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
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.
Click to expand...
Lets put that Canon up.
Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
Click to expand...
4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;
Click to expand...
Now the act of consecrating bishops without the approval of the pope causes latae sententiae excommunication.
Can. 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
Click to expand...
Now can Lefebvre claim the fear required by Can. 1323 §4?

No he can not, because the Holy Father had already agreed on May 5th 1988 to consecrate a bishop for the SSPX, at a later date.

This is all laid out in the link from JakeW in post #16 but here it is again, Holier Than Thou: How Rejection of Vatican II Led Lefebvre into Schism

As for your other nonsense. Those bishops did not ordain anyone without a pontifical mandate. Your argument is flawed.

And again, I find it odd that the SSPX (and its supporters) use the 1983 Code of Canon Law in their defence when they say they do not accept it.
 
40.png
jlw:
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.
Click to expand...
All this is great, except for the vertical/horizontal thing, I really do not get that bit.
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??
Click to expand...
There is where I have issues. No I do not see that distinction.

It is not the Mass that causes the “protesantization”, what ever that is.

The Mass is the Mass. Problems occur from the abuse of the Mass but there is nothing to safe guard the Old Mass from abuse.

There is on inherent abuse built into it from an Eastern perspective. This would be priests acting in the roles of deacons and sub-deacons. I understand why but in the Eastern Churches once a priest becomes a priest he no longer functions as a lower order.
 
40.png
jlw:
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??
Click to expand...
I don’t get this (and this isn’t the first place I’ve seen it, so don’t feel bad). I grew up Protestant, Southern Baptist until 21, Episcopalian until 26. I’ve no notion where the idea that the NO (Mass of Paul VI) is Protestant. The Catholic Mass in any form is anathema to Baptists and Anglican copied their “smells and bells” from us, not vice versa (out of the High Church/Tractarian movement of which Cardinal Newman was a part prior to his conversion). There isn’t anything Protestant about the Mass. It has Jewish antecedants, but not Protestant.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
All this is great, except for the vertical/horizontal thing, I really do not get that bit.

There is where I have issues. No I do not see that distinction.

It is not the Mass that causes the “protesantization”, what ever that is.

The Mass is the Mass. Problems occur from the abuse of the Mass but there is nothing to safe guard the Old Mass from abuse.

There is on inherent abuse built into it from an Eastern perspective. This would be priests acting in the roles of deacons and sub-deacons. I understand why but in the Eastern Churches once a priest becomes a priest he no longer functions as a lower order.
Click to expand...
Perhaps jlw is referring to such abuses as those pictured in this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=42903

And no, these are not Episcopalians are some other willy-nilly progressive sect, but a Catholic “Mass” held at the 2005 Religious Education Conference in Los Angeles under the auspices of Cardinal Roger Mahony, who celebrated the liturgy amidst a cast of rather stoned looking liturgical dancers and a imodestly dressed female singer.

I would not particularily categorize them as a “protestantization” but maybe a “neo-paganization” would be a fairer description here.
 
40.png
Catholic29:
Perhaps jlw is referring to such abuses as those pictured in this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=42903

And no, these are not Episcopalians are some other willy-nilly progressive sect, but a Catholic “Mass” held at the 2005 Religious Education Conference in Los Angeles under the auspices of Cardinal Roger Mahony, who celebrated the liturgy amidst a cast of rather stoned looking liturgical dancers and a imodestly dressed female singer.

I would not particularily categorize them as a “protestantization” but maybe a “neo-paganization” would be a fairer description here.
Click to expand...
First, it has been pointed out from someone who lives in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles that these pictures are not from 2005 as words showing on the screen in the background do not match this years conference. Also they pointed out that the conference this year was held during Lent and the Archbishop is wearing the wrong color vestments.

But that is besides the point. These abuses are not becuase of the Mass. The Cardinal could abuse the Trad Latin Mass in the same exact way if he wished.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
First, it has been pointed out from someone who lives in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles that these pictures are not from 2005 as words showing on the screen in the background do not match this years conference. Also they pointed out that the conference this year was held during Lent and the Archbishop is wearing the wrong color vestments.

