If the SSPX where to return to Rome this week...

  • Thread starter Thread starter CathMass
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
I am still at a loss as to why this matters?
Click to expand...
One of the posters said that St.Pio never had a chance to say the New Mass because he died before it.

I pointed out that in '65 he got permission from the Pope to only say the TLM because he wanted no part of an experiment.

It is all about my assertion on this thread that St. Pio was a traditional Catholic and believed in the traditional faith in contrast to all the errors, abuses, and novelties in today’s Church.

I’m done with St. Pio because the thread has gone off-topic for too long already.
 
BrendanD said:
Out of curiousity, can you name one single SSPX priest that’s a sedevacantist? I can’t imagine why they’d want to sign an agreement with people that call them sedevacantists when they just aren’t.

Archbishop Lefebvre himself removed sedevacantist priests from the SSPX, and they went on to form the SSPV. The SSPX recognize Pope Benedict and pray for him, as well as the local bishop, at every Mass they celebrate.

Neither the Pope nor the Vatican have ever even accused the SSPX of sedevacantism, so I wonder where people on CA get off calling them that. I don’t mean to attack you with this by the way, it’s just something I’ve been thinking when people here call them sedevacantist schismatics, etc, which is clearly contrary to how the Church views them.
Click to expand...
No priests that I know of. I’ve never met an SSPX priest.

I was talking about these attitudes on forums, that really are just tantamount to sedevacantism (like quoting La Salette and going off about Russian troops conquering the Vatican and other absurd talk). I just don’t think it helps the SSPX situation any.

I want my friends to be able to go to the SSPX chapel near to them. I know people are bitter about the past but it’s time to move on.

It’s stressin me because it’s evident that they could really do a lot of good, but the more hard-hearted members of the laity are online screamin about how they’ll never reconcile until Rome apologizes. There’s just no humility in that. It’s like they want all of this to fail, so that they don’t lose their elite status. It’s evident in the way they call us “Indult” Catholics, when a lot of us aren’t any different from them, we just go to the TLM where we can.
 
PrayforMallory said:
. It’s like they want all of this to fail, so that they don’t lose their elite status. It’s evident in the way they call us “Indult” Catholics, when a lot of us aren’t any different from them, we just go to the TLM where we can.
Click to expand...
The question is, who is really the “elite” in all of this? Hard to claim that those in “irregular standing” with Rome are “elite”.

Actually, the Church calls for humility, not elitism. 👍
 
PrayforMallory said:
I was talking about these attitudes on forums, that really are just tantamount to sedevacantism (like quoting La Salette and going off about Russian troops conquering the Vatican and other absurd talk). I just don’t think it helps the SSPX situation any.
Click to expand...
I understand your concerns with the attitude of some SSPX attendees, but the fact remains that they aren’t sedevacantists. Misrepresenting people’s beliefs (including them insulting people as “Indult Catholics” for being obedient) is not going to bring reconciliation. We should at least use accurate terminology, and not call people sedevacantists when they profess devotion to the Pope.

There are nasty attitudes on both sides of this-- the “bunker mentality” of some SSPX, as well as some people on this forum that seem to enjoy labeling all parishioners of the SSPX as schismatics, worse than Protestants, heretics, Feeneyites, etc. I’ve never been to an SSPX chapel, but I’ll bet many of the people there are none of the above.
 
BrendanD said:
There are nasty attitudes on both sides of this-- the “bunker mentality” of some SSPX, as well as some people on this forum that seem to enjoy labeling all parishioners of the SSPX as schismatics, worse than Protestants, heretics, Feeneyites, etc. I’ve never been to an SSPX chapel, but I’ll bet many of the people there are none of the above.
Click to expand...
Well, I think it can be safely said that they are not Catholics in full Communion with Rome…without being labeled as “uncharitiable”.
 
ethelzguy said:
Well, I think it can be safely said that they are not Catholics in full Communion with Rome…without being labeled as “uncharitiable”.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have no problem with calling them “Catholics not in full communion with Rome.” The only thing that bothers me is when people call their parishioners sedes/heretics/etc., when those labels just aren’t accurate.
 
BrendanD said:
Yes, I have no problem with calling them “Catholics not in full communion with Rome.” The only thing that bothers me is when people call their parishioners sedes/heretics/etc., when those labels just aren’t accurate.
Click to expand...
Yes, the term “heretic” in particular gets tossed around here like a hackey-sack in a college dorm. 😛
 
BrendanD said:
I understand your concerns with the attitude of some SSPX attendees, but the fact remains that they aren’t sedevacantists. Misrepresenting people’s beliefs (including them insulting people as “Indult Catholics” for being obedient) is not going to bring reconciliation. We should at least use accurate terminology, and not call people sedevacantists when they profess devotion to the Pope.

There are nasty attitudes on both sides of this-- the “bunker mentality” of some SSPX, as well as some people on this forum that seem to enjoy labeling all parishioners of the SSPX as schismatics, worse than Protestants, heretics, Feeneyites, etc. I’ve never been to an SSPX chapel, but I’ll bet many of the people there are none of the above.
Click to expand...
Yeah. You’re right. I’m just so frustrated with people who are taking pleasure in this separation, as if remaining outside is better than taking the fight to the heterodox inside.
People are taking pleasure from all this chaos, from both sides. Nobody should do that. Taking pleasure from other peoples’ pain is a sin.
 
