What vow CAN'T apply to SSPX?

[Aurelio]

Howdy!

While I don’t know about the rest of North America, here in the diocese of nowhere’s ville, we celebrated World Day for Consecrated Life this past Saturday, Feb. 4, at the 5:15 PM Mass.

In both English and Spanish our Bishop lead all his clergy in attendance: male and female, secular and religious order, in their renewal of vows, especially these three: Chastity, Poverty and Obedience.

Now, which of these three can not be applied – with any respect for justice and equity – to the SSPX?

Bearing in mind two things:

One: That the SSPX is, in all truth and simple regard for justice, totally dedicated to their self-appointed mission of bringing the sacraments to as many faithful as possible.

Two: And that both here and in Mexico they’ve been highly successful in the development of themselves as a totally functional, lean, mean, financial -administrative machine.

Thus, in one of those long, leisurely conversations between senior palace gurardsmen (both males and female auxiliaries ) and a financially shrewd and urbane Society Prior, whose prematurely grey hairs had won at least grudging respect for him from us all, he, the Prior shared with us this:

"Because of the frequent necessity for our Society priests to make sudden changes to their travel arrangements, we can hardly be expected to have the vow of X.

“Because if we did, the priest would have to phone his District Superior (or whoever) to get permission to rent a car, anything like that.”

Thus, what most likely was the vow of X? In this sort of case, anyway?

Because, sorry to say, I can’t remember for the life of me, so…

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!

Aurelio:thumbsup:

 

[reggieM]

Supposedly, they don’t have to be obedient to superiors because they’re the true Catholics and everybody else is not. Once the Pope converts, as they would say, then they’ll be obedient – unless he command something that they don’t like apparently.

It’s a dishonest situation and there are good people within the SSPX who are swept away by it.

 

[Caesar]

Supposedly, they don’t have to be obedient to superiors because they’re the true Catholics and everybody else is not. Once the Pope converts, as they would say, then they’ll be obedient – unless he command something that they don’t like apparently.

It’s a dishonest situation and there are good people within the SSPX who are swept away by it.

That is not true. The SSPX does not in any way say that the rest of the Church are not true Catholics, they just object to the New Rite of the Church. The Pope cannot convert because he is already Catholic. There are a few people on these boards who attend SSPX chapels and I’m sure they can explain this to you.

Learn bout the SSPX before you blast them.

 

[reggieM]

they just object to the New Rite of the Church.

That is not the only thing they object to. They object to obedience to their lawful superiors – namely the Pope. If the only thing they objected to was the New Mass then they would obey the Pope in all other things. They would simply not say Mass unless it was the traditional Mass.

Once again, this is all dishonesty and deception – I would suggest that you don’t understand the SSPX position, even though you’re telling me that I need to learn more about it.

I’m not going to bother to post their arguments here because they’re filled with errors. But they object to much more than just the New Mass. They need to obey the Pope – as all Catholic priests must do. Failing that, it’s a schismatic situation.

 

[reggieM]

One reason I’m sad to see this traditional Catholic forum on CA is because many people will absorb errors of traditionalism and there is not much available to correct them.

 

[Caesar]

One reason I’m sad to see this traditional Catholic forum on CA is because many people will absorb errors of traditionalism and there is not much available to correct them.

Unless you look hard, you will not notice any differance between those CAF members who attend SSPX chapels and those who go to the indults.

 

[Unfinished]

One reason I’m sad to see this traditional Catholic forum on CA is because many people will absorb errors of traditionalism and there is not much available to correct them.

The ERRORS of traditionalism? Errors? Now our own tradition is an error?

 

[Walking_Home]

One reason I’m sad to see this traditional Catholic forum on CA is because many people will absorb errors of traditionalism and there is not much available to correct them.

---

One of the most absurd comment— I have read.

 

[hosemonkey]

Howdy!

While I don’t know about the rest of North America, here in the diocese of nowhere’s ville, we celebrated World Day for Consecrated Life this past Saturday, Feb. 4, at the 5:15 PM Mass.

In both English and Spanish our Bishop lead all his clergy in attendance: male and female, secular and religious order, in their renewal of vows, especially these three: Chastity, Poverty and Obedience.

Now, which of these three can not be applied – with any respect for justice and equity – to the SSPX?

Bearing in mind two things:

One: That the SSPX is, in all truth and simple regard for justice, totally dedicated to their self-appointed mission of bringing the sacraments to as many faithful as possible.

Two: And that both here and in Mexico they’ve been highly successful in the development of themselves as a totally functional, lean, mean, financial -administrative machine.

