Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) In communion with the Chair of Peter, YES or NO?

[TNT]

atsheeran:

If you include the Holy Father in that class of “western churchmen”, then it is you who is on the verge of apostasy.

It’s getting mighty close:
The Council of Trent defined dogmatically that without the Catholic Faith, “it is impossible to please God.”
Session V.

Yet:
Vatican’s Good Friday Liturgy, 2002, the Preacher to the Papal Household, Capuchin Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, said the other religions "are not merely tolerated by God …. but positively willed by Him as an expression of the inexhaustible richness of His grace and His will for everyone to be saved."
All quotes from Fr. Cantalamessa’s sermon are from the April 2, 2002 Catholic News Service report.

To the contrary:
St. John, the Christ’s favored Apostle:
“Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 1: 22).
Thus, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, any religion that rejects Christ, according to Scripture, is an Antichrist religion.

Regarding heretical religions, for example, “Orthodoxy” and Protestantism,
St. Paul tells us
that false creeds are the: “doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4: 1).

How, then, can Antichrist religions, and false creeds of heretics, which are “doctrines of devils,” be regarded as “not merely tolerated by God but positively willed by Him”? This would mean that God positively wills religions to exist that teach Jesus Christ is not God and the Savior of mankind (as do non-Christian religions). It means that God positively wills religions to exist, such as Protestantism, that teach Christ did not establish the Church, did not establish the Holy Eucharist, did not establish the Sacraments. It also means that those **Protestant sects that hold devotion to Our Blessed Mother in abhorrence are positively willed by God. **This, despite the fact that Our Lady of Fatima asked for the Five First Saturdays of reparation for the blasphemies against her Immaculate Heart that are the fruit of these false religions.

In short, Fr. Cantalamessa’s sermon means that God positively wills error. God positively wills lies. God positively wills evil.
He is preaching straight to JPII who does not object!
From the pulpit in St. Peter’s Basilica on Good Friday to tell the world that God positively wills false religions.

Do you agree with this Preacher to the Papal Family?
Of course you do, as JPII agrees with him by permitting this kind of apostate preaching in the heart of the church.
Couldn’t you see this Preacher preaching this to the Council of Trent, Pope Leo XIII, Pius V, Pius X ?
“Light my fire” comes to mind.
If you want some more heretical prouncements from this Preacher to the Papal Family:
Try here at Zenit News.

 

[demolitionman65]

The point:

For thousands of years, men have assumed for themselves the mantle of righteousness, claiming to know the mind and will of God.

Only one, Jesus Christ, can claim that he was the SON of God, TRULY knowing the mind and will of the Father.

Christ declared that ONE apostle, Peter, was the rock upon which he (Christ) would build His church.

Peter then conferred that authority upon Linus, his successor; Linus then conferred it to his own succssor, and so on, down to JPII.

So, the Line of Peter is the only one that can claim/trace its pedigree (if you like) to Christ.

Now, in that interim of 262 Popes, have there been fools and scoundrels that have mismanaged/befouled the teachings of the Church? Surely, just as there have been many more that enlightened, uplifted and truly led the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And during every reign, not matter how principled the pontiff or scurrilous the inheritor, there were naysayers and critics and outright lunatics who claimed that THEY knew the mind of God, and the Pope was illegitimate. God and the Holy Spirit were shepherding the Church during all those times. As He is now.

And how does Lefevre/Fellay lay claim to the reality that their interpretation of the truth is superior to Donatus? To Luther? Calvin? Pelagius? The Gnostics? The answer is THAT THEY CAN NOT. They too are men, men that cannot lay claim to the Chair of Peter and the Keys that accompany it, not without that attendant conferral of authority that lies in the hands of the Pope. Alone.

Until Fellay/SSPX shows humilty and recognizes the harm they have caused, this will not go away.

And I have NOT EVEN BEGUN to open the can of bitterness that presents itself when I start considering that my own spiritual director has abandoned Rome for SSPX.

