What is the difference between the SPPX and the Society of St Peter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jlw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
BulldogCath:
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
Click to expand...
Actually this is in error.

The only time that an FSSP priest is asked to say the Novus Ordo Mass is at the Chrism Mass of the bishop whose diocese they are working in.

Some radical members of the FSSP wanted to disallow any FSSP from participating in the Mass, the Superior, along with the Vatican, said No to this. As the “Novus Ordo” Mass is the rite of the Latin Catholic Church, any and all Latin Catholic priests have a right to participate and to celebrate it.

And yes, what eddie has said and linked to is true, the SSPX says that the Mass may be valid but then if you read on they allude to it not being valid. Again, just as they say they follow the pope but ingore what he says.

If you look at their Question 10: Can We Attend The Indult Mass you will see their real take on the Mass.

It clearly says under “Can We Attend Their Masses?” “If we have to agree to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Novus Ordo Missae, then NO, for we cannot do evil that good may ensue.” (bold emphasis theirs)

So if agreeing to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Mass is an evil then how can they say its valid?

The SSPX loves to twist logic and they have caught themselves in this twist.
 
And what do you consider “radical”. By your definition “radical” probably means anyone to the right of Hans Kung!
40.png
ByzCath:
Actually this is in error.

The only time that an FSSP priest is asked to say the Novus Ordo Mass is at the Chrism Mass of the bishop whose diocese they are working in.

Some radical members of the FSSP wanted to disallow any FSSP from participating in the Mass, the Superior, along with the Vatican, said No to this. As the “Novus Ordo” Mass is the rite of the Latin Catholic Church, any and all Latin Catholic priests have a right to participate and to celebrate it.

And yes, what eddie has said and linked to is true, the SSPX says that the Mass may be valid but then if you read on they allude to it not being valid. Again, just as they say they follow the pope but ingore what he says.

If you look at their Question 10: Can We Attend The Indult Mass you will see their real take on the Mass.

It clearly says under “Can We Attend Their Masses?” “If we have to agree to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Novus Ordo Missae, then NO, for we cannot do evil that good may ensue.” (bold emphasis theirs)

So if agreeing to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Mass is an evil then how can they say its valid?

The SSPX loves to twist logic and they have caught themselves in this twist.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Actually this is in error.

The only time that an FSSP priest is asked to say the Novus Ordo Mass is at the Chrism Mass of the bishop whose diocese they are working in.

Some radical members of the FSSP wanted to disallow any FSSP from participating in the Mass, the Superior, along with the Vatican, said No to this. As the “Novus Ordo” Mass is the rite of the Latin Catholic Church, any and all Latin Catholic priests have a right to participate and to celebrate it.

And yes, what eddie has said and linked to is true, the SSPX says that the Mass may be valid but then if you read on they allude to it not being valid. Again, just as they say they follow the pope but ingore what he says.

If you look at their Question 10: Can We Attend The Indult Mass you will see their real take on the Mass.

It clearly says under “Can We Attend Their Masses?” “If we have to agree to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Novus Ordo Missae, then NO, for we cannot do evil that good may ensue.” (bold emphasis theirs)

So if agreeing to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Mass is an evil then how can they say its valid?

The SSPX loves to twist logic and they have caught themselves in this twist.
Click to expand...
This is a mess for our Church. A real shame.
However, something can be valid, yet of (less or no value) ie being doubtfully proper toward God.
After all, the VATII Church states that SSPX Masses are valid, but illicit (aka improper). So there is a distinction.
They profess it being improper toward God. But I do not know of any official position on the NOM being Invalid. (doesn’t mean they haven’t done that somewhere.)
Seems lke they (SSPX & VATII church) cuss each other out on impropriety, and hug on validity.
 
40.png
TNT:
This is a mess for our Church. A real shame.
However, something can be valid, yet of (less or no value) ie being doubtfully proper toward God.
After all, the VATII Church states that SSPX Masses are valid, but illicit (aka improper). So there is a distinction.
They profess it being improper toward God. But I do not know of any official position on the NOM being Invalid. (doesn’t mean they haven’t done that somewhere.)
Seems lke they (SSPX & VATII church) cuss each other out on impropriety, and hug on validity.
Click to expand...
No they profess it to be evil, not just improper toward God.

