Society of Saint Pius X

[TimOliv]

For clarity, the 5 founding priests of The Institute of Good Sheperd (given full force by the Vatican on Friday) are former SSPX priests who were very high up, most being with the Society for several decades. One was the district superior of France and second only under His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre for quite some time.

So while this does not compromise the SSPX as a whole, it would never have occured without them. It’s a good illustration of how traditionalism is gaining momentum and how the Society has played a critical role in such.

And John Paul II did the same when he permitted former members to create the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.

 

[Unfinished]

You know, I was watching this priest on YouTube today who is a member of the SSPX. He has about 5 or 6 videos on there talking about the Latin Mass and the NO Mass.

(youtube.com/profile_videos?user=Oblationem by the way)

I watched them, and while he has some good things to say that I have noticed myself, he does base a lot of his thought about the NO on “what he heard from someone” Now, I have never witnessed anyone pouring the Precious Blood down the sink as he says, usually the priest drinks the rest, but many of his complaints I feel are valid.

I want to a church the other day while visiting a friend. I looked it up on the diocese website. I walked in and there were NO KNEELERS. They changed the words of many of the prayers including the Agnus Dei. The priest didn’t even come down from the altar when the gifts were being brought up. The EMHC hung out on the altar during the concecration. And I am not even going to get into the horrid song they sung after communion (The choir was dancing). I didn’t see anyone else genuflect once. I wonder if they even know what genuflecting is. The priest gave a blessing at the end and everyone in the parish outstretched thier hands like the priest does. It was scary. There was more, but you get the idea. When I left, I had to check and make it was a Catholic Church.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not about to go into schism, but after seeing the Latin Mass it makes me sad to go to the NO sometimes. (Not that the Latin Mass was perfect either. If you don’t KNOW what is going on, most of the time you sit there going “what is going on?”) This is just idle chatter because I don’t have a solution to everything, nor do I claim to. I am just hoping the Holy Father works with the SSPX to bring them back into the fold, and perhaps they will be able to influence him enough to reform the Mass some. Or reform the Catholics. I suppose either/or would work.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I personally agree that the SSPX is in schism and declared so by the Holy See itself.

Still, I can’t help note that many who are not “declared” to be schismatical or heretical, in fact ARE SO. Such as those shrieking for the ordination of women (your Sister Chittisters,etc), those pushing for gay liberation, and those who are ordaining (sic) women from time to time.

I just wish the Holy See would also DECLARE these people to be heretics and in schism for their dissent and disobedience the same way that they have declared the SSPX to be in schism.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

 

[TimOliv]

You know, I was watching this priest on YouTube today who is a member of the SSPX. He has about 5 or 6 videos on there talking about the Latin Mass and the NO Mass.

(youtube.com/profile_videos?user=Oblationem by the way)

I watched them, and while he has some good things to say that I have noticed myself, he does base a lot of his thought about the NO on “what he heard from someone” Now, I have never witnessed anyone pouring the Precious Blood down the sink as he says, usually the priest drinks the rest, but many of his complaints I feel are valid.

I want to a church the other day while visiting a friend. I looked it up on the diocese website. I walked in and there were NO KNEELERS. They changed the words of many of the prayers including the Agnus Dei. The priest didn’t even come down from the altar when the gifts were being brought up. The EMHC hung out on the altar during the concecration. And I am not even going to get into the horrid song they sung after communion (The choir was dancing). I didn’t see anyone else genuflect once. I wonder if they even know what genuflecting is. The priest gave a blessing at the end and everyone in the parish outstretched thier hands like the priest does. It was scary. There was more, but you get the idea. When I left, I had to check and make it was a Catholic Church.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not about to go into schism, but after seeing the Latin Mass it makes me sad to go to the NO sometimes. (Not that the Latin Mass was perfect either. If you don’t KNOW what is going on, most of the time you sit there going “what is going on?”) This is just idle chatter because I don’t have a solution to everything, nor do I claim to. I am just hoping the Holy Father works with the SSPX to bring them back into the fold, and perhaps they will be able to influence him enough to reform the Mass some. Or reform the Catholics. I suppose either/or would work.

