Can anyone explain the logic behind the stance of SSPX?

[Pax_et_Caritas]

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.

That makes no sense. The Church defined that pagans (those who have never heard the truth), heretics, (those who who reject the truth), Jews (we know who they are), and schismtatics (those who have the same faith but reject the primacy of the Pope), will go to hell.

Pagans, infidels, heretics, Schismatics and Jews still exist today, and as such the teaching still applies. In fact, if there was ever an excuse for these people (invincible ignorance), it would have been in those days when most people could not read, and those who could were unable to afford books.

No salvation outside the Church has not changed, nor will it ever change. If you interpret Vatican II to mean something different than what the Church has defined di fide, you are misinterpreting it.

When you read Vatican II and the new Catechism carefully, they actually don’t contradict what the Church teaches… it just appears that they do.

 

[pnewton]

That makes no sense.

Then perhaps therein lies the problem. The issues you addressed I did not even cover. If you took from my post that I deny the understanding of no salvation outside the Church that you described, then it shows how easily things can be misunderstood. I totally agree with the CCC on the subject.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Then perhaps therein lies the problem. The issues you addressed I did not even cover. If you took from my post that I deny the understanding of no salvation outside the Church that you described, then it shows how easily things can be misunderstood. I totally agree with the CCC on the subject.

What made no sense is this:

Pnewton:

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.

The truth is not dependent on circumstances. Circumstances can change the degree of guilt, but not the truth.

 

[bobzills]

That makes no sense. The Church defined that pagans (those who have never heard the truth), heretics, (those who who reject the truth), Jews (we know who they are), and schismtatics (those who have the same faith but reject the primacy of the Pope), will go to hell.

Pagans, infidels, heretics, Schismatics and Jews still exist today, and as such the teaching still applies. In fact, if there was ever an excuse for these people (invincible ignorance), it would have been in those days when most people could not read, and those who could were unable to afford books.

No salvation outside the Church has not changed, nor will it ever change. .

From what I have read, this teaching has changed so that Lutherans, Jews, Muslims and Hindus can be saved even though they do not belong to the RCC.

 

[consumedconvert]

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.

The oldest Priest in the world is, as I recall, 111 years old.

May Our Holy Father Benedict surpass him in years.

 

[catharina]

The oldest Priest in the world is, as I recall, 111 years old.

May Our Holy Father Benedict surpass him in years.

The last Pope who was labelled “transistional” at the time of his election?

Pope John XXIII.

Man proposes. God diposes.

 

[consumedconvert]

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.

In the case of Lefebvre, the actions of Pope John Paul II were unjust and will be corrected bby the Church. God is the one who judges the soul of a man.

Under your erroneous thinking, St. Joan of Arc would not be a saint and would be in hell because she died ex-communicated.

I do not deny that an excommunicated person may go to Heaven. My point is not that Archbishop Lefebvre is damned; God forbid! I don’t believe that. God knows his fate, not I. May he walk on streets of gold. God’s mercy is great, and as I have posted before, there may be reason to believe he was not fully culpable for his actions. Indeed, God is the one who judges the souls of men.

BUT-- If you hold so ardently that all men must be subject to the Pope for Salvation–and if you equate being “Subject” with “obedience”–then how could any excommunicated SSPX Bishop have any hope whatsoever of eternal salvation?

THink long and hard about this one. St. Joan died a faithful daughter of the HOly Father–in fact, had appealed to him but was illegally denied her appeal by the local Bishops. So you can’t use St. Joan.

Can you refute this argument? You must either admit that some who are not obedient to the Pope have the possibility of Salvation (a belief which you have previously condemned as error), or you must admit that there is no possibility of an excommunicated Bishop going to Heaven.

 

[consumedconvert]

We will see in a couple of years who is right.

Indeed.

Thought to the attentive, it is already evident.

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you there. I can guarantee you that if I showed my mother (a lifelong Catholic of 61 years) the documents of Trent, she would have a lot of questions about what it means. I encourage you to put this theory to the test. Ask ten random people after Mass to read through the documents of Trent and ask them to summarize what it means. Then compare the responses and see what you get.

You still need to address the question that Fundamentalists also need to address. If the Bible or the magisterial documents “speak for themselves” as you claim, why is there such disagreement over what some of them mean? For example, you and JR have disagreed over what some of the statements of past popes say in regards to ecumenical prayer services. So, either the documents need the current Magisterium (pope and bishops) to correctly interpret them, or else either you or JR are unusually dense and cannot see the clear meaning. Which is it?

Since I think it’s safe to assume that none of us here are psychic, I would think that one would consider it much safer to remain firmly in line with the Vicar of Christ than follow leaders who have been excommunicated, all in hopes that some day someone may rethink things and possibly declair a whole slew of popes in error.

Reason would tell us there certainly is no guarentee this will ever happen, on the contrary, most likely will never ever happen. And yet, a lot of people are placing a lot of faith on the assumption of such a thing. Does anyone here really think this is smart?

