Author Topic: New SSPX Oath?? (Read 8990 times)

Machabees · « **on:** March 04, 2013, 04:20:36 PM »

This is an article from sossaveoursspx.com.

http://www.sossaveoursspx.com/index.html

--------------------------------------------------

FR. HEWKO HIGHLIGHTS FRAUD INHERENT IN NEW SSPX OATH

The new oath required by all priests of the SSPX, which states that they accept the heretic Benedict as pope, but will not obey him; and promises that they will not say the new mass, even though they declare it is valid(sic), was highlighted by Father Hewko as a fraud perpetrated upon the young and malleable priests of the SSPX.

(read more , here)
--------------------------------------------------

When you go to the site and click on the "read more, here" for the rest of the article, it is crossed to another link on that website. Hopefully, the webmaster will fix it soon to get it up and running.

Until then, has anyone else heard of this "NEW SSPX OATH"?

Is this another tactic of Menzingen to hold sway and keep in line their priests?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** March 04, 2013, 04:48:00 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

This is an article from sossaveoursspx.com.

http://www.sossaveoursspx.com/index.html

--------------------------------------------------

FR. HEWKO HIGHLIGHTS FRAUD INHERENT IN NEW SSPX OATH

The new oath required by all priests of the SSPX, which states that they accept the heretic Benedict as pope, but will not obey him; and promises that they will not say the new mass, even though they declare it is valid(sic), was highlighted by Father Hewko as a fraud perpetrated upon the young and malleable priests of the SSPX.

(read more , here)
--------------------------------------------------

When you go to the site and click on the "read more, here" for the rest of the article, it is crossed to another link on that website. Hopefully, the webmaster will fix it soon to get it up and running.

Until then, has anyone else heard of this "NEW SSPX OATH"?

Is this another tactic of Menzingen to hold sway and keep in line their priests?

Went to the site, but the link is not yet fixed.

Some initial thoughts are these:

1) Wonder how much of the snippet quoted is the webmaster's own opinion of the traditional SSPX stance, and how much is something actually utterred by Fr. Hewko (as the snippet seems to portray);

2) If Fr. Hewko has an issue with those bits that were provided, funny he has hidden it until now; for many years he has had no problem with the doctrine of necessity, and causes excusing from obedience to legitimate superiors;

3) However, one senses the snippet is sedevacantist editorial, insofar as it seems to desire to disqualify causes excusing from obedience, and falls back into the mindless sede-mantra of "If he is Pope, you must obey, or your position is contradictory! How can you say he is Pope, but still disobey??"

4) Similarly, with the mention of the Novus Ordo: What is contradictory about recognizing the validity of it, yet refusing to say it? A Satanic Mass can be valid, but I would hope one would still refuse to say it!

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** March 04, 2013, 05:03:56 PM »

Note regarding my previous post:

I am undecided on the matter of the validity of the NOM, and probably always will be.

I will leave that one to greater minds, and for my own part, simply stay away from it.

Just wouldn't want someone to take my last comment and construe it as a defense of the validity of the New Mass.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** March 04, 2013, 05:12:15 PM »

I agree.

And when Seraphim and I bow out of such discussions, to clear the floor for "greater minds", please don't take that as an invitation for you to take the floor.

With one or two notable exceptions -- I'll give you a hint as to who you are: You have PhD after your name and you studied Theology (for more than 2 years) at a seminary/university level.

I don't believe even Dr. Droleskey would qualify -- his PhD was in political science.

TKGS · « **Reply #4 on:** March 04, 2013, 05:21:24 PM »

The greater mind is here, though I don't seem to fit either of those criteria. Hmmm :smoke-pot:

While I have written before that I believe the Novus Ordo could be valid, I would certainly not take an oath declaring that I believe it most definitely is valid.

This is the first I've heard of a new SSPX oath. Have I missed another topic? Is there any other sources concerning this new oath? I would not wish to spread a rumor of a special "SSPX Oath" if it is not, indeed, true.

Machabees · « **Reply #5 on:** March 04, 2013, 05:25:40 PM »

Seraphim and Matthew...Huh?????

The reason for this threads inquiry is because the headline says: "NEW SSPX OATH". I am taking that to mean something recent; like, just made up. Not the [old] Anti-Modernist Oath of St. Pius the X we all know about.

