Can anyone explain the logic behind the stance of SSPX?

[christisall]

That’s right,and most people(other than those like yourself) believe the pope is John Paul II.

Persons with attitudes like yourself are “infectuous” to the Church.

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.

 

[christisall]

And you, apparently a little “mini-pope” denounce the Church in the gathering of it’s cardinals, where we know the Holy Spirit prevails, reagrdless what you have to say about it.

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

 

[christisall]

Why do you quote the SSPX when they, under the authority of Peter, are not currently part of the Roman Catholic Church, but through their own revbellion, which continues in your arguments, are excommunicated.

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.

 

[christisall]

Absolutely. They have the same theological weight as protestants when it comes to railing against the Church.

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]

The teaching of the Catholic Church has been clear:

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/noncath.htm

Prior Popes have taught we are not supposed to pray with non-Catholics.

Pope Pius XI stated the only valid ecumenism was conversion to the Catholic Church in his encyclical on Christian Unity- catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/reunity.htm

By praying with non-Catholics, we are denying the dogma of no salvation outside the Church because their religion is seen as valid.
Catholics need to pray for non-Catholics so they can be converted.

olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml

"The greatest act of charity that one can perform is to bring others to the truth. The Catholic Faith is a gift from God, one that can be shared, one that gives life and salvation. Mother Church, being solicitous for the welfare of all mankind, has always sought to bring all into the One Fold (John 10:16), and to unite all in the profession of the one Faith given to us by Christ through the Apostles. If She were to hide the truth, or be content to leave others in their error, She would be cruel and indifferent."

Well, saint rafael, you have really spoken truth here. We CANNOT NOT seek to bring others to the fold. When JPII tried reaching out to “others” though, he has been scolded or even perhaps, damned. But wasn’t he actually doing just what you quoted. Just a Pope’s presence is awe inspiring, and he carries that inspiration to others by being WITH them. Not by sitting in his room and only talking to Catholics.

Did you notice how amazed and honored President Bush seemed to be by just being "in his presence?

Now, I have heard,(may not be true, don’t know) that Bush may even be contemplating converting. And this was just by being in the Pople’s presence.

If there is never any dialogue, there will never be any conversions.

 

[ethelzguy]

There is true and false obedience. A Catholic does not obey the Pope when the Pope orders sin or his order would lead someone to deny the Catholic faith.

Please show where Pope John Paul II ordered sin (as defined by Catholic teaching, not your personal opinion).

 

[ethelzguy]

You are proclaiming to be more faithful than others?
How corny, how narrow minded, and what grave error to believe the pope is God…that is not Catholic, that is foolish.

cfnews.org/MarraPop.htm

And once again, when backed into a corner, the piouswoman trots out her “papolatry” defense/attack mechanism.

 

[ethelzguy]

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

Thus the error of his ways. He is assuming facts not yet in evidence, yet apparently entrusts his soul to such speculation.

Perhaps he could also share with us, this week’s winning lotto numbers?

 

[Auntie_M]

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.

Wow, look at what I highlighted. That is a VERY good point s-r.
So BEFORE Vatican II, the Pope was sensed to be an alter Christus.

And you all say that “Tradition” must be upheld, right.

Was it “tradition” to argue with Christ? Only the pagans, “argued” with Christ and they eventually “WON” out and got Him killed.

 

[Auntie_M]

To saint rafael…

My dear, you have shown (and spoken) of your youth. As in all younger people, they are off to “Change” the world. Not your fault, you’re just young, you’ll learn.

Wisdom comes with age, our Pope is 81, don’t you think he may have gotten a little wisdom through the ages. He has seen and learned more than all of us here put together. If he says Vatican II is valid, that should be good enough for all.

All the bishops of the SSPX will gain wisdom if they live long enough. Just as Luther did in his old age.

“Build your house on sand and it will not last, better to build it on the rock” ( the Rock of Peter)

 

[Auntie_M]

Thus the error of his ways. He is assuming facts not yet in evidence, yet apparently entrusts his soul to such speculation.

Perhaps he could also share with us, this week’s winning lotto numbers?

Please, count me in on those lotto numbers! lol

 

[laudamus_te]

"laudamus te:

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.

What, are you in cahoots with catharina? Or maybe you are one and the same person?

I feel like I’m in some kind of bad dream here! What did I say that was in contradiction to myself?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

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

My friend, so is levelling charges like “bishops have lost the faith” without providing a) any source material to back it up or b) any qualifications to account for the obvious fact that not all bishops fit into your little box.

Are there bishops who allow liturgical abuses? Yes.

Are there bishops who protect pedophile priests? Yes.

Are there bishops who espouse heretical interpretations of Scripture? I suppose so.

Have the bishops together (as the body of the Magisterium) attempted to doctrinalize any of these issues? No. They are administrative snafus and personal moral failings; they are not attempts to change the teaching of the Church.

Most importantly, however, you are painting all bishops with the same brush, and that’s not only poor logic, it’s false witness.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Auntie_M]

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.

