Status of the SSPX

[bear06]

Sean O L:

More on the Status of the SSPX with reference to Count Capponi, Fr. Murray, etc. - those contained in the SSPX’s glossy brochure - in
One of the SSPX Lies Examined - Rome Speaks in re Murray

Thanks for the dossier on the subject. I’m still at a loss to understand why people would continually use sources that use outright lies and distortions such as traditio.com, etc. I guess I can understand. It’s the common brainwashing technique that if you say it enough it will be true.

 

[katolik]

1976, June Against Lefebvre’s intention, substituting on behalf of the Vatican Secretariat of State, Mgr. Benelli sent Mgr. Amborio Marchioni, the Papal Nuncio at Berne, the following instruction:

%between%

THE BISHOP SPEAKS, Louis Vezelis O.F.M.

I wonder if that man is a bishop. You know he is a sedevacantist?

 

[Sean_O_L]

katolic wrote:

:
Originally Posted by Sean O L
1976, June Against Lefebvre’s intention, substituting on behalf of the Vatican Secretariat of State, Mgr. Benelli sent Mgr. Amborio Marchioni, the Papal Nuncio at Berne, the following instruction:

THE BISHOP SPEAKS, Louis Vezelis O.F.M.

I wonder if that man is a bishop. You know he is a sedevacantist?

Wonder no longer mate: see where I identify him among the sedevacantists HERE

Question:
Do I regard all sedevacantists to be liars all of the time? Or, do I regard them of being totally unable to convey snippets of truth?

Answer:
No!

Comment: It so happens that I accept what I have quoted as being “worthy of credence.” Do you have a problem with that?

Further comment: Why! I even quote the SSPX approvingly (when it is deserved) as well as disprovingly (when that is deserved)!

Just for fun, you might like to read what else I think of sedevacantist Thucites

A Chronology on The Little Pebble’s Thucite Connection

I have yet to update this file with the information that “The Little Pebble” now has two Thucite “Bishops”, and the fact that nineteen men (including some married men) have been “ordained” to the priesthood for this sect.

The fact is that, as with the other Thucites, whatever may be said of the validity, the vatican will regard them as remaining in the same state they were in prior to their “consecrations”/“ordinations”.

Ireland’s Bp. Pat Buckley

 

[DiStefano]

The tone and demeanor of this post is disturbing and deeply sad. Compassion is not only pity but a call to action to correct that which causes this Schism. Here, is an opportunity, truly ecumenical, to call our brothers home. The Holy See has lifted the excommunication applying to the Orthodox, how much more should it be applied to the SSPX who recognize the seat of Peter.
I love the Latin Mass; it unites me with my past and connects me to -od and the liturgy in a way that reminds me that we are a People within “one holy catholic and apostolic church”. We need to educate our children about what makes our covenant so special and why the mass is a sacrifice. The Latin mass is a wonder expression and step toward unifying -od’s church.

 

[BulldogCath]

I agree totally-we need to reinstitute the TLM-instead of limiting it and banning it as many many parishes and diocese have done-out of fear in my opinion. Once the TLM starts to be more common-people will start to question all of the other changes-and that will scare the pants off of the Vatican. When Pope JPII in 1988 allowed the limited use of the TLM-read the words carefully that he used-he talks about people “still attached to the Latin Mass” and he goes on-but it really is not the “old people”, as many of them are products of the 60’s and 70’s and many have accepted the NO Mass-the people that are at the forefront of the Traditional revolution are the 30-50 year old persons-who are having children of their own, and want to see structure and reverence brought back to the church and it’s catechism and not see what happened to the drug filled generations of the past with 50% divorce rates, homosexuality now out in the open, and if not accepted you are homophobic, AIDS, premarital sex, single parent homes, and all the rest which are a product of poor poor cathechism, teaching, and the loss of the fear of God, as we no longer fear the consequences of our own actions. Yes-we are supposed to fear God -then Love Him, our of our fear we are to Love him (check your Cathechism, at least it is in my Baltimore Cathechism). All the past generations were taught is Love Love Love that God is all Love, God Loves you-yes he does Love you-but he is also a God that will punish-and we are supposed to fear him, and the NO mass is all about Love and the sermons are all bubble gum and candy

DiStefano:

The tone and demeanor of this post is disturbing and deeply sad. Compassion is not only pity but a call to action to correct that which causes this Schism. Here, is an opportunity, truly ecumenical, to call our brothers home. The Holy See has lifted the excommunication applying to the Orthodox, how much more should it be applied to the SSPX who recognize the seat of Peter.
I love the Latin Mass; it unites me with my past and connects me to -od and the liturgy in a way that reminds me that we are a People within “one holy catholic and apostolic church”. We need to educate our children about what makes our covenant so special and why the mass is a sacrifice. The Latin mass is a wonder expression and step toward unifying -od’s church.