PrayforMallory said:
Yeah. You’re right. I’m just so frustrated with people who are taking pleasure in this separation, as if remaining outside is better than taking the fight to the heterodox inside.
People are taking pleasure from all this chaos, from both sides. Nobody should do that. Taking pleasure from other peoples’ pain is a sin.
Click to expand...
I hear you…when the SSPX are regularized, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a sudden improvement in liturgy at all the churches near them.
 
BrendanD said:
I hear you…when the SSPX are regularized, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a sudden improvement in liturgy at all the churches near them.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you expect the former SSPX folks to somehow “take over” regarding liturgical issues?

I haven’t seen anything from Rome to indicate that the former SSPX would be charged with anything of the sort.

The number of SSPX folks isn’t large enough to force any changes in the Church or it’s liturgy, even if the Church WAS a democracy.
 
ethelzguy said:
It sounds like you expect the former SSPX folks to somehow “take over” regarding liturgical issues?

I haven’t seen anything from Rome to indicate that the former SSPX would be charged with anything of the sort.

The number of SSPX folks isn’t large enough to force any changes in the Church or it’s liturgy, even if the Church WAS a democracy.
Click to expand...
The regularization of the SSPX would make more Churches available to people that are tired of liturgical weirdness, softened homilies, etc. For example, many people here think that reintroducing the TLM is going to have a “spillover effect” of inspiring improvements in other Masses.
 
ethelzguy said:
It sounds like you expect the former SSPX folks to somehow “take over” regarding liturgical issues?

I haven’t seen anything from Rome to indicate that the former SSPX would be charged with anything of the sort.

The number of SSPX folks isn’t large enough to force any changes in the Church or it’s liturgy, even if the Church WAS a democracy.
Click to expand...
I understand what you’re saying, but I think that I have to agree that the SSPX, if brought home, could provide a wonderful service to the Church as a whole. I think that what we could use today are people who are not afraid to demand reverence and respect at the Sacrifice of the Mass. My hope would be that, if the SSPX returned home, they could help educate people on how to celebrate the Mass faithfully. This isn’t to say that there aren’t people in the Church now that do that, but the more voices in the Church that call out for more respect in the Liturgy, the better.

It seems to me that this is all tied up with the whole concept of “reform of the reform,” in the sense that the Holy Father is calling for a true application of the Second Vatican Council, and for people to follow more closely the rubrics of the Liturgy. In this way, I think that there is a definite role for the SSPX to play, but the first step is for them to reunite with and submit to Rome.
 
BrendanD said:
The regularization of the SSPX would make more Churches available to people that are tired of liturgical weirdness, softened homilies, etc. For example, many people here think that reintroducing the TLM is going to have a “spillover effect” of inspiring improvements in other Masses.
Click to expand...
Well since the SSPX just made it clear they are not returning it seems like a moot question
 
BrendanD said:
The regularization of the SSPX would make more Churches available to people that are tired of liturgical weirdness, softened homilies, etc. For example, many people here think that reintroducing the TLM is going to have a “spillover effect” of inspiring improvements in other Masses.
Click to expand...
You know, it really doesn’t seem to me that the goal is necessarily to return to the EF, as much as to show people the roots of the OF, and influence people to celebrate the OF without the weirdness and experimentation; to celebrate it the way the Council intended. I certain agree with your statement about the “spillover effect.”
 
BrendanD said:
The regularization of the SSPX would make more Churches available to people that are tired of liturgical weirdness, softened homilies, etc. For example, many people here think that reintroducing the TLM is going to have a “spillover effect” of inspiring improvements in other Masses.
Click to expand...
You know, it really doesn’t seem to me that the goal is necessarily to return to the EF, as much as to show people the roots of the OF, and influence people to celebrate the OF without the weirdness and experimentation; to celebrate it the way the Council intended. I certain agree with your statement about the “spillover effect.”
 
estesbob said:
Bishop Williamson, how do you see Rome’s proposals? Do you see a reunion of the schism as practicable?

"I appreciated the tone of the letter of Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, but I frankly believe that nothing will be done and that our answer will be negative."
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=249553

I will admit after re-reading this it is not as definitive as thought it was.
Click to expand...
Thanks, yes.
Tomorrow is the 28th.
We should know then?
 
saint_rafael said:
Excuse me? I have to give proof? The burden falls on you. My proof is clear. There is not one word or anything recorded is history showing that the bishops called the Holy Spirit. There is nothing.

Show me the evidence, document, or anything showing the bishops asking the Holy Spirit for protection.

There is none. I know that is a fact.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is, at the very least, impractical to ask you to prove the absence of a thing. All you could do is post the entire text from the Vatican II Council Daybooks and say “See it isn’t there!” 😉

However, I would like to ask a question. Is there some infallible Church teaching found in a specific document that requires all ecumenical councils to employ the same appeal to the Holy Spirit else they not necessarily be free from error?

I guess it would be helpful to see some Church document that spells out what is necessary for an ecumenical council to be free from error (besides that it is called by the pope and involves all the bishops). I was unaware that there was an obligatory opening prayer. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top