The role of SSPX in the current state of the TLM

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cranch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If the Church which emerged from the Second Vatican Council is no longer the “Catholic Church”, then where is the Catholic Church today? Even the SSPX still claims its head is still present in Rome.
Click to expand...
No one, except a couple of very insignificant sects claim the Papacy other than Benedict XVI in Rome. Unless you consider “Michael I”(David Bawden) or “Pius XIII”(Lucian Pulvermacher) to be holder of the Keys. For all I know you may very well be one of them yourself…
Click to expand...
And none of this addresses the question I asked…

What is the explanation of this phenomenon?
 
The more I read about (and from) the SSPX, the less sympathy I have for their cause. While their schismatic actions may have promted Rome to grant greater access to the TLM, they are today a scar on the face of the Tridentine movement in the Church. I am begining to really doubt if they ever had any intention of submitting themselves fully to the authority of Rome, and if their acceptance of Benedict XVI as the rightful Soveriegn Pontiff is out of necessity rather then obedience.
 
While their schismatic actions may have promted Rome to grant greater access to the TLM, they are today a scar on the face of the Tridentine movement in the Church.
Click to expand...
There was effectively no access to the Traditional Mass until 1984 (the first indult). What you wrote here is ridiculous. It is very difficult to argue that the SSPX is not the entire reason for any indult and access to the Traditional Mass and Sacraments.

And no, I am not a SSPX chapel attendee.
 
gorman64 said:
There was effectively no access to the Traditional Mass until 1984 (the first indult). What you wrote here is ridiculous. It is very difficult to argue that the SSPX is not the entire reason for any indult and access to the Traditional Mass and Sacraments.

And no, I am not a SSPX chapel attendee.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Caesar is denying that the SSPX contributed greatly to the preservation of the TLM:
The more I read about (and from) the SSPX, the less sympathy I have for their cause. While their schismatic actions may have prompted Rome to grant greater access to the TLM, they are today a scar on the face of the Tridentine movement in the Church. I am beginning to really doubt if they ever had any intention of submitting themselves fully to the authority of Rome, and if their acceptance of Benedict XVI as the rightful Sovereign Pontiff is out of necessity rather then obedience.
Click to expand...
I think he is saying that they are not currently doing the TLM any favours by their obstinacy to reunite with Rome.
 
Except the fight was not only for the Mass…but the Faith. The assaults against the Faith have grown worse, not better.

The reason the SSPX came into existence is still there…and even more so.
 
gorman64 said:
Except the fight was not only for the Mass…but the Faith. The assaults against the Faith have grown worse, not better.

The reason the SSPX came into existence is still there…and even more so.
Click to expand...
No argument there, that the assaults against the faith have grown stronger. I look forward to the reconciliation of the SSPX with Rome. It will open the TLM up to more people, and they will be exposed to the traditions and pieties of the church, which will undoubtedly strengthen them in their faith. And weaken the assaults against it.
 
devotus said:
Their disobedience has caused a backlash limiting the TLM.

I can see your point if an indult is asked today but from a timeline standpoint there was no TLM masses allowed until after the Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated the Bishops who were to continue the good work of the SSPX and was excommunicated for it. .

Do you think there would be an TLM indult with out the SSPX?
Click to expand...
Let’s see, wasn’t it Alex who pointed to the “Agatha Christie” Indult? Although I’ve never heard of it and it might be a radical traditionalist fairytale, they apparently got one without disobedience. It would seem impossible to say “it would have never happened with out the good old SSPX”. It did and there’s no way of knowing what further indults would have been issued without them.
 
Catholic29 said:
Your welcome for the link, I suspect you take Bishop Tissier’s words more seriously than I do.

Anyhow I don’t expect Benedict XVI, nor any of his successors to disown Vatican II or abrogate the Novus Ordo anytime soon. If none of the conditions happen, the SSPX can expect to remain in its “irregularized” state for the forseable future.
Click to expand...
At least you didn’t claim abrogating the Novus Ordo would NEVER happen.

It wasn’t that long ago the Pope Leo XIII invalidated not only the Anglican Mass but he invalidated it retroactively and invalidated the Anglican priesthood as well.

And here they were just as probably as happily devoted going every Sunday to an Anglican Mass to honor the Lord’s Day as are the Novus Ordinarians. Who would have thought some Pope would finally get on their case?

I hope for our sakes that won’t happen because I would like to get some Divine credit for putting up with the Novus Ordo for 26 years.
 
bear06 said:
Let’s see, wasn’t it Alex who pointed to the “Agatha Christie” Indult? Although I’ve never heard of it and it might be a radical traditionalist fairytale, they apparently got one without disobedience. It would seem impossible to say “it would have never happened with out the good old SSPX”. It did and there’s no way of knowing what further indults would have been issued without them.
Click to expand...
The SSPX just “forced” the issue (by their disobedience) and made it happen sooner. Otherwise, we could still be waiting. Not to say that what they did was right, but God knows how to turn good of any situation. And the good is that we have lots of indults springing up wherever the SSPX sets up their chapels.
 
paramedicgirl said:
I think he is saying that they are not currently doing the TLM any favours by their obstinacy to reunite with Rome.
Click to expand...
And I don’t think you’re doing any favors by persisting in emphasizing that fact. What’s the purpose of starting all these SSPX threads anyway? Most of their churchgoers go to worship God above all else. Why don’t we talk about the average Novus Ordinarian who thinks he’s a practicing Catholic by going to church only on Easter and Christmas and talks about how much he loves going to a Mass he can understand.
 
