Status of the SSPX

[Scarlet]

I know a family that chooses going to SSPX masses rather than the indult Tridentine masses even though both exist in the same general area. I asked my friend why and she told me that the reason they choose to stay with the SSPX is because of it’s consistency. It doesn’t switch from pre-Vatican II to post Vatican II. That it is totally committed to pre-Vatican II catholicism.

I don’t know too much about the Tridentine mass verses the NO mass since I’ve only been to two indults, but it seems that some people need more catholic spirituality in their lives to nourish their spirits and are attracted to the Tridentine mass. Whether that justifies going to SSPX masses is another matter I would guess.

In Christ,
Scarlet

 

[dumspirospero]

I agree…let me first say I prefer the TLM, but I would never go to an SSPX Mass…they are in fact in Schism…their priests and Bishop have had their faculties revoked…what is weird is that people who claim to be true to the Catholic Church’s teachings fail to recognize a Council such as VII as being Ex Cathedra, guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore infallible. A denial of such is a denial of the teachings of The Catholic Church.

ByzCath:

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.

 

[Exporter]

Defensor Fidei:

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.

---

Defensor Fidei, You say the tabernacle was NEVER in the center in the first place. I do not know why you said that.

During the 40s the tabernacle was in the center of the altar all over Texas. Then I started traveling (USAF) all the following had the tabernacle in the center -Denver, Washington D.C., Corona, CA , Riverside, CA ,de Capistrano, CA : on into the 60s we saw the tabernacle in the center of the altar in Baton Rouge,LA , Houston,Texas , Austin, Texas , Corpus Christi, Texas and Brownsville, Texas. In all these places the tabernacle was in the center of the altar. So I do not know why Defensor Fidei says it was never in the center. It was in the center. How do I know? I was there, I saw it and now I speak. Maybe DF is a young man and never saw what I saw.

 

[katolik]

And every Orthodox hierarch is his own Pope. Yet they are right? Never.
I have a question for you. Why do some Greek Catholics and all Orthodox insist on rejecting the filioque in the Creed? It’s only a discipline…
Or perhaps the “nonschismatic Orthodox” could teach you about how the Catholic Church rejected Christianity and became heretics?

ByzCath:

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?

 

[katolik]

“Unam,Sanctam,Catholicam,et Apostlicam Ecclesiam”

It is One,Holy,Catholic,Catholic,Catholic, and Apostolic Church not one Holy Church divided into the Russian,Greek,Romanian, Serbian,Polish,Czech,Rusyn,Antiochan,Assyrian churches under their patriarchs.

ByzCath:

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.

 

[romeishome]

Lets just take a look at the Apostolic Letter “Ecclesia Dei” issued by our Supremem Pontiff John Paul II:

Ecclesia Dei[/I]

]

1. With great afflicition the Chuch has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June las by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Msgr. Lefebvre. These efforts, especiall intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.
2. This affliction was particularly felt by the Successor Peter to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of Church, even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few. For every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the Cross for the salvation of all. The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective, in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted, provide everyone with and occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to His Church.
3. In itself, this act was one of DISOBEDIENCE to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supremem importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is scramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobendeience–which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy–consitutes a SCHISMATIC ACT. 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, Msgr. 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 ecclisastical law…"

So, really there is nothing to talk about! The SSPX is a Schismatic Church that is really no better than the Anglicans, Lutherans, Old Catholics and the like! When Archbishop Lefebvre ordained against the express orders of the Holy See he caused a split from the True Church! He caused a split from the TRADITIONAL CHURCH! He did something very **PROTESTANT **in nature! Because he protested the fact that the Pope had ordered these ordinations NOT TO TAKE PLACE! He snubbed his nose at the Holy Roman Pontiff and made himself into a Pope!
His action is no better than that of King Henry VIII, or Martin Luther…actually it is worse, because he and the SSPX that he founded go on as a Rogue Church that pretendes to be part of the Church of Rome!

I would like to recommend that everyone read the Book:

More Catholic Than The Pope: An Inside Look At Extreme Traditionalism

written by Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere. You can get it through Catholic Answers. It answers many of the tough questions concerning SSPX and other schismatic “traditionalist” sects.

Blessings,

Cody

 

[katolik]

romeishome:

Lets just take a look at the Apostolic Letter “Ecclesia Dei” issued by our Supremem Pontiff John Paul II:

So, really there is nothing to talk about! The SSPX is a Schismatic Church that is really no better than the Anglicans, Lutherans, Old Catholics and the like! When Archbishop Lefebvre ordained against the express orders of the Holy See he caused a split from the True Church! He caused a split from the TRADITIONAL CHURCH! He did something very **PROTESTANT **in nature! Because he protested the fact that the Pope had ordered these ordinations NOT TO TAKE PLACE! He snubbed his nose at the Holy Roman Pontiff and made himself into a Pope!
His action is no better than that of King Henry VIII, or Martin Luther…actually it is worse, because he and the SSPX that he founded go on as a Rogue Church that pretendes to be part of the Church of Rome!

