Name of Church San Felipe Chapel
Address 738 N. Geraghty Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90063
Phone number 323-454-1002
Website https://fssp.la/
Mass times [updated, 6/4/15]
Mass times at the Chapel of San Felipe have changed. There will be only 2 Holy Masses.
Times are as followed:
Sunday 11:00 am
Monday 7:00 pm followed by a potluck and conference.
Starting June 1st Father Fryar will be celebrating Holy Mass at Saint Victor Church in West Hollywood as followed:
Sunday 7:00 pm, followed by a potluck
Monday 7:00 am
Tuesday 7:00 pm
Wednesday 7:00 am
Thursday 7:00 am
Friday 7:00 pm
Saturday 9:00 am
Names of priests Fr. James Fryar of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. The fraternity was founded by Pope John Paul II in 1988 and celebrates Mass exclusively according to the Extraordinary Form (Tridentine). Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter has seminaries in the United States and Germany, and 250 priests worldwide. The priests are reliably orthodox, and celebrate the old rite of the Mass with precision and piety.
Confession 30 minutes before Masses.
Groups The community is in need of men and boys to be altar servers, and for people to sing in the choir.
School No.
Fellow parishioners The area itself is a low income Latino community; those who attend the Mass are traditional Catholics who like the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.
Parking There is a small parking area by the church, or park on the street.
Additional observations The San Felipe Chapel is a small church in East Los Angeles that is serving as the temporary home for the Latin Mass community in the Los Angeles Archdiocese. Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was invited into Los Angeles by the archbishop, Jose Gomez, and Fr. Fryar designated to establish their presence in Los Angeles.
The FSSP is a gem. Remember, though, that this Order was formed by St. JPII to counterbalance the SSPX. (St. JPII, however, was very conversant in Latin, and criticized other priest who did not know it. He was too weak to push through obedience to Veterum Sapientia of John XXIII.)
By all means, attend Mass here. Every parish, every one, must have a TLM in the future.
Do you always have so say something negative, and bring up the SSPX ?
This forces people to bring up the fact that the SSPX holds no ministry within the Catholic Church at this time to insure you do not lead readers astray.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
” The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals…
It seems that St. Christopher (the poster) did use the words “counterbalance the SSPX.”
Of course I have forgotten that this might be the very first time someone has seen those initials and might take its use in that context as an endorsement…???
Sir, if it was not for the S.S.P.X. and His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre there would be no TLM anywhere, so please don’t tell St. Christopher the S.S.P.X. is negative, and by the way once again the S.S.P.X. IS NOT IN SCHISM!!! Rome herself has said this many many times as has His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. And yes every church should have the TLM as requested by Benedict XVI in 2007.
You may not know that it was possible to get permission to say the TLM (indult).
Pope Benedict XVI did not request every church to have a TLM.
As for schism- the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has said that they are and Pope John Paul Ii said that they are. That’s good enough for me.
His grace Archbishop Lefebvre ordained bishops outside the permission of Rome. I hope his Grace will grace the gates of heaven, but ordaining priests and bishops against the direct wishes of the Roman Pontiff is not a good way to go about it, in my opinion.
This is the OFFICIAL and latest statement from the Pope regarding the SSPX which is in effect today.
It is on the Vatican web site. So I am providing documentation, not a personal opinion of any type, so that all may accurately know the SSPX status today. Some posters can protest all they want, but this is fact.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
” The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons.
As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There…
…the only posters who seem to protest the official statements regarding the Society are those who willfully make judgments and pronounce sentences they have neither the authority nor the understanding to make. So thank you for sticking to that which is official, AL.
Would that others who portray themselves as faithful Catholics would follow suit.
Why are you trying to silence those who care about your eternal fate?
1. A Catholic does not fulfill his Sunday obligation at a Society Mass.
2. Confessions by Society priests are invalid.
3. Marriages performed by Society priests are invalid.
We’re not just saying illicit here, we’re saying invalid.
Those are the main things to consider for those who do not understand the issues well. These are good enough reasons for me to stay away from such a group until they re-unite and do what is right, but until then, we are to remain faithful ! God bless you.
Ann Malley, no one is protesting the official statements of the Church. Are you projecting some internal conflict onto others?
I do not know whether it is a cult. I am sure to many it would appear to be so. It is definitely a sect.
You act like a member of a cult. You keep insisting on things that aren’t true and are obviously not true. You become very offensive to people who try to help you see it for what it is. You insist that people who warn you about it don’t have any authority to judge it. Really?
Really, Anonymous. For it is offensive and no help to insist on judging and/or helping another, or even a situation, when not fully equipped by knowledge or authority. Especially when those in authority are publicly divided. (Your assertions of “definitely” and “what it is” are again your uninformed opinion – which is why sticking to official determinations is best.)
Stay in your lane, friend. Perhaps then you won’t find others so offensive.
God bless!
I believe you are offended but not because people don’t know what they are talking about. No one in authority is publicly divided on the status of the SSPX. Although most Bishops do not excommunicate Catholics who attend their chapels, there are some who have. I don’t really consider that division..
My opinion is not uninformed. “Stay in your lane”? You are the one promoting mortal sin on a Catholic website.
From Catholic Answers:
What Is Heresy?
Heresy is an emotionally loaded term that is often misused. It is not the same thing as incredulity, schism, apostasy, or other sins against faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (CCC 2089).
S Christopher made a positive comment, with facts supporting the history of the origination of the FSSP in response to the formation of the SSPX. That is a fact. Today, New Church Catholics have problems with the facts.
And by the way, he is particularly right that the apostolic constitution, Veterum Sapientia, has been contravened, even as people give lip service to S. John XXIII.
Thank you Richard C. I agree now with that said. Please lay faithful stay away from the cult SSPX.
You know, the need to smear (ex. the “cult” slur) sincerely dedicated people such as those who are part of the SSPX, as well as the deliberate refusal to see their intentions, individually and communally, as anything but the most basely depraved, really has no basis at all in the New Testament Law of Charity (Lk. 6:37, Eph. 4:31, Jn. 8:7). It appears only to be an appalling act of self-gratifying rage.
Or, is it in fact fear that the inconceivable, namely that the people in the SSPX may one day be formally reconciled with the official Catholic Church (much like the Eastern Uniate churches were), is one’s greatest fear, and then what? The one(s) spewing this hostility will have to eat these bitter words? What good does it serve,…
We all hope there will be unity one day with the SSPX – but until that time
” In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church,
and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”
– per Pope Benedict as posted on the Vatican web site.
Steve Phoenix, For *some* not all, It is definitely fear, especially on the part of those who hate the truth. For a visual explanation picture Dracula’s reaction to a crucifix.
For those who do love the Truth……. Cardinal Burke said that it would be a gift to the Church when the SSPX is reconciled with Rome. Cardinal Burke and Bishop Anthanasius Schneider never publicly called mean spirited names to our scattered brothers and sisters in Christ.
There is a still a great lack of spiritual backbone in even many of our faithful shepherds. We see this fear when even a good alter Christus easily shows charity, gratitude and praise for a rabid homosexual activist’s post while simultaneously calling names to Christ’s other sheep…
Why do you want to believe uncharitable things about those who are trying to help Jesus save souls?
Why ask Catherine, “Why do you want to believe uncharitable things about those who are trying to help Jesus save souls?” You should be looking in the mirror and asking as much of yourself, Anonymous.
Could it be that Catherine has nailed it? Dracula casts no reflection, if you recall, and runs from mirrors for fear of being found out.
Thanks again for the spot on analogy, Catherine!
You are welcome Ann Malley! I also agree with Dana’s
June 4, 2015 at 12:50 pm post. : > )
Ann Malley, I have not written anything uncharitable.
Second, I have nothing run from. I am not afraid of your schismatic smoke and mirrors.
Anonymous is correct, from what I read this anonymous person Said nothing uncharitable. Its just hard to know which anonymous is posting but i noticed charity from this anonymous. Good comments thus far but if any new anonymous person posts, well i cant say the same because there are several. God bless the ones who are faithful. Much appreciate your faithful posts.
…as long as folks stick to the “official” position of Rome with regards to the SSPX instead of overreaching there is no negative, Richard. It is important for Catholics to understand the history of the Church and specific orders, especially the FSSP who has their roots in the Society.
