For the SSPXers: Men mess up, the Holy Spirit NEVER does!

Two things:

  1. I am not a big fan of the NO Mass, and I love and prefer the Latin Mass.

  2. I am not a Canon Lawyer.

As to the title of my thread, need I remind everyone that part of our Catholic Faith is having faith that the Holy Spirit guides the Church!! Yes, we have FAITH in this mystery, that a church, seemingly “run” by men, has a supernatural hand on it’s direction.

Men, liberal men, have undermined the Church. One may say that this Pope is “too liberal”, because he accepts this and that and won’t accept so-n-so, etc. etc. Maybe that is true, but I think our problems are NOT with our Pope, but our renegade Bishops (left and right of our Pope, thank you!) and the priests they let run around like misbehaving children.

MEN are to fault for the ABUSES of our liturgy and the horrible religious education of our laity.

BUT NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT!! It is NEVER Wrong!!

How many SSPXers want to align themselves with King Henry VIII?? With Luther?? Instead of working WITHIN the Church to evangelize the faithful, you want to go off and be protestant???Private Revelation?? Relativism?? YOU know more than the Pope, decendant to the Chair of Peter, the head of THE One, Holy, Apostolic Church guided by the Holy Spirit HIMSELF???

Again, I prefer that Latin Mass. It feels more Catholic to me. BUT, that is a preference. The Mass said in a village in Africa less Catholic?? How 'bout in a small basement in China?? Hardly.

The Holy Spirit knows more than we do.

Sit down and relax because you’re going off the deep end.

Q: But does the SSPX recognize John Paul II as Pope?

A: Yes. Following Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society has always refused to say that the See of Rome is vacant, because that position is liable to raise more problems than it solves. The recent Popes may not be good Popes, but they are Popes.

Q: But if the SSPX recognizes John Paul II as Pope, how can it disobey him?

A: Because Jesus Christ did not make His Popes as infallible as many Catholics wrongly think, and so to obey the Catholic Faith one must sometimes “disobey” the Pope, as St. Paul “disobeyed” Peter himself (Gal. 2:11-14), as the great St. Athanasius had to “disobey” Pope Liberius. But such apparent “disobedience” is not real disobedience, because it is putting obedience to God first.

Q: But the heretic Luther also pretended he had to disobey the Pope.

A: Look at what Luther also taught. It is not Catholic teaching. Look at what Archbishop Lefebvre taught. It is Catholic teaching. Look at what the Archbishop’s adversaries in Rome teach against him. It is not Catholic teaching.

Q: That is what the SSPX claims, but many theologians say the opposite.

A: Then, as Our Lord told us to do, look at the fruits. Which teaching fills confessionals and seminaries, and which empties them?

Q: Has any excommunication in Church history been later recognized as invalid?

A: Several. St. Athanasius and St. Joan of Arc were both “excommunicated,” obviously invalidly. Above the Pope there is a God.

-Bishop Williamson

[quote=EddieArent]Sit down and relax because you’re going off the deep end.

Q: But does the SSPX recognize John Paul II as Pope?

A: Yes. Following Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society has always refused to say that the See of Rome is vacant, because that position is liable to raise more problems than it solves. The recent Popes may not be good Popes, but they are Popes.

Q: But if the SSPX recognizes John Paul II as Pope, how can it disobey him?

A: Because Jesus Christ did not make His Popes as infallible as many Catholics wrongly think, and so to obey the Catholic Faith one must sometimes “disobey” the Pope, as St. Paul “disobeyed” Peter himself (Gal. 2:11-14), as the great St. Athanasius had to “disobey” Pope Liberius. But such apparent “disobedience” is not real disobedience, because it is putting obedience to God first.

Q: But the heretic Luther also pretended he had to disobey the Pope.

A: Look at what Luther also taught. It is not Catholic teaching. Look at what Archbishop Lefebvre taught. It is Catholic teaching. Look at what the Archbishop’s adversaries in Rome teach against him. It is not Catholic teaching.

Q: That is what the SSPX claims, but many theologians say the opposite.

A: Then, as Our Lord told us to do, look at the fruits. Which teaching fills confessionals and seminaries, and which empties them?

Q: Has any excommunication in Church history been later recognized as invalid?

A: Several. St. Athanasius and St. Joan of Arc were both “excommunicated,” obviously invalidly. Above the Pope there is a God.

