Status of the SSPX

[bear06]

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

Once again, where does any Pope say that Vatican II was not infallible in its teachings? I believe it said that it did not declare new doctrine. That doesn’t mean that it’s teachings on doctrine already in existence are not infallible.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Once again, where does any Pope say that Vatican II was not infallible in its teachings? I believe it said that it did not declare new doctrine. That doesn’t mean that it’s teachings on doctrine already in existence are not infallible.

Furthermore, Bulldogcath is mixing up his apples with his oranges. Lefebvre was NOT excommunicated for being out of sorts with Vatican Council II (he was so muddled up on THAT issue that he kept denying signing a couple of the very Documents - including the one on Religious Liberty!!!). No! He was excommunicated for deliberately disobeying a direct command from the Sovereign Pontiff NOT to consecrate Bishops, for this would be an act which would rend the very Unity of the Church. Such an act was intrinsically schismatic. He was warned NOT to do it - he did it in spite of the warning that the act involved ipso facto excommunication.

 

[Sean_O_L]

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?

Well, TNT you HAVE succeeded in equivocating! The Black Mass ORIGINATED in the so-called Tridentine Mass era!

Nothing more that “yes” or “no” is required to my question!

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?

Yes or No?

 

[BulldogCath]

Sean

You are correct-What Arbishop should have done was to recruit existing Bishops-As SSPX in Australia is doing with Priests-I understand that some NO priests have decided to join SSPX in Australia as a letter was supposedly sent to select conservative priests.
Sean O L:

Furthermore, Bulldogcath is mixing up his apples with his oranges. Lefebvre was NOT excommunicated for being out of sorts with Vatican Council II (he was so muddled up on THAT issue that he kept denying signing a couple of the very Documents - including the one on Religious Liberty!!!). No! He was excommunicated for deliberately disobeying a direct command from the Sovereign Pontiff NOT to consecrate Bishops, for this would be an act which would rend the very Unity of the Church. Such an act was intrinsically schismatic. He was warned NOT to do it - he did it in spite of the warning that the act involved ipso facto excommunication.

 

[tpmjr42]

bear06:

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:

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

First of all, I’m not trying to defend the SSPX; they are what they are and have done what they’ve done. Besides, if they’re schismatic and not really part of the Church, then why the fuss? Their 's are quite small, albeit growing. If anything, it’s their appeal that needs to be discussed, not their status.

2nd, I’m not trying to engage in moral relativism. Again, set the SSPX aside and we see that the problems ***within ***the American Church are a result of the leadership of people like Cdl. Mahony; so let’s focus on that. In the short time I’ve been lurking on the boards, I’ve seen alot of talk about traditionalists, rad-trads and the SSPX, but not alot about the progressives (although I’m sure older threads exist).

3rd, it wasn’t my definition of schism, but someone else’s that I was reacting to.

4th, I have a tough time with your last statement, "All of these losers (for lack of a better word) recognize the authority of the Pope. They just refuse to submit to it." To use your example of children, if you tell your child to do something and they say yes (recognizing your authority), but never actually do what you ask (don’t submit to it); the question then becomes, have they really recognized your authority?

 

[BulldogCath]

Please note that by many calculations, the SSPX is small-but only about 20% of all Traditionalists in the US. There was recently a calculation performed as follows:

60M or so Catholics in the US of which approximately 15% attend mass=9,000,000 Catholics attending Mass

Traditionalists number anywhere from 1M to 1.5M in the US-And they ATTEND mass-so we are talking about approx 10% of the Church going Catholics

On top of that-this does not take into account the Catholics-like my Mother and Aunts-who would gladly attend a Traditional Chapel if there was one near by-but refuse to drive and have gotten “comfortable” with the friends she has made over the years at the NO Mass she attends.

tpmjr42:

First of all, I’m not trying to defend the SSPX; they are what they are and have done what they’ve done. Besides, if they’re schismatic and not really part of the Church, then why the fuss? Their 's are quite small, albeit growing. If anything, it’s their appeal that needs to be discussed, not their status.

