SSPX??

[tcm22]

So I guess you both would assert the validity of the teaching and the Apostolic Authority of the Pope both ceased following VII?

Who makes that judgment? You, Levebrve, some other group of clergy without faculties or just returning from excommunication?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[iluvburpees]

So I guess you both would assert the validity of the teaching and the Apostolic Authority of the Pope both ceased following VII?

Did we ever say that? Negative.

Who makes that judgment?

Not us, but it appears that you don’t mind making judgments about us (see above).

You, Levebrve, some other group of clergy without faculties or just returning from excommunication?

You forgot to put “excommunication” in quotation marks to signify its non-validity in the first place.

Where do you draw the line?

When the Pope supports something contrary to Tradition. The Novus Ordo “mass” fits that quite nicely.

 

[diggerdomer]

He has no authority to change it in such a way as to make it displeasing to God, which the Novus Ordo certainly is.

And God told YOU this, without informing the Magisterium? The Pope and Bishops obviously don’t consider it displeasing to God, as they approved and celebrate it. The Magisterium does have the authority to change the liturgy whether or not it pleases you.

SSPX doctrine doesn’t supersede that of the Church because its doctrine IS that of the Church; that is, the Church before all the errors crept in.

Ah, yes, before the “errors”–are you referring to the teachings of Vatican II?

 

[iluvburpees]

And God told YOU this, without informing the Magisterium? The Pope and Bishops obviously don’t consider it displeasing to God, as they approved and celebrate it. The Magisterium does have the authority to change the liturgy whether or not it pleases you.

Notice that I said nothing about “pleasing me”; i said specifically whether it pleases GOD. And according to the way Vatican II turned out, I know, for a fact, that the Novus Ordo is displeasing to God. Valid, perhaps. Pleasing? No,

Ah, yes, before the “errors”–are you referring to the teachings of Vatican II?

Yes I am. I admit I don’t have a huge knowledge of all the documents and all, but I do know what happened after VII and I do know how horrendous the New “Mass” is.

 

[tcm22]

Originally Posted by tcm22 View Post
So I guess you both would assert the validity of the teaching and the Apostolic Authority of the Pope both ceased following VII?

Did we ever say that? Negative.

You have avoided saying that specifically, but your outright rejection of the OF Mass, which has been unquestionably affirmed by the last 4 Popes and countless Bishops speaking in numerous authoritative documents says that you do. If you accepted the Authority of the Church, you would recognize the OF as a valid form and you would accept that SSPX masses are illicit, their Priests don’t have faculties, and faithful Catholics are enjoined from receiving any sacraments from SSPX clergy except in case of emergency. QED

Originally Posted by tcm22 View Post

Who makes that judgment?

Not us, but it appears that you don’t mind making judgments about us (see above).

That is exactly what you’ve done. We all make judgments about the actions of others, but I understand where the limits of my own authority lie. I don’t presume to know the “proper” form of the Mass, and accept the Church’s discipline in the matter. I pray you will do the same.

Originally Posted by tcm22 View Post

You, Levebrve, some other group of clergy without faculties or just returning from excommunication?

You forgot to put “excommunication” in quotation marks to signify its non-validity in the first place.

There was nothing invalid about the excommunication, except perhaps in the minds of the SSPX. Unfortunately, if one accepts the authority of the Vicar of Christ, then there is really no question that the excommunication was supported and affirmed. This is where the SSPX faithful appeal to some unnamed higher principle, proclaim greater insight to the Faith than the Holy Father and his loyal Bishops, and continue sliding down the slippery slope of personal hubris. What authority do you rely on for your interpretation? In order for your whole perspective to be valid, you have to reject any doctrine of Papal supremacy and Apostolic authority.

Where do you draw the line?

When the Pope supports something contrary to Tradition. The Novus Ordo “mass” fits that quite nicely.

According to whom? If you consider yourself Catholic, you’ve got to be able to answer that question? According to your own personal preference or interpretation? If so, then you’re just a Protestant of a different flavor. The SSPX is quite clear on their position regarding the OF Mass. I understand that all day. However the Church is quite clear in their position. For my part, I’m going to support the Church instituted by Christ himself, not some schismatic group who has decided they somehow know better.

The more I learn and hear about the SSPX and its followers, the more I see what a small and restrictive view of God they hold. Jesus is present in his Church in a variety of forms, not just invoked by Latin or when placed on the tongue. God can speak to us through a variety of musical forms, not just organs and chants. There is nothing uniquely irreverent about guitars or a lack of kneelers (I am a member of a poor Parish…we worship in the school gym). What a shallow understanding of the Mass!

