The SSPX and True Catholicism

[Ham1]

…All 3 pages…

GerardP…

You have said many insulting things to me in your response. Your comment about me receiving communion at a clown mass was a cheap shot and one for which you should apologize.

Apparently, I hit a nerve. You seem to presume that I am a “modernist.” I am not. I love the traditions of the Church. I love the preservation of the old Mass and the beauty of the liturgy. I love latin whether it is in the NO or the TLM. I have never received communion in the hand and I spent a good portion of my life receiving communion on my knees (all long post Vatican II). I love tradition and I grieve for the deceptions that have drawn people away from the truth. I also love the Church and I am deeply saddened that Catholics who could bring so much of what we need refuse to obey the Body of Christ.

Admittedly, I have no love for men who refuse to obey the Church. I have no love for men who profane the Eucharist. If the SSPX priests were truly faithful to the Church and “in protest”, they would voluntarily suspend celebration of the sacraments in acknowledgement of their suspensions and protest while remaining obedient. As it stands, they violate the Church and commit grievous sin in their celebration of the sacraments.

You think VII was evil. I don’t. You think the NO destructive. I don’t. Good luck with that.

In the future, GerardP, I hope you will respond more charitably and logically and refrain from personal assumptions and attacks.

Maybe look at the earlier response from UKCatholicGuy as a model for crafting an intelligent, charitable and concise response.

 

[Ham1]

I admit that was not a hard-fact example, but one that I believe would still hold to be fairly accurate in real life. That is, I would confidently assert that most Catholics (informed Catholics) would think it less shocking to attend a protestant service than an sspx Mass. Do you agree?

I believe that most Catholics, even many devout Catholics, do not even know what the SSPX is. I mean, in reality it is a tiny group of people and many Catholics are simply not aware of what they are. Perhaps, you have a point that many Catholics would find it less shocking to attend the protestant service because it is in english and the SSPX mass is in scary LATIN!

I’m not sure I agree with you that protestant services do not include sacrilege . . . I’m more concerned with your implication that SSPX Masses somehow do contain sacrilege? .

As to your first point, agreed. Many protestant services may contain sacrilige. Yes, I do mean that SSPX masses are sacriligous. Because the priests are suspended and forbidden from consecrating the Eucharist, their very act of consecration is (sadly ironically) in direct disobedience to the Body of Christ. What could be more sacriligious by commiting a serious sin in the very confection of the Body of Christ. It is a disobedience of the Body of Christ WITH the Body of Christ.

I do admit that the younger bishops are better, in general, than the older ones on their way out. However, I still think they are liberal compared to pre-conciliar standards. They see no problem with the New Mass, with Vatican II, etc. They have bought into the idea that we’re somehow in a “new springtime” of the faith, when in actuality the Church seems to be crumbling around us.

I guess we disagree here. I don’t see the new Mass as the cause of all evil within the Church and neither do these newer Bishops. If Bishops Benedict XVI, Bruskewitz, Rigali, Burke, Morlino, Doran, Dolan, Listecki, Sartain, and many, many others are more “liberal” than the pre Vatican II bishops, then I don’t see that as a problem. As for the new springtime, that starts now. It starts with the young good priests (there’s a lot) and the bishop’s. We got two younger priests 3 years ago and our parish is bursting with very devout orthodox liturgies and music. People (especially large families )are coming from all over to be a part of a real Catholic parish. This is what the “new evangelization” is about. It is about bringing the Church back to it’s traditions, eliminating abuses and bringing the fullness of the Catholic faith to the people in the pews. And it ALL starts with the liturgy. This growth has been in direct correlation to the return to a traditionaly NO liturgy with glorious music and chant, parts of the Mass in latin and corps of altar boys. It is a perfect example of how tradition can continue in the NO Mass.

I disagree. We do not serve the Church by pretending everything is ok when it’s not. The fact is the Church is in the greatest crisis she has ever known (worse than the Arian heresy in my opinion), and until we honestly face that fact, it’s not going to get any better.

As I mentioned above, I believe that we are swinging away from the sick abuses of the past. It will take time, but with the good bishops (they are out there). The pendulum will swing back from the tragedies of the past and present. One priest at a time. One parish at a time.

I have nothing but respect for the holy priests of the FSSP-- let me make that very clear. At the same time, I understand why the SSPX has not seen fit to follow in their footsteps. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I understand, the FSSP is essentially forced to take the position that “Vatican II was a good council, the New Mass is fine, we’re just here to celebrate ‘our spirituality’ of the traditional Mass.” The SSPX, on the other hand, (from what I understand) says, “No. The traditional Mass is not just some spirituality that can coexist peacefully with the New Mass. The New Mass is hurting the Church, along with the other reforms, and we must go back to the Traditional Mass to stop the bleeding.” That’s part of their reasoning for not following the same pattern as the FSSP, as I see it. I’m open to correction, however.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The priests of SSPX want Rome to declare VII false. They will not. They will declare the horrid interpretations of it false, but not the Council itself. Sadly, I believe it is this mentality that will ultimately prevent the SSPX from ever re-uniting with Rome.

