sspx

  • Thread starter Thread starter santaro75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CatholicNick said:
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:

I didnt call VII devilish, nor do I think it is…
Click to expand...
Forgive me, I’ve seen some of memorbila.
 
Saint_Michael said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is agreed that CC could use the improvement in catechesis, but that doesn’t excuse Archbishop Lefavre’s actions nor proves SSPX’s position.
 
Pax vobiscum!

Saint Michael, the SSPX schism has nothing to do with the Vatican not wanting the Latin Mass (our current and former pope both have made it clear that they want the TLM to be made widely available). It has to do only with Archbishop Lefebvre’s personal choice to consecrate those bishop against the pope’s orders. When he and the other bishops were excommunicated, and the rest of the SSPX remained in their flock, they entered into the schism themselves.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Saint_Michael said:
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.
Click to expand...
I had the exact same experience. I didn’t know much at all about the faith after going through all the required course work to get confirmed
 
Michael_C said:
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.
Click to expand...
corvidae said:
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.
Click to expand...
This has been my experience too.
My understanding is that the sacraments are valid though because a layperson may not have a way of knowing.
**I do not know the condition of the sin or lack of for the layperson who knowingly seeks such a situation? After all isn’t that the same thing as encourgeing fellow to stray from the Church? It sure isn’t goign to encourage them to rejoin her.😦 **
 
Rob_s_Wife said:
This has been my experience too.
My understanding is that the sacraments are valid though because a layperson may not have a way of knowing.
Click to expand...
The validity of the sacraments has nothing to do with layperson’s ignorance. It is the same as the case of the Orthodox- it has to do with the actual existence of apostolic succession.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
trth_skr:
The validity of the sacraments has nothing to do with layperson’s ignorance. It is the same as the case of the Orthodox- it has to do with the actual existence of apostolic succession.

Mark Wyatt

You misunderstand me…
I’m not arguing the validity of the sacrament…
I’m asking about the state of the soul that would knowingly attend a parish with such a priest in place, thereby supporting such actions.
Kind of like going to a church that would have had Luther as the priest offering mass…
**After all he was “loyal”, he just didn’t agree.:rolleyes: **
I wonder if catholics then had stuck to the mother church and denied Luther support for his actions - would there be a Lutheran church now. I doubt it. Luther was not the only catholic at the time with conserns. In fact, many priests were actively working for change and did bring about change. And they managed it without schism.
 
40.png
trth_skr:
The validity of the sacraments has nothing to do with layperson’s ignorance. It is the same as the case of the Orthodox- it has to do with the actual existence of apostolic succession.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Actually, there are cases where the ignorance of a lay person may affect the validity of a sacrament. The issue in these cases is never matter, form, or intention. The issue is always jurisdiction (which is necessary for valid absolutions, confirmations, and marriages). See Canon 144 . The concept is called ecclesia supplet (“the Church supplies”).
 
atsheeran said:
Actually, there are cases where the ignorance of a lay person may affect the validity of a sacrament. The issue in these cases is never matter, form, or intention. The issue is always jurisdiction (which is necessary for valid absolutions, confirmations, and marriages). See Canon 144 . The concept is called ecclesia supplet (“the Church supplies”).
Click to expand...
That is good information, but I meant specifically in the case of the SSPX, who do have valid sacraments other than marriage and confession. In these sacarments (marriage, confession), your point may apply.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
havemercy said:
Didn’t they elect their own Pope?
Click to expand...
The SSPX has never elected their own pope. Where did you get that idea?
Instead of a potential argument brewing, or discussing it til the cows come
home, why not pray for the SSPX? Don’t you think prayer is more powerful
than sitting and discussing it until people are blue in the face? I do. I pray
for the SSPX everyday as well as for the souls in Purgatory, i pray for the
Holy Father and his intentions, as well as for repentence of sins world wide,
and for the conversion of sinners world wide, as well as for the fall of the
communist countries, and end to all the wars that plague this planet, also
for the homeless, the sick, the dying, the forgotten, the lonely, the abandoned,
the elderly, the hungry, and so on. Why not pray for them instead of letting a subject brew into an argument? personally, Iam tired of seeing this subject hashed over thousands of times. It seems to be a never ending saga.
 
