Do you support the SSPX?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 8 2006, 07:21 PM']hmmm thats funny. ive never noticed that you were sympathetic to anyone on PM that associates themselves with the SSPX.
[right][snapback]940319[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I specified "a lot", and not "all", for a reason.

There are a lot of innocent, ordinary Catholics out there who live there lives, and get seduced into SSPX Churches. For whatever reason, they've been lead into that ideology, and it's all they know. They get fed with falsehoods from the SSPX Bishops and people on the Internet who pump out the most vile material. These people are SSPX sheep; they're not the wolves.

Although I am worried about the people pumping out this material, the wolves, my goal in responding to them is not to make friends, it is to protect other Catholics from their errors. It is the same tact that must be taken with anti-Catholic Protestants.

When ordinary, honest, truth-seeking Protestants come to Phatmass, they are treated in kind. And if an honest SSPXer came to Phatmass, not to spread errors, but to dialogue, I would be very sympathetic (or at least I would like to hope I would be). Believe it or not, I used to be them. I went through my "Trad" phase, gobbled up "The Great Facade", cheered on Robert Sungenis, railed against Assisi, etc.

That's one of the reasons I take these errors so seriously. I know how appealing they are to Catholics, because they give an appearance of piety and obedience, when in fact, it is a sham.

Edited April 9, 2006 by Era Might

[Jaime]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Apr 8 2006, 02:13 PM']no of course not, but there is an agenda on PM against sspx isnt there? I've never heard of any group more hated and disrespected. I'm not defending their schismatic actions i'm sinply saying some of ya'll need to chill out.  This attitude isnt going to help bring them back.
[right][snapback]940145[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Except people accused of being "liberals"

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 8 2006, 12:23 PM']The SSPX abhors the Bishops and the practice of the Catholic Church, and they don't even have the integrity to separate and start their own Church; they continue to profess the name of "Catholic", and lead others to think they can be a good Catholic and still revile the Church and disobey the Holy Father.
[right][snapback]940149[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That's odd. I thought they were trying their darndest to come back into communion with this pope and these bishops and this church. Why on earth would they want in union with something they hate? Makes no sense to me.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 8 2006, 12:43 PM']Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary:

"You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a 'right' to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a 'right'. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church's law and may be granted when [b]the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service[/b] and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it."
[right][snapback]940163[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I wasn't aware that a mass was only valid when the bishop said so...

[Cam42]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 9 2006, 01:56 AM']I wasn't aware that a mass was only valid when the bishop said so...
[right][snapback]940578[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That doesn't speak to the validity of the Mass, but the validity of the reasoning. If the local Ordinary (bishop) doesn't think that it is of a pastoral need, then he does not grant the indult, which Msgr. Perl just described in your citation of my post.

However, this does speak to the licitness of the use of the 1962 Missal. If the local Ordinary doesn't find it to be of a pastoral need, then any celebration of the Liturgy in this fashion is illicit.

Since the local Ordinary does not give the SSPX jurisdiction, the Mass is [i]de facto[/i] illicit. SSPX supporters can argue this point all they like, but the fact of the matter is that without the local Ordinary's permission, any Sacramental action, with a very few rare exceptions, are illicit.

If I were a mean-spirited person, I could very well create this issue.....one of the necessary things for validity is intent. The intent is to do what the Church intends to do with a Sacrament. One could argue, if one were mean-spirited that by acting illicitly, one is not doing what the Church intends, but rather what he, himself intends or perhaps what his superior intends. In the case of the SSPX, that would be an excommunicate bishop rather than the local Ordinary, who is head of the local Church. Now, that is a conundrum isn't it? One could seriously argue that the Mass is not valid. If one wanted to think that way, that is.

