Question for the members of the group Society of St. Pius X:

[wisdomseeker]

I’m not SSPX. Never been to one of their Masses, though I have been invited to do so. I know a fair number of them and have talked to them at length.

It’s hard to understand SSPX if one wasn’t aware of some of the dislocations of the post-VII era. One day the Church was one way, then all of a sudden it was another way, in many respects. Abuses abounded, and it was hard for a lot of people to trust some priests, nuns, bishops even. Some segments of the Church became essentially political.
I was young then, and perhaps more flexible. My father, though, was older, and the Church to which he had been devoted for so long suddenly became almost bizarre at times. Dissidents were everywhere, preaching dissent as if it was Catholicism. Sometimes one really had to wonder whether some of the stranger masses were even valid, they were so idiosyncratic.

You almost had to be there. My father never did join the SSPX. But he was mortified to see orders of sisters “go secular” and decline. He was upset to see openly heretical “theologians” treated as if they somehow were the Church of the future. He had worked awfully hard to get Jesuit educations for his children, only to see the Jesuits leave in droves and become apologists for the likes of Teddy Kennedy when Kennedy supported abortion. He saw Catholic education decline so much that he and my mother felt it absolutely necessary to teach us the Catechism at home because it was certainly not taught in the local Catholic school. It was hard for him and people like him.

Well, some people, mostly older, were drawn to the SSPX because it was what they were used to. SSPX never did condemn the Pope. Their priests had apostolic succession and everybody knew that. Their sacraments were valid. It wasn’t as if they weren’t. The SSPX, in my opinion, was almost an expression of a failure on their part to realize that the Church, as represented by dissidents and experimenters, would not stay that way forever. The abuses would die down and the abusers would eventually just leave, which a lot of them did. But SSPX people couldn’t bring themselves to think so.

So, now the SSPX people have raised two entire generations, and taught them what they, themselves were taught, not by some crazy dissident, but by the Church itself. They’re not heretics. They do accept the Pope. They teach straight from the Catechism. But they are, perhaps understandably, reluctant to place themselves under the authority of bishops who might split them up, forbid them to say the Tridentine Mass or even force them to say “rainbow masses”.

You just have to say they’re Catholics…real ones. They just got themselves out on a limb a long time ago and are still leery of what would happen to them if they agreed to come under the authority of some bishop who might not be all that orthodox. After all, how would it have been to be under Weakland? Under Mahoney?

In speaking to SSPXers, I find a lot of respect for, and hope in, Pope Benedict. And rightly so. He has taken a lot of steps to reform liturgical practice, to reform seminaries, to select truly orthodox and faithful bishops. You can’t understand the SSPX, early on or now, without understanding the history.

One day, they will be fully within the bosom of the Church. Of that, I am convinced.

Amen, Amen. Finally someone who understand. You are in a much higher level of Spirituality. I enjoyed reading your post.

 

[freshwind]

Amen, Amen. Finally someone who understand. You are in a much higher level of Spirituality. I enjoyed reading your post.

I enjoyed that as well…I posted the following in another thread, as I have learned a great deal from all this discussion in numerous threads. The background was that my wife and I were going to be travelling, and there was an SSPX chapel nearby and I asked whether it was okay to attend…after being told it was, we did…these were my comments with a query or 2 - I have much to learn>>>>>>

as I had said awhile ago, my wife and I would be travelling, I remembered the Latin Mass from my days as an altar boy but my wife is a convert and it is all new to her.

We attended an SSPX chapel this morning and while I was able to follow, my wife truly struggled.
They called it a silent Mass, no responses from the faithful, or at least very minimally and most of the dialogue from the Priest was inaudible.

The Priest was Australian and even when he read the Gospel and his homily in english we struggled to follow.

