J
jlw
Guest
Can someone enlighten me??
- Status
W
Windmill
Guest
SSPX, or the Society of Saint Pius X, is a schismatic group that only believes the Tridentine Mass is valid. They are not in communion with JPII, the pope.
FSSP, or the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, is a priestly order that has the blessings of the Church and Pope JPII. Its charism is preserving the Tridentine Mass, but it does not deny the validity of the contemporary Mass (commonly misnamed, the Novus Ordo).
Rich
FSSP, or the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, is a priestly order that has the blessings of the Church and Pope JPII. Its charism is preserving the Tridentine Mass, but it does not deny the validity of the contemporary Mass (commonly misnamed, the Novus Ordo).
Rich
J
jlw
Guest
Thanks, Rich. This is what I thought. At what point did SPPX break from Rome?? Was it before JPII or within his tenure as our Holy Father??
The reason I ask is that I was asked to attend a SPPX “mission church” and wasn’t too sure about it. I am a fan of the Latin Mass, but I don’t want to be is schism!!
My friend assured me that the priests at this particular church “recognize JPII as the valid Pope” and that I shouldn’t worry.
My questions would be “who ordained these priests?” “Were they ordained with approval from Rome??” “Are they tracable all the way back to Peter??”
Didn’t Archbishop Lebvevre (sp?) ordain priests after the Pope directly tell him *not *to??
B
Benedictus
Guest
More importantly, Lefebvre consecrated several bishops without the Pope’s approval in June of 1988 and was automatically excommunicated. Most SSPX priests were ordained by him or by one of the bishops he consecrated, but a few joined the SSPX after they were already priests.
Attending a SSPX chapel on occasion wouldn’t necessarily make you a schismatic, but I would recommend against it.
So, in summary, the SSPX is outside the Church, where there is no salvation, but the Fraternity of St. Peter is most certainly in good standing.
E
EddieArent
Guest
The SSPX does not say that the Novus Ordo as a whole isn’t valid. Read what they have to say, straight from the horse’s mouth below; sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm
Regarding the excommunications, not at all. Archbishop Lefebvre involked Canons 1321 and 1323 which protected him and the other bishops from such a punishment.
A pretty decent article is here: latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2002_SU_Ferrara_1.html
Regarding the excommunications, not at all. Archbishop Lefebvre involked Canons 1321 and 1323 which protected him and the other bishops from such a punishment.
A pretty decent article is here: latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2002_SU_Ferrara_1.html
J
jimmy
Guest
How is it misnamed the novus ordo? That is a perfectly valid name.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
This piece of crud shows how the SSPX love to twist logic. After reading it you come away with the SSPX saying that the Mass is no invalid but it is.
Exactly like their stand on the Holy Father, they say they follow the Holy Father yet they do not.
If you spend some time looking on the 'net you will find quotes from many SSPX bishops and priests where they say the Mass is invalid and that even attending an indult Mass is wrong becuase the priest celebrating it believes that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid.
The Latin Mass Magizine has just become a mouth piece for the SSPX as of late.
As for Lefebvre invoking any part of Canon Law, that is not his jurisdicition. The Holy Father is the final authority on Canon Law, as he and the Vatican say that Lefebvre’s actions caused his excommunication, that is final.
The SSPX and its supporters try to rationize what was done but that does not change the fact that it is schism.
N
Nota_Bene
Guest
That’s simply a bunch of garbage. Read *Ecclesia Dei. *
How come you reference writings from sspx.org and latinmassmagazine.com and not www.vatican.va?
Can you give us a link to www.vatican.va that proves what you suggest?
K
Kielbasi
Guest
The SSPX is a society of priests established by an archbishop Lefevbre to try and bring back the Latin mass.
The Society of St. Peter is part of the church’s answer to them, particularly after Lefevbre ordained several bishops in anticipating his own decedency, and insuring the SSPX’s continued existance.
The difference in the philosophy is that the SSPX believes that the Latin mass is obligatory, the St. Peter Society and others, see it as a preference, and say Latin masses as a service to those who have been attached to it.
The Society of St. Peter is part of the church’s answer to them, particularly after Lefevbre ordained several bishops in anticipating his own decedency, and insuring the SSPX’s continued existance.
The difference in the philosophy is that the SSPX believes that the Latin mass is obligatory, the St. Peter Society and others, see it as a preference, and say Latin masses as a service to those who have been attached to it.
E
EddieArent
Guest
Nota Bene:
Further, why wasnn’t Bishop de Castro Mayer supposidly excommunicated for assiting?
Why isn’t Bishop Burskiwicz (sp?), Bishop Dorsey, Bishop O’Connel, Bishop Galeone, Bishop Snyder, et al. excommunicated for assiting (by allowing facilities) and attending Lutheran and other Protestant sects ordinations? Do those invalid ordinations help the Catholic faith? Prime example below.
fbsynod.org/Web/OffBishop/InstallERB/Pictures.html
A person who violates a law out of necessityis not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity.
Further, why wasnn’t Bishop de Castro Mayer supposidly excommunicated for assiting?
Why isn’t Bishop Burskiwicz (sp?), Bishop Dorsey, Bishop O’Connel, Bishop Galeone, Bishop Snyder, et al. excommunicated for assiting (by allowing facilities) and attending Lutheran and other Protestant sects ordinations? Do those invalid ordinations help the Catholic faith? Prime example below.
fbsynod.org/Web/OffBishop/InstallERB/Pictures.html
B
bear06
Guest
T
TNT
Guest
Nota Bene:
this relates to The officially published version of the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia …
English from www.vatican.va:
I do not mean to preclude vatican.va as a reliable source, BUT it is not always, and sometimes disagrees with the Church itself. Here is one of 2 examples I know of:
this relates to The officially published version of the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia …
English from www.vatican.va:
- … It is there that Christ took bread, broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying: “Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you” (cf. Mk 26:26; Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24). Then he took the cup of wine and said to them: “Take this, all of you and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven” (cf. Mt 14:24; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25).
