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
(10-15-2009, 09:20 PM)nsper7 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2009, 09:12 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2009, 06:53 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: [ -> ]The SSPX is only considered in an irregular state because the Church is in an irregular state..and you know this...


VERY well put, Scipio - very well put.   :clap:

How can we presume to judge the 'state' of the Church? Isn't that what the Prots do?


Well, I guess it is what Catholics who aren't carried away with blind obedience do as well - aka true Traditionalists (which every Catholic should be, since we are a "Traditional" Church and all).  It is absolutely obvious the the Church took a MAJOR change in direction after the wretched Vatican II council.  If a Catholic doesn't realize this it is because A) he doesn't want to realize it, believing that each and everythin a pope says and does is to be obeyed no matter what, thanks to an extremely scanted view of Papal Infallibility, B) loves the new ecumenical Church, C) has no idea what the Church did and taught before the council, or D) is to uncaring about his or her religion to investigate properly.
(10-15-2009, 09:28 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2009, 09:19 PM)nsper7 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2009, 09:07 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2009, 01:29 PM)calicatholic Wrote: [ -> ]At least we understand each other, Scipio.  I don't listen to what you have to say, and you don't listen to me. 

For everyone else, I didn't write the decree, the Pope did.  You can take his word on it, not mine.

And it was a POPE who "excommunicated" them to begin with!  It was a POPE who unlawfully suspended the Traditional Latin Mass!

When the Supreme Pontiff pronounces a sentence of excommunication which is unjust or null, it must not be accepted, without, however, straying from the respect due to the Holy See.
St. Robert Bellarmine

I thought the Church can suppress or limit the use of a certain Rite/Form. It does not render the Rite invalid, just means it cannot necessarily be used anymore without express permission or something. For example, if a future Pope suspended the use of Novus Ordo Missae so that it was no longer the Ordinary Form (either replaced by the TLM as the 'new' OF or some other translation or version of the Latin Rite), it does not mean the NO is invalid, just no longer used or something. Am I correct here?

The Novus Ordo doesn't have something like Quo Primum backing it up - Nsper, I suggest you read that document very carefully, contained within Trent. Quo Primum is a solemn papal decree binding on the Church "in perpetuity" and condemning any whom would depart from it, as the pope indicated.

Concerning the supression or outright changing of the Mass, here is a small excerpt:  Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

But Pius V altered the Roman Missal after the Battle of Lapanto, as did Sixtus V, Clement VIII and Urban VIII.
(10-15-2009, 09:34 PM)nsper7 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2009, 09:28 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2009, 09:19 PM)nsper7 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2009, 09:07 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2009, 01:29 PM)calicatholic Wrote: [ -> ]At least we understand each other, Scipio.  I don't listen to what you have to say, and you don't listen to me. 

For everyone else, I didn't write the decree, the Pope did.  You can take his word on it, not mine.

And it was a POPE who "excommunicated" them to begin with!  It was a POPE who unlawfully suspended the Traditional Latin Mass!

When the Supreme Pontiff pronounces a sentence of excommunication which is unjust or null, it must not be accepted, without, however, straying from the respect due to the Holy See.
St. Robert Bellarmine

I thought the Church can suppress or limit the use of a certain Rite/Form. It does not render the Rite invalid, just means it cannot necessarily be used anymore without express permission or something. For example, if a future Pope suspended the use of Novus Ordo Missae so that it was no longer the Ordinary Form (either replaced by the TLM as the 'new' OF or some other translation or version of the Latin Rite), it does not mean the NO is invalid, just no longer used or something. Am I correct here?

The Novus Ordo doesn't have something like Quo Primum backing it up - Nsper, I suggest you read that document very carefully, contained within Trent. Quo Primum is a solemn papal decree binding on the Church "in perpetuity" and condemning any whom would depart from it, as the pope indicated.

Concerning the supression or outright changing of the Mass, here is a small excerpt:  Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

But Pius V altered the Roman Missal after the Battle of Lapanto, as did Sixtus V, Clement VIII and Urban VIII.

They never made any MAJOR changes to the Mass, Nsper - only MINOR changes and the basis of the Mass was not altered.  The Novus Ordo Mass - as the Ottaviani Intervention stated - is a complete departure from the true liturgy of the Church.  The Mass was uprooted and changed to fulfill the desires of the Protestants.  In the New Mass, things that heretiecs like Luther (who the Church now sees as a good guy, another sign that the Church is in shambles) and Cranmer demanded were made part of the regular of the Mass. 

