Can anyone explain the logic behind the stance of SSPX?

[Auntie_M]

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.

Let me first say “Welcome home”. I am very proud your eyes have been opened, let’s pray that others’ will be also, very soon.

(Incidently, I love your ‘saying’ in red)

 

[Ahlman]

Why wasn’t Fellay given a chair at the high altar next to the Holy Father as was given to the Patriarch?

1. The Patriarch of Constantinople hasn’t personally commited any schismatic act, since he was baptized an orthodox christian. Bishop Fellay & Co personally and deliberately chose to disobey the late pope despite warnings and commited a schismatic act when they were ordained bishops.
2. The Patriarch of Constantinople is a (sort of) spiritual leader for 250-300 million Eastern Orthodox christians. I am not sure about the numbers of SSPX adherers, but they are in any way considerably less, which makes them less significant when it comes to ecumenism (by the way, isn’t SSPX against ecumenism?).
3. The Patriarch of Constantinople expresses a way more charitable attitude towards the pope than any of the SSPX bishops, probably much because of 1. above.

 

[Auntie_M]

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

I vote for a medal for JR

 

[Auntie_M]

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.

Honey, I think you need to read ALOT OF Catholic History books and even the Bible for that matter. There are references to homsexuality, sodomy and the like right there in Biblical times. Did Vatican II cause that also? You can only say that the SSPX has been right 100% of the time IF you ONLY read their propaganda.

 

[laudamus_te]

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.

So, if I say that the NO must be avoided because a priest gave a heretical sermon, you will be OK with that? Because one or two priests in my personal experience makes it true of ALL.

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

Right, and your argument is…? This proves that they are all run by the same people?

 

[laudamus_te]

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

Oh, that’s rich Auntie M! Perhaps you should take your own advice!

 

[saint_rafael]

1. The Patriarch of Constantinople hasn’t personally commited any schismatic act, since he was baptized an orthodox christian. Bishop Fellay & Co personally and deliberately chose to disobey the late pope despite warnings and commited a schismatic act when they were ordained bishops.

That is absurd.

The Orthodox religion is a schismatic religion by defintion. The Orthodox Church rejects the primacy of Peter as Supreme Pontiff and universal leader of the Church.

The Patriarch of Constantinople is a schismatic who has not abandoned his error. He has reached the age of reason and is a learned man. He is outside the one true Church.

Bishop Lefebvre had a valid doctrinal case in a “state of necessity”. The Church has ignored it.
Disobedience is just that, disobedience. One still remains a Catholic.

For the schismatics, of the Orthodox Church, there is no salvation outside of Catholicism.

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

This strikes me as very close to the Fundamentalist line of thinking. They look at the Bible as self-explanatory. I think you’d be hard pressed to find an average Catholic read through the documents from the Council of Trent and not have any questions about what it means!

 

[catharina]

Oh, that’s rich Auntie M! Perhaps you should take your own advice!

laudamus te has clarified his thinking on another thread. it helps to know such things.

"Today, 12:40 pm  
laudamus te  
Senior Member   Join Date: May 30, 2007
Posts: 632  
 
 Re: SSPX Could Return This Week - Agreement With Rome Near 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by catharina  to laudamus te:

That is, you're saying: 
'I will say, however, that I have all faith and confidence in EXCOMMUNICATED Bishop Fellay.' 

~~~~~~

"Yes." (said laudamus te.)
 
______________________________________




Now that's enlightening.

 

[PrayforMallory]

No one is going to read the latest developments?

And by the way, Fr. Z is NOT SSPX.

 

[ethelzguy]

saint rafael;:

Bishop Lefebvre had a valid doctrinal case in a “state of necessity”. The Church has ignored it.
Disobedience is just that, disobedience. One still remains a Catholic.

Lefebvre ignored the Pope, as the Church deemed there to be no “state of necessity”. Thus, he was excommunicated for his disobedience.

Rattle on all you like. The fact remains that Rome is in charge here…not Lefebvre, not Fellay, not Williamson, not saint rafael.

 

[saint_rafael]

Lefebvre ignored the Pope, as the Church deemed there to be no “state of necessity”. Thus, he was excommunicated for his disobedience.

Rattle on all you like. The fact remains that Rome is in charge here…not Lefebvre, not Fellay, not Williamson, not saint rafael.

Pope John Paul II is dead and so is his pontificate.

Had Ratzinger been the Pope at the time, there might have been a different outcome.

The negotiations between Rome and SSPX are continuing.

The SSPX had a valid case. The Church is in crisis and Modernism. Time will vindicate Lefebvre. The road is being paved for future Popes of Catholic tradition.

 

[saint_rafael]

This strikes me as very close to the Fundamentalist line of thinking. They look at the Bible as self-explanatory. I think you’d be hard pressed to find an average Catholic read through the documents from the Council of Trent and not have any questions about what it means!

Most of the Bible is self-explanatory, but in certain passages and especially the Apocalypse of John, you need the infallible Church to interpret difficult parts of the Bible. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and put it together.

The Canons of Trent are clear and precise. There is no ambiguity.

There is nothing unclear about its definitions and anathemas sit.

 

[ethelzguy]

Had Ratzinger been the Pope at the time, there might have been a different outcome.

The SSPX had a valid case. The Church is in crisis and Modernism. Time will vindicate Lefebvre. The road is being paved for future Popes of Catholic tradition.

Rattle :knight2:

Rattle :knight2:

Rattle :knight2:

Coulda, woulda, shoulda…The facts are what they are. The SSPX is in irregular standing, Rome is in charge…I’ll take John Paul II’s opinion over saint rafael.

 

[saint_rafael]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda…The facts are what they are. The SSPX is in irregular standing, Rome is in charge…I’ll take John Paul II’s opinion over saint rafael.

That is why a future Pope will rebuke the actions of Pope John Paul II.

No one is denying that they are in a irregular standing. They do not have proper Canonical regularization. What they are not is in schism. There is no schism.

They are faithful Catholics, inside the Catholic Church, that should be regularized one day.

 

[laudamus_te]

laudamus te has clarified his thinking on another thread. it helps to know such things.

"Today, 12:40 pm  
laudamus te  
Senior Member   Join Date: May 30, 2007
Posts: 632  
 
 Re: SSPX Could Return This Week - Agreement With Rome Near 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by catharina  to laudamus te:

That is, you're saying: 
'I will say, however, that I have all faith and confidence in EXCOMMUNICATED Bishop Fellay.' 

~~~~~~

"Yes." (said laudamus te.)
 
______________________________________




Now that's enlightening.

First of, catharina, I’m a she, not a he. And why do feel the need to drag my posts from one thread to another? Do you have some sort of strange vendetta against me? Please leave me alone, you’re kind of creeping me out.

 

[catharina]

That is why a future Pope will rebuke the actions of Pope John Paul II.

No one is denying that they are in a irregular standing. They do not have proper Canonical regularization. What they are not is in schism. There is no schism.

They are faithful Catholics, inside the Catholic Church, that should be regularized one day.

To s-r and all of your buddies (male and female):

There can be no doubt that sspx LEADERSHIP, excommunicated priests, are in schism.
Do you imagine that sspx is following any one - other than their own leaders (like Fellay)?

 

[catharina]

First of, catharina, I’m a she, not a he. And why do feel the need to drag my posts from one thread to another? Do you have some sort of strange vendetta against me? Please leave me alone, you’re kind of creeping me out.

Sorry if you feel creepy. Can’t imagine that has anything to do with me.
Why not thank me for clarifying your stance (with your own words)?

 

[saint_rafael]

To s-r and all of your buddies (male and female):

There can be no doubt that sspx LEADERSHIP, excommunicated priests, are in schism.
Do you imagine that sspx is following any one - other than their own leaders (like Fellay)?

SSPX priests are not ex-coomunicated. The SSPX priests are loyal to the Holy Father. They pray for him and have pictures of him in their chapels.

The four bishops of the SSPX have been ex-coomunicated, but traditionals Catholics understand that those ex-communications were unjust.

A future Pope will make the ex-communications VOID.

 

[laudamus_te]

Sorry if you feel creepy. Can’t imagine that has anything to do with me.
Why not thank me for clarifying your stance (with your own words)?

You really are acting strangely, catharina. I haven’t the slightest clue what you meant by copying one of my posts from another thread onto this one, and appending it to a response I made to Auntie M. I suggest you refrain from harassing me further.