What is the SSPX

[Te_Deum]

Even if your personal judgment (that the Tridentine Mass reflects the doctrine of the Mass better than the Mass of Paul VI does) is correct, that does not justify large-scale disobedience, or making excuses for large-scale disobedience, or the attacking of documents of the most recent Ecumenical Council, a thing which the SSPX frequently engages in.

There are problems with the council documents. Namely their ambiguity. Taken in light of Tradition and tradition they are fine but sadly far too many people do not and indeed consider the Vatican II Council to be the beginning of a “new” Church.

There are a few more problems with Vatican II on religious freedom. However nothing in the past regarding Church and state etc. has been dogmatically defined. So the issue there is actually more complicated.

But I agree, the SSPX are going about everything the wrong way. Disobedience is not the answer.

 

[Tomster]

Just a question.

What does the Vatican have to say regarding the ordinations of the Patriotic Catholic Church of China? Licit? Valid?

 

[Will_S]

Even if your personal judgment (that the Tridentine Mass reflects the doctrine of the Mass better than the Mass of Paul VI does)

That’s like saying it’s my personal judgment that the weather is hotter in summer than in winter.

that does not justify large-scale disobedience, or making excuses for large-scale disobedience

I didn’t say that it does. I’m just pointing out that liturgy is not, and never was, the main concern of the SSPX.

the attacking of documents of the most recent Ecumenical Council, a thing which the SSPX frequently engages in.

I don’t see anything wrong with the SSPX letting everybody know what they think is erroneous in the documents of Vatican II. They give detailed reasons as to why they think there are problems. The sooner the Holy See explains how the documents of Vatican II are to be reconciled with the preconciliar magisterium, the better off we’ll all be.

 

[Aramis]

Just a question.

What does the Vatican have to say regarding the ordinations of the Patriotic Catholic Church of China? Licit? Valid?

Varies by bishop. The PPCoC includes many valid Catholic bishops in hiding; their ordinands, if intending to also be Catholic, are valid and licit.

Licity isn’t much of a concern due to the “Church in Hiding” mode of the Roman Church in China.

 

[Sirach2]

Will S:

I don’t see anything wrong with the SSPX letting everybody know what they think is erroneous in the documents of Vatican II. They give detailed reasons as to why they think there are problems. The sooner the Holy See explains how the documents of Vatican II are to be reconciled with the preconciliar magisterium, the better off we’ll all be.

The problem with letting everyone know, is that the informant is giving his/her own opinion, which is most often erroneous and/or uninformed in itself. It also plants seeds of distrust of the Magisterium to innocent readers, as if the informant has more wisdom than those hundreds of hierarchy who drafted the documents. If there seems to be a problem in reconciling, the fault lies in the person who does NOT have the mind of the Church, or a full understanding of her teachings.

The Holy See does not owe the SSPX or its adherents an explanation. It is truly a matter of religious assent that Christ expects of us. “Peter said it, therefore I uphold it, though I may not understand it fully.” In the latter case, the bishops and/or clergy are able to give counsel in matters of extreme doubt. Every document has scores of footnotes showing the ties between older documents and where the new understanding is formed. It would be expedient to do as much research on these footnotes, rather than log on to the SSPX FAQ page.

 

[Portrait]

That´s a bit unfair, Laszlo. I´ve heard many SSPX sermons quoting scources outside the Society, praising the Pope´s position on certain issues, bishops´ attitudes when they see them to be correct. IMO they give praise where it is due.

What clearly distinguishes them from ANY OTHER group in the Catholic Church, and this is why they are so hated, is that they never shy away from criticising what they believe to be wrong or harmful to the faith. And if that criticism includes the Pope, that makes no difference. As a matter of fact, all catholics, under Canon 212, are allowed and OBLIGED to publicly voice their concerns when the faith is in danger.

We should all pray for a regularization of the SSPX.

Dear santodomingo,

Cordial greetings, dear friend.

A great majority of the vehement and uncharitable censure levelled against the SSPX tends to emanate from neo-Catholic circles, because it demurs so strongly from the position taken by the Society on a whole range of issues. Moreover, it is not merely the most obvious points of difference that are a matter of contention, but the Societie’s courageous stand against what might be described as the novus ordo mindset, which also elicits such a hostile response from the neo-Catholic types (for example, over such matters as rock/pop music, feminism and the wearing of modest apparel, especially for women).

