Discerning SSPX affiliation

[kathielee]

So, the Church had it wrong all those years? If it were a supper, then yes, it is appropriate for the priest to face the people. If it’s a Sacrifice (which the Mass is) then the priest, offering the Sacrifice, should not have his back to God, don’t you think?
At the Last Supper, Jesus was with the Apostles, the bishops. How many bishops do you see sitting/standing in the pews (okay, maybe kneeling) while the priest offers Mass?

One in worship, one in doctrine, one in TRUTH, not a physical connect-the-people.

Misled how exactly? For not accepting a false teaching on the papacy? For not making the every word of the pope Gospel truth? For obeying the Church of all ages vs. nonCatholic interpretation of what the Church should be? What exactly?

Is this where one is supposed to go for the Truth ? I mean, really…if someone is asking for truthful information on where the Pope stands on issues, how is it that this conversation is turning out to be another cafeteria Catholic type of truth? SSPX is not in good standing with Rome. There is no way whatsoever that anyone who attends Mass at SSPX can be sure that it’s valid unless the priest has repented and come back fully in union with the papacy. And, a Mass is a Mass is a Mass regardless of what language it is spoken in…after all, Jesus did not speak Latin, did He?? So, the big deal about whether or not the Mass is in English or Latin doesn’t matter. The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity has no particular language. Kathie

 

[rpp]

Dear Forum members,
{snip}

b) I have deep problems with the mentality of a lot of trads, and the SSPX - more detail will be given if required - and do not want to be in a sect, but I feel I have no option.

{snip}

Hi there - this is the “OP” speaking,
{snip}

Also, anti-SSPXers seem to downplay the extent of the crisis in the Church, as though we are in normal times, and the hierarchy are to be trusted.

{snip}

Wow! What unsubstantiated catastrophizing. According this, virtually no one is Catholic.

The thing that I see missing in the SSPX, (other) sedavantist groups, and your post is humility. That and the spirit of obedience. There is a close-mindedness, a rejection, not of false teaching, but of all teaching. A rejection of the idea that modern understanding does not mean change, it means a different perspective. For example looking at Catholic Doctrine from an Augustinian or Thomistic point of view.

Does incorrect and false teaching happen. Yes. Did it start after Vatican II? Of course not. Ever hear of the Reformation? Such thing have always gone on. The real difference is that with better communication, especially the Internet, you are more likely to hear about it.

But to suggest that the Hierarchy cannot be trusted is tantamount to saying that God is impotent and His promise that the Church would last until the end of time was false.

To quote a popular SSPX tract, whatever happened to real obedience?

Oh, the reason that SSPX got into trouble has absolutely nothing to with the TLM. THAT is a big read herring. It has everything to do with obedience to legitimate authority. The late Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four men as bishops against the explicit directive of Pope John Paul II. All bishops must be appointed by the Holy Father, that has been canon law for centuries. It is for that defiance that he, and the four bishops, were excommunicated.

 

[holdencaulfield]

You mean they may be frauds. That they claim want union with Rome, but in order to negotiate that they want something in return, like respectability, like Rome denying these folks were ever in schism, that the ordinations of the four bishops was not only valid, but licit, like they want full recognition, like FSSP, and, maybe even the beginning of the process of canonization of bishop Lefebrve??? Things like that?

Yeah, I totally agree. They want to negotiate with Rome. They want Rome humiliated, and they want exhonoration.

They don’t care about TLM, they are merely using that as a tool for their end means. TLM isn’t an issue, yes it is disappointing that many people who would like to attend can’t, however, that’s not the root of the issue, because now we have Pope Benedict XVI. They merely want power.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Is this where one is supposed to go for the Truth ? I mean, really…if someone is asking for truthful information on where the Pope stands on issues, how is it that this conversation is turning out to be another cafeteria Catholic type of truth? SSPX is not in good standing with Rome. There is no way whatsoever that anyone who attends Mass at SSPX can be sure that it’s valid unless the priest has repented and come back fully in union with the papacy. And, a Mass is a Mass is a Mass regardless of what language it is spoken in…after all, Jesus did not speak Latin, did He?? So, the big deal about whether or not the Mass is in English or Latin doesn’t matter. The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity has no particular language. Kathie

Quite true, good post.

