J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Sorry, did you not state that you didn’t “get” the antagonism? I was offering an explanation as to my “antagonism” and conjecture about the Church’s "antagonism. No “antagonism” was directed at you, however.
- Status
M
Malleus
Guest
The SSPX (or Campos) is NOT a CHURCH. The people who are married by SSPX priests ARE NOT members of the SSPX CHURCH. There is no such thing. As such there is no “returning to the Church” of thoses who attend their masses or recceive the sacraments administered by them. ONLY the BISHOPS and PRIESTS (and religious) would be Reconciled with Rome. In any case, God saves his faithful who feel, IN CONSCIENCE, that to PRESERVE their RIGHTFUL RITE (and TRADITIONAL Doctrine), they have no option but be married by those who have defended both.
sspx.org/miscellaneous/validity_of_confessions_1.htm
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Yes, yes, yes…but the marriages had to be sanated! Not only illicit, but invalid. And you’re right about the laity NOT being “IN” SSPX. Still, Pope John Paul the Great felt the need to warn the laity of the “grave danger” of schism by adherance. And they have no right to a rite unless it’s allowed them by the Pope. You’ll say it was never abrogated, but there seems to be a little doubt about that, even among the radically traditionals.
“I found this interesting link to one of the ultimate radical traditionalist sites (they are sedevacanteists and I think that they were once Father Feeny’s group). They spend some time attacking other traditionalists (calling them “false”). This article asserts that Paul VI **believed **that the old Mass had been abrogated by him, as Pope and supreme legislator, that he knew what he intended and did what he intended to do, ie, abrogate the old Mass. Now, the writer, believing Paul VI to be a false Pope, doesn’t think the supposed abrogation matters anyway (the writer has obviously thereby cut himself off from the Church as a formal schismatic and possibly a formal heretic). What are we, however, believing Paul to have been the true Pope, required to believe? Was the Mass abrogated or not? Interesting read.”
(I’ll see your schismatic and possibly heretical group’s link with the following schismatic and definitely heretical group’s link!)
mostholyfamilymonastery…mass_bound.html
At any rate, whether you fall out of the left side of the boat or the right side of the boat, you’re out of the boat.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
Malleus wrote:
The facts are that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the priests ordained by him in 1976 (and subsequently!) were all *suspended a divinis *in 1976 - following the illicit ordinations of THAT date - which meant that they (and those who followed) were under the canonical penalty of being forbidden to perform ANY priestly duties (except for those permitted to all suspended persons, schismatics and heretics)!
Lefebvre & Co’s reply to the Pope was "get stuffed, Pope’! And THAT has been the schismatic mentality of the Members and most of the adherents up to and following the formal schismatic action of performing consecrations absolutely contrary to the explicit orders of the Supreme Pontiff, Supreme Law-Maker, and Supreme Law-Interpreter.
Inasmuch as priests and lay-persons have adhered to the SSPX schism - they too (in addition to Lefebvre, de Castro-Mayer and the six bishops) are ipso-fact and formally in a state of schism. There is NO NECESSITY for a Vatican declaration on the matter.
Not only has the SSPX performed illicit and invalid marriages and confessions - since 1976 - but, in some cases, they have also performed marriages contrary to the laws of the State - that is, without being deligated by the State to perform marriages for and on behalf of the State. Unless the couples later got married “for the State” any children born to the marriages would have been born out of wed-lock according to State records.
Bleating about the Vatican not giving warnings on the invalidity of SSPX marrieages is purely and simply puerile bleatings: the Vatican HAS given the “state of the nation” warnings on these matters consistently since the beginnings of the nascent schism. The problem is that there are people like you who simply take no notice and/or repeat the SSPX mantra: “get stuffed, Pope” we know better - and we know of a Cardinal, or a theologian, or a book-writer who says…!
The latter, of course, is an opinion!
The facts are that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the priests ordained by him in 1976 (and subsequently!) were all *suspended a divinis *in 1976 - following the illicit ordinations of THAT date - which meant that they (and those who followed) were under the canonical penalty of being forbidden to perform ANY priestly duties (except for those permitted to all suspended persons, schismatics and heretics)!
Lefebvre & Co’s reply to the Pope was "get stuffed, Pope’! And THAT has been the schismatic mentality of the Members and most of the adherents up to and following the formal schismatic action of performing consecrations absolutely contrary to the explicit orders of the Supreme Pontiff, Supreme Law-Maker, and Supreme Law-Interpreter.
