People who have gone to SSPX and FSSP churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter tstadheim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is a lemon-aide stand that sits like a beacon on a hill for 2000 years for all thirsty travelers to drink of. Made from only the finest ingredients of the citron of it’s day, the supra human divine formula was given to men hand chosen from The One who had been it’s Creator. With it the explicit power that decisions regarding it’s very distribution was given to these first chosen ones as well. The symbol was a key to the kingdom, and their inheritance was a promise they would never be left alone, nor would never taste demise even the gates of hell should rail against it.

Years later changes in the distribution of the formula were ushered in, changes made in full accordance as was originally instituted by the Creator Himself.

Some decided to revolt with the insistence the formula would never be as holy, as pure, and that changes to distribution brought by it’s very deviation from Tradition does not give the formula the homage it deserves.

The point: Holy Mother Church in Her Wisdom informed by the Creator, realizes the formula can never change (it recognizes, with the exception of 2, that the Traditionalists sacraments are valid) whether the Mass is held in Swahili or in an Army Camp.

Second point, I chuckle when I hear an argument for Tradition and Latin Masses for the most part mainly because the very first Masses were not in Latin, they were in Greek.
 
DENNYINMI said:
Second point, I chuckle when I hear an argument for Tradition and Latin Masses for the most part mainly because the very first Masses were not in Latin, they were in Greek.
Click to expand...
Or in Aramaic, or even in Hebrew, and maybe also in Latin, depending on the place and the people. It was only later that Greek kinda became standard in the East while Latin became standard in the West…
 
steph03 said:
Or in Aramaic, or even in Hebrew, and maybe also in Latin, depending on the place and the people. It was only later that Greek kinda became standard in the East while Latin became standard in the West…
Click to expand...
Most of the “graphite” for lack of better expression on the walls of the catacombs where we know they held the first Masses, were in Greek which makes sense in those times, but yes, I would suggest as you, Aramaic and Hebrew too…there was much to do with what to do about the early gentiles if I remember correctly.
 
DENNYINMI said:
40.png
steph03:
Or in Aramaic, or even in Hebrew, and maybe also in Latin, depending on the place and the people. It was only later that Greek kinda became standard in the East while Latin became standard in the West…
Click to expand...
Most of the “graphite” for lack of better expression on the walls of the catacombs where we know they held the first Masses, were in Greek which makes sense in those times, but yes, I would suggest as you, Aramaic and Hebrew too…there was much to do with what to do about the early gentiles if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...
No doubt that Greek was the most common language used for mass in the 1st century… But depending on who was there, it is possible that Aramaic, Latin or Hebrew was used also. Greek was the common language at the time…

A nice example of this is at the crucifiction… Where a sign was put on Jesus’ cross about being the king of the Jews… In latin, greek and Hebrew/aramaic
 
Last edited:
steph03 said:
A nice example of this is at the crucifiction… Where a sign was put on Jesus’ cross about being the king of the Jews… In latin, greek and Hebrew/aramaic
Click to expand...
This can tie into the argument for the Catholic Church’s authority and the validity of Vatican II

The differences in languages utilized was to bring home the beneficial statement that the officiator is attempting to bring forth.

In the case of the Crucifix, “The King of the Jews”, let all see, let all understand.

In the case of the English Mass, let all see, let all understand.

Language for the sake of language means nothing unless it brings home a point
 
DENNYINMI said:
I chuckle when I hear an argument for Tradition and Latin Masses for the most part mainly because the very first Masses were not in Latin, they were in Greek.
Click to expand...
The point of Tradition is not Latin, but the point of Latin is tradition. These days, because the new liturgy has moved so far away from Latin (and away from what was intended by the documents on the liturgy by Vatican II) it is often difficult to discern what’s the matter with the new liturgy and modern theology. It’s easy to blame the lack of Latin, but the fact of the matter is that’s just one very visible change in the new liturgy, but in the end it’s just one more variable that’s been tinkered to death…
 
TheMortenBay said:
The point of Tradition is not Latin, but the point of Latin is tradition. These days, because the new liturgy has moved so far away from Latin (and away from what was intended by the documents on the liturgy by Vatican II) it is often difficult to discern what’s the matter with the new liturgy and modern theology. It’s easy to blame the lack of Latin, but the fact of the matter is that’s just one very visible change in the new liturgy, but in the end it’s just one more variable that’s been tinkered to death…
Click to expand...
One of the biggest concerns regarding the move from tradition is the mere fact of questioning the Church’s authority on Her ability to make changes to the liturgy.

Any underlying current or trend (as the SSPX is younger than some Protestant branches) that questions Holy Mother Church on this, can certainly open itself to questioning other articles of faith, as well as morals.

The source and summit of our Faith is and always has been the Eucharist. Try as you might, He is there, and that is all that matters.

Too much concern for distribution, leaves less time to savor the formula.