-Bishop Williamson
[/quote]

Bishop Williamson is a schismatic, according to HH Pope John Paul II, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and the Successor to Saint Peter. And his claim about confessionals is bogus. I have to wait in a long line every week!

“Look at the fruits”

This *could *have merit, but it also relies on faulty reasoning.

Is the US Constitution inherently bad because *people *twist it and abuse its intent, thereby bearing “bad fruit” in our society??

BOTTOM LINE: Look, you think the Holy Spirit is guiding Lefebvrites, and not St Peter’s successor, Pope Paul II. That is at the crux of the matter. It is NO DIFFERENT than a protestant who says “his truth” is all that matters!! Luther thought he was right!! Jhn Smith thought he was right!! Calvin thought he was right!!

I applaud the IDEA of Lefebvrists’ adherence to the Latin Mass, (I really do!) but to what end?? A PROTESTANT end.

The Society of St Peter is NOT Catholic??

What are you talking about here? THe Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter perhaps??? If so…then my friend you are wrong. The FSSP is much in line with the Holy See…they are in full communion with the Church.

Look, I love and prefer the Latin Mass myself…but I do not agree with or support any of the actions of the SSPX. They are wrong and they have been excommunicated from the Church for their actions…which have been exhausted on other threads…with that said though, I do not believe that by verbally assaulting them, we will be able to bring them back in union with Rome…We have Ecumenism when dealing with the Protestants…we should try the same thing with the SSPX’ers and SSPV’ers…Lets bring our family back together.

Men, liberal men, have undermined the Church. One may say that this Pope is “too liberal”, because he accepts this and that and won’t accept so-n-so, etc. etc. Maybe that is true, but I think our problems are NOT with our Pope, but our renegade Bishops (left and right of our Pope, thank you!) and the priests they let run around like misbehaving children.

MEN are to fault for the ABUSES of our liturgy and the horrible religious education of our laity.

BUT NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT!! It is NEVER Wrong!!

How many SSPXers want to align themselves with King Henry VIII?? With Luther?? Instead of working WITHIN the Church to evangelize the faithful, you want to go off and be protestant???Private Revelation?? Relativism??

Suppose for a second, that tomorrow morning, Bishop Fellay, et al , were to announce that they were wrong, the Novus Ordo mass and the Vatican were right, announce the dissolution of the SSPX, encourage all of the SSPXer faithful to return to their parishes and those who converted from noncatholic faiths to seek out RCIA classes.

I just don’t see it happening where those who return being that influential in the Church or that terribly important. And I think its just an assumption that the returnees and converts which the change would bring would necessarily be more ‘conservative’ or less prone to error than anyone else.

dumspirospero, you misunderstood. I was asking the SSPXers if they thought The Fraterity of St Peter wasn’t Catholic. Because, as you said, they ARE.

Oh ok…sorry :slight_smile:
I apologize…I guess I put my foot in my own mouth LOL

[quote=jlw]dumspirospero, you misunderstood. I was asking the SSPXers if they thought The Fraterity of St Peter wasn’t Catholic. Because, as you said, they ARE.
[/quote]

Look at what Luther also taught. It is not Catholic teaching. Look at what Archbishop Lefebvre taught. It is Catholic teaching. Look at what the Archbishop’s adversaries in Rome teach against him. It is not Catholic teaching.

That is exactly what Luther thought he was teaching, as does Lefevre, Calvin, Donatus et al.

Mr. Arent, I submit you are the one off the deep end.

[quote=Kielbasi]Suppose for a second, that tomorrow morning, Bishop Fellay, et al , were to announce that they were wrong, the Novus Ordo mass and the Vatican were right, announce the dissolution of the SSPX, encourage all of the SSPXer faithful to return to their parishes and those who converted from noncatholic faiths to seek out RCIA classes.

I just don’t see it happening where those who return being that influential in the Church or that terribly important. And I think its just an assumption that the returnees and converts which the change would bring would necessarily be more ‘conservative’ or less prone to error than anyone else.
[/quote]

I am a convert, and am considered to be “too conservative” by many mainstream cradle catholics I know.

I prefer that Latin Mass. I prefer to attend a parish with kneelers. I *prefer *to kneel at said parish when recieving Communion. I rather agree with Humanae Vitae, and practice NFP.

