Can anyone explain the logic behind the stance of SSPX?

[VivatJesus]

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.

As I understand from his writings–and I am not a rigorist (a “Feeneyite”)–but Fr. Feeney did not reject “baptism of desire” per se, but the interpretation of it as any general desire in the direction of heaven…the Latin term from the Council of Trent translated as “desire” is votum, which actually means an explicit will/desire to be baptized. And I hold that someone could be saved who explicitly wished to be baptized but died before they were able…Fr. Feeney held that in such a case, God would miraculously provide an actual baptism for that person before their death just like He did several times in the Acts of the Apostles (the Ethiopian eunuch for example). Feeney was not excommunicated for his rejection of baptism of desire, but for disobedience to his bishop; he was later “reconciled” with the Church during Paul VI’s pontificate, without ever having to renounce his views…after his death, his original order (Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary/St. Benedict Center) split into several factions, but one of them is in full communion with the local Novus Ordo bishop and celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass, all the while holding to Fr. Feeney’s strict, rigorous interpretation of EENS. I don’t know where I found the quote, but I read a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) saying that those who hold to the rigorist interpretation are allowed the same latitude in opinion as those who hold more lenient interpretations. The “Feeneyite thesis”–more appropriately called the rigorist position, is a valid theological opinion…I see it as something like the rejection of children’s limbo…while not technically a heresy, rigorism, like rejection of limbo, is not in line with the mind of the Church.

 

[VivatJesus]

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

LOL. You must be in denial. Didn’t Mortalium Animos specifically forbid Catholics to take part in non-Catholic assemblies (including worship services), while Ut Unum Sint specifically encourages them? Heck, John Paul “the Great” himself not only took part in false protestant worship…he worshiped with people who don’t even worship the one true God, the Blessed Trinity.

 

[piouswoman]

SSPX is “negotiating”. The Vatican is "telling"and setting the limits. Quite difference. How is the beam in the eye doing PW?

Beam’s fine elt…we are all Catholics here, right?

 

[pnewton]

What?
The Magisterium does not need to be interpreted.

Then why do we disagree with it here? Why does the Holy Father and Fellay disagree with it? Even which documents are infallible and which are not are not common agreement when the SSPX becomes involved. One can follow Fellay or follow the Holy Father. Only one holds the key to the kingdom. Only one walks in the shoes of the fisherman. Only one has the right to speak for the Catholic Church.

 

[catharina]

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

Hope someone is working on that medal for you.
I’ve never known you to lie to to reside in “denial.”
(Kind’a “pop psychology,” that notion.)

 

[catharina]

Then why do we disagree with it here? Why does the Holy Father and Fellay disagree with it? Even which documents are infallible and which are not are not common agreement when the SSPX becomes involved. One can follow Fellay or follow the Holy Father. Only one holds the key to the kingdom. Only one walks in the shoes of the fisherman. Only one has the right to speak for the Catholic Church.

“One can follow Fellay or follow the Holy Father.”

That’s the single dispute that speaks to “logic” of the stance of sspx.

One is faithful to the Holy Father or one follows an excommunicated bishop.
The logic of the stance of the sspx is lacking in any logic.

 

[elts1956]

By defintion the Pope has that right to excercise the Extraordinary Magisterium. The Pope uses Paal infallibility on doctrine that has been disputed.

The pope does not invent doctrine. He settles a disputed doctrine by speaking Ex-Cathedra.

The Immaculate Conception and Assumption were always believed by some Catholics, but it was disputed and not official.

When a Pope speaks Ex-Cathedra, it is De Fide and every Catholic must believe it.
No Pope since Pius XII has used Papal Infallibility.

That doesn’t mean it will “never” happen. So would you?

 

[elts1956]

By defintion the Pope has that right to excercise the Extraordinary Magisterium. The Pope uses Paal infallibility on doctrine that has been disputed.

The pope does not invent doctrine. He settles a disputed doctrine by speaking Ex-Cathedra.

The Immaculate Conception and Assumption were always believed by some Catholics, but it was disputed and not official.

When a Pope speaks Ex-Cathedra, it is De Fide and every Catholic must believe it.
No Pope since Pius XII has used Papal Infallibility.

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.

You say, “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.”

You haven’t read Et Unum Sint in the correct frame of Ecumenism. What you have said above, is “almost” exactly what Pope John Paul II said. The big difference between your statement and his is that HE said the Graces for Salvation for those outside the Church come from “within” the Church itself, not from without. There is no Grace for Salvation outside the Catholic Church. He was not defining Faith, He was defining the meaning of “church” and bringing a form of unity and ecumenism to those Baptised Christians whose Faith is not Catholic, but whose Church holds some of the truth of the Catholic Church…

 

[friendofGODs]

The SSPX stance so far has been correct 100%. Nothing good happened out of Vatican II. Sodomites in the priesthood, catholic schools, churches, seminaries, convents closed, the rotten fruit of the council speaks volumes and not even Karl keating could ever spin the rotten fruit into a pie. Absolutley nothing positive is the result of the Council after 40 years. Please don’t quote an encyclical or decree because they all have gone unenforced. Modesty, respect for Gods house, communion to abortionist politicians, nobody accountable. Only reply if you know of something positive. No I am not an SSPXer but so far if you did a compare and contrast they win… This isn’t the first BAD 40 years of the church, this is just another dark age until…

Listen to what the Spirit says: Love and repentence ARE the Keys to the kingdom of Heaven.