There are a few orders which still celebrate the Latin Mass.

 

[Unfinished]

There are a few orders which still celebrate the Latin Mass.

Yes, I am aware of them. But the only one in my diocese is two hours away. A drive, I fear, I cannot make every Sunday.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Claiming you respect his opinion, while publicly purporting that yours is more correct, accurate and wise is not respecting his opinion, it’s rejecting it. You’re claiming in essence - perhaps unintentionally - that His Eminence doesn’t know of what he speaks while you do. That your reading of Ecclesia Dei (the namesake of the office he heads) is better than his.

There is a tremendous difference between committing a schismatic act and existing in a state of schism. Also, John Paul did not “issue” any excommunication. He claimed there existed an automatic latae sentiae excommunication for the Archbishop and the Archbishop alone.

It wouldn’t matter if every Cardinal in the world thought they weren’t in schism. One pope trumps an entire hand of cardinals. As for the pope not actually declaring an excommunication, he confirmed the existence of it. It’s a principle of canon law that canon law means what the Supreme Legislator says that it means.

Parse it any way that you like, the bishops are excommunicate, the priests are utterly without faculties, and the faithful are warned against any adherence to schism by participating in their Masses, by no less than the same Supreme Legislator.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I personally agree that the SSPX is in schism and declared so by the Holy See itself.

Still, I can’t help note that many who are not “declared” to be schismatical or heretical, in fact ARE SO. Such as those shrieking for the ordination of women (your Sister Chittisters,etc), those pushing for gay liberation, and those who are ordaining (sic) women from time to time.

I just wish the Holy See would also DECLARE these people to be heretics and in schism for their dissent and disobedience the same way that they have declared the SSPX to be in schism.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

I’m not sure about this, but I think the difference is a clearly defined action (like the consecration of bishops) on the part of the offending party. I know that liscenses to teach at Catholic unitversities can be taken away, ideas condemned or declared at variance with the Church’s teaching and understanding, but I think you have to actually DO something (another example is the women who have recently allowed themselves to be “ordained”) before you’re excommunicated…but again, I’m not sure.

I certainly sympathize with your thoughts on Joanie et al. But I think an overt act would be needed to actually excommunicate those people. AND anytime I hear of her or read something she writes, she seems to couch her dissent in terms of, “I wonder if” and “perhaps we need to think about such and such,” etc.

 

[kleary]

Orthodox has vailid holy orders, SSPX does not.

I thought that this topic was banned. I can see why.

Wrong- the SSPX Bishops and priests are most indeed validly ordained-

Unless you want to declare the Pre-Vatican II Rite of Ordination invalid. Most Protestants and liberals do.

Ken

 

[hosemonkey]

The debates here on the present status of the SSPX are certainly interesting and reflect a great deal of thought. I believe that the Holy See has spoken on the status of the Society’s Bishops and priests and on the status of those lay persons who attend SSPX chapels. Speaking as one who attended a SSPX chapel for five years after becoming disgusted with some of the abuses that I found in the Novus Ordo world, perhaps I can offer some insight. Firstly, I returned to the Novus Ordo out of the conviction that if one is not in actual unity with the Holy Father and with the Magisterium, one cannot truly call oneself “Catholic.” The SSPX claims loyalty to the Holy Father, but in fact is both disloyal and disobedient. Secondly, an almost cult-like mentality is creeping into the SSPX, a fortress mentality, a "them-against-us way of thinking that has led to a suppression of free thought and a rigid enforcement of orthodoxy that brooks no deviation from the “norm.” I see the matter devolving into not a question of doctrine, but one of power and ego, to be defended at all costs. Witness some of the statements made by Bishop Williamson regarding the status of women in the Church. Trust me when I say that I pray every day for the reconciliation of the SSPX with the Holy See, but I do not see it happening unless there is a fundamental change in attitude by the leaders of the SSPX.

