- Status
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Dropper said:
I couldn’t find any polka Mass advertised in the bulletin. Maybe I didn’t look carefully enough; I don’t know. I did, however, see a guitar Mass advertised. At any rate, while I don’t like guitar Masses or anything like that, the Church has never come right out and said that guitar Masses, polka Masses, etc. are unacceptable. It’s said that some music is definitely inappropriate, though, namely, music that would have a secular connotation. At this time, however, the Church hasn’t defined SPECIFICALLY just what that would be. So until or unless the Church spells it out for us exactly what is allowed and what isn’t allowed, bishops won’t really be able to do anything about music choices.
It matters not what cardinals say; it matters what the pope says. As for accepting Vatican II in light of tradition, that’s not exactly true. Vatican II taught about topics such as ecumenism and religious liberty, which the SSPX insists contradict previous Church teachings. The SSPX is wrong in claiming there are contradictions, but I digress.
As for the NO being valid, that’s all well and good, but one can believe the NO is valid but intrinsically sacrilegious or illicit. That idea is condemned by the Church. According to the Council of Trent, the Church CANNOT promulgate an intrinsically defective rite of Mass. To claim the NO is invalid, sacrilegious, illicit, or all of the above is objectively heretical, schismatic, and blasphemous.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Well, schism can be informal as well. One could say that “Catholics” who support contraception, women priests, etc. are objectively in schism, albeit informally so. So even if the SSPX isn’t in formal schism, it’s still in schism. Informal or formal, schism is still schism and still mortally sinful.
T
ThomasMore1535
Guest
It really is unbelievable how selective you are in citing sources, as well as how hyppocritical you are in how you go about determining whether someone is in schism or not. First of all, even if your interpretation of Cardinal Hoyos is true (and I dispute that), that does not matter, because SSPX was pronounced to be in Schism by the Holy Father himself. I would think that somebody who defends tradition like you claim to would realize that Canon law specifically states that the Holy Father, as the Supreme Legislator, is the ultimate and final authritative interpreter of the Church. He specifically declared SSPX to be in schism in “Ecclesia Dei” back in 1988. I’m sure you’re familiar with that document. So, even if your reading of Cardinal Hoyos is right, that does not matter, because he is not the Vicar of Christ. The Vicar of Christ has already stated that SSPX is in schism. I would expect that a “traditionalist” like yourself would adhere to what the Holy Father pronounces, since it is part of Tradition that the Holy Father is the ultimate interpreter of Canon Law, among other things. Yet despite this undeniable fact, you insist on citing the opinions of others who (on the surface) appear to disagree with the Holy Father in a matter in which they are not permitted to disagree with him on. What a very Protestant thing to do.
Second of all, I’m willing to wager just about anything that when Cardinal Hoyos said that it was not a “formal” schism, what he meant was that the Pope himself did not actually excommunicate Lefebvre and his followers. There was no “formal” excommunication, becasue Lefebvre, by his very actions, EXCOMMUNICATED HIMSELF from the Body of Christ. Thus, there was no necessity for the Pope to formally excommunicate him. All Ecclesia Dei did was declare that Lefebvre, by his very own actions, had excommunicated himself.
I’m not trying to be uncharitable by calling your approach hyppocritical. I’m just telling you what it is. You claim to follow tradition, yet you are willing to substitute your own personal views on Canon Law for those of the Supreme Legislator, the Holy Father. You know perfectly well that you can’t do this. I pray for you and for all who misunderstand this or refuse to humble themselves and adhere to the Truth.
A
AltarMan
Guest
Those SSPXers need to come to terms with the fact that they are indeed Protestants…
G
GoLatin
Guest
J
JNB
Guest
They may not be in full union with Rome, but unlike Protestants, the SSPX have valid sacraments. It is language like this that keeps animosity levels far higher than they need be.
GoLatin said:
J
JNB
Guest
No different from Protestants? Again, whenever I see this, I will state, CLEARLY, and Rome will say the same, that the sacraments of the SSPX are valid(though confession, matrimony and conformation are irregular), somthing that Protesants lack. If anything, it would be more accurate to call the SSPX Latin Orthodox.
ThomasMore1535:
B
beckyann2597
Guest
Dropper said:
I didn’t see it either. And as far as guitar mass goes…I prefer them. I am a California girl and much more laid back about music, and I have never been to a Latin Mass, but I love the english Mass. That siad, I consider myself extremely orthodox.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
GoLatin wrote:
Apolonio Latar (in another forum) wrote:
The same goes for Tan Books and Publishers, the proprietor of which, Thomas Nelson is still. to the best of my knowledge an adherent to the equally schismatic Sovereign Military Order of St John of Jerusalem (O.S.J.) - a spurious chivalric “order”.