 

[Derbingo]

Mitch

It is up to the SSPX to give up their pride and return to Roman Catholic Church from whom they are in schism.

 

[Derbingo]

I have witnessed many reverent Novus Ordo Masses. At one parish in particular around here they are celebrated ad orientem and with deep and profound reverence.
sansecondodasti.com/

Ad orientem?, you mean with their backs to the faithful?

 

[rpp]

You mean they may be frauds. That they claim want union with Rome, but in order to negotiate that they want something in return, like respectability, like Rome denying these folks were ever in schism, that the ordinations of the four bishops was not only valid, but licit, like they want full recognition, like FSSP, and, maybe even the beginning of the process of canonization of bishop Lefebrve??? Things like that?

Yeah, I totally agree. They want to negotiate with Rome. They want Rome humiliated, and they want exhonoration.

I would not use the term “fraud”, but I do agree with your concluding paragraph.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Wow! What unsubstantiated catastrophizing. According this, virtually no one is Catholic.

The thing that I see missing in the SSPX, (other) sedavantist groups, and your post is humility. That and the spirit of obedience. There is a close-mindedness, a rejection, not of false teaching, but of all teaching. A rejection of the idea that modern understanding does not mean change, it means a different perspective. For example looking at Catholic Doctrine from an Augustinian or Thomistic point of view.

Does incorrect and false teaching happen. Yes. Did it start after Vatican II? Of course not. Ever hear of the Reformation? Such thing have always gone on. The real difference is that with better communication, especially the Internet, you are more likely to hear about it.

But to suggest that the Hierarchy cannot be trusted is tantamount to saying that God is impotent and His promise that the Church would last until the end of time was false.

To quote a popular SSPX tract, whatever happened to real obedience?

Oh, the reason that SSPX got into trouble has absolutely nothing to with the TLM. THAT is a big read herring. It has everything to do with obedience to legitimate authority. The late Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four men as bishops against the explicit directive of Pope John Paul II. All bishops must be appointed by the Holy Father, that has been canon law for centuries. It is for that defiance that he, and the four bishops, were excommunicated.

Good post, that is yes, the root of the issue. Authority. Guess what SSPX you can go to a TLM parish if you want, but you need to follow Rome. Thank you everyone, I no longer worry about SSPX. I know they are wrong.

 

[Derbingo]

I

Mitch

No reason for you to be angry, crude and nasty.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

Mitch, I don’t think you must cease going to the SSPX. I would discourage someone who hadn’t been before from going, but I don’t think you have to stop going. That’s just my opinion, and I can’t explain it very well… but I guess I think that it would be better for you to pray about this and take your time about anything you do.

Is there one particular parish you go to for the N.O. Mass on your alternate weeks? How is that one parish?

I think some of your concerns are perfectly valid. I don’t know to what extent the problems you cite are rampant where you are. I also don’t know how serious some of them are. I, personally, don’t rank altar girls or communion in the hand with liturgical dance or priests condoning birth control. The litany of objectionable things strikes me as odd. It’s the same litany I hear from a lot of SSPX adherents, and it makes me feel like a lot of time and energy is expended on catechizing adherents on the Evils of Novus Ordo.

I know that there are crazies everywhere, but I find there is a particular kind of angry paranoia around the Traditionalist “scene” that is peculiar and very off-putting. That’s why I’m personally so freaked out by it.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Mitch, I don’t think you must cease going to the SSPX. I would discourage someone who hadn’t been before from going, but I don’t think you have to stop going. That’s just my opinion, and I can’t explain it very well… but I guess I think that it would be better for you to pray about this and take your time about anything you do.

Is there one particular parish you go to for the N.O. Mass on your alternate weeks? How is that one parish?

I think some of your concerns are perfectly valid. I don’t know to what extent the problems you cite are rampant where you are. I also don’t know how serious some of them are. I, personally, don’t rank altar girls or communion in the hand with liturgical dance or priests condoning birth control. The litany of objectionable things strikes me as odd. It’s the same litany I hear from a lot of SSPX adherents, and it makes me feel like a lot of time and energy is expended on catechizing adherents on the Evils of Novus Ordo.

