SSPX statement

[JNB]

Catholic Dude:

Dony worry about them, their numbers are nothing. Lucky if its one priest per state. With the number of immgrants coming in the states there will never be a large enough supply for the huge Catholic population.

While I am not a fan of Bp Willliamson and his cult of personality to say the least, the SSPX in the US has about as many seminarians as the Archdiocese of LA has, while it may at the very most have 75K parishoners nationwide. The LA archdiocese has had a flood of immigrants, but it certainly has not helped in terms of vocations.

 

[EddieArent]

Oh darn. I guess St. Athansius and a few other bishops who had guts to stand up for true Catholic doctrine should have kept their mouths shut and let the Arians run things.

Everyone screams schismatic and excommunicated at the SSPX but when their diocese bishop attends and even offers facilities for Lutheran ordinations that is OK in the name of indifferantism or ecumenism. If Bishop de Castor Mayer was “excommunicated” for helping Marcel Lefebvre then it’s only fitting that the bishops that helped the Lutherans be excommunicated (and subsequently their seats as bishops in their diocese be vacante) as the Lutherans had no mandate from Pope John Paul II to consecrate a bishop.

 

[EddieArent]

gnjsdad:

I do hope a reconciliation is possible, but I’m not holding my breath. A lot of SSPX people have developed the habit of acting like Protestants.

My parents have been going to an SSPX chapel. It was run by a priest, who was rather unjustly treated by his bishop and who therefore took up with the SSPX. This priest developed cancer, and, before he died, he evidently was reconciled with his bishop because the chapel was taken over by the diocese and another priest was assigned who could say the Tridentine Mass, but who was not associated with the SSPX. After this new priest was assigned, many of the attendees left for other climes.

This is what Protestants typically do. If they don’t like the parish or church, they find another one.

Are you talking about Father Wilkens?

Anyway, what heppened there with the priest that took over there was tragic.

 

[TLM_Altar_Boy]

RSiscoe:

What you wrote would indicate schism, not heresy: those who two different isues.

While it’s true that they start out as different issues, they walk hand in hand. As the Angelic Doctor quotes St. Jerome, “…[Y]et there is no schism that does not devise some heresy for itself, that it may appear to have had a reason for separating from the Church.” He also states that “schism is the road to heresy.”

Of course, it’s kind of a moot point. Whether it’s heresy, schism, or both, SSPXers are dealing with grave matter. I only hope that B-16, our “Weapon of Mass Instruction,” ends the schism soon.

 

[RSiscoe]

JKirkLVNV:

I was not defending any of those things, RSiscoe, I’m saying that they aren’t

A) Anti-Catholic

B) Protestant in and of themselves.

And in truth, you actually do a great deal of diservice to Protestants! I don’t know your background, but I was raised a Baptist and then spent 4 years as an Episcopalian. None of the overt abuses that are being inflicted on our liturgy, either through ignorance or through deliberate attempts to put the stamp of one’s own ego on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, were ever present in the Lord’s Supper of the Baptists (fundamentalist) or even Low Church Episcopalians. As deficient as those services/ordinances/rites were, they were done in love and reverence. There was no clown mass, no circus mass, etc. We actually knelt for Communion at a rail for each and every communion in each and every Episcopal parish I ever attended. The abuses are not the result of any kind of “Protestantizing” of the Church or the Mass, unless you’re talking small “p” protestant (individuals being personally or even corporately disobedient to the bishop or the Pope)/

My background is that I grew up Episcopal and was an altar boy at Church. And yes, we also knelt for communion and received on the tongue. As you may, or may not know, the Episcopal church has always been considered somewhere between Protestant and Catholic. Although we, as Episcopals, received communion on the tonuge, while kneeling, the Protestants received in the hand while standing. This just shows that the “reforms” that have been based on the “spirit of Vatican II” are even more Protestant that the Episcopal Church that you and I attended.

I agree that the abuses CAN be blamed on some mistaken notion that calls itself the “spirit of VII.” But remember the time in which the Council took place, more importantly, remember the time when the Council’s teachings began to be implemented (poorly, sadly enough). It was a time when people were questioning everything, when the “establishment” was bad, when we were suppose to “question authority.” The Council gets a bum rap for things not its fault.