BobP123 said:
At least you didn’t claim abrogating the Novus Ordo would NEVER happen.

It wasn’t that long ago the Pope Leo XIII invalidated not only the Anglican Mass but he invalidated it retroactively and invalidated the Anglican priesthood as well.

And here they were just as probably as happily devoted going every Sunday to an Anglican Mass to honor the Lord’s Day as are the Novus Ordinarians. Who would have thought some Pope would finally get on their case?

I hope for our sakes that won’t happen because I would like to get some Divine credit for putting up with the Novus Ordo for 26 years.
Click to expand...
Actually its been 36 years since Paul VI instituted the Novus Ordo.

Abrogation of the Novus Ordo (the SSPXer and Sedevacantist’s dream), is probably more likely NEVER than in the very distant future.

So you equate the Novus Ordo with the Anglican Mass? I guess you can count me among the Anglican and “Novus Ordinarian” heretics, along with Benedict XVI and the three Popes before him. That is if you count them as valid Popes…:rolleyes:
 
bear06 said:
Let’s see, wasn’t it Alex who pointed to the “Agatha Christie” Indult? Although I’ve never heard of it and it might be a radical traditionalist fairytale, they apparently got one without disobedience. It would seem impossible to say “it would have never happened with out the good old SSPX”. It did and there’s no way of knowing what further indults would have been issued without them.
Click to expand...
Yes … I think one or two Bishops would have allowed the TLM ( Campos Brazil , Agatha Christie Indult) but no evidance of any support … just suppression.

“My hopes, however, were shattered. What totally derailed the liturgical renewal, from the point of view of this bishop in the trenches, was the decision of Pope John Paul II made I am sure, with great anguish to grant in 1984 the indult that allowed the Tridentine usage to flourish again.”

– Archbishop Weakland
 
“My hopes, however, were shattered. What totally derailed the liturgical renewal, from the point of view of this bishop in the trenches, was the decision of Pope John Paul II made I am sure, with great anguish to grant in 1984 the indult that allowed the Tridentine usage to flourish again.”
Click to expand...
– Archbishop Weakland
Click to expand...
And what was the reason for you posting this quote?
 
bear06 said:
And what was the reason for you posting this quote?
Click to expand...
I think the text above it would have been a good clue…

" Yes … I think one or two Bishops would have allowed the TLM ( Campos Brazil , Agatha Christie Indult) but no evidance of any support … just suppression. "
 
BobP123 said:
And I don’t think you’re doing any favors by persisting in emphasizing that fact. What’s the purpose of starting all these SSPX threads anyway? Most of their churchgoers go to worship God above all else. Why don’t we talk about the average Novus Ordinarian who thinks he’s a practicing Catholic by going to church only on Easter and Christmas and talks about how much he loves going to a Mass he can understand.
Click to expand...
Bob, the most reverent Masses I have ever been to are the handful of SSPX Masses I attended in Calgary. They really know how to worship God and make a Mass both beautiful and sacred. There is no comparison to the NO that I know and attend. I only wish they were in full communion with Rome, so they could open up their riches to the rest of the Catholic world.
 
It wasn’t that long ago the Pope Leo XIII invalidated not only the Anglican Mass but he invalidated it retroactively and invalidated the Anglican priesthood as well.
Click to expand...
Leo XIII did not invalidate the Anglican “Mass”, the Anglicans invalidated it by changing it. The Anglican ordinations were always invalid as well…because of the rite they used was not valid.

From Apostolicae Curae:
  1. For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what we have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized. It would be tedious to enter into details, nor is it necessary to do so, as the history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had in view. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between “the law of believing and the law of praying”, under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.
Click to expand...
Other than Satan, there is no one answer I can figure.
Click to expand...
Of course the principalities and powers are involved…but that does not even touch on the “ecclesiological problem” that should be evident to all thinking Catholics.
 
BobP123 said:
Why don’t we talk about the average Novus Ordinarian who thinks he’s a practicing Catholic by going to church only on Easter and Christmas and talks about how much he loves going to a Mass he can understand.
Click to expand...
Sure, why don’t we. And my answer would be poor catechesis, poor examples, and the onslaught of the secular culture. Nothing Vatican II promulgated, or anything the New Mass suposedly watered down.
 
gorman64 said:
Of course the principalities and powers are involved…but that does not even touch on the “ecclesiological problem” that should be evident to all thinking Catholics.
Click to expand...
Evident to you perhaps.

Personally I see no “ecclesiological problem”, whether it be real or imagined.

Though if the conciliar Church is invalid and heretical, that leaves the SSPXer and Sedevacantist with the invariable “ecclesiological problem” of where the true Catholic Church is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top