Poll on the current Vatican/SSPX Discussions

  • Thread starter Thread starter giuseppeTO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
giuseppeTO said:
I opined that neither did he expect or require it and it therefore does not constitute disobedience.
Click to expand...
If he wanted them to stop as a condition of the meetings, he would have said that. Then the discussion could go on or fail to take place, based on the SSPX action. I think anyone is smart enough to realize that there would then be no discussion and no hope for reconcilliation. If the decision to procede with a unilateral olive branch was pastoral, then we should support it. What is ironic is how some traditionalist are characterized as “more Catholic than the pope” from time to time. Why is there any desire to exceed the Holy Father’s request in this matter.
 
At_Trent said:
The Pope wants us to receive on our tongues kneeling.
Click to expand...
Please provide proof of this and then state why the Pope allows communion on the hand in the places where it is being done today.
 
excubitor said:
Maybe so, however the one holy apostolic catholic church led on earth by the successor of Peter has the ability to recover and restore orthodoxy in its fellowship. Schismatic pseudo-catholic churches do not have this ability.
Click to expand...
What exactly is “pseudo-Catholic” about the SSPX?
 
Please provide proof of this and then state why the Pope allows communion on the hand in the places where it is being done today.
Click to expand...
Why must you keep saying this? One can only imagine the backlash if the Pope issued a “must receive by COTT only” everywhere. Realistically, Catholics today don’t want to be told what they must or must not do. The Pope knows that so the only thing he can do is to state the ground rules of his own Masses and hope the preference spreads.
 
ByzCath said:
Please provide proof of this and then state why the Pope allows communion on the hand in the places where it is being done today.
Click to expand...
If he does not prefer that it be done that way, then why dictate that it be done in only that way when he distributes? It would seem to me that his preference is for the faithful to receive on the tongue. And further, if he prefers it that way when he distributes, than I would guess that is his preference across the board. Perhaps he has not outlawed it because he feels that the faithful will indeed adopt this practice on their own as it is clearly his preference. You know maybe just maybe he thinks that all those who receive in the hand will indeed switch to the method that he prefers of their own accord, and realize that there is a valid reason why he prohibits receiving in the hand when he distributes. .

Of course think he is mistaken in that view because I have a gut feeling that many of those who receive in the hand would flat out refuse to receive on the tongue.irregardless of what the Holy Father wants or prefers.

In fact I doubt that his preference would mean anything at all to them, if it did not dovetail with what they personally preferred.

And let us not forget that the Holy Father was at Vatican II and saw exactly what transpired after it and maybe now is trying to gently steer the Church back in the direction he thinks it should go in.
 
pnewton said:
If he wanted them to stop as a condition of the meetings, he would have said that. Then the discussion could go on or fail to take place, based on the SSPX action. I think anyone is smart enough to realize that there would then be no discussion and no hope for reconcilliation. If the decision to procede with a unilateral olive branch was pastoral, then we should support it. What is ironic is how some traditionalist are characterized as “more Catholic than the pope” from time to time. Why is there any desire to exceed the Holy Father’s request in this matter.
Click to expand...
How can the Pope saying that the SSPX has no canonical status and that all her priests have NO VALID ministry be anything other than a direct command to:
Accept the teachings of the church including the proper interpretation of Vatican 2.
Accept the Novus Ordo mass and the other new rites as being valid sacraments and rites of the church.
Accept the incredibly generous concessions of Ecclesia Dei in submitting to the local ordinary in every place

That’s what the Pope wants. period. Of course he does not want them to shut up shop and close all their schools and chapels, he wants them to be regularised into the church. That’s what we all want.

I would say that the Pope wants some cross fertilisation happening too. The wider church needs the traditional values of the SSPX in her parishes, not on the hill looking down on the church mocking at her problems. Also the SSPX has some militant schismatic individuals and some rather serious authority problems that need to be corrected for the good of the people themselves.

