SSPX Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter MamaSusie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MamaSusie

Guest
I have spent a lot of time thinking about the SSPX churches, which I formerly attended, and very much prefer. I go to an indult mass, because I want to be obedient; however, the “gripes” that I have about the church are pretty much the same “gripes” the SSPX has about the church.

I guess I’m trying to figure out why it’s wrong to practice Catholicism the way the SSPX church does? It was good enough for Catholics for over a thousand years prior to vII, so why is it horrible now? What on earth do they do that’s wrong, other than being disobedient?

I can safely say that if not for it being an act of disobedience, I would not attend the indult mass.

Also, I have noticed that indult masses said in Latin ARE the same as the SSPX mass, with only postures being a major difference. So how can it be disobedient at one location, and not at another?

Thoughts?
 
It has nothing to do with the language, style, or form of Mass. SSPX is a schismatic group (see this letter from the Pontifical Commission in Rome). There is a very great difference between a Mass (in *any *language) conducted by a schismatic, ex-communicated priest and one conducted by a priest in full and valid communion with his Bishop and the Catholic Church.
 
The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter is the fully Catholic counterpart to the SSPX. If you read their website, you’ll realize that the practice of the TLM and the general beliefs of SSPX are not at all what makes them problematic, as the FSSP holds almost the same on all counts. The real difference is that the SSPX refuses to submit to Rome in full, and insists on ruffling the feathers of the Church.

If you want to support the better “mindset” of the SSPX, support the FSSP. They are truly holy, traditional, and obedient. If enough people support them, we will see a rise of the TLM, as opposed to the SSPX which will be able to do nothing until they come back from their Schism.

Peace and God bless!
 
The SSPX are a schismatic group. Stay well away from them.
Either people are good Catholics who obey the Church or they are bad Catholics like these groups who disobey the Church.
 
I guess that’s what I don’t understand…I am always told to stay away because they are disobedient, but what EXACTLY do they do that’s disobedient other than the disobedience itself? Maybe I’m not articulating this properly, but I can’t tell you you’re purple, make purple a sin, and then say you’re sinning because you’re purple. What do they do that brings them out of the graces of the church and allows for the disobedience in the first place? What are they refusing to do, or doing instead of, the will of the church? What rules are they not following that when followed in spite of contrary ruling, makes them “disobedient?”

I’m really not trying to be contrary. I want to understand this better so that I know exactly why I should feel the way the church says I should feel.

Thanks for the FSSP info. I will definately look in to that.
 
40.png
MamaSusie:
I guess that’s what I don’t understand…I am always told to stay away because they are disobedient, but what EXACTLY do they do that’s disobedient other than the disobedience itself? Maybe I’m not articulating this properly, but I can’t tell you you’re purple, make purple a sin, and then say you’re sinning because you’re purple. What do they do that brings them out of the graces of the church and allows for the disobedience in the first place? What are they refusing to do, or doing instead of, the will of the church? What rules are they not following that when followed in spite of contrary ruling, makes them “disobedient?”

I’m really not trying to be contrary. I want to understand this better so that I know exactly why I should feel the way the church says I should feel.

Thanks for the FSSP info. I will definately look in to that.
DavidFilmer in post #2 gave you a site to click on where you will get your answer, particularly para 3.
 
Paragraph 3 is exactly what I’m talking about. It says everything and nothing. The traditional church finds the modern mass offensive to the extent that they refuse to participate in it. They think the modern Church is disobedient. Do you think it’s ever too dangerous to be disobedient? Would you rather offend the Pope, or God? They called the Church on the carpet, and got shot down. OK, so they are disobedient because the Church changed the rules…but what do they “DO,” in practive itself, that makes them disobedient? The end result of offense, disobedience, can’t be the sin itself. I can’t tell my son he’s being disobedient unless I can say, “I asked you to do A, and you failed to, or you did B instead. As a result of this choice, you have disobeyed me.” What are the A and B of the SSPX church? Surely their practice alone can’t be a problem, because the FSSP is doing pretty much the same thing. I’m not getting a grasp on what sets them apart in the first place. How was something ok for over a thousand years, then all of a sudden a schism? There has to be a specific order that they are refusing to adhere to.

I think I’m beating a dead horse.
 
