Doubts about SSPX

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Rob Banks : This would mean that under sedevacantism, the Church (or at least the clergy) eventually ceases to exist, which would mean that the Church failed.
This is what I tend to believe. I like the sedevacantist group Most Holy Family Monastery, but I can't wrap my head around some of the stuff they believe.

I would argue that on the contrary, sedevacantism is the ONLY logical position in which the Church hasn't failed. In all the other positions, be it SSPX or Novus Ordo conservative, you have zero explanation for the elephant in the room, so you simply ignore it or make mental acrobacies to minimize it. Thus you have EMJ trying to show that Nostra Aetate did not mess up as much as is generally thought. The doctrine of infallibility/indefectibility of the Church does not say that the Magisterium will not mess too much, it says that the Magisterium will never mess up, period.

You have to remember the distinction Church militant/Church expectant/Church triumphant ; the two first are temporary, and only the last is forever. Visiblity of the Church (militant) or perpetuity of the papacy is to last only till the end of the world.

That we are near the end of the world is not a fancy hypothesis or a random guess, there is objective evidence for it. Such as, the legal apostaty (as Leo XIII called it) of all the formerly Catholic States who have all separated from the Church and expelled the religious viewpoint from their constitutions and laws, and now protect abortion and sodomy, etc.

By the way, the MHFM guys are crooks who deceive their clientele about who they really are. The doctrine on their website is mostly OK and Catholic, although it includes some outright heresies such as Feeneyism - the denial of baptism of desire.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
I would argue that on the contrary, sedevacantism is the ONLY logical position in which the Church hasn't failed...
So then if there is no pope, how can there be new bishops and priests?

Are only the bishops consecrated prior to 1959 really bishops?

What about the priests ordained by the newer (post-1959) bishops?

Are there even any bishops still alive that were ordained prior to 1959? If not, then how is it possible for new priests to be ordained?
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
So then if there is no pope, how can there be new bishops and priests?
(...)
Are there even any bishops still alive that were ordained prior to 1959? If not, then how is it possible for new priests to be ordained?

There are no licit sacrements to be found today as far as I know, which is why I am a home-aloner. But there are still many validly ordained priests and bishops although schismatic (the FSSPX or the Orthodox), and in theory at least it is from there that a both valid and licit line might be borne one day, if some bishop in one of those groups realizes the full Catholic truth, converts publicly to it and parts from his sect.

In Canon Law, there is a provision that the pope's approval can be reasonably presumed in certain exceptional cases where communication with the Pope is impossible or there is an urgent need, or the Pope's identity is not clear (as happened during the great Schism).

This is the justification Mgr Lefebvre should have officially used when he consecrated bishops against the official "pope"'s wishes. But unfortunately this is not what he did at all. The FSSPX's "recognize & resist" position is a confused mish-mash of the most anti-Catholic positions you can imagine ("The Church failed and we need to fix it", "The Pope is fallible in faiths & morals and we need to watch him and correct him", etc.).

Are only the bishops consecrated prior to 1959 really bishops?

Of course not, as said above, from a Catholic perspective, bishops from the Orthodox world are by default valid, real bishops, assuming there's no additional stuff involved.
At the council of Florence, the Orthodox clergy who reunited (temporarily for some of them) with the Catholic Church were not asked to undergo a "re-ordination" or anything like that. They just had to make a public statement and fix a few juridictional-administrative issues.
This is very different from, say, the Anglican "orders" where the "bishops" are not bishops at all.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
I ended up leaving my SSPX church.

I spoke to the priest recently. I told him I had been attending Novus Ordo but that I still wanted to go to his church sometimes. He was very much not accepting of this. He said he would "pray for [me]" and told me I would learn nothing from the RCIA program at my local church.

The implication was very clear that I was not welcome to attend both his church and the Novus Ordo at the same time.

Also, SSPX to take the Church back to the 1950s, where as I (theoretically) would like to take the Church back to the 1400s.

