Stuff the SSPX are wrong about

[JKirkLVNV]

USMC:

But they are exactly as they should be. There are no abuses at all. Everything is done extremely reverently. No heresy is ever spoken from the pulpit. No profane music. No abuses at all. But, of course, this is at an SSPX Mass.

Not at all true.

It’s a heresy to call the Pauline mass an “abomination,” as that would mean that the Church had been lead, by the Pope, into the most grievous error imaginable, relating directly to the salvation of the faithful, ie. the validity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Something cannot be both an abomination and an adequate propitiation for our sins. The leadership may not be saying this, but the rank and file are… I heard a priest of the SSPX say just that, from the pulpit of his chapel.

I would regard the priest reaching the minor elevation while the choir is still on Mysterium Fidei as abusive of the Mass. Same mass, same priest.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

USMC:

.

I have some advice for you: You are still young and pretty bright. Find yourself a good Indult Mass and start attending it. It may take a few months to get used to, since it is completely different than the “banal on the spot production” (as Cardinal Ratzinger called it), which is the Novus Ordo Mass, but you will soon come to understand why the Traditional Mass - the Mass of the Saints - has been called “the greatest thing this side of heaven” That is the safest course today. If you follow that advice, I can assure you that you will not regret it.

I have better advice for the young poster: don’t ever come to the conclusion that you are wiser than the Church. The same cardinal, now our Holy Father, has not seen fit to repress the “banal” rite, nor is he likely to do so. The Pauline Mass, too, is the Mass of the Saints (since it is the normative Mass of the Church). The SSPX are in schism and the Perle letter addressed only one specific occasion and event. It can hardly be seen as an endorsement of the SSPX’s masses. The fact remains that their leaders are excommunicate and their priests are without faculties.
It doesn’t matter if you fall out of the left side of the boat or the right side: you’ve still fallen out of the boat.

 

[USMC]

bear06:

Let me guess, you’re getting these off of Novus Ordo Watch. Let’s just take one of these, #2, which Papal Mass did this happen at?

Will it really matter if I tell you what mass that blasphemous sacrilege took place? And if I tell you, what will you say then?

I have a tape of a talk given by a good and well known priest (who is in normal union with Rome), who spoke of a Papal Mass in some stadium, years ago. At the time the preist was only a deacon, and was asked to distribut communion at the Mass. (The priest is almost crying as he tells the story).

He told of the complete irreverence that took place at Mass with “everyone” receiving communion. He said you could tell that most of them had no idea what it was. He then said that after Mass they were told to place the remaining consecrated hosts into a burlap bag, and then the hosts were thrown into the river.

The preist was not attacking the Pope for this. After telling the story he woundered outloud why he (the priest) put up with it? Why he didn’t do or say anything.

Anyway, I have to leave right now. I haven’t heard the tape in a few years. If I can find it I’ll listen to it in the car and tell you exacly what Papal Mass that this sacrelidge too place.

 

[RobNY]

USMC:

It doesn’t matter if it is codified into official documents, it is occurring! If all Churches were following the official documents we would have far fewer abuses.

I believe this is my point…

But they are exactly as they should be. There are no abuses at all. Everything is done extremely reverently. No heresy is ever spoken from the pulpit. No profane music. No abuses at all. But, of course, this is at an SSPX Mass.

Unless you don’t count schism as an abuse.

Now, I have been meaning to reiterate this: I am not a member of the SSPX. I attend an Indult Mass, and only sometimes an SSPX Mass. I go to confession at a Novus Ordo Church (I went today as a matter of fact). I am not an SSPX member and do not even completely agree with them.

I have had many discussions with SSPX priests about one thing in particular that I disagree with them about, and do you know what? Every single SSPX priest I have spoken to about this issue, has agreed with me! Every single one of them, without exception, has agreed with me and thought that the partcular thing that takes place within the SSPX is wrong.

I realize you aren’t a SSPX’er. But my point was that going to a SSPX mass isn’t going to solve anything. Which thing is this that they agree is wrong?

