The video I posted came to this conclusion as well by Mr Davies. It is really worth a listen for anyone with questions about this particular topic. He does a good job with it.
I will not claim to be a master on the subject of the SSPX. I do not attend their chapels. I have however studied the matter quite a bit. Here are some basic "facts" for everyone to sift as they will. -You can find prelates who will say the SSPX is is schism and you can find ones who say they aren't. It is my understanding though that the Church has not declared them is schism. -At one point their 4 bishops (and only those 4) were excommunicated, but that has been lifted by the Vatican. -Church Militant is backed by contributors who are long time adversaries of the SSPX so that has colored all of their coverage of them. That is not to say that the facts they present might not be true, but they will always portray the SSPX in the worst possible light. -SSPX confessions and marriages are now valid and licit under Pope Francis. SSPX Masses as well as the rest of the sacraments are valid, but not licit with the exception perhaps of last rights given in extremis as that can be done by any priest even a suspended one. -The bishops of the SSPX do not claim any juridiction. -Pope Francis made a statement to some effect that they can ordain priests (this is from memory), even telling them to open a seminary in Italy. I don't know if that was ever canonically clarified so to anyone that is interested in additional facts about that, best to research it. -So the bottom line seems to be that they are in some sort of a strange limbo. Not quite outside the Church, but not fully inside either. Of course this may be exactly what their founder Archbishop Lefebvre wished to create. According to Fr. Malachi Martin "Archbishop Lefebvre stuck a fish bone in the gullet of Rome that it can't cough up and it can't swallow."
Still respectfully agree to disagree but thank you for the clarification There are obstacles there and I am aware of them no matter who says what
Oh on that I agree. I’ve only been to an SSPX Chapel twice, once when they closed the diocesan TLM Church in Cleveland and the only TLM available was an SSPX Chapel (which I can honestly say was ... odd, like a Catholic version of the Amish), and once recently at the invitation of dear friends at the Pittsburgh SSPX Chapel (which was the same as any other TLM congregation I’ve seen): View attachment 7772 On the latter occasion I thoroughly reviewed the current status of the SSPX to decide whether I could receive the Holy Eucharist there and after considerable review (and scruples!) came to the conclusion that they were not in schism and I could receive.
Brian, I found Angelqueen on a search for the original statement from Cardinal Burke on SSPX, I knew that it was posted on MOG but I found it on this site quicker. That's interesting that you were a moderator on that site, I know very little about the site but I noticed that they were angry about Cardinal Burke's statements on SSPX. I didn't know that about CM and the SSPX. The part of your statement that I bolded in the post below sums up the problem very well imho (which is like so many other things we are discussing). In addition, Pope Francis' statement on the SSPX's Wikipedia page confused me - I think that is why I leaned toward what CM stated. It appeared to me that Pope Francis did in fact only approve two sacraments to be administered by the SSPX under certain conditions. (It's definitely confusing). It's good that we can try and iron these things out here and I appreciate everyone's help. PS - The following links are the sources for the information on the SSPX Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_Saint_Pius_X in relation to Cardinal Hoyos' statements on the SSPX, https://web.archive.org/web/20060213203514/http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360 https://web.archive.org/web/20060212195828/http://cardinalrating.com/cardinal_17__article_2883.htm http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2007/02/president-of-ecclesia-dei-commission.html
