F
Faithdancer
Guest
Please refrain from making statements inferring schism, as these are not helpful, not true in the current status of SSPX and are also disallowed by the rules of these forums. Thank you!
- Status
A
Armor_of_Light
Guest
Ouch.
D
Dee_S
Guest
A very interesting character from what I see…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Belisarius Arius is an Imperial assassin, and a speaker of the Dark Brotherhood’s Black Hand.
He always wears the robes of a Black Hand member with a matching hood and doeskin shoes. He carries an unenchanted iron longsword as his only weapon, and a small amount of gold.
The life of a Speaker doesn’t seem to suit Arius. When you talk to him in Applewatch, he will complain that
“Most of my time is now spent on administrative duties. I have not had blood on my hands in far too long! Killing Lachance was pure ecstacy sic].”, adding “Sithis is Master! All hail the Dread Father!” instead of a simple “Goodbye”.
When the Black Hand descend into the Night Mother’s crypt during the Honor Thy Mother quest, Arius is removed from the Dark Brotherhood faction and added to the DarkBrotherhoodRitualFaction instead.
uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Belisarius_Arius
(kwiki again Faithdancer…
)
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
MODERATOR NOTICE
You have the first thread about the SSPX that has survived this long. Do not ruin it now by inserting inflammatory comments, pictures, jabs or sarcastic remarks.
The status of the SSPX has been defined by the Holy Father. It is not up for questions or debate, not on this forum. We’re a Catholic Apostolate always faithful to the dictates of the Holy See.
If the Holy See says that the SSPX has no canonical place, it is what it is. If the Holy See says that they must accept A, B, and C, then that’s what we support. End of story.
Until the situation changes, please do not take any position that is contrary to that of the Holy Father. That is not acceptable.
On the other side, do not take any position or make any comments that are disrespectful of the members of the SSPX, especially the bishops. One can disagree without being disagreeable.
One can comment on a position without being antagonistic. It’s called diplomacy.
Thank You. . . as you were
You have the first thread about the SSPX that has survived this long. Do not ruin it now by inserting inflammatory comments, pictures, jabs or sarcastic remarks.
The status of the SSPX has been defined by the Holy Father. It is not up for questions or debate, not on this forum. We’re a Catholic Apostolate always faithful to the dictates of the Holy See.
If the Holy See says that the SSPX has no canonical place, it is what it is. If the Holy See says that they must accept A, B, and C, then that’s what we support. End of story.
Until the situation changes, please do not take any position that is contrary to that of the Holy Father. That is not acceptable.
On the other side, do not take any position or make any comments that are disrespectful of the members of the SSPX, especially the bishops. One can disagree without being disagreeable.
One can comment on a position without being antagonistic. It’s called diplomacy.
Thank You. . . as you were
L
Lormar
Guest
Not trying to be a toady, but 
for your post, Mr. Casey.
And another one for good measure.
for your post, Mr. Casey.And another one
for good measure.
L
Lormar
Guest
Dee, isn’t that a beautiful prayer? Our former assistant pastor had holy cards made with that prayer on the back. He told me that Pope St. Pius X composed the prayer.
M
missadeangelis
Guest
I completely agree with you, but if I may, perhaps “develop” (organic development, ideally) or “evolve” would be better than using the word “change” in any context or form. Just a friendly thought.
mda
D
Dee_S
Guest
:imsorry:I’m still learning diplomacy. the pic was by way of distraction & an attempt to lighten-up a darkening situation. It was not meant to re-inforce the quote.
Although not strictly speaking an ‘update’, this extract from an ‘answer’ by Fr Peter Scott of the SSPX is currently available on their website. I post it in the interests of keeping us up-to-date with what prevails and in order to exemplify the concerns of the Popes from Pope Paul VI until present. I hope the reading of it does not offend anyone.
Is the Novus Ordo Mass invalid, or sacrilegious, and should I assist at it when I have no alternative?
“Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecumenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.”
“However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]”
sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm
This belief is not an exception and their stand against reconciliation is reinforced by this.
Although not strictly speaking an ‘update’, this extract from an ‘answer’ by Fr Peter Scott of the SSPX is currently available on their website. I post it in the interests of keeping us up-to-date with what prevails and in order to exemplify the concerns of the Popes from Pope Paul VI until present. I hope the reading of it does not offend anyone.
Is the Novus Ordo Mass invalid, or sacrilegious, and should I assist at it when I have no alternative?
“Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecumenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.”
“However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]”
sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm
This belief is not an exception and their stand against reconciliation is reinforced by this.
D
Dee_S
Guest
While I’m at it, I may as well post his answers to confession, which, considering that the marriages & confessions of SSPX priests are invalid, is quite something to digest:
Can a traditional Catholic go to confession to a Novus Ordo priest?
