Negative attitude to SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter floresco
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The pope here seems to indicate that priests of the Church will need to be prepared to offer both forms. It was that to which I was responding, though you again have nailed why so many have problems with the SSPX and other “traditionalists:” the denigration of the OF.
Click to expand...
the new rite is a failure. it did not do what it was intended. in fact, it did mostly the opposite. God gives all of us a terrible gift: freedom of choice. even the pope himself is subject to this. he may choose wisely, or poorly. we all must live with their choice out of obedience. this doesn’t make every prudential decision by the pope a work of the Holy Spirit.

summorum pontificum is proof positive that something is wrong with the new mass. it’s an obvious rupture with tradition–this is why the pope is bringing back the old mass which was by in large abrogated. face the facts: the church has done a 180 on the new mass and is finally admitting that the reform was carried out poorly.
 
Dee_Dee_King said:
the new rite is a failure. it did not do what it was intended. in fact, it did mostly the opposite. God gives all of us a terrible gift: freedom of choice. even the pope himself is subject to this. he may choose wisely, or poorly. we all must live with their choice out of obedience. this doesn’t make every prudential decision by the pope a work of the Holy Spirit.

summorum pontificum is proof positive that something is wrong with the new mass. it’s an obvious rupture with tradition–this is why the pope is bringing back the old mass which was by in large abrogated. face the facts: the church has done a 180 on the new mass and is finally admitting that the reform was carried out poorly.
Click to expand...
No, the reason why the Holy Father “brought back” the old Mass is clearly spelled out in Summorum Pontificum and its cover letter, none of which has any parallel or resemblance to what you have written above. If you want to know the “why” of the Holy Father’s actions, that would be the best place to look.
 
Onegin said:
While I’d encourage voicing your opinion with the SSPX, with all due respect, I don’t think they will hasten the reconciliation until there is a solution that is acceptable for both parties. And I doubt that there are any external factors that will hasten the process.

In the case of the SSPX, I don’t think it is realistic to hope or assume that they will go the way of the FSSP, as the FSSP (from what I understand) is still obligated to say the Novus Ordo Mass if asked by the local ordinary and this is something that I don’t think the SSPX Priests will agree to since it would be totally inconsistent with their whole position.
Click to expand...
And Pope Benedict has set that as a requirement.

The question being, “Will either give in on that?”
I doubt the pope will. He’s been consistent that, despite a few minor flaws, the OF is valid, has merit, and is the ordinary form, and the form all Roman priests must be willing and able to say.

Some SSPX priests might, others might not.

I see the real solution to be a separate hierarchy for the EF-adherents. Move them out from under the OF-demanding bishops… and let them be officially what the SSPX have done in practice: an church sui iuris, just like the Ukrainians or the Melkites…
 
I don’t know about the ‘again’ part but I will apologize for my remark. No, I do not wish to debate this further as many traditional Catholics get banned while discussing it and I’m not even a member of the SSPX. Carry on and have a nice day.🙂
 
Aramis said:
I see the real solution to be a separate hierarchy for the EF-adherents. Move them out from under the OF-demanding bishops… and let them be officially what the SSPX have done in practice: an church sui iuris, just like the Ukrainians or the Melkites…
Click to expand...
I’m not in any position to do anything about it but I agree. There is much more than the Latin Mass that the SSPX finds at stake here. Simply thinking that they will have to do what the FSSP or ICR do just isn’t being realistic.
 
Aramis said:
And Pope Benedict has set that as a requirement.

The question being, “Will either give in on that?”
I doubt the pope will. He’s been consistent that, despite a few minor flaws, the OF is valid, has merit, and is the ordinary form, and the form all Roman priests must be willing and able to say.

Some SSPX priests might, others might not.

I see the real solution to be a separate hierarchy for the EF-adherents. Move them out from under the OF-demanding bishops… and let them be officially what the SSPX have done in practice: an church sui iuris, just like the Ukrainians or the Melkites…
Click to expand...
Would it also be along the lines of the Anglican ordinariate? That might work.
 
maurin said:
With many posters on this and other threads, Msgr Perl’s words don’t seem to matter. And he’s in good standing, exercises an official ministry, and spoke for the Pope. I have no hope that these same posters will hear anyone else when they won’t hear the Msgr.

As for the Orthodox it absolutely blows my mind that paragraph 1399 of JPII’s Catechism actually uses the phrase “the faithful are encouraged” to assist at a Liturgy (with conditions, cf the paragraph) celebrated by sects which deny the Pope’s position. Its Orwellian.
Click to expand...
The writing of Msgr. Perl was not a general permission; it was an answer in a specific, individual case. He’s stated publicly that it is not a general permission, but an answer to one individual, and refused to give a general answer.

As for the Orthodox… the only real differences between Eastern Catholic and Orthodox are acceptance of the Pope. A person attending the Assyrian Church of the East is getting the same theology and liturgy that they would in the Chaldean Catholic Church, except as regards the papacy. A person attending the Russian Orthodox Church gets the same theology and liturgy as the Russian Greek Catholic Church, except for some elements of ecclesiology, and a few saints’ feasts (Sts Nicholas and Alexandra of Moskva, St German of Alaska, St Grigorii Rasputin). A Coptic Catholic and a Coptic Orthodox hold the same faith… just different popes and some different wordings, but the same liturgy and theology. The Eastern Catholics are not “Latins with an alternate liturgy” but “Orthodox in full ecclesiastical communion with Rome.”

Even if the SSPX went into full schism, until they adopted some theologically wrong teaching, they could still be used to fulfill one’s obligation… because they would, just like the PNCC, still hold valid apostolic succession, a valid priesthood, a valid liturgy, and a correct teaching on all things but the papacy. And the PNCC are held by the church to be like the Orthodox; not in full visible communion, but not invalid, either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top