Sspx

[maurin]

I know it was 20 years ago. The point is that the poster was criticized for using the word “schism” as if it were some sort of rash judgement. I wanted to point out that even the apologist that pay and run this forum have used that word and believed the SSPX to be in such a state based on the actions of Lefebvre. Agree or not, it is at the very least a defendable position and not something this poster stands alone in. Also, I did not think link to the staff apologists would be considered unamiable. If that is the case, then maurin shoud reconsider his involvement here.

pnewton,

it is your perceived tone that I was commenting on–and I did qualify my statement by alluding to the fact that my perception of your tone maybe incorrect. It had nothing to do with linking to the staff apologist.

However, I would take the word of Cardinal Hoyos, the head of ED, before taking the word of the staff apologist or even the owner of this site. The Cardinal’s word seems to me to carry much more weight. ANd to be clear, if the Cardinal said that the Church prohibited assisting at the SSPX, this SSPX’er would be obedient. But this statement has not been made. The statement that has been made is that the Society’s status remains an INTERNAL matter of reconciliation WITHIN the CHurch.

I also wanted to take the time to say that I love Catholic Answers, have contributed to their fundraising and I have been subscribing to “This Rock” for about 2 years now and LOVE the magazine, so please noone take what I said about the staff apologist or the owner of this site as a slight to them.

 

[pnewton]

However, I would take the word of Cardinal Hoyos, the head of ED, before taking the word of the staff apologist or even the owner of this site.

And that, too is very understandable and defensible. The point is that Auntie is standing on an opinion that many other knowledgable people hold. One a related note, I take the word of Cardinal Hoyos, but also that of John Paul II. It is the synthesis of the two that provide for difference.

 

[maurin]

And that, too is very understandable and defensible. The point is that Auntie is standing on an opinion that many other knowledgable people hold. One a related note, I take the word of Cardinal Hoyos, but also that of John Paul II. It is the synthesis of the two that provide for difference.

Yes, but the opinions of “other knowledgable people” are not necessarily the opinions of the Church. They are definitely not in this case. I would think that those who are “defending” the Church would at least listen to the Church in this matter, and not condemn what the Church has not condemned. To be clear, we all love the Church and defend Her to the best of our ability. I’m certain that that is my motivation for my decisions, and I am certain that this is also yours and others’ motivation.

Pope Benedict is the Pope now. His opinion is what matters now. He is free to either agree or disagree–or any shade in between–with a previous Pope on the matter of disciplines. The status of the Society–please correct me if I am wrong–would fall into this category.

 

[maurin]

As an aside, pnewton, where is Lake Jackson? I lived in Tyler for about 10 years. I really miss it, and would take any opportunity to move back there.

 

[Binx]

The series is called “Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre” and i think it’s in three volumes. You should be able to get them from www.angeluspress.org

See an article by Michael Davies on Archbishop Lefebvre, a sort of super-condensed apologia, here.

 

[Binx]

I’ll nelp out.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38&highlight=sspx

Man, try not to nelp out … whatever that is. It could make you sick.

Also, since we’re tossing around old schism-threads, here is another one.

 

[pnewton]

As an aside, pnewton, where is Lake Jackson? I lived in Tyler for about 10 years. I really miss it, and would take any opportunity to move back there.

South of Houston.

 

[pnewton]

Pope Benedict is the Pope now. His opinion is what matters now. He is free to either agree or disagree–or any shade in between–with a previous Pope on the matter of disciplines.

I totally agree. I would hope he has no time to make an official pronouncement and that the status of this group could be totally normalized before he does. But that will take both parties working toward that, not just the Holy Father.

 

[maurin]

I totally agree. I would hope he has no time to make an official pronouncement and that the status of this group could be totally normalized before he does. But that will take both parties working toward that, not just the Holy Father.

It is my fervent hope and prayer.

 

[RonBlizz]

The SSPX is a schismatic group started by Archbishop Lefebre after the second vatican council and all the nutiness that people brought into the Church under the guise of the Spirit of the Council.