As for the contentious post re: Fr. Cantalamessa: I’m sure that with proper scholarship, we can find similar stories attached to every one of JPII’s 262 predecessors. Does that invalidate them as well?

Did not Peter deny Christ?

This is not a valid argument.

 

[Catholic29]

demolitionman65:

The point:

For thousands of years, men have assumed for themselves the mantle of righteousness, claiming to know the mind and will of God.

Only one, Jesus Christ, can claim that he was the SON of God, TRULY knowing the mind and will of the Father.

Christ declared that ONE apostle, Peter, was the rock upon which he (Christ) would build His church.

Peter then conferred that authority upon Linus, his successor; Linus then conferred it to his own succssor, and so on, down to JPII.

So, the Line of Peter is the only one that can claim/trace its pedigree (if you like) to Christ.

Now, in that interim of 262 Popes, have there been fools and scoundrels that have mismanaged/befouled the teachings of the Church? Surely, just as there have been many more that enlightened, uplifted and truly led the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And during every reign, not matter how principled the pontiff or scurrilous the inheritor, there were naysayers and critics and outright lunatics who claimed that THEY knew the mind of God, and the Pope was illegitimate. God and the Holy Spirit were shepherding the Church during all those times. As He is now.

And how does Lefevre/Fellay lay claim to the reality that their interpretation of the truth is superior to Donatus? To Luther? Calvin? Pelagius? The Gnostics? The answer is THAT THEY CAN NOT. They too are men, men that cannot lay claim to the Chair of Peter and the Keys that accompany it, not without that attendant conferral of authority that lies in the hands of the Pope. Alone.

Until Fellay/SSPX shows humilty and recognizes the harm they have caused, this will not go away.

And I have NOT EVEN BEGUN to open the can of bitterness that presents itself when I start considering that my own spiritual director has abandoned Rome for SSPX.

As for the contentious post re: Fr. Cantalamessa: I’m sure that with proper scholarship, we can find similar stories attached to every one of JPII’s 262 predecessors. Does that invalidate them as well?

Did not Peter deny Christ?

This is not a valid argument.

A very eloquent and concise post, my feelings exactly. I pray all the time for their reconciliation to the Church. But I fear that the SSPX will be just one more break away group among the thousands that have splintered off since Judas betrayed the other 12. They only grow more radicalized the longer they are apart from the Holy See, so if any reconciliation is possible it will have to be sooner rather than later.

What the SSPX is demanding for reconciliation is just too great, they essentially expect the Holy See to adopt their interpretation of Quo Primum Tempore. Something which Rome is unable to do even if they wanted, which I go into further in this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43907

Though I can see a few individual SSPX priests trickling back into the fold here and there. However I feel it is only a matter of time before they declare themselves Sedevacantist, maybe as soon as immedietely following JPII’s death or not long after. Then perhaps reconciling with SSPV, CMRI or another such group, and setting up a papacy of their own is the more likely scenario.

But I haven’t given up all hope as anything is possible with God.

 

[TNT]

demolitionman65:

The point: …As for the contentious post re: Fr. Cantalamessa: I’m sure that with proper scholarship, we can find similar stories attached to every one of JPII’s 262 predecessors. Does that invalidate them as well?

Did not Peter deny Christ?

** This is not a valid argument.**

we can find similar stories attached to every one of JPII’s 262 predecessors

Go right ahead.

Did not Peter deny Christ?
This is not a valid argument.

Did Peter repent? Yes. Did he change his ways? Yes. BIG difference.

Is it not plain that if there is no retraction (as Peter did 3 times), there is no correction? No repentance for the the act? A scandal of Faith to the hearers of this, the Faithful albeit gullible?

The Preacher was “contentious” toward the perennial Teaching of Sacred Tradition.

 

[demolitionman65]

Did Peter repent? Yes. Did he change his ways? Yes. BIG difference.

Is it not plain that if there is no retraction (as Peter did 3 times), there is no correction? No repentance for the the act? A scandal of Faith to the hearers of this, the Faithful albeit gullible?

