Let us not suggest who may be influencing whom. Let us rather ask a much more interesting question: why now ?
Just a few weeks ago +W was spouting ( a word he loves btw) on whether one could go to the NOM or not now it's the SSPX with quite an opposite extreme position.
AGAIN: WHY NOW ?
It is not that simple to translate a proper principle into action given all the conflicting considerations of Faith involved.
It's too bad that His Excellency continues to justify attending the Masses of priests that are supposedly still orthodox. This position ignores that these priests, by their silence, adopt the official principles of the neo-SSPX.
To say that, as a general rule, one ought not attend SSPX Masses is an unfortunate slide toward the erroneous Fr. Pfeiffer position.
Let us not suggest who may be influencing whom. Let us rather ask a much more interesting question: why now ?
Just a few weeks ago +W was spouting ( a word he loves btw) on whether one could go to the NOM or not now it's the SSPX with quite an opposite extreme position.
AGAIN: WHY NOW ?
Quote from: curioustradLet us not suggest who may be influencing whom. Let us rather ask a much more interesting question: why now ?
Just a few weeks ago +W was spouting ( a word he loves btw) on whether one could go to the NOM or not now it's the SSPX with quite an opposite extreme position.
AGAIN: WHY NOW ?
I ask you the same thing, curioustrad. WHY ARE YOU BACK NOW? You've been gone for months.
Quote from: parentsfortruthQuote from: curioustradLet us not suggest who may be influencing whom. Let us rather ask a much more interesting question: why now ?
Just a few weeks ago +W was spouting ( a word he loves btw) on whether one could go to the NOM or not now it's the SSPX with quite an opposite extreme position.
AGAIN: WHY NOW ?
I ask you the same thing, curioustrad. WHY ARE YOU BACK NOW? You've been gone for months.
No, I never left ! Glad to see yah !
Quote from: curioustradQuote from: parentsfortruthQuote from: curioustradLet us not suggest who may be influencing whom. Let us rather ask a much more interesting question: why now ?
Just a few weeks ago +W was spouting ( a word he loves btw) on whether one could go to the NOM or not now it's the SSPX with quite an opposite extreme position.
AGAIN: WHY NOW ?
I ask you the same thing, curioustrad. WHY ARE YOU BACK NOW? You've been gone for months.
No, I never left ! Glad to see yah !
So you were just lurking since April. Okay. As they say "silence is golden." It was better when you were lurking.
This is disappointing:
It would seem that Bishop Williamson is coming under the influence of Fr. Pfeiffer, rather than the other way around.
Bishop Williamson's position was the more balanced of the two conflicting opinions on SSPX Mass attendance.
To say that, as a general rule, one ought not attend SSPX Masses is an unfortunate slide toward the erroneous Fr. Pfeiffer position.
Natural enough, I suppose, since Fr. Pfeiffer is in the leadership position.
But as His Lordship said when he was here in St. Paul:
"Those who do not act the way they think, will begin to think the way they act."
Bishop Williamson should have condemned Fr. Pfeiffer's "red light" long ago.
For one reason or another, he did not.
And so now he endorses it.
With qualifications, but nevertheless...
Quote from: Ecclesia MilitansIt's too bad that His Excellency continues to justify attending the Masses of priests that are supposedly still orthodox. This position ignores that these priests, by their silence, adopt the official principles of the neo-SSPX.
It would be nice if you could actually demonstrate that the principles of the SSPX are not in fact Catholic principles.
God Bless my fellow Canadian!
Quote from: SeanJohnsonThis is disappointing:
It would seem that Bishop Williamson is coming under the influence of Fr. Pfeiffer, rather than the other way around.
Bishop Williamson's position was the more balanced of the two conflicting opinions on SSPX Mass attendance.
To say that, as a general rule, one ought not attend SSPX Masses is an unfortunate slide toward the erroneous Fr. Pfeiffer position.
Natural enough, I suppose, since Fr. Pfeiffer is in the leadership position.
But as His Lordship said when he was here in St. Paul:
"Those who do not act the way they think, will begin to think the way they act."
Bishop Williamson should have condemned Fr. Pfeiffer's "red light" long ago.
For one reason or another, he did not.
And so now he endorses it.
With qualifications, but nevertheless...
How to gauge the chapels of the neoSSPX ? :scratchchin:
Wouldn't it be interesting to take an anonymous poll of their priest and see who are really 100% behind Msgr. Fellay ?
Most of them are validly ordained, many holy, but there is something lacking in their character that keeps them there.
Every priest has his own story and reason, but the longer they stay under the Fellay regime, the greater the risk to their priesthood.
My friend takes the next step and says... "the greater the risk to their souls".
How is a softening of the stance toward Vatican II not against the Faith?
Vatican II is about the worst thing to happen to the Church since Arianism. Modernism is the most dangerous heresy that has ever been devised by the devil. The devil saved his big guns for the 20th century with Modernism.
Laying down one's arms even for a minute to "be nice" to Vatican II -- the child and incarnation of Modernism -- is tantamount to treason.
It is like the general of an army going in unarmed to "talk terms of peace" with an enemy with a ruthless and vicious reputation. But not just the general alone, but he is trying to get a huge group of his commanders and soldiers to go with him. So the kingdom could be at risk because of the apparent treachery (for lack of a better term) of this general.
Modernism isn't a joke. Vatican II isn't a joke. It's not harmless. It's not 95% good. It's the devil's secret weapon. It's his trump card.
How many souls have left the Faith because of Vatican II? Just like one cannot praise the Blessed Mother enough, one cannot condemn Vatican II enough.
