Do you support the SSPX?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 7 2006, 04:04 PM']That is from [i]Ecclesia Dei[/i] as you pointed out. Era cited a different letter in post 45.
[right][snapback]939453[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Gotcha, missed that one. It still doesn't seem to be explicit forbidding, moreso a pleading. But it could very well be. I want to run this by someone who originally suggested such a letter didn't exist.

[Cam42]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 8 2006, 02:10 AM']Gotcha, missed that one.  It still doesn't seem to be explicit forbidding, moreso a pleading.  But it could very well be.  I want to run this by someone who originally suggested such a letter didn't exist.
[right][snapback]939808[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Here is clear documentation from Cardinal Gantin, speaking in his proper role as prefect of the Congregation of Bishops; not in a private discussion:

[quote name='From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops' date=' 1 July 1988.']Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.

Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication latae sententiae as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.

--BERNARDINUS Card. GANTIN
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops[/quote]

Also, here is a link to the [url="http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360"]30 Days[/url] article to which Amator Veritatis was referring. As you can see Cardinal Castrillion considers the consecrations to be illegal.

Again, there is no need to declare this a formal schism, because the actions of the late Archbishop, bishops and priests are schismatic [i]ipso facto[/i].

[MC Just]

Let me just say that I have more respect for them then I do for Protestants. I am saddened that they are treated like heretics and worse than protestants.

[Era Might]

Protestants don't claim to be Catholic. The SSPX does. They have no excuse.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 8 2006, 11:49 AM']Protestants don't claim to be Catholic. The SSPX does. They have no excuse.
[right][snapback]940132[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

they are catholic, they just have some problems with VII, which hopefully will be healed soon. We have to get them to come back, not push them away like ya'll are so good at doing. so much for unity.

Edited April 8, 2006 by MC Just

[Era Might]

That's all well and good that they have problems. But when your answer to those problems is schism, you will be treated like a schismatic.

When the first generation or so of SSPXers die off, and children are born into these errors, they will be accorded the same gentle disposition that we give Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Until then, the SSPX Bishops profess to be Catholic, and cling to schism, which is a heinous sin against the Body of Christ. In the spirit of St. Paul, they have been delivered to Satan for the destruction of their flesh, that their souls may be saved on the day of judgement. (1Tim 1:20 and 1Cor 5:5)

Edited April 8, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

And do we accord the same concern to Priests who have left the Church to get married? Or Call to Action? Or Catholics for a free choice? Shouldn't we be all about unity with them too? Or do we only play the unity card when it pleases our own personal agenda?

[MC Just]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 8 2006, 12:08 PM']And do we accord the same concern to Priests who have left the Church to get married? Or Call to Action? Or Catholics for a free choice? Shouldn't we be all about unity with them too? Or do we only play the unity card when it pleases our own personal agenda?
[right][snapback]940144[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

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.

[Era Might]

The SSPX is often dealt with harshly on Phatmass because a lot of people come here to seduce other Catholics with the venom of the SSPX or other Radical "Traditionalist" groups. It's a serious problem. The SSPX is leading people AWAY from the Church. They are leading people to attack the Vicar of Christ, to attack the Holy Liturgy, to attack an Ecumenical Council.

If the SSPX weren't cloaked in Latin, and they advanced these errors, would we be so sympathetic? If they went into schism because they wanted Priests to marry, and they rejected the Council of Trent and doubted the validity and the doctrinal exactitude of the Latin Mass, would we not be vigilant against their attempts to lead us astray?

I'm all for dialogue, even with SSPX folks. But Radical "Traditionalism" and the SSPX must be addressed with all the gravity that they present, because they are a real temptation for a lot of Catholics. They are anti-Catholic, leading people away from the Church. Your average Protestant respects the Catholic Church, even if he disagrees with it. 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.

Pope St. Pius X had a thing or two to say about such people:

[quote]Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her. ...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments...then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.[/quote]

[Era Might]

And, by the way, how do people on Phatmass treat Call to Action, or Catholics for a free choice? They treat them with the same gravity that they treat the SSPX. I don't see any inconsistency here.

Dissent is dissent.

[Cam42]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Apr 8 2006, 03:13 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]

The only agenda is this:

[quote]Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.

In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.

1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.

2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.

Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was:

1.  In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X." His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:

2.  [b]We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why.[/b] If your primary reason for attending 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. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:

3.  It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."

Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:

This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the 'traditional' Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.

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 the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it.

Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice."

We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.

With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary[/quote]

That is what phatmass supports, nothing more, nothing less.

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

I think another poll of, are you sympathetic with sspx might reveal something else.

You can be sympathetic to, but not supportive of...

SHALOM

[Era Might]

[quote name='MC IMaGiNaZUN' date='Apr 8 2006, 06:02 PM']I think another poll of, are you sympathetic with sspx might reveal something else.

You can be sympathetic to, but not supportive of...

SHALOM
[right][snapback]940264[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would say, personally, that I am sympathetic to a lot of the people who associate themselves with the SSPX, but not to the Bishops.

[MC Just]

I am sympathetic. i totally 100% accept Vatican II. I do believe though that way to many people interpreted it wrong and i can understand their aggrivation, but they shouldnt be mad at VII, they should be mad at the lunatics and visionaries of the 60's.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 8 2006, 05:09 PM']I would say, personally, that I am sympathetic to a lot of the people who associate themselves with the SSPX, but not to the Bishops.
[right][snapback]940313[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

hmmm thats funny. ive never noticed that you were sympathetic to anyone on PM that associates themselves with 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.