FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: SSPX or Orthodox
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hey, hey. Really, what's to be gained from this little hostile discourse? If someone has facts, then show them. Let the facts speak for themselves. If Scipio has supported facts, then his input should be considered as equally as any other poster. If someone has something contrary to what Scipio posts, then show your cards and we'll see who has the better hand. I just don't think there's any objective to the discussion thus far. 
(10-15-2009, 08:47 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-14-2009, 04:39 PM)nsper7 Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:The initial question was "if there was no Catholic Church in the area, would you attend an SSPX or an Orthodox Mass?"

I admit I phrased the question incorrectly. I meant no 'Canonically regular' Catholic Church. I have since realized, due to explanation from several posters here, that attending the SSPX does fulfill the Sunday obligation as long as one's desire is to attend a TLM, not separate oneself from the Pope and hierarchy. Oh well, I can't be right all the time...so I guess I do stand corrected on that issue.

Again you offend the SSPX - for nobody within the Society wishes to "separate themselves from the Pope or hierarchy."  The SSPX stands with the Pope and longs for the return of Eternal Rome, and the removal of Modernist Rome.  Also, truly the SSPX is "canonically regular."  A false excommunication does not make them irregular.  The SSPX had to do what was necessary to ensure that the Catholic Faith remained intact - even if that meant they had to "disobey" Rome.  It is my opinion that in the future, the SSPX will be seen as a major part of those who saved the Church from the Modernist heresy - with Archbishop Lefebvre being made a Doctor of the Church or better.

No offense was meant about the separation comment, i was merely paraphrasing a portion of Monsignor Perl's letter answering if it is okay to attend an SSPX Mass (http://www.latin-mass-society.org/perl-011803.htm). You'll notice, he states that if your motive for going to an SSPX Mass "were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin". Those are his words, not mine. Just be lucky he acknowledges that it is okay so long as "your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion".
And the song remains the same
(10-15-2009, 04:03 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]Hey, hey. Really, what's to be gained from this little hostile discourse? If someone has facts, then show them. Let the facts speak for themselves. If Scipio has supported facts, then his input should be considered as equally as any other poster. If someone has something contrary to what Scipio posts, then show your cards and we'll see who has the better hand. I just don't think there's any objective to the discussion thus far. 

The facts are in the decree in Jan 2009 from the Pope, who says that the SSPX has no canonical status.  I am trying to let them speak for themselves, and then I get labeled as spouting NO propaganda.  Whatever you'd like to call it, it does not change the words in the decree.

I will be happy to read a church document that says the SSPX has regular canonical status, as Nic suggests.  I don't think it exists today.  If I'm wrong, someone please show it, as Inpefess suggests.

I'm no supporter of the SSPX, but I do at least think the current situation should be expressed clearly, on both sides.  I criticize comments that say they are schismatic just as much as I criticize comments that say everything is fine and there's no issue with attending their Masses.

Until it all gets worked out, prideful spirited comments on both sides will slow the regularization of the SSPX. 
(10-15-2009, 05:46 PM)calicatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2009, 04:03 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]Hey, hey. Really, what's to be gained from this little hostile discourse? If someone has facts, then show them. Let the facts speak for themselves. If Scipio has supported facts, then his input should be considered as equally as any other poster. If someone has something contrary to what Scipio posts, then show your cards and we'll see who has the better hand. I just don't think there's any objective to the discussion thus far. 

The facts are in the decree in Jan 2009 from the Pope, who says that the SSPX has no canonical status.  I am trying to let them speak for themselves, and then I get labeled as spouting NO propaganda.  Whatever you'd like to call it, it does not change the words in the decree.

I will be happy to read a church document that says the SSPX has regular canonical status, as Nic suggests.  I don't think it exists today.  If I'm wrong, someone please show it, as Inpefess suggests.

I'm no supporter of the SSPX, but I do at least think the current situation should be expressed clearly, on both sides.  I criticize comments that say they are schismatic just as much as I criticize comments that say everything is fine and there's no issue with attending their Masses.

Until it all gets worked out, prideful spirited comments on both sides will slow the regularization of the SSPX. 

Thank you very much for your reply. A very level-headed response indeed. We're off to a good start!

(10-15-2009, 05:46 PM)calicatholic Wrote: [ -> ]The facts are in the decree in Jan 2009 from the Pope, who says that the SSPX has no canonical status.  I am trying to let them speak for themselves, and then I get labeled as spouting NO propaganda.  Whatever you'd like to call it, it does not change the words in the decree.

I will be happy to read a church document that says the SSPX has regular canonical status, as Nic suggests.  I don't think it exists today.  If I'm wrong, someone please show it, as Inpefess suggests.