Vatican II is not the problem. V2 is simply a symptom of the problem. The problem is scientific materialism/rationalism, industrialism, and being disconnected from nature. These problems were widespread throuhout Christiendom way before V2.

Yes, the SSPX churches are more conservative. The Mass is respected and revered. The women all wear veils. Most importantly, there are lots of young couples with children (whereas most Novus Ordo churches have only elderly people).

But at the end of the day, SSPX just wasn't for me.

A wise man once told me it's foolish to worry about the politics and history behind the Church and its current state. In the Middle Ages, there was no such thing as church shopping. Your village would have one single church, and you would simply attend that church. Most people did not even know who the pope was, but they knew Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:

redbeard

Hummingbird
Moderator
I ended up leaving my SSPX church.

I spoke to the priest recently. I told him I had been attending Novus Ordo but that I still wanted to go to his church sometimes. He was very much not accepting of this. He said he would "pray for [me]" and told me I would learn nothing from the RCIA program at my local church.

The implication was very clear that I was not welcome to attend both his church and the Novus Ordo at the same time.

Also, SSPX to take the Church back to the 1950s, where as I (theoretically) would like to take the Church back to the 1400s.

Vatican II is not the problem. V2 is simply a symptom of the problem. The problem is scientific materialism/rationalism, industrialism, and being disconnected from nature. These problems were widespread throuhout Christiendom way before V2.

Yes, the SSPX churches are more conservative. The Mass is respected and revered. The women all wear veils. Most importantly, there are lots of young couples with children (whereas most Novus Ordo churches have only elderly people).

But at the end of the day, SSPX just wasn't for me.

A wise man once told me it's foolish to worry about the politics and history behind the Church and its current state. In the Middle Ages, there was no such thing as church shopping. Your village would have one single church, and you would simply attend that church. Most people did not even know who the pope was, but they knew Jesus Christ.
Glad to hear. Although I'm an unabashed Latin Mass enthusiast, it's true that not all TLM parishes are gems. It's best to find the one that's feeding you spiritually and stick to that.

Please keep us updated with how your growth & RCIA class go.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
I spoke to the priest recently. I told him I had been attending Novus Ordo but that I still wanted to go to his church sometimes. He was very much not accepting of this. He said he would "pray for [me]" and told me I would learn nothing from the RCIA program at my local church.

The implication was very clear that I was not welcome to attend both his church and the Novus Ordo at the same time.

From what I hear, this is the usual at the FSSPX. The low-level members are idealists with a dream, believe that they are the true church and act on that assumption, while the higher level are usually more careerist, and they're always plotting behind the scenes to fully reintegrate the FSSPX within the NO Church while keeping the facade of resistance movement.
Those low-level FSSPX clergy are deceiving themselves, unfortunately.
Vatican II is not the problem. V2 is simply a symptom of the problem. The problem is scientific materialism/rationalism, industrialism, and being disconnected from nature.

As a Catholic, I believe that holding to the correct dogma & faith infallibly prevents people from all those evils at once. Killing many birds with a single stone ...

These problems were widespread throuhout Christiendom way before V2.

Sure, but before V2, the official Church was still a safe haven for anyone wishing to live a Catholic life, and the laws of the Church were enforced. In the post-V2 NO Church, every Catholic is basically on his own.
One shouldn't minimize the difference between the two - one of my friends likes to use the analogy of a dam withholding a very strong current vs a tempest with no dam at all.
The amount of pain, suffering and misery brought by the V2 revolution is incalculable, though it is mostly invisible to today's materialistic society.

A wise man once told me it's foolish to worry about the politics and history behind the Church and its current state. In the Middle Ages, there was no such thing as church shopping. Your village would have one single church, and you would simply attend that church. Most people did not even know who the pope was, but they knew Jesus Christ.

