Pushed to the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter DorianGregorian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Diak said:
Why would any faithful Catholic want to attend and thus materially participate in the actions of those whom the Holy Father has specifically and clearly stated " do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church"?
Click to expand...
… perhaps because many feel that the offense to the Blessed Sacrament in many diocesan parishes far outweighs irritating the Pope?
 
… perhaps because many feel that the offense to the Blessed Sacrament in many diocesan parishes far outweighs irritating the Pope?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can document where the Church herself has stated magisterially that such things specifically are “offenses”. I also would not agree with equating blatant and recognized disobedience of the Catholic Church to simply “irritating the Pope”.

As I mentioned previously, the statement from Rome is very clear.
In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
Click to expand...
“No canonical status” doesn’t leave much for the imagination. There are, of course, Latin Mass alternatives that do enjoy canonical status within the Catholic Church. Every Catholic is, of course, free to support these Masses celebrated by priests with current faculties in the Catholic Church.
 
giuseppeTO said:
… perhaps because many feel that the offense to the Blessed Sacrament in many diocesan parishes far outweighs irritating the Pope?
Click to expand...
This really is a tough one. The Vatican has to come up with a firm policy that is made very well know to all the faithful. There is obviously a great deal of beauty to the Tridentine Mass. Here in southeastern New England there are several places where you can attend a Tridentine Mass celebrated by a priest who has been given permission to do so. It would seem to me that that would be a first choice for Catholics that feel to need to attend this kind of Mass.

I don’t consider myself to be an idiot…but there is a lot of confusing statements being made in this thread an other places where the issue is brought up.

Is the Vatican really allowing Pope Pius masses to be said by the Society at the Vatican?
 
JReducation said:
After the lifting of the excommunication, the SSPX were asked not to ordain and they went ahead and did so a few weeks later.
Click to expand...
Dear Brother,

This is absolutely false and you should know better than stating facts that are false. Pope Benedict did contact Bishop Fellay after the excommunications were lifted and the Bishop Williamson affair emerged and asked him, quite discretely, not to hold the planned ordinations in Germany that month. Bishop Fellay immediately complied with this Papal request.

So now without dragging out the “exercises no legal ministry” statement, a description of the current legal canonical situation which we all acknowledge, please either show us the documented reference where the Holy Father told the SSPX to desist from all ordinations (apart from the one which I cited and was complied to), or retract your false statement.
 
Well…if that’s the case (and I have no reason to not believe you)…then I don’t see how it could be wrong to attend and assist at one of the Masses.
Click to expand...
Except that Rome has specifically stated these priests have no faculties in the Catholic Church. You can either believe personal opinion or the Magisterium - that is a choice for all Catholics in this matter. One is demonstrable by Rome herself, the other heresay.
 
Diak said:
Except that Rome has specifically stated these priests have no faculties in the Catholic Church. You can either believe personal opinion or the Magisterium - that is a choice for all Catholics in this matter.
Click to expand...
I think that’s where the confusion comes in. If it’s allowed…then it’s allowed to all. That’s the way I see it. I would still prefer to attend a sanctioned Tridentine Mass.
 
Diak said:
Perhaps you can document where the Church herself has stated magisterially that such things specifically are “offenses”.
Click to expand...
Diak,

If you need the church to “magisterially” tell you (what ever that means) what constitutes abuse, you are in sorry shape, my friend.
Diak said:
I also would not agree with equating blatant and recognized disobedience of the Catholic Church to simply “irritating the Pope”.

As I mentioned previously, the statement from Rome is very clear.

“No canonical status” doesn’t leave much for the imagination.
Click to expand...
You can quote that till you’re blue in the face and if you want to believe that it means the moon is made of green cheese, have at it.

Fact 1: Ecclesia Dei said that one may attend an SSPX Mass.
Fact 2: Ecclesia dei knows the SSPX “has no canonical status”.
Fact 3: The Holy Father understands that during the doctrinal discussions, the faithful will still assist at SSPX Masses, The SSPX will still ordain priests. He has not specifically asked that all this cease because he is accepting of this situation. His statement concerning canonical status was made to pacify the German Bishops over the Bishop Williamson affair. Nothing more.
 
I don’t believe in the moon and cheese or whatever, but rather in fidelity to the Magisterium. That includes fidelity to a visible and real Pope and a real Bishop who is in filial communion with that Pope.