The faithful in the Society are not in schism, as the Church has confirmed several times:

~~
In a much overlooked and little discussed interview published February 8, 2007, in the German Die Tagespost, Cardinal Castrillón said he rejected the term and idea of “ecumenism” from within the Church as a reasoning behind the continuing discussions and open communications with the leadership of the SSPX. Specifically, he said the following:

“Please accept that I reject the term ‘ecumenism ad intra.’ The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.”
~~
renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070410

May God be with you,
RonBlizz

 

[Claudius]

Here is the BIG problem with the SSPX from where I stand. They are accusing the Mass of our Lord in the Catholic Church as invalid. That will forever keep me out of their churches and as long as the preach it, should keep them out of ours.

There is a big difference between being traditionally minded and holding love of a form over the authority of the Church.

What the SSPX needs to tell people is what is wrong with the IIV council. Really, What is wrong with it?

Calling it Modernist is not enough. You need to show that it is modernist in reality, not just in your opinion.

Also, we need to remember that when Modernism was denounced as a heresy, it wad defined. Using a Toster (a modern invention) does not qualify me as a modernist. Changing the language of the Mass from Latn (my favorite language) to English (my second least favorite language) does not qualify as Modernism.

Americanism is also a heresy, but that does not mean that every American on two continents is an automatic heretic. These heresies have definitions to tell us exactly what is ment by the term.

Coinsidentaly, todays anglo church is very much in the heresy of Americanism as it was difined so you can tell say to the next C of E person you meet with that accent that no one understands who thinks he is better than everyone “well you are all practicing Americanism now aren’t you”. That should get them pretty red faced.

Anyway, calling the second Vatican Council modernist just because you don’t like this or that is not enough.

Think about this for a second. The Assyrian Church of the east was for a long time considered heretics. The heresy was Nestorianism. However, what the Assyrian Church of the east taught and believed did not actually fit the definition of Nestorianism as defined by the Council. Their beliefs were much closer to Catholicism than even some of the “orthodox” churches. So we worked it out and now a schism that has lasted for almost 1500 years is about to end. Not because we overlooked the heresy, but because we were willing to not over look it and actually find out what we both were talking about.

I bet if I showed someone the text, in Latin, from the council of Trent and the text, in Latin, from the IIV council, none of the SSPX people would be able to tell the difference. They would be able to tell which came from which council, or if the text were from different councils at all.

Their main problem with the IIV council is that people were put in authority in the aftermath of the council that the traditionalist didn’t like. That’s it.

My main problem with the second Vatican council is that the Church is not living up to it. The council renewed the universal call to holiness but instead we have a bunch of heretics out there who are abusing the misinformation about the council to tell faithful Catholics that they don’t have to listen to Church teaching anymore. The traditionalist then see this and use it to attack the council it self.

If we would just read and understand the council, even in English, we would know that the liberals who tell us that the council said this or that were liars and that the traditionalist were attacking the council without cause. It is not the council that needs attacking but the liberal heretics who hide behind the “spirit of Vatican Two” to promote heresies. I don’t care what the “spirit of Vatican Two” says about anything, I care what the actual council said in the 16 documents of the Council and the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church.

Yes, some disiplines changed, but all theology remained intact, all dogmas remained intact, all orthodoxy remained intact.

I just wish today’s priest and religious took their life of holiness more seriously than some do. Catholicism is not a joke, or a hobby. It is the MOST important thing in your life if you are a faithful Catholic. Your membership in the Catholic Church is the only thing you bring with you into the next life. If a protestant or a pagan happens to recieve God’s mercy and gets to heaven the same rules still apply, Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salva. The dead protestant or pagan will have to become a member of the Catholic Church, because this is the Church that is in heaven so to be in heaven is to be part of this Church. We are so lucky to have access to this before we die. This is a great gift that we should be sharing with the world but instead we cast what is holy before swine. Catholic need to wake up and remember, we are called to be holy, not fun or likable, Holy. We are in fact called to be PERFECT. Holy can be fun but it is Holy first.

