What am I missing about the SSPX?

[holdencaulfield]

Is this your argument or what you believe the SSPX thinks? Danka.

This is what SSPX thinks.

 

[bear06]

This is what SSPX thinks.

Sorry, Holden. You don’t get to answer this one since rpp posted it. Sorry if there was any confusion. I was trying to get clarification from him if he thought that or if he was saying that’s what the the SSPX thought. Thanks.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Sorry, Holden. You don’t get to answer this one since rpp posted it. Sorry if there was any confusion. I was trying to get clarification from him if he thought that or if he was saying that’s what the the SSPX thought. Thanks.

That’s ok lol

 

[Chuck_H]

I don’t understand why everyone hates them so much. What do they do that is wrong. I could see how they are annoying if they have a “im better than you” attitude, however what do they do that’s wrong. I don’t understand. The way I see it:

• They follow Vatican II
• They follow Pope Benedict XVI
• They are not in schism.

Am I wrong about something?

I don’t hate them. I just find little to defend.

The mass for most of history has been in latin simply because it was the language that bound Europe together. As they say, it was the language of commerce. Other than a steadily lessening group of older priests and smattering of Jesuit high School graduates latin is fading fast as a language. It has never been a sacred language and while latin hymns sound great, Glory be to God works fine.

As for women, both St Paul and St James reflected the bias of their day toward women (no challenge to either’s theology). One Byzantine catholic explained one time on a thread that the Eastern Rite once required women to receive the Eucharist in hands wrapped in cloth so the female hand would not taint the Sacrament. That men and women are equal in the sight of God (in my book) is a given so if a girl server is present I don’t blink or give it a second thought.

The new mass (priest facing the congregation, communion in the hand etc has been a deep source of strength and closeness to God for me. I was born in 1947 and grew up with the latin mass. I had no idea of the richness of the mass until I understood the language.

In this light my question to the SSPX catholic would be this. Are you worshiping a rite or are you worshiping the Christ?

 

[Your_Abbott]

I think I disagree with your characterization. I do not think the SSPX wants to destroy the Church. I think the SSPX believes the Church is losing her way and is about to sail over a waterfall.

Using that analogy, rather than trying to help steer the Church away from the precipice, they are afraid to they will be caught in the torrent and destroyed with everyone else. So they jumped ship and are trying to get away.

Now what do you call someone who abandons their post when things get difficult or even scary?

And you think that the SSPX is going to save the Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, and has a billion souls - SSPX is going to save them in their schismatic state?

Why are we even bother to answer to nonsense?

Your Abbott

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

In my opinion, the SSPX is promoting the scandal of schism. Within the SSPX are some pretty disturbed people. I don’t know the motives of this or that particular person for going to SSPX Masses, but I do hear some sick things coming from various SSPX adherents, including one of the original four bishops.

You don’t have to scratch the surface very hard to find this element. Right now on the fisheaters message board, there is a discussion over just how many Christian babies were killed by Jews in the Middle Ages, and did they drink their blood or just kill them? I don’t know if the people in that discussion go to Mass with the SSPX, but that’s just one example out of many things that I consider evil or at least just cuckoo that I hear around “that scene.” People being urged to avoid non-SSPX TRIDENTINE masses is not uncommon. It has happened to me, personally. It’s not hard to find web sites written by members of the SSPX, even their clergy, claiming that the sacraments of the Church since VII are no longer valid. I know they, at least sometimes, re-ordain priests who defect to the SSPX, which means they don’t think priests have been validly ordained since the OF rites were introduced.

This is some really scary stuff, IMO. If you don’t want to find yourself in some splinter sect who thinks they’re “the remnant” of the faithful, happy to be out of communion with the Pope, then I’d stear clear of SSPX. In my opinion, Benedict XVI is removing obstacles for sane, obedient Traditionalists to come back into the mainstream, legitimate Church. There are absolutely members of the SSPX who are freaked out about this. You can see the fighting on their blogs and web pages. I don’t really know what it is that they want, but to be happily reconciled with Rome, able to licitlly worship the way they like isn’t what all of them want.

In many areas, the SSPX is the only option for someone to hear a EF Mass. You don’t really know who falls where in those situations. If you have a licit opportunity to celebrate the EF, then go for it! If not, then try to find a reverent NO. But, I would rather go to a typical NO parish than stand with the SSPX. Have faith in the Church that it will be alright!

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

And you think that the SSPX is going to save the Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, and has a billion souls - SSPX is going to save them in their schismatic state?

Why are we even bother to answer to nonsense?

Your Abbott

Abbott, I think you misunderstood the poster… I took it as a criticism of the SSPX, who are seen as leaving their post when things got difficult.

 

[bear06]

And you think that the SSPX is going to save the Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, and has a billion souls - SSPX is going to save them in their schismatic state?

Why are we even bother to answer to nonsense?

Your Abbott

Again, get your scorecard out Abbott. He said that’s what the SSPX thought. You might want to study “your enemy” before you start accusing others of being one. rpp has a much better handle on what they actually believe. The simple fact is that the SSPX isn’t trying to destroy the Church. That’s not their goal at all. Their goal is to save it. The thing is (if you took the time to correctly read rpp) they are going about it the wrong way. You seem to be lumping them in the same boat as, say, someone like the Masons who did actually have a goal to destroy the Church. As wrong as they may be, it would be improper to lump them into that category.

 

[Freshman88]

I admire the SSPX for the devotion to tradition and the Classical Roman Rite, they need to be reeled back into a healthy relation with the Church where they can be more influential.