I only meant that they are good Catholics who are inside the Catholic Church, not some evil, heretical group that so many people seem to imagine them to be.

Agreed. Which is why it is SO tragic that they are separated from the Church in a normal sense. These are wonderful people who could contribute to the moral rebuilding of many parishes were they to return.

Thank you for intelligent and most charitable responses!

 

[GerardP]

**Ham1 wrote: **

…All 3 pages…

Surprising that it took 3 pages to respond to the shotgun approach you took in your first post to me.

GerardP…

You have said many insulting things to me in your response. Your comment about me receiving communion at a clown mass was a cheap shot and one for which you should apologize.

Why was that an insult? Don’t you believe that the local ordinary has the power to make adjustments to the Liturgy to suit the pastoral needs of the community? The council says he has the right to do it, “…that they [the rites] be given new vigor to meet the circumstances of modern times.” If there was anything else that you read as an insult, by all means bring it forward and we’ll discuss in the context of your original post and gauge the response. If I’m guilty of a true insult and not a fair rebuttal, I’ll apologize.

If the bishop says, “Clown mass” then “Clown mass” it is. To defy him is to defy Christ himself. So, you go to the Clown Mass and don’t question what the authority in communion with the Holy See directs.

Apparently, I hit a nerve.

Only when you descended into insults by stating that I’m not intellectually honest.

You seem to presume that I am a “modernist.”

No. It’s only a speculation on my part that you are tainted with modernism to some degree in your theological understanding.

I am not. I love the traditions of the Church.

Enough to fight for them?

I love the preservation of the old Mass and the beauty of the liturgy.

Preservation? It’s not a museum piece. Legally-speaking it is still the normative liturgy. The Novus Ordo was supposed to be the bishops option as an addition.

I love latin whether it is in the NO or the TLM.

Why do you love Latin? Given a choice would you rather have the Novus Ordo in Latin or the TLM in the vernacular as it was always translated in English?

I have never received communion in the hand and I spent a good portion of my life receiving communion on my knees (all long post Vatican II).

What do think of all of those bishops who have defied the wishes of both Paul VI and John Paul II and insist on allowing communion in the hand? Have you run into a priest or “extraoridinary minister” who purposely drops the host in order to make you take it in your hand? Would you be willing to fight for communion kneeling and on the tongue? Are you currently receiving on your knees and on the tongue or have you been persuaded to recieve standing in deference to “traffic issues” and such?

I love tradition and I grieve for the deceptions that have drawn people away from the truth. I also love the Church and I am deeply saddened that Catholics who could bring so much of what we need refuse to obey the Body of Christ.

Okay. I understand the terms “love for tradition” and “dislike of deceptions.” Can you clearly define what you mean by “refuse to obey the Body of Christ.”??? That would really move the conversation forward.

Admittedly, I have no love for men who refuse to obey the Church.

Again, another ambiguous phrase “refuse to obey the Church”. What do you mean specifically by that? Please in practical terms and not circular arguments with substitutions of similarly vague terms.

I have no love for men who profane the Eucharist.

You should love them even though you don’t have to like them.
Would you actively participate in a liturgy that profaned the Eucharist? And I’m not talking about something extravagant. Just a little, subtle profanation.

If the SSPX priests were truly faithful to the Church and “in protest”, they would voluntarily suspend celebration of the sacraments in acknowledgement of their suspensions and protest while remaining obedient.

Another if/then suggestion that is a non-sequitur. Young girls often use this to assume power over lovestruck little boys “If you loved me, you’d buy me…” By the same token, why can’t it be, “if the Popes were truly faithful they would acknowledge the good work of the SSPX’s rescue mission and put full papal support behind it.” ? or “If the Bishops were truly faithful they would encourage the Pope to restore the Church with the traditions both universally and in the papacy itself and they would repeal the reforms springing from Vatican II.”

As it stands, they violate the Church and commit grievous sin in their celebration of the sacraments.

More ambiguous statements “violate the Church” and “grievous sin”. How do you define these and on what basis do you make your claims?

 

[GerardP]

**Ham1 wrote: **

You think VII was evil. I don’t. You think the NO destructive. I don’t. Good luck with that.

I don’t need luck, I have the truth, I have the Popes and saints and all of the warnings from prior to Vatican II. I have those small and often ignored statements of the post-conciliar Popes that finally admit the level of destruction that has been wreaked on the Church as a result of the “implementation” of the Council. No Council, no “implementation” of the Council.