True, no abuse justifies schism, and I am not justifying schism. I am justifying why a person can attend Mass at an SSPX Church.

True…

But, if I am visiting another city (and that happens quite often), I do not just look for an SSPX Church. I will usually look for a FSSP Church first. I have always found their masses very reverent and holy as well.

Indeed.

I am going to let you in on a trick of the devil. One thing he does is to seek to convince people that “these times may be bad, but, afterall, there have always been bad times, so I guess these times are really pretty normal”.

Not so. True, there have always been occaisional minor abuses and heretics; but no where near the extent it is today. And it is true that some times in Church history have been worse than others (Arian crisis for example), but today the abuse and heresy is everywhere. This is not normal.

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

My point wasn’t “times have always been bad, so, this is normal.” My point was “times are always bad, so we can’t use the excuse of extraordinary circumstances, we always have to work within the same framework.”

I have some advice for you: You are still young and pretty bright. Find yourself a good Indult Mass and start attending it. It may take a few months to get used to, since it is completely different than the “banal on the spot production” (as Cardinal Ratzinger called it), which is the Novus Ordo Mass, but you will soon come to understand why the Traditional Mass - the Mass of the Saints - has been called “the greatest thing this side of heaven” That is the safest course today. If you follow that advice, I can assure you that you will not regret it.

I’d love to attend an Indult Mass, if there was one near me. And wherever I go to college, I’ll see if there’s one near there. At the very least, I’ll want to go once or twice. The way you were talking about it… what was the difference between the Indult and the FSSP? Of course, maybe I’ll run across an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy one of these days too.

Oh and, by the way, I’d love to have a nice reverant Novus Ordo. Have you seen the pictures here of the Novus Ordo done ad orientem?

Personally, here is why I’m frustrated with your position. I think you’re reasoning partially backwards. Reverence is one thing, and it is woefully inadequate in our current liturgy, but people also need a reason for reverence. The one thing that is needed, I think, is intense catechesis in Eucharistic theology. JPII was absolutely right, the source and summit of Christianity. If you understand what the Eucharist is… you won’t want to receive it impurely, if you don’t want to receive it impurely… you’re going to have to go to confession… if you’re going to have to go to confession… you’re going to have to start working to reform your life to fit with Christ. It’s like a checks and balance system. The root cause isn’t improper liturgy, it’s pathetic catechesis. It’s just that removing that pillar of liturgy just showed us how horrible our Church was and is at catechesis.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

USMC:

Will it really matter if I tell you what mass that blasphemous sacrilege took place? And if I tell you, what will you say then?

I have a tape of a talk given by a good and well known priest (who is in normal union with Rome), who spoke of a Papal Mass in some stadium, years ago. At the time the preist was only a deacon, and was asked to distribut communion at the Mass. (The priest is almost crying as he tells the story).

He told of the complete irreverence that took place at Mass with “everyone” receiving communion. He said you could tell that most of them had no idea what it was. He then said that after Mass they were told to place the remaining consecrated hosts into a burlap bag, and then the hosts were thrown into the river.

The preist was not attacking the Pope for this. After telling the story he woundered outloud why he (the priest) put up with it? Why he didn’t do or say anything.

QUOTE]

I simply don’t believe it. I don’t believe that any official of the Church would order a priest or deacon or anyone else for that matter to throw the Most Sacred Body into a river. I would put that on a par with people who don’t believe that we ever landed on the moon. It’s a fantasy that’s only real for people who desperately want it to be real, for whatever alarming reason they may have. I think that people who believe this stuff WANT to believe it. I think they go looking for the most salacious and scandalous item that will confirm what they already deteremined that they would believe. This is merely an attack on the Church. I should think that those who purport to love Her would avoid spreading it…particularly as it may well be an out and out lie of Satan.

 

[bear06]

Will it really matter if I tell you what mass that blasphemous sacrilege took place? And if I tell you, what will you say then?

Yes, it would matter. It would mean that you might possibly have proof that it happened. Let me help you. This very alleged incident supposedly occured in Des Moines. At the very best this is a friend of a friend of a friend story with absolutely no proof. Do you know what calumny is? Novus Ordo Watch apparently does not since they regularly post out right lies on their site.