As for the SSPX, they sow discontent, disloyalty and distrust in the Church. They publicly denounce the Vatican and anyone who works there in very uncharitable language. I know, I can read quotes in the French Newspaper. The SSPX creates a public scandal. It is scandalous what they are doing.

On a side note, when I was going to become a Christian, when I needed to hear the message of Christ, when I needed to fix my life, where oh where was the SSPX then? When I was learning Latin, where was the SSPX? When my mother was learning to read and write, where was the SSPX then? When my father was in prison, where was the SSPX then? When I was debating with protestants who would have loved to put on white sheets and hang me, where was the SSPX then? NOWHERE. But always beside me to help me in my struggles was the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Claudius]

Now my parish is not perfect. There are a lot of problems. The liturgy in Japanese has some Kooky things in it. Maybe it is because I think in grammar but some things just don’t sound right, and I am not a native Japanese speaker. But the Church here is trying. They work really hard and their conservatism would shock most Americans.

When there is a problem at the Church, I don’t run off and say I will only go to Church that does things the way I want it done. I stay and help and put my two cents in and let people know that I am thinking. When the Muto Proprio came out I printed it out in Latin, English and French right away and brought them all to my priest.

I pray my rosary in Latin in the Church as often as I can and I am noticed. I have told everyone about the decision of the Holy Father. I don’t expect a change overnight.

We just got a new Bishop here. He came to visit the parish and I was lucky enough to have a conversation with him in Latin. Since then, even though my priest still keeps telling me that I need to study my Japanese more, we have started to have many parts of the liturgy done in Latin and the overall mood of the Mass is moving into the more reverant area. Women are wearing head covering. On the whole, Japanese people are very respectful of the path down the center that leads to the Tabernacle and bow when they pass it no matter how far away they are. Most of them do not even walk down the center aile but down the side out of respect.

Here is what I have to say to the SSPX people here. Let go of your pride. Stop attacking the Church to lift yourselves up. Stop attacking the Mass to lift up the form that you have. Stop attacking our ordinations just to try to validate your own. That is not the life of holiness of the Catholic Church. Yes, people, even popes mess up but calling the Pope a modernist for wearing a pair of sunglasses really tells me that you have no idea what the word modernism means and thus can not be trusted to tell who is and isn’t in that heresy. Yes the EF is beautiful and holy but not when it is illicit. Then it looks the same to me as a stolen car. Yes the OF can be botched and look cheesey but so can the EF and to be honest, a really messy OF that is licit looks a lot better to me than an EF that is illicit and morally agreegous.

It is still morally wrong to attend illicit liturgies celebrated by illicit priest. As it is morally wrong, it is displeasing and offensive to God and may even fall under the catagory of sin.

 

[Like]

South of Houston.

Yep, Right next to the big city of Clute.

 

[pnewton]

Yep, Right next to the big city of Clute.

My home parish and home to The Great Texas Mosquito Festival. On a side note, my church was in one of the few areas that still had electricity after Ike.

 

[giuseppeTO]

the “society” is BOUND to accept the Church’s teachings, Not theirs.

The Society doesn’t “teach” anything of its own. It continues to pass on the Roman Catholic Deposit of Faith. If what the modern church is currently teaching is DIFFERENT from what was taught prior to the Council, that should cause Catholics grave concern.

But Auntie, you are absolutely wrong to state that anyone is “bound” to accept the teachings of the church if they are opposed to what has been previously taught by the Magisterium and is part of the Deposit of Faith. We are BOUND to reject it.

The Council is part of the Deposit of Faith and where theologians have taken, for example, Lumen Gentium’s “subsist” to mean that the Church of Christ is other than, or broader than the Roman Catholic Church, that needs to be rejected because prior to V2, the Church of Christ was (and is) equal to the Catholic Church. The danger of some of the conciliar documents are in their vagueness and (perhaps deliberate) openness to interpretation. It is not the Council that is doing the teaching, it is those who have used the ambiguity of the Council to change church teaching over the last 40 years and conform it to a humanity-based spirituality in belief and in liturgy.

