Twenty-four years ago this month, on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre took his traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) into schism by ordaining four men as bishops without the permission of Pope John Paul II. Devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass, Archbishop Lefebvre claimed that there was an "emergency" in the Church that justified proceeding with the ordinations without papal approval. John Paul II disagreed, and two days later, in his apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei, made it clear that the archbishop and the four newly ordained bishops had incurred automatic excommunication under canon law for their "schismatic act."
Both in the months leading up to Archbishop Lefebvre's fateful action, and in the 24 years since, one man at the Vatican has worked tirelessly to try to reconcile the SSPX to the Catholic Church. As prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger made some progress, but as Pope Benedict XVI, he is on the cusp on ending the SSPX's years in the wilderness. In January 2009, at the request of the four bishops (Archbishop Lefebvre having passed into eternal life in 1991), Pope Benedict lifted their excommunications.
Three and a half years of negotiations later, Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the SSPX, has declared the Society's willingness to be fully reconciled to Rome, though the other three bishops appear to disagree. Bishop Fellay, however, has the authority to act on behalf of the SSPX, and they do not. On June 13, Bishop Fellay met with William Cardinal Levada, Pope Benedict's successor as the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. The Vatican Information Service notes that, during the course of the meeting, "a draft document was submitted proposing a Personal Prelature as the most appropriate instrument for any future canonical recognition of the Society." The only other personal prelature in the Catholic Church is Opus Dei.
After 24 years, there is a sense of urgency on both sides, with Bishop Fellay understanding that Pope Benedict's pontificate represents perhaps the last chance for full reconciliation, and the Holy Father having made Christian unity a central theme of his pontificate. The next weeks and months will be decisive, and all of those who long for Christian unity—which should be all Christians—should pray that this reconciliation does occur.
I suspect that it nearly killed you to write this entry. There are a lot of Tradlite types right now who can’t stomach admitting that the SSPX was correct in its handling of this situation. I wonder, do you pray for a solution to this problem because you really believe that the SSPX will be corralled by Rome? I just wish you would write truthfully about this subject and not perpetuate the lie that the SSPX is or ever has been a schismatic group. You know better than that. It’s sad when the guardian of all things Catholic on this site is bested in journalistic integrity by the AP.
I must say Scott is Right. The AP article is 10 times more accurate and well written than this one is. It is a bit shameful that a supposed Catholic news source should be out done by the secular AP. ( They even Represented Bishop Williamson’s position fairly accurately which no one else in the secular press has done.)
It is my understanding that a schism is caused when a group refuses to submit to the authority of the Holy Pontiff or the Roman Catholic bishops who are in communion with him. None of the SSPX priests or bishops are listed in the Annuario, the official Vatican register of ALL Catholic clergy. The SSPX clergy are forbidden by the Holy Pontiff from celebrating the Sacraments, under penalty of grave sin, but they openly defy the Pope every single day. If I’m not mistaken, an SSPX bishop illicitly performed 21 ordinations today, in complete and open defiance of the Holy See. The SSPX priests and bishops are performing invalid rites of matrimony and granting annulments to sacraments that have been performed validly by Roman Catholic priests, thus declaring jurisdiction, which is an open and shut act of schism. Additionally, the SSPX priests are regularly attempting the Sacrament of Penance, which they have no power to perform, again, because they lack jurisdiction. Mr. Richert is absolutely correct. The SSPX bishops need to submit to the Holy Pontiff and sign the profession of faith that has been offered to them without delay.
Helen,
Thank you for your reply. Many of your co-religionists would not have taken the time to formulate a response that was as reasonable and polite as yours. A schismatic is someone who proposes a different path. The SSPX has been consistent in a) not promoting sedevacantism and b) pledging solidarity with the Pope. Furthermore, the clergy of the SSPX are NOT forbidden from celebrating the sacraments. The rites are indeed valid, which is a subject that was cleared up in 1988. If you are not current (or, for that matter, up-with-the-past) that is your problem, not the Church’s.
Mr. Quinn,
Thank you for your response to my comments. It is evident, even to Rome at this point, that confusion reigns in the minds of the faithful regarding the SSPX, and this is the fault in no small measure of the bishops, who, because they have considered the SSPX to be in schism and beyond their jurisdiction, have refused to warn the faithful about them or their teachings. This has allowed the SSPX to expand, and many souls who are attractred to tradition to be drawn into their organization, believing them to be in union with Rome. If you are correct, and the SSPX is NOT in schism, then they have no reason to reconcile. or to sign any agreement that will limit their autonomy.
