SSPX Reconciliation

[JKirkLVNV]

Marilena:

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.

Marilena: Your post is demonstrative of how people need to seperate their emotional or visceral reactions from cold, hard logic. In no post did Sean indicate that he didn’t want the SSPX to return to the obedience of the Church. He simply was answering the assertions that they weren’t in schism due to the alledged “necessity” they invoked. What genuine, thinking, devout Catholic wants any wounds in the Body of Christ? By the same token, no matter how often we say “5+5=12,” the fact of the matter is that 5+5=10. The fact of the matter is as Sean has laid it out, as Ham has laid it out, as Andreas has laid it out, and as I was trying to explain. No amount of wishful thinking makes it different. They are NOT in union with the Holy See, they are OUTSIDE the Church, they exist in a state of disobedience. AND, what’s worse, some of them ARE heretics, if they claim that the Pauline Rite is an “abomination” (as did the SSPX priest at the TLM I attended at the chapel here in Las Vegas), because an abomination cannot be propitiatory for our sins AND because that would mean that we had been lead into error by the Pope who promulgated the Mass and by his 3 successors, which would further mean that Christ had failed in His promise to the Church in this essential question of the confection of the Sacrifice.

AND I have to say that to say that “we really need unity with the SSPX” is, on a certain level, contrary to the Church’s teaching. We don’t NEED unity because, as the Council and the Catechism teach, the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of unity and already exists in that unity. They need to come BACK to that unity, just as do the Orthodox and the Protestants. On a practical level, we don’t even need them to have the TLM or to respond to the desire for the TLM, as we already have the FFSP (do you know that ONE of the objections to the FFSP by the SSPX is that they’ve put themselves in the position of possibly having to offer the Pauline Mass? What does that say, then, about the SSPX’s true attitude to the Pauline Rite?). I voted “yes,” but that doesn’t mean I think that the SSPX is in the right. I think they are completely and totally incorrect, and misguided.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

QUICUMQUE VULT:

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

That is certainly true, as it is true for many Orthodox and many Protestants. They may very well make it, too (I despair of the salvation of no one, trusting that no one will despair of mine), but the safest place is in the Barque of Peter.

And how appropos: my 4,000th post is arguing about the SSPX.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Marilena:

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.

Here’s are links to info. on the assasination attempt. In fairness to the SSPX, he had been expelled from the society (he thought Archbishop Lefebreve was too soft on the Pope!):

culturalcatholic.com/PopeJohnPaulII.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Mar%C3%ADa_Fern%C3%A1ndez_y_Krohn

 

[Marilena]

Fair enough. Sean might not have meant it that way. I seen it that way. I do not want to come offf as argumentative at all. Certainly not! Thank you for the link.
I will read into it. God bless you!

 

[Sean_O_L]

Marilena wrote:

Sean,
I take it you voted no on this poll by the sound of your posts?

You take too much for granted the - for I posted no vote at all.

Do you dislike the SSPX intensley, as it sounds to me?

Yes - but distinguish between the SSPX and SSPXers. “Hate the sin - love the sinner”

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.

Thanks to JKirkLVNV for doing so whilst I slept overnight.

However, let me supplement with “Google Search”:

The combination krohn “john paul ii” ] – without the brackets but including the quote marks – produce 10,200 hits – and may be viewed at http://www.google.com.au/search?as_...um=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=
&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=
any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

The combination “frenandez krohn” “john paul ii” ] produces 266 hits at http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q="fernandez+krohn"+"john+paul+II"&btnG=Search&meta=

And, the combination “frenandez krohn” “john paul ii” bayonet OR knife ] produces 132 hits at http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=...hn+paul+II"+bayonet+OR+knife&btnG=Search&meta=

If I now direct the search to “frenandez krohn” “john paul ii” lefebvre ] this produces 58 hits – the third of which links to Michael Davies’ “Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre” viz. http://sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_three/Chapter_64.htm

I hope that some of these be credible enough?

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?

Once again, your “take” is illogical and false! First of all, I am “happy as a sand-trout swimming upstream” that I and so many of my friends who HAVE reverted back to the Catholic Church from SSPXism are NOW in full communion with Rome – and my website and my presence on these forums is a penitential act for the purpose of informing those who are presently in bondage to the SSPX propaganda and schism.

Most of us do.

I am not sure how you have determined the quantity “most”, and who “us” are!

