SSPX mass OK?

[numealinesimpet]

… If some one believes that these talks are a disingenuous trap, then it is a much deeper problem within them.

I certainly don’t believe that. The Pope has shown great courage in going as far as he has - and he got a very heavy dose of ‘their’ tactics – those of the real enemies of the Church – when he withdrew the excommunications. Remember his anguished letter at the time?

Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment.

I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility.

That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who ‘has something against you’ and to seek reconciliation?

And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.

The talks, far from being a trap, are exactly what the SSPX have pleaded for from the very beginning. See eg. Michael Davies’ books and elsewhere. But nothing can happen overnight. I don’t think Pope Benedict has actually told the SSPX to close down; he has reminded us that the SSPX have no canonical mission in the Church. That is true, provided the suspensions are legitimate. I have given what I understand to be the arguments against this position. Let us give both sides the chance to iron this out.

 

[ProVobis]

That is true, provided the suspensions are legitimate.

Num, what would make those suspensions “legitimate”, in your opinion?

Thanks for the informative posts. Very helpful.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Num, what would make those suspensions “legitimate”, in your opinion?

Thanks for the informative posts. Very helpful.

I don’t remember offhand what was the precise reason given for the suspensions. If they are (as I believe) part of the chain of suspensions (i.e. each a response to the refusal to accept the previous) that began with the orchestrated (illegal, irregular and hence invalid) attempt to silence Mgr Lefebvre and close his seminary, then they are part of the chain of invalid suspensions. You cannot hang a good link on a faulty hook.

Why have I not investigated this more thoroughly? For my part, I see the entire attempt to have suppressed the immemorial life of the Church, and replace it with a programme of compulsory open-ended novelty, something which a loyal son of the Church is entitled to “resist, steadfast in the Faith” (1Peter 5:9).

In truth, I can’t think there could be any other reason for this draconian measure. But ‘for the sake of argument’ on this forum, I added the proviso. I think it is certain that the suspensions lack validity, but I am happy to wait for them to be quietly lifted. They have done their work, anyway: they have got the Vatican to discuss the problems of the Vatican II documents openly and fairly, which they had so far refused to do.

I do realise that many fervent Catholics disagree with the SSPX case. I will not comment on the confusion that has allowed this to happen. I am very grateful to CAF for allowing open discussion & exchange of referenced information – unlike some other websites, that systematically exclude a statement of the “trad” case – and to ban those posters who dare to try.

My advice is, if you have a real, well-informed problem with the SSPX, then just ignore them. Mgr Lefebvre himself said that those who have a serious problem, and feel bad about not going to Mass if there is no TLM available, are better to go along to their parish Mass than be interiorly disturbed. As for those unhappy about the New Order, he reminded them that there is a legitimate alternative. I have accepted this, believing it to be in line with the real situation in the Church. But I have no intention of falling out with the Catholics who do not see it that way. Mgr Lefebvre also said that he would prefer the TLM [EF] (Traditional Latin Mass) in the vernacular, to the NO [OF] (Novus Ordo Missae – the New Order of Mass) in Latin. I agree – it combines the worst of both worlds.

 

[pnewton]

My apologies for arguing by analogy. This is always dangerous, as it drags in extraneous matter that can then become the centre of the argument. By mentioning the Cristeros I meant to make the point that a Pope can make, and has made, disastrous mistakes in judgment.

pnewton writes, The SSPX are by no means outside the Church. Nor are they against the Church, although they do what they can against enemies of the Church who have inveigled themselves into positions within Her.

I know they are not, which is why I did not under stand the analog. Thank you for clarifying. However, the cardinals, bishops and priests that are targeted by the SSPX are just as much inside the Church. I do not find validity in the Mason conspiracy theories advocated by groups like fatima crusader and other such elements. If they were right, for the sake of argument, so what? It is not they that control the direction of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit. I certainly think Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have guided the Church under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, all this conspiracy stuff nor withstanding.

 

[ishiac]

Can anyone answer this in brief?

I thought that the SSPX was excommunicated due to them rejecting some teachings of Vatican II and finding Popes Benedict and John Paul II to be invalid Popes. Why were they excommunicated then?

Hi there fish90,

I was out for a week so I didn’t see your post till today. If you want to know details of the hows and whys of the SSPX they have everything in objectively written books so you can read it all for yourself. It appears a lot of people who comment on this sight haven’t really done their homework in seeking the truth.
Get a hold of the approved apparition information of Our Lady of LaSallette and the actual message which the church officials tried for so long to keep from the world. The message will discredit some of the posts people are placing on this site.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I do not find validity in the Mason conspiracy theories advocated by groups like Fatima Crusader and other such elements. If they were right, for the sake of argument, so what? It is not they that control the direction of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit. I certainly think Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have guided the Church under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, all this conspiracy stuff notwithstanding.

