Sspx

[RyanML]

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.

As an ex-SSPX supporter I can tell you that they DO NOT teach that the New Rite of Mass, as envisioned by the Council and as promulgated by Paul VI, is invalid. What they believe is that the innovations of the New Mass that happeded after the Council have so protestantized the Mass that it becomes a danger to the faith of those who participate in it. That says nothing about the validity of the Mass, just the way in which the Rite is being celebrated.

 

[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 Holy Spirit being “with him” is undisputed. What the Holy Ghost allows and what is pleasing to Him are different**. I can’t profess to know what pleases Him, but I’ll bet there are aspects of how the Council was conducted and how it was in fact implemented that are particularly displeasing to Him.**

Wow … I wonder what blogs you have been reading. You certainly haven’t read any of the accounts of the negotiations between the SSPX and Cardinal Ratzinger or else you would know how patently false this “FACT” is. It would be great to see your evidence of how the Archbishop was told “…nothing else would take place so long as he did not ordain any bishops.”

If you really knew the facts, you would be able to honestly state that the Vatican had agreed to allowing for the SSPX to consecrate one Bishop in August of 1988 instead of four Bishops in June 1988.

**HIs disobeyed the Pope **on a matter of Canon Law, not of faith.

I understand that you are a Senior Member and I take it you are a Permanent Deacon from your handle, but if you are going to cite facts, you have to know your facts because you are otherwise in danger of calumny. **St. Athanasius was excommunicated in 355 by Pope Liberius and had he died that day, would have gone to his grave under the order of excommunication but raised by Our Lord’s justice, excommunication notwithstanding. The same will be true of Archbishop Lefebvre.**Prayers & blessings

I have bolded what I’m refering to …

It WAS the SSPX’s stance “from the beginning” that the coucil was NOT a vaid council. I’m glad they recanted this.

“the smoke of satan” …read my earlier post about this one

Yes the Vatican had agreed for Lefebvre to ordain ONE bishop and out of DISOBEYANCE, Lefebvre ordained 4.

Lefebvre Disobeyed Not out of canon law but actually out of the LACK of faith that the church knew what she was doing.

And you know the future and what God WILL do for lefebvre?
Who is in danger of Culumny AND “fortune telling”?

Your statements, dear, need to be more factual. Hearsay (as your entire post) is only hearsay, hearsay coming from ONE side only.

 

[giuseppeTO]

The liturgy in Japanese has some Kooky things in it.

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.

.

Claudius,

The most interesting thing about the Novus Ordo to me is how it separates and segregates worship. During WWII, a Japanese POW and a German POW, and a French POW and an American POW could all assist at the same Mass and were bound together, regardless of their fatherland, by the single Mass which they all understood. And I mean understood because by the time I was in 2nd grade, I could easily follow the Latin Mass and pray the prayers in English from my missal and respond in Latin where appropriate. Today, you would need 5 different vulgate Novus Ordo Masses to do the same thing. In parish life, it forces Hispanics to their Mass and their own cultural activities in the parish, the Vietnamese to theirs, and the Americans to theirs. Unity be darned!

You lose credibility with ridiculous examples. Anyone who calls the Pope a modernist because he wears sunglasses is an idiot - I don’t care where he assists at Mass. Anyone who calls the Pope a modernist because he kisses the Koran is correct. That is akin to Pope St. Pius V traveling to Germany to kiss Luther’s Wittenberg Thesis. Another example of modernism is where the Magisterium preaches that there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church and extends that to the argument that people need not convert to Catholicism for redemption.

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 assume you know that you oppose the Pope in your belief here. Are you starting your own schism? If you oppose the Pope on a teachnig of morality, you are automatically excommunicating yourself. It has been made clear that attending an illicit (SSPX) Mass is acceptable as long as you do not adhere to a schismatic attitude with the Pontiff. So you are are saying that the Magisterium is allowing poeple to attend a worship that is morally wrong and may fall into the category of sin. - Very serious allegations against the Holy Father indeed which pale in comparison to the SSPX complaints!