What is your point? Are you excusing what took place under the “spirit of Vatican II” because it originated during the 60’s? The “Spirit of Vatican II” is the spirit of the 60’s.

AND I still maintain that most of these practices that you’ve listed were present in the early Church, ie., Communion in the hand, not kneeling at a rail, etc. Does that mean we CAN’T rec. on the toungue? Does that mean we cannot kneel at a rail? Does that mean we cannot have representational art in our churches? NO.

But do you agree with these changes? If so, why? When did Rome ever say that the communion rails should be removed; that the statues should be removed, etc.? Rome never said these changes should take place! So why do you defend them? I agree that they are not heresy, per se… but when did Rome ever reverse what it has taught?

It didn’t. These changes did not come from Rome, nor from Vatican II, but from the so called “spirit of the Council”, which is the same spirit that was present in the 16th century.

It just doesn’t mean that those who don’t do those things are deficient. Trent did not have the authority to make binding on successive councils or popes anything that had to do with the discipline of the Mass, only on the dogmas and doctrines of the Mass.

But when did the Church ever overturn the disciplines of Trent?

It seems to me that this is what some people cannot accept. And those of us who do accept this are not by definition heretics, nor are we advocating that abuses are acceptable or tolerable.

I am not saying you are a heretic. I do not think your arguments are heretical. But why would you defend these “reforms” that have been based on the so called “spirit of the council”, when neither the Council, nor Rome, ever called for them?

 

[Lovez4God]

I have never been to a Latin Mass before. But I wish to someday.
Personallly, I would like to see installation of the Latin Mass back again. Not only it is unique, it would bring much more glory to God.
Who can say that the mass we have now is much better than the traditional latin mass?
In traditional mass, God is revered, God is the central focus, He is the Master of the eucharist.
In modern mass, man is in control, people are less focused, people are more likely to implement their own individuality.
On the reception of the eucharist, I would like to the reception of the eucharist in the tongue become a must-do. I have more respect for those who receive the eucharist in the mouth than those in the hands. Who is humble is the greatest. This is God we are talking about here, Why would you want to be disrespectful to God? If you were to be judged now face to face with God, would you even dare to look straight at Him?

I think God is going to directly intervene in the future to set His Church straight with the help of man too.

 

[marcadam]

RSiscoe:

And it is this “spirit” which has “reformed” the Church. Certainly, if you think about this you will have to agree. That does not mean you have to be against Vatican II; it just means you would have to face up to the reality that the “spirit of Vatican II”, which has reeked such havoc on the Church through its so called “reforms” is the same spirit of the caused the Protestant reformation.

See, here’s the thing: you write of the “Spirit of Vatication II” (SVII?) as though it were something that is even remotely related to the council itself. But it isn’t. At all. That’s the point. That “spirit” was something sprung wholly from the foreheads of the media who were deperate to spin the council as an “out with the old/in with the new” battle, and liberal folk who knew that the output of the council wasn’t at all what they had hoped it would be. The “SVII” is an anti-intellectual shell game, and for any serious believer to be duped by these Richard McBrien antics at this point is just in poor taste.

So here’s the thing that really cheeses me off: if you have a respect for the truth, and you know lex orendi lex credendi (sp?) then suit up and join the battle you deserter panty-waists!. Lemme tell ya, I love the NO. I have to, I’m 30 and it’s all I’ve ever known (and that may be the majority of American Catholic by now). But for all of my love, it can get awful lonely over here when some nonexistent “SVII” is cited for church wreckovation, liturgical dance, unordained homilists and general disrespect for the Sacrament. So go ahead, take the easy way out. Some of us don’t have a choice but to have the cajones to fight the good fight. Y’all leaving has only made it harder.

 

[gnjsdad]

EddieArent:

Are you talking about Father Wilkens?

Anyway, what heppened there with the priest that took over there was tragic.

Father Wickens? Yes.

