Problems of SSPX?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They are “valid”, as in “validly” ordained. They are not a Valid Roman Catholic Priest. Just as any pastor of any church is “validly ordained”. They should adopt another name for their church/ movement, rather than to mislead people into thinking they are Roman Catholic.

I guess that is one of the main problems with the SSPX, these priests are putting themselves out to be a Roman Catholic Priest (in good standing). This is not so. They are "pretending " to be a Roman Catholic and leading others to believe they are attending a true Roman Catholic mass simply by using the 62 missal.

Our Holy Mother church has always had problems…of some sort. But so has all the other faiths. Pope Benedict has offered his hand to those in this group, (as well as others, ex. Muslems, etc. ) He has been shamed on all corners by reaching out to other faiths. But, it does seem the other faiths have welcomed his hand whereas this group has just wanted him to do more/ give more.

If we are to go back to pre 1962, are we willing to go back to selling indulgences? Christ gave Peter the right to bind and loose. We have to accept that as Catholics and pray that our Holy Father, in his christian judgement/led by the Holy Spirit, makes the right decisions for us all. We are not given the right to bind and loose, nor should we even try, sorry, that is not in our job description.

Until this group is fully reconciled, (all excommunications lifted and all priests having gone to confession and done their pennaces) the priests should inform their congregations that they are not a Roman Catholic priest in good standing, but are working toward that goal. And if the congregations still want to attend, then that is up to them. I really feel very badly for those who are led to believe otherwise.

Being truthful is and has always been a Christian trait. Whether you are Roman Catholic or any other faith. And lying has always been a sin, and to lead someone to believe you are something you’re not…

I pray that this gets resolved so as to stop all this confusion. It is not doing anyone any good. The ones who go are being misled and the ones who go to the NO are being called everything but a Catholic, all this is causing hurtful feelings between Catholics. It is not good on any side.

It is time for it to stop… Agreed?
 
Auntie_M said:
They are “valid”, as in “validly” ordained. They are not a Valid Roman Catholic Priest. Just as any pastor of any church is “validly ordained”. They should adopt another name for their church/ movement, rather than to mislead people into thinking they are Roman Catholic.

I guess that is one of the main problems with the SSPX, these priests are putting themselves out to be a Roman Catholic Priest (in good standing). This is not so. They are "pretending " to be a Roman Catholic and leading others to believe they are attending a true Roman Catholic mass simply by using the 62 missal.

Our Holy Mother church has always had problems…of some sort. But so has all the other faiths. Pope Benedict has offered his hand to those in this group, (as well as others, ex. Muslems, etc. ) He has been shamed on all corners by reaching out to other faiths. But, it does seem the other faiths have welcomed his hand whereas this group has just wanted him to do more/ give more.

If we are to go back to pre 1962, are we willing to go back to selling indulgences? Christ gave Peter the right to bind and loose. We have to accept that as Catholics and pray that our Holy Father, in his christian judgement/led by the Holy Spirit, makes the right decisions for us all. We are not given the right to bind and loose, nor should we even try, sorry, that is not in our job description.

Until this group is fully reconciled, (all excommunications lifted and all priests having gone to confession and done their pennaces) the priests should inform their congregations that they are not a Roman Catholic priest in good standing, but are working toward that goal. And if the congregations still want to attend, then that is up to them. I really feel very badly for those who are led to believe otherwise.

Being truthful is and has always been a Christian trait. Whether you are Roman Catholic or any other faith. And lying has always been a sin, and to lead someone to believe you are something you’re not…

I pray that this gets resolved so as to stop all this confusion. It is not doing anyone any good. The ones who go are being misled and the ones who go to the NO are being called everything but a Catholic, all this is causing hurtful feelings between Catholics. It is not good on any side.

It is time for it to stop… Agreed?
Click to expand...
Incorrect. They are validly ordained, and thus they are valid Catholic priests. Whether or not they can licitly exercise their ministries, that’s the problem.

Now for those women who delude themselves into thinking they can be ordained…they are the ones pretending.
 
Auntie_M said:
They are “valid”, as in “validly” ordained. They are not a Valid Roman Catholic Priest. Just as any pastor of any church is “validly ordained”. They should adopt another name for their church/ movement, rather than to mislead people into thinking they are Roman Catholic.

I guess that is one of the main problems with the SSPX, these priests are putting themselves out to be a Roman Catholic Priest (in good standing). This is not so. They are "pretending " to be a Roman Catholic and leading others to believe they are attending a true Roman Catholic mass simply by using the 62 missal.

Our Holy Mother church has always had problems…of some sort. But so has all the other faiths. Pope Benedict has offered his hand to those in this group, (as well as others, ex. Muslems, etc. ) He has been shamed on all corners by reaching out to other faiths. But, it does seem the other faiths have welcomed his hand whereas this group has just wanted him to do more/ give more.