The truth is, the SSPX is most definitely in schism. If you are Catholic ask your bishop if the Sacraments performed by the SSPX are licit (legal) – that is, do the SSPX clergy have the permission of the Holy Pontiff to be administering Catholic Sacraments publicly to the faithful? Are the SSPX clergy legitimate (legal) ministers of the Roman Catholic Sacraments? Any Roman Catholic bishop will have the answer to this question. Ask your bishop, as well, if the SSPX priests have the power to validly administer the Sacraments of Matrimony and Penance, since these two Sacraments require jurisdiction. If you want confimation, ask these same questions directly of the Holy See, or of the Papal Nuncio in your country. The SSPX clergy do have the power to administer five of the seven Sacraments, but they are not permitted to do so legally at the present time, at least not in the Roman Catholic Church. If they do so, they are committing grave sin.
TODAY’S GALATIANS BY SSPX BIshop Williamson: “O you senseless Tradcats ! …Are you so foolish that having experienced the fruits of Tradition you now want to give it up by putting yourselves back under the Conciliar authorities ? …I am astonished that you are so soon drifting away from the line of Archbishop Lefebvre who called you into the grace of Christ, and instead towards the new gospel of Vatican II, which is no gospel at all, but these modernists are troubling you, and they want to pervert the Gospel of Christ. But if ourselves or an angel from Heaven were to try to tell you that the Council was not really that bad, throw him out and don’t listen ! Let me say it again: anyone pretending that the Archbishop would have been in favour of a deal today with Conciliar Rome should be thrown out ! …Are we trying to please the Romans or to please God ? If these Romans liked me, I would be no servant of Christ ! (I, 6-10)…. Stand fast, and do not come under the sway of the Council again (V, 1). You were doing well. How can you now be letting yourselves turned away from the Truth ? Whoever is doing this to you is no servant of God ! I do believe you will come to your senses, but whoever is misleading you bears a grave responsibility…Whoever is corrupting Tradition needs the knife for more than just circumcision (V, 7-12) ! “Those wanting the SSPX to go through Vatican II B …want you to be worldly, keeping only the outward appearances of Tradition. They want back in with the Judaizers in Rome…
I agree with Helen, but even I was stunned by the quote from Bishop Williamson, so I googled the original. He is not being taken out of context; the entire text is even worse. Clearly he considers himself to belong to a different church than the one of Rome, so who am I or anyone to say he is not in schism? On one small point I disagree with Helen. Priests are not ministers of the sacrament of Matrimony, the married couple are to each other. But in general, Helen is correct in pointing out the issue of whether the sacraments are licit. Validity is a red herring when the question is whether or not a group is in schism. No one challenges the validity of the sacraments of Eastern Orthodox churches, nor does anyone contend they are not in schism.
Mr. Higdon, I stand corrected regarding the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and I thank you. That is an interesting point regarding the validity of the Sacraments in the Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches. I don’t believe that if a Roman Catholic marriage is witnessed by an Orthodox priest, he or she is considered married in the eyes of God, and it is also considered to be a grave (mortal) sin. I’d have to check the canon on this, but I believe it says that the minister witnessing the sacrament has to be a legitimate CATHOLIC minister(priest) who has juridiction granted to him by the local Roman Catholic ordinary. No SSPX priest or bishop, to my knowledge, has EVER been granted jurisdiction by a Roman Catholic bishop. However, SSPX priests implicitly declare jurisdiction when they witness marriages and above all when they grant annulments of valid Roman Catholic marriages. If a person is in true danger of death, an SSPX priest can validly absolve sin. Unless this is so, SSPX priests do not have the power to validly absolve sin. This is canon law and any Catholic bishop will confirm what I am saying here. Obviously, this is important.
Mr. Higdon, Regarding the “Eleison Comments” that are published weekly by SSPX Bishop Williamson (this is number 257) and distributed all over the world in multiple languages to thousands of subscribers and bloggers, the one from today that I quoted from is mild in comparison to his usual diatribes. His attacks on the Holy Pontiff are nothing short of vicious, and his hatred of Blessed Pope John Paul II is frightening because it is so very vile. He has never been disciplined or publicly corrected by any of the other SSPX bishops, so I have to assume that they agree with him, as do, unfortunately, a very, very large number of SSPX lay and religious SSPX members.