There are many, many people like myself, and we have a choice, given the liberalism and relativism that has infected our church like a virus. We can either cut off our arm (SSPXers version of Jesus’ exortation about avoiding sin, if you will???) Or, we can stay together, not be fragmented, isolated, etc and as potent antibodies, we can excise this virus from within.

The Fraternity of St Peter is one such way, I think. And in communion with His Church, the way, the truth, and the life, so guided by the Holy Spirit.

There are many, many people like myself, and we have a choice, given the liberalism and relativism that has infected our church like a virus.

I’m sure there are, but there is no particular good reason to think that returning or converting SSPX’ers would be any more likely to join with you than anyone else.

The Fraternity of St Peter is one such way, I think.

I suppose if you’re somewhere where the bishop permits them, yes. But I don’t think that the FSSP has the broad mission that you are ascribing to them, particularly as they are quite small and only involved in a limited number of dioceses.

[quote=Kielbasi]I’m sure there are, but there is no particular good reason to think that returning or converting SSPX’ers would be any more likely to join with you than anyone else.

ME: REALLY?? I bet that SSPXers, with their love of Tradition and reverence, WOULD in fact, align with the like-minded Catholics liek myself. You think that they would give up and go to watered-down sing-songy NO Masses istead?? Maybe I misunderstand??

I suppose if you’re somewhere where the bishop permits them, yes. You have a point, there. But I don’t think that the FSSP has the broad mission that you are ascribing to them, particularly as they are quite small and only involved in a limited number of dioceses. Small yes. But all things start small. And in the meantime, the Indult is a far cry from the cumbiya masses one could go to, eh??
[/quote]

ME: REALLY?? I bet that SSPXers, with their love of Tradition and reverence, WOULD in fact, align with the like-minded Catholics liek myself. You think that they would give up and go to watered-down sing-songy NO Masses istead?? Maybe I misunderstand??

I would suppose that most returning SSPX’ers would attend whatever NO masses, good, bad or ugly, that their parishes have. Remember that they are not attending the NO because of their preferences like yourself I presume, but because they have a belief that the NO mass isn’t a valid mass at all. Once they would get by that, it seems most likely they would just return to their local parish community of family, friends and neighbors.

Small yes. But all things start small. And in the meantime, the Indult is a far cry from the cumbiya masses one could go to, eh??

I suppose, but its not said in very many places(perhaps 1% of American parishes), and of course most folks in attendance like the NO including Cardinal Arinze who is in charge of such matters in Rome. So, the reality of the situation is that most Catholics, including most who might return from SSPX attendance, are unlikely ever to see it.

I would suppose that most returning SSPX’ers would attend whatever NO masses, good, bad or ugly, that their parishes have. Remember that they are not attending the NO because of their preferences like yourself I presume, but because they have a belief that the NO mass isn’t a valid mass at all. Once they would get by that, it seems most likely they would just return to their local parish community of family, friends and neighbors.

Hmmm. Does anyone else think this?? Kielbasi, I’m not saying your are out-n-out wrong, but I sense that what draws them to TLM is ALSO *preference. *TLM is a essentially a statement that Tradition is good, and modernity is not so necessary (a very Pope Pius X idea, no?). I thing the hunger for Tradition (stamped in our hearts, if you ask me) would override their human weakness for convenience. No?? Anyone??

I suppose, but its not said in very many places(perhaps 1% of American parishes), and of course most folks in attendance like the NO including Cardinal Arinze who is in charge of such matters in Rome. So, the reality of the situation is that most Catholics, including most who might return from SSPX attendance, are unlikely ever to see it

The Indult is said in more places that that, isn’t it?? I would submit that while most people “like” the NO, many have never ever experienced a High Mass, except on Christmas Eve or some such holiday (do you ever notice how everyone says “how beautiful and moving” that was?? To which I say, “It’s like this every Sunday!”)

but I sense that what draws them to TLM is ALSO preference.

Maybe, but I couldn’t say, as I don’t know anyone to be an SSPX’er and I haven’t had a chance to discuss it with them. I suppose with some its true, and others its not.

The Indult is said in more places that that, isn’t it?

No, 1% is a statistical fact. I counted them up a few years ago, and there were about 200 or so American parishes with the indult out of more than 20,000 American parishes.

I thing the hunger for Tradition (stamped in our hearts, if you ask me) would override their human weakness for convenience

Worshipping with one’s own community is also a Catholic tradition, and a pretty strong one. And one which is definitely stamped on the heart, to use your phrase.