But that is besides the point. These abuses are not becuase of the Mass. The Cardinal could abuse the Trad Latin Mass in the same exact way if he wished.
Click to expand...
Well, regardless of where or when these photos originated, the are still abuses conducted under a Catholic Cardinal, as Cardinal Roger Mahony is clearly pictured in them. However here is a link for authentic photos of the 2005 congress recongress.org/

And no, I am not a SSPX supporter as you might think.😉
 
40.png
ByzCath:
First, it has been pointed out from someone who lives in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles that these pictures are not from 2005 as words showing on the screen in the background do not match this years conference. Also they pointed out that the conference this year was held during Lent and the Archbishop is wearing the wrong color vestments.

But that is besides the point. These abuses are not becuase of the Mass. The Cardinal could abuse the Trad Latin Mass in the same exact way if he wished.
Click to expand...
Actually Byz, according to the “congress” website these are from this year. recongress.org/ Click on the see photos from 2005 button.

Aside from that, Mahoney existed before Vatican II. Do we have to blame that on the Tridentine Mass?
 
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...
NOTE BENE, These posts of yours tell us you are BITTER OLD MAN.
 
Nota Bene:
You are wrong. There are a great many people who have been baptised as Catholic Christians yet are no longer Catholic Christians.
Click to expand...
Actually I am correct. Read the couuncil of Florence session 8 on baptism. Also if a person is raised Catholic and recieves communion and confirmation and then leaves the Church, they are still Catholic. All they would need to return to the Church is reconciliation. If they attempted baptism or confirmation again it would be a sacrilige. Baptism and confirmation are a one time thing. Once Catholic always Catholic. You can be a heretic or schismatic though.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
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.
Click to expand...
Strange that it’s ok for Bendictine Superior Generals is allowed to say what those in his orders can and cant do. Same thing for Franciscans, Jesuits, Carmelits etc… The FSSP is a religious order, and in every other religious order the superior general has a say in what his subordinates can and can’t do, why should it not be allowed in the FSSP?

Also can someone explain how the church recognizes sacraments in protestant religions “who are searching in the shadows” but doesn’t recognize something that is very Catholic? It seems strange that it’s ok the have a Buddha sitting on the altar, have one’s forehead dotted like a Hindu, but it is wrong and evil to attend a Traditional Catholic Mass by people who in my opinion are much more catholic than many catholics. Maybe I am confuse on this, but it seems to be almost contradictory.
 
gelsbern said:
have one’s forehead dotted like a Hindu, but it is wrong and evil to attend a Traditional Catholic Mass by people who in my opinion are much more catholic than many catholics. Maybe I am confuse on this, but it seems to be almost contradictory.
Click to expand...

(sigh) this again. The Indian lady who “dotted” the Pope’s forehead was Catholic and this is an Indian custom, not a Hindu. The Pope decides who is and isn’t Catholic, our opinions hardly matter.
 
quote=JKirkLVNV this again. The Indian lady who “dotted” the Pope’s forehead was Catholic and this is an Indian custom, not a Hindu. The Pope decides who is and isn’t Catholic, our opinions hardly matter.
[/quote]

I know there is a difference but some do not. I for one think John Paul has made displays of bad judgement, and this is one for sure.

Can you imagine Bp Fulton Sheen doing the same. If you are Pope be a Pope as in act like one, For he is our leader of the Faith, not of confusion.

Fogny
 
40.png
Fogny:
I know there is a difference but some do not. I for one think John Paul has made displays of bad judgement, and this is one for sure.

Can you imagine Bp Fulton Sheen doing the same. If you are Pope be a Pope as in act like one, For he is our leader of the Faith, not of confusion.

