www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope to meet with SSPX

Alex, as I recently said to an SSPX friend of mine - not one SSPX priest has met his death at the end of a KGB Makarov pistol, died in a gulag nor had to celebrate Mass or Divine Liturgy in a basement with soldiers looking for them. I have sung at the panakhydas of a few of those people and their relatives over the years.

Who are those young, clean shaven SSPXers to tell the Church what it means to be Catholic?

Needless to say my friend had no response.

I do agree with many practices of their's when it comes to the "Liturgy & Prayer" of the "Latin Rite".

There is room for both old and new, however many are afraid of the Old Rite for some reason...

james

Not the many bishops who have allowed either the indult or a Latin Mass order into their dioceses.

I too agree with some of the Archbishop's early observations, Jakub, but schism - and that is clearly where the four bishops of the SSPX are - is a grave and public sin. May we pray it is healed.

Dear Fr. DIAKON,

As always, you are Rite On!

Could you explain my question on the Service of the 12 Psalms?

Can we use the format that is in the psalter for the entire psalter?

Alex

Canon 15 of the First-and-Second Council:

�But as for those persons, on the other hand, who on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, of Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodal verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.�

Catholic Traditionalists do have a point, even if they were wrong to place themselves outside the regular comunion with the Roman Bishops, they have not rejected their Pope, they have not ceased to commemorate him (and the local bishops) and they have done so with good purposes. If they had not done that maybe the values of Traditional Catholicism would have disappeared.

And there's something I cannot understand. I as a person who belongs who an Eastern Church separated from Rome (meaning Orthodox) could take communion at a Roman parish, Orthodox baptism-confirmation-confession are regarded as true mysteries by them, if I was married the marriage would be recognized as valid if I wanted to become a Catholic.

However, the Roman Church here has issued statements saying that the confessions and sacraments of the SSPX (and other traditionalist communities) "have no validity" (and I don't mean they are better than the SSPX who are known to re-baptize and re-confirm too, Archbishop Lefebvre himself re-ordained some modern Roman priests).

Many Catholics consider Orthodox to be just like Catholics, almost the same, almost in full communion, sister churches, while the SSPX and their followers are labeled schismatical, jansenists, sectarians and so on.

Some would hold the idea that the SSPX represents the anti-eastern and ultramontanist faction of Roman Catholicism. This is not always the case, the SSPX has priests in Russia who celebrate only the traditional Orthodox liturgy in Slavonic without latinization (some of them are still members of the MP and yet they provide sacraments and celebrate liturgies for the Catholic communities).

The SSPX people have strongly condemned the destruction of monasteries in Kosova by Muslims, Williamson himself has praised the Serbs' defense of Christianity and some have even praised the Orthodox for rejecting false Ecumenism.

There are many things in common between the thinking of the SSPX and other Traditionalists with the Orthodox Churches: about the State, Nationalism, etc.

Brother Diak,

I'm not one for "church politics" etc, I concern myself with the worship in spirit and truth aspect !

By the way, I ordered The Hours of Prayer, A Book of Devotion per your suggestion on the Prayer topic.

I find myself leaning more easternly everyday...

james

The FSSP, some of whose original members were from the SSPX, the Union of St. John Mary Vianney of Campos, Brazil (the former Latin American branch of the SSPX), and the Priestly Order, Institute of Christ the King, are now thriving communities which celebrate exclusively the TLM!

And, of course, we have priests in various dioceses throughout the U.S. and the world who have been granted individual indults by their respective Bishops under the provisions of Ecclesia Dei!

I hope the SSPX would agree, ad interim, to their reconstitution as an Apostolic Administration, like the Union of St. John Vianney, answering directly only to the Pope!

Do you think they have a chance to be reconstituted as the second, next to Opus Dei, Personal Prelature of the Pope?

Amado

Dear Mexican,

I don't pretend to understand the religious "Lucha Libre" here, but while the Orthodox and Rome disagree over matters of historic doctrinal positions, the SSPX have what appears to be a much deeper disagreement with Rome (which is its own patriarchate).