Anyways, who are they to judge that? They are not the Church, they are not the Magisterium.

Something can not be valid and evil and they claim that agreeing to the doctrinal and juridical value (the validity) of the Mass is an evil.

As for bulldog, no, what I call radical is a group of priests who wish to limit how a priest exercises his priestly office. This radical group wanted the Superior General to not allow priests to participate in the Chrism Mass and to further say that no FSSP priest could ever celebrate the Mass. He refused to do so and the Vatican agreed.
 
40.png
TNT:
This is a mess for our Church. A real shame.
However, something can be valid, yet of (less or no value) ie being doubtfully proper toward God.
After all, the VATII Church states that SSPX Masses are valid, but illicit (aka improper). So there is a distinction.
They profess it being improper toward God. But I do not know of any official position on the NOM being Invalid. (doesn’t mean they haven’t done that somewhere.)
Seems lke they (SSPX & VATII church) cuss each other out on impropriety, and hug on validity.
Click to expand...
Well, it is the opinion of The Church that matters, not the opinion of the bishops of the SSPX.
 
Wow, when you step back and ponder this thread just a bit, it’s clear that non-Catholics (the SSPXers) are desperately trying to sell themelves and their group as being part of the Catholic Church. Beware.

These discussion remind me a great deal of those I have had with Mormons who claim to be Christians.

In the end though, the SSPXers who frequent these forums have slowly been un-masked. Their allegence is with the excommunicated Lefebrve and not with the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

That alone discounts their comments as nothing but anti-Catholic drivel.
 
Nota Bene:
Wow, when you step back and ponder this thread just a bit, it’s clear that non-Catholics (the SSPXers) are desperately trying to sell themelves and their group as being part of the Catholic Church. Beware.

These discussion remind me a great deal of those I have had with Mormons who claim to be Christians.

In the end though, the SSPXers who frequent these forums have slowly been un-masked. Their allegence is with the excommunicated Lefebrve and not with the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

That alone discounts their comments as nothing but anti-Catholic drivel.
Click to expand...
They are Catholic. What makes someone Catholic is baptism. They may not be in full communion with the Church.

I don’t think there arguements make any sense at all. Especially when they claim to follow the pope and then reject his teachings.
 
APOSTOLIC LETTER
"ECCLESIA DEI"
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO******
  1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)
  2. This affliction was particularly felt by the Successor Peter to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church,(2) even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few. For every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the Cross for the salvation of all.
The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted, provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his Church.
  1. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)
  2. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”…(5)
(truncated to fit.)

Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s. 2 July 1988, the tenth year of the pontificate.

Joannes Paulus PP. IIhttp://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

Game over you wanna-be Catholic SSPXers…
 
40.png
jimmy:
They are Catholic. What makes someone Catholic is baptism. They may not be in full communion with the Church.

I don’t think there arguements make any sense at all. Especially when they claim to follow the pope and then reject his teachings.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. There are a great many people who have been baptised as Catholic Christians yet are no longer Catholic Christians.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Anyways, who are they to judge that? They are not the Church, they are not the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
I’ve asked ths elsewhere but this is another good place.
So, then the following in UR is infallible truth:
The brethren divided from us also use many (actually ALL in this case) liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

If so, then the SSPX 's “liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.”

SSPX liturgy must objectively have access to salvation, and is “by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them **as means of salvation”

Right?
Or are they exempted exclusively? The Presbyterians are in, the Lutherns are in, the Restorationists are in, but the SSPX is out?
My wife went from Chrismatic prot. to entering the SSPX. Is she in, but the person next to her in the pew is out if they came in from the VATII church and conscience took her to SSPX?
VERBUM on Post 7 of :
****Why do some still say that Vatican II is not infallible?
Thread:
**
But where, for example, the Council teaches that all men of good will following their conscience can be saved, then we are bound to accept this teaching.
Click to expand...
 
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Your friends at EWTN Q&A board called the SSPX “Catholic Christians” which you reject.The Orlando diocese priest that I frequent would also agree with this statement and the fact that the SSPX priests are Catholics - they are not practicing another religion or whatever you want to argue.

No penalty, even if there was no true necessity. But atleast they didn’t burn Archbishop Lefebrve at the stake like St. Joan of Arc.
 
