Traditionalists (SSPX) Catholics, Why not right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dizzy_dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They do follow Pope John Paul II, and are not seperated from Rome.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon13.gif

Msgr Lefebvre asserted "All these reforms [issued from Vatican II], indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church"

According to the SSPX web page,

“Vatican II adulterated Catholic teaching” and

“The new schemas, passed as the Council’s decrees, constitutions, and declarations, contain, more or less explicitly, … doctrinal errors.”

Yet, Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, according to Catholic tradition, are instructed by the Holy Spirit in what it declares. The Council of Trent claims this of even it’s disciplinary declarations (Denzinger 930).

Pope Pius IX reminded Catholics “of the duty of observing also the constitutions and decrees” (Denzinger 1820, cf. 1722), to include those matters known by “express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiff” (Denzinger 1683) or even that which is “issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions.” (Denzinger 1684). He asserts that “opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure” (ibid).

Furthermore, according to Pope St. Pius X, “that all are bound by the duty of conscience to … the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission, both those which have thus far been published and those which will hereafter be proclaimed, just as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations … approved by the Pontiff; and that all who impugn such decisions … cannot avoid the charge of disobedience, or on this account be free of grave sin…”

The Superior General of the SSPX, Bernard Fellay, is excommunicated. No matter how many pages of subterfuge the SSPX place on their web page, they can’t convince any reasonable Catholic that they are in full communion with the Roman Pontiff.
 
Pope John Paul II calls the Lefebvrist movement “the schism.”

The Pope makes the following solemn appeal to those “linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre”:
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 fulfill 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 (Ecclesia Dei, 5)
Click to expand...
 
From Msgr Ronald Knox, The Church on Earth (1929), under the chapter heading “General Councils are Infallible”…
The tenets, therefore, that are accepted as part of the Christian Tradition on the strength of the infallibility resident in the episcopal college are those tenets which have been defined in the … general councils that have so far been held in Christiandom.

… although our assurance that the decrees of a given council are infallible comes from the Holy See, the infallibility itself arises from the fact that the bishops of the world (the Bishop of Rome included) have deliberated, and have been prevented by the Holy Spirit from coming to any false decision.

… The disciplinary regulations made by a general council are not irreformable, but demand the same loyalty that is due to the disciplinary regulations of the Holy See."
Click to expand...
 
Did Lefebvre place himself as the judge of the legitimate use of canon law?

There’s a group of folks in Montana that do the same thing, saying that it is unjust to pay taxes. Are they within their rights as US citizen’s to do so? Or perhaps, is their approach, much like Lefebvre’s approach, UNLAWFUL?

When the lawful judge rules on canon law, you have no further recourse than these two: obey the lawful judgment or BREAK THE LAW, thereby becoming a CRIMINAL. Lefebvre chose the latter. Lefebvre died a criminal and the SSPX continue in his unlawful attempt to reject canon law.

From the SSPX web page:
… Vatican II adulterated Catholic teaching.

We must, therfore suspect the [1983 Code of Canon Laws] of codifying the same errors and so be ready not to accept all its "laws."
Click to expand...
They also assert, rather unconvincingly,
The Society of Saint Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope John Paul II, the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ. The priests of the Society pray for His Holiness and the local Ordinary at every Mass they celebrate.
Click to expand...
I have children. I know the difference between filial devotion and disobedience.

The SSPX are no different than the nut cases in Montana who believe they are obedient citizens of the U.S. while choosing to criminally BREAK U.S. LAW.

As a citizen of the U.S. you are bound to follow the LAWS of the U.S. If you want to change the laws, you are obliged to seek lawful ways of doing so, within the institutions of the U.S. government. If you don’t like it, renounce your citizenship and become a citizen of a country somewhere else. But don’t pretend you are a patriotic U.S. citizen while you break the law–it’s unconvincing to those citizens who are law abiding.

