Catholics vs the SSPX

[bear06]

It is interesting that you bring SSPX up. If I remember correctly Pope Benedict XVI has publicly recognized SSPX as being apart of the Church (something that Pope John Paul II would not do), which would make them legal. I will only attend a SSPX Service if that is the only option that I have.

In reality the way I see it is that what they had originally done (breaking off the Church) was completely wrong and when they did it, that would make attending their masses wrong. In other words they were just as bad as Martin Luther.

I personally follow the tridentine mass because I don’t really feel comfortable attending the Novus Ordo services. I feel that they do not execute their services properly, and they have some noticeable errors, it seems to me the the Novus Ordo is not just a translation from the Traditional Latin Rite Mass but was completely changed. Some of their actions are very questionable as well; for example, up here in Washington State there was a Novus Ordo service being done by a bishop (I don’t remember his name), and he was using Doritos for the Holy Eucharist.

But any way I didn’t mean to get off subject, I think that SSPX is now recognized by the Church which would make it legit. The ones that I really stay away from are SSPV, and CMRI they seem to be completely outside the Church.

I’m not sure what you mean “recognized by the Church” and “legit”. Can you clarify?

As far as I know, the excommunications and suspensions are still in effect and have not been lifted. They are basically vaild but illicit. There’s not a Church document that says otherwise unless something’s come out in the last few days. I’m pretty sure it didn’t thought or we’d all be celebrating.

 

[Aramis]

I’m not sure what you mean “recognized by the Church” and “legit”. Can you clarify?

As far as I know, the excommunications and suspensions are still in effect and have not been lifted. They are basically vaild but illicit. There’s not a Church document that says otherwise unless something’s come out in the last few days. I’m pretty sure it didn’t thought or we’d all be celebrating.

Summorum Pontificum mentions their schismatic acts in the accompanying letter to the bishops.

We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html
6th paragraph.

 

[bear06]

Summorum Pontificum mentions their schismatic acts in the accompanying letter to the bishops.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html
6th paragraph.

Thanks Aramis. That’s really what I mean. There has been no reconciliation.

 

[MMLJ]

.

Could you post a pre-Vatican II encyclical that says that the Holy Spirit uses separated communities [protestant] as a “means of salvation”

I too am seeking information concerning the use of ‘Churches’. I hope someone will step up and meet your challenge, since I could not find one.

. Pope Leo also used the word “communities” but not in the same way as did the Decree on Ecumenism

SATIS COGNITUM
ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
JUNE 29, 1896
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm
4. It is so evident from the clear and frequent testimonies of Holy Writ that the true Church of Jesus Christ is one, that no Christian can dare to deny it. But in judging and determining the nature of this unity many have erred in various ways… We must consequently investigate not how the Church may possibly be one, but how He, who founded it, willed that it should be one. But when we consider what was actually done we find that** Jesus Christ did not,** in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: "I believe in one Church… For this reason Christ, speaking of the mystical edifice, **mentions only one Church, **which he calls His own - "I will build my church; " any other Church except this one, since it has not been founded by Christ, cannot be the true Church”

SUMMO IUGITER STUDIO
papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16summo.htm
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.” Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: "There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved."

Thanks for these links.

. It is not possible to TRULY worship God except in the Catholic Church. So outside of Baptism and Marriage of course Protestants tend to get married several times so grace is only given once right? they are in fact living in adultery] what other grace is given to Protestant communities via the Catholic Church?

Please quote a pre-Vatican encyclical to back this up.

Hopefully a link will be provided shortly, since I think one member has quoted as saying she/he had explained it in 20 threads.

 

[East_and_West]

I think what they mean by Churches is sui juri Churches. There are currently over 20 sui juri Churches that make up the Catholic Church including the Latin Church, Ukrainian Catholic Church, Ruthenian Catholic Church, Maronite Catholic Church, Melkite, Chaldean, Coptic, etc. They are all in communion with Rome but each has a suri juri Chruch status. Likewise, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches are maintain a such a status, even though they are not communion with Rome because they maintain Apostolic Successin and Valid Sacrements. By refering to them as Churches, we are not saying that they are “other bodies of Christ”. No, there is only ONE CHURCH in that sense. And that one Church is lead by the Vicar of Christ and is composed of many sui juri Churches.What we are saying is that they are churches in the sense described above (i.e. Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments).

