Can anyone explain the logic behind the stance of SSPX?

[saint_rafael]

**
Priests who gather to stand against the Holy Father are not traditionalists - unless their traditionalist leader is Martin Luther. All Catholics of a certain age KNOW this.**

Completely ridiculous. Martin Luther rejected the Church, dogma, the Mass, and the priesthood. He started his own religion. He held numerous heresies.

The SSPX do not hold a single heresy.

The SSPX are priests in the Church who are loyal to Pope Benedict and pray for him. They are always defending the Papacy against the Sede people who are deeply wrong.

They sent Pope Benedict a spiritual gift in the form of a Rosary bouquet.
They prayed 2 million rosaries for him and months later he released Summorum Pontificum.

In charity, they continet to defend prior Magisterial teaching and are trying to get Pope Benedict to have the courage to uphold it in the face of the Modernist clergy.

It is the year 2008. Tradition is moving forward. The Modernist scare tactics of the 90’s are not going to work anymore

 

[JReducation]

Just to clarify, in case there is a misunderstanding here. I never said that the Pope Benedict has threatened to excommunicate traditionalist Catholics.

Pope Benedict, through the Ecclesia Dei Commission has sent a message to SSPX that they are quickly approaching a state of heressy for which they may be excommunicated.

They are not to speak against the Holy Father in public, especially from the pulpit.

They are to accept the authoritative nature of Vatican II.

They are to accept the authority of the Pope.

They are not to hold any other magisterium (teacher or teaching) higher than him.

This last reason was the one that Cardinal Hoyos said upset Pope Benedict the most, because this is heresy. He cited as an example when the bishops of the SSPX make pronouncements against the Holy Father using the public media (pulpit or other) and the faithful follow them.

An example was when Bishop Williamson told the SSPX that he believed that the Canonization of Padre Pio is infallible, but that they would not venerate Padre Pio in public, so as not to lend credence to the other beatifications and canonizations by John Paul II. This includes the beatification of John XXIII and Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

Such a statement by any bishop places him as a Magister (Teacher of the Truth). He is assuming to know what canonizations and beatifications are infallible and which are not. Tradition has it that only the Pope can infallibly canonize and it must be accepted by all Catholics.

Therefore, such a statement places the bishops of the SSPX as a separate magisterium with the right to judge and decide what canonizatioins they will acknowledge and which ones they will deny and which ones they will accept, but not admit to doing so in public, so as not to risk the possibility that the other canonizations are taken seriously.

This is heressy. Canonizations are a matter of faith and are infallible.

Here is the concluding paragraph of Bishop Williams letter.

In conclusion, these more or less Conciliar “canonizations” are correspondingly fallible, and are automatically not infallible. Obviously, Padre Pio was an entirely Traditional Saint, and we need not doubt the worthiness of his canonization. However, it might be advisable not to profit by his Newchurch “canonization” to venerate him officially or in public, insofar as that might be liable to give to other Newchurch “canonizations” a credit which is not due to them.

He is deciding what canonizations are due credit. This has always been reserved exclusively for the Pope. He is advocating that we not venerate Padre Pio officially or in public, because it may give credit to other canonizations that he (Bishop Williamson) does not believe in.

Such a statement regarding an infallible act, such as beatification and canonization, places him in a position of being the “New Magisterium.”

It also places those who subscribe and follow his teaching in grave danger of heressy.

It is not the Traditionalist Catholic who is moving toward heressy, it is this particular group.

I am not in favour of declaring anyone a heretic, unless they move in that direction, whether they are traditionalists or abortions supporters.

The issue is where one stands on Truth and fidelity. How is it possible to doubt that such a statement, as the one that he makes about the veneration of Padre Pio is mistaken, when it clearly has a political motive behind it.

“Let’s not admit this truth, because we may have to concede something else.”

Is this not leaning toward heressy?

If it is, are those who support it and follow it not heading in the same direction?

So, where is the nonsense?

Read his letter and it’s conclusion for yourselves. This was provided to me by a dear friend whom I love very much and like very much who is a faithful SSPX follower. Our friendship is not stained by this. I believe that she is a good woman who is trying to do the best she can.

But I have serious questions about this kind of rhetoric coming from a bishop and it makes sense to me that the Holy Father would be inclinde to threaten with excommunication.

sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/December6-2002.htm

JR

 

[catharina]

Completely ridiculous. Martin Luther rejected the Church, dogma, the Mass, and the priesthood. He started his own religion. He held numerous heresies.