It was a small, very old chapel, seating maybe only 175-200 max. It was filled right up and the people are impressive in their piety,

He did in a roundabout way talk about the discussions with Rome in pleading with the faithful to pray many rosaries, at least 1 a day to bring the prayers to God for the good of the Church…and especially for our wonderful Holy Father who is steering the ark through tumultous times, and that may our prayers and the Holy Ghost support him.

I found nothing wrong whatsoever in the entire morning, and he preached prayer for the guidance of the Church and the Holy Father … invoked Mary’s protection and asked her to bring the prayers of her children to her son, our Saviour.

Sadly, it was a pleasure to listen to a priest talk about prayer, our fallen nature, the need for supporting the Holy Father in a world that seems upside down…the need and history of the rosary…far different than the pop psychology we get from many of the priests in the churches we regularly attend.

I rather enjoyed hearing quotes from historic Popes rather than Mahatma Ghandi, which has left me feeling rather upset after a Mass before.

We are now planning a trip to a FSSP chapel and hour away from home, sadly it is the closest we have.

Possibly it is my age, but I must admit I find it sad that this morning I really felt Catholic again, and not the melancholy feeling I at times have.
Having said that, it is not the Mass that does this, it is the weak preaching…if our Priests would follow the GIRM and preach solid Catholic teaching, it may help this whole dialogue.

Personally, unless the Holy Father says it is wrong, I will have absolutely no problems personally attending an SSPX chapel again, and if nothing else, I think this morning will help me to improve my prayer life as I want these brothers and sisters fully 100% home so we can build our Church together, a house divided cannot stand.

 

[TrueLight]

One day, they will be fully within the bosom of the Church. Of that, I am convinced.

I found nothing wrong whatsoever in the entire morning, and he preached prayer for the guidance of the Church and the Holy Father … invoked Mary’s protection and asked her to bring the prayers of her children to her son, our Saviour.

Both of you almost brought tears to my eyes. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Let’s continue to pray for the SSPX.

 

[Zacdecat]

I enjoyed that as well…I posted the following in another thread, as I have learned a great deal from all this discussion in numerous threads. The background was that my wife and I were going to be travelling, and there was an SSPX chapel nearby and I asked whether it was okay to attend…after being told it was, we did…these were my comments with a query or 2 - I have much to learn>>>>>>

as I had said awhile ago, my wife and I would be travelling, I remembered the Latin Mass from my days as an altar boy but my wife is a convert and it is all new to her.

We attended an SSPX chapel this morning and while I was able to follow, my wife truly struggled.
They called it a silent Mass, no responses from the faithful, or at least very minimally and most of the dialogue from the Priest was inaudible.

The Priest was Australian and even when he read the Gospel and his homily in english we struggled to follow.
It was a small, very old chapel, seating maybe only 175-200 max. It was filled right up and the people are impressive in their piety,

He did in a roundabout way talk about the discussions with Rome in pleading with the faithful to pray many rosaries, at least 1 a day to bring the prayers to God for the good of the Church…and especially for our wonderful Holy Father who is steering the ark through tumultous times, and that may our prayers and the Holy Ghost support him.

I found nothing wrong whatsoever in the entire morning, and he preached prayer for the guidance of the Church and the Holy Father … invoked Mary’s protection and asked her to bring the prayers of her children to her son, our Saviour.

Sadly, it was a pleasure to listen to a priest talk about prayer, our fallen nature, the need for supporting the Holy Father in a world that seems upside down…the need and history of the rosary…far different than the pop psychology we get from many of the priests in the churches we regularly attend.

I rather enjoyed hearing quotes from historic Popes rather than Mahatma Ghandi, which has left me feeling rather upset after a Mass before.

We are now planning a trip to a FSSP chapel and hour away from home, sadly it is the closest we have.

Possibly it is my age, but I must admit I find it sad that this morning I really felt Catholic again, and not the melancholy feeling I at times have.
Having said that, it is not the Mass that does this, it is the weak preaching…if our Priests would follow the GIRM and preach solid Catholic teaching, it may help this whole dialogue.

