Not schismatic, not in union

[gorman64]

They put the law of obedience ahead of the idea that they were owed something.

One must know what one is being obedient to…obedience, being a moral virtue, is ALWAYS subordinate to Faith, Hope, and Charity…those being the theological virtues.

Lutherans and Anglicans also have more beautiful Masses than many Catholics; would it be okay to join those churches for the sake of one’s soul?

Lutherns and Anglicans are heretics and they changed their liturgy to reflect their heresy. That’s what Leo XIII was referring to here:

Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between “the law of believing and the law of praying”, under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. - Pope Leo XII, Apostolicae Curae, On the Nullity of Anglican Orders, September 18, 1896

They are no different than the SSPX - just older. Their founders, too, were “merely” excommunicated from the Catholic Church; they didn’t voluntarily or intentionally go into schism. (They also made no attempt to get out of schism once they were in it, which also seems similar to the SSPX.)

They (protestants) are heretics…not schismatics. Don’t you know the difference? They left the Catholic Church by their heresy…heresy severs one from the Church…do you think all protestants were excommunicated by name? Their adherence to the condemned sect is why they are legally considered outside the Church. What is the heresy of the SSPX???

In their first generation, they, too, had valid Sacraments

Well, when the changed their liturgy they didn’t…when they changed their ordination rites they didn’t have valid orders…that’s exactly what was pointed out in Apostolicae Curae!

yet the Reformation Saints such as St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, etc., would have died rather than attend a Lutheran Mass, even when the Masses in their own parish churches left much to be desired, including priests who, because they could not speak Latin, made nonsense of the words of the Consecration.

Really?

They also didn’t sit back and do nothing. They went to their Bishops - but not only to complain - they also asked what they could do to help.

How many Bishops in England were still Catholics?

That’s what we need to do. Don’t just complain. Put together a plan of action, and run it by your Bishop, or else ask him what you can do to help make your Catholic parish more reverent, and inspire your priest to greater holiness.

Well, the SSPX and other traditional Catholics did do something…they got priests to say the TLM…the rejected the novelties…the horrible catechisms… [edited by Moderator] …and all you can do is call them schismatic!

Gorman

 

[jmcrae]

---

The Orthodox have been out of union with the Catholic Church close to 1000 yrs. They have not lost Apostolic succession, —the Church accepts their sacraments as valid—and She does not consider the Orthodox as protestant. So it is not a given–that the SSPX will end up in the same situation as the protestants.

What other Apostle can the SSPX trace their line through, once they get rid of Peter?

 

[jmcrae]

Gorman;

Protestantism started in schism, and ended in heresy. That’s exactly what’s going to happen to the SSPX, if they continue in the way that they have begun.

I’m sorry that that offends you. Obviously, you love your SSPX Church, and want to believe that they aren’t really doing anything bad - I can understand that. But it’s better to be in communion with the Church, for the salvation of our souls, even when things aren’t going as well as we would like in the Church. Remember Korah. (Numbers 22.)

 

[Walking_Home]

What other Apostle can the SSPX trace their line through, once they get rid of Peter?

---

The same Apostle that Arch. Lefebrve can trace his consecration too.

Think–to what Apostles can the Orthodox trace their line —once they became separate from the Church.

 

[laudamus_te]

paramedicgirl;2371089:

So do you believe that the SSPX are protestants?

In effect, yes they are.

paramedicgirl;2371089:

Then why has the SSPX been called an internal matter of the Church by certain cardinals? Can you show me a Church document that refers to them as protestants?

I am saying that they are like Protestants. Obviously they are not actually Protestants, because they are not descended from Martin Luther.

So which is it, are they or aren’t they, in your mind? Because that’s all it is - in your mind. You have a very wrong, uninformed and misguided understanding of the SSPX situation. To call them “protestant” or even “like Protestants” is absolutely absurd. Show me where the Lefebvre or the SSPX have denied that the Pope is pope… where is the proof that they have established their own “new church?” Do you even understand what you are saying?

And why are you people always bashing Martin Luther and the Protestants anyway, now that VII has ushered in ecumenism and it’s ok to be Protestant? JPII even acknowledged the “deep religiousity of Luther.” Talk about your double standards.

 

[jmcrae]

---

The same Apostle that Arch. Lefebrve can trace his consecration to.

That would be Peter. Once they get rid of all connection to Peter, how will they trace back their Apostolic succession? (Not through Archbishop Lefebvre.)

Think–to what Apostles can the Orthodox trace their line —once they became separate from the Church.

The Greek Church traces back to St. John. I don’t know the rest. I am under the impression that the Ukranian Church traces back to St. Bartholomew, but I don’t know that for sure.

 

[Walking_Home]

What other Apostle can the SSPX trace their line through, once they get rid of Peter?

Quote=jmcrae
They always had it. Apostolic Succession isn’t something you can lose, and then get back. Once it’s gone, it’s gone. The Orthodox never lost it, because they still had other Apostles besides Peter, when they broke away from Peter. They only lost the Petrine line; not the others.

---

I just noticed. You had answered your own question in another post. Now —why is it that you recognize that the Orthodox did not loose succession—yet are looking for a way to imply the SSPX will not succession.

 

[jmcrae]

Quote=jmcrae
They always had it. Apostolic Succession isn’t something you can lose, and then get back. Once it’s gone, it’s gone. The Orthodox never lost it, because they still had other Apostles besides Peter, when they broke away from Peter. They only lost the Petrine line; not the others.