Likewise, Catholics are subject to the governing authority of the Catholic Church. As a Catholic, you are bound to follow canon law, as established and intepreted by the legislator of the Catholic Church, as applied by the legitamite judicial authorities of the Catholic Church. If you don’t like the laws or judicial rulings of the Catholic government, you are obliged to seek lawful ways of appealing the ruling. If you don’t like it, renounce your citizenship within the Catholic Church and become a citizen of another Church. But don’t pretend you are a faithful Catholic while you break canon law–it’s unconvincing to those Catholics who are law abiding.
 
40.png
Ham1:
The SSPX priests are in schism as well. They could always seek to reunite themselves to Rome, but that would require leaving the SSPX which is itself a schismatic organization.

I always find it amusing that a great number of SSPX adherents freely admit that they attend confession once per year with a regular diocesan priest because they realize that their SSPX priest likely does not have the faculty to absolve sins.

I still don’t understand why some Catholics will attend an SSPX Mass. Is it good to watch a priest commit a mortal sin in the very act of transubstantiation? Who would want to observe the commission of such evil?

Indeed, the SSPX represents the master stroke of satan. While the orthodox faithful fret about the liberal influences within the Church, satan is behind them weakening the Church through groups like SSPX./QUOTE
Ham, your argument here is a little over the top and clearly is lacking in much fact. Again, not you, your thesis(argument). To sate that the mass of the SSPX is satanic, would shock and anger Pope John Paul II if he were to read this. However, one could name as “satanic” a Mass which has liturgical dancers, nuns dancing in leotards, or young women dancing in a see through white transparent dress in which the thongs they are wearing can clearly be seen (in Mass: Particular ones we once saw, there were about five, ages around 19-24 dancing before the Consecration). Or, the Masses which have clowns, such as some Novus Ordo ones. Or priests dancing the Macarena, as a charismatic Mass I went to a year ago. NOW, these are clearly satanic.
Click to expand...
 
misericordie is right about one thing. We should not be quick to resort to calling anything of Satanic.
 
40.png
Ham1:
The SSPX priests are in schism as well. They could always seek to reunite themselves to Rome, but that would require leaving the SSPX which is itself a schismatic organization.

I always find it amusing that a great number of SSPX adherents freely admit that they attend confession once per year with a regular diocesan priest because they realize that their SSPX priest likely does not have the faculty to absolve sins.

I still don’t understand why some Catholics will attend an SSPX Mass. Is it good to watch a priest commit a mortal sin in the very act of transubstantiation? Who would want to observe the commission of such evil?

Indeed, the SSPX represents the master stroke of satan. While the orthodox faithful fret about the liberal influences within the Church, satan is behind them weakening the Church through groups like SSPX.
Click to expand...
That is very insulting, rude, uncatholic and wrong to call SSPX Mass satanic. You do not even know the history of Archbishop Lebevre and what he went through.

Didn’t JPII encourage dialogue with groups of people and is this how you are going to dialogue with our closest seperated brethern. It is one thing to point out fellow Catholics their error and another thing to call them evil and master stroke of satan.

And you know what is is perfect legit to attend an SSPX Mass as long as the person is devoted to the Mass and not intending schism.
 
40.png
Iohannes:
That is very insulting, rude, uncatholic and wrong to call SSPX satanic. You do not even know the history of Archbishop Lebevre and what he went through.

Didn’t JPII encourage dialogue with groups of people and is this how you are going to dialogue with our closest seperated brethern. It is one thing to point out fellow Catholics their error and another thing to call them evil and satanic.

And you know what is is perfect legit to attend an SSPX Mass as long as the person is devoted to the Mass and not intending schism.
Click to expand...
YOU are totally right and I agree with you 100%. SOME opinions against anything traditional are made my those who know little about truth(veritas) and would despise a traditional catholic, yet dance, clap to and praise any evangelical denomination. SAPIENTIA ET DOCTRINA
 
I think Ham1’s post crept lower than many of the so called “traditionalist” who claim that the Novus Ordo Missae is a protestant service and invalid which is still bad and offensive in itself.
 
