sspx

[Genesis315]

So if the Confessions are invalid and Matrimony is invalid then there are a lot of people over there that are going to hell because their sins are not forgiven and they are living in adultery? Am i to understand this correctly?

Maybe, God will judge their culpablility. All ecclesial communities seperated from the bosom of the Church are gravely deficient with regards to salvation. Pray for their reconciliation.

From the Catechism of Pius X:

16 Q. Who are schismatics?
A. Schismatics are those Christians who, while not explicitly denying any dogma, yet voluntarily separate themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ, that is, from their lawful pastors.

17 Q. Who are the excommunicated?
A. The excommunicated are those who, because of grievous transgressions, are struck with excommunication by the Pope or their Bishop, and consequently are cut off as unworthy from the body of the Church, which, however, hopes for and desires their conversion.

18 Q. Should excommunication be dreaded?
A. Excommunication should be greatly dreaded, because it is the severest and most terrible punishment the Church can inflict upon her rebellious and obstinate children.

19 Q. Of what goods are the excommunicated deprived?
A. The excommunicated are deprived of public prayers, of the Sacraments, of indulgences and of Christian burial.

20 Q. Can we in any way help the excommunicated?
A. We can in some way help the excommunicated and all others who are outside the true Church, by salutary advice, by prayers and good works, begging God in His mercy to grant them the grace of being converted to the faith and of entering into the Communion of Saints.

 

[thistle]

I am on your side, man. Just a question for those whom are pro-sspx.

Sorry. Forgive me. I jumped in too quickly.
I guess you can see the sspx supporters agitate me. For me they are just as disloyal to the Pope as the bishops and priests of sspx.

 

[mosher]

So if the Confessions are invalid and Matrimony is invalid then there are a lot of people over there that are going to hell because their sins are not forgiven and they are living in adultery? Am i to understand this correctly?

That is a possibility and it brings to mind the gravity of the situation.

 

[Melanie01]

So you are publicly stating that you know better than Pope John Paul II.

nonsense…how do you arrive at this conclusion

 

[Melanie01]

I’m just curious… What made them disobey the Pope? What did the Pope ask of them that they willfully disobeyed the Pope?

Thank you all and God Bless.

The Council busily disposed of the teachings of the Church in the dazzlement of modernism and ecumenism…which have been contrary to Church teaching. The Church is therefore contradicting itself ,this cannot be…hence the origin of the concern by the likes of Marcel Levebre.

The Pope can be in error, it is not for the likes of myself a laywoman to presume to judge, but I am not convinced that Vatican 2 was not fundamentally flawed …

 

[thistle]

nonsense…how do you arrive at this conclusion

You said and I quote:

**I attend an SPPX chapel and am not convinced that Bishop Levebre acted incorrectly at all **

Pope John Paul II said Levebre DID act incorrectly but your statement is saying the Pope was wrong!!
I accept the Pope’s declaration and not the opinion of a sspx supporter.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

The Council busily disposed of the teachings of the Church in the dazzlement of modernism and ecumenism…which have been contrary to Church teaching. The Church is therefore contradicting itself ,this cannot be…hence the origin of the concern by the likes of Marcel Levebre.

The Pope can be in error, it is not for the likes of myself a laywoman to presume to judge, but I am not convinced that Vatican 2 was not fundamentally flawed …

Did God fail to protect His Church from “devilish” Vatican 2? Did Jesus Christ fail to protect His own, very own flock?

 

[CatholicNick]

your statement is saying the Pope was wrong!!

Heres a newsfalsh…

The Pope can actually be wrong

The following notion is a certain idea which in the past was considered a protestant caricature about the Papacy, but now characterizes the views of most Catholics. It is the idea that the Pope can do no wrong, and that all his ideas and deeds are automatically right because he’s the Pope. Apart from being historically ridiculous, it is unreasonable.

The Pope is NOT infallible anytime other than when he speaks in ex-cathedra. Read the following article on Papal infallibility…

fisheaters.com/papolatry.html

Specifically this part:

How Infallibility Works

The Authentic (i.e. “authoritative”) Magisterium of the Church – i.e., the teaching office of the Church exercised by proper authority – has different levels of infallibility:

*

  Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Solemn Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, as supreme pastor of the entire Church, speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith and morals to be held by the entire Church, or when a Dogmatic Council convened and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the entire Church. This is a very rarely excercised assertion of authority (only a few times in the past few hundred years). When the Pope teaches using his extraordinary infallible Magisterium, or when a Council dogmatically defines something and the Pope endorses that defintion, Catholics must believe what is taught de fide, as an article of faith.
   
