SSPX communique to Rome

[Justin_Swanton]

I see.

It’s true! Scout’s honour (actually I was in Boy’s Brigade, so BB honour - much better).

 

[Lormar]

It’s true! Scout’s honour (actually I was in Boy’s Brigade, so BB honour - much better).

 

[pnewton]

Eh? I can imagine certain personages in the SSPX chucking darts at my photo on the wall after reading some of my posts!

You do not have a photo or avatar. I have to use your smilies blown up. And its spitwads, not darts.

Seriously, I do credit some of our differences may be because of our different circumstances. Thus,while I can not come to agree with the reasons you laid out, I am not unsympathetic for those that do and feel it is necessary to avoid the Catholic Church for their spiritual good. I just hope and pray this situation will be resolved so this dilemna is not longer a problem anyone faces.

 

[curlycool89]

Don’t have all the relevant materials re Canon Law in front of me right now. Let me just rephrase what I said in the sense that supplied jurisdiction is a reality, not something the SSPX made up. It extends beyond Penance and Anointing of the Sick as the episcopal consecrations in the USSR demonstrate.

I’m sorry, but what do ordinations in the USSR have to do with anything in this situation? The SSPX operates in the USA, which has freedom of religion has a principle (as in government does not interfere in religion), obviously there is no problem getting a real, validly ordained, licit Catholic priest with faculties to hear your confession.

So again, this idea of “supplied jurisdiction” seems to be just the SSPX trying to justify their illicit (and often invalid) actions.

This is the heart of the problem. The SSPX maintains that the New Mass is valid but so bad in its mentality/ambiance that it can seriously trouble the Faith of one attending it. Hence a Catholic who is troubled by it must not in conscience attend it.

If this is the SSPX’s position, it is so devoid of reasoning and logic that it is non-sensical. That whole paragraph says basically nothing.

What does “trouble the faith” mean exactly? You don’t personally enjoy it? I thought that we’ve all been told by traditionalists over and over again that whether we enjoy Mass or not is not important and our feelings about Mass are not important. So how is it all the sudden that “how you feel” about Mass becomes important?

Unless they are acknowledging that different people are spiritually fed at different styles of Mass. Some are fed better at the OF and some are better fed at the EF. So are they saying Yes or No to this, because they seem to want to have both.

The standard responses to the SSPX argument seem to be:

a) to deny there is a problem

b) to maintain that obedience to the Church outweighs any difficulties a Catholic might have with his parish.

And the standard pro-SSPX line (I will be nice and not call it the “p” word) is:

a) to maintain that there is an “emergency” 40 years old that the Church says does not exist (Bl. John Paul II told AL that he could not claim an emergency. That is settled). The Church wins.

b) to declare that disobedience is justified as long as your heart is in the right place (ends justify the means).

We can both play at this you know.

An interesting side-issue: do members of non-Catholic religions have supplied jurisdiction for the sacraments they confer, like baptism and marriage? I would imagine yes, otherwise Protestant marriages would all be invalid, which the Church doesn’t hold. Or perhaps jurisdiction isn’t required for non-Catholic sacraments. Point though is that the SSPX is not in the same position as a non-Catholic denomination. What is required of a Catholic is not required of a Protestant, and the SSPX are still considered to be Catholics.

Well, if I may be blunt, you don’t seem to have a very good understanding of sacramental theology.

Baptism doesn’t require jurisdiction at all. Anyone can validly baptize, even a non-Catholic, so long as they do form, intent, and matter.

Marriage only has jurisdiction only insofar as Canon Law says so, and canon law only applies to Catholic (CIC to Latin Catholic). Confession is a sacrament that always requires jurisdiction except in case of death (and certainly doesn’t get an exception for a suspended priests in a society that has no canonical ministry who runs a chapel, his confessions are invalid).

Different case, really. Protestants, or ex-catholics who join Protestant denominations do not like the Mass because it is Catholic (Real Presence, Sacrifice of Cavalry renewed). The SSPX objects to the New Mass because they maintain it is too Protestant…

So again, we’re back to comparing tastes. The SSPX seems to think that Catholics who like or even prefer the OF are dumb, but they have appointed themselves supreme arbitrator of Mass tastes.

