A plea to the SSPX and SSPXers

  • Thread starter Thread starter JNB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
OrthoCath:
David,

FACT: We have churches the look like this:
stmarysrockledge.org/new_church.htm

Instead of this:
hymnsforefathers.com/Gallery/images/14.%20Durham%20Cathedral%20.jpg

I suppose churces like this:
stmarysrockledge.org/new_church.htm
help to promote devotion to the Blessed Sacrament thus holding back the flood gates? Do you think one could get inspired and have a sense of the transcendence in the church above?
Click to expand...
All I am saying is that there is no way to prove a link between Vatican II and how chuches look today.

If this was so then how do you explain all the protestant churches?

I think it is to simplistic to blame it on Vatican II. After all, the documents when read and followed are not the issue, the issue is those who wish to promote the “spirit” of Vatican II while ignoring what the documents really say.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
All I am saying is that there is no way to prove a link between Vatican II and how chuches look today.

If this was so then how do you explain all the protestant churches?

I think it is to simplistic to blame it on Vatican II. After all, the documents when read and followed are not the issue, the issue is those who wish to promote the “spirit” of Vatican II while ignoring what the documents really say.
Click to expand...
How can you say this? Read the documents of Vatican II and what they say about reorganization of Churches. Couple that with the clear line of when Churches started to get reckovated…

It is plain to see that Vatican II was the incited the current trends in Church architecture.
 
Administrator said:
General Reminder:

The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
Click to expand...

ORTHOCATH, I must agee to this, you are not wrong to feel zeal for this , nor be passionate in your argument, but CARITAS is the virtue that guides good christian debates in this public forum, as in all public forums, “…to set an example for others, and to live as we preach…”(St Brendan).

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris. **
(If Caesar were alive, you’d be chained to an oar…)
 
James_2:24:
How can you say this? Read the documents of Vatican II and what they say about reorganization of Churches. Couple that with the clear line of when Churches started to get reckovated…

It is plain to see that Vatican II was the incited the current trends in Church architecture.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…I don’t seem to remember any of the documents of Vatican II calling for Catholic Churches to be built devoid of anything Catholic.

What specifically are you talking about when you say the “reorganization” of Churches?
 
By the way, it would seem silly to draw such parallels. This would be like blaming the Tridentine Mass for the Kennedys or the 60’s in general. There were societal (and architectural)problems and a decline in Church attendance before the implemetation of Vatican.
 
To SSPXers, I lived a long time.I would say lack of openess to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, a form of renewal, a continuation of Pentecost,an openhearted and prudent response to Vatican II is a huge part of what has happened to the Church.Something was wrong with the Church before the council called money that bought things to distractus from God :TV’s, cars, and such used imprudently.Keep up with the Jones’ mentality.The 50’s brought such love of money instead of love of the Lord.

In the 60’s the advent of drug abuse , the 70’s abortion approved by law: throughout this music and the media got progressively worse in lyrics, beat and gestures. God has provided the Council, Pope approved apparitions of the Virgin Mary throughout this decay of our society and world. If we want to be stagnated, no offense intended, we can wear the apparel of Jesus’ time and speak Aramaic,the language Jesus used at the Last Supper. Hebrew ,Latin,Greek other languages were spoken as well at that time.People are afraid of the charisms of the Holy Spirit needlessly. Also, they are afraid to stand out or look foolish by praying in different way. All from the heart, good intent prayer is valid in Latin, any language. God speaks all languages.God reads the heart.It isn’t the language, it is what is prayed in the language and in what manner. When I want to talk with you do I speak to you in a language foreign to you? The Pope approves of Vatican II and he IS INFAllABLE IN FAITH AND MORALS…It is what a few people in the Church have interpreted and done with the Counsel that gave it a " bad Name".Either the Pope is the Vicar of Christ or isn’t. Are you for following the one who is descended from the throne of Peter or not is the question I ask ? No one in the US seems to give me a straight answer about whether there is a schism or not? COME HOLY SPIRIT!
 
Vatican II is basically almost a failure, because people keep on misinterpreting it and did not address the pressing issues of the day.
 
40.png
Iohannes:
Yet, Campos was never treated as a schismatic even though they offered the Traditional Latin Mass without an indult, permission and had a parallel diocese, and yes for sure, they did have a parallel diocese during their alleged “schism.”

NO protestants have valid Eucharist, All the Anglican, lutheran ordinal have been declared invalid null.
Click to expand...
When the Holy Father does the “alleging” it is more than alleged.

Don’t the Orthodox churches have a valid Eucharist. I believe that Canon Law refers to instances where in extreme cases on can receive the Eucharist in such denominations where it exists.

I am slow in light of Matthew 16:18 to consider any Church council a failure.(post 68)
 
Lateran V comes to mind as a failed council, it was until Trent came along, all the problems were addressed and delt with in a proper manner. IIRC the Council of Florence failed in it’s objective of renunion of the schismatic greeks? Does it mean that it is wrong, or the gates of hell prevailed, NO!!!

