How should I feel about the SSPX?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eyesopening
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread started for the infallibility of Vatican II. Please join us! I don’t know how to post a link to the thread, but it’s easy to find. It’s in the Traditional Catholicism Sub-Forum and is titled Vatican II - Infallibility.
 
You should be praying that they repent and come back into the fullness of the Church.
Amen!
Shouldn’t we be praying the same thing for all people though?
Yes…
Doesn’t the SSPX stand in a different relationship to us than, say, protestants?
Yes… for the average mainline protestant preacher, there is no personal sin of schism nor of disobedience.

For the SSPX, they are in direct disobedience, and are rapidly aiming at schism.

They need your prayers more urgently, because they have been taught the truth, and are rejecting it, while the average protestant merely seeks truth, and is looking in the wrong places out of ignorance.
 
Thread started for the infallibility of Vatican II. Please join us! I don’t know how to post a link to the thread, but it’s easy to find. It’s in the Traditional Catholicism Sub-Forum and is titled Vatican II - Infallibility.
Thanks. 🙂
 
I am what people would call a “Traditional Catholic” over the past year, despite being employed by a Catholic Diocese I got involved in the SSPX. I became captivated by them and went to their Masses and fell in love with Catholic Tradition. I read a lot on it all, yet despite the official stance of the Church on some SSPX matters I think that in many cases the explanations are not good enough and that the reasons given are not explained in ways the average lay person can understand. I was listening to the SSPX Priests and Bishops (who are all ordained illicitly although validly) on almost every matter and was nearly at the stage of thinking of joining their seminary! I still truly believe that Archbishop Lefebvre did have the right intention in what he was doing and that his own conscience was clear & we owe it to him that there is now usually some sort of Traditional Option still alive in the Post Conciliar Church.

However, as the Church explains to us, the problem is that Lefebvre went against the Pope and ordained 4 bishops without Papal Permission, therefore, they were deemed “invalid”. Before this he waited years from 1971 till 1988 for Papal authority to Ordain/ grant other SSPX Bishops, he was in fairly good standing with Rome but things got a bit awkward despite asking for full Canonical Approval, there was never a proper answer and nothing was happening. Becoming concerned for the future of the SSPX as he was getting old and thought he would die leaving not one Traditional Bishop in 1988 he decided to Consecrate his own Bishops. There are many different views and arguments on the fact that they were truly valid, because Lefebvre believed it was necessary and it was all done according to the proper rites etc. however, after those consecrations Lefebvre and his Bishops were excommunicated. This meant that the faithful in the SSPX were receiving Sacraments such as Confirmation & Reconciliation from excommunicated Bishops, therefore, these were technically not proper and illicit, invalid even- unless the person receiving them was in good faith and totally unaware of the situation- which is possible, although unlikely.

All SSPX Priests are valid priests- without question, people who say they are not are mistaken- an SSPX Mass is a Traditional Catholic Mass and the Body of Christ is truly present in their Tabernacles. The Roman authorities tell us however, as the SSPX don’t have full Canonical recognition (despite all excommunications being lifted by Pope Benedict) they have still not returned to full and total Communion with Rome, therefore as they are not under the authority of the local Bishops, the SSPX Priest cannot validly hear Confessions despite their Masses being valid. The reason for this is that they do not have the proper jurisdictions or faculties granted by the local Ordinary and as the SSPX Bishops are not “Bishops” in the sense of the word, they are illicit, meaning they cannot grant the faculties needed. The same thing goes for Marriages in the SSPX.

I am still very sympathetic toward the SSPX and would happily attend a Mass- as there is nothing forbidding us to do so, and the Mass is valid, although it’s not recommended. When I was very into the Society, I did Confess to one of the Priests- I have to say I was actually convinced it was a true and valid Confession despite knowing the reasons why it was not. I am 100% loyal to Rome and to the Pope, therefore I accept now without question this was wrong of me and I have put right what I did wrong through a valid Confession. The problem for me is I don’t understand how the Church can say the SSPX are valid Priests and that their Masses are 100% valid and there’s no question about it, yet we can’t confess to a “valid Priest” or get married by a “valid Priest”. It’s very strange! I know and I have read the reasons for it all but if I am truly honest it’s strange to say you can do one thing yet not do another- this situation needs to be clarified- the other thing is…the SSPX have regular permission to say Mass in shrines such as Lourdes and Fatima, using the main Churches and are allowed to hold Confessions- look it up if anyone doesn’t believe me…yet we are told their Confessions are not valid? I find it very strange.

Let’s just pray that any misunderstanding will be sorted out and that the mainstream SSPX will fully return to Rome. Sadly one of the 4 Bishops, Bishop Williamson has gone a little bit crazy and has been expelled from the Society. On matters of pure faith and doctrine he is wonderful and a great preacher but his problem is that he puts his own opinions into everything and was causing problems by critising he Pope and other Bishops !
 