The SSPX do not hold a single heresy.

The SSPX are priests in the Church who are loyal to Pope Benedict and pray for him. They are always defending the Papacy against the Sede people who are deeply wrong.

They sent Pope Benedict a spiritual gift in the form of a Rosary bouquet.
They prayed 2 million rosaries for him and months later he released Summorum Pontificum.

In charity, they continet to defend prior Magisterial teaching and are trying to get Pope Benedict to have the courage to uphold it in the face of the Modernist clergy.

It is the year 2008. Tradition is moving forward. The Modernist scare tactics of the 90’s are not going to work anymore

I’ll clarify. Those priests, now illicitly made bishops, who stand against the Holy Father are aligned in spirit with that unique objector, Martin Luther. Those who will chose to play “follow the leader(s)” will stand in the same arena. Sorry if the subtlety was lost on you.

 

[piouswoman]

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.

Actually, no they have not been negotiating for nearly 40 years. More like eight. Rome finally resorted to talks after seeing the huge loss of faithful, lack of vocations, sex and pedophile scandals, church closings, school closings, clown masses, and every other scandal that has caused them to become a sinking ship…after trying to outfox traditional Catholics in every manner to protect their precious Council and “their baby” the new mass, they are desperately trying something new, and if I were to be honest with my opinion, I would say their intentions are not all good.

 

[saint_rafael]

They are not to hold any other magisterium (teacher or teaching) higher than him.

Such a statement by any bishop places him as a Magister (Teacher of the Truth). He is assuming to know what canonizations and beatifications are infallible and which are not. Tradition has it that only the Pope can infallibly canonize and it must be accepted by all Catholics.

Therefore, such a statement places the bishops of the SSPX as a separate magisterium with the right to judge and decide what canonizatioins they will acknowledge and which ones they will deny and which ones they will accept, but not admit to doing so in public, so as not to risk the possibility that the other canonizations are taken seriously.

Here is the concluding paragraph of Bishop Williams letter.

In conclusion, these more or less Conciliar “canonizations” are correspondingly fallible, and are automatically not infallible. Obviously, Padre Pio was an entirely Traditional Saint, and we need not doubt the worthiness of his canonization. However, it might be advisable not to profit by his Newchurch “canonization” to venerate him officially or in public, insofar as that might be liable to give to other Newchurch “canonizations” a credit which is not due to them.

Such a statement regarding an infallible act, such as beatification and canonization, places him in a position of being the “New Magisterium.”

sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/December6-2002.htm

JR

The SSPX have never claimed their own Magisterium. They have always defended the Magisterium of the Church.

This whole issue revolves aroun Bishop Williamson. Bishop Williamson is not the SSPX, he is only one member of that group, one man, one bishop.

The SSPX is made up of four bishops and all the priests. Bishop Fellay is the Superior and he is in charge. He’s the main man.

Bishop Williamson says alot of things that are wrong and controversial, but they are all his opinion.
He is not making his own Magisterium, but is making errors that are wrong that belong to opinion.

The issue is not a new Magisterium, but the erros of one Bishop. Bishop Williamson can be controlled and corrected by other SSPX members and Fellay.

As far as Canonization, I believe it is infallible and so do many Catholics, but it is not that settled. I have read that theologians agree and disagree whether it is an infallible act. I am not so sure that it is a settled doctrine.

From the Catholic encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

"Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s. v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: “Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.” These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.’

Beatification is not infallible:

“This general agreement of theologians as to papal infallibility in canonization must not be extended to beatification, not withstanding the contrary teaching of the canonical commentary known as “Glossa” in cap. un. de reliquiis et venerat. SS. (III, 22) in 6; Innocent., Comm. in quinque Decretalium libros, tit. de reliquiis, etc., no 4; Ostiensis in eumd. tit. no 10; Felini, cap. lii, De testibus, etc., X (II, 20); Caietani, tract. De indulgentiis adversus Lutherum ad Julium Mediceum; Augustini de Ancona, seu Triumphi, De potestate eccl., Q. xiv, a. 4). Canonists and theologians generally deny the infallible character of decrees of beatification, whether formal or equivalent, since it is always a permission, not a command; while it leads to canonization, it is not the last step.”