The Catholic Encyclopaedia website has a very long page about the Mass which is really worth reading for those who have the time. It goes into the difference between the Protestant service and Catholic Mass which was an issue dealt with by the Council of Trent after Luther and other Reformers called Holy Mass idolatrous. The Council of Trent condemned them. Today's hierarchy has issued a stamp in their honour. Seems to me that more than the Mass has been Protestantised. This, especially the text I have ephasised, caught my eye (under the heading of "The manner of efficacy of the Mass"): (i) It is first of all necessary to make clear that in every sacrifice of the Mass four distinct categories of persons really participate. At the head of all stands of course the High Priest, Christ Himself; to make the Sacrifice of the Cross fruitful for us and to secure its application, He offers Himself as a sacrifice, which is quite independent of the merits or demerits of the Church, the celebrant or the faithful present at the sacrifice, and is for these an opus operatum. Next after Christ and in the second place comes the Church as a juridical person, who, according to the express teaching of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, cap. i), has received from the hands of her Divine Founder the institution of the Mass and also the commission to ordain constantly priests and to have celebrated by these the most venerable Sacrifice. This intermediate stage between Christ and the celebrant may be neither passed over nor eliminated, since a bad and immoral priest, as an ecclesiastical official, does not offer up his own sacrifice — which indeed could only be impure — but the immaculate Sacrifice of Christ and his spotless Bride, which can be soiled by no wickedness of the celebrant. But to this special sacrificial activity of the Church, offering up the sacrifice together with Christ, must also correspond a special ecclesiastico-human merit as a fruit, which, although in itself an opus operantis of the Church, is yet entirely independent of the worthiness of the celebrant and the faithful and therefore constitutes for these an opus operatum. When, however, as De Lugo rightly points out, an excommunicated or suspended priest celebrates in defiance of the prohibition of the Church, this ecclesiastical merit is always lost, since such a priest no longer acts in the name and with the commission of the Church. His sacrifice is nevertheless valid, since, by virtue of his priestly ordination, he celebrates in the name of Christ, even though in opposition to His wishes, and, as the self-sacrifice of Christ, even such a Mass remains essentially a spotless and untarnished sacrifice before God. We are thus compelled to concur in another view of De Lugo, namely that the greatness and extent of this ecclesiastical service is dependent on the greater or less holiness of the reigning pope, the bishops, and the clergy throughout the World, and that for this reason in times of ecclesiastical decay and laxity of morals (especially at the papal court and among the episcopate) the fruits of the Mass, resulting from the sacrificial activity of the Church, might under certain circumstances easily be very small. Are the SSPX priests acting in the name and with the commission of the Church or are they celebrating Mass in defiance of the prohibition of the Church? If they are celebrating Mass in defiance of a prohibition of the Church, are the fruits of their Masses diminished or lost? (Please note that I'm not suggesting that the SSPX priests have been suspended or excommunicated). Looking at the Vatican and not a few Bishops and priests, I hope they are wrong about the fruits of the Mass being dependent on the holiness of the reigning pope, the bishops and the clergy throughout the world. It's very disheartening if they are right. Here's a link to the page on the New Advent website: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm
If that’s the one on the far west side of Cleveland, yes. This was probably 15 years ago. I used to go to Cleveland yearly for CME doctors conferences and usually attended the TLM at St. Rose on Sunday, but one year I went St. Rose’s TLM has been discontinued so I went to the SSPX Chapel. The women all seemed to dress like Mennonites - long dark skirts or dresses, dark Chapel veils, etc. It just seemed ... odd. But it was my first exposure to an SSPX Chapel and I’m sure I was looking at everything with a (too) critical eye. Prior to that my only exposure to the TLM was at Indult diocesan parishes.
My pastor (appointed last year) has recently eliminated the distribution of the Precious Blood and after my diaconal ordination, will allow only the two of us to distribute Holy Communion in those Holy Masses at which I assist. We have two relatively small parishes, so there will be no true inconvenience by having only the two of us distribute Holy Communion. My pastor mostly uses Eucharistic Prayer I and reverently purifies the vessels after Holy Communion. I believe this will eliminate most of the illicit actions mentioned above. I believe it is important to invite the Extraordinary ministers no longer used, to serve the parish in some other capacity rather than simply letting them go. Safe in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary!
I sometimes wonder if we could somehow find ourselves in the same position of the SSPX with the push for easy compromises with the world through the rigmarole taking place at the Vatican.