If anything, the truth, is invigorating. The ‘truth’ is supposed to set one free. Would that more folks would look to it instead of fear mongering. Fear mongering and false insinuations lead many astray from the truth even if they are inside the Church.
So why do you, AM, use scare quotes around Rome’s “official” positions? Maybe we all are allowed to use scare quotes around other of Rome’s “official” positions? I’m just asking. Because it seems to me you try to play both sides of that game.
The truth is, indeed, “invigorating.”
You assume these to be scare quotes, YFC. Why is that? The FSSP has its roots in the SSPX. That is reality. And that reality seems to frighten a great meany who would otherwise smear that which they refuse to understand or leave charitably to those who do.
Perhaps it is your viewing the faith as a game that is your issue, YFC. You are certainly playing at something.
Because you are the one who put the scare quotes around “Official”. You put them there. You were not quoting somehting, you were characterizing the “official” position and demeaning it by putting scare quotes around the word. You did that. So I’m asking a very legitimate question: About which “official” positions can we use scare quotes around, and thereby demean that “official” position. We jsut celebrated the feast of the Holy Trinity. Is that an “official” position too?
You may want to cozy up to a dictionary and/or the Catechism and desensitize in areas besides those that go against the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church.
Perhaps then quotation marks, in addition to reality, won’t frighten you anymore.
If the New Testament Law of Charity does not persuade some to moderate their bitterness against the SSPX, perhaps discretion may: because now Rorate Coeli blogspot reports that Card. Gerhard Muller has appointed SSPX Bp. Fellay as first-instance judge in a canonical situation involving an SSPX individual. This certainly is a step toward canonical recognition. Archbp. Guido Pozzo acknowledged that this is “a step toward reconciliation”; and it certainly implies some degree of canonical status accorded Fellay. This follows after PF appears to have personally intervened two months ago to obtain the required ecclesiastical authorization for the SSPX to operate as a “Catholic Church”-entity in Argentina.
So what will those who…
Many are too busy playing magisterium and Pope while feigning loyalty to be distracted by charity, Steve Phoenix. That strikes too close to the actual exercise of the Faith to warrant contemplation.
Reminds me of the overbearing wife who insists with raised fists what her husband will or will not tolerate to “outsiders” as the man himself cowers to one side, fretting whether or not he should interrupt his wife to get permission to tie his shoes.
Lord help us!
So was that article saying that they have had a case of pedophilia in the SSPX? I am kind of assuming that the priest had probably never been a priest in the Catholic Church… but there is not enough detail to say.
…if someone wasn’t a Catholic priest then the Catholic Church would have no say/jurisdiction in the case. You are so blind, Anonymous, it’s painful.
In Bible-belt Virginia, where I grew up, it used to be said that “Catholic scandals are acceptable Protestant pornography.” When a priest failed, the fundamentalist preachers were all over it, and their adherents positively exulted in it, as yet additional proof that the Catholic Church was the church of Satan.
We have to update that for 2015: “SSPX scandals are acceptable Novus Ordo Church pornography.” The rest also follows logically.
It would also rather seem like throwing stones from a glass house.
Which would we why they handed it over to Bishop Fellay. Glad you are getting it.
….first round judgment is from Bishop Fellay, Anonymous, not final judgment. Is there anybody on the other end of this “Anonymous” sink hole? Or are you just agitating for the Sedevecantists and/or Bishop Williamson?
News is you’re not holding your cards close to your chest, friend, but toward the very mirror that reflects the utter lack of substance you attempt to pass off as Catholic Faith. Good luck with that.
Ann Malley, I am sorry that you find the Catholic Faith lacking substance. Perhaps if you attended a Catholic Church it would not be so.
I find your lack of Catholic Faith and understanding to be a manifest warning to avoid whatever you promote. The fact that you ascribe such vacuousness to the Catholic Church is disturbing, but endemic of an ongoing and grotesque lack of catechesis that would replace blind obedience and indoctrination above what the Church actually teaches.
That said, if I subjected myself or my family to the retraining you seem to have received, then, yes, I may feel as you do. And that is precisely why I follow the course I do.
Thanks again for posting. And thank all those involved in establishing the FSSP.
No one is bitter against SSPX. We are morally obligated to correct error posted or promoted against truth. Just because you dont like it, it does not mean you have to read into people intentions as ill and say they are bitter. You sir are the one acting uncharitable. Practice what you preach and lead by it too.
Abeca, it is true that the FSSP has it’s roots in the SSPX. It is true that the SSPX is not in schism. It is true that BXVI made an official statement – and that statement in full asks for discretion and charity in dealing with the SSPX. As you should with anybody.
That said, please don’t call me Sir. You are better than that….or should be.
My comment was meant for Steve. He is the sir i was replying too. Not Ann M. Sometimes when we reply to someone we cant control where your post will land. I believe Ann M misunderstood. You know better Ann than to assume that i would call u a sir.
Ann Malley i know you are not a sir. Post was reply to Steve. So dont frett.
It appears that the OFFICIAL Vatican quote posted by Richard C. was deleted. Here is the rest of it to make things perfectly clear fro those who may not know.
QUOTE: ” In order to make this clear once again:
until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church,
and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. ” UNQUOTE. –
Pope Benedict XVI, March, 2009.
“Is there anybody in the anonymous sink hole”? Sink hole? Ann Malley I get you disagree with this anonymous person but can you please dialogue civially? You just provoke arguements , which rightfully so because of your style to dialogue. I can understand why people respond to you the way they do. This is a Catholic news forum and the owner allows people to comment without inserting their name. I understand our displeasure of there being more than several anonymous person because some refuse to insert an ID, I get you there but sink hole? Its not. In reading others who post without an Id, there has been faithful ones too. Its irrelevant to try to bring that up.
God bless you, Abeca, the use of sink hole is not a reference to the Anonymous name, but rather the utter lack of logic and reasoning associated with the posts coming from that moniker.
Ratzinger was in error in the same letter. “I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul.” ~ Benedict XVI. Paul’s excesses? The supposed descendant of Simon Peter Bar Jona gets to decide the excesses of Saul of Tarsus? His idea of promoting eccumenism is to bend the rules to accommodate those who have rejected the Church since 1530. Why not find out why cradle Catholics have stopped going to Mass? Then try with all his might to bring THEM back to the Church. His idea, along with Pope Francis, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Paul VI is to liberalize doctrine to make it more Protestant friendly. Protestants, in turn, try and make their doctrines more secular friendly…
FSSP was formed from priests of the SSPX who did not want to follow Lefebvre into schism.
see Ecclesia Dei 5c and 6
https://www.fssp.org/en/declfond.htm
FSSP did not want to risk going into schism, Anonymous. That said, the “official” position of the Vatican is what Richard C posted. There is no “official” SSPX schism and no “cult” as many fear mongers attempt to assert under the false guise of not wanting to mislead faithful.
For in their supposed zeal to not mislead, these self proscribed “faithful” lie and invent and conflate to the point of calumniating fellow Catholics. Would that they would be prudent and mum, giving the “official” position and acting charitably in all else despite the temptation to speak out of turn.
You don’t think that a schismatic has to be officially declared to be one by the Vatican, do you?
I think it prudent and wholly Catholic to refrain from making leaps in public pronouncements, Anonymous, especially when one has shown by their posts to have little to no understanding of what the terms one is tossing around mean in their full measure.
It’s called rash judgment, Anonymous. You may want to look to it.
So saying, I’m glad that the FSSP has the opportunity to spread the TLM and all that accompanies the fullness therein. God bless them. And God bless the SSPX.
Let me ask you this…
Two Catholics-married in the Church and divorced, man and woman, marry each other in a civil ceremony. They refrain from receiving Communion. They do not repent of their marriage. They do not consider it adultery. Do they go to hell?
Let me ask you to try to stick to official Church pronouncements on matters which are not yours to judge. That, friend, would set the example, no?
Ann Malley, I did stick to official Church pronouncements and I cited them and additionally gave a link.
Let me ask you this: two men fall in love and have sexual relations. Not sodomy-other things. They do not repent. Do they go to hell?