If we are to go back to pre 1962, are we willing to go back to selling indulgences? Christ gave Peter the right to bind and loose. We have to accept that as Catholics and pray that our Holy Father, in his christian judgement/led by the Holy Spirit, makes the right decisions for us all. We are not given the right to bind and loose, nor should we even try, sorry, that is not in our job description.

Until this group is fully reconciled, (all excommunications lifted and all priests having gone to confession and done their pennaces) the priests should inform their congregations that they are not a Roman Catholic priest in good standing, but are working toward that goal. And if the congregations still want to attend, then that is up to them. I really feel very badly for those who are led to believe otherwise.

Being truthful is and has always been a Christian trait. Whether you are Roman Catholic or any other faith. And lying has always been a sin, and to lead someone to believe you are something you’re not…

I pray that this gets resolved so as to stop all this confusion. It is not doing anyone any good. The ones who go are being misled and the ones who go to the NO are being called everything but a Catholic, all this is causing hurtful feelings between Catholics. It is not good on any side.

It is time for it to stop… Agreed?
Click to expand...
Auntie M. Yours is such a vicious and factually incorrect post, that it is hardly worth replying to, except to point out, that it is indeed, a vicious, thoroughly misleading and all-round deceptive post.

Oh, and its very interesting that you should be talking so self righteously about the importance of truth! You are indeed, a conundrum.
 
Auntie M: I’m not going to quote your entire post, as it is quite long, but, in all seriousness, where have you gleaned so much misinformation? Everything you’ve said goes directly against what Rome has said regarding the SSPX. Your accusations do nothing more than spread falsehoods and rumors.

A few corrections to your statements:
  1. The SSPX priests are validly ordained (as the poster above noted) as Catholic Priests in the Roman Catholic rite. The comparison to protestant ministers is misleading since they are ordained as well, but not in the Roman Catholic Rite. Rome does not recognize protestant ordinations and protestant ministers are not priests.
  2. None of the SSPX priests are excommunicated. The excommunications of the 4 bishops were lifted. I’m not sure where you’re getting a contrary opinion on that.
  3. A previous poster gave some excellent examples of how the Pope is not always infallible. To believe that is to subscribe to the error of papism. For instance, the Pope may never change the deposit of faith. The selling of indulgences was a practice that was eventually eliminated. In a similar way, I believe some practices of today will be eventually eliminated that are not fully in keeping with Catholic tradition.
  4. For the SSPX to tell the congregation that they are not Roman Catholic priests would be a lie. Rome recognizes them as validly ordained priests, so I’m not sure why you are stubbornly insisting otherwise.
  5. I believe that truthfulness is an important trait as well, and for that reason I am telling you the truth and imploring you not to so readily accept the scandalous (and untruthful) rumors that are so often spread about the SSPX. Clearly you do not understand the status of the Society, and I would heartily encourage you to read about them a bit. There are very real groups within and outside of the Church that wish to do her very real harm. The SSPX is not one of them. Please choose your battles carefully.
 
I am terribly sorry that my post “sounded” vicious. That is not my intention. Our Holy Father has stated that the SSPX Priest have no ministry within the church.

If they have no ministry within the church, then they cannot legally be called Roman Catholic priests.

Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications on only those FOUR Bishops. They still have to go to confession, and do their pennances before they can be fully reconciled to the church. He went onto say, the lifting of the excommunications did not extend to the Society itself.

You are right that Rome recognizes these priest as VALIDLY ordained, but not LICITLY (legally) ordained Roman Catholic priest. Legally and validly are words worlds apart. A person can be **validly **ordained in the Roman Catholic rite and still not be considered a legally ordained Roman Catholic priest. Validly and legally are both requirements for being a Roman Catholic priest in full communion.

I go straight to the Vatican website for all my info. That is the best place to find actual facts. And facts are what we are looking for, isn’t it?

If you have a statement (from the Vatican website) stating that they are Roman Catholic priests in full comThey would be in the same shoes as these priest. Let’s say, Catholic but not Catholic.
or is that too munion with Rome, please show me the way to that statement and I will surely apologize to all the SSPX priests.

For the sake of their followers, I truly hope you are right.

I’ll be waiting for that site within the Vatican website.
 
Auntie, I must agree with the previous posters. Your “righteous” posts do the Church that Christ founded absolutely no good. You seem to enjoy beating up on the SSPX in every conceivable way and I don’t see any real desire on your part to accept any further reconciliations between the SSPX and Rome. The people who attend SSPX are well aware of such hostility held against them and they’re not going to grovel at the feet of the Holy Father for full communion knowing that such hostility still remains. Would you?
 
ProVobis said:
You seem to enjoy beating up on the SSPX in every conceivable way and I don’t see any real desire on your part to accept any further reconciliations between the SSPX and Rome. The people who attend SSPX are well aware of such hostility held against them and they’re not going to grovel at the feet of the Holy Father for full communion knowing that such hostility still remains. Would you?
Click to expand...
I am going to point out a goose-meet-gander situation. Recently the SSPX has been castigated on charges of antisemetism. The theological position of the state of the Jews has resulted in charges of hate.