I'm no supporter of the SSPX, but I do at least think the current situation should be expressed clearly, on both sides.  I criticize comments that say they are schismatic just as much as I criticize comments that say everything is fine and there's no issue with attending their Masses.

Until it all gets worked out, prideful spirited comments on both sides will slow the regularization of the SSPX. 


Regularization of the Church you mean

The SSPX is only considered in an irregular state because the Church is in an irregular state..and you know this...

It is too much of a topic to be shown in some tit for tat thread...but you come on here and attempt to interfere with the salvation of souls by ignoring the greatest law of the Church...salvation of souls...while knowing full well that the so called authorities in the church...local as well as central...have failed miserably in this field 


That is why you writhe when the topic comes up about confession or Mass attendance...every time I post....."Find a trad priest, be he FSSP, ICK, SSPX, or SSPV or independent,"  because you are more worried about appearances...the appearance of holding onto the Chair...EVEN IF THAT MEANS MILLIONS will lose faith...rather than go to a trad priest because some predatory homosexual NO bi-shyp said he does not want the SSPX or SSPV in his diocese....and yes...I say SSPV...because you will get a better Catholic formation there than ANY NO RCIA...salvation of souls is the key here


Look at "TheDude"  came on here looking for help....went your way...and OH SHIT...now he's an apostate...good job Cali

Whereas I always support someone going trad...I DON"T CARE WHERE  (YEAH...THAT's RIGHT)....and I continue to follow up with them



As for pointing you to a document...you know better...it is a question of using your sense

1 - know them by their fruits

Every trad organization has been successful (number wise as well as catechism wise)...EVEN THE ONES YOU HATE
The NO has been successful at driving folks from the Church and teaching falsely on a scale that sickens -- If you actually believe in Hell and the crappy results that the NO gets.

2 - If your leader and authority figure reach outside the arena of the authority they have been granted or use their authority AGAINST that which they were given the authority...then they no longer are an authority that must be conformed to...Same rules in the Army...."An unlawful order is not an order"

3 - The decree says nothing about canonical status...pro or anti...you'd have to follow the paper trail to 1969.....if that even matters in the current environment....IT DOES NOT....as illustrated by the above principles
(10-15-2009, 06:53 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2009, 05:46 PM)calicatholic Wrote: [ -> ]The facts are in the decree in Jan 2009 from the Pope, who says that the SSPX has no canonical status.  I am trying to let them speak for themselves, and then I get labeled as spouting NO propaganda.  Whatever you'd like to call it, it does not change the words in the decree.

I will be happy to read a church document that says the SSPX has regular canonical status, as Nic suggests.  I don't think it exists today.  If I'm wrong, someone please show it, as Inpefess suggests.

I'm no supporter of the SSPX, but I do at least think the current situation should be expressed clearly, on both sides.  I criticize comments that say they are schismatic just as much as I criticize comments that say everything is fine and there's no issue with attending their Masses.

Until it all gets worked out, prideful spirited comments on both sides will slow the regularization of the SSPX. 


Regularization of the Church you mean

The SSPX is only considered in an irregular state because the Church is in an irregular state..and you know this...

It is too much of a topic to be shown in some tit for tat thread...but you come on here and attempt to interfere with the salvation of souls by ignoring the greatest law of the Church...salvation of souls...while knowing full well that the so called authorities in the church...local as well as central...have failed miserably in this field 


That is why you writhe when the topic comes up about confession or Mass attendance...every time I post....."Find a trad priest, be he FSSP, ICK, SSPX, or SSPV or independent,"  because you are more worried about appearances...the appearance of holding onto the Chair...EVEN IF THAT MEANS MILLIONS will lose faith...rather than go to a trad priest because some predatory homosexual NO bi-shyp said he does not want the SSPX or SSPV in his diocese....and yes...I say SSPV...because you will get a better Catholic formation there than ANY NO RCIA...salvation of souls is the key here


Look at "TheDude"   came on here looking for help....went your way...and OH SHIT...now he's an apostate...good job Cali

Whereas I always support someone going trad...I DON"T CARE WHERE   (YEAH...THAT's RIGHT)....and I continue to follow up with them



As for pointing you to a document...you know better...it is a question of using your sense

1 - know them by their fruits

Every trad organization has been successful (number wise as well as catechism wise)...EVEN THE ONES YOU HATE
The NO has been successful at driving folks from the Church and teaching falsely on a scale that sickens -- If you actually believe in Hell and the crappy results that the NO gets.

