Questions from someone who grew up in the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Matone

Guest
Hello to everyone here. I am writing with some questions that I have. First I would like to give a little background on who I am. I was raised in a family that attended the SSPX churches my entire life. As a child and young adult growing up the Catholic faith appealed to me and made a lot of sense. I went to SSPX school also. After completing college, and still attending SSPX churches I started to educate myself more about Catholicism in general and also the split between the SSPX and the Catholic Church. Recently I have had many questions and no one to ask them to I have a last of questions that I hope to investigate and I was wondering if people in this community could either help answer them, or direct me to someone good sources where I might find more answers.
  1. my first question is about the mass, I was brought up being told that the ordinary form, or as I was taught new mass, was irreverent and disrespectful. I have not attended many of these masses in my life, however from the albeit small sample I have seen, many of the criticisms seem valid in regard to the reverence. Again I have seen very few. Also I have read and heard of many abuses to the mass, and I think most people akcnowledge this is a problem. So my question is can anyone provide me with the case for the new mass, that addresses the SSPX criticisms.criticisms about the changes to the mass and the likeness to Protestant services. I would be very happy to speak with someone about this or to have someone provide a good source for me.
  2. my second question is about the safety of the church today. As a college student most of my contemporaries who were raised Catholic left the faith. However, most of my SSPX contemporaries are still practicing Catholics. It seems to me that the church today is losing members, and that is one reason I am apprehensive to leave the society. Why is it that so many young people do not practice their religion, and why is it that so many catholics, don’t uphold the churches teaching on topics such as divorce, homosexuality, and premarital sex. Is this because of errors in the church? My point here is that these errors are less prevalent in the SSPX, and I wonder if it would be wise to leave for that reason.
  3. is the SSPX in schism? I obviously don’t not think it is, or I would have left already. Does the church consider it to be? I cannot find much that is reliable on this topic.
Any help or direct on towards sources would be greatly appreciated. I ask all of these. In good faith and hope you will answer with the same.

In Christ
 
Last edited:
I’ll only address your first and third question.
  1. The Novus Ordo or Ordinary Form was promulgated by Blessed Paul VI on his Apostolic authority after an ECUMENICAL Council, exercising the Church’s supreme authority, COMMANDED that the Liturgy be reformed. It would border on heresy to suggest that a lawful rite of the Church is irreverent in and of itself. It has often been celebrated poorly, but I think there has been much improvement in recent years. Younger priests tend to be much more traditional in my experience.
    Have you ever watched a televised papal Mass? I’ve been to papal Masses in Rome during the reign of Benedict XVI: Latin, chant, incense…
    My own local cathedral celebrates only the Novus Ordo but for the principal Sunday morning Mass you’ll find Latin, incense, chant, polyphony, reception of communion at the altar rail…
  2. The SSPX is not in schism, but it’s clergy do not exercise lawful ministry. Pope Benedict declared that they excerise NO lawful ministry period. This is no longer completely the case. Up until very recently their absolutions were null and void… but Pope Francis has generously granted them faculties. In their arrogance they claimed the right to absolve sin before the Pope’s action… but they were wrong as the Church made clear. Likewise any marriages witnessed before an SSPX priest is null and void… no marriage can exist. Again, Pope Francis has very recently made it possible for an SSPX priest to witness marriages validly, but I believe it requires consent from the lawful local pastor / bishop.
    Of course, that being said, their Masses are valid and it isn’t necessarily wrong for Catholics to attend an SSPX Mass.
Have you looked into the FSSP at all?
 
The “new Mass” as you call it was authorized by the Pope. It does not require any more “justification” than that.

Furthermore, considering that a huge number of Catholics of all levels of catechization and interest attend the “new Mass” because it is the generally available Mass, it stands to reason that a percentage of people may act with less reverence or fall away. The small group that goes to the trouble of practicing SSPX or even FSSP are probably more interested in and involved with their faith in general and would work a lot harder at teaching their young ones, as opposed to the millions of Joe Average Catholics who attend the Mass that’s available, which is almost always the new one.
 