2nd, I’m not trying to engage in moral relativism. Again, set the SSPX aside and we see that the problems ***within ***the American Church are a result of the leadership of people like Cdl. Mahony; so let’s focus on that. In the short time I’ve been lurking on the boards, I’ve seen alot of talk about traditionalists, rad-trads and the SSPX, but not alot about the progressives (although I’m sure older threads exist).

3rd, it wasn’t my definition of schism, but someone else’s that I was reacting to.

4th, I have a tough time with your last statement, "All of these losers (for lack of a better word) recognize the authority of the Pope. They just refuse to submit to it." To use your example of children, if you tell your child to do something and they say yes (recognizing your authority), but never actually do what you ask (don’t submit to it); the question then becomes, have they really recognized your authority?

 

[EddieArent]

BulldogCath:

Sean

You are correct-What Arbishop should have done was to recruit existing Bishops-As SSPX in Australia is doing with Priests-I understand that some NO priests have decided to join SSPX in Australia as a letter was supposedly sent to select conservative priests.

It’s not just Australia. Some from America in the book Priest Where Is Thy Mass? Mass Where Is Thy Priest? Later joined the SSPX.

 

[katolik]

EddieArent:

It’s not just Australia. Some from America in the book Priest Where Is Thy Mass? Mass Where Is Thy Priest? Later joined the SSPX.

I heard that about American 300-500 priests asked the SSPX for more information as to learn the Traditional Latin Mass. The SSPX is building a pseudo-Seminary for the priests to learn to say the Mass. The SSPX in America may grow to 100-200 priests within the next ten years. The SSPX’s growth currently is trully amazing. I expect the SSPX to have 1,000 more priests before 2220.

 

[bear06]

First of all, I’m not trying to defend the SSPX; they are what they are and have done what they’ve done. Besides, if they’re schismatic and not really part of the Church, then why the fuss? Their 's are quite small, albeit growing. If anything, it’s their appeal that needs to be discussed, not their status.

The only fuss is that people are being sucked into their little cult. I’m all for stopping people from joining the Cardinal Mahony bandwagon too. The only reason we’re focused on SSPX here is that is what the topic of the thread is. If you’d like to start a Cardinal Mahony thread, I’ll gladly join you!

2nd, I’m not trying to engage in moral relativism. Again, set the SSPX aside and we see that the problems ***within ***

the American Church are a result of the leadership of people like Cdl. Mahony; so let’s focus on that. In the short time I’ve been lurking on the boards, I’ve seen alot of talk about traditionalists, rad-trads and the SSPX, but not alot about the progressives (although I’m sure older threads exist).

Totally agree that Cardinal Mahony is a BIG problem. I’ve actually posted a good way to end his reign in previous threads on using a multimedia CD-rom that worked for our diocese but it seems that most people are not actually as interested in activism as they are in complaining.

4th, I have a tough time with your last statement, "All of these losers (for lack of a better word) recognize the authority of the Pope. They just refuse to submit to it."

To use your example of children, if you tell your child to do something and they say yes (recognizing your authority), but never actually do what you ask (don’t submit to it); the question then becomes, have they really recognized your authority?

This is true and is what happens quite often. I just don’t think it’s the problem of Cardinal Mahony or SSPX. They simply say we recognize the Pope’s authority but not here, here or here. They don’t usually, if at all, say that they are going to do something and don’t do it. Once again, the topic was SSPX and that’s what I focus on here. I object to people pointing the finger at somebody else’s transgressions to defend SSPX.

 

[BulldogCath]

Dont laugh but also St Pius V-which is an offshoot of St Pius X and has about 10 or 15 churches or so has about 12 seminarians. They also have an unbelievable amount of nuns-the real looking nuns who actually dress like nuns and teach and run schools. They just bought a huge plot of land on Long Island where they are going to be building a new church and convent-while the entire diocese where I live-with almost 130 churches had only about 11 seminarians-though now the Bishop just announced that through all of his prayer they have close to 30 now-but I am sure many are from Africa and India as that is the norm now-when I go to the NO mass-either they are white and talk effiminate or are Indian or African for the most part.

