SSPX

[Aloysius]

we didn't say they did, though SOME of them, including those allowed on their website, do doubt its validity.

but we didn't even say that. we said that their masses are illicit, and they are because a public mass may not be scheduled and celebrated without the permission of the local ordinary.

[Era Might]

St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote "Let that be a valid eucharist which is under the Bishop or one to whom he shall have committed it." The Church takes the authority of the local Ordinary very seriously. A Priest cannot offer any Sacraments in a diocese unless he obtains the permission of the Bishop first (emergencies excluded).

This is why those who shriek "Nobody can forbid the Tridentine Mass!" are off base. Not only can the Bishop forbid a Priest from using a particular rite of Mass; he can forbid him from saying Mass altogether. This happened to Padre Pio, for exampe. He could not offer Mass publicly or hear confessions.

Edited October 15, 2005 by Era Might

[Dave]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Oct 14 2005, 10:08 PM']Once again, I repeat:

THE SSPX ISN'T IN SCHISM!

will dust or someone please remove this before another pointless, flame war erupts on PM?
[right][snapback]758956[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The SSPX is indeed in schism. You can yell all you want, but it won't make your claims true.

[Ora et Labora]

Thank you, you guys.....

I dont know who Brendan is and I never heard him say anything about the SSPX before....so I dont know what hes yelling about. lol

I'm just trying to understand more on this organization. And I thank everyone for their info!

~Kristina

[avemaria40]

Why doesn't the SSPX join the Tridentine Rite? aren't the liturgies the same?

[Cam42]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Oct 14 2005, 10:08 PM']Once again, I repeat:

THE SSPX ISN'T IN SCHISM!

will dust or someone please remove this before another pointless, flame war erupts on PM?
[right][snapback]758956[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is your opinion Brendan, but you are wrong. Want proof? Okay....[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html"]here it is.[/url]

[quote name='APOSTOLIC LETTER "ECCLESIA DEI" #3']In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. [b]Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - [u]constitutes a schismatic act.[/u][/b]  [i]In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have [b]incurred the grave penalty of [u]excommunication[/u][/b] envisaged by ecclesiastical law.[/i][/quote]

[quote name='APOSTOLIC LETTER "ECCLESIA DEI" #4'][b][i]The root of this [u]schismatic act[/u] can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition.[/i][/b] Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth."[/quote]

The Church has spoken. The SSPX is in schism. You are wrong.

(N.B. emphasis mine.)

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Oct 15 2005, 11:34 AM']the sspx does not say that the new mass is invalid.
[right][snapback]759327[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

From the SSPX website; speaking of the Novus Ordo Missae:

[quote]The dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants which are evident in the Novus Ordo Missae render it a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil, given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass ought to have.[/quote]

[quote]Does it follow from the apparent promulgation by the Popes that the Novus Ordo Missae is truly Catholic?  No, for the indefectibility of the Church does not prevent the Pope personally from promoting defective and modernist rites in the Latin rite of the Church.[/quote]

[quote]D.  THIS BEING SO, CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE IS INVALID?

This does not necessarily follow from the above defects, as serious as they might be, for only three things are required for validity (presupposing a validly ordained priest), proper:

matter,

form,

and intention.

However, the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. [b][u]The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention.[/u][/b] That will depend on his personal faith (generally unknown to those assisting, but more and more doubtful as the crisis in the Church is prolonged).

[b]Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful validity, and more so with time.[/b][/quote]

Time to rethink your position Sam......we have been over this time and again....how many times do I have to post this for you?

[quote]If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).[/quote]

They are implicitly (if not explictly) denying the Novus Ordo......straight from the website.......

[Cam42]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Oct 15 2005, 02:13 PM']Why doesn't the SSPX join the Tridentine Rite? aren't the liturgies the same?
[right][snapback]759441[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The liturgies are not the same. The SSPX does not celebrate the Liturgy as revised in 1962. They celebrate the Liturgy of 1958.

Here is what is said about the indult:

[quote]But other priests have profited by it, some jumping at the chance to say the traditional Latin Mass, others only because requested by their Bishop, and the odd one or two who would always say the traditional Latin Mass anyway but have accepted to do so under the auspices of the Indult for “pastoral reasons.”

CAN WE ATTEND THEIR MASSES?

If we have to agree to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Novus Ordo Missae, then NO, for we cannot do evil that good may ensue.

This condition may not be presented explicitly, but by implication, such as:

By a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Missae on other days of the week or at other times,

using Hosts consecrated at a Novus Ordo Missae,

or with communion in the hand;

new lectionaries, Mass facing the people, etc.,

by a priest who was ordained in the New Rite,

by sermons that are modernist in inspiration (much to be feared if the celebrant habitually says the Novus Ordo Missae); or

by offering only the revised forms of the other sacraments, e.g., penance.

This brings up the whole context of the Indult Mass. It is:

1.  A ploy to keep people away from the Society of Saint Pius X (for many Bishops allow it only where there is a Society of Saint Pius X Mass center),

2.  [b][u]intended only for those who feel attached to the traditional Latin Mass but nevertheless accept the doctrinal rectitude and juridical right of the Novus Ordo Missae, Vatican II, and all official orientations corresponding to these.[/u][/b]

Therefore, attending it because of the priest’s words or fellow Mass-goers’ pressure, or because of the need to pander to the local Bishop just to have it, inevitably pushes one to keep quiet on “divisive issues” and, distance oneself from those who do not keep quiet i.e., it pushes one to join the ranks of those who are destroying the church. This one cannot do.

[b]The Indult Mass, therefore, is not for traditional Catholics[/b].[/quote]

They don't view it as acceptable....so, they won't accept this.

I love faulty logic....it is so easy to see....it is like a black streak on a white wall.....