Religious liberty is against the Faith.
Splitting a few hairs there, sean.
Sean, for the sake of discussion, if you conclude that you should still attend SSPX Masses in order to fulfill Sunday obligation, do you have any reason not to also support the Resistance whenever and however possible?
FOR THE RECORD:
I called Fr. Hewko on my way home from work today. Discussed this forum, and asked his permission to use his words. I explained this forum, the disagreement, my rationale for attending the SSPX for mass. He said it was okay. He said what another member here mentioned earlier. Objectively, we should not attend the SSPX due to the hierarchy's lost ways. Subjectively, we cannot judge each and every priest as having sold out, though we can say they should be more active in speaking out against the inevitable sell-out, and so it is permissible to attend the SSPX for mass.
I hope this clears things up, coming from one of the main Resistance priests.
I would have a problem supporting any priest throwing up a blanket red light on SSPX Mass attendance, since I believe doing so is leading people into mortal sin.
I would have a problem supporting any priest throwing up a blanket red light on SSPX Mass attendance, since I believe doing so is leading people into mortal sin.
I will not be complicit in that.
Unless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy.....
Quote from: SeanJohnsonUnless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy.....
The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter:
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/09/04/more-on-the-first-essential-condition-of-the-sspx-2012-general-chapter/
Quote from: SeanJohnsonUnless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy.....
The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter:
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/09/04/more-on-the-first-essential-condition-of-the-sspx-2012-general-chapter/
The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter
I think what Bishop Williamson says makes perfect sense.
The SSPX went from condemning NO and Modernism and now is, in many chapels, remaining silent or indifferent. It happened in my chapel. The priests went silent and began telling individuals that the NO was "like food, but not the best food."
Quote from: Ecclesia MilitansQuote from: SeanJohnsonUnless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy.....
The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter:
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/09/04/more-on-the-first-essential-condition-of-the-sspx-2012-general-chapter/
Which dogma do you consider it contradicts?
Quote from: Ecclesia MilitansQuote from: SeanJohnsonUnless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy.....
The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter:
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/09/04/more-on-the-first-essential-condition-of-the-sspx-2012-general-chapter/
____ shame that you are trying to keep people from attending Mass.
SJ:QuoteThe neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter
I think you are correct, especially in view of the legacy handed down to us from the Archbishop.
Quote from: SeanJohnsonQuote from: Ecclesia MilitansQuote from: SeanJohnsonUnless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy.....
The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter:
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/09/04/more-on-the-first-essential-condition-of-the-sspx-2012-general-chapter/
Which dogma do you consider it contradicts?
The same ones that are attacked by VII's ecuмenism and religious liberty.
Quote from: Ecclesia MilitansQuote from: SeanJohnsonQuote from: Ecclesia MilitansQuote from: SeanJohnsonUnless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy.....
The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter:
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/09/04/more-on-the-first-essential-condition-of-the-sspx-2012-general-chapter/
Which dogma do you consider it contradicts?
The same ones that are attacked by VII's ecuмenism and religious liberty.
Care to demonstrate it in a syllogism?
:whistleblower: As you move towards a compromise with Vatican II errors you're moving AWAY fm Catholic priniciples...but that's too obvious for some people...
I also don't care much for the new rebranded SSPX..but I refuse to go nowhere on sunday
....there's the Insult Mass where ladies in tight print pants come to see what the bells and smells are all about...There's the Maronite Mass 100 mi away in Greer, SC...that's just Vatican II in arabic w/a little aramaic thrown in during the Consecration...awful homilies..mindless happy talk..no modesty fm "ladies" who show up 90 seconds b4 Mass is over bc they had to get their hair done...everything Pope Francis does/says is interpreted in the best, most improbable, way possible....So when Fr. Hewko comes to town he's like a cool drink in the middle of the desert.
Ecclesia Militans is right, Sean.
If there was ever a reason for not attending the Indult, then there is also now a reason for not attending the SSPX. If there is no reason for staying away from the SSPX ("They haven't formally proclaimed a heresy as such or contradicted a dogma") then there was never a reason for staying away from the Indult Mass. In which case its all fine, just find yourself a Latin Mass that's not too far away, don't worry too much about the crisis in the Church, etc.
There are seven or eight, (or maybe more) Indult Masses in London, all in proper churches, many of them in very beautiful churches indeed, many of them in nice, central, easy-to-get-to locations. Whereas there was only one SSPX church in a somewhat run-down, not all that central area, and a tiny chapel in a house on a suburban street. And yet we and many others went to the SSPX only. Now we won't go to the SSPX. The Indult priests hadn't formally contradicted a dogma in the way you seek. And neither has the SSPX. But both contradict the faith in their actions, by compromising with the enemies of the Faith.
If you don't want to take the hard step of leaving the SSPX then you will always be able to find a thousand reasons for not doing it. But the real reason will still be that you don't want to.
.
Sean Johnson,
You really ought to take a lesson from Ed., because he's trying to be
patient with you. If you can't see that a compromise on principles at
this level is tantamount to complete denial of Catholic doctrine, then
there is no more Catholic spirit left in you, and you really ought to just
slide over with the Bergoglio fans because that's where you're headed.
It might sound harsh, but there is no such thing as compromise when
it comes to doctrine. The first step AWAY that you take is the the
END of your faithfulness. +Fellay has been LOCK-STEPPING away ever
since GREC started. If you want to save your soul, have no part of
what the devil proffers. As Our Lord said, you're either for Him or
you're against Him. And +Fellay is definitely not among the former any
more, if he ever was in the first place. Now, that could change, and
he could convert, but in the meantime, he's a wolf in the clothing of
sheep, and he's busy leading the blind into the pit. Are you going to
follow him?