The TLM, last figures I have, is in 130 of 170 US dioceses or 76%.

I feel the pain of those like EddieArent who are one of th 40 sterile dioceses.
Nevertheless, if I were him or in his position, and felt as he does, I would buy me a diesel VW @ 50mpg with my last dime, and go the nearest Indult, at least on Days of Obligation.
During the week I go with my SSPX wife to the SSPX Mass.

Now, here’s my last word on SSPX:

  1. They are in Schism and consequently excommunicated. This is a Papal decision to which there is NO appeal except mercy.
  2. The reigning Pope is not judged by any canon Law. No where in Church history. Period.
  3. I love the SSPX as people, as Tradionalists, as lovers of God and superior teachers of the Apostolic Faith.
  4. BUT their Masses do NOT meet the Sunday Obligation.
  5. Is the pope’s decree just? One may cry UNJUST and not be outside the Church or in sin. NO decree of this nature is INFALLIBLY just.
  6. Was it a terrible scandal to excommunicate a traditional bishop and raise hundreds of rotting souls of others to the episcopate or higher? One may say YES and not sin.
  7. One may pray for the lifing of this excommunication just as many prayed and received the TLM back into the Church.
  8. Until then the SSPX is in schism, and no canon law can be addressed to it. Even if it be outrageuosly unjust, it stands.
  9. I hate the fact of #8 but just because I do, does not invalidate it.
    You cannot deny the Supreme Jurisdiction of the reigning Pope, and say “I am a Roman Catholic”. They are mutually exclusive. I too wish it were otherwise. But, over a period of 2000yrs, it worked for the better.
    For those who believe in good conscience that VATII and the NOM-english, and the behavior of approved bishops is an attack on the perennial Faith, go right ahead. I say it is a chastisement on the Church members (You want modernism, I’ll give you Modernism until you vomit" … maybe that was about meat in the desert) and I will not run from the punishment into the SSPX/SSPV. I will travel as far as is necessary to a Sunday TLM. That’s my penance. Glad to receive it.
    Our God did give the TLM back to us, and it was never absent in the Chuch for even 1 generation.

And that’s the whole truth…

[quote=Kielbasi]Maybe, but I couldn’t say, as I don’t know anyone to be an SSPX’er and I haven’t had a chance to discuss it with them. I suppose with some its true, and others its not.

No, 1% is a statistical fact. I counted them up a few years ago, and there were about 200 or so American parishes with the indult out of more than 20,000 American parishes.
[/quote]

Most Indults are NOT parishes. So, it is better to count them in each diocese.

Worshipping with one’s own community is also a Catholic tradition, and a pretty strong one. And one which is definitely stamped on the heart, to use your phrase.

At one time (for about 1800yrs) you walked to Mass or didn’t go also. As I said, if the Indult in most areas are NOT parishes, then it is approved to attend them beyond one’s parish.

[quote=Kielbasi]I would suppose that most returning SSPX’ers would attend whatever NO masses, good, bad or ugly, that their parishes have. Remember that they are not attending the NO because of their preferences like yourself I presume, but because they have a belief that the NO mass isn’t a valid mass at all. Once they would get by that, it seems most likely they would just return to their local parish community of family, friends and neighbors.
[/quote]

You are mistating, they don’t believe that the NO Mass isn’t valid, they question the potential of the NO Mass being invalid especially in the vernacular with the mistranslations and omissions. They cling to the TLM because there is no doubt that it is valid. There is a difference for being unsure about the validity of something and believing it is invalid.

[quote=gelsbern]You are mistating, they don’t believe that the NO Mass isn’t valid, they question the potential of the NO Mass being invalid especially in the vernacular with the mistranslations and omissions. They cling to the TLM because there is no doubt that it is valid. There is a difference for being unsure about the validity of something and believing it is invalid.
[/quote]

I agree and have concern bout the flattening (and ommiting) of the language, yet I wonder what God thinks about the Mass said in an African village, or a darkened basement in China?? Must it be in the language of 1962 for it to be valid and worthy of saving souls??

[quote=jlw]I agree and have concern bout the flattening (and ommiting) of the language, yet I wonder what God thinks about the Mass said in an African village, or a darkened basement in China?? Must it be in the language of 1962 for it to be valid and worthy of saving souls??
[/quote]

The correct words are not a function of wealth or poverty, persecution or privilege.
Nevertheless:

To whom MUCH is given, much is expected.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.