Question for SSPX chapel-goers.

[maurin]

Perhaps they’re wrong in using the line for that purpose.

perhaps…they are wrong about a lot of things.

 

[ProVobis]

To IrishDude45,
Yes, indeed the rite of confession can be administered validly.

Only if the danger of death exists.

 

[ProVobis]

The way that I look at it is this: According to the inffallible teaching of Trent, there is to be only the Latin Mass in perpetuity.

Actually the Council of Trent said very little about Latin. It was emphatically stated at Vatican 2, however.

 

[ProVobis]

What is this nonsense about it not mattering how Mass makes you feel? Of course it matters.

Agreed. The Mass is a gift to us from God. Of course He wanted us to derive some pleasure from its beauty. No Pope has suppressed the true Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

Interesting - this is the same Christ who was cradled in a manger when He could have chosen to be born in a palace, and when He could have chosen to ride into Jerusalem on a fancy horse instead rode in on a humble donkey.

The one who chose to associate with fishermen, tax collectors and prostitutes even though He could have kept company with the noble and famous? The one who asked us to be meek and humble like Him, and who called Himself ‘son of Man’ often, but never ‘son of God’? In fact the one who taught us to call God ‘Abba’ (‘Daddy’), and who taught us to approach Him as a child. Ever seen a child who was ALWAYS reverential and grand towards their ‘Daddy’?

Ever occured to you that just maybe the NO (thought not its abuses) came about partly as His idea? That just maybe He doesn’t always WANT grand, doesn’t always WANT obsequious reverence, even though He deserves it?

But Christ was given gold at His birth too. Maybe this is the idea behind the EF?

 

[UnusMilitum]

But Christ was given gold at His birth too. Maybe this is the idea behind the EF?

Definitely. Those gifts, given by kings themselves, were appropriate symbols. Frankincense for His divinity, myrrh for His humanity, and Gold for His kingship.

Not to mention having his head annointed with expensive alabaster flask of fragrant oil…And having his feet washed with tears and dried with hair. I don’t recall He complained about it. As a matter of fact, he rebuked the apostles who thought the stuff should have been sold instead of being used on Him.

The main point ought to be that regardless of station, each person gives God his/her very best. That’s why I’m a TLM guy.

 

[LeroyCRHP]

I wasn’t the one to call the NO illegal and a travesty against manking (“horrific atrocities”) and I do take offense to that. Maybe you are Antinovusordinary? Wish I were a mod on this board so I could see the IP addresses to see who is who…

My God is very clear, enough of the childerns games maurin…

For what it is worth:
The boy’s name Maurin \ma(u)-rin\ is a variant of Maurice (Latin), and the meaning of Maurin is “dark-skinned, Moorish”.

Well you’ve made your position clear, but why don’t yo try to listen to the moderators, administrators and the thousands of members here. If there were anything inherently offensive about his userid, don’t you think the mods would have, at most, blocked his membership or, at least, asked him to change it?

Incidentally, “Leroy” is the French, “Le Roi”, ‘the king.’ We have no King but Jesus Christ the King. Who is like God, Leroy?

I would suggest you let the mods moderate.

 

[UnusMilitum]

SSPX are in the same position really, as the Eastern Churches. Both contain valid sacraments, and are in schism.

What?!?! Seriously, did you just go there? Justin, when Rome starts backpedalling furiously in conjunction with Castrillon Hoyos saying numerous times that “there is no schism”, plus the recent declaration on the excommunications, does this mean nothing?

For the time being, some of the things they say on their website bother me. For example, they have a booklet called “Is the SSPX Schismatic? Excommunicated? Rome Says NO!”

There you have it. “No”.

I haven’t taken the time to read this booklet and study their claims.

Maybe you ought to, before you start saying things like:

I am sure there is some truth burried deep within the booklet.

