How many SSPX followers would change churches?

[rescath]

I really don’t see any true proliferation of the Tridentine Mass on Sundays – maybe just a couple more here and there.

This MP benefits mostly priests who offer Mass in private a lot and who want to offer the Tridentine Mass.

It does very little to change the status quo in all other areas.

 

[Icarus210]

In a city of 10 million, we have only 2 churches who have a TLM. I myself pass by 30 catholic churches to get to mine. I mostly go once a week, but i would love to get to some mid week ones as well, if there are closer churches offering it.

What I love about it is the reverance and quietness before the mass, the faithful are either saying the rosary or getting to true contrition before confession.

The Pauline masses I have been to was like a chat fest before… not conducive to getting in touch with your soul and God. So I am sure when the magisty of the TLM pervades the churches more graces will abound in our churches.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

[Edited by Moderator]

I personally have no problem attending a Mass other than one celebrated by the SSPX, but with the condition that priest is not a liberal/modernist, and everything is done with reverence.

I often attend an FSSP Mass when I am traveling (last Sunday, for example). I have always been very impressed with the priest and the sermon. I also love the Mass at St. John Cantius in Chicago. I don’t attend an SSPX mass because it says SSPX on the sign, but because it is one of the only choices in the area.

Personally, I will attend a Traditional Mass anywhere as long as the priest is not liberal and it is done with the proper reverence. Why these two requirements? Because, like it or not, we are influenced by the priest (good or bad), and lack of reverence is damaging to our personal piety and faith.

In a crisis such as we have today, when Rome allows the wolves to do as they please, our first duty is to protect our faith.

Don Gueranger: “When the shepherd turns into a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. As a general rule, doctrine comes from the bishops to the faithful, and it is not for the faithful, who are subjects in the order of faith, to pass judgment on their superiors. but every Christian by the virtue of his title to the name Christian, has not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasure of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them. The principle is the same, whether it is a matter of belief or conduct, that is of dogma or morals” (The Liturgical Year).

How can you protect the faith from outside the Church?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I really don’t see any true proliferation of the Tridentine Mass on Sundays – maybe just a couple more here and there.

This MP benefits mostly priests who offer Mass in private a lot and who want to offer the Tridentine Mass.

It does very little to change the status quo in all other areas.

True, but this was one of the requirements the SSPX themselves set for reconciliation – that every priest be allowed to celebrate the Tridentine Latin Mass as part of his daily routine without censure.

 

[GerardP]

I know of several people who attend the SSPX or independent chapels simply because there is no indult near them.

Whenever indults have been grabted in areas previously dominated by the SSPX, many of the attendees of the SSPX Masses switch to the indult.

What does that tell you about the purpose of the Indult? Prior to last week it existed solely to siphon away the influence of the SSPX, not provide a valid and never abrogated form for the worship of God.

If during the 80’s and 90’s the SSPX had disappeared, so would the Indult.

Everyone who gets to go to a TLM has Archbishop LeFebvre to thank for it.

Bishop Bruskewitz admitted as much in his slam against the SSPX on EWTN.

He said he brought in the FSSP precisely to counter the services provided by the SSPX. This accusation has been made by SSPX supporters for years.

This is probably why Bishop Fellay has been told privately not to reconcile by a number of sympathetic Cardinals and prelates.

The TLM could not have been brought back otherwise.

I myself, know diocesan priests who love hearing about how the SSPX preach and how devoted the faithful are, they wish they had the freedom to spread the Catholic faith so clearly. But if they did, they would be persecuted by their bishops. The ones in full communion with Rome.

It’s always an interesting site at an SSPX chapel when 3 men come in who know their Latin, have missals of varying ages and are all wearing black suits with the same cut.

The idea of marked distinctions between the SSPX and the diocesan and religious priests is more media spin that actual fact.

FSSP, SSPX and Independent priests are in a lot more communication than EWTN or other media outlets are willing to admit.

 

[GerardP]

True, but this was one of the requirements the SSPX themselves set for reconciliation – that every priest be allowed to celebrate the Tridentine Latin Mass as part of his daily routine without censure.

The interesting thing about that is, how much effort it required to get the Motu Proprio and how much pressure was put on the Pope to not admit the truth about what has always been the law of the Church.

 

[GerardP]

I’ve been wondering about that. So there are Traditional SSPX and there are those who might be “liberal SSPX” who embrace Rome ? Schism !!!