 

[branch]

It wouldn’t matter if every Cardinal in the world thought they weren’t in schism. One pope trumps an entire hand of cardinals.

Cardinal Hoyos has frequently read and thoroughly interpreted the very same document from the very same pope that you’re basing your above reasoning on. The office he occupies “Ecclesia Dei”, carries the name of that very same document and His Eminence as head of the office is specifically charged with making determinations on interpreting it.

The situation as it stands is that you’ve both made opposing determinations using the exact same available empirical data. He’s interpreted the document in such a way to find the Society clergy not to be in schism, you interpret it conversely. He’s a Curia cardinal with explicit and unquestionable authority while you’re an internet poster with zero authority.

I’m sorry but I’m going to have to promptly flush your opinion and accept his. I’m not being short with you, just employing good sense.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Wrong- the SSPX Bishops and priests are most indeed validly ordained-

Unless you want to declare the Pre-Vatican II Rite of Ordination invalid. Most Protestants and liberals do.

Ken

Please.

Fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants don’t generally give a fig about our orders insofar as to whether they are valid or not. They don’t believe in a sacramental priesthood anyway, but if they cared or conceded that there was one, I very much doubt that they would deny that the Catholic or Orthodox Church HAVE valid orders. They may deny that a cultic priesthood exists or should exist at all, but they aren’t troubled by the nuance of whether it’s valid or not, as a Catholic or Orthodox Christian would be. The most liberal, woman-ordaining, gay-bishop-consecrating Anglicans don’t question that the Roman Catholic Church has valid orders (most of their efforts seem to be directed at getting US to recognize THEIRS). And I’ve heard liberal Catholics spout off about many things, but I’ve never once heard them say that the pre-Vatican II ordinal was invalid! Where do you get this information?

Now I’ve read plenty of really radical traditionalist claims that the POST VII ordinal was invalid, that we don’t have valid bishops, let alone a valid pope.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Cardinal Hoyos has frequently read and thoroughly interpreted the very same document from the very same pope that you’re basing your above reasoning on. The office he occupies “Ecclesia Dei”, carries the name of that very same document and His Eminence as head of the office is specifically charged with making determinations on interpreting it.

The situation as it stands is that you’ve both made opposing determinations using the exact same available empirical data. He’s interpreted the document in such a way to find the Society clergy not to be in schism, you interpret it conversely. He’s a Curia cardinal with explicit and unquestionable authority while you’re an internet poster with zero authority.

I’m sorry but I’m going to have to promptly flush your opinion and accept his. I’m not being short with you, just employing good sense.

His opinion of it (or how he’s quoted in his opinion, there’s a question as to how his remarks were translated into English) notwithstanding, the Pope thought differently and the Pope’s thought on this is what matters. Look, if they aren’t in schism, why is there so much effort to end the schism? That’s pretty much the definition of an oxymoron. If they aren’t in schism, why did the Holy See allow the Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska’s excommunication of the SSPX within his diocese to stand?

And it’s never good sense to stand against the legitimate authority of the Vicar of Christ.

 

[branch]

The debates here on the present status of the SSPX are certainly interesting and reflect a great deal of thought. I believe that the Holy See has spoken on the status of the Society’s Bishops and priests and on the status of those lay persons who attend SSPX chapels. Speaking as one who attended a SSPX chapel for five years after becoming disgusted with some of the abuses that I found in the Novus Ordo world, perhaps I can offer some insight. Firstly, I returned to the Novus Ordo out of the conviction that if one is not in actual unity with the Holy Father and with the Magisterium, one cannot truly call oneself “Catholic.” The SSPX claims loyalty to the Holy Father, but in fact is both disloyal and disobedient. Secondly, an almost cult-like mentality is creeping into the SSPX, a fortress mentality, a "them-against-us way of thinking that has led to a suppression of free thought and a rigid enforcement of orthodoxy that brooks no deviation from the “norm.” I see the matter devolving into not a question of doctrine, but one of power and ego, to be defended at all costs. Witness some of the statements made by Bishop Williamson regarding the status of women in the Church. Trust me when I say that I pray every day for the reconciliation of the SSPX with the Holy See, but I do not see it happening unless there is a fundamental change in attitude by the leaders of the SSPX.

