SSPV

[crusaderfortruth3372]

About a year and a half ago I attended an SSPV chapel, but felt very, very uncomfortable and anxious after I was told they do not pray for the current Pontiff in the Canon, and that there is a good chance that the NO is a evil, heretical service that may not be valid... I don't think these issues should be focused on by them, even if they come from Fr. Jenkins on WFTS.... I'm not saying the SSPV doesn't have valid sacraments, but I can't go there if it makes me emotionally and physically sick.

I'll stick with attending the FSSP and the SSPX on occassion, as I trust their judgement more then anyone else!!

[INPEFESS]

It seems like these steps are being taken to protect the Eucharist. If the SSPV believes that there is any doubt into the validity of annulments, ordinations of Thuc line bishops, validity of the NO Mass etc., then one would think they have a duty to instruct and protect. One could then argue that there is no such Canon Law for this because this situation was unforeseen.

Just my personal opinion. I take no sides. I plan on visiting the SSPV in Maryland in the next couple of weeks (something always keeps coming up). I'm prepared to meet their requirements.

At best the SSPV has a bad case of misguided zeal. They are the ones making an issue of things. They are the ones making up nonexistent rules.  They are the ones seeing a bogey man under every bed and in every closet.

The point of traditional Catholicism is to do what the Church has always done.

Please find one instance in the entire history of the Church where such consecrations as those done by Archbishop Thuc (for which he was latae sententiae excommunicated by Pope Pius XII) received sanction by the Church.

Who is making things up here?

Let's face it: Traditional Catholics needed a bishop to keep things going. The outlook was bleak. So some of these Catholics were willing to stoop as low as necessary to get a bishop--any bishop--regardless of who he was, what he had done, or what his relationship was to the Church. The sacred sacrament of Holy Orders was treated as a profane, ab-usable resource--as if it were nothing but common money, money which had been stolen from a bank by a bankrobber and obtained contrary to the law of God. Sure, the money may spend*, but is it lawful to, after forsaking trust in God, go to the bankrobber instead to use the spoils of his crime?

*(though the level of proof needed in this case to ensure the money isn't actually counterfeit is absent, and the Church alone retains the authority to determine in this case whether the money is actually counterfeit, which is another whole problem of itself)

[INPEFESS]

About a year and a half ago I attended an SSPV chapel, but felt very, very uncomfortable and anxious after I was told they do not pray for the current Pontiff in the Canon, and that there is a good chance that the NO is a evil, heretical service that may not be valid... I don't think these issues should be focused on by them, even if they come from Fr. Jenkins on WFTS....

But that is why there is such a thing as traditional Catholicism at all: because there is a problem with the Novus Ordo. It is not a comfortable reality, but it is true nonetheless. Since it is true and is resulting in the spiritual ruin of countless souls, it is the obligation of faithful Catholics to say something, not just stand there idly pretending that everything's fine.

The SSPV doesn't declare whether the new Mass is or is not valid. Some of the priests (such as Fr. Jenkins) are of the opinion that it may actually be valid, which is why they won't set foot in a church that offers the Novus Ordo Missae: if it is valid, it is even worse, for setting foot in a church that offers the new liturgy would (with possibly a few exceptions) be setting foot on Christ's Body and Blood at the same time. There is no telling where His Body has been dropped, strewn, crumbled, sprinkled, etc. without any care to clean It. 

I'm not saying the SSPV doesn't have valid sacraments, but I can't go there if it makes me emotionally and physically sick.

O.K. But it seems that you only felt emotionally and physically sick because you didn't like the idea that a particular priest might not be praying for BXVI in the Canon, not because there was some evil aura about the SSPV's Mass. It seemed like it was the idea that wasn't palatable, not the SSPV itself. But only a few priests say whether they do or do not pray for BXVI in the Canon, and the rest don't discuss it with anyone--not even each other--, so unless it was one of these priests, given that the Canon is silent you were basing your emotional and physical illness off a rumor. The SSPV as a society leaves the issue up to each individual priest, who don't busy themselves with each other priest's private opinion. But it seems that you are so convinced that Catholics don't have a right to question the validity of BXVI that the knowledge that not all the priests with the SSPV feel the same as you was nauseating. During the Canon of the Mass, the priests of the SSPV pray to God to be in union with "all true believers and professors of the Catholic Faith", be that who it may. In this day and age, however, that is very hard to tell.

[vakarian]

I'm not saying the SSPV doesn't have valid sacraments, but I can't go there if it makes me emotionally and physically sick.

