But I hope they "harden not their hearts" and come back to the one fold left by Christ to Peter.
And here is the reason why.
Taken from this link:
***
Should Traditional Catholics Attend the "Indult" Mass?
The Society of Saint Pius X could never profit by Rome's Indult, first because of the conditions attached to it, and, in particular, that of acknowledging the "doctrinal and juridical" value of the Novus Ordo Missae which is impossible and second, but more fundamentally, because such acceptance of the Indult would amount to saying that the Church had lawfully suppressed the traditional Latin Mass, which is certainly not the case.
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, 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 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);
- by offering only the revised forms of the other sacraments, eg. penance.
***
You think I'd support men with this kind of view!
So stop sending those emails and those wall posts.
You're wasting your time.
The SSPX religion is different from the Catholic one!
ReplyDeleteDear Ben,
DeleteYes if your are referring to the current brand of Catholicism because SSPX is more Catholic than Catholics of today. At SSPX Chapels they don't allow dancing, drums, costumes, dogs and idols and ministers of different religion not only of other Christians but even those very remote from Christianity. In SSPX, there is a clear, remarked distinction on the nature and sacredness of the Sacraments and the priesthood. For SSPX you don't compromise faith for diplomacy and ecumenism. They are not afraid to tell black from black and white from white. Some may be infected by purist and triumphalist characters but they are not representative of the whole Society. Just a question, what did Vatican II brought us? Feminist nuns, drained priestly and religious vocations, adventurous theologians and bishops without balls (sorry for the term) and a lot more Catholics who doubts their very own faith or what we usually call cafeteria Catholics. Things that are unimaginable prior to the Council.
Ben, not that I doubt the validity of Vatican II its just that its hard to reconcile the aim of the Council from its fruits. I don't see a second Pentecost here brother.
Once you call some Catholics more Catholic than others, then you are not Catholic anymore. This is similar to continuing Anglicans who say they hold fast to the true Anglican faith (what's that anyway?) The fact is the SSPX is a schismatic ecclesial community and not in communion with the Roman See. I hope those who hold on to the hope that the SSPX will preserve Tradition will recover their senses. Schism always results heresy! The SSPX cannot be guarantors of Tradition since they are schismatic. There are liberal Catholics as well as conservative traditionalist ones but as long as they remain in communion with the Pope, there is a chance that those that falter in the faith will be convinced to change their ways.
DeleteI just want to clarify that SSPX are not schismatics. Is there any documents from the Holy See that declared SSPX as schismatics? They may have acts of schism but never declared officially as schismatics.
DeleteDear Ben,
DeleteI don't want to put a long argument on this but I beg to disagree when you said "once you call some Catholics more Catholic than others, then you are not Catholic anymore". In the past, the Pope and the Holy See condemned Catholics for erring in faith and morals, are they not Catholic too? To remain ambivalent, lukewarm and blind to the errors of is not Charity. More so Schism is a deficiency in ecclesiastical bond not in doctrine and does not automatically follows heresy. The Greeks are schismatics but are they heretical? I would doubt someone in the Vatican would admit to that now. Same thing goes for SSPX. Communion with the Pope dear Brother does not guarantee freedom from heresy. Ecclesiastical communion means only that we are part of the sheepfold that Christ established on earth.
Dear Brother,
ReplyDeleteI think before we judge the SSPX we must understand or at least try to understand the reasons which compels them to stand by these principles. I am no way affiliated with the Society but I can never deny that I support much of their activities and theological standing.
Why shouldn't we attend an "Indult" Mass? Simply because attending so "would amount to saying that the Church had lawfully suppressed the traditional Latin Mass, which is certainly not the case" even in principle". BUT WHY?! Because an indult is a faculty granted by the Pope or the Holy See allowing a specific deviation from the Church's common law. We must remember that this Indult was granted during the reign of John Paul II when the whole notion of the traditional liturgy was different, when both the Pope and the Curia does not acknowledge the "juridical" standing of the Tridentine Liturgy. Thus when current Pope issued his Apostolic Letter issued motu propio Summorum Pontificum he clarified that the Mass was never abrogated. That is a clear difference on how John Paul II and Benedict XVI sees the Tradentine Mass. The former implicitly affirms the abrogation while the latter explicitly affirms its validity.
