SSPX?

[BobP123]

mdstanzel,

I have a question to ask you and don’t take this the wrong way, please.

Just how much about the SSPX is covered in the RCIA program these days? I think I’m starting to see a pattern amongst all those who are signed Tiber Swim Teams here. And why did they call it that anyway? Because of its connection with Vatican II? I guess I must have missed something along the way.

 

[mdstanzel]

Okay. The point is that’s the way we “feel”. But you can’t trust your feelings. Even though we “feel” that strongly against divorce doesn’t mean we condemn you or that the Church can’t approve it. However, if you can argue that it’s okay to retract an eccumenical council’s decission, then I can beckon for the Church to retract the heresy of annulments. No matter how we feel about it we know that that is not the case. We "know’ that the authority of the Church has made arrangement (for lack of terminology) for the issue of valid marriages after divorce.

We are not sending or condemning someone to hell or wishing them to hell. I made this statement to show you where we just came from and to set up a point. (but it’s difficult to think and write with small children driving you crazy To sort of clean this up let me say this. We do NOT believe that if the if the Church validly annuls a marriage through the official process and they get remarried that they are going to hell. However, if you are lying or even swaying through the process to get an annulment and/or the process is incorrectly handled and you receive an annulment, then you and/or the tribunal or whatever will be held accountable for your actions - not that you’re going to hell for this, but who really knows and why wouldn’t you show fear of the Lord in this situation. Better to be safe than sorry. It’s like going to confession and not being sorry for the sins you confess. The abosolution is invalid if you are not truly sorry. Do you think you can fool God? Our priest also feels deeply embarrassed about the annulment process. After discovering our beliefs he was very apologetic about the annulment process because we had to get our marriage convalidated and we were more in line with scriptural marriage than the Catholics. We believe it is a major scandal that needs to be cleaned up. We at least believe that the annulment process in America should be turned over to the more conservative Vatican authority. Americans seem to have twisted the rules in their favor, which is wrong.

Just because I “feel” funny about praying to saints doesn’t mean I won’t. I still pray to Saints everyday. Interesting point, the first time I picked up my new Rosary I shook with fear. But in an act of trust, I said a prayer to God to please not condmen me if I offend Him and to show me if it’s wrong. I also prayed to Mary not to be offended by my prayers to her. If you make your choices by feelings, you’re asking for a whole lot of pain.

I firmly believe that priests should be allowed to be married like in the early pre-“Great Schism” Church. Orthodox priests are allowed to be married before they ordained. A vocation to the preisthood is considered to be of equal importance as the vocation to marriage. I like that. I agree with that. I wanted to become Orthodox or at least Byzantine Catholic because it feels right and is scripturally and historically sound. But many things stand in the way. Would you go that far? I left the Catholic Church because my spiritual director made a pass on me, the Diocese Bishop abandoned me and covered up the sin. Other priests that I became close to apparently condoned homosexuallity and gave me very unorthodox advice either thinking or hoping I was gay (I do not trust priest anymore - scary huh? But I’m working on it). I’m not gay nor ever will be. It’s just not me. But for some reason they just catagorized me in that. That felt so wrong and bad that it was scandalous and embarrassing to me. So in my infinite wisdom and infallibility I decided that God was calling me back to the seminary to help work as a catalyst for change. I believed that there should be a door open for married men to become priests to root out these gay priests and over sympathizers to homosexuallity life styles. I knew that celebacy was a discipline and could be done away with tomorrow if the Pope decided. But I didn’t know the theology behind celebacy very well.

cont’d

 

[mdstanzel]

con’td
The problem is that I incorrectly believed that a married priesthood would stop all the child and young adult sexual abuses. During this time of struggle in the military, I started dating my wife. I came to believe that the churches of Christ in their attempt to restore the early Church was right. They actually reached out to evangelize as if your soul depened on it. Not some long bureaucratic process. Why did the Catholic Church stop evangelizing? …Still have issues with this… However, JPII changed that I’m sure you know while I was a Christian [only] . After many years of experiencing their heresy I came to realize how wrong it is to condemn non-Christians. This believe made sense to me because my father apparently an SSPX sempathizer believe that non-Catholic’s were condemned to hell. (He said this with flaming eyes gritting his teeth.) The official Church teaching on this subject was never “inforced” and gave license to Catholics to says that non-Catholics are not going to hell. So it goes both ways. However, the leaders along with the laity allowed that false teaching to continue… Still have issue with that.