It's your choice, as always.
10) But you cannot claim that even the branding campaign is a denial of the Faith (i.e., a negetive omission to condemn error), since it offends no Catholic doctrine;
11) Were that not the case, then you could make the argument that over the past 40 years, every SSPX sermon that did not condemn some error of Vatican II violated the Faith, which is absurd.
12) The branding campaign is a serious concern, which will have serious adverse consequences over time for both laymen, the Church, and the SSPX itself.
The fact remains that the trunk of the SSPX is mortally stricken, without hope, humanly speaking, of recovery.
Like the ѕуηαgσgυє between the death of Our Lord on the Cross and the destruction of Jerusalem in [LXX] A.D, it is carrying death within it, but it is not yet dead.
Apostles preached there, and good Jєωs still attended, but they were all persecuted and eventually thrown out.
If a Catholic can see today that throughout the body of the SSPX, from the head downwards, the deadly virus of a disguised Conciliar mentality is coursing, he must take action to help rescue as many souls as possible before they make shipwreck in the faith with the sinking lifeboat.
Let him (a Catholic man), to forge his own convictions, read all he can lay his hands on, starting with (CathInfo!! and TheRecusant!!) the exchange of letters between the three bishops and Bishop Fellay in April of 2012.
Let him talk to priests and fellow-parishioners, to co-ordinate, for instance, the putting together of refuges for priests who might not otherwise take action.
There is much to be done, however few there are, at least for the moment, to do it. God is with these few.
Regarding point 11 --
Never condemning error is one thing. Condemning error sufficiently, then taking a couple weeks to have sermons on the Gospel of the day is another.
I don't know the name of that fallacy, but it strikes me as bad logic.
It's not the exact same fallacy, but it reminds me of the cloudiness and confusion demonstrated in my favorite example: "I saw Father watching The Passion of the Christ once. So excuse me while I buy a big screen TV, put it in my living room, get a subscription to cable, and watch the thing 4-5 hours a day. If you start shaking your finger, I'll point out that Father watches TV, too!"
Maybe I'll call the fallacy, "Taking refuge in shades of gray?"
I appreciate the humor Neil...and now you've gotten me as well for sloppy grammar...Durn goat ate my dictionary..
So when Fr. Hewko comes to town he's like a cool drink in the middle of the desert.
Quote from: MatthewRegarding point 11 --
Never condemning error is one thing. Condemning error sufficiently, then taking a couple weeks to have sermons on the Gospel of the day is another.
I don't know the name of that fallacy, but it strikes me as bad logic.
It's not the exact same fallacy, but it reminds me of the cloudiness and confusion demonstrated in my favorite example: "I saw Father watching The Passion of the Christ once. So excuse me while I buy a big screen TV, put it in my living room, get a subscription to cable, and watch the thing 4-5 hours a day. If you start shaking your finger, I'll point out that Father watches TV, too!"
Maybe I'll call the fallacy, "Taking refuge in shades of gray?"
I'm sure you appreciated hearing the great Fr. Hewko's sermons when he came
to visit your home, Matthew. There used to be a time when the world had many
great priests like him preaching great sermons but no more. You have been in
the presence of a rare blessing, and it's something you will not soon forget, if
ever. He may condemn errors a little more often than he'd like to do, but he's
also trying to catch up on lost time. He might not be back for a few months.
That's a lot of time. And for you, it had been what, years?
Quote from: SeanJohnson
10) But you cannot claim that even the branding campaign is a denial of the Faith (i.e., a negetive omission to condemn error), since it offends no Catholic doctrine;
11) Were that not the case, then you could make the argument that over the past 40 years, every SSPX sermon that did not condemn some error of Vatican II violated the Faith, which is absurd.
12) The branding campaign is a serious concern, which will have serious adverse consequences over time for both laymen, the Church, and the SSPX itself.
I think point 10 is where I disagree.
Let me ask you this: In what way would attending my wife's old Novus Ordo parish directly violate a dogma of the Faith, as you keep inquiring about the SSPX Masses?
It's a pretty average Novus Ordo parish in small-town Texas. A celibate male priest celebrates the Mass; there's a consecration; they sing typical Novus Ordo hymns. They follow the Novus Ordo rubrics pretty well. They used to have Stations during Lent (no multimedia, either) But since it's not California, you don't have anything ridiculous (improper matter for consecration, Barney the Dinosaur, clown costumes, etc.)
Sure, the whole experience is evil BY OMISSION seven ways from Sunday. It probably also has various defects of prudence, going against Tradition, etc. But do they openly teach any heresies? I doubt it. The sermons are probably vapid, but they contain nothing contrary to the Faith.
I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at, but for the people at home --
You could apply your logic to justify attending Indult, or even Novus Ordo Masses when there's nothing else available.
Quote from: MatthewQuote from: SeanJohnson
10) But you cannot claim that even the branding campaign is a denial of the Faith (i.e., a negetive omission to condemn error), since it offends no Catholic doctrine;
11) Were that not the case, then you could make the argument that over the past 40 years, every SSPX sermon that did not condemn some error of Vatican II violated the Faith, which is absurd.
12) The branding campaign is a serious concern, which will have serious adverse consequences over time for both laymen, the Church, and the SSPX itself.
I think point 10 is where I disagree.
Let me ask you this: In what way would attending my wife's old Novus Ordo parish directly violate a dogma of the Faith, as you keep inquiring about the SSPX Masses?