You are missing the point. My point is that the Popes -including Peter- are fallible, as are their pretenders. Yet, the pretenders have no authority greater than the Successor of Peter, by benefit of his station.

Every schismatic has claimed to have greater authority than the Heir of Peter… . .yet the Church continues and thrives, moreso than any of the pretending sects… . including SSPX. The mere thriving of the Church, despite its sometimes poor leadership (and I do NOT suggest for a moment that JPII is one of these poor leaders) is a very strong indicator that the Holy Spirit is looking out for it.

The Preacher was “contentious” toward the perennial Teaching of Sacred Tradition.

I refer you to my earlier post.

 Quote:
                                            we can find similar stories attached to **every one of JPII's 262 predecessors**

Go right ahead.

When my seven children are raised, and I no longer teach high school, I will take on this sizeable scholarly burden for you. In the meantime, you might try to learn to recognize a literary generalization.

Try it this way: Find me a Pope who reigned longer than 60 days that had no detractors or pretenders who claimed to have a highter authority than him.

 

[Sean_O_L]

I agree wholeheartedly with demolitionman65 and catholic29

I am currently working on a dada base of SSPX priests and associates, and am in possession of 428 names. It is a most difficult job, for the SSPX stopped providing lists of ordinands in the early 80’s.

However, data is still available to the researcher. The following from Bishop Williamson is instructive, It is still viewable at “Perils from False Brethren”

But did the Society lose so many priests when Archbishop Lefebvre was Superior General?

A: It certainly did. Of the 400 priests he ordained in and for the Society, some 100 had defected before he died, evenly split between those who thought he was too hard and those who thought he was too soft! But as Scripture says the Lord commanded Joshua (Josh I, 7), the Archbishop deviated neither to right nor to left.

Q: What do you mean?

A: Not to the left: in 1975, in one of a series of shakedowns at the Society’s central Seminary in Ecône, Switzerland, a number of professors were quitting because the Society had just been “dissolved” by Rome. A seminarian went to the Archbishop to express his concern. The Archbishop’s quiet reply: “Well, if all the professors leave, the seminarians will just have to teach themselves”! In other words, seminarians may come and professors may go, but a Seminary’s business is to teach a truth that cannot change.

Not to the right: in 1983, in the United States, when nine out of eleven Society priests in the Seminary (then in CT) and the Northeastern District laid down to the Archbishop the terms on which they would allow that Seminary and District to operate, he again quietly said, “Look, you go your way, we go ours, and if you are more successful than we are at saving souls, then may God be with you, but here we part company”. In other words, Seminary and/or District might collapse with only two priests out of eleven (and perhaps no properties!), but the Society’s business was to continue a Church whose structure is not to be altered by men.

Now, that is an admission of a 25% loss as at 1997. However, in other places and times Williamson was quoted as admitting losses up to 50%. What the 50% included is as yet unknown.

However, it is also interesting to view a 1983 document at Ridgefield Diary where some surviving seminarians waxed forth in admiration of Lefebvre & Co.

What is interesting is that of the 10 seminarians, only three appear to have survived in the SSPX as at this time: Gerspacher, Hogan and Ward.

The SSPX has employed the old “throw enough mud against the wall technique.”

In the meantime, mindless adherents still denigrate the Catholic Church for Her problems. Chutzpah, I say!

 

[tradcatmel]

Now this is an interesting question.

Do you think that the Archbishop was being loyal to the predecessors (the popes in history) - by doing what he did (consecrating the bishops).?

Sure he did disobey the pope. But when the pope is bringing in new beliefs, new PERSONAL teachings, we as catholics are not obliged to follow him…The pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals, I know that, but if he is teaching heresy or causing the church to lead to its destruction, we as the faithful are not to BLINDLY FOLLOW HIM.

Archbishop Lefebrve saw that they were stripping the mass - they were changing it, turning it into something other than what he had been ordained to say. By his action, he was loyal to his HOLY ORDERS, loyal to his priestly vocation, loyal to all the church traditions and popes before him.