BTW, nice screenname. I’m surprised Karl allows such here.

Funny, I the only place I here the calumnious “cult” associtiation in on the internet. No intellectually honest Catholic who values credibility engages in such. What one finds when they attend Society Masses are good normal Catholics, raising lots of good normal Catholic children and attending the Mass that good normal Catholics have always attended in a chapel that is financially in the green and free of scandal and liturgical abuse.

The unverifiable internet horror-stories from unknown entities are getting old and starting to be seen for exactly what they are, which is internet horror-stories from unknown entities.

 

[branch]

His opinion of it (or how he’s quoted in his opinion, there’s a question as to how his remarks were translated into English) notwithstanding, the Pope thought differently and the Pope’s thought on this is what matters.

Well we’re engaging in a circular argument. You keep insisting that he is in direct opposition to the Holy Father while he is in fact reading the exact document you are and coming to an entirely different conclusion than you as to its meaning.

Do you believe that he hasn’t read it? If such is not the case, than the only conclusion possible is that you believe your interpretation of it is finer.

I’m sorry sir, but you’re not wiser, smarter or more qualified than he to determine the application and meaning of documents generated by the Holy See. Nor do do you possess comparable authority or better reading comprehension than the Cardinal.

You may have the last repetative word. From this point forward we’d be wasting precious time.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The unverifiable internet horror-stories from unknown entities are getting old and starting to be seen for exactly what they are, which is internet horror-stories from unknown entities.

I can only tell you this (and I can’t provide verification, since as far as I know, I’m the only person on these forums to have attended an SSPX Mass in Las Vegas): I heard the SSPX priest here, at their Mass, call the Mass of Paul VI “an abomination.” He said it twice. Last I checked, the Council of Trent anathematized anyone who proposed that the disciplines, forms, vestments, etc., (promulgated by the Church in her legitimate authority for the ordering of her liturgies) might lead the faithful to impiety. An “abomination” must at the very least be considered impious. Shaky ground, in my humble opinion. But that’s an aside from the manifest schism that they find themselves in.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You may have the last repetative word. From this point forward we’d be wasting precious time.

I can assure you, I’m not interested in having the last repetitive word. I’m interested in defending the authority of the Church. And intellectual honesty.

 

[branch]

I can only tell you this (and I can’t provide verification, since as far as I know, I’m the only person on these forums to have attended an SSPX Mass in Las Vegas): I heard the SSPX priest here, at their Mass, call the Mass of Paul VI “an abomination.”

Well I’m here to help. I’ve attended Mass at the Las Vegas chapel when I was there on vacation last year. It was one left turn off the same road as the strip. The chapel was just after the overpass of another highway on the right, and there was construction - probably completed now - right next door to it at the time.

It was an absolutely lovely yet small chapel with an outstanding choir. As you saw, the congregation was comprised of good normal Catholic adults and children. When I was there they had at least 5 servers.

The father at the time wasn’t a Society priest per se, but that is neither here nor there.

The Catholic church closest to the strip truly WAS an abomination of the worst kind - I couldnt even bring myself to enter it. The sanctuary was decorated with some screwy looking grafitti type artwork that looked more like the side of an inner city subway station than a Catholic church and the tabernacle was nowhere near the altar.

