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

[ethelzguy]

Why is it surprising that the people who support the sspx have such a problem with rules, regulations and obedience?

Because THEY choose the rules, regulations, and disciplines that THEY want to obey.

It’s called “Cafeteria Catholicism”

 

[consumedconvert]

The Holy Spirit was not invoked anywhere period. Not in the opening ceremony, opening statement, or Mass.
The historical record speaks for itself. Nowhere was the Holy Spirit invoked by the bishops at Vatican II.

That’s a little rediculous. So, as another poster said a while back, the celebrant at mass said “In the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the…er, what am I supposed to say next?”

 

[ProVobis]

The problem is that talking with a lack of respect for the office of the Pope and talking about Rome as back-stabbing itself sounds like schismatic thought.

Need to tell that to Hans Kung.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Who cares? They can come back and discuss the theological issues in private, like the other traditional priests.

They need to exercise some good sense.

In my opinion, the SSPX’rs who don’t support this deal are closet sedevacantists.

Will the SSPX be part of the restoration, or will they go down in history as schismatics and harm the whole, worldwide movement?

People who are demanding a Catholic monarchy, when we can’t even elect a pro-life candidate half the time, need a reality check.

And secondly, all this bs about how the SSPX are going to be martyred. It’s ridiculous. No one is going to martyr them. They are just going to become irrelevant if they don’t accept this deal.

 

[louey]

I will respond to this, but then I have to go to bed as it is late here on the East coast. Once again, I do not believe in using labels to describe people, as they are simply divisive. The Second Vatican Council is a valid Ecumenical Council; if it is rejected, or done away with, or “dealt” with, then there is nothing stopping anyone from doing the samething to any other Council.

It is true that there have been anti-popes in the past, but it is still a slanderous accusation to claim that any of our Popes since the Council are filled with errors in any way, as they have said and done nothing contradictory to Holy Tradition and Sacred Scripture. We can go in circles like this indefinitely, and perhaps we should simply agree to disagree, but an individual, or a group such as SSPX are in no position to accuse any Pope of being “infected” with modernism or errors, or bad theology, as the authority to do so was never granted to them by Christ. The SSPX is not itself the Church. If it is part of the Church, then it should act as part of the Church. But the group itself tends to condemn Popes, while claiming loyalty to the Bishop of Rome, and therefore assumes a power for itself that it does not have the right to.

As for the Third Secret, it is only speculation by a group that the entire secret was not revealed en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Secret_of_Fatima#Third_secret. The Vatican has stated that the whole secret has been revealed. Not believing them is simply conspiracy theory, and a lack of trust. The fact of the matter is this: if the third secret were not revealed in full, then any rumor that it is about the Second Vatican Council can immediately be called into question as the people who started these rumors would most likely not been in a position to know the secret before the year 2000 anyway. We cannot allow ourselves to be reduced to doubting the Church. That is a tool of the devil, to try and get us to think we’re being lied to and kept from a hidden secret. That is what I meant by gnostic.

We have been promised always to have the leadership of the Pope, but it is not up to us as individuals, or in any group to claim the right to label a Pope as heterodox in anyway. We simply do not have the authority or the power to do so. That is the real issue here: who has the right to criticize the Pope, if the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff? I would start with the hierarchy of the Church, herself, such as future Popes, Councils, etc. But to assume that each Pope since the Council is a bad Pope shows a lack of faith and trust in the Spirit, as it is the Holy Spirit that guides the Church, and the Pope, and it shows that you claim the wisdom to do so. But Padre Pio did not seem to see anything wrong with Pope John Paul II.

How do you know if Padre Pio "did not seem to see anything wrong with JPII. He died in 1968, 10 years before JPII. Church was never promised there would always be a pope; the Church was promised the, “the gate’s of hell will not prevail against my Church.” A Catholic not only has the right, but it is his duty to defend the truth.

 

[saint_rafael]

It seems like a good deal but the fear is the Rome just wants the SSPX to be quiet about the crisis and apostasy in the Church.

The fear is that Rome wants the SSPX to not rock the boat, shut up about all the poblems, such as the New Mass, ecumenism, and every other modernist innovation. The Liberals want to silence tradionalism.

The SSPX should be given the freedom to speak out against the New Mass. The SSPX has always believed in its validity, but think it has been extremely harmful for souls to the point that the priesthood of the Church collapsed.

Rome looks like a hypocrite by allowing heretics to say all kinds of nonsense and conitnue to be in good standing.

Hans Kung who rejects the physical ressurection of Jesus is still a Catholic. No one can get ex-communicated anymore even though they do not believe in Catholicism.