I have a tape of a talk given by a good and well known priest (who is in normal union with Rome), who spoke of a Papal Mass in some stadium, years ago. At the time the preist was only a deacon, and was asked to distribut communion at the Mass. (The priest is almost crying as he tells the story).

He told of the complete irreverence that took place at Mass with “everyone” receiving communion. He said you could tell that most of them had no idea what it was. He then said that after Mass they were told to place the remaining consecrated hosts into a burlap bag, and then the hosts were thrown into the river.

This would be a tragedy at best. Imagine the souls excommunicated in that moment! What priest was this?

That said, I don’t buy anything until there is proof. Too often blatant lies have been told to evoke hatred for the Magisterium. You might want to cite your sources.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I’d love to attend an Indult Mass, if there was one near me. And wherever I go to college, I’ll see if there’s one near there. At the very least, I’ll want to go once or twice. The way you were talking about it… what was the difference between the Indult and the FSSP? Of course, maybe I’ll run across an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy one of these days too.

The Indult is the permission that the Vatican gives to the local bishop to grant that the Tridentine Mass may be said by an approved priest.

The FSSP, (Fraternal Society of St. Peter, or in Latin-Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri) is a society of priests who are devoted to the Tridentine Mass you can check them out here-
fssp.org/en/index.htm

They have a seminary in Denton, Nebraska in the Lincoln Diocese. I personally go to the Tridentine Mass at St. Francis of Assisi in Lincoln once in a while.

Oh and, by the way, I’d love to have a nice reverant Novus Ordo. Have you seen the pictures here of the Novus Ordo done ad orientem?

Although I like the Tridentine Mass, I usually go to the Novus Ordo-there is absolutely nothing wrong with it when done reverently and properly.

The problem isn’t with the change in the Mass (as the Church has every right to do this) it is a problem with Catechesis (like you mention) and also it is a societal problem. While I personally think that Vatican II was ill-timed (the Church probably should have stood firm during the turbulent 60’s and 70’s) there is nothing wrong with it. Some folks (laity and clergy) just took and ran with it and committed all sorts of abuses in the name of the “Spirit of Vatican II”.

Why there is a problem with irreverance has more to do with the pressures of the secular world than anything the Holy See did. Most “fallen away Catholics” I know could care less what a priest or the Pope says-they just know that they have a “right” to their opinion and they will receive Communion if they want, they’ll do what they want because that is what society tells them. Do what you want. If the Church never changed the Mass I’m sure there would be the same problems.

 

[DavidJoseph]

USMC:

Oh really? So, you would have stood with St. Athanasius – who had been excommunicated and banned from his diocese - and against viturally all the hierarchy. You would have stood with a person who gave absolutely every indication of being a schismatic? Do you really believe that?

You really think you would have sided with Athanasius and against the Pope? Now, it later became known (or was said) that the Pope was “forced” to sign the semi-Arian statement, but who knew that at the time? What was believed was that even the Pope approved of Arianism. And you really think you would have stood with St. Athanasius? Now let’s be honest. There was every reason to believe that Athanasius was a schismatic, and no reason to think he was not.

Everything about St. Athanasius’ situation appeared to be schismatic. He had been excommunicated; he was banned from his diocese; he spent 17 years in exile, and he went around ordaining priests!

I’m sure you really think that you would have stood with St. Athanasius during the Arian crisis, but given your thoughts on today’s crisis, I would seriously question that.

USMC, did you not see my post earlier in this thread regarding St. Athanasius? Here it is if you didn’t see it: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1027514&postcount=72

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Whoops, I screwed up. FSSP in English stands for the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter NOT “Fraternal Society of St. Peter”-I didn’t remember that FSSP is in Latin as it is.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

ComradeAndrei:

Why there is a problem with irreverance has more to do with the pressures of the secular world than anything the Holy See did. Most “fallen away Catholics” I know could care less what a priest or the Pope says-they just know that they have a “right” to their opinion and they will receive Communion if they want, they’ll do what they want because that is what society tells them. Do what you want. If the Church never changed the Mass I’m sure there would be the same problems.