Personally, unless the Holy Father says it is wrong, I will have absolutely no problems personally attending an SSPX chapel again, and if nothing else, I think this morning will help me to improve my prayer life as I want these brothers and sisters fully 100% home so we can build our Church together, a house divided cannot stand.

So what language do you speak…how will you cope in heaven because every one knows God has an Aussie twang.

At Mass this morning the altar server did not appear, so the congregation did the responses until someone had sorted out his family responsibilities, and was able to to take up the baton so to speak. It was very enlightening to me as I do not recall seeing this before.

 

[ProVobis]

So what language do you speak…how will you cope in heaven because every one knows God has an Aussie twang.

At Mass this morning the altar server did not appear, so the congregation did the responses until someone had sorted out his family responsibilities, and was able to to take up the baton so to speak. It was very enlightening to me as I do not recall seeing this before.

It was pretty common before Vatican II in convents (so I heard) that the nuns would not only respond but also ring the bells during the Mass.

And there was nothing in the GIRM which told them they couldn’t.

 

[At_Trent]

I’m not SSPX. Never been to one of their Masses, though I have been invited to do so. I know a fair number of them and have talked to them at length.

It’s hard to understand SSPX if one wasn’t aware of some of the dislocations of the post-VII era. One day the Church was one way, then all of a sudden it was another way, in many respects. Abuses abounded, and it was hard for a lot of people to trust some priests, nuns, bishops even. Some segments of the Church became essentially political.
I was young then, and perhaps more flexible. My father, though, was older, and the Church to which he had been devoted for so long suddenly became almost bizarre at times. Dissidents were everywhere, preaching dissent as if it was Catholicism. Sometimes one really had to wonder whether some of the stranger masses were even valid, they were so idiosyncratic.

You almost had to be there. My father never did join the SSPX. But he was mortified to see orders of sisters “go secular” and decline. He was upset to see openly heretical “theologians” treated as if they somehow were the Church of the future. He had worked awfully hard to get Jesuit educations for his children, only to see the Jesuits leave in droves and become apologists for the likes of Teddy Kennedy when Kennedy supported abortion. He saw Catholic education decline so much that he and my mother felt it absolutely necessary to teach us the Catechism at home because it was certainly not taught in the local Catholic school. It was hard for him and people like him.

Well, some people, mostly older, were drawn to the SSPX because it was what they were used to. SSPX never did condemn the Pope. Their priests had apostolic succession and everybody knew that. Their sacraments were valid. It wasn’t as if they weren’t. The SSPX, in my opinion, was almost an expression of a failure on their part to realize that the Church, as represented by dissidents and experimenters, would not stay that way forever. The abuses would die down and the abusers would eventually just leave, which a lot of them did. But SSPX people couldn’t bring themselves to think so.

So, now the SSPX people have raised two entire generations, and taught them what they, themselves were taught, not by some crazy dissident, but by the Church itself. They’re not heretics. They do accept the Pope. They teach straight from the Catechism. But they are, perhaps understandably, reluctant to place themselves under the authority of bishops who might split them up, forbid them to say the Tridentine Mass or even force them to say “rainbow masses”.

You just have to say they’re Catholics…real ones. They just got themselves out on a limb a long time ago and are still leery of what would happen to them if they agreed to come under the authority of some bishop who might not be all that orthodox. After all, how would it have been to be under Weakland? Under Mahoney?

In speaking to SSPXers, I find a lot of respect for, and hope in, Pope Benedict. And rightly so. He has taken a lot of steps to reform liturgical practice, to reform seminaries, to select truly orthodox and faithful bishops. You can’t understand the SSPX, early on or now, without understanding the history.

One day, they will be fully within the bosom of the Church. Of that, I am convinced.

Spot on

:clapping:

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Yes, actually. Isn’t “I know better than the Church” how Luther got started?