 

[iluvburpees]

You have avoided saying that specifically, but your outright rejection of the OF Mass, which has been unquestionably affirmed by the last 4 Popes and countless Bishops speaking in numerous authoritative documents says that you do. If you accepted the Authority of the Church, you would recognize the OF as a valid form and you would accept that SSPX masses are illicit, their Priests don’t have faculties, and faithful Catholics are enjoined from receiving any sacraments from SSPX clergy except in case of emergency. QED

Archbishop Lefebvre acted out of urgency. The true Catholics greatly worried that the modernist and liberal “Catholics” would fully take over and that the Traditional True Mass would die out. Archbishop Lefebvre did what he knew he had to do: disobey man to obey God. And God has surely given him his eternal reward for saving Catholicism

That is exactly what you’ve done. We all make judgments about the actions of others, but I understand where the limits of my own authority lie. I don’t presume to know the “proper” form of the Mass, and accept the Church’s discipline in the matter. I pray you will do the same.

So even if the current people in the Vatican are heretical (not saying it as a fact, but it a strong possibility), you will accept their word above God’s? If they are not speaking Ex Cathedra about their personal beliefs, why do you think they are? VII was not a dogmatic council. It was merely pastoral. Therefore, should I follow mere men not guided by the Holy Ghost or the conscience God game me to guide me, not to mention our Lady of Fatima and St. Pius X’s warnings?

There was nothing invalid about the excommunication, except perhaps in the minds of the SSPX. Unfortunately, if one accepts the authority of the Vicar of Christ, then there is really no question that the excommunication was supported and affirmed. This is where the SSPX faithful appeal to some unnamed higher principle, proclaim greater insight to the Faith than the Holy Father and his loyal Bishops, and continue sliding down the slippery slope of personal hubris. What authority do you rely on for your interpretation? In order for your whole perspective to be valid, you have to reject any doctrine of Papal supremacy and Apostolic authority.

I rely on the Authority of the True Church, not the Protestolic Church. And I dont have to reject any doctrine of Papal supremacy and Apostolic authority, because VII was not a dogmatic council, and the excommunications were invalid

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q11_abexcommunicated.htm

I’m guessing you’ll ignore the link above, but I just wanted to reference my point.

According to whom? If you consider yourself Catholic, you’ve got to be able to answer that question? According to your own personal preference or interpretation? If so, then you’re just a Protestant of a different flavor. The SSPX is quite clear on their position regarding the OF Mass. I understand that all day. However the Church is quite clear in their position. For my part, I’m going to support the Church instituted by Christ himself, not some schismatic group who has decided they somehow know better.

The Church instituted by Christ himself?! Was Christ present at VII approving it? No, I think it was Satan who presided over the council and laughed in the pope’s face.

We’re schismatic because we “know better” for rejecting modernist theology and holding dear to the True Mass?

The more I learn and hear about the SSPX and its followers, the more I see what a small and restrictive view of God they hold.

I understand now. So we have a “small and restrictive” view of God because we don’t allow non-Catholics to Communion? Because we condemn modernism? Because we don’t accept all religions as equal?

Jesus is present in his Church in a variety of forms, not just invoked by Latin or when placed on the tongue.

Oh, so it’s alright for a mere lay person to hold Our Lord? What’s the point of becoming a priest then?

God can speak to us through a variety of musical forms, not just organs and chants. There is nothing uniquely irreverent about guitars or a lack of kneelers (I am a member of a poor Parish…we worship in the school gym).

Perhaps you should study up on how music affects the soul. If you think that guitars during mass is reverent or, God forbid, actually helps you to concentrate more on the mass, the SACRIFICE OF CALVARY, then I feel for you.

What a shallow understanding of the Mass!

Yes, with God’s help, I hope to develop an even deeper love and and holy fear for the True mass.

 

[pickguard1]

My whole point was that if you were interested in attending an Extraordinary Form Mass, I would suggest going to the FSSP parish. That’s just my personal opinion.

Or express to your local priest you wich to have one said in your parish - if there are other like-minded individuals. (I haven’t succeeded in this yet, so I attend an FSSP parish, but I have high hopes in the future of not having to drive an hour each way! )

 

[pickguard1]

Schism is indeed ugly. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has a long history of dealing with schismatics. When will it end? Ecumenism is so important.