Listen, there’s a reason why the pope is doing what he’s doing. It isn’t just mercy and fraternal charity on his part. It also has to do with justice. The SSPX has argued many, many points with Rome. After the “schism” and “excommunication” attempts were measured (as well as the ‘pro multis’ and ‘abrogation of the TLM; yes vs. no’ debate), the claims have been found wanting…It’s not as though “burried deep” there is “some” truth to the SSPX…this group has been sticking to its guns these 30+ years and now they’re finally getting results. Mercy, yes, but also justice.

But, JP2 said they ARE schismatic in Ecclesia Dei.

And yet somehow, under BXVI, without changing their stance one bit, they are NOT schismatic? How does that work? Perhaps it’s because ED is pretty full of the ol’ JPII ambiguous speak that has plagued the church for 40 years. Plus, there are even more reasons than this to believe that ED was more of an ‘opinion piece’. For instance, JPII made his claims, but refused Abp Lefebvre a trial…Very suspicious!

On a PERSONAL note, for these reasons, I’d be uncomfortable attending Mass at an SSPX chapel

you’re uncomfortable because of misinformation.

even with permission from my Bishop.

Really? That’s weird.

I truly hope these matters get resolved in the coming months.

I can agree with this!

I think they can be a great gift to the Church.

They already are…have been from the beginning.

 

[LilyM]

Definitely. Those gifts, given by kings themselves, were appropriate symbols. Frankincense for His divinity, myrrh for His humanity, and Gold for His kingship.

Not to mention having his head annointed with expensive alabaster flask of fragrant oil…And having his feet washed with tears and dried with hair. I don’t recall He complained about it. As a matter of fact, he rebuked the apostles who thought the stuff should have been sold instead of being used on Him.

The main point ought to be that regardless of station, each person gives God his/her very best. That’s why I’m a TLM guy.

So the shepherds sacrificed their sheep to Him, did they? Peter and John and the rest poured those netsful of fish straight into His lap as tribute? And of course Jesus told that rich young man to come back and give the money to Him, no? Actually - what He said was to give to the poor

In fact they didn’t give Him ANYTHING significant materially - although they certainly could have. Just the gift of themselves. Even Mary didn’t give Him the gift of her service the first time He visited - she left that to Martha

And Jesus commended her for focusing on Him rather than fussing about was or wasn’t going on around her, if I recall rightly. That’s why I’m perfectly happy going to any valid liturgy - He’s there. Jesus, the same yesterday, today and forever, the same at NO, TLM or DL.

As long as He’s there I wouldn’t want to be anywhere else.

 

[maurin]

I wasn’t the one to call the NO illegal and a travesty against manking (“horrific atrocities”) and I do take offense to that. Maybe you are Antinovusordinary? Wish I were a mod on this board so I could see the IP addresses to see who is who…

My God is very clear, enough of the childerns games maurin…

For what it is worth:
The boy’s name Maurin \ma(u)-rin\ is a variant of Maurice (Latin), and the meaning of Maurin is “dark-skinned, Moorish”.

and the point, leroy, is that some are offended by antinovusordo’s choice of username, and some aren’t. some could be offended at your taking as a name the title for Our Lord. Of course I was using an extreme example, and of course you meant nothing nefarious by your choice. In antinovusordo’s case, making the requests you made publicly was a bit silly.

As far as my dark skin goes, it doesn’t offend you, does it?

 

[Gab123]

The problem I have with SSPX is that Pope John Paul II pleaded, prodded, warned, and ordered people not to support SSPX in any way. If you actually read JPII’s Ecclesia Dei Motu Propio, you will see that *way back in 1988 * the Pope offered the availability of the Traditional Latin Mass to those who desired to have it, and urged the bishops to make it accessible. A beautiful example of a parish that has been offering the Latin Mass for many years in full union with the Church is the Society of St. John Cantius in Chicago. Please visit: www.cantius.org to see what is possible if those who want the Latin Mass were obedient to the Magisterium.

