New Stuff on SSPX or is this just old news?

  • Thread starter Thread starter demerzel85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Healing, yes.

And, in addition, one side must repudiate the manifest errors it has been propogating for some 40 years or more.

While the other side sits and waits patiently for such an eventuality, nestled safely in the arms of Truth.
Ah, yes, it’s best to be IN the Barque of Peter, not outside it.
But you have your math wrong, Doc! The SSPX haven’t been in rebellion or propagating its manifest error for near as long as 40 years!

How ya been? I was meaning to email you, but I lost your address in the great crash of 06. I hope you are keeping well.
 
Ah, yes, it’s best to be IN the Barque of Peter, not outside it.
But you have your math wrong, Doc! The SSPX haven’t been in rebellion or propagating its manifest error for near as long as 40 years!

How ya been? I was meaning to email you, but I lost your address in the great crash of 06. I hope you are keeping well.
Now, JKirk, you know Doc is good at math. I think it’s the NO that’s being held in question. 😉
 
It does seem…there has been a change as to how Rome views the situation with the SSPX.
I’ll say…compare MSgr Perl’s statements to the statement from the Pontifical Congregation of Bishops:

Msgr Perl:
“Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:
Code:
  "2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a     Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to     manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those     in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a     Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."
Yet from the Pontifical Congregation of Bishops, in a response to a request for clarification regarding status of the followers of Monsignor Lefebvre, dated October 31, 1996:
Participation in their [Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)] services is **objectively illicit **because they are not performed in full communion with the Church, and because they are a source of grave scandal and division in the ecclesial community.”
 
I’ll say…compare MSgr Perl’s statements to the statement from the Pontifical Congregation of Bishops:

Msgr Perl:

Yet from the Pontifical Congregation of Bishops, in a response to a request for clarification regarding status of the followers of Monsignor Lefebvre, dated October 31, 1996:

I have not been able to locate the Pontifical Congregation of Bishops in reference to the letter of Oct 31, 1996. Can you please provide the link to the letter.
 
Ah, yes, it’s best to be IN the Barque of Peter, not outside it.
But you have your math wrong, Doc! The SSPX haven’t been in rebellion or propagating its manifest error for near as long as 40 years!

How ya been? I was meaning to email you, but I lost your address in the great crash of 06. I hope you are keeping well.
Good point…it’s only been 18 years in error not 40.
 

I have not been able to locate the Pontifical Congregation of Bishops in reference to the letter of Oct 31, 1996. Can you please provide the link to the letter.
It was published by Bishop Norbert Brunner of the Diocese of Sion in Switzerland, la Documentation Catholique [6 July, 1997, No.2163; pp.621-623–Ed.]. Was it authentic? I dunno.
 
Ah, yes, it’s best to be IN the Barque of Peter, not outside it.
But you have your math wrong, Doc! The SSPX haven’t been in rebellion or propagating its manifest error for near as long as 40 years!

How ya been? I was meaning to email you, but I lost your address in the great crash of 06. I hope you are keeping well.
Would you have said the same thing when Pope Liberius accepted Arianism, Kirk? Yes, best to be in the Barque of Peter, not outside it like St. Athanasius. I’d say those who follow Eternal Rome are much closer to being in the Barque of Peter than those who accept trendy novelties that have been condemned by previous Popes.

And I’ve been terrible. Thanks for asking. :tiphat:
 
Would you have said the same thing when Pope Liberius accepted Arianism, Kirk? Yes, best to be in the Barque of Peter, not outside it like St. Athanasius.
The preponderance of historical evidence is that Pope Liberius went into exile rather than accept Arianism, and steadfastly refused to condemn Athanasius. The case against him is largely based on letters generally considered to be forgeries.

A more complete history may be read here:
newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

Hope that helps.
 
The preponderance of historical evidence is that Pope Liberius went into exile rather than accept Arianism, and steadfastly refused to condemn Athanasius. The case against him is largely based on letters generally considered to be forgeries.

A more complete history may be read here:
newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

Hope that helps.
I was gonna say…
 
In 1965, the Mass switched to the vernacular when I was living in Germany, as it did in many other places.
That is what mostly happened then, the 1965 Missale Romanum was not the Novus Ordo. The 1965 Missal was much closer to the 1962 Missal. The Novus Ordo officially came into existence in 1969.
 
The preponderance of historical evidence is that Pope Liberius went into exile rather than accept Arianism, and steadfastly refused to condemn Athanasius. The case against him is largely based on letters generally considered to be forgeries.

