Status of the SSPX

[JNB]

Technically, the last version of the Tridentine mass was the 65 missal, and that missal in of itself was just a modification of the 62 missal. That said, by the time the 65 missal was near its end , in 1970, in the US at least, there was the option of 4 Eucharistic prayers, most parishes had mass in the vernacular with the priest facing the people, laymen were reading the epistle, and a majority of parishes by then were standing for communion, and this was missal was still at its core the Tridentine mass. A missal alone wont solve the problems the church faces.
Defensor Fidei:

It make plenty of sense. If the Tridentine Mass is supposed to be the panacea to all our problems, then we should also note that the people who have caused the trouble we are in now, only knew of the Tridentine Mass when they were coming up with all these ideas.

Our semninaries were loaded with homosexuals well before Paul VI’s Missal came out. The majority of the priests in my diocese were all ordained before 1968, yet we have all these problems. It is easy to pin the blame on the NO and Vatican II, but the truth is that if the Tridentine Mass is the universal cure, look how well it worked 40 years ago.

-Ted

 

[katherine2]

katolik:

The Novus Ordo Mass was forced on Catholics in about 5 years over the Traditional Mass and it eradicated almost all other rites. Not like Pope Pius V’s Quo Primum which allowed others to use their venerable rites.

Two points should be remembered.

1. Was the renewal forced on tthe Church? Some people certainly prefered the former rites but the vast majority welcomed the liturigacal renewal.
2. Quo Primum never gave individuals the right to retain a previous form based on preference. Whole communities that had a partiuclar rite could retain that right. Quo Primum never allowed two different Mass orders to exist in the same community or parish.

 

[pgoings]

it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or** morally impeded**

Where may I find a definition of “morally impeded?” Also, who makes this determination?

–Paul

 

[bear06]

pgoings:

Where may I find a definition of “morally impeded?” Also, who makes this determination?

–Paul

I can’t tell you the exact answer on this one but I can tell you that in relationship to SSPX, morally impeded isn’t evokable here.
Here’s a letter from Msgr. Perl jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex2.htm#windsor

The quote from it below shows that “morally impeded” doesn’t fly.

The Masses they celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2 ). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called “Tridentine” Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Defensor Fidei:

They can call themselves anything they want, what is really troubling is many Catholics think that they were originally sanctioned as a Priestly Society, which they never were and never had been. ABL continually not only ignored Rome, but also open and notoriusly opposed Rome at every chance he had.

-Ted

Ted,
I see your point now. When the SSPX was originally formed it was done as a “pious union of the faithful” on an experimental basis. Now, if they would have been faithful they may have been granted permanent status and quite possibily have been changed into a priestly society, but as they went into schism and their leaders were excommunicated, we will never know.

With this in mind I find BulldogCath’s idea of…

BulldogCath:

The solution to this problem is quite simple-and I think I have seen this on other Catholic websites so excuse my plagerism-make the TLM mass one of the masses offered in each Parish each and every Sunday-this would make all happy and then Goodbye SSPX and my family and I would not be arguing every Holiday over Turkey dinner whether the Trads are correct or the Novus Ordo are a fake and invalid Mass and I would get to eat dinner without a lump in my throat.

I do not think the SSPX would go away. There are places where the TLM is taking place but the SSPX is still there. If what you suggest happens I still believe that many will not go. Then the cry will be that the Mass of the Catholic Church is invalid, as we have seen suggested here by certain rad-Trads.

They deny the Mass, they deny the “new” rite of ordination, they have issues with Vatican II. They will stay around even if the Vatican says that it is the right of every priest to say the TLM (which I doubt will ever happen).

The SSPX is about power and authority, it is not about obedience and the Church.

 

[pgoings]

The quote from it below shows that “morally impeded” doesn’t fly.

I do not believe that you are correct. The letter does say that the unavailability of a licit Tridentine Mass is not a sufficient motive for assisting at an S.S.P.X. Mass. However, nowhere does it state or imply that there are not other circumstances which could create a moral impediment (however that is properly defined).