Did he have any other choice? He was loyal to the church by adhering to tradition and by ensuring the continuation of the traditional mass.

The same sacrifice (of the latin rite) - is not present in the NO mass and only God can judge the Archbishop’s intentions and actions, I know that if my faith was at risk, I would act just as the Archbishop did.

And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall defile the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation

Daniel Chapt 12: 31

the continual sacrifice - is the SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

 

[demolitionman65]

Archbishop Lefebrve saw that they were stripping the mass - they were changing it, turning it into something other than what he had been ordained to say. By his action, he was loyal to his HOLY ORDERS, loyal to his priestly vocation, loyal to all the church traditions and popes before him.

As has been amply documented in this thread and in others, it is hardly definitive to state that the Mass was being “stripped” or “changed. . into something other than what he had been ordained to say.”

Lefevre was given an ORDER to cease and desist, and he did not. This order was not to obey the Nazis, or harm little children. The moral questionability of the Pope’s order is highly debatable. . .ergo, Lefevre should have complied.

Ergo again, his lowering himself to the level of Donatus, Luther et al.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tradcatmel:

Now this is an interesting question.

Do you think that the Archbishop was being loyal to the predecessors (the popes in history) - by doing what he did (consecrating the bishops).?

Sure he did disobey the pope. But when the pope is bringing in new beliefs, new PERSONAL teachings, we as catholics are not obliged to follow him…The pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals, I know that, but if he is teaching heresy or causing the church to lead to its destruction, we as the faithful are not to BLINDLY FOLLOW HIM.

You go to far. The pope has not brought in new beliefs. he has not taught heresy.

What the Archbishop did was schism and he is excommunicated. You can follow him in this schism, which by your post you seem to be doing, but do not try and rationalize this by slandering the Holy Father and the Church.

 

[EddieArent]

tradcatmel:

Now this is an interesting question.

Do you think that the Archbishop was being loyal to the predecessors (the popes in history) - by doing what he did (consecrating the bishops).?

Sure he did disobey the pope. But when the pope is bringing in new beliefs, new PERSONAL teachings, we as catholics are not obliged to follow him…The pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals, I know that, but if he is teaching heresy or causing the church to lead to its destruction, we as the faithful are not to BLINDLY FOLLOW HIM.

Archbishop Lefebrve saw that they were stripping the mass - they were changing it, turning it into something other than what he had been ordained to say. By his action, he was loyal to his HOLY ORDERS, loyal to his priestly vocation, loyal to all the church traditions and popes before him.

Did he have any other choice? He was loyal to the church by adhering to tradition and by ensuring the continuation of the traditional mass.

The same sacrifice (of the latin rite) - is not present in the NO mass and only God can judge the Archbishop’s intentions and actions, I know that if my faith was at risk, I would act just as the Archbishop did.

Daniel Chapt 12: 31

the continual sacrifice - is the SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

Haven’t you heard? The only enemies the post counciliar Church has are the ones who want to say the Tridentine Mass only. After all, the Protestants are “seperated breatheren,” we should pray that Muslims become better Muslims, bishops dress up as Budhists at Fatima, etc. But the SSPX! They are branded schismatic, excommunicated, bastards of the devil even though th ones in so called union with Rome are rejecting the traidition of the church and turning wonderful churches into barren places of worship or nightclubs. For them, Holy Communion in the hand of the laity and females serving the altar are no big deal. Anything goes! Don’t think the ICEL’s translations are good enough? Make up your own as you go along like here in Orlando! The more liberal the better. Even the bishop will encourage you.

It’s not popular to go against the humanistic values of today, but it’s a war that must be taken on.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

EddieArent:

Haven’t you heard? The only enemies the post counciliar Church has are the ones who want to say the Tridentine Mass only.

Wrong.

The enemies are those who claim that the Trad Mass is the only Mass. Those who deny the validity of the Mass. Those who place themselves in authority over the Holy Father and the Church.

Those are the enemies.

 

[Sean_O_L]

ByzCath

The enemies are those who claim that the Trad Mass is the only Mass. Those who deny the validity of the Mass. Those who place themselves in authority over the Holy Father and the Church.