What I find interesting, Ann Malley, is that those who are constantly attacking the SSPX never say a peep about the rogue cardinals in Rome (Marx, Kasper, et al) but never cease to find any excuse to begin making outrageous claims about the SSPX. I find your patience admirable. I find such inexcusable rudeness and studpidity really trying so forgive me if I avoid these futile arguments. I’m with you in spirit, though. Stay calm, carry on dear. ;)
Can God bless the SSPX? Can he bless the union of same-sex partners? Can he bless the union of divorced and remarried Catholics?
I am sincerely asking.
Can he bless individuals in mortal sin?
Futile arguments to be sure, Dana, as folks are more wrapped in their own dramatic misinterpretations, to include overblown protestations of fidelity amid an almost institutionalized blindness.
God bless :)
What is schism; and what is heresy? –Schism is the refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope; heresy is the formal denial or doubt by a baptized person of any revealed truth of the Catholic Faith.
Apostasy is the total rejection of his Faith by a baptized Christian. With heresy and schism, and supported by persecution, it has caused divisions in the True Church, and the rise of other churches.
Christ predicted divisions in the Church, and the rise of other churches. From the time of the Apostles new denominations have sprung up, and have divided and subdivided, to form other denominations. With other churches that are non-Christian, the Christian denominations have opposed the Apostolic Church.
“For false…
Ann Malley, where do you get this stuff that we can’t call a chapel schismatic that calls itself Catholic (actually Roman Catholic) and has not been set up by an ordinary of the Catholic Church and is run by suspended priests? What do you call it? Independent? If it’s independent it’s schismatic!!!! By definition. We are not so stupid that we have to have a Vatican declaration to tell us they are schismatics!
“…We are not so stupid that we have to have a Vatican declaration to tell us…”
Anonymous, you have just demonstrated the independent discernment of fruits outside official Vatican proclamations that you supposedly disdain in others. This is why your argumentation consistently falls apart for you insist that others *must* do what you have written here that you will not….or rather that which you perceive is an insult to *your* intelligence.
Thanks for your post :)
CCC 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
1864 “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.
Matthew 15:18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man.
19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.
20 These are what defile a man;
The Second Vatican Council says, “the faithful…should be closely attached to the Bishop as the Church is to Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is to the Father.” St. Ignatius of Antioch the successor of St. Peter in that See wrote, “let no one do anything concerning the Church in separation from the Bishop.”
Good comments this anonymous
Ann Malley not surprised that you feel that way. Such is life.
Priests themselves have said JPII was in heresy at some points; that is the reason why Bishop LeFebre ordained priests, so the TLM would not disappear from the face of the earth.
Well, it’s good to know that in the metropolitan LA area (4.2 million Catholics as of 2013), there are at least two locations for the Fraternity to offer the actual Mass of Vatican 2.
What Mass do you attend ?
Or are you a sedevancantist ?
The rubrics of the Mass have been changed many times since the time of Christ and His apostles.
Fr. Fryar is a holy and reverent man.
Thank you for providing this information for the San Felipe Chapel.
Here some videos interview with Fr. Fryar about the EF Mass.
For the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (aka TLM, Latin) – – –
A very basic MISSAL is available for the EF Mass through the FSSP.
“Latin-English Booklet Missal” & “Latin-Spanish Booklet Missal”.
Cost about $6.50 each.
https://www.fraternitypublications.com/labomi.html
A good Sunday Missal is the “St. Edmund Campion Missal & Hymnal”
Cost about $32.00 each
https://www.ccwatershed.org/Campion/
(Note that Fr. Fryar is in some of the photos of the Mass.)
A good Daily Missal is “Roman Missal of 1962” by Baronius Press.
Cost about $62.00
https://www.baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=4#tab=tab-1
(There are other Daily Missals available.)
For those who have never attended an EF (Latin) Mass, we receive Christ (Holy Communion) while kneeling and on the tongue.
In the EF Mass this is a requirement since it is according to the 1962 Missal.
(Receiving Christ while kneeling and/or on the tongue is an option for each communicant in the OF Mass.)
People dress in business attire (their Sunday best). No shorts for male or females; no sleeveless blouses or see through materials; no short skirts or dresses; no t-shirts with advertising or sayings on them.
Ladies and girls usually wear a scarf, mantilla or appropriate hat on their heads, but this is not a requirement.
https://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/Mantillas/cid=183/sort_by=price_asc/get_all=/shop.axd/Category
Hope…
You are certainly enthusiastic!
So am I!
Online you can find THIS to use as a temporary missal if you print it out. Or just look it over if you are interested in the Extraordinary Form but haven’t attended.
For those who will be visiting LA, or are nearby, please save this article as one of your ‘favorites’ for reference.
And don’t forget – The community is in need of men and boys to be altar servers, and for people to sing in the choir.
You will be trained, so please volunteer.
When travelling in the US and Canada here are some FSSP Apostolates (Mass locations).
https://fssp.com/press/locations/
What is The Table?
…very funny, Anonymous.
It’s not a joke. It is on the website. I poked around a little and got an answer to the question-sort of. Apparently, it is a place on the web where non-members of the parish who want to be involved can go?????
I was hoping that someone from the parish could explain it.
I guess I could join and find out the courageous way.
But I am cowardly anonymous.
BTW, does anyone know how Kenneth Fisher is doing these days?
I’ve wondered about Kenneth, myself, anon. Hope he’s okay!
….me, too, Dana. Although, I opt for the position that no news is good news. I look forward to the day when his steady presence is on CCD once more.
I pray that all Diocese Seminaries will teach both Forms of the Mass, OF & EF, so that all the people of God may be served.
Parents, if your son is discerning a Priestly vocation, please have him look into the possibility of the FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter).
https://fssp.com/press/
Any Diocese Priest interested in learning the EF (Extraordinary Form) Latin Mass, the FSSP trains all Priests who are interested.
They also hold camps for boys aged 13 – 15; and retreats.
Go to the FSSP web site for more info.
Mass times at the Chapel of San Felipe have changed. There will be only 2 Holy Masses.
Times are as followed:
Sunday 11:00 am
Monday 7:00 pm followed by a potluck and conference.
Starting June 1st Father Fryar will be celebrating Holy Mass at Saint Victor Church in West Hollywood as followed:
Sunday 7:00 pm, followed by a potluck
Monday 7:00 am
Tuesday 7:00 pm
Wednesday 7:00 am
Thursday 7:00 am
Friday 7:00 pm
Saturday 9:00 am
Please join us.
It is wonderful that Fr. Fryar will offer daily mass at St. Victor’s in the heart of Hollywood. We have attended Sunday Mass at 7 pm 5-6 times and it is very convenient because it can be easily reached from most parts of Los Angeles, and we do not have children at home anymore. The pot lucks are a great way to meet like-minded Catholics (including ones of the Anonymous and YFC persuasion, as this is West Hollywood after all). We must be very grateful to the Pastor of St. Victors for hosting the EF form (give generously to the plate or better still ask for envelopes as we did) and to Archbishop Jose Gomez.
Have they updated the Diocese Parish web sites – as to any location and time changes ?
I believe that San Felipe Chapel is actually on the southern border of City Terrace. It is a chapel of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Hammel St. in East Los Angels which is less than a mile away. There is no rectory or office at San Felipe Chapel. Both the Parish Church and chapel are in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles county.
What a beautiful Church! I wish I lived closer to it but if I’m ever in the area, I will certainly check it out.
Carol I agree : )
Bishop Whelan, in the year 1871 tells us, concerning the doctrine of Infallibility: “Infallibility of the Church means that, according to the promises of God, and under the guiding influence of the Holy Ghost, the Church CANNOT teach to men any doctrinal point, as of obligation to be believed, except what God Himself has revealed” A Golden Chain of Evidences, 1871, pages 29-30
From Catholic Answers
Heresies have been with us from the Church’s beginning. They even have been started by Church leaders, who were then corrected by councils and popes. Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church, for he told Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). The Church is truly, in Paul’s words, “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
Look at all of the posts who choose to DISTRACT from the BEAUTY of the EF (aka Latin, TLM) Mass. They say they love this Form of the Mass, but they lie.
Their actions speak louder than their words.
Instead they choose to continuously bring up and argue about a group that currently has no ministry within the Catholic Church – SSPX – per Pope Benedict.
You should be ashamed of yourself. You merely make those who might consider the OF Mass run in the other direction.
Unless and until the SSPX status officially changes please do not bring up the SSPX again.