40.png
MamaSusie:
Paragraph 3 is exactly what I’m talking about. It says everything and nothing. The traditional church finds the modern mass offensive to the extent that they refuse to participate in it. They think the modern Church is disobedient. Do you think it’s ever too dangerous to be disobedient? Would you rather offend the Pope, or God? They called the Church on the carpet, and got shot down. OK, so they are disobedient because the Church changed the rules…but what do they “DO,” in practive itself, that makes them disobedient? The end result of offense, disobedience, can’t be the sin itself. I can’t tell my son he’s being disobedient unless I can say, “I asked you to do A, and you failed to, or you did B instead. As a result of this choice, you have disobeyed me.” What are the A and B of the SSPX church? Surely their practice alone can’t be a problem, because the FSSP is doing pretty much the same thing. I’m not getting a grasp on what sets them apart in the first place. How was something ok for over a thousand years, then all of a sudden a schism? There has to be a specific order that they are refusing to adhere to.

I think I’m beating a dead horse.
They never submitted and came back after the Archbishop and the four bishops he ordained excommunicated themselves (by that ordination).

Also, the idea that the Mass is offensive IS offensive. The idea that it is inadequate or invalid is HERETICAL. See the infromation from this link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1149754#post1149754
 
40.png
MamaSusie:
Paragraph 3 is exactly what I’m talking about. It says everything and nothing. The traditional church finds the modern mass offensive to the extent that they refuse to participate in it. They think the modern Church is disobedient. Do you think it’s ever too dangerous to be disobedient? Would you rather offend the Pope, or God? They called the Church on the carpet, and got shot down. OK, so they are disobedient because the Church changed the rules…but what do they “DO,” in practive itself, that makes them disobedient? The end result of offense, disobedience, can’t be the sin itself. I can’t tell my son he’s being disobedient unless I can say, “I asked you to do A, and you failed to, or you did B instead. As a result of this choice, you have disobeyed me.” What are the A and B of the SSPX church? Surely their practice alone can’t be a problem, because the FSSP is doing pretty much the same thing. I’m not getting a grasp on what sets them apart in the first place. How was something ok for over a thousand years, then all of a sudden a schism? There has to be a specific order that they are refusing to adhere to.

I think I’m beating a dead horse.
Okay, since no one has yet posted the document Ecclesia Dei from Pope John Paul II, I will do so now vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

In it you will read all of the specific issues Rome has with the SSPX, and decrees in their regard. I hope it will help to clear up some of your misunderstandings. In short the SSPX’s schism had nothing to do with doctrine or how they say the Mass, but with the illicit consecration of bishops.
 
MamaSusie, although I agree with you in the fact that we both sympathize with the SSPX, when I really think about them, I am reminded too much of the disobedience of the Prots. All I have to say is this:

If the Devil can’t destroy the Church, he can convince you to leave it.
Never abandon Peter the Rock.
 
The SSPX represent an organization that ordained Bishops in direct contradiction to the orders and authority of the Latin Patriarch, and they did so without noble reasons. Defying the rightful changing of Ritual, whether the change is good or not, does not represent one’s loyalty to God. God did not create the Rites of the Church, He created the Sacraments that the various Rites implement.

The whole question of “loyalty to the Pope or to God” is not a true traditional Catholic question, but rather a Protestant one. Traditional Catholics recognize that the Catholic Church is a Communion as promised by God. The SSPX leader, Bishop Lefebre, defied his Patriarch and entered into schism; those who follow his lead are likewise in schism. The issue of the TLM is not even on the list of the reasons they are considered in schism by the Pope/Latin Patriarch, and those who want to celebrate the TLM have avenues for that request within the Roman Catholic Church, without attending the services of those who would defy God in the name of following God.

Just my lay opinion, please take it with a grain of salt. 🙂
Peace and God bless!
 
40.png
Ghosty:
The issue of the TLM is not even on the list of the reasons they are considered in schism by the Pope/Latin Patriarch, and those who want to celebrate the TLM have avenues for that request within the Roman Catholic Church, without attending the services of those who would defy God in the name of following God.
You’re right, the reason that they were excommunicated was because of the ordination of bishops w/o the pope’s consent. If they would have stuck with the Church, I’m sure they’d be making more headway with all the liturgical/ecumenical gripes that they have. Since they’re separated, though, they have no say.
 