All it takes is one person to get things going.The problem is that many people are channeling their energies into complaining about the laxities found in Novus Ordo parishes and end up wondering if they should attend an SSPX chapel in order to receive the Eucharist. There are two problems with this view. First, one must realize that the Eucharist is valid in the Novus Ordo Mass and running away to a distant chapel Ipso Facto implies a borderline denial of the real prersence. Secondly, the laity is free to rise up and request their local bishop to facilitate the Latin Mass in their area. Did not the Pope say that if there was sufficient people requesting it the Bishop must comply? If that’s the case, maybe you are being called to be the catalyst for bringing back the Sacred Liturgy into your local area, instead of supporting SSPX, which despite the lifting of the Excommunication which was done to facilitate dialogue, still remains at odds with the Holy See.

SSPX should have taken heed of Ecclesia Dei and spearheaded a movement inside the Church to bring back the Sacredness to the Liturgy. This is exactly what the Society of St. John Cantius did in Chicago and their parish is thriving. Since Vatican II, the liberal mentality has infiltrated the Clergy, Religious and Laity and caused chaos in our Churches; but SSPX has caused division, and both sides have been disobedient to the Pope. What the Holy Father is calling for is an authentic interpretation of the Council; not a false interpretation—nor a repudiation of it. Let us be clear: The hallmarks of demonic deception is chaos, division, and disobedience to legitimate authority.

One must never, ever forget to realize that the gates of hell are furiously slamming against the Church, and every aspect of society and culture is turning from God and rotting away. And lamentably, such forces have been working inside of the Church spreading the seeds of chaos, division and disobedience. Hell’s demonic hatred for God preys upon the ruination of souls. Thus the battle continues, and the Church Militant must rise up with courage and conviction. Members of the Clergy, Religious and Laity must not run AWOL in the midst of battle.

I hope and pray that SSPX leaders come to their senses and accept the Second Vatican Council’s documents, and focus their energies on licitly making the Sacraments available to the flock under the authority of the Magisterium.

If you live in an area that does not offer the Latin Mass, please start a petition and organize like minded Catholics to make the formal request to your local bishop.

Here’s a link to a short audio talk by Archbishop Fulton J Sheen, who clearly speaks about what the Laity should be doing with their lives and warns church-goers about living in an Igloo: CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

 

[Lujack]

If the SSPX wants to be fully accepted back into the Church, there are several positions they will have to back down on.

The first, and biggest one, is their position that every Novus Ordo Mass is of doubtful validity, and that only under serious circumstances does it fulfill the Sunday obligation of an SSPX chapel-goer. That’s a ridiculous position to take; the validity argument is a bizarre one (because it is immediately apparent if a Mass is invalid or not; in twenty years and six parishes, I’ve never been to an invalid Mass, unless it happened when I was like three and couldn’t remember). The further position that Novus Ordo weddings and funerals should only be attended, not participated in, is silly. There is no reason not to receive.

They’ll also have to accept the 1983 Code of Canon Law, parts of which they don’t accept. Lobbying for it to be changed is one thing, but selectively choosing which parts to follow and which parts not to follow is not submitting to the authority of the Church.

Most importantly, though, they’ll have to act like part of the Church again, which means their position on FSSP Masses and Tridentine Masses offered by regular members of the Church will have to change; currently, the SSPX position is that it is only SSPX Masses that should be attended. They acknowledge the validity of the Ordinary Form and Latin Masses offered by regularized priests, but they hold them all to be significantly inferior to an SSPX Mass. That is the major obstacle that will have to change.

 

[maurin]

Thank you for your post and congratulations on your apparent appointment as spokesman for His Holiness on these matters.

 

[Lujack]

Thank you for your post and congratulations on your apparent appointment as spokesman for His Holiness on these matters.

Its simple logic, for Heaven’s sake. The SSPX is saying that the Masses are so bad that they shouldn’t even be attended, whether they are Tridentine or not. The SSPX is effectively saying that attending a Novus Ordo Papal Mass would not fulfill the Sunday obligation for one of their lay members.

I’ll also note that you have no problem adding your own interpretation to certain things, including the Novus Ordo Mass. But does it make any sense that one order in good standing can blast another order in good standing as not even being Catholic? No. The feuding has to stop before the SSPX can be fully regularized.