 

[eelpis]

There is one word for the logic of the SSPX: spiritual pride.
At least that is my opinion.There is no magisterium beside that of the Holy Father.

 

[saint_rafael]

There is one word for the logic of the SSPX: spiritual pride.
At least that is my opinion.There is no magisterium beside that of the Holy Father.

That is where the mistake comes in. There is no other Magisterium besides that of the Catholic Church.

You forget that there have been 264 other Popes who were infallible and authoritative.

 

[eelpis]

That is where the mistake comes in. There is no other magisterium besides that of the Catholic Church.

You forget that there have been 264 other Popes who were infallible and authoratative.

Yes but the interpreting of Tradition belongs to the magisterium, that is the pope and the bishops in communion with him.

Pope Pius XII excommunicated Fr Feeney, quite a long time before Vatican II for denying that the pope is the interpreter of Tradition.

 

[saint_rafael]

Yes but the interpreting of Tradition belongs to the magisterium, that is the pope and the bishops in communion with him.

Pope Pius XII excommunicated Fr Feeney, quite a long time before Vatican II for denying that the pope is the interpreter of Tradition.

What?
The Magisterium does not need to be interpreted. The Magisterium is public record. The dogmatic Coucil Documents, the encyclicals, and writings, they all speak for themselves and Catholics can read what they say and mean. The teachings are literal.

The Popes guard, defend, uphold, and re-teach the Magisterium. They do not interpret it to find new meaning or doctrine.

 

[JReducation]

The SSPX have never claimed their own Magisterium. They have always defended the Magisterium of the Church.

This whole issue revolves aroun Bishop Williamson. Bishop Williamson is not the SSPX, he is only one member of that group, one man, one bishop.

The SSPX is made up of four bishops and all the priests. Bishop Fellay is the Superior and he is in charge. He’s the main man.

Bishop Williamson says alot of things that are wrong and controversial, but they are all his opinion.
He is not making his own Magisterium, but is making errors that are wrong that belong to opinion.

The issue is not a new Magisterium, but the erros of one Bishop. Bishop Williamson can be controlled and corrected by other SSPX members and Fellay.

As far as Canonization, I believe it is infallible and so do many Catholics, but it is not that settled. I have read that theologians agree and disagree whether it is an infallible act. I am not so sure that it is a settled doctrine.

From the Catholic encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

"Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s. v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: “Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.” These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.’

Beatification is not infallible:

“This general agreement of theologians as to papal infallibility in canonization must not be extended to beatification, not withstanding the contrary teaching of the canonical commentary known as “Glossa” [in cap. un. de reliquiis et venerat. SS. (III, 22) in 6; Innocent., Comm. in quinque Decretalium libros, tit. de reliquiis, etc., no 4; Ostiensis in eumd. tit. no 10; Felini, cap. lii, De testibus, etc., X (II, 20); Caietani, tract. De indulgentiis adversus Lutherum ad Julium Mediceum; Augustini de Ancona, seu Triumphi, De potestate eccl., Q. xiv, a. 4). Canonists and theologians generally deny the infallible character of decrees of beatification, whether formal or equivalent, since it is always a permission, not a command; while it leads to canonization, it is not the last step.”

In reality all of the above theologians are saying the same thing. A canonization is to be believed. They give different reasons for it, but the conclusion is the same.

If as you say this is the opinion of Bishop Williamson and he is mistaken, then when are we to expect a correction from his superior, Bishop Fellay?

It was also interesting to note that Bishop Williamson did not mention the beatification of Mother Teresa as being valid or invalid.

Correct me if I’m wrong. If he believes that the beatification of Mother Teresa is correct, why did he fail to mention it? Her beatification and John XXIII’s are within the same time frame by the same pope.

His failure to mention it can give the impression that he does not accept it, but it’s too contraversial to make a public statement, because this is a woman who Catholics and non Catholics believe to be a saint. To negate her beatification would trigger a backlash.

These are the concerns that I have with what in my mind are mistakes made the the leadership of SSPX.

To conclude, if Bishop Williamson is speaking for himself, SSPX should clarify this. If he’s speaking for the Society, then the Society has made a mistake.

To deny the beatifications and the canonizations is to deny an infallible proclamation.

