SSPX statement

[quote=Ani Ibi]I noticed that too CD. That’s why I drew the comparison with Luther.

In any case, what is on the table so I will know if I meet anyone from the Lefebvrists?
[/quote]

Dony worry about them, their numbers are nothing. Lucky if its one priest per state. With the number of immgrants coming in the states there will never be a large enough supply for the huge Catholic population.

     Currently in the American District there are:                          

[list]
*] 50 priests
*] 5 deacons
*] 12 brothers
*] 61 seminarians
*] 24 sisters (technically, they are autonomous of the District)
*] 850 Third Order members
[/list]
[list]
*] 103 chapels
*] 16 priories
*] 3 houses of formation
*] 4 retreat houses
*] 23 schools & 1 college
*] 1 publishing house

[/list]

[quote=Maranatha][font=Verdana]I pray that SSPX realizes that our true enemy is secularism and reverts.[/font]
[/quote]

Dear friend

The true enemy is satan and he has many ways of coming to humanity but be careful because those who truly believe what they believe are not evil at all but souls that are convinced they live in a ‘truth’…evil is a rejection of good, that is what evil is, the total rejection of good, of God as God is all good. If someone makes a certain thing their good and their god, then we have to trust that the One true and Almighty God will be merciful of their ignorance, because no-one can be condemned on ignorance but condemned on what he/she knows and the lack of adherance to it, so privy to the fullness of truth makes you the elect and in being the elect how do you live up to being the elect?

I know I fall short and as such I am thankful of God’s mercy and so should you be and as such so should you and I show God’s mercy to others…be very careful, those who are in heaven may surprise you and those who are not may surprise you equally…

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

Thanks everybody. I’ll catch up on the reading later. Who’s watching the inauguration tomorrow? Anyone on line?

[quote=Ani Ibi]Thanks everybody. I’ll catch up on the reading later. Who’s watching the inauguration tomorrow? Anyone on line?
[/quote]

Tomorrow? You mean tonight at midnight (for those on the west coast).

[quote=Catholic Dude]Dony worry about them, their numbers are nothing. Lucky if its one priest per state. With the number of immgrants coming in the states there will never be a large enough supply for the huge Catholic population.
[/quote]

Immigrants or not, you are correct. They will never (in our lifetime at least) amount to any large community.
Their only success has been a catalyst for the reinstallation of the TLM. Now the TLM via FSSP etc. is probably 400% the size of the SSPX. Not bad for a tiny catalyst.

Will they come back to the authority of the Vatican? Well, as best I can determine that would require

  1. TLM for any priest who desires to use it.
  2. VATICAN II would have to be allowed by them to go into a non-event. That is, that would not be required to affirm it in any explicit way. BUT never to speak against it.
  3. They would not be required to offer the NOM. BUT never to speak against it.

I think B-XVI could work this out. His incentive would be that he succeeded in a mission given hm by JPII and in the first attempt came back empty handed. That does not go down well for a stout German…to fail in a mission by a superior.

[quote=Catholic Dude]This should tell you how they think:

These guys are a bunch of dogs. Dont worry about them. They act as if its in their hands to make a difference in the world, they are a bunch of doublespeak dogs.
[/quote]

CatholicDude,

First of all, for the record, I am not an SSPX member, although I do attend Mass at an SSPX Church from time to time.

Now, I do have a few issues with the SSPX (one big on in particular); but as far as I know they are very strong in the faith and do not reject any doctrines of the Church. In addition to this, they still - after 40 years of apostacy - still think as the Church has always thoght, and still believe what the Church has always taught.

Now, here is my challenge: Show me where the SSPX has deviated from the faith at all. Maybe there is something I am not aware of, but I have read many books by Archbishop Lefebvre and have several friends who are SSPX Priest, but maybe there is something I am not aware of.

So, again, this is my challenge: show me where the SSPX has deviated from the faith “one iota”. And please do not make a general statement such as “they reject Vatican II”. Please be more specific by telling me what exactly they reject.

And this challenge is not just for CatholicDude, but for anyone who would like to respond.

[quote=RSiscoe]CatholicDude,

First of all, for the record, I am not an SSPX member, although I do attend Mass at an SSPX Church from time to time.

Now, I do have a few issues with the SSPX (one big on in particular); but as far as I know they are very strong in the faith and do not reject any doctrines of the Church. In addition to this, they still - after 40 years of apostacy - still think as the Church has always thoght, and still believe what the Church has always taught.

Now, here is my challenge: Show me where the SSPX has deviated from the faith at all. Maybe there is something I am not aware of, but I have read many books by Archbishop Lefebvre and have several friends who are SSPX Priest, but maybe there is something I am not aware of.