*

  Ordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Constant Magisterium" or "Universal Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past
   
*

  Merely Authentic Ordinary Magisterium: any teaching by Pope, Bishop, priest, or any authorized teacher, that does not fall into the above two levels of infallibility is, quite simply, fallible, even though it may be part of the Authentic Magisterium (that is, it is "authorized" teaching). Teaching at this level is owed obedience -- as long as obeying does not harm the Faith, lead to sin or the loss of souls, does not contradict the Faith, etc. If what is being taught contradicts the Faith, it not only can be resisted, it must be resisted.

In addition to Magisterium, the Pope can, of course, simply act as a private person and offer his personal opinions on anything from current events to sports to food to movies. These may be of interest to us Catholics, who tend to sensibly love – or at least respect the office of – the Holy Father, but they are not “Church teaching” in any way. In the same way, a Council may be called that is pastoral and not dogmatic in nature (such as Vatican II).

Now, some Catholics forget the second level of the Magisterium, the “Ordinary Infallible Magisterium.” They forget the Sacred Deposit of Faith, the unanimous agreement of the early Christian Fathers, and Sacred Tradition. These “Catholics” are the “liberal Catholics” or “modernist Catholics” you hear so much from in the media. They are the ones who root for the ordination of women, the eradication of the Christian view of homosexuality, etc. These are the well-organized, well-funded loudmouth “Catholics” who eat away at the Church’s teachings and have become well-entrenched in various dioceses.

ctd…

 

[CatholicNick]

Another type of Catholic forgets about that third level of teaching that is not infallible at all. Any time the Pope teaches, he must be heard, his authority given respect, and the teaching given the benefit of the doubt because it comes from the Vicar of Christ. But if it contradicts prior infallible Magisterium, it is not infallible – and it must not be obeyed if it proves harmful to the faith. Catholics who forget this level of Magisterium try very hard to be “orthodox” by being obedient, but they often have a false sense of obedience – an obedience that sometimes borders on a pre-conscious papolatry (“pope worship”), though, of course, they know better and know that “worshipping the Pope” would be a terrible sin. They usually have a very healthy sensus catholicus, a desire for traditional Catholicism, and a virtuous patience, but they simply attribute to the Pope authority he does not have and they truly need to come to a better understanding of what the Magisterium is. These Catholics are often called “neo-conservatives,” “conservatives,” or “neo-Catholics” (they often think of and refer to themselves as “traditional Catholics” though they are not). You will see these otherwise wonderful Catholics tying themselves into knots trying to defend some of the novelties that followed Vatican II, or sweating bullets making excuses for some of the Holy Father’s more scandalous actions (e.g., “ecumenical” services that include praying with Animists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants; allowing altar girls and “Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers”, etc.), failures to act (e.g., lack of discipline given to Bishops), and opinions (e.g., support for the anti-subsidiarity, anti-life, anti-Christ United Nations).

Their desire to protect the Holy Father is understandable – and laudable! – especially since the papacy has been attacked so unfairly since the Protestant Rebellion and the ensuing secular revolution, most often with outrageous lies. But these Catholics have to wake up, study a bit, and defend true Catholic teaching as it has been known for 2,000 years.

Like Melanie said, its not for me to judge…

 

[corvidae]

I would say that one must give the Pope the benefit of the doubt when he pronounces excommunication. Yes the Pope can be wrong, but even Bishop Lefabvre went to him for his permission, and then went against it.

I would say that the Pope is the one who has maintained his position, while sspx changed theirs. At first they were not schismatic, but they then became such. There are organizations still in union with the Church that are against the Novus Ordo mass.

I have found through the study of history, that those who stay with the Church may help to assist the Church, but those who create schism often fall further and further from truth. The Waldensians is a good example of this. They began almost exactly as the fransiscans did, but degenerated into a protestant church.

You must cling to Holy Mother Church.