I’ll say one thing for them. They can sing !
stbenedictchapel.org/audio/benedictchoir_p1.shtml

Last Sunday our SSPX priest gave a sermon about the errors of sedevacantism. I know there are several people who attend who adhere to that. Mostly older folks who can’t come up with any other explanation for the auto destruction in the Church. Previously, out priest had said, "We all have to figure out how to handle the crisis, some of us will go with the SSPX, some with the FSSP, some Una Voce, some with the Indult, some with sedevacantism. God will not punish you for failing to figure things out intellectually, but he will punish you for pride if you condemn others. "

In my 40 years as a Catholic, I have only heard the Popes writings and teachings preached by SSPX priests. I have only heard Paul VI and Josef Ratzinger preached and quoted from the pulpit from SSPX priests. I have only heard fervent requests for prayers for the Popes from SSPX priests.

You are in or out of the Church by what you do. Not by what someone else says you do or did. Pope John Paul II was wrong in his assessent of archbishop LeFebvre. His judgement of LeFebvre’s interior disposition was entirely outside his scope of power as Pope. He was wrong about the schism and his declaration of the self-excommunication was contrary to known fact. It’s only canonical and can be reversed.

If anyone thinks a Pope can’t be flatly wrong or shouldn’t be resisted, read up on the trial of Pope Formosus.

I spoke with a Norbertine priest about the SSPX one time and after answering his questions he said, "They are better than most diocesan parishes when it comes to supporting the Pope.’

 

[bear06]

I spoke with a Norbertine priest about the SSPX one time and after answering his questions he said, "They are better than most diocesan parishes when it comes to supporting the Pope.

But pointing to the failure of another isn’t a defense. They’re both wrong.

 

[GerardP]

But pointing to the failure of another isn’t a defense. They’re both wrong.

It’s not a defense. It’s a truthful comment. It puts the lie to a lot of the ignorant statements that are simply caricatures of the reality. Statements like “They reject the Pope.” Or to the fact that there is a lot more cooperation and communication between sympathetic priests and bishops who are canonically regular and the SSPX.

If the discussion is to be about right and wrong, then the Pope is not the standard by which right and wrong are determined. The Pope’s actions have to be judged according to the real teaching of the Church. Not the popular teaching of the “Spirit of EWTN.” Which is at times just as wrong as the liberal “Spirit of Vatican II”.

A very strong case can be made that LeFebvre was in the right, Pope JPII was in the wrong and the diocesen bishops were and are also in the wrong.

 

[Sure]

It’s not a defense. It’s a truthful comment. It puts the lie to a lot of the ignorant statements that are simply caricatures of the reality. Statements like “They reject the Pope.” Or to the fact that there is a lot more cooperation and communication between sympathetic priests and bishops who are canonically regular and the SSPX.

If the discussion is to be about right and wrong, then the Pope is not the standard by which right and wrong are determined. The Pope’s actions have to be judged according to the real teaching of the Church. Not the popular teaching of the “Spirit of EWTN.” Which is at times just as wrong as the liberal “Spirit of Vatican II”.

A very strong case can be made that LeFebvre was in the right, Pope JPII was in the wrong and the diocesen bishops were and are also in the wrong.

Gerard,

You are a little mixed up on the SSPX on 2 points:

First, by their actions they show that they do not in fact “love” the Pope or the lawful Church. You seem to think that because they say nice things about him, they love him and respect him. If they truly loved the Pope, they would stop disobeying him and committing grave sin every time they consecrate the Eucharist. It is silly for a person to claim to “love” someone or something, and then disobey it. They are exactly like Catholics who claim to “love” the Church and the Pope and at the same time use contraception because, “oh, the Church or Pope is mistaken on this.” The priests of SSPX can’t say “I really love the Pope, and I know I’m suspended, but I want to say Mass anyway!” If you love the lawful Church then you respect it’s rightful authority. You can’t have it both ways.

Second, the claim that the priests of SSPX are not suspended and their bishops not excommunicated is baseless. The fact is that the Pope (otherwise known as supreme legislator) validly proclaimed in a motu proprio (with the force of canon law) that the SSPX bishops are excommunicated and the priests suspended. He is totally within his rights by law to MAKE this law. The Pope can change this at any time, but until that time, there is simply no way around the fact that it is valid law, precisely because the Supreme Legistlator dictated it as such. The only way one can claim that the motu proprio is not binding or in error is to claim that the Pope is not the Supreme Legislator at which point one should just join the SSPV because at least they’re logically consistent.

 

[bear06]

Nice first post! Hope there are more to come!

 

[BobP123]

A very strong case can be made that LeFebvre was in the right, Pope JPII was in the wrong and the diocesen bishops were and are also in the wrong.

Since none of the sides are infallible on this issue, any evidence is permissible to prove your case.