A more complete history may be read here:
newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

Hope that helps.
Yeah. Except your link didn’t provide a “preponderance” of anything. Except maybe questions.
 
I was gonna say…
You may say all you’d like, but you didn’t answer the question. Perhaps I should word it differently:

If the majority of bishops in the Church ascribe to heresy, are the few faithful who remain rooted in Sacred Tradition to be considered schismatic?
 
You may say all you’d like, but you didn’t answer the question. Perhaps I should word it differently:

If the majority of bishops in the Church ascribe to heresy, are the few faithful who remain rooted in Sacred Tradition to be considered schismatic?
The pope cannot be one of those bishops, not in his role, in his office, as successor to Saint Peter (I assume you’re including the pope in that “majority”). Popes can be weak, ineffectual, sinful, immoral, stupid, any number of things, but they cannot lead the Church astray in faith or morals. And the Mass is protected as well (you knew I was going to say that) from leading the faithful into impitey. You posit a poor example. The majority of the bishops in the world have NOT lapsed into heresy. I can think of 4 (well, five, now that we have Archbishop Milingo’s little shenanigans) that are in schism. I cannot think of one who is in formal heresy, though many may be in private rebellion of opinion or actual disobedience of policy or discipline.
 
The pope cannot be one of those bishops, not in his role, in his office, as successor to Saint Peter (I assume you’re including the pope in that “majority”). Popes can be weak, ineffectual, sinful, immoral, stupid, any number of things, but they cannot lead the Church astray in faith or morals. And the Mass is protected as well (you knew I was going to say that) from leading the faithful into impitey. You posit a poor example. The majority of the bishops in the world have NOT lapsed into heresy. I can think of 4 (well, five, now that we have Archbishop Milingo’s little shenanigans) that are in schism. I cannot think of one who is in formal heresy, though many may be in private rebellion of opinion or actual disobedience of policy or discipline.
Did I say the majority of the bishops have lapsed into heresy? Though I would suggest many more than you might hope are at least material heretics, if not formal. How many, for instance, deny the infallibly pronounced dogma, “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus?” How many would deny the necessity of conversion to attain salvation of those who are outside the Church? How many rub shoulders with pagans, Jews, heretics and apostates in scandalous eccumenical services that would have horrified their predecessors?

All of these are symptoms of a creeping modernism that has infected the Mystical Body, even at the highest levels. Dogma does not evolve. The Church does not see her doctrines in a new light, the light of fashionable thought. The Truth is the Truth and since God is the Truth, the Truth is eternally unchanging.

So you’ll pardon me if I don’t lift my skirt and screech everytime I hear of someone attending an “unapproved” Latin Mass somewhere. Not a lot of creeping modernism going on there, I think it’s safe to say.

I’d wager the average SSPX chapel is more in communion with Rome than many novus ordo parishes 'round the world. I said “many” not all. There really is a dinstinction in meaning between the two. :whistle:
 
Did I say the majority of the bishops have lapsed into heresy? Though I would suggest many more than you might hope are at least material heretics, if not formal. How many, for instance, deny the infallibly pronounced dogma, “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus?” Rightly understood, I doubt very many. How many would deny the necessity of conversion to attain salvation of those who are outside the Church? **I doubt if you pinned them down, they would out and out deny it. Granted, they probably aren’t as forward as they could be in proclaiming that necessity, but that was also the way in the pre-Vatican II Church as well (no priest ever made the attempt to evangelize my family, though our farm was just down the road from the local Catholic parish and my mother and grandparents had lived there for decades before I was born). **How many rub shoulders with pagans, Jews, heretics and apostates in scandalous eccumenical services that would have horrified their predecessors? **Well, at least they aren’t defending schismatics. That’s something in their impoverished favor. **

All of these are symptoms of a creeping modernism that has infected the Mystical Body, even at the highest levels. **I don’t believe it, you know. I don’t believe that “creeping modernism” has infected the Mystical Body, not even a toe nail thereon. Oh, we’ve always had our oddballs in the Church and they’ve had to be dealt with in every age (both Lefebreve, the Fab Four, and Milingo spring to mind). And we’ve more than our share of questionable Church leaders in the West. But I don’t believe the bit about creeping modernism or infection, because I don’t believe that the Church can BE infected. Besieged? Sure. **Dogma does not evolve. The Church does not see her doctrines in a new light, the light of fashionable thought. The Truth is the Truth and since God is the Truth, the Truth is eternally unchanging. **I agree. You’re right. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have to be further explained. AND the TRUTH, immutable as it is, is interpreted by the Church. **