That is true. And Luther never intended to separate himself from the Church, but wanted to “correct” its faults. As a result Luther was excommunicated as were the leaders of SSPX; however, unlike with Luther, the excommunication was lifted from the SSPX leaders.

 

[Zacdecat]

**It was pretty common before Vatican II in convents (so I heard) that the nuns would not only respond but also ring the bells during the Mass.**And there was nothing in the GIRM which told them they couldn’t.

That in fact happened to me attending Mass yesterday. The altar server did not appear, so the priest started Mass, and the congregation responded audibly, where it is usual for the altar server to do so. This went on for about 5-10 minutes when a very mature altar server took up the gauntlet so to speak. I found this all very moving as I had not witnessed such an occurence before.

 

[kestrel4Christ]

If they were/are so obedient to the Pope then:

This situation is hardly ideal. I want them to come back into the Church, and I pray for a resolution. But to say they’re obedient to the Pope is a bit of a stretch.

SSPX have ALWAYS been in the Catholic Church. They never left it. That is what most Catholics do not understand about SSPX. How can anybody be outside of the Church if they adhere to the Deposit of Faith (UNCHANGED) handed down the past 2000 years? They were NEVER outside of the Church, regardless of any “excommunication,” which was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI anyway…
The Church is NOT a location NOR is it a building NOR is it a status. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ - the faithful, whom in their hearts, minds, bodies and souls, adhere to the Deposit of Faith and Christ’s teachings handed down to us by the early Church fathers, all while receiving the Sacraments and attending Holy Mass.

 

[kestrel4Christ]

Both of you almost brought tears to my eyes. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Let’s continue to pray for the SSPX.

Don’t forget to pray for the Vatican, too.

While SSPX greatly appreciates and asks for prayers, it is a little condescending, although I’m sure it is unintentional, to keep hearing “SSPX needs prayers” and similar statements, while exonerating everyone else. This implies SSPX is intrinsically wrong, when in fact, they have done NOTHING outside of staying true to the Catholic faith AND they’ve taken critical steps to preserve the orthodoxy of Catholicism. There is no error in preserving the Catholic faith.

I was raised in the conciliar Church and went to a Novus Ordo Mass all my life. I attended my first Tridentine Latin Mass about 3 months ago at a SSPX chapel and I’ve stayed with the TLM since first experiencing it. I can really feel the presence of the Holy Ghost there, while the Sacrifice on Calvary (as it transcends time and space) becomes much more clear to me, too. I appreciate the high reverence at the TLM.

The most beautiful Mass (TLM) I ever had the grace to experience was the celebration of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the SSPX chapel back in August. A Marian procession followed through the streets. What a blessing!

 

[Melchior_1]

SSPX have ALWAYS been in the Catholic Church. They never left it. That is what most Catholics do not understand about SSPX. How can anybody be outside of the Church if they adhere to the Deposit of Faith (UNCHANGED) handed down the past 2000 years? They were NEVER outside of the Church, regardless of any “excommunication,” which was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI anyway…
The Church is NOT a location NOR is it a building NOR is it a status. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ - the faithful, whom in their hearts, minds, bodies and souls, adhere to the Deposit of Faith and Christ’s teachings handed down to us by the early Church fathers, all while receiving the Sacraments and attending Holy Mass.

Why the quotation marks around excommunication? It’s almost as if you’re implying that the excommunications didn’t happen or they weren’t valid. They were excommunicated, and the excommunications were valid. His Grace died very well likely still being excommunicated from the valid excommunication. If you don’t think that they were valid, then you’re having the same problem they did, which is trouble being obedient to the Holy See.

I’ve seen a few people on here claim the excommunications weren’t valid. Here’s the deal; if the excommunications weren’t valid, then Benedict XVI would have no reason to lift them. There wouldn’t be anything to lift, because they weren’t valid. But he did make a decree and lifted them, it’s in official legal documents and everything. The implication, and reality, is that the excommunications were very real, and very valid.