So, again, this is my challenge: show me where the SSPX has deviated from the faith “one iota”. And please do not make a general statement such as “they reject Vatican II”. Please be more specific by telling me what exactly they reject.

And this challenge is not just for CatholicDude, but for anyone who would like to respond.
[/quote]

To disobey the Holy Father and ordain bishops or to allow oneself to be ordained a bishop without the Holy Father’s consent is to “deviate from the faith” substantially. Part of our faith is to obey the Successor of Saint Peter.

I think the answer to this is to set up something trans-diocese: ie, there is a bishop for SSPX over the same region as a Latin Rite Bishop or Bishops. They should be combined with the TLM of the FSSP under one authority. No denigration of the NO Mass and submission to the authority of Vatican II. I happen to agree with some poster here about the dangers of being overly ecumenical. I do not, however, agree that the Church, post VII, has been “protestantized.” And please spare us more paste ups of the Ottavani conspiracy. I’m always expecting to find out that Bugnini was the “lone gunman” on the grassy knoll at Dealy Plaza in 1963.

[quote=RSiscoe]CatholicDude,

First of all, for the record, I am not an SSPX member, although I do attend Mass at an SSPX Church from time to time.

Now, I do have a few issues with the SSPX (one big on in particular); but as far as I know they are very strong in the faith and do not reject any doctrines of the Church. In addition to this, they still - after 40 years of apostacy - still think as the Church has always thoght, and still believe what the Church has always taught.

Now, here is my challenge: Show me where the SSPX has deviated from the faith at all. Maybe there is something I am not aware of, but I have read many books by Archbishop Lefebvre and have several friends who are SSPX Priest, but maybe **there is something I am not aware of. **

So, again, this is my challenge: show me where the SSPX has deviated from the faith “one iota”. And please do not make a general statement such as “they reject Vatican II”. Please be more specific by telling me what exactly they reject.

And this challenge is not just for CatholicDude, but for anyone who would like to respond.
[/quote]

Ok, even though my wife is SSPX, I’ll give my best shot on the "iota"
They recognize the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff. YES.
They refuse obedience to him in governance and discipline. YES.
Obedience to the Supreme Pontiff in governance and discipline is an article of the Faith.
They perform the sacraments of confession and Confirmation with no jurisdiction from the Church’s Bishop in the territory. YES.
Then they are illicit. That is doctrine.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]To disobey the Holy Father and ordain bishops or to allow oneself to be ordained a bishop without the Holy Father’s consent is to “deviate from the faith” substantially. Part of our faith is to obey the Successor of Saint Peter.
[/quote]

What you wrote would indicate schism, not heresy: those who two different isues. The SSPX does not deny the Papal Primacy, nor Papal Infallibility, they claim to have acted out of necessity. Even though I personally believe that what the Archbishop did was justifiable, due to the circumstances, I am not going to attempt to defend that; what I am asking is for someone to show me ONE doctrinal teaching that the SSPX rejects.

[quote=]I happen to agree with some poster here about the dangers of being overly ecumenical. I do not, however, agree that the Church, post VII, has been “protestantized.” And please spare us more paste ups of the Ottavani conspiracy.
[/quote]

Alright, then how about a quote from our new Pope?


****Pope Benedict XVI: “… there remains a troubling problem, which we should face up to. A sizeable party of Catholic liturgists seems to have ****practically arrived at the conclusion that Luther, ****rather than Trent, was substantially right in the **sixteenth century debate; one can detect **much the same position in the post-conciliar discussions on the priesthood… It is only against this background of the effective ****denial of the authority of Trent, that the bitterness ****of the struggle against allowing the celebration of ****Mass according to the 1962 Missal… **can be understood. The possibility **of so celebrating constitutes the strongest, and thus ****(for them) the most intolerable contradiction of the ****opinion of those [Catholics] who believe that the faith in the Eucharist formulated by Trent has lost its value… [the Catholic liturgist] R. Mebner’s… work on the reform of the Mass carried out by Martin Luther, and on the Eucharist of the early Church… arrives… at the conclusion that the early Church was better understood by Luther than by the Council of Trent… Trent did not make a mistake, it leant for support on the solid foundation of the Tradition of the Church. It remains a trustworthy standard" (Cardinal Ratizinger liturgical conference of Fontgombault, July 22-24, 2001).



**

You asked how they deviated from the faith. I didn’t say they were heretics.

