Traditional Catholics attending SSPX Masses.

[Basilios]

An EF Latin Mass is no more beneficial to your soul than an OF Mass said in the vernacular.

It is to me.

Attending Mass shouldn’t be about what type of style of Mass we prefer, it’s not a form of entertainment where we choose which style appeals more to us.

It’s a form of worship where the highest form of worship available which expresses the truths of the faith in the greatest way with the greatest spiritual nourishment for our soul is the one we choose.

 

[Brendan_64]

It is to me. .

No it is not. Neither the EF or the OF represents a superior form of worship beneficial to one’s soul. Christ is present in the Eucharist to the exactly same degree in either Mass. The teaching of our Church holds that neither form is superior to the other.

It’s a form of worship where the highest form of worship available which expresses the truths of the faith in the greatest way with the greatest spiritual nourishment for our soul is the one we choose.

Not according to the teachings of the Church. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the teachings of our Church that even suggests that the EF is a higher form of worship to the OF, nothing at all.

 

[Basilios]

You have flat out lied.

No I haven’t.

I made my post with specific distinctions if you actually read it. You can fuss about it all you like but it remains true.

Tell me, then.

When there is an SSPX chapel within a 5 mile radius of an FSSP chapel, set up specifically after the FSSP, with priests preaching against the attendance at the FSSP. You telling me that’s not schismatic?

When the SSPX stay out of an area for decades, then suddenly decide to move in once the Institute have a parish. You telling me that’s not schismatic?

When the SSPX insist on magical supplied jurisdiction when there are at least 2 traditional priests hearing confessions in the traditional rite less than a mile away?

This isn’t schismatic? Setting up seminaries isn’t schismatic?

I could multiply the examples.

Read the writings of the Archbishop, too, and tell me the SSPX are doing what he wanted them to do. When he explicitly said that all he ever wanted was to train priests and have the freedom to say the Mass - happy to have the NO side-by-side.

I’m sorry, but truth is truth. There are many good priests there who want to be reconciled. I would gladly go to their Masses if they were the only option.

God Bless you.

 

[Basilios]

No it is not. Neither the EF or the OF represents a superior form of worship beneficial to one’s soul.

Ha. Says… you? Are you my spiritual director? Are you God, reading my soul as I walk out of a Novus Ordo Mass?

Christ is present in the Eucharist to the exactly same degree in either Mass.

I don’t deny that. Christ is also present in the Eucharist in some Anglican circles who have the Dutch touch, some Old Catholics, all copts, all orthodox. Your argument here isn’t a good one.

The teaching of our Church holds that neither form is superior to the other.

That’s just not true. The teaching of the Church actually doesn’t tell us which is superior. It says nothing about it.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the teachings of our Church that even suggests that the EF is a higher form of worship to the OF, nothing at all.

Nor any teaching which says it isn’t. Note that Cardinal Ratzinger seemed to think, when he was head of the CDF, that one form was superior than the other.

 

[Brendan_64]

I’ve distanced myself from the SSPX, but I’m not going to remain silent when I see Roman Catholic clergy berated as you have just done.

SSPX clergy are not Roman Catholic clergy. They are not in union with Rome and as such their masses are illicit.

 

[Saints_Alive]

No I haven’t.

I made my post with specific distinctions if you actually read it. You can fuss about it all you like but it remains true.

Tell me, then.

When there is an SSPX chapel within a 5 mile radius of an FSSP chapel, set up specifically after the FSSP, with priests preaching against the attendance at the FSSP. You telling me that’s not schismatic?

When the SSPX stay out of an area for decades, then suddenly decide to move in once the Institute have a parish. You telling me that’s not schismatic?

When the SSPX insist on magical supplied jurisdiction when there are at least 2 traditional priests hearing confessions in the traditional rite less than a mile away?

This isn’t schismatic? Setting up seminaries isn’t schismatic?

I could multiply the examples.

Read the writings of the Archbishop, too, and tell me the SSPX are doing what he wanted them to do. When he explicitly said that all he ever wanted was to train priests and have the freedom to say the Mass - happy to have the NO side-by-side.

I’m sorry, but truth is truth. There are many good priests there who want to be reconciled. I would gladly go to their Masses if they were the only option.

God Bless you.

Don’t change the subject. You wrote …

“But then again, you have the SSPX being practical sedevacantists.”

You stated that the SSPX are practical sedevacantists.

That is a lie. A blatant one at that. Why not do the right thing and recant that statement ?

 

[Brendan_64]

Note that Cardinal Ratzinger seemed to think, when he was head of the CDF, that one form was superior than the other.

And was that Cardinal Ratzinger’s personal opinion or was it a matter of doctrine? Are you trying to argue that because Cardinal Ratzinger held a personal opinion as such that therefore it must be so. I doubt that our current Pope would agree with that opinion anyway.

 

[Basilios]

Don’t change the subject. You wrote …

“But then again, you have the SSPX being practical sedevacantists.”

You stated that the SSPX are practical sedevacantists.

That is a lie. A blatant one at that. Why not do the right thing and recant that statement ?

Practical sedevacantism = going on through daily ecclesiastical life in disciplinary matters as if the pope didn’t exist. Which is what they do. They pray for the pope in their Canon - so what? Doesn’t change that the Roman Pontiff has given them chances to reconcile, to regularize, to be friends again and they brush him off and carry on as if he didn’t even exist.