I’m willing to back all of my claims as being fully Catholic and supported by history and orthodoxy. It amazes me that no one but Andreas wants to actually discuss it. Many people seem more comfortable with straw men and slogans.

In the future, GerardP, I hope you will respond more charitably and logically and refrain from personal assumptions and attacks. Maybe look at the earlier response from UKCatholicGuy as a model for crafting an intelligent, charitable and concise response.

I am quite charitable in my responses and far more logical than you credit me. My answers were direct towards you and in the manner that you made your points and addressed the substance of your arguments. If you have a problem with the tone or tenor, I suggest you modify yours since you initially addressed me. I simply modeled my answer according to your post. I was certainly more charitable towards you than you were towards me and I still am. If you had wanted to have a civil discourse, we could easily have had that, but you were cruel right out of the box and didn’t bother to bring in any substantial facts to back up your assertions.

Is this some strategic effort in order to derail the focus of the conversation from facts and instead bring personalities into it?

If so, that would be reprehensible.

 

[AlexV]

“Violate the Church” is a phrase with zero legal meaning. It’s ambiguous and vague. It lacks precise definition.

We cannot say the priests of the SSPX “commit grievous sin” when they celebrate the Sacraments. How do we know if an individual SSPX priest is sinful? The principles of Catholic moral theology do not permit such blanket statements.

 

[GerardP]

**pnewton wrote: **

Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP
Is the truth of the argument so disturbing to your sensitivities that you must concoct fiction in order to avoid dealing with it?
I have concocted no fiction.

You certainly have. This whole fiction about “no salvation outside of the SSPX” is pure fiction. I don’t hold it, I have never heard it spoken by any bishop, priest, nun, brother of the SSPX or any one of the faithful that request sacraments and guidance during these troubled times from them.

I do see a parallel in some earlier arguements I have had. Also, I am not avoiding dealing with the issues. I have dealt with it. I am done.

Irrelevant. I’m not responsible for your previous dealings. You seem to claim you are done supporting your conclusions because you’ve done it before. Yet you haven’t grown tired of making the same erroneous accusations.

SSPX is not a single-minded agenda for me here.

Then why post on a thread about the SSPX? Is it that you just want to give your opinion (which is calumny in it’s substance) and not be challenged? Are you interested in truth or spreading propaganda?

I have collected enough data to stand by my conclusion that they are prideful and treasonous, putting their own authority above that which God has established.

Oh my! Well, in that case I suppose I must concede. You say you have all of the answers. ( I can only guess they are protected and gathered on 3x5 cards in an envelope held in a milk jar on Funk & Wagnel’s porch.)

The rest of us little people aren’t important enough for you to actually back up your statements. We should just accept your statements as self-evident facts. I get it now.

I believe that those who follow them are objectively outside the Church and possibly in mortal sin.

And we are right back at the beginning. Let’s sketch out how this conversation has developed. You make a statement. Someone challenges you on it with reason, good questions based on orthodox Catholic teaching and supporting facts. The response is no questions are answered, no argument is refuted and Catholic teaching isn’t even actually brought into the discussion. When corrected, your response to that and all evidence and arguements to the contrary of your opinion is that you’ve been through it all answered it all and you go back and make the same unsupported statement without ever actually engaging the substance of the argument. And anyone who disagrees with you is not worthy of a valid response but rather a calumny based on nothing but more propaganda.

I’ll try one more time. From your conclusion:

Please define what you mean by “the authority that God established.”

 

[GerardP]

**Andreas wrote: **

Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP
Just always remember , objectively the suspensions are unjust and as invalid as the supposed excommunicatations, They should be ignored just as “lazy feelings” that you should not actually look into all of the facts should be ignored.

I’d like to point out that your line of argumentation precludes any objective analysis of the suspensions and argumentations, as it is based on the unknowable internal dispositions of the suspended and excommunicated parties. Thus, while the true status of those men is, indeed, objectively true (either the law applied or did not, no matter how I or Fr. Brown feel about it), it makes little sense to invoke this objectivity. As soon as you invoke interior dispositions you shunt the decision of an onlooker to his subjective judgment: he has to judge whether the story is plausible. Are you willing to apply that universally?

Thank you Andreas for noticing that. I’m fully prepared to discuss anything pertaining to the SSPX in detail. I just wish the request for objective analysis was extended to people on the other side of this issue as well. And I appreciate your willingness to actually discuss the matter instead of hurling slogans, using vaguely defined or undefined terms.