 

[chadwilliams]

RSiscoe:

What they say is that if a Pope teaches something contrary to the faith (not infallibly, of course), we should obey God rather than man; and that following a false teaching would be unlawful. Here is an example that will make the point: Let’s say the Pope commanded that you worship a false God. Would you obey? Of course not. Does that mean you would be a heretic for not obeying? Does it mean that you would be denying the article of faith which says we must obey the Pope? No, it just means that, even though you understand that a Catholic must obey the Pope, you cannot obey on that particular point, since it would be sinful.

If a Pope is teaching something regarding faith, he is protected from error, because in the instances of Faith and Morals the Pope is Infalliable. Therefore, the argument you set up could never occur.

 

[chadwilliams]

TNT:

Will they come back to the authority of the Vatican? Well, as best I can determine that would require

1. TLM for any priest who desires to use it.
2. VATICAN II would have to be allowed by them to go into a non-event. That is, that would not be required to affirm it in any explicit way. BUT never to speak against it.
3. They would not be required to offer the NOM. BUT never to speak against it.

Imagine this for a moment. You are in your home parish. You know the one: The layout looks like you’re in a Theatre, not a Church, the Tabernacle is somewhere off to the side of the altar (hopefully you can find it), the choir “loft” is situated right up front just left of center so as not to totally steal the show from what’s happening on the altar, and of course there were never anything resembling an altar rail.

So, the priest decides to celebrate the TLM. Not even going into the issues of if the priest should say it (how familiar is he with the Missal, how is his Latin, etc.) the layout of the new churches do not lend themselves to celebrating the TLM.

 

[chadwilliams]

Psalm45:9:

I forsee that the Western Church will split into two Latin Rites under the Pope: The Tridentine and the Novos Ordo. Since the East already has many rites, I think this will be a reality in the West within the next 30 years.

Interesting viewpoint, one I’ve never considered. I wonder how difficult it would be to establish a “Tridentine Rite” Parish. Would priests choose which rite to belong to, or would they be assigned? Would Catholics need to formally join whichever Rite they choose similar to if a Latin Rite Catholic wanted to formally join the Byzantine Rite?

I would guess that new “Tridentine Rite” churches would need to be constructed, since the modern churches of today wouldn’t facilitate the TLM as easily.

Very interesting Psalm45:9.

 

[Anne_Carmel]

Just a reminder.

Don’t let this thread slip. Stay on topic.

 

[chadwilliams]

Lovez4God:

In traditional mass, God is revered, God is the central focus, He is the Master of the eucharist.
In modern mass, man is in control, people are less focused, people are more likely to implement their own individuality.

I love the TLM, but you paint this statement with too broad a brush. First off, God is still revered in the Novus Ordo Mass, and the Sacrifice of Christ is still the Central Focus of the Novus Ordo Mass. The priest runs both the TLM and the Novus Ordo Mass in persona Christi. And please don’t generalize that everyone at a Novus Ordo Mass is less focused than at the TLM. I hear stories all the time from people who grew up in before VII saying their mothers were always saying the Rosary during the whole Mass, so it swings both ways.

On the reception of the eucharist, I would like to the reception of the eucharist in the tongue become a must-do.

“Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”

We are soooo not worthy to receive the Body of Christ in any manner. The US Bishops have allowed the reception of the Host in the hand. Who are we to quibble with those who wish to do this. I’m just praying that the USCCB doesn’t make reception in the hand the norm! That would really be bad.

I have more respect for those who receive the eucharist in the mouth than those in the hands.

If you are kneeling after Communion watching who take the Host on the tongue or in the hand, to see who you “respect more”, you are wasting good prayer time. I doubt anyone cares if you respect them more (or less) for receiving on the tongue (or in the hand).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

RSiscoe:

CatholicDude,

First of all, for the record, I am not an SSPX member, although I do attend Mass at an SSPX Church from time to time.

Now, I do have a few issues with the SSPX (one big on in particular); but as far as I know they are very strong in the faith and do not reject any doctrines of the Church. In addition to this, they still - after 40 years of apostacy - still think as the Church has always thoght, and still believe what the Church has always taught.