I would like to recommend that everyone read the Book:

More Catholic Than The Pope: An Inside Look At Extreme Traditionalism

written by Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere. You can get it through Catholic Answers. It answers many of the tough questions concerning SSPX and other schismatic “traditionalist” sects.

Blessings,

Cody

And please tell me who is the SSPX’s antipope?
Pope John Paul II of Rome

 

[romeishome]

And please tell me who is the Anglicans antipope? Or how about the Lutherans?..Oh, oh, and what about the “Old Catholics”, or the ect, ect…Your question makes no sense! Just like Luther thought he knew more than the Pope, or at least as much as the Pope, and just like our friend King Henry VIII thought he was the “protector of the faith”…so does Archbishop Lefebvre proclaim himself (maybe not with words, but with actions) that he knows just as much as the Pope, and that he has the authority to ordain even though he was ORDERED by Rome to cease and desist!

The SSPX is in the ranks with all of these groups!

Your question makes no sense…



SSPX is schismatic, it is not in commuion with Rome!

I join today in the prayer of Jesus~~~~That we All be one!

All the Holy Saints of God~~ Pray for us!

God bless you and Mary keep you,

Cody

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

katolik:

And every Orthodox hierarch is his own Pope. Yet they are right? Never.
I have a question for you. Why do some Greek Catholics and all Orthodox insist on rejecting the filioque in the Creed? It’s only a discipline…
Or perhaps the “nonschismatic Orthodox” could teach you about how the Catholic Church rejected Christianity and became heretics?

I do not know why you are fixated on the Orthodox Church other than using it as a red herring to shift the focus onto something else.

I must also add, the Orthodox are not heretics as they were never Catholics to begin with. That and the Church does not call them heretics. But then you have lifted yourself as the authority over what the Church teaches so I can understand why you would think this.

 

[Catholic29]

romeishome:

Lets just take a look at the Apostolic Letter “Ecclesia Dei” issued by our Supremem Pontiff John Paul II:

So, really there is nothing to talk about! The SSPX is a Schismatic Church that is really no better than the Anglicans, Lutherans, Old Catholics and the like! When Archbishop Lefebvre ordained against the express orders of the Holy See he caused a split from the True Church! He caused a split from the TRADITIONAL CHURCH! He did something very **PROTESTANT **in nature! Because he protested the fact that the Pope had ordered these ordinations NOT TO TAKE PLACE! He snubbed his nose at the Holy Roman Pontiff and made himself into a Pope!
His action is no better than that of King Henry VIII, or Martin Luther…actually it is worse, because he and the SSPX that he founded go on as a Rogue Church that pretendes to be part of the Church of Rome!

I would like to recommend that everyone read the Book:

More Catholic Than The Pope: An Inside Look At Extreme Traditionalism

written by Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere. You can get it through Catholic Answers. It answers many of the tough questions concerning SSPX and other schismatic “traditionalist” sects.

Blessings,

Cody

Thanks romeishome, I sure will read it.

The SSPX/Lefebvrites claim to recognize the primacy of John Paul II, while in all practicality they deny his universal jurisdiction. To them it seems the authority of the papacy and Vatican II are merely symbolic and not actual. As reverent as their Masses are, they have a warped understanding of tradition when it comes to the role of councils and the papacy in the Catholic Church. And in that regard they ironically refuse to accept tradition, just as all other protestants and schismatic “traditionalists” have to this day.

And I am not denying the existence of liberalism or other forms of heterodoxy in the Church today, its just that we have a moral obligation to proclaim the truth, as much as it hurts. God Bless…

 

[TNT]

I’m still trying to get "morally IMPEDED"
Anyone? I’ll even consider a rediculous answer as long as it includes “IMPEDED”.

The best I’ve heard so far is : if the NOM priest molested me or mine. (Not my neighbor, though?)

finally:
From Catholic29:

The SSPX/Lefebvrites …

Is there a difference in SSPX and “lefebvrites” ? Or is it redundant?

 

[bear06]

I’m still trying to get "morally IMPEDED"
Anyone? I’ll even consider a rediculous answer as long as it includes “IMPEDED”.

The best I’ve heard so far is : if the NOM priest molested me or mine. (Not my neighbor, though?)

finally:
From Catholic29:

Is there a difference in SSPX and “lefebvrites” ? Or is it redundant?

Since you’re willing to accept the ridiculous (it’s only ridiculous because I’m not a valid authority here)…I’d have to say that way that you could be morally impeded would probably be that there is no other valid (not just licit or illicit) masses which you can attend in your area.

 

[katolik]

ByzCath:

I do not know why you are fixated on the Orthodox Church other than using it as a red herring to shift the focus onto something else.

I must also add, the Orthodox are not heretics as they were never Catholics to begin with. That and the Church does not call them heretics. But then you have lifted yourself as the authority over what the Church teaches so I can understand why you would think this.

Every man is a Catholic when he is baptized in the name of the Trinity. He only becomes a heretic when he accepts those heresies after his age of reason.

