A
agnes_therese
Guest
How can you think that what your friend says makes sense, when he is obviously trying to lead you away from the Church? Consider who you want to follow – your friend, or Jesus?
- Status
S
severus68
Guest
There is no issue about the validity of V2. Anyone who questions whether the popes after V2, are/were true popes are sedevacantists so perhaps you should be careful about taking the advice of your friend.
O
OldYoungGuy
Guest
I think a lot of people who are claiming SSPX to be sedevacantist are confusing SSPX with SSPV which is an openly sedevacantist group who either left or were dismissed from the SSPX.
P
ProVobis
Guest
True. There’s also confusion between the FSSP and the FSSPX (their official acronym). If they’re forced to change their name for reconciliation purposes I hope they leave the “X” out of it. Negative connotation IMO.
A
Agape11
Guest
Actually, he’s always been and still is, very devout. My friend goes to a SSPV chapel. He got away from the NO mass and then went to FSSP and the priest there refused to do a NO mass when they were told to by the Bishop and paid out of pocket for a different priest to come and do it. He saw how wrong that was and went to SSPX, who wouldn’t submit to the pope and then did his research more.
J
JReducation
Guest
There are two very important points that we must keep in mind here, if we’re going to be saints.
First: Neither the SSPX nor the SSPV have any canonical place in the Church. Therefore, from the point of law and logic, anything they say about the Catholic faith has no weight, because they cannot speak authoritatively. If one cannot speak with authority of matters of ecclesiology, sacraments, doctrine and morals, then they have not right to guide.
Second: The entire discussion of whether the SSPX is right about this or the SSPV is right about that is speculation. At the end of the day, the Catholics can become saints only if they have communion in sacris, communion in faith and morals and communion in governance with the Church. This came from Pope Benedict himself on a talk that he gave in 2009.
The time that we spend deliberating over the validity or not of the comments made by these two groups are not going to get any Catholic any closer to be being a saint, which is our universal vocation.
The Poverello of Assisi understood that every charism as a gift of the Holy Spirit existed to serve the Body of Christ, which is the Church; therefore he always acted in full communion with the ecclesial authorities. In the life of the Saints there is no contradiction between prophetic charism and the charism of governance, and if tension arises, they know to patiently await the times determined by the Holy Spirit.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=9246
Unfortunately, many SSPXers and SSPVers will not tune in to this statement, because of their obvious disdain for anything Franciscan, because it contradicts their position. Like Luther, these movements feel strongly that the Mendicant Movement reinforces unqualified communion of governance and they refuse to accept this.
Those who are more interested in achieving sanctity than winning arguments with the Vatican, find it easy to put aside whatever the SSPX and SSPV say about anything in favor of what Church authority says. Such people realized that when all is said and done, we will not be judged by our arguments, but by our obedience. Sin enters the world through disobedience and only obedience can conquer sin. Obedience is owed only to that individual or group that has the power to require obedience and the right to be obeyed. Neither the SSPX nor the SSPV have that kind of power or right, because they have no canonical place in the Church.
We listen to them and engage with them in dialogue out of charity and compassion, not out of duty to them. As Catholics, our duty is to the Pontiff, not to a society that is in irregular relationship with the Church. As saints, we submit to the Pontiff and to those whom the Pontiff gives canonical rights.
I for one have long decided that sanctity is much more important than argument. If the Church says that the sky is green, that’s fine by me. It looks blue to me; but I will do everything that I can to see it green and every time it looks blue. The fact is that there is blue in green. Maybe, I have just been noticing the blue and had never noticed the yellow in it. I will remind myself that it is not my place to question unless I’m being asked to sin. Thus far, no one has ever asked me to do anything that the Church has identified as sin.
Have a blessed holy day and let’s continue to pray for each other.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
First: Neither the SSPX nor the SSPV have any canonical place in the Church. Therefore, from the point of law and logic, anything they say about the Catholic faith has no weight, because they cannot speak authoritatively. If one cannot speak with authority of matters of ecclesiology, sacraments, doctrine and morals, then they have not right to guide.
Second: The entire discussion of whether the SSPX is right about this or the SSPV is right about that is speculation. At the end of the day, the Catholics can become saints only if they have communion in sacris, communion in faith and morals and communion in governance with the Church. This came from Pope Benedict himself on a talk that he gave in 2009.
The time that we spend deliberating over the validity or not of the comments made by these two groups are not going to get any Catholic any closer to be being a saint, which is our universal vocation.
