Stuff the SSPX are wrong about

Stuff the SSPX are wrong about. I may encounter an SSPX one day, what are some things I should beef up on so as not to be fooled?

[quote=twiztedseraph]I may encounter an SSPX one day
[/quote]

Well, remember, he’s just as afraid of you as you are of him.

Personally, the first step is to see if he can laugh at himself.

The Society of St. Pius I: To Be Any More Trad, You’d Have to Be Jewish.

Don’t be fooled by PHONY “Vulgate” neotraditionalists, who claim to protect tradition, and yet still defend the RADICAL and totally UNCATHOLIC reforms of the 4th century A.D.

Hilarious. :wink:

Rofl… sorry, this one too:

Most shockingly of all, Jerome also wrote a book called “Dialogue with the Luciferians”–LUCIFER??? Is there NO ONE these neotrads won’t DIALOGUE with!!! At what point do we just say–NO… WE DON’T DIALOGUE WITH LUCIFERIANS!!!

I’d try reading “More Catholic than the Pope” it explains things well. And honestly, the actuall SSPX may be wrong about a lot, but individdaul parishes and parishoners are not. I know a lot of them who believe EVERYTHING that the catechism says, they just don’t like the way Mass has become in some of the NO masses. They prefer the latin and communion rails etc. There is nothing wrong wiht that.

You will want to read up on this Apostolic Letter to the all the faithful it was written by John Paul the Great in 1988. It states that the leaders of the SSPX are excommunicated and that anyone who supports them is ex-ed as well.

Also here is a thread I made a month ago on them. Here is a quote from that link. This is what the SSPX said of the Eastern Orthodox:…The Orthodox, even if they have a valid Eucharist and a valid priesthood and apostolic succession, they have this apostolic succession only materially, not formally, because they are not linked to the Pope. Moreover, they do not recognize quite a lot of dogmas. … especially, they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope. They are schismatics and even, to a certain point, heretics.
Now compare what they say here to that Apostolic Letter. There is no way around it for them.

[quote=twiztedseraph]Stuff the SSPX are wrong about. I may encounter an SSPX one day, what are some things I should beef up on so as not to be fooled?
[/quote]

They believe all of the dogmas of the Catholic faith, exactly as they have always been believed.

A better question to ask is: What do they reject. What they reject is false ecumenism, which is the goal of uniting all religions into one big tent religion. They reject that. They believe that to attain unity, those outside the Church must convert and become Catholics.

They also reject religious liberty, because it has been condemned repeately by the Popes. They believe that no one has a “right” to belong to a false religious, because false religions are a violation of the first commandment. Just as no one has the “right” to have an abortion, since it violates the 5th commandment, so too no one has the “right” to break the 1st commandment.

Pope Leo XIII: “Liberty of worship, as it is called… is based on the principal that every man is free to profess, as he may choose, any religion or none… when a liberty such as We have described is offered to man (i.e. liberty of worship), the power is given him to pervert or abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties, and to exchange the unchangeable good for evil.” (On the Nature of True Liberty, Pope Leo XIII) papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm

Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX: “For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it,dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition”. (Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX).

So, in conclusion, the SSPX believes all of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith, and they reject all the errors of both the liberals and modernist, which have been explicitly condemned by the Church. And, knowing that the faith does not change, they refuse to accept these errors, even though a vast amount of Catholics today promote them.

[quote=twiztedseraph]Stuff the SSPX are wrong about. I may encounter an SSPX one day, what are some things I should beef up on so as not to be fooled?
[/quote]

I would say be wary of all the strawmen agruements that will come your way. A strawman is where they will say the Catholic Church doing something it is not, thereby making it appear as if the Catholic Church is something to fight against.

For example, the claim could be made that the Catholic Church is trying to unite all religions. under one tent, Therefore, since we know this is bad, we must separate from them. Just read you Catechism. That is where the teaching of the Church is to be found. Use common sense. In the above situation you know that non-Catholics can not receive communion, so you know there is no union of all religions.

Finally beware of off-the-wall conspiracy theories. If you hear of Illimnati, Masons or UFOs infecting the church, then realize that your source has all the reliability of the National Enquirer.