Is there something I do not know about?

Machabees · « **Reply #6 on:** March 04, 2013, 06:02:16 PM »

This just came in.

Is this the "New SSPX Oath"?

I just received this information from two separate mediums. The first by a PM (in which I was waiting for a reply to post it). And a timely second, in a private email from another person who said to let others know about the contents.

Like everything else coming out of Menzingen, this too needs the pieces to be put together...

Quote

DECLARATION OF FIDELITY

(To the Positions of the Society of St Pius X)

I, the undersigned, ___________(name)________ recognize Benedict XVI as Pope of the Holy Catholic Church. That is why I am ready to pray in public for him as Sovereign Pontiff. I refuse to follow him when he departs from the Catholic tradition, especially in the questions of religious liberty and ecuмenism, as also in the reforms which are harmful to the Church.

I grant that Masses celebrated according to the new rite are not all invalid. However,
considering the bad translations of the Novus Ordo Missae, its ambiguity favoring its being interpreted in a Protestant sense, and the plurality of ways in which it can be celebrated, I recognize that the danger of invalidity is very great.

I affirm that the new rite of Mass does not, it is true, formulate any heresy in an explicit manner, but that it departs" in a striking manner overall as well as in detail, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass", and for this reason the new rite is in itself bad.

That is why I shall never celebrate the Holy Mass according to this new rite, even if I am
threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions; and I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass.

Finally, I admit as being legitimate the liturgical reform of John XXIII. Hence I take all the liturgical books from it to be Catholic: the Missal, the Breviary, etc.; and I bind myself to make exclusive use of them according to their calendar and rubrics, in particular for the celebration of Mass and for the recitation in common of the Breviary.

In doing this I desire to show the obedience binding me to my superiors, as also the
obedience binding me to the Roman Pontiff in all his legitimate acts.

Signed ________________________

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #7 on:** March 04, 2013, 07:00:04 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

This just came in.

Is this the "New SSPX Oath"?

I just received this information from two separate mediums. The first by a PM (in which I was waiting for a reply to post it). And a timely second, in a private email from another person who said to let others know about the contents.

Like everything else coming out of Menzingen, this too needs the pieces to be put together...

Quote

DECLARATION OF FIDELITY

(To the Positions of the Society of St Pius X)

I, the undersigned, ___________(name)________ recognize Benedict XVI as Pope of the Holy Catholic Church. That is why I am ready to pray in public for him as Sovereign Pontiff. I refuse to follow him when he departs from the Catholic tradition, especially in the questions of religious liberty and ecuмenism, as also in the reforms which are harmful to the Church.

I grant that Masses celebrated according to the new rite are not all invalid. However,
considering the bad translations of the Novus Ordo Missae, its ambiguity favoring its being interpreted in a Protestant sense, and the plurality of ways in which it can be celebrated, I recognize that the danger of invalidity is very great.

I affirm that the new rite of Mass does not, it is true, formulate any heresy in an explicit manner, but that it departs" in a striking manner overall as well as in detail, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass", and for this reason the new rite is in itself bad.

That is why I shall never celebrate the Holy Mass according to this new rite, even if I am
threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions; and I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass.

Finally, I admit as being legitimate the liturgical reform of John XXIII. Hence I take all the liturgical books from it to be Catholic: the Missal, the Breviary, etc.; and I bind myself to make exclusive use of them according to their calendar and rubrics, in particular for the celebration of Mass and for the recitation in common of the Breviary.

In doing this I desire to show the obedience binding me to my superiors, as also the
obedience binding me to the Roman Pontiff in all his legitimate acts.

Signed ________________________

Presuming this new Oath is truly to be exacted of SSPX clergy:

1) It worries me that the possibility of per se invalidity of the NOM, despite acknowledging it to represent "a striking departure of the theology of the Mass as it was defined at Trent," has been absolutely ruled out, and only abuses can now invalidate it.

2) Nowhere in this supposed Oath is there mention of invalidity via defective intention. Does Menzingen not wish to offend its new brethren in Rome? Archbishop Lefebvre said that a defective seminary formation such as is now universal in the Conciliar church could be capable of breeding a new priesthood incapable of minimally "intending to do what the Church does." Strange that mention of this should be omitted, when it would be an even more widespread cause of invalidation than deviation from form.