Sure, but that doesn't mean we should be in denial and pretend that today is not much different from the Middle Ages.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
As a Catholic, I believe that holding to the correct dogma & faith infallibly prevents people from all those evils at once...
Except that this isn't true. The industrial system (along with "Enlightenment" ideal, etc. etc.) is the structure that makes modernism and leftism possible. And if the Church does not oppose these structures, then its resistance to modernism is, in the long run, as good as useless.
Sure, but before V2, the official Church was still a safe haven for anyone wishing to live a Catholic life, and the laws of the Church were enforced. In the post-V2 NO Church, every Catholic is basically on his own.
One shouldn't minimize the difference between the two - one of my friends likes to use the analogy of a dam withholding a very strong current vs a tempest with no dam at all.
This is a good analogy.

Dams break if there is too much pressure on them. Modern Industrial society continued to put more and more pressure on the dam until it broke.

You can build as strong a dam as you want, and in the long run, given enough pressure, it will break. The only solution would be to give up the modern comforts and luxuries that cause all that pressure to be put on the dam (i.e. go back to living in tune with nature, give up technology, etc.).

I know I won't convince many people of this. People want to believe there can be a political solution to all of this; that we can have our cake and eat it too (i.e. keep modern comforts and luxuries while also having traditional conservative values) if we only had the right people in charge and the right social arrangements.

In my opinion, it simply can't be done.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
The industrial system (along with "Enlightenment" ideal, etc. etc.) is the structure that makes modernism and leftism possible. And if the Church does not oppose these structures, then its resistance to modernism is, in the long run, as good as useless.

The evils of today's technology & industry can be traced to its materialistic, atheistic roots, which the Church always opposed and condemned.
The Catholic Church eventually "lost" (in a sense, and for now) the battle against the monster created by Luther, but she certainly excommunicated Luther.
You can be disappointed in the Church because she lost many battles, but you can't accuse her of having failed to fight them.
This is a good analogy.

Dams break if there is too much pressure on them. Modern Industrial society continued to put more and more pressure on the dam until it broke.

I get your point, but in my and my friends' analogy, the dam was indeed unbreakable (as in "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail") and deliberately removed at V2.

People want to believe there can be a political solution to all of this; that we can have our cake and eat it too (i.e. keep modern comforts and luxuries while also having traditional conservative values) if we only had the right people in charge and the right social arrangements.

In my opinion, it simply can't be done.

I agree with this, as Roosh would say most Christians want to seek the Kingdom of Heaven last (when they're billionaires I guess ...)
But you have to understand the difference between the holy Church and its sinning members.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
The evils of today's technology & industry can be traced to its materialistic, atheistic roots, which the Church always opposed and condemned.
The Catholic Church eventually "lost" (in a sense, and for now) the battle against the monster created by Luther, but she certainly excommunicated Luther.
You can be disappointed in the Church because she lost many battles, but you can't accuse her of having failed to fight them.
As far as I am aware, many Catholic and Orthodox leaders in the Middle Ages did fight against industrialism. But they ended up losing that battle.

Nowadays, you will be hard-pressed to find Christian leaders speaking out against the evils of modern technology (except for the Amish, I guess).

Also, I think technology and industry in general, and by definition materialistic and atheistic.

Technology and industry gave rise to the prevalence of modern atheism and materialism, not the other way around.
 
As far as I am aware, many Catholic and Orthodox leaders in the Middle Ages did fight against industrialism. But they ended up losing that battle.

Nowadays, you will be hard-pressed to find Christian leaders speaking out against the evils of modern technology (except for the Amish, I guess).

Also, I think technology and industry in general, and by definition materialistic and atheistic.

Technology and industry gave rise to the prevalence of modern atheism and materialism, not the other way around.
Bishop Williamson opposes modern technology and industrialisation. See his class on the unibomber:
 

Papist

Sparrow
Bishop Williamson has just published an interesting comment on his St. Marcel Initiative website, titled Unconscious Infiltrators about the SSPX, which is worth reading.

I am considering attending mass an an SSPX church, as I think the R&R position is probably the best one to take, though I am interested in the Siri Thesis, the 1958 conclave and the Sedevacantist position.
 

