CMTV, Save Us from Celebrity Catholics and Is the SSPX Way the Right Action to Take In the Crisis of the Church? Part 2

JMJ

Celebrity Catholics

Fr. Altman and Sedevacantistism

So Fr. Altman had fallen into the Sedevacantist pot hole and others will either follow him or use him as an whipping boy for the Traditionalists as a whole.

In light of the scandal caused by the Popes, Cardinals and Bishops, I can understand the desire to pick the easy answer that the Catholic Church is indefectible (or some other excuse) therefore the Pope can't be the Pope etc.

Were it that easy.

The sedevacantist 'solution' simply unravels the foundation of Catholic Dogma and Doctrine. For example, it is a Dogma that there will be successors of St. Peter until the end of time (see Vatican 1 link), and if Fr. Altman were to examine the pontificates of Pope John 23, Paul 6, John Paul II in the same light as Pope Francis 1, he will probably find reasons to suspect they also 'lost' the papacy. I know sedevacantists who take their principle to the logical end and say that the last valid Pope was Pope Leo 13.

This is absurd and contradicts the afore mentioned Dogma. We aren't in some weird inter-regnum, no one in authority had admonished Pope Francis and he hasn't done the actions required to make it explicit that he has lost the Faith etc.

Without that, Fr. Altman is simply uttering an opinion based on his personal feelings in order to try and make sense of a Church ripping itself apart like an alien spawn (i.e. chest burster).

A few years back I wrote an article titled "Yes Sally, Pope Francis IS the Pope and is in great need of our prayers!" and I think I will reblog it in the next few weeks because nothing has changed with regard to this latest disastrous Pontificate in a series of mediocre or bad Popes since Paul VI. In the meantime here's the link to the 2017 reblog: https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2017/08/re-blog-yes-sally-pope-francis-is-pope.html.

https://onepeterfive.com/altman-francis-father-wound/

The major problem I have with 'Traditional' Celebrity Catholics is that we've ween 'wandering in the wilderness' for so long that any person who reinforces our views becomes a hero. The hero worship is particularly bad when the person turns out to be a zero ... i.e. fallible human and falls into error - like Fr. Altman. Many others have preceded him into the pothole of sedevacantism and many more will follow.

So, beware of putting any person on a pedestal and attaching all your hopes on them. The odds are you will be disappointed in some degree.

Is the SSPX Way the Right Action to Take In the Crisis of the Church?

I guess the first question should be What is the SSPX way?

It is normally referred to as the recognize and resist. Which is not very useful but here is my explanation:

Recognize: Pope Francis or the previously reigning Popes are recognized as being the successor of St.Peter and the Vicar of Christ.
Resist: The people holding this remain ready and willing to obey orders from the Pope that fall under his authority to issue and do not involve sin.

The reasoning under this principle is that the Pope cannot order us to endanger our Faith by adopting a protestantized liturgy or formulas that make ambiguous what was previously clear (I'm thinking of the exclusion of the Filioque from the Creed).

This does not mean that Traditionalists are immune from error. Even the Pope is inflammable and only infallible under certain conditions (pun intended).

So the SSPX provides the Sacraments necessary for the salvation following the principle of State of Necessity and that you go to the point where everything went wonky and hold on until the current storm passes. That's ultimately the reason why the SSPX uses the 1963 missal as opposed to the older ones. That was the last Tridentine Mass issued before the Novus Ordo Missae.

There are two sacraments that were problematic for the Catholics who seek the sacraments from the SSPX. These are the Sacraments of Marriage and Confession, because they require jurisdiction as an element of their validity.

As we know since 2016 the confessions of the SSPX have received jurisdiction directly from Pope Francis and that since 2017 some marriages have received jurisdiction. Does this mean that all confessions were invalid prior to this? A number of people would have you believe that it does, but that isn't quite the whole story.

The question that strikes are the heart of the matter is whether or not there is a crisis in the Church that warrants the recognize and resist position in other words creates a State of Necessity.

If so, the salvation of souls would be paramount and the supplied jurisdiction would kick into action. I am simplifying the principle, but suffice to say that people who do not see the crisis in the Church will find the SSPX confessions (up to 2016) and marriages performed without the approval of the local ordinary (since 2017) invalid.

In the case of marriages it has long been an issue where Marriage Annulments will be granted to a party no longer seeks the sacraments from the SSPX on the basis of a lack of form (Canon 1108). This is the reason why the SSPX was seeking a 'sanitum' for the marriages witnessed by the SSPX priests and the partial resolution by Pope Francis of the problem in 2017.

I know that Siscoe and Salza have now turned against the SSPX on this point based on the opinion of professors in Rome. Such is life.

Looking around, it is quite apparent to me that the State of Necessity is real and has been since Faithful Catholics were persecuted for not accepting the danger to their Faith created by the Novus Ordo Missae and the 'Spirit of the Council' that it embodies.

I know Catholics who, only a few years ago, didn't think there was a state of necessity. Pope Francis has changed many of their minds and they now realize that the SSPX was right to hold on to the Tridentine Mass and Teachings of the Church.

Hopefully, Pope Francis will soon go to his eternal reward with the Last Sacraments and his successor will finally have the guts to end this crisis.

P^3

Reference

https://sspx.org/en/content/29002

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid. No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein. Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse? The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin. Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service. It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Tradicat

Search This Blog