John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Aug 7, 2023 0:07:42 GMT -5
As someone who has no better option than attending an SSPX chapel, I have recently had the privilege of being exposed to a diverse number of priests from different locations as they holiday in my region. The idea that the Church could give us a bad liturgy that reflects protestant theology is something that seems to be common to many SSPX priests, among other errors such as the belief that the Church can give "stupid" laws such as allowing Freemasons to be members.
What is the best way to counter such ideas?
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Aug 7, 2023 21:34:23 GMT -5
Hi John, I also attend the SSPX, but my family have always maintained a low profile (since the late 1970s) with respect to sedevacantism and associated issues. After getting to know the priests who have come to our SSPX chapel, I must say that the overwhelming majority have a good heart and the salvation of souls is their primary motive. I have only discussed sedevacantism with priests that I have really gotten to know over the years. For the most part, they agreed with all of my points but leave the crisis to a mystery. They also agreed that the Church could not authorize the Novus Ordo so that’s why they push the idea that there was a fault with the promulgation of the “Novus Ordo missal”. (Although according to the 1917 code if the new liturgy was tacitly allowed by the hierarchy for more than 40 years it has the force of law for the Universal Church). Below is a quote from the Fr. F. R. MacManus’ thesis (Catholic University of America, 1954). Perhaps you can show that to your priest, once he gets to know you. Emphasis is mine in above quote.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Aug 8, 2023 10:26:55 GMT -5
Hi John, I also attend the SSPX, but my family have always maintained a low profile (since the late 1970s) with respect to sedevacantism and associated issues. After getting to know the priests who have come to our SSPX chapel, I must say that the overwhelming majority have a good heart and the salvation of souls is their primary motive. I have only discussed sedevacantism with priests that I have really gotten to know over the years. For the most part, they agreed with all of my points but leave the crisis to a mystery. They also agreed that the Church could not authorize the Novus Ordo so that’s why they push the idea that there was a fault with the promulgation of the “Novus Ordo missal”. (Although according to the 1917 code if the new liturgy was tacitly allowed by the hierarchy for more than 40 years it has the force of law for the Universal Church). Below is a quote from the Fr. F. R. MacManus’ thesis (Catholic University of America, 1954). Perhaps you can show that to your priest, once he gets to know you. Emphasis is mine in above quote. Hi Wenceslav, will you believe I've been thinking about this these days? I was wondering where I can find the quotes that the Church cannot give a bad liturgy since I think it is the strong point of sedevacantism. Could I ask you what is the number of the Canon of 1917 where it mentions that a long period has the force of law?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 8, 2023 14:28:35 GMT -5
My thoughts on SSPX from having gone to them off and on and irregularly for decades is for the most part the same as Wenceslav.
There is no doubt that the priests of the SSPX have the Faith, and when it comes to them, just learn basics of the Faith from them without learning how to respond to the crisis from them. On matters of Faith and morals, you can trust them, but when they begin trying to make sense of the crisis, they are a mess. They can give excellent sermons on the epistles, Gospels, and Saints.
When it comes to the crisis, they get it partly right, avoid the Novus Ordo, etc., and that is good, but when they dig deeper and get into more complex aspects of the crisis, such as to why we must reject the Conciliar church, it's "popes," "saints", liturgy, feasts, etc., there will be all sorts of problems with their explanations.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Aug 8, 2023 16:36:33 GMT -5
Hi John, I also attend the SSPX, but my family have always maintained a low profile (since the late 1970s) with respect to sedevacantism and associated issues. After getting to know the priests who have come to our SSPX chapel, I must say that the overwhelming majority have a good heart and the salvation of souls is their primary motive. I have only discussed sedevacantism with priests that I have really gotten to know over the years. For the most part, they agreed with all of my points but leave the crisis to a mystery. They also agreed that the Church could not authorize the Novus Ordo so that’s why they push the idea that there was a fault with the promulgation of the “Novus Ordo missal”. (Although according to the 1917 code if the new liturgy was tacitly allowed by the hierarchy for more than 40 years it has the force of law for the Universal Church). Below is a quote from the Fr. F. R. MacManus’ thesis (Catholic University of America, 1954). Perhaps you can show that to your priest, once he gets to know you. Emphasis is mine in above quote. Thanks, wenceslav. Does anyone else have anything more authoritative on this topic? One quote from a thesis does not a common teaching prove. Also, what was the topic of this thesis?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 8, 2023 17:30:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 8, 2023 18:06:21 GMT -5
Here is more, sources from: HERE
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Aug 8, 2023 22:20:34 GMT -5
Thank you very much, Pacelli for this list! I really appreciate your hard work and answering our questions. May God bless your efforts ( and Vox’s) for this forum.