The question of the sacraments administered by the SSPX are indeed valid. There is nothing illegal about it. That’s not just my opinion, it’s the opinion of one Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope B16. Moreover, schism requires a declaration of the intent to separate. Validity has never been the issue. The only people who can’t seem to grasp the distinction are Christendom College/Franciscan University types. The SSPX never announced schism and in fact has always held the opposite position. Your numerology “system” by which you reign in the faculties of SSPX priests is both contradictory and bizarre. There are plenty of doltish bishops, but I doubt that more than a few would take that absurd of a position.
On another note, Helen, I gather that you do not attend Mass offered by priests of the SSPX. Yet you snoop on Bishop Williamson’s emails. (Are they valid or licit? I will let you work this out.) Your assumption that “a very, very large number of SSPX lay and religious” agree with him is based on what? Your imagination? Why would you assume something like that?
Finally, why should the SSPX sign any agreement that would limit their autonomy? No one else has to. The Anglicans didn’t and–let’s be honest here–they have not exactly been stalwart, resolute defenders of the faith even in their own communion. I mean, what took them so long? I’d love to know the “reasoning” behind the delay. “I’ll tolerate married priests because that’s our pedigree.” Then it becomes, “I’ll stay in communion with the Anglican Church even though women “priests” are allowed so long as I’m left alone. And I’ll do the same for homosexuals, as long as I’m left alone. And these are our new fellow-travelers? But the SSPX has to jump through 48 hoops?
There is not much to say to Mr. Quinn and Patrick, who are, at best, recycling old arguments that have been proved false by the actions of the SSPX bishops themselves. The author who made the best argument that the SSPX had not gone into schism (and even that the bishops had not been excommunicated latae sententiae) was Michael Davies, whom I knew and had the pleasure of introducing twice. Michael was a brilliant man, a faithful son of the Church, yet, on this matter, he was wrong—as the bishops of the SSPX proved, when they formally requested that Rome remit their excommunications. Rome could not remit what it could not—or had not—imposed.
I have a number of friends who either are members of SSPX or have been in the past. All of them are quite hopeful, as am I, that full reunion will finally occur. Will all four of the bishops return to the fold? Certainly not. Bishop Williamson has made his position entirely too clear; if he is not currently a sedevacantist, he has been headed in that direction for close to two decades. One hopes that the other two bishops will follow their superior general, rather than Bishop Williamson.
Mr. Higdon is right that some supporters of the SSPX use the validity of the sacraments that they administer as a red herring. But based on Mr. Quinn’s response, I don’t think that’s the case here. Mr. Quinn seems incapable of understanding the difference between validity and licity. And yet he presents himself as the true Catholic and lectures those who do understand this important distinction.
The canonical position of the SSPX today can be compared with that of the Orthodox Churches after the lifting of the mutual excommunications by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras in 1965. Full union has not yet been achieved, and until such time as it has, SSPX sacraments, which are valid, are not licitly administered.
I could continue to erode the sand on which Mr. Quinn has built the house of his argument, but what’s the point? He seems already to have made his decision to follow Bishop Williamson into the outer darkness, once Bishop Fellay brings the faithful of the SSPX back into full communion with the Successor of Peter.
Still, one final thing: Mr. Quinn uses the term “Tradlite” to refer, apparently, to those of us who hold to Tradition yet remain in full communion with Rome. The term, however, would seem more properly to apply to those who think that they can hold to Tradition without such communion. They are the ones who have abandoned a portion of the Church’s teaching.
I have no idea how Mr. Richert infers from anything I’ve written that I am prepared to follow Bishop Williamson. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’d love to have him on board, as he is erudite and articulate, but it appears he will follow another path.
I’m very glad to hear that, Mr. Quinn. As to how I made my apparently mistaken inference, let me point to just one among many things which led me to that conclusion. In your first response to Helen, you wrote:
“Many of your co-religionists would not have taken the time to formulate a response that was as reasonable and polite as yours.”
Helen is a Catholic; therefore, her “co-religionists” are all her fellow Catholics. If you truly see yourself as in union with Rome, then you are one of her “co-religionists.”
To refer to Helen and her “co-religionists” is to imply that you are not one of those “co-religionists.”
