I am firmly an SSPXer. In fact, back in June 2010 I attended the Ignatian Retreat in Richfield, Connecticut with Father Michael Goldade, as my retreat Master, my Pastor before he went to Richfield. Novus Ordo and New Rome is the enemy, as far as I am concerned. They lead many to the pits of hell.
Oblationem - I go to the SSPX traditonal Masses and I agree that Bishop Fellay would make a wonderful Pope, however I don't believe it would ever happen, unfortunately.
what is Rome's official stance concerning the SSPX? Schism or not in schism? are their sacraments valid? I am looking for a parish that is actually Catholic, the SSPX are the only ones keeping the True faith anymore it seems
The SSPX is not in schism, and many dont much care what Rome thinks until they come back to tradition. Good Catholics want to be in communion with Rome, but a Rome that wants to be Catholic. These past years it seems that Rome tries to distance itself from Catholicism, but at the same time wants to keep the name Catholic. The SSPX sacraments are most certainly valid, as Rome will tell you. The SSPX fights the good fight for the True Faith and Church, but they are not the only ones fighting
i would say sspx are surely valid because sspx has not changed anything did not change tradtion noves ordo has witch makes it iffy that it is very possible its a invalid mass...
the sacraments of course are valid, but whoever believes that only the sect of st. pius is truly catholic and/or that the second vatican council was heresy or contains any heresy is excommunicated.
the illegally consecrated bishops of the sect of st. pius are excommunicated (can. 1324 CIC), all priests are suspended (as they do not belong to any legal bishop of the Catholic Church).
That is the official position of the Catholic Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre really believed that he was acting out of necessity. If he was indeed correct in his belief that it was really necessary to consecrate the bishops, then he would not be subject to any penalty whatever (can. 1324.4). If he was in error and even if he was culpably in error in believing that it was necessary to consecrate bishops without a mandate from the Pope, then he still would not incur any automatic (latae sententice) penalty (can. 1324.3).
I would be very happy if Bishop Fellay, were ever to ascend to the Chair of Peter. I do not consider the excommunications to be valid to begin with. (I do not trust Rome).
is sspx trully excommunicated despite episcopal consecrations of 4 bishops without papal mandate? PJPII excommunicated Lefebvre for being disobedient but Cardinal Hoyos said the whole society is not excommunicated. Which one is true?I don't know whether to believe this because I found it's twisting. I'm a newbie.
Archbishop Lefebvre really believed that he was acting out of necessity. If he was indeed correct in his belief that it was really necessary to consecrate the bishops, then he would not be subject to any penalty whatever (can. 1324.4). If he was in error and even if he was culpably in error in believing that it was necessary to consecrate bishops without a mandate from the Pope, then he still would not incur any automatic (latae sententice) penalty (can. 1324.3).
And here what I found,PJPII quoted:"there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff". Consecrating a bishop without papal approval was also condemned by Pope Pius XII... Pius XII stated that the sacramental activity of illicitly consecrated bishops was "gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious".." How?
Well heres the way it works. Traditionalists follow canon laws and Tradition all the time, but the New Church Novus Ordo follows canon law and Traditions when it pleases them. For Instance, Pope Leo XIII said that Anglican Orders were invalid, and even JP2 said the same thing. But on September 14, 2008 B16 let Homo Heretic Anglican Bishop Rowan Williams deliver a Papal Homily A violation of New Church law. - And yes, Pope Pius XII was a great Pope.
Archbishop Lefebvre really believed that he was acting out of necessity. If he was indeed correct in his belief that it was really necessary to consecrate the bishops, then he would not be subject to any penalty whatever (can. 1324.4). If he was in error and even if he was culpably in error in believing that it was necessary to consecrate bishops without a mandate from the Pope, then he still would not incur any automatic (latae sententice) penalty (can. 1324.3).
I am a cradle Catholic and I absolutely adore our Church. I was blessed to attend a Jesuit high school and university in California.