All schism will probably end at the end of time and the Second Coming. It’s one of the more inisidious ways that the devil tries to divide and conquer, so a Church without schisms would indicate that satan has ceased to attack the church by wounding it from within. This to me signifies A) either God has granted an extraordinary respite from the attacks of the enemy (which he can certainly do), or B) the end of time is upon us.

It’s our job to pray for the existing schisms to end and bring those disunited back into unity (I hate saying bring unity back, because by definition, the Catholic Church always posesses unity already) - but expecting an end to schism any time soon is probably unrealistic.

 

[pickguard1]

Quote: “You forgot to put “excommunication” in quotation marks to signify its non-validity in the first place.”

I have to say that if the excommunications were invalid from the beginning, (which the case may be) that is something for a Church tribunal or the Pope to decide, and until it’s decided in such a fashion, we have to take it at it’s face value - valid, but lifted.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes I am. I admit I don’t have a huge knowledge of all the documents and all, but I do know what happened after VII and I do know how horrendous the New “Mass” is.

Well, before criticizing the Catholic Church, it would probably be a good idea to familiarize yourself with Her teachings, specifically the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. There’s no higher teaching authority the Catholic Church has. Before you reject the Catholic Church it would be good to know what exactly you’re rejecting.

You can read them all on the Vatican web site: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm

 

[diggerdomer]

A VII was not a dogmatic council. It was merely pastoral.

It published two DOGMATIC Constitutions. It is an Ecumenical Council, the highest form of teaching authority the Catholic Church has. Whether or not it was pastoral or dogmatic or both is beside the point. Catholics are obliged to assent to its binding teachings.

I rely on the Authority of the True Church, not the Protestolic Church. And I dont have to reject any doctrine of Papal supremacy and Apostolic authority, because VII was not a dogmatic council, and the excommunications were invalid

You can rely on your True Church, but please don’t claim that Catholics are free to reject Vatican II.

, I think it was Satan who presided over the council and laughed in the pope’s face.

So Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, and all the world’s bishops were agents of Satan? Thanks for the clarification.

We’re schismatic because we “know better” for rejecting modernist theology and holding dear to the True Mass?

No, because you reject binding teaching of the Catholic Church’s Magisterium

Oh, so it’s alright for a mere lay person to hold Our Lord?

Yes (according to Catholic Church teaching)

What’s the point of becoming a priest then?

To follow God’s call in that particular order/ministry.

 

[tcm22]

Originally Posted by iluvburpees
Oh, so it’s alright for a mere lay person to hold Our Lord?

Yes (according to Catholic Church teaching)

Originally Posted by iluvburpees
What’s the point of becoming a priest then?

To follow God’s call in that particular order/ministry.

Wow, another classic example of the narrow, shallow view of our great Church. If we adhere to iluvburpees logic, our Priests are little more than a mechanism to consecrate the gifts and a sort of living Monstrance to hold the Eucharist until it can somehow be placed on our tongue.

On what basis does the SSPX hold that lay participation in the distribution of the Eucharist invalidates the Mass?

The Catholic answer to this is easy: The Church, backed by any number of documents and authoritative statements from four Popes, countless Bishops, and several organized bodies of the Church, has stated and affirmed the legitimacy of the OF Mass. It seems the SSPX appeals to personal preference, an individual interpretation of what the Mass “should be”, and accusations of “moderism” and “liberalism” in the Church as authority to reject the teaching of the Magisterium. It’s almost as if the claim that the OF isn’t as reverent is justification for schism.

This is the fatal flaw of the SSPX argument which puts them in the same boat as Martin Luther. They reject the authority of Peter’s successor and replace it with some alternate explanation of Truth.

 

[giuseppeTO]

On what basis does the SSPX hold that lay participation in the distribution of the Eucharist invalidates the Mass?

Hey T - how are you doing bud - still bashin’ I see. Maybe you can help us schismos out with your great wisdom and insight.

If it was sacrilegious for a layman to touch the Blessed Sacrament for the last 1500 years, how could it suddenly become not-sacrilegious in 1969? Did the moon walk have anything to do with it?

PS- Pope Paul VI did not intend for communion in the hand to be instituted in the church. It was against his wishes that the devoted “in-communion” US Bishops decided they new better. But of course the novelties ushered in after, and in the name of the council, were already spiraling out of control. The wilder, the better! The Pope subsequently issued a statement saying that he was not very happy, but oh well, I guess if you’re already doing it …

 

[iluvburpees]

This is the fatal flaw of the SSPX argument which puts them in the same boat as Martin Luther. They reject the authority of Peter’s successor and replace it with some alternate explanation of Truth.

