A friend told me that it would be hypocritical for an Lefebvre SSPXer to not put money in the basket, when he attends an SSPX chapel. After all, they are providing you the mass and the sacraments.

I agree with what he says, however, my case is different from say a Novus Ordo, or FSSP, or a sedevacantes who is just using the chapel because it is the closest mass "to solve" their Sunday obligation. We have attended SSPX chapels for years, and have more than "paid for the building", during all those years.

Actually, if anything, it is the the Neo-SSPX that is hypocritical for telling me that they own the place, for they didn't pay for it, I did. The SSPX in almost all chapels, were invited to come in to an existing chapel, that was all paid for by the parishioners hard work and money.

I don't know.....maybe it's my ignorant misunderstanding of all of this, but in my limtied capacity, I don't see any difference.

If you agree with your friend in putting "money in the basket" since "they are providing you the mass and the sacraments", this seems to me the same thing as a NO, FSSP, or Sede using the closest chapel to fill in his Sunday obligation. This seems more like "paying for a service" rather than giving with charity.

If a "Lefebvre SSPXer" is someone who's against +Fellay's Neo-SSPX, I would think he shouldn't even be attending that mass.

Again, I apologize if I misunderstood.

 

I don't know.....maybe it's my ignorant misunderstanding of all of this, but in my limtied capacity, I don't see any difference.
 

Me too, sorry I don't see the difference.

Bowler, it is easier to read when the entire text is in the same font size.

For me at least.

Those who control Church properties, who then defect from the Faith, and take those properties with them, have been some of the worst despoilers of the Church.

They've been doing it since Protestantism.

I'd like to bring up some important points that seem fittingly to the topic:

1. Holy Mass cannot be "paid" since it is of infinite value. Mass Stipend is not a sale. *It might being used as a force of expression but none of the less it should be completely avoided.

2. Charity should not expect anything back. To help a place that holds the Traditional Faith in its entirety (old SSPX) was our obligation, therefore we shouldn't even bring this duty of ours up. "Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" comes to mind.

3. If the SSPX misused money, works, properties, jurisdiction, faith and morals, then we should act accordingly. The level of knowledge and understanding varies so our actions could go from cutting the funds to leaving the place all together, but NEVER to continue to finance the destruction of Tradition; THAT would be hypocritical to say the least.


No matter how much money, work or properties we have created, once those are GIVEN to the SSPX, it unfortunately becomes THEIRS, period.

We should focus on things that still can be done and forget the ones that cannot be undone.

One last thing, God knows all our intentions when we help those whom He had capacitated to do His holy works or anybody else for that matter, so whatever we have done in the past will most certainly not be disregarded on our judgement day.

That's my 2 cents, anyhow.

Quote

No matter how much money, work or properties we have created, once those are GIVEN to the SSPX, it unfortunately becomes THEIRS, period.

They might hold possession of it but they are morally accountable for what they do with it.

Not the slightest doubt about that, Tele.

"They have the buildings, we have the faith." - St. Athanasius

If you use a service, you contribute towards the expenses of that service.

Looking at it coldly, from a business point of view:

The typical SSPX parish was created out of thin air as an independent mass center by the parishioners. They bought the land, built the building and all of it's contents, and filled the chapel.  Then they invited the SSPX in, and in exchange for a priest flying in once a week, we gave them the property and all that comes with it.

At that point, the SSPX has traded a priest for a free income property  that is worth maybe $500,000, and generates an income of say $75,000 per year.

Now, today, if a project needs to be done, should not the SSPX pay for it, if the parish can't afford it? The SSPX is holding $500,000 that they received for free from the parishioners, it's not like the SSPX is giving us anything, they are just using the money we gave them. Or is this a one way street, once the money goes in one direction, it can never go back, a type of one way valve?

To add insult to injury, now that they own the property, they throw us out.