I totally agree with this. Its mostly about Catholcis who could care less or even want to force their non Catholic agenda (whether they fully understand what they are doing or not).

I also agree with the last part, would there be Catholics who still use birth control and get abortions if V2 didnt happen? Some rad trads think that nothing would have happened and dont even open their eyes to see it was more cultural than anything.

One very bad bit of news that came out was that the largest diocese in the US, which is LA just let out some large files showing that abuse was going on 75 years ago!! Do the math people, 2005 - 75 = 1930. Now was 1930 before or after V2?
Here is National Public Radio article:
The files show that for more than 75 years, the nation’s largest Catholic archdiocese shipped priests accused of sexual abuse back and forth between therapy and new assignments, often ignoring the complaints of parishioners. At least eight priests accused of sexual misconduct were allowed to remain in contact with children.

 

[EddieArent]

sspx.ca/Angelus/2005_March/More_Catholic_Pope.htm
More Catholic Than The Pope
Review by Fr. Stephen Somerville, S.T.L.

Many of the chages against the SSPX re debunked by Father in the link above.

 

[bear06]

sspx.ca/Angelus/2005_March/More_Catholic_Pope.htm
More Catholic Than The Pope
Review by Fr. Stephen Somerville, S.T.L.

Many of the chages against the SSPX re debunked by Father in the link above.

What charges were those? All Fr. Somerville said was “they said this, I don’t know canon law, but I don’t agree with it. I agree with Lefebvre.” He spilled a lot of ink but where was the debunking done? It was a great book. I highly recommend it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

twiztedseraph:

Stuff the SSPX are wrong about. I may encounter an SSPX one day, what are some things I should beef up on so as not to be fooled?

I believe they are wrong about their use of probabilism. Probabilism is anything but traditional casuistry, yet they cling to it as their defense just like the modernists do. I find that rather ironic.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I also believe the SSPX make propositions which have been condemned by Pius VI. Observe,

It is well known traditional Catholic doctrine that ecclesiastical discipline can never be harmful or dangerous to the faithful, as was taught by Pius VI’s condemnation of the Jansenist proposition to the contrary [cf. Pope Pius VI, *Auctorem Fidei, 78 (1794).

See more here: Are Ecclesiastical Disciplines Infallible?

According to Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9 (1832):
“the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect"

Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, 4-5 (1833), admonishing those like the SSPX who "state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church … [which] are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion… these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794)… do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?"

According to Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 66 (1943):
“Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends.”

I also refer you to the **1909 Catholic Encyclopedia, **written under the papacy of Pope St. Pius X, from an article entitled “Ecclesiastical Discipline”, under the heading “DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY”.
newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

Here’s an excerpt…

Disciplinary Infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.

From a 1908 source of Catholic doctrine, P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

“The Church is* infallible in her general discipline***. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .

“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

SSPX, railing agains this traditional Catholic doctrine, and contrary to Pius VI’s condemnation, reassert that present ecclesiastical discipline is harmful even in its approved form.

From the SSPX web page, citing Msgr Levebvre:

“The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules…bears within it a poison harmful to the faith” *(*Marcel Levebvre, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 29)

This proposition is the Jansenist claim all over again, which was already condemend by Pius VI. Traditionalist Catholics ought to know better.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

With regard to the SSPX dispute over religious liberty, it’s important to remember that MSgr Levebvre signed Dignitatis Humanae, the very document the SSPX rail against.

For an outstanding scholarly explanation of religious liberty, I recommend the following articles by Fr. Brian Harrison, who is the best defender of Dignitatis Humanae available in English.

Pius IX, Vatican II and Religious Liberty by Fr. Brian W. Harrison
rtforum.org/lt/lt9.html#II

Vatican II and Religious Liberty, Contradition or Continuity? by Fr. Brian W. Harrison
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/00MarApr/continuity.html

Religious Liberty: “Rights” versus "Tolerance"
by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D.