A lone Raven

 

[atsheeran]

This is my understanding of the matter:

The ordination of a bishop without a mandate from the Holy See carries the penalty of excommunication. This is not in itself, however, a schismatic act. However, Archbishop Levebre went further. The ordination were not simply without a mandate but against a specific mandate not to perform them. This made the act schismatic.

 

[PRBfan]

Hey, I’m new…
Okay, so, I have a question about this. Why is it that when citing a source to defend the faith against the idea that Pope John Paul II was a heretic and VCII was evil, I was always discredited? Supposedly, the CCC is heretical, Bible Verses don’t count because the Church must interpret the Bible (meaning the interpretations that the person agreed with) , besides we should not all have Bibles, they lead people into error, if they cite CASTI CONNUBIAL and say thus: “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its
natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin”, that’s okay. But if I point out this, “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved”, I have a bad argument.
I don’t know, what do you say on this topic? Is everything heretical?

 

[thistle]

Hey, I’m new…
Okay, so, I have a question about this. Why is it that when citing a source to defend the faith against the idea that Pope John Paul II was a heretic and VCII was evil, I was always discredited? Supposedly, the CCC is heretical, Bible Verses don’t count because the Church must interpret the Bible (meaning the interpretations that the person agreed with) , besides we should not all have Bibles, they lead people into error, if they cite CASTI CONNUBIAL and say thus: “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its
natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin”, that’s okay. But if I point out this, “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved”, I have a bad argument.
I don’t know, what do you say on this topic? Is everything heretical?

This thread is about SSPX only.
If you want your questions answered please start a new thread.

 

[PRBfan]

I was asking a question about the topic, but nevermind.

 

[corvidae]

sorry prb,
I think it would be best to start a new thread, because this one is already piling up. Your question would probably be considered off topic, and get the thread closed.

As it is, is discussing mainly the schism, why it exist, and why sspx supporters believe it should not.

A lone Raven

 

[PRBfan]

Ah.
Nevermind anyway. It wasn’t anything.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Like Melanie said, its not for me to judge…

Hey Nick! Would you please answer my question?

Thanks.

 

[Michael_C]

I used to have sympathy for SSPX. My veiw has changed since I work with members of the society and have read publications such as the remnant and I find them to be lacking in charity. The disrespect for the Pope shown in articles and conversations is so non-Catholic. I am skeptical about them coming back into the fold.

 

[CatholicNick]

Hey Nick! Would you please answer my question?

Thanks.

Firstly, I do not support the SSPX, only neutral, and sympathise with thier cause.

Seccondly, the part you quoted me saying was in reference to this, what Melanie said:

The Pope can be in error, it is not for the likes of myself a laywoman to presume to judge

I didnt call VII devilish, nor do I think it is…

 

[Saint_Michael]

The thing I don’t like about the SSPX schism is they were told say one Novus Ordo Mass and it’s all good. It seems like blackmail, Vatican II wasn’t supposed to abolish the Tridentine Mass, yet that’s how it was interpreted, and when SSPX wouldn’t go along, they were in schism, and will remain in schism until they accpet the changes of Vatican II. But Vatican II and how it’s interpreted are vastly different. SSPX believes they have to ordain Bishops and priests to keep the Church together.

I tend to believe SSPX that this schism had everything to do with the Latin Mass. And now the Church has spoken, the Church cannot go back and say sorry your Bishops are licit, it has to be SSPX accepting the teachings of Vatican II before the schism ends, and that will never happen.

Hindsight 20/20 SSPX look like geniuses and 100% on the money. Most Catholics don’t even know what the real presence is. I can honestly say being raised post Vatican II, Catholic educated (after school classes not Catholic school) until confirmation. That I never heard of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist until I investigated on my own in my 20’s. Here are list of things I was never taught in Catholic classes to receive Communion and Confirmation:

1. Real Presence of Christ in Eucharist
2. Marian devotions, Mary Queen of Heaven or Mother of God
3. Any devotions or prayers to Saints
4. Confession needed before receiving if we sinned. I was told specifically that the absolution obtained bythe priest during Mass is fine.
5. Never saw an actual CCC

etc…

You get the point, who would’ve thought nearly 30 years later SSPX would have hit the nail on the head so clearly.