Last edited:
First of all, thanks for your answer, I appreciate it. To follow up on some of the points you made,
  1. I have been to a few masses while I visited Rome, and these were much different than the ones I had seen in the USA. However, my reservations about attending the Ordinary form of the mass, have to do more with the changes to the liturgy, than with how it appears. Many of these were brought up by Cardinal Ottaviani at the time.
I am not sure that I understand your point about it being almost heresy to criticize the form of the mass. I am pretty sure many saints have criticized the church in the past. In any case I am more interested in the SSPX’s criticisms about the mass. The main, criticism, and the one which holds the most water in my eyes, is that the Ordinary form of the mass, deemphasizes the sacrafice, which is what the mass is about. Other criticisms which are worrying to me, are that Protestant ministers had (name removed by moderator)ut on the formation of the mass.( I have seen this written in a few places, if it is wrong, please let me know. Also there seems to be markedly less emphasis on the real presence in the mass. Could you direct me to or give me yourself, some responses to these criticisms
 
There is a logical fallacy, “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”. For instance, the fact that secularism became much more rampant right after the Vatican Council, therefore the Council was to blame. Remember secularism also became very rampant outside the Catholic Church, among those who had nothing to do with Vatican II.

Further, those who manipulated the Council’s implementation in some places were themselves trained in the Church before Vatican II, and attended the old Mass exclusively for their entire lives prior to Vatican II. So, the old Mass was not as much a safeguard as might be thought.

I share your fears about many Catholic adults. But the SSPX, where I live, has nothing to do with the actual orthodox young adult programs that do exist. They also have nothing to do with the diocese or regional prolife and other ministries, most of which are orthodox. So it is hard to say young adults there are fully “practicing Catholics”. They isolate from the bad, and also from the good.

As far as I know, SSPX has not been declared to be in schism. I suggest reading what the popes have written about SSPX, and also read what St Pius X wrote about Catholic Action. This is relevant, if you keep in mind his view of how the parts coordinate toward common action. (All the parts are imperfect today, but they were also imperfect in his time). St. Pius X wrote this document with an imperfect Church in mind.

Look for Church approved TLM’s in your area.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, if my word choice offended you, as I stated above I was brought up in the SSPX and am unfamiliar with all things in the regular church, I did not mean to belittle anyone by using that term. I am honestly trying to be a good Catholic. I am not certain of the truth though. And I do not find convincing the thought that papal authorization is all that is needed for something to be absolutely true. I know that the Pope is only infallible in certain cases. The pope never spoke infallibly on the promulgation of the Ordinary form, as far as I know. Again, I might be wrong, I am searching for answers, so let me know please if you have information I do not.
 
Thank you. That is a good point about the fallacy. I had not thought of that. The two things might not at all be correlated. I do know of a few Church Approved Tlms in my area, and I am leaning in that direction.

I am still a little worried about the more serious accusations the SSPX brings against the Ordinary form of the mass. Some of them are highlighted in this link.http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/..._new_order_of_mass-ottaviani-intervention.pdf
I don’t know if anyone has time to address any or can help me find a source to answer them. I will certainly look at the papal writings on the matter.
 
Last edited:
I’m not offended, but really the SSPX is not in a position to be asking the mainstream Church to justify itself. I understand that’s what you were taught, but from my standpoint, it’s incorrect, plain and simple.
 
Well I guess they probably should defend themselves if they are being criticized. I have concerns, and I have not been able to find good answers for them, that is essentially why I am here. Do you know of any mainstream Catholic sources that answer any of the SSPX’s criticisms? I would be interested in reading these.
 
Matone said:
I am still a little worried about the more serious accusations the SSPX brings against the Ordinary form of the mass. Some of them are highlighted in this link.http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/..._new_order_of_mass-ottaviani-intervention.pdf

I don’t know if anyone has time to address any or can help me find a source to answer them. I will certainly look at the papal writings on the matter.
Click to expand...
I read the link you provided. I lack the theological expertise to adequately respond to it. Some thoughts:
The newer translation under Pope Benedict, at least in English, is much better than the former one.
I bet there were other churchmen around the time of Trent, on a level with the people who composed this link, who were also concerned about Trent.
I was exposed to what I later learned were liturgical abuses especially in the 1970s and 1980s. They have not totally disappeared, but nowadays in my are they are much less common.
It is always easy to criticize “the routine” Mass. As a child, I recall the Latin Mass - then “the routine” - with huge numbers of people half asleep during Mass. Some priests would whip through the Mass, especially if they had to clear the parking lot in time for the next Mass. (Routine TLM Masses in most parishes were 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.) I’m not saying it was all bad, but really very different from today’s TLM. Lots of people would rush into the TLM just for the Offertory, Consecration, Communion, to satisfy their obligation; when it was routine, not under today’s TLM.

