an open letter to confused catholics-questions

[notredame_999]

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

 

[snowbee]

The more I’m reading the more I’m loving the Tridentine Mass. Write a letter to your bishop explaining that you would like to worship according the the Mass of All Times but there are no masses available, and let him know that the SSPX in the area are more than willing to provide a valid Eucharist and worship, albeit “illicit?”.
Listen to this audio by the FSSP. This man holds in high regard the founder of SSPX. I thoroughly enjoyed the audio.
fssp.com/press/category/audio/
I still have strong reservations about SSPX though. If possible, attend a Mass in full communion.
I have a feeling though in the next couple years we will see more Tridentine masses again.

 

[LilyM]

Does the fact that Vatican II involved protestant and jewish “observers” make it invalid?
Thank you

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)!

 

[snowbee]

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)!

Just to clarify on this point. Back then if you murdered for example you were excommunicated forever. It made sense for many in those times to only be baptized on their deathbeds as any sins up to baptism would be forgiven, but as men of war they would commit sins the church of the time would accept no forgiveness of.

 

[LilyM]

Just to clarify on this point. Back then if you murdered for example you were excommunicated forever. It made sense for many in those times to only be baptized on their deathbeds as any sins up to baptism would be forgiven, but as men of war they would commit sins the church of the time would accept no forgiveness of.

Yes, I understand the reason. The fact remains he wasn’t officially Christian.

 

[JRKH]

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.

I have not read anything by him, but I know that The Church in Rome is in discussions with SSPX witha veiw towards eventual complete restoration of communion. As to the problems since Vat II, most of those have came from abuses of the actual intent.

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?

I’m sure there are others who do, but I do not.

Does the fact that Vatican II involved protestant and jewish “observers” make it invalid?

Not in the least.

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?

If by the “Mass of All Time” you are refering to the TLM, that is now refered to as the EF. As to which mass Benedict uses in private I don’t know.
As to “Irony” one would have to be intimately aquanted with The Pope throughout his life before one could comment on this. Using terms like “Pushing Vatican II” are not clear and precise. Was he supportive of Vatican II as written or was he supportive of the abuses stemming from the misinterpretation of “the spirit of” 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?

No you are not the only one, but that doesn’t make them right. The design of Churches has evolved over many centuries and will continue to evolve. As to Lack of confession and loss of reverence, these are due to a failure of catachesis that is now being addressed.

Could someone give me some insight into the differences between the FSSP and the SSPX and how the formed?

The difference between the FSSP and SSPX is that one is in full communion wiht the Holy See and the other is not. As such one can be more confident of the theological formation of the FSSP Priests.

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

I cannot answer for whether it is a sin or not, but I would shy away from it. Instead look for the most reverent OF you can find in your area.
Talk to your local priest about the possibility of having the EF said at your local parish, at least so he knows that there are those interested.
As others have said, write to your Bishop explaining your concerns about the distance to the EF parish and asking fro something closer.
Help the Holy Father to promote the wider use of the EF by making your desire for it known at the local level and diocesan level.

Peace
James

 

[OraLabora]

Does anyone else believe the third secret of Fatima revealed by Our Lady had to do with Vatican II?

If you believe that you are guilty of a form of idolatry, as you have no fact or official dogma to back that up, only what you’ve heard others say. Your faith is supposed to lie entirely in Christ and what His Church teaches, not what some rumours say, unless you’ve had some sort of private revelation yourself, in which case it is private and not de fide for the rest of us.

 

[Monica4316]

As to which mass Benedict uses in private I don’t know.

I read that Pope Benedict uses the EF Mass in private.