I too was inclined to dismiss what are called “conspiracy theories’ of Masons etc etc. I was also warned once by a very good and wise priest, Rev. Alan Wilders R.I.P. (for the record, TLM, not SSPX), who had extensive actual personal experience of some of their shenanigans:

“Never forget, [nume], they are not as powerful as they’d have us believe, and they’re not as clever as they’d have us believe. They have their agenda, and we have our agenda. They are masters of deception. If you try to unravel their workings, they will tie you up in so many knots you won’t know where you are”.

On that basis, one is warned against constructing an elaborate scenario of what “they” are up to, and then acting on it as though it were proven fact; but I believe it is foolish to dismiss hard evidence such as that courageously put forward by Dom Putti (see previous post) and by Antonio Socci (by no means a “Lefebvrist” or “Trad”) in “The Fourth Secret", English translation ISBN 1-930278-78-0; ©2006: Loreto Publications www.LoretoPubs.org ; giving precise details and quotations about the attempts to bury the message of Fatima.

Look at it logically. there are intelligent people out there who are sworn enemies of the Church, as was prophesied at the very beginning of the Human Race:

“I will put an enmity between thee and the woman [either Our Lady, or the Church, the Bride of Christ, herself] … between thy seed and Her seed. She [Vulgate] will crush thy head, and thou wilt lie in wait for her heel”.

Being intelligent, they will combine forces to some extent: Why wouldn’t they? And they will lend their weight to any efforts to “divide and conquer” the Church. It was a great step forward when the Holy Father removed the impediment of the excommunications, which had done so much to stifle the legitmate protests at the chaos in the Church.

pnewton asks

If they were right [about masonic infiltration], for the sake of argument, so what?

Just this: (and this is not directed personally, but to anyone) … do not be too credulous of everything that emanates from The Vatican, especially anonymous Press Releases and the like. Also, look more carefully than you might have, at documents, and check whether they really do say what they purport to say. There will be surprises.
pnewton comments

It is not they that control the direction of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit. I certainly think Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have guided the Church under the leadership of the Holy Spirit …

Agreed. But that does not mean that we can interpret everything coming from the general direction of the Vatican in a simple-minded manner. The Holy Spirit guides the Church, but He leaves a certain freedom of operation, and even allows evils to afflict the Church, as can be seen in Her history down through every century. To take another analogy, if the driver of a bus finds the bus down a side alley, he will need to find his way back to the high road. On the way back, precisely because he is in charge of the bus at that time, he will have to drive through unscheduled territory. The passengers ought not to infer that these side-turnings are thereby part of the original planned route. S. Thomas Aquinas would say that to state, “The Holy Spirit is in charge” and then do nothing to fight the evil on our doorstep, would be to Tempt Holy Providence.

 

[numealinesimpet]

To those still worried about the attitude of the SSPX, let me draw your attention to Bishop Fellay’s response (my own translation) to the lifting of the decree of excommunication (posted on DICI, 12 March 2009): –

"Le pape Benoît XVI a adressé une lettre aux évêques de l’Eglise catholique, en date du 10 mars 2009, (etc) …

English translation – [my comments in square brackets]:

Pope Benedict XVI addressed a letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church, dated March 10, 2009, in which he announces to them the intentions which guided him in this important step constituting the Decree of January 21, 2009.

After the recent “outburst of a flood of protests,” we warmly thank the Holy Father for having lifted the debate to the height where it belongs, that of the faith. We fully share his priority concern of preaching “In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel.”

The Church is, indeed, going through a major crisis which could be solved only by an integral return to the purity of the faith. With St. Athanasius, we profess that “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith, unless everyone doth keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.” (Quicumque Symbol). [First line of the Athanasian Creed: see e.g. in the Catholic Encyclopedia.] [Please note as an aside: the Creed says “keep”: it is directed against Catholics who apostasize, not at those souls who are yet to be evangelised. I mention this here because it has been misapplied before now, although not by the SSPX].

Far from wanting to stop Tradition at 1962, we wish to consider the Second Vatican Council and post-conciliar teaching in the light of this Tradition that St. Vincent de Lérins has defined as “what was believed everywhere, always, and by all” (Commonitorium, chp. 2 ¶3), without rupture and in a perfectly homogeneous development. Thus we will be able to contribute effectively to the evangelization requested by the Saviour. (cf. Matthew 28:19-20)

The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X assures Benedict XVI of its will to approach the doctrinal talks, which have been recognized as “necessary” by the Decree of January 21, with the desire to serve revealed Truth, which is the first duty of charity to be manifested to all men, Christians or not. It [the SSPX] assures him of its prayer so that his faith does not weaken and so that he might strengthen his bretheren. (cf Luke 22:32)

We place these doctrinal talks under the protection of Our Lady of Confidence, with the assurance that she will obtain for us the grace to accurately transmit what we received, “tradidi quod and accepi” (I Cor. 15:3).