Those are the enemies.

And the reason why they are to be opposed vigorously is because the radical “traditionalists” are originators of schism and heterodoxy - and originators are more blameworthy than are the descendents.

tradcatmel HAS demonstrated his heterodoxy by claiming what Archbishop Lefebvre NEVER claimed: that a) the Church can be “destroyed”, and b) “The same sacrifice (of the latin rite) - is not present in the NO mass.” which appears to place him under the anathema of the Council of Trent’s Canon 1 On the Sacrifice of the Mass, Session XXII, Sept. 17, 1562.

I urge tradcatmel to retract his claims.

Eddy Arent you SHOULD know better. Your post is simply irrational unsubstantiated emotionalism. Abuses DO happen - and are NEVER defendable. However, the integrity of the Sacrifice of the Mass in the normative liturgy has been impugned - which is a gross insult to the High Priest, Offerer, Victim and to the recipient, the Father.

tradcatmel, I urge you to read the following links:
Quo Primum Tempore, binding on Pope Pius V’s successors?

Captain Roniel Aledo / Bishop Fellay (attempted) Debate

The short answers are:

Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated for the crime of schism following his refusal to obey a direct command of Pope John Paul II in 1988. He was already in a state of suspension a divinis from the time of the suppression of the SSPX in the late 1970’s.

You will find the relevant documents on Lefebvre at
All the Documents on the Lefebvre Case

and more than you can shake a stick at HERE

To claim - as you do here

The same sacrifice (of the latin rite) - is not present in the NO mass and only God can judge the Archbishop’s intentions and actions, I know that if my faith was at risk, I would act just as the Archbishop did.

is heterodox - which means “heretical.”

While it is true that God is the sole judge of the Archbishop’s soul - and I pray that Lefebvre is mercifully judged to be “ignorant” or “senile” or such - one IS able to judge his ostensible actions and statements objectively.

Secondly, YOUR faith IS at risk when you adhere to the schism of the excommunicated Lefebvre and his bishops - by the very fact of adherence to their schism. This is an objective warning from the pope, who is the supreme legislator, supreme interpreter of the law, and the possessor of the power of the Keys.

I point out to you that Archbishop Lefebvre did NOT make the claim that you do! I urge you to read up on the matter and to moderate your claims.

 

[Fogny]

ByzCath:

Wrong.

The enemies are those who claim that the Trad Mass is the only Mass. Those who deny the validity of the Mass. Those who place themselves in authority over the Holy Father and the Church.

Those are the enemies.

Small potatoes I would say, when you look at the deception and the error masked as truth from people inside and outside the Church since it’s formation that are for it’s demise.
Given that the SSPX is disabodient, why is it so,somebody tell me because it must be a spiritual battle whether rightly or wrongfully perceived.

From their Canadian website.

Should we ask Rome to make a public declaration about the NAM, and to denounce its errors and snares? Unfortunately for us, the Mystery of Iniquity at work in the Church for decades makes her appear as the embryo of the New World Religion. This pantheistic, naturalistic and humanistic religion wants to change man into a god, the center of the Universe. Already, forty years ago, the Conciliar Church was putting down the mask at the very end of Vatican II:

“Secular, profane, humanism finally revealed itself in all its terrible stature and, in a certain sense, challenged the Council. The religion of God made man has come up against the religion – for there is such a one – of man who makes himself God. And what happened? a clash, a battle, an anathema? That might have taken place, but it did not… Recognize at least this our merit, you modern humanists who have no place for the transcendence of things supreme, and come to know our new human-ism: we also, we more than anyone else, have the CULT OF MAN.’’?

(Extract from the Closing Speech of Vatican II,
pronounced by Paul VI on Dec. 7th 1965)​

Right or wrong it is spiritual battle.

Fogny

 

[Jakub]

The enemies of the Church are the ones who tolerate and condone the irregularities and abuses that occur today.

