SSPX Reconciliation

[Ham1]

Marilena:

Are you clearly and unequivocally stating that ALL SSPX priests are suspended? Do you have legitimate proof that ALL SSPX
priests are suspended? If so, please show a credible link. One note too, that if ALL SSPX priests are suspended as you have stated, then how can one go to their Mass in dire curcumstances? If one is suspended then it would not be acceptable to go to their Mass no matter what the circumstances are.

A priest who is suspended a divinis is a priest whose faculties are suspended. He is not to say Mass, hear confessions, etc. unless out of grave necessity.

Here is proof in a quotation from the Vatican as it relates to SSPX:

“b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no “lay members” of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.”
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM

Hope this helps to clarify.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ham1:

Hope this helps to clarify.

Wow, Ham, thanks, very informative.

So to sum up…illicit Masses, excommunicated founder and bishops, no faculty to pronounce absolution, no faculties to sanctify marriages, and priests who are suspended a divinis.

Well, thank God, at least they’re not in schism.

 

[palmas85]

JKirkLVNV:

Verify, please, that their influence is growing widely. It isn’t in my diocese, they pull about 75 people to their High Mass. Last count I heard, they had about a million around the world, not much a percentage of the near billion Catholic population worldwide, even if you discount the CINOs.

Also, I believe I explained (in law, not opinion, in fact, not opinion) that EVEN IF the Cardinal doesn’t believe that a schism exists, it doesn’t matter. The Pope said one did.

In reason, if no schism exists, then why is the Pope trying to reconcile them? If no rupture exists, why is there a need for reconciliation? If no schism exists, then why are SSPX masses illicit (not invalid, but illicit)? If no schism exists, then why don’t the SSPX possess the faculties to offer vaild, non-emergency absolution? If no schism exists, then why could the Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska, excommunicate the adherents in his diocese with impunity, indeed, with the decision upheld by the Holy See?
To say that no schism exists, in the face of all of that, is like insisting that Santa Claus is alive and well at the North Pole.

Yes, I’d be happy to pray for them…to return to the Truth.

Hi Kirk, if by influence you mean the influence of the SSPX, I agree, they are not the true force behind the majority of those who attend the Traditional Mass. they may very well be the most vocal and most well known but they do not in any way represent the vast majority of us. Example, in New Orleans, the indult mass at St. Patricks draws hundreds to its weekly Mass. By comparison a local SSPX Chapel there draws less then 40 at an average mass, often just a few, and they offered masses every day. Here in San Diego the indult mass got so crowded they had to expand to two Sunday Masses and it is still standing room only,. The local SSPX chapel, I believe there is one and one independent chapel in the area combined draw about 50 or so.

Most people that I know who attend the indult would not go to a SSPX mass unless it was the only mass available period. I know I never have and I never would. And that goes all the way back when if you wanted a Traditional Mass you had to find a SSPX chapel or some independent group somewhere.

As I recall, the mass that you attended there in Vegas was an SSPX mass, correct? And it drew about 75? That is about average for them from what I’ve seen maybe a little on the high side of average,

Now perhaps the figure of 1,000,000 you quoted are those to adhere to the SSPX and the other various sedevacantist groups worldwide Not saying the SSPX is sedevacantist, not at all. A lot of their memebers are but not the society itself. . There are a whole lot more than 1,000,000 that attend the indult masses offered worldwide, and that is verifiable.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

Hi Kirk, if by influence you mean the influence of the SSPX, I agree, they are not the true force behind the majority of those who attend the Traditional Mass. they may very well be the most vocal and most well known but they do not in any way represent the vast majority of us. Example, in New Orleans, the indult mass at St. Patricks draws hundreds to its weekly Mass. By comparison a local SSPX Chapel there draws less then 40 at an average mass, often just a few, and they offered masses every day. Here in San Diego the indult mass got so crowded they had to expand to two Sunday Masses and it is still standing room only,. The local SSPX chapel, I believe there is one and one independent chapel in the area combined draw about 50 or so.

