Fssp/icksp/sspx

  • Thread starter Thread starter Restless_Heart_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan_64 said:
Indeed. The Church is full of individuals and groups who blatantly reject Church teaching on issues such as contraception, divorce and re-marriage, cohabitation, the ordination of women etc. and much more. Yet call such people ‘schismatic’ or anti-Catholic, and you’ll be branded as uncharitable, judgemental and worse. But a group of Catholics who unswervingly support Catholic moral teaching are seen as fair game because they are in disagreement about the interpretation of some of the cgontent of some of the documents from Vatican II, and they are branded aiis schismatic and anti-Catholic.

When the black mass was being held in Oklahoma, who organised a Mass and a Rosary procession, to where this abomination was taking place, and who celebrated Mass outside? The SSPX.

The SSPX with canonical status would be a real force for good within our Church. And my oh my, we really do need as much forces for good as we can get right now, within our Church.
Click to expand...
I’m confident that the Catholic Church is getting better. I agree there are people who disagree with all kind of stuff in the Church. The Catholic Church is doing more than anyone to end abortion.

Eucharistic Adoration is becoming more popular.

Read this:
aleteia.org/en/religion/article/10-signs-christianity-is-on-the-rise-5303137053179904
 
Brendan_64 said:
No.

We are not bound to agree with everything Pope Francis says. Pope Francis is a fallible human being, just like the rest of us.

A pope is not defined by whether or not we agree with what he says. That the SSPX clergy agree with their Bishop Fellay on issues where they disagree with Pope Francis would not mean that that makes Bishop Fellay their pope rather than Pope Francis.

Catholics are entitled to disagree with what a pope says. Popes do not speak infallibly in all that they say and Catholics are entitled to disagree with the pope. Indeed Cardinal Burke has stated that it would be a duty of Catholics to speak up in such circumstances.

Popes, like the rest of us, can be wrong. We are entitled to disagree with the pope and to say so. But that doesn’t mean they are no longer our pope.

What we cannot disagree with is the deposit of faith, but disagreeing with a pope (or popes) or taking a different interpretation of documents from Vatican II (which are in many cases ambiguous) does not necessarily constitute disagreeing with the deposit of faith.
Click to expand...
Your limited view of the role of the pope - and by contrast the unlimited view of the authority of another man, who is not even ordinary of a diocese - disagrees totally with the real St. Pius X, and many other popes.
 
They are Catholics. They are one of us. I find it ridiculous how we tend to defend well-known progressives and say “oh thats not REALLY what they mean”, however so many people who try to remain in what they see as the tradition of the Church are immediately taken out of context and told they’re schismatics, which even the Holy Father hasn’t done.
Click to expand...
👍
 
myway said:
I’m confident that the Catholic Church is getting better. I agree there are people who disagree with all kind of stuff in the Church. The Catholic Church is doing more than anyone to end abortion.

Eucharistic Adoration is becoming more popular.

Read this:
aleteia.org/en/religion/article/10-signs-christianity-is-on-the-rise-5303137053179904
Click to expand...
This could very well be true. However, that isn’t very well backed up with increased donations, as many parishes in the cities have been closing or merging.
 
commenter said:
Your limited view of the role of the pope - and by contrast the unlimited view of the authority of another man, who is not even ordinary of a diocese - disagrees totally with the real St. Pius X, and many other popes.
Click to expand...
You are confusing accepting the authority of the pope with having to agree with him. We are not obliged to agree with everything the pope says. That is not a limited view, that is fact, we are not obliged to automatically agree with what the pope says.We are obliged to accept the deposit of faith (as is the pope) but just because a pope says something does not make what he says part of the deposit of faith.

Not everything that comes from the lips of the pope is automatically truth. The pope is not infallible in everything he says, and we are entitled to disagree with him and to agree with others who disagree with him.

You seem to equate agreeing with someone’s views to accepting their authority. Disagreement is not a rejection of authority. The pope is a mere mortal, he can be wrong, and we are entitled to disagree with him, but that does not constitute a rejection of his authority.

Jesus did not say to Peter that everybody was bound to agree with him. The pope leads the Church, the pope is not himself the Church.
 
Brendan_64 said:
No.

