The SSPX do not value the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. For that reason they are schismatic and their order illicit. If they truly were “traditionalists”, they would have lamented the auto-excommunicated that Abp. Lefebvre incurred, and done everything they could to return to communion with Rome. As it stands they still disobey Rome and repeat Protestant slogans that devalue the Papacy.
Ecclesia Dei 5c: Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.The SSPX are not schismatic or close to it.
They have a “valid” Mass, in the sense that a SSPX priest can confect consecration, yes. But the Church has repeatedly told us, the flock, that they are illicit and it is sinful to liturgically participate with the SSPX except in dire emergency.What “Protestant slogans” do they repeat that devalue the Papacy? The SSPX is far from Protestant considering they are Catholic, believe Francis to be the Supreme Pontiff, and have a valid Mass.
The excommunications were undone.Ecclesia Dei 5c: Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.
They have never told us this.They have a “valid” Mass, in the sense that a SSPX priest can confect consecration, yes. But the Church has repeatedly told us, the flock, that they are illicit and it is sinful to liturgically participate with the SSPX except in dire emergency.
Yes, the same day a SSPX bishop denied the Holocaust. After that talks grinded to a halt, and the SSPX has never been regularized. Pope Benedict XVI, who revoked the excommunications, has said that the SSPX has “no valid ministry in the Church”. Thus meaning they are still schismatic.The excommunications were undone.
I woefully disbelieve that anybody could roam around CAF and not know this. The subject of the SSPX comes up all the time, and this is brought up pretty much every single time.They have never told us this.
COVINGTON, Ky. — By all outward appearances, Our Lady of the Assumption church in Walton, Ky. looks like any other Catholic church building. The inside may even look familiar to any practicing Catholic but there is one important clarification — it is generally morally illicit for a Catholic to participate in that parish’s Masses.
Our Lady of the Assumption, which opened in 2010, describes itself on its website as a Roman Catholic Church, but the church is actually a chapel of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a breakaway organization not in communion with the Holy See in Rome and thus not a canonically recognized entity.
Bishop of Covington Roger J. Foys addressed a letter to the faithful of his diocese in Friday’s edition of The Messenger, explaining SSPX and the dangers of becoming involved with that community.
Source“It is morally illicit (unlawful) for the Faithful to participate in Masses of the Society of St. Pius X unless they are legitimately impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing in the Church (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2),” Bishop Foys wrote. “Participation in such Masses and in the administration of the sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X can, over a period of time, lead to a schismatic habit of thought and heart as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.”
They are irregular not schismatic. They haven’t renounced any dogma or doctrine. If you find another quote, from Rome that says it is wrong to go to SSPX masses, I will believe you. And, Bishop Williamson who denied the Holochaust is not a member of the SSPXYes, the same day a SSPX bishop denied the Holocaust. After that talks grinded to a halt, and the SSPX has never been regularized. Pope Benedict XVI, who revoked the excommunications, has said that the SSPX has “no valid ministry in the Church”. Thus meaning they are still schismatic.
I woefully disbelieve that anybody could roam around CAF and not know this. The subject of the SSPX comes up all the time, and this is brought up pretty much every single time.
Here’s an example, just found it by googling “SSPX news”:
Source
The excommunications were lifted, certainly not “undone.” They were lifted to allow the SSPX to repent and come back into the fold, not because the Vatican had relented on their stance.The excommunications were undone.
Exactly. However, you can continue to quote the Vatican word for word and some poeple refuse to accept the facts.Ecclesia Dei 5c: Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.
They have a “valid” Mass, in the sense that a SSPX priest can confect consecration, yes. But the Church has repeatedly told us, the flock, that they are illicit and it is sinful to liturgically participate with the SSPX except in dire emergency.
Let’s address these in order…They are irregular not schismatic. They haven’t renounced any dogma or doctrine. If you find another quote, from Rome that says it is wrong to go to SSPX masses, I will believe you. And, Bishop Williamson who denied the Holochaust is not a member of the SSPX
… Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller told EWTN News July 20. “But we cannot negotiate on revealed faith; that is impossible. An ecumenical council, according to the Catholic faith, is always the supreme teaching authority of the Church.”
SourceIn a July 19 statement, the society said it had “determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization” at its recent general chapter gathering, but added that it still rejected “all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council, which remain tainted with errors,” as well as “the reforms issued from it.”
“This is simply not possible,” said Archbishop Muller in response. “No one who claims to be Catholic can take such a position. This was precisely the position taken by Martin Luther in 1519, who argued that ‘even councils can err.’”