2 - If your leader and authority figure reach outside the arena of the authority they have been granted or use their authority AGAINST that which they were given the authority...then they no longer are an authority that must be conformed to...Same rules in the Army...."An unlawful order is not an order"

3 - The decree says nothing about canonical status...pro or anti...you'd have to follow the paper trail to 1969.....if that even matters in the current environment....IT DOES NOT....as illustrated by the above principles

Let's take a deep breath here and all calm down. Remember, we are all Catholic here and I think we can all agree that Salvation of souls is the paramount mission of the Church. Now, I have come to realize that the question I posted in this thread was an illegitimate because it appears that, at least according to Msgr. Perl, it is okay to attend an SSPX Mass as long as there is not a desire to separate oneself from the Pope and the Church in your heart.

As one who is a very recent convert and came through the RCIA process, I agree that many RCIA classes leave much to be desired. I read a lot on my own (i.e. Catholic Answers) and was a bit of a gadfly in my RCIA class because I would ask questions about Hell and that sort of stuff.

Remember that the FSSP and ICKSP are both Canonically regular and in good standing with Rome. In fact, the TLM I attended this past Sunday and will be attending again is celebrated by an FSSP Priest. The SSPX is in a Canonically irregular position, although it appears it is allowable for Catholics to attend SSPX Masses. The SSPV is sedevacantist.

I think we all need to calm down here. BTW- who is "TheDude"?
This is actually a good point...sorry to heap it on but I gotta say it....Everyone knows I go to SSPX...but that said...whenever someone says they're going to go FSSP, ICK, EF or SSPV I always say..."great" (or something to that effect), because although my first choice would be to send someone to SSPX...I could be wrong about that and it's not worth pushing the issue (You might lose them at that point to NO hell or prot)....what I know I am not wrong about is trad...Which flavor....that's more up for grabs in the grand scheme of things


Cali  will tell people NOT to go SSPX because he thinks (feels is more like it) that hey have invalid or illicit services


I have posted my 3 elements argument several times about validity...this ALWAYS brings us to the question of FSSP and no trad bishop...so despite my misgivings...I always am glad that someone goes from the NO or prot to the FSSP or ICK or EF


I argue with folks on the board who already go FSSP, etc...cause they're already members of the club...so to speak...
Quote:Cali  will tell people NOT to go SSPX because he thinks (feels is more like it) that hey have invalid or illicit services

Well, if Cali feels the SSPX have invalid Masses, then that is ridiculous. From everything I have read, they possess valid Apostolic Succession and valid Holy Orders, so their Masses are valid. In terms of licitness, it seems that it maybe illicit for the SSPX Priest who, lacking proper faculties to celebrate, celebrates the Mass, but it can fulfill an individual's Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX Mass as long as they are doing so out of a schismatic/separatist motivation.

In terms of FSSP, ICKS, Canons-Regular of St. John Cantius, indulted Diocesan TLMs and the like where the TLM is offered validly and licitly by Priests in good standing with Rome, I am all in favor of that and wish there were more Priests who learned how to celebrate the TLM. Personally, I am thinking I may, since I do want to be a Priest, try to find a way to learn to celebrate the TLM (the religious order I am joining, the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land, seems predominantly NO, although they do the Mass very well, at least where I was).

As for the SSPV, they are sedevacantist and didn't they separate from the SSPX? Are they guilty of schism? If they are sedevacantist, are they guilty of heresy? These are honest questions. Some of the so-called 'independent' groups may not even possess valid Holy Orders since they may have broken off in such a way to cut off Apostolic Succession.

Quote:I argue with folks on the board who already go FSSP, etc...cause they're already members of the club...so to speak...

Well, if as I mention on my other thread, I start making a habit of attending the TLM near me in the next county, I will be one of those FSSPers and actually a good friend of mine is discerning a possible vocation to the FSSP.
(10-15-2009, 06:53 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: [ -> ]Regularization of the Church you mean

The SSPX is only considered in an irregular state because the Church is in an irregular state..and you know this...

Look at "TheDude"   came on here looking for help....went your way...and OH SHIT...now he's an apostate...good job Cali

1 - know them by their fruits

3 - The decree says nothing about canonical status...pro or anti...you'd have to follow the paper trail to 1969.....if that even matters in the current environment....IT DOES NOT....as illustrated by the above principles

Ok, so I know we don't listen to each other, but for everyone else who doesn't need to hear you put words in my mouth -

The SSPX has no canonical status as stated by the Pope twice in the March 2009 Letter:

"The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church"

"In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."


Original Source:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedi...ca_en.html


I never said anything about invalid Masses, so putting words in my mouth to that effect is as ridiculous as nsper says...  I never said that nor do I believe it.


Don't know what you mean about someone called "TheDude" but if you're saying that I am the cause of him falling away from the Faith, that's a bit over the top.  I could blame you for generating a lot of sedevacantists but it would be as true as whatever statements you made about me and "TheDude".  Your lack of charity spills all over this thread.

The phrase "know them by their fruits" has been so overused that I refuse to give it the time of day.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24