Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. Like I said the last time- they have financial wealth, they have power, they have absolute Control over their fearful cult-like worshippers and they have some rich neo-conservatives loving to buy their way to heaven, they don't care; Opus Dei would love them to join their exclusive boys club, please.

   Posted By: TJ Lawson

2. TJ,
   
   We're not cult-like worshippers. We're not rich, either (At least, I'm not.) We're certainly not neo-conservatives, as we have always been "conservative".
   
   We're just catholics who have the humility and commonsense to prefer the Christ-given authority of the Pope over our own, despite the wrongs that have been committed by individuals over the centuries. I'm sorry that you don't. Those SSPX people seem wilfully arrogant to me, and may well pay a heavy price for that one way or another.
   
   By the way, I'm very sorry if I offended you in one of my previous posts. It was wrong of me to get so angry.

   Posted By: Paul Keen

3. This "news" article is very unfactual and biased.
   
   First, the Vatican has never, at time, stated, in any, way, shape or form, the Society of Saint Pius X is not allowed to participate in the Seven Sacraments.
   
   For those who are not Christians who may be reading this - the Sacrament here is Holy Orders. Which a Bishop may bestow once upon a lay-person to give them the supernatural powers of the Priesthood that was instituted by Christ, Himself.

   Posted By: Dr. John Smythe

4. There was no "order from the Vatican", that is not to say the ordinations were not illicit, merely the staus quo remains.

   Posted By: Michael McDermott

5. This piece is typical of mainstream media's understanding of Catholic affairs - none.
   
   And the choice of language is highly prejudicial - 'sect'!
   
   And the usual 'liberal' prejudices are also displayed. While it would go uncommented that there is 'dialogue' with all manner of protestant denominations (and given their erroneous views they might quite properly be described as sects), the SSPX are painted as intolerable for the 'modern mind'.
   
   And it might also be noted that the SSPX will adhere to all of the teachings of the Church regarding faith and morals, while tragically many within the Church, including prelates, publicly question these.
   
   I pray that the difficulties that see them outside the Barque of Peter are resolved, as we need them helping in the boat!
   
   

   Posted By: Peter

6. The SSPX are NOT a sect!It was founded by the late Archbishop Lefebvre with the approval of Pope Paul VI for the maintenance of Catholic Tradition. The present Pope,Benedict XVI has displayed some sympathy towards Catholics attached to the Mass of all times,by permitting its unrestricted celebration.I am delighted about the ordinations!Like I stated last time, the Church is in grave crisis and many new and holy labourers are needed in the vineyard. Laus Plurima Deo!

   Posted By: John Harmsen

7. So the Vatican is unhappy with "illegitmate" ordinations. Why did the Vatican not take action against the so called "Patriotic Church" in Communist China? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
   

   Posted By: Ivan

8. "A priest in the sect", what do you mean by that. How dare you use the word "sect". Please mind your language. Who is sect? The one who practises the truth or the one who ruins the truth like you and the rest of the conciliar church members?

   Posted By: Francis from Penang

9. "Oh how they love one another" -- no wonder the world "doesn't understand us". Or is it that they do and are turning away for good reason?

   Posted By: DD

10. TJ, How has the SSPX a powerful and financial wealth? ARe you so obsessed with the wealthy or something.
    
    And you don't buy into your way into heaven. I think you need to be updated in your Catechism.
    
    And second Vatican II never BANNED LATIN LITURGY OR GREGORIAN CHANT. THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II NEVER OUTLAWED BUT ENCOURAGED THE USE OF LATIN AND GREGORIAN CHANT.
    
    AND THIRD MANY SSPX ARE NOT "Neo-Conservatives" but mainly Traditionalists Catholics.
    
    Traditional Catholics don't see the "Liberal or Conservative" think YOU EITHER ARE A PROTESTANT OR CATHOLIC. MOST SO CALLED "LIBERAL CATHOLICS ARE PROTESTANTS"!
    
    Also many Catholics who attend SSPX Chapels in France and Germany are middle class and working class who attend the SSPX due to Gregorian Chant and Solid Catholic Worship.
    
    I never found to have a "Rich" person in the SSPX chapel TJ Lawson. Maybe you should visit one.
    
    TJ LAwson weren't you the one that said that the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia in Sydney are "Cloistered"? They are not cloistered but a Group of Teaching Nuns.