Thus, in one of those long, leisurely conversations between senior palace gurardsmen (both males and female auxiliaries ) and a financially shrewd and urbane Society Prior, whose prematurely grey hairs had won at least grudging respect for him from us all, he, the Prior shared with us this:

"Because of the frequent necessity for our Society priests to make sudden changes to their travel arrangements, we can hardly be expected to have the vow of X.

“Because if we did, the priest would have to phone his District Superior (or whoever) to get permission to rent a car, anything like that.”

Thus, what most likely was the vow of X? In this sort of case, anyway?

Because, sorry to say, I can’t remember for the life of me, so…

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!

Aurelio:thumbsup:

Most likely the vow that you refer to is that of stability. In other words, the vow to remain in one place for life. This vow is found mainly in the stricter orders such as Carthusians and Carmelites.Also, not all priests take a vow of poverty, many secular priests do not. All, however, take vows of chastity and obebience, not, however, to the Pope, but to their bishop and by extension, to all superiors. Hope this helps.

 

[Marilena]

Supposedly, they don’t have to be obedient to superiors because they’re the true Catholics and everybody else is not. Once the Pope converts, as they would say, then they’ll be obedient – unless he command something that they don’t like apparently.

It’s a dishonest situation and there are good people within the SSPX who are swept away by it.

hello brother reggie,

sspx laity or what have you never claimed to be the only true catholic’s. please show me a document from the sspx that unequivocally states this. they never said either that once the pope converts then they’ll be obedient.please provide documentation to prove that.in order for your claims to be viewed or accepted as truth, you ought to have the proof to back up what you claim is true.

so iam asking you in Christian brotherhood to please provide the requested information.

 

[Marilena]

That is not the only thing they object to. They object to obedience to their lawful superiors – namely the Pope. If the only thing they objected to was the New Mass then they would obey the Pope in all other things. They would simply not say Mass unless it was the traditional Mass.

Once again, this is all dishonesty and deception – I would suggest that you don’t understand the SSPX position, even though you’re telling me that I need to learn more about it.

I’m not going to bother to post their arguments here because they’re filled with errors. But they object to much more than just the New Mass. They need to obey the Pope – as all Catholic priests must do. Failing that, it’s a schismatic situation.

hello again brother reggie,

please tell me, what do the sspx object to? can you please fill me in? iam a laity of the sspx. i’d like to know what it is that you think our society objects to. you cannot make statements like that unless you have information that is accurate in order to be able to make the statement without flaws in it. what do we object to? could you please inform me? what do you claim our society is dishonest about? what are we trying to do that is deceptive? we are honest. since when have we tried to decieve anyone?

to my knowledge, there never has been any deception on the part of the sspx.

here is info from sspx.org that you might find helpful. you do not have to visit the site if you do not wish. i will post here what the front page states:

WHAT IS THE SSPX?

The Society of Saint Pius X is an international priestly society of common life without vows, whose purpose is the Priesthood and that which pertains to it.

The SSPX was patterned by its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, after the religious societies of foreign missions.

The spirit of the SSPX is essentially apostolic, because such is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and because the members of the Society will have in general to exercise an exterior ministry.

POPE BENEDICT XVI
The Society of Saint Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI, the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ.

The priests of the SSPX pray for the intentions of the Holy Father and the welfare of the local Ordinary at every Mass they celebrate.

PRAYER FOR THE POPE
Oremus pro Pontifice nostro BENEDICTO. Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum, et beatum faciat eum in terra, et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum ejus.

 

[Cristiano]

I apologize if I am totally confused but before people started in the usual rant and rave about the traditionalist being “good or bad children” I thought that Aurelio was hinting to the vote of poverty.

Aurelio are you saying that the SSPX priest are not subject to the vote of poverty? Is that a complaint? While not a big fan of SSPX I do not see that as a important matter. I say that because my understanding is that diocesan priests are not bound by the vows of poverty unless property will interfere with their ministry.

 

[parvenu74]

…[The SSPX] just object to the New Rite of the Church.

I am going to drastically oversimplify things in my response, so please don’t jump all over me for making some sweeping statements. If you want, we can discuss them individually, perhaps as separate topics on individual threads.

The SSPX object to more than just the new Mass, in fact, the Mass isn’t even the crux of the issue. The main point of contention is the break with tradition that happened during/after the second Vatican Council. The main problem is the embracing of condemned errors which find their expression in the new Mass, the new code of Canon Law, the new Catechism, and more. It’s why certain SSPX clergy make reference to something called the “NewChurch” because what the Church has taught since Vatican II is unlike what the Church taught in the previous twenty centuries of her existence.

The SSPX – by which I mean Bishop Fellay, the head of the SSPX – is on record as saying that even if the Mass were freed tomorrow and the excommunications annulled, there would still be the issues of theology.