The Church has done a lot of things wrong in her history. But let me correct my own words. It’s NOT the Church, it’s the clergy and the laity that have done the evil. Do you believe in Clericalism? Is that what the SSPX support?

The point is that we, as lay and clergy, do not have the right to cause division.

Still learning with humility.

PAX tecum

 

[mdstanzel]

“… convert to Roman Catholic Church.” So you believe that the eastern Catholics are hellbound too?

 

[mdstanzel]

After reading the replies thus far, I believe that this discussion is fruitless. My situation is well beyound your comprehension in my opinion. And you have proven to be inconsistent just like the cafateria Catholics.

I am working on my faith with fear and trembling. You sound like true church of Christ material. Sorry, but it’s true. They think that closed minded. Oh and by the way, for what it’s worth, if you really knew us, you’d realize that we’d fit in really well with the SSPX inspite of what you think you know by my post. We’re very fundamental in our faith.

 

[LJN21]

I just want to say that this discussion has gone way over my head. You’re using some terms that I don’t know the meaning of.

I appreciate the answers, and I did read the Wikapedia article, which was interesting.

I tend to be a little distrustful of Wikapedia (they reported that my favorite actor has three kids when he only has two, and a few weeks later, they changed that!). But I think the article seemed fairly factual.

I’ve also checked out other links that people have posted, but many of them are extremely long.

Thanks for trying to clear up my questions, although I must admit, I’m hornswaggled. I guess I need the book Catholic Denominations for Dummies.

That’s why I avoided really commenting on the SSPX issue. It is very confusing. As you can see there are a lot of strong views on it as well. Unfortionately in this case they managed to hijack your thread.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The Church has done a lot of things wrong in her history. But let me correct my own words. It’s NOT the Church, it’s the clergy and the laity that have done the evil.

So, is it wrong to resist these evils? Maybe you know this maybe you don’t, but according to Catholic Theology the greatest of all sins (except for formal hatred of God) is heresy. Did you know that? It is true. That means heresy is even worse than abortion.

Now, when leaders of the Church teach heresy, or at least give the impression of teaching heresy, we must resist these errors. When an error has been explicitly condemned by the Church, we must resist that error even if it is being promoted by the highest authority in the Church.

Pope Pius IX said “the errors of liberalsim will destroy you”. The “you” he was referring to was the Catholic that had accepted these errors. He also said “what I fear more than the commune of Paris is a liberal Catholic”. He further said “a liberal Catholic is the worst enemy of the Catholic Church”.

Liberalism has invaded the Church like a cancer. Liberalism, and its sister “modernism”, is more than just one error. It is a way of thinking that corrupts the mind and leads to the undermining all doctrine.

We have a responsibility to protect our faith. During the Arian crisis the faithful fled from the local Churches and met in the desert. They did this because they knew that preserving their faith “whole and inviolate” was their primary duty in that time of crisis. Why? Because faith is the foundation of the supernatural life, and if we lose our faith, we lose our souls.

We are in a situation now that calls for drastic measures. The average Church (at least in America) is filled to the rim with modernism and liberalism (or worse).

St. Thomas teaches that “in the time of necessity there is no law”. The same principal is incorporated into Canon law, which is why the Church allows Catholics to receive the sacraments from heretics and/or schismatics in a case of necessity.

When the faith is being attacked from all sides (as it is today), it is necessary to take extraordinary measures to protect oneself.

Although most do not realize it, the SSPX has maintained the true, undiluted, faith. They still teach what the Church has always taught, and still reject the errors of liberalism and modernism that were condemned numerous times since the early 1800’s. For this they are persecuted and HATED.