Now, if I were arguing with you about how Abp. Milingo is not actually excommunicated, would you be as willing to buy my case from his perception/feeling of a crisis due to lack of married clergy? I don’t think a married clergy ranks anywhere close to the problems of the Church post Vatican II, but I do think based on the arguments in favor of the SSPX bishops one could demand a similar benefit of the doubt for most excommunicates out there.

Milingo is an interesting and tragic case. His history shows a sudden departure since around the late 90’s or 2000. Milingo was very popular in traditionalist circles. He was very devoted to Fatima. He was also one of the only archbishops known for being a full blown exorcist. The sudden change from traditional conservative with sympathies towards traditional Catholicism to extreme liberalism/heresy makes me suspect that he lost an exorcism and is currently possessed.

Particularly with the company he keeps in his supposed “episcopal consecrations.” I suspect the Vatican knows this and that is why they are refusing to acknowledge the validity of his consecrations of Stallings and co. He cannot be operating of his own free will. So, while he is canonically excommunicated so as to take away his jurisidiction and prevent the total breakdown of the celibacy requirement, he is of course still within the reach of the Church and the state of his mind and will are in question as to whether he is competent to be considered to have intentionally and willfully separated from the unity of the Church by his shirking of tradition, disobedience and heretical behavior. (This is actually basically the same argument I make against sedevacantists with specific details adjusted of course.)

The contrasts are different with LeFebvre who never changed from the quotes by him in Fr. Ralph Wiltgen’s “the Rhine flows into the Tiber” to what is written on his tombstone “I have passed on what I recieved.”

Now, where would you like to start with the issue of suspensions?

 

[AlexV]

The Lefebvre excommunication issue is really fascinating in light of recent events in China.

Either consecrating bishops without papal mandates is an excommunicable offense or not.

If it is, then quite a few Chinese bishops are excommunicated. Yet, interestingly, not a single Decree of Excommunication has appeared from the Congregation of Bishops or any other Vatican office to condemn the recent illicit Chinese consecrations.

Or, perhaps, French traditionalists aren’t quite as tolerated as Chinese communists.

 

[gorman64]

We also agree that the Pope has the right to make disciplinary changes. But where we differ is you from your writings seem to believe that the Pope is divinely protected in making these changes. Whereas in the history of the Church, it has always been taught and shown that Popes are not protected. And in cases where disciplinary changes are a danger to the faith, they must be resisted until the danger is passed or the Pope corrects the error.

GerardP,

What is the source for this? All the dogmatic theology manuals (looking at pre V2 manuals only) teach that the Church is infallible in Her disciplines. This infallibility is indirect and protects the Church from issuing false disciplines.

I have discussed this on another forum, which I’m sure you are familiar with, only to be banned by the webmaster.

Again, what is your source for what you stated above?

Yours,

Gorman

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

The Lefebvre excommunication issue is really fascinating in light of recent events in China.

Either consecrating bishops without papal mandates is an excommunicable offense or not.

If it is, then quite a few Chinese bishops are excommunicated. Yet, interestingly, not a single Decree of Excommunication has appeared from the Congregation of Bishops or any other Vatican office to condemn the recent illicit Chinese consecrations.

Or, perhaps, French traditionalists aren’t quite as tolerated as Chinese communists.

That is very interesting indeed.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

I believe that most Catholics, even many devout Catholics, do not even know what the SSPX is.

I agree here that your average Catholic would not know what the SSPX is. I suppose I was referring more to those type Catholics that frequent forums like this, who are trying to live their faith, and who generally keep up with the happenings in the Church. It is they whom I would venture to say would be more scandalized by the thought of attending an SSPX Mass than a protestant service. I realize this is a completely subjective argument, but again, I think it would prove to be true.

As to your first point, agreed. Many protestant services may contain sacrilige. Yes, I do mean that SSPX masses are sacriligous.

I must disagree that the SSPX Masses are sacrilegious. In fact, I would venture to say that perfectly licit Novus Ordo Masses are closer to being sacrilegious. Why do I say that? The priest turns his back to Our Lord and faces the people instead; lay persons can handle the Eucharist; women can serve at the altar; the people are forbidden to kneel to receive their Lord; the words of Consecration are profaned by their being utterred aloud and in the vernacular; and the many signs of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament (such as genuflections and the priest holding his two fingers together) that have been abandoned. All of these things and more are surely disrespectful and hurtful to Our Lord. Just because the Church allows it does not make it ok. Weak popes in the past allowed the sale of indulgences, but it was still wrong. Therefore, in light of the grave crisis and widespread abuse and lack of respect for the Mass and Eucharist in the Church, I find the SSPX’s position perfectly justified, and fail to see how their Masses could possibly be sacrilegious-- they are offering the same Mass that was offered for 1500 years before Vatican II. As to their excommunications-- I believe that one day the SSPX will be vindicated, and their excommunication and suspension will be shown to be unjust and without authority (that is, morally they are not excommunicated). This was the case with St. Athanasius (to a large degree, though not a perfect parallel).

