The SSPX and True Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Missa_Solemnis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
i have a question here. Why is it that those of you who love TLM go th the sspx masses? I mean I understand they are traditional and thats great, I would so love to go to a TLM where the alter is reversed and the priest has his back to the ppl, I think it would be just wonderful to go. But although sspx masses are valid, they are also illicit. For me I will listen to the Church and not attend a sspx mass untill they are in full communion with the pope once agian. Honestly I dont care if sspx says they are RC or they say they are in communion with Rome, untill Rome says that the masses of sspx are not illict I could never bring myself to go. So those of you who go why do you go? Honest question, little confused on why there is so much loyalty to sspx.
 
MCS7474 said:
i have a question here. Why is it that those of you who love TLM go th the sspx masses? I mean I understand they are traditional and thats great, I would so love to go to a TLM where the alter is reversed and the priest has his back to the ppl, I think it would be just wonderful to go. But although sspx masses are valid, they are also illicit. For me I will listen to the Church and not attend a sspx mass untill they are in full communion with the pope once agian. Honestly I dont care if sspx says they are RC or they say they are in communion with Rome, untill Rome says that the masses of sspx are not illict I could never bring myself to go. So those of you who go why do you go? Honest question, little confused on why there is so much loyalty to sspx.
Click to expand...
**Firstly, I’m not an SSPXer, and am not convinced by these arguments, but this what they would say:
**
Indult masses are restricted. We do not need permission from the local ordinary to celebrate the Traditional Mass, as it has never been abrogated. At Indult masses you get the traditional rite, but not the traditional doctrine. Homilys are infested with Post-Vatican 2 modernist doctrne.

We attend at the SSPX because we not only get the traditional mass, but traditional teaching and all the sacraments.

I was not validly excommunicated, and neither was Archbishop Lefebvre. So I am not in schism, and am fully Roman Catholic.

SSPX Masses are therefore fully licit. And besides, the local bishop hates the TLM, has banned it despite constant petitions, and the nearest TLM is 200 miles away anyway.
 
Bear06 will always reply:
Comparing has NOTHING to do with the SSPX disobedience against. [The dogma of Zombieism]
Click to expand...
Regardless that the church is being devastated, collapsing, imploding, penetrated by evil on a world wide scale, distruction of any liturgy but inculturation (as if The Christian world had no superior Culture) means nothing concerning any validation of the SSPX Ordinations…so there.
Click to expand...
T - having a bad day? You don’t usually resort to such silliness.😉 You can’t excuse one mistake by pointing to another.

And Irish - one can’t continue to claim necessity when the arbiter of necessity has said there is none. Canon law states:
Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation
Click to expand...
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3.HTM

This legistlator is not Lefebvre. The legistlator has interpreted the canons and has said that Lefebvre was in schism.
 
Resurrexit said:
Firstly, I’m not an SSPXer, and am not convinced by these arguments, but this what they would say:

Indult masses are restricted. We do not need permission from the local ordinary to celebrate the Traditional Mass, as it has never been abrogated. At Indult masses you get the traditional rite, but not the traditional doctrine. Homilys are infested with Post-Vatican 2 modernist doctrne.

We attend at the SSPX because we not only get the traditional mass, but traditional teaching and all the sacraments.

I was not validly excommunicated, and neither was Archbishop Lefebvre. So I am not in schism, and am fully Roman Catholic.

SSPX Masses are therefore fully licit. And besides, the local bishop hates the TLM, has banned it despite constant petitions, and the nearest TLM is 200 miles away anyway.
Click to expand...
You might not be validly excommunicated (I hadn’t realized anyone made an attempt to excommunicate you, validly or otherwise), but it’s a fantasy to say that Lefebreve was not excommunicated. The pontiff is the supreme legislator and canon law means what he says it means. He determined and stated that the Archbishop had excommunicated himself.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
You might not be validly excommunicated (I hadn’t realized anyone made an attempt to excommunicate you, validly or otherwise), but it’s a fantasy to say that Lefebreve was not excommunicated. The pontiff is the supreme legislator and canon law means what he says it means. He determined and stated that the Archbishop had excommunicated himself.
Click to expand...
JKirk, look at the bold part preceding his comments. He’s saying what the SSPX would say - not himself.
 
TNT said:
Salvation comes* only* from obedience it has nothing to do with other behavior or any circumstances whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Obedience to God, yes.

Obedience is at the service of faith.

Triumpha.
 
Is there a yawning smiley? It gets boring seeing people trot out all the old arguments that don’t work in order to justify the illicit situation of the SSPX.

Bear was already kind enough to post the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts’ judgment on the argument from necessity, and as the SSPX supporters themselves were kind enough to point out in reference to PCED, curial departments speak with the authority of the pope (who, let’s remember once again, is the supreme legislator, executive, and judge). So we’ve all kindly established that argument to be hogwash. And let’s not forget that Abp. Lefebvre perceived his situation of a dire necessity to ordain bishops without papal mandate only days after he’d been promised - what was that again? - ah, yes, papal mandate to ordain a traditional bishop. I suppose the situation must have seemed very grave indeed, what with the pope promising to fulfill that particular SSPX demand.