Let’s address these in order…
Source
- They are irregular not schismatic. Not according to Pope Benedict! “In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”
- They haven’t renounced any doctrine. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has ruled that to reject Vatican II, and the Supreme Pontiff’s interpretation thereof, is a serious theological error.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/12_05_31_PCEDLetter.jpg
- If you find another quote, from Rome that says it is wrong to go to SSPX masses, I will believe you.
Source
- And, Bishop Williamson who denied the Holochaust is not a member of the SSPX He was recently expelled, yes.
The CDF quote doesn’t say “everything’s OK if you only reject, oh, say, 10% of an ecumenical council of the infallible Magisterium of Christ’s Church on earth”. The quote, in actuality, says it’s IMPOSSIBLE for a Catholic to validly believe that Vatican II erred on certain matters; the Prefect even compares this position to that of Martin Luther.
- They still haven’t renounced any doctrine or dogma as Vatican II was a pastoral council and the SSPX has said they are able to accept 90% of the council.
What does that tell you? You think everything is fine and dandy with the SSPX if their ministry is illicit to point that that one is breaking the Third Commandment by only attending their Mass on Sunday?
- It says attending Holy Mass at a chapel on Sunday doesn’t fulfill ones obligation, it doesn’t say that attending puts one under the pain of sin.
Vatican II wasn’t infallible. It can be overturned anytime. It was a pastoral council, and pastoral councils are not infallible.The CDF quote doesn’t say “everything’s OK if you only reject, oh, say, 10% of an ecumenical council of the infallible Magisterium of Christ’s Church on earth”. The quote, in actuality, says it’s IMPOSSIBLE for a Catholic to validly believe that Vatican II erred on certain matters; the Prefect even compares this position to that of Martin Luther.
And, quite frankly, I’m sick of hearing that the SSPX “doesn’t reject any doctrine”. Yes, they do. They’ve made that very clear. The modern SSPX thinks that the Mass of Paul VI is illicit, that ecumenical and interreligious dialogue and cooperation is a betrayal of Christ (particularly grating is their frequent antisemitic remarks), they reject that the Catholic Church “subsists in” the Church of Christ, they think the notion of religious liberty is a rupture with Sacred Tradition, and they reject the levels of textual criticism that is allowed by Dei Verbum.
What does that tell you? You think everything is fine and dandy with the SSPX if their ministry is illicit to point that that one is breaking the Third Commandment by only attending their Mass on Sunday?
Can you site a source for this?Vatican II wasn’t infallible. It can be overturned anytime. It was a pastoral council, and pastoral councils are not infallible.
Vatican II wasn’t infallible. It can be overturned anytime. It was a pastoral council, and pastoral councils are not infallible.
… Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller [nota bene THIS IS THE PREFECT OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH] told EWTN News July 20. “But we cannot negotiate on revealed faith; that is impossible. An ecumenical council, according to the Catholic faith, is always the supreme teaching authority of the Church.”
In a July 19 statement, the society said it had “determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization” at its recent general chapter gathering, but added that it still rejected “all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council, which remain tainted with errors,” as well as “the reforms issued from it.”
“This is simply not possible,” said Archbishop Muller in response. “No one who claims to be Catholic can take such a position. This was precisely the position taken by Martin Luther in 1519, who argued that ‘even councils can err.’”
This is what my old pastor told me at a somewhat liberal parish. I will look though.Can you site a source for this?
This still hasn’t proved infallibility with the council.Last post
Pray tell, what mark upon a “typical” ecumenical council promulgation tells you that it’s infallible, that isn’t on the documents of Vatican II?This still hasn’t proved infallibility with the council.
Vatican II didn’t promulgate any new doctrine or dogma related to the faith.Pray tell, what mark upon a “typical” ecumenical council promulgation tells you that it’s infallible, that isn’t on the documents of Vatican II?
At what point were the Supreme Pontiff and all of the bishops of the Catholic Church sitting in St. Peter’s, did they jointly declare: “nothing we say here will be infallible! This council is just for fun.”
Look, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – which speaks with authority on behalf of the Roman Curia – is telling you that Vatican II isn’t negotiable. If you’re still disagreeing with him then you’re bordering on disobedience to Rome.
Oh, okay then. So Trent wasn’t infallible either, because it didn’t promulgate anything new, it just strictly defined and upheld already-taught doctrines on purgatory, episcopacy, sacred tradition, et al.Vatican II didn’t promulgate any new doctrine or dogma related to the faith.