It's a pretty average Novus Ordo parish in small-town Texas. A celibate male priest celebrates the Mass; there's a consecration; they sing typical Novus Ordo hymns. They follow the Novus Ordo rubrics pretty well. They used to have Stations during Lent (no multimedia, either) But since it's not California, you don't have anything ridiculous (improper matter for consecration, Barney the Dinosaur, clown costumes, etc.)
Sure, the whole experience is evil BY OMISSION seven ways from Sunday. It probably also has various defects of prudence, going against Tradition, etc. But do they openly teach any heresies? I doubt it. The sermons are probably vapid, but they contain nothing contrary to the Faith.
I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at, but for the people at home --
You could apply your logic to justify attending Indult, or even Novus Ordo Masses when there's nothing else available.
Matthew-
I understand the point you are attempting to make, but it doesn't wash:
A review of the introduction to the Ottaviani Intervention will refresh your memory on the doctrines denied in the definition of the new "Mass," beginning with:
"...it represents both as a whole, and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent".
See the rest for other specific doctrines denied here:
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm
The First Condition of the 2012 SSPX General Chapter:
1) By asking for the freedom to teach the Faith and condemn errors against the same Faith, the SSPX gives the false impression that to do these things is not a most grave obligation, but simply a right that may or may not be granted.
2) By setting aside the doctrinal differences between the SSPX and Rome, it establishes a unity that is not based on the Faith. This is therefore a false unity. This is a variant of non-Catholic ecuмenism.
3) By not demanding Rome to teach the Faith and condemn errors against the same Faith, the SSPX implicitly but necessarily acknowledges that Rome has the right to teach errors against the Faith. This is a variant of non-Catholic religious liberty.
This official policy of the neo-SSPX, signed by Bishop Fellay and 40 superiors, is most certainly an attack against the Catholic Faith and therefore justifies forgoing assisting at their Masses and even imposes a duty not to do so.
Quote from: Ecclesia MilitansThe First Condition of the 2012 SSPX General Chapter:
1) By asking for the freedom to teach the Faith and condemn errors against the same Faith, the SSPX gives the false impression that to do these things is not a most grave obligation, but simply a right that may or may not be granted.
2) By setting aside the doctrinal differences between the SSPX and Rome, it establishes a unity that is not based on the Faith. This is therefore a false unity. This is a variant of non-Catholic ecuмenism.
3) By not demanding Rome to teach the Faith and condemn errors against the same Faith, the SSPX implicitly but necessarily acknowledges that Rome has the right to teach errors against the Faith. This is a variant of non-Catholic religious liberty.
This official policy of the neo-SSPX, signed by Bishop Fellay and 40 superiors, is most certainly an attack against the Catholic Faith and therefore justifies forgoing assisting at their Masses and even imposes a duty not to do so.
...except that it is not official policy.
Quote from: SeanJohnsonQuote from: Ecclesia MilitansThe First Condition of the 2012 SSPX General Chapter:
1) By asking for the freedom to teach the Faith and condemn errors against the same Faith, the SSPX gives the false impression that to do these things is not a most grave obligation, but simply a right that may or may not be granted.
2) By setting aside the doctrinal differences between the SSPX and Rome, it establishes a unity that is not based on the Faith. This is therefore a false unity. This is a variant of non-Catholic ecuмenism.
3) By not demanding Rome to teach the Faith and condemn errors against the same Faith, the SSPX implicitly but necessarily acknowledges that Rome has the right to teach errors against the Faith. This is a variant of non-Catholic religious liberty.
This official policy of the neo-SSPX, signed by Bishop Fellay and 40 superiors, is most certainly an attack against the Catholic Faith and therefore justifies forgoing assisting at their Masses and even imposes a duty not to do so.
...except that it is not official policy.
What are you talking about? The First Condition is what the SSPX has bound itself to in principle.
Quote from: IncredulousQuote from: SeanJohnsonThis is disappointing:
It would seem that Bishop Williamson is coming under the influence of Fr. Pfeiffer, rather than the other way around.
Bishop Williamson's position was the more balanced of the two conflicting opinions on SSPX Mass attendance.
To say that, as a general rule, one ought not attend SSPX Masses is an unfortunate slide toward the erroneous Fr. Pfeiffer position.
Natural enough, I suppose, since Fr. Pfeiffer is in the leadership position.
But as His Lordship said when he was here in St. Paul:
"Those who do not act the way they think, will begin to think the way they act."
Bishop Williamson should have condemned Fr. Pfeiffer's "red light" long ago.
For one reason or another, he did not.
And so now he endorses it.
With qualifications, but nevertheless...
How to gauge the chapels of the neoSSPX ? :scratchchin:
Wouldn't it be interesting to take an anonymous poll of their priest and see who are really 100% behind Msgr. Fellay ?
Most of them are validly ordained, many holy, but there is something lacking in their character that keeps them there.
Every priest has his own story and reason, but the longer they stay under the Fellay regime, the greater the risk to their priesthood.
My friend takes the next step and says... "the greater the risk to their souls".
Pretty easy to gauge, actually:
Unless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy (e.g., as the 1984 indult required acknowledgement of the doctrinal uprightness of the NOM in order to avail oneself of the indult);
Or, unless the priest preaches error from the pulpit;
Then you must attend.
But the concern at present is not the positive teaching of error, but the omission to condemn the errors of Vatican II and the Roman modernists (per the branding campaign, and Cardinal Canizares' appeal to focus on spirituality and virtue, rather than condemning the heretics).