[quote=RSiscoe]What you wrote would indicate schism, not heresy: those who two different isues. The SSPX does not deny the Papal Primacy, nor Papal Infallibility, they claim to have acted out of necessity. Even though I personally believe that what the Archbishop did was justifiable, due to the circumstances, I am not going to attempt to defend that; what I am asking is for someone to show me ONE doctrinal teaching that the SSPX rejects.

Alright, then how about a quote from our new Pope?

****Pope Benedict XVI: “… there remains a troubling problem, which we should face up to. A sizeable party of Catholic liturgists seems to have ******practically arrived at the conclusion that Luther, ****rather than Trent, was substantially right in the **sixteenth century debate; one can detect **much the same position in the post-conciliar discussions on the priesthood… It is only against this background of the effective ****denial of the authority of Trent, that the bitterness ****of the struggle against allowing the celebration of ****Mass according to the 1962 Missal… **can be understood. The possibility **of so celebrating constitutes the strongest, and thus ****(for them) the most intolerable contradiction of the ****opinion of those [Catholics] who believe that the faith in the **Eucharist formulated by Trent has lost its value… [the Catholic liturgist] R. Mebner’s… work on the reform of the Mass carried out by Martin Luther, and on the Eucharist of the early Church… arrives… at the conclusion that the early Church was better understood by Luther than by the Council of Trent… Trent did not make a mistake, it leant for support on the solid foundation of the Tradition of the Church. It remains a trustworthy standard" (Cardinal Ratizinger liturgical conference of Fontgombault, July 22-24, 2001).

[/quote]

Allow me, then, to clarify: The faults of liturgists cannot be blamed on the Council. They can be blamed on the liturgists, on the priests, on the bishops, but not the Council. The nebulous “spirit of Vatican II,” but not on Vatican II. Also, are you advocating, RSiscoe, that the Church go back wholesale to the TLM? No vernacular at all. The priest, at low Mass, celebrating in near-silence while the rest of us tell our beads? I doubt that will be imposed. Best hope for what I outlined above.

[quote=Catholic Dude]Dony worry about them, their numbers are nothing. Lucky if its one priest per state. With the number of immgrants coming in the states there will never be a large enough supply for the huge Catholic population.
[/quote]

They are growing though, I attended an sspx chapel for a year and we had about 10 visiting priests in that time, I don’t think one of them was over age 45, upcoming retirements are not a problem. In 10 years it would not surprise me if the number of priests they have doubles, while in an archdiocese like the one I’m in in Detroit, virtually every year we retire more priests then we ordain.

TNT,

Those are great point. Let me try to respond:

[quote=TNT]Ok, even though my wife is SSPX, I’ll give my best shot on the "iota"
They recognize the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff. YES.
They refuse obedience to him in governance and discipline. YES.
Obedience to the Supreme Pontiff in governance and discipline is an article of the Faith.
[/quote]

OK, let’s stop here and think about it. It is a matter of faith that one must beleive that the Pope is the spiritual head of the Church and must be obeyed. In other words, we as Catholics must hold to the fact that obedience to the Pope is necessary. If we deny that we are heretics, because that is an article of the faith. Actually the SSPX does agree with that. They do not say that obedience to the Pope is unecessary.

What they say is that if a Pope teaches something contrary to the faith (not infallibly, of course), we should obey God rather than man; and that following a false teaching would be unlawful. Here is an example that will make the point: Let’s say the Pope commanded that you worship a false God. Would you obey? Of course not. Does that mean you would be a heretic for not obeying? Does it mean that you would be denying the article of faith which says we must obey the Pope? No, it just means that, even though you understand that a Catholic must obey the Pope, you cannot obey on that particular point, since it would be sinful.

From this we can see that, in some circumstances, it would be possible to NOT obey the Pope, yet at the same time not deny the doctrine that obedience to the Pope is necessary. That is the situation the SSPX is in.

[quote=]They perform the sacraments of confession and Confirmation with no jurisdiction from the Church’s Bishop in the territory. YES.

Then they are illicit. That is doctrine.
[/quote]

But there is also a teaching of the Church known as “supplied juridiction” which can apply in times of crisis. In times of crisis the Church supplies the jurisdiction for the administration of the sacraments, even when the jurisdiction is not explicitly delegated by a Bishop. If the Church is not in a crisis today, they have no argument; but if the Church is in crisis, and, for example, the validity of the sacraments is questionable, then that argument is valid (no pun intended). The SSPX thinks the Church is in a crisis (and so does the new Pope), therefore, they can make a case that supplied jurisdiction applies to them; this they are not deviating from the faith on that point.

