Not schismatic, not in union

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaGorettiGrl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
laudamus_te said:
I understand that a pope’s infallibility comes into play in very limited circumstances (it must concern faith or morals, it must not be something new, and it must be defined), otherwise he can be in error.
Click to expand...
Do you have a teaching on this?
 
paramedicgirl said:
Maybe because Jmcrae called them protestants?
Click to expand...
I’m trying to figure out why you are defending them, if you aren’t a member.

I said they were going through the same series of steps as the original Protestants - which they are.
 
jmcrae said:
I’m trying to figure out why you are defending them, if you aren’t a member.

I said they were going through the same series of steps as the original Protestants - which they are.
Click to expand...
Why shouldn’t I defend them? They have upheld the traditions of the church for all of us when those very same traditions were being abolished and disposed of as though they were garbage. It is precisely because of the SSPX that we have the FSSP and the ICRSS and even the indult Mass.

And by the way, the SSPX does not have any members.
 
paramedicgirl said:
Let me enlighten you on a few things, JM. I do teach catechism at my NO church. I do what I can to “bring the people of your parish back to a sense of reverence in the Church” like organizing processions for feast days, and whatever else the priest assigns to me.

And you stand corrected. I do go to St. Anthony’s for the Latin Mass once a month. Where did I say otherwise? You seem to think I drive to Calgary to attend the SSPX. I only go there for family events, which is in keeping with my family obligations. Even my NO priest has said so.

And yes, I have a blog. Have you not noticed the Salve Regina in my signature? That’s the name of my web page.
Click to expand...
Good!! Then keep at it, and you will see a difference. It takes time, but you will get there.
You see it is possible to not malign the SSPX and still attend a NO church.
Click to expand...
You are not just “not maligning” them - you are actually supporting them. I don’t see how we can support an organization that is so opposed to the Church.
 
jmcrae said:
Good!! Then keep at it, and you will see a difference. It takes time, but you will get there. .
Click to expand...
Where? Where am I going JM, and what difference am I supposed to look for?
jmcrae said:
You are not just “not maligning” them - you are actually supporting them. I don’t see how we can support an organization that is so opposed to the Church.
Click to expand...
Are they opposed to the Church, or are they just opposed to the new church and all the modern day heresies?
 
paramedicgirl said:
Why shouldn’t I defend them? They have upheld the traditions of the church for all of us when those very same traditions were being abolished and disposed of as though they were garbage. It is precisely because of the SSPX that we have the FSSP and the ICRSS and even the indult Mass.
Click to expand...
Not so - in fact their disobedience probably prevented the Latin Mass from being allowed for a great many years. If they could have shown themselves to be obedient to the Magesterium, we would have had Latin Masses a lot sooner, I think.
And by the way, the SSPX does not have any members.
Click to expand...
I thought your relative just got Confirmed by them?
 
paramedicgirl said:
Where? Where am I going JM, and what difference am I supposed to look for?
Click to expand...
The children that you are teaching how to receive Holy Communion correctly will show their parents what they learned, and those families will influence the families around them.

When you teach them the reasons not to join hands at the Our Father, you’ll see a decline in that behaviour, as well, along with everything else that you’re teaching them.
Are they opposed to the Church, or are they just opposed to the new church and all the modern day heresies?
Click to expand...
The Church hasn’t got any “heresies.” It just has some poor practices that need correcting. They aren’t going to be corrected by everyone schismating against Rome and doing their own thing, no matter how beautiful their thing may be.
 
jmcrae said:
The children that you are teaching how to receive Holy Communion correctly will show their parents what they learned, and those families will influence the families around them.

When you teach them the reasons not to join hands at the Our Father, you’ll see a decline in that behaviour, as well, along with everything else that you’re teaching them.

The Church hasn’t got any “heresies.” It just has some poor practices that need correcting. They aren’t going to be corrected by everyone schismating against Rome and doing their own thing, no matter how beautiful their thing may be.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say the Church had heresies. And if the families of the children I teach and even the children themselves ever came to Mass, yes, they would undoubtedly learn a great deal about their religion. Half of them come to Mass, and the other half are pretenders. They pretend to be Catholic by sending their children to Catechism.
 
paramedicgirl said:
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?
Click to expand...
Bashing SSPX!? What I’ve been reading in this & other threads are the Bashing of the Popes & a valid Council, V II.:mad:
 
paramedicgirl said:
What does that have to do with anything? It’s an anti SSPX website, hardly unbiased. It’s like sending a modern Catholic to traditio.
Click to expand...
Uh, do you know the author of the site? I do. He was more than just your average attendee. He was a treasurer of a mission for more than 10 years. To suggest he’s anything like traditio.com is quite wrong.

