Problems of SSPX?

[ProVobis]

I did not mean to offend. I only wanted to show that judging others for their beliefs and imputing to them motives. Yes, there may be some that hate the SSPX, but it is better to assume the best that all are just acting on the results of their belief in sincerity. I have too have been accused on several occasions of hating the SSPX and even other traditional Catholics, so I know how it feels.

I agree with much of what you say, but that poster went way out of her way a few times to show how right she was. Yes, there are some SSPX members who do the same but this “full communion with Rome” stuff has got to be revaluated due to the lifting of the excommunications. These congregations prayed millions of rosaries so that would happen and for what? So once they get the excommunications lifted, they would find another place to attend Mass? Do you know how idiotic that sounds? Try to be realist here, forget the legalese.

 

[Auntie_M]

I agree with much of what you say, but that poster went way out of her way a few times to show how right she was. Yes, there are some SSPX members who do the same but this “full communion with Rome” stuff has got to be revaluated due to the lifting of the excommunications. These congregations prayed millions of rosaries so that would happen and for what? So once they get the excommunications lifted, they would find another place to attend Mass? Do you know how idiotic that sounds? Try to be realist here, forget the legalese.

ProVobis…Please read and learn what it means to be excommunicated and what it’s lifting means.

Excommunication is the most severe penalty for the most severe sins from the unrepentant…To paraphase and make it very simple…banned from entering the church doors. Lifting the excomunications…You can come in now but you still have to reconcile your hearts with God. This reconciling is what they call “full communion with Rome”. Just lifting the excommunications does not bring someone into full communion. Sins have to be confessed, pennances done, and absolution given.
In one rebellious act, the SSPX chose to separate themselves from Rome, not the other way around. To distance yourself from Jesus’s church is where the sin comes in. No matter who is the Pope, Jesus is still the head…of His church.

Hope this clears up a few things.

(I have studied this situation for quite a long time, from both view points. I have read articles written by SSPXers and also the Vatican. You really have to go back and forth on these articles to see that the Vatican statements are being misquoted)

If you would read articles from both, (going back quite a few years also), you’ll find some questions answered. Also, ( another thing I have done), type in “X-SSPX” and talk with some people (even priests) who have left the Society and let them tell you what it’s like trying to get away from them.

I’ll keep you in my prayers…

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

ProVobis…Please read and learn what it means to be excommunicated and what it’s lifting means.

Excommunication is the most severe penalty for the most severe sins from the unrepentant…To paraphase and make it very simple…banned from entering the church doors. Lifting the excomunications…You can come in now but you still have to reconcile your hearts with God. This reconciling is what they call “full communion with Rome”. Just lifting the excommunications does not bring someone into full communion. Sins have to be confessed, pennances done, and absolution given.
In one rebellious act, the SSPX chose to separate themselves from Rome, not the other way around. To distance yourself from Jesus’s church is where the sin comes in. No matter who is the Pope, Jesus is still the head…of His church.

Hope this clears up a few things.

(I have studied this situation for quite a long time, from both view points. I have read articles written by SSPXers and also the Vatican. You really have to go back and forth on these articles to see that the Vatican statements are being misquoted)

If you would read articles from both, (going back quite a few years also), you’ll find some questions answered. Also, ( another thing I have done), type in “X-SSPX” and talk with some people (even priests) who have left the Society and let them tell you what it’s like trying to get away from them.

I’ll keep you in my prayers…

It’s also meant as a medicating/rehabilitating measure, sort of to jolt the excommunicated person back into the Church.

From NewAdvent.org:
Excommunication, it must be remembered, is a medicinal penalty intended, above all, for the correction of the culprit

 

[Layman]

I think another poster put it better:

The SSPX already have their own chapels and churches. They won’t be hurrying to the nearest Novus Ordo parish if they are regularised. So they wish for full communion with Rome so they can operate as normal churches fully within the fold and get on with business, I assume.

To: Auntie M. All they’ve done is said: “We’d like to keep the old rite and traditions. Ones which have existed for hundreds of years”. To which modernists have said: “Nooooooo! you must accept all these changes. Or you’re a heretic. Or something”.

Even though, since modernists are the ones changing doctrine and discipline left right and centre, the case against them for unorthodoxy is far stronger.

Crazy behaviour! To forbid enthusiastic piety.

What regularisation will hopefully mean for me is that I’ll be able to go to their churches and chapels (if they’re nearer than current full-communion TLM rites) and a happy day it will be for me. May it be soon, O Lord!

 

[pnewton]

Crazy behaviour! To forbid enthusiastic piety.

I do not think anyone is trying to forbid enthusiasm or piety. It is the direction they take that is in question.

 

[Auntie_M]

I have said it before and I’ll say it again. There is nothing wrong with wanting the old rites. The Tridentine/Latin mass is a beautiful thing. And that was all the SSPX wanted, was to be able to say the Tridentine/Latin mass. They have that now. Why are they not in full communion now, what’s the hold up?

The FSSP is a much better choice. They are within the laws of the church. The SSPX is not.