You harm the OF Mass, those who do have ministries within the Church,
and even the SSPX – because others have to keep pointing our their current lack of ministry within…
Sorry my post should have been EF (Extra-ordinary form) of the Mass, aka TLM, Latin.
Promoting the idea that the truth is harmful is dangerous, ANNE, and not Catholic. Actions do speak louder than words which is why it is rather telling that those who claim to love Holy Mother Church are so bent on usurping her authority while claiming to defend her right to exercise authority.
So yes, let us stick to the official statements and the truth.
For while you may have been led to believe that focusing on aesthetics is the way to build something up, others require more and seek deeper understanding. (Men typically need more.) So while you operate under the fear that people will run when met with complexity, others with experience have quite different stories to tell and the fruits to back up their methods. Please stop…
People are asking you to stop posting. Cause it has been discussed ad nauseum. SSPX is not relevant to Catholics aside from including them in our prayers for the conversion of sinners.
I think people are not rejecting you. But I think people just want to stick to the subject and you were not the one who brought up the SSPX and I know you are loyal to them and you have trouble accepting the viewpoints of others on them. You could just let it go. It is a CATHOLIC website and people are not going to be supportive on this subject. We can’t be because schism (and I know you don’t like that word) is a mortal sin. It is an automatic excommunication. So we can’t support you in this.
Ann Malley, I do not mean this uncharitably. Something for you to consider: You are talking to faithful Catholics. You can’t even figure out why you shouldn’t attend an independent chapel run by suspended priests. But you are going to instruct us in truth and faith? . Anyone who tries to tell you the truth, gets their head handed to them. That is not how someone who really knows the truth and the faith would act. As for the SSPX, when and if they accept the Pope’s invitation to join the Church, we will all be joyous. We might even go to their Mass. But not until.
“Anyone who tries to tell you the truth, gets their head handed to them.”
Anonymous, You are NOT anonymous to God!
Sins of omission offend God. Charity begins at home. Start with fraternally correcting your fellow errant clergy in the same charitable fashion and eventually you will become a grace-filled conduit to the SSPX’s reconciliation with Rome. But not until.
Proverbs 10:10, 17 He who winks at a fault causes trouble; but he who frankly reproves promotes peace….A path to life is his who heeds admonition; but he who disregards reproof goes astray.
If I find any errant clergy, I will correct them. As always.
…good reminder for us all, Catherine. Thanks.
OK Catherine, tell others the TRUTH – that the SSPX has no ministry within the Catholic Church at this time.
And will not have a ministry within the Catholic Church until approved by the Pope.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20121111_caritas.html
PETE, no one is dismissing the official proclamation of the Church at this time. That said, if you are a proponent of TRUTH, be consistent in promoting it….. but promote all of the truth and only the truth. That last precludes implying that others are doing something they are not and have never done.
PETE,
PLEASE PAY CLOSER ATTENTION! The SSPX is fully aware of their irregular internal Church matter status with Rome. I am not a SSPX member and the SSPX members who have posted here have NEVER ONCE asked anyone to leave Rome or join the SSPX. Cardinal Burke said that it will be a “great gift to the Church,” when the SSPX is “reconciled” with Rome. Gifts are aka “souls” and all souls should be valued and encouraged. PETE…. YOU SEEM to want everyone to follow the fearful example of mean-spiritedness and name calling instead of following Christ when he warned ALL OF US for our own good.
Jeremias (Jeremiah) 23:1 – Douay-Rheims
Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord…
“That said, if you are a proponent of TRUTH, be consistent in promoting it….. but promote all of the truth and only the truth.” = Well said, Ann Malley!
Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 34:6
My sheep have wandered in every mountain, and in every high hill: and my flocks were scattered upon the face of the earth, and there was none that sought them, there was none, I say, that sought them.
PETE……What part of the TRUTHFUL word “reconcile” don’t YOU understand?
PETE Catherine is of bad will. She is only part of the confusion and problamatic views that stem from the actions of SSPX. They wont listen. She is deceived pray for her. They will only attack. In Jesus name i pray for His protection against schism and heresy and against the evil spirit of untruth. God bless us and protect us. Amen. Ave Maria Purissima sin pecado concebido. We place Jesus blood over these posts, for His protection and graces. Jesus help keep us faithful. For those doing the misleading we pray for their conversion. Praise be Jesus Christ now and forever. Amen
When enough united voices cried out to Rome ..then disobedient and bullying clergy were told to STOP the abusive practice of persecuting those who knelt for Holy Communion.
When enough united voices cried out to Rome about the deliberate suppression of the TLM Mass ….then Pope Benedict XVI generously responded with Summorum Pontificum.
Pope Francis recently referred to Confirmation as the sacrament of “farewell”. Why? Because they leave. The faith is NOT being accurately taught or handed down. When enough shepherds unitedly humble themselves, which often simply requires the swallowing of false pride, then the Truth will once again be fully taught without ambiguities.
We are seeking them. We get bitten.
God bless you, Catherine.
CATHERINE until such time as a POPE,
changes the status of the SSPX –
no one should attend SSPX religious services since they hold no ministry within the Church.
Why are you joining with a few others to lead people away from our official Church into going to SSPX Churches ?
Cardinal Burke never attends an SSPX service. He does not ordain Priests in the SSPX. Yes, he would like to see unity in the Church when the SSPX resolves their Doctrinal issues, AS WE ALL WOULD.
But not until it is official via a written statement by the Pope.
Cardinal Burke, like many of us, love the EF Mass.
Do not support attending an SSPX Church, until there is unity per a Pope.
Sandy, why are you joining with a few others to ascribe motives to others that are untrue? Especially when you do not understand what the doctrinal issues entail.
If you are afraid that discussing the truth of situations is all it takes to lead people away from the Catholic Church, then you do not demonstrate much Faith in what the Church teaches.
Catholics are not bound to lie, exaggerate, conceal the truth and/or calumniate others by projecting their own fears (i.e. “They” are leading people out of the Church) to be faithful Catholics.
Ann Malley and everyone, it is a wise practice to read the Word of God everyday. There is a plenary indulgence if you read prayerfully for one half of an hour.
It is also a good practice to study the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The easiest way is to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But don’t just read it. Look up the footnotes from the Bible and the Church documents. There is a partial indulgence for learning Christian doctrine.
Can’t i just buy an indulgence on Amazon?
Ann Malley the simple TRUTH is – that the SSPX holds NO MINISTRY with the Catholic Church,
and that people should NOT attend SSPX services – until the SSPX is able to hold a ministry within the Church.
” In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church,
and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. ” –
Pope Benedict.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
Only a Pope can change the status of the SSPX.
So stop trying to defend the SSPX, and purposely confuse others…
ANNE, your penchant to lie about others, even by way of insinuation of what they are trying to do, is not Catholic. So if you have a problem with others defending the truth about situations and groups, instead of globbing on the bash train, you’ll likely always have trouble with my posts. But that’s your problem.
I used to have a very benevolent opinion of the SSPX but one person who posts here was so ignorant of Catholic doctrine that I looked into it a lot more and found them to be doctrinally and traditionally lacking.
…if you actually did research, then good for you, Anonymous. I am glad to have motivated you to do your due diligence.
It is just such research that has led many to the TLM, not just aesthetics and curiosity . This is why the FSSP being allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in addition to all that accompanies it is wonderful news that should be celebrated. And not just because it’s pretty.
Who is that person? Well it doesnt matter. Lets pray for one another. Also thank you CCD for articles “churches worth driving to” it has been very helpful for my family when we travel. God bless you for this. ☺
This is another claim that is pure “bunk”: “I used to have a very benevolent opinion of the SSPX… I looked into it a lot more and found them to be doctrinally and traditionally lacking.”
No specifics, no actual premises defined (except the occasional personal cheap shot) as to what is “doctrinally lacking”: just vague innuendo. Pure cowardly bunk.
…same bunk as the, “Who is this person?” Well, it doesn’t matter. Let’s pray for one another. It would be refreshing if the folks who write this way actually behaved in such a manner.
But the idea that benevolence is based on ignorance and/or a lack of any encounter whatsoever is wholly consistent with such a void of reason.
Since the Church does NOT recognize any ministry of the SSPX – –
Ann Malley do you attend SSPX Masses ?
Steve Phoenix do you attend SSPX Masses?
Janek do you attend SSPX Masses?