They have no faculties or valid ministry in the Church yet. This needs to be corrected some how. The attitude that caused them to lose the faculties needs to be corrected. The attitude that causes people to have second thoughts (like questioning the canonization of Blessed JP2) needs to be corrected.

Like I said, I’d like them to come back, if those things get corrected. If they don’t correct them and continue the current course, then there’s going to be some more trouble.

 

[TrueLight]

Don’t forget to pray for the Vatican, too.

While SSPX greatly appreciates and asks for prayers, it is a little condescending, although I’m sure it is unintentional, to keep hearing “SSPX needs prayers” and similar statements, while exonerating everyone else.

No, it isn’t condescending. Obviously, I’m praying for everyone involved. But I know why I’m saying they need prayers and I don’t need to go into it here. If you want to know, PM me.

 

[severus68]

QUOTE=kestrel4Christ;8457173]Don’t forget to pray for the Vatican, too.

While SSPX greatly appreciates and asks for prayers, it is a little condescending, although I’m sure it is unintentional, to keep hearing “SSPX needs prayers” and similar statements, while exonerating everyone else. This implies SSPX is intrinsically wrong, when in fact, they have done NOTHING outside of staying true to the Catholic faith AND they’ve taken critical steps to preserve the orthodoxy of Catholicism. There is no error in preserving the Catholic faith.

You appear to be implying that others other than the SSPX need to be exonerated. The SSPX is not in full communion with Rome hence all the efforts at reconciliation and bringing them back into the fold.

 

[severus68]

Why the quotation marks around excommunication? It’s almost as if you’re implying that the excommunications didn’t happen or they weren’t valid. They were excommunicated, and the excommunications were valid. His Grace died very well likely still being excommunicated from the valid excommunication. If you don’t think that they were valid, then you’re having the same problem they did, which is trouble being obedient to the Holy See.

I’ve seen a few people on here claim the excommunications weren’t valid. Here’s the deal; if the excommunications weren’t valid, then Benedict XVI would have no reason to lift them. There wouldn’t be anything to lift, because they weren’t valid. But he did make a decree and lifted them, it’s in official legal documents and everything. The implication, and reality, is that the excommunications were very real, and very valid.

They have no faculties or valid ministry in the Church yet. This needs to be corrected some how. The attitude that caused them to lose the faculties needs to be corrected. The attitude that causes people to have second thoughts (like questioning the canonization of Blessed JP2) needs to be corrected.

Like I said, I’d like them to come back, if those things get corrected. If they don’t correct them and continue the current course, then there’s going to be some more trouble.

Agreed.

 

[kestrel4Christ]

. The SSPX is not in full communion with Rome hence all the efforts at reconciliation and bringing them back into the fold.

I am speaking for myself, not the SSPX, in this response. There is a difference between being in “communion with Rome” and being in communion with the Deposit of Faith handed down to us by the early Church fathers for the past 2000 years. The SSPX’s main concern is to preserve the Catholic faith, NOT to be in “communion with Rome.” The true Rome is the Catholic faith - the Church, and the SSPX has always been faithful and loyal to it. This is what many Catholics do not understand. Maybe people need to consider that the Vatican must recognize the errors of Vatican II.

The SSPX and other Catholics will not concede to the Vatican II spirit, nor should they.

Also, I invite everyone to learn Our Lady of La Salette’s message.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

I am speaking for myself, not the SSPX, in this response. There is a difference between being in “communion with Rome” and being in communion with the Deposit of Faith handed down to us by the early Church fathers for the past 2000 years. The SSPX’s main concern is to preserve the Catholic faith, NOT to be in “communion with Rome.” The true Rome is the Catholic faith - the Church, and the SSPX has always been faithful and loyal to it. This is what many Catholics do not understand. Maybe people need to consider that the Vatican must recognize the errors of Vatican II and be reconciled with the true Catholic faith.

The SSPX and other Catholics will not concede to the Vatican II spirit, nor should they.