Ah, yes, point taken.
Messrs. Richert and Quinn,
Tomorrow, please give a call to your local ordinaries and ask whether or not the sacrments of Holy Matimony and Penance are able to be validly administered by the SSPX. I’d be interested to know what they have to say.
Helen, I was confused at first as to why you were including me in your request to Mr. Quinn, but I see now that my final line in comment 11 is ambiguous.
I wrote:
“Full union has not yet been achieved, and until such time as it has, SSPX sacraments, which are valid, are not licitly administered.”
It would be more clear to write:
“Full union has not yet been achieved, and until such time as it has, those SSPX sacraments which can be validly administered are not licitly administered.”
That does not include, as you correctly point out, the Sacraments of Matrimony and Penance, which require the granting of faculties by one with the authority to grant them. None of the bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre has ever had the authority to grant such faculties.
Now, there are within SSPX some priests who were not ordained by those bishops, including some who were ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre before his latae sententiae excommunication. Their situation may be different (see Canon 967, section 2, for instance), but there is no reason why any Catholic should risk his soul when there are plenty of Catholic priests who clearly have the faculties to marry and confess penitents. The only situation (in my opinion) that would justify confession to an SSPX priest would be when one’s life is in imminent danger. And that situation, as you have rightly pointed out, Helen, is already covered.
Wow! That was intense.
Peace out
Mr. Richert – thank you for the clarification, which is extremely important, because there is an enormous amount of confusion out there about this matter, intentionally created or otherwise, and this impacts directly the eternal salvation of souls. Mr. Quinn – No, I do not worship at SSPX chapels, although I am a “traditionalist” and have been for a couple of decades now. I also had the honor and great pleasure of knowing Michael Davies. I am subject to the Holy Pontiff, and to my bishop, who has told me that the SSPX is in schism and that I cannot fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending Mass at an SSPX chapel. I do not “snoop” on SSPX Bishop Williamson. Every week he distributes his teaching in the form of commentaries to thousands of souls across the globe, in multiple languages. He clearly is not hiding anything. On the contrary, he wants to distribute what he has to say as far and as wide as possible. He has done this for years now, and Bishop Fellay has not made one statement to contradict or correct what he has to say.
Oh, and I would like to add that Michael Davies told Archbishop Lefebvre in the strongest terms that he should not defy the Pontiff and consecrate the four bishops.
Yo, that was such an interesting debate, i learnt a lot out of it, thanks guys, keep it up, as long its about God and our Catholic Faith
Marriage between baptized Christians is considered both valid and sacramental whether or not witnessed by a Catholic priest who has faculties. This goes way beyond the issue of SSPX priests acting as witnesses to marriages, since the SSPX involves relatively few people. If the validity of a marriage between baptized Christians depends on the witness of a Catholic priest with the proper juridical faculties, then all marriages between baptized protestants and eastern schismatics are invalid. In this area more than others, it’s important to keep in mind the true requirements of validity, especially given the tendency (now apparently on the wane, thank God) to give out annulments for any reason or excuse at all.
Two baptized Catholics who have married legally (in secular terms) in an SSPX chapel do not need to get an annulment to marry in the Catholic Church. Strangely enough, a Protestant Christian (or one who has formally renounced the Catholic Faith) WOULD have to apply for an annulment to marry in the Catholic Church. This does seem strange, but then, I’m not a canonist. I’m just telling you the position of my bishop on the matter. Why don’t you check it out with your local ordinary, or with Rome, and get back to us on what you learn?
Kirt, Helen is correct. Canon 1059 states, “Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.”
Then Canons 1108 and 1109 govern whom the marriage must be contracted before: “Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them . . . ”
Thus, Catholics, by virtue of being Catholic, have more stringent requirements to meet in order for their marriages to be valid. Two baptized non-Catholic Christians can contract a valid marriage without having to be married in front of the “local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them,” but two Catholics cannot.
Needless to say, those members of the SSPX who have married secularly in an SSPX chapel (perhaps after consulting with an SSPX bishop, reading Chris Ferrara’s work, or just deciding for themselves that the Holy Pontiff and the Magisterium are in error on the matter of invalidity of SSPX marriages), should NOT be receiving Holy Communion, either in SSPX chapels or elsewhere.