This is what the “new evangelization” is about. It is about bringing the Church back to it’s traditions, eliminating abuses and bringing the fullness of the Catholic faith to the people in the pews. And it ALL starts with the liturgy.

I absolutely agree with you that “it ALL starts with the liturgy.” The liturgy is at the very heart of the Church, and it is the most important thing She does-- to renew the Sacrifice of the Cross for the salvation of all the world. And it is for that reason that we must not content ourselves with this current liturgy. I would encourage you to read about Vatican II-- that is, the history of it. I would strongly recommend the book “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber.” It’s an objective look at the history of Vatican II, written by a journalist-priest who was at the Council, and published in 1967. While I do not believe the Vatican II documents contain heresy, I think it is safe to say that the council is the source of our current problems. It brought together liberal theologians who had an agenda to make the Church more world-friendly. Several times Pope Paul VI had to send council texts back to the Fathers for revision because they contained error! This is all documented in the book I mentioned above. The point I’m trying to make, is that Vatican II-- while not proclaiming heresy-- had a liberal tendancy, and opened up the door to all the liberalism we see now. So, I don’t think the solution is the go back to Vatican II, for this is whence the problems come.

The priests of SSPX want Rome to declare VII false.

I’m not sure the SSPX wants Rome to declare VII “false.” I’d venture to say they would like to see Rome admit that V2 has caused major problems, though, and I think this would be a great step forward in helping the Church out of this crisis. I don’t think it’s beyond reality to think that Rome will indeed one day have to go back and “fix” Vatican II. I think it’s actually inevitable.

Agreed. Which is why it is SO tragic that they are separated from the Church in a normal sense. These are wonderful people who could contribute to the moral rebuilding of many parishes were they to return.

But that’s the problem-- parishes currently have the Novus Ordo Mass, which is the problem. The SSPX provides a haven of refuge during the crisis, a starting point for restoration when the smoke clears. When we’re out of this post-conciliar mess (and we have to be at some point, for the gates of Hell cannot prevail as Our Lord promised), the True Mass of the Church will still be alive and intact thanks to the SSPX and other traditional orders who kept the faith during the storm.

Thank you for intelligent and most charitable responses!

Likewise, friend! God bless!

 

[ctos]

Missa Solemnis:

So why, why, WHY! Are the SSPX called un-Catholic. Why are they considered Orphans.

One of the most incredible hypocrisies of the Novus Ordo is on the one hand the wild enthusiasm for “ecumenism” towards those who would happily sell the true Faith down the pike, and on the other, the fear and loathing toward those who just want an oasis of peace, hope, love, and true faith in these trying times.

 

[marci]

A few months ago I did some reading about the SSPX because I was thinking about going to the only chapel in the city where I live. I was just getting so disheartened by what I was witnessing in the masses I attended. It didn’t matter how many different parishes I tryed they were all the same. I was going to go to the SSPX chapel one Sunday until I came across something written by the pope that it would be “illicit” to attend a SSPX mass. I was crushed. As much as I can’t stand the modern day masses, I just can’t bring myself to go against the Holy Father.

Having said that, I agree with everything the OP said about how the SSPX are treated with such venom and hostility by so many and yet all other religions (even non-christian) are treated with so much charity. Where is the charity for the SSPX?

Also, I think the SSPX will be validated one day when it becomes clear that they were the “defenders of tradition”. If not for them, I doubt that 10 years from now, one could find a seminarian who would be trained in latin. So for this, and much more, we have them to thank.

However, the only argument I have with the SSPX is I feel that they have somewhat abandoned those of us who are trying so hard to fight the modernism that has infultrated the mass and the church. I wish that rather than go off and form another “church” they would have stayed and fought the good fight with all of us.

For the record, I was born in the early 70’s, so I don’t say any of this out of some kind of sentimental nastalgia. As a modern day catholic, I am deeply saddened to know what I have missed out on. There are no LMs in the area where I live, so until there are, I am stuck with the NO.

One Sunday, not long ago, after a particularly difficult mass, my father and I were discussing the fact that going to mass has become a sacrifice, a cross for us to bare. I find nothing uplifting coming from the alter, the lector, or the pews. I find the only thing I can do, is PRAY. I ask God to give me peace and keep my mind focused on His Sacrifice, but in the modern NO, that is a very difficult thing to do.

I have to say that I have alot of anger toward the VII generation of catholics, lay and clerical. I feel like they have stolen something very sacred from my generation and from my children’s, something that I fear we many never get back. Sometimes I wish I could stand before those learned men and say “Don’t you realize what you are taking from us?” “Why would you deny us this connection with our past, with our tradition?”

