Latest News from Bishop Fellay on Doctrinal Preamble SSPX

[Warrenton]

Yes, it is. His theses stated his belief that some Church practices of his time were improper and not truly consistent with the Deposit of the Faith.

True, and Luther was correct in certain respects, if his observation of the pardoners and indulgence sellers were accurate.

Luther, however, never claimed that the mass was not being said traditionally, he said that that masses for the dead had no efficacy because the person was already either redeemed or damned. But even there, his problem was more with the cost of the mass.

This, in turn led to a debate on the role of faith in salvation. That is where the rupture became permanent. Moreover, all of this occurred within ten years or so of the original theses. The SSPX has been running for 40 some years, and has not announced any new doctrines.

Luther, it hardly need be said, was not relying on the council of Trent to support his positions. Rather, he generally relied on his personal interpretation of scripture. There was considerable disagreement among the reformers of the 1532s to early 1540s regarding which of the first seven councils would be valid.

SSPX does not question any of that.

I agree that the Old Catholics are an even better fit - in fact I think they are a perfect fit for what is going on with the SSPX right now. Hopefully the end result will be different

Not perfect because Vatican I was not followed by widespread liturgical abuses.

 

[codefro]

The SSPX is probably the catalyst for the wider celebration of the EF. To the extent that the EF “sets a standard” for devout celebration of the sacraments, that “fixes the Church” because incorrect and irreverent celebration of the sacraments is a problem. If so, then the SSPX is doing something for the Church.

How is the full communion participating in “incorrect and irreverent celebration of the sacraments” in your opinion? What priests do to, as you say, make the celebration of the sacraments incorrect and irreverent are being dealt with by the establishment. This is how structure works in the Catholic Church. Priests are to be held accountable by the Bishop, going all the way up to His Holiness the Pope. So, again, in what way do you mean that hopefully doesn’t contradict the word of the Holy Father?

BTW I would agree with you if SSPX gained their own ordinariate and worked from within, but they choose not to. So they do nothing to physically better the church. I also agree with those who draw comparisons with SSPX and Luther. It is too extreme, and will justify the next group who decides to try to “stand up” against the church (a church who loves her people).

I for one would love to see SSPX come into the church because I think their views could better the church, so long as their energies were focused WITHIN the realm of full communion. Other than that, it really looks like what I said- angry children in the corner holding their breath.

 

[jmj1984]

Other than that, it really looks like what I said- angry children in the corner holding their breath.

A statement as absurd as this can only be the result of one of two things:
1)Profound ignorance, or
2)Profound Bigotry

To state that the SSPX are just angry children in the corner holding their breath is firstly a statement that is not consistent with the facts of the SSPX’s apostolate over the years and secondly an opinion which almost all traditional minded priests disagree with.

 

[Warrenton]

How is the full communion participating in “incorrect and irreverent celebration of the sacraments” in your opinion? What priests do to, as you say, make the celebration of the sacraments incorrect and irreverent are being dealt with by the establishment.

There have been a lot of problems with the manner in which mass is celebrated. Many in Rome have said so.

The Pope has said he hopes that the EF will help all masses be said better.

I hope the SSPX becomes an ordinariate, also.

The SSPX may be more like frightened children than angry ones.

 

[codefro]

A statement as absurd as this can only be the result of one of two things:
1)Profound ignorance, or
2)Profound Bigotry

To state that the SSPX are just angry children in the corner holding their breath is firstly a statement that is not consistent with the facts of the SSPX’s apostolate over the years and secondly an opinion which almost all traditional minded priests disagree with.

Maybe so. I don’t pretend to be the Almighty on the matter. On the other hand, I wonder why people put so much care and defense for those who walk away from the communion to get their way, when groups like FSSP have come into the communion and have the same arguments. Why is nobody flocking to them, or even talk about them more than SSPX for that matter? The fact that SSPX has walked away has made them rockstars, which I find very odd.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I applaud the Holy Father and his advisers who seems to earnestly be attempting to heal a rupture within the Body of Christ, BUT…

A) I believe it is Catholic teaching that the Church contains the fullness of the unity for which the Holy One prayed after the Last Supper, ie, the Body already IS one, in the Catholic Church under the Successor to Saint Peter. It would be good for THEM to return to the fullness of that unity. It would not, however, add to the unity which the Church already holds in it’s fullness (we don’t need them, for all they say they can give us; rather, it is they who need us, and I don’t mean ME or YOU, I mean the Body of Christ and the fullness of His Light, a light in which we all, all too often, stumble). Same goes, in a gradation of degrees (I suppose) for the Orthodox and our Protestant brothers and sisters.