Is this true? I say it with all due respect. I find it difficult to imagine that a bishop in some isolated part of the world, cut off from communication with Rome, would not ensure the sacramental future of his flock by consecrating a successor. This situation presupposes total isolation from the rest of the Church, and a state of affairs that will last a long time, like a persecution that has driven the Church underground in that region. Is there no case of this in history?

Have you looked at the hierarchy for the People’s Republic of China lately? It’s mostly empty (you can confirm by looking through catholic-hierarchy.org). You example is real, and bishops do not simply ordain a successor because that would be a schismatic act. Your point is not well taken.

The two families who will go to the local parish (if there is a declaration of schism), are the families who fulfill the Sunday obligation no matter what the circumstances. If a priest cannot serve our mission church from the SSPX, we have all been counselled to avoid the Novus Ordo and simply pray in the church on Sunday. This is reality.Two families go to the parish church instead of accepting this advice.

I find it quite distressing that everyone but these 2 families choose to commit a grave act (could be a mortal sin) by missing Mass on Sunday out of pride and horrible advice.

A question for you. What then is the situation right now for someone who attends the Society chapel to meet the Sunday obligation. For instance, there would obviously be available a diocesan OF Mass as well, but the choice is made to attend the SSPX Mass. Confessions? Marriages?

By “situation” I mean what type of sin is committed, if any.

Sunday - fine (according to the CDF), so long as you don’t go with a schismatic attitude
Confessions - Objectively invalid and therefore sacrilege (no jurisdiction. Valid in case on imminent death, which is probably 0.00001% of cases)
Marriage - Likely invalid in light of Canon 1108

Can we be real with each other? I hope it’s okay.

You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who regularly attends the EF, who likes the OF.

Is the OF valid? Of course.

I think Mrs Sally had it right when she said “hate”, which is above and beyond just a dislike of the OF or a preference for the EF (I know people who attend the EF who also attend the OF, it does happen). Like they think the OF is invalid or that the EF is objectively (in all cases) better (let’s not have that discussion again).

Bottom line: a Catholic whose sense of reverence and propriety is seriously troubled by what he sees in a particular parish is guilty of mortal sin if that is the only church he can attend on Sunday and he chooses, out of a desire for spiritual peace of mind, not to go.

That is rather a big stick.

Part of being Catholic is obedience and doing things you don’t like. It wasn’t much fun for Jesus when he was being whipped, crowned with thorns, carrying a heavy cross, and crucified. I’m pretty positive that the annoying gun-chewer at Mass that you may have to put up with for 1 hour isn’t as bad and that you’ll get through it ok.

Neither God nor the Church asks if we like the Mass first.

Heck, you don’t even need to understand the language (the largely illiterate peasantry surely didn’t during the early middle ages in places like Wessex or Northumbria). I’ve been to Mass in french, and I end up spacing out because I don’t really know exactly where the priest is (I can catch some words, but mostly it’s “I wonder what he’s saying?”).

Justin, why don’t you just put your trust and confidence in the Church (where it belongs) instead of in yourself and the SSPX? I don’t recall the SSPX getting a mandate from Heaven making them the authority of what is and is not Catholic.

Ironically enough, trust is a very middle ages idea I’d say. The whole distrust of authority and supreme authority of individuality is very French Revolution or anything post-60s (it’s ironic that a traditionalists movement almost looks like the Vatican version of anti-government protestors of the 60s, advocating canonical disobedience and all).

That’s a hard one to give up. We’re so used to being told that we’re always right (“the customer is always right” for example) and we’re so used to getting whatever we want in our highly-consumerized world. Giving your full, irrevocable, solemn trust to the Church is necessary, I would say that it is a mandatory step on the path to holiness; you cannot move on to greater perfection (to be perfect as God is perfect) if you cannot trust.