I know that there are crazies everywhere, but I find there is a particular kind of angry paranoia around the Traditionalist “scene” that is peculiar and very off-putting. That’s why I’m personally so freaked out by it.

Like I said before, sinful priests, laypeople, parishioners, do not make a Mass invalid.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Donatism

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

They don’t care about TLM, they are merely using that as a tool for their end means. TLM isn’t an issue, yes it is disappointing that many people who would like to attend can’t, however, that’s not the root of the issue, because now we have Pope Benedict XVI. They merely want power.

I wouldn’t dismiss it that way at all. I think there’s a spectrum of issues and opinions within the SSPX.

I think that as we see the obstacles removed by the Pope, the people within SSPX will have to make a decision. Some will come back, and some will not. I think a lot of people have been brainwashed into thinking that anything the local bishop allows must be suspect.

It’s going to be interesting, that’s for sure.

 

[mitch2007]

It would sound like this is true, however it does not make the Mass or Sacraments invalid. This goes back to the heresy of Donatist heresy that sinful priests cannot preform valid Sacraments. Regardless of whether the Mass is somewhat blasphemous, it doesn’t matter. This is because the Church is in Communion with Rome. Regardless of how reverent the Mass is a t a SSPX parish is un-important, as they are not in full Communion with Rome.

No, however might I suggest finding a different parish?

I don’t think this applies here. Wouldn’t you rather deal with this than not go to Mass at all.

Hi…I know illicit practices don’t invalidate a Mass. However, if there are illicit practices built into the Mass, would the Mass be illicit (valid, but illicit)? If one can expect illicit practices, would one be excused? I am a little confused about “somewhat blasphemous” - how can one ever be a party to that? Granted, no-one is forcing one to blaspheme onsself, but to be regularly exposed to it…and also, surely one is justifying it by ones presence?

Regarding a different parish - what I described is standard everywhere. Wherever one goes, this is what one finds. I do not have the option of the “reverent NO” let along an authorised TLM.

Thanks for your comments!
Mitch

 

[Aramis]

A quick question before I get to work (long put off!) -

We are told that one may not attend an illicit Mass, even if it is valid.

Mitch: Go, and read canon law, specifically the section on the obligations of the faithful and on Acts of Divine Worship. Also, the online CCC.

There are provisions for attending illicit missae (and other acts of Divine Worship, such as Church of the East Quorbono, or Byzantine Divine Liturgies).

In the case of schismatic churches with valid orders, it is rather simple:

1. If there is no licit mass you can attend (due to work or transportation), and attending would be more benefit that spending the time in reading the Word instead by one’s self (Genuine spiritual benefit).
2. If, due social obligations, one attends such a mass to support persons who are part of that illicit community, for example, baptisms, weddings, ordinations, or funerals. One should not receive in such masses.
3. for valid educational purpose (EG: To see how the EF should look, or to see the DL of St Basil or St. John, or to see the differences between Catholic and Orthodox). One should not receive in such masses.
4. For valid ecumenical purposes. (EG: Pope Benedict at several Orthodox Liturgies). One should not receive in such masses unless specific other permissions are in place.

 

[mitch2007]

Wow! What unsubstantiated catastrophizing. According this, virtually no one is Catholic.

The thing that I see missing in the SSPX, (other) sedavantist groups, and your post is humility. That and the spirit of obedience. There is a close-mindedness, a rejection, not of false teaching, but of all teaching. A rejection of the idea that modern understanding does not mean change, it means a different perspective. For example looking at Catholic Doctrine from an Augustinian or Thomistic point of view.

Does incorrect and false teaching happen. Yes. Did it start after Vatican II? Of course not. Ever hear of the Reformation? Such thing have always gone on. The real difference is that with better communication, especially the Internet, you are more likely to hear about it.

But to suggest that the Hierarchy cannot be trusted is tantamount to saying that God is impotent and His promise that the Church would last until the end of time was false.

To quote a popular SSPX tract, whatever happened to real obedience?