40.png
JakeW:
Can someone (or everyone) please comment on this??

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304fea2.asp
Click to expand...
Good article and it sums up the problem with SSPX:
The SSPX is a morality tale, an example of what happens when a group sets out to be faithful to the Church but along the way decides it is a better arbiter of true Christianity than the Church it claims to follow. If we decide we know better than the Church on this or that subject, then our private judgment creeps in and we become our own magisterium. The result is that we inevitably find ourselves ever more distanced from the Church.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
TNT:
Maybe the point is being completely overlooked hear.
  1. ALL, even the pope are under canon law.
  2. The adversarial parties were: A bishop, and a pope.
  3. Canon law stands between the adersaries just as US law does.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
Click to expand...
You’re comparing apples and oranges, T. We’re not talkinga bout who gets to decide an annulment. We’re are deciding who is the arbiter of Tradition and it ain’t Lefebvre.
 
40.png
TNT:
Maybe the point is being completely overlooked hear.
  1. ALL, even the pope are under canon law.
  2. The adversarial parties were: A bishop, and a pope.
  3. Canon law stands between the adersaries just as US law does.
Click to expand...
Someone posted about Canon Law somewhere here at the forums which kind of refutes what you say here, I will have to search for it tonight when I get time.

But in short, Canon Law is not like US Civil Law. When there is a doubt, one must look to the intent of the Holy Father. Canon Law is discipline and the Holy Father is above it if he so choses.

The Holy Father is the final arbiter of Canon Law. The Holy Father has the final say.

This is a big problem for the SSPX though as they wish to appeal to Canons 1323, 1324, and even 1321 yet they do not wish to accept the 1983 Code of Canon Law which all of those Canons come from.

So again more of their twisted logic. We do not accept the 1983 Code but we use it to defend Lefebvre. Sort of like all the other twisted logic they use to rationalize their positions.

This is found on their web site which from now on I am going to refrain from linking to as they are a schismatic group. If anyone wishes it is easy to find this at their site, if you have problems and still want to see it send me a private message and I will help you find it.
 
40.png
EddieArent:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Your friends at EWTN Q&A board called the SSPX “Catholic Christians” which you reject.The Orlando diocese priest that I frequent would also agree with this statement and the fact that the SSPX priests are Catholics - they are not practicing another religion or whatever you want to argue.

No penalty, even if there was no true necessity. But atleast they didn’t burn Archbishop Lefebrve at the stake like St. Joan of Arc.
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, the SSPX is schsimatic. Go the the Holy’s See’s website and read the words of the Holy Father.
 
Exactly
Or what about that all important Cardinal Kasper, the man of all faiths?
And what about the Pope for that matter-did he not kiss the Koran-should he be excommunicated for kissing a book that promotes the killing of infidels?
40.png
EddieArent:
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
Click to expand...
 
BulldogCath said:
Exactly

Or what about that all important Cardinal Kasper, the man of all faiths?

And what about the Pope for that matter-did he not kiss the Koran-should he be excommunicated for kissing a book that promotes the killing of infidels?
Click to expand...

Wow, I think they are going to drudge up all that crud here. Next will be the mark of shiva.

As I noted elsewhere. The pope did not kiss the Qur’an. The pope kiss a gift as is part of the culture in the part of the world he was in. One kisses the gift given to honor the giver. The gift happened to be a copy of the Qur’an. This has been twisted by the haters of the Church to try and defame the Holy Father.

Please show the Canon that demands the excommunication of someone honoring someone who presents one with a gift. If you find one then you should be excommunicated when you thank someone or hug someone who has given you a gift in the past.
 
As the original author of this thread, I find all if this pretty educational. Thanks. Alas, a lot has gone over my head, (as much as I pride myself on knowing my faith, I see I’m lacking in the particulars of Canon Law), but it has given me quite a bit to chew on.

I must say that though I 98% prefer the Latin Mass over the Norvus Ordo, I find no fault in the the Mass being said in english. The Norvus Ordo Mass can be said with reverence and with a vertical worship rather than a horizontal one.

The problem I have is NOT with the Norus Ordo itself (although I prefer it only 2% of the time), BUT I detest the protesantization of the Mass that has arisen out of it in our parishes*.*

Do you see that distinction?? Is it a valid one, or do I miss the boat somewhere??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top