 

[RyanML]

I have bolded what I’m refering to …

It WAS the SSPX’s stance “from the beginning” that the coucil was NOT a vaid council. I’m glad they recanted this.

“the smoke of satan” …read my earlier post about this one

Yes the Vatican had agreed for Lefebvre to ordain ONE bishop and out of DISOBEYANCE, Lefebvre ordained 4.

Lefebvre Disobeyed Not out of canon law but actually out of the LACK of faith that the church knew what she was doing.

And you know the future and what God WILL do for lefebvre?
Who is in danger of Culumny AND “fortune telling”?

Your statements, dear, need to be more factual. Hearsay (as your entire post) is only hearsay, hearsay coming from ONE side only.

The problem between the Vatican and Lefebvre was that neither could come to an agreement with the other. Any and all prospects for episcopal consecrations that the Archbishop recommended to Rome, Rome refused. This happened several times which led to the Archbishop believing, right or wrong, that the Vatican could not be trusted. And there is a difference in trusting the Holy Spirit to guide the Church and trusting in Vatican bureaucracy.

 

[Auntie_M]

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.

Note the bolded part…Isn’t that exactly what the SSPX has done to the church since Vat II?

Please, show us all proof of your statement of “what” the “smoke of satan” means. Since this entire encyclical is in Latin, you evidently can read Latin very well. So that shouldn’t be a problem, should it.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I

It WAS the SSPX’s stance “from the beginning” that the coucil was NOT a vaid council. I’m glad they recanted this.

Your statements, dear, need to be more factual.

Once again, auntie, you repeat what you read on liberal blogs as some sort of truth. Lefebvre was part of the Council. Please give examples of your allegations from an authoratative source or recant your statement.

 

[RyanML]

Note the bolded part…Isn’t that exactly what the SSPX has done to the church since Vat II?

Please, show us all proof of your statement of “what” the “smoke of satan” means. Since this entire encyclical is in Latin, you evidently can read Latin very well. So that shouldn’t be a problem, should it.

Then I provide an interpretation of the “smoke of satan” that you should appreciate as it comes from the very conservative and always trusted source of EWTN: ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=310492&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=smoke+of+satan&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[Auntie_M]

Claudius,

**The most interesting thing about the Novus Ordo to me is how it separates and segregates worship. During WWII, a Japanese POW and a German POW, and a French POW and an American POW could all assist at the same Mass and were bound together, regardless of their fatherland, by the single Mass which they all understood. ** And I mean understood because by the time I was in 2nd grade, I could easily follow the Latin Mass and pray the prayers in English from my missal and respond in Latin where appropriate. Today, you would need 5 different vulgate Novus Ordo Masses to do the same thing. In parish life, it forces Hispanics to their Mass and their own cultural activities in the parish, the Vietnamese to theirs, and the Americans to theirs. Unity be darned!

You lose credibility with ridiculous examples. Anyone who calls the Pope a modernist because he wears sunglasses is an idiot - I don’t care where he assists at Mass. **Anyone who calls the Pope a modernist because he kisses the Koran is correct. ** That is akin to Pope St. Pius V traveling to Germany to kiss Luther’s Wittenberg Thesis. Another example of modernism is where the Magisterium preaches that there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church and extends that to the argument that people need not convert to Catholicism for redemption.

I assume you know that you oppose the Pope in your belief here. Are you starting your own schism? If you oppose the Pope on a teachnig of morality, you are automatically excommunicating yourself. **It has been made clear that attending an illicit (SSPX) Mass is acceptable as long as you do not adhere to a schismatic attitude with the Pontiff. ** So you are are saying that the Magisterium is allowing poeple to attend a worship that is morally wrong and may fall into the category of sin. - Very serious allegations against the Holy Father indeed which pale in comparison to the SSPX complaints!

Wow…German, Japanese, Frence and American POW’s were not even allowed to attend a church of any kind.

Nor could they all speak the “common” language of Latin.
So it is your Theology that God does not even consider “non-Catholics” as his children. And who told you this, was it God, Himself?