Before this he waited years from 1971 till 1988 for Papal authority to Ordain/ grant other SSPX Bishops, he was in fairly good standing with Rome but things got a bit awkward despite asking for full Canonical Approval, there was never a proper answer and nothing was happening. Becoming concerned for the future of the SSPX as he was getting old and thought he would die leaving not one Traditional Bishop in 1988 he decided to Consecrate his own Bishops.
Incorrect. Pope Blessed John Paul II approved the ordination of one Bishop. The Archbishop took it upon himself to ignore this and ordained four bishops.
 
Vatican II didn’t promulgate any new doctrine or dogma related to the faith.
It most certainly DOES… in the decrees on the Eastern Churches, it eradicates the doctrine of latinization. (Mind you, every pope since St. Pius X has ordered delatinization to some degree or another…) Vatican II does so with finality. It was nothing new, but it was a decree that the Eastern Churces reclaim their heritage, and maintain their distinct liturgical and theological practices.

It may not matter to YOU, but to any Catholic of an Eastern Rite, Vatican II established for us a right to our separate rites.
 
The problem for me is I don’t understand how the Church can say the SSPX are valid Priests and that their Masses are 100% valid and there’s no question about it, yet we can’t confess to a “valid Priest” or get married by a “valid Priest”. It’s very strange!
For the same reason that you would not have been allowed to attend a Lutheran or Anglican Mass in 1532, or have a Lutheran or Anglican priest hear your Confession in 1532. It’s not that they weren’t valid priests; it’s that they were separated out from the Church, and were not under the authority of the Bishop of Rome - just as the SSPX are today.
 
Originally Posted by Efrasios View Post
The problem for me is I don’t understand how the Church can say the SSPX are valid Priests and that their Masses are 100% valid and there’s no question about it, yet we can’t confess to a “valid Priest” or get married by a “valid Priest”. It’s very strange!
For the same reason that you would not have been allowed to attend a Lutheran or Anglican Mass in 1532, or have a Lutheran or Anglican priest hear your Confession in 1532. It’s not that they weren’t valid priests; it’s that they were separated out from the Church, and were not under the authority of the Bishop of Rome - just as the SSPX are today.
:hmmm: me thinks that the power of the Keys was given to an individual…Let me check on that…

Matthew 16:18 And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
16:19 And I will** give you** the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”

So oyeah I was right it was to him… So if the Pope says you have NO JURISDICTION to perform any Church activity, guess what, I think he has the authority to do so.

So yes they WERE (past tense) validly ordained (the priests NOT the Bishops). Can they participate in any Church activity. NOPE they cannot. Right now they are as protestant as the next. Worse in fact.
I second the motion to add extra prayers for them to repent and return to the fold of mother Church under THE sheperd that Jesus left us.

Peace 👍
 
Everyone…I am so grateful to this site and to this post because I have finally realised that I was wrong in being ultra sympathetic towards, defending and supporting the SSPX as if I was a devoutly receiving the Sacraments from them- which I am not. There’s so much conflict and division in the world that please God all faiths can get along and all daughters of Rome will return to the fold and be united to the chief shepherd, the vicar of Christ. God bless our Ecumenical and Christ like Pope Francis!!!
 
Incorrect. Pope Blessed John Paul II approved the ordination of one Bishop. The Archbishop took it upon himself to ignore this and ordained four bishops.
Yes my friend you are very right. His Holiness Blessed John Paul II did approve the ordination of one bishop, however, the Bishop was sadly never appointed- Archbishop Lefebvre waited and waited for the appointment to come but sadly no Bishop was ever appointed. If only he had waited, please God all the problems caused could have been avoided and there would have been no excommunications- it’s so sad that Lefebvre decided to go against the authority of the Holy Father- ending any “nobleness” to his efforts.

I am a “recovering” ardent supported of the SSPX as you’ll see from my previous post. I have taken great consolation and received much support from this site- I have always been a devout Catholic but I was immersed in a ultra Traditional Mind frame and despite attending Novus Ordo Masses I was questioning why the “True Mass” was done away with and was attending the SSPX Chapel more and more- I am now out of that- Thanks be to God, I have put right what I did wrong. I mean I am still a Conservatively minded Catholic but I am no longer a supported of the SSPX and am so happy with our wonderful new Pope- I love Francis and think he is a perfect sign of unity and a true Vicar of Christ. God bless you! Please pray for me and my vocation- I am entering a Religious Order later this year!
 