But I doubt very much the omission is sufficient to abstain from Mass, since it would be a very remote threat, and dangerous only over extended periods of time.
It is a shame that the sword has been dropped, for sure (though our priest is having a conference on Vatican II between the Masses today, which I was not able to attend).
If there was/is a deal with Rome, that threat would become more proximate, but even this is only a possible future contingency, remote in time, and by no means certain.
The problem with Fr. Pfeiffer's position is that it places souls in immediate danger (violation of the Sabbath without justification).
Yes, he thinks there is justification, but his rationale is easily refuted:
1) We cannot attend FSSP Masses because they have officially compromised on doctrine (i.e., accepting the errors of Vatican II);
2) But Bishop Fellay's doctrinal declaration also officially accepts the errors of Vatican II;
3) Therefore, we also cannot any longer attend SSPX Masses.
Leaving aside a critique of the various passages Fr. Pfeiffer thinks accepted Vatican II, or violated the Faith, the simple fact is that the Declaration is NOT OFFICIAL POLICY.
Therefore the attempted justification/command to abstain from SSPX Masses (built completely on this illusory premise) vanishes.
If President Obama sponsors a bill which gets shot down in the Senate, can we still pretend it is the law of the land, and take actions based on something that never became law?
Similarly with the Declaration.
The only concern (unless Rome starts warming up to Bishop Fellay again) is the branding campaign; the slow conditioning of priests and faithful not to hate Vatican II so much.
Over time, this will facilitate the coveted agreement with a still-modernist Rome, and when that happens, the SSPX will be swallowed up and dissolved into Conciliarism.
But even this is not a doctrinal issue; it is an incredibly scandalous and imprudent political strategy; a move away from Archbishop Lefebvre's combat against error; designed to bring about an end which will be the SSPX's undoing, but not against the Faith.
Quote from: SeanJohnsonQuote from: IncredulousQuote from: SeanJohnsonThis is disappointing:
It would seem that Bishop Williamson is coming under the influence of Fr. Pfeiffer, rather than the other way around.
Bishop Williamson's position was the more balanced of the two conflicting opinions on SSPX Mass attendance.
To say that, as a general rule, one ought not attend SSPX Masses is an unfortunate slide toward the erroneous Fr. Pfeiffer position.
Natural enough, I suppose, since Fr. Pfeiffer is in the leadership position.
But as His Lordship said when he was here in St. Paul:
"Those who do not act the way they think, will begin to think the way they act."
Bishop Williamson should have condemned Fr. Pfeiffer's "red light" long ago.
For one reason or another, he did not.
And so now he endorses it.
With qualifications, but nevertheless...
How to gauge the chapels of the neoSSPX ? :scratchchin:
Wouldn't it be interesting to take an anonymous poll of their priest and see who are really 100% behind Msgr. Fellay ?
Most of them are validly ordained, many holy, but there is something lacking in their character that keeps them there.
Every priest has his own story and reason, but the longer they stay under the Fellay regime, the greater the risk to their priesthood.
My friend takes the next step and says... "the greater the risk to their souls".
Pretty easy to gauge, actually:
Unless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy (e.g., as the 1984 indult required acknowledgement of the doctrinal uprightness of the NOM in order to avail oneself of the indult);
Or, unless the priest preaches error from the pulpit;
Then you must attend.
But the concern at present is not the positive teaching of error, but the omission to condemn the errors of Vatican II and the Roman modernists (per the branding campaign, and Cardinal Canizares' appeal to focus on spirituality and virtue, rather than condemning the heretics).
But I doubt very much the omission is sufficient to abstain from Mass, since it would be a very remote threat, and dangerous only over extended periods of time.
It is a shame that the sword has been dropped, for sure (though our priest is having a conference on Vatican II between the Masses today, which I was not able to attend).
If there was/is a deal with Rome, that threat would become more proximate, but even this is only a possible future contingency, remote in time, and by no means certain.
The problem with Fr. Pfeiffer's position is that it places souls in immediate danger (violation of the Sabbath without justification).
Yes, he thinks there is justification, but his rationale is easily refuted:
1) We cannot attend FSSP Masses because they have officially compromised on doctrine (i.e., accepting the errors of Vatican II);
2) But Bishop Fellay's doctrinal declaration also officially accepts the errors of Vatican II;
3) Therefore, we also cannot any longer attend SSPX Masses.
Leaving aside a critique of the various passages Fr. Pfeiffer thinks accepted Vatican II, or violated the Faith, the simple fact is that the Declaration is NOT OFFICIAL POLICY.
Therefore the attempted justification/command to abstain from SSPX Masses (built completely on this illusory premise) vanishes.
If President Obama sponsors a bill which gets shot down in the Senate, can we still pretend it is the law of the land, and take actions based on something that never became law?
Similarly with the Declaration.
The only concern (unless Rome starts warming up to Bishop Fellay again) is the branding campaign; the slow conditioning of priests and faithful not to hate Vatican II so much.
Over time, this will facilitate the coveted agreement with a still-modernist Rome, and when that happens, the SSPX will be swallowed up and dissolved into Conciliarism.
But even this is not a doctrinal issue; it is an incredibly scandalous and imprudent political strategy; a move away from Archbishop Lefebvre's combat against error; designed to bring about an end which will be the SSPX's undoing, but not against the Faith.
Sean-- you are kidding-- right???
Have you lost your bearings? Who have you been listening too? Who has been whispering in your ear ? Look at your second to last statement:"ver time, this will facilitate the coveted agreement witha still-modernist Rome...the SSPX will be swallowed up and dissolved into conciliarism" !!!