Inasmuch as priests and lay-persons have adhered to the SSPX schism - they too (in addition to Lefebvre, de Castro-Mayer and the six bishops) are ipso-fact and formally in a state of schism. There is NO NECESSITY for a Vatican declaration on the matter.
Not only has the SSPX performed illicit and invalid marriages and confessions - since 1976 - but, in some cases, they have also performed marriages contrary to the laws of the State - that is, without being deligated by the State to perform marriages for and on behalf of the State. Unless the couples later got married “for the State” any children born to the marriages would have been born out of wed-lock according to State records.
Bleating about the Vatican not giving warnings on the invalidity of SSPX marrieages is purely and simply puerile bleatings: the Vatican HAS given the “state of the nation” warnings on these matters consistently since the beginnings of the nascent schism. The problem is that there are people like you who simply take no notice and/or repeat the SSPX mantra: “get stuffed, Pope” we know better - and we know of a Cardinal, or a theologian, or a book-writer who says…!
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Maybe things will be better in a few hundred years’ time.
The SSPX arouses stronger emotions, so people lose their tempers. They aren’t as different from the RCC in some ways as the Orthodox are - far from it: the trouble may be that they are very close to being RC - yet don’t quite fit in. They are enough like us to be an irritant.And the issues that are most prominent as irritants concern “Catholic particulars” - the issues, beliefs, and details which Catholics do not have in common with others. If attention to the Hypostatic Union (say) were peculiar to the CC, and were not shared with the Orthodox & the Anglican Churches, it would probably be as sensitive an issue as (say) Papal infallibility, or the specification of transubstantiation as the manner of the Eucharistic Presence of Christ. The Mass, & Papal authority as actually exercised, seem to be the two great issues - and they are not simply elements of what is involved in being Catholic: they are very lively realities, very important to Catholic self-understanding. The Hypostatic Union, isn’t - it does not contribute to that self-understanding so powerfully, because it is not a purely Catholic issue: it does not mark off Catholics from others so clearly.
IOW, disputes about the Mass, & Papal authority as actually exercised, touch nerves that beliefs shared in common by Catholics & other Christians do not touch. So tempers flare more easily. IMO.
M
Malleus
Guest
Pope Paul VI might have BELIEVED that it was abrogated BUT where is that DECREE. None exists. His so-called “Promulgation” of the NEW RITE mass is not even a promulgation. He does NOT COMMAND its use or the abolishon of the PREVIOUS Missal as I recall. THAT DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is NOW…
**Traditional Rite NEVER Abrogated declare Cardinals **
Link to Original Full Interview: olfatima.com/November%2022%202005.html
This extensive interview with Cardinal Medina Estevez is an absolute bombshell as it gives a great insight to the future for the Latin Mass and indeed to the past in regards to what the Cardinal himself tried to do with the issuance of the third typical edition of the Novus Ordo Missal.
- Then there is the question - the central one, and one you raised earlier - in these discussions of the liberalization of so-called traditional mass, which, without being forbidden, needs to be authorized…
- Personally I hold that one cannot prove that the old rite was abrogated. There are good reasons to affirm that it is still in force. Others hold the contrary. But, since there is doubt, one should admit freedom.
Next, the coup de grace. His Eminence conceded a point that traditionalists have been contesting for 35 years—that the old Mass was abrogated and, as such, requires a special permission or “indult” for use:
It is known that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is asking the Holy See for a liberalization of the so-called Tridentine mass and a declaration affirming that this liturgy has never been abolished.
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished…
Isn’t that special…
M
Malleus
Guest
Sean O L:
"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;
It appears Pope Paul VI TOLD HIMSELF to “Stuff it” from what I can see.
Pope Benedict stated recently that the Pope was NOT an ABSOLUTE MONARCH who can do as he pleases but was RESTRICTED by scripture and tradition. I can dig up the quote but is it even going to change your mind. ???
Papal Coronation Oath: Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, P.L. 105, S 54.
"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;
Code:
"To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;
"To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;
"I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.
"I will keep **without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church**. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.
"If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.
"Accordingly, without exclusion, **We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it Ourselves ** or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."Pope Benedict stated recently that the Pope was NOT an ABSOLUTE MONARCH who can do as he pleases but was RESTRICTED by scripture and tradition. I can dig up the quote but is it even going to change your mind. ???
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Malleus:
Pope John Paul II made a decision as the SHEPHERD IN CHIEF that that was neded to facilitate the reunion. He based it on the fact that, although the schismatic orders were NOT LICIT, they were VALID, which means the Sacraments they confected WERE VALID, even though they weren’t LICIT.