I have been able to find a good priest, but like so many others he is constantly bombarded with pushy people trying to change this, or orchastrate that. He sometimes allows things he shouldn’t because I think he picks and chooses his battles. I don’t understand why people can’t just leave things alone. If it ain’t broken–don’t try and fix it!!

Isn’t it said that you will know something by it’s fruit? What fruit has the church brought forth these past 40 years that make us believe we are on the right track?

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

A few months ago I did some reading about the SSPX because I was thinking about going to the only chapel in the city where I live. I was just getting so disheartened by what I was witnessing in the masses I attended. It didn’t matter how many different parishes I tryed they were all the same. I was going to go to the SSPX chapel one Sunday until I came across something written by the pope that it would be “illicit” to attend a SSPX mass. I was crushed. As much as I can’t stand the modern day masses, I just can’t bring myself to go against the Holy Father.

Having said that, I agree with everything the OP said about how the SSPX are treated with such venom and hostility by so many and yet all other religions (even non-christian) are treated with so much charity. Where is the charity for the SSPX?

Also, I think the SSPX will be validated one day when it becomes clear that they were the “defenders of tradition”. If not for them, I doubt that 10 years from now, one could find a seminarian who would be trained in latin. So for this, and much more, we have them to thank.

However, the only argument I have with the SSPX is I feel that they have somewhat abandoned those of us who are trying so hard to fight the modernism that has infultrated the mass and the church. I wish that rather than go off and form another “church” they would have stayed and fought the good fight with all of us.

For the record, I was born in the early 70’s, so I don’t say any of this out of some kind of sentimental nastalgia. As a modern day catholic, I am deeply saddened to know what I have missed out on. There are no LMs in the area where I live, so until there are, I am stuck with the NO.

One Sunday, not long ago, after a particularly difficult mass, my father and I were discussing the fact that going to mass has become a sacrifice, a cross for us to bare. I find nothing uplifting coming from the alter, the lector, or the pews. I find the only thing I can do, is PRAY. I ask God to give me peace and keep my mind focused on His Sacrifice, but in the modern NO, that is a very difficult thing to do.

I have to say that I have alot of anger toward the VII generation of catholics, lay and clerical. I feel like they have stolen something very sacred from my generation and from my children’s, something that I fear we many never get back. Sometimes I wish I could stand before those learned men and say “Don’t you realize what you are taking from us?” “Why would you deny us this connection with our past, with our tradition?”

I have been able to find a good priest, but like so many others he is constantly bombarded with pushy people trying to change this, or orchastrate that. He sometimes allows things he shouldn’t because I think he picks and chooses his battles. I don’t understand why people can’t just leave things alone. If it ain’t broken–don’t try and fix it!!

Isn’t it said that you will know something by it’s fruit? What fruit has the church brought forth these past 40 years that make us believe we are on the right track?

Just a quick correction…the SSPX did not form their own Church but they are (though it is debated) in schism.

What I recommend for you is attending the SSPX chapel anyway as long as you also attend a NO Mass before or afterwards.

You commit no wrong by attending an SSPX chapel just for the sake of the Traditional Mass. The only catch is that it does not fulfill your Sunday Obligation…and you would have to attend a NO Mass afterwards.

And yes…we all need to pray.

 

[GerardP]

GerardP,

What is the source for this? All the dogmatic theology manuals (looking at pre V2 manuals only) teach that the Church is infallible in Her disciplines. This infallibility is indirect and protects the Church from issuing false disciplines.

I have discussed this on another forum, which I’m sure you are familiar with, only to be banned by the webmaster.

Again, what is your source for what you stated above?

Yours,

Gorman

This is always a confusing issue for a lot of people. I think the dogmatic manuals didn’t have very good explanations of infallibility in general and that has lead to a lot of exaggerations in our day.

The idea is that because JPII promulgated a law and is the authentic interpretor of the law that it somehow means that he’s infallible in this and can’t be objectively wrong.

You can find it referenced on New Advent under infallibility and if I recall there is a reference about laws just falling into disuse because they become irrelevant over time. It also points out that this is not a traditional teaching but rather a speculation by theologians. Much like the infallibility of canonizations is according to St. Thomas “infallible” as a “pious belief”

I’ll look it up and see if I can find it for you. I also actually posted a quote a page or two back.

Obviously the most telling disciplinary ruling that was fallible was the ruling of Pope Stephen against Formosus. In that situation, the Pope acting as the authoritative ruler of the Church invalidated consecrations, ordinations, judgements and every action of Pope Formosus. The individual harm that these rulings of discipline is evident to anyone.

Infallibility of a law would only be indirect insofar as that law is directly related to an infallible teaching of the Church. So a law forbidding preaching against the dogma of the assumption would be infallible in that it is related to an infallible definition of the Church that already carries with it a theological anathema.