Let us be perfectly frank, their cause was never going to be a popular one in the post-conciliar Church, but I feel that they are, and will be, a force to be reckoned with as the crisis within global Catholicism deepens; the faithful will look increasingly to them for insight as to our sad plight and Laodicean lukewarmness. Be that as it may, they are not going vanish off the ecclesiastical stage any time soon, or even die a natural death, that is almost next to certain.

It is a superficial appraisal of the SSPX that simply says they nostaligically look back to some ‘golden age’ of the Church because they recalcitrantly refuse to receive the teachings (or as they would say ‘novelties’) of the Vatican II Council. If they do reject these teachings then it is because they sincerely believe, and not without good foundation, that those teachings/practices are not consonant with what they regard as the authentic Catholicism of the pre-Vatican II Church. Moreover, they do not believe that it was some faceless liberals but the Council itself and decisions by the Vatican and the conciliar Popes that brought about the current unparalled ecclesial crisis. They ask, where is the much-vaunted conciliar ‘springtime’ that was so loudly promised?

If it be denied that there is any ‘crisis’, then you only have to look at women in the sancturies, altar girls, worldwide homosexual clergy scandals, empty seminaries, shuttered parishes, crisis-level priest shortages, the decimation of Catholic convents and monastries, loss of faith and moral sense and the exodus of Catholics from Holy Mother Church. Then you have the novus ordo mindset that vociferously seeks to rationalise that debased sensory material called rock and pop music and which argues for unseemly attire (e.g. the mini-skirt and bikini for women). These are the fruits of neo-Cathoicism and are beloved Church is awash with this Catholicism Lite, which has shamefully embraced a hand in hand with the world type of religion that obstinately refuses to live up to the arduous demands of our holy religion.

In order to restore the Church to vigour, millions of so-called ‘traditional’ Catholics are abandoning the effete neo-Catholicism that has emerged since Vatican II and seeking a return to the virile Catholicism of the perennial Church. The sensus catholicus abhors innovation and always will do, especially when that innovation is not not for the better.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[laszlo]

Just… no. This is riddled with Protestant errors (invisible Church) and secularist relativism.

The Catholic Church under the Roman Pontiff is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ Our Lord and Saviour and protected by the Holy Ghost. The fullness of the Truth lies in Holy Mother Church’s bosom. There is no salvation outside of her.

The Church consist of the

• Triumphant Church, which is the only eternal one
• the Suffering Church, the souls of the Purgatory, which is temporary
• the Militant church which is the visible temporary Church in the Earth

Do you deny the existence of the Triumphant at Suffering churches, or may be declare that only the members of the Militant Church can be members of the other two after their death, so do you exclude even Mozes, the Prophets and John the Baptist?

As for the fulness of the Truth it is God, and we being imperfect partial being we are not able to comprehend it, only morsels.

Please think about this

 

[Portrait]

That’s like saying it’s my personal judgment that the weather is hotter in summer than in winter.

I didn’t say that it does. I’m just pointing out that liturgy is not, and never was, the main concern of the SSPX.

I don’t see anything wrong with the SSPX letting everybody know what they think is erroneous in the documents of Vatican II. They give detailed reasons as to why they think there are problems. The sooner the Holy See explains how the documents of Vatican II are to be reconciled with the preconciliar magisterium, the better off we’ll all be.

Dear Will S,

Cordial greetings and a warm welcome to the world of CAF.

Unfortunately, dear friend, many neo-Catholics are in a state of denial respecting what is amiss and problematic with the documents of Vatican II and that is probably owing to the fact that they are obssessed with modernity and innovation of novelty. Moreover, they resent the pre-Vatican II Church period because of its more austere approach to the Faith and its correct emphasis upon sanctity and separation from the world. This thoroughgoing approach to religion is at variance with the worldly ways of neo-Catholicism and does not sit comfortably with the novus ordo mindset on a whole range of contentious issues that beset contemporary Catholicism.

The documents of the Council simply cannot be harmonized with the pre-Vatican II Church, since they are in essence two fundamentally different understandings of the Church and relgion, notwithstanding the many ‘footnotes’ that refer back to the ‘old’ Faith. The fact is that there have been seismic changes in the way the Church views itself and its relation to pagan religions and the world generally. Moreover, this cannot be attributed to a natural development of doctine and a maturing of the Church’s understanding, because the ‘changes’ involve an abrupt break with the past, which is why they must be viewed with suspicion. As Blessed Newman demonstrated in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, the sudden emergence of some novelty in the Church that is not the natural and almost imperceptible outgrowth of everything that preceded it would be a sign, not of life and growth, but rather of corruption - just as the sudden emergence of a tumour is a sign of corruption in the body of man.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[At_Trent]

Dear santodomingo,

Cordial greetings, dear friend.