I’ll let you know how non-practical-sede they are next time someone finds out their annulment from the SSPX wasn’t actually an annulment.

And was that Cardinal Ratzinger’s personal opinion or was it a matter of doctrine? Are you trying to argue that because Cardinal Ratzinger held a personal opinion as such that therefore it must be so. I doubt that our current Pope would agree with that opinion anyway.

Are you trying to argue that it is a matter of doctrine that one cannot legitimately hold the belief that one is superior than the other? Yes, you are. I countered that by telling you that the ex-Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith held that one was superior than the other. So by your standard, he was a heretic. Congrats!

 

[Saints_Alive]

SSPX clergy are not Roman Catholic clergy. They are not in union with Rome and as such their masses are illicit.

You ought to be pope.

Since you know all of this important stuff, please explain something to me. It is said the SSPX have no ministry in the Church at this time. I’m ok with that. But the same document that stated that referred to +Fellay and company as Bishops. Yep, used that word, Bishops. Now in your great wisdom, please explain to me how a Roman Catholic pope can, and why he would even bother to, lift the excommunications on the four men in question, if they were not in fact Roman Catholics.

Could you please cite where at in Cannon Law According To Brendan The Great that pope BXVI’s decree has been abrogated ?

Or do you just hate the SSPX and like to pop off about it ? Which is it ?

 

[Saints_Alive]

Practical sedevacantism = going on through daily ecclesiastical life in disciplinary matters as if the pope didn’t exist. Which is what they do. They pray for the pope in their Canon - so what?

You don’t know the difference between sedevacantism and disobedience.

To claim a priest who acknowledges the current pope is a sede is asinine.

 

[Brendan_64]

Are you trying to argue that it is a matter of doctrine that one cannot legitimately hold the belief that one is superior than the other? Yes, you are. I countered that by telling you that the ex-Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith held that one was superior than the other. So by your standard, he was a heretic. Congrats!

Of course you (or even Cardinal Ratzinger) can hold a belief, however the holding of that belief doesn’t make that belief a fact.

 

[Basilios]

You ought to be pope.

Since you know all of this important stuff, please explain something to me. It is said the SSPX have no ministry in the Church at this time. I’m ok with that. But the same document that stated that referred to +Fellay and company as Bishops. Yep, used that word, Bishops. Now in your great wisdom, please explain to me how a Roman Catholic pope can, and why he would even bother to, lift the excommunications on the four men in question, if they were not in fact Roman Catholics.

Could you please cite where at in Cannon Law According To Brendan The Great that pope BXVI’s decree has been abrogated ?

Or do you just hate the SSPX and like to pop off about it ? Which is it ?

The mutual excommunications between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope were lifted in 1965. So the Orthodox, by your argument, are either Catholics now, or we’re Orthodox.

A lifting of an excommunication doesn’t make you Catholic - especially not when you’ve clearly demonstrated for twenty-odd years that the excommunications mean nothing to you.

Note that I don’t hold the position that the SSPX are not-Catholic. How can I. They are only in some kind of whacky schism the likes of which the Church has never dealt with before.
Anyway, the Church hasn’t declared them to be schismatics. She probably won’t. But I’ve gone through all this in my posts.

 

[Brendan_64]

You ought to be pope.

Thank you.

 

[Basilios]

Of course you (or even Cardinal Ratzinger) can hold a belief, however the holding of that belief doesn’t make that belief a fact.

Two seconds ago you were telling me how my believing that was against the teaching of the Church. Now you’re saying I am allowed to believe it but it doesn’t make it fact. Well now you’re talking my language! You’re right. Believing it don’t make it true. But the arguments can be made. I don’t want to make them, because it is against the rules and I want to obey the rules. You brought it up remember, not me.

May God make you a saint, whichever Mass you attend
God bless

 

[Mike30]

It never ceases to amaze me that people who identify themselves as Catholics can harbor such hatred and distaste for the SSPX as has been demonstrated in threads such as this one, which regularly show up, making outrageous claims and statements that appear to be there solely to incite and anger people.:tsktsk:

Give it a rest folks.

 

[ProVobis]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=723447&highlight=sspx

 

[Mike30]

You know the more I think about it the more I think they should just ban threads on the SSPX altogether.

Too much hatred, too much deviseness, too many self proclaimed liturgical, canon law and theologiocal experts weighing in.

It should just stop.

 

[Brendan_64]

Two seconds ago you were telling me how my believing that was against the teaching of the Church.

I never said any such thing. I did however say that there is nothing whatsoever in the teachings of our Church that holds that the EF is a superior form of worship to the OF. You may believe whatever you wish, but what you believe is not supported by Church teaching.

 

[LINVS]

SSPX is not in a state of schism.

 

[Megan7]

It never ceases to amaze me that people who identify themselves as Catholics can harbor such hatred and distaste for the SSPX as has been demonstrated in threads such as this one, which regularly show up, making outrageous claims and statements that appear to be there solely to incite and anger people.:tsktsk:

Give it a rest folks.

I have never been to a SSPX Chapel/Mass, I am NOT an SSPX member, but the above is correct. The hatred, anger, disdain is truly sad…

Pax,