 

[Sean_O_L]

BulldogCath wrote:

the NO mass is all about Love and the sermons are all bubble gum and candy

Well, I can tell you, BulldogCath, that I have attended liturgy of the Roman Rite in the normative Latin (pre 1970) and the so-called “Tridentine” liturgy (post 1974) for 58 years.

I have no problems with the Latin Mass as authorized by the Church throughout history to this day. And, I look forwatd to great improvements in the new Roman Missal in the vernacular, and greatly improved adherence to the GIRM.

But, do you agree with me that in the (so-called) Novus Ordo Mass (latin or vernacular) a true and proper sacrifice IS offered to God?

 

[TNT]

Sean O L:

BulldogCath wrote:

Well, I can tell you, BulldogCath, that I have attended liturgy of the Roman Rite in the normative Latin (pre 1970) and the so-called “Tridentine” liturgy (post 1974) for 58 years.

I have no problems with the Latin Mass as authorized by the Church throughout history to this day. And,

I look forwatd to great improvements in the new Roman Missal in the vernacular, and greatly improved adherence to the GIRM.
(TNT) Hope springs eternal…not a remote possibility. The New Girm is window dressing for the conservatives

.** The revolution will continue unabated.** But, do you agree with me that in the (so-called) Novus Ordo Mass (latin or vernacular) a true and proper sacrifice IS offered to God?

The REAL question is 2-fold and involves that word Proper:

1. Is the NOM the very best that ONLY the True Church of Christ can obtain in sanctity of worship of its Creator…The Trinity? ie is it the most PROPER.
2. Is the NOM unambiguous and the best in the Catechesis conveyed to the Faithful that is PROPER only to the True Church of Christ?

If the answers to the above 2 questions are “YES” then by definition, the NOM is superior to the TLM and the NOM must exclude the TLM in the Latin Rite. For, God is due ONLY the best without compromise.
If the answer is “NO” to either question, then the NOM is inferior to the TLM, and therefore immoral, whether or not it is a “true sacrifice”. Therefore it must be avoided.
The NOM and the TLM are different by any measurement on these 2 questions. And, they are not EQUAL at all.
Therefore, there must be a natural tension between the advocates of one and the other.
Therein lies the root of disunity among equally Faithful Catholics…
Before the NOM and VATII the disunity was between the vast majoity of the traditional Faithful, (defended by the Pontiffs) and the outer fringe revolutionaries. Since that time as tradition is being discarded in favor of the revolutionaries (now acquiesd by the pontiffs), the disunity moved into the very bosom of the Faithful.
The revolutionary will never reconcile with the traditional Catholic, and vice versa.
As long as the VATII church acquieses to both sides, (GIRM verses the actual allowed practice, such as Mahonyism) the battle for unity will continue.
Tradtionalists salute the teachings of pre-VATII pontiffs in their condemnations of revolutionary mantras.
Liberals salute the post-VATII pontiffs as far as they acquiese to discarding tradition.
Conservatives fervently desire a compromise by defining all VATII acquiesence as “development” and not corruption.
When the forces of the earth are in tension, eventually it takes an earthquake to resolve it. The recent earthquake / tsunami “cleansing” is a lesson for the Church also.
As long as the VATII church tries to please both of these forces, the tension will continue to build. Tremors like the SSPX, SSPV, Call to Action (defacto heretics, uncondemned officially by the VATII church), We are Church, also uncondemned or excommunicated officially, etc. will proliferate until the big Quake removes the tension.
I see that Quake as a direct act of God, or indirect through a future non-compromising pontiff.
IMO, of course.