Everyone has the right to believe or think what they want,

No everyone does not! Everyone has an ability – but not a right. If everyone has a right to believe or think whatever they want – why then deny everyone the ability to “do” whatever pleases them?

God gave us free choice did He not?

God gave mankind (generally) the “free will” to choose between “good” and “evil” – but, that does not give mankind a “right” to do evil.

God bless you Sean.

Et cum spiritu tuo. I hope this helps.

 

[Sean_O_L]

The above SSPX/Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre link sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_three/Chapter_64.htm has

27 May 1982
Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger

Your Eminence,

Upon my return from a journey to the U.S.A. and Canada, I am anxious to inform you that on learning at Winnipeg in Canada of the deplorable affair of Father Fernandez-Krohn1 at Fatima, I immediately made a public declaration on Canadian national television, deploring this act of madness committed by a priest whom I had ordained.

I accompanied this statement with some information about this violent tempered priest, who, alas! has caused us many problems. He left us a year after his ordination, opposing the Society’s loyalty to the Pope. He repented, and we took him back out of pity, with the intention of making him more tractable to reason, but he refused to take up his responsibilities vis-a-vis the Society and began once more to behave in a violent fashion towards myself and my brethren.

We had resolved to distance ourselves from him for good when he perpetrated this demented act which is truly a source of grief to all the members of the Society.

To the best of my knowledge, this information has not yet crossed the Atlantic. I hope, however, that the Apostolic Delegate to Canada will have passed it to Rome.

Your Eminence, please tell the Holy Father once again of our filial respect, and accept my expressions of respect and devotion in Jesus and Mary.

• Marvel Lefebvre

Reply of Cardinal Ratzinger

23 June 1982

Your Excellency,

I thank you for your letter of 27 May last, and am anxious to inform you that I have not failed to pass it on to the Holy Father. Besides, the position that you took in Canada was already known in Rome.

I am grateful to you for the sentiments which you expressed on the occasion of the unfortunate events at Fatima. Do permit me, this notwithstanding, a personal afterthought. It is quite clear that you are in no way personally responsible for the sacrilegious attempt upon the Holy Father’s life perpetrated by Father Fernandez Krohn. However, the fact that you agreed to ordain him priest gives rise to questions about the rigorousness of the criteria as to worthiness applied in his case. In a more general sense, are you sufficiently concerned to restrain and combat what must be called the fanaticism of certain members of the Society of St. Pius X? Reports recently reached me of a sad example of this, a sermon preached by one of them at Wurzburg on the occasion of his first Mass; this showed feelings falling little short of hatred for the legitimate Pastor of the diocese.

Please accept, Your Excellency, my feelings of fraternal respect and devotion in Our Lord.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger

[Emphasis added by Sean O L ]

---

The above added to my contribution to the description of Abbe Krohn at Pope 76 on the following thread: Pope to Meet SSPS Bishop Fellay forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=71053

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Sean O L:

Once again, your “take” is illogical and false! First of all, I am “happy as a sand-trout swimming upstream” that I and so many of my friends who HAVE reverted back to the Catholic Church from SSPXism are NOW in full communion with Rome – and my website and my presence on these forums is a penitential act for the purpose of informing those who are presently in bondage to the SSPX propaganda and schism.

I hope you eventually learn to enjoy your penitential presence here as much as I’ve enjoyed having you here. God willing, your efforts and those of other faithful and hierarchs will help heal the schism.

 

[Angels_Watchin]

Marilena:

Simply ask your diocese where they hold an approved Latin Mass. Then meet with the priest there, and take it from there
Best wishes to you and yours!

First you must ask IF they have a parish that is allowed to celebrate the Tridentine.

Many diocese do not.

Blessings,
Angel

 

[Angels_Watchin]

SummaTheo:

I’ve seen some real ugly vestments.

Thanks,
That was great - I laughed out loud!

Back to the subject, it’s the ABUSES that we dislike (especially the official words of the mass which are NOT supposed to be changed EVER!)

Angel

\p.s. I’m STILL laughing out loud!

 

[srp643]

First you must ask IF they have a parish that is allowed to celebrate the Tridentine.

Many diocese do not.

Blessings,
Angel

Thanks. I’m in NYC and Thank God Almighty we can celebrate the Tridentine (i usually serve at another parish that prays the NO). The question becomes, can I bring in a priest to celebrate the Tridentine at my parish church which is less than 10 blocks away? As our good Marilena said, I just need to ask my parish about this.

