I'm an SSPX'er, ask me anything!

  • Thread starter Thread starter TLMguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Al1234 said:
Respectfully. I wanted to know if the SSPX recognizes the Pope’s post Vatican 2 and secondly
Click to expand...
Of Course! we are not Sedevacantists!(The SSPX is an outspoken critic of that heresy)
Al1234 said:
I was wondering if the line of apostolic succession has been broken in relation to the Priestly Fraternity of the SSPX
Click to expand...
If you are referring to the Econe Consecrations, then I view them as 100% valid.
 
I think a lot of us would love to to that, but considering the previous bishop of my city went as far as to say we were not Catholic (Look up Calgary SSPX letter) , I think a lot of us rightly feel alienated.
 
I think the rule of thumb for Women is to cover at least up the knee or at the knee. And yes, they veil themselves.
 
Yes sorry. Supported was the word I was looking for! Maybe one day I’ll be fully affiliated with them as a Priest in the Society!
 
Last edited:
How do you reconcile receiving Communion with the Vatican not recognizing the Eucharist as licit at SSPX services?
 
Do you recognize the tendency toward the Heresy of Jansenism present in the SSPX?

Here I do not mean moral rigorism, I mean the denial of the reality of dogmatic facts.

So, the Jansenists were condemned essentially for telling the Holy See “Ok, we agree with your condemnation of hyper-Augustinian excesses, but they aren’t actually IN these works published.”

The teaching of the Church is that she is infallible in regard to dogmatic fact- what works contain which heresies for example.

OR what acts are actually schismatic, by extension.

This is equivalent to Abp. Lefebvre telling JPII “Yes, we know we cannot ordain more Bishops without an apostolic mandate, but there’s an exception here!”

No. If the pope determines that a particular act performed contrary to his express will is going to be an act of schism, that’s what it is, and so…

To deny this is to deny the reality of dogmatic facts and fall into the heresy of Jansenism, substantially. We don’t get to tell the Pope that his rulings don’t count based on our superior understanding. That’s the entire history of Jansenism.

See?
 
Last edited:
pensmama87 said:
Is the TLM available where you live (with approval from the RC bishop?)

If so, would you consider reconciling with Rome? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
This was a serious inquiry, by the way, and not a jab. There is a SSPX chapel and a TLM parish in my area, which has been there for some time. I’m not familiar with the politics, but it is curious to me that the people attending the SSPX chapel have not made the leap to the TLM parish.
 
I believe Pope Benedict indicated the SSPX does not exercise a legitimate ministry in the Church and remains in an irregular status relative to its relationship with the Catholic Church…So my question, is why do you associate with this breakaway group now that you known better?
 
Ha, don’t underestimate the power of rank negligence bud!

Dogmatic facts-
  1. Canonizations.
  2. The identity of the Pope.
  3. Works which contain heresy.
  4. Movements that are actually schismatic.
Now, why is the Church infallible in regard to all 4?
  1. She cannot hold a notorious sinner up for public veneration, a la Aquinas.
  2. The Church must always be able to positively identify her head (bye bye sedevacantism).
  3. If she is going to censure heresy, she must be able to identify that which contains it.
  4. To protect the faithful from heresy is the same as protecting them from schism. Therefore she must be able to infallibly identify that which is truly schismatic for the good of the faithful.
Now, the SSPX has taken the new line contrary to Aquinas, that Canonizations are FALLIBLE, denial 1, and she refuses to accept the terms of her own condemnation in Ecclesia Dei, denial 2.

The denial of these dogmatic facts mean that substantially the heresy of Jansenism has a foothold in the movement.
 
Here is the SSPX website endorsing the theory of the fallibility of canonizations-


Which is exactly what a Jansenist would say- evidently you hold to the private interpretation of condemnatory decrees, this is precisely the heresy of Jansenism.

Read the Article on Dogmatic Facts in the Catholic Encyclopedia- it’s all about Jansenism-

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05092a.htm

And BTW the Church did not condemn St. Joan, corrupt churchmen did.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the last point-

Here is your error- you are considering the act of the consecration of a bishop without papal mandate abstractly, say in the instance of an interregnum or where legitimate authority cannot be contacted. It is not an intrinsically schismatic act then.

But this was done CONTRARY to the express will of the Pontiff. It therefore IS a schismatic act, as Canon law defines schism in canon 751 of the 1983 code-

“Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

What the SSPX tries to do is to consider Abp Lefebvres act outside of its context of grave disobedience, abstractly.

But the fact is this act has as its context disobedience which does render it objectively an act of schism, made such by the disobedience.
 
Last edited:
Again, this is the Papal interpretation. You can refuse to accept it, but then you have to deal with the denial of condemnatory sentences and your implicit assertion of the correctness of the Jansenists.

However, you are thinking rather hazily here for two reasons-
  1. I specifically stated the act of episcopal consecration without apostolic mandate is not intrinsically schismatic.
But
  1. It is compounded by a grave disobedience which in the Popes eyes amounts to schism.
Therefore, the act as an act of disobedience is a schismatic act.
 
Do you think those of us who are not involved with the SSPX (and who quite possibly never even heard of it until recently) are not “real” Catholics?
 
a poster here stated that certain “factions” of SSPX are “pro-choice”
 
Do you recognize Francis as the valid successor to Peter? Do you accept post-conciliar canonizations, such as Popes John XXIII and John Paul II? The beatification of Paul VI? How do you view Catholics who don’t have the same mindset as SSPX’ers?
 
Last edited:
TLMguy said:
Just so everyone knows: I was born into an SSPX family. I feel a lot of Novus Ordo Catholics who become affiliated with the SSPX carry a lot of bitterness with them. (for me, I didn’t even know the Novus ordo EXISTED until I was like 13! lol) Feel free to ask me anything. I do my best to defend my position, but please understand I’m not a Cannon lawyer or a Theological expert. I was inspired by the “I’m Orthodox, ask me anything” topic to create this.

(And please try not to derail this thread into firestorm 😉)
Click to expand...
Do your priests have apostolic succession? Are they recognised by the Vatican?

Do you consider yourself as Catholic? If so, how do you justify it?
 
Don’t loose your time.
That’s the second time I see this person asking the same silly question, and receiving the same answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top