May I suggest a possible example? There is a town with a Catholic church and an S.S.P.X. chapel. There is woman whose son has recently been molested by the priest of the Catholic church. Is this a sufficient moral impediment? May she assist at Mass at the S.S.P.X. chapel?

Again, where may an authoritative definition of “morally impeded” be found? Canon 844.2 cannot be solely related to the lack of Tridentine Masses, so what else constitutes a legitimate moral impediment? Who arbitrates the legitimacy?

–Paul

 

[TNT]

ByzCath:

Ted,
I do not think the SSPX would go away. There are places where the TLM is taking place but the SSPX is still there. If what you suggest happens I still believe that many will not go. Then the cry will be that the Mass of the Catholic Church is invalid, as we have seen suggested here by certain rad-Trads.

They deny the Mass, they deny the “new” rite of ordination, they have issues with Vatican II. They will stay around even if the Vatican says that it is the right of every priest to say the TLM (which I doubt will ever happen).

** The SSPX is about power and authority**, it is not about obedience and the Church.

The only way the SSPX can thrive is to have a community of laity who sponsor it. The laity are not into POWER or AUTHORITY. So, at least for the supporters that keep it going, that would not be true.
They simply are bent on maintaining the disciplines and doctrine of the Church teachings prior to VatII.
Their big problem is with 3 documents of VatII:

1. Document on the Liturgy.
2. Document on Religious Freedom. vs Mortalium Animos
3. Lumen Gentium (Subsists in vs IS as Pius XII stated)
   In addition:
4. Ambiguities of the New Catechism
5. New Canon law allowing what was always disallowed
6. New rites of the Sacraments

So, with all these areas, it’s pretty plain that NO reunion will occur UNLESS the SSPX dissolves itself, because the Church has irrevocably made its position in Council and the subsequent documents. Since the laity is just as adament as the religious, and both are in a growth pattern, the SSPX will not dissolve itself.

I do not see any possibility of reunion short of a cataclysmic event. I feel the same about the Orthodox.
If the VATII church is to seek any victory, it will have to be through near individual persuasion of the laity in both groups.

 

[katolik]

katherine2:

Two points should be remembered.

1. Was the renewal forced on tthe Church? Some people certainly prefered the former rites but the vast majority welcomed the liturigacal renewal.
2. Quo Primum never gave individuals the right to retain a previous form based on preference. Whole communities that had a partiuclar rite could retain that right. Quo Primum never allowed two different Mass orders to exist in the same community or parish.

Madame:
I have had enough testimony to tell you that point 1 is false. Please don’t tell me what you told people in 1965.

1. The Tridentine Mass wasn’t allowed in most[99.9%] of parishes after Vatican II. Have you ever heard of the priests who were condemned for saying the Traditional Latin Mass from 1969-1988?

 

[TNT]

pgoings:

Where may I find a definition of “morally impeded?” Also, who makes this determination?

–Paul

I do agree. That is a really peculiar phrase. Maybe Kath2 could explain it.
Every time I get “morally impeded” I have to go to Confession.
Maybe it means…if you cannot morally conform your conscience to the NOM??
After all, the conscience is the overriding criteria in the
DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE

 

[Fogny]

katherine2:

Two points should be remembered.

1. Was the renewal forced on tthe Church? Some people certainly prefered the former rites but the vast majority welcomed the liturigacal renewal.
2. Quo Primum never gave individuals the right to retain a previous form based on preference. Whole communities that had a partiuclar rite could retain that right. Quo Primum never allowed two different Mass orders to exist in the same community or parish.

So what exactly are you saying, that the rite of mass prior to V2 should be abolished?
So that Catholics are denied a Rite that endured for almost 2000 years, and was free from all error.
If in 40 years a New liturgy can be purified as in 2000 years remains unaswered.

Fogny

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

JNB:

Technically, the last version of the Tridentine mass was the 65 missal, and that missal in of itself was just a modification of the 62 missal. That said, by the time the 65 missal was near its end , in 1970, in the US at least, there was the option of 4 Eucharistic prayers, most parishes had mass in the vernacular with the priest facing the people, laymen were reading the epistle, and a majority of parishes by then were standing for communion, and this was missal was still at its core the Tridentine mass. A missal alone wont solve the problems the church faces.