I understand what you are saying here, but at the same time its like playing cards with a rigged deck. You just said “apostacy” and followed it by “still believe”, does that sound right? It sounds like a conflict of interests.

Now, here is my challenge: Show me where the SSPX has deviated from the faith at all. …
…
And please do not make a general statement such as “they reject Vatican II”. Please be more specific by telling me what exactly they reject.

I will start with the second part first. What is wrong with a general statement like “they reject VII”? By rejecting VII they are in effect calling your bluff, laughing at you, despising you, for you only attend Mass with them “from time to time”.
They are lumping you in the “new religion” pile, no exceptions.
Lets look at this page:

It consequently cannot be denied that Vatican II attempts to constitute a new religion … However, the subtle cleverness of this operation must also be noted. It is the traditional hierarchical structure of the Church, its Mass, its devotions and prayers, its catechisms and teachings, and now even its Rosary that have all been infiltrated with the principles of the new religion. This new religion has been swallowed down unwittingly by many Catholics precisely because it hides, as a caricature, behind the outward appearance of Catholicism. … This is the reason for which we have every right to condemn the post-Conciliar revolution for the new religion that it is, while at the same time we must respect the offices and functions of those who hold positions in the Church. Likewise, we must admit that many Catholics in good faith still retain the true Faith in their hearts, believing on the authority of God, Who reveals divine truth through the Catholic Church, although it is often tainted to varying degrees by the principles of the new religion. Consequently, it does not at all follow from the fact that the Vatican II religion is truly a new religion, that we should maintain that we are the only Catholics left, that the bishops and the Pope have necessarily lost the Faith, and that we must not pray for them or respect their position in the Church. …

Our duty is not to condemn and excommunicate, but to help Catholics of good faith in the modern Church to make the necessary discernment, in order to totally abandon the new religion, embrace Tradition, and remain Catholic. Such must be the goal of our conversations on the subject.

sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/post-conciliar_church_a_new_religion.htm

It comes down to the powerful words of Jesus: You can not serve two masters.
These guys make no attempt to hide their agenda. While it may seem inline with “Tradional” teaching, it has clearly identified itself as a distinct group separate from all the rest of us. It claims that they hold the truth, and that we are not even Catholic.
The bottom line is we need to stay on one side of the fence, anyone who has anything to do with them is being deceived.
Both groups cannot be Catholic. This is not an attack at you, but a statement that I see them as on one side “granting” us the “right” to be called Catholic, all the while saying we are fools.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Alright, then how about a quote from our new Pope?

I talked about what Benedict XVI said at his first Mass:
Here

Quote:
We can say it: the funeral of John Paul II was a truly extraordinary experience in which was perceived in some way the power of God Who, through His Church, wishes to form a great family of all peoples, through the unifying force of Truth and Love. In the hour of death, conformed to his Master and Lord, John Paul II crowned his long and fruitful pontificate, confirming the Christian people in faith, gathering them around him and making the entire human family feel more united.

  Quote:

…With the Great Jubilee the Church was introduced into the new millennium carrying in her hands the Gospel, applied to the world through the authoritative re-reading of Vatican Council II. Pope John Paul II justly indicated the Council as a ‘compass’ with which to orient ourselves in the vast ocean of the third millennium. Also in his spiritual testament he noted: ’ I am convinced that for a very long time the new generations will draw upon the riches that this council of the 20th century gave us’.

I too, as I start in the service that is proper to the Successor of Peter, wish to affirm with force my decided will to pursue the commitment to enact Vatican Council II, in the wake of my predecessors and in faithful continuity with the millennia-old tradition of the Church. Precisely this year is the 40th anniversary of the conclusion of this conciliar assembly (December 8, 1965). With the passing of time, the conciliar documents have not lost their timeliness; their teachings have shown themselves to be especially pertinent to the new exigencies of the Church and the present globalized society.