[Era Might]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 9 2006, 01:50 AM']That's odd.  I thought they were trying their darndest to come back into communion with this pope and these bishops and this church.  Why on earth would they want in union with something they hate?  Makes no sense to me.
[right][snapback]940570[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

A month or so ago in Denver, Fellay told a parish "The new Mass is evil". I heard it with my own ears. Doesn't sound like someone trying his darndest to come back to the Holy See in all humility.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 9 2006, 10:47 AM']A month or so ago in Denver, Fellay told a parish "The new Mass is evil". I heard it with my own ears. Doesn't sound like someone trying his darndest to come back to the Holy See in all humility.
[right][snapback]940665[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I believe that the conference you are speaking of was at St. Isidore, Watkins, CO. [url="http://www.sspx-denver.com/conference_home_files/Page520.htm"]HERE[/url] is a link to that talk. It is amazingly sad to hear this conference, but it speaks to the truth of what Bishop Fellay is trying to promote.....and it is NOT orthodoxy.

[Era Might]

Ah, they finally put the text up. I was waiting for that. Thanks.

Of particular note:

[quote]And now you have probably heard that last Monday (Feb. 13) there was a meeting in Rome of the Pope with the Cardinals speaking about us. I don't know more about it than you; the only thing I know is that that very morning the secretary of Cardinal Castrillon telephoned Menzingen to ask for prayers for this meeting. That is as much as I know. I know that Cardinal Arinze did attack us, or attack the Mass. And that's all; I don't know more than you, and I have nothing to do with it. I am not involved. It is pure reflection from the Vatican. [b]And as things are, we have to count on probably one day Rome will come to us with a proposal, and in the package will be a stipulation that you will have to accept the Council, and we will say no[/b]. And we will be back to the present state. That is the situation. Probably they will try to make us again the bad guys, those who don't want to agree and so on, but, okay, we will make our stand. Every day we take it as it comes.[/quote]

[Era Might]

And the particular quote I was referring to before:

[quote]I used this definition when I spoke to Cardinal Castrillon about the Mass. I said to him that the New Mass is bad, is evil. [/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 9 2006, 12:55 PM']And the particular quote I was referring to before:
[quote]I used this definition when I spoke to Cardinal Castrillon about the Mass. I said to him that the New Mass is bad, is evil.[/quote]
[right][snapback]940735[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Bishop Fellay goes on to say later in that paragraph, speaking of the Missa Normativa:
[quote name='Bishop Fellay']You can see how important it is, then, to have the right definition of things. This is also why, when we speak of the definition of evil, we must remember that sin is the great evil. If you look at Scripture, who can tell what a sin is? How can we say what is sinful? Sin is a failing; something good which is due that is failing. And it's in relation with God Who is infinite. In fact, those who understand the most what sin is are the ones who understand most clearly Who God is. Because a sin or an evil will always be something negative, and to understand something negative, you must first understand what is positive. Otherwise, it is like to trying to explain vision to a blind man. A blind man by birth will never understand his misfortune. On the other hand, a man who loses his vision at some point will understand fully the evil of being blind.[/quote]

Clearly, Bishop Fellay is calling the Missa Normativa sinful. That is unacceptable. How can any SSPX adherent/supporter defend this position and continue to say that there is a genuine want to return to full communion with Rome? He goes on to say:
[quote name='Bishop Fellay']Is the Pope gone? The Church is gone, which is why this is not an easy question, and hence you have this crisis in the Church. The famous marks of Holiness and Unity are a nightmare right now. The situation of the Church in general is a nightmare. But that does not mean that everything has disappeared. That is why we stick to the Pope.[/quote]

He also admits that the Church is gone. With that, I now openly wonder if his intent is to do what the Church wants. If the Church is gone, whose intent is he following? Surely it is not the Pope. He says:
[quote name='Bishop Fellay']That's why we pray for the Pope; we recognize that there are still bishops around, even if we don't follow them in everything.....On the one hand, we are bound to recognize that there is still someone in Rome who has the authority granted by God to lead the Church. But on the other hand, many times, we try to listen and it doesn't seem like it's Jesus Who is speaking through his mouth.[/quote]

It is becoming increasingly clear that a schismatic attitude is there. What else could you call it? It isn't one of looking to reconcile. If it were, then he would not state that the Church is gone.