I am surprised how much your reasoning sounds like the reasoning of the Orthodox Churches for the schism and for remaining in schism today.

It was pre-Vatican II that the Dogma of Papal Infallibility in the matters of Faith and morals was clearly defined and no one should willingly separate themselves from the person of the Pope and the Faith he proposes for our belief, which is in communion with Rome the authentic Catholic Faith.

 

[Denise1957]

I am speaking for myself, not the SSPX, in this response. There is a difference between being in “communion with Rome” and being in communion with the Deposit of Faith handed down to us by the early Church fathers for the past 2000 years. The SSPX’s main concern is to preserve the Catholic faith, NOT to be in “communion with Rome.” The true Rome is the Catholic faith - the Church, and the SSPX has always been faithful and loyal to it. This is what many Catholics do not understand. Maybe people need to consider that the Vatican must recognize the errors of Vatican II.

The SSPX and other Catholics will not concede to the Vatican II spirit, nor should they.

Also, I invite everyone to learn Our Lady of La Salette’s message.

quote:

“The true Rome is the Catholic faith - the Church, and the SSPX has always been faithful and loyal to it.”

kestrel, it sounds as if you are separating the visible magisterium, which is what is meant by “Rome,” with the Catholic faith. My understanding is that the magisterium cannot be somehow separated from “The Church,” and the Catholic faith. One cannot have allegiance to the Catholic faith without allegiance to Rome - the visible magisterium. But perhaps you meant something else, and I’m not understanding what you meant.

Regarding the message of La Sallete, my recollection (which may be a bit fuzzy) is that the most controversial part of the message has not been approved and has actually been put on the “forbidden” list.

 

[kestrel4Christ]

Here’s the deal; if the excommunications weren’t valid, then Benedict XVI would have no reason to lift them. There wouldn’t be anything to lift, because they weren’t valid. But he did make a decree and lifted them, it’s in official legal documents and everything. The implication, and reality, is that the excommunications were very real, and very valid.

They have no faculties or valid ministry in the Church yet. This needs to be corrected some how. The attitude that caused them to lose the faculties needs to be corrected. The attitude that causes people to have second thoughts (like questioning the canonization of Blessed JP2) needs to be corrected.

Like I said, I’d like them to come back, if those things get corrected. If they don’t correct them and continue the current course, then there’s going to be some more trouble.

No… here’s the deal. If a person serving time in prison is found to be wrongly convicted of a crime, it does not end there just because his innocence is proven, rather steps are taken to free the person and give restitution. Benedict XVI knew the excommunication had no merit and was unjust, that is why he lifted the “excommunication”. If he felt SSPX was deserving of it, then he never would have lifted it.

It is no coincidence that JPII immediately founded the FSSP after he “excommunicates” Archbishop Lefebvre and SSPX. He finally realized there were a significant amount of Catholics still wanting to keep the Tridentine Latin Mass and orthodoxy in Catholicism. That is all that Archbishop Lefebvre wanted to ensure by consecrating the 4 Bishops. So, in an attempt to diffuse any possible backlash from Catholics, JPII sets up FSSP as a diversion right after he “excommunicates” Lefebvre/SSPX, when all he had to do was give Lefebvre permission to consecrate the Bishops. For quite awhile it was obvious JPII was NOT concerned with preserving the Tridentine Latin Mass and orthodoxy in Catholicism. This was of grave concern to many Catholics and Archbishop Lefevbre, fortunately, Lefebvre had the grace to move forward to preserve the Catholic faith.

 

[roadsend]

I’m not SSPX. Never been to one of their Masses, though I have been invited to do so. I know a fair number of them and have talked to them at length.

It’s hard to understand SSPX if one wasn’t aware of some of the dislocations of the post-VII era. One day the Church was one way, then all of a sudden it was another way, in many respects. Abuses abounded, and it was hard for a lot of people to trust some priests, nuns, bishops even. Some segments of the Church became essentially political.
I was young then, and perhaps more flexible. My father, though, was older, and the Church to which he had been devoted for so long suddenly became almost bizarre at times. Dissidents were everywhere, preaching dissent as if it was Catholicism. Sometimes one really had to wonder whether some of the stranger masses were even valid, they were so idiosyncratic.