 

[Onegin]

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

To touch on what appear to be your main points:

1. The new Mass consecration is not invalid unless it lacks proper form, matter or intent. Certain abuses can render it illicit, however.
2. Attending the SSPX Mass is not sinful and the SSPX consecration is also valid unless it lacks proper form, matter or intent, although it is illicit (without getting into the supplied jurisdiction argument which you can read about if you choose).
3. The FSSP was formed from priests who left the SSPX to seek full communion with Rome. One of the main negative differences (that the SSPX points out) is that the FSSP Priests are obliged, if requested, to say the new Mass whereas the SSPX Priests are under no such obligation. It is important to note why the SSPX views this as a big issue (and why all the Priests didn’t make such a similar agreement with Rome) is because the SSPX views the new Mass as valid but, because of its Protestant influences and liberalisation, a potential danger to one’s faith. Also, the FSSP Priests often use existing diocesan parishes (I haven’t heard of many dedicated ones) so you’ll often see the old and new Mass side by side at the parish. Finally, (and someone can correct me if I’m wrong) many of the FSSP Priests are not allowed to administer all the sacraments in the traditional rite, depending on the permission of the local ordinary. Basically, it can be kind of a gamble depending on how tolerant your local diocese is of the FSSP and the administration of the sacraments in the traditional rite.

That’s pretty much a quick summary of some of your main points - let me know if you have any more specific questions.

 

[notredame_999]

If you believe that you are guilty of a form of idolatry, as you have no fact or official dogma to back that up, only what you’ve heard others say. Your faith is supposed to lie entirely in Christ and what His Church teaches, not what some rumours say, unless you’ve had some sort of private revelation yourself, in which case it is private and not de fide for the rest of us.

Well I just think it could be considering Our Lady wanted the third secret released by 1960 and the Pope refused. The timing seemed to correlate. You said my faith is supposed to lie entirely in Christ and what His Church teaches. True. But what if his Church starts teaching things that are contradictory to Christ’s teaching? Even Pope Paul VI said the smoke of satan had entered this church. Yes, we should respect the authority of the Popes, Bishops, Cardinals, Priests that God has given them, but when they contradict tradition do we have to be silent?

 

[excubitor]

The more I’m reading the more I’m loving the Tridentine Mass. Write a letter to your bishop explaining that you would like to worship according the the Mass of All Times but there are no masses available, and let him know that the SSPX in the area are more than willing to provide a valid Eucharist and worship, albeit “illicit?”.

For a learning Catholic you are cottoning on pretty quick

Listen to this audio by the FSSP. This man holds in high regard the founder of SSPX. I thoroughly enjoyed the audio.
fssp.com/press/category/audio/
I still have strong reservations about SSPX though. If possible, attend a Mass in full communion.
I have a feeling though in the next couple years we will see more Tridentine masses again.

Entirely agree. Good job.

 

[excubitor]

To touch on what appear to be your main points:

1. The new Mass consecration is not invalid unless it lacks proper form, matter or intent. Certain abuses can render it illicit, however.
2. Attending the SSPX Mass is not sinful and the SSPX consecration is also valid unless it lacks proper form, matter or intent, although it is illicit (without getting into the supplied jurisdiction argument which you can read about if you choose).

Attending the SSPX Mass can be sinful if it is done as a defiance and rejection of the new mass. According to Ecclesia Dei, frequent attendance at SSPX masses can result in the Catholic absorbing the schismatic mentality of the SSPX.

1. The FSSP was formed from priests who left the SSPX to seek full communion with Rome.

This puts the wrong slant on it. The SSPX was always in full communion with the church until the Archbishop who wrote the open letter to confused catholics defied the Pope and ordained the bishops illicitly. The FSSP was formed by those priests and faithful who wanted to remain in communion with the Pope.

One of the main negative differences (that the SSPX points out) is that the FSSP Priests are obliged, if requested, to say the new Mass whereas the SSPX Priests are under no such obligation.

The SSPX priests certainly are obliged to say the new Mass on occasion however their refusal to do so is a direct defiance against the Pope and an act of rebellion which is typical of a schismatic group.

It is important to note why the SSPX views this as a big issue (and why all the Priests didn’t make such a similar agreement with Rome) is because the SSPX views the new Mass as valid but, because of its Protestant influences and liberalisation, a potential danger to one’s faith.