The Poverello of Assisi understood that every charism as a gift of the Holy Spirit existed to serve the Body of Christ, which is the Church; therefore he always acted in full communion with the ecclesial authorities. In the life of the Saints there is no contradiction between prophetic charism and the charism of governance, and if tension arises, they know to patiently await the times determined by the Holy Spirit.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=9246
Unfortunately, many SSPXers and SSPVers will not tune in to this statement, because of their obvious disdain for anything Franciscan, because it contradicts their position. Like Luther, these movements feel strongly that the Mendicant Movement reinforces unqualified communion of governance and they refuse to accept this.
Those who are more interested in achieving sanctity than winning arguments with the Vatican, find it easy to put aside whatever the SSPX and SSPV say about anything in favor of what Church authority says. Such people realized that when all is said and done, we will not be judged by our arguments, but by our obedience. Sin enters the world through disobedience and only obedience can conquer sin. Obedience is owed only to that individual or group that has the power to require obedience and the right to be obeyed. Neither the SSPX nor the SSPV have that kind of power or right, because they have no canonical place in the Church.
We listen to them and engage with them in dialogue out of charity and compassion, not out of duty to them. As Catholics, our duty is to the Pontiff, not to a society that is in irregular relationship with the Church. As saints, we submit to the Pontiff and to those whom the Pontiff gives canonical rights.
I for one have long decided that sanctity is much more important than argument. If the Church says that the sky is green, that’s fine by me. It looks blue to me; but I will do everything that I can to see it green and every time it looks blue. The fact is that there is blue in green. Maybe, I have just been noticing the blue and had never noticed the yellow in it. I will remind myself that it is not my place to question unless I’m being asked to sin. Thus far, no one has ever asked me to do anything that the Church has identified as sin.
Have a blessed holy day and let’s continue to pray for each other.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
Br JR, essentially I agree with your last post, except that in most cases SSPX do not teach anything at all of their own.
They teach the same Catholic faith that has always been taught. Individual members may believe this or that about the Pope, but they, as far as I can see, despite their “irregular status,” don’t issue any pronouncements on the validity of the OF (they just say don’t go), they don’t declare it’s a sin to go (though individual priests have said this), they don’t have a position on anything in particular except what the Faith has always been.
That said, I do think the “irregular status” is a problem. But they think so too, at least officially, that’s why they are having talks in the first place.
They teach the same Catholic faith that has always been taught. Individual members may believe this or that about the Pope, but they, as far as I can see, despite their “irregular status,” don’t issue any pronouncements on the validity of the OF (they just say don’t go), they don’t declare it’s a sin to go (though individual priests have said this), they don’t have a position on anything in particular except what the Faith has always been.
That said, I do think the “irregular status” is a problem. But they think so too, at least officially, that’s why they are having talks in the first place.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
This is untrue. See my post earlier in this thread that links to the SSPX in America’s website that states that most OF celebrations are invalid.
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
- Saying “most” is a world of difference from saying the OF Missal is always invalid. It questions the intentions of the priests, or least says that it’s hard to know their intention. It’s an important difference.
- It’s on their website, but it’s not their official teaching. Different SSPX priests say different things! Their website is not a list of official SSPX teachings: it includes all sorts of addresses and homilies and letters.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
So the Official website for the SSPX in North America in their “Catholic” FAQs pages are not making official statements for the SSPX?
And while they say “most” they are implying all.
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
They are not “SSPX teachings,” since there are none. The SSPX might make “official statements” but unlike “teachings” (which are only of the Church), SSPX positions can change, may or may not be prudent, and can be wrong, according to even the SSPX. The SSPX exists outside of North America and different leaders have different opinions on such issues.
As to “most” implying “all,” that interpretation suits what you want to say, but that’s not what they actually wrote. “Most” does not imply “all,” and in fact there are other valid interpretations. For example perhaps they would say “a well-formed priest who understands the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice and who follows the rubrics says the OF validly. But because so many priests are poorly formed and lack intention, and don’t follow the rubrics, and even use invalid matter, most celebrations of the New Mass are invalid.”
I don’t hold the above to be true, but that’s an interpretation of their statement that is consistent with the actual words.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
They do not use the word “most”. Here are just three lines from the excerpt I posted. This is where I get my interpretation and I do not see how anyone could reach another one.
*Consequently there is always a doubt . . .
The only way to have moral certitude of valid sacraments is to assist at the traditional rite of Mass.
. . . it is very likely that a Novus Ordo priest celebrate invalidly . . .*
I see another error. No such thing as a “Novus Order” priest.
As for “teaching” or “statement” that is just a semantics game.
I will modify my usage though. These are the official statements of the SSPX in North America.