Finally, I wonder if he would follow his own words, or is he too blinded by pride to realize that he has stated the only solution, IF he applies it to himself and his organization:
[quote name='Bishop Fellay']Now, of course, we don't follow failures. It's obvious; it's strictly forbidden to do any kind of sin or error. God has given us an intelligence for the truth and a will for the good. Whenever we do something wrong, we sin. And when we sin, we engage our own responsibility, also in obedience.....And if we obey wrongly, we sin. It's something which not everybody understands.[/quote]

The paradox of the SSPX position is there....I wonder when they will break free from that and come back to Rome. This is not a matter of "universality" but rather it is a matter obedience to the Holy See, which I assure everyone, still exists. It is not gone.

[stbernardLT]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 8 2006, 07:00 PM']Except people accused of being "liberals"
[right][snapback]940384[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And LIFE TEEN. :

[Cam42]

[quote name='stbernardLT' date='Apr 9 2006, 02:58 PM']And LIFE TEEN. :
[right][snapback]940845[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, if Life Teen would stop doing phishy things......ya know, Life Teen can be as extreme as the SSPX.

It has been said that the Church is like a streetcar. You get off on the right, you get left behind; you get off on the left, you get left behind. So, isn't it just better to stay on the streetcar?

[stbernardLT]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 9 2006, 01:27 PM']Well, if Life Teen would stop doing phishy things......ya know, Life Teen can be as extreme as the SSPX.

It has been said that the Church is like a streetcar.  You get off on the right, you get left behind; you get off on the left, you get left behind.  So, isn't it just better to stay on the streetcar?
[right][snapback]940941[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Extreme mmmmmmmm maybe. Excommunicated NO.

[Cam42]

[quote name='stbernardLT' date='Apr 9 2006, 04:43 PM']Extreme mmmmmmmm maybe.  Excommunicated NO.
[right][snapback]940965[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Did I say anything about excommunicated? No. But they are just as unfaithful, in certain instances. Both organizations lack obedience to the Holy See. The SSPX by illicit consecrations and promoting a schismatic attitiude; Life Teen, by illicit liturgical abuse. Neither action can be defended, if one is not on the streetcar, it doesn't matter; one will have to run to catch up after jumping off.....good thing the streetcar doesn't move so fast.

Getting back on topic though.....what is your view on the SSPX stbernardLT? How about making a statement, and giving your reasoning as to why.

[stbernardLT]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 9 2006, 02:09 PM']Did I say anything about excommunicated?  No.  But they are just as unfaithful, in certain instances.  Both organizations lack obedience to the Holy See.  The SSPX by illicit consecrations and promoting a schismatic attitiude; Life Teen, by illicit liturgical abuse.  Neither action can be defended, if one is not on the streetcar, it doesn't matter; one will have to run to catch up after jumping off.....good thing the streetcar doesn't move so fast.

Getting back on topic though.....what is your view on the SSPX stbernardLT?  How about making a statement, and giving your reasoning as to why.
[right][snapback]941021[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm definitley opposed to anything schismatic (I don't thnk LT is), especially the SSPX . I know many people who may not be part of this organization but have the same attitude about Vatican II and none of them are any good at evagelizing. In fact I've seen them chase more people away than they bring to Christ and the Church. The people I know seem to condemn everyone but themselves and their "group". Their holier than thou attitude is very unwelcoming to others. Again this is my own experience and I am not saying they are all like this.

And I agree with most here that the Vatican should not take the first step but the SSPX should be humble enough to accept the changes they are to make to be fully reconciled. Like LT did a couple years ago when they made their presentation to the Vatican and made all the changes to their program (internationaly ) that the Vatican said to.

I'm not posting another post about LIFE TEEN on this thread because It would be wrong for people to put LIFE TEEN in the same schismatic category as the SSPX.

Nobody better lay a schism on my cathecism.