Can anyone explain the logic behind the stance of SSPX?

[NicPais83]

The Orthodox Church denies Papal Infallibility which is a heresy. The Orthodox started out as schismatic in 1054, and by remaining outside of the Church, have picked up some heresies because they do not believe in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

The Orthodox only hold to those dogmas defined in Councils prior to the schism. Likewise, they do not have the same view of sin that we do. I wouldn’t say that they don’t believe the same things that we believe, but that they have a different understanding, as they hold true what was defined before the schism. As such, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that they deny Papal Infallibility, since that wasn’t defined till the First Vatican Council, and the Immaculate Conception is the 19th Century. In many ways, heretic doesn’t really apply to the Orthodox, since they hold the same faith, but with the Eastern understanding we don’t use.

 

[JReducation]

Well first of all, Pope John Paul II said Vatican II was the same as Nicea, which is ridiculous because Nicea issued the first dogmas on the trinity, condemned Arianism, and was an infallible Council with infallible decrees. Vatican II did not do none of those things.

1. I am not a SSPX member and I believe Pope John XXIII was a Modernist, but he was a valid Pope and got some things right. Why would he lie about his own Council?
2. Pope Paul VI lifted the orginal ex-communication of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054. All Pope Paul VI did was lift the 1054 ex-communication.
   That does not mean the Orthodox Church is no longer schismatic, because they are still outside the Catholic Church.
3. I love and admire Pope Benedict, he did the right thing with the TLM, but I know he is still infected with the liberalism of his youth. He is not perfect, but is a transitional Pope paving the way for the future.

If I examine this post I see a young man who calls the statement of a pope who was not only a holy man, but a very intelligent man and a person with a great deal of ecclesiastical experience “ridiculous.”

I also see a recognition of something that Pope John XXIII said, but no recognition of his beatification. Why not?

The popes agree not to call the Orthodox Churches schismatic, but this poster insists on doing it. This presents us with two Magisteriums, those of the popes and that of San Rafael.

To refer to the pope as “infected” with anything, as if one knew him personally is presumptuous.

This raises the question how does the poster know that Benedict XVI is a transitional pope?

JR

 

[saint_rafael]

You say: “… Pope Benedict, he did the right thing with the TLM, but I know he is still infected with the liberalism of his youth.” I say, may God forgive you. Benedict’s youth was spent in a nation under the total domination of Nazism. His youth concluded with his conscription into the Nazi armed forces. The more you talk, the more you reveal your actual ignorance.

That revelation must be seen as a very good thing.

I was talking about his career as a theologian and the 50’s and 60’s.

He has liberal professors in his seminary.

He was a famous liberal periti at Vatican II when he went around dressed in a suit with his freind Karl Rahner and all the other proponents of the New Theology.

I suggest “Cardinal Rtzinger” which is an excellent book on his life by John L. Allen.

 

[NicPais83]

Well first of all, Pope John Paul II said Vatican II was the same as Nicea, which is ridiculous because Nicea issued the first dogmas on the trinity, condemned Arianism, and was an infallible Council with infallible decrees. Vatican II did not do none of those things.

Both Nicea and the Second Vatican Council are valid Ecumenical Councils. They are the same. You can’t throw the Second Vatican Council out anymore than you can throw out Trent, Nicea, Jerusalem, Florence, any of the Laterans, or any other Council you can name.

Again, your logic is extraordinarily faulty since you seem to be stating that if the Second Vatican Council did not meet your criteria, that it therefore was not guided by the Holy Spirit. You seem to feel that it is a Council that should be disregarded, and when people react, you charge that none of us know any Church history. You cannot prove your point if your logic hinges on no one here being educated in Church history, and trying to prove that the Second Vatican Council was not guided by the Holy Spirit; you’re attempting to prove things to us that you cannot possibly prove.

 

[Jeanette_L]

This raises the question how does the poster know that Benedict XVI is a transitional pope?

JR

It’s that psychic thing they seem to have going on.

They’re counting on things turning out a certain way it seems. Risky business.

 

[NicPais83]

I love and admire Pope Benedict, he did the right thing with the TLM, but I know he is still infected with the liberalism of his youth. He is not perfect, but is a transitional Pope paving the way for the future.

You seem to have a certain amount of knowledge about the future Pope that the rest of us do not have. This is a rather slanderous statement about Pope Benedict XVI. On one hand you claim to love him, yet on another hand you call him “infected.” This reads to me as a way for you to state some justification for you to disagree with him. Pope Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ and is owed much more respect than calling him “infected.” He is owed more respect than to say that he is only a transitional Pope. Unless I am mistaken, he is the present occupier of the Chair of St. Peter, and therefore I would not be running up criteria for him to meet up to, as none of us are in a position of power to do such a thing.