“It would certainly be valid to go to confession to a priest who still celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass, provided that the penitent were assured of the doctrinal orthodoxy of the priest, his intention of doing what the Church does, and his use of the correct formula of absolution…”
“However, it is not easy to have the assurance of a valid absolution, given the fact that the post-Conciliar Church consistently downgrades the reality and gravity of mortal sin,…”
“Furthermore, I do not hesitate to strongly recommend against going to confession to such a priest, even when there is an assurance of a valid absolution.”
“Manifestly it is not possible to have confidence in the guidance of a priest who compromises with modernism by celebrating the New Mass, even if he otherwise appears orthodox. Neither his judgment as to the reality of our contrition, nor his instruction as to the gravity of our sins, nor his remedies for the ills of our sins can be depended upon. The supernatural vision of Faith will necessarily have been undermined by the humanism and naturalism of the New Mass and the spirit of Vatican II. Our souls are much too precious to place in the hands of those who lack conviction.”
“Consequently, outside case of danger of death, it is preferable to make an act of perfect contrition, and to wait until one can open one’s soul to a traditional priest that can be trusted.” [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm
Sorry to say, but this too is standard fare. I’m sure all will agree that it is something of a duty to keep praying for a happy outcome. Even moreso, considering that at this moment Bishop Fellay is travelling the globe giving sermons/talks in which he states he was deceived into believing a reconciliation could take place.
Can a traditional Catholic go to confession to a Novus Ordo priest?
“It would certainly be valid to go to confession to a priest who still celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass, provided that the penitent were assured of the doctrinal orthodoxy of the priest, his intention of doing what the Church does, and his use of the correct formula of absolution…”
“However, it is not easy to have the assurance of a valid absolution, given the fact that the post-Conciliar Church consistently downgrades the reality and gravity of mortal sin,…”
“Furthermore, I do not hesitate to strongly recommend against going to confession to such a priest, even when there is an assurance of a valid absolution.”
“Manifestly it is not possible to have confidence in the guidance of a priest who compromises with modernism by celebrating the New Mass, even if he otherwise appears orthodox. Neither his judgment as to the reality of our contrition, nor his instruction as to the gravity of our sins, nor his remedies for the ills of our sins can be depended upon. The supernatural vision of Faith will necessarily have been undermined by the humanism and naturalism of the New Mass and the spirit of Vatican II. Our souls are much too precious to place in the hands of those who lack conviction.”
“Consequently, outside case of danger of death, it is preferable to make an act of perfect contrition, and to wait until one can open one’s soul to a traditional priest that can be trusted.” [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm
Sorry to say, but this too is standard fare. I’m sure all will agree that it is something of a duty to keep praying for a happy outcome. Even moreso, considering that at this moment Bishop Fellay is travelling the globe giving sermons/talks in which he states he was deceived into believing a reconciliation could take place.
J
JReducation
Guest
Wait: I thought Franciscans didn’t know who Grace is…
This statement is a hairline away from heresy. I can see where Archbishop Mueller is coming from. To say that the Ordinary Form of the mass is a sacrilege is to say that the Magisterium knowingly endorses and participates in a sacrilege, since the popes celebrate using the Ordinary Form.
The other things don’t even merit attention: CITH, EMHC, liturgical dance, etc. Those are small potatoes compared to the a priori assumption that the form is a sacrilege.
There is another “borderline heresy” in this statement; if there is such a thing. Since the Ordinary Form confects the Eucharist, it is truly the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. It begs the question, is God offended by the unbloody sacrifice of His Son?
If you accept that it is a mass, then you are saying that it is the sacrifice of Calvary. In that case, God is not offended. He may be offended by the silliness that people throw into the mix, but not by the mass itself. The silliness may reach the levels of sin, but the mass does not. For the levels of silliness to reach the gravity of sacrilege, the silliness has to meet certain criteria established by moral theology. But it is the silliness that would be a sin, not the mass.
If you say that it is not the sacrifice of Calvary, then you’re saying that it is not a mass. In which case, the Church’s Magisterium has been in error since Pope Paul promulgated the new ordo. The Church has been in error, because it has believed that this is a true mass.
You can’t have it both ways.
a. It’s a mass; therefore, it’s the true sacrifice.
b. But this sacrifice offends God.
He is right about one thing. Only God can judge subjective culpability.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Very nice blog, fratello. Piacere della conoscienza (finalmenteYou can’t have it both ways.
a. It’s a mass; therefore, it’s the true sacrifice.
b. But this sacrifice offends God.
He is right about one thing. Only God can judge subjective culpability.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
)
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
To your question, Bro, obviously God is not ever offended by the valid confection of the Body and Blood of the Savior. He may certainly be offended by what is done with it or perhaps even omitted in Its Presence.