40.png
Ghosty:
The SSPX represent an organization that ordained Bishops in direct contradiction to the orders and authority of the Latin Patriarch, and they did so without noble reasons. Defying the rightful changing of Ritual, whether the change is good or not, does not represent one’s loyalty to God. God did not create the Rites of the Church, He created the Sacraments that the various Rites implement.

The whole question of “loyalty to the Pope or to God” is not a true traditional Catholic question, but rather a Protestant one. Traditional Catholics recognize that the Catholic Church is a Communion as promised by God. The SSPX leader, Bishop Lefebre, defied his Patriarch and entered into schism; those who follow his lead are likewise in schism. The issue of the TLM is not even on the list of the reasons they are considered in schism by the Pope/Latin Patriarch, and those who want to celebrate the TLM have avenues for that request within the Roman Catholic Church, without attending the services of those who would defy God in the name of following God.

Just my lay opinion, please take it with a grain of salt. 🙂
Peace and God bless!
Of course with the “Latin Patriarch” being the Pope in Rome, at that time John Paul II.😉
 
Was the ordination of Bishops without consent the ONLY thing? And if so, with the FSSP practicing the way the SPPX does, why on earth would they have any reason NOT to reunite? Many of us that go to the modern mass are offended not by the mass, but by the way people conduct themselves. It positively irks me to see short shorts, crop tops, gum chewing, etc…people talking during ANY of it, let alone the consecration. I don’t like that the tenses are mixed up, that the liturgical wording is careless at times, that a practicing homosexual passes out communion, that the alter girls and boys are talking during mass, and arguing about who gets to ring the bell…I could go on and on. But I don’t want to be disobedient, so I go, and I often add or change words that I find offensive (like talking about Christ as if he isn’t there). In the Latin this doesn’t happen, so I prefer Latin mass, and that works for me. If I didn’t have access to that, I would find it very difficult to be in full compliance. I would do it, but not because I agree, but because of my devotion to the Faith.
 
I’ve done some reading about the SSPX lately (I was invited to one of their masses). To me it comes down to Papal authority–do you believe that the Pope is the head of the Church, that he and the Magesterium can make binding theological decisions (I hope I’m getting the terminology right, but I think everyone knows what I mean.) John Paul II said it himself in Ecclesia Dei “a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church’s Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.”

Really, if the SSPX believe that the Church made a mistake and the NO is invalid, what else did they make mistakes on? Who’s to say the TLM is valid? Could they be wrong on the Eucharist? on Purgatory? on praying for the dead? See where this disobedience takes a person? The SSPX is just another Protestant group; until the come back in line with Rome, avoid them.
 
Why were those bishops ordained without Authority? What were they wanting to do that wasn’t allowed? Did someone say “You can’t speak Latin anymore?” I always thought that saying mass in the vernacular was a courtesy to make it easier to understand. But to the people in the SSPX church, the Latin “IS” their language, so to speak. Frankly, I think the wording they use is FAR more accurate even to the current Catechism (hence the reason I go to Latin mass). Again, beating a dead horse, but why was a need felt, on the part of the SSPX church, to ordain those bishops without authority in the first place? What precluded that act? Were they told, “Saying the mass in Latin and facing the alter is hereby a mortal sin?” There’s a piece of this puzzle that’s missing, in my mind.

Yes, I understand they are a schism due to disobedience, and that’s why I don’t go to church there. There’s no need to convince me. I’m just trying to understand the particulars better.
 
I guess none of you folks have gotten around to reading this yet?
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.
30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360

Interview with Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of «Ecclesia Dei», on relations between Rome and the Lefebvrians

«The Holy Father Benedict XVI this morning received, in the Apostolic Palace of Castel Gandolfo, the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity, Monsignor Bernard Fellay, who had requested it. The Pope was accompanied by the Most Eminent Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”. The meeting took place in an atmosphere of love for the Church and of desire to reach perfect communion. Albeit aware of the difficulties, the wish to proceed by stages and in reasonable time was shown». In these words a communiqué of the Press Office of the Holy See on 29 August last gave news of the first contact between the new Pontiff and the Fraternity that, as the Vatican Radio bulletin of the same day reminded us, «was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who died on 25 March 1991».

The news of the audience granted by Pope Benedict XVI, though not published by the “Our News” feature of L’Osservatore Romano, appeared, however, in a short paragraph at the bottom of page 4 in the official newspaper of the Holy See dated 31 August.