I do prefer a more solem mass. Some Catholic priests today try to make the mass too similar to Protestant services with the lively music, theatrics, etc and I don't like it but I would never break away from the one true Church. It's like a marriage, you are not going to seek a divorce just because you have a disagreement with your spouse.
You say that, you absolutely adore our Church, but how many letters of complaint have you written to your priest, bishop or to Rome? What actions have you taken to prove your love for the Church?
The SSPX didnt divorce the Church even though they disagree with the way that Church was and is whoring around with the enemies of the Church. The SSPX stays true to Church teaching even though Rome does not. The SSPX fights the good fight, and waits for the return of Tradition.
According to Wikipedia, "The SSPX considers itself faithful to the Catholic Church and all its infallible teachings, while rejecting what it sees as novelties in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. It has officially recognised Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI as Popes."
Im just a layman, but yeah I think so, even though the Novus Ordo tries to destroy the Papacy. My personal theory is: by doing so the SSPX prevents the Novus Ordo thieves from stealing the Church/Papacy out-right. The SSPX is in their face about it like St. Paul was to St. Peter. They dont sneak around about it. If the SSPX didnt take the position that they take, who would fight for the Papacy? My worry is that some may give up the fight too soon, like accepting the Novus Order Calendar.
Any true Catholic KNOWS that there is nothing at all in Heretics having any authority to do anything authoritative at all for anyone, so what's the point in all this "lifting the excommunication" which is not even there to begin with?
lets do our best that it would not take more than 50 years. lets end their heresy now! 400 years of Arian heresy is not the same as today's heresy. This heresy would not take long and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart is soon!
right! all the sect of st. pius has to do is: accept the teaching of the Church, as it has been done by the Great Second Vatican Council.
That is the only way to end the lefebvrian heresy which is clearly modernism: "I don't believe in the teaching of the Church, I make my own religion against the tradition, against the Councils, against the Pope."
Bp. Williamson put it in a clear and plain way, he said, "...Even if Rome half-converted and the SSPX half-betrayed, in order for the two parties to meet half-way, still there would be war to the death between Conciliarism and Catholicism. We are not talking about Rome or the SSPX being nice or nasty. We are talking about two different, and necessarily opposed, religions."
The Novus Ordo VII Church is simply not Catholic. Please read the Church documents before and after VII.
It is very easy: The tradition doesn's stop in the year 1962. The Council itself IS the tradition, and you cannot obey the tradition without obeying the Council.
You and all your schismatic and heretic friends like the illegally consecrated Mr Williamson must learn that the Council itself explains how the Roman Church has to understand and interpret the tradition.
Keep in mind: the Council is not against the tradition, it is the tradition itself.
No - you keep in mind that in all the history of the Catholic Church there has never been a Pastoral Council until Vatican II. (Look it up). A Pastoral Council does not carry the theological weight as a Dogmatic Council, that is what VII said about itself. Vatican II is NOT Tradition, it is outside of Catholic Tradition and is more akin to Protestantism.
PS: It is not Mr. Williamson, it is Bp. Williamson. Rome calls him a Bishop.
I also agree that any of the SSPX bishops would make good popes. Why? Easy....they are Catholic!
leokadia333 1 year ago
I am firmly an SSPXer. In fact, back in June 2010 I attended the Ignatian Retreat in Richfield, Connecticut with Father Michael Goldade, as my retreat Master, my Pastor before he went to Richfield. Novus Ordo and New Rome is the enemy, as far as I am concerned. They lead many to the pits of hell.
FishEaster 1 year ago
Oblationem - I go to the SSPX traditonal Masses and I agree that Bishop Fellay would make a wonderful Pope, however I don't believe it would ever happen, unfortunately.
Eltsacwenify 2 years ago
Think about it, ANY one of the SSPX bishops would make a good pope.