This is the Conciliar Church to which Archbishop Lefebvre said he had " NO INTEREST " in joining. You can see yourself that the logical, direct, unavaoidable conclusion of the present course of action is to join the conciliar religion!
You are admitting that you are willing to take the chance that your faith will be slowly, ever so gradually changed until you are happy being a conciliarist. This is not the Sean Johnson of old. This is not the Archbishop! This is not the SSPX! Our Lord said: "Would that you were either hot or cold-- but since thou art neither hot nor cold-- I will spew you out of my mouth!" Fellay has already sworn his fidelity and loyalty to Rtzinger, and he had vowed to bring the entire SSPX into the conciliar religion. All the fake protestations and statements of his cronies notwithstanding, the words of the oath outof his mouth to the man who he believes is the Vicar of Jesus Christ assures us that his heart is firmly, completely, wholy united with Ratzinger and Bergoglio and their new conciliar religion.
Quote from: hugemanQuote from: SeanJohnsonQuote from: IncredulousQuote from: SeanJohnsonThis is disappointing:
It would seem that Bishop Williamson is coming under the influence of Fr. Pfeiffer, rather than the other way around. Bishop Williamson's position was the more balanced of the two conflicting opinions on SSPX Mass attendance. To say that, as a general rule, one ought not attend SSPX Masses is an unfortunate slide toward the erroneous Fr. Pfeiffer position. Natural enough, I suppose, since Fr. Pfeiffer is in the leadership position. But as His Lordship said when he was here in St. Paul:
"Those who do not act the way they think, will begin to think the way they act."
Bishop Williamson should have condemned Fr. Pfeiffer's "red light" long ago. For one reason or another, he did not. And so now he endorses it. With qualifications, but nevertheless...
How to gauge the chapels of the neoSSPX ? :scratchchin:
Wouldn't it be interesting to take an anonymous poll of their priests and see who are really 100% behind Msgr. Fellay ?
QuoteQuoteQuote
Most of them are validly ordained, many holy, but there is something lacking in their character that keeps them there.
Every priest has his own story and reason, but the longer they stay under the Fellay regime, the greater the risk to their priesthood.
My friend takes the next step and says... "the greater the risk to their souls".[/color]
QuoteQuotePretty easy to gauge, actually:
Unless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy (e.g., as the 1984 indult required acknowledgement of the doctrinal uprightness of the NOM in order to avail oneself of the indult); Or, unless the priest preaches error from the pulpit; Then you must attend. But the concern at present is not the positive teaching of error, but the omission to condemn the errors of Vatican II and the Roman modernists (per the branding campaign, and Cardinal Canizares' appeal to focus on spirituality and virtue, rather than condemning the heretics). But I doubt very much the omission is sufficient to abstain from Mass, since it would be a very remote threat, and dangerous only over extended periods of time. It is a shame that the sword has been dropped, for sure (though our priest is having a conference on Vatican II between the Masses today, which I was not able to attend). If there was/is a deal with Rome, that threat would become more proximate, but even this is only a possible future contingency, remote in time, and by no means certain. The problem with Fr. Pfeiffer's position is that it places souls in immediate danger (violation of the Sabbath without justification). Yes, he thinks there is justification, but his rationale is easily refuted:
1) We cannot attend FSSP Masses because they have officially compromised on doctrine (i.e., accepting the errors of Vatican II); 2) But Bishop Fellay's doctrinal declaration also officially accepts the errors of Vatican II; 3) Therefore, we also cannot any longer attend SSPX Masses. Leaving aside a critique of the various passages Fr. Pfeiffer thinks accepted Vatican II, or violated the Faith, the simple fact is that the Declaration is NOT OFFICIAL POLICY.
QuoteQuoteTherefore the attempted justification/command to abstain from SSPX Masses (built completely on this illusory premise) vanishes. If President Obama sponsors a bill which gets shot down in the Senate, can we still pretend it is the law of the land, and take actions based on something that never became law? Similarly with the Declaration. The only concern (unless Rome starts warming up to Bishop Fellay again) is the branding campaign; the slow conditioning of priests and faithful not to hate Vatican II so much. Over time, this will facilitate the coveted agreement with a still-modernist Rome, and when that happens, the SSPX will be swallowed up and dissolved into Conciliarism. But even this is not a doctrinal issue; it is an incredibly scandalous and imprudent political strategy; a move away from Archbishop Lefebvre's combat against error; designed to bring about an end which will be the SSPX's undoing, but not against the Faith.
Sean -- you are kidding -- right???
Have you lost your bearings? Who have you been listening too?
Who has been whispering in your ear? Look at your second to last statement: "Over time, this will facilitate the coveted agreement with a still-modernist Rome...the SSPX will be swallowed up and dissolved into conciliarism" !!!
This is the Conciliar Church to which Archbishop Lefebvre said he had "NO INTEREST" in joining! You can see yourself that the logical, direct, unavoidable conclusion of the present course of action is to join the conciliar religion!
You are admitting that you are willing to take the chance that your faith will be slowly, ever so gradually changed until you are happy being a conciliarist.This is not the Sean Johnson of old.
This is not the Archbishop! This is not the SSPX! Our Lord said: "Would that you were either hot or cold-- but since thou art neither hot nor cold-- I will spew you out of my mouth!" Fellay has already sworn his fidelity and loyalty to Ratzinger, and he had vowed to bring the entire SSPX into the conciliar religion. All the fake protestations and statements of his cronies notwithstanding, the words of the oath out of his mouth to the man who he believes is the Vicar of Jesus Christ assures us that his heart is firmly, completely, wholy united with Ratzinger and Bergoglio and their new conciliar religion.