    Posted By: Mark

11. Ok, everyone take a deep breath here. The problem with the SSPX is its continuing apparent disobedience. I think that the standpoint some of the comments are coming from is that if this degree of disobedience were displayed by a more progressive tendency amongst the faithful, there would be an immediate condemnation, and severe action taken. This is the nub of the problem regarding some of the very conservative elements of the Church - they seem to be much more respected and tolerated despite their disobedience. The teachings of the Second Vatican Council were confirmed by the then Pope. There is not the slightest room for any disobedience in these teachings, and isn't it ironic that the most conservative can implicitly argue that they can decide when papal authority has been validly exercised or not? Which one of them would give that latitude to a more progressive group? And that is now the problem, for SSPX appears to be the beneficiary of considerable latitude on the part of the Holy See, and it's a potentially dangerous path that could lead to open sectarianism.

    Posted By: Jeffrey

12. The SSPX is not a sect & to call it that is indeed sloppy journalism. Neither, however, can we call the members of the SSPX Catholics, traditional or otherwise, since they have placed themselves outside Communion with Rome.
    
    It is disingenuous for them to call themselves Catholic. They are simply schismatics, no more, no less.
    
    Those who attend or participate in SSPX liturgies are in schism with the Catholic Church. Consequently, they are not able to fully participate in the sacraments offered by the Church without first having received the Sacrament of Penance from a Catholic Priest, i.e. a Priest in union with Rome. Although, I have come across schismatics who have done so without first seeking the Sacrament of Penance.
    
    Not all their sacraments are valid, e.g. Holy Matrimony, since their priests do not possess the faculty or delegation needed for it to be a valid marriage. The other sacraments are, at best, valid but illicit, although I believe there is some doubt as to the validity of their confirmations.
    
    I hope some find this helpful.

    Posted By: Brendan

13. Francis from Penang, I dare. SSPX is a cult.
    Oh please, give me a break, your patronizing sort of language is way passed it's useby date.
    God is Universal and speaks in all languages to all people in all cultures and in all expressions; God made it all;
    
    UNLESS, you think that God speaks in Latin, mainly Roman and European, only Catholic and NEEDS and craves our worship so that HE (sexists) can be more powerful...
    God must be worship in a box right? Oh dear, God help us.

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

14. Ivan, it is wealth, control and power, period.
    Political, Social and Economically beneficial to the self-interest of the Vatican bureaucracy; but it doesn’t know Asia and the ancient Chinese culture that includes a rich Christian heritage; The Vatican only cares to Romanize them.

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

15. those who condemn sspx condemn 2000yrs of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.They are one of the same,!!! "old fashion" does'nt make anything in the Church defective,and I am surprised to hear even Bishops who ort to know better make that implication.Christ revealed Himself as King of Kings not King of the fashion police.It is a Mortal sin to offend the Holy Spirit in such a manner

    Posted By: noddy

16. Brendan, first of all, the consenting parties in a marriage are the ministers, and confer the sacrament on each other. The standing of the priest officiating is neither here nor there for a valid marriage.
    
    Secondly, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has publicly stated that no such schism exists, since it was never the intention of the SSPX to set up a parallel church, such as the Chinese Patriotic Church. Both the Pope and Cardinal Hoyos are treating the SSPX as an "internal problem."

    Posted By: Invictus Maneo

17. Jeffery, Nobody denies that Vatican II was a valid council, the crux of the argument is in its standing and implementation. The previous 20 councils were dogmatic councils, i.e. they defined a doctrine that must be believed in for salvation.
    
    The scope of Vatican II was deliberately limited to being a pastoral council, as per statements made at the time by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. No doctrine was defined at VII, which explains the ambiguous, imprecise wording of the documents (as opposed to previous council documents).
    
    Rather than being treated as a super-council, VII must be interpreted in the light of the preceding doctrinal councils, and be subject to them. It is nonsensical to proclaim that I now have religious liberty thanks to VII, but I don’t have sufficient liberty to question the very document that gave it to me!
    
    If the VII documents are to be interpreted the way that have been implemented over the last 40 years, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the authors did indeed intend a break with the Catholic Church of the past. It is as if a new, radically different church (certainly in appearance) was born in 1965. This is the propaganda we’ve heard from Vatican II proponents ever since.
    
    If St. Thomas More or St. Edmund Campion were to appear today, whose parish church would they recognise, yours or mine?
    

    Posted By: Invictus Maneo

18. Dear Invictus Maneo,
    Wouldn't St Thomas More and St Edmund Campion likewise have had some trouble in Carthage trying to work out the difference between the true Catholic parishes and that of the Donatists?
    In any case, even saints have disputed with Popes and been disobedient before their latter retractions.

    Posted By: Michael Webb

19. TJ Lawson seems to be under the fond delusion that everybody shares the Liberal/Socialist obsession with worldly wealth and power.
    
    Our Lord's own words were that His Kingdom was not of this world, and that his followers should not be concerned if the world hated them, because they had hated Him first.
    
