspx_faqs/q5_novusordo.htm

Here is the offending passage.

I suggest you better acquaint yourself about what your church officially teaches. I have many times alerted SSPX-ers that your leaders in your chapels are not making it clear to you what their official position is. Many priests at the SSPX craft their messages to suit their audience. But when the Msgr Fellay goes into the Pope to broker a peace deal that is the message that he is pandering. That the NO mass is:
not truly Catholic,
not adequate to fulfil the Catholics Sunday obligation
a pervasive and serious innovation
the liturgy of a new religion
not to be attended by Catholics who know of its harmful effects

And therefore Catholics have NO RIGHT to attend it.

Oh yes but we still think its a valid mass. Big deal. That’s damning with faint praise.
So what if you think its valid after you have said all these other awful things about the mass of the Church.

And I have only scratched the surface of the litany of accusation levelled against the New Mass which is found in the article that I linked which was even entitled

WHY SHOULD CATHOLICS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE ?

Here’s the link sspx.org/sspx_faqs/q5_novusordo.htm

And stop with this “The SSPX believe tne Novus Ordo Missae is a valid mass” nonsense. Do you think I’m stupid?
That is just standard smokescreen that SSPX puff up to make themselves appear kosher to the wider Catholic world.

My dear friend in Christ?

Might I ask you to forgo the harsh language. This is a Catholic Site. Charity is expectd along with patient endurence. Sure you are able to express yourself more Christian approiately? WWJD?

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Onegin]

I don’t know if it is a sin or not for attending a Mass offered by a SSPX priest.

From Ecclesia Dei:

If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.

We have been told that can rely upon the words of the PCED responses to individual enquiries with moral certainty.

 

[Ockham]

Since excubitor won’t, can anyone else explain why the Vatican didn’t approve Archbishop Lefebrve’s applicaiton for bishop ordinations?

I can understand not approving if it is for women or others outside the Church, but from what I understand the SSPX were in good standing.

The Archbishop applied, heard nothing. Followed up, heard nothing. Realizing his mortality was nearing its end he made it know he’d ordain with or without Vatican approval. The Vatican replied he’d be excommunicated if he followed through, but still didn’t approve or disapprove the original application. Is that about how it happened?

 

[excubitor]

Since excubitor won’t, can anyone else explain why the Vatican didn’t approve Archbishop Lefebrve’s applicaiton for bishop ordinations?

ABL signed an agreement with JP2 to allow the SSPX to maintain its basic structure and to say the Latin Mass. JP2 allowed ABL to have one bishop to carry on his work. ABL later went back on his word, ignored the signed agreement and then went ahead illicitly and ordained the bishops. He did this because he did not trust the Pope.

Its all here in Wikipedia.
It also shows that at one time ABL was resolute that he would not ordain any bishops illicitly because that would make him like Martin Luther and he would lose the Holy Spirit if he were to do such a thing. Not my words, ABL’s words.

You can read all this here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecône_consecrations

 

[Ockham]

ABL signed an agreement with JP2 to allow the SSPX to maintain its basic structure and to say the Latin Mass. JP2 allowed ABL to have one bishop to carry on his work. ABL later went back on his word, ignored the signed agreement and then went ahead illicitly and ordained the bishops. He did this because he did not trust the Pope.

Why only one bishop? What would happen if he died unexpectedly?

Wikipedia is not a reilable source. What else do you have?

 

[excubitor]

Why only one bishop? What would happen if he died unexpectedly?

Wikipedia is not a reilable source. What else do you have?

If he died then the Pope would anoint another one to represent the SSPX. What? Don’t you trust the Pope?

As far as I can tell the request to ordain four bishops was never made to the Pope. The terms that were agreed upon by the Pope and ABL to ordain one bishop were all settled, signed, sealed and delivered. It was only after a sleepless night with ABL tossing on his bed and troubled in prayer (and phone calls from radical red-neck factions of the SSPX no doubt) that he woke up in the morning convinced that the Pope was going to do the dirty on him. So that was when he told the Pope that he was going ahead with four consecrations with or without the Popes permission.

