Poll on the current Vatican/SSPX Discussions

[crazzeto]

That’s just it, this is the point at which SSPX fundamentally rejects it’s own argumentation. Your own argumentation rejects not just Vatican II, but also Vatican I and a host of other eccumenical councils all in the name of trying to reject Vatican II and in particular mass in the venacular as heresy (which I find funny, because our Mass is in Latin expressly because many hundreds of years ago the Church saw need to have it in the venacular, it was greek originally or did you conviniently forget this?).

 

[giuseppeTO]

Errr?? Is everyone missing something important here? SSPX confessions ARE NOT VALID.

err - sorry but they are by Supplied Jurisdiction. The Vatican understands this, even though you do not. The Pope makes a statement of fact regarding the lack of canonical status and legitimate ministry. He is making a legalistic statement, mostly to appease the bishops who are about to pop an artery in rage over a possible reconciliation with a very large group of Traditional Catholics. He has made no determination or declaration on the validity of any SSPX sacraments because it is accepted the church itself provides validity to the great frustration of internet theologians and Canon e-Lawyers.

 

[crazzeto]

err - sorry but they are by Supplied Jurisdiction. The Vatican understands this, even though you do not. The Pope makes a statement of fact regarding the lack of canonical status and legitimate ministry. He is making a legalistic statement, mostly to appease the bishops who are about to pop an artery in rage over a possible reconciliation with a very large group of Traditional Catholics. He has made no determination or declaration on the validity of any SSPX sacraments because it is accepted the church itself provides validity to the great frustration of internet theologians and Canon e-Lawyers.

In order for SSPX to have valid sacraments it would need a valid priesthood, does it?

 

[giuseppeTO]

And here we go, in order to accept SSPX one must in fact deny that the Church is protected from error. Sorry, SSPX own argumentation rejects their position. If one wants to be genuninly a traditional Catholic, they should start with obedience to the Magisterium.

Crazz … I did NOT say that the church can err. I said that Pope is only protected from error when he invokes infallibility under the usual conditions. Big difference.

The Magisterium cannot be “updated” with new beliefs that contradict previously defined (in the Magisterium) beliefs. Part of the discussion between the SSPX and the Vatican is to address these very issues.

.

 

[giuseppeTO]

In order for SSPX to have valid sacraments it would need a valid priesthood, does it?

It absolutely would need and does have a valid priesthood.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s just it, this is the point at which SSPX fundamentally rejects it’s own argumentation. Your own argumentation rejects not just Vatican II, but also Vatican I and a host of other eccumenical councils all in the name of trying to reject Vatican II and in particular mass in the venacular as heresy (which I find funny, because our Mass is in Latin expressly because many hundreds of years ago the Church saw need to have it in the venacular, it was greek originally or did you conviniently forget this?).

Huh?

 

[ProVobis]

If one wants to be genuninly a traditional Catholic, they should start with obedience to the Magisterium.

This doesn’t make sense. There is such a thing as the Magisterium of the centuries.

 

[ProVobis]

So clearly if they have no status and are illegitimate then it follows as night follows day that they are a schismatic sect. If they were not a schismatic sect then they would have a canonical status in the church and would be able to legitimately exercise their ministry.

Not quite. The excommunications were lifted with no contingency placed on no further ordinations and no Masses. Confessions always fall within the jurisdiction of the local bishops, SSPX or not SSPX, suspended or not. Even when their full reconciliation becomes complete, confessions through an SSPX priest would not automatically become valid.

Note: the suspensions came as a result of having their canonical status removed way prior to the 1988 excommunications. Had nothing to do with any schismatic activities per se.

 

[giuseppeTO]

…to reject Vatican II and in particular mass in the venacular as heresy…

You obviously know very little about the SSPX.

…our Mass is in Latin expressly because many hundreds of years ago the Church saw need to have it in the venacular, it was greek originally or did you conviniently forget this?).

You obviously also know very little about the history of the Mass.

You should delete your link to Wikipedia.

 

[crazzeto]

You obviously know very little about the SSPX.

Well I know enough to know your argumentation is self contradictory. Honestly, it’s really no different than any other schismatic group.

You obviously also know very little about the history of the Mass.

You should delete your link to Wikipedia.

Where did this come from, I never linked to Wikipedia at any point in time. But I know quite a bit about the Mass, and it was changed (in our rite) from Greek to Latin expressly because it was the venacular. In fact, the change came out of Africa where Greek died out far more quickly than in Rome it’s self, the Pontiff mearly gave his OK to the Latin mass. Then a chorous of ancient SSPX like groups cried out “YOU CAN’T CHANGE THE MASS INTO THE VENACULAR!”

 

[giuseppeTO]

Well I know enough to know your argumentation is self contradictory… a chorous of ancient SSPX like groups cried out “YOU CAN’T CHANGE THE MASS INTO THE VENACULAR!”

Your argumentation is correct, we schismos are a noisy lot.

 

[ProVobis]

Then a chorous of ancient SSPX like groups cried out “YOU CAN’T CHANGE THE MASS INTO THE VENACULAR!”

This has been stated in many different ways by many Popes and some councils. Even Vatican II expressly stated that Latin be retained in the liturgies. Latin is the official language of the Church. Maybe those who attend all-“venacular” all-the-time Masses are the ones who are disobedient.