However, this would have become a very lopsided fight. The penalties wouldn’t have been the same for one thing. The Pope wouldn’t have been excommunicated if Lefebrve were proven right.

 

[Sure]

Since none of the sides are infallible on this issue, any evidence is permissible to prove your case.

However, this would have become a very lopsided fight. The penalties wouldn’t have been the same for one thing. The Pope wouldn’t have been excommunicated if Lefebrve were proven right.

Good point, Bob.

Even if it turns out that the excommunications and suspensions are repealed because the Pope feels they were unjustified, they remain in-force and lawful and those who act as though they do not apply are in serious moral error.

If the SSPX bishops and priests were serious about being good devout catholics, they would continue to prayerfully plead with the Pope to undo this injustice while at the same time obeying the Pope and refraining from celebrating the sacraments. When Padre Pio was banned from celebrating Mass in public and hearing confessions, he did not proclaim the Pope’s decision to be unjust and continue public ministry in defiance of legitimate authority. No, he submitted and obeyed and prayed. Eventually, the ban was lifted and he was able to continue his public ministry.

 

[Walking_Home]

Gerard,

You are a little mixed up on the SSPX on 2 points:

First, by their actions they show that they do not in fact “love” the Pope or the lawful Church. You seem to think that because they say nice things about him, they love him and respect him. If they truly loved the Pope, they would stop disobeying him and committing grave sin every time they consecrate the Eucharist. It is silly for a person to claim to “love” someone or something, and then disobey it. They are exactly like Catholics who claim to “love” the Church and the Pope and at the same time use contraception because, “oh, the Church or Pope is mistaken on this.” The priests of SSPX can’t say “I really love the Pope, and I know I’m suspended, but I want to say Mass anyway!” If you love the lawful Church then you respect it’s rightful authority. You can’t have it both ways.

Second, the claim that the priests of SSPX are not suspended and their bishops not excommunicated is baseless. The fact is that the Pope (otherwise known as supreme legislator) validly proclaimed in a motu proprio (with the force of canon law) that the SSPX bishops are excommunicated and the priests suspended. He is totally within his rights by law to MAKE this law. The Pope can change this at any time, but until that time, there is simply no way around the fact that it is valid law, precisely because the Supreme Legistlator dictated it as such. The only way one can claim that the motu proprio is not binding or in error is to claim that the Pope is not the Supreme Legislator at which point one should just join the SSPV because at least they’re logically consistent.

---

A person can love and respect his father-but this does not mean the person cannot disagree with his father.

 

[Sure]

---

A person can love and respect his father-but this does not mean the person cannot disagree with his father.

When that father who happens to be the Supreme Legislator of the Body of Christ gives you an order that indisputably has the force of law (precisely of the way he issued it), then you are morally required to obey. And the SSPX can disagree with the Pope (I assume that they would) but they are still bound to obey him as long as he is not ordering them to do anything which goes against the divine law.

 

[Walking_Home]

When that father who happens to be the Supreme Legislator of the Body of Christ gives you an order that indisputably has the force of law (precisely of the way he issued it), then you are morally required to obey. And the SSPX can disagree with the Pope (I assume that they would) but they are still bound to obey him as long as he is not ordering them to do anything which goes against the divine law.

---

Well since neither you or I know what was in Arch. Lefebvre mind at the time — we really are in no position to judge his actions.

 

[GerardP]

Sure wrote:

First, by their actions they show that they do not in fact “love” the Pope or the lawful Church. You seem to think that because they say nice things about him, they love him and respect him.

Two responses:

First, If we take your measurement of judging someone by their actions. What does that say about JPII’s love and respect for the Church? The Koran incident, the horrifying papal liturgies, the lack of discipline when it came to liberal and heterodox extravagances and heresies. The protection of sexual predator and their accomplices?

Second, your premise is flawed. A son that takes the car keys away from the drunken father and disobeys commands to give them back is direct evidence of love. It would be an unloving or severely weak son who would hand over the car keys.

If they truly loved the Pope, they would stop disobeying him and committing grave sin every time they consecrate the Eucharist. It is silly for a person to claim to “love” someone or something, and then disobey it.

Again, a Pope that gives stones to his children instead of bread is not truly loving his flock. Isn’t that correct? It just took 37 years of prodding, praying and resistance to get a Pope to admit the truth about the law of the Church regarding the right of every priest in the Latin Church to say the TLM without the need for permission of the bishop. All the SSPX wanted the Popes to do was clearly state what was already the law of the Church. Why the resistance from Paul VI and JPII?