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

It really does not matter what anyone here thinks is better. The Pope has the powere to abolish the liturgy and create a new liturgy. He can suppress TLM or NO all day long. You can either be obedient or separate yourself form the supreme pontiff.

And all this has what to do with the status of the SSPX? Nothing.

-Ted

 

[Sean_O_L]

But, do you agree with me that in the (so-called) Novus Ordo Mass (latin or vernacular) a true and proper sacrifice IS offered to God?

Are you still there, BulldogCath? A simple “yes” or “no” will do. Thanks.

 

[Sean_O_L]

TNT wrote:

But, do you agree with me that in the (so-called) Novus Ordo Mass (latin or vernacular) a true and proper sacrifice IS offered to God?

TNT: The REAL question is 2-fold and involves that word Proper:

It seems that BulldogCath has fled the field on this one, TNT.

Let me put it to you then: “Do YOU agree with me that in the (so-called) Novus Ordo Mass (latin or vernacular) a true and proper sacrifice IS offered to God?”

No equivocating: Yes or No?

 

[BulldogCath]

Yes I do agree that it is a true mass- I dont like it and I think it has many many issues with it and if it went away tomorrow I would not shed a tear-but I have to or else then I would be saying that the Pope did something wrong-though I could take the opposite argument and ask why the TLM was banned for 20 years with no authorization by the Pope to ban it, so someone did a nasty deed to the TLM.

As far as a sacrifice -I agree that it has to be a sacrifice or else under the definition of what a Mass is-it would not be a mass. I do think that the wording leaves something to be desired, but yes it is a true mass
Sean O L:

BulldogCath wrote:

Well, I can tell you, BulldogCath, that I have attended liturgy of the Roman Rite in the normative Latin (pre 1970) and the so-called “Tridentine” liturgy (post 1974) for 58 years.

I have no problems with the Latin Mass as authorized by the Church throughout history to this day. And, I look forwatd to great improvements in the new Roman Missal in the vernacular, and greatly improved adherence to the GIRM.

But, do you agree with me that in the (so-called) Novus Ordo Mass (latin or vernacular) a true and proper sacrifice IS offered to God?

 

[Sean_O_L]

BulldogCath,

Well done! And, I am sympathetic with you if you express your “dislike” as a preference for the Latin Mass (in either the 1962 OR 1969 rite) and intense dislike for abuses to the liturgy in any form by barbarians, commedians, or whatever.

 

[TNT]

Sean O L:

TNT wrote:

It seems that BulldogCath has fled the field on this one, TNT.

Let me put it to you then: “Do YOU agree with me that in the (so-called) Novus Ordo Mass (latin or vernacular) a true and proper sacrifice IS offered to God?”

No equivocating: Yes or No?

I do not equivocate any more than JPII does.
A mass may be true ie VALID and still fail to be PROPER:
A satanic black Mass, where the purpose of the Consecration is to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, to desecrate the Body and Blood of Christ afterwards in a satanic ritual. Such a Mass is a true sacrifice and is a valid Mass as St. Thomas teaches [S.T. III.64.10], however it is most certainly displeasing to God, and by attending it we can never fulfill our Sunday obligation.

A Mass said by a priest or bishop in the Eastern Orthodox. Like the satanic black Mass, such a Mass is a true sacrifice and is a valid Mass, however it is most certainly displeasing to God, and by attending it we can never fulfill our Sunday obligation.

So, the whole issue for me is just what I enumerated earlier:
Is it Proper unto God?
Meaning is it the BEST we can do as humans in
A. Confection of the Sacrifice.
B. In Sanctity and piety (rubrics, prayers, posture) to the Trinity.
C. In catechesis of the Faithful so as to reinforce the dogmas of the Faith, or at least not put them into a state of ambiguity. (lex orandi lex credendi).
NOM passes A. in a TRUE & PROPER sense which answers your question.
NOM fails B.
NOM fails C.
Therefore I do not attend it in the Latin Rite.
When conditons do not permit getting to the TLM, I attend the RC Anglican Use High mass.
I do not in conscience attend an NOM and have not since 2001.
For B and C above.