I hope this helps in clarifying the standing of the SSPX.
That is why I love Pope Benedict XVI!
DeleteThe problem with the SSPX is that they rebelled and secondly, they still think they are the remnants of the Catholic Church. Most of them are sedevacantists. I heard them so. Some even deny the validity of the episcopal orders of those consecrated bishop using the new rite, among them, the present Pope!
They will not say this in public but they say this when you talk to them.
"*by a priest who was ordained in the New Rite"
- that entry gives you a hint.
Dear Brother,
DeleteLet's get some straight facts here.
1. It is thanks to Abp. Lefebvre and SSPX that we still now have the the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and its wider applications. Without their efforts the Traditional Rite would remain "abrogated" and would only be available through indult (Agatha Christie Indult for England and Wales and Quattuor abhinc annos Indult for the rest of the world).
2. Sedevacantist! I don't think so. If you have heard the - when, where and who? Numerous statements by Abp. Lefebvre, the 4 bishops and other in the Society adhering to validity of the Popes from John XXIII down to Benedict XVI. In fact they have published a material refuting sedevacantism and expelling members who adhere to this theses (remember the 9 priests expelled in the 80s?). Unless you can provide document to that effect no one can claim that most of them are sedevacantists.
3. And link below refuting what you or "that" priest claims to be that SSPX thinks that the episcopal consecration in the New Rite is invalid. I suggest to tell him to do some research. We have the internet remember and a lot of computer cafes offers a low rate in per hour renting should he not have an internet connection at home.
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf
Thanks.
We have to know the views of SSPX according to their official statements and not from the statement of individual SSPX and SSPX supporters. There is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church headed by the current Pope Benedict XVI.
DeleteDear Brother,
DeleteI don't and I won't mind that you did not make visible my reply yesterday to your "argument" above but for sake of charity I would like you also to be aware of an excerpt of the sermon by Bishop Fellay last Feb. 2, 2012 at the St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary of the Society.
"And practically, at many levels, we have to say no. Not because it does not please us, but because the Church has already spoken about that. Even many of these things it has condemned them. And so, in our discussions with Rome we were, so to say, stuck there. The key problem in our discussions with Rome was really the Magisterium, the teaching of the Church. Because they say, "we are the pope, we are the Holy See" – and we say, yes. And so they say, "we have the supreme power," and we say, yes. They say, "we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary" – Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes. And then they say, "then, obey." And we say, no. And so they say to us, you are protestant. You put your reason above the Magisterium of today. And we answer to them, you are Modernists. You pretend that the teaching of today can be different from the teaching of yesterday. We say, when we adhere to what the Church has taught yesterday, we, by necessity, adhere to the teaching of the Church today. Because the truth is not linked to time. The truth is above it. What has been said once is binding all times. These are the dogmas. God is like that; God is above time. And the Faith is adhering to the truth of God. It’s above time. That’s why the church of today is bound and has to be like (not only like) the Church of yesterday. And so when you see the present pope say that there must be continuity in the Church, we say, of course! That is what we have said at all times. When we talk about tradition, that’s precisely the meaning. They say, there must be Tradition, there must be continuity. So there is continuity. Vatican II has been made by the Church, the Church must be continuous, so Vatican II is Tradition. And we say, beg your pardon?"
http://stas.org/publications/announcements-archive/552-extract-from-sermon-of-bishop-fellay-on-february-2nd-2012.html
The SSPX for a thousand of times stated that they did not wish to separate themselves to Rome more so to the Roman Pontiff. I beg your dear Brother that our differences in opinion be well informed and grounded on sound and factual information. You have great blog that reaches so many of our brothers so please refrain from maligning the Society.
Thanks