Again, a failed council does not mean it taught error or was wrong, it means that people failed to implement it correctly. That quote from Matthew 16:18 should give you rest that the liberals were stopped in their tracks when the attempted to teach error in VII.

Unless people start implementing Vatican II correctly, that council will ultimately be a failure.

Even so, not everything said during a council is infalliable except when it repeats past doctrine.
 
Campos(SSJV) was in the same situation as the SSPX are now, and when they were regularized, not one word of schism appeared in any document.

In reality, Rome has not treated the SSPX as schismatics.
 
40.png
Iohannes:
Campos(SSJV) was in the same situation as the SSPX are now, and when they were regularized, not one word of schism appeared in any document.

In reality, Rome has not treated the SSPX as schismatics.
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that they call them schismatics.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Except for the fact that they call them schismatics.
Click to expand...
Show me where does Rome say that the SSPX as an organization are schismatics?
 
40.png
Iohannes:
Show me where does Rome say that the SSPX as an organization are schismatics?
Click to expand...
If you look at the first 3 sections of Ecclesia Dei, it does talk of the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius the X founded by Marcel Lefebrve not being in full communion with the Church.

Anyone that formally adheres to the schism is in schism. This is why the Church warns of frequenting SSPX chapels and asks to all to cease support. We have no idea how many people who go to the chapel actually adhere to the schism. We can, however, probably guess many.
 
It does not say the SSPX as an organziation is in schism.
In reality they are not treated as schismatics and that is a fact, if you want go read the interview of Bishop Fellay conducted by The Latin Mass Magazine. He himself says that Rome does not treat them as schismatics.

What does it mean to adhear to a schism?

Do not have more time to elaborate, I will later.
 
“In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.” (Ecclesia Dei)

“In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.” (Ecclesia Dei)

“In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. 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.” (Ecclesia Dei)
This seems rather straightforward to me. I can see no other interpretation except one inflexibly read into it.
 
I like the way this thread is worded. It is a plea not to persit in what our Holy Father called grave sin. Also, the one who encourages others to fall into this sin will bear a measure of the guilt.
 
40.png
Iohannes:
It does not say the SSPX as an organziation is in schism.
In reality they are not treated as schismatics and that is a fact, if you want go read the interview of Bishop Fellay conducted by The Latin Mass Magazine. He himself says that Rome does not treat them as schismatics.

What does it mean to adhear to a schism?

Do not have more time to elaborate, I will later.
Click to expand...
Well for one thing, it doesn’t matter one bit what Bishop Fellay has to say about the SSPX being in schism as he is a bishop of the schismatic SSPX. He has no standing within the Catholic Church to make any statements as to what the Church teaches or says.

Here is a link for you to some letters sent to the Vatican and their reply.

jloughnan.tripod.com/ratzprl.htm

In this letter there are a couple of points that I will post here, go tot the link to see it in whole.

As to what formal adherence means.

c. Thus far the Church has not officially declared what constitutes " formal adherence to the schism " inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as " refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him " (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.

As for if they are in schism or not.

b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no “lay members” of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute “formal adherence to the schism”, such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that

the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass,and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

And lastly, your suggestion and the Latin Mass Magazines interview with a bishop of the SSPX.

e. We reiterate what we stated above: “The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church.” Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself (cf. Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium#22-25).
 
40.png
Iohannes:
It does not say the SSPX as an organziation is in schism.
In reality they are not treated as schismatics and that is a fact, if you want go read the interview of Bishop Fellay conducted by The Latin Mass Magazine. He himself says that Rome does not treat them as schismatics.

What does it mean to adhear to a schism?

Do not have more time to elaborate, I will later.
Click to expand...
If you are not in full communion what are you? I’m not really sure it matters what a Fellay says. That’s kind of like quoting Kerry.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Well for one thing, it doesn’t matter one bit what Bishop Fellay has to say about the SSPX being in schism as he is a bishop of the schismatic SSPX. He has no standing within the Catholic Church to make any statements as to what the Church teaches or says.

Here is a link for you to some letters sent to the Vatican and their reply.

jloughnan.tripod.com/ratzprl.htm

In this letter there are a couple of points that I will post here, go tot the link to see it in whole.

As to what formal adherence means.

c. Thus far the Church has not officially declared what constitutes " formal adherence to the schism " inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as " refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him " (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.

As for if they are in schism or not.

b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no “lay members” of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute “formal adherence to the schism”, such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that

the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass,and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

And lastly, your suggestion and the Latin Mass Magazines interview with a bishop of the SSPX.

e. We reiterate what we stated above: “The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church.” Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself (cf. Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium#22-25).
Click to expand...
I’d like to point out that nowhere does it say that you have to fully remove your submission to the Roman Pontiff to constitute schism. Schism can be full or partial removal of submission.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top