Whereas the FSSP happily participate with the local ordinary bishop in the occasional OF mass to ensure that they do not fall out of communion with the Pope and the church which would be a graver danger to one’s faith than anything that the Archbishop L. or the SSPX can scare us with. There are very many conservative, orthodox Catholics who attend the new mass. There are also many conservative orthodox OF masses said throughout the country which makes this notion that the OF mass is dangerous to one’s faith a gross generalisation and also an affront to the Holy Father who says the OF mass regularly.

Also, the FSSP Priests often use existing diocesan parishes (I haven’t heard of many dedicated ones) so you’ll often see the old and new Mass side by side at the parish. Finally, (and someone can correct me if I’m wrong) many of the FSSP Priests are not allowed to administer all the sacraments in the traditional rite, depending on the permission of the local ordinary. Basically, it can be kind of a gamble depending on how tolerant your local diocese is of the FSSP and the administration of the sacraments in the traditional rite.

I’ve never heard of this. Can someone confirm this? I highly doubt it. The FSSP exclusively use all the 1962 to the best of my knowledge. The FSSP is certainly not a gamble of any kind. The only thing that bothers me about the FSSP is that there are a large number of them who harbour schismatic sentimentalities and are probably not far off from going to the SSPX. Mind you, there is plenty more that bothers me in the local parishes.

 

[excubitor]

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

This influential document has led so many people astray. I cannot understand why the Church has not provided a considered and public defence of Vatican 2 to answer these points by the Archbishop. The points he make are very one sided in that it makes no distinction between the actual intent of Vatican 2 as opposed to the abuses of Vatican 2 which have been done by modernist bishops and priests under the guise of “the spirit of Vatican 2”.

 

[giuseppeTO]

The difference between the FSSP and SSPX is that one is in full communion wiht the Holy See and the other is not. As such one can be more confident of the theological formation of the FSSP Priests.

James, this is the one point I disagree with you on. The church is rife with ill-formed priests whose formation comes “in communion” with Rome. These are the priests who offer the Masses with liturgical abuse and believe and preach contrary to the church on issues such as same-sex marriage. Their ill-formation comes from an abandonment of St. Thomas in favor of more modern and progressive theology and philosophy. To wit, I believe the FSSP is fairly free of this modernistic formation. Both the SSPX and the FSSP have solid and similar regiments of traditional formation.

As for the third secret of Fatima, there are those that believe that the true third secret has been suppressed due to the reaction it might engender among the faithful. Up until recently, the party line from the Rome is that it has been fully disclosed. However, recently on a visit to Fatima, Pope Benedict has intimated that it has not been fully revealed and that perhaps the priestly sexual scandals were part of the message.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Here is an insightful dissertation by Dr. Robert Moynihan from Inside the Vatican on the current theological discussions between the Vatican and the SSPX:

**Now, 44 years after the close of the Second Vatican Council, Benedict XVI evidently has committed some of his best men to seek unity with the most conservative wing of the Catholic Church, the Society of St. Pius X, and by extension, all so-called “Traditionalist” Catholics.

The plan is very ambitious: to go step by step through all of the great, controversial doctrinal issues of the post-conciliar period. This includes religious freedom, it includes ecumenism, it includes the Chruch’s teaching on Judaism and the Jews, it includes the new Mass vs. the old Mass and the role of the priest of the laity in the liturgy – all the great issues of the Council.

What is the real, fundamental issue of these talks?

It is this: Did the Second Vatican Council teach new doctrines not in keeping with prior Church teaching, and so lead the Church into error (as the Society of St. Pius X, and other traditional Catholics, have often argued)?

Or did the Council develop doctrines based on what the Church has always taught, and so open up new, legitimate aspects of old doctrines?

To put it another way: Did a “new Church” come into being after Vatican II, a Church which broke with the “old Church” of the pre-conciliar period?