To folks who are familiar with the SSPX: do you know if there is a condensed list anywhere of what all the theological topics are that are up for discussion? (Yes, I know the SSPX’s USA district website – www.sspx.org – goes over a lot of these topics, but you have to go digging around to find answers…) It would be useful to cite that and discuss them point-by-point rather than opening up a free-for-all which is bound to be anything but thoughtful and charitable. For my part, I’ll try to locate a “Cliff’s Notes” of the theological reservations of the SSPX.

 

[parvenu74]

I apologize if I am totally confused but before people started in the usual rant and rave about the traditionalist being “good or bad children” I thought that Aurelio was hinting to the vote of poverty.

Aurelio are you saying that the SSPX priest are not subject to the vote of poverty? Is that a complaint? While not a big fan of SSPX I do not see that as a important matter. I say that because my understanding is that diocesan priests are not bound by the vows of poverty unless property will interfere with their ministry.

And to try to get back on topic, to the best of my knowledge (educated from K-12 plus half a year of college in SSPX schools) SSPX priests take vows of obedience and chastity only. And while I don’t know how the vow of obedience works for the head of the SSPX, it works “as usual” for all of the other clergy of the SSPX (I’m bold-facing the word clergy here to emphasize that “members of the SSPX” are clerical… people who attend their Masses are simply people who attend their Masses and have no official or canonical title or attribute).

 

[reggieM]

Unless you look hard, you will not notice any differance between those CAF members who attend SSPX chapels and those who go to the indults.

I think that’s true. But I look hard and the errors of traditionalism are easy for me to see.

 

[Caesar]

I think that’s true. But I look hard and the errors of traditionalism are easy for me to see.

The please elaborate on the “errors of traditionalism” and please indicate if you are refering to only the SSPX or the entire traditional movement in the Church. Are these errors of doctrine? Do traditionalists reject certain doctrines? Is the Pope at fault for supporting traditionalism?

 

[reggieM]

hello brother reggie,

sspx laity or what have you never claimed to be the only true catholic’s. please show me a document from the sspx that unequivocally states this. they never said either that once the pope converts then they’ll be obedient.please provide documentation to prove that.in order for your claims to be viewed or accepted as truth, you ought to have the proof to back up what you claim is true.

so iam asking you in Christian brotherhood to please provide the requested information.

Dear Marilena,

The SSPX doesn’t give that information unequivocally. It’s done in a vague way with ambiguous terms – just like they claim Vatican II does.

But in any case, what will it require for you or SSPX bishops to repair their schism? It is implied that the Pope must convert – that Rome is “modernist Rome”.

I am assuming that you haven’t really read much literature from the SSPX. I think that is very good and I would encourage you not to read any of it.

 

[reggieM]

Of course, believing that one can separate from the Pope simply because they don’t like an official liturgical rite is a profound error. Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX has said and argued that the New Mass is “intrinsically evil”. He has never been corrected by his superiors for that. That is also a profound error.

Confecting the sacraments outside the jurisdiction of Rome is a terrible error. Pope John Paul II called it a schismatic act – and it carried automatic excommunication.

How is that not an error of traditionalism? Are we justified to break with the Holy See simply because we think we’re better than everyone else is, just as the SSPX does?

The heat that I’m getting from this discussion so far proves to me that many so-called traditionalists are living in an illusion and they’ve been deceived. They buy into a dishonest presentation of the correctness of the SSPX. They separate from “Novus Ordo Catholics”.

The proof? Why don’t they reconcile with Rome like the FSSP? On what basis do they perpetuate their schism?

If you can’t answer that, then that’s a major problem – and yes, an effect of traditionalist errors.

 

[Marilena]

Dear Marilena,

The SSPX doesn’t give that information unequivocally. It’s done in a vague way with ambiguous terms – just like they claim Vatican II does.

But in any case, what will it require for you or SSPX bishops to repair their schism? It is implied that the Pope must convert – that Rome is “modernist Rome”.

I am assuming that you haven’t really read much literature from the SSPX. I think that is very good and I would encourage you not to read any of it.

i do what i do. iam there because i love the Tridentine Mass.
i visit their website every now and then. but it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Tradition that i love. it wont change for me. iam there and that is it.

 

[Marilena]

I think that’s true. But I look hard and the errors of traditionalism are easy for me to see.

the errors of Tradtionalism? or do you mean the SSPX? set the SSPX aside for a moment. How can their be any errors of the Mass of PiusV? that was the only Mass used for centuries. The errors of Traditonalists you mean? or the errors of Tradition in the Church? clarify please brother specifically what you mean.