Can anyone explain the logic behind the stance of SSPX?

[saint_rafael]

How can one reject obedience to the Pope and not reject the Papacy? “I recognize you as head of the Church, but I will not obey you!” Yowza. That’s more like an Orthodox understanding as the Patriarch of Rome as the “First Among Equals”.

Disobedience is just that diobedience. Refusing the request of a superior. That is not schismatic and not heretical.

Rejecting the Papacy means saiying the the Pope has no lawful authority and rejecting the the dogma of Petrine primacy. It means rejecting the office of Pope entirely.

Lefebvre alway knew Pope John Paul had lawful authority, but he chose to disobey in favor of defending the Catholic faitth.

Use your reason.
If I disobey my father’s request to clean my room, all that is, is disobedience. I have not said this man is no longer my father. He is not my biological father so therfore I will leave the house.

 

[consumedconvert]

Disobedience is just that diobedience. Refusing the request of a superior. That is not schismatic and not heretical.

Rejecting the Papacy means saiying the the Pope has no lawful authority and the the dogma of Petrine primacy.

Lefebvre alway knew Pope John Paul had lawful authority, but he chose to disobey in favor of defending the Catholic faitth.

Use your reason.
If I disobey my father’s request to clean my room, all that is, is disobedience. I have not said this man is no longer my father. He is not my biological father so therfore I will leave the house.

Unless of course your father said that if you do not clean your room, he will kick you out of your house. Then, because you did not clean your room, you find yourself outside of your house.

 

[catharina]

I would also appeal to you that it is a frightful thing to confess your sins to a priest whose faculties to absolve sins have been suspended. Worse than useless. You might as well confess to an Episcopal Vicar.

Does that not frighten you?

to an Episcopal Vicar? More likely to any man on the street who is known to be mired in sin.

The fear of the Lord? It’s the beginning of wisdom.
Without it, no wisdom.

 

[saint_rafael]

A man of my meager age (25) or younger has audacity to correct the Holy Father. Someday, I think, you will find you have wasted a good deal of time and emotion on an organization that preaches multiple errors and has no true allegience to the Vicar of Christ. You will find that you have followed the wrong “magisterium.”

When that happens, I pray you run to the nearest Priest and find a warm embrace, back in the bosom of the Church.

Where Peter is, there is the Church.

Explain to me how the previous 264 Popes are not the Magisterium?

Are all the Popes before Vatican II not the Magisterium?

Was there no infallible dogmas and doctrines before Vatican II?

Was there no Church before the Papacies of Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI?

 

[catharina]

Disobedience is just that diobedience. Refusing the request of a superior. That is not schismatic and not heretical.

Rejecting the Papacy means saiying the the Pope has no lawful authority and rejecting the the dogma of Petrine primacy. It means rejecting the office of Pope entirely.

Lefebvre alway knew Pope John Paul had lawful authority, but he chose to disobey in favor of defending the Catholic faitth.

Use your reason.
If I disobey my father’s request to clean my room, all that is, is disobedience. I have not said this man is no longer my father. He is not my biological father so therfore I will leave the house.

We prove our right to stay in Peter’s house with obedience to the chair of Peter.

To pretend that the Pope made a “request,”
to pretend that M. Lefebvre refused a “request:”

ODIOUS.

Your father is stuck with you.
The chair of Peter is protected by Canon Law.

 

[laudamus_te]

I am finding it more and more ironic that those who insist that (1) the greatest “error” of the Church is denying that outside the Church there is no Salvation (which She does not)…

The Church since VII has not denied, per se, the infallible dogma of Salvation, because she cannot. But the Church since VII, and because of the purposefully ambiguous documents of that council, has succeeded in transmitting the impression that it is denied.

You follow Bishops who have been excommunicated from the Church, by the Pope. You flirt with being outside the Church. One must also ask whether your defence of the SSPX here does not cross the line of “Formal Adherence” and incur excommunication for yourselves. Of course, I am not certain of this.

I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, as handed down by the Apostles and reinforced through nearly 2,000 years of Tradition. I defend no one but Jesus Christ. And no, you have no way whatsoever of knowing the state of my soul or whether I have personally “crossed the line.” I do not presume to tell you how to live your Catholic Faith; please refrain from telling me how to do so.

 

[Joe_5859]

It’s a shame that your prejudice prevents you from reading the entire article. It’s very enlightening. But since you didn’t read it, you are unqualified to comment on it.

My prejudice? That’s a new one. I don’t think I’ve been accused of that before, but then I usually hang out around the Apologetics and Popular Media sub-forums.