The old Papal Encyclicals are the light needed to guide us safely through the darkness, and"grayness", of our confusing times.

If you want a list of encyclicals to read, just let me know and I will provide the links.

God Bless,

 

[Cat]

BobP123, you asked how much of this is covered in RCIA.

Good question. Not much. I think it should be. I guess they want to avoid a controversy, though.

We have a fantastic RCIA program in our parish, and I don’t remember any of this being covered. My husband has helped teach RCIA for the past two years, and he told me the simple definition that they give the classes now. But it’s very simple compared to all the information on this Board.

So I truly knew nothing when I asked the question. I kept seeing people toss the terms SSPX around and some other initials, and I wanted to know what they’re talking about. I knew that there were schismatic Catholic groups that aren’t really Catholic because they aren’t in communion with Rome.

I don’t know of any schismatic or SSPX or any groups like this in my city. I’m not sure if there are any in our diocese. Our Bishop runs a pretty tight ship here. A Catholic group tried to buy an old hospital to set up a “retreat center,” and our Bishop rallied the right people and this group didn’t get to buy the hospital, so they packed up and left.

All these groups make it really really hard to talk to Protestants about Catholicism. Several times I’ve talked to Protestants who said that they know a Catholic who says such and such. I tell them, “No, that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches.” Then they come back and say, “Well, my Catholic friend says you’re wrong, that’s what the Catholic Church teaches.”

So I feel like a fool and say, “OK” and walk away.

Now I wonder if maybe those Protestants are meeting up with people from these other Catholic groups. No wonder Protestants don’t know what Catholics teach. Catholics don’t know what we teach.

IMO, this isn’t good at all. Jesus’s prayer in John 17 is for oneness. If it’s confusing for Catholics like me to hear about all this in-fighting, it’s even worse for Protestants, and it gives them so much fuel for their anti-Catholic fire. I can’t use the argument anymore that “we’re one Church, and you’re fragmented,” because it sounds to me like we’re fragmented, too.

I don’t buy the argument that if the Pope is wrong, you follow the old ways. The Catechism talks about how the Church is dynamic and always maturing in the faith. Why would I want to go back in time to when the Church was younger and less mature in the faith and knowledge of Jesus?

Oh, well. What a mess. I still love being Catholic–plain old Catholic, safe under the authority of my local Bishop, who is under the authority of Pope Benedict XVI, who speaks for Jesus Christ. I figure I can’t go wrong.

 

[mdstanzel]

Cat, we have one of the top RCIA programs in the entire region. And we did cover this. Do you think I would honestly let them get out of covering something so controversal?


I wanted to make sure that my wife was not blind sided by this movement. She had to make the decision for herself without my pushing. Shoot I was pushing her in the wrong direction at first. I was more convince initially that the Orthodox Church was the “real” church until I discovered all of their issues. Then it became a matter of doctrine.

BTW: I’m reading Esllesia Dei right now and thought I’d put this link up. Was this ever rescinded?
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

To my untrained eye it clearly shows they are in schism. Go figure. Denial.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Several times I’ve talked to Protestants who said that they know a Catholic who says such and such. I tell them, “No, that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches.” Then they come back and say, “Well, my Catholic friend says you’re wrong, that’s what the Catholic Church teaches.”

So I feel like a fool and say, “OK” and walk away.

I’m curious, what are some of the things that these Protestants were told Catholics believe?

 

[mdstanzel]

I realize you question was pointed at Cat. But let me tell you what we taught and believed.

The Catholic Church will teach Catholics anything to get them to stay Catholic. The Pope wants their money that’s why he’ll allow all those gay priests and goofy people who don’t know anything about Jesus. It’s all about money and power. All those poor fools that think we’re going to hell when we all know that they’re going to hell for worshipping mary and praying to dead people. The only way the Catholic Church survives is by appealing to poor uneducated people that don’t have hope.

Pretty offensive. But that’s where all the rebellion takes us.