This analogy, ( I just love analogies)

I accept that my father and mother are just that. Although, I was too little to recognize them as so when I first came into the world. I just have to believe they were who they said.

Now, father and mother, tell me to do something one way (cause they have authority and wisdom of age). But I DON"T WANT TO

Rebellion rebellion rebellion

So I go off and “do it my way” and later learn that they were right all along. What a perfect waste of time. Re-inventing ANY wheel is so last century…

 

[Auntie_M]

Dear laudemus

I assure you I am not catharina. I am who I say I am, Auntie M.

I just happen to see her point of view and her logic as well stated.

No, I don’t think anyone is “ganging” up on anyone.

 

[ethelzguy]

This analogy, ( I just love analogies)

I accept that my father and mother are just that. Although, I was too little to recognize them as so when I first came into the world. I just have to believe they were who they said.

Now, father and mother, tell me to do something one way (cause they have authority and wisdom of age). But I DON"T WANT TO

Rebellion rebellion rebellion

So I go off and “do it my way” and later learn that they were right all along. What a perfect waste of time. Re-inventing ANY wheel is so last century…

It seems to me, that this whole SSPX thing is just another form of Protestantism…“we disagree with the Church, so we’re going off and doing what WE think is right”…sound familiar?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

It seems to me, that this whole SSPX thing is just another form of Protestantism…“we disagree with the Church, so we’re going off and doing what WE think is right”…sound familiar?

It may seem that way, but the truth is that the SSPX is saying “We refuse to accept teachings that have been formally condemned by the Church”.

But the worst part of all - and this is the real problem right now - the SSPX is saying “not only do we refuse to accept teachings that have been formally condemned, but we are going to speak out against these error”. That is the actually sticking point right now. Rome doesn’t like the SSPX speaking out. If they would simply keep the faith, but remain somewhat silent about the errors (like the FSSP does), all would be well.

In case you are wondering, a few of the errors that the SSPX refuses to accept are religious liberty, which has been condemned many times, and false ecumenims, as was practiced by John Paul II and now our new Pope. The false ecumenism seeks unity at the cost of truth. For example, on Sunday Pope Benedict omitted the filioque when reciting the Creed with the heretics from the Orhtodox Church.

In case you are not familiar with it, the heretical Orthodox reject that dogma of the faith, whcih was defined at the Councils of Florence and Lyons.

Omitting the filioque is false ecumenism is action. Deny, or water down the truth, in order to not offend the heretic. This way, there can eventually be “unity”. The Catholic Church stops defending the truth, and instead implicitly (or explicitly) denies it for the sake of unity.

These lovers of men have inverted the order and place unity at the top to the exclusion of truth. When, in reality, unity is only attained when their is unity of belief. They may attain unity with man, but it will not be in union with God because denying the truth separates them from God… and those who have a duty to defend the truth will pay a very heavy price on judgment day.

Let us pray that they discover their error before it is too late.

 

[pnewton]

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.

In this statement we have the basic problem most have with the SSPX’s logic. They accept the Holy Father, but usrurp his authority. They compound their problems by piling insult and disobedience upon their rebellion. Perhaps it would be easier for us to understand if they would explain what they think being a Pope means, if anything other than the clothes he wears.

Those that point out the contradiction here have been labeled with papalolatry. This type of rhetoric does nothing but show that the ones using such labels are clueless to the issues involved.
*

 

[pnewton]

It may seem that way, but the truth is that the SSPX is saying “We refuse to accept teachings that have been formally condemned by the Church”.

But the worst part of all - and this is the real problem right now - the SSPX is saying “not only do we refuse to accept teachings that have been formally condemned, but we are going to speak out against these error”. That is the actually sticking point right now. Rome doesn’t like the SSPX speaking out. If they would simply keep the faith, but remain somewhat silent about the errors (like the FSSP does), all would be well.

No, Rome does not agree that all the SSPX claims as error are, in fact errors. It is the interpretation of these doctrines and their application in the world today that is a point of disagreement. For example, a document about salvation outside of the church issued in a land and time when the Catholic Church ruled would vary from one five centuries post-reformation. Why? The Church can not address isssues which not only hadn’t occurred, but were completely unfathomable.

Today we as laity are debating this here. This is a development that could not even be dreamed of one century ago, or even at the time of VII. So who is the Magisterium of the Church today? Who considers all of Church Tradition and determines that which was doctrine and that which is application of doctrine. It is decidely not a couple of ex-communicated bishops.

Denying that the Holy Father is the chief Magister of the Church and uspurping that position is the heresy that has been warned of from Rome.

 

[ethelzguy]

Those that point out the contradiction here have been labeled with papalolatry. This type of rhetoric does nothing but show that the ones using such labels are clueless to the issues involved.

“Papolotry” is the new buzzword in the last few days, as it appears that the SSPX may have it’s back against the wall. Pope Benedict does not appear to be content to sit back and let this issue fester. It appears that he is moving toward taking action, one way or the other…reunion with Rome, or declaration of heresy/schism.

The cry of “papolotry” will be their next flag to bear, when things don’t go as they like.