Today’s TLM is a “special event”, whether it is SSPX or diocesan. You find a small congregation, highly motivated. Nobody is there to meet their “Sunday obligation”. No sullen teens forced by their parents to show up. Where I live the priests who take turns saying the TLM like to do this, most of their peers would not like it.

There is coffee and refreshments, people drive in for long distances. This is not “routine”. If they mandated ALL Catholic Masses must follow the TLM, that would not suddenly make all priests or laity reverent. The kinds of priests and people who like the TLM would also be reverent at any form of Mass. The kinds of people who don’t like TLM would not become more reverent if that were the only one.
 
Last edited:
H!

Here’s what I found on the issue of heresy:
MUST-SEE NEW VIDEO ON THE SSPX: The Truth About The SSPX, The SSPX-MC, And Similar Groups (and the explanation of the counter Catholic Teachings)
(http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/sspx-society-st-pius-x-lefebvre/)
Click to expand...
Any group has its pros and cons; Catholic Doctrine is not defined by the willingness of the Catholic Laity to follow or reject Church’s Teachings. Homosexuality, adultery, fornication, divorce and remarriage… all of these acts are wrong, sin, and the go against the Catholic Teachings, which are based on Jesus through the Apostolic Succession of the Faith.

Now, not knowing a thing about the SSPX (nor have I read through the cited material, above), my query is, how can a body that exists in heresy be the right place for Catholics?

You made mention of divorce, homosexuality and premarital sex, how is it different in the SSPX, is it because it is a movement (new, compared to the Church) or is it because they want to exceed outside of the Church as many ex-Catholics tend to do? Is that not part of the rebellion?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hi!

Here’s how problem arise, if you were Latino, as I am, your screen name seems very similar to the Spanish word: " matón;" it is Spanish for “murderer.”

So if I were to hold that against you, I would demand that you defend your choice of screen name as it is suggestive of a person who has the disposition to kill others.

So instead of demanding that the site’s watch dogs run you out of town I refuse to address you by the screen name…

This is a simple form of coexistence.

What you are asking is that the Catholic Church, which pre-existed your movement by around two thousand years, demonstrate that she is the one Church Founded by Christ.

Still, in an effort to help you find your place in the Body of Christ, I am willing to address your concerns point by point (I will not immerse myself in the group’s belief base); so I welcome you to post your concerns, one topic at a time, so that we can study them.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Last edited:
The source of your article, Most Holy Family Monastery, is a sedevacantist group and therefore rejects even the SSPX on those grounds alone. Though there are many intelligent people in that movement, I would take what they write with a grain of salt.
 
Wait, so that’s not a Catholic site?

On the heading they claim to be defending the Catholic Faith; how can they claim to represent Catholic Values (Faith) and not be Catholic?

I actually need to know, so please include as much info as possible.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Last edited:
I’m not a liturgical scholar. I won’t attempt to defend the texts of the Ordinary Form line by line. I’ll just share my experience as a Catholic convert (from evangelical Protestantism). There is nothing Protestant about a properly celebrated OF Mass. The OF Mass as celebrated in the typical North American suburban parish may superficially resemble a Lutheran or Anglican service in many ways, but only because those traditions have retained much of the Catholic liturgical tradition. As a former Evangelical, the most “contemporary” celebration of the OF struck me as incredibly ritualistic and reverent at first… there was no doubt that I was present at a sacrifice.
Is the sense of sacrifice diminished when the OF is celebrated in a certain way devoid of the traditional “trappings”? For sure… but that’s not a problem with the texts itself. Sacrificial imagery comes up again and again. It’s a simpler set of texts than the EF, this is true, but that doesn’t mean it’s devoid of sacrificial overtones.
It’s also important to note that some of the criticisms floating around pertain to the now defunct poor English translation we were stuck with for decades. The new English translation better reflects the richness of the Latin text. Cardinal Sarah has suggested that the offertory of the EF be made available for the OF… it is richer and I could go for that… but it’s simply not true that the OF offertory eliminates references to sacrifice. Just read through it.
I also wasn’t saying that it’s heretical to criticize the Church. I said it borders on heresy to suggest that a Rite lawfully promulgated by the Church could be, by its very nature, “irreverent”. Lacking on this or that point? Sure. But not inherently irreverent.