St. Christopher do you attend SSPX Masses ?
Phil, do you adhere to the whole of Pope Benedict’s official statement? If so, why do you take such a hostile approach instead of acting in appropriate manner?
And, yes, I do attend Society masses. That is no secret here.
“The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society (of St Pius X) does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church” (Pope Benedict XVI, Letter of 10 March 2009 to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre).
Ah, yes, so the great and benevolent Anonymous clan has spent the Lord’s Day and it’s vigil, I see, piling on Ann Malley and the SSPX, trying to drive her from Cal-Catholic’s site. All in the name of charity and fraternal solicitude, of course, “concern for her soul”, and anointing themselves as faithful and the “opponents” as “schismatic.”
Card. Muller and others aside, enough is enough, the SSPX are not schismatic, except for the Anonymous clan as canon lawyers, in which case we will all be burned at the stake (Joan of Arc was declared apostate, excommunicate, heretic, too by the ranking Anonymous English bishop of the time). They have not fulfilled the requirement of C. 751, and they actually declare their desire…
The SSPX and their participants declare their desire continually to be in union with the Pontiff and the hierarchy: however, that hierarchy must also be in union with what the Church has always taught.
Now, Muller aside, I say, because he attends gladly lectures by putatively condemned theologian Gustavo Gutierrez, who evaded the Card. Archbishop of Lima’s efforts to call him to accounts (he joined the Dominicans: that tells you something of where they are these days), and he also called the Christian Evangelical churches “sister churches” in an address to the Catholic University of Bayreuth in 2013. Amazing: churches who reject episcopal succession and the pope are “in union” as sister churches! But not the SSPX.
One who really knows the situation about the SSPX is the former head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission—a commission that apparently the present pontiff is going to ignore in silence—namely, Card. Dario Castrillon Hoyos.
In an interview in 2007, here was what a true, and unbiased, expert said of the SSPX:
“The Bishops, priests and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebvre who has undertaken an illicit episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him were suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics. ” -Interview, orig in Die Tagespost,…
….all this in a kerfuffle to negate the truth that the FSSP has is roots in the SSPX and that the FSSP is still waiting for the bishop they were promised. (Such mean and icky topics – much like St. Joan of Arc being decried and burned by official decree.)
That coupled with the effeminate notion that depth and understanding are to be shunned in lieu of “beauty” and “benevolent” unresearched opinion or helpful Catholic travel guides gives the false notion that Catholicism is a coffee klatch and being on the outs with the ladies is the end all of communion.
How long, Lord, how long?
Phoenix and Malley – all that is ultimately important is that the Pope has OFFICIALLY determined that at this time –
the SSPX has ZERO ministries within the Catholic Church.
This is the truth. Do not try to confuse anyone.
Do not encourage Catholics to attend services which are not ministries within the Catholic Church.
The Pope has spoken, and until changed by the Pope this is it.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
This is 2015. A lot has happened in 8 years. Perhaps he would not say that now.
Pope Benedict could have changed this up to 2012.
Now any changes would have to be made by Pope Francis or his successor.
(There have been talks going on, but apparently no or not enough progress has been made on the Doctrinal issues.)
I feel sorry for people who are fooled by them. That’s all. Excuse me for being compassionate.
I realize that some of us do not follow the current ideology of “follow your inner voice” and “don’t obey dogma” and ‘be your own guru”. Sorry.
Some of us believe in divine revelation and that revelation is preserved in the Catholic Church and that everybody has the right to hear the revelation and that those who manipulate people into thinking that they have preserved the revelation better than the Catholic Church are wrong.
Sorry Steve Phoenix, the only Authority within the Church that counts is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Not you, not individuals, not me, not the SSPX, etc.
Lest no one be lead astray by Steve or anyone else, following is the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church regarding the SSPX – whether heretics like Steve admit it or not.
As posted on the VATICAN web site regarding the SSPX –
QUOTE: – – – ” The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does NOT possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons.
As long as the Society does NOT have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do NOT exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
There needs to be a…
You are correct MAC. God bless you.
But as for the “SSPX are schismatic”, this is a longed-for dream of certain Neo-Catholics who reveal their motivations, as they (unless prompted) usually do not mention any desires of regret, love for, a desire for dialogue, or for the hope of reconciliation. No: the message is, as Michael Matt puts it, “SSPX: BAD! STAY AWAY!” And now, since that isn’t working, “CULT! SECRET ABUSERS OF WOMEN! PORNOGRAPHY FACILITATORS!”
Certain New-Church Catholics are right to be shaken: we are all shaken by the collapse of the New Church. From the moment of the ill-fated, ill-mannered interview of PF in Sept. 2013 (America magazine) when motivated Catholics were condemned as “obsessed” with “gay marriage, abortion and…
“obsessed” with “gay marriage, abortion and contraception”(Sept 20th, 2013). What do we have since that time?
Since then, several legistlators, including the Illinois state legislature, quoted him in their justification for passing a gay marriage act, Sr. Jane Laurel, OP, has been forced out as a Catholic high school teacher, here in San Franpsycho, Arbp. Salvatore Cordileone is being directly controverted by powerful forces appealing to PF to remove Cordileone from office for not reflecting the new papal stance on acceptance and tolerance. NYTimes apostate Catholic Frank Bruni writes (May 27, 2015), “On Same-Sex Marriage, Catholics are Leading the Way.” Bruni got your memo, PF!
So, I agree: Anonymous New Church Catholics: better to blame the SSPX for “leading astray” millions, to distract from the US Catholic Church losing an astonishing 14 million members since 2000 (Catholic World Report, May, 2015), 3 million since 2011 (Pew Survey), a 40% or greater catastrophic fall in Hispanic Catholics as they become adults (2014 Pew Survey), and just in this past week, new abuse claims rock Archdiocese of Minn-St Paul not only force it into bankrtuptcy but lead to the Archdiocese corporation itself being charged as a criminal defendant (see article in reuters.com/article, 2015/06/05).
But as we all go down into chaos, we can blame the SSPX. Amen. Allleluia.
We are not going on SSPX websites and calling them schismatics.
We got SSPX-ers coming on a Catholic website and trash-mouthing the Holy Church. We have a duty to defend God and His Church and to keep the vulnerable from being led astray.
What you have, Anonymous, is fellow Catholics asking Catholic questions and looking for Catholic answers (not press statements) – not fear mongering and the promotion that looking at facts is somehow evil.
You do not protect the vulnerable by implying that the truth in Catholic history (to include the FSSP having its roots in the SSPX) is somehow evil and that overstepping official Church statements to slander others is somehow okay.
So, if you want to talk about the sects that descend from SSPX, why stop with the FSSP? One quarter of the bishops Lefebvre are now a new schismatic sects with yet another bishop not authorized by either SSPX or by Rome. There are dozens of priests who have left SSPX, with more or less sedevacantist tendencies. Yes, indeed, there might be a dozen or more organizations, affiliations, societies, communities that trace their roots through SSPX, each claiming to preserve the truth. This fact alone should cause concern about SSPX.
I do not know why you are now lying about what the kerfuffle is about. No one ever denied that FSSP had it’s roots in SSPX. If you are looking for Catholic answers, stop going to non-Catholic websites. Try reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Bible. Read the Church documents. We cannot possibly educate you in 750 words or less. Stop falsely accusing people of slander.
OH: on top of this litany of latest collapses, we have the Irish vote to re-define marriage, and the completely flaccid, go-along response of the Card. Primate Diarmuid Martin, blaming the Catholic Church for the outcome of the vote.
Can we get a leader anywhere of the Catholic Church? Anywhere?
Ann Malley, Dana, Catherine, Janek, St Christopher, and others I am leaving out— don’t be driven from Cal-Catholic: your viewpoints are needed.
This is an old stunt I am most familiar with: expel people, then blame them for their expulsion. If anyone needs to hear the truth, and if there ever was a time for it, it is now. It is getting extremely dark outside.
Scary times make people scared, Steve Phoenix. And it is always easier for a time to keep to one’s talking points, avoiding reality. Like I told MAC on another thread, he and the crew are looking like Jen Saki playing point man to a bunch of obvious nonsense.