Papist

Sparrow
Being new to the forum, I'm unable to 'like' your post. However, I agree that the situation is problematic. The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest Western institution, having survived ~2,000 years. It is obviously being attacked, and the attack likely began in 1958 which led to Vatican II. However, what is the solution - to break away and be just another schismatic church? Pope Leo XIII's vision indicates that Satan would be granted the opportunity to try to destroy the Church, one which he has clearly grasped. Are the faithful to create our own new church or Recognise the true Church still, bur Resist the heresy that comes from it? It will be restored.
 

DanielH

Pelican
Being new to the forum, I'm unable to 'like' your post. However, I agree that the situation is problematic. The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest Western institution, having survived ~2,000 years. It is obviously being attacked, and the attack likely began in 1958 which led to Vatican II. However, what is the solution - to break away and be just another schismatic church? Pope Leo XIII's vision indicates that Satan would be granted the opportunity to try to destroy the Church, one which he has clearly grasped. Are the faithful to create our own new church or Recognise the true Church still, bur Resist the heresy that comes from it? It will be restored.
The Orthodox Church is here with open doors and a Western Rite
 

Augustus_Principe

Woodpecker
Being new to the forum, I'm unable to 'like' your post. However, I agree that the situation is problematic. The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest Western institution, having survived ~2,000 years. It is obviously being attacked, and the attack likely began in 1958 which led to Vatican II. However, what is the solution - to break away and be just another schismatic church? Pope Leo XIII's vision indicates that Satan would be granted the opportunity to try to destroy the Church, one which he has clearly grasped. Are the faithful to create our own new church or Recognise the true Church still, bur Resist the heresy that comes from it? It will be restored.

I currently attend an SSPX church. I would recommend you attend the closest near you. During the time of c0v1d, they did not close down, nor mandate mask, Unlike the majority of Catholic and Orthodox churches. I would refrain from attending Sedevecantist churches.

The Orthodox Church is here with open doors and a Western Rite

Wonderful. Orthodox throw it in our face that a VII Pope stated we cannot Proselytize Orthodox, but Orthodox are more than happy to Proselytize Catholics. Hope you and the rest of the Orthodox are proud to continue using that strategy. Apparently, it is also ok to kill Catholics if they "persecute" Orthodox.

The Irony of all of this is that I hold (might be held if this keeps up) great admiration for the Orthodox. However, the more I interact with them on YouTube from-you-already know-who's Orthodox channel, and them raiding Catholic Youtuber's streams, to my interactions here, the more it sours my taste. Shame.
 

OrthoLeaf

Pigeon
However, the more I interact with them on YouTube from-you-already know-who's Orthodox channel, and them raiding Catholic Youtuber's streams, to my interactions here, the more it sours my taste. Shame.
Oh, come on brother don't go throwing this passive aggressive line around. I hate this argument and I've seen every side use it. The idea that anyone should base their opinions off the individuals you read online of all places, especially in a most contentious topic such as theology, is frankly absurd and unfair. If you don't think all sides shame themselves with the actions of many of their most vocal supporters online, you're kidding yourself. There is a level of vitriol that exists online that is not present in real life, in nearly all cases, with perhaps the lone exception being the far left ideologues - and even then, only when they're in large groups. Walk into an Orthodox Church, if you want to meet orthodox Christians. Not a youtube comment section. And same can and should be said for the opposite, we Orthodox should not judge Catholics based upon the exact same appalling behavior they display online.

The very first day I walked into an Orthodox Church, and in fact the first Church I ever walked into willingly, I was welcomed in with open arms by everyone. After the service I and 2 other inquires, were invited to a parishioners house where we prayed, ate a wonderful meal, drank freshly roasted coffee, talked and laughed for hours. It is still to this day one of my most cherished memories. I almost had tears in my eyes my whole drive back (roughly 45min) constantly thanking God for such a beautiful experience and confirmation of my choice, after nearly 2 years of studying theology and trying to discern between the Catholic and Orthodox Church. If I had judged either the Orthodox or Catholics based upon their online communities I would never stepped foot into either, and would have never received such a blessing.
 

