Problems of SSPX?

[Auntie_M]

Catholic.

Ok, we should just say “Catholic” when referring to the ones that attend the SSPX masses? Then how are we to address the Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo. Wait, the Novus Ordo has just the same problems as those of the Society, as we are called the “conciliar church”/ modernist…And what about the FSSP,
how are we to address them?

We are all Catholics, no doubt, as we all follow the Catholic faith. Whether some follow it to a certain time period and others follow it to today shouldn’t be a problem. As Pope Benedict said it is the same mass in differing forms. Both are available now, and that should satisfy all. …But it doesn’t, does it?

Where and how all this propaganda got started is beyond me. It is not a “you are right and I am wrong” faith. But that is exactly what it has turned into.

Let’s try to go back in time and examine the whole problem, when it first started, how it got started/ WHY it got started and everything else we can think of.

Instead of stabbing each other in the backs, lets have a decent conversation about it. We all know there are differing opinions…but where did they come from?

 

[Layman]

I can’t address your post. There’s little of substance in it.

Trad. catholics and the SSPX folk are upfront and clear about their preferences. No backstabbing or propaganda.

What’s odd is the attitude and behaviour of those who oppose them; most seriously, bishops who wouldn’t allow the TLM, while wide-latitude Novus Ordo masses were fine.

It seems to me that some elements in the church have become enchanted with the World and tried to make an accommodation with it. This has failed, will always fail, and has caused harm to the Church.

 

[maria2334]

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.

Two things have been bothering me about this post.

1. I have searched the Vatican’s website (vatican.va) for this list you mention, but to no avail. Their search engine only returns documents specifically speaking against freemasonry.
2. While I do not doubt that Cardinal Leinart ordained H.E. Archbishop Lefebrve, it should also be noted that he ordained other people who were not masons. Also, three bishops ordained H.E. Archbishop Lefebrve-- H.E. Bishop Fauret and H.E. Bishop Ancel, none of which are are on the freemasons list that I found on this website: catholic.cephasministry.com/masonlst.html (which is not the Vatican’s website, but the only one I could find with a list of Masons in the Church). Also, the validity of ordinations, like that of the sacraments are not dependent on whether or not their minister is in a state of grace (which Masons would not be, provided they know the evil of Masonry and freely choose to join). So, Lefebrve is still a validly ordained bishop, even though the prelate conferring ordination is claimed to have been a Mason.
3. If what you said about converts were true, strictly speaking (that they like to hear and “understand” what is going on), then I suppose that it is truly a miracle how ANYONE converted to the Catholic Church before Mass was said in the vernacular. I would claim, however, that, although the people can hear and physically understand what the priest is saying better now in the vernacular and without the silent Canon, it is much preferable for them to understand spiritually what is truly happening at the Mass.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

1. If what you said about converts were true, strictly speaking (that they like to hear and “understand” what is going on), then I suppose that it is truly a miracle how ANYONE converted to the Catholic Church before Mass was said in the vernacular. I would claim, however, that, although the people can hear and physically understand what the priest is saying better now in the vernacular and without the silent Canon, it is much preferable for them to understand spiritually what is truly happening at the Mass.

 

[I_Believe]

Its up to your mother in law to provide evidence of her assertions. Then we can debate it.
Frankly her claims are a load of rubbish!

That was the fastest debate and verdict I’ve ever seen.

 

[JustaServant]

1. If what you said about converts were true, strictly speaking (that they like to hear and “understand” what is going on), then I suppose that it is truly a miracle how ANYONE converted to the Catholic Church before Mass was said in the vernacular. I would claim, however, that, although the people can hear and physically understand what the priest is saying better now in the vernacular and without the silent Canon, it is much preferable for them to understand spiritually what is truly happening at the Mass.

My wife and daughter are both new converts and understand everything that is happening in the Mass. My daughter is especially interested in the TLM, and she grew up Baptist.