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
Doubt … no moral certitude … very likely … all of those terms deliberately avoid statements like “always” or instrinsically.
An example to prove my point: they would never speak like this about a Lutheran Communion Service. There they would say it is certain, without doubt, that it is invalid, period. There is a reason they don’t say this about the New mass. The SSPX are traditionalists, they speak like traditionalists, they take language very seriously.
As to Novus Ordo priest, I agree it’s bad language. It’s probably shorthand for “priest formed in the New Mass, used to it only, not a traditionally formed priest.”
The “teaching” vs “statement” is not semantics for a Catholic! Teachings are eternal, irrevocable, develop from the teachings of the Apostles. Statements are nothing of the sort.
The SSPX’s official statements would only be something like teachings if they considered themselves “the True Church.” But they don’t, they consider themselves uncompromising adherents of the True Church, which is still based in Rome, under Benedict XVI, Vicar of Christ.
E
Exsilivm
Guest
The devils are obedient to Satan. St. Matthew 12:26.Sin enters the world through disobedience and only obedience can conquer sin. Br. JR, OSF
E
Exsilivm
Guest
The page you linked says that the masses may be invalid because of the priest’s intention (or lack thereof), not because of the mass form per se.
That is an important distinction.
J
JReducation
Guest
Whether it’s a statement by an individual or by the leadership of the SSPX, the point is that Catholics need not and should not give any authority to such statements. The SSPX does not have the right to make such statements with any authority. Such statements must be taken as personal opinions, not catechesis.
The SSPX does not have the authority to catechize, since it does not have canonical standing in the Church. Catechesis is a function that is derived from the Office of the Ordinary. The members of the SSPX are not in communion with any ordinary jurisdiction in the Catholic Church; therefore, they are limited to expressing their opinions. Catholics cannot take their statements as catechesis or official Catholic positions, except when they repeat what the current Magisterium says.
What keeps them from having canonical status to catechize is that they continue to repeat what the Magisterium has said in the past, but refuse to include the revisions and points of view of the Magisterium today. When you do this, you split the Magisterium at some unknown historical line. It’s as if you were declaring that the Magisterium ceased to exist with Pope X. The same mistake is made by extremists on the other side who pretend that the Magisterium began with Pope Y. Both are false assumptions.
Until they fall into full communion with the entire Magisterium, their statements must be respected as personal opinions, but may not be adhered to when they are in conflict with those of the Holy See. Personal opinions are fine, as long as those in authority allow you to have them. When those in authority tell you to stop and put distance between you and those opinions, then they are no longer fine. The SSPX and every other community of religious, society of apostolic life and secular institute has been told from which opinions we must distance ourselves. The SSPX is not special. It has no more right to hold on to its position anymore than do Dominicans, Franciscans, Trinitarians, Carmelites and others.
There are only two groups in the Church that have the freedom to dissent, because it is granted to them by papal bull: Opus Dei and the Society of Jesus. Even then, there are conditions under which the dissent is allowed and reasons for which it is allowed. Those conditions and reasons are considered reasonable and justifiable by the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, which is the ultimate judge (after the pope) on the rights and duties of institutes in the Church. Neither the Sacred Congregation nor the Pope have said that the SSPX has the same rights as the Jesuits or Opus Dei.
In fact, I’ve heard rumors that SSPX was offered the opportunity to have the same status as Opus Dei and the leadership does not want it, because it limits them to the parameters that the popes set. Of course, those parameters are going to change with each pope and the pope can change them every 30 minutes if he so desires. Right now, it allows you more freedom than other institutes have.
In any case, it has to be made clear that anything we read by the SSPX and SSPV is opinion only. The Church gives it no weight and no credibility, because she neither affirms not denies what they say as they are out of canonical communion or outside of communion of governance. The Holy See does not make it a policy of dignifying any group that is outside of canonical status by responding to every statement they make. The position of the Holy See has always been to pretend they don’t exist until they submit or they leave. Look at the SSPV. They left and the Holy See purchased their train tickets for them.
At some point, one has to close the dialogue. It can’t continue forever. It’s often better to let time pass and reopen the dialogue through ecumenical efforts, dealing with such groups as a non - Catholic religions. Then you can bring them to the table as equals.
You can’t bring someone to the table as an equal, if they say that they are Catholic. If they are Catholic, then they must be submissive to the Holy See. If they are not Catholic, there is no question about submission. There is the key.