By the way, when Aquinas uses the term pious, he uses it in the Latin context of the Middle Ages. The word that Aquinas used was “pieta”, which meant devotion. A canonization was an act of devotion. Since canonizations are only made by popes, then it is the pope who is invoking devotion to the Blessed or the Saint. How can he do this?

Only because he has the authority to do so, as your citation clearly proves. Bishop Williamson has made a mistake. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

JR
[/quote]

 

[eelpis]

What?
The Magisterium does not need to be interpreted. The Magisterium is public record. The dogmatic Coucil Documents, the encyclicals, and writings, they all speak for themselves and Catholics can read what they say and mean. The teachings are literal.

Yes it does need to be guarded and interpreted and that is the duty of the magisterium. The case of the Protestants, Old Catholics and Fr Feeney should be enough evidence.

That you can err in interpreting Tradition just as you can err in interpreting Scripture is common knowledge and people have started their own religions over this.

The SSPX are in fact setting up another magisterium beside that of the pope and that is nothing else than pride.

 

[JReducation]

What?
The Magisterium does not need to be interpreted. The Magisterium is public record. The dogmatic Coucil Documents, the encyclicals, and writings, they all speak for themselves and Catholics can read what they say and mean. The teachings are literal.

The Magisterium is not a collection of documents. Magisterium is the adjectival form of the Latin noun Magister. Magister is teacher. The Pope is the supreme teacher of the Catholic Church. A bishop is also a teacher, but he must teach in union with the supreme teacher, not as a lone ranger or a member of quartet as is the case of the SSPX. I’m not using the term quartet as a musical group, but as a group of four.

The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. The teaching authority is not the documents, it’s the person or persons. The documents are what the teacher or teachers have said.

You keep referring to the magisterium to mean the documents published by the Church. In good Latin, magisterium refers to teachers, not their works.

The works are called “dictata”, which means lesson. Not all lessons are doctrines or dogmas, but they are meant to teach.

The Pope and the living bishops of the Catholic Church are part of the Magisterium. Unfortunately, the SSPX bishops are not part of the Magisterium until the excommunication is lifted.

I say until, because I sincerely hope that it will happen.

JR

 

[saint_rafael]

Yes it does need to be guarded and interpreted and that is the duty of the magisterium. The case of the Protestants, Old Catholics and Fr Feeney should be enough evidence.

That you can err in interpreting Tradition just as you can err in interpreting Scripture is common knowledge and people have started their own religions over this.

The SSPX are in fact setting up another magisterium beside that of the pope and that is nothing else than pride.

The Catholic Church alone interprets scripture because it is the Word of God and needs a valid interpreter of its meaning.

The writings that make up the Magisterium is clear in its teaching and meaning.

Protestants and Old Catholics did not misinterpret the Magisterium, they rejected it.

They knew what the Magisterium said, they could read for themselves, but they rejected what the Magisterium taught in favor of their beliefs.

 

[eelpis]

The Catholic Church alone interprets scripture because it is the Word of God and needs a valid interpreter of its meaning.

The writings that make up the Magisterium is clear in its teaching and meaning.

Protestants and Old Catholics did not misinterpret the Magisterium, they rejected it.

They knew what the Magisterium said, they could read for themselves, but they rejected what the Magisterium taught in favor of their beliefs.

Most of the magisterial teachings are clear but that didn’t stop Fr Feeney from interpreting it wrong. So it’s possible to get it wrong.
I’d rather side with the pope than the SSPX because they never got a promise of infallibility from Christ.

 

[saint_rafael]

The Magisterium is not a collection of documents. Magisterium is the adjectival form of the Latin noun Magister. Magister is teacher. The Pope is the supreme teacher of the Catholic Church. A bishop is also a teacher, but he must teach in union with the supreme teacher, not as a lone ranger or a member of quartet as is the case of the SSPX. I’m not using the term quartet as a musical group, but as a group of four.

The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. The teaching authority is not the documents, it’s the person or persons. The documents are what the teacher or teachers have said.

You keep referring to the magisterium to mean the documents published by the Church. In good Latin, magisterium refers to teachers, not their works.

The works are called “dictata”, which means lesson. Not all lessons are doctrines or dogmas, but they are meant to teach.

The Pope and the living bishops of the Catholic Church are part of the Magisterium. Unfortunately, the SSPX bishops are not part of the Magisterium until the excommunication is lifted.