It was over 4 years ago when the SSPX was leading people to believe, (or maybe just not answering their questions and allowing the laity to assume) that they were in full communion with Rome.

The FSSP is still your better choice.

I have never judged anyone a heretic nor will I ever.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

I have said it before and I’ll say it again. There is nothing wrong with wanting the old rites. The Tridentine/Latin mass is a beautiful thing. And that was all the SSPX wanted, was to be able to say the Tridentine/Latin mass. They have that now. Why are they not in full communion now, what’s the hold up?

The FSSP is a much better choice. They are within the laws of the church. The SSPX is not.

It was over 4 years ago when the SSPX was leading people to believe, (or maybe just not answering their questions and allowing the laity to assume) that they were in full communion with Rome.

The FSSP is still your better choice.

I have never judged anyone a heretic nor will I ever.

The SSPX isn’t in full communion, in part, because of the vague-ness of the Vatican II documents, and they want to clear things up before they return.

As far as I know.

 

[Auntie_M]

What exactly are the problems with the Society of St. Pious the 10’th? I know many argue whether they are in schism or not, but I’m not asking this. My mother-in-law continuously speaks about them being the true “sect” of the Catholic Church, and that V2 was infultrated by free masons and influenced by demonic forces, AND that the Novus Ordo was PURPOSELY designed to tear apart the Catholic Church.

I’ve read “More Catholic Than the Pope” and found it helpful, but I’m wondering what any of you guys think.

P.S. I’m NOT asking for SSPXs opinons here, I’ve heard enough, so please no comments, I’m speaking to those who don’t believe V2 was “demonic.”

If Vatican 11 was demonic, then we will have to say Jesus lied. I am not going to call Him a liar. Will anyone else?

I have also heard this “demonic” possession. There are some who may believe this. I for one do not. It really seems more likely that Satan is attacking Jesus’s church rather than infiltrating it.

There is a list of mason members who are Catholic on the Vatican website. The one that stands out most to me is the one that ordained Marcel Lefebvre, Achille Leinhard. (In case you don’t know, it was Lefebvre who started this whole SSPX movement.)

You will hear all about how the “masons infiltrated the church and wrote Vatican 11” but you will not hear that the founder of the SSPX was ordained by a mason, but it is true.

I’ve heard all of what you speak of , and it gets very tiring, and I know it has to be very confusing to anyone wanting to learn about the Catholic faith.

The new converts seem to like being able to hear and understand what is going on in a mass. Just because something is new doesn’t make it bad.

 

[Ottaviani]

I’d REALLY like to see a link, article, document or anything that proves Marcel Lefebvre was a freemason.

Please, indulge me.

EDIT: I misread your post. Tell me how Lefebvre knew about this at is ordination. It seems to me that this only makes the danger of freemasons more important to keep under watch. But I’m sure you’ll spin it some other way.

If Vatican 11 was demonic, then we will have to say Jesus lied. I am not going to call Him a liar. Will anyone else?

I have also heard this “demonic” possession. There are some who may believe this. I for one do not. It really seems more likely that Satan is attacking Jesus’s church rather than infiltrating it.

There is a list of mason members who are Catholic on the Vatican website. The one that stands out most to me is the one that ordained Marcel Lefebvre, Achille Leinhard. (In case you don’t know, it was Lefebvre who started this whole SSPX movement.)

You will hear all about how the “masons infiltrated the church and wrote Vatican 11” but you will not hear that the founder of the SSPX was ordained by a mason, but it is true.

I’ve heard all of what you speak of , and it gets very tiring, and I know it has to be very confusing to anyone wanting to learn about the Catholic faith.

The new converts seem to like being able to hear and understand what is going on in a mass. Just because something is new doesn’t make it bad.

 

[Lujack]

The SSPX isn’t in full communion, in part, because of the vague-ness of the Vatican II documents, and they want to clear things up before they return.

As far as I know.

As long as the SSPX maintains that it is a sin for fully informed Catholics to attend the Novus Ordo or even EF Masses not offered by the SSPX, I tend to think that they have some issues merely beyond vagueness.

 

[ProVobis]

There is a list of mason members who are Catholic on the Vatican website. The one that stands out most to me is the one that ordained Marcel Lefebvre, Achille Leinhard. (In case you don’t know, it was Lefebvre who started this whole SSPX movement.)

You will hear all about how the “masons infiltrated the church and wrote Vatican 11” but you will not hear that the founder of the SSPX was ordained by a mason, but it is true.

Is the one who wrote the Novus Ordo listed there as well?

 

[Ottaviani]

As long as the SSPX maintains that it is a sin for fully informed Catholics to attend the Novus Ordo or even EF Masses not offered by the SSPX, I tend to think that they have some issues merely beyond vagueness.

The SSPX does not claim that NO Masses are sinful, but instead they endanger the faith. With all of the hand holding, kumbaya, and prayers for people of false religions that make their way into the NO, do you really think that this statement is a stretch?

 

[Lujack]

The SSPX does not claim that NO Masses are sinful, but instead they endanger the faith. With all of the hand holding, kumbaya, and prayers for people of false religions that make their way into the NO, do you really think that this statement is a stretch?