The Church’s recognition of the Orders, and the priests recognition of the Pope’s authority, made those Orders LICIT. This mad the marriages LICIT, providing the couples were willing to be accepted into the Catholic church and to accept the Teaching Authority and the Legal Authority of the Pope.
People here keep on referring to the Pope as a LEGISLATOR, but it seems they’ve forgotten that he is primarily a SHEPHERD and a GUARDIAN OF SOULS.
This is his most important role, because it’s in this role that he protects us from the wolves who would betray our Faith and from Error.
in Christ, Michael
M
Marian_Carroll
Guest
**General Notice:
Regarding quoted texts/materials/references to the threads:
Please review Forum rules and the help sticky,
Helpful Hints on Posting:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=72808
Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answers Forums
**
Regarding quoted texts/materials/references to the threads:
Please review Forum rules and the help sticky,
Helpful Hints on Posting:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=72808
Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answers Forums
**
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
That’s just wishful thinking on your part.
M
Malleus
Guest
I want a quote from POPE PAUL VI, using his authoority AS POPE, DECREEING the EXCLUSIVE use of HIS missal and ABOLISHING the TRADITIONAL RITE of the Church which he swore to defend.
Don’t give me quotes from interviews or speaches. ONLY PAPAL DECREES please.
You won’t find any.
EVEN IF Pope Paul VI did decree the exclusive use of his Missal. He had NO AUTHORITY to forbid the use of the ancient prayer of the Church codified (NOT FABRICATED) in the Tridentine Missal and Sacramentary. He CANNOT forbid people from HOLDING to the traditions of their Fathers. The Faith and Practice of Apostolic tradition.
What more can I say other than Ratzinger, Hoyos, Estevez, Oddi and others declared that the Tridentine (Traditional Roman) Rite (Mass) has NOT been abolished.
If you’re truly interested search the internet. You’ll find the quotes.
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Malleus:
If you search my posts on this issue, you’ll see that I’ve mangaed to make myself fairly unpopular for insisting on the right of those who wish to have the TLM made available to them to have that done so and insisting on the duty of Ordinaries to provide for their needs and to advertize the Masses so that all who want to go to them can do so…
That being said, which MISSAL or RITE the Church uses is not a Matter of FAITH but a Matter of Discipline. Since it is a Matter of Discipline, the Church can make whatever changes to the liturgy are needed to make the liturgy more accessible for the worshippers, so long as the DOCTRINE ISN’T CHANGED.
Are you saying that the Novus Ordo properly celebrated in conformity to the rubrics no longer supports The Transubstantiation of the elements into the substance of our Lord’s Body and Blood?
Are you saying that Pope Paul VI was an illegitimate Pope and did not have the Authority to change the PRACTICES and DISCIPLINES of the Catholic Church if he believed those changes needed to be made to bring the Church into conformity with the Documents of an Ecumenical Council?
Unless you are maintaining these things, then Pope Paul VI had the same authority to do what the Council of Trent did, which was to replace a well-used Rite of the Church with another Rite which he hoped would do the job better in this day and age.
Did you know that the Tridentine Latin Mass replaced several Rites including the Serum Rite, which had been used for hundreds of years and (In Ireland) had replaced the Lorra Rite which had been in use since the time of St. Patrick? Did you know that, in the 4th Century, the Church had replaced, in the West, a perfectly good Greek Rite (It’s Translated as Canon 2 in your Misselette) with a Latin Rite so that Western Romans could understand the Mass?
Do you understand the the TLM, as much as some may hold it dear, is not part of the Deposit of Faith, but is part of the Church’s expression of that Faith? and that it’s a PRACTICE in the same way all those other Rites were, and the Novus Ordo is?
Malleus, you might want to study some Church history, and not the propaganda from wherever you’ve been getting your stuff. You’ll find out that you have a lot less reason for being upset than you think you doand, You’ll find yourself maligning Pope Paul VI, who acted as a true prophet even when it made him unpopular, a lot less.
You see, what’s expressed in the Mass is the Faith, but the words themselves are not the faith, so, so long as they do not contradict the dogma of the Church, which liturgy people what and how 'High" they want the Mass has to go under the Rubrik, “In those things not essential to the Faith, LIBERTY; In all things, CHARITY.”
I know ask everyone to apply that maxim and to apply some CHARITY to this discussion about the Pope’s decision to Change how we express our Faith and approach God in the Sacrament.