Most people that I know who attend the indult would not go to a SSPX mass unless it was the only mass available period. I know I never have and I never would. And that goes all the way back when if you wanted a Traditional Mass you had to find a SSPX chapel or some independent group somewhere.

As I recall, the mass that you attended there in Vegas was an SSPX mass, correct? And it drew about 75? That is about average for them from what I’ve seen maybe a little on the high side of average,

Now perhaps the figure of 1,000,000 you quoted are those to adhere to the SSPX and the other various sedevacantist groups worldwide Not saying the SSPX is sedevacantist, not at all. A lot of their memebers are but not the society itself. . There are a whole lot more than 1,000,000 that attend the indult masses offered worldwide, and that is verifiable.

Not a quibble on my part, Palmas, I’m glad the Indult is being provided in some places the way the old Holy Father wanted. I was talking about the SSPX specifically. And you know, I’m not sure that you’re not correct about the 1,000,000 including the sedevacante groups, etc., you’re probably right. I doubt that the SSPX reconcilliation will much affect them, as they don’t believe there’s a valid pope anyway.

 

[Marilena]

JKirkLVNV:

Not a quibble on my part, Palmas, I’m glad the Indult is being provided in some places the way the old Holy Father wanted. I was talking about the SSPX specifically. And you know, I’m not sure that you’re not correct about the 1,000,000 including the sedevacante groups, etc., you’re probably right. I doubt that the SSPX reconcilliation will much affect them, as they don’t believe there’s a valid pope anyway.

Funny, not what I what I researched. They do acknowledge the pope.
They never denied or said there wasn’t a valid pope. I think that that
it just a myth. They always pray for the popes intentions, and they call him the Holy Father, that being said, why would they say that
he is not a valid pope? I never heard that from anyones lips.

 

[Ham1]

Marilena:

Funny, not what I what I researched. They do acknowledge the pope.
They never denied or said there wasn’t a valid pope. I think that that
it just a myth. They always pray for the popes intentions, and they call him the Holy Father, that being said, why would they say that
he is not a valid pope? I never heard that from anyones lips.

I believe he is referring to the sedevacantist believers who usually attend the SSPX. This is not to say that the SSPX believes that just that some who attend Mass there profess such an error.

 

[Marilena]

Ham1:

I believe he is referring to the sedevacantist believers who usually attend the SSPX. This is not to say that the SSPX believes that just that some who attend Mass there profess such an error.

Likely that is the case, if not, Iam quite sure he’ll state otherwise.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Marilena:

Funny, not what I what I researched. They do acknowledge the pope.
They never denied or said there wasn’t a valid pope. I think that that
it just a myth. They always pray for the popes intentions, and they call him the Holy Father, that being said, why would they say that
he is not a valid pope? I never heard that from anyones lips.

No, the SSPX are not sedevacanteists. I was speaking of the other splinter groups (there are several).

 

[palmas85]

Marilena:

Funny, not what I what I researched. They do acknowledge the pope.
They never denied or said there wasn’t a valid pope. I think that that
it just a myth. They always pray for the popes intentions, and they call him the Holy Father, that being said, why would they say that
he is not a valid pope? I never heard that from anyones lips.

I didn’t say that the SSPX is sedevacantist in any sense, They, the society have always acknowledged the authority of the Pope. In fact it was Lefebreves insistance on that that drove many out of the SSPX over the years. No, they are not sedevacantist, BUT there are many who attend their masses though that are distinctly sedevacantist in belief.

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

WOW! This is a fascinating thread!

Gotta thank Kirk and Ham and Andreas and all those sticking up for the NO Mass! Blessings!

It’s a joyous day whenever ANY of God’s lost ones return, be it each of us after falling to sin, or a group of confused followers finally being led back into the light after years of absence! I pray for reconcilliation of the SSPX! I pray it won’t just be one SSPX Bishop’s decision, but a heartfelt one for all SSPX members!

And whoever was talking about the prodigal son put it beautifully! Let us gladly, but also humbly, welcome back the lost son and not be like the jealous prodigal brother.

I know this whole thread may have a tense feeling to it, but since we’re arguing about the best way to serve God, let’s keep His love in it!