You almost had to be there. My father never did join the SSPX. But he was mortified to see orders of sisters “go secular” and decline. He was upset to see openly heretical “theologians” treated as if they somehow were the Church of the future. He had worked awfully hard to get Jesuit educations for his children, only to see the Jesuits leave in droves and become apologists for the likes of Teddy Kennedy when Kennedy supported abortion. He saw Catholic education decline so much that he and my mother felt it absolutely necessary to teach us the Catechism at home because it was certainly not taught in the local Catholic school. It was hard for him and people like him.

Well, some people, mostly older, were drawn to the SSPX because it was what they were used to. SSPX never did condemn the Pope. Their priests had apostolic succession and everybody knew that. Their sacraments were valid. It wasn’t as if they weren’t. The SSPX, in my opinion, was almost an expression of a failure on their part to realize that the Church, as represented by dissidents and experimenters, would not stay that way forever. The abuses would die down and the abusers would eventually just leave, which a lot of them did. But SSPX people couldn’t bring themselves to think so.

So, now the SSPX people have raised two entire generations, and taught them what they, themselves were taught, not by some crazy dissident, but by the Church itself. They’re not heretics. They do accept the Pope. They teach straight from the Catechism. But they are, perhaps understandably, reluctant to place themselves under the authority of bishops who might split them up, forbid them to say the Tridentine Mass or even force them to say “rainbow masses”.

You just have to say they’re Catholics…real ones. They just got themselves out on a limb a long time ago and are still leery of what would happen to them if they agreed to come under the authority of some bishop who might not be all that orthodox. After all, how would it have been to be under Weakland? Under Mahoney?

In speaking to SSPXers, I find a lot of respect for, and hope in, Pope Benedict. And rightly so. He has taken a lot of steps to reform liturgical practice, to reform seminaries, to select truly orthodox and faithful bishops. You can’t understand the SSPX, early on or now, without understanding the history.

One day, they will be fully within the bosom of the Church. Of that, I am convinced.

Having reached adulthood well before Vat II, I am fully aware of what you speak and I fully concur with your assessment.
I have seen far more disobedience to the Holy Father and church teaching among clergy who are “in Communion with Rome” than I ever thought possible in my younger days.
The Jesuits of my youth were spiritual and intellectual giants, unstoppable defenders of the Faith and the Holy Father.
Where have they gone?

 

[kestrel4Christ]

I am surprised how much your reasoning sounds like the reasoning of the Orthodox Churches for the schism and for remaining in schism today.

It was pre-Vatican II that the Dogma of Papal Infallibility in the matters of Faith and morals was clearly defined and no one should willingly separate themselves from the person of the Pope and the Faith he proposes for our belief, which is in communion with Rome the authentic Catholic Faith.

Again, I speak for myself here and not the SSPX. The Orthodox Church (both Eastern and Oriental) and Armenian Apostolic Church is much MORE Catholic than Vatican II and the conciliar Church. That is what most Catholics do not realize and it is sad. Vatican II “protestantized” the Catholic Church.

You need to study pre-Vatican II more, and more importantly, you should pray about it. Pre-Vatican II also states NO person can willingly go against the Deposit of Faith, for if he does, he is ipso facto excommunicated. The Seat of Peter and Magisterium only rests on the Deposit of Faith handed down by the early Church fathers and Christ’s teachings, therefore, it has infallibility granted by Christ. Anything outside of the DOF has no infallibility. Read the Pre-V II papal bulls, councils, encyclicals, etc etc and see how much V II contradicts it!

As I said before, the Church is NOT a location, NOR is it a building, NOR is it a status… and I’ll add > NOR is it a title!