B) I don’t think that the Holy Father or his advisers should be “negotiating,” if that’s what’s going on. Peter casts the whole net and doesn’t negotiate with the fish.

C) I believe that as this has happened on the right, so it will also happen on the left. We WILL have a smaller, less popular Church, ticking off the Dimond Brothers and Bishops Fellay and Williamson on one hand, and Sister Joanie Chichester and Frs. Richard Rohr and Richird McBrien on the other. That’s sad, but isn’t an honest rupture better than a huge, monolithic thingamagig that means essentially nothing (see the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion)?

Whether one falls out of the left side of the boat or the right side, one is still out of the boat.

 

[Warrenton]

groups like FSSP have come into the communion and have the same arguments. Why is nobody flocking to them, or even talk about them more than SSPX for that matter? The fact that SSPX has walked away has made them rockstars, which I find very odd.

Start a thread about FSSP and I will be glad to post

I do agree that there is something compelling about the radical dissenter. Everyone likes to talk about the far edges, maybe because we use them to focus our thoughts on issues.

 

[codefro]

Start a thread about FSSP and I will be glad to post

I do agree that there is something compelling about the radical dissenter. Everyone likes to talk about the far edges, maybe because we use them to focus our thoughts on issues.

I agree that that is a reason. As ROMAN Catholics, we should be defending those within.

 

[ProVobis]

I am sure there are quite a few liberal Catholics out there who don’t like the changes happening however, but are they leaving the Church to establish their own little club? If they are then it must be pretty small and insignificant,

I’m not quite sure I agree with this. Ex-Catholics have supposedly formed the largest denomination in the U.S. They may not even care enough to establish their own little club.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m not quite sure I agree with this. Ex-Catholics have supposedly formed the largest denomination in the U.S. They may not even care enough to establish their own little club.

Aren’t these “women priests” doing just that? Hiving off and doing their own thing?

 

[jmj1984]

Maybe so. I don’t pretend to be the Almighty on the matter. On the other hand, I wonder why people put so much care and defense for those who walk away from the communion to get their way, when groups like FSSP have come into the communion and have the same arguments. Why is nobody flocking to them, or even talk about them more than SSPX for that matter? The fact that SSPX has walked away has made them rockstars, which I find very odd.

It certainly draws attention to them but no thats not the reason they are so well known. They’re so well know because they gave birth to the traditionalist movement, maintained the TLM and the Traditional Latin Sacraments during a time when they were believed to be suppressed thereby preventing their extinction, maintained the traditional teaching of the church during a time when many teachings were in flux and objective heresy or at least seriously erroneous opinions were rampant and because the second largest traditionalist group was born out of them. As well as that many of the arguments used to defend the traditional latin sacraments by all traditionalists were originally formulated and used by the SSPX. They are therefore in a way the ‘Godfather’ of the Traditionalist catholic movement. And before someone starts making a controversy out of nothing the actions I am speaking occured before 1988, that is before their relations with Rome became unusual and not normalised

 

[jmj1984]

I applaud the Holy Father and his advisers who seems to earnestly be attempting to heal a rupture within the Body of Christ, BUT…

A) I believe it is Catholic teaching that the Church contains the fullness of the unity for which the Holy One prayed after the Last Supper, ie, the Body already IS one, in the Catholic Church under the Successor to Saint Peter. It would be good for THEM to return to the fullness of that unity. It would not, however, add to the unity which the Church already holds in it’s fullness (we don’t need them, for all they say they can give us; rather, it is they who need us, and I don’t mean ME or YOU, I mean the Body of Christ and the fullness of His Light, a light in which we all, all too often, stumble). Same goes, in a gradation of degrees (I suppose) for the Orthodox and our Protestant brothers and sisters.

B) I don’t think that the Holy Father or his advisers should be “negotiating,” if that’s what’s going on. Peter casts the whole net and doesn’t negotiate with the fish.

C) I believe that as this has happened on the right, so it will also happen on the left. We WILL have a smaller, less popular Church, ticking off the Dimond Brothers and Bishops Fellay and Williamson on one hand, and Sister Joanie Chichester and Frs. Richard Rohr and Richird McBrien on the other. That’s sad, but isn’t an honest rupture better than a huge, monolithic thingamagig that means essentially nothing (see the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion)?

Whether one falls out of the left side of the boat or the right side, one is still out of the boat.

Are you not being hypocritical by doing the same thing that you accuse the SSPX of doing? Namely knowing better than the Pope. If the pope has chosen to negotiate, and he is not the first pope to do so, Pope Paul VI and Bl John Paul II both did the same, then who are you to say he is wrong? And perhaps more empirically what evidence can you produce to support your opinion?