But those were very good points that you made TNT. I would love to hear your response.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Allow me, then, to clarify: The faults of liturgists cannot be blamed on the Council. They can be blamed on the liturgists, on the priests, on the bishops, but not the Council. The nebulous “spirit of Vatican II,” but not on Vatican II.
[/quote]

OK, but are you claiming that the reforms since VAtican II are all based on a pure understanding of the Council and not the so called “spirit of Vatican II”? Almost all of the reforms that have occurred since the Council - communion in the hand, altar girls, removing the communion rail, removing the statues, preist facing the people, etc, etc - have been based, not on what Vatican II actually said, but on the “spirit of the Council”. And the “liturgists”, who you rightly said could be blamed, are also influenced by the same “spirit of Vatican II”. THAT IS MY POINT!!!

The Church has been reformed - that is to say "Protestantized - not based on what Vatican II actually said, but on the so called "spirit of Vatican II.

Now, you claim that the SSPX does not obey the Pope. Are you claiming that the liberal “liturgists”, who have taken over most of our Churches obey the Pope? If you say yes, I have some very good quotes I will post, but I assume you will say they have not obeyed the Pope.

These liturgists have taken it upon themselves to “reform” the Church. I am not blaming Vatican II. But who will deny that this heretical “spirit of Vatican II” is not the exact same heretical spirit of the Protestant reformation?

And it is this “spirit” which has “reformed” the Church. Certainly, if you think about this you will have to agree. That does not mean you have to be against Vatican II; it just means you would have to face up to the reality that the “spirit of Vatican II”, which has reeked such havoc on the Church through its so called “reforms” is the same spirit of the caused the Protestant reformation.

[quote=RSiscoe]OK, but are you claiming that the reforms since VAtican II are all based on a pure understanding of the Council and not the so called “spirit of Vatican II”? Almost all of the reforms that have occurred since the Council - communion in the hand, altar girls, removing the communion rail, removing the statues, preist facing the people, etc, etc - have been based, not on what Vatican II actually said, but on the “spirit of the Council”. And the “liturgists”, who you rightly said could be blamed, are also influenced by the same “spirit of Vatican II”. THAT IS MY POINT!!!

The Church has been reformed - that is to say "Protestantized - not based on what Vatican II actually said, but on the so called "spirit of Vatican II.

Now, you claim that the SSPX does not obey the Pope. Are you claiming that the liberal “liturgists”, who have taken over most of our Churches obey the Pope? If you say yes, I have some very good quotes I will post, but I assume you will say they have not obeyed the Pope.

These liturgists have taken it upon themselves to “reform” the Church. I am not blaming Vatican II. But who will deny that this heretical “spirit of Vatican II” is not the exact same heretical spirit of the Protestant reformation?

And it is this “spirit” which has “reformed” the Church. Certainly, if you think about this you will have to agree. That does not mean you have to be against Vatican II; it just means you would have to face up to the reality that the “spirit of Vatican II”, which has reeked such havoc on the Church through its so called “reforms” is the same spirit of the caused the Protestant reformation.
[/quote]

No, but the things you mention are not out of hand anti-Catholic.
It’s not doctrinally or dogmatically wrong to rec. Communion in the hand, to not have communion rails, to remove statues (which they have done in some places, not in others, in some they’ve replaced perfectly beautiful plaster/marble statues with modern monstrosities, in others they’ve replaced ghastly plaster/marble statues with beautiful contemporary ones-this really boils down to a matter of taste, not truth), to have the priest face the people, none of these things are anti-Catholic. Those ideas didn’t originate with heretics, they were evident in the early Church. NOW, that doesn’t mean that we SHOULDN’T or CAN’T rec. communion on the tongue, or kneel at a rail, or have religious art in our churches, or have the priest face the congregation. Why? Because those are matters of discipline, not dogma. And just because someone else does it (heretics) doesn’t make that particular thing WRONG. To believe that is to fall into the genesis error, that something is wrong by virtue of who thought the idea up.

I read the SSPX statement and found it positive. I know extremely little about SSPX and if they will ever want to return to Rome but I surely find this thread interesting and educational. Thank you for the fascinating posts! I look forward to reading more. :thumbsup:

[quote=JKirkLVNV]No, but the things you mention are not out of hand anti-Catholic.
It’s not doctrinally or dogmatically wrong to rec. Communion in the hand, to not have communion rails, to remove statues (which they have done in some places, not in others, in some they’ve replaced perfectly beautiful plaster/marble statues with modern monstrosities, in others they’ve replaced ghastly plaster/marble statues with beautiful contemporary ones-this really boils down to a matter of taste, not truth), to have the priest face the people, none of these things are anti-Catholic.
[/quote]

I understand that they are not heretical, since they do not pertain to doctrine, but they manifest the spirit that was present. These things are simply the exterior manifestation of the protestant “spirit of Vatican II”. All of those things which have been done under the “spirit of Vatican II” were done by the Protestants of the 16th century - and the Council of Trent condemned all of them.

