Bishop Schneider backs the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter smead2942
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ringil said:
sspx.org/en/media/video/should-catholics-attend-the-new-mass-sspx-faq-ep15-2-

This is a video on the SSPX website.

I ask- how can an organization who publicly posts such garbage be reconciled?

They claim in this video that:
It is a sin to attend the OF
If one does attend they should be a “passive participant”.
That the Sunday Obligation is dispensed if there is no EF available

They are putting souls at risk and claiming that they can form their own parallel Canon Law.

So again, how can the Church reconcile with such a group?
Click to expand...
There are many videos on that link. Can you post the one you are referring to?
 
pianistclare said:
Which I do NOT desire. I do not know why anyone would.
Click to expand...
That does not answer the question.

I get that there are a lot of Catholics in the Church who do not like the SSPX. But not liking them does not place them in schism and outside the Church. If people don’t like them, that’s OK, you don’t have to go to their churches. Buy they are still our brothers and part of our Church.
 
Brendan_64 said:
That does not answer the question.

I get that there are a lot of Catholics in the Church who do not like the SSPX. But not liking them does not place them in schism and outside the Church. If people don’t like them, that’s OK, you don’t have to go to their churches. Buy they are still our brothers and part of our Church.
Click to expand...
I think you have it backwards. They do not believe WE are their brothers and sisters.
It doesn’t matter.
I’m not going to get crosswise with anyone over something that’s a non-starter for me.
 
pianistclare said:
It doesn’t matter. They clearly were advancing the wrong thing. They got this belief from somewhere, and the entire congregation was on it.
Who do you suppose planted that?

I bolted. No thanks.
Click to expand...
But I can use that same argument against those who ridiculed the Latin Mass and/or undermined its sacrificial nature, among other things. However, at one time, I had no choice but to attend Masses with those folks. Just sayin…
 
pianistclare said:
I think you have it backwards. They do not believe WE are their brothers and sisters.
Click to expand...
That is simply not true. Yes there may be some members of the congregation who think like that, but that is not the position of the SSPX as an organisation, not at all.

There will always be members of congregations who hold heretical views. At a regular OF Mass, what percentage of the congregation holds heretical views on contraception? What percentage holds heretical views on female ordination? What percentage believe that all Christian denominations form part of a wider invisible Christian Church? How many don’t believe in Hell? How many even don’t believe in the devil as a real entity?

Does it therefore follow that because members of the congregation believe these heretical views that this is what the Church teaches?
 
Brendan_64 said:
That is simply not true. Yes there may be some members of the congregation who think like that, but that is not the position of the SSPX as an organisation, not at all.

There will always be members of congregations who hold heretical views. At a regular OF Mass, what percentage of the congregation holds heretical views on contraception? What percentage holds heretical views on female ordination? What percentage believe that all Christian denominations form part of a wider invisible Christian Church? How many don’t believe in Hell? How many even don’t believe in the devil as a real entity?

Does it therefore follow that because members of the congregation believe these heretical views that this is what the Church teaches?
Click to expand...
Wonder where the SSPX congregation got the idea. Oh wait – what is it that the congregation hear --coming down from the SSPX-- that plants it into their heads – that the Ordinary form is evil.

One would have to turn a blind eye/deaf ear – not to see that the SSPX congregations are voicing what they hear from the SSPX itself.

From the SSPX – US district:
Clearly, an invalid Mass is not a Mass at all, and does not satisfy the Sunday obligation. Furthermore, when it comes to the sacraments, Catholics are obliged to follow the “pars tutior,” the safer path. It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative.
Click to expand...
However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in today’s Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it. By such a statement, I do not mean that all those who celebrate or assist at the New Mass are necessarily in mortal sin, having done something directly insulting to Almighty God and to our Divine Savior.
Click to expand...
Sacrilege is a sin against the virtue of religion, and is defined as “the unbecoming treatment of a sacred person, place or thing as far as these are consecrated to God” (Jone, Moral Theology, p.108). The moral theologians explain that sacrilege is in itself and generally a mortal sin (ex genere suo), but that it is not always a mortal sin, because it can concern a relatively small or unimportant thing. Here we are speaking of a real sacrilege, the dishonoring of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by the elimination of the prayers and ceremonies that protect its holiness, by the absence of respect, piety and adoration, and by the failure to express the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a true propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. Here there are varying degrees. Just as it is a grave sacrilege and objective mortal sin for a lay person to touch the sacred host without reason, so it is, for example, a venial sin to do the same thing to the chalice or the blessed linens, such as the purificator or pall.
Click to expand...
Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecumenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.
Click to expand...
However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
Click to expand...
 
ProVobis said:
40.png
Walking_Home:
From the SSPX – US district:
Click to expand...
f this is their official position, then why did Pope Benedict lift the excommunications against their bishops?
Click to expand...
Ask our prior Pope. But the lifting of the excommunications – does not “erase” what is in print on the SSPX website – for all to see.
 
