P
ProVobis
Guest
It would seem you would like to call them that.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
No. Even those who have been styled as SSPX-haters would not speak so maliciously, not do they have the desire to. The above quote does show that a schismatic attitude of us versus them still exists in some corners of the SSPX. It dismisses the reality that the “conciliar church” is the Catholic Church. It is they who must be in communion with Her. Vatican II was an historic reality. Papal authority rests in Rome and Vatican II is part of this Church. SSPX theologians can argue and debate the *pastoral *documents. They can not deny their existence and move on as if Vatican II did not happen.
O
Ottaviani
Guest
This all seems kind of straw-manish if you ask me, because the priests of the SSPX would agree with you on every point. The use of “conciliar church” I think is geared towards the majority of both priests and laity who regard everything that happened before Vatican II’s “new springtime” irrelevant. From what I’ve seen in your posts, you would probably not agree with that, but unfortunately that seems to be the feeling in the (generally liberal) majority. In short “conciliar church” is a term they are using by those within the church who are too wrapped up in modernism to understand perennial Church teaching -as opposed to those in the church who are not “them”. Far from a schismatic attitude, but I see your logic.
I really hope the day comes when Vatican II gets clarified. The SSPX do not say that it should never have happened, but instead that it should be clarified in the light of tradition.
P
pnewton
Guest
Consider this from a reverse usage. Especially after all issues with the SSPX have been ironed out, but even now, how does it if one were to state that the left the SSPX for the Catholic Church? Or they believe the Catholic Church, not the SSPX? I have used that one in the past and have since quit.
A
Auntie_M
Guest
How rude…
…and just how are you coming to that conclusion?The thing that I dislike about the SSPX is that they are deceiving my brother and sister Catholics into thinking they are the only true church and making our Lord out a liar. Even then I would never call them an “evil parasite”. Just because the SSPX talks this way, doesn’t mean others do.
Wake up and smell the roses.
C
CatholicGirl7
Guest
SSPX is adhering to a doctrine . How are they deceiving anyone when it is there in black and white on their website what they believe and they are open in all communications on what they believe. Someone else asked for the link to your accusations and you never provided it that I saw. (Edited)How rude…
The thing that I dislike about the SSPX is that they are deceiving my brother and sister Catholics into thinking they are the only true church and making our Lord out a liar. Even then I would never call them an “evil parasite”. Just because the SSPX talks this way, doesn’t mean others do.
Wake up and smell the roses.
P
pnewton
Guest
By definition, she has over 800 posts and a year here, so she is not a troll. You have one day and two posts and are calling someone a troll???
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I disagree.
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vaticanII.htm
Seems to me that SSPX is clearly distinguishing, in their opinion, Vatican II OR the Catholic Church.
Catholics are bound to the teachings of Ecumenical Councils. No question on that. Vatican II is considered an ecumencial council by the Catholic Church. No question there. If you think the Catholic Church disagrees, please enlighten us.
D
dixibehr
Guest
I’ve seen writings by some so-called traditionalists distinguising between “eternal Rome” and “conciliar Rome”.
This is nothing more but a Roman-colored version of the Protestant notion of the “invisible true Church.”
This is nothing more but a Roman-colored version of the Protestant notion of the “invisible true Church.”
C
CatholicGirl7
Guest
This is youir response? What about the rest of my post which you ignored just so you could insult me. That’s the problem with Modernists, they feel free to insult those they disagree with. The poster sounded childish and ridiculous. I caller her out on her statement and never received a response from her which is none of your business. Again show me where SSPX called anyone a parasite and has hidden their statement of beliefs? Only if something is hidden can anyone be mislead. And then there is such as thing as free choice. One can choose to follow or not to follow. It’s the case with any religion. No one is forced to believe anything.By definition, she has over 800 posts and a year here, so she is not a troll. You have one day and two posts and are calling someone a troll???
C
CatholicGirl7
Guest
And you base this on what? Church groups are entitled to adhere to their own core beliefs. (Edited) What right do you have to determine what is a correct belief system?
P
ProVobis
Guest
I would support you if you were to ask them to remove this type of language from their website, especially since the lifting of the excommunications of their bishops should put them in a much different limelight. I seriously don’t think the majority feel that way anymore.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I’ve heard the term “integrists” being thrown about quite a bit against them. To me that’s pretty malicious.
O
Ottaviani
Guest
I see that as being more of an issue of regularization, these are screwy times indeed, and I’m very hopeful that examples like this will soon go away (upon regularization).
Likewise, I know of at least one SSPX chapel that a Benedictine priest regularly says Mass at. And that’s a pretty common thing. The lines are not, nor were they ever, as clear as they might seem.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
My wife and I were SSPX for a few years, but left for our own reasons. Our attitude as trads is unusual. We are extremely traditional (friends of Tradition in Action leadership) but we attend the NO now. We are still uncomfortable with the New rite, but did not feel that the arguments against attending it were compelling enough to risk not fulfilling our obligation, even if we would prefer the Old rite.
It is true what some say, that, although I do not and never believed they were in schism (and we can cite every bishop and cardinal under the sun to justify it either way), they often gave a good impression of it. It was kind of mixed. They had a Vatican flag in the church (which I know some sedes who do not) but the Holy Father’s picture was nowhere in sight, even though they had a picture of St. Pius X and Archbishop Lefebvre. But otherwise they prayed for the Pope una cum, and we prayed for his intentions in our rosaries.
Yes, Vatican II does worry me, but since it did not define dogma or doctrine, this was not a big deal. For those teaching I cannot reconcile, I adhere to the previous teaching in full. I do take the official SSPX attitude which is “We do not know what went wrong, and we choose not to speculate,” which is somewhat confusing because they do seem to speculate and even regulate (such as not attending NO rule) on occasion, which did concern me.