Maybe our Pope will soon make getting knee pads out for special permission to celebrate the Tridentine unnecessary.

 

[srp643]

To get this back on topic, someone had asked about the growing influence of the SSPX. They appear to be in virtually every Catholic magazine I read and the authors consistently refer to their “growing influence.” This could be interpreted in several ways. One could be their numbers are growing internationally, unclear. Another could be they are being taken more seriously by other Catholics and, more importantly, the Vatican. There are undoubtedly other interpretations.

Anyone care to comment?

 

[Angels_Watchin]

srp643:

To get this back on topic, someone had asked about the growing influence of the SSPX. They appear to be in virtually every Catholic magazine I read and the authors consistently refer to their “growing influence.” This could be interpreted in several ways. One could be their numbers are growing internationally, unclear. Another could be they are being taken more seriously by other Catholics and, more importantly, the Vatican. There are undoubtedly other interpretations.

Anyone care to comment?

From what I have seen over the past few years, I think it’s BOTH (of what you mentioned)!
Sometimes that’s what it takes for the Vatican to look at something seriously - VOCAL NUMBERS.

Blessings,
Angel

 

[gelsbern]

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.

IF the excommunication is lifted, the only way it would happen is for it to be declared null, just like a marriage annullment, it would mean that the excommunication never really happened in the first place, otherwise, Archbishop LeFebvre was basically condemned to hell if the excommunication really did happen.

With that in mind, it would mean that the SSPX did not lead any souls to hell, and in fact let a great many souls to heaven.

I am curious about your use of the phrase "damage caused by the SSPX. Could you please cite some examples of this “damage”?

Thanks.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

gelsbern:

IF the excommunication is lifted, the only way it would happen is for it to be declared null, just like a marriage annullment, it would mean that the excommunication never really happened in the first place, otherwise, Archbishop LeFebvre was basically condemned to hell if the excommunication really did happen.

With that in mind, it would mean that the SSPX did not lead any souls to hell, and in fact let a great many souls to heaven.

I am curious about your use of the phrase "damage caused by the SSPX. Could you please cite some examples of this “damage”?

Thanks.

An excommunication can be lifted without being declared null. That’s the normative method. An individual is excommunicated, repents, and is received back into full communion. If the excommunication really did happen (which, juridically, it undoubtedly did) His Excellency is left to the mercy of God. He was no idiot, and was I’m sure fully aware of the doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

As far as the damage caused by the SSPX, we can start with the fact that every single priest of the society is in schism, and their lay faithful very well may be (although formal adherence for the laity was never officially defined). Every person they lead out of the Church into schism is damage in my book.

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

I hope for reconciliation. And I hope for the UNIVERSAL indult of the Latin Mass that can be offered everywhere by any priest with the love and desire to do so. And I also hope for something along the lines of an ‘apostolic administration’ or the creation of a true ‘Latin Rite’. The Novus Ordo would continue to be ‘Roman Rite’ but there should be room for the ‘Latin Rite’ just like there is room for the Byzantine and Coptic and Melkite, etc.

My bishop will not allow an indult. When the universal permission is granted and if and when the TLM becomes available, I will attend that Holy Sacrifice. I am tired of the communal meal where we laugh and clap and sing about ourselves. I long for the Mass of the Ages.

Ave Maria!

 

[Ham1]

gelsbern:

I am curious about your use of the phrase "damage caused by the SSPX. Could you please cite some examples of this “damage”?

Thanks.

Since Andreas succinctly corrected the “lifting” of the excommunication. Let me just comment on the damage…

1. Everytime a SSPX priest pronounces absolution on a penitent that penitent leaves the confessional IN THE STATE OF SIN and does not receive the grace of Our Lord. The priest also commits a grave sin everytime he pronounces absolution.
2. Everytime an SSPX priest performs a marriage ceremony for a couple, that couple is not married, does not receive the grace of the sacrament and theoretically goes on to commit fornication albeit (hopefully) unwittingly.
3. Everytime a SSPX priest pronounces the words of the consecration he is commiting a grievous sin. How terrible to confect the Body of Christ against God’s will!

Let us hope that many who have particpated in such acts were truly ignorant. However, it is rather chilling to note that the knowledge that is required to commit a mortal sin is that one must know that the Church teaches that such an act is serious. Even if one disagrees and rejects that teaching (as presumably SSPX priests do) such knowledge is still enough to meet the requirements of mortal sin.