40.png
Iohannes:
I have seen and heard worse:
There is even a Catholic priest who calls the Tridentine Mass “very antichrist.”

losangelesmission.com/ed/letters/2004letters/0405lett.htm
Click to expand...
Well, if verified, he MUST be reported to the Ecclesia Dei Commision at: [www.ecclesiadei.org](http://www.ecclesiadei.org) : THE COALITION IN SUPPORT OF ECCLESIA DEI. If I ever heard something like that I would speak with my good friend priest who is a doctor in canon law and got his degree from the Angelicum in Rome. I would also write a letter to Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who is the current President of the Ecclesia Dei Commision in Rome. I would also write to Cardinal Ratzinger (who offten celebrates the Tridentine Mass, and supports it 100%). Any priest who belittles the Latin (Indult) Tridentine Mass should be more concerned about other things that have given the church a bad image in the last two years. I guess some priests take it upon themselves to be Pope want a bees.
 
I don’t see where SSPX is any different than Greek Orthodox or Southern Baptists who just have honest disagreements with the RCC.

The pope doesn’t condemn either as satanic.
 
Yet, to be clear, the SSPX is much like the Greek Orthodox as they have valid (yet illicit) Eucharistic liturgy (because their priests are validly ordained, using the correct matter/form/intent of the Blessed Sacrament). Whereas the Southern Baptists do not have validly ordained priests. Their “Eucharist” is merely symbolic and not valid.

The SSPX do not disagree with the Magisterium with regard to de fide dogmas of Catholicism, so they are not heretical, but merely (at least) materially schismatic.

The Southern Baptists do reject *de fide *dogmas of Catholicism so they are in at least material heresy.

Both schism and heresy are damnable mortal sins, if the sins are formal and not merely material.

I find an illicit SSPX Mass just as appalling as a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated illicitly (not in accord with canon law). They both constitute liturgical abuse in my opinion. There’s little difference between a incardinated priest committing liturgical abuse and a non-incardinated priest (SSPX) committing liturgical abuse, except that the former can easily reform his ways and begin following the rubrics as intended. The latter, no matter how meticulous he follows the 1962 Roman Missal, he will still be guilty of liturgical abuse because he has not faculties for celebrating the Mass apart from the authority of the Bishop of the Diocese.

The SSPX, in essence, operate a place of worship apart from the Bishop, which has never been part of Catholic tradition, and is against what the Catholic Church calls “binding.”
 
*Yet, to be clear, the SSPX is much like the Greek Orthodox as they have valid (yet illicit) Eucharistic liturgy (because their priests are validly ordained,…liturgical abuse in my opinion. *

The pope himself has participated in liturgies with the Greek patriarch, I don’t think it can be considered a true abuse under the circumstances.
 
The pope himself has participated in liturgies with the Greek patriarch, I don’t think it can be considered a true abuse under the circumstances.
Click to expand...
When? Canon law prohibits Catholics from receiving or con-celebrating the Sacraments with non-Catholics (except under very specific conditions), does it not? Do you have details?

My understanding of liturgical abuse is to deliberately break canon law while celebrating the liturgy. Mistakes occur, no doubt, However, it is a **deliberate choice **to use honey bread as the matter of the Eucharist. That’s not a mistake, but a disobedient choice. It is a deliberate choice to celebrate the 1962 Traditional Mass without indult from the Bishop.
 
I’ve tried to stay out of this because in my heart I commisurate with many of the folks who attend SSPX Masses because there is no legitimate (licit) Tridentine Mass. As one poster said they are devout in their worship, give great honor to Mary and could very easily become our “united” brothers and sisters rather than our “estranged” brothers and sisters.

But facts are facts. Except for the SSPX Priests in Campos, Brazil, they are not deemed by the Catholic Church and Rome to have licit Masses or Priests and are considered to be in schism - even now.

The heirachy of the SSPX does not consider itself to be in Schism.

Fact: The Pope does not consider them satanic - show me valid church document or letter from him saying this.

Fact: Cardinal Ratzinger did not say the SSPX were no longer in schism. Show me a document to support this claim made by someone.