 

[Auntie_M]

In response to Archille Leinart. I was not saying that Lefabvre was a mason. What I was trying to point out is the fact the he was ORDAINED by a mason. No other reason is intended. This point is in response that Bugnini (also a mason) is one of the SSPX’s main points that Vatican 11 was infiltrated and “became bad”. (to paraphase)

Both Bugnini and Leinart are listed as masons. The Society, however, will not tell you that. They keep silent on the Leinart fact. (I know that there was 2 other Bishops there, that is not my point)

I , too, have been trying to find that list again. And I have had trouble finding it also. But, at least you did find a list. This was about 4 years ago when I first found it. Maybe it was dropped from the website, I don’t know. But at least now you know there IS a list.

If you will go back to the date and place where Lefebvre was ordained, you will find that Leinart was the Bishop there and the one ordaining new priests such as him.

Some of this that I have found out really takes alot of detective work. But the answers are out there.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

In response to Archille Leinart. I was not saying that Lefabvre was a mason. What I was trying to point out is the fact the he was ORDAINED by a mason. No other reason is intended. This point is in response that Bugnini (also a mason) is one of the SSPX’s main points that Vatican 11 was infiltrated and “became bad”. (to paraphase)

Both Bugnini and Leinart are listed as masons. The Society, however, will not tell you that. They keep silent on the Leinart fact. (I know that there was 2 other Bishops there, that is not my point)

I , too, have been trying to find that list again. And I have had trouble finding it also. But, at least you did find a list. This was about 4 years ago when I first found it. Maybe it was dropped from the website, I don’t know. But at least now you know there IS a list.

If you will go back to the date and place where Lefebvre was ordained, you will find that Leinart was the Bishop there and the one ordaining new priests such as him.

Some of this that I have found out really takes alot of detective work. But the answers are out there.

But Lefebvre’s ordination-bishop being a Mason has no bearing whatsoever on the position of the SSPX, or even Lefebvre. What Lefebvre stood for, and promoted, was just as legitimate and true in 1900, as it was in 1962, and as it was in 2008.

Bugnini being a Mason, however, (if it’s true), changes the game. Why? Because Bugnini helped to design/write the Novus Ordo, which then supplanted the Latin Rite Mass. A Mason writing a new Mass (seriously, how Catholic does that sound? A completely new Mass to replace the old one) would be bad. A Mason ordaining a bishop who then carries on tradition, and keeps it alive? Well, that’s irony.

 

[Auntie_M]

In response to the vernacular and new converts. I have heard alot of new converts say this. If they did not know what they were being told, do you really think they would last very long?

Today’s, (sorry) “modernist” are well educated and very little slips by them. I am not saying others are not. But we all know today’s people are very inquisitive and want and need to know the whole story about anything.

It does take awhile to fully understand the rubics of the Latin mass, it’s not impossible, but it does take time.

A new convert is just as serious (and sometimes more so) about learning about the faith (and possibly even the Bible). In old times, it was not stressed enough (and sometimes none at all) to learn the Bible.

I have to go back (in the Bible) where the Apostles were preaching to a whole crowd and they all “heard in their own language”. I really think God had a plan there.

 

[Auntie_M]

But Lefebvre’s ordination-bishop being a Mason has no bearing whatsoever on the position of the SSPX, or even Lefebvre. What Lefebvre stood for, and promoted, was just as legitimate and true in 1900, as it was in 1962, and as it was in 2008.

Bugnini being a Mason, however, (if it’s true), changes the game. Why? Because Bugnini helped to design/write the Novus Ordo, which then supplanted the Latin Rite Mass. A Mason writing a new Mass (seriously, how Catholic does that sound? A completely new Mass to replace the old one) would be bad. A Mason ordaining a bishop who then carries on tradition, and keeps it alive? Well, that’s irony.

Bugnini is indeed on the list as a mason. but it was not he alone that decided what would go into the Vat 11 docs. The Pope had the last say so and by the Holy Spirit and Cannon Law, he scrapped what was not allowed and kept what was. There was alot of confusion as to his exact meanings. Some Bishops took them one way and others took them another way. Yes, this should have been corrected long ago.

But, I can see where each Bishop was trying to do his best with what he had to work with.
The Latin mass takes alot of time for priest to learn so I don’t think it was “NOT ALLOWED” but that there were only a few priest that actually knew how to do it. Wouldn’t this make more sense?

And…Lefebvre also signed his name to the Vatican 11 documents. He later recanted.
What we all need to know is WHEN he recanted. Was it before he ordained others or after. That would make alot of difference.