Or is it still the same Catholic Church of all time, which has simply been passing through a confusing period as it attempts to find a way to live in and bear witness to the modern world?

Benedict has been calling for a reinterpretation of Vatican II for almost 40 years. In book-length interviews when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, in major studies of the liturgy and in addresses as Pope, he has denounced interpretations of Vatican II which claim it as a rupture with the Catholic faith of all time.

The Lefebvrists have maintained that is is difficult, if not impossible, to interpret Vatican II as being in continuity with all prior Church tradition.

But Benedict has said he believes this interpretation can be made.

And he has sent his chosen men into this dialogue to show the Lefebvrists how it can be done.

The true drama of this dialogue is whether his men will succeed.

Because if his men succeed, the Traditionalists will come back into full union with the Church – and many more conservative Anglicans and Orthodox will also feel more willing to enter into Rome’s embrace.

But this very success will mean a defeat for… many progressive theologians, who have argued that Vatican II is a clean break with many “negative” teachings of the “old Church.”

Therefore, if Benedict and his men succeed in this effort, the result will be to bring the Traditionalists over into a Church that rejects what they too have hitherto rejected, by defining certain teachings of Vatican II in a traditional way which will suddenly close off to progressives avenues of interpretation that they have freely exploited for four decades now.
So what is at stake in these discussions is far more than what happens to the Lefebvrists.

What is at stake is how the Church of the future will judge and interpret Vatican II.**

 

[PJM]

=notredame_999;6894020]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

WOW! It would take a BOOK to respond to everything you asked.

Keep in mind that the position of the Pious X movement denies the validity of Vatican II, all Popes after Pious VI, do not accept the Novous Ordo Mass as legitimate at all; even though ROME has [like it or not; and I don’t] OFICIALLY proclaimed it as the [SINGULAR] “Ordinary form” of the Catholic Mass. [Thy Will NOT MY will be done Oh Lord!]

From the tone of your comments I perceive you either are not aware of these FACTS or like them, choose to ignore them.

My advice frined is to proceed with the GREATEST caution. Matt. 16:15-19, Mat. 18:18, are valid and still in effect.

**Acts.20:28 **“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church [SINGULAR] of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. “

**Eph. 4: 4 **“There is one body [One Church] and one Spirit, [One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, [One God] one faith, [One set of doctrine and dogma] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”

**John 17:14- 17 **I [JESUS]have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.

John 14:25 "These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

BE VERY CAREFUL; There can be and is only one truth. My advice about the Mass nd travel the 45 miles. “TAKE UP YOUR CROSS AND FOLLOW ME!”

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[GrandeChartreus]

Does the fact that Vatican II involved protestant and jewish “observers” make it invalid?

I am really puzzled that, when it is time to criticize Vatican II, people usually use the following to blame the reform:

• Jews
• Orthodox
• Protestant
• Free Masons
• Fatima
• The Devil
• The Jews again

This is getting very pathetic, racist and insulting. I understand this is a forum but seriously people use your brain. Our Church is supposed to get closer to other religions not accuse them of all the errors we have made. Accusations of this sort is simply wrong and makes me wonder why our Church respects people like that.

As a side note, I would not trust a Lefebvrists to tell me what went wrong in Vatican II. I would ask that we use caution. Being French and reading French media let me tell you that we hear a lot about them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X
(sry that was the only one in english)
Political controversies
France
There is an overlap in French society between the SSPX’s constituency of support and support for reactionary political positions. In the French context, such positions include:

• Condemnation of the 1789 French Revolution and of the French Republic, accompanied by support for the restoration of the absolutist French monarchy. Lefebvre’s close associate Fr. Paul Aulagnier, who has since left the SSPX and been reconciled with the Church hierarchy, was quoted in an SSPX periodical in 2001 as saying, while serving in Belgium (a constitutional monarchy): “I am pleased to be in Brussels - I who detest the republic and hate democracy.”[2]

• Support for the Vichy government (1940-1944). Lefebvre spoke approvingly of the “Catholic order of Pétain”, referring to the Vichy head of state Philippe Pétain, who was later sentenced to death as a traitor and died in prison.[3] The Society organises pilgrimages to Pétain’s tomb,[4] and during the 1987 pilgrimage the Archbishop referred to him as having “restored [France] spiritually and morally”.[5].
• Support for the Front National political party and its leader, Jean-Marie le Pen, who is on the far right of the political spectrum.