Someone begins an article with insinuations that, because people emotionally responded to his death, he wasn’t a good teacher. This is followed immediately by claims that no one lauded JPII for his fidelity to Catholic teaching (a claim that is patently untrue and demonstrably false). Not to mention the self-contradiction (he’s appealing to emotion in order to criticize emotion). Forgive me, but he just disproved my initial presumption that he was a credible source for reliable information.

But, how can you reach such a conclusion if you didn’t read the article?

Well, any writer worth their salt knows that their hypothesis goes in their introduction. Therefore, in reading the introduction, you should be able to get a good idea of the rest of the article.

Maybe you’re right and he redeems himself with the rest of the article (doubtful, but still possible). Even so, my comments still apply to the opening section where he draws illogical conclusions based on his own presuppositions and limited experience. If you want to disregard my comments, go right ahead. I still think I made some pretty good points, but then I’m prone to self-congratulations (well, really I’m not, that was just my attempt at humor ).

 

[saint_rafael]

Unless of course your father said that if you do not clean your room, he will kick you out of your house. Then, because you did not clean your room, you find yourself outside of your house.

Is that just? of coarse not. A father who kicks out a son depriving him of security, food, and shelter for not cleaning his room would be seen as a horrible father and a monster by other men.

The ex-communications of Pope John Paul II were unjust and will be corrected.

 

[consumedconvert]

Is that just? of coarse not. A father who kicks out a son depriving him of security, food, and shelter for not cleaning his room would be seen as a horrible father and a monster by other men.

The ex-communications of Pope John Paul II were unjust and will be corrected.

Unless of course the son kicked out was guilty of a much much more serious crime.

Yet whatever his crime, if he has been kicked out, he is outside the house.

 

[consumedconvert]

I repeat myself, for fear what I said got lost in the shuffle. I am very interested in the answer to this question.

I would also appeal to you that it is a frightful thing to confess your sins to a priest whose faculties to absolve sins have been suspended. Worse than useless. You might as well confess to an Episcopal Vicar.

Does that not frighten you?

It would terrify me.

 

[saint_rafael]

Unless of course the son kicked out was guilty of a much much more serious crime.

Yet whatever his crime, if he has been kicked out, he is outside the house.

And yet the SSPX are inside the Church continuing to observe the traditional Catholic faith.

The ex-communicate bishops will be vindicated and knowing that one day the Church will have the courage to admit that the ex-communications were invalid.

 

[catharina]

And yet the SSPX are inside the Church continuing to observe the traditional Catholic faith.

The ex-communicate bishops will be vindicated and knowing that one day the Church will have the courage to admit that the ex-communications were invalid.

The excommunicated bishops are OUTSIDE the Church.
(Welcome to today’s reality.)

Now I await your answer to consumedconvert’s excellent question:

"I repeat myself, for fear what I said got lost in the shuffle. I am very interested in the answer to this question.

I would also appeal to you that it is a frightful thing to confess your sins to a priest whose faculties to absolve sins have been suspended. Worse than useless. You might as well confess to an Episcopal Vicar.

Does that not frighten you?

It would terrify me.?

 

[saint_rafael]

I repeat myself, for fear what I said got lost in the shuffle. I am very interested in the answer to this question.

I would also appeal to you that it is a frightful thing to confess your sins to a priest whose faculties to absolve sins have been suspended. Worse than useless. You might as well confess to an Episcopal Vicar.

Does that not frighten you?

It would terrify me.

No it does not because SSPX Confessions are valid.

John Salza, a Catholic apologist, makes the canonical case that the SSPX can hear Confessions. He offers a point/conterpoint to Jimmy Akin’s arguments:

catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sspxconfessions.pdf

I myself am not a member of the SSPX. I have my Confessions heard by the many priests of my diocese.

I would have no problem having an SSPX priest hear my Confession if I needed to make one and if I was in the presense of an SSPX priest.

 

[ethelzguy]

Is that just? of coarse not. A father who kicks out a son depriving him of security, food, and shelter for not cleaning his room would be seen as a horrible father and a monster by other men.

Funny, it looks like the same kind of discipline you would espouse, based on your prior posts on other threads.

The ex-communications of Pope John Paul II were unjust and will be corrected.

and…The ex-communicate bishops will be vindicated and knowing that one day the Church will have the courage to admit that the ex-communications were invalid

You are in no position to make such a decree, now are you?

 

[bobzills]

No it does not because SSPX Confessions are valid.

Yes, but there are canon lawyers, such as Pete Vere, going around saying that the confessions and marriages of the SSPX are not valid. And it is more than one canon lawyer saying such.
Of course, these same canon lawyers will be hard pressed to explain how all of these invalid SSPX confessions and marriages will suddenly become valid as soon as the SSPX accepts the conditions for regularisation.

