Can anyone explain the logic behind the stance of SSPX?

[piouswoman]

There are no negotiations.

Negotiations imply that each party has “equal standing.”
In the matter of the Holy Father and sspx, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Read a book.

Of course, poor catharina, we all know you are quite wrong. It has been reported in many instances that the SSPX are in negotiations with Rome, and from reliable sources…please do your homework. To deny fact is so very modernist.

“Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the SSPX, has recently given indications that substantial progress has been made in the latest** negotiations with Rome.**”

source:cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=42203

 

[laudamus_te]

Here’s the whole thing:

Catechism of the Catholic Church
PART 3 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 3
2033
“The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the “deposit” of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.”

A deposit of teaching handed down in the Church = Always and everywhere.

**From the Baltimore Catechism:

LESSON TWELFTH. ON THE ATTRIBUTES AND MARKS OF THE CHURCH.
“Q. 530. {125} When does the Church teach infallibly? A. The Church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and Bishops united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals.”**

But of course, Catharina knows this because she memorized the Baltimore Catechism.

 

[Our_Refuge]

=saint rafael;3861239

The Syllabus of Errors was infallible because Pope Pius IX restated what the Church had always taught in those points and matters. Pope Pius IX condemned errors that the Church had always taught against because it was part of the Magisterium.

The Syllabus of Errors is part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

But there are those that say that it is not infallible doctrine. Cardinal Ratzinger said that Gaudium et Spes was a “counter-syllabus”. How is that possible if the Syllabus of Errors is infallible? Also, if it is infallible then the declaration on Religious Liberty is at odds with portions of the Syllabus.

 

[Auntie_M]

By your very own words you are implying that Rome itself should **not **be engaging in something that it is actually “engaging” in…talks and negotiations with SSPX! My, how confused you are…and to think that you of all people, are condemning the very actions of Rome itself! I thought you never questioned Rome, never questioned the pope…

Piouswoman…As I understand it, “negotiations” have been on-going for nearly 40 years now. How much londer do they want to “talk”.
Just think…A 40 year engagement but still no marriage.

 

[Auntie_M]

For anyone that this might be new to:

From the First Vatican Council.

1. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Vatican 1 Pastor Aeternus
2. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.–Vatican 1 Session 3 Chapter 4. On faith and reason

Please…Exactly WHAT doctine has been changed…
And EXACTLY What dogmas have been changed.
Could someone please answer this and give some references from the actual VATICAN websit? (Not just some off shoot site)

I think that is exactly what the Pope is trying to explain to the SSPX
There have been NO changes to the faith. Just different ways to say it.

You say toMATO, I say tomaTO
It’s still a fruit that makes a great sandwich!!!

 

[Auntie_M]

Of course, poor catharina, we all know you are quite wrong. It has been reported in many instances that the SSPX are in negotiations with Rome, and from reliable sources…please do your homework. To deny fact is so very modernist.

“Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the SSPX, has recently given indications that substantial progress has been made in the latest** negotiations with Rome.**”

source:cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=42203

I happen to agree with catharina…Just think they “say” they are in “negotiations” But it’s been what 40 years now. HOW much negotiating can one do for that long.

 

[Auntie_M]

My last say on the subject…

THERE IS NO LOGIC

They emphatically state that the Roman Church is in error.

But they “say” they WANT to be “In communion” ( with a church that is in ERROR?) Where’s the logic?

 

[GerardP]

Please…Exactly WHAT doctine has been changed…
And EXACTLY What dogmas have been changed.
Could someone please answer this and give some references from the actual VATICAN websit? (Not just some off shoot site)

I think that is exactly what the Pope is trying to explain to the SSPX
There have been NO changes to the faith. Just different ways to say it.

You say toMATO, I say tomaTO
It’s still a fruit that makes a great sandwich!!!

No doctrine has been changed. That’s the point. Too many people are lead to believe that policies engaged in since the Council are doctrines. They are not. Ecumenism is not a doctrine. It is a policy. “Outside the Church There Is No Salvation” is a Dogma of the Church. It is detrimental to Ecumenism though. So, the impression has been given by recent Popes that there actually is “Salvation Outside the Church”.