Now we have Abeca Christian calling me, “Sir” and stating how it is a moral obligation to correct error – while conveniently leaving out the error of overreaching the official proclamations of BXVI to spread tales and calumniate others. And no worries about leading people astray from the truth about fellow Catholics for MAC – not so long as we’ve got our orders to prepare the stake and light a fire.
Saint John Paul II: Ecclesia Dei 2 July 1998
Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act.
The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition.
Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.
Ahh, going back now to a 1998 statement, made irrelevant by the 2009 papal letter lifting the episcopal excommunications (Mar. 10, 2009). Now, what other out-of-context, temporally-conditioned snippets of “magisterial” statements will we selectively choose? And note, even so, the acts were only attributed to the 4 bishops and Lefebvre, not the entire SSPX and it’s attendees, as clarified in P. Benedict’s 2009 letter. Another sad attempt to misconstrue and smear all the SSPX as “schismatic”. What is the force behind this? Fear. Self-gratification. Release of rage? All these?
No, the papal letter did not make the 1998 statement irrelevant. And you are correct in that only the formally declared excommunications of the 4 bishops were lifted. How do those who adhered to the schism have their excommunications lifted?
No one is blaming any of you except for trying to lead people away from the Catholic Church by your schismatic support for the SSPX – which has ZERO ministry within the Church.
You all need to attend Mass by an Order that has a ministry within the Church – if you are going to advertise yourselves as Catholics.
God did not appoint any of us as Bishop or Pope.
And the Sedevacantists and those who follow beliefs similar to theirs are heretics as well as schismatics.
PETE, you make a rash and uncalled for judgment when you assume that discussing facts is an attempt to lure anyone away from anything.
If you are going to advertise yourself as Catholic, then you should look to your own inappropriate assertions and behave in an adult, Catholic manner. The inability and unwillingness to brooch Catholic matters without name calling and/or a prudish fear does nothing but promote a stunted understanding. The same that would lead to statements such as, “God did not appoint any of us bishop or Pope,” when nobody has even implied as much.
Ann Malley, this is the prima facie evidence that fear is what drives a good part of the “SSPX is schismatic”-agenda: the unfounded fear, for example, that you are [somehow], by having a rational discussion, “trying to lead people away from the Catholic Church.”
Is what Ann Malley asserting so dangerous precisely because she cites facts and issues that the Anonymous Canon Lawyer Crowd can’t answer (such as then-Card. Ratzinger’s twice-made statement that the New Liturgy was “fabricated”)? Or, the contradictions made since V2 that practioners of other belief-systems, those who “sincerely seek God” (Lumen G. 16), can achieve salvation without Christ and the Gospel? “Yoga Stations-of-the-Cross”, anyone?
Look, the Catholic Church in the US, and when I have visited my daughter in Europe in the Netherlands, is in total free-fall. Again, 14 million US Catholics left the Church since 2000 (CWR, May 2015);, 3 million since 2011 (2014 Pew Survey), and as P Benedict XVII says in his Mar. 10th, 2009 letter, ““In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world” —or should we conduct jihad, Sunni’s vs. Shiites and eat our own? (Well, some will say yes to this). Just don’t try to claim that you are therefore serving the Magisterium or serving Christ Our Lord, because it will/He will have none of it.
Pretty sad times when a rational discussion is viewed as dangerous. Too bad folks cannot follow what Cardinal Burke has to say:
I think it’s important, too, that devout traditional Catholics get to know one another and support one another, to bear one another’s burdens, as the Scripture says. We ought to be prepared to do that and be sensitive to families that might be suffering some particular difficulty in this regard, and try to be as close to one another as possible.
God bless you, Steve!
Maybe if catholic priests had kept their fingers to themselves people wouldn’t be running away from them. Remember, the Church is in those countries most affected by the scandal. In countries where it either never happenned or hasn’t been widely reported, the Church is actually growing. No need for “the sky is falling the sky is falling” rhetoric. Just have the priests keep their fingers to themselves.
The anti-SSPX crowd are welcome to opine that the SSPX are schismatic, as one supposes that gratifies them in some way: But these intellectually bankrupt ideas haveabsolutely no canonical validity to their claim (as if canon lawyers did either: they conflict constantly).
However, besides Card. Castrillon Hoyos, a fair and impartial judge (cf. quote above): earlier this year, Bp. Juan Ygnacio Arrieta of the Pontifical Council on Legislative Texts also granted an interview earlier this year (aired on EWTN: is that a valid news source?). He also stated that the SSPX is not in schism, adding: “We can say that the problem with the SSPX is only a problem of trust, because they are people who pray, people who believe the same things…
Also, people can quote ad nauseam to their personal gratification the excerpt from Summorum Pontificum, but they are actually altering the facts when they insert the claim that the SSPX are “schismatic”: it no where states that regarding the SSPX, its clergy, and its faithful. This was actually canonically resolved by Card. Ratzinger himself in the case of the “Hawaii 6” who were wrongly excommunicated by one of the most corrupt US bishops ever, as a matter of fact: the outcome of that situation was that even receiving SSPX sacraments was not a schismatic act. How d’ya like that, Canon Lawyer Crowd?
So, opine all you want: their sacraments are valid, the top levels of the Magisterium (Card. Hoyos, Bp. Ygnacio Arrieta, and…
No one said that receiving SSPX sacraments was a schismatic act.
The Hawaii 6’s excommunications were nullified because Cardinal Ratzinger decided that the actions of the petitioner while “blameworthy on various accounts” were not “sufficient to constitute the crime of schism.”
What they did was criticize the bishop on radio and help to build an SSPX chapel. So no that would not be the definition of schism. I don’t become a Protestant if I buy wrapping paper from the Christian school.
So, opine all you want, Canon Lawyer Crowd: your viewpoint is opposed by significantly placed persons high up the magisterium (Card. Hoyos, Bp. Ygnacio Arrieta, even Card. Ratzinger himself).
Meanwhile, we have lost an astounding 14 million US Catholics since 2000, 3 million since 20111. Meanwhile, we have every orthodox bishop (Cordileone; Nienstedt in St. Paul-Minn; Card. Burke; Bp Michael Barber; the ousted Bp. Finn) under attack or already eliminated. Priestly vocations (except the FSSP, SSPX, and other trad groups) lag behind the need. And so? So, we blame the SSPX. Of course. Intellectual bankruptcy, it is called.
You know, I know the Anonymous Canon Lawyer Crowd is fond of quoting a fragment of P BXVII’s 3/10/2009 letter re. the SSPX (“the Society [SSPX] has no canonical status.. line): but they avoid the whole letter. P Benedict, like a true father speaks of the need for reconciliation and love as his motivations to lift the excommunications of the 4 bishops and to commence the process of unification with the SSPX.
But the letter bears re-reading in his describing the same vicious attacks against even the possibility of SSPX acceptance, attacks that then were even directed personally against him (Is this familiar?).
Some of the attacks (he mentions in the letter) accused P. Benedict directly: “…Some groups openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed.” “I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility.” These were of course not attacks by SSPX people but by self-identified ‘faithful Catholics’. We see the same bitterness today, where the possibility of SSPX acceptance is a matter of fear and desperate accusational style.
P Benedict goes on (Letter, Mar 10, 2009: read the whole letter):
“And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.”
Hmmm. We need “at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown, which one can easily attack and hate…” This is the Magisterium at the highest level speaking, Anonymous N.O. Canon Lawyer Crowd.
Steve Phoenix, I hope that people will read the whole letter. Pope Benedict was disapointed in people’s reactions to his lifting the excommunications of the 4 bishops. His act of mercy was meant to try to keep the SSPX from going further astray.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
Anonymous, thank you for this document, I had forgotten about it. One of the things that struck me was the language he used to describe SSPX: “A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation”. First, he calls them an “ecclesial group”, quite similar language to “ecclesial communities” which is I think how VII refers to separated protestant brothers. Also, he says they are engaged in a process of separation”…that is to say, schism.
I completely agree with this assessment (“Anonymous”, 9:24 am, June 9th, 2015), with one adjustment: the purpose of P BXVII’s lifting of the excommunications was the reconciliation of the SSPX with the greater Catholic Church.
So, sadly, some “faithful Catholic”-types are actually opposed to this reconciliation. So much for respecting the Magisterium.
SP, I am the Anonymous you reference 6/9/15 11:04 AM. Thank you for your agreement, and actually there is zero disagreement: Clearly, the purpose of the Vatican in lifting the excommunication was to reconcile. He reached out…why have they not at least returned the favor?
