Questions re: SSPX & sedevacanists

[I_Believe]

kpeople: My thread has been hijacked. :nunchuk: I’m really annoyed. **I Believe **you were the first to participate in this thread with scarcasism…and you continue to add your two cents…but have yet answered the questions-but have successfully completely danced around the questions. You dance very well I might add. :dancing: :banghead: :banghead: I’ll chalk it up to being a man thing:shrug:

Hi jack ? I simply suggested asking a SSPX priest. I guess I should have used a smiley

And if we get directly on topic and discuss sedevacantism, this thread will be locked as soon as our moderator sees it.

Where are these questions you speak of ? I only see one question in a reply to one of my posts, and the question wasn’t even asked for me to answer, it was to set up a statement the person made.

My second post was a reply to something that was said. I didn’t introduce a new topic into this thread.

 

[Lainey63]

I only had the 2 questions on my post. I wasn’t accusing you directly of hijacking the thread…but from my end it appeared as if your were avoiding the original question-if you do the answer that is and yes smilieys do help sometimes I add a tone to these written discussions-which I know I shouldn’t do. I did read a sticky on sedacantavism…but I don’t recall it saying it couldn’t be discussed at all. Anyway, I’m sorry. :flowers:

 

[I_Believe]

I only had the 2 questions on my post. I wasn’t accusing you directly of hijacking the thread…but from my end it appeared as if your were avoiding the original question-if you do the answer that is and yes smilieys do help sometimes I add a tone to these written discussions-which I know I shouldn’t do. I did read a sticky on sedacantavism…but I don’t recall it saying it couldn’t be discussed at all. Anyway, I’m sorry. :flowers:

Ok, no apology needed. I’m not mad at you. :hug1:

Careful with the flowers/kissie smiley though. LilyM might get jealous

 

[Yours_Truly]

Can someone tell me what is the SSPX official position in regards to receiving Holy Communion at NO masses.

Their position is really with respect to the Mass itself. They say you should not attend because it is a danger to your faith due to the Protestantised “lex orandi”. The prayers of the new Mass are watered down, there is usually irreverence and sacrileges, and the externals are identical to those institued by the Protestant heretics of the 16th century, whose stated intent for the change in the externals was to bring about a change in the faith - that is, a loss of faith - which is exactly what happened then, and what has happened now with those who attend the new mass. What percent of the Catholic today, for example, still believe in the true presence or the sacrificial nature of the Mass?

Did you yourself know that at the Mass the sacrifice of Jesus that took place on Calvary is really and truly repeated? That is what the Mass is. It is the one sacrifice of Calvary transcending time and space and made present, in such as way that, according to the explanation of Fulton Sheen, if Mary closed her eyes at Calvary, and if you close your eyes at Mass, you are present at exactly the same event.

Naturally, I do know they have issues with VII-but does the SSPX recognize the validity of the Holy Eucharist at the NO masses and have issue with the fullness of the Catholic Church as it relates to the entire Mass ( I hope I worded that right).

If the new Mass is done with the proper FORM (words of consecration), MATTER (bread and wine), and INTENT (of the Priest to perform the Mass), it would be valid. Unfortunately, there is so much innovation with the words you cann’t trust just any Priest; and the MATTER (bread) has been declared invalid in some entire diocese for many years. Fr. Corapi tells of a diocese in the northeast US where the MATTER was invalid for years and years, **which means ALL of the “masses” in that diocese were not masses at all. **The diocese of Concinatti is another example. Years ago they used invalid MATTER for 10 years - which means the Masses in that entire diocese were invalid the entire time. Is your Novus Ordo mass valid? Who knows? Since there are so many abuses and heresies, it is best to avoid the Novus Ordo.

Or does the SSPX take the same position as the sedevacanists who claim that all who go to NO masses are going to hell?

No, they don’t say that.

Also I would like to know about the history of sedevacanists when did they come about? I have just learned about them within the last few years-are they breakaways from SSPX? In my mind they are both very similar in their beliefs, sometimes I have a hard time separating the two.

The Sedavacantists are those who claim the Pope is not really the Pope. The SSPX does not believe that. The Sedevacantists still hold to the Catholic faith, although they sometimes go to extremes on some points. But, since they still hold to the Catholic Faith, and since the SSPX has the Catholic Faith, you will find some sililarities in respect to the Faith.

 

[Lainey63]

Thank you…I have a much understanding than I did before

 

[EricBrooks]

They tell the faithful not to attend the NO. They do not consider it an invalid mass as such (though in actual practice improper intentions, or matter, may make it so), but understand that it is highly influenced by heretical forms of worship that had consistently been condemned for many years. Because the form of our worship helps form our beliefs, as well as our inner life, a mass that draws heavily from heretical sources, even if technically valid, is a spiritual danger.

The SSPX has always held allegiance to the popes and has always argued against sedevacantism. The sedevacantists argue that, because the modern popes have gone against tradition, they cannot be considered true popes. The SSPX has a much more consistent view of Catholic history. The papacy is something that can error (aside from the few specific instances in which it is protected from error), but it does not cease to be the papacy. To say otherwise would be to contradict Christ’s words to Peter. In support of this argument, SSPX can point to, say, Honorius I who was anathematized by a later council, or the Papacy at the time of a certain St. Eusebius who consecrated bishops without papal permission due to the crisis caused by the Arians. None of these crises ever lead to a period when there simply was no pope, and the idea in fact is absurd.

 

[I_Believe]

I must say, I understand every point the SSPX makes about the Novus Ordo, but as one who considers myself orthodox and traditional, I don’t agree that my attending the NO is detrimental to my own Faith. I can focus on the Altar and the prayers, and there are indeed Catholic prayers in the Novus Ordo, and sound Doctrine is present. (the “for all” has to go though )
My point is, if one is orthodox and of strong Faith, the Novus Ordo isn’t going to harm their soul. I firmly believe that.

But the problem with the Novus Ordo is blatantly obvious. Wiggle room. One only has to browse the top 200 or so thread titles in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum to see liturgical abuse and confusion dominate the discussions. “Can a priest do this ?” “Can a EMHC do that ?”

It’s chaos. The Ordinary Form has become the Ordinary Forms, with each parish doing it “our way”.The are not two forms of the Liturgy, the is the Gregorian Rite and the rest of them. Many parishes do pray a reverent NO, but not all. And that is not Catholic. That isn’t unity in Christ’s Name. Most of the pieces are there, but not all.

 

[Extempore]

My point is, if one is orthodox and of strong Faith, the Novus Ordo isn’t going to harm their soul. I firmly believe that.

But does it enrich the soul?
Or is it like bread and water - enough to get by but not enough to thrive on?

 

[I_Believe]

But does it enrich the soul?
Or is it like bread and water - enough to get by but not enough to thrive on?

Well, it certainly builds my Faith in the necessity of, and duty as a Catholic, in offering prayers of Reparation.

 

[Extempore]

Well, it certainly builds my Faith in the necessity of, and duty as a Catholic, in offering prayers of Reparation.

Fair enough.