 

[hasikelee]

Again, get your scorecard out Abbott. He said that’s what the SSPX thought. You might want to study “your enemy” before you start accusing others of being one. rpp has a much better handle on what they actually believe. The simple fact is that the SSPX isn’t trying to destroy the Church. That’s not their goal at all. Their goal is to save it. The thing is (if you took the time to correctly read rpp) they are going about it the wrong way. You seem to be lumping them in the same boat as, say, someone like the Masons who did actually have a goal to destroy the Church. As wrong as they may be, it would be improper to lump them into that category.

Do you have any sources to direct me down the right path of finding more info on your stance (SSPX want to save not destroy)?

I am open minded, but skeptical. In all the SSPX people I have met or in their material, I have never seen them want to protect Catholicism, especially anything having to do with Vatican II and the Papacy.

My findings led me to see their stance more as “I know the secret/tradition/pathway to heaven and purity and Catholicism is definitely not it, but if you do exactly as I say, you, too can find the secret”

 

[Your_Abbott]

I think I disagree with your characterization. I do not think the SSPX wants to destroy the Church. I think the SSPX believes the Church is losing her way and is about to sail over a waterfall.

Using that analogy, rather than trying to help steer the Church away from the precipice, they are afraid to they will be caught in the torrent and destroyed with everyone else. So they jumped ship and are trying to get away.

Now what do you call someone who abandons their post when things get difficult or even scary?

The SSPX has no mission from Jesus Christ. They are not in a position to save the Roman Catholic Church from falling over the precipice. The SSPX has already fallen over the edge. They are ‘outside the Church’ where there is no salvation.

 

[Your_Abbott]

There is a great movie that can be seen as a parallel to this. It is called the Caine Mutiny featuring Humphrey Bogart, Van Johnson Fred MacMurray, Robert Francis and Jose Ferrar. Watch the movie and mentally replace the names of the Characters.

Capt. Queeg (Bogart) = Pope John Paul II
Lt. Kieffer (MacMurray) = Hans Kung, Gregory Baum or the liberal fruitcake of your choice.
Lt. Cmdr. Steve Maryk (Van Johnson) = Archbishop Lefebvre
Lt. Keith (Francis) = lay SSPX members
Lt. Greenwald JAG (Ferrar) = Cardinal Ratzinger when Prefect of the CDF. (okay, the analogy breaks down here a bit,but you will get at the very end.)

Such analogies help me to understand difficult situations. But DO NOT ignore the closing scene with Greenwald, Kieffer, Keith and Maryk.

This post is scandalous. Attacking the Holy Father as Queeg, and the other members of the cast.

It is clear now who you are and what you stand for. You should change your ID immediately.

 

[Freshman88]

The SSPX has no mission from Jesus Christ. They are not in a position to save the Roman Catholic Church from falling over the precipice. The SSPX has already fallen over the edge. They are ‘outside the Church’ where there is no salvation.

I’m curious, would you say the same of the Orthodox? What about non-Catholic communities in general?

 

[Your_Abbott]

!)

We know what the issues are. You are a sheep in wolves clothing. You are a supporter of SSPX. How can you be called a Forum Supporter?

These long defenses telling us what the issues are? We know what the issues are. SSPX is outside the Church. Period. And you have embraced them.

 

[bear06]

Do you have any sources to direct me down the right path of finding more info on your stance (SSPX want to save not destroy)?

What do you mean “my stance”? My stance is that the SSPX blew it. I think their bishops validly excommunicated and their priests at the very least suspended. That said, if you read the SSPX writings, it’s obvious they are not trying to destroy the Church. They are just trying to make it as they think it should be. Their pride got in the way.

I am open minded, but skeptical. In all the SSPX people I have met or in their material, I have never seen them want to protect Catholicism, especially anything having to do with Vatican II and the Papacy.

 

[Your_Abbott]

I’m curious, would you say the same of the Orthodox? What about non-Catholic communities in general?

I’ll quote Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. SSPX falls under his knife:

Quote:
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. Unquote

 

[Freshman88]

I’ll quote Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. SSPX falls under his knife:

Quote:
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. Unquote

I wasn’t asking what you thought about the SSPX - that seems very clear.

I’ll ask again.

Do you pass the same judgment on the Eastern Churches who are not in communion with Rome?

 

[hasikelee]

What do you mean “my stance”? My stance is that the SSPX blew it. I think their bishops validly excommunicated and their priests at the very least suspended. That said, if you read the SSPX writings, it’s obvious they are not trying to destroy the Church. They are just trying to make it as they think it should be. Their pride got in the way.

Well, that’s the thing about being in error. One can have the best of intentions and still go about things the wrong way.

Well, it might not be exactly how I would put it but the theory is probably the same. They want the best for the Church and they believe their way is the best. It doesn’t mean they are trying to destroy the Church.

 

[bear06]

bear06;3425201:

Thank you for clarifying your viewpoint. I see what you are saying now, but I don’t see it in my personal experiences.

Of course, that doesn’t mean my conclusions are anymore correct than yours. I was just interested in other sources you might have that could bring out nuances I might not have heard about.

See, from everyone I know, they want to bring the Church down. It starts to sound as if they want to punish the church, or see it fail. Again, this is just my personal experience, I am not trying to argue for it so much as ask if anyone has different info.

Well, there are wackos in every group. I’m just basing it on what I’ve read in the SSPX writings themselves. I’ve never, personally, run into an SSPXer who wanted the Church to die. They just want it it how they think it ought to be. It’s pretty much the same with every schismatic organization. They think their way is the best.

 

[rpp]

Is this your argument or what you believe the SSPX thinks? Danka.

Whether SSPX believes this or not I do not know, but I do not think it matters. However, I believe that statement, but it is not my argument. The statement I have seen in many documents described the council as “Pastoral, not doctrinal.”