Code:**Latin from [www.vatican.va:](http://www.vatican.va:)** - … Ibi enim suas in manus panem sumpsit Christus quem fregit discipulisque dedit dicens: “Accipite, comedite: hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur” (cfr Mt 26, 26; Lc 22, 19; 1 Cor 11, 24).
Code:
Latin from Acta (some changes in **bold**):- … Ibi enam suas in manus panem sumpsit Christus quem fregit discipulisque dedit dicens: “Accipite, comedite: hoc est corpus meum (Mt 26,26), quod pro vobis datur (Lc 22, 19)”. Deinde calicem in manus vini sustulit eisque dixit: "Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix **Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum". [Footnote 3: Cfr MR, 3a ed., p. 586.] **
Code:English from [www.vatican.va](http://www.vatican.va) n. 5 “This is my body which will be given up for you This is the cup of my blood, poured out for you...”. Latin from [www.vatican.va](http://www.vatican.va) n. 5
Code:
Latin from Acta, page 436, n. 5:
"Hoc est **enim** Corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur ... Hic est **enim** calix Sanguinis mei **novi et aeterni testamenti **qui pro vobis **et pro multi** effundetur...". [Footnote 5: MR, 3a ed., p. 586.]
Another addition is a new footnote 4 at the end of n. 4: "*Liturgia Horarum II*, ed. typica altera, p. 533.". The Latin edition at [www.vatican.va](http://www.%3Cu%3Evatican.va) has an incorrect reference to "(Lc 22, 21)" in n. 2, but the English has the correct "(Lk 22:19)".
**There are versions for eight languages at [www.vatican.va](http://www.vatican.va). All have 104 footnotes, not the 107 in Acta.**
K
Kielbasi
Guest
The magisterium is a thing, an *arbiter *is a person. I’m not sure that makes much grammatical sense.
B
bear06
Guest
Well here’s the cool thing about our Church. According to dictionary.com these are the definitions of arbiter:
When the living Magisterium teaches it is the “One” or rather, it is the authority. A thing cannot really have authority.
If you’ve got time, here’s a good read newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
T
TNT
Guest
Maybe the point is being completely overlooked hear.
- ALL, even the pope are under canon law.
- The adversarial parties were: A bishop, and a pope.
- Canon law stands between the adersaries just as US law does.
- You cannot in justice have one of the adversaries as the judge. That’s why the canon law requires tribunal and defense for the accused.
Even a contested annulment cannot be decided by a pope without a tribunal decision behind him. - In this case the adversaries never had a defended tribunal, I don’t think. The pope just usurped any tribunal and decided his own case by citing a canon law. Then walked away. Case closed. Decision for the plaintiff, who was also the judge.
- Justice required a hearing from the adversaries and pleas to canon law. Then decided. Then the pope (who was one of the adversaries) defends the tribunal decision or provides another tribunal with cause.
Otherwise, as I see it, we have a dictatorship where justice is decided by only one adversary, not a monarchial government with safeguards against tyranny which any person can succumb to, even a pope.
The result may have been the same, but at least it would rest on just procedure.
Lefbv’s plea of necessity seems to be more credible with 20.20 hindsight. All literal hell has broken loose in the VATII bishopric, priesthood, and the supply line of seminaries.
IMHO, of course.
JPII cries out with apologies for the way the Church handled the Eastern Schism so abruptly, even claiming a fault in the Church, then turns right around and does the very same procedure on Lefbv. that he apologised for to the Easterns.
J
JakeW
Guest
K
Kielbasi
Guest
All things considered, the SSPX has to be considered a point of positivity. The continuation of the Latin mass isn’t all positive, but I think its better for those individuals to attend Latin mass rather than stay at home on Sunday morning, which is the most likely scenario for most.
The SSPX, and its indult children such as the Society of St. Peter and tiny, and far too exclusive and even sectarian for myself even to look at, as they would have ordinary Catholics abandon their own residential Catholic communities, but for some they serve a good purpose.
As far as whether or not Lefebrve was properly excommunicated or not, its sort of a moot point, as he’s dead now anyhow, and can’t be reconciled in this life although we can and should pray for his soul.
The SSPX, and its indult children such as the Society of St. Peter and tiny, and far too exclusive and even sectarian for myself even to look at, as they would have ordinary Catholics abandon their own residential Catholic communities, but for some they serve a good purpose.
As far as whether or not Lefebrve was properly excommunicated or not, its sort of a moot point, as he’s dead now anyhow, and can’t be reconciled in this life although we can and should pray for his soul.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Schism is never postive. It is destructive.
J
jimmy
Guest
I think that the SSPX has only been negative. VII does not outlaw the latin mass. It was due to the SSPX that the latin mass was restricted.
B
BulldogCath
Guest
Eddie is correct-And dont be fooled-as the Priests were who formed the FSSP-as they were once in the SSPX and were coerced back into the “church” and Promised at the time that all they had to do was recognize V2, state that the Novus Ordo Mass was a valid Mass, and then they would be allowed to say the TLM Mass, with the 1962 Missal, and only the TLM mass, and not be asked to say the Novus Ordo Mass as part of the compromise. Well, Rome and the Vatican has now reneged on them and they are now being asked to say the Novus Ordo Mass as well as the TLM against their wishes
EddieArent:
- Status