So because of the SSPX, thousands of good people do not receive the grace of God through His sacraments. Further, they are deceived into believing that they have received such graces by their own priests.

Truly, the SSPX is a frightening coup for Satan. He has been able to separate many orthodox believers from the Holy Mother Church. I don’t know about you but I find all of this to be quite “damaging” to God’s faithful.

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

Many in the SSPX would say that the Novus Ordo is invalid and the new rites also invalid!

It is not true that souls are not receiveing grace with the sacraments at the SSPX; the Vatican has said that people can go there as long as schism is not the determining factor. We can go to an SSPX chapel and fulfil the Sunday obligation, etc.

Ave Maria!

 

[palmas85]

Ave Maria!:

Many in the SSPX would say that the Novus Ordo is invalid and the new rites also invalid!

It is not true that souls are not receiveing grace with the sacraments at the SSPX; the Vatican has said that people can go there as long as schism is not the determining factor. We can go to an SSPX chapel and fulfil the Sunday obligation, etc.

Ave Maria!

Are you sure about that? I thought the only way it was permissable to go to a SSPX chapel was if there was NO other mass offered period. The unavailability of the indult Mass does not in any way justify attendance at a SSPX Chapel. As I understood it, if there was a Pauline Mass available and also a SSPX mass available and no indult mass available, you were to go to the Pauline Mass. If there was no Pauline Mass and no Indult Mass then you could go to the SSPX…

If I am wrong in this, please point me to the Vatican documents that specifically state what you just said. Thanks.

 

[Ham1]

Ave Maria!:

Many in the SSPX would say that the Novus Ordo is invalid and the new rites also invalid!

It is not true that souls are not receiveing grace with the sacraments at the SSPX; the Vatican has said that people can go there as long as schism is not the determining factor. We can go to an SSPX chapel and fulfil the Sunday obligation, etc.

Ave Maria!

First, it doesn’t really matter what people in SSPX say about the Mass. They were not granted the power by Christ to institute such things. The Vatican was granted such power.

Your post is in error. Priests in SSPX are suspended a divinis. You can find the links to Vatican documents earlier in the thread. Since these priests are suspended, they are not to practice their faculties. To do so, is in fact a serious sin of disobedience. As far as confession and marriage, the priests of SSPX do not have the ability to administer these sacraments as these sacraments are faculties granted by the bishop. That means not only are confession and marriage illicit but they are INVALID - basically meaning NO GRACE.

As Palmas notes, the ONLY time that a Catholic can, in good conscience, attend a SSPX mass, is if there is no other valid Catholic mass that can possibly be attended.

Unfortunately, it seems that you have been misinformed. I urge you to review the pertinent documents earlier within this thread.

God bless!

 

[Marilena]

Ham1:

First, it doesn’t really matter what people in SSPX say about the Mass. They were not granted the power by Christ to institute such things. The Vatican was granted such power.

Your post is in error. Priests in SSPX are suspended a divinis. You can find the links to Vatican documents earlier in the thread. Since these priests are suspended, they are not to practice their faculties. To do so, is in fact a serious sin of disobedience. As far as confession and marriage, the priests of SSPX do not have the ability to administer these sacraments as these sacraments are faculties granted by the bishop. That means not only are confession and marriage illicit but they are INVALID - basically meaning NO GRACE.

As Palmas notes, the ONLY time that a Catholic can, in good conscience, attend a SSPX mass, is if there is no other valid Catholic mass that can possibly be attended.

Unfortunately, it seems that you have been misinformed. I urge you to review the pertinent documents earlier within this thread.

Let me ask this question then yet again, if all SSPX priest are suspended, how then logically can one attend their Mass even
out of dire necessity? That does not make sense! If a priest is
suspended, how can one attend their Mass out of dire necessity?
Please show valid credible proof that ALL SSPX priest are suspended. ALL of them, not just one, ALL. It makes no logical
sense to me that one can attend their Mass if they are all suspended. Either you can attend one or not with a suspended priest. If it is a grave sin to attend their Mass then it is also a grave sin even under dire circumstances is it not? How can one attend their Mass under dire circumstances with a suspended
priest and it not be a grave sin? One cannot take away grave sin
under any circumstance can they? I want to see legitimate proof
that ALL SSPX priests are suspended. Please, prove it to me.