Standing for communion did not begin around here till about 1980.
I live in the largest Archdiocese of the US.

-Ted

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

Can. 844 §2 - Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Scroll down about half way to see an article by Peter Vere that explains morally Illicit

Can. 844 §2 – Can a Catholic Approach a SSPX Priest for the Sacraments?

 

[dumspirospero]

WEll…it really doesn’t matter whether or not they were sanctioned as a PS or not…the fact remains, that once Lefebrve (sp??) is dead…no more priests will be able to be ordained…because he is the only Bishop…and it takes 3 Bishops to ordain another Bishop…and that is something they don’t have…and as we know, it takes a Bishop to ordain Priest…so without validly Ordained Bishops…their claim to Apostolic Succession is null and void…and they will fall to the wayside as did Luther and all of his cohorts…I am a big fan of the FSSP myself…it was a handful of SSPX Priests that left the SSPX and started a Priestly Fraternity that is in Full Communion with Rome…I am discerning a call to the FSSP…I prefer the TLM over the Novus Ordo…and I take offense to the slanderous claims of the original poster against the people who prefer and attend the TLM…We are not destroying the Church…reverance for the Old Mass is not a sin…and to say such is fallaccious. I am not in the business of pointing fingers, but to be honest…I have seen more harm from people trying to interject protestantism into the mass than I have ever seen from good ole Traditional Catholics who just don’t understand why the Mass that has been around for Centuries all of a sudden added inclusive language and seems to be an appeasement for protestant sympathizers. That is just my honest observation…but I love and attend both Masses…I am just impartial to the TLM.
Defensor Fidei:

They can call themselves anything they want, what is really troubling is many Catholics think that they were originally sanctioned as a Priestly Society, which they never were and never had been. ABL continually not only ignored Rome, but also open and notoriusly opposed Rome at every chance he had.

-Ted

 

[dumspirospero]

Just a response to quote that was in your post…THeir MASSES ARE NOT VALID…when a Priest/Bishop are in Schism, their faculties have been revoked, and therefore they are not able to administer the sacraments…therefore, the Masses are not valid.

bear06:

I can’t tell you the exact answer on this one but I can tell you that in relationship to SSPX, morally impeded isn’t evokable here.
Here’s a letter from Msgr. Perl jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex2.htm#windsor

The quote from it below shows that “morally impeded” doesn’t fly.

 

[dumspirospero]

In my Diocese…we have an Indult TLM at St. Agnes…but there is also an SSPX Church…Our Lady of Sorrows…so my diocese is living proof that even if you have an Indult TLM, an SSPX Parish will still rear its ugly head…and they put ads out in the papers saying things such as “Come join the ‘True’ Roman Catholic Church”, etc., etc., yada yada…

ByzCath:

Ted,
I see your point now. When the SSPX was originally formed it was done as a “pious union of the faithful” on an experimental basis. Now, if they would have been faithful they may have been granted permanent status and quite possibily have been changed into a priestly society, but as they went into schism and their leaders were excommunicated, we will never know.

With this in mind I find BulldogCath’s idea of…

I do not think the SSPX would go away. There are places where the TLM is taking place but the SSPX is still there. If what you suggest happens I still believe that many will not go. Then the cry will be that the Mass of the Catholic Church is invalid, as we have seen suggested here by certain rad-Trads.

They deny the Mass, they deny the “new” rite of ordination, they have issues with Vatican II. They will stay around even if the Vatican says that it is the right of every priest to say the TLM (which I doubt will ever happen).

The SSPX is about power and authority, it is not about obedience and the Church.

 

[pgoings]

Scroll down about half way to see an article by Peter Vere that explains** morally Illicit**

Yes, he does.

However, that was not my question. Canon 844.2 speaks of something being “morally impossible;” Msgr. Perl’s letter uses the expression “morally impeded” when referencing the same Canon. It was that term which I wish to have an authoritative definition of.