MyPhilomena said:
The SSPX has never elected their own pope. Where did you get that idea?
Instead of a potential argument brewing, or discussing it til the cows come
home, why not pray for the SSPX? Don’t you think prayer is more powerful
than sitting and discussing it until people are blue in the face? I do. I pray
for the SSPX everyday as well as for the souls in Purgatory, i pray for the
Holy Father and his intentions, as well as for repentence of sins world wide,
and for the conversion of sinners world wide, as well as for the fall of the
communist countries, and end to all the wars that plague this planet, also
for the homeless, the sick, the dying, the forgotten, the lonely, the abandoned,
the elderly, the hungry, and so on. Why not pray for them instead of letting a subject brew into an argument? personally, Iam tired of seeing this subject hashed over thousands of times. It seems to be a never ending saga.
Click to expand...
There are various traditionalist organisations who have elected Popes. There is some chap in America who calls himself Michael I, for example. However AFAIK they are not SSPX.

I’d agree that prayers for SSPX are a good idea. The problem is that they have raised an intellectual issue - that is, that Vatican II was not a valid council of the church, or that its ideas were wrong.

Now personally I think that there is tendency to interpet infallibility, or guidance by the Holy Spirit, a little too strongly. I don’t think, for instance, that Vatican II was somehow immune from various silly ideas that had currency in the sixties. On the other hand, I don’t think that the Holy Spirit would have allowed the church to make such a terrible error that Mass was no longer Mass, the Church no longer the Church.

What SSPX have to say must be taken on its own merits. Of course a traditionalist movement that isn’t obedient to the Pope is pure nonsense, and most people have the sense to realise that. But that doesn’t mean that some of their specific criticisms of practise might not be on target. Just brushing them aside with an “I’ll pray for you” doesn’t really address the problem.
 
Malcolm_McLean said:
There are various traditionalist organisations who have elected Popes. There is some chap in America who calls himself Michael I, for example. However AFAIK they are not SSPX.

I’d agree that prayers for SSPX are a good idea. The problem is that they have raised an intellectual issue - that is, that Vatican II was not a valid council of the church, or that its ideas were wrong.

Now personally I think that there is tendency to interpet infallibility, or guidance by the Holy Spirit, a little too strongly. I don’t think, for instance, that Vatican II was somehow immune from various silly ideas that had currency in the sixties. On the other hand, I don’t think that the Holy Spirit would have allowed the church to make such a terrible error that Mass was no longer Mass, the Church no longer the Church.

What SSPX have to say must be taken on its own merits. Of course a traditionalist movement that isn’t obedient to the Pope is pure nonsense, and most people have the sense to realise that. But that doesn’t mean that some of their specific criticisms of practise might not be on target. Just brushing them aside with an “I’ll pray for you” doesn’t really address the problem.
Click to expand...
maybe not, but don’t you think that people bickering back and forth about the issue is not going to solve anything? i’ve seen many people on here in the last year since i’ve joined that have bickered and bickered about this topic, and it never gets resolved. The resolution is up to the society and they must meet with the pope, only those people can solve it. we cannot. we can offer our prayers in hopes of a resolution, but to keep on bickering as some do is not going to solve the problem.
this issue has been raised in my humble opinion, almost non stop on these forums. We have here SSPX supporters, and those opposed to the SSPX for reasons they have stated, we have people who can sympathize with the SSPX, we have people who prefer the Novus Ordo, and so on and on and on. Why not let the issue rest? Obviously that is impossible because it is a subject that seems to attract attention from both sides. but from my standpoint, it seems pointless to always bring it up because the issue has been hashed over hundreds and hundreds of times with no resolution. The resolution is not up to us, it is up the SSPX and the pope, and that is where it should stay in my opinion. I posted this because it seems to always be in the forefront on the forums, and i’d like to see people on both sides try to get along, for the most part, they do, but there has been some really bitter comments made over this issue on both sides, and frankly, it becomes sad after awhile.
 
Why marriage and confession? I don’t understand why those sacraments would not be valid but all the others are. Did SSPX fiddle with those Sacraments such that they lost their validity?

Or is it a tool to create a wedge between the people and the clerics of SSPX?
 