In Christ, Michael
J
Joysong
Guest
Will this help?
P
pgoings
Guest
Not really. It pre-dates the promulgation of the 1969* Missale Romanum* by four years.
It also helps to remember that (like the Orthodox) no person born into the S.S.P.X. establishment can be a formal schismatic. As we come near to completing the year 2005 that’s becoming an increasingly important point.
And also, the possible* latae sententiae* excommunications referred to in the* motu proprio* “Ecclesia Dei” of 1988 are entirely dependent on what Abp Lefebvre may or may not have truly believed at the time of the episcopal consecrations. This is a provision of the 1988 Code of Canon Law, and unless the Holy Father was claiming the power to read minds, there is no way of ever really knowing whether the archbishop and the four consecrandi incurred the excommunication at all.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Traditional Ang:
Clarification: Quo Primum did not abrogate rites that had a tradition of 200 years or more. If older rites were supplanted by the Pian missal, this was because they died out in favor of it, not because they were officially suppressed by Pius V. Orders such as the Dominicans and Carthusians retained their specific derivative rites until they agreed to discontinue them with the promulgation of the Pauline missal.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Not particularly. You can find a cardinal who claims this, the sedevacanteists have a pope who APRARENTLY thinks he did set it aside (according to them). There are those who claim that some cardinals don’t think Arch. Lefebreve and the four bishops are excommunicates and shismatics, but I’ve got a pope who says differently. Now, the above sedevacanteist and I have a different idea of the import of the POSSIBLE abrogation. He feels that he doesn’t have to accept that it was abrogated BECAUSE he thinks the Pope was a heretic and thus no pope. I, on the other hand, knowing Paul to have been truly the Pope, must accept the abrogation IF he actually did it…and gosh, that sedevacanteist puts forth a good case that the pope did, in fact, do just that. Hmmm, quite the quandry. Fortunately for ME, I don’t need to worry my head to much about it, as I have the Mass as promulgated by the Church, which cannot, as Trent taught, set forth a defective Mass.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Hmmm…he signed an agreement, then repudiated it. Unless the four were in a complete news black out, we can probably assume that they knew about it, too. I think the old Holy Father (and IMHO he dealt very gently with them up until the motu proprio) wouldn’t have to be a mind reader to see schismatic disobedience in this instance.
M
manualman
Guest
Amazing. Anybody who can say with a straight face that the SSPX is not is schism must not be able to identify ANYBODY who IS in schism.
Once the definition is mangled enough to exclude the SSPX, it excludes everybody else too.
Poof! “There is no such thing as schism.” This is, effectively, a teaching of the SSPX.
Once the definition is mangled enough to exclude the SSPX, it excludes everybody else too.
Poof! “There is no such thing as schism.” This is, effectively, a teaching of the SSPX.
T
tcraig
Guest
Just to address the original post …
Since I’m not aware of any teachings from Vatican II that are binding upon Catholics as matters of faith, I don’t know that there is anything to “disobey”. As far as ignoring, what’s wrong with ignoring something you think has no value or worth? I “ignore” the new Luminous Mysteries that our previous pontiff introduced. I also “ignore” ecumenism, because I think it’s silly and stupid and utterly pointless. Ignoring something does not mean that you’re ignorant of its existence.
Thinking that something is sacrilegious is different from thinking it invalid or illicit. Look up the definition if you’re unsure. As someone who has attended many reverent NO masses, and was also a parishioner for several years at your particular TLM church, I *do *think the NO is sacrilegious. That doesn’t mean that I don’t accept it as the normative rite of the Catholic Church today. I also attend it when I have no other option.
It’s okay to admire people for standing up for things you think is important, even if they aren’t generally accepted as “admirable”. I know a few people who admire many qualities in Hitler, even though they don’t approve of all his actions. There are quite a few protestants that I admire, even though I think their theology is skewed. So why does someone admiring the SSPX and other independent priests bother you so much? Far better, in my opinion, to admire *them, *than, say, a Cardinal Mahony.
Rather than asking why this woman isn’t attending an SSPX chapel, I’m wondering why you aren’t attending a “reverent NO mass”.
M
Malleus
Guest
Unlike the Orthodox who do not recognize the universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff or that he is the Vicar of Christ, the SSPX BELIEVES in BOTH. Disobedience to innovations suggested but the Vatican is NOT the SAME thing as schism; at least FORMAL Schism.
- Status