We’re not saying “Tomato…TomAAHTo.” The Churchmen are saying “mmmrnrurrmmAAATTooooahhahh” to the Protestant/Jewish/Muslim “Potato”

 

[GerardP]

My last say on the subject…

THERE IS NO LOGIC

They emphatically state that the Roman Church is in error.

But they “say” they WANT to be “In communion” ( with a church that is in ERROR?) Where’s the logic?

No. That is not what they say. The ChurchMEN are in error, not the Church.

If Pope John the 22nd were alive now and preaching incorrectly from the pulpit at Sunday Mass that no one has yet seen the beatific vision and that no one will until the final judgement, that would not be the “Roman Church is in error” as it wasn’t when he did that exact thing centuries ago.

What they want is for Benedict to condemn with his full magisterial authority the false interpretations of the Council and reaffirm the Traditional teachings.

That will utterly destroy about 90% of the perceptions of what the Council actually taught and it’s political motivations will be utterly decimated.

 

[Dauphin]

What they want is for Benedict to condemn with his full magisterial authority the false interpretations of the Council and reaffirm the Traditional teachings.

They want the Pope to condemn the same errors of religious freedom which were condemned in Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, and consequently, condemn a document of the Second Vatican Council (Dignitatis Humanae).

This won’t happen.

 

[JReducation]

In his communication with Bishop Fellay Pope Benedict has used his full Magisterial authority to reassert several very important points.

1. Vatican II is authoritative and it must be accepted, no negotions here.
2. The Pope’s authority must be accepted, no negotions here
3. The Pope may no be criticized in public by the SSPX or any other ecclesial body, no negotions here.
4. There is not magisterium higher than his, no negotions here.
5. SSPX can be a prelature, this may be open to negotiations.

It seems that if what people want is a Pope who stands on his magisterial authority and is very black and white about things, we got him.

It is interesting, because when Benedict XVI released the Motu Proprio many thought that this was the pope who would bring the Church back to traditionalism and save her from herself. I remember posting somewhere, that Benedict would be full of surprises. No one believed me at the time.

Here’s one surprise. He is using his magisterial authority.

Suddenly, where are those who thought he was gong to be the pope who saved the Church? Why aren’t they on these threads backing him up?

People said that John Paul II was weak because he was a diplomat. Now we have Benedict who is not a diplomat with Catholics, but very authoritative. So now what’s wrong? Is it the Pope or is it us, because the popes don’t run the Church the way we believe it should be run?

The logic is weak, if it depends on things going the way we believe they should go. That would be equivalent to holding the pope prisoner. If SSPX is allowed to yield that much power over the Pope and over millions of Catholics around the world, why shouldn’t other groups have the same power?

This is not logical.

JR

 

[SanJudas]

There have been NO changes to the faith. Just different ways to say it.

You say toMATO, I say tomaTO
It’s still a fruit that makes a great sandwich!!!

From a Wikipedia article on the Old Believers of the Russian Orthodox faith: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers

"*Old Believers hold that the preservation of a certain “microclimate” that enables the salvation of one’s soul requires not only living by the commandments of Christ, but also carefully preserving Church tradition, which contains the spiritual power and knowledge of past centuries, embodied in external forms.

The Old Believers reject the idea of contents a priori prevailing over form. To illustrate this issue, the renowned Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky (1841 - 1911) referred to poetry. He argued, that if one converts a poem into prose, the contents of the poem may remain intact, but the poem will lose its charm and emotional impact; moreover, the poem will essentially no longer exist. In the case of religious rituals, form and contents do not just form two separable, autonomous entities, but connect with each other through complex relationships, including theological, psychological, phenomenal, esthetic and historic dimensions.

These aspects, in their turn, play a role in the perception of these rituals by the faithful and in their spiritual lives. Considering the fact that Church rituals from their very beginning were intertwined with doctrinal truth, changing these rituals may have a tremendous effect on religious conscience and a severe impact on the faithful."*

Sometimes pronunciation matters.