3) Equally troubling is the requirement to acknowledge the "legitimacy" of the liturgical reforms of John XXIII. Is legitimacy to be synonymous with improvement, good, or necessary? Those who are informed on liturgical history will find this requirement curious, insofar as the Mass continued to be dumbed down under the short pontificate of John XXIII.

4) Most distressing is that this tricky Oath seems to be a trap, locking SSPX clergy into a vow never to return to the richer pre-John XXIII liturgical books (e.g., the pre-1956 Holy Week, and all the Octaves, Vigils, Collects, Post Communion, and Prefaces which were deleted by the time 1962 came around). A return to the fully Catholic, pre-Bugnini liturgical books is effectively pre-empted by this Oath.

5) The final sentence of this Oath says a mouthful: It is a show of obedience, but to what and whom? Tradition, or the hermeneutics of continuity, which would find its synthesis between tradition and modernism in the transitional books of John XXIII? Then the reform of the reform?

6) One final observation: In the early days, ABL permitted a diversity of liturgical books to be used in Econe. Until entering into a conciliatory phase in the early/mid-1980s, in which he came to insist on the 1962 missal, and ruled out the better pre-1955 books, these latter having become associated with a sedevacantist movement which hampered his diplomatic efforts in Rome.

The lesson?

Even a great saint and leader like ABL could make decisions which, objectively speaking, were not the best, simply because he was dealing with the enemies of the Church in Rome.

An argument could be made that they influenced (in a much more limited manner than they are influencing Bishop Fellay!) his decision in this regard.

The more we talk with Rome, the more difficult it is to retain the integral transmission of the Faith.

Oaths such as this are tiny instances, among so many more.

If we would preserve the purity of tradition for the honor of Our Lord, we must stop taking actions which have any regard for the perceptions of the Romans.

When they come back to the Faith, it will not be necessary to negotiate.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** March 04, 2013, 07:07:33 PM »

Thank you, Machabees for an excellent OP!

Quote from: Machabees

This is an article from sossaveoursspx.com.

http://www.sossaveoursspx.com/index.html

--------------------------------------------------

FR. HEWKO HIGHLIGHTS FRAUD INHERENT IN NEW SSPX OATH

The new oath required by all priests of the SSPX, which states that they accept the heretic Benedict as pope, but will not obey him; and promises that they will not say the new mass, even though they declare it is valid(sic), was highlighted by Father Hewko as a fraud perpetrated upon the young and malleable priests of the SSPX.

(read more , here)
--------------------------------------------------

When you go to the site and click on the "read more, here" for the rest of the article, it is crossed to another link on that website. Hopefully, the webmaster will fix it soon to get it up and running.

Until then, has anyone else heard of this "NEW SSPX OATH"?

Is this another tactic of Menzingen to hold sway and keep in line their priests?

Seraphim's first post omitted for brevity (HAHAHAHA) but it was good, too.

Quote from: Seraphim

Note regarding my previous post:

I am undecided on the matter of the validity of the NOM, and probably always will be.

I will leave that one to greater minds, and for my own part, simply stay away from it.

Just wouldn't want someone to take my last comment and construe it as a defense of the validity of the New Mass.

I agree, but perhaps a nuance is missing: it should not be the place of the
laity to pass judgment on the validity of the NovusOrdo liturgy, nor any one
instance of it in particular. Rather, it is merely in the DOUBT that we have
in specific cases and/or in the general principle, that is sufficient for us to
not be required to participate or support it.

And woe to them whose mother or father
or sister or brother is being buried under the auspices
of a Novordien 'funeral service' (cf. Mt. x. 34-37).
"Pray that your flight be not in winter or on the
sabbath" comes to mind (Mt. xxiv. 20).

Quote from: Matthew

I agree.

And when Seraphim and I bow out of such discussions, to clear the floor for "greater minds", please don't take that as an invitation for you to take the floor.

With one or two notable exceptions -- I'll give you a hint as to who you are: You have PhD after your name and you studied Theology (for more than 2 years) at a seminary/university level.

I don't believe even Dr. Droleskey would qualify -- his PhD was in political science.