Nit-picking language to try to justify any action does not show personal growth, it shows a want to stay who you are because change is hard. That’s what I see in a lot of these SSPX threads, the SSPX doesn’t seem to ever grow as people, it’s like dealing with someone who refuses to clean up their room even though they’re 52. It’s not “holding fast”, it’s just plane stubbornness and pride that “I know best”.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The SSPX operates in the USA, which has freedom of religion [as] a principle (as in government does not interfere in religion) …

We can’t be so sure these days

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I’m sorry, but what do ordinations in the USSR have to do with anything in this situation? The SSPX operates in the USA, which has freedom of religion has a principle (as in government does not interfere in religion), obviously there is no problem getting a real, validly ordained, licit Catholic priest with faculties to hear your confession.

So again, this idea of “supplied jurisdiction” seems to be just the SSPX trying to justify their illicit (and often invalid) actions.

You missed my point in that post, which was to examine whether supplied jurisdiction extends beyond Confession in danger of death, not whether the SSPX are justified in invoking it for Confession.

What does “trouble the faith” mean exactly? You don’t personally enjoy it?

Nope, it doesn’t mean that.

I thought that we’ve all been told by traditionalists over and over again that whether we enjoy Mass or not is not important and our feelings about Mass are not important. So how is it all the sudden that “how you feel” about Mass becomes important?

Since we are all for blunt speaking, this is a classic straw man. But there is some truth in it. Someone coming from a Traditional background is likely to cringe in a New Mass over things that in themselves are acceptable, like Communion in the hand (read what the Vatican has to say about that one, though). A Trad Catholic coming into a mainstream church has to distinguish between what he has subjective bad feelings about and what is really objectionable. The vernacular is not an irreverence, nor is standing or sitting at different times to the Tridentine Mass. I would maintain that ministers of the Eucharist in lay clothing, especially women ministers, are problematic, but survivable. Some hymns of Protestant origin are quite acceptable, other kinds of music can be problematic to the point of nearly destroying one’s ability to spiritually enter into the Mass. Having made these distinctions, is a typical New Mass acceptable to a Trad Catholic? Let me answer that one further down.

Unless they are acknowledging that different people are spiritually fed at different styles of Mass. Some are fed better at the OF and some are better fed at the EF. So are they saying Yes or No to this, because they seem to want to have both.

Don’t quite follow this, but let it go.

And the standard pro-SSPX line (I will be nice and not call it the “p” word) is:

a) to maintain that there is an “emergency” 40 years old that the Church says does not exist (Bl. John Paul II told AL that he could not claim an emergency. That is settled). The Church wins.

Now this is interesting. I was going to post something on precisely this subject, so here goes:

Whatever the SSPX may say about the New Mass, it has never denied that that Mass was duly promulgated by the highest authority in the Church, about as officially as a liturgy can be. This Mass has been the default rite in the Latin Church for the past 42 years; it’s the rite the average Catholic has gone to each Sunday for the last couple of generations. If it is as bad as the SSPX says it is, then the Church will have failed in her mission of sanctifying the faithful.

There is nothing in the past that would equate to this. During the Arian crisis Arianism never had the sanction of the Church. Arian bishops, backed by imperial authority, may have taken control of Church buildings, but the Catholics on the ground knew where they stood. There were faithful clergy they could go to for their spiritual needs, and they never had a reason to think the ***Church ***was pushing them into Arianism.

The Protestant Reformation is even less of an issue. Early on the Protestant reformers made it clear they were parting company with the Church, and the Church made it equally clear they were out. The Catholics on the ground again knew where they stood.

The Great Western Schism is the last example I can think of. Two lines of popes for a period of 70 years, one in Avignon and the other in Rome, each calling the other schismatics, each claiming the entire loyalty of the faithful. Support for them tended to follow national lines: France backing the Avignon papacy, Italy the Roman one (who incidentally was the real article). It was a time of great confusion, with even saints on different sides, nonetheless nothing changed in the fundamental lives of Catholics. Both factions upheld Church doctrine and morales, and the Masses the faithful of the two sides went to was the same.