 

[saint_rafael]

Every other Church Council was dogmatic that had infallible decrees. They put out infallible definitions and anathemas and done so by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Vatican II did not put out anything infallible, no anathemas and no Holy Spirit.
It was a pastoral ecumenical council.

Here’s info about Vatican II not being infallible and protected by the Holy Spirit:

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/divatican.htm

 

[catharina]

I was wondering if the SSPX were to return this week, would that mean that I can attend Mass at an SSPX Church as though I were going to a normal church under the diocese? Do I need to wait for some ceremony of regularization where the bishop re-consecrates the building and reconciles with the priest first and the priest renounces his sin or is it just an automatic transition? I don’t want to debate, I just want a simple answer. Use of church documents would be nice if it supports your answers.

Thanks

The simple answer:

WAIT AND SEE - LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Church was never promised there would always be a pope; the Church was promised the, “the gate’s of hell will not prevail against my Church.” A Catholic not only has the right, but it is his duty to defend the truth.

And that exactly what we are doing here at CAF, even against some of our own.

 

[NicPais83]

How do you know if Padre Pio "did not seem to see anything wrong with JPII. He died in 1968, 10 years before JPII. Church was never promised there would always be a pope; the Church was promised the, “the gate’s of hell will not prevail against my Church.” A Catholic not only has the right, but it is his duty to defend the truth.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padre_pio#Alleged_supernatural_phenomena

This is my favorite John Paul II story.

 

[NicPais83]

Every other Church Council was dogmatic that had infallible decrees. They put out infallible definitions and anathemas and done so by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Vatican II did not put out anything infallible, no anathemas and no Holy Spirit.
It was a pastoral ecumenical council.

Here’s info about Vatican II not being infallible and protected by the Holy Spirit:

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/divatican.htm

It’s funny, because I took this sentence straight out of the article that you gave me:

Pointing toward the unique and pastoral nature of the Council is not the same as claiming the Council was “unofficial” or “didn’t count,” or that the “Holy Spirit was not invited.” Such tactics to characterize discussions amount to little more than fencing with strawmen, as it is clear that Vatican II was a legitimate Ecumenical Council

Also, this quote:

The documents of the Second Vatican Council need to recognized for what they are: official, pastoral Church teachings that did not define any new or significantly alter any existing doctrine. As such, they cannot be used to contradict or render meaningless that which came before, nor can they be used as cudgels to intimidate Catholics into abandoning past teachings for novel interpretations.

The article that you give does nothing to back up your point of view that the Holy Spirit was not invoked or involved with the Council. It actually states that it was a valid Ecumenical Council and talks about not using the tactics that you’re using.

 

[saint_rafael]

St. Pio made an accurate prediction that Wojtyla would become Pope but that has nothing to do with his thoughts on whether he would be a good Pope or not.

He interceded to help cure Pope John Paul II’s friend but he did it as a favor and no doubt believed Wojtyla was a good holy man.

No one denied the holiness of Wojtyla, but St. Pio was a great traditionalist and would have denounced the novelties the came out of John Paul’s pontificate. St. Pio would agree that John Paul II did not have an effective governing pontificate to say the least.

St. Pio refused to say the New Mass and Pope Paul VI granted his request to be relieved. Had he lived longer, he would have never said the New Mass and would have defended tradition.

 

[saint_rafael]

That article was talking about those who said it was not an ecumenical council.

I belive it was a legitimate pastoral ecumenical council. Th bishops however did not call the Holy Spirit to protect it from error. So it is a pastoral ecumenical Council that contains error. On that ground it could be revoked.

Here’s another article with the point I was making:

Previous 20 Ecumenical Councils:Holy Ghost solemnly invoked to protect Council from error.
Vatican II : Holy Ghost not solemnly invoked in the traditional way.

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/renew2.html

This whole page has well over a dozen articles on all problems of Vatican II:

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/index.htm

Plenty of info in defense of the problems of that council.

 

[BrendanD]

In my opinion, the SSPX’rs who don’t support this deal are closet sedevacantists.

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.

 

[rpp]

St. Pio made an accurate prediction that Wojtyla would become Pope but that has nothing to do with his thoughts on whether he would be a good Pope or not.

He interceded to help cure Pope John Paul II’s friend but he did it as a favor and no doubt believed Wojtyla was a good holy man.

No one denied the holiness of Wojtyla, but St. Pio was a great traditionalist and would have denounced the novelties the came out of John Paul’s pontificate. St. Pio would agree that John Paul II did not have an effective governing pontificate to say the least.

St. Pio refused to say the New Mass and Pope Paul VI granted his request to be relieved. Had he lived longer, he would have never said the New Mass and would have defended tradition.