I would encourage you to investigate the FSSP. You’ll find a community very similar to that of the SSPX but fully recognized by the Holy See. We have an FSSP parish in my archdiocese and their schola is incredible.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
As a child, I recall the Latin Mass - then “the routine” - with huge numbers of people half asleep during Mass.
Click to expand...
I am too young to remember the pre-Vatican II TLM but my mother, who was raised with it, told stories. There were many jokes about people who didn’t understand the Latin and thus could not have truly understood what was going on at Mass. In those days women were supposed to cover their heads to go in the church and Mom said she would see women who didn’t have a hat or veil handy putting a paper napkin from the diner on top of their head to rush into Mass. It really did not sound like the current TLMs which as you said are special events, often held in lovely old churches or cathedrals that still have the necessary altar rails, etc and attended by people who are really “into” Mass attendance.
 
Matone said:
can anyone provide me with the case for the new mass, that addresses the SSPX criticisms.criticisms about the changes to the mass and the likeness to Protestant services. I would be very happy to speak with someone about this or to have someone provide a good source for me.
Click to expand...
You will find none better than the appeal of the late Msgr A.B. LeFebvre to the Pope when he returned to the Vatican from his Archdiocese in Africa and found the Church in the midst of disorder and disarray, willing to foresake the sacred tradition of 1000 years.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/index.htm

When I read the above paper to the faithful, I was completely neutral and simply let the wisdom and reasoning, cross verified with the teachings of the Church of that time, to weigh it’s value. I found it absolute perfection and completely in line with the teaching of Catholic schools of that time. I thought “Oh, if I could only attain the Catholocity and Faith of this man”.

2 other good reads:

http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/catholic-tradition.htm

onepeterfive.com

Bishop Schneider to Traditionalists: “You are the Real Ecclesiastical Periphery, Which With God’s Power Renews the Church.”

The Spanish-Language website, Adelante La Fe (Advance the Faith) obtained an exclusive interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, our favorite Catholic prelate in the world today, and a once (and…
onepeterfive.com onepeterfive.com

A interview with Bishop Lefebvre where he explains the dangers of the new V2.(good review of doctrine as well.)

debeausoleil.com

Suppressed Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre

Since 1978, the occupiers of the Vatican ordered that no Catholic publication could run this interview with Archbishop Lefebvre. The complete and unedited interview is transcribed below. Archbishop…
debeausoleil.com debeausoleil.com

Just one note. The SSPX was an order of priests at that time as is now, and they and every order was practicing the traditional form. The times that you and I experienced were in the midst of change that the good Archbishop took issue with, and was the era that gave birth to V2. He did his job as he would be mandated to do, distasteful as it was, for our and the protection of the Church. I am simplifying for this forum and it was a bit more complicated.
 
Last edited:
Is the TLM inherently beautiful? Yes. I sometimes attend the diocesan TLM. Did the Church err in severely restricting the TLM for some years? Yes, IMHO. I think the TLM should be made available whenever there is interest. I would urge Catholic schools to present the TLM to their students once a year. This is part of their heritage. When I went through 1970s training to be an Extraordinary Minister, there was a filmstrip trashing the older form of the Mass. So much for Diversity.

Actually it’s not so much the TLM I would desire to bring back on a huge scale, but rather the times and population that went with it. America was much happier in the days when you did not need to lock you door, abortion was unthinkable, Catholic Mass attendance and vocations were stupendous, etc. That part I would bring back.

But we live in 2017. Speaking only of the USA, the SSPX seems isolated from the struggles against secular modernity. Even if it were true that the SSPX was treated unfairly in 1975 or 1980, is it prudent for you, personally, to remain in SSPX, outside your diocese, now?

In 2017 the situation in the US is so secularized, I do not object to those who feel the Church needs to build a part time “bunker”, where we leave sometimes to outreach. What I do object to people building a full time bunker to protect against the Catholic Church. The problem with SSPX is that they are passive, not involved in the diocesan and national struggle against secular modernity. In the diocesan prolife meetings and actions, they are no-shows.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top