  Quote:

"Thus, in full awareness and at the beginning of his ministry in the Church of Rome that Peter bathed with his blood, the current Successor assumes as his primary commitment that of working tirelessly towards the reconstitution of the full and visible unity of all Christ’s followers. This is his ambition, this is his compelling duty. He is aware that to do so, expressions of good feelings are not enough. Concrete gestures are required to penetrate souls and move consciences, encouraging everyone to that interior conversion which is the basis for all progress on the road of ecumenism.

"Theological dialogue is necessary. A profound examination of the historical reasons behind past choices is also indispensable. But even more urgent is that ‘purification of memory,’ which was so often evoked by John Paul II, and which alone can dispose souls to welcome the full truth of Christ. It is before Him, supreme Judge of all living things, that each of us must stand, in the awareness that one day we must explain to Him what we did and what we did not do for the great good that is the full and visible unity of all His disciples. "The current Successor of Peter feels himself to be personally implicated in this question and is disposed to do all in his power to promote the fundamental cause of ecumenism. In the wake of his predecessors, he is fully determined to cultivate any initiative that may seem appropriate to promote contact and agreement with representatives from the various Churches and ecclesial communities. Indeed, on this occasion too, he sends them his most cordial greetings in Christ, the one Lord of all.

   Quote:
                                             "With this awareness, I address myself to everyone, even to those who follow other religions or who are simply seeking an answer to the fundamental questions of life and have not yet found it. I address everyone with simplicity and affection, to assure them that the Church wants to continue to build an open and sincere dialogue with them, in a search for the true good of mankind and of society.

 

[RSiscoe]

marcadam:

See, here’s the thing: you write of the “Spirit of Vatication II” (SVII?) as though it were something that is even remotely related to the council itself. But it isn’t. At all. That’s the point.

Are you denying that people have used the alleged “spirit of the Council” as the basis for reforming the Church? If you deny that, it would be useless to argue with you, since you are probably the only Catholic alive who does not realize that.

And just so you understand: I am not blaming the council for the “reforms” I am talking about - communion in the hand; rock music at Mass; reckovating Churches by removing statues and altar rails, etc. I am not blaming Vatican II for that, since the Council called for none of those Protestantized “reforms”. I am blaming the so called “spirit of the council”, which has been used to justify these (and many other) things.

So, do you deny that people have used the “spirit of the Council” as the basis for many of the changes that have taken place in the Church? Well, that is my point. This is a false movement that has reformed the Church.

That “spirit” was something sprung wholly from the foreheads of the media who were deperate to spin the council as an “out with the old/in with the new” battle, and liberal folk who knew that the output of the council wasn’t at all what they had hoped it would be.

Actually, it would be nice it if was only the news media; but it is not. It is the liberals in the Church that have used this so called “spirit of the council” to reek havok on the Church.

So here’s the thing that really cheeses me off: if you have a respect for the truth, and you know lex orendi lex credendi (sp?) then suit up and join the battle you deserter panty-waists!.

I’m in the battle. That is why I am willing to take a stand against the false “reforms” that have been destroying the Church for the past 40 years, rather than pretend they are all just find. Everyone with a grain of Catholicism left in them realized these things are bad; yet many of these same people DEFEND them. Those are the one who need to take a stand.

I am reminded of the Old Testament, and the Prophet Elias, who was “troubling Israel”. Achab went up to the prophet and said: “Are thou he that troublest Israel?” Then Elias responded by saying: “I have not troubled Israel, but thou and thy father’s house, who have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and have followed Baalim”. The prophet then went to the multitude and said: “How long will you halt between two sides? If the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him”. (3 Kings 18:21).

I say the same: If the spirit of Vatican II (Baal) and the so called reforms that have come out of the heretical spirit are of God than follow them; but if they are false, then stand up against them. Why do you halt between two sides?

So, I’ll end with your words addressed right back at you: “**suit up and join the battle you deserter panty-waists”. **

Take a stand: either be for Baal, or for God - “why do you halt between two sides”?

 

[RSiscoe]

Catholic Dude:

I understand what you are saying here, but at the same time its like playing cards with a rigged deck. You just said “apostacy” and followed it by “still believe”, does that sound right? It sounds like a conflict of interests.