 

[Sure]

.

**Could you post a pre-Vatican II encyclical that says that the Holy Spirit uses separated communities [protestant] as a “means of salvation”**Pope Leo also used the word “communities” but not in the same way as did the Decree on Ecumenism

SATIS COGNITUM
ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
JUNE 29, 1896
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm
4. It is so evident from the clear and frequent testimonies of Holy Writ that the true Church of Jesus Christ is one, that no Christian can dare to deny it. But in judging and determining the nature of this unity many have erred in various ways… We must consequently investigate not how the Church may possibly be one, but how He, who founded it, willed that it should be one. But when we consider what was actually done we find that** Jesus Christ did not,** in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: "I believe in one Church… For this reason Christ, speaking of the mystical edifice, **mentions only one Church, **which he calls His own - "I will build my church; " any other Church except this one, since it has not been founded by Christ, cannot be the true Church”

.

SUMMO IUGITER STUDIO
papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16summo.htm
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.” Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: “There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.”

It is not possible to TRULY worship God except in the Catholic Church. So outside of Baptism and Marriage of course Protestants tend to get married several times so grace is only given once right? they are in fact living in adultery] what other grace is given to Protestant communities via the Catholic Church?

Please quote a pre-Vatican encyclical to back this up.

Yes. Here in Exultat Deo:

ince the principal cause from which baptism has its efficacy is the Holy Trinity, and the instrumental cause is the minister who confers the sacrament exteriorly, then if the act exercised by the minister be expressed, together with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the sacrament is perfected. The minister of this sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to baptize, by reason of his office. In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay, even a pagan or heretic can baptize, provided he observes the form used by the Church, and intends to perform what the Church performs. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all sin, original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due for sin. As a consequence, no satisfaction for past sins is enjoined upon those who are baptized; and if they die before they commit any sin, they attain immediately to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.

So, we know that non-catholics can baptize. But even though this baptism is performed by a non-catholic, the grace still comes from the Catholic Church. In this way, non-catholics and non-catholic churches can ACCESS the means of salvation. Or do you propose that they obtain grace from outside the Church??? That would be new. In light of the fact that some sacramental grace is conferred by separated churches, it would be truly novel and heretical to insist that the separated churches do not act as a means of salvation. Otherwise, where is that grace coming from???

There is no tension wih tradition and that passage from Vatican II if you read it in light of previous teaching. It’s very clear.

 

[stmaria]

Yes. Here in Exultat Deo:

So, we know that non-catholics can baptize. But even though this baptism is performed by a non-catholic, the grace still comes from the Catholic Church. In this way, non-catholics and non-catholic churches can ACCESS the means of salvation. Or do you propose that they obtain grace from outside the Church??? That would be new. In light of the fact that some sacramental grace is conferred by separated churches, it would be truly novel and heretical to insist that the separated churches do not act as a means of salvation. Otherwise, where is that grace coming from???

There is no tension wih tradition and that passage from Vatican II if you read it in light of previous teaching. It’s very clear.

You have not anwsered the question. No one disagrees with you on Baptism. If Baptism is done correctly it is valid and grace is obtained.
The question was where in previous teachings does it say that Protestant communities are a means of salvation? Do these have the NECESSARY means? Separated Churches refers to the Eastern Churches. Separated Communities refers to Protestant Churches because they cannot be called Churches because they do not have Apostolic succession.

Decree on Ecumenism
“It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

Compare that to previous teaching.
Pope Leo XIII‘Satis Cognitum” 5.2
“Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived: separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic-the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member”

Pope Pius XI stated in “Mortalium Animos” 2.2 “such attempts….founded as they are on the false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy…not only are those that hold this opinion in error and deceived but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The Church alone offers to the human race that religion – that state of absolute perfection – which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.”

 

[Gara3987]

I’m not sure what you mean “recognized by the Church” and “legit”. Can you clarify?

