Some SSPX questions

[maurin]

he SSPX says that you should not attend an FSSP parish because they accept the validity of the Novus Ordo. Do not accuse me of lying again.

That’s some pretty tough talk, your last sentence. Not to mention inappropriate. Only in your mind, not in reality, have I leveled such an accusation. I guess the deep breaths are out?

Post the document which you are citing, and we can look at it together.

 

[ProVobis]

The SSPX rejects the validity of the Ordinary Form and denigrates a Traditional Order that is in full communion with Rome. Nuff Said.

Nonsense. Benedictines have been “denigrating” Franciscans and Franciscans “degrating” Jesuits and vice versa for centuries. Rejecting the validity of the OF is a serious accusations and I haven’t heard this specifically from the SSPX.

 

[maurin]

Bbigham,

Not having the fortitude to step foot in a local Parish here in the last two years, I am happy to hear that there are Priests praying the Canon. I can count on one hand the number of times I had heard the Roman Canon prayed at Mass.

You are fortunate. I was not.

 

[Emmit_Fitzhume]

With all due respect that is not true.

The validity of the reformed rite of Mass, as issued in Latin by Paul VI in 1969, must be judged according to the same criteria as the validity of the other sacraments; namely matter, form and intention. The defective theology and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass. The intention of doing what the Church does, even if the priest understands it imperfectly, is sufficient for validity. With respect to the matter, pure wheaten bread and true wine from grapes are what is required for validity. The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.

The SSPX rejects the validity of the Ordinary Form and denigrates a Traditional Order that is in full communion with Rome. Nuff Said.

 

[ProVobis]

And the Latin of the Ordinary Form Roman Canon is almost (not quite) identical to the Canon of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Exactly. And perhaps more would accept the OF if they were to throw out all the canons save for EP1.

 

[Sirach2]

Walking_Home:

Can you find me in that document you linked to—were the Society uses those words you attribute to them. The ones —reject validity.

I think StTommyMore is offline. He was paraphrasing the document he linked in response. It is at the bottom of the page worded thus:

Referring to the FSSP, the SSPX say in the FAQ’s: …accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.
That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses.

You read his post wrong. He said: “The SSPX says that you should not attend an FSSP parish because they accept the validity of the Novus Ordo, not reject it as you mistakenly read.”

 

[StTommyMore]

That’s some pretty tough talk, your last sentence. Not to mention inappropriate. Only in your mind, not in reality, have I leveled such an accusation. I guess the deep breaths are out?

Post the document which you are citing, and we can look at it together.

Already posted it. I pray that the SSPX repents of their error and submits to Rome.

 

[floresco]

Already posted it.

But it does not say what you claim it does.

 

[Sirach2]

I love that you resurrected this thread just to say something totally incorrect.

This is not true. Emmit Fitzhume, an SSPX advocate, resurrected this thread and there were at least 5 additional posts made before StThommyMore’s.

 

[floresco]

This is not true. Emmit Fitzhume, an SSPX advocate, resurrected this thread and there were at least 5 additional posts made before StThommyMore’s.

Fair enough, he did not resurrect the thread. But he did write something incorrect.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Can you find me in that document you linked to—were the Society uses those words you attribute to them. The ones —reject validity.

---

Thanks for trying to pull St.TommyMore out of a hole—but the operative word I am looking for is –Validity–in said document. Where does it say the Society disagrees with the FSSP-----because the FSSP --“accepts the validity”–of the NO.

 

[maurin]

Already posted it. I pray that the SSPX repents of their error and submits to Rome.

As has been pointed out to you several times by several posters with no known ties to the Society, it simply does not say what you interpret it to say.

Cut and paste the portion you are reading, and bring it out into the light of day, bearing in mind the devil works under the cover of darkness, as St John hints at in his Gospel.

I pray that Rome repents of the 50 years of being side tracked, and submits to Christ and Her own millenia old eternal teachings.

 

[Sirach2]

Floresco, why is his post incorrect? I read the link, and it seems pretty official to me - straight from the SSPX’s FAQ’s. I couldn’t find a date. Is this not a current understanding?

 

[StTommyMore]

As has been pointed out to you several times by several posters with no known ties to the Society, it simply does not say what you interpret it to say.

Cut and paste the portion you are reading, and bring it out into the light of day, bearing in mind the devil works under the cover of darkness, as St John hints at in his Gospel.

I pray that Rome repents of the 50 years of being side tracked, and submits to Christ and Her own millenia old eternal teachings.

I am done with this thread. I have tried to turn you from your error. It is truly sad when a handful of extremists can convince well-meaning Catholics that they supersede the Vatican.

 

[maurin]

I am done with this thread. I have tried to turn you from your error. It is truly sad when a handful of extremists can convince well-meaning Catholics that they supersede the Vatican.

I am sad to see you go without having first brought out into the light of the forum the documents which you are citing as evidence.

Believe it or not we love the Church also. So much we willfully submit to these types of indignities hurled at us, in defense of Tradition Catholic Teaching.

Sancte Pio X, ora pro nobis.

 

[floresco]

Floresco, why is his post incorrect? I read the link, and it seems pretty official to me - straight from the SSPX’s FAQ’s. I couldn’t find a date. Is this not a current understanding?

I’m talking about this statement by StTommyMore: The SSPX says that you should not attend an FSSP parish because they accept the validity of the Novus Ordo.

It is correct that the SSPX says that people should avoid FSSP parishes but the reason he gave is incorrect. It is not because the FSSP accepts the validity of the Novus Ordo. The SSPX also accepts its validity. Perhaps the poster misunderstood the comment which objected to the FSSP accepting the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the NO. These are not the same as validity.

 

[Walking_Home]

I am done with this thread. I have tried to turn you from your error. It is truly sad when a handful of extremists can convince well-meaning Catholics that they supersede the Vatican.

---

The one(s) that have been superseded in this thread --are the one(s) that have maligned the Society by attributing to the Society what is not there.

 

[Sirach2]

Last line, Walking_Home.
SSPX re FSSP:

That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses.

 

[Walking_Home]

Last line, Walking_Home.

Originally Posted by SSPX re FSSP
That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses.

---

I’ll give you an A for "effort’–but you fail in content–since the above is not the object of the question. I will repost it below.

quote=Walking_Home
Thanks for trying to pull St.TommyMore out of a hole—but the operative word I am looking for is --Validity–in said document. Where does it say the Society disagrees with the FSSP-----because the FSSP --“accepts the validity”–of the NO.

 

[Sirach2]

Floresco:

I’m talking about this statement by StTommyMore:
The SSPX says that you should not attend an FSSP parish because they accept the validity of the Novus Ordo.
It is correct that the SSPX says that people should avoid FSSP parishes but the reason he gave is incorrect. It is not because the FSSP accepts the validity of the Novus Ordo. The SSPX also accepts its validity. Perhaps the poster misunderstood the comment which objected to the FSSP accepting the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the NO. These are not the same as validity.

If people are going to split hairs over the word or interpretation of StThommyMore, it is a sorry day, IMO. He was absolutely correct. Look at Dictionary.com where I pulled this. “Validity” certainly seems to have the same meaning.

Main Entry: **lawfulness **Part of Speech: *noun *Definition: legality Synonyms: authority, constitutionality, defendability, justice, legitimacy, legitimateness, licitness, permissibility, right, validity

I believe the critical point is the last sentence that SSPX’s should NOT attend FSSP liturgies. How do you get around that denunciation?