So you’ll pardon me if I don’t lift my skirt and screech everytime I hear of someone attending an “unapproved” Latin Mass somewhere. Not a lot of creeping modernism going on there, I think it’s safe to say. **Oh, neither do I!!! Very little shocks me anymore. I’ve no trouble believing that people rebell against the legitimate authority of the Vicar of Christ on Earth (anyway, there’s nothing new under the Sun). It isn’t about that for me. I wish people would come back into the communion and obedience of the Church, but if they don’t, well, I fail to see what I can do about it beyond prayer. I just am not going to let pass the absurd assertions that the SSPX aren’t in schism or that their bishops aren’t excommunicate or that they are the remnant or any of that absurd garbage or that Lefebreve had to obligation to do what he did our of grave necessity or because of an emergency. That’s all. Think of it as fraternal correction for those ill-advised enough to think that they’ve found the “Church” or the Church’s truth at an SSPX chapel. They haven’t. They’ve run into a bunch of schismatics. **

I’d wager the average SSPX chapel is more in communion with Rome than many novus ordo parishes 'round the world. I said “many” not all. There really is a dinstinction in meaning between the two. :whistle:
One’s in the boat, one’s out. That’s the difference.
 
I’d wager the average SSPX chapel is more in communion with Rome than many novus ordo parishes 'round the world.
I said “many” not all. There really is a dinstinction in meaning between the two. :whistle:

Right, because suspended priests confecting the Eucharist and simultaneously commiting very grave sin are really close to “in communion” with Rome.

A question about your modernist theory: Do you think there is more modernist influence in the Church now or 20 years ago?
 
Rightly understood, I doubt very many.
There’s only one way to understand it. The way the Church has always understood it. Modernist gymnastics notwithstanding.
I doubt if you pinned them down, they would out and out deny it. Granted, they probably aren’t as forward as they could be in proclaiming that necessity, but that was also the way in the pre-Vatican II Church as well (no priest ever made the attempt to evangelize my family, though our farm was just down the road from the local Catholic parish and my mother and grandparents had lived there for decades before I was born).
A rule of thumb that has guided my life is, never try to convert well-armed Baptists.
**Well, at least they aren’t defending schismatics. That’s something in their impoverished favor. **
And contradicting long-standing infallible teaching is better than defending schismatics?
I don’t believe it, you know. I don’t believe that “creeping modernism” has infected the Mystical Body, not even a toe nail thereon. Oh, we’ve always had our oddballs in the Church and they’ve had to be dealt with in every age (both Lefebreve, the Fab Four, and Milingo spring to mind). And we’ve more than our share of questionable Church leaders in the West. But I don’t believe the bit about creeping modernism or infection, because I don’t believe that the Church can BE infected. Besieged? Sure.
Then you deny history. The Church has faced heresy since day one. Theological relativism, inspired by hideous Enlightenment thinking, is very much in fashion in today’s heirarchy. You may deny reality all you want to. But it’s there for all to see.
**I agree. You’re right. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have to be further explained. AND the TRUTH, immutable as it is, is interpreted by the Church. **
And when that interpretation directly contradicts previous teaching, what then? How ya gonna dance around that one? Explain to me, please, why the new catechism goes to such tortured lengths to excuse the grave sin of masturbation? Is that further explaining an immutable truth? Or is that just modernism, an attempt to accomodate the age?
**Oh, neither do I!!! Very little shocks me anymore. I’ve no trouble believing that people rebell against the legitimate authority of the Vicar of Christ on Earth (anyway, there’s nothing new under the Sun). It isn’t about that for me. I wish people would come back into the communion and obedience of the Church, but if they don’t, well, I fail to see what I can do about it beyond prayer. I just am not going to let pass the absurd assertions that the SSPX aren’t in schism or that their bishops aren’t excommunicate or that they are the remnant or any of that absurd garbage or that Lefebreve had to obligation to do what he did our of grave necessity or because of an emergency. That’s all. Think of it as fraternal correction for those ill-advised enough to think that they’ve found the “Church” or the Church’s truth at an SSPX chapel. They haven’t. They’ve run into a bunch of schismatics. **
Sorry, Kirk. But the Church doesn’t see it the way you do. The Truth to be found at an SSPX chapel is nothing more than the Truth that has been handed down for 2,000 years. And you don’t have any authority to declare anyone in schism. Only the Church does and she hasn’t.
One’s in the boat, one’s out. That’s the difference.
I hope when I complete my studies in Econe, you won’t throw me out the boat too, Kirk. I can’t swim. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top