A pope is not defined by whether or not we agree with what he says. That the SSPX clergy agree with their Bishop Fellay on issues where they disagree with Pope Francis would not mean that that makes Bishop Fellay their pope rather than Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
I’m not interested in who people agree with, but who they obey.
The SSPX clergy obey Bishop Fellay, at least on matters related to faith and morals, even when they disagree with him. Why the obedience? What would happen if one priest said "I’ll hang Bishop Fellay’s picture in the hallway, but not obey him? Or what if he said "I’ll accept Bishop Fellay’s directives only when Bishop Fellay is in agreement with the Deposit of Faith? (and I’ll tell you when that is).
I think that priest would eventually get fired. But why should he get fired? Why do you grant the leaders of SSPX far more authority than you grant the pope? Or, why do you limit Francis’ authority so much more than you limit Bishop Fellay’s?
 
commenter said:
Why do you grant the leaders of SSPX far more authority than you grant the pope? Or, why do you limit Francis’ authority so much more than you limit Bishop Fellay’s?
Click to expand...
I have never said any such thing.

What have I ever said about Bishop Fellay’s authority?

How am I limiting Pope Francis’s authority? As Catholics we are not obliged to agree with whatever Pope Francis says. We are also entitled to hold differences of opinion on interpretation of some of what is written in some documents of Vatican II.

The authority of the pope is not absolute.

You seem to think that to not agree with the pope or to not follow any non-binding advice that he might give is to somehow challenge the pope’s authority. The pope is not, nor should he be, a dictator to whom we owe unquestioning obedience in all things.
 
commenter said:
I’m not interested in who people agree with, but who they obey.
The SSPX clergy obey Bishop Fellay, at least on matters related to faith and morals, even when they disagree with him. Why the obedience? What would happen if one priest said "I’ll hang Bishop Fellay’s picture in the hallway, but not obey him? Or what if he said "I’ll accept Bishop Fellay’s directives only when Bishop Fellay is in agreement with the Deposit of Faith? (and I’ll tell you when that is).
I think that priest would eventually get fired. But why should he get fired? Why do you grant the leaders of SSPX far more authority than you grant the pope? Or, why do you limit Francis’ authority so much more than you limit Bishop Fellay’s?
Click to expand...
I understand the point you are making. 🙂
 
commenter said:
  1. SSPX clergy hang the pope’s picture in their chapels. In a symbolic way, they regard Francis as “pope”; as Canada regards Elizabeth II as in a way, a “queen”.
  2. The clergy obey the pope, and his appointed bishops, on nothing; they defy him on many important matters.
  3. The clergy** do** obey the head of the SSPX, and his appointees, on everything. They defy him on nothing, if they want to keep their job. You may say the clergy don’t follow the **pope’s **commands, but they do follow commands of other persons - their real superiors; their real pope, their real living Magisterium, not based in Rome.
  4. The SSPX leadership is truly a living Magisterium, not just an archive for past documents. It interprets Scripture and Tradition. It determines - by its own authority, not by “tradition” - which aspects of recent papal teachings and Vatican II are valid, which are not. Its clergy must follow this magisterium on a weekly basis, not Rome. SSPX clergy who disagree with the SSPX magisterium tend to move on - to SSPV, or some other movement. The SSPV and similar traditionalist type movements also interpret Scripture and Tradition, but differently from SSPX.
  5. Let’s stop calling the SSPX anti-Catholic. There may have been a time when it was simply a traditional movement within the Church, but today, it’s a separate church.
Click to expand...
Well, Elizabeth is Canada’s queen, that’s a fact. I think the SSPX is far more loyal to the Pope than we give them credit.
 