I always find it funny how libs attack ther Latin Mass and try to state that it has changed so much.  Essentially, the Latin Mass has been the same since the time of Pope St. Gregory at least  - only codified and canonized by St. Pius V.
Big difference between minor altering of the missal and forming a new mass for a new religion. The NO is not catholic! Que primum is dismissed by many saying a pope can't bind another pope but qou primum and trent were addressing what? Well one major item they were addressing was the great apostasy ie the deformation. It still stands the great apostasy is in the church. The No is its mass. A prod mass.
What an outrage!!!
(10-15-2009, 09:46 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]Big difference between minor altering of the missal and forming a new mass for a new religion. The NO is not catholic! Que primum is dismissed by many saying a pope can't bind another pope but qou primum and trent were addressing what? Well one major item they were addressing was the great apostasy ie the deformation. It still stands the great apostasy is in the church. The No is its mass. A prod mass.
What an outrage!!!

AD2000 website Wrote:Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative. Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini's Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of "the great masters of the international liturgical world" (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.

In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes: "Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l'avons connu n'existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit)" (pages 9-10).

Of course, Fr Gelineau was overjoyed that Abp Bugnini and his helpers had destroyed the Roman Rite. Fr Gamber was not!

AD 2000 website Wrote:Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes: "[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed" (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).

Well you're right that I said invalid about SSPX confessions, because it goes right back to having jurisdiction, but that's a far cry from saying their Masses are invalid.  I personally would not recommend anyone go to an SSPX Priest for confession.

Nic, DK, and Scipio all have the same attitude that I wholly disagree with.  They whine about what is wrong with the Church and have no realistic solution to fixing it.  Instead of pointing out what is wrong, why not point out how we should work together to fix it?  Or, what is beautiful about the Church? 

DK you can rant all you want but you're in left field.  And, please, use spell check.  Your silly persona of mis-spellings does not give you any credibility.  If you want people to take you seriously, spell things correctly and write complete sentences.

My opinion?  Scipio seems personally jaded ever since he couldn't have baptism for his children the way he wanted.  The devil will use any excuse to divide up the faithful based on their own personal issues.  This *may* be one of those cases.  I don't know why DK or Nic are so biased.  I have always been optimistic, so I'm not giving up on the NO just yet.

We're all Catholic.  I really don't know why we can't get along, pray the Rosary daily, and fight against the real enemy.  The devil loves that we're bickering.    Whether I agree with you or not about the SSPX, it doesn't make me less Catholic, nor you.  So, why can't we get along, pray together, and build people's Faith together?



Just wanted to clear one thing up...it was posted that ste SSPV are sedevacantist...they are not,,,sticktly speaking

Here's the best description of the SSPV

and it contains a link to their official stand

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33069790

It has been said they can be called sedeprivantist...tough times...who's right...FSSP...SSPX   SSPV


Who really cares as long as you get the Mass and sacraments in a fully trad way!!!
(10-15-2009, 10:11 PM)calicatholic Wrote: [ -> ]Well you're right that I said invalid about SSPX confessions, because it goes right back to having jurisdiction, but that's a far cry from saying their Masses are invalid.  I personally would not recommend anyone go to an SSPX Priest for confession.

Nic, DK, and Scipio all have the same attitude that I wholly disagree with.  They whine about what is wrong with the Church and have no realistic solution to fixing it.  Instead of pointing out what is wrong, why not point out how we should work together to fix it?  Or, what is beautiful about the Church? 

DK you can rant all you want but you're in left field.  And, please, use spell check.  Your silly persona of mis-spellings does not give you any credibility.  If you want people to take you seriously, spell things correctly and write complete sentences.

My opinion?  Scipio seems personally jaded ever since he couldn't have baptism for his children the way he wanted.  The devil will use any excuse to divide up the faithful based on their own personal issues.  This *may* be one of those cases.  I don't know why DK or Nic are so biased.  I have always been optimistic, so I'm not giving up on the NO just yet.

We're all Catholic.  I really don't know why we can't get along, pray the Rosary daily, and fight against the real enemy.  The devil loves that we're bickering.    Whether I agree with you or not about the SSPX, it doesn't make me less Catholic, nor you.  So, why can't we get along, pray together, and build people's Faith together?

