M
Maximian
Guest
Wiltgen had nothing to do with the SSPX. He gives a factual account of what he saw happen from an exceptionally good vantage point - he was the Council’s Press Officer.
He was also by no means a conservative.
- Status
He was also by no means a conservative.
P
PrayForMe
Guest
The SSPV is a sedevacantist group that split from the SSPX in the 1980s. The “resistance” is the group that Bishop Williamson is part of. They are not sedevacantists, though unlike the SSPX, they are opposed to any reconciliation with the Church whatsoever until Rome “converts or returns to Tradition”.
They can’t even seem to make up their mind whether Bishop Williamson or one of the other priests should be considered the “leader” of the group. No unity or Christian brotherhood in that group exists at all.
M
Maximian
Guest
Yes quite right, I meant to write in the brackets “Resistance are followers of Bp williamson”
Thank you for drawing my attention. I will edit accordingly
Thank you for drawing my attention. I will edit accordingly
M
Maximian
Guest
“Why people are leaving the church” is not a doctrinal question.
C
commenter
Guest
Actually this is a good thread. People are courteous. I am learning.
I have a point of view, but I’ll try not to be adamant. I can be corrected.
I have a point of view, but I’ll try not to be adamant. I can be corrected.
K
K.e.williams22
Guest
No it’s not, but still that’s one of the reasons. A council may not have been appropriate for the topic, but it still happened.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That is not true. The issues considered in Vatican II were issues that were being discussed at a lower level - things like the use of the vernacular and laity participation in the mass (as opposed to mere attendance). St. Pope John XXIII began the council to address these issues.
C
ConcernedConvert
Guest
This I agree is what most people have issue with. Ambiguity has been outwardly condemned by the Catholic Church due to the chaos it brings.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Two of the documents arising from Vatican 2 are classified as “Dogmatic Constitutions”:
• Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum
• Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium
I think that tells us something.
A third, Gaudium et Spes, is described as a “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” while a fourth, Sacrosanctum Concilium, is simply an adjective-free “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
D
Dovekin
Guest
Then let us be unambiguous.
The Holy Spirit inspired John XXIII to call the Council.
It has been a gift to the Church, calling all people to a relationship with God and Jesus.
Any “mess” that followed the Council is a consequence of our sinful humanity. Some is from entrenched sinfulness that the Spirit is bringing out of the shadows. Some is from our rebellious spirit.
All should listen to the voice of the Council. Accepting its teaching with a religious submission, like that the Church asks of us, is the road to clarity.
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
You should send this to your friend:
www.ewtn.com
Particularly noteworthy is the quotation from Pius XII’s Encyclical Humani Generis in the above article: “Nor must it be thought that the things contained in Encyclical Letters do not of themselves require assent on the plea that in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the supreme power of their Magisterium. For these things are taught with the ordinary Magisterium, about which it is also true to say, ‘He who hears you, hears me.’ [Lk 10. 16]. . . If the Supreme Pontiffs, in their acta expressly pass judgment on a matter debated until then, it is obvious to all that the matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be considered any longer a question open for discussion among theologians."
Although that doesn’t directly concern Vatican II, it will help with your friend’s claim that Catholics are free to accept or reject the teachings of the ordinary and/or the authentic Magisterium; Pius XII makes it quite clear here that our Lord’s words also apply to this level of teaching authority.
Four Levels of the Church's Teaching | EWTN
EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.
www.ewtn.com
Particularly noteworthy is the quotation from Pius XII’s Encyclical Humani Generis in the above article: “Nor must it be thought that the things contained in Encyclical Letters do not of themselves require assent on the plea that in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the supreme power of their Magisterium. For these things are taught with the ordinary Magisterium, about which it is also true to say, ‘He who hears you, hears me.’ [Lk 10. 16]. . . If the Supreme Pontiffs, in their acta expressly pass judgment on a matter debated until then, it is obvious to all that the matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be considered any longer a question open for discussion among theologians."
Although that doesn’t directly concern Vatican II, it will help with your friend’s claim that Catholics are free to accept or reject the teachings of the ordinary and/or the authentic Magisterium; Pius XII makes it quite clear here that our Lord’s words also apply to this level of teaching authority.