Apolonio Latar (in another forum) wrote:
To which I responded Jan 7, 2003
There has been a further schism within the OSJites - Fr Wathen is no longer the Chaplain; he has been replaced by “Bishop” Anthony Chadwick - a Thucite “bishop” whose orders are not recognized by the Vatican.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Actually, that’s patently absurd. Some of their sacraments are valid, but all are illicit, “and Rome will say the same.” Their bishops are excommunicate and their priests lack faculties. Their masses are valid, but confessions (except in the case of impending death and the absence of a licit priest) and marriages are INVALID. “Latin Orthodox?!?!?”
Formal schismatics, rather, and some may be formal heretics (I’ve heard one SSPX priest say that the Mass of Paul VI is an abomination, directly contradicting Trent, that said that the Church was not able to promulgate an invalid or defective Mass. To claim that the normative Mass of the Church is an abomination is a heresy, because it cannot be both an abomination and confect the Holy Sacrifice. Thus, Christ would have failed in His Promise to protect the Church from error).
M
Malleus
Guest
You mean like St. Athanasius who “spit in the face” of Pope (not saint) Liberius?
M
Malleus
Guest
Why didn’t the Vatican order a mass REMARRIAGE of all the faithful of Campos, Brazil after the reconciliation with the Vatican?Actually, that’s patently absurd. Some of their sacraments are valid, but all are illicit, “and Rome will say the same.” Their bishops are excommunicate and their priests lack faculties. Their masses are valid, but confessions (except in the case of impending death and the absence of a licit priest) and marriages are INVALID. “Latin Orthodox?!?!?”
If the Pope ACTUALLY believed that their marriages were invalid he would have declared that all the “married” couples in Campos were actually living in sin.
That did not happen. Instead, Rome consecrated a bishop for them as a successor to bishop Rangel (consecrated by the SSPX) who started negatiations with Rome.
ACTIONS speak LOUDER than WORDS and theological/canonical OPINIONS!!!
K
Kielbasi
Guest
You can say the same of our Greek Orthodox friends as well.
The Greeks have been schimatic for a long time, and do not hold to many of the dogmas of the Catholic church( e.g., purgatory, immaculate conception, papal infallibility).
But that doesn’t mean that its really very fruitful just to attack folks, but its more useful to engage in dialogue, and that’s what John Paul II and other recent popes have done.
I don’t just “get” the antagonism with *Latin-mass-only-ites, *it just seems out of focus with the more civil attitude vis a vis Greek Orthodox, or Lutherans or other sects for that matter.
M
Marian84
Guest
Thank you for pointing that out, Kielbasi! You are so right!
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
A) You would need to take that up with the Holy See. The Church distinguishes between formal and informal schismatics and heretics. The SSPX would be the former and the Church sets the responsibility for their schism (and possible heresy) squarely on their shoulders. The latter cannot be “accused of the sin of seperation” according to the Catechism, as they were born into those communities.
B) Regarding the antagonism: I can only speak for myself. I’m sick to death of hearing the Mass of Paul VI, the only one I’ve ever known as a Catholic, the Mass I love, looked at “down the nose” at best or described as an “abomination” at worst. That’s why I’ve become antagonistic. Also, their absurd efforts to explain that they aren’t in schism when they clearly are, their attempts to claim loyalty to the popes when they clearly haven’t any… If it didn’t involve souls, it would be laughable, like trying to claim that Napoleon really won at Waterloo, or the George Washington was the third president of the United States, not the first. For the Church at large, etc, I can only conjecture that She isn’t terribly thrilled when Her legitimate, Christ-given authority is ignored by people who ought to know better, ie, by those purporting to be Catholic.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Their marriages were sanated when they returned to the Church.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Apples and oranges, Malleus, apples and oranges. St. Athanasius cannot be compared IN ANY WAY to Archbishop Lefebvre.
K
Kielbasi
Guest
Many Latin-mass-only’s were born into their communities as well.
I’ve spoke with Greeks, Lutherans, and others, who look down toward the Catholic church as well. Its no reason to get antagonistic, it just means that the Greek, or the Lutheran or the SSPX afficiando for that matter, thinks that their position is correct.
That’s what discussion is about, two sides letting each other know what their prospective positions are.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Thank you, I could NOT think of that word!
- Status