You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
Lormar
Guest
That’s not true.No, I don’t think so. They believe that Vll is a break with tradition. Even though the Archbishop signed the documents initially. He (Archbishop Lefebvre) must have changed his mind at some point.
Bishop Fellay is quite willing to accept VII interpreted in the light of tradition. The same as Archbishop Lefebvre, who did in fact sign each and every one of the documents as specifically stated in the biography written about him by Bishop Tissier. If he signed the documents they mustn’t have contained any blatant errors.
The problem with the VII documents occurred when their “interpretation” was put in the hands of the Council “experts”. And little to nothing was ever done to correct that interpretation.
James Hitchcock published an excellent book in 1970 that many here would do well to read. There is no argument against facts.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Not true? Have a look at the 8th paragraph down:That’s not true.
Bishop Fellay is quite willing to accept VII interpreted in the light of tradition. The same as Archbishop Lefebvre, who did in fact sign each and every one of the documents as specifically stated in the biography written about him by Bishop Tissier. If he signed the documents they mustn’t have contained any blatant errors.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/in-letter-to-sspx-vatican-archbishop-appeals-for-unity/
B
Brendan_64
Guest
The SSPX are not in schism so how can the laity who attend services in SSPX churches be in schism? The SSPX may have some issues regarding obedience, but that does not constitute schism.Now as for the laity that attends their services, they place themselves in schism with the Pope, but they think believe they are attending a “more traditional mass” how rational is that. To me that is no better than the cafeteria Catholic that rejects the Church on contraception, abortion or any other dogma.
The SSPX are steadfast in defending Church teaching. If Church teaching cannot change then how can the SSPX be guilty not rejecting Church teaching, if they believe what the Church has always taught?
The position of the SSPX is a very, very different thing from actually rejecting Church teaching on contraception, abortion etc. The SSPX are staunch defenders of Church teaching. They may be slightly disobedient defenders, but defenders they are nevertheless.
L
Lormar
Guest
An article written by a news agency that took phrases from who knows where and what, put quotation marks around them and incorporated them into a sentence written by a journalist to make it say what the journalist wanted it to say?Not true? Have a look at the 8th paragraph down:
catholicnewsagency.com/news/in-letter-to-sspx-vatican-archbishop-appeals-for-unity/
Have you ever read Michael Davies’ three volume set Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre?
Another good book to read is the biography of the Archbishop written by one of his own priests and bishops.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Could you provide quotes from the sources above, or from other sources (a link might be good) which show that ABL believed that the documents can be read in light of tradition? Or that the current SSPX leadership believes this as well?An article written by a news agency that took phrases from who knows where and what, put quotation marks around them and incorporated them into a sentence written by a journalist to make it say what the journalist wanted it to say?
Have you ever read Michael Davies’ three volume set Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre?
Another good book to read is the biography of the Archbishop written by one of his own priests and bishops.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
You say no, others say yes. Can you define what is meant by schism?The SSPX are not in schism…
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Who says they are? Are you aware of the statement declaring them Catholic to the state of Argentina? The Church does not do that for any other groups that are indeed in schism.You say no, others say yes. Can you define what is meant by schism?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
This article in Zenit news says: “Father Lombardi also lauded the mediation work Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has done in an effort to bring the schism with the Society of St. Pius X to an end…”Who says they are? .
zenit.org/en/articles/spokesman-didn-t-reproach-cardinal
and
“The leaders of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) are in schism, and remain suspended from the sacraments, says the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20046
What is the definition of a schism.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I’d like to see the actual words of Muller…This article in Zenit news says: “Father Lombardi also lauded the mediation work Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has done in an effort to bring the schism with the Society of St. Pius X to an end…”
zenit.org/en/articles/spokesman-didn-t-reproach-cardinal
and
“The leaders of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) are in schism, and remain suspended from the sacraments, says the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20046
What is the definition of a schism.
Either way both of those predate the statement to the Argentinian government.