[quote=pnewton]I would say be wary of all the strawmen agruements that will come your way. For example, the claim could be made that the Catholic Church is trying to unite all religions. under one tent…
[/quote]

Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Feb 2001: “The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of ecumenism of a return, by which the others should “be converted” and return to being “catholics.” This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end… Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved and not the fact that we should become “protestants” or that the others should become “catholics” in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism”. (%between%www.adista.it/numeri/adista01/adista16.htm)

The following is what the Church has always taught:

Pope Pius XI in his 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos: *"So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it…

Instruction on the Ecumenical Movement, 1949*"As regards the manner and method of proceeding in this work, the Bishops… shall also be on guard lest, on the false pretext that more attention should be paid to the points on which we agree than to those on which we differ, a dangerous indifferentism be encouraged*, especially among persons whose training in theology is not deep and whose practice of their faith is not very strong…

"Also they must restrain that dangerous manner of speaking which generates false opinions and fallacious hopes incapable of realization; for example, to the effect that the teachings of the Encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs on the return of dissidents to the Church, on the constitution of the Church, on the Mystical Body of Christ, should not be given too much importance seeing that they are not all matters of faith, or, what is worse, that in matters of dogma even the Catholic Church has not yet attained the fullness of Christ, but can still be perfected from outside. They shall take particular care and shall firmly insist that, in going over the history of the Reformation and the Reformers the defects of Catholics be not so exaggerated and the faults of the Reformers be so dissimulated, or that things which are rather accidental be not so emphasized, that what is most essential, namely the defection from the Catholic faith, be scarcely any longer seen or felt…

"Therefore the whole and entire Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ. It should be made clear to them that, in returning to the Church, they will lose nothing of that good which by the grace of God has hitherto been implanted in them, but that it will rather be supplemented and completed by their return. However, one should not speak of this in such a way that they will imagine that in returning to the Church they are bringing to it something substantial which it has hitherto lacked. It will be necessary to say these things clearly and openly, first because it is the truth that they themselves are seeking, and moreover because outside the truth no true union can ever be attained. (Instruction on the Ecumenical Movement Proclaimed by the Holy Office on December 20, 1949)

Compare the last two magisterial quotes to the statement of Cardinal Kasper, keeping in mind that Cardinal Kasper was appointed as the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity!*

[quote=USMC](www.adista.it/numeri/adista01/adista16.htmity!
[/quote]

I could not understand the context of your link. This one is a better source for Church teaching anyway.

usccb.org/catechism/text/

Catholics and non-Catholics are not unified as one faith. We do not allow communion for those outside Catholicism (under normal circumstances). The Church does have unity on many levels with those outside it, even the SSPX. This is not being denied. It is the “one tent” analogy that is fallacious.

Catholics and non-Catholics are not unified as one faith. We do not allow communion for those outside Catholicism (under normal circumstances).

Now, I had a very long argument with Vern Humphrey on another thread about this very matter. Although you are correct in say that the Church officially does not allow intercommunion, the Novus Ordo Missals that are in the pews, say it is OK. Vern Humphrey based his entire argument with me on that one point. I checked it out and the missals do erroneously say that non-Catholics can receive communion in a Catholic Church. It bases this false statement on Canon 844.3 of the 1984 Cod of Canon law.

[quote=]The Church does have unity on many levels with those outside it, even the SSPX. This is not being denied. It is the “one tent” analogy that is fallacious.
[/quote]

The Church has natural unity with those outside the Church, but no supernatural unity. This is another thing I tried to explain to Vern Humphrey in our “dologue”. If you search my posts from a week or so ago, you can read that discussion.

Regarding the “one tent” analogy. Now be honest. Do you really deny that there are some within the Church who have a false understanding of ecumenism, and do indeed seek to bring about a “one tent” religion? If you do, I would suggest that you have not read their writings.

Now, let me quote for you a portion of the Balamand Agreement.

Balamand Statement, par. 22: "Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church."

So, according to this agreement, signed by John Paul II, the Catholic Church “no longer” aims at having the Schismatic Orthodox “pass over” to the Catholic Church “outside of which there is no salvation”. Isn’t that nice?

I personally believe many have fallen into error due to ecumenism. What “The Instructions for Ecumensims from 1949” warn against is exactly what it taking place at the highest levels of the Church. Read those norms again.

Now, here is the question: Do I, or the SSPX, have a right to question ecumenism? John Paul II himself gave us the answer in Redemptor Hominis:

John Paul II (1979): "There are people who in the face of the difficulties or because they consider that the first ecumenical endeavors have brought negative results would have liked to turn back. Some even express the opinion that these efforts are harmful to the cause of the Gospel, are leading to a further rupture in the Church, are causing confusion of ideas in questions of faith and morals and are ending up with a specific indifferentism. It is perhaps a good thing that the spokesmen for these opinions should express their fears".

