Doubts about SSPX

AnonymousBosch

Crow
Gold Member
Tying it back to Tanquerey, we are not told to study the spiritual realities purely for our own curiousity, and even Theology can be frowned upon when approached in this manner. All things need to be correctly-ordered towards God. You can read about God for the satisfaction of your personal curiousity, rather than spiritual advancement towards Him.

You won't learn this right off the mark. This is one of the undertakings of the second age of the spiritual life: The Illuminative Way. One thing I'm learning is praying for God's sake, not for my own satisfaction received from Prayer. This also comes down to desiring Spiritual Consolation from Prayer. I used to crave it terribly: now, it either comes or it doesn't, and either is accepted as His will.
 
I'd heard him on a podcast with a friend, and thought some of what he said was interesting. It was a time when I was trying to support the (oddly-promoted) voices on youtube who were contradicting the narrative, so I purchased one of his books:

That is the same book which I have bought from him and let it ship to Germany for 60 $. I only knew about Jay from his yt channel, and I expected his analysis would be more like The Vigilant Citizen. In reality he really tackled "esoteric" topics, for which I had no real context, so I got bored quick.

I also have a copy of "The Secret Teachings of all Ages" from Manly P. Hall, but I got quickly exhausted reading it with its strange and esoteric topics and English not my mother tounge. Looking back it maybe was for the best, that I was too lazy to actually study all the occult stuff I am interested in since childhood.
 

An0dyne

Robin
If you're turning from Mother Church out of fear that it's Satanic - and fear is not God's Will for how you should live - but still using any of those services, then you're being a raging hypocrite, because the CEO's in play there are openly-Satanic, (and mostly Reform Jewish).
At the risk of playing devil's advocate, "what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges."
 

An0dyne

Robin
To clarify, I say this as someone who has been strongly wrestling with my ecclesial predicament. I harbor no real ill-will toward the Papal church, and a certain part of me would like to just rest safely in the arms of "holy mother" and "come home to Rome." I have prayed to the Lord and even attempted to ask for the Blessed Theotokos' intercession in this regard. But in "testing the spirits" I have not felt the Lord's blessing in this matter. And, like others above, the East is too parochial and foreign to our western experience, especially those of us who are culturally and liturgically immersed in the western tradition. Thus I and others find ourselves in quite a pickle.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
...Jay Dyer...I don`t know enough about theology to even understand his arguments....
This is a good point. Dyer goes into very deep theological arguments based on ancient theological writings and I usually have no idea what he's really talking about. It sounds logical and makes sense, but I don't have the time to actually familiarize myself with all the ancient theological writings he refers to.

I guess the main reason for my doubts is Vatican II and my belief that the changes during that time were deliberate subversions and not honest mistakes made in good faith. Even if it is true that Vatican II technically does not change or refute Church teachings (as some posters have pointed out above), it is the spirit in which Vatican II was passed, and the capitulation to social changes of the time by the church (and the lack of sufficient resistance from lay Catholics), that bothers me.

I agree with posters above who say you should just stick with the faith of your ancestors. In the past, people lived in villages, and your village would probably have one single church that everyone in the village would attend. There was no choosing between this church or thay church, or this religion or that religion.
 

An0dyne

Robin
I agree with posters above who say you should just stick with the faith of your ancestors. In the past, people lived in villages, and your village would probably have one single church that everyone in the village would attend. There was no choosing between this church or thay church, or this religion or that religion.
This is sort of where I am at. I do not want to make an idol out of my tradition, but I "continue in what I have learned, because I know those from whom I have learned it, and how from infancy I have known the Holy Scriptures...", to paraphrase St. Paul. Many of our parochial squabbles seem...trite, at this point, but my spiritual life as a result of my liturgical tradition has had manifest results in my life, rooted firmly in the Word of Truth and the Sacraments, which I cannot attribute to a spirit of falsehood. I know my faith is founded on Jesus Christ my God and Lord.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
...the Catholic Church has gotten much "weaker."

It's up to us to strengthen it back up.
See, I'm not sure this is ever going to happen (short of a total collapse of the current political and technological system).

Hoping for this is somewhat akin to hoping for, say, a repeal of the 19th amendment or a return to traditional monarchy.