Oh, then there’s the argument that the good Cardinal’s (Hoyos’) statement somehow nullifies the existence of a schism. If I may direct your attention to the center ring…
  1. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) . . . ]
    5c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)
    vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html (emphasis mine)
Now, could someone please tell me which schism His Holiness was referring to in the text of that letter? It seems to me that the only group mentioned in the letter as having broken communion with Rome was that of the excommunicate bishops and those who adhered to their break, yet I know they weren’t in schism because someone on the internet just pointed out to me that a cardinal made vague statements suggesting there might not be a formal schism. I’m so confused. Who do I believe, the supreme authority in the Catholic Church declaring a schism exists to which one might possibly adhere, or his subordinate’s ambiguous suggestion to the contrary? This is a tough one.
 
Hi, everyone I just wanted to drop a statement. First I am a convert and a Vatican II Catholic, Second I attend the NO Mass and I yet I have both a profound since of reverence for the Latin Mass and I think that the N.O. is a valid expression of the faith even if it has been abused by some (OK alot of priests). If we remove the validity of the Second Vatican Council then we have to accept the fact that we remove the validity of every previous Council also. That being said I do find it odd that we look to recounciliation with everyone BUT traditional Catholics. I’ll be honest I have a traditional chapel about a mile from my house that isn’t run by the SSPX and those people make me scared!!! I was told by one priest that if I can’t reach a parish in full communion with Rome but can reach a SSPX chapel then thats the one I should go to. Ohh well I guess I’m the middle in this discussion.
 
Caesar said:
The big problem is of course that more Bishops find fault with the SSPX then they do with the liberals. You can be a priest now and denounce the Church’s position on gay marriage, abortion, birth control and the like; you can celebrate Masses that are truly pathetic and abusive; you can even molest children and get away with it- but dont you dare speak a word of latin!
Click to expand...
That is very true…and very sad.

Oh how much better the world would be if Tradition was never suppressed.
 
I must credit SSPX with much of my catechesis. I didn’t go through RCIA. I was taught Catholicism one-on-one by an SSPX priest, about 3 or 4 years ago. We used the Baltimore 3 Catechism and Mass by Father Connell, a book with I occasionally cite here.

I have voiced issues with SSPX on this board in the past. The problem I have is not with the SSPX establishment, but with minority sedevacantist members who had loud opinions, and with some strange literature. Such things shocked my novice faith.

Now, I attend a Novus Ordo Church, and I do see some problems. But things are changing for the better!

I was well catechised. SSPX was BIG, HUGE on teaching the Dogma: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. I think the rest of the Church has forgotten this dogma, and that this misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of this Dogma is the FOUNDATION for a whole host of problems at Novus Ordo Churches. I’ve taken what SSPX has taught me about this Dogma and am passing it on.

Early on this week, I attended a bible study and a student said that “all paths lead to God,” (it was in reference to her having a preference to a protestant bible and her promotion of interfaith bible studies) and everyone in the room smiled and agreed enthusiastically. I gulped. I should’ve spoken up, but I chickened out. I am planning on bringing to the next class Father Hardon’s Catechism. I want to read his section on the necessity of the Chuch for salvation. His definition is one of the BEST I’ve ever read! It quotes a section from Vatican II Council that supports Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

And, just tonight, I mentioned in our Church’s Apologetics class that … perhaps … our teacher could speak sometime on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. I expected him to NOT agree with me, but you know what — he AGREED! He said, “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, Outside the Church there is no salvation, is a valid and infallible dogma, did you know that?(he asked the class)” I think he’s going to explain it next week.

I have encountered problems from time to time in the Novus Ordo Churches that have shocked my traditional foundation. When I encounter problems, I try to charitably deal with them, or I just write a blog! LOL!

Anyway, I think SSPX has really lightened up over the past six months, after tempers flared between Pope Benedict XVI and … uh … the head Bishop of SSPX. Can’t remember the name. Anyway, I’m hoping everyone has exchanged his fill of unpleasant language, so that we can have reconcilliation already! I’m tired of being separated from my traditional brothers and sisters!

We need you to remind us how far we’ve strayed, and what we need to do to become the Church we should be!

I think that if all the SSPX people came back to the Novus Ordo Churches all at the same time, they could REALLY do a lot of good. We really need you! Please help! Please come back because we need your brains and your faith!

God Bless!
 
GoldenArrow said:
I think that if all the SSPX people came back to the Novus Ordo Churches all at the same time, they could REALLY do a lot of good. We really need you! Please help! Please come back because we need your brains and your faith!
Click to expand...
👍
I keep thinking how much more good these people of the faith could do inside the church, rather than outside!
 
Anima_Christi said:
Yeah…one of the few times in his pontificate when he actually administered discipline was when he excommunicated Catholics for merely practicing the faith as they had always known it…
Click to expand...
You are making misleading comments.
Lefebre and his supporters were not excommunicated for practising their faith but for disobedience to the Pope when they ordained several bishops against the explicit instructions of the Pope not to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top