SSPX denies validity and licitness of NO?

[Roseeurekacross]

On reading the words of Pope Emeritus Benedict, I t is clear you have taken his words completely out of context.

Shame you did that, I suggest you start fact checking , before quoting every man and his dog here.

 

[runningdude]

Ok, would you agree they have no bishop ordinary, and no pastors?

No, because they are subject to the local diocesan bishop, and territorial parish pastor, like any other Catholic.

Is the Pope able to remove any from their current position?

No, because the fraternity is organized outside of Canon Law.

(The Pope would also not be able to remove the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus for the same reason).

There are various other offshoots from the Church, mostly on the Left, who may have at least some valid priests and bishops.

Yes, but they are not priestly fraternal organizations, but separate churches with a parallel episcopal hierarchy. No such hierarchy exists in the SSPX.

Do you think They really have a Pope, too?

No, because they deliberately created a separate episcopal authority not subject to the Pope.

It does no good to say they don’t count, they’re heretics, they say they are faithful

Yet, they created a separate episcopal structure that does not exist in the SSPX. You even admit the the SSPX have no bishop ordinaries. Therefore, their status is simply not applicable when discussing the SSPX.

 

[commenter]

Ok, would you agree they have no bishop ordinary, and no pastors?

No, because they are subject to the local diocesan bishop, and territorial parish pastor, like any other Catholic. (End prior post)

Readers can decide for themselves if the local SSPX chapels and clergy are “subject” to the local diocesan bishop and territorial pastor. If they ceased being “subject” to pastor and ordinary, would they operate any differently than they do now?

 

[Zach]

The more relevant question for me is does Vatican deny the licitnees of SSPX Eucharist sacrament? Answer yes. That’s the bottom line for me and the reason I can’t in good conscience attend their services.

 

[Aquinas11]

Conversing with a pro-SSPX apologist, I was basically told that the Novus Ordo mass is not only illicit but also invalid as a mass. Which implies that it is basically sinful to attend.

The arguments include that the Second Vatican Council had some heretical statements (To which they say the entire council is akin to personal opinions basically), the promulgation of the NO was not done in the proper way, and that it violates the previous papal declaration that the form of Mass was not to be changed.

Is there any truth to what they say? (I had the reaction to be skeptical of those claims and understand it’s best to avoid SSPX, however this is an ongoing conversation we are having that I placed on hold)

If not, how would one go about responding to these claims?

I attend SSPX and can say we dont view NO as illicit or invalid. I asked SSPX priest if I need confession for attending NO in the past and he said no. What is “illicit” is a compulsory NO, since Vat II merely made NO optional. I’m no expert but my understanding is that Pope Paul VI merely expressed a preference for NO in the text of Vat II and did not compel NO. Yet many people falsely believe NO is compulsory and that false interpretation is “illicit” and heresy since it contradicts Council of Trent which said Latin Mass can never be changed (and anyone who does change it will burn in hellfire). I think Pope Paul VI knew this hence he didn’t “change” the mass, he merely expressed his preference for NO. It all comes down to what “change” of mass means. SSPX doesn’t believe Vat II “changed” the mass, since it CANT change the mass, and hence are faithfully abiding by Council of Trent mandate to attend Latin Mass. In my opinion, SSPX is faithfully interpreting both Council of Trent and Vat II since the former mandates Latin Mass and the latter makes NO optional, hence they logically conclude Latin mass is still mandated. Its like if one parent tells you “you must eat your vegetables and can never not eat your vegetables” and another parent says “eat vegetables or fruit”, you’d conclude “the only way to comply with both parents is eat vegetables”. But again I’m no expert I just started attending SSPX recently.

 

[angel12]

The SSPX has never held the Novus Ordo Missae to be invalid. This is not the position of its founder nor of the SSPX.

Anyone saying the contrary, let them please cite even one official source of the SSPX that makes this claim.

They certainly call it “evil”:
" the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances."
http://archives.sspx.org/news/is_new_mass_legit/is_the_new_mass_legit.htm

 

[commenter]

Getting back to the original post, and subject of the thread, it was about advice for someone who might get questioned by a “SSPX apologist”. My reply was yes, seek out some documentation for specific questions from Catholic sources that are reliable. I also said that the “apologist” likely will anticipate those.

So I suggested add a second plan, ask the apologist some questions about what authority HE or they stand on, when they disagree with the Church. If I talk with Protestants they tend to be far better prepared to question the authority of the Catholic Church, than they are to defend, say, the authority of Methodism, or specifically their particular branch of Methodism, which differs from other branches of Methodism.