Allegations of antisemitism

There have been statements by some members of the society which have been widely interpreted as antisemitic[11][12], particularly regarding Holocaust denial.[13] The society itself denies the claim that anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism is rampant in important circles of the Society

Bishop Richard Williamson No need to add anything on this one.

Although the SSPX authorities have thus distinguished Williamson’s views from those of the Society, the Anti-Defamation League has accused the Society of St. Pius X of being “mired in anti-Semitism”,[24] and journalist John L. Allen, Jr. has said it would be misleading to consider Williamson an isolated case: Father Florian Abrahamowicz, who after being the superior in Italy has since been expelled from the Society, also said he was not sure the Nazis had used gas chambers for anything other than disinfection, seemed to cast doubt on the number of six million Jews killed, complained that the Jews had exalted the Holocaust above other genocides (Armenian Genocide etc.), and called the Jews first “the people of God” and then the “people of deicide”, to be converted to Jesus Christ at the end times.[25]

Paul Touvier

In 1989, Paul Touvier, a former Vichy French official and a fugitive wanted for war crimes, was arrested in a Society priory in Nice. The SSPX stated at the time that Touvier had been granted asylum there as “an act of charity to a homeless man”.[26]

Southern Poverty Law Center report

The SSPX was also accused of anti-Semitism in a 2006 report on Traditionalist Catholicism published by the American Southern Poverty Law Center. Defenders of the SSPX have strongly criticised the report and accused the SPLC of using accusations of anti-Semitism as a means of “silencing opponents of liberalism.”[30] They have drawn parallels to similar accusations against Jewish scholars like Norman Finkelstein.

Newsletters and websites

The website of the SSPX in the United States carried an article…] In this article, entitled “The Mystery of the Jews”, Fr. Crowdy argued that the civil rights of Jews should be curtailed, albeit on religious rather than racial grounds.[32]

Statements by SSPX clerics about the Church authorities

One of the Society’s four bishops, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, has stated that Pope Benedict XVI "has professed heresies in the past! He…has never retracted his errors.

SSPX and Scouting

A number of groups whose following overlaps with that of the SSPX, such as the Scouts d’Europe, have been accused of extremist leanings. …]

* A few days earlier, 72 girls had been hospitalised for sunstroke sustained during an outdoor Mass in the Cantal region.
* A week later, a 14-year-old was left alone in a forest, without map or compass, and told to find his own way back to camp some 18 km away; this was allegedly a punishment for hitch-hiking during a march.
* A year earlier, the parent of a scout who attended a camp in Brittany alleged that her son returned having learned to sing Vichy songs.

In February 2008, Saint Mary’s Academy, a school in Kansas affiliated with the SSPX, refused to allow a woman referee to officiate at a high-school basketball game in which St. Mary’s was participating, reportedly on the grounds that it was not appropriate for a woman to be in a position of authority over male students.

 

[giuseppeTO]

WOW! It would take a BOOK to respond to everything you asked.

Keep in mind that the position of the Pious X movement denies the validity of Vatican II, all Popes after Pious VI, do not accept the Novous Ordo Mass as legitimate at all;

WOW Pat, you really have to study up on the issues before you start reviewing what the SSPX believes. Just to clarify your inaccuracies:

The SSPX believes that V2 was a valid council. If not, they would not be discussing it in Rome as we speak (please carefully read Post #15).

All the Popes after Pius VI? You must be joking or have no clue on the lineage or spelling of the Popes of the Catholic Church… The SSPX believes that all Popes since V2 are valid Popes.