Some faithful, Dimond brothers included, as someone mentioned earlier, do choose to speculate and wander afield. They have no authority to do so. This is why SSPX is in discussion, and not fulmination, with Rome, unlike SSPV. SSPV is technically also canonically irregular, but has no interest in talking to Rome.
Basically, I think SSPX is sincere in its concerns, and wants clarity in the Faith. Their jurisdiction was never a big concern. They have no parallel hierarchy, issue only requests and not pastoral letters, and sit on a faldstool and not a throne. I think the same of an traditional Anglican church here in Los Angeles. Due to ecumenical concerns, Cardinal Mahoney is blocking their reuniting with Rome. But since they desire Rome, I consider them Catholic, even though they are not yet part of the Church, but wish to be.
Hope this helps! God Bless.
It is true what some say, that, although I do not and never believed they were in schism (and we can cite every bishop and cardinal under the sun to justify it either way), they often gave a good impression of it. It was kind of mixed. They had a Vatican flag in the church (which I know some sedes who do not) but the Holy Father’s picture was nowhere in sight, even though they had a picture of St. Pius X and Archbishop Lefebvre. But otherwise they prayed for the Pope una cum, and we prayed for his intentions in our rosaries.
Yes, Vatican II does worry me, but since it did not define dogma or doctrine, this was not a big deal. For those teaching I cannot reconcile, I adhere to the previous teaching in full. I do take the official SSPX attitude which is “We do not know what went wrong, and we choose not to speculate,” which is somewhat confusing because they do seem to speculate and even regulate (such as not attending NO rule) on occasion, which did concern me.
Some faithful, Dimond brothers included, as someone mentioned earlier, do choose to speculate and wander afield. They have no authority to do so. This is why SSPX is in discussion, and not fulmination, with Rome, unlike SSPV. SSPV is technically also canonically irregular, but has no interest in talking to Rome.
Basically, I think SSPX is sincere in its concerns, and wants clarity in the Faith. Their jurisdiction was never a big concern. They have no parallel hierarchy, issue only requests and not pastoral letters, and sit on a faldstool and not a throne. I think the same of an traditional Anglican church here in Los Angeles. Due to ecumenical concerns, Cardinal Mahoney is blocking their reuniting with Rome. But since they desire Rome, I consider them Catholic, even though they are not yet part of the Church, but wish to be.
Hope this helps! God Bless.
C
CatholicGirl7
Guest
Thanks for posting this. My husband and I after a great deal of discussion decided to join the local SSPX Church. There were many factors that led to that decision. We feel very comfortable in the Church, the people are very sweet and sociable and the Priest gives the best sermons I have ever heard. I have to honestly say the first sermon we heard was the most enjoyable I had heard since I don’t know when. The Church is also in a beautfiul area, masses are at a good time and our drive was similar to the FSSP Church we had also checked into. And I love that the people there know when to be solemn, quiet and respectful during the Mass and when to let loose and enjoy each other after. We very much feel God’s presence inside the Church and in the humble and pious Church members who seem so devoted to traditional Catholicism. It is the right environment for us and we thoroughly enjoy ourselves spiritually and emotionally each time we attend Mass. To my husband’s and my surprise we often find ourselves smiling and feeling very happy inside during Mass something we had not experienced before. Amid all the controversy I had almost hoped the SSPX Church wouldn’t work out for us but the experience has been too compelling for us to walk away. I did notice when I last checked the SSPX website that prayers were offered to the Pope and there seem to be some gestures on both sides to reconcile which I hope will come to fruition down the road. But does that really matter to me now? No. I feel that God led me to SSPX and I leave it to God to work it out from there.My wife and I were SSPX for a few years, but left for our own reasons. Our attitude as trads is unusual. We are extremely traditional (friends of Tradition in Action leadership) but we attend the NO now. We are still uncomfortable with the New rite, but did not feel that the arguments against attending it were compelling enough to risk not fulfilling our obligation, even if we would prefer the Old rite.
It is true what some say, that, although I do not and never believed they were in schism (and we can cite every bishop and cardinal under the sun to justify it either way), they often gave a good impression of it. It was kind of mixed. They had a Vatican flag in the church (which I know some sedes who do not) but the Holy Father’s picture was nowhere in sight, even though they had a picture of St. Pius X and Archbishop Lefebvre. But otherwise they prayed for the Pope una cum, and we prayed for his intentions in our rosaries.
Yes, Vatican II does worry me, but since it did not define dogma or doctrine, this was not a big deal. For those teaching I cannot reconcile, I adhere to the previous teaching in full. I do take the official SSPX attitude which is “We do not know what went wrong, and we choose not to speculate,” which is somewhat confusing because they do seem to speculate and even regulate (such as not attending NO rule) on occasion, which did concern me.
Some faithful, Dimond brothers included, as someone mentioned earlier, do choose to speculate and wander afield. They have no authority to do so. This is why SSPX is in discussion, and not fulmination, with Rome, unlike SSPV. SSPV is technically also canonically irregular, but has no interest in talking to Rome.
Basically, I think SSPX is sincere in its concerns, and wants clarity in the Faith. Their jurisdiction was never a big concern. They have no parallel hierarchy, issue only requests and not pastoral letters, and sit on a faldstool and not a throne. I think the same of an traditional Anglican church here in Los Angeles. Due to ecumenical concerns, Cardinal Mahoney is blocking their reuniting with Rome. But since they desire Rome, I consider them Catholic, even though they are not yet part of the Church, but wish to be.
Hope this helps! God Bless.
- Status