If it was before the ordinations took place, then it may well be that he did oppose them.
If, however, it was after the ordinations (when he and the Pope were at odds), then it may well have been a vengence thing. The Pope gave him plenty of chances to ordain others in an acceptable way. But his refusal was what started his excommunication. (Am I right on this, or does someone else have anything further?)

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Bugnini is indeed on the list as a mason. but it was not he alone that decided what would go into the Vat 11 docs. The Pope had the last say so and by the Holy Spirit and Cannon Law, he scrapped what was not allowed and kept what was. There was alot of confusion as to his exact meanings. Some Bishops took them one way and others took them another way. Yes, this should have been corrected long ago.

But, I can see where each Bishop was trying to do his best with what he had to work with.
The Latin mass takes alot of time for priest to learn so I don’t think it was “NOT ALLOWED” but that there were only a few priest that actually knew how to do it. Wouldn’t this make more sense?

And…Lefebvre also signed his name to the Vatican 11 documents. He later recanted.
What we all need to know is WHEN he recanted. Was it before he ordained others or after. That would make alot of difference.

If it was before the ordinations took place, then it may well be that he did oppose them.
If, however, it was after the ordinations (when he and the Pope were at odds), then it may well have been a vengence thing. The Pope gave him plenty of chances to ordain others in an acceptable way. But his refusal was what started his excommunication. (Am I right on this, or does someone else have anything further?)

I’m not talking about the Vatican II documents. I’m talking about the NOVUS ORDO. The New Mass.

The TLM was taught for at least 500 years straight, from Trent to 1968. There were tons of people to teach priests how to say it. But then, it was forcibly removed from the Catholic world, and instead this new creation was shoved in its place.

Even then, when Ecclesia Dei was promulgated, bishops ignored it. They hated it. It was hard to even get a TLM said in a diocese with a bishop against it. Then, Pope B16 promulgates Summorum Pontificum, and these bishops think that they can now start implementing Ecclesia Dei, putting restrictions on the Mass, etc. No, it’s no longer the case. Any priest can use the 1962 books.

As to the last paragraph, I’m not quite sure. I’m only 21, and the consecrations of bishops occurred when I was 1. Far as I know, the Pope didn’t want the SSPX to consecrate any bishops, but then they offered the chance to consecrate one bishop, which Arch. Lefebvre didn’t agree with. Upon consecrating the bishops, Arch. Lefebrve was excomm’d latae sentiate. Of course, there are arguments for and against, which I will not be touching.

 

[Auntie_M]

I also was talking about the Novus Ordo /new mass as it is called. The Pope has stated many many times there is no “new mass”. They are the same but in two forms. (example…a baby and an adult…both are humans but in two forms.)

I know the SSPX made a big thing out of the word “many" instead of “all”. "Jesus died so that many might be saved”. quoted from the Bible and one of the main points that the SSPX said where wording had been changed.

The Bible does actually say “many”. But you have to read it in context. The Bible also says, “If you will lay down **your ** life and follow me…” Who is the “you”? Also, the verse “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.”" Who again is the “you”.

He is addressing not just a few people or even just one in these passages. He died for us all. So saying Jesus died so that **all **may be saved is a more perfect representation of His death.

Just because something is new doesn’t make it bad.

 

[ProVobis]

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

Catholic.

 

[ProVobis]

Both Bugnini and Leinart are listed as masons. The Society, however, will not tell you that. They keep silent on the Leinart fact.

Visit enough websites and you’ll read that half the Church’s bishops before and after Vatican II were masons. Yes, and all masons are supposedly excommunicated. But their ordinations are still valid, believe it or not.

He is addressing not just a few people or even just one in these passages. He died for us all.

Scripture does not say this. Christ said that He came not for the world but for those His Father sent Him.

 

[Extempore]

I haven’t been following this thread, so, after catching up with the recent posts, a few thoughts (sorry if its a bit long-winded):

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

The SSPX doesn’t believe the “conciliar church” is evil, they believes that there have been some great contradictions and confusions entering the Church in the past few decades which has resulted in a generation of Catholics who don’t know what to believe.