C
commenter
Guest
Looking again at the thread question, whether to “accept” or “not accept” V2, how does that affect what an SSPX adherent will do in 2020?
If you clearly accept V2, you would leave SSPX, for the mainstream Church.
If you reject V2 because it is clearly just merely pastoral suggestions, with no authority, you would leave SSPX for the mainstream Church, and find a TLM Mass, ignore the suggestions you don’t like.
If you reject V2 as clearly false teaching by the Magisterium, then you would lose confidence in the Magisterium itself, leave SSPX for some non Catholic community.
The only rationale for remaining in SSPX would be if you were persuaded that “significant things are still unclear”, but might be clarified in the foreseeable future. Hang in a little longer.
If you clearly accept V2, you would leave SSPX, for the mainstream Church.
If you reject V2 because it is clearly just merely pastoral suggestions, with no authority, you would leave SSPX for the mainstream Church, and find a TLM Mass, ignore the suggestions you don’t like.
If you reject V2 as clearly false teaching by the Magisterium, then you would lose confidence in the Magisterium itself, leave SSPX for some non Catholic community.
The only rationale for remaining in SSPX would be if you were persuaded that “significant things are still unclear”, but might be clarified in the foreseeable future. Hang in a little longer.
Last edited:
T
ThomasMT
Guest
Or because there is no TLM offered anywhere within travel distance, while there is an SSPX chapel within a few miles.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
My personal opinion is that one should attend an OF Mass in preference to an SSPX Mass if no other EF Mass is reasonably available. I would think that canonically regular status would trump the form of the Mass. But that’s just me.
P
PrayForMe
Guest
My understanding is that SSPX Masses are valid but illicit, since, canonically speaking, the SSPX has no recognized ministry in the Church due to not being in full communion with Rome. Pope Francis did, however, say the SSPX priests can now validly hear confessions and witness marriages.
Do SSPX Masses fulfill your Sunday obligation? Probably, though that may ultimately be left up to what the Bishop of the respective diocese says. But even if it does fulfill the obligation, should Catholics attend? Probably not.
It is best to attend Masses offered by priests or groups in full communion with the Church, so if the Latin Mass is what one is looking for, I advise a diocesan or FSSP Latin Mass. SSPX Masses should generally only be attended if it’s the only Church or Latin Mass option in one’s area (which is rare).
Do SSPX Masses fulfill your Sunday obligation? Probably, though that may ultimately be left up to what the Bishop of the respective diocese says. But even if it does fulfill the obligation, should Catholics attend? Probably not.
It is best to attend Masses offered by priests or groups in full communion with the Church, so if the Latin Mass is what one is looking for, I advise a diocesan or FSSP Latin Mass. SSPX Masses should generally only be attended if it’s the only Church or Latin Mass option in one’s area (which is rare).
Last edited:
T
ThomasMT
Guest
There is no definitive position on that, just ambiguity… but yea, its safer to defer to your position, in my own opinion.
po18guy
Well-known member
Welcome! First, it is likely to be a waste of time. As I see it, we can debate against intellect, but not against the ego. And it is the ego which separates, causes division, justifies the self and declares either by words or actions “Non serviam!” "
Waste of time.
What works?
Prayer.
Waste of time.
What works?
Prayer.
Last edited:
G
gama232
Guest
I encourage the OP to ignore the weird fascination here with the SSPX. About Vatican II. It did nothing wrong, however, after it ended, dissenters decided to form organized groups to attack the Church from the inside and from the outside. To attack Western society. To corrupt it. I was there before and after Vatican II. I obeyed Holy Mother Church the first day I saw a smaller altar below the high altar. When the priest faced the people and spoke English. Obedience was required before and it was required after. Catholics in the pews are servants.
But what happened? I’ll let Pope Benedict explain:
"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
"As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them.
But what happened? I’ll let Pope Benedict explain:
"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
"As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them.
G
gama232
Guest
This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church."
C
CRM_Brother
Guest
Quite honestly, I find it ironic in the extreme when those of the Society of St. Pope Pius X dispute the authority of Vatican II since St. Pope Pius X routinely quoted from the First Vatican Council, the most contemporary Council which had declared the authority of Ecumenical Councils in conjunction with Papal approval (Dei Filius, Chapter 3).
- Status