 

[JReducation]

LOL. You must be in denial. Didn’t Mortalium Animos specifically forbid Catholics to take part in non-Catholic assemblies (including worship services), while Ut Unum Sint specifically encourages them? Heck, John Paul “the Great” himself not only took part in false protestant worship…he worshiped with people who don’t even worship the one true God, the Blessed Trinity.

Ut Unum Sint does not encourage any Catholic to take part in non Catholic Services. It encourages unity in prayer. An ecumenical prayer service is just that, a prayer service where people of different faiths come to pray. It is neither one nor the other.

Didn’t you see the services on TV when Benedict XVI came to the USA?

Those were not services of other faiths. They were ecumenical. They were prayer services, but very neutral.

Those are not forbidden.

JR

 

[saint_rafael]

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

JR

You need to read that again.

**“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 Ordinary Magisterium is the teachings of Popes.

The teachings of these Popes were written down. It is how our world preserves history.

 

[saint_rafael]

fisheaters.com/101.html

“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”.

From Merriam-Webster:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teaching

Main Entry: **teaching **
Function: noun
Date: 13th century

**2: something taught; especially : doctrine **

 

[saint_rafael]

Ut Unum Sint does not encourage any Catholic to take part in non Catholic Services. It encourages unity in prayer. An ecumenical prayer service is just that, a prayer service where people of different faiths come to pray. It is neither one nor the other.

Didn’t you see the services on TV when Benedict XVI came to the USA?

Those were not services of other faiths. They were ecumenical. They were prayer services, but very neutral.

Those are not forbidden.

JR

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/noncath.htm

“To know whom to avoid is a great means of saving our souls. …] Thus, the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith by corrupting it, such as heretics, or by renouncing it, such as apostates.”
-St. Thomas Aquinas

“Is it permitted for Christians to be present at, or to take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement everyone who, in any way, lays claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! …] It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is only one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ for those who are separated from her.”
-Pope Pius XI

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/wasisi.html

“At Assisi, next October 27, not only will the Catholics gather at Assisi, but also “the representatives of the world’s other religions” will join them in an assembly for peace. Those whom Pope John Paul II has called “the representatives of the other religions” the Church has always more appropriately called infidels. “Broadly speaking, infidels are those who do not possess the true faith; in the strict sense infidels are the unbaptized. They are divided into monotheists (Jews and Moslems), polytheists (Hindus, Buddhists, etc.), and atheists.” What Pope John Paul II has called the “other” religions, the Church has more properly called the false religions. A false religion is any non-Christian religion “in so far as it is not the religion that God revealed and wants to see practiced. Moreover, every non-Catholic Christian sect is false in so far as it neither accepts nor faithfully practices the entire content of Revelation.” This having been said, in light of the Catholic Faith, the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi can be considered tantamount to:”

"an insult to God;

a denial of the universal necessity of Redemption;

a lack of justice and charity towards the infidels;

a danger and a scandal to Catholics; and

a betrayal of the Church’s and Peter’s mission."

We are not supposed to pray with non-Catholics, we pray **for ** them and their conversion.

 

[Dauphin]

We are not supposed to pray with non-Catholics, we pray **for **them and their conversion.

You’ve gotta respect the Russian Orthodox on this point. They seem to be the only Church in the world which understands this. They have a more Catholic position than the Catholic Church - no prayer with heretics.

 

[Tomster]

You’ve gotta respect the Russian Orthodox on this point. They seem to be the only Church in the world which understands this. They have a more Catholic position than the Catholic Church - no prayer with heretics.

Interesting!

As I watched the Holy Father giving the palliums to the archbishops on the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul a few questions came to mind.

1. The Ecumenical Patriarch chanting the Gospel (from Matthew 16 no less, I wonder if it sunk in?) at Mass. Nice sermon from the Holy Father BTW.
2. The noticeable abscence of Bishop Fellay at the Mass. Lets face it, the SSPX have denied the legitimacy of only one ecumenical council while our Orthodox brethren have denied the legitimacy of how many? Not to mention Orthodoxy’s denial of how many Catholic dogmas? I do not recall the SSPX denying those same dogmas. Why wasn’t Fellay given a chair at the high altar next to the Holy Father as was given to the Patriarch?
3. Will our Orthodox brethren be given the same list to sign as the SSPX have been given in order to facilitate reunion?
4. Does ecumenism apply to everyone except the SSPX.