One of the most fascinating things is how many people misunderstand this idea from reading a snippet from Auctorem Fidei. It’s especially interesting when you see how the Pope is condemning vernacular masses, priests consecrating in loud voices and all the other novelties of the synod of Pistoia that were brought in after Vatican II. He’s saying “as if the Church would ever do some of these looney things.”

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Marci,

Thank you for your post. I absolutely understand and share your situation-- to some extent (luckily we have a good FSSP priest in my city who says a daily Latin Mass).

About your situation: There is no sin in attending an SSPX Mass, and I’ve been told by a priest I know (who is not SSPX) that SSPX Masses most certainly do fulfill one’s Sunday obligation-- how could they not?? Here is a letter from Msgr. Perl of the Ecclesia Dei Commission which states the same thing: unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

The Mass should not be a source of suffering and pain for you. In my opinion, it seems ridiculous to think that attending a holy Mass of the SSPX somehow doesn’t fulfill one’s obligation, but sitting through some quasi-Lutheran, guitar-playing, watered-down version of the Catholic Mass does.

Msgr Perl states in his letter that it is no sin at all for one to attend an SSPX Mass if one is going for the sake of the Mass, and not to express a desire to “separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him.” I don’t think anyone goes to the SSPX for that reason. People go to Society Masses because the Church is in a crisis, and the SSPX is providing a refuge from the chaos. No one goes thinking, “I’d really like to seperate myself from the Pope.”

Anyway, your in my prayers.

God bless.

 

[gorman64]

This is always a confusing issue for a lot of people. I think the dogmatic manuals didn’t have very good explanations of infallibility in general and that has lead to a lot of exaggerations in our day.

GerardP,

Which manuals have you read?

I agree that the “exagerations” are legion today, but I would say these “exagerations” are better described as “misunderstandings”. The pre-V2 dogmatic theology manuals contain the proper understanding of papal and Church infallibility. The teaching in the manuals has been largely abandoned…and the teaching of these manuals was despised by the modernists.

All of the manuals I have read say the same things regarding the general infallibility of the Church (including Her disciplines) and papal infallibility as well. They are much better and more detailed sources than The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Yours,
Gorman

 

[GerardP]

GerardP,

Which manuals have you read? (

Actually none probably of the type I think you are referring to.

I don’t have any in my library with the exception of the works of St. Thomas and a few others. Hence, my use of the words “I think” in my statement. (technically I guess Thomas’ Summas count but again probably are not what you’re referring to.)

Most of the time, I rely on St. Thomas and the Catechism of Trent for a clear understanding of the Catholic Faith. I also have Canon Ripley’s “This Is the Faith” in the new edition from a few years ago, all the major Catechisms, Denzinger, The Popes against Modern Errors is also valuable though not a manual.

Most of what I’ve read from the manuals comes from snippets culled and quoted in contemporary books. Most of the time Ott’s Fundamentals seems to be the favored child. Can you recommend some and where to get them?

I agree that the “exagerations” are legion today, but I would say these “exagerations” are better described as “misunderstandings”.

Well, wouldn’t you say all exaggerations are misunderstandings? I’m just focusing on the nature of particular misunderstandings. Papal infallibility has been pushed to ridiculous levels on the parts of some people and the disciplinary infallibility has, I fear driven a lot of people into sedevacantism.

The pre-V2 dogmatic theology manuals contain the proper understanding of papal and Church infallibility. The teaching in the manuals has been largely abandoned…and the teaching of these manuals was despised by the modernists

.

That the manuals were despised there can be no doubt.
And now that you bring that up, I’m afraid I’m guilty of engaging in Monday morning quarterbacking unfairly to the manuals. The modernists obviously tailored their ambiguities and arguments in reaction to and around what the manuals were teaching so, it’s really not fair for me to blame them for not covering the errors of today. Thanks for the corrective. I’m prejudicially and subconsciously comparing quotes that I’ve read from the manuals against something like Romano Amerio’s* Iota Unum *which blasts the errors of today out of the water.

All of the manuals I have read say the same things regarding the general infallibility of the Church (including Her disciplines) and papal infallibility as well. They are much better and more detailed sources than The Catholic Encyclopedia.

I’ll stipulate to your firsthand experience with them over my secondhand quotes. And I do know that the C.E. also has it’s problems but the explanation they gave was clear, reasonable and matches history. (Ironically in the sermon yesterday, the priest suggested that he believes the author of some of the articles was a modernist.) I think ultimately this aspect of infallibility will have to be reclarified on a magisterial level.