And as far as attending an SSPX mass. You contradicted your own self…“OK” “as long as you don’t ADHERE to the schismatic attitude”
Walking in a SSPX building proves within itself, you don’t REALLY adhere to the Pope, which LEADS to a schismatic attitude. And to sit and listen to a “priest” bashing the Pope and the Vatican?

What I really can’t understand is this…
Why put yourself in a position to HAVE a schismatic attitude. Isn’t that the same as “a NEAR occasion of sin”

Why would anyone lose their soul for a “head covering”
or a kneeling rail
or a foreign language
etc…etc…etc…
Reminds me of the Bible verse that goes something like…
“you have the appearance of holiness, but your heart is far from me”

Is IT REALLY WORTH IT???

 

[palmas85]

Wow…German, Japanese, Frence and American POW’s were not even allowed to attend a church of any kind.

Nor could they all speak the “common” language of Latin.
So it is your Theology that God does not even consider “non-Catholics” as his children. And who told you this, was it God, Himself?

And as far as attending an SSPX mass. You contradicted your own self…“OK” “as long as you don’t ADHERE to the schismatic attitude”
Walking in a SSPX building proves within itself, you don’t REALLY adhere to the Pope, which LEADS to a schismatic attitude. And to sit and listen to a “priest” bashing the Pope and the Vatican?

What I really can’t understand is this…
Why put yourself in a position to HAVE a schismatic attitude. Isn’t that the same as “a NEAR occasion of sin”

Why would anyone lose their soul for a “head covering”
or a kneeling rail
or a foreign language
etc…etc…etc…
Reminds me of the Bible verse that goes something like…
“you have the appearance of holiness, but your heart is far from me”

Is IT REALLY WORTH IT???

Actually the POW’s, at least those held by the Americans, had religious services provided for them if desired. And yes, speaking from personal experience, Latin was a unifying element in the Mass, despite what all those who actively loathe the use of latin and the Traditional mass in general would have us believe…

I came to the US as a small boy who spoke no English except for a few cuss words, and from a cultural background much much different than Americans in general.

I had however been serving Mass for about two years before I came here. So in a very short time, less than a month actually, I was able to continue doing so in the US with no difficulty even though I could not understand the sermons and really couldn’t even communicate except in a limited way with the Priests and the other Altar Boys. That allowed me to actively participate in something I loved and believed in even though I was in a totally alien country and culture. It also greatly eased my acceptance into a society that was not exactly tolerant of outsiders. This was in the mid fifties. The Parish was overwhelmingly white and I was a very, very dark skinned Filipino boy who was often mistaken for being black.

As far as the SSPX, I am not a suppporter, but I have gone to several of their Chapels… Every one of them had a photo of the Holy Father prominently displayed and identified as being the Pope. If they were indeed schismatic, I really don’t believe they would have that.

 

[Auntie_M]

Then I provide an interpretation of the “smoke of satan” that you should appreciate as it comes from the very conservative and always trusted source of EWTN: ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=310492&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=smoke+of+satan&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

A very good article indeed. As with any question and answer sessions, good and bad points are brought out. However, if you will read the entire section, you will also read that out of 2700 bishops and cardinals only 4 voted against having the Vat II council, It was well agreed that the Tridentine mass was in much need of reform well before the Vat II council.

And since you referred back to the EWTN, (which I know the SSPX doesn’t like at all), shows you are at least open to opinions on the “other” side. That’s a start…Very good indeed.

 

[Auntie_M]

Actually the POW’s, at least those held by the Americans, had religious services provided for them if desired. And yes, speaking from personal experience, Latin was a unifying element in the Mass, despite what all those who actively loathe the use of latin and the Traditional mass in general would have us believe…

I came to the US as a small boy who spoke no English except for a few cuss words, and from a cultural background much much different than Americans in general.