Fogny
Click to expand...
I have friends from India and I’ve got to say a big deal was made of this when none should have been. It’s just like the folks say. The dot is similar to a lei in Hawaii. It’s a welcoming custom. Now, if you’re the type to get off the plain in Hawaii and deck the hula chicks putting the leis around the tourists neck, then I can see you getting your knickers in a bunch over this one. This is foreign to us but not to the world around. Yes, I can imagine Bp Sheen visiting India and getting a dot or visiting Hawaii and allowing a lei to be placed around his neck. Both have pagan origins but have been deluded to nothing more than a welcome custom. Now as for the Koran, I don’t think it was a good idea. That said, are we actually going to say that no other Popes have had “bad hair days”? Poor JPII lives in a fast moving media world where one mistake will be shot around the internet at lightning speed and apparently his flock is more than willing to spread anything that might cause more scandal. Did he tell us that we should kiss the Koran? Did he say this is how all Catholics should handle having the Koran shoved under their noses? I personally think that those who bring the one or two “bad hair days” up repeatedly should be far more ashamed than the Holy Father. I had never heard of the Koran incident until I stumbled into the rad-Trad world. Certainly, the local Catholic in the pews wouldn’t know what the heck you are talking about. I’m also appalled that people would still be harping on these events since they are promoted by sites that also promoted outright lies about things like “the Pope saying Mass with a Buddha on the tabernacle”, etc. It should make one think but for some reason it doesn’t. We’re just supposed to cut these sites some slack but not the Holy Father? Give me a stinking break. :mad:
 
Nota Bene:
You are wrong. There are a great many people who have been baptised as Catholic Christians yet are no longer Catholic Christians.
Click to expand...
Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. When a person is baptised into the Catholic Church he is a Catholic for life. This is basic Catholic teaching. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about the sacrament of Baptism:
1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: “Therefore . . . we are members one of another.”[71] Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”[72]
**1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.[82] Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated. **

1273 Incorporated into the Church by Baptism, the faithful have received the sacramental character that consecrates them for Christian religious worship.[83] The baptismal seal enables and commits Christians to serve God by a vital participation in the holy liturgy of the Church and to exercise their baptismal priesthood by the witness of holy lives and practical charity.[84]
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/baptism.html#BAPTISM

While the Society of St. Pius X is not in communion with the Church, they are still Catholic. A Catholic who joins a fundamentalist church is still Catholic. They are not practicing Catholics, but they are Catholics.
I would suggest you study the faith more and read the Catechism carefully. Careful reading should apply to everything you read, not just the Catechism. I point this out because you posted a quote from me in your thread “Why progressives beat the tar out of traditionalists” stating that I read every catechism except the Catechism of the Catholic Church when I CLEARLY STATED in my post that I in fact do read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, that thread has been deleted due to lack of charity.
I don’t understand your hostility toward anything that happened in the Church prior to 1965. You seem like someone who is orthodox, yet you want to rid the Church of anything that came of it prior to Vatican II. I hope I’m wrong about you.
I understand your dislike of those outside the Church who claim to be in full communion with the Church. While I attend the Tridentine Mass, I will only attend an Indult Mass because priests who offer Indult Masses are in full communion with Rome. I want to remain in full communion with Rome as well as you.
Those of us who prefer the Tridentine Mass to the Novus Ordo Mass are not your enemies. I have never doubted the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass and I attend it during the week and on Sundays when I teach CCD and our parish doesn’t have a Tridentine Mass that day. Not everyone who loves the Tridentine Mass believes the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid or refuses to accept the teachings of Vatican II.
I think you need to be a little less arrogant towards those of us who love the traditions (small t traditions) of the Church. Remember, God is Pre-Vatican II.
 
Just my two cents:

One of the central tenents of our faith is our obediance to the Pope and Magesterium. Now, I have looked at the SSPX site a few times in the past. They say one thing and mean another. It seems a little narrow minded to myself that SSPX would refuse to recognize the Novus Ordo. They always had a choice in which one was performed. Who are they to decide that the Novus Ordo is not valid? The same arguments came about when the Tridentine Mass was introduced. It was the Novus Ordo of its time. In any case, it is this narrow-mindedness to change that I feel led to the Excomunications(which was entirely THEIR faults, and NOT the Holy Father. Their excommunications are not invalid… I only pray that the SSPX can reconcile with the Vatican.)