A great majority of the vehement and uncharitable censure levelled against the SSPX tends to emanate from neo-Catholic circles, because it demurs so strongly from the position taken by the Society on a whole range of issues. Moreover, it is not merely the most obvious points of difference that are a matter of contention, but the Societie’s courageous stand against what might be described as the novus ordo mindset, which also elicits such a hostile response from the neo-Catholic types (for example, over such matters as rock/pop music, feminism and the wearing of modest apparel, especially for women).

Let us be perfectly frank, their cause was never going to be a popular one in the post-conciliar Church, but I feel that they are, and will be, a force to be reckoned with as the crisis within global Catholicism deepens; the faithful will look increasingly to them for insight as to our sad plight and Laodicean lukewarmness. Be that as it may, they are not going vanish off the ecclesiastical stage any time soon, or even die a natural death, that is almost next to certain.

It is a superficial appraisal of the SSPX that simply says they nostaligically look back to some ‘golden age’ of the Church because they recalcitrantly refuse to receive the teachings (or as they would say ‘novelties’) of the Vatican II Council. If they do reject these teachings then it is because they sincerely believe, and not without good foundation, that those teachings/practices are not consonant with what they regard as the authentic Catholicism of the pre-Vatican II Church. Moreover, they do not believe that it was some faceless liberals but the Council itself and decisions by the Vatican and the conciliar Popes that brought about the current unparalled ecclesial crisis. They ask, where is the much-vaunted conciliar ‘springtime’ that was so loudly promised?

If it be denied that there is any ‘crisis’, then you only have to look at women in the sancturies, altar girls, worldwide homosexual clergy scandals, empty seminaries, shuttered parishes, crisis-level priest shortages, the decimation of Catholic convents and monastries, loss of faith and moral sense and the exodus of Catholics from Holy Mother Church. Then you have the novus ordo mindset that vociferously seeks to rationalise that debased sensory material called rock and pop music and which argues for unseemly attire (e.g. the mini-skirt and bikini for women). These are the fruits of neo-Cathoicism and are beloved Church is awash with this Catholicism Lite, which has shamefully embraced a hand in hand with the world type of religion that obstinately refuses to live up to the arduous demands of our holy religion.

In order to restore the Church to vigour, millions of so-called ‘traditional’ Catholics are abandoning the effete neo-Catholicism that has emerged since Vatican II and seeking a return to the virile Catholicism of the perennial Church. The sensus catholicus abhors innovation and always will do, especially when that innovation is not not for the better.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Dear Will S,

Cordial greetings and a warm welcome to the world of CAF.

Unfortunately, dear friend, many neo-Catholics are in a state of denial respecting what is amiss and problematic with the documents of Vatican II and that is probably owing to the fact that they are obssessed with modernity and innovation of novelty. Moreover, they resent the pre-Vatican II Church period because of its more austere approach to the Faith and its correct emphasis upon sanctity and separation from the world. This thoroughgoing approach to religion is at variance with the worldly ways of neo-Catholicism and does not sit comfortably with the novus ordo mindset on a whole range of contentious issues that beset contemporary Catholicism.

The documents of the Council simply cannot be harmonized with the pre-Vatican II Church, since they are in essence two fundamentally different understandings of the Church and relgion, notwithstanding the many ‘footnotes’ that refer back to the ‘old’ Faith. The fact is that there have been seismic changes in the way the Church views itself and its relation to pagan religions and the world generally. Moreover, this cannot be attributed to a natural development of doctine and a maturing of the Church’s understanding, because the ‘changes’ involve an abrupt break with the past, which is why they must be viewed with suspicion. As Blessed Newman demonstrated in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, the sudden emergence of some novelty in the Church that is not the natural and almost imperceptible outgrowth of everything that preceded it would be a sign, not of life and growth, but rather of corruption - just as the sudden emergence of a tumour is a sign of corruption in the body of man.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

:clapping:

Well said

 

[PaulinVA]

…

Unfortunately, dear friend, many neo-Catholics are in a state of denial respecting what is amiss and problematic with the documents of Vatican II and that is probably owing to the fact that they are obssessed with modernity and innovation of novelty. Moreover, they resent the pre-Vatican II Church period because of its more austere approach to the Faith and its correct emphasis upon sanctity and separation from the world. This thoroughgoing approach to religion is at variance with the worldly ways of neo-Catholicism and does not sit comfortably with the novus ordo mindset on a whole range of contentious issues that beset contemporary Catholicism. …

Perhaps you could give examples of exactly who the “neo-Catholics” are? Are you willing to name names? Would we know these people?