Walking_Home said:
Ask our prior Pope. But the lifting of the excommunications – does not “erase” what is in print on the SSPX website – for all to see.
Click to expand...
It appears that is from a Fellay sermon right around the time of near reconciliation. Keeping a log of sermons is quite common. One of my old pastors has a sermon where he says things that do not apply today. I think they should not keep it on the site but to be honest these are snipits of arguments within negotiations. And they should be read considering the rhetoric and time of which they were written. In context so to speak.

I suppose we could do the same with the Current Pope. I mean Who am I to Judge right?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
It appears that is from a Fellay sermon right around the time of near reconciliation. Keeping a log of sermons is quite common. One of my old pastors has a sermon where he says things that do not apply today. I think they should not keep it on the site but to be honest these are snipits of arguments within negotiations. And they should be read considering the rhetoric and time of which they were written. In context so to speak.
Click to expand...
Precisely.

I have a website which was created back in 1998. (I was a member of una voce back then.) They changed the name slightly and my password doesn’t work. Only one other person knows it and I can’t reach him to update the site to include more diocesan Latin Masses and other current information. That thing will be out there forever with 1998 information and state of affairs.
 
ProVobis said:
Precisely.

I have a website which was created back in 1998. They changed the name slightly and my password doesn’t work. Only one other person knows it and I can’t reach him to update the site. That thing will be out there forever.
Click to expand...
The SSPX US district do have an active website – so if there had been any change to their “position” it would have been updated. What is on the SSPX main page right now is this:

sspx.org/en/media/video/should-catholics-attend-the-new-mass-sspx-faq-ep15-2-video
 
otjm said:
Cardinal Mueller has said publicly that the SSPX are “schismatic”, and he also made it clear that this was not an official determination and declaration of schism, but rather an assessment of their positions viz a viz the Church. And the Cardinal is not a “loose cannon on the deck”, firing off at will. He is not head of the dicastery because he is casual with statements.
Click to expand...
👍👍
Click to expand...
 
Walking_Home said:
The SSPX US district do have an active website – so if there had been any change to their “position” it would have been updated. What is on the SSPX main page right now is this:

sspx.org/en/media/video/should-catholics-attend-the-new-mass-sspx-faq-ep15-2-video
Click to expand...
Okay, I’m not saying I agree with it, perhaps some FSSPX priests don’t either, but wasn’t there an earlier claim about the OF being invalid or being Satanic or something along those lines?
 
ProVobis said:
Okay, I’m not saying I agree with it, perhaps some FSSPX priests don’t either, but wasn’t there an earlier claim about the OF being invalid or being Satanic or something along those lines?
Click to expand...
Lets not split hairs. With the video:
Consequently, the doctrinal deficiencies of the New Mass have rendered it a danger to the faith of Catholics.
Click to expand...
Consequently, since the Church would never ask her members to endanger their souls, the Sunday Precept does not oblige the faithful to attend the New Mass.
Click to expand...
 
Walking_Home said:
Lets not split hairs. With the video:
Click to expand...
To be fair, I do have a problem with this particular part, partly because it doesn’t cite Canon Law, which all Catholics must follow. It weakens their position IMO, especially if they want to show they weren’t excommunicated by virtue of “necessity.”
 
ProVobis said:
If this is their official position, then why did Pope Benedict lift the excommunications against their bishops?
Click to expand...
Because a) the excommunication had nothing to do with their positions on the Mass; it had to do with ordaining men to the level of bishop, not with just the lack of permission from Rome, but with the explicit and expressed prohibition to do so. Lifting the excommunication only had to do with that specific act.

B) Lifting the excommunications was an act of graciousness and of mercy, as a first step to reconciling the other issues - their positions on the validity of the OF and positions concerning certain documents of Vatican 2 being the primary focus.

It really isn’t all that hard to figure out.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I suppose we could do the same with the Current Pope. I mean Who am I to Judge right?
Click to expand...
That is the source for a different thread; however, Archbishop Sample of the Archdiocese of Portland answered that in the July 17 edition of the Catholic Sentinel.

The full quote can be found on the Vatican website, so before anyone implies that the report in the secular press was anything except extremely out of context, I would invite them to do a bit of research. The Pope was responding to a journalist’s question regarding one specific individual who was accused of inappropriate behavior in the past. The Pope’s response was how the Church - including you and me, should respond to someone who has sinned in the past and has reconciled.

There are all sorts of lies; one of them is to take something completely out of context and imply, hint at, or even speculate that the out of context statement actually means the opposite of what it meant in context.

The secular press lied through their teeth.

Not that such is particularly surprising to anyone but the most naive.
 
ProVobis said:
To be fair, I do have a problem with this particular part, partly because it doesn’t cite Canon Law, which all Catholics must follow. It weakens their position IMO, especially if they want to show they weren’t excommunicated by virtue of “necessity.”
Click to expand...
It should be weakening their position for a far more important reason; they have set themselves up as their own Magisterium. They are holding forth on matters of Faith (the efficacy of the OF) and morals (no need to go to Sunday Mass - the obligation is vitiated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top