The SSPX and True Catholicism

[MariaG]

I’m not an SSPX person, or a sedevacantist, but has the church still got the 4 marks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic? In particular, is the church still Holy?

If it were not for the promise of Our Most Blessed Lord, I would have serious doubts.

How can the Church not still be Holy? Don’t mix up the Church itself with the actions of its members. We can see from the time of the apostles, this was clearly a problem then as now.

 

[Sola_Roma]

Even if the archbishop was a tool, he would not be the only hope. He should’ve had the humility to know that God will always find a way.

What about the Second Vatican Council?

Why couldnt Paul VI have humility and just trust that the Mass the Church has always celebrated is enough.

Why couldnt John XXIII trust that the Church didnt need ‘fresh air’, that the air in the Catholic Church was in fact much “fresher” than all the foul smells his Council let in.

Who trusts in the Lord more?

Somone who introduces novelties.
or
Somone who wants to worship the way the Church has always done so.

 

[pnewton]

I’m not an SSPX person, or a sedevacantist, but has the church still got the 4 marks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic? In particular, is the church still Holy?
.

Of course. If you do not think so, then stop saying the creed, you know that thing we say as an expression of Faith. It is just as much of a dogma that the Church is Holy as it is that she is apostolic.

If doubts arise because of all the sin you see among clergy, then it may be time to stop watching the secular news media and spend some times with the Sisters of Charity. The saints get no press, but the wolves do.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

What about the Second Vatican Council?

Why couldnt Paul VI have humility and just trust that the Mass the Church has always celebrated is enough.

Why couldnt John XXIII trust that the Church didnt need ‘fresh air’, that the air in the Catholic Church was in fact much “fresher” than all the foul smells his Council let in.

Who trusts in the Lord more?

Somone who introduces novelties.
or
Somone who wants to worship the way the Church has always done so.

It’s always surprising to me to be reminded how Protestant-like Traditional thinking often is. The popes and, through them, the councils, have an objective authority given to them by God – there is no question that a pope is God’s instrument; without him we are left with private interpretation of both scripture and tradition. He is also God’s instrument of governance. The command was not “whatever you do, don’t change a thing”; it was “whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.”

To compare the Rock on which the Church is built with a bishop who has a subjective feeling that he is God’s instrument because he* thinks* the pope is lying to him…

I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. It makes me wonder if, even before the split, the Traditionalists had a Catholic outlook.

 

[Adonis33]

It’s always surprising to me to be reminded how Protestant-like Traditional thinking often is. The popes and, through them, the councils, have an objective authority given to them by God – there is no question that a pope is God’s instrument; without him we are left with private interpretation of both scripture and tradition. He is also God’s instrument of governance. The command was not “whatever you do, don’t change a thing”; it was “whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.”

To compare the Rock on which the Church is built with a bishop who has a subjective feeling that he is God’s instrument because he* thinks* the pope is lying to him…

** I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. It makes me wonder if, even before the split, the Traditionalists had a Catholic outlook.**

What split are you referring to? The SSPX? All Catholics that prefer the TLM? Sedevacanists?

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

What split are you referring to? The SSPX? All Catholics that prefer the TLM? Sedevacanists?

I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear. Since the title of this thread is The SSPX and True Catholicism, and since all my posts in this thread, including the one you quoted, are about the SSPX, I thought it went without saying that I was referring to the SSPX. Perhaps I should’ve said schism instead of split.

Unfortunately there is confusion when using the word Traditionalist. Here, I use it to refer to members of the SSPX because I don’t know any other word to use. But I also consider myself a Traditionalist, even though I cannot say that I prefer the TLM because I have never been to one. I would like to attend an indult, though.

 

[Resurrexit]

Of course. If you do not think so, then stop saying the creed, you know that thing we say as an expression of Faith. It is just as much of a dogma that the Church is Holy as it is that she is apostolic.

If doubts arise because of all the sin you see among clergy, then it may be time to stop watching the secular news media and spend some times with the Sisters of Charity. The saints get no press, but the wolves do.

If you read what I said, rather than quote only half of it, you would have understood that I do believe the Church is Holy.