But if they are not prepared to obey the Pope then they might as well shut up shop and put everyone associated with the group out of their misery so that they can drift back into the church proper sooner rather than later. The organisation has no future without full communion with the pope. As I said in an earlier thread, if they don’t obey the Pope they will go the way of the Old Catholics which are as pseudo-catholic as they come.
 
palmas855 said:
If he does not prefer that it be done that way, then why dictate that it be done in only that way when he distributes? It would seem to me that his preference is for the faithful to receive on the tongue. And further, if he prefers it that way when he distributes, than I would guess that is his preference across the board. Perhaps he has not outlawed it because he feels that the faithful will indeed adopt this practice on their own as it is clearly his preference. You know maybe just maybe he thinks that all those who receive in the hand will indeed switch to the method that he prefers of their own accord, and realize that there is a valid reason why he prohibits receiving in the hand when he distributes. .

Of course think he is mistaken in that view because I have a gut feeling that many of those who receive in the hand would flat out refuse to receive on the tongue.irregardless of what the Holy Father wants or prefers.

In fact I doubt that his preference would mean anything at all to them, if it did not dovetail with what they personally preferred.

And let us not forget that the Holy Father was at Vatican II and saw exactly what transpired after it and maybe now is trying to gently steer the Church back in the direction he thinks it should go in.
Click to expand...
I think the church is in a period of unparallelled disobedience of the Pope and his wishes. If he is supreme pontiff then we should seek to obey his wishes and not just his demands. Its the spirit of disobedience which complies only when forced. The SSPX epitomises this streak of disobedience which stains the modern church. Whereas the modernist bishops, priests and layfolk disobey the wishes and intent of the Pope and sometimes disobey his directions, the SSPX are in open unbridled rebellion. They will only follow the Pope if it suits them, and even excommunication causes them no consternation because they are already excommunicated as an organisation. They actually regard themselves as being in a position of power. They reckon the Pope wants us and needs us and this is what he is going to have to do, allow, insist or say in order for us to give him what he wants. Hang on is that how a catholic behaves or is that how a pseudo-catholic behaves.

What they should do is go and prostate themselves full length before the Pope, recanting their false teachings, begging for forgiveness for their abject rebellion. That is how the catholic church worked in the time of Luther.

Obviously no Pope wants to exert his authority today because he knows that if he does he will face a massive schism that will make the Protestant reformation look tiny in terms of numbers anyway. We could see entire modernist hierarchies of some nations openly rebelling against the Pope. We could see entire nations lost to the church as has happened in times gone by.

No Pope wants that on his watch and who can blame him. So the papacy has been reduced to a paper tiger. Which is fair enough really. The magisterium should not have to force people to believe and obey our Holy Pontiff. We should desire to do so, esteeming him to be wiser than are we.

Get a grip SSPX. The Pope is not asking you to go out and commit mortal sin. If you think that attending a NO mass is a mortal sin then sorry but you guys are really bent out of shape. Nor does anything in Vatican 2 command Catholics to commit mortal sin. I’m not minimising the problems of liturgical abuse but you cannot blame the Pope for liturgical abuse. We all have to take some blame for that. For putting up with liturgical abuse in our parishes. For putting up with altar rails and other traditional elements from being removed from the parishes. The SSPX also share in this blame. Instead of staying in their parishes and fighting the liturgical abuse they abandoned their post and set up a shining pseudo-catholic church set up on a hill, from which they leer at the broken down walls of the Holy City. How about going down and helping the people to rebuild instead of building shining replicas of Jerusalem on a different foundation than that which was already laid.
 
recanting their false teachings
Click to expand...
You must be thinking of some other group. Accuse them of disobedience all you want, but the only teachings I’ve heard from the SSPX are Church teachings of 1900-2000 years.
 
ProVobis said:
You must be thinking of some other group. Accuse them of disobedience all you want, but the only teachings I’ve heard from the SSPX are Church teachings of 1900-2000 years.
Click to expand...
Well clearly you have not heard the same teachings as Pope Benedict XVI has heard.
He stated
However it is clear that the doctrinal questions remain, and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

Notice that the Pope singled out doctrinal differences as being the principal cause of the invalidity of the SSPX organisation. What doctrinal question which seperates the unity of the church do you know of which does not fairly attract the label of “false teaching”.