 

[palmas85]

JKirkLVNV:

Not a quibble on my part, Palmas, I’m glad the Indult is being provided in some places the way the old Holy Father wanted. I was talking about the SSPX specifically. And you know, I’m not sure that you’re not correct about the 1,000,000 including the sedevacante groups, etc., you’re probably right. I doubt that the SSPX reconcilliation will much affect them, as they don’t believe there’s a valid pope anyway.

You know Kirk thats a sad situation. It astounds me that so many people reject the authority of the Holy Father and even deny his validity… And you know I’m probably one of the more rabid traditionalists around here. Sometimes I just amazed.

As an aside, how long do you think it will be before Pope John Paul II is canonized? I would think he will be elevated fairly soon.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

You know Kirk thats a sad situation. It astounds me that so many people reject the authority of the Holy Father and even deny his validity… And you know I’m probably one of the more rabid traditionalists around here. Sometimes I just amazed.

As an aside, how long do you think it will be before Pope John Paul II is canonized? I would think he will be elevated fairly soon.

Well, I think it will take at least five years. What’s the record for fast canonizations, I wonder?

 

[palmas85]

JKirkLVNV:

Well, I think it will take at least five years. What’s the record for fast canonizations, I wonder?

I don’t know but I’ll bet he breaks it.

Actually deservedly so I think. While not perfect in any respect I think he was truly a holy man and blessed in a way that most of us could only aspire to.

 

[Sean_O_L]

re: The SSPX’s Claim to “Necessity”

There was NO “necessity” to Sunder the Unity of the Church by Schism

1. The declaration on the SSPX’s claim to “necessity” is set forth by

THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

“On The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre”, in full HERE

2. An extract is set out in the file Correspondence With Jim Whitehead on the Schism of The Society of St Pius X, where the Council described the Lefebrist claim to necessity as “an erroneous view”.

3. and where the Council stated:

“Moreover since the protocol originally signed by Archbishop Lefebvre actually provided for the consecration of one Bishop, necessity could hardly be argued.”

4. Of course, Capponi, Count Neri countered the claim with:

“St. Pius X cannot any longer claim to be acting in a state of necessity as foreseen by canon 1323, 4 .”

5. Moreover, the Pontifical Council rejected Fr. Murray’s original appeal to canons 1323-1324 (which may) exempt one from latae sententiae excommunication if his actions were taken "by reason of necessity")

6. In reply to Bishop Fellay’s

–Bishop Fellay: “We have answered that the same 1983 Code of Canon Law says that somebody may act lawfully out of a subjective necessity to consecrate bishops.”

Roniel Aledo pointed out:

”The Supreme Legislator had already spoken about the NECESSITY:
…]
The ‘subjective’ necessity you talk about is just absurd; it is the same ‘subjective necessity’ of Luther, the same ‘subjective’ necessity of Calvin, exactly the same ‘subjective’ necessity of Cromwell, the same ‘subjective’ necessity of Henry VIII, and the same ‘subjective’ necessity of every schismatic and heretic of history.

7. From Canon Lawyer, Peter John Vere’s, “Archbishop Lefebvre and Canons 1323:4° and 1324 §1:5°”

at catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1220

…

1. Because canon law, like all other legal systems, is open to interpretation, the Church offers various norms for etc. etc.,

 

[Sean_O_L]

As for SSPX priests being “suspended”:

Archbishop Lefebvre and all the priests he ordained up to and including 1976 were suspended a divinis subsequent to Lefebvre telling the Pope (effectively) to “get stuffed”! His precise words were" “Suspended? Suspended from what?” He falsely thought (or insinuated) that the suspension was from saying the (for him) “intrinsically evil Novus Ordo.”

His “get-stuffed” attitude continued through to the consecrations of the four bishops contrary to the express will of the Supreme law maker and law Interpreter - who declared that he (Lefebvre) and his bishops has automatically excommunicated themselves.

Naturally, having been suspended in 1976, he had piled sin upon sin over the intervening 12 years and automatically earned for his SSPX priests also the suspension a divinis.

