Is the Church Leaving Me?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AJC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don’t even bother…
Let them continue on in their ignorance and be steadfast in their refusal. If a priest told them something, it must be true.
 
I’ve never even been to one of their masses so I don’t really care, but everything I’ve read points to them being in between schism and full communion.
 
I’ve talked to priests who know they are not schismatic. So…what should we do? Arrange an arm wrestling contest?
Cardinal X says they are
Cardinal Y says they are not

The Pope has reached out to them, granted them faculties to hear confessions and administer marriage…he would not do that for schismatics, nor could he do that for schismatics. We were told that we may assist at their mass in good conscience, provided we do not harbor a rebellious attitude. They ARE NOT schismatic.

Of course the standard issue NO priest thinks they are! Some of them think all sorts of things that are a little off.

SSPX is far from perfect, and they do draw some nutters, but if you know that going in, you won’t have any problems. The same can be said for any number of NO parishes as well, and that seems to be something that can be agreed upon.
 
AJC said:
We had a Church that built hospitals, orphanages, schools, and supported missions. All because of the Gospel.
Click to expand...
Just a small correction. Today the Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world and also the largest non Government health services provider in the world.
 
OK…Canon 751. Read it…
I don’t see what you are talking about I guess.
SSPX recognizes PF as the Pope, just as they recognize all the previous popes as popes. They are not sedes…

Disobedience does not amount to schism; schism requires that one not recognize the authority of the pope to command; disobedience consists in not obeying a command, whilst still acknowledging the authority of the one commanding.

My point is that the Pope could not and would not continue talks or grant faculties to schismatics. He didn’t grant faculties to the Orthodox, or to Pope Michael now, did he? Souls or no souls…that statement of yours is a little…uh…

What “heresy” is the SSPX guilty of teaching exactly? They preach and teach the same Catholic faith as it was taught for centuries. Did some other church emerge after VII or something? What heresy?
 
Last edited:
I hear you. I would reply but it would probably lead me to being suspended from the site again. I will pray for you. God bless.
 
The wrongness of your answer is self inflicted.

“Some members” do not equal “The SSPX” anymore than “some members” equal the Church at large.
The SSPX holds that the Pope is valid. The SSPX holds that all the Popes since VII are valid. They believe nothing different than that, so your last statement is just plain wrong on that level, as well as the part in there about predicting the future…for OTHER PEOPLE.

And, for the zillionth time, the “excommunications” were lifted, so apparently:
  1. the decision was not final
  2. the decision was appealed
    -or-
  3. the decision was bogus to begin with
It’s old news and not applicable. Certainly it should not be a hindrance to accepting the SSPX as Catholics anymore than previous grievous errors committed by the Church hindering somebody from joining her. My boss has legitimate authority over me at work, but I’d be absolutely morally correct in going over his head for certain reasons, so yes…that is what LeFebvre did. Disobedience. Same with cops, parents, teachers, etc…Recognizing a legitimate authority is the only way you can be guilty of disobedience!

What you are describing is called sedevacantism. At the local level, I’ve never heard an SSPX priest speak of the Pope in the terms you describe. I’ve never heard any SSPX priest teach heresy.

Have you ever been to an SSPX mass? I assume “no” because of the priests you’ve talked to telling you they are schismatic.
 
I found the answer was to attend daily Mass frequently. It is seldom ever crowded. It is quiet, and conducive to silent prayer. Also if your parish has perpetual adoration, that is truly a wonderful way to visit our Lord in quiet prayer. Rather than worry about the Church and modern topics, I just stick to my old routines. It’s great. The times will always change, and certain forms will be popular for a while. But the Mass is steady. Communion doesn’t change. Prayers remain constant. It is very comforting in older age to hold onto those traditions. Peace be with you.
 
Not exactly. I believe that they are bashed constantly by fellow Catholics on this forum, and that they are canonically irregular but not schismatic. I’m not a member of the SSPX, but go there sometimes because they are the closest Latin mass. I’m as wary of them as I am at my local NO parish.
 
Last edited:
Wow. I didn’t imply anything. I know the excommunications were valid. And, lifted.

Do you deny that a Catholic may assist at mass offered by the SSPX, provided he does not harbor an attitude of rebellion?

And, my analogy is fine as-is. All authority comes from God. We are morally required to resist, if the authority demands us to something immoral. I’m NOT saying that was the case with ABP LeFebvre…just that the only way to be guilty of disobedience is to first recognize proper authority.
 
Last edited:
Oh, he’s been like this for 30 years. Believe me, the other priests and the vicar general are well aware.

Other than this one issue he’s a wonderful priest and well-loved in every parish he is assigned to.
 
My response was to adgloriam’s post 143 or 144. Hit the wrong reply button.
 
The penalties incurred by the excommunication were lifted when the excommunication was lifted, so one may attend without ipso facto, etc…

I agree that the mass has not really changed. As I stated (maybe not in this thread…) that if you know the mass, then you can see that the NO and TLM are almost identical. Any differences I think are very minor, so I do attend the local NO parish most of the time.

So really, sincerely, truly…I’m not an SSPX “sympathizer”. I’ve said many times (in this thread for sure) that they have problems organizationally, and attract some nut cases at the local level. I wouldn’t go if God didn’t bring me far enough along in my formation, or without proper catholic sensibilities.
 
Last edited:
No problem!
It’s a very strange situation. At some point, I hope they are regularized.
 
Last edited:
ktmeyer said:
The Cohen song called Hallelujah is a love song, about a woman. Not about God. The composer has said so.
Click to expand...
What is your view of the Song of Songs in the Old Testament?

Is it a love song about a woman or about God’s love for humanity? Or both?

Isn’t the love between a man and a woman often used as a representation of God’s love, and the reason why marriage is a sacrament in the Church?

I am not, by the way, defending Cohen’s song as appropriate for a Mass nor am I agreeing that just any secular song can be conscripted by the Church without the permission of the writer.

I am just not certain that a song “about a woman” cannot be a song “about God.” Not that it is necessarily, but I just don’t think the distinction is one that can be made in principle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top