Author Topic: SSPV (Read 23070 times)

Tiffany · « **on:** May 10, 2013, 05:51:28 AM »

I found an SSPV chapel and called to see if anyone traveled from our neck of the woods. The person I spoke with was extremely nice but a few things seemed off.
It was explained that I would have to go through instruction from the priest first and be conditionally baptized before I could receive communion. And that this was a long process. Later in the call they asked if I would be OK with the conditional baptism.
They wanted to know the first & last name of the priest who baptized me. OK if our baptism wasn't valid, would a lay person determine that and why do they need his first and last name? Isn't the parish/date/Fr Last Name good enough?
They asked if my child was on board with what I was trying to do (What am I trying to do but attend Mass and secondly we don't give children a "say" with Mass attendance?)
The person was very nice but I just got an uneasy feeling from it all.

Stubborn · « **Reply #1 on:** May 10, 2013, 06:57:28 AM »

Well it's no wonder you got an uneasy feeling - who the heck wouldn't?

I would try to understand why that person was asking you those questions etc. and that with the way things are these days, the person you spoke with had only the best intentions.

I don't necessarily agree with SSPV doing this, but under the circuмstances, I don't entirely disagree with it either.

If I were you, I would either make an appointment to speak with the priest or just show up for confession and discuss it there.

I'd be interested to hear more about this if you decide to follow through.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #2 on:** May 10, 2013, 07:52:25 AM »

Not to mention that it's really hard to mess up baptism. Like, really hard.

Cheryl · « **Reply #3 on:** May 10, 2013, 08:02:33 AM »

Hey Tiffany, long time no see!

Others on the group might better be able to help you, but I have read on this forum that if you go with the SSPV, you have to stay pretty much with them. No going to a CMRI chapel while on vacation, or attending the SGG group, etc. It's hard enough these days receiving valid sacraments without various groups playing silly games! Remember, any woman worth her salt always goes with her gut. And in this instance, I'd trust mine if I were you.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #4 on:** May 10, 2013, 08:48:39 AM »

Thanks for sharing this, Tiffany.

Getting through the SSPV screening process and into that cult was the single worst moral disaster to happen to our family. They have since tightened their "process" of fraudulent sacramental discernment, I see. I sincerely thank God for this, for the sake of others confused by the crisis in the Church.

All we had to do was sign a contract stating we had not, and would not take sacraments from any Thuc line clergy. At that time, we figured there must be a very good reason, and were ignorant of what the Church has always taught.

One of their nuns told me that she had to be (joyfully) conditionally re-Confirmed.

As a girl she had received Confirmation by...Archbishop Lefebvre...

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #5 on:** May 10, 2013, 09:00:18 AM »

Good Lord Elizabeth that is troubling.

brainglitch · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2013, 09:14:38 AM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

One of their nuns told me that she had to be (joyfully) conditionally re-Confirmed.

As a girl she had received Confirmation by...Archbishop Lefebvre...

That is insane. And diabolical...?

Elizabeth · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10, 2013, 09:52:39 AM »

It's the tip of the iceberg with that cult. By now they are so very well-funded and inter-married they can afford to be more careful in screening "outsiders" as they are called. There are large families with, say, one being a priest and the other two are nuns.

Over time, they became skilled in convincing people that they are the only ones with the authority to confect and administer Catholic sacraments in the "End Times".

Tiffany is way more alert to something being a bit off than we were.

bowler · « **Reply #8 on:** May 10, 2013, 10:04:47 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Not to mention that it's really hard to mess up baptism. Like, really hard.

AND the SSPV are adamant defenders of salvation by implicit faith, let alone baptism of desire of the catechumen.

They teach that a Jєω, Muslim or any other non-Catholic can be saved by "sincerely" believing and practicing their religion, HOWEVER, the SSPV says that they must conditionally baptize a Catholic?

Thanks for the warning!

bowler · « **Reply #9 on:** May 10, 2013, 10:09:09 AM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

One of their nuns told me that she had to be (joyfully) conditionally re-Confirmed.

As a girl she had received Confirmation by...Archbishop Lefebvre...

Even if we are confirmed invalidly, it is not like not being baptized. Confirmation is just added armor, it is not an absolute necessity for salvation.

Many of these SSPV priests were ordained by Abp. L. Now that sacrament is crucial!

Tiffany · « **Reply #10 on:** May 10, 2013, 10:44:33 AM »

Another weird thing was that Baltimore Catechism #3 wasn't OK.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #11 on:** May 10, 2013, 10:51:03 AM »

The SSPV is pretty straightforward about the questionable validity of baptisms post-1970. They are very nice about it all but they do take their Catholicism seriously.

Changes change things, man - as Cheech and Chong would say. And if the papal claimant starts saying that everybody's truth is the truth and removes words from the rite of ordination and the rite of consecration and completely rewrites the Mass (making changes that coincide nicely with the protestant and atheist point of view) - well, a person who takes their Catholicism seriously should want this to be examined to ensure than validity was met.

I'm not saying I agree completely but I do agree substantially.

SJB · « **Reply #12 on:** May 10, 2013, 10:59:17 AM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Thanks for sharing this, Tiffany.

Getting through the SSPV screening process and into that cult was the single worst moral disaster to happen to our family. They have since tightened their "process" of fraudulent sacramental discernment, I see. I sincerely thank God for this, for the sake of others confused by the crisis in the Church.

All we had to do was sign a contract stating we had not, and would not take sacraments from any Thuc line clergy. At that time, we figured there must be a very good reason, and were ignorant of what the Church has always taught.

One of their nuns told me that she had to be (joyfully) conditionally re-Confirmed.

As a girl she had received Confirmation by...Archbishop Lefebvre...

So now the mask is off (once again). Interesting considering the things you said a few years ago where you stated the problems you had with SSPV were all just a big misunderstanding.

I think Tiffany's concerns are legitimate based on what she was told directly from SSPV.

Tiffany, did they elaborate as to why Baltimore Catechism #3 is off limits? Does that mean they don't teach from it or you can't teach from it?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #13 on:** May 10, 2013, 11:03:27 AM »

If it is true that AS A GROUP and AS A RULE the SSPV is demanding conditionalbaptisms from NO converts, that is enormously troubling. Its the simplest sacrament to perform. There aren't really any tricks involved. You use water and the tribitarian form (Father Son and Holy Ghost ) and its valid. That's it. It could be performed by a voodoo priest and as long as the form and matter are true (with intent, which is assumed upon meeting form and matter) then its a valid sacramen and the person is baptized. Baptizing conditionally without sufficient reason is a grave sin.

From phone

s2srea · « **Reply #14 on:** May 10, 2013, 11:04:55 AM »

Quote from: SJB

So now the mask is off (once again). Interesting considering the things you said a few years ago where you stated the problems you had with SSPV were all just a big misunderstanding.

Really- you found it worth your time to point out a person's position from more than a year ago on this thread? I can see if she was singing a different tune a week ago, but "a few years"? Tsk Tsk Tsk.