For concrete Lefebvrian phraseology see jloughnan.tripod.com/ad2000_1.htm
and
jloughnan.tripod.com/vacilate,htm

In any event, he empolyed the “throw enough mud on the wall and some will stick” technique, and as a result over one in every three SSPX priest ordained has quit the Society for a variety of reasons - one even attempted to assassinate the pope with a bayonette!

 

[Sean_O_L]

Finally, after all these years from the mid 1970’s when Archbishop Lefebvre and his illicitly ordained priests, who, together with Lefebvre were suspended a divinis (from exercising all priestly functions!) from 1976 – and who described the post Vatican II Sacramental Rites as being “bastard sacraments”, “bastard rites”, “bastard priests”, “intrinsically evil” new Mass; moreover, they claimed “The pope, the bishops in union with him and the vast majority of Catholics who worship God in a way other than the way employed by the Society are deemed to be in a new religion” and the priests and bishops were doubtfully ordained so that ther were no real Catholic bishops to continue the “true priesthood” they claimed. See re: The Claim That THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X IS NOT IN SCHISM

Yet – yet, the SSPX plead for their excommunication for schism to be lifted, and for them to be given a place within this “bastard Conciliar Church”! Yikes!

Personally, I think that there is a massive need for interior examination and tears for the crimes they have committed and supplications for mercy. I think that there is a long road ahead…. Let us pray that the SSPX find the straight and narrow way.

 

[QUICUMQUE_VULT]

Brother Sean,
There is indeed A massive need for interior examination. And tears for crimes commited. But this soul searching is needed by many in the modern Church. Not just the SSPX

And please do not forget there are many in the SSPX, who just want to make it to Heaven, the goal of us all.

God Bless

 

[Sean_O_L]

QUICUNQUE VULT wrote:

But this soul searching is needed by many in the modern Church. Not just the SSPX

And please do not forget there are many in the SSPX, who just want to make it to Heaven, the goal of us all.

To which I agree entirely.

My six best friends are current adherents to the SSPX; we socialize at each others’ homes for birthdays, anniversaries, etc, and chat weekly. On the other hand - I know what they think - for I also was, for over 23 years an adherent to the SSPX - with the same goal.

 

[Marilena]

Sean O L:

QUICUNQUE VULT wrote:

To which I agree entirely.

My six best friends are current adherents to the SSPX; we socialize at each others’ homes for birthdays, anniversaries, etc, and chat weekly. On the other hand - I know what they think - for I also was, for over 23 years an adherent to the SSPX - with the same goal.

Sean,

I take it you voted no on this poll by the sound of your posts? Do you dislike the SSPX intensley, as it sounds to me? Further, can you please provide a credible link to wear you alledge a former
SSPX priest tried to assasinate the pope with a bayonette? First I’ve heard of it, please post the credible link to that statement.
We really need unity with the SSPX and Rome. Despite alot of posters misgivings about the SSPX, reunification would be very
good for the SSPX and Rome. People who really want to attend
their Masses wont have to do so in fear of being excommunicated
just for wanting to be at a very old Traditional Mass. So I take it
you do not want to see reunification? Most of us do. Everyone has
the right to believe or think what they want, God gave us free
choice did He not? God bless you Sean.

 

[Ham1]

Just my two cents on the lifting of the excommunications…

If this is done, I sincerely hope that there are reparations performed by the SSPX for the grave damage they have done all these years. Keep in mind we are talking about an organization that has quite likely led thousands of souls to hell (well, hopefully less due to ignorance and the mercy of our Lord). I also think that it would be extremely prudent to incorporate the SSPX priests into the existing hierarchy and not alllow the SSPX to operate as a sort of prelature outside of diocesan bishops authority. This would force them to operate within the Church and learn to be obediant even when it’s not comfortable and not allow them to operate as a sort of approved Church within the Church.

We should keep in mind that even if they are granted a personal prelature (similar to Opus Dei) they would probably still need the diocesan Bishop’s approval to say Mass and operate parishes within the diocese. This would mean that many of the existing SSPX churches would have to cease operation and move to areas where the Bishop is more understanding of their role.

All in all, if this occurs it won’t be an easy integration.