Oh, the reason that SSPX got into trouble has absolutely nothing to with the TLM. THAT is a big read herring. It has everything to do with obedience to legitimate authority. The late Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four men as bishops against the explicit directive of Pope John Paul II. All bishops must be appointed by the Holy Father, that has been canon law for centuries. It is for that defiance that he, and the four bishops, were excommunicated.

rpp,

I am sorry you think I lack humility - perhaps that is how I come across. I specifically approached the List for advice and guidance, specifically because I am confused - 10 years of the SSPX, married to a wife who grew up (since age 7 or 8) SSPX - and I get contradictory advice, even from official, “in good standing” priests in my diocese.

rpp, I am not being rude or condescending, but I do think some people are fortunate in that they have excellent priests and bishops, but my own experience, and that of many, is not so peachy at all. We turned in desperation to the SSPX and individual priests who were offering the TLM, teaching the traditional catechism, promoted the Rosary, etc, and, to tell the truth, were much more obedient to and respectful of the Pope than any of the local priests. The SSPX arguments about true and false obedience, the state of necessity, canon law’s primary end being the salvation of souls, the legitimacy of the TLM and its suppression by the hierarchy, all made perfect sense to us…then. Now I see the negative traits and pitfalls of their arguments, and am looking for an alternative - I am doing precisely what DIOCESAN priests have said I may: attend the SSPX when they have Mass, attend a NO Mass on the other Sundays. However, I am still trying to make sense of the different arguments.

If I came across as arrogant, I apologise. I am only looking for sensible guidance.

God bless
Mitch

 

[mitch2007]

No reason for you to be angry, crude and nasty.

Derbingo,

Sorry if I have offended…where, though, was I crude? Am I angry? Well, I am upset about things I have experienced, angry, perhaps…but nasty? I am sorry to say that my experience of my local parish was not at all a good one. Do I have to be dishonest and say I was charmed? To tell the truth, I am angry because none of my local parishes seem to follow Rome. Oh, they are in good standing and all that, but do they adhere to the magisterium? It doesn’t seem so. Surely I am entitled to be angry about that?

As I told an earlier poster, I attend the SSPX and the NO. If I had a choice, I’d attend an officially approved TLM or a very reverent NO all the time if it was available, but it isn’t, so I’m doing what local priests in good standing said I could do, which seems to be borne out by what has come down, amongst mixed signals, from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. I came here to ask questions, as I am NOT HAPPY with the SSPX as a whole; I do, however, know many SSPX priests and faithful - many, most, even, are well-meaning, charitable, intelligent people, trying their best to lead an orthodox Catholic life in difficult times. Their arguments have, and to a degree, make sense to me, but so do the contrary arguments.

So please exercise a little patience with me!

God bless
Mitch

 

[Your_Abbott]

I please, I mean no offense when I say that - and perhaps it is difficult for them to comprehend the anguish of the millions who have nothing but Fr Feelgood Flapdoodle’s Eucharistic Celebration, his army of pantsuited female EHMC’s, feminazi “nuns” with butch hairdos and their centering prayer, enneagram, Renew, Gathering “hymns”, twee felt banners, “gestured prayer” (for the uninitiated, liturgical dance for kiddies, which ruined by childhood!), 30 minutes one per week for “Reconciliation” when one is told nothing is really a sin, so go and “treat” yourself, where a Roman collar means you’re probably seeing an Anglican minister, and, heavens, ask for a TLM, or even some plainchant, and you get “Why would we want THAT!? We’ve got Marty Haugen, by golly!”…

Mitch

This is rude, crude and boorish.

We get these SSPX people who come here, multiply their identities by creating fake IDs and come up with these pathetic stories about someone who found his way into SSPX services, and found them wonderful, and the standard Mass in their own tongue is something disgusting, but the Latin mass is so much better, and understood by everyone.

We all see thru the fakery.

Your Abbott

 

[mitch2007]

Mitch, I don’t think you must cease going to the SSPX. I would discourage someone who hadn’t been before from going, but I don’t think you have to stop going. That’s just my opinion, and I can’t explain it very well… but I guess I think that it would be better for you to pray about this and take your time about anything you do.

Is there one particular parish you go to for the N.O. Mass on your alternate weeks? How is that one parish?

I think some of your concerns are perfectly valid. I don’t know to what extent the problems you cite are rampant where you are. I also don’t know how serious some of them are. I, personally, don’t rank altar girls or communion in the hand with liturgical dance or priests condoning birth control. The litany of objectionable things strikes me as odd. It’s the same litany I hear from a lot of SSPX adherents, and it makes me feel like a lot of time and energy is expended on catechizing adherents on the Evils of Novus Ordo.

I know that there are crazies everywhere, but I find there is a particular kind of angry paranoia around the Traditionalist “scene” that is peculiar and very off-putting. That’s why I’m personally so freaked out by it.

Hello Hopeful in the UK!

I am trying to discern God’s will slowly and carefully and think that my present situation is tolerable for the short to medium term.

Basically, I have “parish hopped” when I attend the NO - my local parish isn’t great and I’ve only been there once, and don’t feel able to go again. I attend normally either a fairly pretty, albeit modern, church in another parish, said by an old priest who is a late vocation, on Saturday evening when the hymns are quite traditional - it is fairly by the book, I must admit, though the altar girls (only girls) to tell you the truth give me the creeps (I’m sure they are good, decent girls, but I cannot stand the concept) and the EHMC’s are totally unnecessary if people could make do with communion under one kind, and prepared for an extra 10 minutes, tops, at Mass. I also sometimes attend Mass at the chapel of the Poor Sisters of Nazareth (now that the diocese has taken their convent building and lovely chapel over, they have to make do with an improvised little chapel in a former dining room) - very early Sunday morning. There are no servers, male or female, the retired bishop who says Mass doesn’t wear full vestments, just a baggy beige alb and stole and pectoral cross, no sign of peace, communion under one kind, but with an (unnecessary) EHMC - one of the nuns - assisting, no music but always St Francis’s “Make Me a Channel of your Peace” at the end; fairly tolerable, but very minimalist - the shortest options always (Eucharistic Prayer II, abbreviated readings, Penitential Rite II I think).

Communion in the hand upsets me a lot - should it? I know it is permissible, and I don’t agree with the SSPX who say it is a sacrilege - at least not objectively, I just wish they’d stop it!

You are so right about being “catechised” on the evils of the NO. There is the usual list of abuses and pet peeves, not to mention ecumenical events (get any Trad started on Assisi prayer meeting) which we all know so well. Sad thing is there is some merit, I think, in some of the complaints. Surely one is permitted to not be enthusiastic about every change since 1965! Or that abuses and excesses happen and are tolerated too much. Even some cardinals, apparently, were less than happy about the Assisi Prayer Meeting!

God bless
Mitch

 

[mitch2007]

I wouldn’t dismiss it that way at all. I think there’s a spectrum of issues and opinions within the SSPX.

I think that as we see the obstacles removed by the Pope, the people within SSPX will have to make a decision. Some will come back, and some will not. I think a lot of people have been brainwashed into thinking that anything the local bishop allows must be suspect.

It’s going to be interesting, that’s for sure.

Yes, there is a wide range of opinion in the SSPX, and an even wider range among in the laity who go to them.

I agree there will be a lot of soul-searching - this is already happening. It is certainly happening with this trad anyway! I attribute it to Pope Benedict’s papacy.

Yes, many trads have a profound mistrust of their local bishop and of the hierarchy. Before anyone pounces on me for saying that, sometimes, they have reasons for being wary: not all bishops are honourable, honest, trustworthy, or even orthodox men. Many seem to be anti the Pope. Catholics who have never so much as ventured onto SSPX property, and would never dream of doing so, have brought their fears, complaints, concerns, etc, often legitimate, to the Bishop, only to be belittled and ignored, and then written to Rome, only, years later, to be told to trust their bishop. Now that Pope Benedict has said the TLM was never abolished, how are we supposed to react to men who previously solemnly assured us, it HAD been abolished? How are we supposed to react when some Bishops have allowed all sorts of abuses to go unchecked, who invite anti-Papal speakers to speak at Catholic venues, who allow sex ed in their schools, who hand over their cathedrals for Lutheran or Episcopalian services, but who attack those who want what the Pope says we may have?

Yes, this may sound like the “laundry list” of trads again, but sadly, these things happen, so please cut us trads a little slack when we say we are not completely trusting and enamoured of our bishops!

Mitch