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…"

I think you need to reacquaint yourself with sedevacantism which the SSPX very clearly and publicly rejects. I’m not sure who told you otherwise, but a Society priest would not preach such things.

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

And my brain cannot process why you don’t understand that the SSPX are members of the same Catholic church and are fighting to restore clarity of doctrine to the Church so that Catholics will, in the future, not have to wonder what to believe.

If you saw a family member standing on the side of the road looking lost and confused would you stop to help them find their way, or simply drive away and find a new family?

In response to the vernacular and new converts. I have heard alot of new converts say this. If they did not know what they were being told, do you really think they would last very long?

I know that you’re referring specifically to the language of the Mass here but lets extend that a little further. Did people “back then” understand what was going on? I think so, in more ways than one. First, there was a more standardized and unified form of RCIA in which people were generally clearly taught Church doctrine in an unequivocal and straightforward way (think the Baltimore Catechism). Additionally, they would be taught about the Mass and the significance and meaning underlying the actions and prayers. Additionally, there would probably be some instruction in reading a missal and following along at Mass.

Compare this today where RCIA instructors (usually not priests or religious) are often confused as to Church doctrine and teach conflicting things, depending on the parish. Catechism classes don’t have the structure or clarity and so most adults and children don’t know the simplest of prayers (Our Father, Glory Be, Hail Mary, etc) and few know the real purpose of the Mass or the meaning of the prayers. There is no need to learn the “new” missal since it is not used in Mass so few RCIA candidates are introduced to one.

Today’s, (sorry) “modernist” are well educated and very little slips by them. I am not saying others are not. But we all know today’s people are very inquisitive and want and need to know the whole story about anything.

Apart from the fact that education doesn’t necessarily translate into intelligence (especially given today’s available education - sorry), I think that people have always been curious and continue to be curious.

The problem now is that most Catholics aren’t getting the straight answers they need because the people that are supposed to teach them (RCIA) don’t know either. Its an ugly chain of problems that started with the “we’ll that’s open to interpretation” attitude that began to circulate in regards to Church doctrine.

It does take awhile to fully understand the rubics of the Latin mass, it’s not impossible, but it does take time.

It does, but most things worthwhile do take time. Just like reading the Church documents or learning your Catechism its worth it in the end.

A new convert is just as serious (and sometimes more so) about learning about the faith (and possibly even the Bible). In old times, it was not stressed enough (and sometimes none at all) to learn the Bible.

You’re right, there wasn’t as much Biblical emphasis (I still don’t think there’s a whole lot, even though its been increased) but we went about it all the wrong way and started teaching it as an “either or” sort of thing. Its Scripture AND Tradition, not one or the other that should be taught!

 

[Ottaviani]

It seems to me that the minority that everyone likes to blast on anymore is an SSPX chapel goer who tries to defend their faith. It’s like being put the the lions one disparaging allusion towards schism at a time

 

[Auntie_M]

In all fairness…this is a statement taken from the SSPX website’s Regina Coeli newsletter June 2001 referring to the “conciliar church” by their then District Superior Father Peter R. Scott…

“The modernist, ecumenical, conciliar church, like all evil, cannot exist in itself, but as a parasite, it must depend upon something else, namely the Catholic Church”

The new mass and the people who attend the new mass have been the ones being attacked. This was in 2001…8 years ago! Most “modernist” didn’t know this was going on back then, some don’t know about it now. It seems to me, that when we, the modernist, get our say, then it is claimed that we are attacking them, which in reality we are defending us and our faith.

I don’t think I have ever seen the SSPX called a “parasite, an evil parasite”

Let’s get the facts straight, boys…

 

[Auntie_M]

I haven’t been following this thread, so, after catching up with the recent posts, a few thoughts (sorry if its a bit long-winded):

I** apologize also. I am bolding my answers so as to separate them from yours. (it seems we are both long winded, )**

The SSPX doesn’t believe the “conciliar church” is evil, they believes that there have been some great contradictions and confusions entering the Church in the past few decades which has resulted in a generation of Catholics who don’t know what to believe.

Please read the above post/statement straight out of the SSPX website.

I think you need to reacquaint yourself with sedevacantism which the SSPX very clearly and publicly rejects. I’m not sure who told you otherwise, but a Society priest would not preach such things.