That disagreement goes well beyond a few doctrinal points.

It is about whether Rome has itself completely become heretical, modernist or has succumbed to another pernicious heresy, according to the SSPX.

That is actually much more significant as a wall of separation as is the fact that the SSPX has taken it upon itself to tell the See of Peter what it should or should not do so as to be "true" to historic Latin Catholicism!

So IF the SSPX believes that Rome and her recent Popes have fallen into modernism, and I believe it does believe that, then the SSPX is itself guilty of the heresy of disbelieving Christ's Words that He Himself would be with His Church until the consummation of the ages.

That Pope Benedict would meet with such at all shows a pastoral benevolence that Pope St Pius X would hardly have countenanced in the face of such in his time.

Alex

Jakub - praying the Hours will likely add to that eastward leaning...

Hi,

Could you please document this claim?

That is, could you provide the documents issued by the Roman Church stating the invalidity of the SSPX sacraments?

As far as I know, the SSPX sacraments are deemed illicit, but not invalid.

Now, I think it is unfair to compare the situation between the SSPX and the Roman Church with the situation between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches.

The origin of the division between Catholics and Orthodox was personal. Either if we go to Humbertus and Michael Cerularius, or if we go all the way back to the Photian controversy.

Either way, a personal situation, compounded with a secular trgedy (the sack of Constantinople), divided Catholics and Orthodox.

All the doctrinal "stuff" came after these issues(I am not talking time-wise but cause/effect-wise).

With the SSPX, the problem is different:

1. They refuse to accept the validity of a General Council.

and

2. They refuse to accept the validity of *the* approved liturgy of the Latin Church, which happens to be their own jurisdiction.

These two issues are Church matters and are fundamental in nature.

Shalom,
Memo

Yes I can quote statements.
http://www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/Bismarck_diocese.pdf

... is necessary for me to point this out and to clearly state that this church does not enjoy communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, please instruct the faithful that they do not fulfill their Mass obligation by attending this church and no sacraments given there enjoy validity.

I've just read the text of the letter of the Bishop of Bismark, N.D., supplied on the link provided by Mexican. Clearly the bishop has confused the two concepts of licitness and validity - such confusion is not unusual these days, and it is not the first time that one finds it in a bishop.

Put simply, a schism does not destroy the validity of sacraments. Examples of this are far too numerous to require quotation.

Incognitus

The Vatican has openly stated that one can attend an SSPX Mass while remaining perfectly kosher, as long as one's intent is not schismatic.

So, go to your local SSPX Mass if the FSSP or ICTK isn't avaiable! As long as you're not bent on schismatic mindsets, it's okay.

I'd love to check out the the SSPX chapel in Atlanta, but the FSSP parish is about 35 minutes closer (well, not anymore), so I opt for that.

Logos Teen

Logos Teen

A personal prelature is not personal because it belongs to the Pope. Its personal because it is tied to its prelate over a jurdistictional area and not a territorial area. Trust me, my spiritual direction is catered for by Opus Dei.

That being said I could imagine the SSPX being made or rejoined with the FSSP as a society of apostolic life. Thats IF they decide to re-enter communion with Rome, which I doubt. They consider Papa Benedetto a neo-modernist (at best) at worst a heretic. I've seen his academic work openly dissected and accused of being heretical on SSPX websites. It seems unlikely to me that they'd make an about face after splitting with the FSSP in the 80's.

Hello,

That might be correct to the letter of the law.

However, it is important to say that the part of the document from the bishop of Bizmark stating that the SSPX mass does not fulfill your Sunday obligation is also correct.

The bishop's document is indeed confusing validity with licitness, if applied to the Eucharist.

Not so concerning Confession. You see, for a confession to be sacramentally valid, the priest hearing the confession needs permission from the bishop.

If the bishops says that in his diocese confessions heard by SSPX priests are invalid, then they are invalid.

Shalom,
Memo