For the record, I have seen no one opposed to reconciliation, certainly not from the side of Rome. The insistance, however as it has always been in instances of schism, is that that reconciliation not come at the price of doctrinal purity, and the SSPX has not yet met that standard. Vatican II is a binding statement of faith that SSPX is stilll not willing to admit to. Do you?
One cannot uphold doctrinal purity by giving that which is in clear need of clarification a full, across-the-board endorsement, A.
“A”, so what are the newly defined dogmas of Vatican II, dogmas that were previously undefined? Spell them out for me.
Were they scripture and tradition, as in Dei Verbum? We already held that doctrine. Were they the Traditional Latin Mass? No where does Sacro. Conc. call for the abolition of the TLM, in fact the opposite, in union with Ap. Constitution Veterum Sapientia of S. John XXIII, that Latin is the language of the liturgy and priestly studies. Is it salvation only through Jesus Christ and the Church, in LG? We already believed that, cv. Council of Florence. So dont try to position me into a position where you can burn me at the stake either, out of charity for my soul, of course.
… Is it salvation only through Jesus Christ and the Church, in LG? We already believed that, cv. Council of Florence (1449 AD).
So dont try to manuever me into a position where you can burn me at the stake either, out of charity for my soul, of course. People today cant discuss matters without lapsing into smears and name-calling, it seems.
The SSPX are not schismatic, enough sufficiently magisterial leaders have said so (Mueller aside, who thinks Gutierrez is a great Catholic theologian, and that Protestant churches who reject episcopal succession are “sister churches”, so consider the source), and the same people who attacked the SSPX as “the one group they can hate” (e.g. P. Benedict XVII’s observation, paraphrased)…
Just a reminder-there aren’t many people who get their excommunications lifted when they have not repented. They got a big gift of Mercy from Pope Benedict.
I do not think we are intolerant of the SSPX. It exists. They do their thing. Catholics avoid it. For the good of their souls. It is not an option for Catholics to attend their Mass (unless they have no other way to fulfill their Sunday obligation. Even then, it is not necessary to attend one and Catholics should not take Holy Communion there.)
….why should anyone repent of the desire to uphold clarity in Church teaching, Anonymous? There is no desire for distance from Rome, friend. There is, however, a duty to uphold and adhere to the fullness of the Catholic Faith.
Also, it is not a sin to attend one of their Masses if you just want to pray the Mass and you are not trying to separate from the Catholic Church. But it is not recommended because you could easily fall victim to their errors.
AM, you always play this shell game. They were excommunicated for illegally ordaining bishops and priests. We constantly get misinformation from you. Anonymous was right when he/she said that SSPX was given quite a gift of the lifting. without even asking for forgiveness for the causes of the excommunication.
Ann Malley, uphold clarity in church teaching? Seriously? Like that Jesus incarnated himself in Mary’s womb. Or that a non-baptised person can be in a state of grace. Or that canonized saints are not necessarily in Heaven. Or that they can absolve sins without faculties.
These don’t clarify Church teaching. They are some of the errors of the SSPX. But even without error-if they really did uphold all the teachings of the Catholic faith-they would still be schismatics because the set up their own chapels without permission of the local ordinary.
Anonymous, I cannot begin to address your erroneous misconceptions of the Catholic Faith. No wonder you are in a dither. Seriously. You still seem to be experiencing heartburn over the Catholic teaching about the possible salvation of the invincibly ignorant. The Society didn’t make that up, friend.
Like I’ve said before, you would be better served to let those who understand the Faith deal with those whom you don’t understand – and refuse to understand. Looking to rabid websites etc to learn about others is neither fair and most assuredly not accurate.
Be well.
Ann Malley, I said nothing about the possible salvation of the invincibly ignorant. Did I? Read it again. If you have to alter the teaching to make it sound like Catholic Teaching, it isn’t Catholic Teaching.
But let’s pretend that a person who can actually catch their errors has less knowledge of the faith than the person who claims that they teach what the Catholic Church has always taught.
Try getting accurate information when you attempt to smear others, Anonymous. Getting angered over your own confused idea of what others represent helps nobody. Certainly not the truth.
In the SAME letter the Pope states that for Doctrinal reasons the SSPX holds NO ministry within the Church.
For Pope Benedict’s letter to the Bishops of the World regarding the SSPX here is the link – so that no poster can twist the words/intent of the Pope.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20121111_caritas.html
Beautifully conveyed Steve Phoenix!
…he is good that way, Catherine, isn’t he?
Yes, Ann Malley, he certainly is!
…very kind of each of you to say, but you are probably really ticking off the Canon Lawyer Council…
Meanwhile, the collapse facing the Church is dumbfounding (read, if you have the steel for it, the story of the situation facing Arch. Minn-St Paul: a series of new abuse allegations and convictions culminating in the last year:
https://www.reuters.com/video/2015/06/05/charges-filed-against-archdiocese-of-st?videoId=364492376
The present events also are being maneuvered to bring down P. Benedict XVII appointee-Abp. Nienstedt (Nienstedt was the Archbp. who instructed his cathedral priests to refuse communion to those wearing a rainbow-sash in protest in 2009-2010: he has been marked for elimination ever since.)…
The shenanigans remind me of the new announcement that the United States Military will have an enforced LGBT appreciation month every year – this while the code of Military Justice still has very pointed laws on the books rejecting sodomy and all that goes with it.
Political correctness and the blind support of it by those who are too frightened to look at where it leads (Anonymous Canon Lawyers) or connect the dots for fear of being cast out of the temple destroys.
Here again is what P. Benedict XVII said, about the attacks on him—read the letter—by the intolerant Novus-Ordo-“My-god-is-Vatican-II” crowd:
“P Benedict goes on (Letter, Mar 10, 2009: read the whole letter):
“And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.”
No Steve those like you who choose to misrepresent the entire statement of Pope Benedict – which is very clear – in that the SSPX holds NO ministry within the Church – do not provide the link to the Official Church Document.
Those who want the truth out so others are not lead astray – do provide the link, so that you and others can not misrepresent the very clear and official statement of Pope Benedict.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
If the Pope chooses to change the status of the SSPX, it will be official and in writing for all to see.
The misrepresentation is by those who call the SSPX “schismatic”, and I have had enough of it: It is by those who often also demonstrate an appalling lack of charity nor do they evidence a sincere desire for the SSPX’s reconciliation–=in fact they fear it, and it is evident— and by those who who name-call them en masse (ex. “cult”, “abusers”, so on).
In fact,none of the papal documents cited have called the SSPX “schismatic:” that is merely the personal opinion of those who appear to be nursing a gratuitous, self-consoling bitterness, a hostility which was even turned against P. Benedict XVII himself—by those same persons claiming to be self-identified “faithful Catholics”
Again, what drives this? As…
No misrepresentation at all. Its you who has an issue with reality. Steve no matter what you say, you wont fool those of us who know better. We have the church to help us avoid false teachers. No matter what direction they come from.
As many have stated: the official statement/position of the Church is that the SSPX holds NO MINISTRY within the Church.
There are many of us who will not let you, Steve and a few others, lead people astray into attending services that are NOT legitimately within the Church.
The more you argue, the more we all will quote the official statement of Pope Benedict – which is in effect today.
We will not let you confuse others.
Ecclesia Dei refers to schism 3 times.
The bottom line is the FSSP is good and they are Catholic and if you want to attend an EF Mass and go to a Traditional Church that is part of the Catholic Church, this is where you should consider going.
Also-there are no SSPX chapels in the diocese where I reside. So I cannot call my Bishop’s office and ask about them. But it would be good if you are thinking about traditional parishes to check with your diocese to find out what they say about them.
People: please. You seem to want to promote a division. We are not against the SSPX. We are for the souls of the members (all suspended priests). We are for the souls of those who attend their illicit Masses and especially for those who go to confession to these priests who have no faculties to absolve sin.
No one has been able to explain how they are NOT schismatic. They teach that the Mass of the Catholic Church is sacrilegious and that it is dangerous to attend. That sounds schismatic.
If you attend their Mass because you are trying to separate yourself from the Catholic Church or the Pope, you are sinning.