 

[numealinesimpet]

At the time of the lifting of the excommunications, there had already been a date set for SSPX ordinations to the sub-diaconate. As “a gesture of assuagement” (see below), particularly in view of the furious and intemperate attack of the German Episcopal Conference against the Holy Father himself, the SSPX agreed to re-locate the ordinations. Please note that they were not ordered by the Pope, or anybody authorised by the Pope, to “repent of their disobedience and desist from any further ordinations” as has been erroneously claimed:–

PRESS RELEASE by Bernard Fellay FSSPX
At the request of the Holy See, we have decided to move the ordinations to the sub-diaconate that were to take place at Zaitzkofen, this Saturday, 28th March. They will take place in Ecône Seminary, on the same date.

This decision is intended to be a gesture of assuagement after the lifting of the unjust excommunications which were imposed on the Fraternity’s bishops and the violent reactions which followed. In fact, we regret that certain Episcopacies have used it to lead an open rebellion against the Sovereign Pontiff. We are particularly disgusted by the attitude of the German Episcopacy, which has not ceased to show uncharitable hostility and its continious imputations, treating us with ‘hatred, without fear or reserve’ as the Holy Father rightly noted in his letter on the 10th March.

We know that our situation, in regard to the law of the Church, is imperfect. This is not new and is intimately connected to the crisis through which the Church is passing, and the state of necessity which arises. It therefore serves no purpose to invoke a right to strangle the life of our priestly society. The ordinations will go ahead, as planned; there has never been a question of supressing them. The benevolent act of the Holy See cannot be seen as a wish to choke the FSSPX.

We are keeping to the time framework indicated by the decree of 21st January which foresees ‘necessary discussions’ on the subject of the Second Vatican Council and its novelties. We reiterate to the Holy Father the assurance of prayer that out of these doctrinal discussions will emerge the light of Truth in its entirety.

Menzingen, 24th March 2009,

• Bernard Fellay

 

[Jacafamala]

If you attend their Mass for your love for the TLM and not in support of schism, then it is perfectfly fine…don’t listen to anyone that tells you it is sinful. I am hoping and praying for the day this entire matter is resolved and they are brought fully back into the Church…then we shoud go after those that are really damaging the faith, such as rogue priest and Bishops ordaining women, etc.

There you go.

 

[pnewton]

pnewton comments Agreed. But that does not mean that we can interpret everything coming from the general direction of the Vatican in a simple-minded manner. The Holy Spirit guides the Church, but He leaves a certain freedom of operation, and even allows evils to afflict the Church, as can be seen in Her history down through every century.

Yes, but I will give it more credence than for coming that way. This includes the letter by Msgr. Perl. I do not think that should be dismissed out of hand either.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Yes, but I will give it more credence than for coming that way. This includes the letter by Msgr. Perl. I do not think that should be dismissed out of hand either.

Can you give us a paste, or a link, please? I can think of a couple, including the one where he said that an SSPX Mass satisfies the Sunday obligation, & that a small contribution to the plate would be appropriate…

 

[pnewton]

Can you give us a paste, or a link, please? I can think of a couple, including the one where he said that an SSPX Mass satisfies the Sunday obligation, & that a small contribution to the plate would be appropriate…

It’s at the bottom here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=269697

 

[ProVobis]

latin-mass-society.org/perl-011803.htm

His first question was “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass” and our response was:

“1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.”

His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:

“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. **If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.” **
His third question was: “Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass” to which we responded:

“3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.”

 

[white_sheep]

No, he was originally going to consecrate only one. His pleas had been ignored for years: he knew perfectly well they were just waiting for him to die – a solution the church had employed successfully for nigh on 2000 years. It was only when he called their bluff and made it clear he was going to go ahead with or without permission that they took any notice at all. He submitted suggested candidates from among the SSPX clergy (which was normal procedure) but right up to the bitter end they would not give him a name. The Vatican had repeatedly found a string of excuses for putting the whole proceedings off. He believed that those running this cat-and-mouse game (which was not the pope) would simply continue this. It would not be the first time that the Vatican would have organised an event, then cancelled it at the last moment. It is all in the record. Once he had made the decision, however, he wanted to make sure that there would be long-term stability, and so he decided to consecrate four. Bp de Castro Meyer of Brazil volunteered to concelebrate the consecration. “Bare is brotherless back”. Thus we had one diocesan bishop (de Castro Meyer) and one Missionary Bishop (Lefebvre) to “do what the Church does”.