I think the definition of schism in the Catholic sense is probably pretty clear if someone wishes to post it. I would not think the Church would lie to a government to benefit a group it considered to be not within it’s fold…
C
commenter
Guest
The Church strongly discourages laity from attending SSPX services. Those who believe that the Church is a wise spiritual guide, follow that direction. Disregarding the Church’s direction on one matter often leads to disregarding the Church’s direction on other matters, which often are doctrinal and moral. Perhaps - maybe - you are mature enough to make some kind of distinction in your own mind but what about your teenage relative, or your neighbor who are getting brainwashed by the Media against Catholic authority? If they see you - you, the individual reading this post - defying the Church in what seems to you a justifiable way, will they see the Church still is authoritative in other ways? How does your example affect them? Don’t we all see ourselves as more mature than the Church? Rules are made for persons less wise than ourselves.The SSPX are not in schism so how can the laity who attend services in SSPX churches be in schism? The SSPX may have some issues regarding obedience, but that does not constitute schism.
What about the priest? The SSPX priest may be leaning towards full reunion with Rome; but if the seats are full every week, he may stay. That may or may not be a prudent thing for you to do; your attendance may help postpone what may be a beneficial decision for him.
Remember, an organization exists only on paper. **It **has no “issues”, only persons have issues. There are only individuals and families involved. It is only with the individuals and families, *their *spiritual welfare, that we should be concerned with, not the SSPX. It is only with 2015 and later, not the 1970s, we should focus on. I wish the virtue of Prudence, and the vice of Scandal, still got the attention they once received.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
When the Church makes an official declaration that a group is in schism, then they are in schism. If the Church does not make an official declaration that a group to be in schism then they are not in schism.You say no, others say yes. Can you define what is meant by schism?
Certain individual Catholics may hold a personal opinion that the SSPX are in schism, but unless an official declaration stating this has been made by the Church then the SSPX are not in schism.
So in the end your definition of what constitutes schism, or my definition of what constitutes schism, matters not. If the Church has not officially declared that the SSPX are in schism then they are not in schism.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
I’m not arguing with that, but I am saying that the SSPX are not in schism. If the SSPX were in schism then the Church would officially declare this.The Church strongly discourages laity from attending SSPX services.
C
commenter
Guest
There is a world wide effort to restrict religious liberty, to put the government power over the Churches. In many countries the Catholic Church, and other churches, are striving to support churches and clergy in any way they can. Baptists sometimes support Methodists, etc. “If we don’t all hang together, we will all hang separately”.I’d like to see the actual words of Muller…
Either way both of those predate the statement to the Argentinian government.
I think the definition of schism in the Catholic sense is probably pretty clear if someone wishes to post it. I would not think the Church would lie to a government to benefit a group it considered to be not within it’s fold…
In Argentina there is apparently a restrictive law on “unrecognized” clergy, that they can be briefly deported at intervals, then quickly readmitted to the country, all of which would be time consuming and expensive. The Catholic Church certified SSPX clergy as Catholic, partly as an act of charity, but also to avoid the precedent of any clergy being persecuted. They would likely have done the same for others, if necessary. It is not a lie, of course SSPX individuals are Catholic. The Church still has the spiritual and material welfare of individuals in SSPX at heart.
BTW, I know the SSPX favors religious liberty. They may occasionally take some public actions, on their own. But they aren’t united to the larger religious liberty effort, in my diocese, or nationally, to my knowledge, at least in my country.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I don’t think that is true. For example, there is a group called the True Catholic Church which has elected its own Pope. They hold to all of the other Catholic beliefs except for Vatican II. Obviously, they must be in schism even though there has not been any official declaration.If the Church does not make an official declaration that a group to be in schism then they are not in schism…
B
Brendan_64
Guest
So if the SSPX are in schism why then would the CDF appoint Bishop Fellay as first-instance judge in a case involving a traditionalist priest? Would the Holy See really put a bishop from a schismatic group in an official position to make canonical judgements on its behalf? I don’t think so.I don’t think that is true. For example, there is a group called the True Catholic Church which has elected its own Pope. They hold to all of the other Catholic beliefs except for Vatican II. Obviously, they must be in schism even though there has not been any official declaration.