30Days asked Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos about the hearing of August 29, at which Don Franz Schmidberger, an old collaborator of Monsignor Lefebvre and well known to Pope Ratzinger, was also present. Since April 2000 Cardinal Hoyos has been President of the Pontifical Commission «Ecclesia Dei», the Vatican body concerned with relations with the variegated traditionalist world, and has also, since 1996, been head of the Congregation for the Clergy.
Code:
  Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity? 

  DARÍOCASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The audience is part of a process that began with a very important intervention by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who signed a protocol of agreement with Monsignor Lefebvre before the latter decided to proceed to the episcopal consecrations of 1988. 

  Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off… 

  CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism. 
  Then there was no more official contact up to the Great Jubilee of 2000. 

  CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: As President of the Pontifical Commission «Ecclesia Dei», learning that they were on a pilgrimage to Rome, I invited the bishops ordained by Monsignor Lefebvre to lunch, for an informal meeting, to get to know each other. Since then I have had many meetings with His Excellence Monsignor Fellay and with other members of the Fraternity. Meetings that have always taken place in a very positive atmosphere. So much so that at a certain point I believed we were really very close to a full rapprochement. 

  Was the Pope aware of these contacts? 

  CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: John Paul II was constantly informed of them all. Not only that. The Pontiff himself received for a brief meeting in his private chapel Monsignor Fellay and Don Michele Simoulin, then Superior of the communion of the Fraternity of Albano Laziale. There was no true and proper dialogue, but on that occasion the Pope expressed the wish that dialogue could be taken up by imparting his blessing.
 
…continued…

Earlier you suggested that at a certain moment you thought that rapprochement was imminent; then what happened?
Code:
  CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: I got the impression, from His Excellence Monsignor Fellay, and from his collaborators, of something like fear, as if Rome were laying a trap for them. As if the Holy See intended to absorb them so as then to close off the possibility of celebrating the mass of Saint Pius V and clamping down on their critical remarks on some developments and interpretations following Vatican Council II. So there was no rapprochement, but dialogue has continued. 

  In this context, in 2001, there was, however, rapprochement with the Brazilian group close to the Fraternity, the one now headed by Monsignor Fernando Arêas Rifan, who was elected in 2002 by the Holy See as bishop and titular of the personal apostolic administration of San Giovanni Maria Vianney in Campos. 

  CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: There the situation was very different, because while the Saint Pius X Fraternity is an unrecognized association, served by bishops who declare themselves “auxiliaries”, in Brazil instead Bishop Castro Mayer when he renounced the diocese, was followed by a fifty or so priests who in fact maintained a parallel organization to the diocese. When Monsignor Castro Mayer died, one of the priests was consecrated bishop by the Lefebvrian bishops. Thanks be to God this bishop, Monsignor Rangel, and his priests, amongst whom the current bishop administrator apostolic Monsignor Rifan, at the moment of asking for rapprochement, distancing himself in this from the bishops of the Fraternity, recognized that the conditions that Monsignor Lefebvre in his time called “of necessity”, no longer existed to justify the consecration of bishops without apostolic mandate. And this because the Pope had manifested his wish of granting them the use of the Tridentine rite, recognizing their particularity. On their side there was the recognition of the validity of the new rite of the Mass and of the legitimacy of Vatican Council II, though proposing to keep up respectful and honest discussion on some less clear Council texts, on some interpretations of those texts and on some developments after Vatican II. 

  Do you think the solution adopted in Campos successful? 
  CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The facts confirm it. Thanks be to God, the faithful and the priests of the diocese and of the administration co-exist in fraternal fashion, the two bishops meet frequently for the necessary coordination. Not only that. A dozen bishops from Brazil have already signed conventions with the administration to help the faithful of their dioceses who love the old liturgy. 

  But it was a solution that didn’t please the leaders of the Fraternity… 
  CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Yes, the Campos solution was a delicate moment. Because the Fraternity was annoyed. Whereas for me it was something providential because it showed a possible way for a wider solution of the question. 

   Your Eminence, let us go back to the audience of 29 August. How was it organized? 
  CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The audience was requested by Monsignor Fellay through the normal channels, through me as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and President of «Ecclesia Dei», given that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is a priestly body composed of priests validly ordained even if in an illegal way. The request was passed to the Pope. And the Pope decided to grant the audience. Ratzinger the theologian, Cardinal Ratzinger, with his great duties, had always kept up with the question and knew the question and the persons involved in the dialogue well. Pope Benedict XVI could add to that the special presence of the Holy Spirit guaranteed by the fact of having become Peter’s Successor. 