Oblationem 2 years ago
what is Rome's official stance concerning the SSPX? Schism or not in schism? are their sacraments valid? I am looking for a parish that is actually Catholic, the SSPX are the only ones keeping the True faith anymore it seems
novusdisorder00 3 years ago
The SSPX is not in schism, and many dont much care what Rome thinks until they come back to tradition. Good Catholics want to be in communion with Rome, but a Rome that wants to be Catholic. These past years it seems that Rome tries to distance itself from Catholicism, but at the same time wants to keep the name Catholic. The SSPX sacraments are most certainly valid, as Rome will tell you. The SSPX fights the good fight for the True Faith and Church, but they are not the only ones fighting
Oblationem 3 years ago
i would say sspx are surely valid because sspx has not changed anything did not change tradtion noves ordo has witch makes it iffy that it is very possible its a invalid mass...
chrischutebox 3 years ago 2
the sacraments of course are valid, but whoever believes that only the sect of st. pius is truly catholic and/or that the second vatican council was heresy or contains any heresy is excommunicated.
the illegally consecrated bishops of the sect of st. pius are excommunicated (can. 1324 CIC), all priests are suspended (as they do not belong to any legal bishop of the Catholic Church).
That is the official position of the Catholic Church.
nicephor 3 years ago
Archbishop Lefebvre really believed that he was acting out of necessity. If he was indeed correct in his belief that it was really necessary to consecrate the bishops, then he would not be subject to any penalty whatever (can. 1324.4). If he was in error and even if he was culpably in error in believing that it was necessary to consecrate bishops without a mandate from the Pope, then he still would not incur any automatic (latae sententice) penalty (can. 1324.3).
Oblationem 3 years ago 2
Oblationem, will you be happy if the Rosary Crusade works and the excommunications are lifted?
starchyp92 3 years ago
I would be very happy if Bishop Fellay, were ever to ascend to the Chair of Peter. I do not consider the excommunications to be valid to begin with. (I do not trust Rome).
Oblationem 3 years ago
Bishop Fellay for Pope!
scotty19855 3 years ago
is sspx trully excommunicated despite episcopal consecrations of 4 bishops without papal mandate? PJPII excommunicated Lefebvre for being disobedient but Cardinal Hoyos said the whole society is not excommunicated. Which one is true?I don't know whether to believe this because I found it's twisting. I'm a newbie.
dcamp456 3 years ago
Archbishop Lefebvre really believed that he was acting out of necessity. If he was indeed correct in his belief that it was really necessary to consecrate the bishops, then he would not be subject to any penalty whatever (can. 1324.4). If he was in error and even if he was culpably in error in believing that it was necessary to consecrate bishops without a mandate from the Pope, then he still would not incur any automatic (latae sententice) penalty (can. 1324.3).
Oblationem 3 years ago
And here what I found,PJPII quoted:"there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff". Consecrating a bishop without papal approval was also condemned by Pope Pius XII... Pius XII stated that the sacramental activity of illicitly consecrated bishops was "gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious".." How?
dcamp456 3 years ago
(A)
How?
Well heres the way it works. Traditionalists follow canon laws and Tradition all the time, but the New Church Novus Ordo follows canon law and Traditions when it pleases them. For Instance, Pope Leo XIII said that Anglican Orders were invalid, and even JP2 said the same thing. But on September 14, 2008 B16 let Homo Heretic Anglican Bishop Rowan Williams deliver a Papal Homily A violation of New Church law. - And yes, Pope Pius XII was a great Pope.
Oblationem 3 years ago
(B)
Ill say it again:
Archbishop Lefebvre really believed that he was acting out of necessity. If he was indeed correct in his belief that it was really necessary to consecrate the bishops, then he would not be subject to any penalty whatever (can. 1324.4). If he was in error and even if he was culpably in error in believing that it was necessary to consecrate bishops without a mandate from the Pope, then he still would not incur any automatic (latae sententice) penalty (can. 1324.3).