One doesn’t go about verifying a negative, Anonymous, rather one should look to the reality that there has never been a formal declaration of schism. That is why erroneously asserting as much, when one has been instructed as to the lack of adequate documentation (no declaration), one sins by spreading falsehoods.
Since you post anonymously, it is difficult to ascertain what group you assign to be “you” and “we”. Having said as much, there is no attempt to lure anyone away from anywhere. No desire/attempt to separate from the Church. I’m glad you see the distinction.
But there are many on CCD who claim fidelity to the Church only to overreach her authority in declaring schism and fomenting division. That is sinful.
So let’s for the sake of argument, let’s take the case in which a group does something that is schismatic, but it takes Rome a month, a year, a decade, a hundred years – some interlude to declare it formal schism. Is that group in schism in the interlude? The schismatic group is in schism, isn’t it, even before Rome declares it so? After all, it is the schismatic act that makes schism, not the declaration that a schism has taken place. That is what we are talking about here. Whether formal schism has been declared is not the question…we all know it has not. The question is whether we are in an interlude in which Rome is examining whether it should declare formal schism, and I don’t think we yet know how this will turn out.
…it’s been far longer than a year, friend, and it would appear judging by the “fruits” of documents in contention, those that need clarity, that a wholesale acceptance of them as good was not and is not advisable.
So yes, we are most definitely in an interlude.
Most definitely in an interlude, and And IN SCHISM, even if not formally declared so.
You act like a child who doesn’t understand why she has to eat vegetables. She sits outside the dining room, pouting, DEMANDING that someone come out to her and clarify for her why she needs to eat vegetables. Pout, pout, pout, demand, demand, demand. Parents come and clarify for her again and again that it is for her good that she eat vegetables, yet pout away she does.
…demanding someone eat something that has proved hazardous to their health is no aid in saving souls, Anonymous. You cannot hide the truth of that by portraying children as merely pouting.
Yours is not the proper understanding of obedience.
The Catholic Church is hazardous to your health? Obviously you are not Catholic, Ann. For my flesh is real food, says the Lord.
…then stick to what the Church has always taught, Anonymous, and not obedience for the sake of obedience. For it is not the Catholic Church or what She has always taught that is hazardous, but the ambiguity that has been foisted upon her by those who fear rocking the boat and prefer now to invoke “obedience” as a safeguard for compromise.
There is no ambiguity, Ann. Read the catechism. It’s not ambiguous at all. Which paragraph is ambiguous. Maybe we can clarify for you.
We aren’t obedient to the Church for obedience sake, but for Christ’s sake, for he promised to be with the Church always. He founded his Church upon the rock Peter, not upon Peter’s wayward petulant children who pout about eating their vegetables
Ann Malley, please be specific in you accusations against the Church.
Ann Malley, not to argue with you but just for my own information:
Where did you hear that schism needs to be formally declared by the Church?
Why do you think it is OK to be in error as long as you don’t try to lead others into error?
Why do you think that a person who points out that a group is schismatic (even if wrong) is “declaring” schism and overreaching their authority?
Have you been taught these ideas somewhere?
Anonymous, if you claim to be guided by the Church, then be guided. To step out of your place in pronouncing schism where the Church has not done so is to logically disregard your own definition of fidelity. That is why your accusation that others are acting outside their jurisdiction is rather comical as you are doing it yourself on a regular basis.
Try teaching obedience by example, not telling others to do as you say and not as you do.
I did not accuse you of anything. I see you refuse to answer the question and your response made no sense at all.
As far as I know, you are wrong that schism needs to be declared by the Church. A person in schism is automatically excommunicated so why would the Church have to declare it? Who told you that the Church has to declare it?
Ann Malley, you worship with a group who considers the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be “non-Catholic” and whose leader says not to follow the Pope.
You think someone needs an official declaration to call them schismatic?
Really?
Ann malley, are you kidding? You don’t need jurisdiction or a “place’ to admonish the sinner. No one is really that concerned about pronouncing and denouncing the SSPX and what they are doing. They are priests who have been misled into thinking they know better than the Church. Common error. No dif than those who take out ads against ABC in SF. All need prayer.
Prayers for you, too, Anonymous.
Today, another Ratzinger-appointee, Abp. John Nienstedt, of St Paul-Minneapolis, as well as his auxiliary, Bp. Lee Anthone Piche, resigned, as a result of the cloud of charges and convictions involving abuse claims of (actually) several priests.
Nienstedt was the bishop who instructed his cathedral staff in 2009 and 2010 not to give communion to rainbow-sashed protesters at the cathedral. From that point on, it was a matter of time until he was ousted, a cause for it to be determined later. However all the individuals charged and or convicted so far were admitted to the seminary and to ordination by now-retired, quite progressive bishop Harry Joseph Flynn (retired May, 2008).
The point is that the Catholic Church continues in…
However all the individuals charged and or convicted so far were admitted to the seminary and to ordination by now-retired, quite progressive bishop Harry Joseph Flynn (retired May, 2008).
Except that his chief canon lawyer resigned 2 years ago because THIS AB refused to put into place policies that would prevent abuse in the future. There are reports that he himself paid abusive priests to keep silent or go away. And 10 people signed sworn affidavits that he himself made inappropriate sexual advances.
You are right, though, he’s pretty anti-gay. He spend hundreds of thousands of dollars – maybe close to a million – to oppose same sex marriage in MN.
“he’s pretty anti-gay. He spend hundreds of thousands of dollars – maybe close to a million – to oppose same sex marriage in MN.” Hey at least it was spent for a good cause…
This bishop is not anti-homosexual, but pro Catholic teaching, pro-God, pro-life. Whereas, homosexuals are anti-God, anti-Church teaching, anti- family. Please spare your lies and wherefores for the liberal rubes who fall for anything that subverts truth.
Opposing same-sex marriage does not make someone anti-gay. You do realize that one does not have to be gay to enter into a same-sex marriage, don’t you?
I am well aware of the lawyer/”canon lawyer” “whistleblower” that YFC refers to in the Nienstedt/Archdiocese of Minn-St Paul case. Did you know that her positions on the Catholic Church show a history of taking up radical anti-Church as well as feminist causes in her published writings, esp. women-priesthood? She also has a confusing personal history re the Church according to her own father.
Should you ever need legal counsel, pray that you don’t get a career-building opportunist like this one. Sic transit Gloria mundi.
Also: the following headline says it all:
“Anti-LGBT Nienstedt resigns from Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis”, June 16, 2015, thecolu.mn ·
Remember now: all the accused so far named were admitted to the seminary and priestly orders by former Abp. Harry Flynn. But who gets blamed for “secret archival matter” unknown to Nienstedt by the lawyer assigned to investigate? Oh, and why was P. Benedict XVI forced to resign again?
That’s what I expected to hear, Steve! It’s Bp Flynn déjàvus all over. I don’t listen To Rush Limbaugh but found this on my Twitter …https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/06/15/our_overnight_orwellian_unraveling Scoundrels, sneaks, traitors subverting the Church! Cowards and liars, all…or as Cowboy Bob would say, “Low- down, yellow- bellied, no- good varmints”!
…..thanks for the link, Dana.
“…Scoundrels, sneaks, traitors subverting the Church!” That’s about it.
I thought this was an article about a nice church worth visiting. Does anyone have thoughts about this church they would like to express? From the picture, one could assume that it is very small, but traditional old-fashion church. (that’s not a bid thing) I would think that if there were enough people that like to attend the EF Mass that they could fill a much larger space.
….give them time, Bob One. Catholics, for the most part, have been deprived of the delicacy of the TLM.
I actually had a point to make, Bob One, that appeared relevant to some of the prior discourse and also to this article, but of late comments (even those less than 750 characters) have been edited out, apparently in consonance with a new unexplicitly stated content policy at Cal Catholic. FYI.
“Aliquid facit materiam adhuc”. Anyway.
I was interested in your point and wish you would make it again.
A Christian friend sent this to me today, Steve…excellent and totally correct.
https://www.facebook.com/george.escobar.712/videos/10152868989487194/
How thankful I am for this website as more and more people are cowering in fear. Not just are practicing homosexuals forcing their anti-Christian agenda for their own diabolical ends, so also they instill a gray pall of distrust, enmity and hatred under the guise of “love” and when anyone defends God’s Laws, Church teaching and pro-life views, they call us haters. Oh, my! Mad, mad, mad.