I had however been serving Mass for about two years before I came here. So in a very short time, less than a month actually, I was able to continue doing so in the US with no difficulty even though I could not understand the sermons and really couldn’t even communicate except in a limited way with the Priests and the other Altar Boys. That allowed me to actively participate in something I loved and believed in even though I was in a totally alien country and culture. It also greatly eased my acceptance into a society that was not exactly tolerant of outsiders. This was in the mid fifties. The Parish was overwhelmingly white and I was a very, very dark skinned Filipino boy who was often mistaken for being black.

As far as the SSPX, I am not a suppporter, but I have gone to several of their Chapels… Every one of them had a photo of the Holy Father prominently displayed and identified as being the Pope. If they were indeed schismatic, I really don’t believe they would have that.

And alot of the Americans. Germans, French, Japanese were also DENIED mass.

Yes, I have seen the “pope picture”, and also heard them bragg about having the Vatican on the run. Hummmmm
Honor the pope with a picture so they can “run him out of town”
interesting…

Also, dear, evidently your Catholic upbringing was lacking if you used alot of cuss words. Not a very Christian thing to be doing.

 

[603304529]

Wow…German, Japanese, Frence and American POW’s were not even allowed to attend a church of any kind.

Nor could they all speak the “common” language of Latin.
So it is your Theology that God does not even consider “non-Catholics” as his children. And who told you this, was it God, Himself?

And as far as attending an SSPX mass. You contradicted your own self…“OK” “as long as you don’t ADHERE to the schismatic attitude”
Walking in a SSPX building proves within itself, you don’t REALLY adhere to the Pope, which LEADS to a schismatic attitude. And to sit and listen to a “priest” bashing the Pope and the Vatican?

What I really can’t understand is this…
Why put yourself in a position to HAVE a schismatic attitude. Isn’t that the same as “a NEAR occasion of sin”

Why would anyone lose their soul for a “head covering”
or a kneeling rail
or a foreign language
etc…etc…etc…
Reminds me of the Bible verse that goes something like…
“you have the appearance of holiness, but your heart is far from me”

Is IT REALLY WORTH IT???

AuntieM.

The example of the POWs went over your head. The point that was made was that when the Mass was said in Latin, all could attend, and feel at home. The Tridentine Rite, said in France would have been the same as it was in Germany, and in Ireland and in England. The POWs might have in fact had some access to a Mass (not necessarily in a church, but the original poster didn’t even say “attend church”, he said “attend Mass”. A Mass COULD have been held in secret, by a priest in disguise – I don’t know, I wasn’t there.

And it didn’t matter if they couldn’t “speak” Latin, ie, have a conversation in Latin. The Mass was said in the same language regardless of the native tongue of the land in which the Mass was being said, and regardless of the priest’s and the lay persons’ nationality. And if you were Catholic, you knew what was going on.

Now, if I go to Mass in France, or Germany, or Spain, the only place I can go and know exactly what is going on, word for word, is an SSPX church. This is because they are saying the Mass of all time. The Mass of the universal Church, in the Church’s universal tongue. I could go to a NO Mass, and hope that what is happening is ok and orthodox – but given that every single English NO Mass I have attended has been peppered with irreverence, should I, in good conscience, attend the NO Mass? Why would I sit and listen to a “priest” bash the old worn out, “love is everything, and truth is irrelevant” line, in a language I don’t understand? Its bad enough having to listen to it in English when I have to attend a NO Mass……

Why would anyone not cover their head out of reverence for Our Lord’s Bodily Presence on the altar?

Why would anyone not kneel and receive on the tongue, out of reverence to receive Our Lord’s Body?

Why would anyone show disdain for the timeless Catholic traditions of showing reverence for Our Lord in the church?

Also:

Yes, I have seen the “pope picture”, and also heard them bragg about having the Vatican on the run. Hummmmm
Honor the pope with a picture so they can “run him out of town”
interesting…

What do you mean? “run him out of town”?

 

[palmas85]

And alot of the Americans. Germans, French, Japanese were also DENIED mass.

Yes, I have seen the “pope picture”, and also heard them bragg about having the Vatican on the run. Hummmmm
Honor the pope with a picture so they can “run him out of town”
interesting…

Also, dear, evidently your Catholic upbringing was lacking if you used alot of cuss words. Not a very Christian thing to be doing.