The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo validly confects the Blessed Sacrament when the priest adheres to the form, matter and intent.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I am really puzzled that, when it is time to criticize Vatican II, people usually use the following to blame the reform:

• Jews
• Orthodox
• Protestant
• Free Masons
• Fatima
• The Devil
• The Jews again

This is getting very pathetic, racist and insulting. I understand this is a forum but seriously people use your brain. Our Church is supposed to get closer to other religions not accuse them of all the errors we have made. Accusations of this sort is simply wrong and makes me wonder why our Church respects people like that.

As a side note, I would not trust a Lefebvrists to tell me what went wrong in Vatican II. I would ask that we use caution. Being French and reading French media let me tell you that we hear a lot about them.

Citing the Southern Poverty Law Center or the ADL - both of whom are stridently anti-Catholic and anti-Papist will not garner you any supporters in America, my friend.

And please do not bore us with what the Archbishop said about French politics in 1944 or 1987 … we don’t care.

And as for your silly examples of children camping and women basketball referees. if your intent is to show that one should not be affiliated with the SSPX because of these incidents, I can show you thousands of incidents of child abuse that can be used as a reason to leave the Catholic Church.

Only 3% of your French countrymen admittedly attend ANY Mass on a weekly basis. Your entire country, by these accounts, appears to be in apostasy. Perhaps you should work on cleaning up your own backyard first, my friend.

 

[GrandeChartreus]

Citing the Southern Poverty Law Center or the ADL - both of whom are stridently anti-Catholic and anti-Papist will not garner you any supporters in America, my friend.

And please do not bore us with what the Archbishop said about French politics in 1944 or 1987 … we don’t care.

And as for your silly examples of children camping and women basketball referees. if your intent is to show that one should not be affiliated with the SSPX because of these incidents, I can show you thousands of incidents of child abuse that can be used as a reason to leave the Catholic Church.

Only 3% of your French countrymen admittedly attend ANY Mass on a weekly basis. Your entire country, by these accounts, appears to be in apostasy. Perhaps you should work on cleaning up your own backyard first, my friend.

I laugh at your personal attack … signs that I hit a sensitive cord here.

I guess you didn’t read what I published at all then. The SSPX does a processions to Pétain tomb EVERY YEAR ! … It’s like people doing a pilgrimage to Hitler’s tomb (no such thing thank God).

Funny how you didn’t seem to contradict the Antisemitism that seems to be well established in the SSPX.

As for my country… I am a French-Canadian (i.e Québécois) … your insults on France just show how limited your knowledge is. Proof below.

Sorry no translation but I am sure people can read numbers

religioscope.info/article_146.shtml

Le premier des sondages qui retiendront ici notre attention est celui qui a été mené au mois de mars 2003 et dont les résultats ont été rendus publics au mois d’avril. Intitulé “Les Français et leurs croyances”, il a été effectué par les soins de l’institut CSA en collaboration avec l’hebdomadaire catholique La Vie et le quotidien Le Monde. Il s’appuie sur une enquête téléphonique portant sur un échantillon national représentatif d’un millier d’adultes. Il présente l’intérêt d’offrir des comparaisons avec un sondage similaire qui avait été effectué en janvier 1994.

62% de l’ensemble des Français se disent catholiques, 6% musulmans, 2% protestants et 1% juifs. 26% se déclarent “sans religion”. Le pourcentage des catholiques a baissé (de 67% en 1994 à 62%), celui des musulmans a notablement augmenté (de 2% à 6%), de même que progresse la catégorie des “sans religion” (de 23% à 26%).

…]

En ce qui concerne la pratique religieuse, 25% des Français disent prier tous les jours ou souvent, tandis que 74% prient rarement ou jamais. 19% des Français participent à un office religieux au moins une fois par mois, 24% aux grandes fêtes. Le taux de pratique est plus élevé parmi les musulmans: 28% disent participer à un office religieux au moins une fois par mois.