I’d personally never take that kind of a chance.

Amen! I can’t understand why we should place all our expectations on some future event that none of us can possibly be certain will occur.

 

[consumedconvert]

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

I believe you have a mistakend idea of faithfulness.

Faithfulness is obedience.

A practicing Catholic is more Faithful to the Pope than a non-Catholic.

A practising Catholic who uses NFP is also more Faithful to the Pope than a Baptised Catholic who uses birth control, because he adheres to the Pope’s doctrines.

A Catholic who obeys the Pope is more faithful than a Catholic who does not obey the Pope.

That is not pride, that is logic. Call it Papolatry if you like, I have many Protestant friends who would call it that.

 

[consumedconvert]

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.

Indeed, I’m sure the Apostles wore collars.

You really don’t get the whole “Local custom” thing, do you?

 

[catharina]

I believe you have a mistakend idea of faithfulness.

Faithfulness is obedience.

A practicing Catholic is more Faithful to the Pope than a non-Catholic.

A practising Catholic who uses NFP is also more Faithful to the Pope than a Baptised Catholic who uses birth control, because he adheres to the Pope’s doctrines.

A Catholic who obeys the Pope is more faithful than a Catholic who does not obey the Pope.

That is not pride, that is logic. Call it Papolatry if you like, I have many Protestant friends who would call it that.

It should be obvious, huh?

A number of folks following this thread - and I include myself - were raised to adulthood in the Church prior to the publication and implementation of any documents containing the teachings of Vatican II. To say that the actions of a few conservative bishops breaking with the authority of the Church, reviling and disobeying the Holy Father is STUNNING is to make an under-statement. While a youth like s-r might not grasp this, what is the excuse of his elders who give support and applause to excommunicated “leaders?”

 

[laudamus_te]

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.

Answer my question. What did I say to contradict myself?

 

[catharina]

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?

When one is overtaken by a sense of paranoia, it can be difficult for others to answer him/her.

Cahoots? One and the same person?

Perhaps you should take a little break.
Perhaps you should call your doctor?

 

[Tomster]

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.

That’s really good news. When can we expect the Patriarch and his followers to submit to the Holy Father and to all of the dogmas of faith?

 

[laudamus_te]

When one is overtaken by a sense of paranoia, it can be difficult for others to answer him/her.

Cahoots? One and the same person?

Perhaps you should take a little break.
Perhaps you should call your doctor?

Perhaps you and/or your friend Auntie M can answer my question? Or is because you can’t? I’m not letting either of you off the hook on this one. Either you can answer the question, or you can explain to a moderator.

 

[catharina]

Perhaps you and/or your friend Auntie M can answer my question? Or is because you can’t? I’m not letting either of you off the hook on this one. Either you can answer the question, or you can explain to a moderator.

You’ve presented no question to me - yet now you’re threatening me?
You brought my name into an unrelated exchange with another poster.
Now you’re making demands of me. Nice try, I guess.
Talk about a need for a moderator.

 

[laudamus_te]

You’ve presented no question to me - yet now you’re threatening me?
You brought my name into an unrelated exchange with another poster.
Now you’re making demands of me. Nice try, I guess.
Talk about a need for a moderator.

I guess I’ve gotten confused as to who I asked, because you are both coming at me at once. And how am I threatening you? That’s a bit melodramatic. Do you consider talking to a moderator a threat?

No, I brought your name into a RELATED exchange on the SAME thread. You brought my name into an unrelated exchange with another poster on a DIFFERENT thread.

I’m tired of your snarky remarks and mind games. I’ll spare the rest of the forum any more of this nonsense. If you have anything else to say to me, please PM me or go to a moderator.

 

[ethelzguy]

Can you refute this argument? You must either admit that some who are not obedient to the Pope have the possibility of Salvation (a belief which you have previously condemned as error), or you must admit that there is no possibility of an excommunicated Bishop going to Heaven.

Or, convince us that someone who is already in Hell can be retracted and sent to Heaven?

 

[saint_rafael]

Can you refute this argument? You must either admit that some who are not obedient to the Pope have the possibility of Salvation (a belief which you have previously condemned as error), or you must admit that there is no possibility of an excommunicated Bishop going to Heaven.

We are called to obey God and follow the Catholic faith first. Lefebvre disobeyed Pope John Paul, but so what?

Lefebvre did it for the Church and the Catholic faith. God knows that and he is in heaven.

Someone who disobeys the Pope and any Church authority can be a saint.

The reason is that the clergy are human beings and as human beings they can be wicked, they can be in error, and they can make mistakes.

You attribute to the Popes divinity, which is a heresy.

If you knew your faith or history you would know we had heretics in the Papacy like Pope Honorius, we had fornicators in which many Popes had illegitimate children.

The error of Pope John Paul II was that he did not govern the Church at all. Lefebvre knew Pope John Paul II was not going to do a single thing about the Modernist bishops. The Chuch was collapsing under Pope John Paul’s watch.