Looking at the New Mass, if Christ’s promise to the Church holds true, then the standard liturgy of the Church ***must ***do its basic job of glorifying God and sanctifying the faithful. There may be exceptions to the rule but the rule must hold good.

I have yet to come across any convincing answer to this from the Traditional camp.

b) to declare that disobedience is justified as long as your heart is in the right place (ends justify the means).

Another straw man.

Well, if I may be blunt, you don’t seem to have a very good understanding of sacramental theology.

True, my sacramental theology is not that strong (haven’t looked at it for years ). You will notice that I asked a question, I didn’t make a statement. One thing I pride myself I’m getting good at is looking at what is said and answering it, rather than using pro hominems and the ‘you’ word.

So again, we’re back to comparing tastes. The SSPX seems to think that Catholics who like or even prefer the OF are dumb, but they have appointed themselves supreme arbitrator of Mass tastes.

Straw man.

Have you looked at the hierarchy for the People’s Republic of China lately? It’s mostly empty (you can confirm by looking through catholic-hierarchy.org). You example is real, and bishops do not simply ordain a successor because that would be a schismatic act. Your point is not well taken.

I’ve no idea what is going on in China. Br JREducation seemed to imply that bishops are being consecrated secretly but only the Vatican knows the situation. Can’t comment.

Sunday - fine (according to the CDF), so long as you don’t go with a schismatic attitude
Confessions - Objectively invalid and therefore sacrilege (no jurisdiction. Valid in case on imminent death, which is probably 0.00001% of cases)
Marriage - Likely invalid in light of Canon 1108

This is not what I’ve heard from prelates like Archbishop Jabulani (a theologian incidentally) who made it quite clear the Church accepts the validity of SSPX marriages. I think it would be a very good idea to collect and put on this thread all the affirmations of authoritative figures in the hierarchy on these issues.

I think Mrs Sally had it right when she said “hate”, which is above and beyond just a dislike of the OF or a preference for the EF (I know people who attend the EF who also attend the OF, it does happen). Like they think the OF is invalid or that the EF is objectively (in all cases) better (let’s not have that discussion again).

Some truth in this. Many in the SSPX see the mainstream Church as coming from Mars. It’s not hate though, just a prejudice based on caricature (which many in the mainstream Church also have for SSPX massgoers )

Part of being Catholic is obedience and doing things you don’t like. It wasn’t much fun for Jesus when he was being whipped, crowned with thorns, carrying a heavy cross, and crucified. I’m pretty positive that the annoying gun-chewer at Mass that you may have to put up with for 1 hour isn’t as bad and that you’ll get through it ok.

And another straw man.

Ironically enough, trust is a very middle ages idea I’d say. The whole distrust of authority and supreme authority of individuality is very French Revolution or anything post-60s (it’s ironic that a traditionalists movement almost looks like the Vatican version of anti-government protestors of the 60s, advocating canonical disobedience and all).

That’s a hard one to give up. We’re so used to being told that we’re always right (“the customer is always right” for example) and we’re so used to getting whatever we want in our highly-consumerized world. Giving your full, irrevocable, solemn trust to the Church is necessary, I would say that it is a mandatory step on the path to holiness; you cannot move on to greater perfection (to be perfect as God is perfect) if you cannot trust.

Nit-picking language to try to justify any action does not show personal growth, it shows a want to stay who you are because change is hard. That’s what I see in a lot of these SSPX threads, the SSPX doesn’t seem to ever grow as people, it’s like dealing with someone who refuses to clean up their room even though they’re 52. It’s not “holding fast”, it’s just plane stubbornness and pride that “I know best”.

“All generalisations are false, including this one” to quote Mark Twain. Some SSPX massgoers are like this, but not all. I know, because I have known them. Convinced SSPXers who come to this forum are either looking for a fight, or are uneasy about the SSPX and looking for the truth (which I suppose means one can’t really call them convinced any more). There are plenty of others who are not bellicose and have not yet had the occasion to feel uneasy.

 

[clem456]

… Having made these distinctions, is a typical New Mass acceptable to a Trad Catholic? …

.