Fact: Cardinal Ratzinger did say we could attend an SSPX Mass but did not encourage it on a regular basis (the same would be true of other Churches in Schism - Greek Orthodox for instance)

Fact: The SSPX priests are valid and so is their Mass BUT they are not licit. The difference between valid and licit is complicated but does exist.

Fact: Cardinal Hoyos has been workin with the SSPX for several years now and there is still a possibility that they will work out something to reconcile the SSPX and Rome. Pray for this.

Fact: There are radical SSPX members and there are radical N.O. members. It is usually pretty easy to recognize them by the tenor of their posts.

Fact: They do claim allegiance to the Holy Father but their refusal to recognize the legitimacy of much of Vatican II and the N.O. Mass is contradictory to this statement and is the stumbling stone to reconciliation. They are not to be confused with Sedevacants who believe the seat of Peter is empty.

continued
 
Fact: Archbishop Lefebvre attended the Vatican II council and put his signature of approval to all 13 of the Council documents.

Fact: He later recanted this support because he saw many post Vatican II priests and theologians attacking many aspects of worship which were of long tradition and part of the Church prior to Vatican II.

Fact:The Archbishop decided to found a priestly Society which would preserve the Latin liturgy and the traditional customs of the Church. The seminary to train these priests was in place by 1970 and was called the priestly Society of St. Pius X.

Fact: The seminary was teaching some anti-vatican II rhetoric (as the SSPX still do) and by 1975, a formal investigation of the seminary and its teaching occurred.

Fact: The Archbishop refused any attempts to change the seminary, and so Pope Paul VI himself had to intervene and ordered the Archbishop not to ordain the first ordination class of 1975.

Fact: Lefebvre ordained his seminarians anyway.

Fact: Pope Paul VI suspended him from the sacred ministry and declared that the Society had no legal standing as an official, religious order of the Church

Fact: the Archbishop ordained four bishops without the Pope’s approval, which in the 1917 and the 1983 Code of Canon law, carried the penalty of automatic excommunication.

Fact: In 1988, Pope John Paul II stated in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta (“God’s Afflicted Church”) that the Archbishop and his co-consecrating bishops, and the four priests who were ordained bishops, had all incurred excommunication for the grave crime of episcopal ordination without papal mandate.

Fact: At that time, he also pronounced that all the faithful who continued to attend SSPX Masses and the SSPX priests were also in schism and faced the danger of bein excommunicated also.
 
Fact: Cardinal Hoyos has been workin with the SSPX for several years now and there is still a possibility that they will work out something to reconcile the SSPX and Rome. Pray for this.

The goal of the SSPX is a universalized return to Latin within the greater RCC.

This ain’t going to happen over night, if it happens at all. But I think they would return to the greater RCC if they had a shot at realizing their goal, and were given an opportunity to be fully integrated within the general Catholic population in ordinary parishes and the right to recruit from the ranks of ordinary priests if they could convince those priests of the superiority of Latin.

But if the deal is just to establish separatized SSPX parishes, with little hope of internal expansion, I don’t think they will want to merge with the greater RCC.
 
As I understand it, a reconciliation would in effect put them in the same status as FFSP and Christ the King, etc. These priests only celebrate the TLM and are so trained but they do not deny the validity of the NOM - that is the problem and always has been the problem with the SSPX.

It breaks my heart to see so many of our Catholic rothers and sisters separated from us.
 
In adderessing the title of this thread (Why not right), I would think that if anyone, traditionalists or charismatic, had the goal of reforming the rest of Latin rite Catholics to their viewpoint, when that viewpoint is not a matter of dogma, doctrine, or discipline, then they are wrong. I would hope that such people are the small minority among traditionalists.

As far as attending an illicit SSPX mass being the same as an approved mass with liturgical abuse, shouldn’t the level of abuse be considered? Obviously something serious, like invalid matter (honey bread?) negates the presence of Jesus in the mass and at least SSPX has a valid mass.

I think equating the schism SSPX has created with something minor (holding hands during the Our Father) is to downplay the serious nature of being in schism with the Holy Father.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top