Didymus, I believe it’s CIC Canon 27.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Aug 10, 2023 4:03:53 GMT -5
Thanks very much Pacelli . I sent the priest all of the above. He responded with the following article, which may be of interest to yourself and others here like sdwright and samuelsede.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 10, 2023 6:23:58 GMT -5
Hello John Lewis, I have read this and every article that Monsignor Fenton ever wrote, I treated him as a teacher to me, reading everything he had to say and learning from him, as he is one of the great theologians in modern times, in my opinion. What I don't understand is what the priest is trying to say by sending you this? Fenton reiterates the constant teaching that what is common in the manuals, as opposed to opinions by single theologians, is part of the universal and ordinary teaching of the Church and must be believed. Is he agreeing that what has been presented by theologian after theologian, all saying the same thing, in regards to the secondary infallibility of the Church, through its universal disciplinary laws in regulating the liturgy, with no dissent among them, is part of the universal and ordinary teaching of the Church? If he is agreeing, then great. If he sent that to you for some other reason, I'm puzzled. As a side note, the same principle here is also the same for Steven Speray's recent response to you, minimizing the common teaching of the theologians to mere opinions, and thinking that disagreement to the common teaching is somehow permissible. When the theologians teach in unison and there are no minority opinions, it is a witnessing to the Faith and an expression of the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church. Msgr. Fenton, among many others makes this clear in his article.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Aug 11, 2023 0:28:06 GMT -5
Hey Pacelli . I really don't understand what he is saying either as the article seems to be contrary to his purpose. I am however grateful to read Fr Fenton's article. I would definitely encourage re-publication. I've asked him twice if he is saying that the secondary infallibility of the Church in regards to universal discipline is not part of the universal ordinary magisterium and if so, what supporting evidence does he have that allows him to draw this conclusion. I hope to get an answer.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Aug 11, 2023 1:44:19 GMT -5
Ok, so he has come back to me. It seems he believes that the Universal Disciplinary laws of the Church don't come under the Church's infallibility because they can be modified.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2023 6:22:15 GMT -5
My thoughts on SSPX from having gone to them off and on and irregularly for decades is for the most part the same as Wenceslav. There is no doubt that the priests of the SSPX have the Faith, and when it comes to them, just learn basics of the Faith from them without learning how to respond to the crisis from them. On matters of Faith and morals, you can trust them, but when they begin trying to make sense of the crisis, they are a mess. They can give excellent sermons on the epistles, Gospels, and Saints. When it comes to the crisis, they get it partly right, avoid the Novus Ordo, etc., and that is good, but when they dig deeper and get into more complex aspects of the crisis, such as to why we must reject the Conciliar church, it's "popes," "saints", liturgy, feasts, etc., there will be all sorts of problems with their explanations. That about nails it. The sermon that Father gave yesterday hit on every single point as to the errors of V2, but failed to come to it’s natural conclusion of him denouncing the false popes as such, which is a shame.
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Aug 28, 2023 10:36:52 GMT -5
Salve Maria. I feel that exposing my ideas on the SSPX might be insightful. I agree with the general opinions manifested in this thread. It is my understanding that the personal intentions of the SSPX bishops and priests are genuine, pious and good for the faith. But I also believe that, despite the good intentions, the acts of the society are contradictory with their position on the crisis. As was stated by Pacelli, the SSPX don't have a strict, defined and official theological position on the nature of the crisis to justify their acts. Most of the members are satisfied simply claiming "there is a crisis therefore we can resist", but in my opinion that is not a tenable position to hold. If one insists to recognize the man in the apostolic See as the Pope, then it follows that his teachings are definitive and binding. There is no way around it. In order to justify this contradiction, many so called "solutions" have been proposed, and all fail in my view. The best by far, proposed by Fr. Álvaro Calderón, consists in denying the authority of the Magisterium because a "modernist thinking" has been adopted by it, resulting in the Magisterium, because of a mistaken understanding of what authority is, refusing to use its authority to teach and bind. I have a logical refutation of this position with five different objections that I can expand if anyone is interested.
The conclusion I have observing the SSPX is, in my mind, a simple case of knowing something is wrong but not knowing what to do. They fear sedevacantism as strongly as they fear recognizing the teaching of the Novus Ordo, which leads them to unbelievable contradictions with more unbelievable justifications. The two most prominent, in my opinion, are the claim that the new Mass is evil, duly refuted in this thread by Pacelli, and the refusal to recognize the "new Saints", which attacks the Catholic dogma of infallible canonizations.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Mar 7, 2024 22:47:03 GMT -5
Ok, so he has come back to me. It seems he believes that the Universal Disciplinary laws of the Church don't come under the Church's infallibility because they can be modified. In a catechism on why you cannot attend the evil new Mass, I happened to express that the new rites of exorcism are not efficacious according to the people who use them as discussed here and was told that exorcism is just a sacramental rite. In my mind I'm wondering how anyone could think that the Church could promulgate false sacramental and liturgical rites? Apparently they also believe that the Novus Ordo is not a Universal Rite of the Church as it isn't used in all Churches. What is the definition of Universal in this context according to the Catholic Church? Pacelli
|
|