Don’t get me wrong. I’ve never been in an SSPX chapel and do not intend to do so until they reconcile with the Holy Father, but if ecumenism and reunion with the Orthodox is so important (and I believe it is) why not more outreach to the SSPX. The Holy Father could have celebrated the Tridentine Mass yesterday as a gesture of unity.

 

[Auntie_M]

I would like to see some proof to your claim of “same people - different ‘companies’”. A lot of websites use the same sources, but that doesn’t equate to a Traditionalist Conspiracy of some sort, which you seem to be implying.

Also, please document some of the “hate” which is being spread. I had a beautiful sermon yesterday on Sts. Peter and Paul, and today on the Seven Ages of the Church as revealed by St. John. Very informative and interesting; nothing hateful. You are being very uncharitable to brand the SSPX in that way. By the way, do you attend their Masses?

As I have said MANY times before, I have attended their masses and I HAVE heard these Hate SERMONS. I do not lie nor stretch the truth. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and attended their masses. I will not go back I guarantee you that. I am not labeling them anything that I have not witnessed MYSELF. I cannot “document” a private sermon, surely anyone would know that. Just as we never knew what Obama’s pastor was preaching til it was publiced.

As you said yourself, alot of the websites USE THE SAME SOURCES< duh…

 

[Auntie_M]

Interesting!

As I watched the Holy Father giving the palliums to the archbishops on the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul a few questions came to mind.

1. The Ecumenical Patriarch chanting the Gospel (from Matthew 16 no less, I wonder if it sunk in?) at Mass. Nice sermon from the Holy Father BTW.
2. The noticeable abscence of Bishop Fellay at the Mass. Lets face it, the SSPX have denied the legitimacy of only one ecumenical council while our Orthodox brethren have denied the legitimacy of how many? Not to mention Orthodoxy’s denial of how many Catholic dogmas? I do not recall the SSPX denying those same dogmas. Why wasn’t Fellay given a chair at the high altar next to the Holy Father as was given to the Patriarch?
3. Will our Orthodox brethren be given the same list to sign as the SSPX have been given in order to facilitate reunion?
4. Does ecumenism apply to everyone except the SSPX.

Don’t get me wrong. I’ve never been in an SSPX chapel and do not intend to do so until they reconcile with the Holy Father, but if ecumenism and reunion with the Orthodox is so important (and I believe it is) why not more outreach to the SSPX. The Holy Father could have celebrated the Tridentine Mass yesterday as a gesture of unity.

40 years is not enough???

 

[Auntie_M]

You’ve gotta respect the Russian Orthodox on this point. They seem to be the only Church in the world which understands this. They have a more Catholic position than the Catholic Church - no prayer with heretics.

And just what “heretics” are we talking about here?

 

[Auntie_M]

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/noncath.htm

“To know whom to avoid is a great means of saving our souls. …] Thus, the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith by corrupting it, such as heretics, or by renouncing it, such as apostates.”
-St. Thomas Aquinas

“Is it permitted for Christians to be present at, or to take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement everyone who, in any way, lays claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! …] It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is only one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ for those who are separated from her.”
-Pope Pius XI

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/wasisi.html

“At Assisi, next October 27, not only will the Catholics gather at Assisi, but also “the representatives of the world’s other religions” will join them in an assembly for peace. Those whom Pope John Paul II has called “the representatives of the other religions” the Church has always more appropriately called infidels. “Broadly speaking, infidels are those who do not possess the true faith; in the strict sense infidels are the unbaptized. They are divided into monotheists (Jews and Moslems), polytheists (Hindus, Buddhists, etc.), and atheists.” What Pope John Paul II has called the “other” religions, the Church has more properly called the false religions. A false religion is any non-Christian religion “in so far as it is not the religion that God revealed and wants to see practiced. Moreover, every non-Catholic Christian sect is false in so far as it neither accepts nor faithfully practices the entire content of Revelation.” This having been said, in light of the Catholic Faith, the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi can be considered tantamount to:”

"an insult to God;

a denial of the universal necessity of Redemption;

a lack of justice and charity towards the infidels;

a danger and a scandal to Catholics; and

a betrayal of the Church’s and Peter’s mission."

We are not supposed to pray with non-Catholics, we pray **for ** them and their conversion.

Saint Rafael Have you ever heard the phrase, “you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar”

If there is NO dialogue…
If you call others “infidels”
If you openly tell them they are going to hell…

Statements such as these is definitely using vinegar. We are to be Fishers of men, God will do the cleaning…

 

[Auntie_M]

You’ve gotta respect the Russian Orthodox on this point. They seem to be the only Church in the world which understands this. They have a more Catholic position than the Catholic Church - no prayer with heretics.

And you KNOW that everyone IS praying WITH them, how?
Could it not be a silent prayer FOR them.Judge not lest ye be judged!