---

I just noticed. You had answered your own question in another post. Now —why is it that you recognize that the Orthodox did not loose succession—yet are looking for a way to imply the SSPX will not succession.

The SSPX has no other line. The Pope (the line of St. Peter) is not going to be ordaining Bishops for them. Who will? There is nobody.

 

[Walking_Home]

That would be Peter. Once they get rid of all connection to Peter, how will they trace back their Apostolic succession? (Not through Archbishop Lefebvre.)

The Greek Church traces back to St. John. I don’t know the rest. I am under the impression that the Ukranian Church traces back to St. Bartholomew, but I don’t know that for sure.

---

The fact that the Church recognizes the SSPX bishops as valid–tells that they have not lost succession–even with the current situation. As long as the SSPX holds on to their doctrine (which is Catholic) they will retain succession. This succession can be passed on.

 

[laudamus_te]

jmcrae:

That’s what we need to do. Don’t just complain. Put together a plan of action, and run it by your Bishop, or else ask him what you can do to help make your Catholic parish more reverent, and inspire your priest to greater holiness.

Well, the SSPX and other traditional Catholics did do something…they got priests to say the TLM…the rejected the novelties…the horrible catechisms…the irreverent NO liturgies…and all you can do is call them schismatic!

Gorman

I would like to cordially invite you, jmcrae, to my archdiocese of Los Angeles, and run such a plan of action by my archbishop.

 

[Walking_Home]

The SSPX has no other line. The Pope (the line of St. Peter) is not going to be ordaining Bishops for them. Who will? There is nobody.

---

All that is needed for the valid consecration of a bishop—is a valid bishop----Which the SSPX have.

 

[jmcrae]

So which is it, are they or aren’t they, in your mind? Because that’s all it is - in your mind. You have a very wrong, uninformed and misguided understanding of the SSPX situation.

The SSPX reject the authority of the Pope to teach them anything or to tell them how to run their affairs, do they not?

This puts them in schism against the Church.

We have an SSPX chapel in Calgary, and our Bishop tells us that they are not under his command, nor are they under any authority of the Catholic Church; therefore, they are to be treated the same as all non-Catholics. Nice to visit, but don’t participate in their Sacraments, because they have not received permission from the Bishop to dispense any Sacraments in Calgary.

“Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” St. Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD.

 

[paramedicgirl]

With all the SSPX bashing that goes on here, I wonder if these opinions will change if they are reunited formally with Rome. Will all of you who hold the SSPX in such contempt still despise them if they reunite?

 

[Walking_Home]

The SSPX reject the authority of the Pope to teach them anything or to tell them how to run their affairs, do they not?

This puts them in schism against the Church.

We have an SSPX chapel in Calgary, and our Bishop tells us that they are not under his command, nor are they under any authority of the Catholic Church; therefore, they are to be treated the same as all non-Catholics. Nice to visit, but don’t participate in their Sacraments, because they have not received permission from the Bishop to dispense any Sacraments in Calgary.

“Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” St. Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD.

---

May be a good idea to ask your bishop if he feels the same way about the Orthodox.

 

[paramedicgirl]

The SSPX reject the authority of the Pope to teach them anything or to tell them how to run their affairs, do they not?

This puts them in schism against the Church.

We have an SSPX chapel in Calgary, and our Bishop tells us that they are not under his command, nor are they under any authority of the Catholic Church; therefore, they are to be treated the same as all non-Catholics. Nice to visit, but don’t participate in their Sacraments, because they have not received permission from the Bishop to dispense any Sacraments in Calgary.

“Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” St. Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD.

Their sacraments are valid, as you well know. (with the exception of confession and marriage). Their rite of confirmation is a whole lot holier than the new rite. I’ve been to one in Calgary in November, and I’ve been to many in my own NO church. There’s no comparison.

 

[gorman64]

Protestantism started in schism, and ended in heresy. That’s exactly what’s going to happen to the SSPX, if they continue in the way that they have begun.

First, I am not SSPX. Second, you might want to consider who changed the liturgy and most of the sacraments. Did the SSPX do this…or did the “conciliar church” do this? Your analogy is backwards…it actually fits you and your “schismatic” sect…you are the ones who changed…not the traditionalists. When you refuse communion with other Catholics during this crisis…that is a schismatic (at least materially) act. Do you realise that?

I’m sorry that that offends you. Obviously, you love your SSPX Church, and want to believe that they aren’t really doing anything bad - I can understand that.

I am offended by the crass way you treat fellow Catholics.

But it’s better to be in communion with the Church, for the salvation of our souls, even when things aren’t going as well as we would like in the Church.

You must be in communion with other Catholics…where they are the Church is as well…you can’t separate the two…the Church is a body, remember?

Gorman

 

[Walking_Home]

With all the SSPX bashing that goes on here, I wonder if these opinions will change if they are reunited formally with Rome. Will all of you who hold the SSPX in such contempt still despise them if they reunite?

---

It is getting pathetic.

 

[laudamus_te]

jmcrae:

The SSPX reject the authority of the Pope to teach them anything or to tell them how to run their affairs, do they not?

No, they do not.

The level of ignorance of the SSPX on this forum, and the constant repetition of inaccuracies, is astounding.

 

[paramedicgirl]

No, they do not.

The level of ignorance of the SSPX on this forum, and the constant repetition of inaccuracies, is astounding.

And don’t forget the bashing of the SSPX. It is endless.

 

[jmcrae]

Look, obviously you people want to justify your schism. I’ve said everything I want to, and I stand by it, because I know it’s true.