The Latin can prove it’s splendor and its awe, being that most don’t read or write the dead language, the language itself (all languages) must give way to the Real living splendor on the alter, which was the meaning of Vatican II.
 
DENNYINMI said:
the language itself (all languages) must give way to the Real living splendor on the alter, which was the meaning of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the meaning of Vatican II was never to get rid of Latin, however. It’s quite the opposite if you read the documents.
 
TheMortenBay said:
Yes, but the meaning of Vatican II was never to get rid of Latin, however. It’s quite the opposite if you read the documents.
Click to expand...
I am talking about the ability to use native languages, NOT limited to Latin.
 
DENNYINMI said:
I am talking about the ability to use native languages, NOT limited to Latin.
Click to expand...
I’ve been to an SSPX Mass in Germany, where the lesson and Gospel were read in the vernacular by a lector, while the Priest read them in Latin.
Tradition is not the same as being opposed to the vernacular. At all.
 
TheMortenBay said:
I’ve been to an SSPX Mass in Germany, where the lesson and Gospel were read in the vernacular by a lector, while the Priest read them in Latin.
Tradition is not the same as being opposed to the vernacular. At all.
Click to expand...
That’s simply wonderful, congratulations.

This argument that is so enjoined upon in here within this forum, could turn the Rose of Sharon into a stone. It overlooks the entire idea or concept expressed that the Eucharist can be celebrated ( IF however that is what you consider the source of your faith) with cows and pigs scurrying by with stretchers of wounded war veterans gazing unto a make shift alter in a war zone if need be.

The SSPX folk have missed the forest for the trees, or in other words, strain at gnats and swallow camels.

ANY of their objections are absurdity because they claw at the very basic root of the faith, that being the Church’s ability to make changes which lies in her authority, and Her authority comes from Him alone.
 
DENNYINMI said:
ANY of their objections are absurdity because they claw at the very basic root of the faith, that being the Church’s ability to make changes which lies in her authority, and Her authority comes from Him alone.
Click to expand...
The SSPX is not claiming the Church doesn’t have the right or authority to change the rituals for the Mass. They’re saying the way that power was wielded in case of the Novus Ordo has lead to a lesser expression of the Mass. It’s not the same thing…
 
They’re not saying the new mass is invalid, they’re saying that it can be invalidated because certain priests think they can change all sorts of elements.
When Bishop Fellay has said the Novus Ordo is evil, he’s referring to the intentions behind the the creation of the new missal, what with all its theological ambiguity. It is the opinion of the SSPX that this lack of theological certainty within the Mass will eventually lead people to lose the faith. Therefore many of their priests say not to go there.
Having myself received many graces from attending the traditional Mass exclusively for a while, I’m inclined to agree that it’s better. Whether that’s due to a deficiency in the Novus Ordo is less obvious to me.
 
Last edited:
TheMortenBay said:
They’re not saying the new mass is invalid
Click to expand...
Those exact words were used in an official statement. Spin it how you will, the difference between FSSP and SSPX is that FSSP is obedient, which is about as traditional an attitude as one can have.

I am pleased to hear that you have received graces from the Mass of whatever valid form you prefer to attend. But that is not the same as accepting that SSPX is not disobedient at best.
 
This is not entirely true. I do agree that the SSPX is not schismatic, but there are schismatic sects that pray for the Pope. The Churches of the Old Roman Catholic “Communion” (not to be confused with the Old Catholic Churches or the Utrecht communion, from which they broke away over 100 years ago), all pray for the Pope in their liturgies. They also acknowledge him as a spiritual leader, but deny his universal jurisdiction.
 
I’m not sure that the isolation of which you frequently speak is as widespread as you think. Many of the SSPX attendees in my area also frequent the local diocesan TLMs, and they frequently participate in pilgrimages to the national shrine located in my diocese right alongside regular parish attendees, including NO parishes. Also, a check of local SSPX websites across the country will often show articles and communications written by the diocesan bishop. There may certainly be some or even many society chapels that have nothing to do with “outside” Catholics, but I don’t know that it’s as engrained in the institution as your experience may suggest.
 
The irregularity of the situation places them in a situation of incomplete communion.
 
When the local SSPX chapel was started there was no diocesan Latin Mass available. Today there are two
locations every Sunday, a strong Latin Mass Community all a short distance from SSPX.

The SSPX chapel seems oblivious, has taken on a momentum of its own, apart from, or addition to, attachment to a liturgy. This momentum is the real problem.

Suppose a woman tells you she is eager to marry this guy (regularization). However she insists on a prenup, maintaining a separate apartment he can never enter, and other legal protections to maintain her own separate momentum because he is so treacherous.

I would advise the lady to either skip this “marriage” (regularization), or else put aside your attorneys, go all the way to actual marriage, giving up your separate momentum, seeking a common momentum.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top