Augustus_Principe

Woodpecker
Oh, come on brother don't go throwing this passive aggressive line around. I hate this argument and I've seen every side use it. The idea that anyone should base their opinions off the individuals you read online of all places, especially in a most contentious topic such as theology, is frankly absurd and unfair. If you don't think all sides shame themselves with the actions of many of their most vocal supporters online, you're kidding yourself. There is a level of vitriol that exists online that is not present in real life, in nearly all cases, with perhaps the lone exception being the far left ideologues - and even then, only when they're in large groups. Walk into an Orthodox Church, if you want to meet orthodox Christians. Not a youtube comment section. And same can and should be said for the opposite, we Orthodox should not judge Catholics based upon the exact same appalling behavior they display online.

The very first day I walked into an Orthodox Church, and in fact the first Church I ever walked into willingly, I was welcomed in with open arms by everyone. After the service I and 2 other inquires, were invited to a parishioners house where we prayed, ate a wonderful meal, drank freshly roasted coffee, talked and laughed for hours. It is still to this day one of my most cherished memories. I almost had tears in my eyes my whole drive back (roughly 45min) constantly thanking God for such a beautiful experience and confirmation of my choice, after nearly 2 years of studying theology and trying to discern between the Catholic and Orthodox Church. If I had judged either the Orthodox or Catholics based upon their online communities I would never stepped foot into either, and would have never received such a blessing.

You're right. Sometimes, the online behavior gets to be a bit much, but at the end of the day, its online and not IRL. I'll move forward and do my best to not let it influence my overall thoughts on those who are Orthodox.
 

BasedBaker

Sparrow
I attend an SSPX church in one of the bluest of the blue parts of California and we didn't close or wear masks during Covid lockdowns. There are a couple parishioners who wear the mask, but of those they are either Mexican or Filipino( the minorities tend to believe in covid) and an older white couple.

I'm still new to the faith having been raised a Seventh Day Adventist and then on my own attending a Baptist church for years. I believe I was lead to the SSPX by Divinity and I am thankful of that grace that was given to me daily.
 

FactusIRX

Kingfisher
I'm becoming more involved in the SSPX Church, and having my marriage recognized by the Church. I tried Orthodox Churches, but unfortunately, my experience was they were either completely based on ethnic lines, or in the case of the OCA, completed bended the knee to the government during COVID. The SSPX Church was the only one that pushed back on COVID hysteria, and I need a like minded community when the mandatory vaccines are rolled out.
 

FactusIRX

Kingfisher
I ended up leaving my SSPX church.

I spoke to the priest recently. I told him I had been attending Novus Ordo but that I still wanted to go to his church sometimes. He was very much not accepting of this. He said he would "pray for [me]" and told me I would learn nothing from the RCIA program at my local church.

The implication was very clear that I was not welcome to attend both his church and the Novus Ordo at the same time.

Also, SSPX to take the Church back to the 1950s, where as I (theoretically) would like to take the Church back to the 1400s.

Vatican II is not the problem. V2 is simply a symptom of the problem. The problem is scientific materialism/rationalism, industrialism, and being disconnected from nature. These problems were widespread throuhout Christiendom way before V2.

Yes, the SSPX churches are more conservative. The Mass is respected and revered. The women all wear veils. Most importantly, there are lots of young couples with children (whereas most Novus Ordo churches have only elderly people).

But at the end of the day, SSPX just wasn't for me.

A wise man once told me it's foolish to worry about the politics and history behind the Church and its current state. In the Middle Ages, there was no such thing as church shopping. Your village would have one single church, and you would simply attend that church. Most people did not even know who the pope was, but they knew Jesus Christ.
Sorry to hear that, Rob. Hopefully you can find a Church where you feel comfortable.
 
Top