–Paul

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

TNT:

The only way the SSPX can thrive is to have a community of laity who sponsor it. The laity are not into POWER or AUTHORITY. So, at least for the supporters that keep it going, that would not be true.
They simply are bent on maintaining the disciplines and doctrine of the Church teachings prior to VatII.

You are wrong, it is about power and authority. They have raised themselves up as their own Pope. They deny a council of the Church.

Doesn’t matter if they like it or not, it was a council of the Church.

Yes the SSPX needs the laity, but the laity choose to follow the SSPX rather than the Church and the Holy Father.

The Old Catholics did the samething. They chose to maintain the disciplines and doctrines of the Church teachings prior to Vatican I.

Now I have a question for you. How is it maintaining Church teaching by denying a council and saying that the Holy Father can not change disicipline?

 

[BulldogCath]

Byz

With due respect-you are being quite judgemental and quite abusive in your tone towards these people. I was going to have friends and family join this discussion, some of whom are traditional catholics who do attend SSPV and SSPX and other independents-and talks as such would just make them feel worse about the present state of liberalism within the “New Church” as they call it.

If anyone here spoke this way about the Jews-who have done harm to us-or the Protestants who put us in chaos for a century or so- you neve would because you are pounded by the church to reach out to them-But trads are treated by the church like leppers-I was watching EWTN last evening with the new Bishop of I think it was Arizona- and someone asked him why he does not put the tabernacle back into the middle-and the Bishop tapdanced like Sammy Davis around this question and blabbed about the year of the eucharist and then some-but never answering the question-and even said how great the seminaries are-and Father Pacwa was looking at him like what? At least with the traditionals, you know where they stand

ByzCath:

Ted,
I see your point now. When the SSPX was originally formed it was done as a “pious union of the faithful” on an experimental basis. Now, if they would have been faithful they may have been granted permanent status and quite possibily have been changed into a priestly society, but as they went into schism and their leaders were excommunicated, we will never know.

With this in mind I find BulldogCath’s idea of…

I do not think the SSPX would go away. There are places where the TLM is taking place but the SSPX is still there. If what you suggest happens I still believe that many will not go. Then the cry will be that the Mass of the Catholic Church is invalid, as we have seen suggested here by certain rad-Trads.

They deny the Mass, they deny the “new” rite of ordination, they have issues with Vatican II. They will stay around even if the Vatican says that it is the right of every priest to say the TLM (which I doubt will ever happen).

The SSPX is about power and authority, it is not about obedience and the Church.

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

BulldogCath:

I was watching EWTN last evening with the new Bishop of I think it was Arizona- and someone asked him why he does not put the tabernacle back into the middle

It was never in the middle in the first place. Having the tabernacle in the center of the altar table is not standard, never has been, never will be. When you go to Europe you will see multiple tabernacles in the basillicas in side chapels. This is not because of tourism. Just those of us old enough here who grew up with tabernacle prensent on the altar or table behind the altar, have some crazy idea that this is a long standing tradition. The tabernacle in and of itself has not been around forever either.

So to ask to put it back is really not accurate.

-Ted

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

BulldogCath:

Byz

With due respect-you are being quite judgemental and quite abusive in your tone towards these people. I was going to have friends and family join this discussion, some of whom are traditional catholics who do attend SSPV and SSPX and other independents-and talks as such would just make them feel worse about the present state of liberalism within the “New Church” as they call it.

Speaking the truth is not judgemental nor abusive.

It is a fact that the SSPX is in schism and its bishops are excommunicated.

To say that they are just “maintaining the disciplines and doctrine of the Church teachings prior to VatII” as TNT attempts to do is wrong.

They do not attempt to keep any disciplines or doctrine of the Church teachings when they deny a council and deny that the Pope has the power to change disciplines.

What the SSPX have done is no different than what the Old Catholics did after Vatican I.

I am sorry that you have friends and family members who have left the Church to go to the SSPX, but I will pray for them.