 

[Yours_Truly]

If the SSPX wants to be fully accepted back into the Church, there are several positions they will have to back down on.

The first, and biggest one, is their position that every Novus Ordo Mass is of doubtful validity…

The SSPX does not doubt the validity of the Novus Ordo when the proper FORM, MATTER, and INTENT are present.

But the propery FORM and MATTER are not always present. I’ll use just one of many examples…

I was listening to Fr. Corapi a few months ago on the radio. He told of a diocese in the northeastern part of the U.S. in which invalid MATTER was being used. I guess there were some chuckles in the audeince, which resulted him him saying: “This is not a joke. Because of this, every “mass” in the diocese in invalid”. He went on to say, “and don’t give me ‘ecclesia supplet’” (the Church supplies). He said "when invalid MATTER is used the mass is not valid.

I have other examples as well, but won’t give them.

and that only under serious circumstances does it fulfill the Sunday obligation of an SSPX chapel-goer.

Not true. A valid Mass will satisfy the Sunday obligation. The reason they say to avoid it (aside from the FACT that some are invalid since the church is not following the proper guidelines), is because of the Protestantised lex orandi, which can only be denied through ignorance, since the Novus Ordo Mass now has ALL of the external changes that the heretics of the 16th century employed for the express intent of causing their followers to loose the true understanding of the Mass and Eucharist - since the reformers themselves had lost the faith.

That’s a ridiculous position to take; the validity argument is a bizarre one (because it is immediately apparent if a Mass is invalid or not; in twenty years and six parishes, I’ve never been to an invalid Mass…

How do you know? Do you live in the northeast - the Diocese Fr. Corapi was referring to? Do you live in the diocese of Cincinatti which used invalid MATTER for those 10 years? Does your diocese use invalid MATTER? If your answer is no, I would ask how you can be so sure? I bet those who lived in the diocese of Cincinatti for those 10 years thought their masses were valid too; as did those who live in the Diocese that Fr. Corapir was referring to. Yes their “mass” was not mass at all; and their communion was only bread, and nothing more.

 

[Lujack]

The SSPX does not doubt the validity of the Novus Ordo when the proper FORM, MATTER, and INTENT are present.

But the propery FORM and MATTER are not always present. I’ll use just one of many examples…

I was listening to Fr. Corapi a few months ago on the radio. He told of a diocese in the northeastern part of the U.S. in which invalid MATTER was being used. I guess there were some chuckles in the audeince, which resulted him him saying: “This is not a joke. Because of this, every “mass” in the diocese in invalid”. He went on to say, “and don’t give me ‘ecclesia supplet’” (the Church supplies). He said "when invalid MATTER is used the mass is not valid.

That could happen in a Tridentine Mass as well. The SSPX FAQ that I was citing didn’t even discuss matter, it actually used intent to claim that there was a good possibility that any given Novus Ordo Mass is invalid.

It also still doesn’t address the fact that the SSPX obliquely states that one should not receive at a funeral or wedding not put on by the SSPX.

Not true. A valid Mass will satisfy the Sunday obligation. The reason they say to avoid it (aside from the FACT that some are invalid since the church is not following the proper guidelines), is because of the Protestantised lex orandi, which can only be denied through ignorance, since the Novus Ordo Mass now has ALL of the external changes that the heretics of the 16th century employed for the express intent of causing their followers to loose the true understanding of the Mass and Eucharist - since the reformers themselves had lost the faith.

I’m just giving you what the SSPX FAQ says. I know its not true and so do you.

How do you know? Do you live in the northeast - the Diocese Fr. Corapi was referring to? Do you live in the diocese of Cincinatti which used invalid MATTER for those 10 years? Does your diocese use invalid MATTER? If your answer is no, I would ask how you can be so sure? I bet those who lived in the diocese of Cincinatti for those 10 years thought their masses were valid too; as did those who live in the Diocese that Fr. Corapir was referring to. Yes their “mass” was not mass at all; and their communion was only bread, and nothing more.