See more here: Against Indifferentism

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

itsjustdave1988:

I believe they are wrong about their use of probabilism. Probabilism is anything but traditional casuistry, yet they cling to it as their defense just like the modernists do. I find that rather ironic.

Probabilism is actually one of the wacky strains that led to the general disdain of all casuistry. People realized what sort of license it provided and began to see casuistry as simply a way to find excuses for doing what one wants.

 

[EddieArent]

bear06:

What charges were those? All Fr. Somerville said was “they said this, I don’t know canon law, but I don’t agree with it. I agree with Lefebvre.” He spilled a lot of ink but where was the debunking done? It was a great book. I highly recommend it.

Wrong.

Great book? Yeah, great to burn with winter coming up.

As for those arguing against the infamous Mgr. Perl letter, the proof is in the pudding; They asked Una Voce to publish the letter the conditions stand as they are. Thus making it public and not a private decision over a certain individual or what may have you.

“Una Voce America has received a communication from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, concerning an article which appeared in The Remnant newspaper and various websites. At the request of the Commission, we are publishing it below.”

 

[bear06]

EddieArent:

Wrong.

Great book? Yeah, great to burn with winter coming up.

As for those arguing against the infamous Mgr. Perl letter, the proof is in the pudding; They asked Una Voce to publish the letter the conditions stand as they are. Thus making it public and not a private decision over a certain individual or what may have you.

“Una Voce America has received a communication from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, concerning an article which appeared in The Remnant newspaper and various websites. At the request of the Commission, we are publishing it below.”

What the heck are you talking about? He had to ask Una Voce to publish that letter because it was being used to say that attending and SSPX to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation was universal. He clarified that the letter was only for an individual in a specific circumstance, not for all. Did you actually read the letter? Well, anyway, thanks for pointing our Msgr. Perl’s follow up letter. I missed USMC bringing this issue up.

Here’s part of the letter you didn’t quote:

Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us.

unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

What exactly didn’t you like about More Catholic than the Pope? I’d like some specifics. Was it the fact that he used the Church teachings and laws to show that the SSPX was wrong?

 

[USMC]

USMC:

I have a tape of a talk given by a good and well known priest (who is in normal union with Rome), who spoke of a Papal Mass in some stadium, years ago. At the time the preist was only a deacon, and was asked to distribut communion at the Mass. (The priest is almost crying as he tells the story).

He told of the complete irreverence that took place at Mass with “everyone” receiving communion. He said you could tell that most of them had no idea what it was. He then said that after Mass they were told to place the remaining consecrated hosts into a burlap bag, and then the hosts were thrown into the river.

bear06:

This would be a tragedy at best. Imagine the souls excommunicated in that moment! What priest was this?

That said, I don’t buy anything until there is proof. Too often blatant lies have been told to evoke hatred for the Magisterium. You might want to cite your sources.

Here you go:

Priest: Father James McLucas
Tape name: “A Priest’s Heartache and Hope: Reflections on the Present Moment”
Cost: $5

Ordering instruction:

UVOC
980 Dorothea Road
La Habra Heights, CA 90631

Website: uvoc.org/tapes_and_cds.htm

In your post, you started off by saying: “At the very best this [story] is a friend of a friend of a friend story with absolutely no proof.”

Not so. Fr. McLucas, who tells the story on the tape, is the priest who took part in the sacrilege. He blames himself as much as anyone else.

I’ll have to respond to the other posts directed towards me when I have a little more time.

Before I go I have to convey my sympathy for the horror that KirkLVNV witnessed at the SSPX Mass. Let us hear in his own words the horrible abuse that he was forced to endure:

KirkLVNV: * "… the [SSPX] priest reach[ed] the minor elevation while the choir is still on Mysterium Fidei… ".*

The chior was still singing the Mysterium Fidei during the minor elevation? Someone must put a stop to such madness!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

itsjustdave1988:

I believe they are wrong about their use of probabilism. Probabilism is anything but traditional casuistry, yet they cling to it as their defense just like the modernists do. I find that rather ironic.

Im not sure what probabilism or casuistry is, but I read the other post you put up which were good .