 

[BobP123]

BTW: I’m reading Esllesia Dei right now and thought I’d put this link up. Was this ever rescinded?
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

I hope you’re referring to this DECREE.

1. Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my Apostolic Authority I decree the following:

a) a Commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Mons. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions, in the light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Mons. Lefebvre;

b) this Commission is composed of a Cardinal President and other members of the Roman Curia, in a number that will be deemed opportune according to circumstances;

c) moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.

I don’t know if c) was ever fully implemented according to the decree.

 

[mdstanzel]

1. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law./

1. c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. **Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(**8)

This should be a compelling arguement, but for anyone that denies the authority of the Pope, what do you say - Protestant?

BTW: Is there such a Religion as the “Latin Mass Catholic”? Is that some kind of Eastern Orthodox group that speaks Latin? Sorry Fr. Ambrose. Just kidding.

 

[Walking_Home]

I hope you’re referring to this DECREE.
c) moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.

I don’t know if c) was ever fully implemented according to the decree.

---

Well----I can tell you the nearest indult TLM is approx. a 3 hr drive one way from me.

 

[bear06]

I know a number of SSPX couples who started attending the FSSP and were not required to have their marriages sanated.

Sorry but they might not even know they were sanated. Radical sanation doesn’t require the permission or even knowledge of the parties.

Can. 1164 A sanation can be granted validly even if either or both of the parties do not know of it; nevertheless, it is not to be granted except for a grave cause.

It basically involves a proverbial wave of the hand. Usually radical sanations are done for schismatic groups returning. It would be impossible to track them all down and re-marry them all upon return.

Also, I know some like to quote articles as official curial statements but here is a statement directly from Ecclesia Dei on the matters of the SSPX wedding and confession. Hopefully it will be taken at least with the same weight as a quote from an article.

The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid.

latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm

 

[jmj603]

I have a question for you: What would you sau y if high ranking churchmen (even the Pope) began to teach things that were explicitly condemned repeatedly by previous Popes?

How is the subject of religious liberty different from that of charging interest?

What is the reason for this change in the attitude of the Church towards the exaction of interest? As may be more fully seen in the article USURY, this differece is due to economical circumstances. The price of goods is regulated by common valuation, and the latter by the utility that their possession ordinarily brings in a given centre. Now, today, otherwise than formerly, one can commonly employ one’s money fruitfully, at least by putting it into a syndicate. Hence, today, the mere possession of money means a certain value. Whoever hands over this possession can claim in return this value. Thus it is that one acts in demanding an interest.

Surely the change in the political situation resulting from the collapse of the sacral state and the globalization of communications in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries is similar in scope to the change in the economic situation the caused the Church to change its attitude toward the charging of interest, is it not? Surely it is not now prudent to impose, or even advocate publicly, anywhere in the world, a ban on public worship by non-Catholics?

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
5. c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)

This should be a compelling arguement, but for anyone that denies the authority of the Pope, what do you say - Protestant?

BTW: Is there such a Religion as the “Latin Mass Catholic”? Is that some kind of Eastern Orthodox group that speaks Latin? Sorry Fr. Ambrose. Just kidding.

---

Let me then ask you----since the Orthodox are still in schism (separated from the Church)----do you consider them “protestant” and a grave offense against God.

 

[BobP123]

---

Well----I can tell you the nearest indult TLM is approx. a 3 hr drive one way from me.

I would think that 19 years is more than enough time for an decree from the Vatican to be carried out. Maybe the whole decree was rescinded without anyone knowing it?

 

[bear06]

And yes, they did ask.

They might have asked the wrong person then. Plus, radical sanation doesn’t necessarily carry with it paperwork or formality. Again, it doesn’t even need the knowledge of both parties. It’s enough for the Pope to say that anyone returning from SSPX’s marriage is sanated.

 

[AlexV]

Sanatio in radice is not a private act. It carries documentation.

These things don’t happen secretly.

The matter of marriage is always a complicated one in Canon Law, and usually only answerable on a case by case basis.