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

the sspx celebrates the 1962 liturgy in fact i bought their 1962 missal.

the SSPV celebrates the 1958 liturgy

the sspx does not outright say that the novus ordo mas is invalid, but it doubts the validity of certian novus ordo masses.

[quote]Within the Traditionalist movement, which is certainly dominated by the Society, other branches developed. For example, the SSPX uses the 1962 Missal, which includes changes made by John XXIII. Some in the movement reject any changes, and thus will use only the Missal from Pius XII's time. Others argue that the See of Peter is vacant since Pius XII (sedevacantists). Others have elected their own popes (there were, at last count, at least 3 antipopes). And so the fracturing natural to schismatics has its way. [/quote]

the above quote is from ewtn.

Edited October 15, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Oct 15 2005, 05:22 PM']the sspx celebrates the 1962 liturgy in fact i bought their 1962 missal.

the SSPV celebrates the 1958 liturgy

the sspx does not outright say that the novus ordo mas is invalid, but it doubts the validity of certian novus ordo masses.

[quote]Within the Traditionalist movement, which is certainly dominated by the Society, other branches developed. For example, the SSPX uses the 1962 Missal, which includes changes made by John XXIII. Some in the movement reject any changes, and thus will use only the Missal from Pius XII's time. Others argue that the See of Peter is vacant since Pius XII (sedevacantists). Others have elected their own popes (there were, at last count, at least 3 antipopes). And so the fracturing natural to schismatics has its way.[/quote]

the above quote is from ewtn.
[right][snapback]759554[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, the Angelus Press sells the 1962 Missal. That is the fact. They don't accept the 1962 Liturgy as quoted above. The last SSPX priest I spoke to (about 3 months ago) stated that it was left to the preference of the particular priest to as to use it or not. He told me that most do not, because of the reservations they have as to the validity of the change, in the 1962 Missal (ie., the removal of the second confeitor and addition of St. Joseph, etc.).

So which is it Sam? Why do some in "the movement" use the 1962 Missal and some do not? That is phishy to me......then again......

If the Novus Ordo is not invalid, why are they not allowing their faithful to attend? They are explictly calling the validity of the Novus Ordo into question. Why is that? Didn't you just say that they accepted the validity? Come on Sam, you can't have it both ways.....either the Mass is valid or it is not.

I have shown proof as to the inconsistency of their position and now, so have you.....black streaks Sam, black streaks.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

ok cam heres a questio for you too

if the sspx masses are valid then why do many catholics refuse to go to them.

i know that 8 priests were kicked out of the sspx in the 80's for using the 1958 mass.

also i know that the mass the Lefebvere used and that the sspx priests are suppoused to use is the 1962.

the sspx does say that the mass is valid but warn people from attending because they claim that the it is offensive to god etc. they claim that it is illict, that it has the wrong words for the consectration (in english and spanish) and that the theology behind it is bad. they also claim that protestant ministers helped write the new mass. so its not that it is invalid but that they claim that the new mass is un-catholic.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Oct 15 2005, 06:05 PM']ok cam heres a questio for you too

if the sspx masses are valid then why do many catholics refuse to go to them.

i know that 8 priests were kicked out of the sspx in the 80's for using the 1958 mass.

also i know that the mass the Lefebvere used and that the sspx priests are suppoused to use is the 1962.

the sspx does say that the mass is valid but warn people from attending because they claim that the it is offensive to god etc. they claim that it is illict, that it has the wrong words for the consectration (in english and spanish) and that the theology behind it is bad. they also claim that protestant ministers helped write the new mass. so its not that it is invalid but that they claim that the new mass is un-catholic.
[right][snapback]759570[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I already answered the first question earlier on the board Sam. The reason we are not to go to SSPX Masses, is because we know them to be illicit.

And as for your next two statements, your own proof to refute me refutes yourself, along with my discussion with an SSPX priest.

The thing is that they [b]CLAIM[/b].....they don't have any basis. They don't have any proof. They are in error. Notice that my quotes from their own website answer your questions, but don't really answer [b]THE[/b] questions. That is the problem....they don't tell the whole truth, because the whole truth lies within the Church, today.

Their claims are without basis and without merit. They distort what little bits of truth that they have, ie. partial statements from deceased Cardinals Ottaviani and Baggi.

Part of being in schism is refusing to submit to the Pontiff.....why would that be Sam? And is it ever a good thing.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

what about saint Anthansius.

but moving on i don't know if that sspx priest you talked too was correct or not. but the original founding idea was to celebrate the 1962 liturgy.

I unfourtunatley place my alliegance with tradition and not with pre-concliar ideas or a new mass that was written by protestants.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Oct 15 2005, 06:34 PM']what about saint Anthansius.

but moving on i don't know if that sspx priest you talked too was correct or not. but the original founding idea was to celebrate the 1962 liturgy.

I unfourtunatley place my alliegance with tradition and not with pre-concliar ideas or a new mass that was written by protestants.
[right][snapback]759595[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What about St. Athanasius? His excommunication was unjust. That is not the case with the SSPX. Do you really want to go that road with me, Sam?

Yes, let's move on.....it is unfortunate that you make uninformed decisions. You are not placing your allegiance anyplace except your opinion. If you were to truly study Tradition, you would see that what I posted about Tradition (Ecclesia Dei #4) above is the only view that is acceptable.

We have asked you several times, Sam; to please reserve your decisions until you can do some serious study. You are being obsitinant in your decisions and that is one of the faults of the influence of those in schism. Those of us who have reached out to you, have implored this of you and you don't listen. Not only do we have more experience than your 15 years, but some of us have acutally gone through the struggle that you seem to be enduring....

Your view of Tradition is askew......I ask you (sic. AGAIN) to reserve your opinion until you can study this fully.....

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

fine cam i will honor your request.