I will start with the second part first. What is wrong with a general statement like “they reject VII”? By rejecting VII they are in effect calling your bluff, laughing at you, despising you, for you only attend Mass with them “from time to time”.
They are lumping you in the “new religion” pile, no exceptions.
Lets look at this page:

It comes down to the powerful words of Jesus: You can not serve two masters.
These guys make no attempt to hide their agenda. While it may seem inline with “Tradional” teaching, it has clearly identified itself as a distinct group separate from all the rest of us. It claims that they hold the truth, and that we are not even Catholic.
The bottom line is we need to stay on one side of the fence, anyone who has anything to do with them is being deceived.
Both groups cannot be Catholic. This is not an attack at you, but a statement that I see them as on one side “granting” us the “right” to be called Catholic, all the while saying we are fools.

Generally speaking, when the SSPX speaks of the “Vatican II Church” they are speaking of the false reforms and the false way of thinking that has become prevelant in the Church since Vatican II. And they are right for doing this. They do not have a problem with TRUE ecumenism, for example, but with false ecumenism. True ecumenism is trying to bring others into the Catholic Church (such as people here try to do); false ecumenism is trying to unite with those of other religions without them converting (that is what Cardinal Kasper teaches; and Cardinal Kasper was appointed by John Paul II to be the leader of ‘Christian Unity’. In other words, our previous Pope placed a person who believes in false ecumenism in charge of the ecumenical movement under his Papacy. And that is why this false "ecumenism"is what most within the Church are practicing today. It is a satanic deception and a denial of the Catholic Church. The SSPX rightly objects to this false ecumenism.

But when you say they reject Vatican II, that is not exactly correct. They reject what has come about since Vatican II - under the name of Vatican II. What has come about since Vatican II is, as they said, a new religion. And this new false heretical religion is incampatible with Catholicism. I am not saying everyone within the Church has succumbed to that new religion, but it is there, and it has invaded our Churches like a deadly plague.

The SSPX is one of the only groups who have the courage to stand up against, for example, false ecumenism. Everyone else realizes it is false, but they pretend it is OK.

Take Catholic Answers: Certainly they are not so blind as to not realize that false ecumenism is false, but when is the last time they said anything about it? They remain silent. Is that what the Church needs today? I don’t think so, because many honest and sincere Catholic are being deceived by this false movement.

So please give me a specific doctrine that the SSPX rejects. And remember, according to our new Pope, Vatican II did not define any new doctrines (see my signature)., which means you cannot point to anything in the Vatican II documents as being newly defined doctrine.

 

[tuopaolo]

JKirkLVNV:

to remove statues (which they have done in some places, not in others, in some they’ve replaced perfectly beautiful plaster/marble statues with modern monstrosities, in others they’ve replaced ghastly plaster/marble statues with beautiful contemporary ones-this really boils down to a matter of taste, not truth)

Beauty is not a matter of taste; beauty is a matter of truth, a matter of truth and goodness. This is the historic Catholic teaching, including that of for example, St Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

tuopaolo:

Beauty is not a matter of taste; beauty is a matter of truth, a matter of truth and goodness. This is the historic Catholic teaching, including that of for example, St Thomas Aquinas.

Yes. Good observation.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

tuopaolo:

Beauty is not a matter of taste; beauty is a matter of truth, a matter of truth and goodness. This is the historic Catholic teaching, including that of for example, St Thomas Aquinas.

RSiscoe: I haven’t time to respond at length to your response to me, got up a 1:00 AM to watch the Investiture, now have to go to Mass.

Tuopaulo: Beauty is only a matter of truth because truth alone is truly beautiful. In matters of art, music, etc., absent something that is objectively evil (a head banger tune that lauds Satan, for example), it becomes a matter of taste. Otherwise, there is no beauty in the simple Santos that decorate the churches of Northern New Mexico, there is only beauty in the apointments of St. Peter’s, which pretty much means that only white Europeans can produce anything of beauty. I much prefer church’s to have an abundance of religious art, but there are monastic chapels that have next to none, apart from one or two stained glass windows. Do the Masses there fail to confect the Sacrifice? Austerity can also give glory to God.