One of the difficulties is that the Pope’s office has regarded the problems with the SSPX as an internal matter within the church and have gone to pains not to air out the dirty laundry of the church for all to see. So we really need to rely on the SSPX accounts who clearly have no shame in exposing all the faults and foibles of their post-conciliar superiors. Clearly by their public name and shame drubbing of the church, the SSPX do regard their problems as an external issue between two competing parties.

As Catholics we should all go to great pains to keep our troubles private and present to the world a united church. Sedevacantists like Mel Gibson do the church no favours because to the world they see Mel Gibson as a Catholic. The situation is similar with the SSPX. Whereas they could do their very best to portray Vatican 2, Novus Ordo and ecumenism in the best possible light and try to work within the church privately against the errors that they perceive. They instead bring the church to open shame by blabbing up hill and down dale every exaggerated error (as they see it) of the church in flowery and ignominious terms.

So if you have some dirt on the Pope and how he conspired to destroy the SSPX by plotting to seed the SSPX with modernist bishops then by all means KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. I don’t want to hear it as it will only serve to further sully the reputation of the church.

The fact is that for whatever his reasons, the Pope did not sanction the consecration of those four men as bishops as is his Sovereign prerogative. As the saying goes
“Ours is not to wonder why, ours is just to do or die”

Obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff is a requirement for salvation. Disobedience incurs the wrath of God as Archbishop L himself conceded in 1974 when he stated that he would never consecrate illegally
““for this would mean I would do what Martin Luther did, and I would lose the Holy Ghost.””

This account is witnessed by the SSPX themselves sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id9.html

 

[Ockham]

If he died then the Pope would anoint another one to represent the SSPX. What? Don’t you trust the Pope?

As far as I can tell the request to ordain four bishops was never made to the Pope. The terms that were agreed upon by the Pope and ABL to ordain one bishop were all settled, signed, sealed and delivered. It was only after a sleepless night with ABL tossing on his bed and troubled in prayer (and phone calls from radical red-neck factions of the SSPX no doubt)

Right there you lost me. Your bigotry compromises your credibility. Your brief summary didn’t match your Wikipedia article either. Mark would shred it.

You clearly have a very negative opinion of the SSPX. Without them I would not know the TLM nor be practicing a proper Catholic life. Their actions did much to preserve the TLM and our Catholic identity. The SSPX people I know personally are very devout and honest people. I suggest you take your energy towards those Catholics promoting unCatholic beliefs and practices as their souls are in jeopardy.

 

[excubitor]

Right there you lost me. Your bigotry compromises your credibility. Your brief summary didn’t match your Wikipedia article either. Mark would shred it.

My brief summising I admit is extrapolated from the Wikipedia article. I really don’t know the answer. Do you? Also. Can you provide evidence that the Pope every received a request for four bishops which he declined? Is it not true that the first the Pope heard about it was when he got the ultimatum from ABL that he was going to consecrate whether the Pope liked it or not.

You are the one who brought the subject up. I don’t have the answer. Do you?
What I do know however is that ABL deliberately, openly and directly DISOBEYED the Pope and illegally consecrated the four bishops WITHOUT the sanction of the Pope and against his express command NOT TO.
That is without doubt the absolute facts of the matter which is admitted by everybody.

You clearly have a very negative opinion of the SSPX. Without them I would not know the TLM nor be practicing a proper Catholic life. Their actions did much to preserve the TLM and our Catholic identity.

I commend the SSPX for preserving the TLM. I enjoy it as well each week and recognise the contribution of the SSPX. However the fact that they have done some good things does not excuse the blatant disobedience which was begun by ABL who illegally consecrated bishops and which has been perpetuated since that time by the bishops, priests and laity of the SSPX. DISOBEDIENCE is intrinsically evil. We may not DISOBEY the Pope in order that good may result. I deny that it was necessary to directly DISOBEY the Pope in order to preserve the TLM.

 

[excubitor]

The SSPX people I know personally are very devout and honest people. I suggest you take your energy towards those Catholics promoting unCatholic beliefs and practices as their souls are in jeopardy.

