The SSPX and True Catholicism

[Lisa_Lavadores]

Wow. I’m off the boards for a day to take Mom to the doctor and the thread explodes!

Is that a hint that people prefer posting when I’m not on the boards? :crying:

Exhausting day. Going to bed. Please carry on.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Yea, yea— twist it to your convenience. You are do nothing here— that you haven’t done before.

Again, Walking Home, do you believe that the Holy See wants us to attend the masses offered by the SSPX?

 

[Walking_Home]

Again, Walking Home, do you believe that the Holy See wants us to attend the masses offered by the SSPX?

---

As I said before—not if the intention is to separate.
Since Eclessia Dei is part of the Roman Curia—Msgr. Perl spoke with authority from the Pope.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

As I said before—not if the intention is to separate.
Since Eclessia Dei is part of the Roman Curia—Msgr. Perl spoke with authority from the Pope.

Do you think they WANT us to attend the Masses of the Holy See? Do you think they would ENCOURAGE us to do so?

 

[TNT]

Do you think they WANT us to attend the Masses of the Holy See? Do you think they would ENCOURAGE us to do so?

Heck no!
It’s not even in the top 10.
First is the Mahony mass
Second is the charismatic mass.
Third is…u don’t wanna know.
Fouth is the not-a-moment-of-silence mass.

 

[bear06]

I still have a few questions so I’ll repost this. Thanks to the one who responded to them! How about the rest of you?

I have not one friend that attends the chapel simply because they like the Tridentine Mass - not a one. So, if you’d like to promote that there is no danger in attending a chapel on a regular basis, I’d say that is, well, dangerous.

The Vatican has warned against attending the chapels. The Vatican has warned that supoort for the schism will result in ipso facto excommunication. sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

I have to wonder if people honestly think that a person attending a chapel, joining the community, being counseled by their priests, being supported by the community isn’t in danger of supporting that schism? I’ve also got to wonder if the people who think it’s just fine and dandy to attend the chapels on regular basis think that any of the faithful have been ipso facto excommunicated for supporting the schism? It seems to me, while I can’t go around and say “you are in schism and you are in schism” that one has got to come to the conclusion that there are, at the very least, some people attending those chapels that have been ipso facto excommunicated. How do you think they got to supporting the schism?

One last question. If everything is peachy at the chapels, why have Vatican officials, the very ones that have been quoted in this thread, say that they cannot recommend people attending the chapels?

 

[TNT]

Let me get one outa the way:

One last question. If everything is peachy at the chapels, why have Vatican officials, the very ones that have been quoted in this thread, say that they cannot recommend people attending the chapels?

Loss of income??
BTW:
Who released u from Banning duty?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Heck no!
It’s not even in the top 10.
First is the Mahony mass
Second is the charismatic mass.
Third is…u don’t wanna know.
Fouth is the not-moment-of-silence mass.

I doubt the Holy See approves of any abuse of the Mass.

 

[TNT]

I doubt the Holy See approves of any abuse of the Mass.

That “you don’t wanna know mass” had a Holy Seer in it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That “you don’t wanna know mass” had a Holy Seer in it.

Which Mass is that, TNT?

 

[aspawloski4th]

as much as I agree with lots of what sspx stands for, one big part true Catholiscm for me is my alegiance to the pope. staying inline with Rome. true Catholics believe in papal infallebility.

 

[Walking_Home]

Heck no!
It’s not even in the top 10.
First is the Mahony mass
Second is the charismatic mass.
Third is…u don’t wanna know.
Fouth is the not-a-moment-of-silence mass.

---

I checked over at the Liturgy and Sacraments forum. Here is another one.

We are the Body and Blood in the Eucharist Mass.

 

[pnewton]

You might want to consider that canonically the SSPX priests are in the same boat as these two priests: www.cliffandjon.com who just got married in Canada. Is it permissible in your book to attend one of their masses? No, because they are suspended.

Interesting post. I believe it would still be imprudent to judge anyone attending their Mass. But even though they may be canonically in the same situation, the SSPX does not support any grave immorality of heresy, but rather disobedience. So attending such a Mass by immoral priest would be a much greater scandal.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If anything…. the Novus Ordo movement is schismatic.
If anything…. the Novus Ordo threatens the unity of the Church.

The Church cannot promulgate a Mass that is schismatic nor threaten the unity of the Church. It’s impossible for the Church to protest against Herself or to offer the faithful a Mass that can lead them to impiety. The Church has the fullness of unity within herself already.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

The Church cannot promulgate a Mass that is schismatic nor threaten the unity of the Church. It’s impossible for the Church to protest against Herself or to offer the faithful a Mass that can lead them to impiety. The Church has the fullness of unity within herself already.