 

[saint_rafael]

Here’s one surprise. He is using his magisterial authority.

JR

Pope Benedict has never used Magisterial authority. He has used his governing authority.

Pope Benedict must speak Ex-Cathedra for him to use the Extraordinary Magisterium.

He has used the governing authority that every Pope has to govern the Church.

 

[saint_rafael]

But there are those that say that it is not infallible doctrine. Cardinal Ratzinger said that Gaudium et Spes was a “counter-syllabus”. How is that possible if the Syllabus of Errors is infallible? Also, if it is infallible then the declaration on Religious Liberty is at odds with portions of the Syllabus.

That is why St. Pius X called Modernism the synthesis of all heresies.

Modernism triumphed at Vatican II when the Modernist periti put ambiguity that concealed their errors and revolution.

None of the VII documents were infallible, that is why you have a non-binding pastoral document that contradicts the Magisterium.

Cardinal Ratzinger honestly spoke the truth when he said the Modernists had overturned the Magisterial teaching of the Syllabus of Pius IX with Gaudium et Spes.
It was their counter-syllabus that would unleash their new religion.

 

[saint_rafael]

Suddenly, where are those who thought he was gong to be the pope who saved the Church? Why aren’t they on these threads backing him up?
JR

We back the Pope when he does things right for the Church and tradition, but he still makes the erros that Pope John Paul II made.

He does not seem interested in ex-communicating the heretical theologians and does nothing to end collegiality or replacce all the Modernist liberal bishops.

I have read some of his books and I studied his life and all I can see in Pope Benedict is a life of contradiction.

Pope Benedict is a traditionalist and a modernist at the same time.

He will not save the Church. He is a transitional Pope who is paving the way for the future Pope of tradition who will not have the baggage that Ratzinger has.

Pope Benedict will never get over his days as a liberal and modernist theologian and whole the revolution of the 60’s. He is the victim of the New theology and his liberal formation in the seminary. He will never shake off Rahner, Kung, De Lubac, and Von Balthasar.

Like all the men and clerics of his time, it is all about the Council. Vatican II is their baby. The liberal periti took control of that council. Pope Benedict has an emotional attachment and he will not go where he needs to go for tradition and the restoration.

His pontificate is turning out to be one of confusion. He takes a step forward and two steps back. Traditionaslists and modernists are confused. He goes back between tradition and modernism.
A man of contradiction.

 

[Dauphin]

He does not seem interested in ex-communicating the heretical theologians and does nothing to end collegiality or replacce all the Modernist liberal bishops.

Sounds like someone who’s trying to avoid a schism.

 

[saint_rafael]

Sounds like someone who’s trying to avoid a schism.

There needs to be a schism between true Catholicism and the heretical liberal Modernist Catholicism.

It is the duty of Pope Benedict as Pope, to kick out all the heretics and all the liberals out of the Church.

I would love too see a real division in which people have to choose between those who follow the Magisterium and the Pope and those who are going to follow the liberal theologians and bishops.

It is simple. Catholic traditionaslists including the SSPX, want the Pope to do his job.

 

[SanJudas]

Sounds like someone who’s trying to avoid a schism.

Yes, he does. I don’t envy him one bit. Reading some of the comments on this forum and especially on others makes me realize what a “hard row to hoe,” as we used to say back home, he really has. The poor man is literally walking on eggs. I respect his tremendous intelligence, however, and the job he has ahead of him.
Saint Rafael, you called him a “transitional Pope,” and perhaps he is. He is also a product of the same confusing and tumultuous times as the rest of us, and may God forgive us for the errors we have all committed, and I support him in whatever endeavor he undertakes to bring back our traditional beliefs and activities.

 

[JReducation]

We back the Pope when he does things right for the Church and tradition, but he still makes the erros that Pope John Paul II made.

He does not seem interested in ex-communicating the heretical theologians and does nothing to end collegiality or replacce all the Modernist liberal bishops.