I understand that there are very devout people in the SSPX and I am glad that you are mixing with a faction which has good qualities and who sincerely prays for unity with the Pope. However if you think that there are not radical red-neck factions in the SSPX who are working to perpetuate the schism with Rome and who foster suspicion and mistrust of the magisterium with every breath then clearly you have not spent any time on the fisheaters site which is utterly crawling with those kinds of SSPXers.

If you would like to explain how ABL could do a deal with the Pope on one day, and then overnight by the very next day turn around his opinion and break his deal with the Pope then by all means let me have your account of why that happened.

What makes sense to me is that during the night he got some phone calls from the hard-liners in the SSPX who were making it clear that there would be no unity with Rome and that the SSPX was going to split in half if unity with Rome was achieved. I admit that I have no evidence for this. It is my gut instinct and one of the main reasons why I believe that all of these meetings with Rome are futile (as Msgr Williamson says) and that there will never be unity between Rome and Econe.

Even the Catholic church has factions. Every political party and every major church and organisation has factions which harbour people of various ideologies and extremes. To deny that there are anti-unification factions in the SSPX is to have your head stuck in the sand. On a weekly basis there are a steady trickle of SSPX priests breaking off and heading to various sedevacantist camps.

I won’t link to it because I do not support the web site that I found this article on, but you might look for “Fr. Trytek explains why he left the Society of St. Pius X.” He explains his defection with these excuses:

1. I reject as subversive and un-Catholic the SSPX assertion that the Church can voice heresy, promulgate or bring to life binding universal liturgical laws
2. I reject the false alternative proposed by the SSPX -unity or confession of unadulterated Faith.
3. I reject the SSPX system, where recognition of the Pope is merely illusory, where the Pope has a mere primacy of honor, and where the only noticeable expression of acknowledgment of papal primacy is to occasionally hang a picture of the current occupant of Peter’s See, whom the SSPX erroneously holds to be the Pope
4. I reject as hypocritical the SSPX stance of insisting on a game “at two fronts”, of which, effectively, the real one, and concurrently the one most damaging to the souls of the faithful, is to protect and legitimize the culprits of the current universal apostasy by assigning them attributes of legality, and, what is more, of power of jurisdiction over Catholics. Such a stance is the result of backsliding from the holy duty of conveying the whole integral Deposit of the Catholic Faith.

If you don’t think that this kind of thinking is fostered in large sections of the SSPX who hang around ONLY in the hope that the Vatican talks will end in ruin and the SSPX will be free to go on their own way freed from the shackles of Rome, then you clearly do not understand the currents of sentiments which flow within your own organisation. As Msgr. Williamson says, you are part of the dialogue of the blind.

I suggest you take your blinkers off and see the SSPX for what they are: a semi-detached schismatic group making a show of being Catholic.

I must admit I laughed when I saw his comment about the token photo of the Pope hung up at SSPX chapels. Half the congregation tolerate it and the other half want to grab it and throw it over the roof of the church while nobody is looking.

So SSPX. Which side are you on when your semi-detached church splits right down the middle? Will you be on Fr. Trytek’s side and heading for sedevacantism, or will you be on the side of the FSSP who refuse to directly disobey the Pope? Or will you forever lead your families in this never-ending bizarre twilight zone where you are neither quite in the church, nor quite out of it?

Who’s Mark anyway? By all means bring him in on the conversation. I think you need some help.

 

[excubitor]

My dear friend in Christ?

Might I ask you to forgo the harsh language. This is a Catholic Site. Charity is expectd along with patient endurence. Sure you are able to express yourself more Christian approiately? WWJD?

Love and prayers,
Pat

Dear Pat.
Like Matthew 23:33 perhaps?

Not that I would say that the SSPX are quite as bad as the Pharisees.

Love and prayers for you,
and tongue lashings for the disobedient and all who work iniquity.

 

[maurin]

Was I just reading from he children"s book, The Sky is Falling?

 

[floresco]

Who’s Mark anyway? By all means bring him in on the conversation. I think you need some help.

What? Haven’t you seen the posts by Mark the Shredder? You don’t know what you are asking for. Be afraid. Be very afraid.