Cardinal Arinze: “**Why is it so difficult to make out where the tabernacle is located? Where is Our Blessed Mother’s statue or image? Is iconoclasm back?” **

Yes, iconoclasm has returned as one of the manifestation of “the spirit of Vatican II”, and iconoclasm was condemened by the second Council of Nicea…

I understand that it is not heresy to remove an altar rail, but my point was, these things, which have all been done under the spirit of Vatican II, and not because of what Vatican II actually taught, were the exact things done by the heretics of the 16th century.

Certainly you are not defending the “spirit of Vatican II” are you?

Actually, you are, but you don’t realize it. And that is what often happens today: people protest against these changes, and “reforms”, realizing that they are bad and claiming that they are done under the “spirit of Vatican II”, rather than what the Council actually taught; then they turn around and defend these same changes! Why not stand up against this false spirit and do some good. The Church today does not need people who will defend the indefensible - there is enough of them around.

The spirit of Vatican II is a spirit of disobedience and schism. If you have a problem with the SSPX, why are you defending reforms that have been based, not on Vatican II itself, nor on the teachings of the Pope, but on the disobedient “spirit of the Council”? Especially when these are the same “reforms” that the heretics of he 16th century employed, and which were condemend by the Catholic Church?

I was not defending any of those things, RSiscoe, I’m saying that they aren’t

A) Anti-Catholic

B) Protestant in and of themselves.

And in truth, you actually do a great deal of diservice to Protestants! I don’t know your background, but I was raised a Baptist and then spent 4 years as an Episcopalian. None of the overt abuses that are being inflicted on our liturgy, either through ignorance or through deliberate attempts to put the stamp of one’s own ego on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, were ever present in the Lord’s Supper of the Baptists (fundamentalist) or even Low Church Episcopalians. As deficient as those services/ordinances/rites were, they were done in love and reverence. There was no clown mass, no circus mass, etc. We actually knelt for Communion at a rail for each and every communion in each and every Episcopal parish I ever attended. The abuses are not the result of any kind of “Protestantizing” of the Church or the Mass, unless you’re talking small “p” protestant (individuals being personally or even corporately disobedient to the bishop or the Pope). I agree that the abuses CAN be blamed on some mistaken notion that calls itself the “spirit of VII.” But remember the time in which the Council took place, more importantly, remember the time when the Council’s teachings began to be implemented (poorly, sadly enough). It was a time when people were questioning everything, when the “establishment” was bad, when we were suppose to “question authority.” The Council gets a bum rap for things not its fault.

AND I still maintain that most of these practices that you’ve listed were present in the early Church, ie., Communion in the hand, not kneeling at a rail, etc. Does that mean we CAN’T rec. on the toungue? Does that mean we cannot kneel at a rail? Does that mean we cannot have representational art in our churches? NO.
It just doesn’t mean that those who don’t do those things are deficient. Trent did not have the authority to make binding on successive councils or popes anything that had to do with the discipline of the Mass, only on the dogmas and doctrines of the Mass. It seems to me that this is what some people cannot accept. And those of us who do accept this are not by definition heretics, nor are we advocating that abuses are acceptable or tolerable.

Have you read any of Dumspirospero’s posts? He’s a grand traditionalist. His demeanor, his witness for his beliefs in the TLM are really very edifying. If more “traditionalists” took his tone, there would be a great deal more sympathy for them on these boards.
But then I think I’m traditional, so go figure.

I forsee that the Western Church will split into two Latin Rites under the Pope: The Tridentine and the Novos Ordo. Since the East already has many rites, I think this will be a reality in the West within the next 30 years.

I do hope a reconciliation is possible, but I’m not holding my breath. A lot of SSPX people have developed the habit of acting like Protestants.

My parents have been going to an SSPX chapel. It was run by a priest, who was rather unjustly treated by his bishop and who therefore took up with the SSPX. This priest developed cancer, and, before he died, he evidently was reconciled with his bishop because the chapel was taken over by the diocese and another priest was assigned who could say the Tridentine Mass, but who was not associated with the SSPX. After this new priest was assigned, many of the attendees left for other climes.

This is what Protestants typically do. If they don’t like the parish or church, they find another one.

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.