 

[saint_rafael]

Now as far as Pope Benedict being a trasitional Pope, the man is 81. He only has a couple of years left in the Papacy. He even admitted that himself at his election.

I believe in the messages of Fatima and Mary promised a triumph of her Immaculate Heart.

Catholic seers and phrophetic saints have prophesied a coming restoration and glorious epoch.

There is the famous vision of St. Don bosco is which a Pope leads the ship of the Church through dangers guided by the pillars of the Eucharist and Mary.

 

[JReducation]

I was talking about his career as a theologian and the 50’s and 60’s.

He has liberal professors in his seminary.

He was a famous liberal periti at Vatican II when he went around dressed in a suit with his freind Karl Rahner and all the other proponents of the New Theology.

I suggest “Cardinal Rtzinger” which is an excellent book on his life by John L. Allen.

All Northern European secular priests wore suits and ties. The Roman collar was called “Roman” because it was customary in Rome. The only others who wore them were the Anglican clergy and religious brothers.

The Council of Baltimore introduced them in the USA to make American priests look more Anglican, so that they would not be treated with hostility. This was by order of Archbishop Carrol, the first Bishop of the USA.

It was the first time in USA history that religious also stepped out of habit.

The cassock was introduced into the Church by the Jesuits. Even today, Franciscan Cardinals and bishops do not wear the cassock or Roman Collar except for ceremony.

There is not official dress code for secular priests. Only religious have dress codes. Joseph Ratzinger is a secular priest, not a regular priest.

I fail to see how his mode of dress, given the history of his part of Europe and the history of the secular clergy have anything to say to his philosophical views.

In addition, you also said that you admire and respect him. So why target his form of dress?

Why not insist that he dress as a secular priest instead of dressing as a Dominican Prior?

Yes, I did say Dominican Prior. The white papal robe is a modification of the habit of a Dominican Prior. Pius V was a Dominican and he did not want to stop being a friar, so he refused to dress in the red robes of the papacy of his time. He dressed as a Dominican. His successors loved him so much that they adopted the Dominican habit as the official dress of the Pope. They eventually cut the capuche off the cape. The rest remains the same.

Shame on him for dressing as a Dominican religious when he’s really a secular priest.

JR

 

[catharina]

Shame on Bxvi for dressing as a Dominican religious when he’s really a secular priest.

JR

Now you’re cooking up something s-r might salute. A whole new cause for the young master. If only he could add some decades of wisdom to his wild prognostications, some might listen to his rants with an open mind.

No, wait. s-r stands with the excommunicated, schismatic bishops - so probably not.

 

[saint_rafael]

All Northern European secular priests wore suits and ties. The Roman collar was called “Roman” because it was customary in Rome. The only others who wore them were the Anglican clergy and religious brothers.

The Council of Baltimore introduced them in the USA to make American priests look more Anglican, so that they would not be treated with hostility. This was by order of Archbishop Carrol, the first Bishop of the USA.

It was the first time in USA history that religious also stepped out of habit.

The cassock was introduced into the Church by the Jesuits. Even today, Franciscan Cardinals and bishops do not wear the cassock or Roman Collar except for ceremony.

There is not official dress code for secular priests. Only religious have dress codes. Joseph Ratzinger is a secular priest, not a regular priest.

I fail to see how his mode of dress, given the history of his part of Europe and the history of the secular clergy have anything to say to his philosophical views.

In addition, you also said that you admire and respect him. So why target his form of dress?

Why not insist that he dress as a secular priest instead of dressing as a Dominican Prior?

Yes, I did say Dominican Prior. The white papal robe is a modification of the habit of a Dominican Prior. Pius V was a Dominican and he did not want to stop being a friar, so he refused to dress in the red robes of the papacy of his time. He dressed as a Dominican. His successors loved him so much that they adopted the Dominican habit as the official dress of the Pope. They eventually cut the capuche off the cape. The rest remains the same.

Shame on him for dressing as a Dominican religious when he’s really a secular priest.

JR

Before Vatican II there was a sense of the Catholic priest and his separation from other human beings due to his being an alter Christus.

Many secular priests wore cassocks. The cassock had become a familiar dress for any priest. Secular priests may not have had to wear one, but many did.