As far as I know, the excommunications and suspensions are still in effect and have not been lifted. They are basically vaild but illicit. There’s not a Church document that says otherwise unless something’s come out in the last few days. I’m pretty sure it didn’t thought or we’d all be celebrating.

You are correct I guess this is one of the article from a while back. For some reason I had thought there was already a meeting that had been adjourned. Anyways thanks the corrections.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[Sure]

You have not anwsered the question. No one disagrees with you on Baptism. If Baptism is done correctly it is valid and grace is obtained.
The question was where in previous teachings does it say that Protestant communities are a means of salvation? Do these have the NECESSARY means? Separated Churches refers to the Eastern Churches. Separated Communities refers to Protestant Churches because they cannot be called Churches because they do not have Apostolic succession.

Decree on Ecumenism
“It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

Compare that to previous teaching.
Pope Leo XIII‘Satis Cognitum” 5.2
“Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived: separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic-the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member”

Pope Pius XI stated in “Mortalium Animos” 2.2 “such attempts….founded as they are on the false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy…not only are those that hold this opinion in error and deceived but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The Church alone offers to the human race that religion – that state of absolute perfection – which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.”

So, if we’re talking about eastern churches (orthodox) then the question is even easier. Do those church’s confer God’s grace through the sacraments? Yes. But where does that grace come from? Through the Catholic Church. So, God still uses those separated churches to communicate his grace. In this way, they participate. This is no new teaching. The Church has always taught that these separated churches still communicate God’s grace (which still comes through the Church). It makes more sense if you add the sentences around that quotation and view it in context:

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.

It is completely clear that they are speaking of the sacraments here. That’s why they say liturgical actions. Then they state that these actions are capable of accessing grace (which comes through the Church). There is no contradiction between the statements you referenced by different Pope’s and what is written in Vatican II. All those popes believed that grace is confered through sacrament that are in separated churches and communities, but they also believed that “only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is ‘the all-embracing means of salvation,’ that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.”

I hope this helps to clarify a bit…Thanks!

 

[stmaria]

So, if we’re talking about eastern churches (orthodox) then the question is even easier. Do those church’s confer God’s grace through the sacraments? Yes. But where does that grace come from? Through the Catholic Church. So, God still uses those separated churches to communicate his grace. In this way, they participate. This is no new teaching. The Church has always taught that these separated churches still communicate God’s grace

(which still comes through the Church). It makes more sense if you add the sentences around that quotation and view it in context:

Yes, separated Churches means Churches of the East which have apostolic succession. This is traditional teaching. Show me an encyclical from a pre-Vatican II Pope that says the churches or communities of our separated brethern the protestants have the necessary means for salvation? What you have posted below is from Vatican II not before Vatican II
\

The brethren divided from us

 

[TMC]

16.0 It is an error to believe that “Man may , in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation”

I don’t find this to be in contradiction with anything in VII or with the doctrine that salvation is available to non-Christians through the mysterious extension of saving grace. VII never sad that any religion whatsoever could provide eternal salvation. That is also not what mysterious grace is about. All salvation comes from Christ, but we are not given to understand its mechanism or extent.

18.0 It is an error to believe that “ Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church”

VII did not teach this. Benedict has made it clear that Catholicism is the true Christian faith. That does not mean that Protestants can’t be saved.

Pope Leo XIII‘Satis Cognitum” 5.2 “Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived: separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic-the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member”

Here we are getting closer to something that may contradict current Church teaching. I would understand this to mean that when someone deliberately severs himself from Christ he is refusing grace. I understand that you and many others would say that it means that anyone who leaves the Church for any reason is damned. If that it was it means, then Leo XIII was simply wrong. I think it can be read to be consistent with current teaching so it should be.

"Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond. (Mystici Corporis Christi, cf 14, Pius XII)

I have no idea what this means. If this means that non-Catholic Christians are not truly Catholic, I agree. If it means that non-Catholic Christians are cut off from the Holy Spirit, I disagree.

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XII
ON HIS ASSUMING THE PONTIFICATE
MAY 5, 1824
14……. It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members…. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church."

I have problems any time the words “impossible” and “God” are in the same sentence, especially when someone is saying they understand the limits of God’s power or His mercy. But, I would say that this quote is consistent with the current Church teaching on the extension of mysterious Grace, through the Church, to some who are not formal members of the Church. It is an imperfect expression of that doctrine, but it is not inconsistent.