An inverted spirituality? Is it fair to say that this outlook is a good representation of modern individualism? You can see it on the “right” and the “left”.

 

[Dee_S]

Originally Posted by curlycool89 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
What does “trouble the faith” mean exactly? You don’t personally enjoy it?
Justin Swanton;9632310:

Nope, it doesn’t mean that.

Yes, it does mean that they don’t personally enjoy it! The majority of the parishioners at the SPXX chapel I attended (back in the bad old days) were doing their own thing during Mass.i.e. praying the rosary, saying private prayers, burying their head into their hands ignoring what was going on in the liturgy etc. This I observed for many years, in several different chapels. In fact, the ‘war’ at the time was the opposition to the ‘Dialogue Mass’ (responding to the priest), which was felt by most to be disturbing their Mass.

Someone coming from a Traditional background is likely to cringe in a New Mass over things that in themselves are acceptable, like Communion in the hand. A Trad Catholic coming into a mainstream church has to distinguish between what he has subjective bad feelings about and what is really objectionable.

The expression “trouble the faith” is an oft used one in SSPX circles. It’s beginning to look like everything that is not their their personal liking is “troubling”.

Whatever the SSPX may say about the New Mass, it has never denied that that Mass was duly promulgated by the highest authority in the Church, about as officially as a liturgy can be…If it is as bad as the SSPX says it is, then the Church will have failed in her mission of sanctifying the faithful.

Exactly what they do claim. They also claim that the graces ‘flowing’ from their Masses are what’s saving the world! They claim to be the True Church.

They claim ‘Faith is greater than Obedience’ too. I have heard many ‘sensible’ Trads try to justify this nutty proposition. This is the poisoned milk they have been fed, that sustains and justifies their disobedience to the authority of the Church.

Looking at the New Mass, if Christ’s promise to the Church holds true, then the standard liturgy of the Church ***must ***

do its basic job of glorifying God and sanctifying the faithful. There may be exceptions to the rule but the rule must hold good.
A lot if if’s and must’s still lurking around, but you’re on the right track

Quote: Originally Posted by curlycool89 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Sunday - fine (according to the CDF), so long as you don’t go with a schismatic attitude
Confessions - Objectively invalid and therefore sacrilege (no jurisdiction. Valid in case on imminent death, which is probably 0.00001% of cases)
Marriage - Likely invalid in light of Canon 1108

This is not what I’ve heard from prelates like Archbishop Jabulani (a theologian incidentally) who made it quite clear the Church accepts the validity of SSPX marriages. I think it would be a very good idea to collect and put on this thread all the affirmations of authoritative figures in the hierarchy on these issues.

The letter of Msgr Perl of the Ecclesia Dei Commission I posted earlier, gives the facts and says that Confessions and Marriages are invalid.

Some truth in this. Many in the SSPX see the mainstream Church as coming from Mars. It’s not hate though, just a prejudice based on caricature (which many in the mainstream Church also have for SSPX massgoers )

Almost all (with the exception of those who are not on the way out of there)in the SSPX see the “mainstream” (BTW a very Trad perception of the True Church) Church as alien

Almost all those belonging to the True Church have not even heard of the SSPX. And if and when they do hear of it - e.g. Bishop Williamson’s foolish stand and publicity regarding the Holocaust, and their present “stupid” attack on Archbishop Muller accusing him of heresy, their continued refusal of full communion with the Church etc. -
have their opinions about - that’s not what I would call prejudice

 

[Denise1957]

In looking at the Ignis Ardens forum yesterday, I saw it posted on one of the “Fr. Chazal” threads that it is believed by Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson that there have been private revelations from the Blessed Virgin to someone associated with the SSPX, for several years. And the Blessed Virgin reportedly said, according to the forum member, that she “gave a promise to answer the Rosary Crusade, but not while Menzingen is in dialogue with Rome.” The forum member then went on to say (her own summary, I think) that the only one stopping the triumph of the Immaculate Heart is Menzingen."