You have GREATLY offended me!  POINT OUT WHAT IS BEAUTIFUL IN THE CURCH!!!  We do this on a REGULAR basis!  It is called TRADITION.  Besides that there really isn't much left that is "beautiful."

And we are doing ALL we can do help the situation as simple lay Catholics - I am sure that at least Scipio, as an SSPXer like myself, is involved in the Rosary Crusades.  Prayer is about all we true Catholics, so labelled as "Traditionalists," have left as a venue.  We are despised by the world, especially those in the "official" Church hierarchy (who pay more attention to Protestant heretics and Orthodox schismatics than they do Catholics who worship and believe as their fathers did).  It is so-called "Catholics" like you who remain complacent in a new-age, ecumenical Church that do the most damage and absolutel NO good at all.


...since when has Fisheaters, a site that at one time was Trad to its very core, become overrun with Novus Ordo Catholics, liberals and even Modernists???
(perhaps it is these people who have the "fishie" vendetta against me, always knocking me down one each day...)
(10-15-2009, 10:11 PM)calicatholic Wrote: [ -> ]Nic, DK, and Scipio all have the same attitude that I wholly disagree with.  They whine about what is wrong with the Church and have no realistic solution to fixing it.  Instead of pointing out what is wrong, why not point out how we should work together to fix it?  Or, what is beautiful about the Church? 

My opinion?  Scipio seems personally jaded ever since he couldn't have baptism for his children the way he wanted.  The devil will use any excuse to divide up the faithful based on their own personal issues.  This *may* be one of those cases.  I don't know why DK or Nic are so biased.  I have always been optimistic, so I'm not giving up on the NO just yet.

We're all Catholic.


Para 1 -- the solution has been outlined...it is the only realistic solution...a return by Rome to itself
Para 2 -- What is beautiful about the Church is only in the trad organizations -- we can't talk about fixing it with you because you are the road block to the fix...and many more like you...no big deal...time is on the Church's side...modernism will burn out sooner or later.
Para 3 --Not jaded...awakened...I already had all the facts...which I have outlined in my 3 elements argument..

The Devil made me a trad...LOL


So let's follow Caulflower's reasoning out with a WILD example...You find yourself at 15 as an altar server in the NO

Then you find yourself in bed with the presbyter...you don't like it...You know your friends said that does not happen in the SSPX....so you go there instead.....

Oh his personal issues made him a trad and the Devil is really happy about that...when instead of wasting his time with religion at all he could have just given up and stopped looking for the Church....I don't think so.

as for the last para  Build people's faith together....we can...I do this daily with Jovan and INPEFESS...I never send anyone away from their trad sites...nor will I...in fact I suggest them even though they are not my first choice.


But I am not sure you are capable of this since you would rather send someone to a change jingling NO predator than send them to the SSPX even...NUTS
(10-15-2009, 09:34 PM)nsper7 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2009, 09:28 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2009, 09:19 PM)nsper7 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2009, 09:07 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-15-2009, 01:29 PM)calicatholic Wrote: [ -> ]At least we understand each other, Scipio.  I don't listen to what you have to say, and you don't listen to me. 

For everyone else, I didn't write the decree, the Pope did.  You can take his word on it, not mine.

And it was a POPE who "excommunicated" them to begin with!  It was a POPE who unlawfully suspended the Traditional Latin Mass!

When the Supreme Pontiff pronounces a sentence of excommunication which is unjust or null, it must not be accepted, without, however, straying from the respect due to the Holy See.
St. Robert Bellarmine

I thought the Church can suppress or limit the use of a certain Rite/Form. It does not render the Rite invalid, just means it cannot necessarily be used anymore without express permission or something. For example, if a future Pope suspended the use of Novus Ordo Missae so that it was no longer the Ordinary Form (either replaced by the TLM as the 'new' OF or some other translation or version of the Latin Rite), it does not mean the NO is invalid, just no longer used or something. Am I correct here?

The Novus Ordo doesn't have something like Quo Primum backing it up - Nsper, I suggest you read that document very carefully, contained within Trent. Quo Primum is a solemn papal decree binding on the Church "in perpetuity" and condemning any whom would depart from it, as the pope indicated.

Concerning the supression or outright changing of the Mass, here is a small excerpt:  Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

But Pius V altered the Roman Missal after the Battle of Lapanto, as did Sixtus V, Clement VIII and Urban VIII.