But under all of these thoughts lies one big assumption. Why is Leo more authoritative on this than John XXIII, John Paul, or Benedict? Why assume that past Popes knew better than current Popes? Why assume that the Church will regress in understanding when we were promised that it would increase in understanding?

 

[Sure]

Yes, separated Churches

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

First of all, I don’t know how we got on Lumen Gentium, but I haven’t read all the posts up to now. SSPX bishops and priests are Roman Catholic so I don’t know what the deal is with the thread’s title. Anyways, I think we need to quit wasting our time arguing whether or not the ambiguous language of Lumen Gentium contradicts previous teaching on EENS. I think we all agree that there are valid sacraments outside the visible structure of the Church (Orthodox, some protestant baptisms, etc.) but if that were all there was to Lumen Gentium there would’t be a problem.

The problem with the language of Lumen Gentium, as with other Vatican II documents, is that it is so liberal and ambiguous that it invites unorthodox interpretations and novel ideas. In order to promote “ecumenism” it had to be soft and unoffensive in its tone and choice of words, which is why there are practically no condemnations, not even of the evil communism. The problem is not if there are some valid sacraments outside the Church but if those outside the Church can find salvation in their false religions. Once someone who is validly baptized comes to a certain age and becomes responsible for finding the truth (only God knows for certain in each case) then he must seek out the truth or he will perish in his sins. Even someone who might not be culpable for not finding the true Religion will still have to render an account of his sins before God. So we need to stop emphasizing the “dignity of man” and all this other non-sense about how wonderful these other religions and heresies are (praising their ‘elements of truth’) and start evangelizing again.

 

[Markstorm]

start evangelizing again.

Are you sure that’s in the spirit of Vatican 2? I’d hate to seem old-fashioned…

 

[TMC]

First of all, I don’t know how we got on Lumen Gentium, but I haven’t read all the posts up to now. SSPX bishops and priests are Roman Catholic so I don’t know what the deal is with the thread’s title. Anyways, I think we need to quit wasting our time arguing whether or not the ambiguous language of Lumen Gentium contradicts previous teaching on EENS. I think we all agree that there are valid sacraments outside the visible structure of the Church (Orthodox, some protestant baptisms, etc.) but if that were all there was to Lumen Gentium there would’t be a problem.

The problem with the language of Lumen Gentium, as with other Vatican II documents, is that it is so liberal and ambiguous that it invites unorthodox interpretations and novel ideas. In order to promote “ecumenism” it had to be soft and unoffensive in its tone and choice of words, which is why there are practically no condemnations, not even of the evil communism. The problem is not if there are some valid sacraments outside the Church but if those outside the Church can find salvation in their false religions. Once someone who is validly baptized comes to a certain age and becomes responsible for finding the truth (only God knows for certain in each case) then he must seek out the truth or he will perish in his sins. Even someone who might not be culpable for not finding the true Religion will still have to render an account of his sins before God. So we need to stop emphasizing the “dignity of man” and all this other non-sense about how wonderful these other religions and heresies are (praising their ‘elements of truth’) and start evangelizing again.

If I recall correctly (its been a long thread) the conversation turned to LG because at least some SSPX followers reject its teachings. I believe that the main thrust of SSPX originally was (and maybe still is) the rejection of the Church’s teachings on the availability of saving grace to those outside the formal bounds of the Church. Hence the arguments about whether LG is really a change or not.

Personally, I agree that Catholics should continue evangelizing (I don’t think we stopped) but cannot agree that we should not emphasize the dignity of man or recognize the good done by other religions. I don’t think “You’re a heretic and going to Hell” would be any more effective for Catholics than it is for the JW. I like the softer and gentler approach and think its more likely to result in an increase in the Faith.

 

[Sure]

First of all, I don’t know how we got on Lumen Gentium, but I haven’t read all the posts up to now. SSPX bishops and priests are Roman Catholic so I don’t know what the deal is with the thread’s title. Anyways, I think we need to quit wasting our time arguing whether or not the ambiguous language of Lumen Gentium contradicts previous teaching on EENS. I think we all agree that there are valid sacraments outside the visible structure of the Church (Orthodox, some protestant baptisms, etc.) but if that were all there was to Lumen Gentium there would’t be a problem.