In the most extremely evil example of a Black Mass for instance, the Eucharist is validly present and is the unbloody sacrifice of His Son. The confection is not evil, but the intent of the confection is intrinsically evil.
So the fact that the unbloody sacrifice has taken place does not preclude its abuse. Aside from CITH, I do not personally feel that the OF abuses the sacrament by virtue of the normally followed rubrics.
However, when I was young, it would have been sacrilegious for my father or mother or myself to touch the Blessed Sacrament. Although the church has ruled that to no longer be the case, it is difficult for some to accept.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Having just made it to not one but two Evenings of Recollection this week- :dancing:- I can note with some certainty that the most respect I have ever seen shown to the Holy Eucharist in a diocesan Catholic Church has been by the priests and members of Opus Dei, in the Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. I know that there are some self-described Catholics who consider Opus Dei to be an ultraconservative fringe group. In reality, of course, they are simply excellent Catholics. Not all of them are “traditionalists,” in the sense that they only attend the traditional Latin Mass- but they are all exemplary members of their local parishes. However, to a man they highly value Catholic tradition and staunchly uphold Catholic moral teachings. Opus Dei has been described by some as occupying, in part, a role formerly occupied by the Society of Jesus in the first centuries of its existence- a period of time during which the Jesuits acted, as some have depicted, as the “shock troops of the Papacy.”
I bring this up because I think that, in the best of all possible outcomes, the SSPX will fully reconcile with Rome and its priests and faithful will become something comparable to the priests and members of Opus Dei- a vigorously faithful and impeccably orthodox Catholic force to be reckoned with. And should this happen, it will not be a case of “rewarding” the SSPX, as some might suggest, but rather of charging them with a very difficult task- helping to combat creeping secularism and moral relativism among the members of the Church, and helping with the reinvigoration of Catholic catechetical efforts and the defense of Catholic moral teachings.
I bring this up because I think that, in the best of all possible outcomes, the SSPX will fully reconcile with Rome and its priests and faithful will become something comparable to the priests and members of Opus Dei- a vigorously faithful and impeccably orthodox Catholic force to be reckoned with. And should this happen, it will not be a case of “rewarding” the SSPX, as some might suggest, but rather of charging them with a very difficult task- helping to combat creeping secularism and moral relativism among the members of the Church, and helping with the reinvigoration of Catholic catechetical efforts and the defense of Catholic moral teachings.
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, but in light of the quote from the SSPX site the BroJR was responding to, we are not talking about something offensive to God. That SSPX quote gave me the chills. I think the response was far more measured and charitable than I could give to such harsh wording about, well pretty much the whole Catholic Church and its Holy Mass. I know this was just one priest, but anyone who would say such things about the Catholic Church, I really would not touch with a ten foot pole.
M
Moore11
Guest
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I think some need to really watch what they say about the SSPX and the situation in general. In my experience on this site the moderators are crystal clear about what one cannot say about the SSPX. But I think some are too critical on the other side.
It would only take one pronouncement from the Pope to make the society in “full communion” And while we have been on a rollercoaster ride it is entirely possible that a solution could be arrived at at any point in time. We should pray for unity. But we also should purge from our own hearts the slander and underlying hate that seems to follow this topic. While only God knows what will happen we should remember that when we go around calling people heretics, and positions untenable, they very much could be held in communion with Rome. Bottom line is: WE do not get to decide this situation. And it is my belief that many out there and even some on this very thread would be very much unhappy if the SSPX were regularized. But regardless of what happens we need to guard our words.
We shouldn’t defend the SSPX as if we would be embarrassed of our words if the Holy father Declared schism tomorrow. Nor should we attack the SSPX as if we would be embarrassed of our words if the Holy Father offered the SSPX a personal prelature
tomorrow.
I honestly feel that there are those people who feel the last thing they want is for the SSPX and Rome to reconcile. I think there are people on both sides that feel this way and I think that on CAF the only ones who stick around are those who want the SSPX to fail. However that does not make their position any less wrong than the SSPX supporters position.
I pray for unity. If either party has to soften or “change” it’s position is not up to me nor do I care. I just pray for unity and I feel the SSPX would be better fully inside the Church than out.
Personally I think we all should re read our posts and realize that if tomorrow something happened with this situation would we be guilty of slandering the Church or Slandering a society within the Church?
It would only take one pronouncement from the Pope to make the society in “full communion” And while we have been on a rollercoaster ride it is entirely possible that a solution could be arrived at at any point in time. We should pray for unity. But we also should purge from our own hearts the slander and underlying hate that seems to follow this topic. While only God knows what will happen we should remember that when we go around calling people heretics, and positions untenable, they very much could be held in communion with Rome. Bottom line is: WE do not get to decide this situation. And it is my belief that many out there and even some on this very thread would be very much unhappy if the SSPX were regularized. But regardless of what happens we need to guard our words.