I think most people would say SSPX people are more ready to question certain aspects of RCC authority than they are to defend basis of SSPX authority, or rather, to defend Fr. Davide administiration as opposed to other leaders who claim true SSPX,. outside that structure.

So, rather than posters responding to defend or attack SSPX, lets see posts giving practical advice for the OP to respond to that apologist.

 

[Aquinas11]

The OP asked two questions

1. “is there any truth to these claims?”
2. “if not, how would one go about responding to these claims?”

#2 is conditional (“if not”) on answer to #1, so suggesting we only answer #2 disregards OP’s questions

 

[Ioannes_L]

So, rather than posters responding to defend or attack SSPX, lets see posts giving practical advice for the OP to respond to that apologist.

That’s great!
You were the first one to reply, and you kept attacking the SSPX post after post, sometimes with pure gibberish, and now you’re saying that this should end. Why, just because some people came by to back the SSPX and go against your positions?

 

[cathapolo]

As to calling it ‘evil’ - They mean evil in the true Thomisic sense - The negation of a due good. This is exactly what Cardinal Ottaviani points out in his critique of the new Mass. He states that “the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.”

That is after pointing out all the defects in the Novus Ordo Missae. Hence even he was saying it is evil from the aspect of ‘lacking a due good’.

 

[cathapolo]

Please show how that quote was taken out of context?

 

[cathapolo]

As to it being ‘licit’ - Even the Vatican states that one can attend the SSPX Masses to fulfill there Sunday obligation.

Does SSPX Mass Attendance Fulfill the Sunday Obligation?

A Catholic Life is dedicated to teaching and transmitting the Traditional Catholic Faith with a focus on fasting, the Tridentine Mass, and customs.

acatholiclife.blogspot.com

 

[Zach]

My issue is with what the Vatican states about the effectiveness of SSPX Eucharist. One can fulfill Sunday obligation at a parish Mass too without receiving communion. But if I am in a state of grace and have fasted I always receive. I’ve been to a SSPX chapel but did not receive because the Vatican states the SSPX Eucharist is not licit.

 

[cathapolo]

This is de facto the heart of the problem. Don’t expect the wolves to tell you its ok. The Arians were not going to recommend you support St. Athanasius. That should be obvious.

That said, the 1983 Code of Canon Law here is of help in granting that permission:

Canon 844(2):  "Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual

advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or
indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically
or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully
receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the
sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are
valid."

If that is the case, for receiving the sacraments of non Catholic ministers who sacraments may be valid, how much more for receiving the sacraments at the Chapels of the SSPX.

 

[otjm]

I would simply distance myself as far as possible from any such conversation.

Neither you, nor I , nor the most knowledgeable of theologians, nor the Pope himself is going to change that person’s mind.

It has been a never ending source of amazement that these folks know so little scripture that they appear to have missed, or forgotten that Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. 2,147 bishops of the world approved of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the document from Vatican 2 which started the changes in liturgy. 4 voted against it. The Holy Spirit has not abandoned the Church; and 5 bishops (one now deceased) are not the remnant leaders of the one true Church.

Pray for this person’s soul, and move on.

 

[otjm]

The practical result of that would be the equivalent of two high school students in the first semester of high school physics attempting to discuss quantum physics.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

and it would solidify in the hearers mind they are talking but their talk is just noise…

 

[commenter]

Your response is the best on this thread, better than mine. No argument will suffice, with the apologist.
The solution is to support expansion of Church approved TLM, and discourage abuses in celebration of the OF.

As time goes on, some attached laity and clergy of SSPX will see the need and value of participation in the regional Catholic community and apostolate. Some will swim over. Some won’t. Both deserve our prayers.

 

[MockSock]

It has been a never ending source of amazement that these folks know so little scripture that they appear to have missed, or forgotten that Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.

They have not “missed or forgotten” it, they just interpret it strangely.

I was taught by SSPX priests at an SSPX school that the gates of hell (represented by the NO etc.), would not prevail against the true Church (represented by the SSPX).

This is not my opinion obviously. I don’t even know if it is the official SSPX position.

I can’t cite any documents, because I don’t have my exercise books anymore and they are certainly not online. I was never very good at taking notes anyway.

 

[commenter]

This is not my opinion obviously. I don’t even know if it is the official SSPX position.

I don’t think you can definitely say what the SSPX position on something. Some people are “sedevacantist” in the sense they don’t accept one or more of the Archbishop’s apparent successors as a valid successor to the Archbishop.

Theoretically, for Catholic laity there shouldn’t be any position on defined religious subjects, other than Rome. Supposedly they don’t belong to SSPX. But the reality is the attached laity DO get governed by leaders who may or may not agree with Fr Davide, bishop Williamson, etc, whose right to authority over laity is questionable.