But until then, how would you explain disciplinary infallibility to someone who needs to reconcile something like Auctorem Fidei vs. today’s permission for those condemned proposals or the individual but authoritative legislations of particular Popes like Stephen. Obviously his rulings would have to be held by the Church as authoritative and the Scandal that they would have caused (along with the fact that they were in error) confusion a plenty for people that de facto believe in a positive infallibility.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

But until then, how would you explain disciplinary infallibility to someone who needs to reconcile something like Auctorem Fidei vs. today’s permission for those condemned proposals or the individual but authoritative legislations of particular Popes like Stephen. Obviously his rulings would have to be held by the Church as authoritative and the Scandal that they would have caused (along with the fact that they were in error) confusion a plenty for people that de facto believe in a positive infallibility.

I don’t think disciplinary infallibility needs to be *reconciled *with Pope Stephen’s actions, it just has to be understood. The law of the Church cannot enjoin anything contrary to faith or morals. It may not prescribe the best guidelines for achieving its ends (for instance, I think the “substitute” Friday penances are far less suited to achieving the end of penitential observance than our former and stricter abstinence laws), but it will not be immoral. Now the pope may excommunicate me for violating Canon 75000001 - which, in the imaginary code, prohibits spitting on religious - when in fact it was not I but the man next to me who did the spitting. He would be wrong. But that’s not protected, anyway. Just the law itself; that is, it is not immoral to forbid men from spitting on religious.

In the conflict we had earlier in the thread over disciplinary infallibility I’m afraid I may have given you the impression that I thought the pope’s execution of his laws is infallible, which I do not believe. Rather, I felt all parties concerned were clear that Abp. Lefebvre had violated canon law and I furthermore felt that the mind of the legislator made it clear that the particular violation was a schismatic act. The bone of contention seemed to be whether the Abp. deserved to be punished for violating the canons (since we all agree necessity can excuse violations). Now, even if I were to think the Abp. was not liable to sanction for his actions, I still don’t think I could call the application of sanctions by Pope John Paul II an “injustice” as many have been wont to, because his defense was based on inaccessible information - his interior dispositions. Thus the pope 1) saw a clear violation of the law and 2) a proferred excuse which he could not objectively analyze, leaving him to decide whether it seemed warranted or not. We have no reason to assume, then, that it was a bad faith judgment.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Milingo is an interesting and tragic case. His history shows a sudden departure since around the late 90’s or 2000. Milingo was very popular in traditionalist circles. He was very devoted to Fatima. He was also one of the only archbishops known for being a full blown exorcist. The sudden change from traditional conservative with sympathies towards traditional Catholicism to extreme liberalism/heresy makes me suspect that he lost an exorcism and is currently possessed.

Particularly with the company he keeps in his supposed “episcopal consecrations.” I suspect the Vatican knows this and that is why they are refusing to acknowledge the validity of his consecrations of Stallings and co. He cannot be operating of his own free will. So, while he is canonically excommunicated so as to take away his jurisidiction and prevent the total breakdown of the celibacy requirement, he is of course still within the reach of the Church and the state of his mind and will are in question as to whether he is competent to be considered to have intentionally and willfully separated from the unity of the Church by his shirking of tradition, disobedience and heretical behavior. (This is actually basically the same argument I make against sedevacantists with specific details adjusted of course.)

The contrasts are different with LeFebvre who never changed from the quotes by him in Fr. Ralph Wiltgen’s “the Rhine flows into the Tiber” to what is written on his tombstone “I have passed on what I recieved.”

Now, where would you like to start with the issue of suspensions?

I wouldn’t like to start with suspensions just yet until I’m clear as to what you are saying about Abp. Milingo’s excommunication. You seem to be saying that, while excommunicated, and thus lacking any jurisdiction within the Church, his probable lack of intent means he is not in schism.

If I have read correctly, though, it raises some questions for me. First, if the Abp. Milingo were not acting freely, wouldn’t this mean he could not be subject to any canonical penalty, and thus would not even be excommunicated? On the other hand, if his internal dispositions don’t affect the excommunication while still preventing schism, how would that transfer to Abp. Lefebvre’s case? Wouldn’t he then be truly excommunicated, and thus really lack the jurisdiction the SSPX purports to be supplied?

I just wonder how you can uphold the excommunication of Abp. Milingo while denying the excommunication of Abp. Lefebvre. Both disobeyed because they perceived a problem in the Church large enough to warrant their actions. A particular observer might disagree with them over the existence of an emergency, but it seems the argument for Abp. Lefebvre has always been that even if John Paul II said there wasn’t an emergency that would excuse illicit consecrations, the mere perception of an emergency rendered Abp. Lefebvre immune from penalty. Well, if Abp. Milingo also perceived an emergency, even if it turns out to actually not exist, wouldn’t he be similarly immune?