The problem with the language of Lumen Gentium, as with other Vatican II documents, is that it is so liberal and ambiguous that it invites unorthodox interpretations and novel ideas. In order to promote “ecumenism” it had to be soft and unoffensive in its tone and choice of words, which is why there are practically no condemnations, not even of the evil communism. The problem is not if there are some valid sacraments outside the Church but if those outside the Church can find salvation in their false religions. Once someone who is validly baptized comes to a certain age and becomes responsible for finding the truth (only God knows for certain in each case) then he must seek out the truth or he will perish in his sins. Even someone who might not be culpable for not finding the true Religion will still have to render an account of his sins before God. So we need to stop emphasizing the “dignity of man” and all this other non-sense about how wonderful these other religions and heresies are (praising their ‘elements of truth’) and start evangelizing again.

It’s not liberal and ambiguous when read in light of tradition…actually it’s pretty straightforward.

The point in affirming a truth before converting someone is simply a recognition of how an actual conversion happens. If you have a friend who is not catholic what do you do? You ask them what they believe. You listen. Then you tell them what you believe. It’s communication 101. A person has to feel as though you are having a conversation not a one-way dictation of various beliefs.

As for your comment that those in false religions can find salvation there, you are absolutely correct. And Vatican II doesn’t say they can either, it just says they can receive some graces, some assistance which is completely true. But only through the Catholic Church can they benefit fully from salvation.

 

[Sure]

If I recall correctly (its been a long thread) the conversation turned to LG because at least some SSPX followers reject its teachings. I believe that the main thrust of SSPX originally was (and maybe still is) the rejection of the Church’s teachings on the availability of saving grace to those outside the formal bounds of the Church. Hence the arguments about whether LG is really a change or not.

Personally, I agree that Catholics should continue evangelizing (I don’t think we stopped) but cannot agree that we should not emphasize the dignity of man or recognize the good done by other religions. I don’t think “You’re a heretic and going to Hell” would be any more effective for Catholics than it is for the JW. I like the softer and gentler approach and think its more likely to result in an increase in the Faith.

The funny thing about those who advocate “you’re a heretic and your going to hell” method of conversion is that does not reflect how people were ever converted. People were converted by hearing the truth with love by great saints who listened and spoke to their hearts. The way of conversion now is the same as it always was.

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

The funny thing about those who advocate “you’re a heretic and your going to hell” method of conversion is that does not reflect how people were ever converted. People were converted by hearing the truth with love by great saints who listened and spoke to their hearts. The way of conversion now is the same as it always was.

I totally agree with you and I certainly don’t advocate a “you’re a heretic and you’re going to hell” approach when dealing with individual souls, depending on the circumstances. I also realize that it often takes a Saint to convert people because ultimately it is God’s grace that flows through them. But the problem I have, and I think other Catholics share this concern, is that when a Council of the Church, or the Holy Father, is speaking to the whole Church and the world, it needs to be clear and authoritative when it speaks. If Vatican II did it’s job, we would not have the faithful split apart arguing about what the correct interpretations are of Vatican II. Do you see what I mean? Before Vatican II, everyone was pretty clear on what the Church taught; you either accepted it or rejected it. But now, our heirarchy speaks with a cautious and unsure voice, and has often abandoned the flock to themselves. Where am I wrong?

 

[bear06]

This thought often pops into my head when I read threads like this. I, and I’m sure others, don’t think the documents are unclear. That said, some might see them as confusing and unclear as some saw the parables. These were not always understood even though, to me, there appear clear as day. This doesn’t mean the flock was abandoned but a lot of wheat and chaff were separated.

 

[Holly3278]

The SSPX is a schismatic group and no faithful Catholic should ever willingly go to an SSPX Mass. I am not sure if it would be alright to go to an SSPX Mass if that is the only thing around or not. Personally, I would never go to an SSPX Mass unless it was my absolute only choice and even then I’m not sure that I’d go.