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

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Catholic29:

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.

I never thought you were an SSPX supporter.

The photos in that link are a bit misleading. The pics of the liturgical dance were from 2005, but the biggest abuse in my mind, the picture of the Archbishop raising the glass Chalice with the containers of wine on the altar was from 2004. I wonder why
Desert_82 did that. It was misleading.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

gelsbern:

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.

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?

gelsbern,
I think you need to re-read what I said.

The issue was that a radical group within the FSSP wanted this done, the Superior General disagreed with them. He did not want to place this restriction.

Also I do not think it is in the power of any religious order to deny a priest from saying the Mass, espeically privately, unless they totally suspend their priestly office. Which I do not think is within the power of a religious superior as he can not ordain, he needs a bishop to do that.

 

[jimmy]

gelsbern:

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.

The difference with the Benedictines is that they are not telling the monks to reject the Church. The extreme group is telling there members to reject the Church by basically declaring the NO mass to be invalid. Not allowing its members to say the NO mass is a rejection of the Church. The Benedictines only follow the Church.

 

[DJMarshall85]

jimmy:

The difference with the Benedictines is that they are not telling the monks to reject the Church. The extreme group is telling there members to reject the Church by basically declaring the NO mass to be invalid. Not allowing its members to say the NO mass is a rejection of the Church. The Benedictines only follow the Church.

Indeed! All of this boils down to faith and obediance to the Holy Father and Mother Church. And the FSSP priests that I have come in contact with are definately not lacking in this department.

I will not say this for sure, but if I remember right, the SSPX (or at least some of its members) criticized the FSSP when they were created. This was due to the fact that they were now obidient to a N.O. church. How dare theybe obidient! (j/k).

Sure, the FSSP fathers that I know have some criticizims of the N.O., but they are genuine, and in no way hostile towards the church. And they do not believe it to be invalid. They stop WAY short of schism.

God Bless,
DJ

(By the way, anyone on the thread who has not been to a TLM, you should try it sometime. I know a lot of younger folks have never experienced it (my self included before I converted to Christianity). It really is quite beautiful and reverent!)

 

[HagiaSophia]

gelsbern:

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?

Apparently you have some misconceptions about how the church and its orders work with each other and have thus leapt to some unfounded conclusions. Each order has constitutions, that is rules of life, community living, how the order will be run, administered and its mission ** all within the boundaries of church law**. These consittutions have to be approved by Rome and thus while the Father Generals of those orders then proceed to administer the order–the order functions all within church rule and canons.

It pays sometimes rather than reading untold numbers of pages of SSPX and the like literature and writings to study ones own church’s writings and literature for an understanding of terminology and concepts. Then one can make intelligent judgments and perceptions about other work.

Somewhere else in this thread you mention vicars as substitutes - that is not its only meaning - in terms elsewhere of the church it means the administrative representative i.e., so in terms of the papal office, he is the administraitve head of the church.

 

[HagiaSophia]

********************************************************************
NOTE BENE, These posts of yours tell us you are BITTER OLD MAN.

I think when you reread your post you will come to three conclusions about it::

1. It isn’t worthy of you
2. It adds nothing to the discussion within the ongoing thread
3. You can do much better than this. I’ve seen it, and you know it.

 

[HagiaSophia]

**Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. When a person is baptised into the Catholic Church he is a Catholic for life. **

Perhaps its understandable to be arrogant if one knows something rather than ignorant and pretend one knows something.

During the elections Bishop Chaput said “there are Catholics who sit in the pew every Sunday and don’t realize they aren’t Catholic anymore” - his remark was not inferring that the indelible mark of the sacrament of Baptism was gone, simply that the functional practice of their Catholicism was and they didn’t even know it. I believe that is what the OP meant…

 

[jimmy]

HagiaSophia:

Perhaps its understandable to be arrogant if one knows something rather than ignorant and pretend one knows something.

During the elections Bishop Chaput said “there are Catholics who sit in the pew every Sunday and don’t realize they aren’t Catholic anymore” - his remark was not inferring that the indelible mark of the sacrament of Baptism was gone, simply that the functional practice of their Catholicism was and they didn’t even know it. I believe that is what the OP meant…

If that is what he means then he is going a little over board. I would say that most SSPX practice the faith far better than a large majority of Catholics who are in good standing with the Church. I am not SSPX and I do not support the SSPX, but I would not go as far as saying they are not Catholic.