I see no difference in accusing other posters of hate because they hold an opinion against the SSPX, even if it is wrong. If people within the SSPX wish to avoid hypocricy, they can not refute the charges of being a hate group and at the same time accuse others of hostility for disagreeing with them.
 
I, too, must admit that when there are conflicting opinions with an SSPXer, their reactions are to attack that person and their opinions.

I think we can all agree that these priests do not legally hold any ministry within the church.

I’ll leave the decision of whomever wants to know or believe anything different to their own consciences to decide.

My conscience tells me to read and believe only what our Holy Father has stated. To honor and respect him (and Mary) is what all Catholics are obligated to do.
(and that, my friend, is not papism)

An interesting letter by Pope Benedict can be read at
…www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione_scomunica_en.html

Especially read the part of the “doctrinial” issue, whereas, our Holy Father has stated that one must accept and not ignore Vatican ll as it has all of Catholic history included.

This is the official Vatican website.😃
 
Auntie_M said:
I, too, must admit that when there are conflicting opinions with an SSPXer, their reactions are to attack that person and their opinions.

I think we can all agree that these priests do not legally hold any ministry within the church.

I’ll leave the decision of whomever wants to know or believe anything different to their own consciences to decide.

My conscience tells me to read and believe only what our Holy Father has stated. To honor and respect him (and Mary) is what all Catholics are obligated to do.
(and that, my friend, is not papism)

An interesting letter by Pope Benedict can be read at
…www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione_scomunica_en.html

Especially read the part of the “doctrinial” issue, whereas, our Holy Father has stated that one must accept and not ignore Vatican ll as it has all of Catholic history included.

This is the official Vatican website.😃
Click to expand...
The fact that it is on the Vatican website means very little. The Vatican website is not infallible. I think that is why they have called you falling into “papism.”

In addition to that, of course we need to accept Vatican II. But, the WHOLE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS WHAT VATICAN II MEANS.

The documents are vague, very little was defined, and hardly anything was dogmatic. So, we need to have some definition as to what this means.
 
BayernAnhaenger said:
The fact that it is on the Vatican website means very little. The Vatican website is not infallible. I think that is why they have called you falling into “papism.”

In addition to that, of course we need to accept Vatican II. But, the WHOLE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS WHAT VATICAN II MEANS.

The documents are vague, very little was defined, and hardly anything was dogmatic. So, we need to have some definition as to what this means.
Click to expand...
Then, Bayern, maybe YOU can explain to us what we are to think, Please, tell us what Vatican 11 means…

(incidently, I would trust the Vatican website more so than the “remnant” or any of those off shoot magazines. If that makes me a papist, then so be it.)

But if you want to trust these other magazines more, go for it…it’s your life:D
 
Auntie_M said:
Then, Bayern, maybe YOU can explain to us what we are to think, Please, tell us what Vatican 11 means…

(incidently, I would trust the Vatican website more so than the “remnant” or any of those off shoot magazines. If that makes me a papist, then so be it.)

But if you want to trust these other magazines more, go for it…it’s your life:D
Click to expand...
I never claimed to know what to think.

What I’m saying is Vatican II was written vaguely. The Catholic Church does not deal in vagueness.

Thus, we need the theologians, Pope, and bishops to come at us with real definitions.

Also, we’re 9 councils away from Vatican 11.
 
BayernAnhaenger said:
What I’m saying is Vatican II was written vaguely.
Click to expand...
This is an understatement. The part about keeping Latin in the liturgy but allowing some vernacular has turned into anywhere from all-vernacular-all-the-time to no-vernacular controversy. And this is only one provision.
 
pnewton said:
Recently the SSPX has been castigated on charges of antisemetism.
Click to expand...
That’s really hitting below the belt. What if I were to accuse bishops of being abortionists because they don’t disallow certain politicians communion?
 
My opinion: All the SSPX and other traditionalists have to do now is keep going, and wait. At the rate churches and parishes are closing, and the number of new seminarians falling, they’ll not be short of a congregation in due course.

i.e. No priest = no mass = no church.

Darwinism at work in the Catholic Church? Who’d a’ thunk it?
 
ProVobis said:
That’s really hitting below the belt. What if I were to accuse bishops of being abortionists because they don’t disallow certain politicians communion?
Click to expand...
I did not mean to offend. I only wanted to show that judging others for their beliefs and imputing to them motives. Yes, there may be some that hate the SSPX, but it is better to assume the best that all are just acting on the results of their belief in sincerity. I have too have been accused on several occasions of hating the SSPX and even other traditional Catholics, so I know how it feels.
 
pnewton said:
… Recently the SSPX has been castigated on charges of antisemetism. …
Click to expand...
:)Hi Pnewton,
Bishop Williamson made spurious comments about the gas chambers…and that has nothing to do with the SSPX. In fact, the SSPX told him he had to recant what he said publically, and he was fired from his position at the seminary in Argentina for his comments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top