As things stand now, the SSPX wants to dialogue with the Vatican as if it were the Orthodox, but calling themselves Catholic. That is not logical. The Orthodox are on equal footing with the Holy See. They are real Churches. The SSPX is an institute inside the Catholic Church. It must come to the table as subordinate tho the Holy See, not as its Apostolic equal. Therefore, it cannot speak with the same authority.
We just have to wait and see what the SSPX has to say on April 15th. Isn’t that tax day??? I found that interesting that they have to “file” on that day.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The SSPX does not have the authority to catechize, since it does not have canonical standing in the Church. Catechesis is a function that is derived from the Office of the Ordinary. The members of the SSPX are not in communion with any ordinary jurisdiction in the Catholic Church; therefore, they are limited to expressing their opinions. Catholics cannot take their statements as catechesis or official Catholic positions, except when they repeat what the current Magisterium says.
What keeps them from having canonical status to catechize is that they continue to repeat what the Magisterium has said in the past, but refuse to include the revisions and points of view of the Magisterium today. When you do this, you split the Magisterium at some unknown historical line. It’s as if you were declaring that the Magisterium ceased to exist with Pope X. The same mistake is made by extremists on the other side who pretend that the Magisterium began with Pope Y. Both are false assumptions.
Until they fall into full communion with the entire Magisterium, their statements must be respected as personal opinions, but may not be adhered to when they are in conflict with those of the Holy See. Personal opinions are fine, as long as those in authority allow you to have them. When those in authority tell you to stop and put distance between you and those opinions, then they are no longer fine. The SSPX and every other community of religious, society of apostolic life and secular institute has been told from which opinions we must distance ourselves. The SSPX is not special. It has no more right to hold on to its position anymore than do Dominicans, Franciscans, Trinitarians, Carmelites and others.
There are only two groups in the Church that have the freedom to dissent, because it is granted to them by papal bull: Opus Dei and the Society of Jesus. Even then, there are conditions under which the dissent is allowed and reasons for which it is allowed. Those conditions and reasons are considered reasonable and justifiable by the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, which is the ultimate judge (after the pope) on the rights and duties of institutes in the Church. Neither the Sacred Congregation nor the Pope have said that the SSPX has the same rights as the Jesuits or Opus Dei.
In fact, I’ve heard rumors that SSPX was offered the opportunity to have the same status as Opus Dei and the leadership does not want it, because it limits them to the parameters that the popes set. Of course, those parameters are going to change with each pope and the pope can change them every 30 minutes if he so desires. Right now, it allows you more freedom than other institutes have.
In any case, it has to be made clear that anything we read by the SSPX and SSPV is opinion only. The Church gives it no weight and no credibility, because she neither affirms not denies what they say as they are out of canonical communion or outside of communion of governance. The Holy See does not make it a policy of dignifying any group that is outside of canonical status by responding to every statement they make. The position of the Holy See has always been to pretend they don’t exist until they submit or they leave. Look at the SSPV. They left and the Holy See purchased their train tickets for them.
At some point, one has to close the dialogue. It can’t continue forever. It’s often better to let time pass and reopen the dialogue through ecumenical efforts, dealing with such groups as a non - Catholic religions. Then you can bring them to the table as equals.
You can’t bring someone to the table as an equal, if they say that they are Catholic. If they are Catholic, then they must be submissive to the Holy See. If they are not Catholic, there is no question about submission. There is the key.
As things stand now, the SSPX wants to dialogue with the Vatican as if it were the Orthodox, but calling themselves Catholic. That is not logical. The Orthodox are on equal footing with the Holy See. They are real Churches. The SSPX is an institute inside the Catholic Church. It must come to the table as subordinate tho the Holy See, not as its Apostolic equal. Therefore, it cannot speak with the same authority.
We just have to wait and see what the SSPX has to say on April 15th. Isn’t that tax day??? I found that interesting that they have to “file” on that day.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I’ve been saying this for awhile now.
Sometimes I wonder if the endgame the SSPX has is to become like the Orthodox, where they have that equal footing without being with Rome.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Interesting. So I suppose I could start a group and say that “I’m not sold on the priest’s intentions when they use the missal of 1962 (or earlier)” and that’d be totally fine.
Also, considering the intentions of some members of the SSPX, using their own logic on their own website that you just listed it’s possible their own Masses are invalid due to intention.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Use the “official” position all you want, but AFAIK the SSPX doesn’t have certain conditions that everyone must meet in order to assist at Mass there. If you think the OF is the best thing that ever happened to the Church, no one is going to kick you out. Not unless you’re trying to stir up trouble as any church would.
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t believe that is their intent. But is their behavior. What they need to modify is the behavior to match their intent.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status