Sunday, September 4, 2011

SSPX Meeting at Vatican on September 15th


Great analysis HERE.

Here's the cut to the chase:

1. that the SSPX will not change or even mollify their position and,

2. the Vatican will not throw out the Council....

So let us take just one example and try to explain the complexity of the issues to the good bishop and those who agree with him:

1. There is no definitive Magisterial teaching which condemns the New Mass. Fact.

2. Everyone who finds fault with the New Mass must therefore make a theological argument based on other teachings about the Mass and apply those teachings to the New Mass.

3. Where there is a theological argument, there is room for individual error and there is the potential for theological disagreement.

4. When there is theological disagreement in the Church, and this disagreement reaches critical proportions, it is the Holy See which has the final say.

5. The final say on the Catholic character of the New Mass rests with the Holy See.


Deja vu all over again.

Why don't they just give it up. They are a shining example of how to rebel against Christ Himself on theology. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between SSPX and the rebellions of truths by Joan Chittister and all the characters at NCR, Vox Nova and America Magazine.

The Mass and Sacraments are valid. Get over it.

Did the Woodstock nutjobs take the liberty to innovate, desecrate the Holiest of Holies and defile a generation of souls?

They sure did.

Are there priests using invalid matter and prayers?

Indeed they are. But the people sitting in their pews, giddy over the false doctrine these priests teach them are getting exactly what they deserve. Bubkis.

The Sacraments are valid at the overwhelming number of parishes. It is a mess but it is valid.

Give it up. Admit you were wrong. Come back to Christ's Church where you are desperately needed and where you can lead by example.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Carol, I doubt you`ve read The Mass Of All Time, by ArchBishop LeFebvre. IF you had you would understand that the SSPX has not stated that the novus ordo is not a valid mass but that it can be brought to that place and that it was orchestrated by Freemasons to weaken the faithful as well as diminish the sacred role of the priest. The Archbishop has written some excellent books, he was at Vatican II and had first hand knowledge of all that went on. Other issues he presents with great clarity concern no salvation outside the church, as well as the false ecumenism and false compassion which has infiltrated our church as evidenced with the mass at St Cecilia`s.

Carol said...

I did a lot of reading but it was a good ten or twelve years ago. My recollection was that SSPX considers the changes to Sacrament of Penance to render it invalid and I also thought they discredited the NO as invalid.

I also studied no salvation outside of the Church many moons ago. What Christ said and what the Church teaches is that nobody will gain entry into Heaven except through Christ at which time we will all be judged by what we knew or should have known and mercy will be metered out to those in conditions that left them ignorant.

Everyone reading this blog understands I agree with LeFebvre on his other points. The suffering in the chaos is painful but I would never, ever leave Christ much less lead a revolt against Him.

What they're doing is the wrong fix to the problems and their souls are in a grave state, perhaps even more grave than the cronies who have defiled Christ for the last 40 years. Remember the sin of blasphemy is the one sin that will not be forgiven. Too scary for me.

Carol said...

Here's their position - some of the things said I agree with but then they drive the bus off of the cliff...


http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm

E. CONSIDERING WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, ARE WE OBLIGED IN CONSCIENCE TO ATTEND THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE?

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.

Jerry said...

Thanks for the link to the "Sensible Bond" blog. I hadn't seen it before. I read and recommend his article on why he left the SSPX.

The sad part of this, and the central reason why the SSPX will continue to exist as a parallel church, is the fall of Abp. Lefebvre. He had done an immense good in keeping the traditional Mass alive, but he placed the Mass above doctrine, in particular, the doctrines on the indefectibility and primacy of the papacy. The first fall was his belief that Pope John Paul II had lost the Faith. (He said it, and the audio can be found online.) After that, he broke away from the jurisdiction of the pope (schism) by consecrating bishops against his will. Furthermore, his judgment was weakening in the 80's as evidenced by the men he ordained, such as Dolan, Cekada, and more, who became sedevacantists.

I think Pope Benedict may have been hasty in lifting the excommunications of the SSPX bishops without first obtaining an act of fealty, especially a promise to never sever the episcopal lineage again. Sooner or later, the bishops will be faced with the temptation to consecrate more bishops. By their continued defense of ABL's fall, I suspect they'll repeat it.

Carol said...

Jerry, this is beautifully said. I couldn't agree more.

Jack O'Malley said...

Carol: There isn't a dime's worth of difference between SSPX and the rebellions of truths by Joan Chittister ...

what do you make of Ottoviani?

Carol said...

Who could argue that the prayers in the Novus Ordo are pablum when compared to our Latin Mass?

But, he loses me on his conclusions that it is no longer a Sacrifice.

Sometimes I pray eloquently. Other times my prayers are primal pleas, whining, seeking freedom or consolation. God knows the intentions of my heart without even having me speak them.

Valid matter. Valid canonical Eucharistic prayer. The priest who surrenders himself to the intention: to draw on the power that Christ left behind to change the bread and wine into His Body and Blood.

So long as we have these three things, it is The Sacrifice. Even if the prayer has been reductio ad absurdum by the Church. We are back to the binding and loosening. The protection He put into place to seal His promises.

Anonymous said...

"...but I would never, ever leave Christ much less lead a revolt against Him."

Careful, Carol.

What you should be saying is that with the grace of God you would never, ever leave Christ ...

Don't set yourself up for a fall. St. Peter did that. Remember? "Oh, Lord, though everyone else leaves you, I will never ever leave you..."

Veronica

Anonymous said...

The SSPX does not state that the New Mass or the other new sacramental rites are invalid "per se". It has always held that these are valid as long as the four criteria required for their validity are present.

Carol said...