St. Pio never reufused to say the new Mass. He never had the opportunity. The New Mass came out in 1970. St. Pio died in 1968.

One must be very careful when putting words into the mouths of saints. I do not believe that is a good thing to do.

 

[BrendanD]

St. Pio never reufused to say the new Mass. He never had the opportunity. The New Mass came out in 1970. St. Pio died in 1968.

One must be very careful when putting words into the mouths of saints. I do not believe that is a good thing to do.

The Novus Ordo came out in increments; there were changes before it was finished. It’s true that Padre Pio only said the traditional Mass without the changes until his death. Some say that was because he opposed the liturgical changes. Others say because he was very elderly and nearly blind, he simply couldn’t learn to pray the Mass differently.

 

[saint_rafael]

St. Pio never reufused to say the new Mass. He never had the opportunity. The New Mass came out in 1970. St. Pio died in 1968.

One must be very careful when putting words into the mouths of saints. I do not believe that is a good thing to do.

He was a model of respect and submission towards his religious and ecclesiastical superiors, especially during the time when he was persecuted. Nonetheless, he could not remain silent over a deviation that was baneful to the Church. Even before the end of the Council, in February 1965, someone announced to him that soon he would have to celebrate the Mass according to a new rite, ad experimentum, in the vernacular, which had been devised by a conciliar liturgical commission in order to respond to the aspirations of modern man. Immediately, even before seeing the text, he wrote to Paul VI to ask him to be dispensed from the liturgical experiment, and to be able to continue to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius V. When Cardinal Bacci came to see him in order to bring the authorization, Padre Pio let a complaint escape in the presence of the Pope’s messenger: “For pity sake, end the Council quickly.”

sspx.org/miscellaneous/padre_pio.htm

Pope Paul VI granted the request of Padre Pio to say ony the TLM and not the New Mass wich St. Pio knew was going to come out of the commission on liturgy. It did come out after his death, but St. Pio wanted nothing to do with a New Mass beginning in '65.

 

[rpp]

He was a model of respect and submission towards his religious and ecclesiastical superiors, especially during the time when he was persecuted. Nonetheless, he could not remain silent over a deviation that was baneful to the Church. Even before the end of the Council, in February 1965, someone announced to him that soon he would have to celebrate the Mass according to a new rite, ad experimentum, in the vernacular, which had been devised by a conciliar liturgical commission in order to respond to the aspirations of modern man. Immediately, even before seeing the text, he wrote to Paul VI to ask him to be dispensed from the liturgical experiment, and to be able to continue to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius V. When Cardinal Bacci came to see him in order to bring the authorization, Padre Pio let a complaint escape in the presence of the Pope’s messenger: “For pity sake, end the Council quickly.”

sspx.org/miscellaneous/padre_pio.htm

Pope Paul VI granted the request of Padre Pio to say ony the TLM and not the New Mass wich St. Pio knew was going to come out of the commission on liturgy. It did come out after his death, but St. Pio wanted nothing to do with a New Mass beginning in '65.

I am sorry, but SSPX sources have not proved to be reliable in the past. Can you cite a different source?

 

[NicPais83]

No one denied the holiness of Wojtyla, but St. Pio was a great traditionalist and would have denounced the novelties the came out of John Paul’s pontificate. St. Pio would agree that John Paul II did not have an effective governing pontificate to say the least.

St. Pio refused to say the New Mass and Pope Paul VI granted his request to be relieved. Had he lived longer, he would have never said the New Mass and would have defended tradition.

I didn’t say that Padre Pio made any claims as to the type of Pope he was, but you are placing words in his mouth by stating what he would have believed and felt about Pope John Paul II’s pontificate. This is not something that you can validly do, neither of us are Padre Pio, and the most we can do is speak with what is fact, not speculate as you are doing.

As was stated in an earlier post, the Novus Ordo wasn’t promulgated until 1969, and with Padre Pio dying in 1968, your logic is highly faulty. Again, you are assuming that he would have rejected the reform, which is once more making assumptions as to what his thoughts were, which none of us, except God, have the power to do. Now, at the time of 1968, there would have been some interim Ordo Missae around, such as the 1965 Missal (not a promulgated Missal, but an interim). However, Pope Paul VI did give permission for older priests to continue using the 1962 Missal, such as Jose Maria Escriva. This isn’t their rejection of the 1969 Missal, but a courtesy to older priests.

 

[KevinPhillips]

Pax Tecum

The discussion should not be “if the SSPX where to return to Rome this week…”, but if the modern church were to return to tradition. There is nothing wrong with tradition; except for the lack of knowledge of tradition.

Kevin Phillips