Nearly every secular priest used to at least wear a Roman collar in this country and many parts of Europe. Historical evidence and everyone alive in the early and middle twentieth century would always see priests in their collars.

Priests should dress like priests and not lay men.

 

[catharina]

Before Vatican II there was a sense of the Catholic priest and his separation from other human beings due to his being an alter Christus.

Many secular priests wore cassocks. The cassock had become a familiar dress for any priest. Secular priests may not have had to wear one, but many did.

Nearly every secular priest used to at least wear a Roman collar in this country and many parts of Europe. Historical evidence and everyone alive in the early and middle twentieth century would always see priests in their collars.

Priests should dress like priests and not lay men.

… and again, s-r has spoken.

 

[saint_rafael]

Both Nicea and the Second Vatican Council are valid Ecumenical Councils. They are the same. You can’t throw the Second Vatican Council out anymore than you can throw out Trent, Nicea, Jerusalem, Florence, any of the Laterans, or any other Council you can name.

I never said that Vatican II was not a Ecumenical Council. It was.

However, Vatican II was the first of its kind. It was an Ecumenical Council different from all the other Ecumenical Councils.

All the other Ecumenical Councils defined dogma and issued infallible dogmatic decrees.

Vatican II was the first and only Ecumenical Council not to issue any dogmatic infallible decree.

Pope Paul VI was clear:
"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966

"The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…`` -Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December, 1965

 

[bobzills]

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?

As I understand it, the SSPX accepts Benedict XVI as the true and lawful Pope of the RCC. However, it believes that various problems in the Church have arisen as a result of Vatican II and therefore intends to resist certain innnovations which have been shown to be harmful to the Catholic faith as it was practiced for almost 2000 years before Vatican II.

 

[saint_rafael]

As I understand it, the SSPX accepts Benedict XVI as the true and lawful Pope of the RCC. However, it believes that various problems in the Church have arisen as a result of Vatican II and therefore intends to resist certain innnovations which have been shown to be harmful to the Catholic faith as it was practiced for almost 2000 years before Vatican II.

 

[laudamus_te]

As I understand it, the SSPX accepts Benedict XVI as the true and lawful Pope of the RCC. However, it believes that various problems in the Church have arisen as a result of Vatican II and therefore intends to resist certain innnovations which have been shown to be harmful to the Catholic faith as it was practiced for almost 2000 years before Vatican II.

I’d say that’s a pretty fair and concise assessment.

 

[catharina]

As I understand it, the SSPX accepts Benedict XVI as the true and lawful Pope of the RCC. However, it believes that various problems in the Church have arisen as a result of Vatican II and therefore intends to resist certain innnovations which have been shown to be harmful to the Catholic faith as it was practiced for almost 2000 years before Vatican II.

The overriding problem for sspx members is that they follow the leadership of bishops who are excommunicated. This alone is sufficient to keep them (the society) in irregular status.

 

[Auntie_M]

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.

What is wrong with clarifying your stance. Can you honestly say one thing in one post and contradict yourself in another.? Is that your stance? example: I am For OR Against such and such depending on which thread I’m on at the time?

You need to be consistant…to be believable

Dear, I really don’t see how this could be construed as harrasment.

 

[Auntie_M]

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.

WOW, I’m impressed, I didn’t realize you could foretell the future.
What a wonderful gift to have.

 

[Auntie_M]

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.

Oh no, if Pope John Paul ll is dead and so is his pontificate…then how can we “obey” ANY DEAD pope.
(I really believe “some” of his pontificate still lives, as does Pius X)
You really have to take the good with the bad. If you have declared one pontificate dead, then by all fairness you have to declare them all. So…then…are we to obey saint rafael since we have NO OTHER to follow. Give me a break

The church is in crisis BECAUSE the SSPX says their in crisis.

 

[Auntie_M]

The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: “If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion”. (Can. 44)

Also, “If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion”. (Can. 63)

So also, in one of her most respected councils, held in the year 398, at which the great St. Augustine was present, she speaks thus: "None must either pray or sing psalms with heretics; and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the Communion of the Church, whether clergyman or laic, let him be excommunicated". (Coun. Carth. iv. 72 and 73)

source:cfnews.org/Hay-Ecu.htm

I have not personally read this. So, let me get it straight, St. Augustine said or the Church * said*. Which is really hard to believe either said cause Jesus told us all to go and preach the gospels to all the ends of the earth"
And since the Bible was put together by the Church, If we are to only “associate” with Catholics, Who was Jesus speaking to?
Can anyone answer this most upsetting question?