Don't misconstrue this as "taking the floor." These are comments from
the peanut-gallery! HAHAHA

Quote from: TKGS

The greater mind is here, though I don't seem to fit either of those criteria. Hmmm :smoke-pot:

While I have written before that I believe the Novus Ordo could be valid, I would certainly not take an oath declaring that I believe it most definitely is valid.

This is the first I've heard of a new SSPX oath. Have I missed another topic? Is there any other sources concerning this new oath? I would not wish to spread a rumor of a special "SSPX Oath" if it is not, indeed, true.

This is another good point. The only possible motive to demanding that the
seminarians take an oath declaring the validity of the NovusOrdo Newmass is
to take sides with the devil.. Which is NEVER a good idea in a seminary.

The sad part is that they probably don't even know they're taking sides with
the devil, and when you tell them they won't believe you. That's how bad it is.

This is important information that needs to be known and shared, and I really
appreciate having had the heads-up!

I know there are more recent posts, but I'm trying to catch up........

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #9 on:** March 04, 2013, 07:07:57 PM »

Funny they should have this Oath. What if the next Pope, against all expectations, truly reforms the liturgy, scrapping John XXIII reforms and the Novus Ordo and uses true liturgical principles without any Modernist preconceptions of early liturgical celebrations, and cleaning out house in the Church? What use is that Oath? Will they still keep using John XXIII? And what about the pre-1956 rubrics they still add in, like the shut doors on Palm Sunday and the exchange of the Gloria, laus by the people and cantors until the doors are opened by the cantors, or the keeping of the Gospel tone for the ending of the Passion for Palm Sunday, etc.? Will they still do that, or will they go full-blown 1962, removing the perfidiis?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #10 on:** March 05, 2013, 01:24:22 AM »

I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. Before you go putting your foot
in your mouth, you had better verify this.

I caution you not to go telling anyone that this DECLARATION OF FIDELITY or
warning of a NEW SSPX OATH is to be found on sossaveoursspx.org, because
it is not there.

Search on the website for declaration of fidelity and ALL of the search results
you will get are names of docuмents and articles with the word "OF" in them.

Quote

DESTROYING THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X! "DEO ...

...directions, and contrary to all of common sense! SSPX HEAD FELLAY

Archbishop Lefebvre speaks, Archbisop teaches Catholic faith, heresies of Vatican II,Heresies of John Paul II, heresies of Benedict XVI

SOS Archives of 2012 WAS AT THE COUNCIL! (Paul VI sa...

So if you do that you're going to look pretty stupid. Heads up.

Prove to me this isn't a joke being played on all of us, a made-up mirage,
dropped in someone's email, to see if it can ignite some kind of
tsunami of presumption. IOW Internet rumor!!

MaterDominici · « **Reply #11 on:** March 05, 2013, 02:27:30 AM »

I tried employing Google to find what the site owner might be referring to without any success.

So, at least for now, I changed the title of this thread to something more inquisitive.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #12 on:** March 05, 2013, 06:34:58 AM »

Hence the reason i began my commentary with "Presuming this oath is truly to be exacted of sspx priests..."

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #13 on:** March 05, 2013, 07:10:38 AM »

I had been given a paper copy of this oath some time ago, and was told it dated back to the '90's. It was typically presented to seminarians only a few days prior to ordination, for their signature. Someone should be able to verify this.

TKGS · « **Reply #14 on:** March 05, 2013, 07:18:15 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

3) Equally troubling is the requirement to acknowledge the "legitimacy" of the liturgical reforms of John XXIII. Is legitimacy to be synonymous with improvement, good, or necessary? Those who are informed on liturgical history will find this requirement curious, insofar as the Mass continued to be dumbed down under the short pontificate of John XXIII.

This is a real interesting comment. I'm wondering why the SSPX would require its priests to acknowledge the legitimacy of the reforms of John 23 while ignoring the reforms of Benedict 16, i.e., the new and improved Good Friday prayer.

I've heard that the SSPX rejects the new Good Friday prayer of Benedict 16. I would like to know by what principle the SSPX has decided that liturgical reforms of John 23 are acceptable but not any other Conciliar pope.

Even if this new oath is really a fake, this line of inquiry is still valid because the SSPX does seem to accept the revisions of John 23 without question and still rejects the revisions of Benedict 16.