An interesting letter to read on the EWTN website provides some insight into all of this also:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM

Now, as far as the FSSP goes:
I attend an FSSP Parish here in Sacramento (In fact I am coming into the church h through this parish. I am not yet baptised.) I find the TLM to be very reverent (much more than the Novus Ordo), and the priests that serve there are very Holy, and in fact love the Pope very much. However, I do see the fact that others prefer the new mass, and that is fine for them. The fact that all of this led to the excommunications of Bishops, the shepards of the flock, is quite sad. I pray that the schismatic movement will be brought back into communion with the church.

I think I’ll step off the soapbox now. :tiphat:
 
40.png
DJMarshall85:
Just my two cents:

One of the central tenents of our faith is our obediance to the Pope and Magesterium. Now, I have looked at the SSPX site a few times in the past. They say one thing and mean another. It seems a little narrow minded to myself that SSPX would refuse to recognize the Novus Ordo. They always had a choice in which one was performed. Who are they to decide that the Novus Ordo is not valid? The same arguments came about when the Tridentine Mass was introduced. It was the Novus Ordo of its time. In any case, it is this narrow-mindedness to change that I feel led to the Excomunications(which was entirely THEIR faults, and NOT the Holy Father. Their excommunications are not invalid… I only pray that the SSPX can reconcile with the Vatican.)

An interesting letter to read on the EWTN website provides some insight into all of this also:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM

Now, as far as the FSSP goes:

I attend an FSSP Parish here in Sacramento (In fact I am coming into the church h through this parish. I am not yet baptised.) I find the TLM to be very reverent (much more than the Novus Ordo), and the priests that serve there are very Holy, and in fact love the Pope very much. However, I do see the fact that others prefer the new mass, and that is fine for them. The fact that all of this led to the excommunications of Bishops, the shepards of the flock, is quite sad. I pray that the schismatic movement will be brought back into communion with the church.

I think I’ll step off the soapbox now. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
I could not of said that any better myself. Sad that many in this forum cannot see your logic, or just refuse to.

God bless you.👍

And don’t forget to vote in my pole forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43231 😉
 
40.png
DJMarshall85:
Just my two cents:

One of the central tenents of our faith is our obediance to the Pope and Magesterium. Now, I have looked at the SSPX site a few times in the past. They say one thing and mean another. It seems a little narrow minded to myself that SSPX would refuse to recognize the Novus Ordo. They always had a choice in which one was performed. Who are they to decide that the Novus Ordo is not valid? The same arguments came about when the Tridentine Mass was introduced. It was the Novus Ordo of its time. In any case, it is this narrow-mindedness to change that I feel led to the Excomunications(which was entirely THEIR faults, and NOT the Holy Father. Their excommunications are not invalid… I only pray that the SSPX can reconcile with the Vatican.)

An interesting letter to read on the EWTN website provides some insight into all of this also:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM

Now, as far as the FSSP goes:
I attend an FSSP Parish here in Sacramento (In fact I am coming into the church h through this parish. I am not yet baptised.) I find the TLM to be very reverent (much more than the Novus Ordo), and the priests that serve there are very Holy, and in fact love the Pope very much. However, I do see the fact that others prefer the new mass, and that is fine for them. The fact that all of this led to the excommunications of Bishops, the shepards of the flock, is quite sad. I pray that the schismatic movement will be brought back into communion with the church.

I think I’ll step off the soapbox now. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
I agree with you and add my observation that it is by faith and obediance that one must observe here concerning the new liturgy because it is a far stretch to say that the new resembles the old.
The latin rite never required such a leap of faith.

God Bless

Fogny
 
Exporter said:
********************************************************************
NOTE BENE, These posts of yours tell us you are BITTER OLD MAN.
Click to expand...

No, just a Catholic Christian…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top