I would say perhaps Br. JR is more accurate than the statement by Guiseppe above after the public warning from the Vatican in June 2009 before the **most recent **ordinations of the SSPX long after the March letter from Rome:
"In response to the frequent questions that have been raised over recent days concerning the priestly ordinations by the Fraternity of St Pius X, scheduled to take place at the end of June, suffice it to refer to what the Holy Father wrote in his Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on 10 March this year: “As long as the Society (of St. Pius X) does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. … Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers … do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church”.
Click to expand...
“In the same Letter, the Pope also announced his intention to change the status of the Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’, making it part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. There is reason to believe that the definition of this new status is imminent. This constitutes a premise for launching dialogue with the leaders of the Fraternity of St Pius X, with a view to clarifying the doctrinal questions, and consequently the disciplinary questions, which remain unresolved”.
Click to expand...
Absolutely no note of tolerance or permission for these ordinations is either implied or directly stated. So it should be very clear, once again, of the canonical status of all clergy of the SSPX within the Catholic Church. They have no canonical status. Also it should be perhaps more troubling that Rome no longer considers this a liturgical matter, but clearly a doctrinal matter. That means there are doctrinal differences that have to be sorted out. It’s not just a matter of this Mass or that one.

Guiseppe should also provide sources (as I have directly from Roman sources) of any explicit permission by Ecclesia Dei to attend an SSPX Mass that he contends is present. What I have most recently from Rome is a very explicit statement in March, 2009 that no clergy of the SSPX has faculties in the Catholic Church. And the later June warning from Rome simply states that the March statement “suffices” in its clarity of stating that no clergy of the SSPX have faculties in the Catholic Church.
 
Diak said:
I would say perhaps Br. JR is more accurate than the statement by Guiseppe above after the public warning from the Vatican in June 2009 before the **most recent **ordinations of the SSPX long after the March letter from Rome:

Absolutely no note of tolerance or permission for these ordinations is either implied or directly stated. So it should be very clear, once again, of the canonical status of all clergy of the SSPX within the Catholic Church. They have no canonical status. Also it should be perhaps more troubling that Rome no longer considers this a liturgical matter, but clearly a doctrinal matter. That means there are doctrinal differences that have to be sorted out. It’s not just a matter of this Mass or that one.

Guiseppe should also provide sources (as I have directly from Roman sources) of any explicit permission by Ecclesia Dei to attend an SSPX Mass that he contends is present. What I have most recently from Rome is a very explicit statement in March, 2009 that no clergy of the SSPX has faculties in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Diak,

It was NEVER about the Mass. Here is what it is about:

***Via the website Panorama Católico Internacional (found via messainlatino.it) come news about the doctrinal discussions between the Holy See and the SSPX.

The follwing is a synthesis of remarks made by Bishop Alfonso de Galareta, head of the SSPX delegation for the discussions, on the occasion of recent ordinations of the SSPX at its Argentinian seminary of La Reja.
  1. The outcome of the first meeting has been good.
  2. Primarily the agenda and the method of discussion were established.
  3. The issues to be discussed are of a doctrinal nature to the express exclusion of any canonical question regarding the situation of the SSPX.
  4. The common doctrinal reference point will be the Magisterium prior to the Council.
  5. The talks follow a rigorous method: an issue is raised, and the party raising it sends a paper substantiating its doubts. The Holy See responds in writing, after prior email exchanges among the technical advisers. At the meeting, the issue is discussed.
  6. All meetings are taped by both parties and filmed.
  7. The conclusions of each topic will be submitted to the Holy Father and the Superior General of the SSPX.
  8. The timing of these meetings depends on whether the topic is new or is already being discussed. In the first case, it will be approximately every three months. In the second, every two. The next meeting is planned for mid January.
  9. The theological representatives of the Holy See “are people you can talk with”, they speak “the same (theological) language as we”. (meaning presumably they are Thomists).
  10. Some of the topics mentioned by the bishop in his homily, not exhaustively, are:
a) The Magisterium of the Council and after the Council.

b) The conciliar liturgical reform.

c) Ecumenism and interreligious dialogue.

e) Papal authority and collegiality.

f) Freedom of conscience, religious freedom, secularism and the social reign of Jesus Christ.

g) Human rights and human dignity according to the Council’s teaching.

The Bishop repeated that the results of the first session are good, compared to the previous situation. The parties talked entirely freely and only about doctrinal issues in a Thomist theological framework.***
 
Diak said:
Guiseppe should also provide sources (as I have directly from Roman sources) of any explicit permission by Ecclesia Dei to attend an SSPX Mass that he contends is present.
Click to expand...
Msgr Perle (see SSPX documents for entire letter):
The situation of the faithful attending chapels of the Society of
St. Pius X is more complicated. They may attend Mass there primarily
because of an attraction to the earlier form of the Roman Rite in which
case they incur no penalty.
Click to expand...
While Msgr Perle went on to name qualifications and stipulations, the bottom line is that he knew the SSPX “exercised no canonical ministry”. … and he still allows that it incurs no penalty and fulfills one’s Holy Day obligation.