From the SSPX FAQs:

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).

They do indeed insist that it is a sin to attend a Novus Ordo Mass, and pretty clearly imply that one should not even receive communion.

As to the FSSP, the SSPX FAQs say this:

They are therefore Conciliar Catholics and not traditional Catholics.

This being so, attending their Mass is:

*

  accepting the compromise on which they are based,
*

  accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church and the consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and
*

  accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.

 

[pnewton]

They do indeed insist that it is a sin to attend a Novus Ordo Mass, and pretty clearly imply that one should not even receive communion.

I find the use of the phrase “Conciliar Church” particularly evidentiary of a schismatic attitude. (Note that I am note saying they are in schism, nor do I think they are) When the Catholic Church is referred to by this name, it sets a separation between them and the Catholic Church, at least in rhetoric. Our language reveals much of our beliefs, or worse yet, our attempt to influence others. Does anyone remember the use of language from 1984?

The Catholic Church of today is the one that has come after Vatican II. This is an historical reality. If the SSPX attempts to draw a distinction between them and the “Conciliar” Church, it is the **Catholic **Church they are distancing themselves from. This techinique to control language is pure propaganda. No group that claims to value truth should permit such things.

However, in defense of the SSPX, I have not seen this used too often, even with all the posters here that attend their chapels. One can not color the whole organization based on a single article, or several articles, even if it is on their website. That is why I made the distinction between a schismatic attitude and schism.

 

[Extempore]

The Catholic Church of today is the one that has come after Vatican II. This is an historical reality. If the SSPX attempts to draw a distinction between them and the “Conciliar” Church, it is the **Catholic **Church they are distancing themselves from. This techinique to control language is pure propaganda. No group that claims to value truth should permit such things.

Yes, but in all fairness, that argument runs both ways because while the SSPX might refer to the “Conciliar Church,” the “Conciliar Church” (if you will) makes reference to the SSPX in such a way as to draw a similar divide (examples that come to mind: “SSPXers,” SSPX “adherents” and “radical traditionalists)”. I think its safe to say that a great number of diocesan Churches have acted in such a way as to make it clear that they believe the Society priests and lay faithful that attend the Masses to be members of a different Church.

I think the pendulum definitely swings both ways on this one, and I think we need to be aware that we are, despite our vast differences, still part of the Catholic church and are, as such, all Catholics. I think for clarification’s sake, its okay to make reference to “Pre and Post-Vatican II” thought but not in such a way as to imply schism where schism does not exist.

 

[Auntie_M]

I
Would someone please help me on this one question. I have asked before but have gotten no answers.

“Why, if the “conciliar church” is so evil, would anyone especially the SSPX want to be a part of it?”

They say they want to be in full communion and want the excommunications lifted But in and same breath they say they are the only true Catholics and the real Catholic church no longer exists, that it has been taken over by Satan, that the Pope is an anti pope, etc…"

Why, again, would they want to be a part of it? My little brain cannot process this…

Please somebody…anybody?

 

[Auntie_M]

What would be the politicallly correct way of referring to the “people who attend the SSPX masses”?

I, for one, will be glad to call you whatever makes you feel better.

ps: I really think anyone on these posts would be glad to call you whatever makes you happy.

 

[RyanML]

I
Would someone please help me on this one question. I have asked before but have gotten no answers.

“Why, if the “conciliar church” is so evil, would anyone especially the SSPX want to be a part of it?”

They say they want to be in full communion and want the excommunications lifted But in and same breath they say they are the only true Catholics and the real Catholic church no longer exists, that it has been taken over by Satan, that the Pope is an anti pope, etc…"

Why, again, would they want to be a part of it? My little brain cannot process this…

Please somebody…anybody?

The SSPX wants to be in a regular canonical status with Rome because, as Bishop Fellay says, they are Romans. It is only natural that they would want to be in full communion with the Pope. I spent a few years with the SSPX and never once heard from their priests these things you are saying. The Devil has not “taken over” the Church, but as Pope Paul VI said, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church and it would be naive not to acknowledge the crisis that came after the Council. The SSPX is not sedevacantist and they do not believe the pope to be an anti-pope. If they did, they would not have looked to him for the lifting of the excommunications. And while there are some in the SSPX who believe that the only sure way to be a “true” Catholic is to follow them, the majority, from my experience, believe that keeping the Faith is most important. They would admit that in many Novus Ordo parishes the faith is not properly taught and so it can be a danger, but I think this is obvious to anyone and not just some wild idea of the “Lefebvrites”. The SSPX is not perfect, but their love for the faith and concern for the Church is genuine which is more than can be said for many “in communion” with Rome.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

What would be the politicallly correct way of referring to the “people who attend the SSPX masses”?

I, for one, will be glad to call you whatever makes you feel better.

ps: I really think anyone on these posts would be glad to call you whatever makes you happy.

Catholic.

 

[Layman]

When you’re gambling with the fate of your immortal soul, tried-and-tested tradition makes more sense than a novelty, which is constantly being modified.