So what are we to make of this? The forum member also listed several SSPX priests who take the revelations seriously, and two of them I know are very much against reconciliation. It sounds as if the “revelations” are trying to stop reconciliation of the SSPX with Rome, and in that case, they must be false, of course, since Our Lady would never encourage any Catholic group to remain outside of the authroity and jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, if indeed this is what the revelations are really saying.

I hope that the dialogue between the SSPX and Rome is not adversely affected by this, and that this info is wrong, and that there really aren’t any such revelations. Has anyone else heard about this?

 

[Lormar]

curlycool89:

Ironically enough, trust is a very middle ages idea I’d say. The whole distrust of authority and supreme authority of individuality is very French Revolution or anything post-60s (it’s ironic that a traditionalists movement almost looks like the Vatican version of anti-government protestors of the 60s, advocating canonical disobedience and all).

That’s a hard one to give up. We’re so used to being told that we’re always right (“the customer is always right” for example) and we’re so used to getting whatever we want in our highly-consumerized world. Giving your full, irrevocable, solemn trust to the Church is necessary, I would say that it is a mandatory step on the path to holiness; you cannot move on to greater perfection (to be perfect as God is perfect) if you cannot trust.

Nit-picking language to try to justify any action does not show personal growth, it shows a want to stay who you are because change is hard. That’s what I see in a lot of these SSPX threads, the SSPX doesn’t seem to ever grow as people, it’s like dealing with someone who refuses to clean up their room even though they’re 52. It’s not “holding fast”, it’s just plane stubbornness and pride that “I know best”.

I just last night read the very same thing in the book I am currently reading by the late Monsignor George A. Kelly Battle For The American Church (Revisited).

I agree with you completely. It’s really a diabolical trap - “I will not serve.”

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Oh MY! This is all we need - interventions from the realm beyond to clarify everything. So in order to hasten the Second Coming, the SSPX should break off with Rome? This is beginning to sound like Mayan calendar nuttiness. :hypno:

In looking at the Ignis Ardens forum yesterday, I saw it posted on one of the “Fr. Chazal” threads that it is believed by Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson that there have been private revelations from the Blessed Virgin to someone associated with the SSPX, for several years. And the Blessed Virgin reportedly said, according to the forum member, that she “gave a promise to answer the Rosary Crusade, but not while Menzingen is in dialogue with Rome.” The forum member then went on to say (her own summary, I think) that the only one stopping the triumph of the Immaculate Heart is Menzingen."

So what are we to make of this? The forum member also listed several SSPX priests who take the revelations seriously, and two of them I know are very much against reconciliation. It sounds as if the “revelations” are trying to stop reconciliation of the SSPX with Rome, and in that case, they must be false, of course, since Our Lady would never encourage any Catholic group to remain outside of the authroity and jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, if indeed this is what the revelations are really saying.

I hope that the dialogue between the SSPX and Rome is not adversely affected by this, and that this info is wrong, and that there really aren’t any such revelations. Has anyone else heard about this?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I just last night read the very same thing in the book I am currently reading by the late Monsignor George A. Kelly Battle For The American Church (Revisited).

I agree with you completely. It’s really a diabolical trap - “I will not serve.”

Putting this book on my towering stack of “to be read next”…

 

[Lormar]

Putting this book on my towering stack of “to be read next”…

Mrs. Sally, a better book by him is In My Father’s House. I think you would love it. I have about four of his books. All are very good.

 

[Lormar]

Oh MY! This is all we need - interventions from the realm beyond to clarify everything. So in order to hasten the Second Coming, the SSPX should break off with Rome? This is beginning to sound like Mayan calendar nuttiness. :hypno:

I agree that these alleged “revelations” do not sound good, and I doubt that they are from Our Lady.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Mrs. Sally, a better book by him is In My Father’s House. I think you would love it. I have about four of his books. All are very good.

Thank you. I will look for this one first.

 

[curlycool89]

I agree that these alleged “revelations” do not sound good, and I doubt that they are from Our Lady.

No kidding, they sound a bit nutty.

Speaking realistically though, it’s not a surprise. When you want to deny the truth you don’t believe in nothing, you end up believing anything that comes along that comforts you. These people who believe these so-called “revelations” need serious prayers, maybe even a Rosary Crusade just for them.