Agree but they say that it does not count for your Sunday obligation so they are talking out of two sides of their mouth...

Clark Whitney said...

Carol, In February I was visiting a smaller diocese in the Midwest. I woke up not feeling well and had noted, when I was researching Mass times, that there was an evening Mass and decided, if I felt better, to go to that.

When I walked in, the priest was standing in the vestibule with a "funky" stole over an alb greeting people. The first thing I noticed was there was no tabernacle--anywhere and there was a large pool in the middle of the aisle when you walk in that one could easily fall into, complete with trickling effect. I genuflected, hoping I was just missing the tabernacle and sat down. No kneelers, of course.

A band of older people played "welcoming music" behind the table. No crucifix or cross present--anywhere. As I was preparing my mind for "Mass" and cringing inside, a habitless sister got up and rang a Buddhist bell and said, "It's time for liturgy." The priest and crew processed in, side-stepping the pool and got to the altar and said something like, "Here, we replace the sign of the cross with a sign of love, turn to your neighbor and welcome them." Then I watched people walk around and hug each other and I just said, "I'm sorry I have a cold." Then the priest said, "Let us pray..." skipping over the penitential rite and the Gloria. With that, I left.

A conservative, though not traditional, priest said I was wrong to leave and the priest I confessed to seemed to agree. So my question is, how bad does it have to be for me to leave? How bad, that I am allowed to follow my conscience and say, this priest/parish refuses to be obedient to the norms of liturgical worship and therefore I am leaving?

What is your opinion on this?

Carol said...

Clark,

Thank you for your defense of the sanctity of the Eucharist on the thread at Abbey Roads.

It certainly doesn't hurt to confess it but only one experiencing the painful situation you describe can make that judgment. If all the outward signs are there that the people do not have the intentions of Christ's Church, I will get out of Dodge every time. I can gauge when my emotions are turning me over to sin. Why would anyone ever take the chance that such out and out rebellion would be a valid Consecration when we can go down the street? We are enabling them. Christ Hiself said to dust off your sandals and treat them like a pagan and mosey on down the road. Can't get better advice than that.

I can put up with minor stuff but there was a time when I was so traumatized by some of the situations like you describe, I had zero tolerance. I do believe during those times, THAT was sin. But out and out ridiculousness that is clearly not Catholic - I mosey on down the road to another Mass and I never go back until that priest is gone and I hear through the grapevine that the people have been brought back to the City of God.

JBQ said...

Here is the gist of the problem! You cannot say that the Latin Mass as it is supported is no longer valid after over a thousand years. You cannot excommunicate someone for believing in what was validly believed for that length of time. You can say that the Mass is a new interpretation of an evolution but you cannot state that someone is exommunicated and going to hell for a valid belief for over a thousand years. There is something really and very wrong here. Guiseppe Siri was elected Pope in 1958 evidently and then forced to abdicate through physical threats so that Roncalli could take the mantle. He was the one who set things in motion with Paul VI to bring socialism to the entire Church with the Latin Mass to be suppressed. This dichotomy between the Latin past of the Mass and the novus ordo has to be realized. You cannot say that the SSPX are in error, maybe not modern enough, but not in theological error. Teilhard de Chardin is the real force behind reform in the Church.

Jerry said...

Hi JBQ,

I hope you're not promoting the "Siri Thesis," i.e., that Cardinal Siri was actually pope until his passing. I recall William von Peters, a big promoter of the thesis, telling me appx. 18 years ago how Siri selected his own successor who has yet to be revealed.

The fundamental error of the SSPX is the denial of supreme and immediate jurisdiction of the pope. Their claim of supplied jurisdiction, the source of their dispensing Catholics from their Sunday obligation if no SSPX Mass is available (cf. Fr. Peter Scott) and establishing their own marriage tribunal, is void after having rejected the legitimate jurisdiction of the pope in 1988.

Without going into their particular arguments against the post-Vatican-II novelties such as ecumenism and religious liberty, the SSPX is 100% justified in upholding the teachings of Popes Pius IX, St. Pius X, and more, especially the Syllabus of Errors and the anti-Modernist decrees. As head of the CDF, then-Cardinal Ratzinger had the temerity to declare such prior magisterial teachings to be "provisional." (Had Cd. O'Malley said such a thing, we'd immediately rail against him.) As Pope, he hasn't touched this issue, as far as I know. But I'll support anyone who would challenge Pope Benedict to affirm his predecessors Magisterium, lest he undermine his own authority.

Anonymous said...

"But, he loses me on his conclusions that it is no longer a Sacrifice."

Come to my church, where the priests make no bones that communion is a "symbol" and ask us to think about what we are going to offer this "great PRAYER of the mass" for.

Look at the fruit: was there LEGALIZED contraception, abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide and gay marriage before the sacrifice of the mass was taken from us?

Look at the empty pews around you: Why has the flock melted away if this is truly the re-presentation (and not a mis-representation) of Jesus' sacrifice?

Also you need a history of Catholicism to realize schisms and multiple popes are not uncommon in Church history - and guess what? Many times the so-call schismatics were actually the faithful Catholics.

Jerry said...

Anon, is there a question about the identity of the pope in recent times? Gregory XVII? Pius XIII? Or whom? But if the pope is known, submission to him is mandatory, right? (It doesn't mean you have to attend the Novus Ordo.)

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

Which NCR are you talking about, Reporter or Register? For my money (what little I have), they're both run by whackos.

Anonymous said...

There's bishops and priests who say dissenting things and some are known to do them, such as abusing V2 with their wreckovation and liturgical abuse, but they get to stay in until they retire, but the SSPX are somehow the only rats, besides those involved in women ordinations, who get ostracized? What gives?