However, I think the Mass in its implementation has lost the sense of the sacred, and people within the church seem to have no concept of the word. I’m not concerned so much about individual abuses, nor paedophile priests, but the complete at least apparent lack of holiness.

At the local cathedral where I attend the Novus Ordo Mass I have known 5 priests there. One of them was an adequate confessor, but he has now left. The other 4 give you the same standard one-sentence advice, and you’re left wondering if they’ve even been listening, or have spent the time reading a magazine. As for saying Mass, 2 are reasonably reverent, but then that’s probably just them being miserable, as they are the rest of the time. (When I serve, I’m lucky if I get a hello). The other 3 are complete fools - nice enough, but liturgical imbasils.

So, that rant being over, I believe the Church is Holy, despite these problems, because Christ said so.

 

[Adonis33]

I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear. Since the title of this thread is The SSPX and True Catholicism, and since all my posts in this thread, including the one you quoted, are about the SSPX, I thought it went without saying that I was referring to the SSPX. Perhaps I should’ve said schism instead of split.

Unfortunately there is confusion when using the word Traditionalist. Here, I use it to refer to members of the SSPX because I don’t know any other word to use. But I also consider myself a Traditionalist, even though I cannot say that I prefer the TLM because I have never been to one. I would like to attend an indult, though.

Never mind - I should have realized what the title of the thread was before I posted.

 

[Sola_Roma]

It’s always surprising to me to be reminded how Protestant-like Traditional thinking often is. The popes and, through them, the councils, have an objective authority given to them by God – there is no question that a pope is God’s instrument; without him we are left with private interpretation of both scripture and tradition. He is also God’s instrument of governance. The command was not “whatever you do, don’t change a thing”; it was “whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.”

To compare the Rock on which the Church is built with a bishop who has a subjective feeling that he is God’s instrument because he* thinks* the pope is lying to him…

I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. It makes me wonder if, even before the split, the Traditionalists had a Catholic outlook.

So you are saying that God intended for the Novus Ordo to happen?

Then what was the use of a TLM in the first place.

If the Vernacular was something God wanted the Church to bind on earth…than why wasnt it this way for all of its two thousand years?

Vatican II is one thing…but im afraid Paul VI was not acting as God’s instrument when he butchered the liturgy.

And even the “EWTN-style Novus Ordo” is still exactly that. A New Order, a innovation, a novelty.

A failure to trust in God’s Mass of All Ages.

A valid liturgy does not make it God’s choice. The NO could be valid, without it reflecting the will of the Creator.

And as for who seems more Protestant, you and I both know that the reforms of Paul VI are the exact reforms the Protestants made.

 

[AJV]

And as for who seems more Protestant, you and I both know that the reforms of Paul VI are the exact reforms the Protestants made.

Actually I don’t. Not fully anyway. I recall Cramner shifting the Gloria to the end of the service. I recall Luther doing away with a Eucharistic Prayer entirely. I recall Calvin removing in his later versions the Sursum Corda.

 

[Evangel]

People say that ordaining bishops without Papal mandate (disobedience) constituted a schismatic act. It didn’t, because Lefebvre never intended to break from Rome and set up another Church.

I don’t see how the claim that “Lefebvre never intended to break from Rome” can be translated as “Lefebvre never broke from Rome.” Lots of people never intend some end result, but the end result happens anyway.

“Joe never intended to lose all his money by gambling on horses” but nevertheless Joe did lose all his money. Just because he didn’t intend an end result (which was the logical outcome of a particular course of action) doesn’t mean the end result was avoided.

 

[GoldenArrow]

The schismatic act, and thus the disobedience, consisted in ordaining bishops without papal mandate. Abp. Lefebvre did this with the promise of a future papal mandate freshly received from the Vatican. So to make your case you’re going to have to prove that faith, hope, and/or charity demanded from the Abp. that he ordain without delay (the obedient conditions were, afterall, forthcoming). A tall case

I saw the ordination ceremony done by Archbishop Lebefevre in 1988 in Econe last night on YouTube. You should listen to what he says. He made it clear that he was placing himself at odds with the Holy See with full foreknowledge. He knew what he was doing. I don’t think such a promise from the Vatican existed.