 

[tpmjr42]

…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…
[/quote]

sorry to be late to the conversation, but I just had to jump in on this point…

Catholic29,

In light of your post, how do you explain somewhat like Cardinal Mahony? Say what you want about the SSPX, at least they don’t promote things that are contrary to the catechism of the church (e.g. the speakers at the just-concluded RE Congress where 35,000 attended- how many people attend SSPX services?). He also has basically stated he has no intention of implementing Redemptionis Sacramentum and actively promotes liturgical abuses, all contrary to the pope. It would seem by his own actions that he thinks the pope’s authority is not actual but merely symbolic…

 

[bear06]

tpmjr42:

sorry to be late to the conversation, but I just had to jump in on this point…

Catholic29,

In light of your post, how do you explain somewhat like Cardinal Mahony? Say what you want about the SSPX, at least they don’t promote things that are contrary to the catechism of the church (e.g. the speakers at the just-concluded RE Congress where 35,000 attended- how many people attend SSPX services?). He also has basically stated he has no intention of implementing Redemptionis Sacramentum and actively promotes liturgical abuses, all contrary to the pope. It would seem by his own actions that he thinks the pope’s authority is not actual but merely symbolic…

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Not again. This is a repost of a comment I made on another thread.

This is the usual “if they can do this why can’t SSPX” arguments. Really, how many of you let this same line fly with your children. I can just see it now…“Bobby, why did you eat a cookie when I told you not to?” Bobby replies: “But Mom, Sarah cheated on her spelling test the other day at school.” Then Mom says: “Oh, OK, Bobby. Sorry, I didn’t know your sister did something wrong too.” Honestly, I can’t figure out how you deal with these justifications?

 

[BulldogCath]

I have a dumb question-and I know that supporters of the Second Vatican Council will say that the Council was infallible-but there is clear evidence from both Pope John XXIII and Paul VI that the council was Pastoral in nature only-and not infallible. If that is the case-was Pope JPII abusing his powers to excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre and how can the Vatican consider them schismatics?

They later proclaimed that he and the Society must adhere to the teachings of V2 and accept the Novus Ordo Mass, but they have no grounds for doing that in my opinion and what SSPX have done in holding to the faith was really their choice and should be like a group like the Roman Catholic Faithful-A conservative Catholic group that does not blindly follow what is considered abuses being taught by the church, and they are staunch watchdogs for child abuse-in a way that does not make you sick like the VOF does

rcf.org

 

[tpmjr42]

bear06:

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Not again. This is a repost of a comment I made on another thread.

Ummm,not exactly. I was responding to a post that indicated that the criteria for being in “schism” is not recognizing the authority of the pope. So the question becomes, "if you ignore the authority of the pope (as Cdl. Mahony does by his actions/inaction), does that make you schismatic?

If you defend bishops like Cdl. Mahony, yet continue to blast away at groups like the SSPX, it is I that can’t figure out your justifications. You’re getting caught up in legalisms and are missing the bigger picture.

 

[tpmjr42]

bear06:

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Not again. This is a repost of a comment I made on another thread.

Oh, and sorry to get you so upset. I didn’t have time to read all 800+ of your posts to see if you’ve already attempted to cover this ground.

 

[bear06]

tpmjr42:

Ummm,not exactly. I was responding to a post that indicated that the criteria for being in “schism” is not recognizing the authority of the pope. So the question becomes, "if you ignore the authority of the pope (as Cdl. Mahony does by his actions/inaction), does that make you schismatic?

If you defend bishops like Cdl. Mahony, yet continue to blast away at groups like the SSPX, it is I that can’t figure out your justifications. You’re getting caught up in legalisms and are missing the bigger picture.

Who is defending Mahony again? I’m all for his early retirement, demotion or any other way to get him out. My point is that everytime people say SSPX is wrong, the big defense is that Cardinal Mahony is doing x, y and z. And I ask, so? The fact that one person is doing something wrong doesn’t provide justification for another to do wrong also.

By the way, the definition of schism which you offer above isn’t quite right. The official definition is:

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]

All of these losers (for lack of a better word) recognize the authority of the Pope. They just refuse to submit to it.

 

[bear06]

tpmjr42:

Oh, and sorry to get you so upset. I didn’t have time to read all 800+ of your posts to see if you’ve already attempted to cover this ground.

What?! You’re missing out on some awesome posts!