 

[severus68]

I can certainly see your point and can, to some extent, appreciate their position. I too am offended by some of the offenses those have committed in the name of the Church and yet call themselves Catholic. It is for this very reason I don’t understand how the SSPX can continue their stand despite the fact that they are no different from what they claim to be fighting. I take offense to the idea that these men who decided to put themselves above the Church are effecting good. Those that decided to divide from the Church have committed the same sins as those who completed “clown masses” only in the opposite direction. They decided to man’s tradition was more important than God’s. With their continued defiance it makes it look as though they are continuing to strive for division.

I am reminded of a quote from the current prelate of Opus Dei (pretty conservative group if you ask me). He said, and I quote, ““Traditionalism,” in its different forms, is a sickness based on a mistaken concept of Tradition. In its genuine meaning, “Tradition” plays an important role in the Church along with Sacred Scripture, from which it is inseparable.”

Here is the link to Opus Dei’s site and the quote directly from the prelate: opusdei.us/art.php?p=8031 . He speaks of Vatican II in the same Q&A.

Using that quote one can only take away that those that are supporting the cause of the SSPX are sick. We all need to pray that God, the great physician, heals their hearts.

May I ask what ‘clown masses’ and ‘rainbow masses’ are please?

BTW, I agree with what many of you are saying. I see from their sites that the SSPX are still freely making disparaging remarks about the OM and the actions of the Pope. It would appear that they want the Church to bend to their way.

 

[TrueLight]

Maybe so. I don’t pretend to be the Almighty on the matter. On the other hand, I wonder why people put so much care and defense for those who walk away from the communion to get their way, when groups like FSSP have come into the communion and have the same arguments. Why is nobody flocking to them, or even talk about them more than SSPX for that matter? The fact that SSPX has walked away has made them rockstars, which I find very odd.

I love and wholly support the FSSP.

Without the SSPX, there would be no FSSP.

Nuff said.

 

[codefro]

And SSPX needs to update their website. Pope JPII is no longer Pope so they don’t seem to have much beef. I notice people use vague generalities when explaining SSPX’s issues with Rome. I understand their beef when it comes to interfaith dialogues from the Pope and the rest of the church. They do not like the OF. What else? Other than that it seems that Benedict has bent over backwards to put other concerns to rest.

 

[SaintGobban]

I love and wholly support the FSSP.

Without the SSPX, there would be no FSSP.

Nuff said.

Yes, the good Lord can make good things come from bad.

"And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints. "
Romans 8:28

 

[TrueLight]

Yes, the good Lord can make good things come from bad.

"And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints. "
Romans 8:28

I totally agree.

1 Corinthians 11
"18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.

 

[Mike30]

Slogging through SSPX threads is about as tiresome as slogging through Charismatic threads. The same people always posting. The same extreme positions pilloride, vilified or defended and applauded. Tiresome.

However the SSPX did one thing or rather the Archbishop did one thing. He disobeyed the Holy Father. Thats it in a nutshell. He consecrated four Bishops without permission, whose excommunications have been lifted.

Thats really about it. They have issues with some of the changes after Vatican II, but since none of those changes are part of the Deposit of the Faith, I suppose they can be disagreed with.

The hatred that some people have for the SSPX seems totally out of proportion for what was done. Amazing that a mere act of disobedience, which occurs with way too much frequency, by the way, can rise such passion and such hatred and such heated passions…

But I think I know why it does and it really has nothing to do with obedience at all. No it is a much more elemental thing something easy to understand. Real easy.

They hate the SSPX because they, and they alone pretty much kept the Extraordinary Form of the Mass alive when almost everybody else wanted it dead and buried. I remember full well the aftermath of Vatican II. The almost feverish desire to destropy anything that even hinted at tradition and accept any and all innovations to help establish the new and improved Church. The Extraordinary Form of the Mass was the single most visible symbol of the Church. As long as it was around the Church could never establish the new springtime that it was entering into. So it had to be destroyed.

After the Holy Father allowed the indult in the 80’s, more than a few Bishops paid no attention at all and refused to allow Extraordinary Masses at all, in direct defiance of the Pope. So we know from that simple fact that hatred for the Extraordinary Mass was well known and prevalent in the Church of that time.

And that my friends is exactly why there is such primal visceral hatred of the SSPX by many. They are scared to death that when people actually see just how much things have changed a sizeable number will want to return to the Extraordinary Form.

And that is the last thing in the world that they want too happen.

Just my opinion.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Topic Exhausted …
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)