The Archbishop makes some REALLY strong statements. Please watch. It’s 25 minutes long, so you’ll need broadband:

Traditional Bishops Consecrated at Econe in 1988

The Archbishop does make an interesting prediction: that one day Rome will embrace SSPX and will thank them for maintaining the faith and traditions. I really HOPE this is what is happening in Rome, now. We would greatly benefit from re-incorporating tradition back into the way we celebrate Mass and into our catechesis.

I also hope for the lifting of the excommunication of the Archbishop. I think he felt he was doing the right thing for the Church at the time. I don’t agree with him, though, on several points:

I feel Tradition with a big “T” is, mostly, the Dogmas, and that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid. According to Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, written prior to Vatican II, the words that bring about transubstantiation are “this is my body” and “this is my blood.” These words are still said in the Mass, so transubstantiation still takes place. The only place it can’t take place is if a non-priest recites the words. This brings me to the second point I disagree with him on: ordination. I think the Holy Orders of the post-Vatican II Church is a valid sacrament. I don’t understand WHY he thinks all the priests are invalidly ordinated after Vatican II. Why would he have thought that???

Though I disagree with him, I feel I have a better understanding of him after watching this.

Nevertheless, I still love SSPX and still hope for reconcilliation. I just thought you all would benefit seeing this for yourselves.

God Bless!

 

[Sola_Roma]

I saw the ordination ceremony done by Archbishop Lebefevre in 1988 in Econe last night on YouTube. You should listen to what he says. He made it clear that he was placing himself at odds with the Holy See with full foreknowledge. He knew what he was doing. I don’t think such a promise from the Vatican existed.

The Archbishop makes some REALLY strong statements. Please watch. It’s 25 minutes long, so you’ll need broadband:

youtube.com/watch?v=gAr0psfJGeg

The Archbishop does make an interesting prediction: that one day Rome will embrace SSPX and will thank them for maintaining the faith and traditions. I really HOPE this is what is happening in Rome, now. We would greatly benefit from re-incorporating tradition back into the way we celebrate Mass and into our catechesis.

I also hope for the lifting of the excommunication of the Archbishop. I think he felt he was doing the right thing for the Church at the time. I don’t agree with him, though, on several points:

I feel Tradition with a big “T” is, mostly, the Dogmas, and that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid. According to Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, written prior to Vatican II, the words that bring about transubstantiation are “this is my body” and “this is my blood.” These words are still said in the Mass, so transubstantiation still takes place. The only place it can’t take place is if a non-priest recites the words. This brings me to the second point I disagree with him on: ordination. I think the Holy Orders of the post-Vatican II Church is a valid sacrament. I don’t understand WHY he thinks all the priests are invalidly ordinated after Vatican II. Why would he have thought that???

Though I disagree with him, I feel I have a better understanding of him after watching this.

Nevertheless, I still love SSPX and still hope for reconcilliation. I just thought you all would benefit seeing this for yourselves.

God Bless!

Aside from the narrator’s accent.

That video is one of the most moving videos I have seen.

It is the unofficial conception of the FSSP.

Which are currently my spiritual fathers.

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t see how the claim that “Lefebvre never intended to break from Rome” can be translated as “Lefebvre never broke from Rome.” Lots of people never intend some end result, but the end result happens anyway.

“Joe never intended to lose all his money by gambling on horses” but nevertheless Joe did lose all his money. Just because he didn’t intend an end result (which was the logical outcome of a particular course of action) doesn’t mean the end result was avoided.

---

Did Vat II “intend” for the Church to go haywire after the Council. The Church did not intend the end result but we ended up with the “spirit of Vat II” putting the Church in a downward spiral anyway.

 

[pnewton]

So you are saying that God intended for the Novus Ordo to happen?

Then what was the use of a TLM in the first place.

If the Vernacular was something God wanted the Church to bind on earth…than why wasnt it this way for all of its two thousand years?

If she won’t, I will. I offer as evidence, reality. That God did bring it about, just like he did the TLM in it’s time.

The vernacular has been used during the two thousand year period you quoted, like when Latin was the vernacular.

 

[Sola_Roma]

---

Did Vat II “intend” for the Church to go haywire after the Council. The Church did not intend the end result but we ended up with the “spirit of Vat II” putting the Church in a downward spiral anyway.