The SSPX’s position (as was Archbishop Lefebvre) was to oppose where V2 was interpreted contrary to the teachings contained in the Deposit of Faith at the time of the council.

What was true (by Papal or Magisterium proclamation) in 1960, cannot become false in 1970 and vice versa.

 

[Auntie_M]

Now my parish is not perfect. There are a lot of problems. The liturgy in Japanese has some Kooky things in it. Maybe it is because I think in grammar but some things just don’t sound right, and I am not a native Japanese speaker. But the Church here is trying. They work really hard and their conservatism would shock most Americans.

When there is a problem at the Church, I don’t run off and say I will only go to Church that does things the way I want it done. I stay and help and put my two cents in and let people know that I am thinking. When the Muto Proprio came out I printed it out in Latin, English and French right away and brought them all to my priest.

I pray my rosary in Latin in the Church as often as I can and I am noticed. I have told everyone about the decision of the Holy Father. I don’t expect a change overnight.

We just got a new Bishop here. He came to visit the parish and I was lucky enough to have a conversation with him in Latin. Since then, even though my priest still keeps telling me that I need to study my Japanese more, we have started to have many parts of the liturgy done in Latin and the overall mood of the Mass is moving into the more reverant area. Women are wearing head covering. On the whole, Japanese people are very respectful of the path down the center that leads to the Tabernacle and bow when they pass it no matter how far away they are. Most of them do not even walk down the center aile but down the side out of respect.

Here is what I have to say to the SSPX people here. Let go of your pride. Stop attacking the Church to lift yourselves up. Stop attacking the Mass to lift up the form that you have. Stop attacking our ordinations just to try to validate your own. That is not the life of holiness of the Catholic Church. Yes, people, even popes mess up but calling the Pope a modernist for wearing a pair of sunglasses really tells me that you have no idea what the word modernism means and thus can not be trusted to tell who is and isn’t in that heresy. Yes the EF is beautiful and holy but not when it is illicit. Then it looks the same to me as a stolen car. Yes the OF can be botched and look cheesey but so can the EF and to be honest, a really messy OF that is licit looks a lot better to me than an EF that is illicit and morally agreegous.

It is still morally wrong to attend illicit liturgies celebrated by illicit priest. As it is morally wrong, it is displeasing and offensive to God and may even fall under the catagory of sin.

I applaud you, VERY well spoken…

It is true. the mass is not about what WE think is right or wrong but what is pleasing to God. Just because something was done a certain way for a very long time, does not necessarily mean it is the most pleasing to God.

I truly think that God is most pleased when his children are not arguing about what is pleasing to HIM. Even then, it is not what I (we) think is pleasing but what He thinks.

It may be surprising to some that God, in His wisdom, even loves Protestants.

 

[pnewton]

The Society doesn’t “teach” anything of its own. It continues to pass on the Roman Catholic Deposit of Faith. If what the modern church is currently teaching is DIFFERENT from what was taught prior to the Council, that should cause Catholics grave concern.

Why? That is what Church councils do. After Vatican I, something new was taught that was “different” from what was taught before, specifically, papal infallibility. There was a group who, like the SSPX, decided not to adhere to the new teaching and teach only what the Church “taught before.” They, too, broke off from the authority of the Holy Father and now are completely out of communion with Rome. I do not want to see a repeat of that in another fully independent religion created.

I notice that some call the Church the “modern” Church, instead of the Catholic Church. Consider that one aspect to modern society is that more information is available to all, allowing for greater independent thought. Perhaps that is why both of the last two councils have resulted in splits by those who lose when it comes to consensus at the Council. We hav already seen some splintering in the SSPX and I have little doubt more will come. Once that door was opened by Lefebvre, it is not easily closed.