Did the people demand this change? Not at all! At Vatican II, German-born Bishop William Duschak called for what he termed an “ecumenical Mass” emphasizing the Supper. When he was asked whether his people had requested such a new liturgy, Bishop Duschak candidly replied: “No, I think they would oppose it, just as many bishops oppose it. But if it could be put into practice, I think they would accept it.”

The modern churches speak of eucharist, true – but they do not mean the same thing. For most of them, eucharist is not the real presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, but rather a celebration of Jesus’ spiritual “real presence” in the community, or gathering of people. That is why they clap, sing, shake hands, dance, and make good “fellowship”. THAT to them is all eucharist. They are celebrating Christ in each other.

Many modernized Catholics are quite content with this new meaning of eucharist. Still others are unhappy that the idea of eucharist has been changed since Vatican II, but they say that the change is an abuse and not the intention of those who produced the new Mass. But is the change in the meaning of eucharist really just an abuse, or is it the whole point of the new liturgy? Where does the new Mass place the emphasis: on the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament OR on the spiritual presence of Christ in the so-called “people of God”?

The old catechisms defined the Mass as “the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary in which Christ, through the ministry of the priest, offers Himself to His Father in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine.”

What then is the purpose of the new liturgy?

One can find the answer in the General Instruction published with the new Mass by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on April 6, 1969. It is the official commentary on the new liturgy, as the Congregation of Rites stated: “It is further decreed that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, also approved by Pope Paul, should come into effect on November 30, with the Order of Mass.”

And what does this original General Instruction say about the new Mass? “The Lord’s Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst.’
(1969 Gen. Inst. No. 7)

In this statement there is no mention of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, only His spiritual presence in the people. The corruption of the idea of eucharist is no accident or abuse – it is the whole point of the new liturgy: eucharist is no longer to mean the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament offered at Mass as at Calvary, but rather the spiritual presence of Christ in the “gathering together of the people to celebrate.” After much criticism, this definition was later extended to include a sacrificial nature, but there is still no mention of propitiation.

While the new liturgy presents itself as a mere memorial service, the traditional Mass is clearly a sacrifice – in fact, THE sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. But what kind of sacrifice was that? The traditional Mass – like the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary – says it is offered in reparation for sin. But the new Mass calls itself only a “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” It recalls that Jesus once died for our sins, but the four modern Eucharistic Prayers never state that the new Mass is itself offered in reparation for sin. How then can it be the same sacrifice as Calvary?

From the Ottaviani Intervention: “In the traditional Mass, the very Body and Blood of Christ are offered in sacrifice. The Novus Ordo changes the nature of the offering, turning it into a sort of exchange of gifts between God and man: man brings the bread, and God turns it into the bread of life; man brings the wine, and God turns it into a spiritual drink. …Here, bread and wine are only spiritually, not substantially, changed.”

The denial that the Mass was a sacrifice offered in reparation for sin was a tragic error of the heretics over four hundred years ago. The Catholic Church condemned this heresy at the great Council of Trent, which decreed: “If anyone should say that the Mass is just a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross, and not propitiatory…anathema sit.”

About the time the new liturgy was published (1969), men who had been influential experts at Vatican II were busy publishing a series of books on the changes that were to take place in the Church. The series was appropriately entitled “Concilium” (The Council). Its volume on the liturgical reform featured an article by a Benedictine, Kilian McDonnell, entitled “Calvin’s Conception of the Liturgy and the Future of the Roman Catholic Liturgy”. After criticizing the ancient Latin liturgy of the Church and praising the liturgical inventions of the heretic John Calvin, the Benedictine priest makes this bold prediction about the Catholic Liturgy of the future: “The norm for the future within Catholicism will be the norm Calvin enunciated: freedom within form.” In other words, the future Catholic liturgy is being patterned after John Calvin’s ideas – the same Calvin who taught that the Holy Eucharist is just a symbol of Christ’s spiritual presence in the congregation.

Again, in the Intervention of 1969, Cardinal Ottaviani predicted with lamentable accuracy that “the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.”

God will always give His faithful a way to overcome any spiritual crisis, and today is no exception. Pope St. Pius V, in his decree QUO PRIMUM ordering the traditional Mass of Rome, said that his command would be in force in perpetuum – forever – and that if anyone should dare to contradict it [not amend it], that person would “incur the wrath of the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul.”
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