The question is…what of Vatican II was neccesary.

Ive read the entire Council…and there is not a single letter of those documents that the Church needed.

Vatican II did nothing but add problems.

There was no need for such a Council.

 

[Sola_Roma]

If she won’t, I will. I offer as evidence, reality. That God did bring it about, just like he did the TLM in it’s time.

The vernacular has been used during the two thousand year period you quoted, like when Latin was the vernacular.

Im afraid that the TLM was not ‘brought’ about by the Church.

It started in the upper room, and matured under the Church’s wings.

The Novus Ordo was created by a single Pope and a liturgical commission.

In all the history of the Church, we have never celebrated a Mass that traced its origins to a Council or Comittee of any kind whatsoever.

The TLM is from God because it was started by God.

The Novus Ordo is valid…but its ridiculous to say its in line with Church tradition.

And in the early days of the Church, when the Mass was in vernacular, you still couldnt hear it. Because either the Church was too big and you couldnt hear the priest, or the Priest was whispering the Mass anyway.

Laity participation was never the norm, even if the language was once in the vernacular.

I wouldnt want to participate in the Crucifixion of our Lord, so why partcipate in its re-enactment.

 

[AJV]

Im afraid that the TLM was not ‘brought’ about by the Church.

It started in the upper room, and matured under the Church’s wings.

The Novus Ordo was created by a single Pope and a liturgical commission.

In all the history of the Church, we have never celebrated a Mass that traced its origins to a Council or Comittee of any kind whatsoever.

The TLM is from God because it was started by God.

The Novus Ordo is valid…but its ridiculous to say its in line with Church tradition.

And in the early days of the Church, when the Mass was in vernacular, you still couldnt hear it. Because either the Church was too big and you couldnt hear the priest, or the Priest was whispering the Mass anyway.

Laity participation was never the norm, even if the language was once in the vernacular.

I wouldnt want to participate in the Crucifixion of our Lord, so why partcipate in its re-enactment.

The Mass started by Christ did not use the TLM in any form. What He instituted is in essence preserved.

You wouldn’t want to participate in the reenactement of the salvific sacrifice? You must be joking. Participation is what is called for…whether silent, or vocal, or by joining one’s intention to that of the priest by praying even your own prayers. If you’re not going to particpate…you might as well not be there.

A great many years must pass before this liturgical edifice, which the Bride of Christ has raised up with such enlightened care to announce her piety and her faith, before, we say, this edifice will have regained all its splendor and majesty and perfection, and will seem to us to be freed from the squalidness of time

 

[GoldenArrow]

Originally posted by Sola Roma: It is the unofficial conception of the FSSP.

Yes, you are correct in saying this is actually the birth of FSSP.

And I have gotta admit, that this:

Traditional Latin Mass: Feast of the Sacred Heart

… is something worth fighting for!

Yes, this is a link to an SSPX Mass. Take a look. If you are against SSPX, take a look at what you’re fighting. I watched this in wonder and awe, WISHING and HOPING that someday some of this will be re-incorporated into the Novus Ordo Mass.

And you know what … that day may not be far off. A new English Missal is in the works that is in closer adherence to the original Latin.

I hope that our choirs will be inspired to learn chant once the new Missal comes out, in a couple years from now.

I just love the Traditional Latin Mass.

But I also love the Novus Ordo Mass.

Why? Because both are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Jesus is Present at both.

I hope you enjoy the clip, too. It’s an hour long. BUT WOW!!!

God Bless!

 

[Sola_Roma]

The Mass started by Christ did not use the TLM in any form. What He instituted is in essence preserved.

You wouldn’t want to participate in the reenactement of the sacrifice? You must be joking. Participation is what is called for…whether silent, or vocal, or by joining one’s intention to that of the priest. If you’re not going to particpate…you might as well not be there.

I meant active participation like in the Novus Ordo.

Such as reading the Epistle, giving the Homilies, distributing Our Lord.

And the TLM began in the upper room, because from that point onwards it evolved into the Missal we know today.

It was never ‘introduced’ or ‘written’. It evolved, side-by-side with the Divine Liturgies of the East, and the other liturgies of the West, from that one point in the Upper Room.