I believe these types of great societal changes are made possible and driven by modern technology and the modern globalist system. Even if a few Catholics stay true to the faith, it will not be enough to influence the vatican.
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
I think there is a real culling of the herd right now so to Speak.

I believe groups like SSPX, FSSP, will grow while the diocesan Churches start to close during this Pandemic. Ultimately, so much of the financial support for these local Churches is from the old who attend weekly and put $20 in the basket, but it is still adding up. In my area, they are turning to "Church Family" which bundle 2 or 3 parishes together as a Church family. It seems clear that in these cases one of these Churches will be closing as the Priest demographics, congregant demographics and Financial pinch starts to really hit home.

At the same time FSSP / SSPX are growing. When these local parishes close, some of the younger congregants might migrate over to FSSP/SSPX if its just as convenient and will get what I think is a better.

Modern Times will be different. I think if we think of the parable of the sower and the separating the wheat from the chaff and weeds, ….sometimes God Plows the field down and lets a new one grow.
 

Aurini

Ostrich
I once heard the metaphor that "God's work is the opposite of a genie"; in that, the genie grants your wishes in a literal form, but twists the meaning behind them, creating tragedy. With God, He gives you what you actually need, even if what you're praying for isn't quite that. Or, as the song says, "You don't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need."

This is a colloquial explanation of Validity and Licitness. As parishioners, it is our responsibility to note that the sacraments are valid. You can't have communion with nothing there. You can't use grape juice. Joe Blow can't administer it. Obvious stuff. Licitness, on the other hand, is more difficult to discern; it involves matters of Canon Law which are not immediately visible (for instance, a Priest who has been excommunicated - for all I know, my Priest could be under that censure). The sacraments come ex opere operato - in other words, Christ works through them, regardless of the holiness of the priest administering them. And even if they are illicit, they are still valid. In other words, if an excommunicated Priest married you, and you don't learn until the excommunication until afterwards, you're still protected under the sacrament of marriage.

Or, to put it even more simply - the validity of the sacraments have a lot more to do with you than the church. Communion in the hand, instead of in the mouth, might be illicit for all I know - but I have faith in God, and ergo it is valid. The licitness happens somewhere above my pay grade.

Your concerns over Vatican II mirror this distinction which applies to the sacraments. You aren't concerned over it's validity - it doesn't deviate in any obvious manner from Church Doctrine - but rather the flavour of it. It's not heresy to play a guitar in church instead of an organ, but it certainly seems to open a door to heresy, replacing hymns with rock'n'roll, doesn't it? And what about all this stuff that the Pope is up to? His wacky opinions on economics? He does seem particularly prone to scandal, doesn't he?

Ultimately - not my concern. I'm not a canon lawyer. It's not my duty to nit pick every single thing the Church does, especially since I'm coming from a position of ignorance, both of Canon Law and of specific events (we all get our news from the lying media, don't we?). I am not an inquisitor. I am just a parishioner. God has given me enough sense to confirm whether or not the Church is the Church - and it most certainly is. As to all of this esoteric stuff, it's not my job to deal with it, anymore than it's my job to nit pick international standards on HTML. Obvious heresy - okay, that's something we should take note of. But rumours and gossip over obscure issues that are most likely irrelevant? Who cares?

Increasingly I'm finding that I'm just not interested in the latest Church Scandal. And you shouldn't be, either. Keep in mind why scandal is considered a sin - it's because scandal tempts other people into doubting. Don't let empty gossip affect your faith. Can you imagine somebody so silly that they joined the Church only because Pope X was in charge? And now that he's not, they're going to apostasize? Worrying over much about Vatican the II is the same thing, only in reverse. The things you should be worrying about right now are those that are immediate, and personal for you.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
↑ That is the attitude I try to have when I go to my SSPX church. It is a Catholic church that practices the faith in the traditional style (in Latin, communion on tongue, priest wears a cassock, women required to ware veils, etc.), so why do I need to concern myself with the politics behind it when I have deep personal and spiritual issues I am dealing with?

I guess it is just that listening to Jay Dyer got me thinking about things. Additionally, my priest recently made some comments that I did not agree with (for example, claiming that complaining about and resisting coronavirus restrictions is akin to a petulant child complaining and resisting about his parents' decisions, or claiming that mass technological advancement is not a bad thing).