For the same reason that you would not have been allowed to attend a Lutheran or Anglican Mass in 1532, or have a Lutheran or Anglican priest hear your Confession in 1532. It’s not that they weren’t valid priests; it’s that they were separated out from the Church, and were not under the authority of the Bishop of Rome - just as the SSPX are today.
Yes, this is true. Any priest under suspension or in some excommunicated state has no faculties to hear confessions, unless there is a death-threatening situation. There are practical reasons for this, as the priest himself requires a bishop or the Pope (in the case of the FSSPX) to lift his suspension or excommunication.
 
… Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller [nota bene THIS IS THE PREFECT OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH] told EWTN News July 20. “But we cannot negotiate on revealed faith; that is impossible. An ecumenical council, according to the Catholic faith, is always the supreme teaching authority of the Church.”

In a July 19 statement, the society said it had “determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization” at its recent general chapter gathering, but added that it still rejected “all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council, which remain tainted with errors,” as well as “the reforms issued from it.”

“This is simply not possible,” said Archbishop Muller in response. “No one who claims to be Catholic can take such a position. This was precisely the position taken by Martin Luther in 1519, who argued that ‘even councils can err.’”
Yes, That is a genuine quote (and there’s no need to shout, a ghrá, I can read normal sized type: a discreet emboldening, and red if you are so inclined, will be enough)…
But the matter by no means ends there. Any law, indeed any statement whatsoever, contains two components: What it states; and what it implies, what it takes for granted. Now the above statement takes for granted that the authority is being validly exercised. Yet it is a theoretical possibility that authority, from whoever wields it, is being mis-applied. In this case it would be, not a use, but an abuse, of authority; and as S. Thomas Aquinas points out, (“Summa Theologica”* II-II-104)
c.f. kensmen.com/catholic/summa22104.html

sites.google.com/site/catholictopics/the-church-since-vatican-ii/theological-issues-of-the-post-vatican-ii-church/obedience-defined-in-the-summa-theologica

To comply with this would not be Obedience but the actual sin of complicity with the material sin against justice entailed in the abuse of authority. Compliance, in St Thomas’ words, would in this case be an example of ‘Indiscreet obedience’ (and in another place, ‘indolent obedience’ ) – that is, obedience even in cases where it is unlawful.

At this point of the debate, I am not accusing anyone of abuse of authority: I am clarifying the point that authority can be abused, and that in such instances the response to it must be different from cases of legitimate use of authority.
 
MODERATOR WARNING

You may ask questions about anything that the Holy See says. You may disagree with anything that is not doctrinal, as long as you do so with reverence for BOTH the person and his office. You may NEVER question the legitimacy of the Holy See’s authority on a forum that is in full communion with the Catholic Church.

If you have serious moral reservations about anything that the Holy See says, please take it up directly with the Holy See and not involve others in your concerns. It is not fair to negatively influence the positive image that others have of the Holy See.
 
I have tried to model my attitude to the SSPX on that shown by Pope Benedict. He was clearly sympathetic to them and very much wanted them restored to full communion with the Church.
 
I have tried to model my attitude to the SSPX on that shown by Pope Benedict. He was clearly sympathetic to them and very much wanted them restored to full communion with the Church.
I disagree with that assessment. It looked to me like he was actually rather unsympathetic to their position. He spoke strongly against their positions. I agree he wanted them to come back, but it’s pretty clear from his actions that he had little, if any, sympathy for them.
 
I have tried to model my attitude to the SSPX on that shown by Pope Benedict. He was clearly sympathetic to them and very much wanted them restored to full communion with the Church.
He certainly indicated he was sympathetic to them in the letter to his bishops explaining the lifting of the excommunications.

Some folks will of course cherry pick (Edited to remove ad hominem) only the words of a pope that suits them.

But yes, BXVI indicated it is perhaps time to ease up on the stigma. anyone who truly wants to get an idea of what BXVI thought about the SSPX, at least in 2010, can read the letter here…
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

The entire letter should be read, but this section reveals quite a bit…
Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
(Edited)
 
He certainly indicated he was sympathetic to them in the letter to his bishops explaining the lifting of the excommunications.

Some folks will of course cherry pick (Edited to remove ad hominem) only the words of a pope that suits them.

But yes, BXVI indicated it is perhaps time to ease up on the stigma. anyone who truly wants to get an idea of what BXVI thought about the SSPX, at least in 2010, can read the letter here…
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

The entire letter should be read, but this section reveals quite a bit…

(Edited)
There are people who will claim that Jesus was justifying the sin of the woman taken in adultery. He wasn’t. He was showing mercy. He said “Go and sin no more”.
Very similar in the way you are reading into the Pope’s remarks. He is in no way justifying them, he is asking for mercy.To “go and sin no more”.
Tolerance is not the same as acceptance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top