 

[ProVobis]

**St Pius X says: **“Active participation in the most holy mysteries and in the solemn public prayer of the Church, is the primary and indispensable source of the true christian spirit.” Motu proprio, 1903

actuosa participatio is the Latin. It is debateable whether “active participation” is the right translation. It is closer to the cognate “actual.” I suppose in the English, “actual” doesn’t make much sense but it is interesting that in the Spanish it means something that belongs in “present or current time, belonging to this moment or this day.” Just thought I’d mention that.

 

[triumphguy]

In looking at the Ignis Ardens forum yesterday, I saw it posted on one of the “Fr. Chazal” threads that it is believed by Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson that there have been private revelations from the Blessed Virgin to someone associated with the SSPX, for several years. And the Blessed Virgin reportedly said, according to the forum member, that she “gave a promise to answer the Rosary Crusade, but not while Menzingen is in dialogue with Rome.” The forum member then went on to say (her own summary, I think) that the only one stopping the triumph of the Immaculate Heart is Menzingen."

So what are we to make of this? The forum member also listed several SSPX priests who take the revelations seriously, and two of them I know are very much against reconciliation. It sounds as if the “revelations” are trying to stop reconciliation of the SSPX with Rome, and in that case, they must be false, of course, since Our Lady would never encourage any Catholic group to remain outside of the authroity and jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, if indeed this is what the revelations are really saying.

I hope that the dialogue between the SSPX and Rome is not adversely affected by this, and that this info is wrong, and that there really aren’t any such revelations. Has anyone else heard about this?

#1 rule of revelations, apparitions and seers - if they speak against the hierarchy or the magisterium then they are not of divine origin.

Free advice? Don’t go back to that forum.

 

[Dee_S]

actuosa participatio is the Latin. It is debateable whether “active participation” is the right translation. It is closer to the cognate “actual.” I suppose in the English, “actual” doesn’t make much sense but it is interesting that in the Spanish it means something that belongs in “present or current time, belonging to this moment or this day.” Just thought I’d mention that.

:tada:Thank you for doing that. It makes even more sense when the closest interpretation is applied. Although as seen in the words of Pope St Pius X below, it seems that “actual” and “active” are called for (then again, I’m no scholar)

"St. Pius X called us to “pray the Mass.” He states…

The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. It is the Sacrifice, dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the Altar.If you wish to hear mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart and mouth all that happens at the Altar. Further, you must pray with the Priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the Altar. When acting in this way you have prayed Holy Mass.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

In looking at the Ignis Ardens forum yesterday, I saw it posted on one of the “Fr. Chazal” threads that it is believed by Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson that there have been private revelations from the Blessed Virgin to someone associated with the SSPX, for several years. And the Blessed Virgin reportedly said, according to the forum member, that she “gave a promise to answer the Rosary Crusade, but not while Menzingen is in dialogue with Rome.” The forum member then went on to say (her own summary, I think) that the only one stopping the triumph of the Immaculate Heart is Menzingen."

So what are we to make of this? The forum member also listed several SSPX priests who take the revelations seriously, and two of them I know are very much against reconciliation. It sounds as if the “revelations” are trying to stop reconciliation of the SSPX with Rome, and in that case, they must be false, of course, since Our Lady would never encourage any Catholic group to remain outside of the authroity and jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, if indeed this is what the revelations are really saying.

I hope that the dialogue between the SSPX and Rome is not adversely affected by this, and that this info is wrong, and that there really aren’t any such revelations. Has anyone else heard about this?

I found and read the thread. All it amounts to is affirmations by a couple of priests who have left or are in the process of leaving the SSPX that, several years ago, Bishop Fellay took seriously a supposed seer of Our Lady. No precisions are made and no proof is offered, and the poster says he/she will not offer it, but that anyone interested must contact Menzingen themselves to learn more. It would appear from the thread that the SSPX hierarchy, including Bishop Fellay, are not taking that supposed seer seriously now.

Much ado about nothing.