**white sheep,**I treat the rest of your post with the contempt it deserves.

Spoken like a Protestant. Lyin’ for Jesus, yippee!

 

[ibkc]

Spoken like a Protestant. Lyin’ for Jesus, yippee!

Excuse me. If there were things in that post that were inaccurate, please enlighten us. But accusing the poster of being a liar is beyond uncharitable and getting into the territory of “nasty and rude”.

 

[pnewton]

Excuse me. If there were things in that post that were inaccurate, please enlighten us. But accusing the poster of being a liar is beyond uncharitable and getting into the territory of “nasty and rude”.

Yep! Name-calling is not a good thing. It is usually the last resort of someone who has nothing better to say.

 

[plefe]

Still confused…Anyone else?

I’m still confused, but more concerned. We have (I think it is anyhow) an SSPV church i.e. Immaculate Heart of Mary here in Great Falls, MT. The differences between the two confound me to no end but I know when I went the one and only time to church there, I felt I was home. I am a cradle Catholic and grew up in Catholic School, etc. When Vatican II came about (and I was very young) the parish we belonged to took quite a few years to go from doing both Latin and English Mass to strictly English with the changes. I never understood the changes and don’t know where girl alter boys came from or Liturgical Ministers. I just know that when I went to church at Immaculate Heart of Mary I was home again.

I’ve seen the differences explained on several forums, but need it in more laymen terms. Thanks and God Bless.

 

[plefe]

Still confused…Anyone else?

I’m still confused, but more concerned. We have (I think it is anyhow) an SSPV church i.e. Immaculate Heart of Mary here in Great Falls, MT. The differences between the two confound me to no end but I know when I went the one and only time to church there, I felt I was home. I am a cradle Catholic and grew up in Catholic School, etc. When Vatican II came about (and I was very young) the parish we belonged to took quite a few years to go from doing both Latin and English Mass to strictly English with the changes. I never understood the changes and don’t know where girl alter boys came from or Liturgical Ministers, as well as “Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist”. I just know that when I went to church at Immaculate Heart of Mary I was home again.

I’ve seen the differences explained on several forums, but need it in more laymen terms. Thanks and God Bless.

 

[DavidJoseph]

I’m still confused, but more concerned. We have (I think it is anyhow) an SSPV church i.e. Immaculate Heart of Mary here in Great Falls, MT. The differences between the two confound me to no end but I know when I went the one and only time to church there, I felt I was home. I am a cradle Catholic and grew up in Catholic School, etc. When Vatican II came about (and I was very young) the parish we belonged to took quite a few years to go from doing both Latin and English Mass to strictly English with the changes. I never understood the changes and don’t know where girl alter boys came from or Liturgical Ministers, as well as “Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist”. I just know that when I went to church at Immaculate Heart of Mary I was home again.

I’ve seen the differences explained on several forums, but need it in more laymen terms. Thanks and God Bless.

The SSPV believes that there hasn’t been a true pope since after Pius XII and that every pope from John XXIII up to Benedict XVI have been heretics and thus false popes. So even if the SSPX isn’t really schismatic, the SSPV definitely is. Avoid them!

 

[numealinesimpet]

The SSPV believes that there hasn’t been a true pope since after Pius XII and that every pope from John XXIII up to Benedict XVI have been heretics and thus false popes. So even if the SSPX isn’t really schismatic, the SSPV definitely is. Avoid them!

The founders of the SSPV were SSPX seminarians (and maybe priests – I’d need to check that) who repudiated Vatican II in toto and declared that the Post-Vatican II popes were not true popes. For maintaining hits, Mgr Lefebvre expelled them from the SSPX. They actually do claim and teach what many half-informed people think the SSPX teach. But they were expelled for these very errors. They are in true schism, rejecting the pope. Mgr Lefebvre did not deny the position or authority of the pope; he just said, in effect, “On this particular occasion, Your Holiness, you are making a judgmental decision (trying to abolish the Traditional Liturgical life of the Church and permitting the unrestricted spread of Modernism) so disastrous that my duty to God as an Archbishop forbids me to follow your error”. Very strong and difficult words, but very different from the simplistic response of the SSVP, who are in full and explicit schism.

I hope you can find another place that offers the Traditional Mass. If not, I fear the SSPV can be, unlike the SSPX, only a temptation to a loyal Catholic.