Scott, I am not arguing with respect to Catholics being married in front of an SSPX priest as witness. But you yourself stated that the position of SSPX is comparable to that of the eastern churches after Pope Paul VI lifted excommunication. So are all marriages witnessed by eastern schismatic priests invalid for lack of jurisdiction? If not, why would marriages witnessed by SSPX priests necessarily be invalid for this reason? And of course, the same thing applies to Protestant ministers. In the case of the validity of absolution in the Confessional, the same thing would apply, other than with regard to Protestant ministers. In other words, is absolution granted by eastern schismatic priests valid or is it invalid for lack of jurisdiction? I would certainly contend that the SSPX is in schism. Apparently you do too and so does Helen. But I don’t think there is a special set of rules for them that don’t apply to other schismatics.
I think the confusion, Kirt, comes in because of the relatively young age of the schism. Are those who attend SSPX chapels Catholic? They think of themselves as such, and, as such, should be bound by canon law.
The Orthodox do not. Neither do the various Protestant communions. And the Catholic Church does not consider them Catholic, so Canon 1059 does not apply.
Those who wish to claim union with Rome need to abide by canon law. And that means that they have to jump through the additional hoops required by canon law of all Catholics.
At least, that’s my reading of it.
One thing is certain: there are few acts more gravely sinful in the eyes of God than those which destroy the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ. As I said in an earlier post, confusion reigns with respect to the SSPX, not only in the minds of the faithful, but also among the clergy and the bishops. Much of this confusion has been purposely created, for political gain. The Holy See is now well aware of this, and I don’t believe that they will launch another extended round of talks. We are now fast approaching the end of the road in terms of the negotiations. It is decision time. Regardless of how many follow him, Bishop Fellay needs to obey the Vicar of Christ on Earth – without further delay.
Why would anyone who is attached to Church tradition wish to associate with people who have and are wholly and singlehanded destroying the Catholic faith,; who have made a mockery of a profound religion, and who are disgracing the name Catholic all over the world becauseof the mammouth and endemic problem with perverted sodomite priests, bishops, cardinals and who knows who else. The traditoinalist is trying to perservere in the faith, not throw it away. Anyone who thinks they can go into a synagogue with the synagogue’s authority present there and believe they can convert people inside this synagogue are suffering from enormous pride and should have their heads examined.
Anastasia, if you seriously believe that traditionalists have not been associated with, and covered up for, priests who have engaged in clerical sexual abuse, you’re naive. And, sadly, some of the worst cases among traditionalists have been in recent years, after John Paul II had transferred responsibility for all cases of clerical sexual abuse to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal Ratzinger had begun cleaning out the stables—a process he has continued as pope.
I said anyone attached to tradition. I did not say “traditionalist”. The “traditionalists” of the SSPX will be going back to Rome with the sodomites, and bring their own along with them. . .Those who are attached to tradition would follow the tradition of the 16th h Century Catholics who knew what to do with this type of priest. They killed them. They killed so many of them, the Jesuits got Rome to pass a law that if you struck a priest, you would suffer excommunication, but as I said, I would still follow the traditions of the Church.
The worst cases may be said to be in traditonalist Churches because they are well nown for we don’t have Ratzinger to cover it up., and those priests were outed by those attached to tradition. For example, Fr. U and gang were chased off the continent, and they still have no rest, for we follow them whereever they go.
The comment “…more gravely sinful in the eyes of God than those which destroy the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ… ” followed by “… confusion of SSPX…” makes no sense.
The unity of the Mystical Body of Christ is being destroyed by modern errors where there is no confession (because there are no confessionals), there is no penance because there is no confession in the first place, the sacraments are abused by ‘minsters’ whose hands are not consecrated, etc.
If you think there will be no more offers from Rome, then that is a good thing.
Why do they move TLM’s away from busy and popular locations where there is a large following? That may be a sin.
Personally I do not wish the SSPX to unite with Rome. Nuns giving out communion, strumming guitars in mass (I was one of them 30 years ago), etc and since then it has gotten worse.
I wish to remain with the ‘valid’ sacraments. I spoke to a priest about this in depth some time ago (very well qualified) and know I am not committing a sin of any kind (least of all the destroying of the unity of the of the Mystical Body of Christ) and can follow the SSPX with a completely clear conscience.
20 years of modernism, knowing no bounds, led me to the SSPX which I have been following for over 25 years. I pray for our Pope daily in my Rosary. This is my duty. I am not required to be ‘obedient’ as I have taken no vows except to my husband.