I say until, because I sincerely hope that it will happen.

JR

fisheaters.com/101.html

Ordinary Magisterium:
“Ordinary infallible teaching by Pope, Bishop, or anyone with the proper authority to teach which illumines doctrine that has always been believed and accepted by the universal Church.”

The teachings of the Magisterium is what is infallible. The doctrines and dogma every Catholic must believe are the teahings of the Magisterium. Everything that falls under doctrine is infallible.

The Magisterium includes all the teachings of the Popes and bishops.

 

[hosemonkey]

I and my family attended a SSPX chapel for over five years. Although the Mass was celebrated beautifully, there was a spirit of bitterness and rancor toward the Magisterium that was pervasive. There was an “us against them” mentality. The longer that we attended, the more that I realized their lip service regarding their “respect” for the Pope was nothing more than that, lip service. The one major flaw of the SSPX is disobedience. If one is not in obedience to the Holy Father and to the Magisterium, you cannot call yourself “Catholic.” We returned to our home parish and work to correct the damage that has been done to the Church. You cannot effect change if you are an outsider, you must work from within. We were damaged from within, not from without. The SSPX are outsiders, they could repair the Church far more effectively as insiders.

 

[VivatJesus]

I have read Ut Unum Sint many times. It’s probably the closest thing to heresy JPII ever wrote. Towards the end, he literally tries to “undefine” the papacy from the definition of Vatican I.

There was never anything clear from JPII. His writings are damaging to clarity of faith.

When I attended a “Theology of the Body” Seminar, I noticed that nobody could even remember some of the important “quotes” of JPII. But when supplemented by Augustine and Bishop Sheen, people began to get a sense of what the Church actually teaches.

Eventually, I suspect more and more of JPII’s writings will be put aside and topics will be taught more clearly using the models the Church has always used for education.

As far as what the Church has always taught with regards to other religions. The Holy Ghost provides graces outside of the Church for those who are outside the Church to get inside the Church.

Truth and error cannot mix and still be truth. People must leave the error filled religions behind if they are to be saved.

AMEN Gerard! Anyone who thinks Ut Unum Sint is Catholic teaching, or is even compatible with Catholic teaching, hasn’t a clue! Like an earlier poster said, if you read anything by TAN or, for that matter, ANYTHING Catholic that was published before the Council, you will soon realize that the modern stuff that’s being put forth now isn’t Catholic at all…it’s almost another religion entirely.

No one should read “Ut Unum Sint” without first reading “Mortalium Animos”…if you can reconcile the two (without resorting to the logic that says 2+2=5) let me know, you deserve a medal.

 

[saint_rafael]

Most of the magisterial teachings are clear but that didn’t stop Fr Feeney from interpreting it wrong. So it’s possible to get it wrong.
I’d rather side with the pope than the SSPX because they never got a promise of infallibility from Christ.

Fr. Feeney did not misinterpret. He did not accept or want to believe in the doctrine of Baptism of Desire. He rejected Baptism of Desire.
Baptism of Desire had been taught by the Church and saints for centuries.

 

[JReducation]

fisheaters.com/101.html

Ordinary Magisterium:
“Ordinary infallible teaching by Pope, Bishop, or anyone with the proper authority to teach which illumines doctrine that has always been believed and accepted by the universal Church.”

The teachings of the Magisterium is what is infallible. The doctrines and dogma every Catholic must believe are the teahings of the Magisterium. Everything that falls under doctrine is infallible.

The Magisterium includes all the teachings of the Popes and bishops.

Thank you for illustrating my point. The Magisterium is not a collection of documents, it’s people as cited above.

JR

 

[JReducation]

AMEN Gerard! Anyone who thinks Ut Unum Sint is Catholic teaching, or is even compatible with Catholic teaching, hasn’t a clue! Like an earlier poster said, if you read anything by TAN or, for that matter, ANYTHING Catholic that was published before the Council, you will soon realize that the modern stuff that’s being put forth now isn’t Catholic at all…it’s almost another religion entirely.

No one should read “Ut Unum Sint” without first reading “Mortalium Animos”…if you can reconcile the two (without resorting to the logic that says 2+2=5) let me know, you deserve a medal.

I’d like my medal please.

The two documents are not in conflict, they employ different perspectives. One uses ecclesiology, the other uses systematic theology.

JR