This is really not about what the sedevacantists believe. As many on this forum have said, they prefer the TLM over the NO mass. Some go to the TLM exclusively. The sense of the sacred is very obvious in the TLM; the opposite is true of the NO mass. Some have also voiced their views that without the TLM, the Church/world would be in deep trouble. All these make me question why it is so. If the NO mass were every bit as valid and licit as the TLM, surely we wouldn't believe that we cannot do without the TLM? Also, once again, I have to mention that it is well known by now that the Freemasons intended to destroy the Catholic Church from within. We know of: -the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita, -Bella Dodd's testimony to the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, about the communists' targeted infiltration into the seminaries and their success in going right to the highest ecclesiastical positions in the Catholic Church, -the various prophecies about apostasy within the Church, going right up to involve the pope (Our Lady of Quito, LaSalette, Akita, Fatima, Blessed Catherine Anne Emmerich, Bruno Cornicciola, Abp Fulton Sheen etc) There is a transcript of a speech given by Father Paul Kramer at the Fatima Peace Conference in October, 2001 about "The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy". He explained things much better than I can. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1346700/posts Some excerpts: Msgr. Eugene Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, made the astonishing prophecy on the future upheavel in the Church: "I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past. "A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, 'Where have they taken Him?'" - Roche, Pie XII Devant L'Historie, p. 52-53 One method of the heretics for attacking the Church is to infiltrate the Catholic hierarchy and then change the liturgy to mute its explicit profession of faith, making the liturgy appear to uphold heretical doctrine. Pope Pius XII warned of this danger, “the suicide of altering the faith in the liturgy”. Many priests and faithful see no problem with the new Rite of Mass. They consider themselves upholders of Catholic tradition and are outspokenly anti-Modernist. But the subtleties of the devil are so great that they are tricked into consenting to the Modernist position without realizing it. It is like the treatment given to frogs: you put them into hot water and they will jump out of the water immediately, but if you put them into cold water and slowly heat it, they don’t notice the increase of heat until it’s too late. They’ve been cooked. ........................ The first question we have to answer, however, is what the change in liturgy has to do with the Message of Fatima. And the answer, of course, is that it has everything to do with the Message of Fatima. Bishop Cosme do Amaral, the former Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, at the Technical University of Vienna, in 1984, spoke about the Third Secret as dealing with apostasy, the loss of faith, on entire continents. What does the change in liturgy have to do with the loss of faith? We will see it has everything to do with the loss of faith. Father Alonso spoke of the Third Secret as dealing with the deficiencies of the upper hierarchy of the Church and its contents as tending to vindicate those in the Church who are called Traditionalists. ................... Cardinal Torquemada explains in quoting Pope Innocent III — in that book I just mentioned, that if the Pope should attempt to change the customs of the Church, especially the liturgical Rites, if he were to attempt to change the Church’s liturgical ceremonies, he would commit an act of schism. A century later, the great Suarez, who was named by Pope Paul V as the most pious and excellent Doctor, explained that “if the Pope were to attempt to change the liturgy, he would fall in schism.” This is the pontifically approved teaching of the two greatest theologians of their respective centuries. ..................... According to the liturgical reformers who created the new Rite, they made their changes with what Father Braga called “an ecumenical dimension and” now ponder these words, “a new foundation of Eucharistic theology”. No longer the theology of the Council of Trent, the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas. But a new foundation of Eucharistic theology. And as we go through them one by one, we see that the changes made in the liturgy reflect exactly those changes undertaken by the Protestant Reformers in the 16th Century. Does it not seem to be more than coincidence that all the changes made in the liturgy were precisely those made by the Protestant Reformers? And whatever was found to be offensive to the Protestants, whatever was most dear to traditional Catholic Eucharistic doctrine and the doctrine of the Holy Mass, was either toned down or removed altogether from the liturgy, so that one of the Protestant observers at Vatican II, who helped and gave advice in making the new liturgy, said that “Evangelical Protestants with all tranquility may use this new Rite of Mass.” The “new foundation” of Eucharistic theology is clearly Protestant. ...................... the ambiguities and Protestant suggestiveness of the new Rite are well documented, (they were even pointed out by Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci during the reign of Pope Paul VI). They show that the new Rite fails to be what Pope Pius XII declared that the liturgy must be: an explicit profession of Catholic Faith. It is the ambiguities, the distortions, the suggestions of heresy in the new Rite of Mass that has brought about what Sister Lucy refers to in connection with the Third Secret of Fatima: “the diabolical disorientation in the post- Conciliar Church.”
I have wondered this as well. In fact many here on the forum and throughout the Church are already adopting essentially a similar position as the SSPX on many issues although they may not know it. The stance is basically this: -Recognizing the authority of the Pope, but not following him when he promotes error. -Not acquiescing when those in authority try to take the ancient Catholic Truths away and supplant them with worldly, Protestant and Masonic teachings. -Not acquiescing to any prelate who would attempt to take Catholicity away from the faithful. These three points are essentially what the SSPX have said for the past 48 years. The only difference is that the SSPX reacted to the abuses that happened after Vatican II and people today are reacting to the current wave of abuses. The main difficulty is how do you resist these abuses and still remain inside the Church? That is a narrow rope to walk upon.
LOL - this has just been posted on LifeSite News German Cardinal Marx praises father-of-communism Karl Marx https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/g...il&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-106b61ac5e-403738565
It seems as if all evils spring from Germany Their wars Prussia's militarism World War I World War II Their social and religious "thinkers" Martin Luther Friedrich Nietzsche Adolf Hitler Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Their isms Communism Nazism Protestantism And now Luthero-catholicism
I guess this article tells us all we need to know about Cardinal Marx as if we needed to know any more. One quote: Marx also said about Karl Marx: “Without him, there would not be any Catholic social doctrine.” Really? This is the looniest statement that I have ever heard. Has this cardinal ever heard of Jesus Christ?