LoyalViews said:
I think the SSPX is far more loyal to the Pope than we give them credit.
Click to expand...
Getting back to the OP:
  • **The SSPX **is dedicated to the TLM; concerned about the neglect of other devotional and doctrinal heritage, especially ignorance of Catholic dogma; concerned about liturgical abuses and the ways some Vatican II documents have been misused; support prolife within their own congregation; attract many good and devout people; loyal to the Pope.
  • T****he FSSP and ICKSP are dedicated to the TLM; concerned about the neglect of other devotional and doctrinal heritage, especially ignorance of Catholic dogma; concerned about liturgical abuses and the ways some Vatican II documents have been misused; support prolife within their own congregation; attract many good and devout people; loyal to the Pope;
    Code: 
      **AND the FSSP and ICKSP are also:**
obedient to the Pope; in unity with their local bishop wherever they work; collaborating with diocesan clergy and other religious orders; collaborating directly with other Catholics in prolife, evangelism, and other local ministries; collaborating directly with (not just favoring) national apostolates, such as Prolife, Defense of Marriage, Religious Liberty
 
Commenter,

So what kind of financial structure do you propose of bringing the SSPX and their supposedly wealthy benefactors to “full obedience” with the Vatican and the local bishops?
 
commenter said:
Getting back to the OP:
  • **The SSPX **is dedicated to the TLM; concerned about the neglect of other devotional and doctrinal heritage, especially ignorance of Catholic dogma; concerned about liturgical abuses and the ways some Vatican II documents have been misused; support prolife within their own congregation; attract many good and devout people; loyal to the Pope.
  • T****he FSSP and ICKSP are dedicated to the TLM; concerned about the neglect of other devotional and doctrinal heritage, especially ignorance of Catholic dogma; concerned about liturgical abuses and the ways some Vatican II documents have been misused; support prolife within their own congregation; attract many good and devout people; loyal to the Pope;
    Code: 
      **AND the FSSP and ICKSP are also:**
obedient to the Pope; in unity with their local bishop wherever they work; collaborating with diocesan clergy and other religious orders; collaborating directly with other Catholics in prolife, evangelism, and other local ministries; collaborating directly with (not just favoring) national apostolates, such as Prolife, Defense of Marriage, Religious Liberty
Click to expand...
Quite right. I think it’s important to distinguish between loyal and obedient, which I failed to do.
 
ProVobis said:
Commenter,

So what kind of financial structure do you propose of bringing the SSPX and their supposedly wealthy benefactors to “full obedience” with the Vatican and the local bishops?
Click to expand...
I have a very witty retort for this, but I think it is best I keep it to myself. :D:D:D
 
LoyalViews said:
Quite right. I think it’s important to distinguish between loyal and obedient, which I failed to do.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, but a lack of complete obedience does not constitute schism, not does it make them anti-Catholic.
commenter said:
Code: 
    **AND the FSSP and ICKSP are also:**
obedient to the Pope; in unity with their local bishop wherever they work; collaborating with diocesan clergy and other religious orders; collaborating directly with other Catholics in prolife, evangelism, and other local ministries; collaborating directly with (not just favoring) national apostolates, such as Prolife, Defense of Marriage, Religious Liberty
Click to expand...
And the SSPX cannot work in unity with the local diocesan bishop or collaborate with local diocesan clergy and religious orders etc, not because they do not wish too, but because they are not allowed to. It is not their choice that they are not granted faculties from the local bishop, and local diocesan clergy would be likely to (at best) fall out of favour with their diocesan bishop is they chose to collaborate with the SSPX. Which is ironic as local diocesan clergy are allowed to (even encouraged to) collaborate with clergy from non-Catholic, ecclesial communities, by their diocesan bishops.

Unlike the FSSP, the SSPX would not be allowed to work under the diocesan bishop or collaborate with diocesan clergy etc. even if they wanted to.
 
The proper abbreviation for the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest is ICRSS. We don’t call the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter the PFSP; we use the proper initials FSSP that the order uses, which come from the Latin. Shouldn’t we do the same with the ICRSS? 🤷
 
Chatter163 said:
The proper abbreviation for the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest is ICRSS. We don’t call the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter the PFSP; we use the proper initials FSSP that the order uses, which come from the Latin. Shouldn’t we do the same with the ICRSS? 🤷
Click to expand...
Agreed. Also the FSSPX. 😉
 
Brendan_64 said:
Yes indeed, but a lack of complete obedience does not constitute schism, not does it make them anti-Catholic.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%, and what I said was even half sarcastic. Loyalty and obedience overlap in their definition, if one is loyal to church and tradition, isn’t one also obedient to the precepts of the faith, including the Holy Father?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top