I honestly can’t believe that you - the Novus Ordo - could accuse us of being Lutherans. All we do is cling to the mass of the last, what, 1500 years? I guess if we’er Lutherans now, then we always were, and the Catholic Mass is simply another form of Protestantism.

And your second sentence is another straw-man argument. We never, ever claimed to reject the pope’s authority. If we did, why would we be doing these huge Rosary crusades precisely so that the pope may exercise his authority to bring back Tradition?

I really can’t try to debate this anymore. It’s the same thing over and over again, and you just refuse to listen.

 

[tcm22]

I honestly can’t believe that you - the Novus Ordo - could accuse us of being Lutherans. All we do is cling to the mass of the last, what, 1500 years? I guess if we’er Lutherans now, then we always were, and the Catholic Mass is simply another form of Protestantism.

And your second sentence is another straw-man argument. We never, ever claimed to reject the pope’s authority. If we did, why would we be doing these huge Rosary crusades precisely so that the pope may exercise his authority to bring back Tradition?

I really can’t try to debate this anymore. It’s the same thing over and over again, and you just refuse to listen.

You won’t claim to reject the Pope’s authority, because doing so would force you to admit to your schismatic position. Unfortunately your statements and rejection of the authoritative statements of 4 Popes and the Magisterium reflect otherwise.

If you really believe the Mass was unchanged for 1500 years prior to VII, then you are either a revisionist or just poorly informed.

 

[iluvburpees]

You won’t claim to reject the Pope’s authority, because doing so would force you to admit to your schismatic position. Unfortunately your statements and rejection of the authoritative statements of 4 Popes and the Magisterium reflect otherwise.

If you really believe the Mass was unchanged for 1500 years prior to VII, then you are either a revisionist or just poorly informed.

It seems that you’ve just ignored my question and gone on with your usual attacks.

Again, if we don’t accept the pope’s authority, why would we be doing this present Rosary crusade precisely so that he and all the bishops of the world will USE their authority to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart?

 

[diggerdomer]

It seems that you’ve just ignored my question and gone on with your usual attacks.

Again, if we don’t accept the pope’s authority, why would we be doing this present Rosary crusade precisely so that he and all the bishops of the world will USE their authority to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart?

If you don’t accept the teachings of Vatican II, you don’t accept the Pope’s authority.

Do you accept the teachings of Vatican II? Again, you can’t pick and choose which teachings of the Church you listen to.

 

[tcm22]

It seems that you’ve just ignored my question and gone on with your usual attacks.

Again, if we don’t accept the pope’s authority, why would we be doing this present Rosary crusade precisely so that he and all the bishops of the world will USE their authority to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart?

I did answer your question, just not how you answered it. By continuing to oppose those things the Holy Father has directed faithful Catholics to accept, you are in defiance of his authority. SSPX Priests don’t have faculties, yet continue to perform ministry. This does damage to our Church and to the authority of the Pope.

That you pray for the Pope to do what you want is evident. That does it mean you accept his authority, it just means you accept his authority when his actions fall in line with the SSPX agend. Big difference. The phrase “Thy will be done” comes to mind.

 

[eiram]

Hello,

There is something that I really don’t understand. I looked at the websites for SSPX and the FSSP. It seems that the priests in both societies do not take any religious vows. Why don’t they take any religious vows? I thought that was one of the requirements of becoming a priest. Also, I would like to know if there are any priests that are being trained in the old Latin rite?

Thank you,

eiram

 

[Mumbles140]

Hello,

There is something that I really don’t understand. I looked at the websites for SSPX and the FSSP. It seems that the priests in both societies do not take any religious vows. Why don’t they take any religious vows? I thought that was one of the requirements of becoming a priest. Also, I would like to know if there are any priests that are being trained in the old Latin rite?

Thank you,

eiram

Though I am far from being an expert on the SSPX debate, my understanding (and forgive me if I am wrong) is that both the SSPX and FSSP train priests in the old Latin rite. And they are ordained priests who take the mandatory vows, but they do not take additional vows to a specific order. Many diocesan priests do not do this, although some churches are run by various orders (i.e. Franciscans, Dominicans, Oblates of St. Francis de Sales), where most (if not all) of the priests are also brothers of that religious order.

Again, don’t take my words as fact because I’m not 100% certain, but I believe that to be the case. Hope this has been helpful!