Would the Vatican permit a schismatic group to hold Mass in St Peter’s Basilica or in the Basilica of St Pius X in Lourdes?
And it wasn’t just Bishop Schneider who visited the SSPX seminaries recently, it was also Cardinal Brandmuller. They complimented the SSPX on the quality of their seminarians.
Would the Church treat a schismatic organisation like this?
The fact is that the Catholic Church does not view the SSPX as being in schism. Yes the SSPX have some obedience issues, but they are not in schism. They are Catholic and they are part of the Catholic Church.
C
commenter
Guest
The Church’s position is that individual priests and bishops in SSPX should stop saying illicit Masses, and illicit ordinations, and individually seek full union with the Church, generally beginning through their local ordinary. The Church’s position is that laity not attend SSPX Masses.So if the SSPX are in schism why then would the CDF appoint Bishop Fellay as first-instance judge in a case involving a traditionalist priest? Would the Holy See really put a bishop from a schismatic group in an official position to make canonical judgements on its behalf? I don’t think so.
Would the Vatican permit a schismatic group to hold Mass in St Peter’s Basilica or in the Basilica of St Pius X in Lourdes?
And it wasn’t just Bishop Schneider who visited the SSPX seminaries recently, it was also Cardinal Brandmuller. They complimented the SSPX on the quality of their seminarians.
Would the Church treat a schismatic organisation like this?
The fact is that the Catholic Church does not view the SSPX as being in schism. Yes the SSPX have some obedience issues, but they are not in schism. They are Catholic and they are part of the Catholic Church.
E
Elizium23
Guest
That is not the Church’s position, and you have no proof that it is.The Church’s position is that laity not attend SSPX Masses.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
. No you are way off here. The issue in Argentina goes back to the previous Bishop. You might have heard of him… Then bergiglio was approached by the sspx for help. Argentina requires a state recognized church be tied to foreign clergy. This is not about religious freedom but rather a states right to have some sort of rule of law governing foreign residents. The sspx said they were catholic and the state said no, prove it. So they approached bergoglio who is purported to have said something to the effect of " it is obvious you are catholic". He then promised to see what he could do. But as fate would have it he left his position in Argentina. But the sspx were not forgotten. And the next bishop made good on bergoglio’s promise to assist. The church would surely help others outside her fold, but publicly claim them as her own? No, never as that would be flat out lie!There is a world wide effort to restrict religious liberty, to put the government power over the Churches. In many countries the Catholic Church, and other churches, are striving to support churches and clergy in any way they can. Baptists sometimes support Methodists, etc. “If we don’t all hang together, we will all hang separately”.
In Argentina there is apparently a restrictive law on “unrecognized” clergy, that they can be briefly deported at intervals, then quickly readmitted to the country, all of which would Eco be time consuming and expensive. The Catholic Church certified SSPX clergy as Catholic, partly as an act of charity, but also to avoid the precedent of any clergy being persecuted. They would likely have done the same for others, if necessary. It is not a lie, of course SSPX individuals are Catholic. The Church still has the spiritual and material welfare of individuals in SSPX at heart.
BTW, I know the SSPX favors religious liberty. They may occasionally take some public actions, on their own. But they aren’t united to the larger religious liberty effort, in my diocese, or nationally, to my knowledge, at least in my country.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
No you are going beyond what the church does. One can claim that the church’s position is that one may attend out if love for the ef . If there is not another licit one around. And there is documentation for that. Such would be the case for where I live. A lay person who wished for the ef. Could go to the chapel. Though I am longing for the ef I choose not to do this and would not advise others to. But the church would not forbid it. Now if it were a good idea or not you and I would probably agree on.The Church’s position is that laity not attend SSPX Masses.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.