So much worry here about schism, licit sacraments, etc. What about the soul? I would have fallen away completely had it not been for the SSPX. Sweeping statements regarding the salvation of souls are dangerous as you could truly jeopardise someone’s salvation by being so pedantic.
Your discussions make rash judgements. I have peace of soul but for someone else your judgement would say I am damned by not following Rome to your standards. I follow Rome and our Pope and attend the the true sacrifice of the mass and pray as is my duty.
Angela, I am sorry that you have so much bitterness against the Church. I am not blind to the sin that has entered the Church and the corruption that afflicts Her, or to the attacks on the Sacramental Order which have taken a tremendous toll. But the answer is not to abandon the Mystical Body of Christ, nor to launch vicious attacks on the Vicar of Christ on Earth. The toll that this terrible schism of the SSPX has taken on the Holy Father cannot be underestimated, and so many souls are indeed deprived of grace through the schism, and will lose eternal life because of it, souls who were destined for high levels of holiness in Heaven. God help Archbishop Lefebvre himself, who was one of our best and brightest, and who did such incredible work for God as head of the Holy Ghost Fathers. He died in a state of excommunication. Do you realize fully what this means?? I don’t know who the priest was who told you that you were in perfect harmony with Christ to belong to the SSPX, but he was wrong. As a Roman Catholic, you cannot fulfill your Sunday obligation at an SSPX Mass. Period. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. This is the positon of Rome, of the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on Earth. But I do believe that, just as the Council of Trent took place as a reaction to the terrible devastation of the schism and later the heresies of Luther, the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre will also cause the Church to refocus and go through a new restoration. This is already underway. Let us continue to pray that SSPX Bishop Fellay will sign the profession of faith in the preamble and reconciliation will happen.
For anyone else who has doubts about the canonical status of the SSPX, or whether or not it is sinful to attend an SSPX Mass in place of a Catholic Sunday Mass, to marry in an SSPX chapel, baptize in an SSPX chapel, or receive the Sacraments from an SSPX priest – ASK YOUR (ROMAN CATHOLIC) BISHOP – or put the questions directly to Rome. This is what I did. In fact, I contacted multiple Roman Catholic bishops. The letter I received back from the Vatican, with a protocol number on it, clearly says that the SSPX is “in schism.” They spelled it correctly. As Roman Catholics, these are the authorities to whom we appeal. Of course, if you are SSPX, you will rely on your own priests and bishops for answers. May God have mercy on you…
Enough of bickering back and forth regarding the validity of the SSPX. One can only have the intelligence that the Holy Spirit would never appear at a Novus Ordus mass-therefore no Consecration. Visit a Novus Ordus church and you will know why- women with breasts out and improperly dressed, people receiving with dirty hands, loud music which is contrary to the likes of our Lord and a milion other things more.
Visit an SSPX Tridantine Mass and tell me if you would see those things? Therefore, no schism and more decency. Jesus likes that. Enough said HELEN
Hi, Tony – I belong to a Traditional Latin Mass community that is Roman Catholic and loyal to the Holy Pontiff, and I your concerns, which is why my family belongs to this community. I agree with you that there are too many Novus Ordo Masses where abuses such as the ones you describe are tolerated. The priests who are offering these Masses are responsible for allowing this behavior to take place in the presence of the Most Blessed Sacrament, and they will have a great deal to answer for. The faithful who witness these abuses cannot just sit back and remain silent, or go off into a corner and complain. There are many corrective measures that can be taken. We will not be judged on how successful we have been – only that we have taken action to defend the Faith, and not defy the Holy Pontiff in the process. There are few more grave sins than the sin of schism. The Church is under siege and she has been under siege for at least a generation now. Rome is aware of the crisis, and it is being addressed. I urge you to fight from WITHIN the Church. It is your responsibility to stay and fight – not flee to communities that isolate themselves and cut themselves off from the Mystical Body of Christ so that they won’t be “infected” by those of us who have remained within the Church.