This only goes to show you what tradition, Orthodoxy, and prayer does. My uncle says that at SSPX they have a prayer for vocations after every mass

katolik:

I heard that about American 300-500 priests asked the SSPX for more information as to learn the Traditional Latin Mass. The SSPX is building a pseudo-Seminary for the priests to learn to say the Mass. The SSPX in America may grow to 100-200 priests within the next ten years. The SSPX’s growth currently is trully amazing. I expect the SSPX to have 1,000 more priests before 2220.

 

[TNT]

Sean O L:

Well, TNT you HAVE succeeded in equivocating! The Black Mass ORIGINATED in the so-called Tridentine Mass era!

Nothing more that “yes” or “no” is required to my question!

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?

Yes or No?

No equivcation at all. some things can be improper for entirely different reasons.
Summary of that post:

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.
It fails as being PROPER.
**

The TLM, NOM, BM, EO mass are EQUALLY true sacrifices.
I gave you a complete answer. Read the post again…and why I believed it as such.
The Black Mass was an Explicit anti-TLM mass. It may well have been because anti-Catholics could not penetrate the TLM within the Church, as it was developed to be a blockade against sacrilege, heresy and experimentation. When the BM was originated is irrelevent, unless you want to add some relevency. It was started by Demonics, not by the RCC. I was instructing you that TRUE does not automatically equate to PROPER.
“True and Proper” are 2 different qualities. If you’re unable to separate them, just say so.
Now, if you want to discuss the points I made, welcome…don’t go liberal on me, please.

 

[TNT]

bear06:

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

It’s true!
Some even have parts of bear claws and fangs stuck in them!

 

[tpmjr42]

bear06:

This is true and is what happens quite often. I just don’t think it’s the problem of Cardinal Mahony or SSPX. They simply say we recognize the Pope’s authority but not here, here or here. They don’t usually, if at all, say that they are going to do something and don’t do it. Once again, the topic was SSPX and that’s what I focus on here. I object to people pointing the finger at somebody else’s transgressions to defend SSPX.

Points taken. Thanks for the good discussion.

 

[bear06]

tpmjr42:

Points taken. Thanks for the good discussion.

Anytime! I love a good discussion.

 

[bear06]

TNT:

It’s true!
Some even have parts of bear claws and fangs stuck in them!

These must be the ones referencing Pastor Aeternus! That one’s definitely got some teeth in it.

 

[Sean_O_L]

TNT:

Several times now I have given you the opportunity to reconsider your terminology; you persist. Liberal, eh? Well, I suggest that there ARE worse positions than the liberal one. But, let us see whether the following IS a liberal position:

I have asked you to explicitly and without equivocation that “YOU agree with me that in the (so-called) Novus Ordo Mass (latin or vernacular) a true and proper sacrifice IS offered to God? Yes or No?”

Why that phraseology?

1. It comes from “The Dogmatic Canons and Decrees of the Council Of Trent”, Chapter VIII, “On the Sacrifice of the Mass”, Canon I,:

”Canon I. If anyone saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God…let him be anathema.

You persist in denying that the normative Mass of the Roman Rite (which is perjoratively described as a “NO mass” is “a true AND proper” sacrifice.

Thus, it could be said that you fall under the anathema of Trent.

1. “The [1983] Code of Canon Law”, Canon 897 declares:

“The most venerable sacrament is the blessed Eucharist, in which Christ the Lord himself is contained, offered and received, and by which the Church continually lives and grows. The eucharistic Sacrifice, the memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, in which the Sacrifice of the cross is forever perpetuated, is the summit and the source of all worship and Christian life. …”

The Code of Canon Law is talking here about the so-called “NO mass” which you disparage as NOT being a “proper” sacrifice!