We shouldn’t defend the SSPX as if we would be embarrassed of our words if the Holy father Declared schism tomorrow. Nor should we attack the SSPX as if we would be embarrassed of our words if the Holy Father offered the SSPX a personal prelature
tomorrow.
I honestly feel that there are those people who feel the last thing they want is for the SSPX and Rome to reconcile. I think there are people on both sides that feel this way and I think that on CAF the only ones who stick around are those who want the SSPX to fail. However that does not make their position any less wrong than the SSPX supporters position.
I pray for unity. If either party has to soften or “change” it’s position is not up to me nor do I care. I just pray for unity and I feel the SSPX would be better fully inside the Church than out.
Personally I think we all should re read our posts and realize that if tomorrow something happened with this situation would we be guilty of slandering the Church or Slandering a society within the Church?
S
severus68
Guest
I refer to your words in bold. What do you mean by that? It appears that you are rather disrespectful to people on CAF and to our moderators. Why do you choose to continue to post on CAF then?
Personally, (and I am sure its the same with the vast majority of Catholics), I did not even know about the SPPX until I joined CAF. I just want to attend Mass without anyone saying the Mass I attend is invalid, without saying the Pope/Popes are/were wrong, without others trying to teach me what the Church does not teach. Talking of slander…
J
JReducation
Guest
But the article does not distinguish between the form of the mass and the nonsense. That’s the problem. The speaker says that the OF is a sacrilege and that it’s not pleasing to God. Such a statement is very dangerous because it borders on heresy. It implies that even if you follow the rubrics to the letter, the OF mass is not pleasing to God. How is it possible that the unbloody sacrifice of the Son, even in the Ordinary Form, celebrated as the Church commands, be offensive to God? The only way around that would be to say that it’s an invalid mass. Such a statement would be heresy.
Opus Dei can be awesome. I receive my doctorate in theology from their university in Rome. They were theologically very solid and at the same time very relaxed. The one thing that I learned from them, among many other things, is that one can be reverent, faithful, orthodox and be relaxed and jovial.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
P
pnewton
Guest
As I am the last poster to same somehing disparaging about their stance, that is calling it mortally sinful to attend Mass, I will say that my conscience is clear on this. As a matter of faith, I am convinced the Holy Father will not declare an oopsy fiat that the Mass has been wrong all along and the SSPX was right. It is a matter of my believe in the Holy Spirit working through the Church. The position I criticized is one that the Vatican said during the last round of talks must be abandoned for regularization to take place.
I disagree that anyone has been over critical of the SSPX. I do not think it is possible to be overly critical of error, though one can be uncharitable in the presentation. It seems to me mostly that it is their positions and statements which have been opposed. As the moderators have said, this is one of the longest lasting SSPX threads.
M
Moore11
Guest
It is not disrespectful at all. How could it be.
CAF has had as a policy that advertising or encouraging of the SSPX is off limits (AS IT SHOULD BE!) That is CAF decision and right. I respect it. However, there is a level of respect on the forums that is extended to many other dissenters or differing people that is missing for the SSPX. No one would ever say the things about attendees or ministers of faith in other sections of the forums that they seem to about the SSPX. (I dont think the following falls under discussing mod direction) if it does forgive me. But in talking with a moderator on these boards he said something that seemed very wise to me.I really like the airing of dirty laundry point. And I think we all could use it. Being a person who has Traditional leanings in a liberal diocese and watching all of these discussions on these boards has taught me humility. It has taught me restraint. I hope it is able to teach others that as well.
All of us would do well to think, reflect and pray about what our REAL emotions are in this situations and why we have them. Objectivity is hard to find sometimes.
M
Moore11
Guest
??? I dont understand this? Are you saying that if one attends an SSPX Mass out of love for the EF and has not access to the EF in a reasonable area that one would commit sin? How do you arrive at this?
2) Why in the world would the Holy Father have to admit “wrong” to permit the SSPX to have a personal prelature. He is the HOLY FATHER. he can do as he wishes and as is best for the Church. If tomorrow it were announced that the SSPX was given falculties the Holy Father would not owe you, me, or them a public explanation. He would not have to explain, apologize, say he was wrong and they were right… he wouldn’t. but why is it that many, including probably yourself would assume that that is what it meant? In this hypothetical situation that we all SHOULD BE praying for why would you view it as an "Us vs Them situation? But that is kind of my original point. If the SSPX is regularized without a “hat in hand” situation that would stroke our sense of justice there are many who would not agree and be angry.
But in reality it is not our sense of justice or reconciliation that the SSPX has to answer to it is Holy Mother church’s.
I leave you with an example of what happens to SSPX people sometimes and ask you if the person who answers the question in this thread deserved to be treated this way? Would an Angelica seminarian have been treated this way?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=699097
- Status