On the contrary:
I am saying on the one hand, that I oppose the branding campaign; And on the other, it presents less a threat than going into mortal sin by Sunday.
I still attend Mass at my SSPX chapel, but I do not think it would be a mortal sin to stay away, because there is good reason not to go to Mass there.
Well, I agree with Sean here. It seems a lot to say just because the Society is vaguely open to canonical regularization at some hypothetical point in the future under certain loosely determined conditions, therefore we can stop attending Society chapels. I see no sense in such an idea.
Consider one thing, when Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Society, it was canonically established and Rome had not yet converted. Would it have been permissible or necessary then in those years, by this principle, not to attend?
Who cares if Judas had to officially sign a promissory note to get his 30 pieces of silver or not...
What matters is that the kiss on the cheek has been given and THAT brings about tragic consequences. What matters is that Faith and Morals have been compromised. Just look --aside the NSSPX official docuмents-- the rotten fruits popping out in all areas of the neo-SSPX.
Just because the NSSPX was rejected by the minions (newromans) doesn't mean they are rejected by the devil, quite the contrary.
Some people might still be struggling to leave the neo-SSPX all together due to many difficulties (and that's understandable if one considers the human nature and the different levels of trust on God's Providence), but then what one should do is to strive and pray to overcome the difficulties instead of cunningly trying to justify their lack of ba.., eh, courage to do what is right. To defend evil is way more dangerous than just being weak.
But on the other hand, neither is it their place to tell anyone else that they would be in "mortal sin by Sunday" (I know SJ did not accuse anyone else of that!) if they did not go to a Society Mass.
Your Point #1: You would have a legitimate beef, were the SSPX not already condemning the errors against the Faith. But the reality is that regardless of whether or not Rome grants permission, the SSPX is condemning the errors, which renders the request for permission meaningless.
Your Point #2: You would have a beef were not the SSPX already united to Rome (as it always has been). Your line of thinking here is implicitly that of the Ecclesia Dei communities, who believe the SSPX is outside the Church. You seem to overlook that there has been a unity not based on Faith since the inception of the SSPX.
Your Point #3: On the contrary: For Rome to acknowledge the right of the SSPX to condemn errors of Vatican II is to implicitly admit those errors exist. And for Rome to admit errors can exist in the V2 docs is already a step along the path of their conversion.
In reality, your entire line of thinking is nothing more than an opposition to a political posture you disagree with, which you seek to transform into a doctrinal objection, in order to compel abstention.
But as I have shown, such is not really the case.
Who cares if Judas had to officially sign a promissory note to get his 30 pieces of silver or not...[/b]
Consider one thing, when Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Society, it was canonically established and Rome had not yet converted. Would it have been permissible or necessary then in those years, by this principle, not to attend?
There is a tipping point that is up to the individual to discern. And this is a very delicate question. Neither I nor anyone else on this forum is qualified to tell Nishant or SeanJohnson they should not go to an SSPX chapel.
Quote from: Militia JesuWho cares if Judas had to officially sign a promissory note to get his 30 pieces of silver or not...[/b]
What you say is very true. I often argue from the point of "official policy" because many neo-SSPXers make the claim that the "official policy" has not changed (but it has - see first condition of the 2012 SSPX General Chapter). However, much happens "de facto" and can actually be more dangerous because it keeps many hoping that things will change when really all is lost, humanly speaking. These same many will wake up one day having lost the Faith.
The neo-SSPX is toast right now.
Quote from: Neil ObstatThere is a tipping point that is up to the individual to discern. And this is a very delicate question. Neither I nor anyone else on this forum is qualified to tell Nishant or SeanJohnson they should not go to an SSPX chapel.
Subjectively we cannot, but objectively we can.
Quote from: Neil ObstatThere is a tipping point that is up to the individual to discern. And this is a very delicate question. Neither I nor anyone else on this forum is qualified to tell Nishant or SeanJohnson they should not go to an SSPX chapel.
Subjectively we cannot, but objectively we can.
Quote from: SeanJohnsonQuote from: MatthewQuote from: SeanJohnson
10) But you cannot claim that even the branding campaign is a denial of the Faith (i.e., a negative omission to condemn error), since it offends no Catholic doctrine;
11) Were that not the case, then you could make the argument that over the past 40 years, every SSPX sermon that did not condemn some error of Vatican II violated the Faith, which is absurd.
12) The branding campaign is a serious concern, which will have serious adverse consequences over time for both laymen, the Church, and the SSPX itself.
I think point 10 is where I disagree.
Let me ask you this: In what way would attending my wife's old Novus Ordo parish directly violate a dogma of the Faith, as you keep inquiring about the SSPX Masses?
It's a pretty average Novus Ordo parish in small-town Texas. A celibate male priest celebrates the Mass; there's a consecration; they sing typical Novus Ordo hymns. They follow the Novus Ordo rubrics pretty well. They used to have Stations during Lent (no multimedia, either) But since it's not California, you don't have anything ridiculous (improper matter for consecration, Barney the Dinosaur, clown costumes, etc.)
Sure, the whole experience is evil BY OMISSION seven ways from Sunday. It probably also has various defects of prudence, going against Tradition, etc. But do they openly teach any heresies? I doubt it. The sermons are probably vapid, but they contain nothing contrary to the Faith.
I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at, but for the people at home --
You could apply your logic to justify attending Indult, or even Novus Ordo Masses when there's nothing else available.