Why attack the members of the Old Rite and ignore the abusers of the New Rite ?

You don’t need to be a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep.

It is time to find common ground to correct these issues instead of fighting each other.

james

 

[Fortiterinre]

At the risk of making this thread even longer, I have to redirect our attention to the original post. The Pope used the words “schismatic act” and “excommunication,” and still we have a poll where almost 1 in 5 are voting that the SSPX is in full communion!

Re: the Orthodox compared to the SSPX, it is not my understanding that I can skip Sunday Mass in favor of Divine Liturgy at the lovely Serbian Orthodox church nearby all of the time or even when the mood strikes me. Yes, they have a valid sacrament, but as a Catholic I cannot head to an Orthodox church because I like their liturgy more or because I dislike the local Catholic parish. Valid sacraments do not mean that non-Catholic churches are liturgical options that I can embrace all of the time or even some of the time.

 

[Jakub]

Gee,

Let me think, to worship my Saviour and God what would be more correct, attend a Mass at a SSPX chapel, a Indult Mass, a Liturgy at a Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic Church or a Novus Ordo Mass with EMHC’s running about, altar girls, liturgical dancers and guitar music, and a bad english translation from the Latin ?

It’s a no brainer, is’nt it ?

james

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Jakub:

Gee,

Let me think, to worship my Saviour and God what would be more correct, attend a Mass at a SSPX chapel, a Indult Mass, a Liturgy at a Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic Church or a Novus Ordo Mass with EMHC’s running about, altar girls, liturgical dancers and guitar music, and a bad english translation from the Latin ?

It’s a no brainer, is’nt it ?

james

One question, what is wrong with what I bolded in your quote above?

What makes piano/organ music more Holy than guitar music?

It is comments like this that make everything else you say a joke.

I would add that not every Mass has the abuses that you speak of and nothing stops the Trad Latin Mass from being abused.

 

[Jakub]

David,

We both know that Eastern Catholic & Orthodox Churches loathe anything but chant, so give me a break.

Again, I will remind you I have nothing against the Novus Ordo when it is in accord with the original intent of Vatican II which is rare in the L.A. area.

I attend a Mass/Liturgy for worship, not to attend a Sunday social club.

Some people behave like lemmings, some are a little wiser.

Seminarian or not, becareful when you start lecturing people you have no knowledge about, it might bite you on that smart backside.

Pokoj,
james

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Jakub:

David,

We both know that Eastern Catholic & Orthodox Churches loathe anything but chant, so give me a break.

Again, I will remind you I have nothing against the Novus Ordo when it is in accord with the original intent of Vatican II which is rare in the L.A. area.

I attend a Mass/Liturgy for worship, not to attend a Sunday social club.

Some people behave like lemmings, some are a little wiser.

Seminarian or not, becareful when you start lecturing people you have no knowledge about, it might bite you on that smart backside.

Pokoj,
james

James,

You ignore my question and attack me personally.

My question is what makes the piano/organ more Holy than any other instrument.

Yes, in the Eastern Traditions we do not have any musical instruments in the Church but here I am not talking about our traditions.

I have been at a couple of Masses where the guitar was used and they were awesome Masses with no abuses that you seem to like to act occur at every Mass.

I will add that your over generalizations on abuses and such will bite you in the end as well just like the boy who cried wolf.

 

[EddieArent]

You’re right, I should know better. This Sunday I won’t go to an SSPX parish. Rather I’ll go to a Charismatic Mass where I can also be healed by some lady afterwords. No Latin or Gregorian Chant in the diocese? No Indult Mass after 20 years? No problem.

No, it’s not that easy. Until the Bishops here stop having it both ways with their liturgy and politics (saying no to anti-abortion Catholics and then promoting priests who give Christ to pro-abortion politicians), then I’ll consider. I’ve had enough of the bishop saying only metal ciboriums/chalices used during Mass only to watch a tv Mass and find his excellency celebrating Mass with something that looks like a basket for collections.

I’ll take the advice of Father Zigrang over that of the a satanist and his buddy anyday.