Oblationem 3 years ago
I am a cradle Catholic and I absolutely adore our Church. I was blessed to attend a Jesuit high school and university in California.
I do prefer a more solem mass. Some Catholic priests today try to make the mass too similar to Protestant services with the lively music, theatrics, etc and I don't like it but I would never break away from the one true Church. It's like a marriage, you are not going to seek a divorce just because you have a disagreement with your spouse.
rguerrah 3 years ago
You say that, you absolutely adore our Church, but how many letters of complaint have you written to your priest, bishop or to Rome? What actions have you taken to prove your love for the Church?
The SSPX didnt divorce the Church even though they disagree with the way that Church was and is whoring around with the enemies of the Church. The SSPX stays true to Church teaching even though Rome does not. The SSPX fights the good fight, and waits for the return of Tradition.
Oblationem 3 years ago
According to Wikipedia, "The SSPX considers itself faithful to the Catholic Church and all its infallible teachings, while rejecting what it sees as novelties in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. It has officially recognised Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI as Popes."
Is this true ?
rguerrah 3 years ago
Im just a layman, but yeah I think so, even though the Novus Ordo tries to destroy the Papacy. My personal theory is: by doing so the SSPX prevents the Novus Ordo thieves from stealing the Church/Papacy out-right. The SSPX is in their face about it like St. Paul was to St. Peter. They dont sneak around about it. If the SSPX didnt take the position that they take, who would fight for the Papacy? My worry is that some may give up the fight too soon, like accepting the Novus Order Calendar.
Oblationem 3 years ago
Any true Catholic KNOWS that there is nothing at all in Heretics having any authority to do anything authoritative at all for anyone, so what's the point in all this "lifting the excommunication" which is not even there to begin with?
stepdoughott 3 years ago
Who NEEDS ANYTHING whatsoever from those who are not even Catholic in Faith...quite a futile endeavour if there ever was one!
stepdoughott 3 years ago
Listen to your Mother Pray the Rosary daily with your family. Don't leave home without it.
SAYYOURROSARY 3 years ago
lets do our best that it would not take more than 50 years. lets end their heresy now! 400 years of Arian heresy is not the same as today's heresy. This heresy would not take long and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart is soon!
junebabia 3 years ago
right! all the sect of st. pius has to do is: accept the teaching of the Church, as it has been done by the Great Second Vatican Council.
That is the only way to end the lefebvrian heresy which is clearly modernism: "I don't believe in the teaching of the Church, I make my own religion against the tradition, against the Councils, against the Pope."
nicephor 3 years ago
Bp. Williamson put it in a clear and plain way, he said, "...Even if Rome half-converted and the SSPX half-betrayed, in order for the two parties to meet half-way, still there would be war to the death between Conciliarism and Catholicism. We are not talking about Rome or the SSPX being nice or nasty. We are talking about two different, and necessarily opposed, religions."
The Novus Ordo VII Church is simply not Catholic. Please read the Church documents before and after VII.
Oblationem 3 years ago
It is very easy: The tradition doesn's stop in the year 1962. The Council itself IS the tradition, and you cannot obey the tradition without obeying the Council.
You and all your schismatic and heretic friends like the illegally consecrated Mr Williamson must learn that the Council itself explains how the Roman Church has to understand and interpret the tradition.
Keep in mind: the Council is not against the tradition, it is the tradition itself.
nicephor 3 years ago
No - you keep in mind that in all the history of the Catholic Church there has never been a Pastoral Council until Vatican II. (Look it up). A Pastoral Council does not carry the theological weight as a Dogmatic Council, that is what VII said about itself. Vatican II is NOT Tradition, it is outside of Catholic Tradition and is more akin to Protestantism.
PS: It is not Mr. Williamson, it is Bp. Williamson. Rome calls him a Bishop.
Oblationem 3 years ago
No wonder reconciliation is taking so long.
:)
Just kidding.
36outof50 3 years ago 2