And, incidently, did you bother to look at the article from Bill’s website. It was an article by Jimmy Akin. Do you really think he’s like traditio either? I don’t know why tempers are flaring so much in this thread.🤷
 
paramedicgirl said:
Why shouldn’t I defend them? They have upheld the traditions of the church for all of us when those very same traditions were being abolished and disposed of as though they were garbage. It is precisely because of the SSPX that we have the FSSP and the ICRSS and even the indult Mass.

And by the way, the SSPX does not have any members.
Click to expand...
OK, you might actually say that if the Lefebvre didn’t disobey the pope you wouldn’t have the FSSP. They wouldn’t have needed to break off then would they? Sorry. There is no real way to be absolute that if the SSPX hadn’t broken off that we would not still have the indult and a growing TLM population.
 
jmcrae said:
In their first generation, they, too, had valid Sacraments, 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…

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.
Click to expand...
So how did you get your bishop to make the Consecration more reverent and true to the Latin text?
 
Walking_Home said:
It is getting pathetic.
Click to expand...
It goes to show all the misinformation that has been spreading since Vatican II sessions ended. Hopefully BXVI will begin setting things straight and using the internet more to spread correct information.
 
paramedicgirl said:
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?
Click to expand...
Me, No. I hope they come back and get Sui Iuris status to protect them from the NO reforms.

Would I ever willingly attend their Mass when an NO Mass or Ruthenian DL is available? No. Not what I consider suitable for my prayer life.

as to SSPX: AS I understand it, the head of the SSPX is currently Rev. Fellay.
Bishop Fellay was elected as the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X during the Second General Chapter of July 1994 and re-elected during the Third General Chapter held in 2006. His Excellency resides at the Society’s General House located in Menzingen, Switzerland.
Click to expand...
(Since he’s been excommunicated, as evidenced in Ecclesia Dei, and is addressed there as a priest, NOT a bishop, until otherwise published by the Vatican, he’s NOT a bishop and NOT a Catholic. He’s a Former Catholic.)
  1. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)
Click to expand...
Note (4) refers to canon 1382: “Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” (vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM)

The canons on public associations of th faithful states:
Can. 316 §1. A person who has publicly rejected the Catholic faith, has defected from ecclesiastical communion, or has been punished by an imposed or declared excommunication cannot be received validly into public associations.

§2. Those enrolled legitimately who fall into the situation mentioned in §1, after being warned, are to be dismissed from the association, with due regard for its statutes and without prejudice to the right of recourse to the ecclesiastical authority mentioned in ⇒ can. 312, §1.
Click to expand...
Since Bernard Fellay is excommunicated, he is not a valid member of the SSPX, and having been elected its superior general, the whole of the SSPX electorate has affirmed him a member in violation of canon 316 of the Code of Canon Law.

Thus the SSPX is not just rejecting Papal authority, but the code of canon law, by intent or ignorance.

Following the orders of one who is excommunicated publicly and not reconciled is obvious schism from the magisterium.
 
puzzleannie said:
is that like being a little big pregnant? what is the word for "not in union with Rome but not schismatic?
Click to expand...
I think “irregular” works for now. Have you listened to Bishop Fellay, by any chance, to get his side of the story? I give my bishop the benefit of the doubt.
 
Aramis said:
Me, No. I hope they come back and get Sui Iuris status to protect them from the NO reforms.

Would I ever willingly attend their Mass when an NO Mass or Ruthenian DL is available? No. Not what I consider suitable for my prayer life.

as to SSPX: AS I understand it, the head of the SSPX is currently Rev. Fellay.

(Since he’s been excommunicated, as evidenced in Ecclesia Dei, and is addressed there as a priest, NOT a bishop, until otherwise published by the Vatican, he’s NOT a bishop and NOT a Catholic. He’s a Former Catholic.)

Note (4) refers to canon 1382: “Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” (vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM)

The canons on public associations of th faithful states:

Since Bernard Fellay is excommunicated, he is not a valid member of the SSPX, and having been elected its superior general, the whole of the SSPX electorate has affirmed him a member in violation of canon 316 of the Code of Canon Law.

Thus the SSPX is not just rejecting Papal authority, but the code of canon law, by intent or ignorance.]
Click to expand...
Bishop Fellay is Catholic and he is also a priest. Where does it state that he is not Catholic? If he is not the superior general of the SSPX, then who is?

The SSPX if you carefully look on the sspx.org site does not reject papal authority. They profess filial devotion to the pope. They pray for the pope at every Mass and in prayer in daily lives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top