I had another thought in reference to opposing the Pope, which I agree with all here can be a duty in many circumstances. A parallel situation would be opposing the President. Of course in this country one can do so all they want. They can even commit acts of civil disobedience if they choose and are willing to suffer the consequence. However, if one carried the opposition from what is allowed by law and into action, for example, setting up one’s own government, enforcing one’s owns laws and recruiting all citizens to join you in your uprising, one becomes a traitor.

 

[Auntie_M]

Pope John XXIII certainly had the right to call a council and it was a valid council, a fact undisputed by the SSPX.

Pope Paul also observed that the same council that was called to let in fresh air also let in the smoke of Satan.

The “smoke of satan” was referring to "certain groups who have entered the church to destroy it) actually seeming to refer to the SSPX. You need to know Latin fully to read the exact reference to this statement in the Pope’s encyclical. But this has been printed in one of the SSPX magazines (from the SSPX main publisher,
Angelus Press) as “the smoke of satan” as if referring to Vat II.

This is how the SSPX gets it’s followers, by misrepresentation…

Just as they say they are and want to be in communion with Rome, but out of the other side of their mouths say that Rome and the Vatican are no longer the true church, that they are…
Doesn’t makes sense that they should want to be a part of the “awful” Vatican or the Roman Catholic Church.
They really need to get their stories straight.

As far as “Michael Davies’” interpretation of the “way things happened”, His "interpretation came from him being Protestant. His books are well published by Angelus Press (The SSPX"s main office of publishing) Of course, the editor himself, enjoys to say, “We have the Vatican on the run” This publishing company cannot be trusted to print anything non-biased.

 

[RyanML]

I know it was 20 years ago. The point is that the poster was criticized for using the word “schism” as if it were some sort of rash judgement. I wanted to point out that even the apologist that pay and run this forum have used that word and believed the SSPX to be in such a state based on the actions of Lefebvre. Agree or not, it is at the very least a defendable position and not something this poster stands alone in. Also, I did not think link to the staff apologists would be considered unamiable. If that is the case, then maurin shoud reconsider his involvement here.

I agree it’s a defendable position. Even Michael Davies, who was a staunch defender of Archbishop Lefebvre, feared that if the Society remained in their irregular situation for too long, they would develop into a schism.

 

[RyanML]

giuseppeTO;4187686:

Pope John XXIII certainly had the right to call a council and it was a valid council, a fact undisputed by the SSPX.

Pope Paul also observed that the same council that was called to let in fresh air also let in the smoke of Satan.

The “smoke of satan” was referring to "certain groups who have entered the church to destroy it) actually seeming to refer to the SSPX. You need to know Latin fully to read the exact reference to this statement in the Pope’s encyclical. But this has been printed in one of the SSPX magazines (from the SSPX main publisher,
Angelus Press) as “the smoke of satan” as if referring to Vat II.

This is how the SSPX gets it’s followers, by misrepresentation…

Just as they say they are and want to be in communion with Rome, but out of the other side of their mouths say that Rome and the Vatican are no longer the true church, that they are…
Doesn’t makes sense that they should want to be a part of the “awful” Vatican or the Roman Catholic Church.
They really need to get their stories straight.

As far as “Michael Davies’” interpretation of the “way things happened”, His "interpretation came from him being Protestant. His books are well published by Angelus Press (The SSPX"s main office of publishing) Of course, the editor himself, enjoys to say, “We have the Vatican on the run” This publishing company cannot be trusted to print anything non-biased.

Michael Davies (RIP), was well respected in Rome and with the Ecclesia Dei Commission for his work in defending the Church and fighting for tradition. Many radical traditionalists distanced themselves from him, including many in the SSPX, because he was in favor of reconciliation. Have you ever read anything he’s written? He very good at presenting the facts and showing both sides of the issues. And Paul VI was not refering to the SSPX when he spoke of the “smoke of Satan”. He was not refering to Vatican II either. He was talking about a way of thinking, believing and living that has infiltrated Catholic thought and was allowed to run a muck after the Council. We still see the negative effects of the “smoke of Satan” in the Church today.