1. It is a de fide Dogma of the Catholic Church that The Mass is a true and proper sacrifice.
2. Fr. John Hardon, S.J., in “The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism”
   writes:

”1263.What is the Sacrifice of the Mass?
It is the Sacrifice in which Christ is offered under the species of bread and wine in an unbloody manner. The Sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty commemoration of the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, but a true and proper act of Sacrifice. Christ is the eternal High Priest, in an unbloody way offers himself a most acceptable Victim to the eternal Father, as he did upon the Cross.”

It appears to me that you, TNT, have a log in the eye that makes you concentrate on defining the adjectives preceding the Sacrifice – which is Christ offering Himself to the Father – a most true and proper Sacrifice! You do not appear to know that the Sacrifice offered is Christ Himself! – irrespective of whether the Liturgy is that of the Roman Rite Missal of 1570, 1604, 1634, 1888, 1920, 1955, 1960, 1961, 1964, 1965, or 1967!

I think that you would also do well to heed the words of Bishop Rifan, as recorded on the UnavoceSome persons have questioned the occasional participation of Dom Fernando and some of his priests in Masses celebrated in the Rite of Paul VI.

Dom Fernando is a Catholic bishop, member of the Catholic episcopate, in communion with the Holy Father the Pope. Thus, like every Catholic bishop, even those of a different rite, he must demonstrate this full communion practically.

No one can be Catholic while remaining in an attitude of refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate. In fact, the Church defines as schismatic those who refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff or to remain in communion with the other members of the Church who are his subjects (canon 751).

Now, to refuse continually and explicitly to participate in every and any Mass in the rite celebrated by the Pope and by all the bishops of the Church while judging this rite, in itself, incompatible with the Faith, or sinful, represents a formal refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate.

The objective fact cannot be denied that the rite of Paul VI is the official rite of the Latin Church, celebrated by the Pope and by all the Catholic episcopate.**

To be continued**

 

[Sean_O_L]

If we consider the New Mass in itself, in theory or in practice, as invalid or heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, sinful, illegitimate or not Catholic, we would have to hold the theological conclusions of this position and apply them to the Pope and the entire episcopate residing in the world - that is, the whole teaching Church: that the Church has officially promulgated, maintained for decades, and offers every day to God an illegitimate and sinful worship — a proposition condemned by the Magisterium — and that, therefore, the gates of hell have prevailed against her, which would be a heresy. Or else we would be adopting the sectarian principle that we alone are the Church, and outside of us there is no salvation, which would be another heresy. These positions cannot be accepted by a Catholic, either in theory or in practice.

Our participation, therefore, is based on doctrinal principles. And it does not mean that we do not have reservations about the new rite, as we have already respectfully brought to the attention of the Holy See. Neither does our participation signify approval of everything that may happen. To be united to the hierarchy of the Church and in perfect communion with her does not mean approval of many errors that grow in the bosom of the Holy Church, provoked by her human part. And, of course, we lament profoundly with the Holy Father that the Liturgical Reform has given room for “ambiguities, liberties, creativities, adaptations, reductions and instrumentalizations” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 10.52.61) and also has given “origin to many abuses and led in a certain way to the disappearance of the respect due to the sacred” (Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, Offerten Situng — Röemisches, nov.dez. 1993, p. 35). Above all, we reject every profanation of the Liturgy, for example the Masses in which the “Liturgy degenerates into a ‘show,’ where one is tempted to make religion interesting with the help of silly changes in fashion…with momentary successes for the group of liturgical fabricators”, as Cardinal Ratzinger criticized (Introduction to the book La Reforme Liturgique by Mgr. Klaus Gamber. p. 6).

For all these reasons, we preserve the venerable rite of St. Pius V, but “cum Petro et sub Petro”, in full communion.

Now, TNT, if I have misrepresented or misinterpreted your position, then I apologize. On the other hand, I hope that the above demonstrates why I believe that an unambiguous “yes” or “no” is called for on the matter of whether the normative liturgy of the Roman Rite (the so-called Novus Ordo Mass) IS a “true and proper Sacrifice.”