Not necessarily. The Angelus February 2006 issue had some very scholarly articles on “The Vaccination Question” (title on the front cover of that issue).
Anicette gets credit for addressing the topic of the thread. Thread has since drifted.commenter:
Very superficial thing, but the ICKSP masses stand because the altar servers wear a blue vestment under their surplices. It what is called the “blue of the ICKSP” by some. People are entitled to their opinion
As opposed to what? If you have no FSSP or ICKSP in your area, your choice is down to diocesan or SSPX. I would choose diocesan hands down in this case simply because it’s an approved Mass. I even had a priest tell me that when OF is available, we should choose that over SSPX, again because of SSPX’s irregular status.
I’m not an SSPX fan, but judging 600+ priests and the thousands of people around the world who attend SSPX masses based on a few dozen people is hardly charitable. Esp when those few dozen were most likely the vocal minority.cjsm93:
I’m sure your think you made a fair assessment of your SSPX parish, but anti-feminism and anti semitism are not part of the SSPX. I’ve also only met very few anti-vaxers at SSPX in Europe. So it’s not to diminish your experience that I say you are generalising a lot about a lot of people and priests you don’t know.
In my opinion, attending SSPX who are not in full communion with Rome because of disobedience to the Pope by definition shows contempt for the Pope.
Interesting opinion about what it means to go to the SSPX vs the relationship with the pope. It’s just interesting how the Vatican says differently than you. How do you square that with YOUR obedience to the pope?
The term “full communion” was invented after the second Vatican Council. I understand people who say “Archbishop Lefebvre shouldn’t have consecrated those bishops without papal mandate”, but you just have to look at it as a historical fact that it did happen, then look at the fruits of what happened since - and then, IMPORTANTLY make a judgment based on today, are they a good or a bad fruit of the Church?
It’s very simple. The Pope wants SSPX to repent and come back into full communion with the Church.Interesting opinion about what it means to go to the SSPX vs the relationship with the pope. It’s just interesting how the Vatican says differently than you. How do you square that with YOUR obedience to the pope?
I think the fact that we disagree diametrically on this question tells me it isn’t at all simple.
But what does this mean? No one today is excommunicated or suspended for holding the opinions the SSPX have held since the very beginning. It’s not wrong and not an offense towards the pope or canon law.
I think arguably the only “act of disobedience” they continually commit is that they continue to operate in local dioceses without the support of the local bishop… There is just one problem: they are continually told by bishops the world over, that they are schismatics or that they are not in full communion with Rome… But why is that? Because no bishop has awarded them regular status withing their diocese.
It all boils down to DISOBEDIENCE, a sign of pride. Look what happened with Adam and Eve!Montrose:
I think the fact that we disagree diametrically on this question tells me it isn’t at all simple.
But what does this mean? No one today is excommunicated or suspended for holding the opinions the SSPX have held since the very beginning. It’s not wrong and not an offense towards the pope or canon law.
I think arguably the only “act of disobedience” they continually commit is that they continue to operate in local dioceses without the support of the local bishop… There is just one problem: they are continually told by bishops the world over, that they are schismatics or that they are not in full communion with Rome… But why is that? Because no bishop has awarded them regular status withing their diocese.
It’s a problem of a snake continually being told “you’re eating your own tail”, but not being offered anything else to eat.
You said that already. But what is required for them to be obedient? What grand gesture are they supposed to perform in order to come back into “full communion”?
I am unashamedly copying and pasting what the Pope expects SSPX to do to come back into full communion with the Church.
And:
On the Second Vatican Council he said:
And on the hierarchy he said:
Of these quotes I see only the ones on the documents of Vatican II possibly being at issue. But even so I find myself firmly agreeing with the Archbishop on those topics. Do you think the above quotes sound like a man “not in full communion with Rome”? Because I found all the quotes on different SSPX websites.
You ask for something for the SSPX to do, but when it’s presented to you, tou reject it. If that’s the case with the SSPX, how can they be in full communion already when they can’t obey a simple, but formal order by the Pope?
I agree, what the late Archbishop said is important. There are other, historical threads on CAF.
Most people use only historical facts to support not attending the Mass with the SSPX. I was (even though I admit I got sidetracked) trying to clear up the history, so that people can take a less biased peek at what makes the SSPX different.