Is it your claim that the novus ordo hasn’t led to a certian degree of impiety and even in many cases apostasy and sacrilege? I’m hoping (in order so that I can view you as reasonable) that your answer will be “no, that’s not my claim”.

 

[branch]

I can assure you, I’m not interested in having the last repetitive word. I’m interested in defending the authority of the Church. And intellectual honesty

Although not much more can be said as to whether your interpretation of Ecclesia Dei is more proper than that of Cardinal Hoyos, it is not intellectully honest to state or imply that the SSPX clergy or faithful is schismatic, involved in a cult, outside of Holy Mother Church or in any way not Catholic.

If those who make these claims do so out of ignorance or lack of knowledge, it is error. If they do so with full knowledge it is a lie, and therefore sin. It is anything but “intellectually honest” and shouldn’t be engaged in.

If you want to discuss issues such as jurisdiction for marriages and confession, honest Catholics can make honest arguments on both sides of the issue. But some of the statements you and other are making here are simply not factual.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Well I’m here to help. I’ve attended Mass at the Las Vegas chapel when I was there on vacation last year. It was one left turn off the same road as the strip. The chapel was just after the overpass of another highway on the right, and there was construction - probably completed now - right next door to it at the time.

It was an absolutely lovely yet small chapel with an outstanding choir. As you saw, the congregation was comprised of good normal Catholic adults and children. When I was there they had at least 5 servers.

The father at the time wasn’t a Society priest per se, but that is neither here nor there.

The Catholic church closest to the strip truly WAS an abomination of the worst kind - I couldnt even bring myself to enter it. The sanctuary was decorated with some screwy looking grafitti type artwork that looked more like the side of an inner city subway station than a Catholic church and the tabernacle was nowhere near the altar.

Is it your claim that the novus ordo hasn’t led to a certian degree of impiety and even in many cases apostasy and sacrilege? I’m hoping (in order so that I can view you as reasonable) that your answer will be “no, that’s not my claim”.

You saw our cathedral. Yes, it’s quite ugly (in my subjective opinion…in that, I agree with YOUR subjective opinion). As is the case in many of the old cathedrals (pre-Reformation) of Europe, the tabernacle is indeed in a seperate chapel to the right of the altar as you face the sanctuary. But this is hardly modern and it is permitted by the Church.

I didn’t find the SSPX chapel particularly lovely (again, that’s a subjective opinion). I noticed the people there, obviously, but I can only assume that they are “good” (I try to make the assumption that most people are good untill they make it obvious that they are not). I would not, however, agree with the assertion that they were “good” Catholics, as I assume most of them frequent this chapel, in which an illicit Mass is celebrated by a priest without faculties. To knowingly do that does not make for a “good” Catholic (to my way of thinking and I rather imagine that the Church thinks the same…or the Pope wouldn’t have confirmed the schism and excommunications). Still, in charity, I try to assume that they are merely deceived (perhaps completely deceived, thinking that this is a legitimate chapel with a priest in communion with a non-excommunicated bishop in communion with the Pope. If that were the case, I think an argument could perhaps be made for diminished culpability… but I digress).

And let me be quite clear: it is, in fact, completely my claim that the Novus Ordo Mass has NOT led to a ANY degree of impiety or apostasy and sacrilege. Whether you consider that reasonable or unreasonable is obviously beyond my control. I merely regard it as the correct position for a traditional Catholic such as myself to take. The Church cannot promulgate or present to the faithful a Mass that can lead the faithful to impiety (let alone apostacy or sacriledge).

Now, if you are talking about an abuse of the NO Mass, how some priests play fast and loose with the Holy Sacrifice, how some bishops seem content to allow them to do so, etc., well, that’s a different story.

 

[lak611]

No, you are wrong.

They have no faculties, meaning they do not have permission from a Bishop in communion with Rome to administer the sacraments. Since they have valid Holy Orders, however, thesacraments are valid but illicit.

What does it mean that a sacrament is valid but illicit?