But, some have, and have even “peached” of having the "Vatican on the run!"

And my brain cannot process why you don’t understand that the SSPX are members of the same Catholic church and are fighting to restore clarity of doctrine to the Church so that Catholics will, in the future, not have to wonder what to believe.

This seems to be a summation of your beliefs. It would be terribly hard to take a poll of every Catholic and find out what they have been taught or what they actually believe. Some people just enjoy worshipping and doesn’t even care to know what each thing means

If you saw a family member standing on the side of the road looking lost and confused would you stop to help them find their way, or simply drive away and find a new family?

That,my friend , is exactly WHY I spend my spare time on these posts.

I know that you’re referring specifically to the language of the Mass here but lets extend that a little further. Did people “back then” understand what was going on? I think so, in more ways than one. First, there was a more standardized and unified form of RCIA in which people were generally clearly taught Church doctrine in an unequivocal and straightforward way (think the Baltimore Catechism). Additionally, they would be taught about the Mass and the significance and meaning underlying the actions and prayers. Additionally, there would probably be some instruction in reading a missal and following along at Mass.

**I agree with you on some points. Only in the Catholic schools of old was the faith really taught. But, IF someone didn’t go to a Catholic school, then they failed to get that good teaching. I work in a Catholic School, the faith is being taught but it could be better.

The Catholics of old, alot of them, sat and prayed the Rosary as they couldn’t understand anything else. This truth was established in another thread a while back.**

Compare this today where RCIA instructors (usually not priests or religious) are often confused as to Church doctrine and teach conflicting things, depending on the parish. Catechism classes don’t have the structure or clarity and so most adults and children don’t know the simplest of prayers (Our Father, Glory Be, Hail Mary, etc) and few know the real purpose of the Mass or the meaning of the prayers. There is no need to learn the “new” missal since it is not used in Mass so few RCIA candidates are introduced to one.

The new missal is most definitely used in mass. The hearing impaired and anyone else can read right along with the Priest. These new missals are in every pew for anyone to use and I see most people using them in my parish and others I have attended.

Apart from the fact that education doesn’t necessarily translate into intelligence (especially given today’s available education - sorry), I think that people have always been curious and continue to be curious.

Some have and others have not. There are actually people who could care less about reading and learning, (some would rather be fishing), another sad but true fact.

The problem now is that most Catholics aren’t getting the straight answers they need because the people that are supposed to teach them (RCIA) don’t know either. Its an ugly chain of problems that started with the “we’ll that’s open to interpretation” attitude that began to circulate in regards to Church doctrine.

There is quite alot of confusion out there. There are those, modernist and traditionalist, that prefer to have their people “in the dark”…Again…Sad but true .

It does, but most things worthwhile do take time. Just like reading the Church documents or learning your Catechism its worth it in the end.

There again, there are those who don’t want to ( or don’t have the time ) to learn the old or the new mass. I wish each other would learn the other’s. I think it would solve alot of problems

You’re right, there wasn’t as much Biblical emphasis (I still don’t think there’s a whole lot, even though its been increased) but we went about it all the wrong way and started teaching it as an “either or” sort of thing. Its Scripture AND Tradition, not one or the other that should be taught!

Agreed 100%

 

[Ottaviani]

If only heretics got as much questioning as SSPX goers…

 

[Layman]

I don’t see what the problem is with the SSPX, apart from the illicitly consecrated bishops.

The SSPX have said *“No thanks” *to novelties and those who oppose them shout “You must obey!”, while not obeying what Paul VI wanted, themselves.

Having gone to the TLM for a year now, and singing in a schola, and enjoying celebrating most of the major feasts of the Church in that rite (and some interesting minor ones) I think I can truthfully say that those who only know the N.O/O.F. are being sold short.

The so-called reforms of post-Vat. II are ridiculous in the light of previous tradition. What occurs in the average sanctuary nowadays just looks silly in the light of what it’s supposed to accomplish.

The trend seems to be to put on what an non-confident priest thinks would please the people, rather than think about what would be pleasing in the sight of God. Thus more ‘audience participation’ and less kneeling in silence.

Sad to say, some Catholics have now surely lived and died without even knowing about the TLM, never mind attending one.