So now, could you just go haunt some Protestants for a while?
 
giuseppeTO said:
While Msgr Perle went on to name qualifications and stipulations, the bottom line is that he knew the SSPX “exercised no canonical ministry”. … and he still allows that it incurs no penalty and fulfills one’s Holy Day obligation.

So now, could you just go haunt some Protestants for a while?
Click to expand...
Hey Giuseppe,

Thanks and Merry Christmas.

It is clear to me that the Society of St. Pius X are among the best friends this pope has ever had. I can imagine Bp. Fellay dying for His Holiness Benedict XVI. The EHT (Episcopal Haters of Tradition) don’t have anything worth dying for, and certainly not a pope who leans more and more toward Tradition. They only despise our current pope a little less than the SSPX.

Long Live Benedict XVI. God help this pope to defend his silly flock from the canonically regularized wolves, even as the flock resists the truest shepherds.

Rory
 
RoryMcKenzie56 said:
They only despise our current pope a little less than the SSPX.
Click to expand...
And you know what’s inside every SSPX priest and bishop?

Your whole note could very easily be put under the category “tasteless” if not “slander.”
 
Diak said:
Also it should be perhaps more troubling that Rome no longer considers this a liturgical matter, but clearly a doctrinal matter. That means there are doctrinal differences that have to be sorted out. It’s not just a matter of this Mass or that one.
Click to expand...
Do you know exactly what these doctrinal matters are? Do you always post stuff you know nothing about? :rolleyes:
 
ProVobis said:
And you know what’s inside every SSPX priest and bishop?

Your whole note could very easily be put under the category “tasteless” if not “slander.”
Click to expand...
In answer to your question. No I do not know “what’s inside every priest and bishop”. My post was subjective, intended to be supportive of Giuseppe’s able defense of assisting at SSPX Masses. I know I have a real and true affection for the pope, coupled with a real antipathy for some, even many of the persons who occupy episcopal offices. But I have named no one. What can be slanderous about that? It is the subjective opinion of a Catholic truck driver who let every alleged wolf remain anonymous. Who could possibly bring suit aguinst me? What bishop have I slandered?

I spoke of what I imagined. It should not be taken as though I think I am omniscient. I tend to think that the Society bishops are very holy, and that they pray harder for, and love Pope Benedict more than some of th bishops who are canonically regularized. You are welcome to categorize my post as you wish and in turn imagine that the entire episcopate really is very very fond of and happy with the present Holy Father. My post was prompted in part by Cardinal Ratzinger’s request upon ascending to the papacy that we would pray for him that he would be a good pastor against the wolves who oppose good and truth.

It is just my opinion that some, even many of these wolves, are Catholic bishops. Do you think he meant Bp. Fellay was a wolf? You are welcome to that opinion if that is what it is. But I presume I am welcome to offer that I dsagree. If you think every Catholic bishop loves Tradition, I do not accuse you of slander or tastelessness, only naivete. Anyway, I know my own heart, and I love the Church, and even the bishops I consider to be wayward, for they are still the princes of the Church, and I know I respect their office.

I am sure that if we only could sit down together we would be good good friends in Christ. I appreciate your love for the faith even if I think you’re a little mistaken in regards to the faithfulness of the episcopate. If you can’t grant that I love Christ and His Church, I know better, and I’ll have a Merry Christmas while wishing the same to you.

Sincerely,

Rory
 
For the record, there is a parital quote of a comment I made earlier which could easily be taken out of context. It occurs to me that maybe the person who quoted me misunderstood my meaning. Here is the partial quote:
They only despise our current pope a little less than the SSPX.
Click to expand...
Anyone who is interested could scroll up to see that I was referencing that in my opinion, there are bishops of the Catholic Church who despise Pope Benedict XVI. I was saying in this sentence that these same errant bishops despise the SSPX even more. They are not pleased that the pope is attempting to regularize their position in the Church. I could never think that the SSPX despises Pope Bendict XVI. No. no. no. Maybe this is the explanation for why the person who quoted me thought I was a tasteless slanderer for so opining?
 
giuseppeTO said:
So now without dragging out the “exercises no legal ministry” statement, a description of the current legal canonical situation which we all acknowledge, please either show us the documented reference where the Holy Father told the SSPX to desist from all ordinations (apart from the one which I cited and was complied to), or retract your false statement.
Click to expand...
That statement does not need to be dragged out. It is what it is. It is legitimate to refer to it at anytime the issue of the SSPX comes up.
 
giuseppeTO said:
… perhaps because many feel that the offense to the Blessed Sacrament in many diocesan parishes far outweighs irritating the Pope?
Click to expand...
This statement goes to the heart of the logical fallacy that exists on this thread, namely, that of a false dichotomy. The choice a Catholic faces is not between some abusive nutty parish and the SSPX. This is simply untrue. There is more middle ground than that at either extreme.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top