They are exactly like Catholics who claim to “love” the Church and the Pope and at the same time use contraception because, “oh, the Church or Pope is mistaken on this.” The priests of SSPX can’t say “I really love the Pope, and I know I’m suspended, but I want to say Mass anyway!” If you love the lawful Church then you respect it’s rightful authority. You can’t have it both ways.

Again, that’s a flawed comparison. The SSPX are more like Good Samaritans who stop to help the injured after the duly appointed priests leave the travellor to die.

Also, the Church isn’t a club that suspends your responsibilities to the defend the faith even from prelates. You can’t just hitch your wagon to the Pope and think you’ve got a free ticket to Heaven.

You can’t say the Pope is fair or just in his decisions when he allows the destruction of the Church and mercilessly attacks a bishop and priests who only want to help save souls in the same manner that JPII was supposedly taught to save souls. The recent Popes by their actions and inactions have had consequences that have damaged the faith of millions upon millions of souls.

The implied impeccability and irresistibility of the Pope is a growing concern of mine regarding the Church today. Because liberals have virtually done away with the idea of papal authority, the conservatives have developed an exaggerated and reckless understanding of what the Church actually teaches regarding obedience. Perfect, true and servile. Vatican I explicitly demands true obedience.

 

[GerardP]

Continued…

Sure wrote:

Second, the claim that the priests of SSPX are not suspended and their bishops not excommunicated is baseless.
The fact is that the Pope (otherwise known as supreme legislator) validly proclaimed in a motu proprio (with the force of canon law) that the SSPX bishops are excommunicated and the priests suspended.

But he was in error. He claimed that LeFebvre did something that anyone with any sense can see that he didn’t do. He might as well have declared that LeFebvre was from Mars.

He is totally within his rights by law to MAKE this law.

No one can stop a Pope legally from abusing his power. But no one is morally bound to obey an unjust law. They are bound to resist him in grave matters. Pope Stephen ruled that everything Pope Formosus did legally and sacramentally as invalid. He was within his right to MAKE that law. He was wrong. And his rulings were subsequently overturned. Do you think that God was pleased for the obedience of the members of the Church involved in that repulsive spectacle?

The Pope can change this at any time, but until that time, there is simply no way around the fact that it is valid law, precisely because the Supreme Legistlator dictated it as such.

Are you talking about the law or the ruling on the law?

The fact that the Pope decided to ignore his own laws in order to spin LeFebvre’s situation his way is manifest evidence that the declarations of excommunication are phoney.

The only way one can claim that the motu proprio is not binding or in error is to claim that the Pope is not the Supreme Legislator at which point one should just join the SSPV because at least they’re logically consistent.

That old chestnut.

To be logically consistent, one would have to know the Catholic faith. The conservatives and the sedevacantists think they are both logically consistent because they both have an overblown and exaggerated understanding of the infallibility of the Pope and a severe myopia when it comes to history in the Church.

The Church has always taught that Popes can err in judgement re: legislation. Excommunications are just, unjust and invalid. The excommunicatee is supposed to react to a just and unjust excommunication through obedience. An invalid excommunication is to be ignored.

Apostles, Popes, Doctors and Theologians have unanimously taught that resistance and disobedience are not schism and that Popes need to be corrected when they falter in performance.

“Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.” --St. Robert Bellarmine

 

[GerardP]

Since none of the sides are infallible on this issue, any evidence is permissible to prove your case.

However, this would have become a very lopsided fight. The penalties wouldn’t have been the same for one thing. The Pope wouldn’t have been excommunicated if Lefebrve were proven right.

Any battle with any Pope would be lopsided since there is only one Pope. It’s David and Goliath. They were basically arguing past each other. JPII would never admit there was a crisis in the Church. BXVI has not had that same problem thank God.

I find it amazing that many people who tout JPII as “the Great” let out this exasperated “finally!” when BXVI makes the first moves towards really dealing with the auto destruction of the Church.

I often speculate that God may have demanded that JPII apologize directly to LeFebvre as part of his purgation.

 

[GerardP]

When that father who happens to be the Supreme Legislator of the Body of Christ gives you an order that indisputably has the force of law (precisely of the way he issued it), then you are morally required to obey. And the SSPX can disagree with the Pope (I assume that they would) but they are still bound to obey him as long as he is not ordering them to do anything which goes against the divine law.

The highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls. Anything that was ever done by JPII with regards to the traditional teaching of the Church was done in reaction to the efforts of Marcel LeFebvre. Had JPII actually done something to clean things up, LeFebvre would never have been an issue.

JPII was unfortunately a very very inferior Pope despite the hoopla surrounding his personal charisma. He was not “Great” like Leo, Gregory and Nicholas and he left a wide swath of destruction that his successors will have to clean up.