Helen: The SSPX represents the true Catholic faith. It never intended to disobey the Pope. The Pope and the local archbishop, as well as the entire priestly community, is always prayed for at all SSPX Masses and rosaries. The SSPX has never disobeyed the true teachings of the Church. Why are you so hung up on the Pope????? Popes have blatantly accepted Vatican II and its non Catholic practices which have greatly undermined the Church and its reputation globally. By your disgracing of the SSPX you are undermining the true Catholic religion. Your group accepts the fact that during the prior mass (mess) at the same church— Communion(????) was taken in dirty hands, women wore pants and no veils (as to not represent Mary)and showed their breasts, men wore shorts as to disrespect the Holy Ghost (if it’s ever present there) and a trillion other things that are not Catholic in nature. Your comments are your trying to sway people away from the true teachings and behaviors of the Church are offending Jesus. Get off your hang up with the SSPX. Maybe you need to attend one of their Masses. I cannot accept your group as Traditional when perhaps you don’t even have a communion rail or the Stations of the Cross inside the Church and you allow a Novus Ordus mess in the same Church.
Tony, Your comments are most revealing. First of all, we have a beautiful Communion rail in our church and magnificent Stations of the Cross, both of which are a blessing for us. “We” don’t “permit” NO Masses in the same church; our holy Roman Catholic bishop, whom the Holy Spirit gave us as our shepherd, permits this and we submit in humble obedience to him, as is Our Lord’s will. There is a mystical reality that you need to consider very, very seriously, Tony. Sanctifying Grace cannot be in the same place as mortal sin; mortal sin prevents the flow of Sanctifying Grace. Your SSPX priests are strictly forbidden, under the penalty of the gravest sin, from administering the Sacraments and offering public Masses. They are well aware of this. Each and every time they offer Mass, not only are they committing some of the gravest sins possible, they are also committing a sacrilege. The faithful who marry in SSPX chapels, in direct and brazen defiance of Rome, immediately receive the Most Blessed Sacrament in Holy Communion. SSPX priests also consecrate Hosts which are then kept in makeshift chapels in basements, garages, woodsheds, and even bedrooms, by traditionalists who are part of the “underground church” that is, religious communities that are affiliated with the SSPX – not with Rome. I pray that the Holy Pontiff wakes up to this situation soon and acts to protect and defend the Most Blessed Sacrament.
Thankyou Helen for your defense of the Holy Pontiff and for stressing the importance of remaining united to the mystical body of Christ. I used to attend a Society Chapel but no longer do. The intentions of many who attend Society chapels are good but they become blinded by a ‘bitter zeal’. Our pastor at the chapel that I attended used this term to describe many in the Society. And it is true that many share Bishop Williamson’s analysis of the situation in the Church. They are very much anti-Pope John Paul II, and I don’t believe they would even recognize that he is Blessed. They would be more likely to refer to him as “Blessed”. The quotations usually imply their disapproval. They also display a total disdain for Mother Teresa. As one priest at our chapel said rather shockingly, “We will never recognize Mother Teresa as a saint!” They hold in suspiscion any declaration of Sainthood by the Holy Pontiff unless it is someone that they like. And there is an almost total rejection of any sort of private revelation that has occurred since Vatican II. In spite of the good that they have done and continue to do, they seem to have cut themselves off from the possibility that the Holy Spirit can act within the auspices of the Church united with the Pope. It basically comes down to pride. This is the great sin of the Society.
Helen: First of all it is your Bishops and the Popes which have led the Church astray since Vatican II. If you are such a good Catholic, do you think that God is content with the actions the Vatican has taken as well as the modernist priests, etc????? Who are you to accuse the priests of the SSPX to be in great mortal sin? That is only for God to judge— not you, your bishop or your modernist friends. Your modern priests, popes, etc are not doing the proper things that Holy Mother Church requires. The horrible things done after Vatican II surely do offend Christ.
98% of churches do not even have the tabernacle in the altar but away from it- a symbol that the Blessed Sacrament has no meaning to them. And please provide me evidence of the SSPX keeping the Blessed Sacrament in woodsheds, etc. I did see one of your Modernist communion givers as they are called pay for his groceries at a supermarket and within the money he had the vessel where they keep the communion wafer to offer it to anyone they please, even without the sacrament of penance. Oh Helen, our Lady will will reveal to you her love for the true Church and will reveal to you that your bishops who wrongly advise you are so wrong. Please stop offending God with your misguidance. Why are you so hung up on couples who marry in SSPX chapels? I hope your bishop can give you good advise regarding your marriage. And FRANK: All Saints and holy persons like Mother Theresa are respected and prayed for at all SSPX masses.