I think that the best thing to do is to PRAY about it. Pray that God’s Will be done, pray that sspx comes back, pray that the feud ends, whatever you want to pray for. Arguing gets nothing done in this situation. All we can do is pray about it and wait for things to work out. If SSPX comes back, that’s great, if they don’t then that is their choice. How about these threads be dedicated to things like informing each other of any updates in the situation. (verifiable of course). I personally want to know the course things are taking.
 
MyPhilomena said:
maybe not, but don’t you think that people bickering back and forth about the issue is not going to solve anything? i’ve seen many people on here in the last year since i’ve joined that have bickered and bickered about this topic, and it never gets resolved. The resolution is up to the society and they must meet with the pope, only those people can solve it. we cannot. we can offer our prayers in hopes of a resolution, but to keep on bickering as some do is not going to solve the problem.
this issue has been raised in my humble opinion, almost non stop on these forums. We have here SSPX supporters, and those opposed to the SSPX for reasons they have stated, we have people who can sympathize with the SSPX, we have people who prefer the Novus Ordo, and so on and on and on. Why not let the issue rest? Obviously that is impossible because it is a subject that seems to attract attention from both sides. but from my standpoint, it seems pointless to always bring it up because the issue has been hashed over hundreds and hundreds of times with no resolution. The resolution is not up to us, it is up the SSPX and the pope, and that is where it should stay in my opinion. I posted this because it seems to always be in the forefront on the forums, and i’d like to see people on both sides try to get along, for the most part, they do, but there has been some really bitter comments made over this issue on both sides, and frankly, it becomes sad after awhile.
Click to expand...
While I have yet to see any bickering (as you call it) on this topic I don’t understand your frustration. Perhaps the reason why I don’t understand it is because this is fundamentally not a solution between the Bishops of the SSPX and the Holy Father as that is only a lawful recognition of unity. Rather, the true work cannot be done by Bishop and Pope but is rather the job of each of us to reconcile hearts to the truth and hence the conversation continues. This is not an easy topic but as they say “Rome was not built in a day.” Official unity will not act as some magic word that will cause all those who adhere to the SSPX to return to the folds of Holy Mother Church but rather some will believe that the Bishops “sold out” to Rome and they will stay apart from the Church. That is where our work is and why this topic is a constant one where little by little something new is learned and a heart is mended. Have patience.
a_cermak said:
Why marriage and confession? I don’t understand why those sacraments would not be valid but all the others are. Did SSPX fiddle with those Sacraments such that they lost their validity?

Or is it a tool to create a wedge between the people and the clerics of SSPX?
Click to expand...
Confession and Matrimony have a public dimension that goes with territorial jurisdiction. The Bishops of the SSPX have no territorial jurisdiction and therefore do not have the faculties to delegate a priest or even themselves the ability to hear confessions or assist as Marriage.
 
migurl said:
I think that the best thing to do is to PRAY about it. Pray that God’s Will be done, pray that sspx comes back, pray that the feud ends, whatever you want to pray for. Arguing gets nothing done in this situation. All we can do is pray about it and wait for things to work out. If SSPX comes back, that’s great, if they don’t then that is their choice. How about these threads be dedicated to things like informing each other of any updates in the situation. (verifiable of course). I personally want to know the course things are taking.
Click to expand...
👍
 
a_cermak said:
Why marriage and confession? I don’t understand why those sacraments would not be valid but all the others are. Did SSPX fiddle with those Sacraments such that they lost their validity?

Or is it a tool to create a wedge between the people and the clerics of SSPX?
Click to expand...
I’m not a theologian.
When a priest consecrates the bread and wine he does so as a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. Ordination is all that is required. When he forgives sins, he does so in his capacity as the bishop’s assistant. Bishops can and sometimes do suspend priests’ faculties to hear confessions.

Baptism is always valid as long as there is water and an intention to baptise. Don’t ask me about confirmation, I think the idea is that the Spirit passes from person to person like a flame.

Over marriage, Rome is fussing. Only the church has the full sacramental understanding of marriage, but Protestants and even non-Christians have something very close. Certainly SSPX didn’t split over the validity of marriages. To fail to recognise their marriages is to make a political gesture asserting that SSPX are out of the church. Two married SSPXers are not commiting the sin of fornication, but their understanding of what the sacrament means might be very slightly defective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top