Can anyone explain the logic behind the stance of SSPX?

[ethelzguy]

So you are suggesting that the Pope is playing games.

I think the Pope is a wise man, led by the Holy Spirit.

It is completely plausible to consider, that he has chosen to “drop or get off the pot” with this issue, rather than to let it fester for another 3-4 decades.

Neither you nor I know his real intents and purposes. But, he has clearly reached out to the SSPX, rather than just do nothing and let it fester.

Where it goes from here appears to be up to the SSPX.

 

[ethelzguy]

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

Spoken like a true malcontent…one who will never be satisfied and will always criticize, no matter what happens.

But, at least you’re out in the open now.

 

[catharina]

If the SSPX believes that the Catholic Church teaches errors while at the same time they acknowledge that Benedict XVI is a legitimate pope, aren’t they at the same time neglecting the infallibility of the Church? I thought that the biggest difference between Catholicism and protestantism was that as a protestant, you always have to be on your guard about what your Church leaders teaches, but as a Catholic you can always rest assured that the Holy Spirit guides the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him. The infallibility of the Church was what made me want to become a Catholic. How can you be a Catholic if you don’t believe in the infallibility of the Church?

I understand that SSPX are upset with the VII teachings about ecumenism and religious liberty, and think that the Church should stress more that you only can be sure about your salvation if you are a Roman Catholic and a full member of the Catholic Church, is that correct? But what is then really their definition of the Church and being a Catholic? What is the definition of being a Roman Catholic if not being in full communion with - and obeying - the bishop of Rome? Then it would be more consistent to reject the current pope altogether - not that I personally find that very plausible either.

As I see it, you only have these choices:

You accept Benedict XVI as a true pope and obey him - Catholic.
You choose your own pope - Various dissenter groups.
You believe there is no true pope for the moment - Not allowed to discuss on this forum.
You believe there shouldn’t be any pope at all - Protestant.

But where does SSPX really fall in?

In following their excommunicated “leaders,” the sspx seems determined to fall into the abyss.

 

[saint_rafael]

Benedict XVI is threatening to excommunicate a lot of people as heretics, people who hold positions such as yours. Whatever Canon Law says regarding excommunication does not bind the Pope. The Pope is the final interpreter of Canon Law. Canon Law exists at his pleasure, not ours.

Therefore, if he decides to excommunicate as heretics those who take positions such as your own, you’re OK with that?

JR

No one is going to take your silly nonsense seriously.

To be a heretic one has to deny an article of faith, dogma, or doctrine.

Pope Benedict is not going to ex-communicate no one. He has not even ex-communicated Kung, who does not believe in any dogma. The Modernist agenda does no believe in the Papal monarchy of times past.

 

[saint_rafael]

So if infallibility of a doctrine rests on its having always been “accepted” and “taught”, what would happen if a Pope after Vaticann II would exclaim a doctrine ex cathedra? Then, would you accept it?

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.

 

[GerardP]

Hi Gerard. Pope John Paul’s Ecumenical policy is one that is difficult to understand. Read Et Unum Sint if you haven’t. JP is saying any Protestant Church that has even “some” of the truth of the Catholic Faith has never left the church. These churches that are even somewhat in accord with the Catholic Church receive their grace of salvation through the Catholic Church, but not in the full measure as if they were complete members of the Faith.

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.

 

[pnewton]

No one is going to take your silly nonsense seriously.

I take him seriously. Many people here has recognized him as a well-thought our poster. I also take both John Paul II and Benedict XVI seriously, though.

 

[saint_rafael]

I take him seriously. Many people here has recognized him as a well-thought our poster. I also take both John Paul II and Benedict XVI seriously, though.

All I see is an emotion angry response, not anything close to “well thought out”. JR is accusing traditional Catholics of heresy and saying Catholics are going to be ex-communicated even though there is no crime or anything close heresy.

Pathetic.

Both of you need to read the defintion of heresy. To be guilty of heresy, a Catholic needs to hold heresy.

 

[catharina]

All I see is an emotion angry response, not anything close to “well thought out”. JR is accusing traditional Catholics of heresy and saying Catholics are going to be ex-communicated even though there is no crime or anything close heresy.

Pathetic.

Both of you need to read the defintion of heresy. To be guilty of heresy, a Catholic needs to hold heresy.

JR, angry? I’ve never seem him make a post even hinting of anger.
You, on the other hand, seem to revel in rage and personal insults.

Perhaps you view others through rage-tinted glasses?

 

[ethelzguy]

JR, angry? I’ve never seem him make a post even hinting of anger.
You, on the other hand, seem to revel in rage and personal insults.

Perhaps you view others through rage-tinted glasses?

Well, ok, I did read ONE post he made that sounded angry, and wouldn’t ya know it, it was in response to our favorite “saint” of CAF.

Many of us have learned oodles from JR. What have any of us learned from saint rafael?

 

[catharina]

Well, ok, I did read ONE post he made that sounded angry, and wouldn’t ya know it, it was in response to our favorite “saint” of CAF.

Many of us have learned oodles from JR. What have any of us learned from saint rafael?

Hmmmm. I learned from s-r that he left the Church for some time for some reason and then he returned for some reason and now he would teach and redeem all who have never left the Church for any reason. Oh - and he’s pitched his tent among the sspx loyalists, insuring that if they are excommunicated, he will be too. Oh YES, and he’s a very angry young man who seems to believe in his own “naturally superior” wisdom whether in or out of the Church. So far, that’s what I’ve learned from s-r. That covers it.