 

[consumedconvert]

Yes, but there are canon lawyers, such as Pete Vere, going around saying that the confessions and marriages of the SSPX are not valid. And it is more than one canon lawyer saying such.
Of course, these same canon lawyers will be hard pressed to explain how all of these invalid SSPX confessions and marriages will suddenly become valid as soon as the SSPX accepts the conditions for regularisation.

As for confessions, they won’t become valid. Those priests would be granted faculties to absolve from that point forward.

 

[bobzills]

As for confessions, they won’t become valid. Those priests would be granted faculties to absolve from that point forward.

So the confessions and marriages of the SSPX before the regularisation remain invalid?
According to what authority?

 

[JReducation]

This is one point that I don’t understand. Wasn’t the filioque omitted from the original Nicene creed and was not there until at least 700AD, and even then, it was not in every creed. Further, the Eastern Catholic Churches do not say the filioque in their creed.

The filioque is not included in every form of the creed. To exclude it does not mean that one does not believe.

The pupose of the meeting and praying the creed between the Holy Father and the Patriarch was to teach Catholics and Orthodox Christians through example.

What did they want to teach?

1. We are brothers and sisters, because we are sons and daughters of God.
2. We do have common beliefs and a common apostolic history.
3. We are commanded to love and capable of it.
4. We can dialogue instead of war against each other.
5. We can accept that there are differences between us that must be resolved, but that does not mean that we have to be antagonistic toward each other.
6. Antagonism is not going to resolve the differences between us.
7. The world needs us to come together as a family.
8. There will be peace in the world if there is peace between Christians.
9. We must treat each other with the same love and warmth as our leaders, despite our differences.
10. Our differences have not been forgotten, the problem is that we fail to remember our common beliefs.

JR

 

[JReducation]

So the confessions and marriages of the SSPX before the regularisation remain invalid?
According to what authority?

Let’s separate the sacraments here to make it easier.

1. Penance: the SSPX priests do not have faculties to absolve sin, excet if the person is in danger of death, not someone who walks in off the stree. When it comes to the Sacrament of Penance or Reconciliation, you cannot go back and validate all the absolutions. The only way to validate the absolutions would be for the Pope to absolve all those people who confessed to SSPX priest when they had no faculties. If this were to happen, then the person giving the absolution is the Pope, the individual priest who heard the confession.
2. Marriage: the SSPX priests do not have faculties to witness marriages. If they are given faculties, only those marriages that they witness after receiving faculties are valid. All the previous marriages will have to go through the ceremony again, unlesss the Vatican invokes the Petrine privilege. Under the Petrine privilege the Pope can declare valid any marriage, within or outside of the Catholic Church that meets the conditions for a valid marriage. This is possible because the minister of marriage is the couple, not the cleric. The marriage is valid, if the couple meets the criteria for a valid marriage. For example, two Baptists marry before a Baptist minister, their marriage is valid by virtue of the Petrine privilege.

As to whose authority, the answer is, the Pope’s. He is the official protector of the sacraments. Only he can define when a sacrament is celebrated validly or not.

JR

 

[GerardP]

Let’s separate the sacraments here to make it easier.

1. Penance: the SSPX priests do not have faculties to absolve sin, excet if the person is in danger of death, not someone who walks in off the stree. When it comes to the Sacrament of Penance or Reconciliation, you cannot go back and validate all the absolutions. The only way to validate the absolutions would be for the Pope to absolve all those people who confessed to SSPX priest when they had no faculties. If this were to happen, then the person giving the absolution is the Pope, the individual priest who heard the confession.
2. Marriage: the SSPX priests do not have faculties to witness marriages. If they are given faculties, only those marriages that they witness after receiving faculties are valid. All the previous marriages will have to go through the ceremony again, unlesss the Vatican invokes the Petrine privilege. Under the Petrine privilege the Pope can declare valid any marriage, within or outside of the Catholic Church that meets the conditions for a valid marriage. This is possible because the minister of marriage is the couple, not the cleric. The marriage is valid, if the couple meets the criteria for a valid marriage. For example, two Baptists marry before a Baptist minister, their marriage is valid by virtue of the Petrine privilege.

As to whose authority, the answer is, the Pope’s. He is the official protector of the sacraments. Only he can define when a sacrament is celebrated validly or not.

JR

I’m sorry to tell you, but that is all false.

The Church supplies jurisdiction to any validly ordained priest who provides absolution to any Catholic who approaches them for any moral reason.

Marriages are valid if the proper form, matter and intention are manifested. Form is the exchange of vows, matter is the man and woman to be married and the intention is for the sacrament. The Church imposes the need for a witness in the form of a priest, but secret marriages in the past where no priest was present were declared valid.

The Pope has the power to alter the form of all sacraments except Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. But he does not have the power to validate and invalidate sacraments at his whim.

Radical sanations are simply canonical recognitions of what was already valid.