I meant that the Novus Ordo is schismatic for seperating the Church from its liturgical heritage.

I see no similarites between the NO and the TLM…it is in fact a schism from how the Church has always celebrated the Eucharistic Mystery.

Even the EO liturgies have similarities with the TLM…the NO is a seperation from the liturgical traditions of the Latin Rite.

Paul VI, vicar of Christ, can still make mistakes. The Pauline Mass can be a valid Mass and at the same time be harmful to the faith and cause division.

The indulgences Rennaisance Popes granted were valid, they did indeed loose years from Purgatory. But they were harmful to the faith, and created a schism within the Church. From those who use indulgences for their own agenda (including Popes like Leo X) and those who sought the true understanding of indulgences (who, like todays Trads, are few in number but do exist)

In the same way the NO while being a Valid Mass has created schism within the Church. There are those who want a TLM, there are those who want the NO to be used correctly, and there are those who use the NO to forward their own liturgical agenda.

The NO does carry a schismatic nature towards what the Church has always practiced. It should be dealt with like the get-out-of-Purgatory-for-a-coin cards that Pope Leo and John Tetzel used.

Valid but destructive, useless, and harmful.

 

[Ham1]

---

As I said before—not if the intention is to separate.
Since Eclessia Dei is part of the Roman Curia—Msgr. Perl spoke with authority from the Pope.

You obviously haven’t read Msgr. Perl correctly as you are attempting to merge two distinct ideas into one rationalization that supports your position.

Here is the full quote:

“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”

You keep insisting that these three sentances all modify each other. They do not. His first sentance stands alone and is NOT modified by the sentance at the end of the paragraph. This is simple reading comprehension. Msgr. Perl is making 2 things clear here:

1. He cannot “recommend” attendance at such a Mass.
2. Attendance at such a mass for the sake of devotion would not be a sin.

Note there is no “unless” positioned between the two statement. These are two separate and distinct thoughts that stand alone independantly from one another.

This is further confirmed by Msgr. Perl’s prior public letter in which he states:

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

So although attendance at a SSPX mass might not be a sin. It is “discouraged” and not “recommended.”

 

[Walking_Home]

You obviously haven’t read Msgr. Perl correctly as you are attempting to merge two distinct ideas into one rationalization that supports your position.

Here is the full quote:
Quote:
“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”

You keep insisting that these three sentances all modify each other. They do not. His first sentance stands alone and is NOT modified by the sentance at the end of the paragraph. This is simple reading comprehension. Msgr. Perl is making 2 things clear here:

1. He cannot “recommend” attendance at such a Mass.
2. Attendance at such a mass for the sake of devotion would not be a sin.

Note there is no “unless” positioned between the two statement. These are two separate and distinct thoughts that stand alone independantly from one another.

This is further confirmed by Msgr. Perl’s prior public letter in which he states:
Quote:
It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

So although attendance at a SSPX mass might not be a sin. It is “discouraged” and not “recommended.”

---

Ham1—you remind me of that saying —what a tangled web we weave-- etc, etc, etc.

In the latest letter from Ecclesia Dei—The explanation of the reason–follows the reason why.

Oh—and that quote from a prior letter—it is a prior letter. The current one supersedes the prior one. So --until the Pope or Ecclesia Dei gives us further information–the current (latest) one stands.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I doubt the Holy See approves of any abuse of the Mass.

I’m also positive the Holy See doesn’t approve or condone any abuses. I sure wish that all priests would be heedful of this.

 

[paramedicgirl]

---

I checked over at the Liturgy and Sacraments forum. Here is another one.

We are the Body and Blood in the Eucharist Mass.

Can you link that?

Heretics.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Remember Msgr. Perl does state that “we cannot recommend” attending a SSPX mass. Period. I guess he says it’s not a sin…peculiar. But he does say it is not recommended. Insteresting how some take part of his letter as “official” teaching and other parts as, well, friendly advice.

These are the facts:

SSPX Priests are suspended.

As such, their consecrations are sacriligious acts of serious disobedience. And that’s per Canon law, not me.

You might want to consider that canonically the SSPX priests are in the same boat as these two priests: www.cliffandjon.com who just got married in Canada. Is it permissible in your book to attend one of their masses? No, because they are suspended.

All the prohibitions and definitions in canon law for suspended priests apply to the SSPX priests.

I checked tht site, but I can’t find where it says they were (or are) Catholic priests.