Let's Keep It Simple: Does It Matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter charlesbarkley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

charlesbarkley

Guest
I want to ask a very simple question. Does it really matter, in one sense, if the Society of Pius X is officially, formally in schism? This, as oppossed to, canonically suspended? (Of course, I understand it does matter in the legal canonical sense, PLEASE SAVE THE EXPLANATION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO)
Why do I say, in one sense it doesnt matter? We, as Catholics, are bound to obey the Holy Father in matters of Church discipline. According to Vatican I we are bound to obey the Pope on matters of Church administration. Pope John Paul II has clearly commanded(this has not been officialy reversed by Pope Benedict XVI) Catholics to stop supporting the Society “in ANY WAY.” It makes no difference whether they are in formal schism or not in that sense. If you want to be true to the Pope then you must do what he commands. It is clear that the Pope has commanded Catholics to cease any support. I would think that every Catholic has to at least adopt that same attitude in regard to the Society.
 
Your question ‘should’ be a very simple one. Obedience, or false obedience?

However, it does not seem true that support of the SSPX “in ANY WAY” is not allowed. Rather, the opposite is true according to Msgr. Perl. Everything about the SSPX is still hotly debated by absolutely everybody who loves/hates them…I will suffice it to say that I believe the excommunications will soon (though maybe as much as 20 years) be lifted/made null. Spera in Deo.
 
I don’t usually make comments about SSPX on this forum.

But it seems to me that if Catholics would simply stop supporting this movement and not go to their Masses, the movement would die out and that would be a good thing for Holy Mother Church.

Simple enough?
 
charlesbarkley said:
I want to ask a very simple question. Does it really matter, in one sense, if the Society of Pius X is officially, formally in schism? This, as oppossed to, canonically suspended? (Of course, I understand it does matter in the legal canonical sense, PLEASE SAVE THE EXPLANATION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO)
Why do I say, in one sense it doesnt matter? We, as Catholics, are bound to obey the Holy Father in matters of Church discipline. According to Vatican I we are bound to obey the Pope on matters of Church administration. Pope John Paul II has clearly commanded(this has not been officialy reversed by Pope Benedict XVI) Catholics to stop supporting the Society “in ANY WAY.” It makes no difference whether they are in formal schism or not in that sense. If you want to be true to the Pope then you must do what he commands. It is clear that the Pope has commanded Catholics to cease any support. I would think that every Catholic has to at least adopt that same attitude in regard to the Society.
Click to expand...
But they won’t. There is a vocal minority that insists that the chair of Peter has been vacant since John XXIII or even earlier. The only reason now that the SSPX will not end its protest is that it wants the pope to denounce Vatican II and declare it an invalid council, which the pope will not do.
 
I find it rather astonishing that there are Catholics who would recieve communion from priests who are suspended. Of course their masses are valid. During the French revolution priests who didn’t acknowledge the pope were suspended (jurors)and there were indeed few Catholics who approached them for the sacraments. The papal priests were persecuted but Catholics knew they were the ones faithful to the Holy Father and the Church.

I don’t mean to smear the SSPX ( I sympathize with their cause to some extent) but for me to be Catholic means to acknowledge the authority of the Vicar of Christ to it’s full extent and to be subject to him.
 
Why are we starting this all over again??? I do not hate. I pray for unity. I follow Rome.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
I don’t think it’s an offense against either truth or charity to say that the present relationship between SSPX and the Holy See is strained and irregular.

Please God, let regular communion be fully restored between them. And I will rejoice.
 
The difference between the two states DOES matter.

For, until formal schism, the faithful of both sides are still catholics (possibly in grievous error, in the case of the Faithful who associate with the SSPX).

Once their schism becomes formalized, the schismatics are forbidden the Eucharist at the proper Catholic Church.
 
Cat said:
I don’t usually make comments about SSPX on this forum.

But it seems to me that if Catholics would simply stop supporting this movement and not go to their Masses, the movement would die out and that would be a good thing for Holy Mother Church.

Simple enough?
Click to expand...
But why should Catholics stop supporting this movement? The Ecclesia Dei commission has stated many times that the faithful fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending, and that they may make monetary contributions. Remember, the SSPX is an ‘internal’ matter for the Church.
 
CassiusLonginus said:
But why should Catholics stop supporting this movement? The Ecclesia Dei commission has stated many times that the faithful fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending, and that they may make monetary contributions. Remember, the SSPX is an ‘internal’ matter for the Church.
Click to expand...
This will never sink in, I’m afraid.

Even when they are regularized, it won’t sink in.

On July 30th, isn’t there supposed to be some kind of announcement from the SSPX?
 
peary said:
But they won’t. There is a vocal minority that insists that the chair of Peter has been vacant since John XXIII or even earlier.
Click to expand...
Hello peary,

I’m not quite sure why you brought sedevacantists into this discussion. We are discussing the SSPX, not the SSPV.
The only reason now that the SSPX will not end its protest is that it wants the pope to denounce Vatican II and declare it an invalid council, which the pope will not do.
Click to expand...
Is there a need to ‘denounce’ Vatican II? Everybody knows that it was not a dogmatic council. I hadn’t heard this before. I was always under the impression that they simply wanted to be regularized, that’s why they are in constant contact with Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos
 
PrayforMallory,

Hmm, I’m not sure of any announcements that are to be made. What is it supposed to be about?
 
Aramis said:
The difference between the two states DOES matter.

For, until formal schism, the faithful of both sides are still catholics (possibly in grievous error, in the case of the Faithful who associate with the SSPX).

Once their schism becomes formalized, the schismatics are forbidden the Eucharist at the proper Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
But it’s NOT a schism.
 
CassiusLonginus said:
Your question ‘should’ be a very simple one. Obedience, or false obedience?

However, it does not seem true that support of the SSPX “in ANY WAY” is not allowed. Rather, the opposite is true according to Msgr. Perl. Everything about the SSPX is still hotly debated by absolutely everybody who loves/hates them…I will suffice it to say that I believe the excommunications will soon (though maybe as much as 20 years) be lifted/made null. Spera in Deo.
Click to expand...
Well, when the Pope lifts the exccomunications (which I DO NOT beleve will happen-nor do I believe the Holy Father should) then it will be a diffeent situation. If you read John Paul II’s letter Ecclessia Dei it is very clear that the Pope commands Catholics to stop supporting the Society “in anyway.” In fact that is exactly what he said.
 
CassiusLonginus said:
PrayforMallory,

Hmm, I’m not sure of any announcements that are to be made. What is it supposed to be about?
Click to expand...
I read somewhere (wish I could remember) that only part of Bishop Fellay’s response was made public, and that the rest is going to be made public on July 30, though I could be wrong. I don’t have firsthand knowledge or anything, just something I remember reading.

It’s only common sense that the situation is going to be regularized. The SSPX can’t last outside of perfect communion, and the Church needs them because of their growth and vibrancy.

It’s a win-win, but people are so unnecessarily afraid of the TLM that they don’t look at things charitably or objectively.
 
CassiusLonginus said:
But why should Catholics stop supporting this movement? The Ecclesia Dei commission has stated many times that the faithful fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending, and that they may make monetary contributions. Remember, the SSPX is an ‘internal’ matter for the Church.
Click to expand...
BECAUSE THE POPE SAID TO STOP!!! HELLO!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top