The case of convert already baptized differs entirely in principle. He has once been a Catholic. He became so when he was baptized, no matter who baptized him or where.
from Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described p.421
14th Edition 2003

 

[TNT]

bear06:

Since you’re willing to accept the ridiculous (it’s only ridiculous because I’m not a valid authority here)…I’d have to say that way that you could be morally impeded would probably be that there is no other valid (not just licit or illicit) masses which you can attend in your area.

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.

Your definition would certainly fall under physically, but not Morally. But, thanks for the effort.
I’m thinking about a rare occasion where all the NOM’s this sunday will be in celebration of “clowns” week. And, they all decide to have clown masses. That might go on to Morally Crippling, but how would that be? Or should we clown around regardless?
I don’t mean to address only clowns…it could be “split-top butter wheat bread” or “easter egg host” week…yummy.

 

[katolik]

The SSPX isn’t Protestant. Fr.Levis of EWTN… says so…

Then please tell me why no one calls Catholics schismatics?
If the SSPX were true schismatics they would set up a parallel hierarchy in place of the Catholic Church’s. Like when the “Orthodox” set up diocese with out the Pope’s permission. Has the SSPX set up any separate dioceses?

romeishome:

And please tell me who is the Anglicans antipope? Or how about the Lutherans?..Oh, oh, and what about the “Old Catholics”, or the ect, ect…Your question makes no sense! Just like Luther thought he knew more than the Pope, or at least as much as the Pope, and just like our friend King Henry VIII thought he was the “protector of the faith”…so does Archbishop Lefebvre proclaim himself (maybe not with words, but with actions) that he knows just as much as the Pope, and that he has the authority to ordain even though he was ORDERED by Rome to cease and desist!

The SSPX is in the ranks with all of these groups!

Your question makes no sense…



SSPX is schismatic, it is not in commuion with Rome!

I join today in the prayer of Jesus~~~~That we All be one!

All the Holy Saints of God~~ Pray for us!

God bless you and Mary keep you,

Cody

 

[kmktexas]

TNT:

Your definition would certainly fall under physically, but not Morally. But, thanks for the effort.
I’m thinking about a rare occasion where all the NOM’s this sunday will be in celebration of “clowns” week. And, they all decide to have clown masses. That might go on to Morally Crippling, but how would that be? Or should we clown around regardless?
I don’t mean to address only clowns…it could be “split-top butter wheat bread” or “easter egg host” week…yummy.

Even then, wouldn’t you be trading one “illicit” but valid Mass for another illicit but valid Mass.

The examples I thought of were if the only approved Mass that one could attend used invalid matter for the Consecration or was one where the priest changed the words of the Consecration. In this case you would be trading a “highly illicit and probably invalid”
Mass for one that was vaid but illicit.

Another case of morally impeded might be a teen who had to chose between obeying his or her SSPX-attending parents and attending an “approved” Mass without permission.

TNT, any better?

 

[Catholic29]

I’m still trying to get "morally IMPEDED"
Anyone? I’ll even consider a rediculous answer as long as it includes “IMPEDED”.

The best I’ve heard so far is : if the NOM priest molested me or mine. (Not my neighbor, though?)

finally:
From Catholic29:

Is there a difference in SSPX and “lefebvrites” ? Or is it redundant?

SSPX and Lefebvrite = One and the same.

I also believe the term Lefebvrite is a more apropriate term to describe the SSPX. As it has been thoroughly documented that it is just one more of the many break away splinter groups in Christianity(such as Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism etc) in spite of their spurious claims of obedience to the Roman Pontiff. Though I do pray daily for their eventual reconciliation with Rome and authentic tradition.

If you need further authoritative documentation for this assertion, look no further than Jan Wakelin’s response in this post forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38 which includes this link to the watershed document on the Vatican’s official site vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

Pray every day for truth to prevail in the hearts of men.

 

[Fogny]

Catholic29:

SSPX and Lefebvrite = One and the same.

I also believe the term Lefebvrite is a more apropriate term to describe the SSPX. As it has been thoroughly documented that it is just one more of the many break away splinter groups in Christianity(such as Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism etc) in spite of their spurious claims of obedience to the Roman Pontiff. Though I do pray daily for their eventual reconciliation with Rome and authentic tradition.

If you need further authoritative documentation for this assertion, look no further than Jan Wakelin’s response in this post forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38 which includes this link to the watershed document on the Vatican’s official site vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

Pray every day for truth to prevail in the hearts of men.

I point out that Luther,Cramner, and other Schismatics who are “Protestants” denied the real presence of Christ in the Euchurist as their Heresy was believing only in a spiritual communion as in “spiritual drink” which was condemed by the Council of Trent. The SSPX have never commited that heresy.
The ICEL cannot claim that.

Fogny

 

[bear06]

Your definition would certainly fall under physically, but not Morally. But, thanks for the effort.

I don’t think it would because you would be physically impeded if there were no other churches period. You could attend an invalid mass but you wouldn’t do so because you were morally impeded, not physically.

 

[bear06]

If the SSPX were true schismatics they would set up a parallel hierarchy in place of the Catholic Church’s.

That’s not the definition of schism. I’m sure you’ve seen this before but here goes again:

schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]

It’s not that hard to fall into schism. You don’t have to fully remove your submission either. Full or partial is schism.