I have read some of his books and I studied his life and all I can see in Pope Benedict is a life of contradiction.

Pope Benedict is a traditionalist and a modernist at the same time.

He will not save the Church. He is a transitional Pope who is paving the way for the future Pope of tradition who will not have the baggage that Ratzinger has.

Pope Benedict will never get over his days as a liberal and modernist theologian and whole the revolution of the 60’s. He is the victim of the New theology and his liberal formation in the seminary. He will never shake off Rahner, Kung, De Lubac, and Von Balthasar.

Like all the men and clerics of his time, it is all about the Council. Vatican II is their baby. The liberal periti took control of that council. Pope Benedict has an emotional attachment and he will not go where he needs to go for tradition and the restoration.

His pontificate is turning out to be one of confusion. He takes a step forward and two steps back. Traditionaslists and modernists are confused. He goes back between tradition and modernism.
A man of contradiction.

Obviously you’re not ready to accept his demand that the SSPX and no other group publicly criticize the pope.

Nor are you ready to meet his demans that there is no higher Magisterial teaching than him.

Nor are you ready to meet his demand that you accept Vatican II as an authoritive ecumenical council.

Therefore, you are comfortable if he proceeds to the next step which would be to declare you a heretic?

I would be very uncomfortable with that prospect.

By the way, the Pope does not have to speak ex-cathedra to exercise his magisterial authority. Magisterial means his teaching authority. It comes from the Latin word, Magister = Teacher.

In the demands that he is placing on the SSPX he is teaching not only the SSPX, but all Catholics what is expected of them in regards to the Pope and the Council. Sounds pretty Magisterial and Authoritative to me.

The fact that he says that the SSPX must lay down their claims to higher magisterial teachings than his, pretty well defines the boundaries of the game. If pretty well says that only he can decide what is good for the Church today.

I would not want to mess with this kind of authority. Whereas, the Bishops of SSPX, though they are bishops and should be respected and treated as such, do not have this kind of authority to demand respect, obedience and fidelity of the Univesal Church, only in their dioceses if they had one.

Pope Benedict has this authority.

JR

 

[saint_rafael]

Obviously you’re not ready to accept his demand that the SSPX and not other group publicly criticize the pope.

Nor are you ready to meet his demans that there is no higher Magisterial teaching than him.

Nor are you ready to meet his demand that you accept Vatican II as an authoritive ecumenical council.

Therefore, you are comfortable if he proceeds to the next step which would be to declare you a heretic?

I would be very uncomfortable with that prospect.

By the way, the Pope does not have to speak ex-cathedra to exercise his magisterial authority. Magisterial means his teaching authority. It comes from the Latin word, Magister = Teacher.

In the demands that he is placing on the SSPX he is teaching not only the SSPX, but all Catholics what is expected of them in regards to the Pope and the Council. Sounds pretty Magisterial and Authoritative to me.

The fact that he says that the SSPX must lay down the claims to higher magisterial teachings than his, pretty well defines the boundaries of the game. If pretty well says that only he can decide what is good for the Church today.

I would not want to mess with this kind of authority. Whereas, the Bishops of SSPX, though they are bishops and should be respected and treated as such, do not have this kind of authority to demand respect, obedience and fidelity of the Univesal Church, only in their dioceses if they had one.

JR

The Pope is not above criticism. The Holy Father is a human being not God. Trying to make the Pope divine is the great error of many Catholics today.

How can I be a heretic when a deny no article of faith? Your assertion is ridiculous.

I was talking about infallible statements from the Pope. He has not made any. All his teachings on faith and morals that have been held always and everywhere as part of the ordinary Magisterium are Magisterial.

Vatican II is not part of the Magisterium.

The SSPX have never claimed their own Magisterium. That is Completely ridiculous. The SSPX have defended the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The SSPX wants modern Churchmen to follow the Magisterium. The SsPX has been clear. The Church needs to follow the teachings of the prior Popes.

Cardinal Hoyo’s position that no one criticize the Pope is not Magisterial but an example of Modernism.