I suggest that you research what these doctrinal questions so that you can be sure that you are in alignment with the teachings of the Pope and the church proper and not in alignment with the SSPX and her irregular and illicit ministers.
 
ProVobis said:
You must be thinking of some other group. Accuse them of disobedience all you want, but the only teachings I’ve heard from the SSPX are Church teachings of 1900-2000 years.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And if the Pope demands that we obey some other doctrine than what was dogmatically handed down by the Church, then we have every right to disobey him in that case. He is only infallible when speaking “ex cathedra” and the last three Popes have made it clear that they wouldn’t pronounce infallibly.

Comparing Luther to the SSPX is ludicrous. Luther attacked the dogmatic doctrines of the Church, the Society of St. Pius X is trying to defend these same doctrines against the Modernism of the pastoral Vatican II Council and the anti-Catholic abuses it has spawned.
 
excubitor said:
Well clearly you have not heard the same teachings as Pope Benedict XVI has heard.
He stated
However it is clear that the doctrinal questions remain, and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

Notice that the Pope singled out doctrinal differences as being the principal cause of the invalidity of the SSPX organisation. What doctrinal question which seperates the unity of the church do you know of which does not fairly attract the label of “false teaching”.

I suggest that you research what these doctrinal questions so that you can be sure that you are in alignment with the teachings of the Pope and the church proper and not in alignment with the SSPX and her irregular and illicit ministers.
Click to expand...
So what are these “doctrinal” issues? Holding true to the Traditions passed down through the centuries instead of worshiping with other other religions and embracing Modernism – with its “reforming mania?”

Do you know what doctrinal issues – specifically – our Pope is talking about? Because I know of no true Catholic dogmatic doctrine that the SSPX rejects. I always thought the problem with the Vatican (from the Vatican’s point of view) were disciplinary in nature, not doctrinal.
 
excubitor said:
Well clearly you have not heard the same teachings as Pope Benedict XVI has heard.
He stated
However it is clear that the doctrinal questions remain, and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

Notice that the Pope singled out doctrinal differences as being the principal cause of the invalidity of the SSPX organisation. What doctrinal question which seperates the unity of the church do you know of which does not fairly attract the label of “false teaching”.

I suggest that you research what these doctrinal questions so that you can be sure that you are in alignment with the teachings of the Pope and the church proper and not in alignment with the SSPX and her irregular and illicit ministers.
Click to expand...
I think you’re missing the point. There are doctrinal questions because Vatican II (it’s nebulous “spirit”) is not at all clear. Until those things get cleared up, the SSPX is right to be hesitant with regard to blindly taking a leap into territories where even the Church is still unclear about what Vatican II said exactly. On the other hand, the SSPX doesn’t teach anything that didn’t already belong to the deposit of faith, and they don’t reject any Catholic dogma. Nobody is disputing that except for you. Earlier you said:
Accept the teachings of the church including the proper interpretation of Vatican 2.
Click to expand...
Ok…But there aren’t any proper interpretations of Vatican II yet. There certainly are still questions regarding what the heck certain things mean. Even you are confused about certain things, including what the SSPX believes and doesn’t believe. You also said:
Accept the Novus Ordo mass and the other new rites as being valid sacraments and rites of the church.
Click to expand...
The SSPX is very clear that the new Mass and sacraments are valid if done properly. Nobody is saying otherwise (except you and maybe a few others who are still confused).
 
excubitor said:
Notice that the Pope singled out doctrinal differences as being the principal cause of the invalidity of the SSPX organisation.
Click to expand...
Not at all true. You are ignorant of the history of the situation.

It may surprise, shock, and infuriate you when the Pope uses these dogmatic discussions to clarify Vatican II teachings in favor of the SSPX position on how they are to be interpreted.

Hopefully, you will not go into schism at the prospect the SSPX may be correct on these issues and if so, hopefully, you will say prayers of repentance for persecuting those whose only intention is to preserve our Catholic faith.

I am looking forward to having to live with the result of these discussions. I hope you are also.
 
giuseppeTO said:
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?
Click to expand...
Not at all; the pope would have said that if he wanted it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top