Matthew-
I understand the point you are attempting to make, but it doesn't wash:
A review of the introduction to the Ottaviani Intervention will refresh your memory on the doctrines denied in the definition of the new "Mass," beginning with:
"...it represents both as a whole, and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent".
See the rest for other specific doctrines denied here:
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm
To play devil's advocate, where can one read in The Ottaviani Intervention that one should refrain from attending the New Mass? While it does point out the deficiencies of the new rite, it stops short of saying one should not attend or celebrate it.
Also, with all this talk about Doctrine and Dogma do we not need to be more clear in our definitions? I see the two being interchanged at will and it is my understanding there is a substantial difference between the two.
Quote from: Ecclesia MilitansQuote from: Neil ObstatThere is a tipping point that is up to the individual to discern. And this is a very delicate question. Neither I nor anyone else on this forum is qualified to tell Nishant or SeanJohnson they should not go to an SSPX chapel.
Subjectively we cannot, but objectively we can.
I'm having a really difficult time understanding this, unless it's just another way to say, "The general rule is no, but there are exceptions." But if the SSPX is objectively unworthy of attendance, that leaves no room for exception. Unless they are subjectively worthy of attendance (depending on the local chapel) in which case they can't possibly be also objectively worthy of attendance. Help?
Quote from: Ecclesia MilitansQuote from: Neil ObstatThere is a tipping point that is up to the individual to discern. And this is a very delicate question. Neither I nor anyone else on this forum is qualified to tell Nishant or SeanJohnson they should not go to an SSPX chapel.
Subjectively we cannot, but objectively we can.
I'm having a really difficult time understanding this, unless it's just another way to say "The general rule is no, but there are exceptions." But if the SSPX is objectively unworthy of attendance, that leaves no room for exception. Unless they are subjectively worthy of attendance (depending on the local chapel) in which case they can't possibly be also objectively worthy of attendance. Help?
Quote from: MithrandylanQuote from: Ecclesia MilitansQuote from: Neil ObstatThere is a tipping point that is up to the individual to discern. And this is a very delicate question. Neither I nor anyone else on this forum is qualified to tell Nishant or SeanJohnson they should not go to an SSPX chapel.
Subjectively we cannot, but objectively we can.
I'm having a really difficult time understanding this, unless it's just another way to say "The general rule is no, but there are exceptions." But if the SSPX is objectively unworthy of attendance, that leaves no room for exception. Unless they are subjectively worthy of attendance (depending on the local chapel) in which case they can't possibly be also objectively worthy of attendance. Help?
"Objectively" means that in the reality outside of the person, we ought not to attend neo-SSPX Masses. However, "subjectively", meaning within a person's conscience, he may not understand or be ready to leave the neo-SSPX for various reasons. In other words, "subjectively" he may sincerely believe that stopping to attend would be a sin. Therefore, so long as he is in this state, he ought to continue attending neo-SSPX Masses. However, it is the duty of the person still attending the neo-SSPX Masses to pray, study, and reflect on the matter with humility because objectively the neo-SSPX has adopted principles that are against the Faith and dangerous to the Faith. Through these means, the person hopefully will come to believe and act according to the objective order. Remember that truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. If your mind does not conform to reality, then you are believing and living a lie.
Objectively, the SSPX under Fellay has deviated from the faith in such a matter that worshiping at one of their chapels is sinful, but if a person is not convinced of this, he is not culpable for that sin (in a similar way that a person who may be stuck in the Novus Ordo *may* not be culpable for the sin of attending it, if he thinks not attending would be sinful). You would also contend that the mitigation of his culpability depends on him not ignoring the issue-- i.e., he must study and pray about it in order to bring his judgement to reflect the objective reality, at which point he would no longer attend.
Am I representing your opinion with the above paragraph?
What is the gravity of the sin by someone who attends the NSSPX chapels (in the objective order)? Surely it's not communicatio in sacris?
Is it better to say that it is an occasion of sin?
And on the other, it presents less a threat than going into mortal sin by Sunday.
It is true that it is a mortal sin to miss Mass on Holy Days of Obligation without sufficient reason; however, we must keep in mind the neo-SSPX Masses are not canonically sanctioned.
Also, to the Recusant, are you of the same mind?
The way I see it, the SSPX I used to support no longer exists. I am against Vatican II. The XSPX isn't. Knowing what I know (which doubtless you know too) concerning the change in doctrine, etc., it would be wrong for me to continue to support it. For me to attend Mass there would be supporting it. If I continued to support it, it would only be for less than worthy motives, and I would deserve to lose my soul when I die.
Does that make sufficient sense?
For them, the thought of being cut off from the Old Mass for a time is unbearable
The way I see it, the SSPX I used to support no longer exists. I am against Vatican II. The XSPX isn't. Knowing what I know (which doubtless you know too) concerning the change in doctrine, etc., it would be wrong for me to continue to support it. For me to attend Mass there would be supporting it. If I continued to support it, it would only be for less than worthy motives, and I would deserve to lose my soul when I die.
Does that make sufficient sense?
Many who remain in SSPX know full well what the real problems with Fellay & Co. are
Just to return briefly to ideology, I don't dispute many Irish are anti-Zionist. My point really is if one embraces the nonsense of 'Christian Democracy' they have already started to slide in thought. Their world view would be surrendered to what a a rad Trad ought to be, a counter revolutionary. As the Americans/ Yanks might say, they might become "Happy Out" to have the Mass and get complacent.
The Resistance built on the faith and doctrine is the future. The 'Church of Bishop Fellay' is a dead end road. It's an illusion. It's fantasy to believe they will convert Rome.