I will keep going to my church. I can worry about all this Orthodox vs. Trad Catholic vs. Novus Ordo stuff once I am stronger in my faith and I have my personal/spiritual issues sorted out a little bit better.
 

AnonymousBosch

Crow
Gold Member
For clarification, early in my Purgative Way, the Priests would often deeply-upset me with their comments. This was due to my lack of theological and experiential knowledge of God, and the Demonic influences using my fears to make me receive information in a mode that would push me away from God, rather than beckon me closer. Now I'm further along the journey, those same comments would be accepted in a mode of faith and trust.

This is a particular danger in the early days: Demons do not want you finding any rest in God, so go hard on you to confuse matters, and is probably why Penitents are showered with graces and consolations by God in the beginning stages. It's hard to take the Demonic accusations seriously when you find yourself weeping tears of joy at suddenly-understanding the deep meaning behind something as simple as 'and the word became flesh'.

For example, take those two statements your Priest made. The Demons know your emotional fears and worries, so can use a statement like that to leap in. "What did he say? That can't be right! He's a bad Priest!" This starts off a cycle of confusion, which threatens disruption of your regular mass and prayer schedule, with resulting desolation. They might whisper: "What else is he wrong about?" Part of the first part of your journey will be learning to mistrust your emotional impulses, and pause before taking action.

A favourite tactic that I've noticed from my own experience is what Fr Timothy Gallagher describes as 'pre-event desolation'. You're in a time of consolation and feeling loved by God and optimistic about your spiritual future, so you decide to make a positive change: you sign up for a retreat, or you decide to add something new to your regular daily prayer and devotion routine. Then, as that change approaches, you start getting confused, and the day you mean to start or attend, you're showered with self-doubt about how you're not really holy, and such things are beyond you. This is why the Rules of Discernment exist: don't make any changes to pre-existing plans in a time of Desolation*. The Demons are really that stupid and predictable, and try the same stupid tactics over and over, and yet, we fall prey to their simple tactics so easily. This is why I stress studying Discernment. The rules are discussed in Tanquerey, by the way.

I went back and forth between the Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Carmelite one for months, despite God having clearly-led me to the later. Interior peace followed with finally accepting the Carmelite Mass, and trusting in God to keep me safe. Positive fruits have only followed.

Hmm. Wait. Someone else experienced this same issue of mistrust. Let me ask him if he'll chime in with his experience. I'm seeing a predictable pattern of demonic behaviour here that goes beyond Latin / Novus Ordo / SSPX, and it seems to evidence in the very early stages of conversion.
 
Last edited:

JohnKreese

Pelican
Tying it back to Tanquerey, we are not told to study the spiritual realities purely for our own curiousity, and even Theology can be frowned upon when approached in this manner. All things need to be correctly-ordered towards God. You can read about God for the satisfaction of your personal curiousity, rather than spiritual advancement towards Him.

You won't learn this right off the mark. This is one of the undertakings of the second age of the spiritual life: The Illuminative Way. One thing I'm learning is praying for God's sake, not for my own satisfaction received from Prayer. This also comes down to desiring Spiritual Consolation from Prayer. I used to crave it terribly: now, it either comes or it doesn't, and either is accepted as His will.
I hate to say that what I just experienced is an interesting coincidence as I am sure that God is working in a positive way here (I wouldn't call it a consoling sign, but an uplifting one, nonetheless):

On your recommendation, I started reading Tanquerey and Gallagher's "Discernment of the Spirits" a few weeks back (I'm on Rule 12 of the video series with Kris McGregor you linked to, as well. A bit besides the point, but Gallagher might have the most soothing speaking voice I've ever heard). I had this tab open on my computer earlier in the day (only reading the first few postings) and last night, I read the portion that, more or less, discusses the problem of "The Concupiscence of the Eyes (Curiosity and Avarice)". Just now, I re-open the thread and I read your post.

Maybe this is a message that I need to spend less time on the Internet!
 

Aurini

Ostrich
Rob, a friend asks: you have been told to pray the Renunciation and Affirmation Prayer repeatedly, yet constantly evade the subject when asked if you've prayed it.

There are three numbered questions here.

1. Are you physically-unable to say it? As in, you can't either approach saying the prayer or form the words if you try?

If the answer is yes, don't try to mentally-will answering with a yes or no. Reply with '1. I love my wife'.