 

[pnewton]

err - sorry but they are by Supplied Jurisdiction. The Vatican understands this, even though you do not.

That is a legal opinion, not a fact, that has been debated on other threads that are on that topic, not this one.

Does any SSPX thread mean every SSPX topic is game?

I am surprise that anyone expects that the SSPX was going to shut down for these discussions. Since that wasn’t asked of them, why would they? Did Lutheren Churches shut their doors during discussion on the joint declaration on faith and works? Maybe I’m missing the point.

 

[giuseppeTO]

That is a legal opinion, not a fact, that has been debated on other threads that are on that topic, not this one.

Does any SSPX thread mean every SSPX topic is game?

I am surprise that anyone expects that the SSPX was going to shut down for these discussions. Since that wasn’t asked of them, why would they? Did Lutheren Churches shut their doors during discussion on the joint declaration on faith and works? Maybe I’m missing the point.

The point of the poll is that it is a common (mis)conception on this board that, based on the Pope’s statement that the Society exercises no legitimate ministry, that he intended for the Society to cease from ordaining priests and offering illicit Masses until the order is regularized and that this continued activity constitutes acts of disobedience to the Pope.

I opined that neither did he expect or require it and it therefore does not constitute disobedience.

So the poll is not whether they should or would, but rather whether you believe it is implicit in the Pope’s statement. At least one German Bishop predicted (incorrectly) last year that the SSPX would be re-excommunicated within a year due to the continued ordinations after the lifting of the excommunications. I believe that more dialogue is exchanged behind the scenes between the Vatican and the SSPX than you are I are privy to.

 

[Andre1000]

I do not think that the pope things that SSPX will close everything because he gave no sign for that. And he wants to have them in the church and he doesn’t want to destroy them.

About Vaticanum II:
The pope himself said that he is against to make the Vaticanum II to a super dogma.
He said that before he has become pope.
Actually the Vaticanum II did not put so many “truths” out there, so that it can be changed without to say that the church has made an error.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The point of the poll is that it is a common (mis)conception on this board that, based on the Pope’s statement that the Society exercises no legitimate ministry, that he intended for the Society to cease from ordaining priests and offering illicit Masses until the order is regularized and that this continued activity constitutes acts of disobedience to the Pope.

I have not seen this misconception on the forum.

I think the pope’s statements were more for the errant Catholic who attends the SSPX as if they are in union with Rome (or the real Rome) already rather than a comment for the SSPX.

 

[Aramis]

While I voted yes, it’s only a partial yes.

I believe the Pope expects them to cease operating their chapels as public parishes, and to stop ordaining schismatic priests (to wit, the SSJK’s post-excommunication newly ordained priests have been ordained by the SSPX), and not to ordain any new bishops. The last is actually an explicit demand that was made by His Holiness, publicly, that had to be publicly agreed to, prior to the lifting of the excommunications.

I don’t think he wants their seminaries or non-public oratories in same said seminaries shut down, but he wants them to come back as a body.

Any priest of the SSPX can’t be put into a local diocese’s service without papal permission… to put a suspended priest into ministry requires that the suspension be lifted by the competent authority, which for a papal-issued suspension, is the papacy.

I do suspect the eventual solution will be some form of autonomy; an ordinariate or even church sui iuris.

 

[giuseppeTO]

While I voted yes, it’s only a partial yes.

I believe the Pope expects them to cease operating their chapels as public parishes

I don’t understand. How would they be operated as private chapels/oratories?

, and to stop ordaining schismatic priests (to wit, the SSJK’s post-excommunication newly ordained priests have been ordained by the SSPX),

Who is the SSJK?

and not to ordain any new bishops. The last is actually an explicit demand that was made by His Holiness, publicly, that had to be publicly agreed to, prior to the lifting of the excommunications.

I don’t remember this in any of the documentation.

 

[Aramis]

I don’t understand. How would they be operated as private chapels/oratories?

Many are operated as parishes. This would have to stop; no public confession (since the priests of the society can legitimately only hear confessions of members of the society unless granted explicit faculties by the local ordinary, barring imminent death), no posted mass times, no advertisments of mass times, no making lists of members, no collection; a reminder of a requirement to obey their canonical pastors and to go to confession in their local parish. No marriages, no confirmations.

Those oratories and chapels in their seminaries would of course continue to operate, for a seminary must have those.

Who is the SSJK?

Society of St. Josephat Kuntsevitch. They were excommunicated from the UGCC by His Beattitude Lubomyr Cardinal Hussar, Major Archbishop of the UGCC, for schism and disobedience. Their post excommunication ordinations have all been done by SSPX bishops.

 

[choy]

The SSPX and the Vatican began a series of bi-monthly discussions last fall concerning, ostensibly, official interpretations of some of the documents of The Second Vatican Council.

Do you believe that when the Pope stated that the SSPX currently ’ … exercises no legitimate ministry within the church…’, that he intended that the SSPX should immediately close its chapels and schools, stop ordaining priests, close down its seminaries, and all priests and laity should report to diocesan churches until a canonical structure is agreed to?

in my personal opinion, yes
if they want to show that they are willing to submit to the authority of the Church, now is the best time to begin showing it. that they don’t have the faculties to confer sacraments, they should stop saying Mass which in the eyes of the Church is invalid. however, they don’t need to close schools or seminaries as these are not affected by their lack of faculties