  What can you tell us of the audience? 
  CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: It was a meeting under the sign of charity, in the theological sense, of love of God and of His Church. It was a conversation among brothers who desire, with the help of God, to knit back the fabric of full unity. The Pope let those present speak: Monsignor Fellay, Father Schmidberger and myself. And then the Holy Father spoke, making a strong appeal for unity and expressing the wish that future rapprochement come by unhasty stages, but not too slow.
 
…continued…

What observations were made by the Superior of the Saint Pius X?
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Monsignor Fellay, but this was known even beforehand, was able to express his fears on the state of the Catholic Church in the light of the abuses, not only liturgical, that have occurred since Vatican Council II. I believe that critical contributions of that sort that can come from the Fraternity can be a treasure for the Church, when expressed under the charisma of Peter and in charity among brethren. In the Church in fact we are all free to formulate critical observations on what doesn’t concern dogma and the essential discipline of the Church itself. On that subject I can testify that Cardinal Ratzinger was already fully convinced of the need for theological dialogue on the difficult points. In full unity there is more light to be found for studying these sensitive points.
After the audience an authoritative cardinal suggested that the Fraternity should recognize the legitimacy of the present Pontiff…
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately that is proof that within the Church, even at high levels, there is not always full knowledge of the Fraternity. The Fraternity has always recognized in John Paul II, and now in Benedict XVI, the legitimate successor of Saint Peter. That is not a problem. That then there are traditionalist groups that don’t recognize the last popes, the so-called “empty throne” people, is another question that doesn’t concern the Saint Pius X Fraternity.
It is known that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is asking the Holy See for a liberalization of the so-called Tridentine mass and a declaration affirming that this liturgy has never been abolished.
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished. As for liberalization, I remember that under the pontificate of John Paul II there was a meeting of all the department heads of the Roman Curia, in which the vast majority were not against such a request. It would be dangerous to create opposition between the old rite and the new. The liturgy cannot be a battlefield. As priest, as cardinal and as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, I feel great pain in seeing the unacceptable language at times used of the wish of Jesus to give his own body and blood, and to entrust them to his Church. And this is true of some spokesmen of the Saint Pius X Fraternity, but not only them.
Are many bishops against?
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: At times the pastoral anxiety of a bishop leads him to think that granting permission to celebrate the Tridentine mass in his diocese may create confusion among the people of God. And when believers who ask for this type of celebration are very few, the perplexity can be understood. Whereas when it’s a more substantial group wanting the mass, it’s up to the Pontifical Commission «Ecclesia Dei» to remind the bishop, honestly and kindly, that the wish of Peter’s Successor is of be generous in responding in favor of these believers. And I see with joy that, day after day, there are ever more who so respond.
You are well acquainted with the traditionalist world. How do you judge the personal piety of the priests who belong to it?
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Many traditionalist priests I have known have made an excellent impression on me: they have a sincere love for the mystery. Unfortunately there can also be fanatics who are bound to the old liturgy as one can be bound to a mathematical formula of which one doesn’t even understand the value in depth.
Do you think they represent the legacy of a past in any case on the way to extinction?
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: At the World Day of Youth in Cologne there was a considerable group of young people attached to the traditional mass. The echoes have been positive. And it shows how short-sighted it is to consider the traditionalist phenomenon as on the way to exhaustion. Not least because in the traditionalist world, in proportion, the number of priestly vocations is decidedly superior to that of many diocese in the Church.
**In September 2001 John Paul II, in a speech to the plenary assembly of the Congregation for Divine Worship, praised the «very fine prayers» in the Missal of Saint Pius V. The speech was published with unusual delay by L’Osservatore Romano and has never been published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, though it usually prints papal speeches to the plenary assemblies of the Roman departments. When you then, on 24 May 2003, celebrated, for the first time after the post-council liturgical reform, a Tridentine mass in a patriarchal Roman basilica, that of Saint Mary Major, L’Osservatore Romano totally ignored the event. ** What do you think of these two acts of “censorship”?
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: I prefer to judge facts rather than intentions and I don’t know what the cause of the two missing notices is, which, however, had ample repercussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top