Interesting how you twist things. Good try:thumbsup:

I never said I used a lot of cuss words. I said the only English words I knew were a few cuss words. Not exactly uncommon among young boys. If you are going to speak of history, I suggest you learn it. Divine Services **were provided **for Axis POW’s held by the US if they desired them. And that my friend is a documented fact. Check into it if you would like to. As far as American POW;s they very well may have been denied Mass particularly by the Japanese, who didn’t think too highly of POW’s in general…

As far as the Pope, I haven’t heard the SSPX say they have the Vatican on the run, but who knows? I don’t say things that I don’t know to be true. I do know that the official stance of the SSPX is that the Bishop of Rome, in our day, Benedict XVI, is indeed the Pope, and every SSPX memmebr or supporter that I know believes that to be the case. I know there are sedevacantits who attend SSPX Masses, but not all SSPX are so inclined.

 

[maurin]

Also, dear, evidently your Catholic upbringing was lacking if you used alot of cuss words. Not a very Christian thing to be doing.

I was thinking the same thing Auntie M!

only I thought that your smugness and lack of boundaries might have been caused by a Catholic upbringing which was lacking. Dear.

Apologies to palmas85 who certainly does not deserve to be disrespected in this way.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Wow…German, Japanese, Frence and American POW’s were not even allowed to attend a church of any kind.

Nor could they all speak the “common” language of Latin.
So it is your Theology that God does not even consider “non-Catholics” as his children.

I’m not sure how you got any of this from my post.

And who told you this, was it God, Himself?

No … St. Marcel Lefebvre.

What I really can’t understand is this…

I’ve REALLY tried to help you … sorry my dear.

 

[603304529]

To maurin, palmas85 and giuseppeTO; I’m with ye.

AuntieM - please keep the sarcasm and general uncharitableness towards anyone sympathetic to the SSPX cause out of your posts - they are just getting on people’s nerves.

Cheers dears.

 

[RyanML]

A very good article indeed. As with any question and answer sessions, good and bad points are brought out. However, if you will read the entire section, you will also read that out of 2700 bishops and cardinals only 4 voted against having the Vat II council, It was well agreed that the Tridentine mass was in much need of reform well before the Vat II council.

And since you referred back to the EWTN, (which I know the SSPX doesn’t like at all), shows you are at least open to opinions on the “other” side. That’s a start…Very good indeed.

I totally agree the Mass was in need of reform. But what we see in most parishes today is not what the Council fathers had in mind. If you took the Mass you see on EWTN and tweaked it a little bit, we would be a bit closer to the Mass of the Council’s liturgical reform. And I would say i’m in the middle on the issue of the SSPX. I’ve been on both sides and I understand and appreciate the points each side has to make. The full truth is rarely found in the extremes of either. I believe we’ll find it somewhere in the middle. God bless!

 

[giuseppeTO]

I totally agree the Mass was in need of reform.

Ryan, I liked your defense of worshipping in the sacred liturgical language of the church. Even in Christ’s day, although he spoke Aramaic, liturgical worship was in Hebrew.

I’d be interested in knowing what, in your opinion, specifically needed reform from the Mass (using the 1962 book) and what negative affect it was having on Catholicism prior to 1960?

 

[pnewton]

Also, dear, evidently your Catholic upbringing was lacking if you used alot of cuss words. Not a very Christian thing to be doing.

No, only if he was unaware of that we shouldn’t cuss would his education be lacking. We all sin and a great many of us cuss from time to time. So do not be quick to pick up stones.

Also, while worship was in Hebrew even though Jews spoke Aramaic, they were conversant in Hebrew. It was more than just a liturgical language.

 

[latinmass]

The thread I started regarding “Seduced by SSPX arguments” as of 9:30 a.m. pacific time on 09-18-08 has been deleted. Many of you have read and or posted on it. Hopefully they will “re appear” All should be aware of the bias of this website concerning tradition and things sacred. I hope this error is corrected.