That’s a tangent anyway. I can’t be sure, and neither can you, unless you happen to be the supplier for the Dioceses of Trenton and Harrisburg. Even if it was a Tridentine Mass, though, I still couldn’t be any more sure than I am right now.

 

[maurin]

Its simple logic, for Heaven’s sake.

It’s simple alright, but logic? if you say so.

The SSPX is saying that the Masses are so bad that they shouldn’t even be attended, whether they are Tridentine or not. The SSPX is effectively saying that attending a Novus Ordo Papal Mass would not fulfill the Sunday obligation for one of their lay members.

nice spin. The SSPX says nothing of the sort in regards to the NO when celebrated properly according to the rubrics, with no improvisation: in other words, a valid Mass.

I’ll also note that you have no problem adding your own interpretation to certain things, including the Novus Ordo Mass.

do you mean in terms of the downplaying of the distinction between the Ministerial Priesthood and that of the people? The down playing of the propitiatory nature of the Mass as Sacrifice? The down playing of the Saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary by being excised from the ‘Eucharistic Prayers?’ That’s not an interpretation. It’s an observation. Pick up a Missal and compare the TLM to the NO. It’s there to be found.

But does it make any sense that one order in good standing can blast another order in good standing as not even being Catholic? No. The feuding has to stop before the SSPX can be fully regularized.

And yet you continue the feud. Congratulations again on your apparent appointment.

 

[Lujack]

It’s simple alright, but logic? if you say so. nice spin. The SSPX says nothing of the sort in regards to the NO when celebrated properly according to the rubrics, with no improvisation: in other words, a valid Mass.

Read the FAQ. In fact, I will quote from their FAQ, entitled: Should a Catholic Have Anything to Do With A Novus Ordo Missae?

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).

There. That indicates pretty clearly that the Society objects to every Mass celebrated in the OF, and goes so far as to say that it does not fulfill the Sunday obligation for “those aware of its harm” (presumably adherents of the Society). Furthermore, the last sentence indicates that they don’t even want adherents to receive when and if they do attend an OF Mass.

do you mean in terms of the downplaying of the distinction between the Ministerial Priesthood and that of the people? The down playing of the propitiatory nature of the Mass as Sacrifice? The down playing of the Saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary by being excised from the ‘Eucharistic Prayers?’ That’s not an interpretation. It’s an observation. Pick up a Missal and compare the TLM to the NO. It’s there to be found.
And yet you continue the feud. Congratulations again on your apparent appointment.

And yet I continue to feud? What, should I pretend that the SSPX is already regularized? They aren’t, and they won’t be if they maintain their current principles, which don’t even permit adherents to attend non-SSPX Latin Masses, even those said by the FSSP. Read their FAQs.

 

[Extempore]

And yet I continue to feud? What, should I pretend that the SSPX is already regularized? They aren’t, and they won’t be if they maintain their current principles, which don’t even permit adherents to attend non-SSPX Latin Masses, even those said by the FSSP. Read their FAQs.

In regards to the portion of your quote which I bolded, the SSPX is hardly a cult which forces its “adherents” to do one thing or another. The FAQ section is a set of guidelines for Catholics wishing to adhere faithfully to tradition, not the tyrannical manifesto that you seem to be proposing.

 

[Lujack]

In regards to the portion of your quote which I bolded, the SSPX is hardly a cult which forces its “adherents” to do one thing or another. The FAQ section is a set of guidelines for Catholics wishing to adhere faithfully to tradition, not the tyrannical manifesto that you seem to be proposing.

Now, I’m not trying to make the SSPX to sound like a cult, and I don’t mean to use the word adherents to imply that. I just wonder what word you’d like me to use. They aren’t priests, so they can’t be members. The status is not a regular one, they have to somehow be distinguished from laypeople. They aren’t schismatics, so I can’t call them that either.

What, then, shall I call them? People who adhere to the FAQ, hence, adherents. Presumably, the FAQ is what the SSPX wants the attendees of their chapels to do, and they say that they shouldn’t go to non-SSPX Masses.