 

[pnewton]

Hmmmm. I learned from s-r that he left the Church for some time for some reason and then he returned for some reason and now he would teach and redeem all who have never left the Church for any reason.

It couldn’t have been for too long as young as he is. I can not judge. I had some of the same struggle’s growing up, but mine had mostly to do with Calvinists.

 

[catharina]

It couldn’t have been for too long as young as he is. I can not judge. I had some of the same struggle’s growing up, but mine had mostly to do with Calvinists.

I’m only surmising from his own statements.
As for how long, I though he said for “some years.”

 

[laudamus_te]

I’m only surmising from his own statements.
As for how long, I though he said for “some years.”

Mind if I break up this little gossip-fest 'round the water cooler? If you’d both take off your “JPII the Awesomest” glasses, maybe you’d learn something from saint rafael. I will defend his character, even though I do not know him. His posts, to my experience, are always well-spoken, well-informed, unemotional, and without personal attack. Unfortunately, some here feel so threatened by what he says that they must stoop to childish mockery.

elts1956:

Originally Posted by laudamus te:
The world’s Catholic population may be growing (not sure if it still is in relation to general world population growth, since that link you posted is several years old), but what kind of Faith do these Catholics have? Polls reveal that most Catholics are not living very Catholic lives. This is what I mean by losing the Faith. By the way, here’s another interesting link from the Vatican.

Looks like it was printed in Inja. What was the date and this was posted before. Newer info. please.

Do you have something against “Inja?” If you would get past your first prejudiced impression and open your eyes a bit, you would see that it was a Vatican release, and was printed in March, 2008.

 

[catharina]

Mind if I break up this little gossip-fest 'round the water cooler? If you’d both take off your “JPII the Awesomest” glasses, maybe you’d learn something from saint rafael. I will defend his character, even though I do not know him. His posts, to my experience, are always well-spoken, well-informed, unemotional, and without personal attack. Unfortunately, some here feel so threatened by what he says that they must stoop to childish mockery.

Do you have something against “Inja?” If you would get past your first prejudiced impression and open your eyes a bit, you would see that it was a Vatican release, and was printed in March, 2008.

Sorry if you take it personally when people reflect on an idea that disagrees with your own.

 

[saint_rafael]

I am not SSPX, have never been to a SSPX chapel, but I support their defense of traditonal Catholicism. Traditional Catholicism includes all traditionalists who hold the traditional faith. All those who attend the TLM and support restoration in liturgy and doctrine from every part of the Church.

I never left the Church, I just didn’t practice my faith because the Modernism of the last deacades has never given my generation, genuine traditional faith. I grew after after the Vatican II debacle and the new religion.

Had I grown up in the pre-Vatican II I would never would have stayed in the New Mass or followed the novelties.

Thanks to giants like Michael Davies, Michael Matt, Fr. Martin, Fr. Relyea, Dr. Marra, Dr. Rao, John Vennari, and all those in the traditional movement, I have discovered the true faith of the centuries.

Studying Aquinas, Augustine, Pope Pius IX, Pope Pius X, Alphonsus de Liguroi, Vatican I, and Trent, have showed me the infallible teachings and doctrines.

What suprises me are all you Catholics who have been in the Church for decades and knew the pre-Vatican II Church. How is it that all you can be decieved? Why was their no resistance to the errors and novelties? No resistance to the New Mass and the liturgical abuse? No resistance to Modernist bishops?

Weren’t you taught the traditional Catholic faith? How could you have been mislead on the abuses? If you really knew the faith, why put up with teachings that go against the Magisterium?

 

[pnewton]

Mind if I break up this little gossip-fest 'round the water cooler?

I must politely decline your your request. In discussing the logic behind the stance of the SSPX, it is fair game to consider that it may be more than logic that drives the SSPX and its adherents, especially for those of us that consider their logic very flawed.

 

[laudamus_te]

Sorry if you take it personally when people reflect on an idea that disagrees with your own.

I wasn’t taking anything personally, simply defending someone unjustly treated. You weren’t “reflecting” on anything, you were gossiping. What else could this be called:

Oh YES, and he’s a very angry young man who seems to believe in his own “naturally superior” wisdom whether in or out of the Church.

I’d call it catty, judgmental gossip. Sorry if the truth hurts, catharina.

 

[saint_rafael]

I must politely decline your your request. In discussing the logic behind the stance of the SSPX, it is fair game to consider that it may be more than logic that drives the SSPX and its adherents, especially for those of us that consider their logic very flawed.

You are not discussing the SSPX, but having a chat about me in which you guys are dissecting me and using the personal attack.

I have not gone for any of those games of personally insulting a person after I respond their positions on a post.

The logic is not flawed, it is just that many cannot accept it and they disagree and then they attack traditonalists.

Hysterically claiming Catholics are heretics without any proof or definition seems to be deeply flawed.

 

[catharina]

I wasn’t taking anything personally, simply defending someone unjustly treated. You weren’t “reflecting” on anything, you were gossiping. What else could this be called:

I’d call it catty, judgmental gossip. Sorry if the truth hurts, catharina.

You are completely incapable of hurting me. Really.