2. Were you unable to pray any of Fr Gabriel Amorth's prayers, particularly 'The Prayer for Inner Healing'?'

Once again, *If the answer is yes, don't try to will answering with a yes or no. Reply with '2. I love my wife'.

3. Can you at least pray the Anima Christi prayer on Fr Amorth list? "Soul of Christ, sanctify me, Body of Christ, save me... etc"

Once again, *If the answer is yes, meaning you can pray it, don't try to will answering with yes or no. Reply with '3. I love my wife'.

*If the answer is 'no', just leave it blank.

So, your reply might look like this:

1. I love my wife.
2.
3. I love my wife.

No other long explanation is needed. For now, pray what can be prayed.
 
And, like others above, the East is too parochial and foreign to our western experience, especially those of us who are culturally and liturgically immersed in the western tradition. Thus I and others find ourselves in quite a pickle.
I know what you mean - the Byzantine rite took a lot of getting used to for me, although nearly all the parishes I've attended have been thoroughly culturally western. I'd happily ditch the iconostasis and Byzantine chant, and once again see four weeks of Advent instead of 40 days, have some ember days, etc. There are some things I have really eventually come to love about the Byzantine rite, though, like all the bows and not having pews.

I imagine switching rites inside Rome's umbrella is even tougher, as the Eastern Catholic parishes often go out of their way to not seem Western. Using words like "eparchy" instead of "diocese" when speaking in English, etc.

Good on the SSPX for keeping the Tridentine rite alive, regardless of the the canonical situation.
 
Novus Ordo isn't 'great' but you gotta realize that Christianity isn't like some food court where you can take whatever you want and mix and match meals even though thats how all these denominations are treating it. You go with what has been established and has been employed, whether you agree or not, that's the Novus Ordo under Francis. Christianity has had this problem for what seems like forever, everyone bouncing around to different denominations instead of just going with what's been put in place for 2k years. SSPX I don't really know enough about to comment but the main concern Christians always seem to suffer is whether they should be in ANY OTHER CHURCH BUT The Holy Roman Catholic Church. the point being that everyone wants to be their own little Pope and the Roman Catholic Church is where the rubber meets the road ok. Like, I'm not some huge Vatican II fan or whatever, it's not my call to make, nor am I a Priest, nor am I a Bishop, nor am I the Pope. There have always been odd times in human history, we just happen to be living in one of the strangest, but at the end of the day I'd go with the Church Christ instituted and avoid the schismatics.
 

Errol

Pigeon
Rob, if you are interested more in what VII had to say about the JQ, I recommend checking out EMJ's talks about Nostra Aetate:
https://gloria.tv/post/PtxcNdrCA9tL1sQNznaCSLL6e
Its a topic he's visited often, and there are some other of his talks floating around out there.
But generally the comments above that the problem was more in the implementation and interpretation of the council than it was with the substance itself is the general sentiment.
I've actually been developing my own doubts regarding that, since it seems any "infiltration" was likely well-underway well before Vatican II, but since I don't have the resources to dedicate to the study of such matters, I try my best to accept sound doctrine and the teaching authority of the church.
 

Geremia

Sparrow
Jay Dyer recommends Orthodox Christianity, and he makes some very good points. I am not nearly as well-versed in theology as he is, but the stuff he says makes sense to me for the most part.
Rod Dreher, too, author of The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation, renounced Catholicism for Orthodoxy, which is anything but orthodox. They have a heretical conception of the Trinity; they think the Holy Ghost doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son but only from the Son.

A good article is James Larson's "Eastern Orthodoxy: Never The Twain Should Meet: A Study of The Radical Divide Between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Theology."

The SSPX is a society of validly ordained, orthodox Catholic priests, who also have balls: Here's one recently on the Tucker Carlson show.
 
I don't know too much about SSPX, but I find it odd that I've seen many trad Catholics seem to be against it. So far as I know, they acknowledge the Pope but don't follow him when he contradicts established Church tradition. This seems like the right approach to me. Additionally, Pope Francis has affirmed its legitimacy.

While we're talking about Jay Dyer, I must say he played a big part in pushing me away from Eastern Orthodoxy. I really can't get behind the Neo-Palamist theology. He is big on opposing Divine Simplicity, which is one of the most elegant theological ideas I have encountered. His theological approach seems more based on opposing Catholicism than looking for truth.
 
Top