Author Topic: sspx seminarians agreement (Read 7084 times)

pendulum · « **on:** May 01, 2016, 12:18:14 PM »

I was recently online somewhere and read a docuмent that sspx seminarians had to sign before receiving the subdiaconate. Unfortunately I cant fnd it again and was wondering if anyone else can direct me to it or post it here. It s points were along the similar lines of accepting vat ii, new mass, new sacraments, new code , etc.
Additionally does anyone know when this docuмent first started to be used in the seminary?
Thanks.

ilpadrino · « **Reply #1 on:** May 01, 2016, 01:17:20 PM »

It was brought about sometime after the departure of the "9", I was told. Its the "Positions of the SSPX Positions" or something to this effect.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** May 01, 2016, 01:42:51 PM »

Here is the text:

The following (in blue font) is the Declaration of Fidelity to the Positions of the Society of St. Pius X formulated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Since 1981, this Declaration has been required to be signed by candidates before receiving the subdiaconate. After the Archbishop’s death in 1991, the formula was modified to include a provision to deal with the 1983 Code of Canon Law. How many people would be willing to sign this today? I would.

I, the undersigned, ___________(name)________ recognize _______________ 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 ________________________

pendulum · « **Reply #3 on:** May 01, 2016, 01:46:37 PM »

Thanks. It seems ive seen an even newer formula more similar to the 2012 declaration of bishop fellay. New code, new rites, vii. I'll keep looking. But I could have it confused with something else I read.

PG · « **Reply #4 on:** May 01, 2016, 03:58:18 PM »

Matthew - I can sign that. Because, that still leaves open room for the reform that I think R&R is missing. And, that reform has to do with the licitness of the local bishops. They/some may be valid bishops, but are they really to be considered licit? They are material heretics. And, it is taught that material heretics aside from the pope fall from office. Therefore, I am doubtful that they should be recognized as such. Lex orandi lex credendi. Enemies call for 6 degrees. But, we as followers of +Lefebvre are not enemies of the pope in our resistance. We are friends. But, our lord does bring a sword. And, I am not referring strictly to what we believe. Because, belief manifests itself in practice. If new church can wield the indult/extraordinary liturgy, which is only a stones throw away, then that is a cause for concern. We all agree that g.r.e.c. and the indult are the latest culprit, and they killed two birds. Those who despise little things, fall by little things.

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** May 01, 2016, 04:44:47 PM »

I see that the name of the pope is vacant!! :roll-laugh1:

wallflower · « **Reply #6 on:** May 01, 2016, 05:36:07 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

I see that the name of the pope is vacant!! :roll-laugh1:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** May 01, 2016, 06:14:39 PM »

Nope. I wouldn't be able to sign that.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** May 01, 2016, 06:15:51 PM »

Notice this however ... vis-a-vis the other thread about the Novus Ordo Mass being "intrinsically evil".

Quote from: SSPX Formula

the new rite is in itself bad

Guardian Angel · « **Reply #9 on:** May 01, 2016, 06:37:40 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Notice this however ... vis-a-vis the other thread about the Novus Ordo Mass being "intrinsically evil".

Quote from: SSPX Formula
the new rite is in itself bad

True.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** May 01, 2016, 09:31:51 PM »

You need to read this:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Sean-Johnson-Defending-Bishop-Williamson-at-Mahopac-NY

Wessex · « **Reply #11 on:** May 02, 2016, 06:23:03 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Nope. I wouldn't be able to sign that.

I now understand why the Nine revolted. The declaration shows the slipperiness of the leadership and the creation of a personal cult! It deserved to be set alight outside Menzingen or Econe, whatever was in vogue back then. Of course, the membership had their own ideas as to the position of Roman incuмbents whatever suited the leadership in its politicking and fund-raising. My time with this two-faced institution were wasted years. Whatever was passed on was not the faith but the art of deception .... like all cults.

JPaul · « **Reply #12 on:** May 02, 2016, 09:51:11 AM »

Condensed down to one line it says, "We accept the compromise of Vatican II".
It is just a slightly embellished version of the R&R policy.

Matthew · « **Reply #13 on:** May 02, 2016, 10:45:04 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

Quote from: Ladislaus
Nope. I wouldn't be able to sign that.

I now understand why the Nine revolted. The declaration shows the slipperiness of the leadership and the creation of a personal cult! It deserved to be set alight outside Menzingen or Econe, whatever was in vogue back then. Of course, the membership had their own ideas as to the position of Roman incuмbents whatever suited the leadership in its politicking and fund-raising. My time with this two-faced institution were wasted years. Whatever was passed on was not the faith but the art of deception .... like all cults.

But "cults" like the SSPX have one redeeming feature -- they produce men like me, willing and able to run a Traditional Catholic forum for the good of the Church.

If I hadn't started CathInfo, what forum would you haunt, Mr. Sedevacantist?

Maybe the fact that Sedevacantists are usually more bitter and despairing about the state of the Church is why they can't seem to start (or stick with) a Catholic forum. Or maybe it's because they're a much smaller group. Or both.

Or maybe there are too many Sedes like you, who are reluctant to "wade into a banquet of words" and get to the bottom of issues. That takes effort and thought. Your type would rather remain in ignorance with your own pet opinions and ideas.

Sedevacantists like you don't have a lot of options for Traditional Catholic forums -- though you in particular seem to have a masochistic tendency to hang around SSPX, R&R, Resistance fora (not just CathInfo) as much as you can. Why? You just like being contrarian? You like being a heckler? Or are you some kind of plant? or what?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #14 on:** May 02, 2016, 10:55:44 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Wessex
Quote from: Ladislaus
Nope. I wouldn't be able to sign that.

I now understand why the Nine revolted. The declaration shows the slipperiness of the leadership and the creation of a personal cult! It deserved to be set alight outside Menzingen or Econe, whatever was in vogue back then. Of course, the membership had their own ideas as to the position of Roman incuмbents whatever suited the leadership in its politicking and fund-raising. My time with this two-faced institution were wasted years. Whatever was passed on was not the faith but the art of deception .... like all cults.

But "cults" like the SSPX have one redeeming feature -- they produce men like me, willing and able to run a Traditional Catholic forum for the good of the Church.

If I hadn't started CathInfo, what forum would you haunt, Mr. Sedevacantist?

Maybe the fact that Sedevacantists are usually more bitter and despairing about the state of the Church is why they can't seem to start (or stick with) a Catholic forum. Or maybe it's because they're a much smaller group. Or both.

Sedevacantists like you don't have a lot of options for Traditional Catholic forums -- though you in particular seem to have a masochistic tendency to hang around SSPX, R&R, Resistance fora (not just CathInfo) as much as you can. Why? You just like being contrarian? You like being a heckler? or what?

Or maybe he is just not dogmatic about his position and thinks of SSPX as Catholic and sees no harm in posting here. I see no harm, don't even mind the misunderstanding of the dogmatic SSPX who fear sedevacantism. I would never bother to post on a Protestant forum or another man-made faith-based forum.

Sedevantism and SSPX really do have a lot in common, like it or not. We both believe in the Office of the Pope, the Chair of Peter, the Vicar of Christ.

Yesterday in our sermon at CMRI, our Pastor quoted past popes several times, as we were instructed about St. Joseph the worker Feast Day.

As far as a sedevacantist forum I doubt CMRI would ever start one, for us it is simple. You are either with Christ or against Him.