    The SSPX's goal is the preservation of the Catholic tradition of 2 millennia. Full stop. TJ obviously revels in its destruction.
    
    Worldly wealth and power are fleeting, and will soon pass. Chasing it is pointless. If there is any great wealth in the SSPX, I am yet to see it in 23 years of attending their chapels.

    Posted By: Invictus Maneo

20. 'Invictus Maneo',
    I am neither Liberal nor Socialist. Your very narrow narrative of 'the Catholic tradition' excludes all else. That is not very catholic after all, is it?
    
    'Preserving' 2 millenia of Catholicism? Isn’t that what all of us Catholic are doing?
    I suppose SSPX is the only group in the entire Catholic faith upholding that right?
    I think that also means preserving women being subjugated? Jews persecuted for being ‘Christ-killers’? Non-European as the 'lesser children' of God? That people of different colour shouldn't 'mix'? That Aboriginal people and their culture/tradition is evil and need your ‘salvation’? The supremacy of Roman ways and European ways right?
    
    Your twisted interpretation of the scriptures is such a worry... Jesus is Jewish, he is not Catholic Christian, we are (that is where SSPX has lost it's way and are anti-Semitic and racists), God help us.
    

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

21. Hi Michael,
    
    You are perfectly correct, but on the other hand, there have been occasions where it has been the Pope in the wrong (not dogmatically, of course). Think St. Athanasius and Pope Liberius during the Arian Heresy.
    
    I particularly chose those two English saints, because it would be extremely easy to confuse the New Mass with the Anglican Service, which denies the True Presence.

    Posted By: Invictus Maneo

22. TJ, I think you forgot to mention the Crusades. If you’d stop foaming at the mouth for 5 seconds, you would see that I said none of those things (except of course for the Supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church).
    
    I’m well aware that Jesus was Jewish. Thank you for pointing out the bleeding obvious. I’m also aware that he is the Son of God, and created his own Church as the fulfilment of the Jewish covenant. He founded it with Peter the Rock as its foundation. He promised it would be around till the end of the World, and that He would always be with it. Which Church does that sound like?
    
    You are free to believe what you like, but the Catholic Church is the only one founded by Christ himself. Its human elements may well be flawed (aren’t we all?), but the Church itself, as Christ’s creation, is divine. If you don't accept that, there is not much point in following the rest of Christ's teachings.
    
    As well intentioned and good the adherents of other religions may be, those religions themselves are not the path to Salvation. If they are, what is the point in being Christian? A twisted view of Scripture? Perhaps. But no worse than your view of Catholic history.
    
    No, the SSPX are not the only people upholding Catholic tradition, but it is perhaps one of the more prominent groups. I’ve met terrific Catholics who attend the New Mass, and are full of passion for Christ and his faith, some of whom I see outside a nearby abortion clinic saying the Rosary every single day. God Bless them. They put many of us to shame. Unfortunately, it is also undeniable that Vatican II stripped much that was uniquely Catholic from the Mass and the Church in general. The appalling drop in attendance and vocations since 1965 speaks for itself.
    

    Posted By: Invictus Maneo

23. The Church saves us; we do not save the Church.
    
    One cannot work for the Church, by working outside it.
    
    The SSPX is outside the Church.
    
    Basic catechism teaches us that the Church is baptised people, united in faith under, our Holy Father the Pope.
    

    Posted By: Eamon Hatley-Smith

• » Advertise in CathNews

Email to Friend Please fill out the following details (fields marked with a * are mandatory):
Send To Email Address*:
Send To Name *:
Sent By Email Address*:
Sent By Name *:
Text to include in email:
Captcha validation:	please enter the code above:

^ Page Top

Comment on this article

More from this section

1. Papal claim on St Paul's remains

   The first ever scientific test on bone fragments that are believed to be the remains of the Apostle Paul "seems to confirm" that they do indeed belong to the Roman Catholic saint, Pope Benedict XVI said.

2. Church hierarchy "betrayed" orders

   Religious congregations in Ireland are feeling betrayed by Church leadership over actions and statements following the Ryan report.

3. Britain no longer Christian: Anglican bishop

   British Anglican Bishop Paul Richardson says that "Christian Britain is dead", while author Hal Colebatch writes that proposed anti-discrimination laws further erodes Church control.

4. Priest blames consecrated wine for drunk driving

   An Italian priest caught driving over the alcohol limit blamed the reading measured by police on the consecrated wine he consumed at Mass.

5. Northern Ireland's loyalist paramilitary groups disarm

   Northern Ireland's main paramilitary groups, the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and the Red Hand Commandos (RHC) have announced that they are disarming.