Is there an identification checklist one can use? You know, if you check off more than three characteristics from the list, the person in question is a dreaded “neo-Chatholic”?

 

[Danquayle76]

Perhaps you could give examples of exactly who the “neo-Catholics” are? Are you willing to name names? Would we know these people?

Is there an identification checklist one can use? You know, if you check off more than three characteristics from the list, the person in question is a dreaded “neo-Chatholic”?

“Neo-Catholic” is a term generally used by a certain group of self-proclaimed traditional Catholics, that do not accept all the teachings of the Church, to describe those traditional Catholics that do.

 

[Transformer]

That’s like saying it’s my personal judgment that the weather is hotter in summer than in winter.

No it isn’t.

I don’t see anything wrong with the SSPX letting everybody know what they think is erroneous in the documents of Vatican II.

You don’t see anything wrong with a group of Catholics claiming that the most recent Ecumenical Council of the universal Church taught error?

 

[Will_S]

No it isn’t.

Yes it is. And the fact that you don’t agree shows that you are not familiar with either 1) the theology of the Mass as taught by the Council of Trent or 2) The Traditional Mass or 3) Both of the above.

You don’t see anything wrong with a group of Catholics claiming that the most recent Ecumenical Council of the universal Church taught error?

No. Are you under the mistaken impression that Vatican II was a dogmatic council?

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Are teh sacraments within the SSPX considered licit?

 

[Sirach2]

Will S:

Originally Posted by Transformer

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
You don’t see anything wrong with a group of Catholics claiming that the most recent Ecumenical Council of the universal Church taught error?

No. Are you under the mistaken impression that Vatican II was a dogmatic council?

Are you under the mistaken impression that (whether or not you believe Vatican II was dogmatic) one is not obligated to give religious assent?

Paul VI, Papal Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:

“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US.
Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. We decide moreover that all that has been established synodally IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whoever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance, be invalid and worthless from now on.

Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

 

[Melchior_1]

but the Societie’s courageous stand against what might be described as the novus ordo mindset

Explain this, please. And explain we it “might be described” as such.

If it be denied that there is any ‘crisis’, then you only have to look at women in the sancturies, altar girls, worldwide homosexual clergy scandals, empty seminaries, shuttered parishes, crisis-level priest shortages, the decimation of Catholic convents and monastries, loss of faith and moral sense and the exodus of Catholics from Holy Mother Church.

• The scandals were reported in the post V2 era, but some of the sexual abuse took place before the council and the promulgation of the Ordinary Form. Explain how you reconcile this, please.
• Canon Law states that women can be readers and alter servers. Do you feel that Canon Law, and the one who is the head interpreter of Canon Law, are not valid?
• Some Orders were having empty seminaries before V2 and the Ordinary Form. Also, there are shortages in some areas, a surplus in others.
• Shuttered parishes and a lack of attendance may have to do with society’s stance on several Church issues, such as pro-life ones. The man who promulgated the Ordinal Form also wrote Humanae Vitae. I am of the belief that people still would have left the Church regardless of the OF, as they would have likely been uncomfortable with HV.

In order to restore the Church to vigour, millions of so-called ‘traditional’ Catholics are abandoning the effete neo-Catholicism that has emerged since Vatican II and seeking a return to the virile Catholicism of the perennial Church. The sensus catholicus abhors innovation and always will do, especially when that innovation is not not for the better.

Innovations like moving the Tabernacle to the middle of the Church? Using the Franciscan missal as the base for the Mass now known as the Extraordinary Form? “Innovations” have happened throughout the history of the Church. I guess one needs to look at them with rose coloured glasses first to see what’s going on. I mean, you can’t honestly believe that the “Latin Mass” was free from any abuses at all.

