I (man) am not upset over the goals of SSPX, to the opposite, i also like the tridentian mass.
Anyhow, im not against SSPXs thoughts and goals, i am against those who deny the history or try to angle it their ways.
That has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ.
Really? And what do you make of these statements:
*
The Missal of Pope Paul VI - If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic,
then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do
assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation
and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm,
does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a
mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and
for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).
The Catachism - This collegiality tampers with the divine constitution of
the Church, derogates from the pope’s powers, and hampers his government of
the Church (and that of the bishops in their dioceses). “Episcopal
Conferences” now assume authority, which thus becomes impersonal and
unanswerable.
These are but the most grave deficiencies; other defective points include
the following:
a… mixed marriages (canons 1125, 1127),
b… diminution in censures (excommunication of freemasons, etc.),
c… the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas is no longer strictly enjoined in
seminaries (canons 251ff), and
d… general absolutions are more readily available (canons 961-963, etc.).
In passing, it is interesting to note that for Pope John Paul II the 1983
Code of Canon Law has less weight than a Conciliar constitution.
The Indult Mass - Therefore, attending it because of the priest’s words or
fellow Mass-goers’ pressure, or because of the need to pander to the local
bishop just to have it, inevitably pushes one to keep quiet on “divisive
issues” and, distance oneself from those who do not keep quiet i.e., it
pushes one to join the ranks of those who are destroying the Church. This
one cannot do (cf., also QUESTION 13).
The Indult Mass, therefore, is not for traditional Catholics.*
They (FSSP) are therefore Conciliar Catholics and not traditional Catholics.
This being so, attending their Mass is:
a… accepting the compromise on which they are based,
b… accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church and the
consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and
c… 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.
Now, just as he who denies but one article of Faith loses the Faith
[PRINCIPLE 7], so a teacher who errs on one point alone proves himself
fallible, and, renders all he teaches questionable.
Just as the Second Vatican Council is not an authority to quote even where
it propounds Catholic teaching (it does not do so infallibly and clearly),
so this Catechism is not an authority of Catholic belief because of the
modern deviations which it encompasses.
Those who defend this Catechism are supporting the innovations of Vatican
II.*
And also, in this brochure, they state the following:
*June 10, 1971
Archbishop Lefebvre announces that
the SSPX’s priests will not say the Novus Ordo Missae due to its doctrinal deficiencies which *
pose a danger to the faith and the priesthood.
**
June 30, 1988
Discussions with a Modernist Rome having failed, “Operation Survival for Tradition” takes place. Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer consecrate to the episcopacy four priests to ensure the continuance of Catholic Tradition and the SSPX’s priestly work.
Does any of this have to do with the “teachings of Christ?”
