SSPX and being canonically irregular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean even calling it the TLM is a false name though de facto most people know what it means.

For example yes the EF is in Latin. However during the 60s many vernacular elements were added if the priest chose.

The new Missal is originally in Latin and is even said in Latin sometimes mainly at the Vatican but it happens. After the Missal comes out it’s up to the bishops of every country to translate it into the vernacular.
Just saying technically the official language of the Church is Latin.
 
The SSPX believes that some statements of Vatican II are heretical or at least confusing to the faithful. So they have major issues with some teachings of Vatican II.

They also object to the new Mass, but the issues they have with the documents of Vatican II are the major issue.
 
  1. How many clergy, or lay supporters, have ever left the SSPX as a response to people criticizing the late Archbishop, or offering detailed logical arguments, peppering their analysis with words like “schismatic”, “sedevacantist” and “divisive”?
I am willing to bet the answer is “zero”.
  1. How many have left the SSPX as a result of having friends who are still in communion with the Church, who are well informed about their Faith, not argumentative, not judgmental, and doing a fairly good job of raising a Catholic family?
I am willing to bet the answer is “Some”.
 
jas84173 said:
Do they have any justification for thinking this?
Click to expand...
Heretical? Probably not. Confusing… Yeah I would say they have a strong case as to Vat 2 being confusing for most people.

Of course, knowing what any of it means is not the job of the laity. It’s a shame that Vatican 2 used language that was easily taken out of context and could be misconstrued, but it is what it is. We live in an age of ‘experts’ and our language is academic and confusing.
 
That is a very incorrect myth that you should avoid spreading. The SSPX have never denied the authority of the pope; that is why they are irregular, rather than heretical. Productive discussion is impossible if this basic fact cannot be acknowledged.
 
runningdude said:
The SSPX have never denied the authority of the pope; that is why they are irregular, rather than heretical. Productive discussion is impossible if this basic fact cannot be acknowledged.
Click to expand...
The SSPX is not “irregular”. The organization has no status in the Church.
It is not like a currently affiliated organization that is currently being sanctioned, going through a disciplinary process, under review, or in a temporary suspension, or on probation.
 
Last edited:
The Council of Trent reaffirmed the Faith that had been handed down to them. It was followed up by a catechism, also.

Many issues, many new questions came up since the catechism of the Council of Trent, so the new catechism was needed.
 
commenter said:
The SSPX is not “irregular”. The organization has no status in the Church.
It is not like a currently affiliated organization that is currently being sanctioned, going through a disciplinary process, under review, or in a temporary suspension, or on probation.
Click to expand...
That’s a matter of semantics. They were an approved Society, approved by the local bishop in 1970. They lost that status (in '75). So the word “irregular” would actually apply. Likewise, what you typed “no status in the Church” applies. Either way.
 
Actually, every SSPX priest I ever heard preach (dozens of them) denied the authority of the Pope to tell Catholics what to do. Their whole existence is based on denying the authority of the Pope!

As far as the SSPX is concerned, it is all Catholics’ moral obligation to disobey the Pope on a regular basis.

SSPX is basically Lutheranism Version 2.0
 
Psychae said:
I left the SSPX because #1. You loose your bet! Lol 😀
Click to expand...
The bet will be paid off forthwith, in spiritual bitcoin.
I share many of their earlier complaints, and I like the TLM. But I fear that, as so often happens, a “temporary” solution becomes permanent. Generations grow up. Fewer SSPX clergy ever had any kind of in-Church experience at all. I suspect some of their newly ordained are “Cradle SSPX”.

With turnover, each year they move farther apart from the RCC than they were the year before, regardless of the press releases which will no doubt spring up again the Spring — “We are on the verge of major breakthrough…Just wait till we finish this next round of discussions…Things should be clearer by the end of the year…We will be able to preserve our independence, if you leave us now all will be lost…Wait…”, meaning Stay Inside.
 
Last edited:
You missed entirely the key point that the SSPX do not deny the pope.
 
They do not claim the pope is invalid. This is critical detail that must not be overlooked if you want a productive discussion. This dispute is over the authority of the valid pope. The dispute is futile, but calling them sedevanante is factually incorrect and fatality biases discussion.
 
runningdude said:
You missed entirely the key point that the SSPX do not deny the pope.
Click to expand...
I did not mean to dismiss your point about the SSPX, and the pope. Feel free to elaborate. Other than praying for the pope, and acknowledging the pope as a spiritual leader (which Protestants also do), how does the SSPX respond to the pope as pope - in other words, how do they obey him?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top