O.K. But it seems that you only felt emotionally and physically sick because you didn't like the idea that a particular priest might not be praying for BXVI in the Canon, not because there was some evil aura about the SSPV's Mass. It seemed like it was the idea that wasn't palatable, not the SSPV itself. But only a few priests say whether they do or do not pray for BXVI in the Canon, and the rest don't discuss it with anyone--not even each other--, so unless it was one of these priests, given that the Canon is silent you were basing your emotional and physical illness off a rumor. The SSPV as a society leaves the issue up to each individual priest, who don't busy themselves with each other priest's private opinion. But it seems that you are so convinced that Catholics don't have a right to question the validity of BXVI that the knowledge that not all the priests with the SSPV feel the same as you was nauseating. During the Canon of the Mass, the priests of the SSPV pray to God to be in union with "all true believers and professors of the Catholic Faith", be that who it may. In this day and age, however, that is very hard to tell.

The Novus Ordo is what makes me sick, and I can't bring myself to attend another liturgy there, nor will I attend an FSSP-run liturgy unless it is held in a church where the TLM is the only liturgy performed for the reason that INPEFESS mentioned above (i.e., that Particles of our Transubstantiated Lord have fallen to the floor whilst being given to Novus Ordo parishioners in the hand.)

[SouthpawLink]

I'll agree with you that objectively we are not in the same Church. Refusal of being in communion with fellow Catholics is a sure sign of schism. So objectively speaking I guess you could say the SSPV is schismatic. I don't condemn the poor souls in the pews though as they are being misled by their clergy. Talk about being unreasonable. It's quite obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You are just a lackey for Clarence Kelly and his henchmen.

This only brings us back to the original question of what makes someone Catholic.  In part, one must profess the true Faith whole and entire.  If that isn't being done (and if that's expressly allowed -- nay, encouraged -- by those in authority), then it's time to find a parish or society where the true Faith is being professed.

[vakarian]

I'll agree with you that objectively we are not in the same Church. Refusal of being in communion with fellow Catholics is a sure sign of schism. So objectively speaking I guess you could say the SSPV is schismatic. I don't condemn the poor souls in the pews though as they are being misled by their clergy. Talk about being unreasonable. It's quite obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You are just a lackey for Clarence Kelly and his henchmen.

This only brings us back to the original question of what makes someone Catholic.  In part, one must profess the true Faith whole and entire.  If that isn't being done (and if that's expressly allowed -- nay, encouraged -- by those in authority), then it's time to find a parish or society where the true Faith is being professed.

THIS

[crusaderfortruth3372]

nor will I attend an FSSP-run liturgy unless it is held in a church where the TLM is the only liturgy performed for the reason that INPEFESS mentioned above (i.e., that Particles of our Transubstantiated Lord have fallen to the floor whilst being given to Novus Ordo parishioners in the hand.)

Most of the FSSP chapels I have attended strictly just say the 1962 TLM Liturgy....So I don't understand why you think they ALSO say the NO in their chapels!

The only time they have to say the TLM in a NO Church is when they have special engagements, and/or ordinations.

[Scythian]

this is a question i asked but was never answered: (there's a sede chapel short drive away i want to go to but havnt yet)

so since i cant go to this sede chapel only because they dont pray for the pope in the canon what about this scenario?

1. Now pretend if in England I went to a pre-ordinariate AngloPapalist parish (that is a papist Anglican parish of the Church of England, yes they seriously exist) and pretend the bishop of them didnt recognize women priestesses and he was validly ordained by the "dutch touch", that is Old Catholics who do indeed participate in Anglican consecrations (and pretend the Dutch Old Catholic bishop ordained the Anglican bishop before Old Catholics got wildly liberal)

okay all that said, could I go there theoretically?

2. What of Old Catholics who pray for the pope in the canon? (there has to one out there that dose)

[INPEFESS]

this is a question i asked but was never answered: (there's a sede chapel short drive away i want to go to but havnt yet)

so since i cant go to this sede chapel only because they dont pray for the pope in the canon what about this scenario?

I am not sure what the correct course of action is concerning your question, but just keep in mind, of course, that the SSPV is not sedevacantist. They do not teach it; they do not profess it; they do not mandate adherence to it. They say only that it is a valid, Church-approved theological opinion that has been posited by various different doctors and theologians of the Church. Ultimately, they leave the decision to the Magisterium.

[Scythian]

this is a question i asked but was never answered: (there's a sede chapel short drive away i want to go to but havnt yet)

so since i cant go to this sede chapel only because they dont pray for the pope in the canon what about this scenario?

I am not sure what the correct course of action is concerning your question, but just keep in mind, of course, that the SSPV is not sedevacantist. They do not teach it; they do not profess it; they do not mandate adherence to it. They say only that it is a valid, Church-approved theological opinion that has been posited by various different doctors and theologians of the Church. Ultimately, they leave the decision to the Magisterium.

thank you, thats the clearest answer (although indirectly) i have been given - it seems most people think only sspx or diocesan but at the same time the sspx has no canonical standing in the church so why not other groups, like the sspv