Our missalettes specifically mention that Communion is not to be received by those outside the Church because it would demonstrate a unity that does not exist.

While I do not doubt that there are those that would like to wishy-wash us all into one, they are not the Church. By the same token those that “ordain” women priest are not the Church. I would have had a great deal more respect for the SSPX on such topics like ecumenism had they chosen obedience in all other matters. The ordinations performed outside of obedience to the church served only to diminish their voice.

[quote=twiztedseraph]Stuff the SSPX are wrong about. I may encounter an SSPX one day, what are some things I should beef up on so as not to be fooled?
[/quote]

Just like in conversations with some fundamentalists, You worship Mary. No we don’t see here etc. SSPX have chosen tell the Catholic Church what the Church believes. They erroneously interpret and lay meaning where none is meant. Just like Luther, one cannot leave the Church to reform it.

[quote=pnewton]Our missalettes specifically mention that Communion is not to be received by those outside the Church because it would demonstrate a unity that does not exist.
[/quote]

Brother Roger (Taize communinty, NOT Catholic) receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jeusus Christ.

Evidentally His Holiness (then Cardinal Ratzinger) didn’t read the blurb from OCP (bleh) about non-Catholics not receiving Holy Communion.

[quote=Dropper]Brother Roger (Taize communinty, NOT Catholic) receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jeusus Christ.

[/quote]

Who is Brother Roger and what is the link to the photo? (or is it your personal photography)

[quote=pnewton]Who is Brother Roger and what is the link to the photo? (or is it your personal photography)
[/quote]

Sorry about not posting the link…

Here’s the link to the photo…

Here’s information about Brother Roger and Taize…

I don’t know if you need to get into details about “stuff they’re wrong about.” Most schismatics probably don’t understand the philosophical definition of “liberty” as used in Vatican II’s decree on religious liberty; if they read St. Thomas Aquinas as much as one might hope, they would not be in schism. I would stick to the main point, which is that schism is never the answer.

Now, I had a very long argument with Vern Humphrey on another thread about this very matter. Although you are correct in say that the Church officially does not allow intercommunion, the Novus Ordo Missals that are in the pews, say it is OK. Vern Humphrey based his entire argument with me on that one point. I checked it out and the missals do erroneously say that non-Catholics can receive communion in a Catholic Church. It bases this false statement on Canon 844.3 of the 1984 Cod of Canon law.

Every missal I’ve ever read doesn’t say such a thing.

Now, here is the question: Do I, or the SSPX, have a right to question ecumenism? John Paul II himself gave us the answer in Redemptor Hominis:

I personally would like to see us take a harder line stance against the heretics and schismatics, but becoming a schismatic (in the SSPX) is not the answer.

[quote=Fortiterinre]I don’t know if you need to get into details about “stuff they’re wrong about.” Most schismatics probably don’t understand the philosophical definition of “liberty” as used in Vatican II’s decree on religious liberty…
[/quote]

Interesting. One of the characteristics of schismatics is that they don’t understand the philosophical definition of liberty as used in th Vatican II documents.

I would be interested in hearing that definition. Could you define it for me please?

[quote=USMC]Now, I had a very long argument with Vern Humphrey on another thread about this very matter. Although you are correct in say that the Church officially does not allow intercommunion, the Novus Ordo Missals that are in the pews, say it is OK. Vern Humphrey based his entire argument with me on that one point. I checked it out and the missals do erroneously say that non-Catholics can receive communion in a Catholic Church. It bases this false statement on Canon 844.3 of the 1984 Cod of Canon law.
[/quote]

[quote=ComradeAndrei]Every missal I’ve ever read doesn’t say such a thing.
[/quote]

According to Vern Humphrey, every missal he has seen has said that. I checked a missal in Church last Sunday, and sure enough, that is exactly what it said. It was in the very back; I think it was on the inside of the back cover.

[quote=Dropper]Sorry about not posting the link…

Here’s the link to the photo…

Here’s information about Brother Roger and Taize…
[/quote]

Thanks for the links.

CNS said of the photo:

Vatican officials said that Brother Roger’s reception of Communion was not foreseen and was the result of him being seated in a group receiving Communion from Cardinal Ratzinger.]/quote]

In other words, oops.

A mistake does not set policy, but it can sure be embarrassing.

According to Vern Humphrey, every missal he has seen has said that. I checked a missal in Church last Sunday, and sure enough, that is exactly what it said. It was in the very back; I think it was on the inside of the back cover.

Care to quote the offending line?

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.