 

[ProVobis]

• Shuttered parishes and a lack of attendance may have to do with society’s stance on several Church issues, such as pro-life ones. The man who promulgated the Ordinal Form also wrote Humanae Vitae. I am of the belief that people still would have left the Church regardless of the OF, as they would have likely been uncomfortable with HV.

I find this difficult to believe. Catholics were leaving in droves and Catholic schools were closing even when the Friday meat abstinence was being relaxed and “rumor” had it that Catholics could use their consciences in all matters, including ABC. And it might have been worse if they didn’t allow for Saturday (and late Sunday) Masses to count for the obligation.

BTW, according to polls on these matters, there are still many today who practice ABC and receive communion, hardly being consistent with your point about HV.

 

[Sirach2]

Closing schools was taking place prior to V-II and had nothing to do with the Council or its teachings. My heart was broken when I tried desperately to have my children enrolled. The problem was lack of vocations - no nuns to teach the students at a minimal cost for education… Lay teachers were commanding salaries that could not withstand the budgets of parishes. They closed when they could no longer afford to pay these salaries. Being parochial, there was no state aid, as with public schools, and the tuition was escalating to cover these salaries. Families just couldn’t keep up with the high cost and enrolled their children in public schools.

Dropping enrollments, high tuition, lack of vocations, no state aid - multiple factors that were not connected with V-II in any way.

 

[melchesidechpio]

A breakaway sect whose priests offer an illicit Mass, and whose Sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Matrimony are invalid. Many of their followers are sedevacantists who deny the authority of the Pope and the teachings and counsel of the Church. They were excommunicated until recently, and there’s currently discussions to bring them back into the real Catholic faith, but the SSPX seems to want to haggle with the Pope over how much contrition they need to have first.

They are ‘modern traditionalists’ who trust themselves to guide the Church more than the Holy Spirit, as opposed to ‘traditional traditionalists’ who always trust the Holy Spirit to guide and refresh and renew the Church.

I would not say that they are sedevaticantists. No I don’t agree with the whole SSPX point of view, but they are not entirely wrong either. We must pray for their return.

 

[Portrait]

“Neo-Catholic” is a term generally used by a certain group of self-proclaimed traditional Catholics, that do not accept all the teachings of the Church, to describe those traditional Catholics that do.

Dear Danquayle76,

Cordial greetings, dear friend.

Your definition above is, I think, defective in so far as the issue is not the acceptance of “all the teachings of the Church” but of novel innovations, which is something altogether different. As a traditionalist I personally would contend that, in point of fact, no Catholic is obligated to embrace a single one of the novelties imposed upon the Church since Vatican II.

A traditionalist is nothing more or less than a Catholic who continues to worship as Catholics had always worshipped and who believes what Catholics had always believed up until approximately 1965, when, in the name of Vatican II, our beloved Church began to undergo a series of unprecedented ‘reforms’ that would alter every aspect of ecclesial life.

Many traditionalist’s, like myself, are firmly of the opinion that the proconciliar novelties, especially the new liturgy and the new ecumenism, have been the occasion of grave harm to the Church, as demonstrated by the overwhelming empirical evidence of drastic ecclesial decline in almost every area immediately following the appearance of said novelties. Thus, for example, the imposition of the new Mass was followed forthwith by serious decline in Mass attendance, the abandonment of attempts to convert Protestants in favour of “ecumenical dialogue” by a drastic decline in conversions. Surely to attribute these unhappy developments to mere “coincidence” and or to the complex interplay of other factors is untenable, if not riddiculous.

When neo-Catholics say, as they do with depressing regularity, that tradionalists are “anti-Vatican II”, they are saying a great deal more than they realize. Effectively they are saying that in large measure our Faith has come to be defined, not by the entire teaching of a Magisterium that can never change, but by a single Council and the revolutionary reforms and new attitudes that it engendered - all them outside the realm of Catholic doctrine as such.. Indeed, this is why it is nonsensical to make comments about traditionalists not accepting “all the teachings of the Church”. Moreover, this is why when pressed to do so, neo-Catholic critics of traditionalism are unable to identify any doctrines of the Magisterium to which the traditionalists have failed to assent in their alleged “rejection of Vatican II”.

The point of contention then does concern a defence of doctrine, as the neo-Catholics allege, but rather a defence of ecclesial novelties, many of which were explicitly reproved before the Council. It would seem that the neo-Catholics are not distinguishing between things which essentially differ, in this case, doctrine and novelties.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax