Discerning SSPX affiliation

  • Thread starter Thread starter mitch2007
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Honestly, I’d stay away from the SSPX. To paraphrase Archbishop Fulton Sheen, every movement in history that has set itself in opposition to the Pope and to the Magesterium has invoked a return to Tradition as justification. And eventually, every one of those movements became schismatic.

There are some very smart people aligned with the SSPX, and they argue well. Big deal. Ever read anything by Luther? He could probably convince most people that the sky is green. To use an even better example, ever watched any of Hitler’s speeches? Even though you don’t understand what he is saying, you start to feel persuaded (some more so than others; the SSPX’s Bishop Williamson is a well-known Nazi sympathizer, his denials notwithstanding).

My point is, the priests and bishops of the SSPX can argue all they want, but here are the cold, hard facts:
  1. Confessions heard by SSPX priests are invalid, meaning that no absolution is given. God doesn’t punish those who have been misled into believing that this is not the case; however, those who continue to frequent SSPX confessionals knowing that the priests do not have proper faculties receive no spiritual benefit from their confession, but rather sin gravely.
  2. Masses celebrated by SSPX priests, while valid and oftentimes beautiful and reverent, are illicit. To knowingly attend an illicit Mass is, again, gravely sinful.
  3. To deny the validity of the Mass of Paul VI not only shows a startling ignorance of liturgical history, but is also a heresy. The Mass is a matter of faith and morals; though the doctrine of papal infallibility does not set the wording in stone (no, *Quo Primum *was not infallible), it does protect the Faithful from the possibility of Pope promulgating an invalid rite.
Ironically enough, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been much more tolerant of the SSPX than their patron, St. Pius X, would have been. For more information, see this excellent site: consideringpiusx.com/
 
See also:
whyiamacatholic.com/SSPX/Neville.htm

jloughnan.tripod.com/aledo.htm

Finally, consider the words of the Archbishop of Paris on the Jansenist nuns of Port Royal: “They are as pure as angels, but as proud as devils.”

The SSPX crowd may have great devotion to the Holy Eucharist and to the Blessed Virgin, but that doesn’t change the fact that they have set themselves in opposition to the See of Peter.
 
One other thing: For a priest who is suspended ad divinis to say the mass publicly is grave sin.

By attending, you are encouraging the SSPX priest to damn himself.
 
ProVobis said:
“If priests or people at an SSPX chapel (or anywhere else for that matter) are encouraging people to do so then, quite frankly, they are making the devil mighty happy.”

So you don’t think much of the Prayer to St. Michael?
Click to expand...
Sigh! Does this have something to do with people skipping their Sunday obligation?
 
Aramis said:
One other thing: For a priest who is suspended ad divinis to say the mass publicly is grave sin.

By attending, you are encouraging the SSPX priest to damn himself.
Click to expand...
And yet the Church gives the OK for attendance. In case one’s forgotten, there’s this thing called “conscience,” which the Church currently advises us to follow.

If attending their Masses truly encouraged their damnation, would the Church permit our attendance?
 
Could you show me where The Church explicitely permits us to attend SSPX Masses? I am asking sincerely. The only thing I’ve seen is JPII’s exhortation to not support them. (I can’t remember the name of that document, but it declared the SSPX is in schism and it’s on the vatican web site. You know the one I mean.) If you could find something of equal weight saying the opposite, I’d like to see it.
 
HOPEFUL_IN_UK said:
Could you show me where The Church explicitely permits us to attend SSPX Masses? I am asking sincerely. The only thing I’ve seen is JPII’s exhortation to not support them. (I can’t remember the name of that document, but it declared the SSPX is in schism and it’s on the vatican web site. You know the one I mean.) If you could find something of equal weight saying the opposite, I’d like to see it.
Click to expand...
Some man wrote a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger asking if it was permissable to attend their Masses, and he said that for serious reason, yes. Canon Law permits attendance at valid “schismatic” chapels as well. I don’t currently have the links, maybe someone could help me out here. I’ll look and give the reference in the next day or two.
 
I hope somebody can supply a link… I think the issue may be found in the word “serious.”

And, not to be a twerp, but… what a Cardinal says in a letter doesn’t carry the same weight as an official announcement from the Pope.

🤷
 
HOPEFUL_IN_UK said:
I hope somebody can supply a link… I think the issue may be found in the word “serious.”

And, not to be a twerp, but… what a Cardinal says in a letter doesn’t carry the same weight as an official announcement from the Pope.

🤷
Click to expand...
JPII didn’t discipline the Cardinal for saying it, and now that the same Cardinal is Pope, he hasn’t taken back the statement. There’s still the issue of Canon Law.

I’m looking1:)
 
I thought one of the big complaints of the Rad Trads is that JPII doesn’t discipline all sorts of cardinals who talk out of turn?

(Sorry for my snark… I do appreciate your looking for this for me. 🙂 )
 
rpp said:
Documents requested:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM
whyiamacatholic.com/SSPX/VanderPutten1.htm

ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/09/pope-benedict-xvi-sspx-and-impediments.html

And here is what SSPX leaders say about the current Pope. WARNING! This is not pretty. Or charitable, for that matter.
traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=86&catname=12

Does a person really want to be associated with a group like this?
Click to expand...
Bishop Williamson’s word isn’t Gospel, regarding the Faith or position of the SSPX. It’s common knowledge that he boarders on sedevacantism. He has a lot of good to say, but some of his positions could be called near-extreme. His every word is not “official” SSPX way of thinking.
 
rpp said:
And here is what SSPX leaders say about the current Pope. WARNING! This is not pretty. Or charitable, for that matter.
traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=86&catname=12

Does a person really want to be associated with a group like this?
Click to expand...
Can’t throw out every word he says just because he’s not likable to many. He doesn’t always express the SSPX positions, just like not every bishop “in union with Rome” expresses Catholicism…like not every priest “in union with Rome” is a pedophile…like not every lay person “in union with Rome” is pro-abortion. Using the Bishop’s rather blunt statements doesn’t necessarily reflect the SSPX way of thinking.
 
HOPEFUL_IN_UK said:
I thought one of the big complaints of the Rad Trads is that JPII doesn’t discipline all sorts of cardinals who talk out of turn?

(Sorry for my snark… I do appreciate your looking for this for me. 🙂 )
Click to expand...
True, but maybe he didn’t discipline him because there was no need…? You find this possible?🙂 🙂
 
rrp, I could kiss you! Thank you for those links. They help… they really do. Especially that letter from the Vatican.

For me - a nobody/lay person - I don’t see how I could possibly presume to go against the clear advice of the Vatican on these matters.

And, I am absolutely sure that I risk nothing by being obedient. If I didn’t believe that… why would I be Catholic?

However, I think the OP needs sympathy and support, here. I don’t want him to read my comments regarding my own decisions of what I ought to do and take them as judgements against himself. His wife was raised in the SSPX. To my mind, that’s the same as being raised in a fundementalist sect that preaches the evils of popery. I think we should pray for the OP for his discernment and his marriage.
 
latinmasslover said:
unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

and I believe canon 844 discusses this situation a little.
Click to expand...
That letter does seem to contradict, to some degree, the letter posted in the link just above yours.

I didn’t see anything about a “serious” need to attend the Mass. (I had wondered if maybe “serious” meant “in danger of death/can’t get to any other Mass.”)

But, there is this:

“1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.”

What does “in the strict sense” mean? I take it to mean, “Well, yes… you’re required to attend a valid Mass on Sunday and this is a valid Mass.”

Then, there is this:

“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”

First: they don’t recommend attending such a Mass. That’s the first thing they want to say. As in, that takes priority over whatever else they’re about to say.

Then, you get into the motives of the attendee… and this comes down to one’s conscience.

It’s not a sin to attend purely with the intention of liturgical preference. OK. But, how does one justify having such a strong preference that they’ll go against the Church’s strong recommendation? On what basis do they feel such a strong preference? Is it a sense of revulsion towards the Novus Ordo?

And… what about people who attend an SSPX mass when there is an indult Mass not far away? I know of two large cities where this is the case. In Glasgow, the SSPX Mass is two miles away from the indult, at the exact same time. In Cincinnati, the SSPX Mass is less than ten miles away from the indult… I think at the exact same time.

These are the sorts of questions that really stand out to me.
 
rpp said:
😊 Umm… Okay. Are you good looking? More importantly, are you a woman? Are you single? Do you get the USA very often? :cool:

😉
Click to expand...
No.
Yes.
No.
No.

😛

(I’d only have kissed you on the cheek, anyway.😃 )
 
HOPEFUL_IN_UK said:
No.
Yes.
No.
No.

😛

(I’d only have kissed you on the cheek, anyway.😃 )
Click to expand...
Oh too bad! As for the kiss on the cheek, I’ll take whatever I can get! 😃

Seriously, I am with you about the OP. My prayers are that he reamain in communion with the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top