Question for the members of the group Society of St. Pius X:

[passer_by]

No… here’s the deal. If a person serving time in prison is found to be wrongly convicted of a crime, it does not end there just because his innocence is proven, rather steps are taken to free the person and give restitution. Benedict XVI knew the excommunication had no merit and was unjust, that is why he lifted the “excommunication”. If he felt SSPX was deserving of it, then he never would have lifted it.

It is no coincidence that JPII immediately founded the FSSP after he “excommunicates” Archbishop Lefebvre and SSPX. He finally realized there were a significant amount of Catholics still wanting to keep the Tridentine Latin Mass and orthodoxy in Catholicism. That is all that Archbishop Lefebvre wanted to ensure by consecrating the 4 Bishops. So, in an attempt to diffuse any possible backlash from Catholics, JPII sets up FSSP as a diversion right after he “excommunicates” Lefebvre/SSPX, when all he had to do was give Lefebvre permission to consecrate the Bishops. For quite awhile it was obvious JPII was NOT concerned with preserving the Tridentine Latin Mass and orthodoxy in Catholicism. This was of grave concern to many Catholics and Archbishop Lefevbre, fortunately, Lefebvre had the grace to move forward to preserve the Catholic faith.

Here is the thing though, I see where you are coming from. I really do.

I agree that Vatican II might have made some pretty bad decisions. Some decisions were pretty good too. But in the end, they were just decisions regarding policies that can well be changed at a different council or by a different Pope. There was no Dogma declared as I understand in Vatican II.

Do you think the answer is to therefore separate from the church because it made a bad policy decision? I would say our 2000 year deposit of faith tells us that we must stick to it with faith and trust in the Lord that he will bring about proper correction to these decisions. Look at the time of the Arian Heresy. The church still survived through it to become the church you love before Vatican II. So why not trust Divine Providence now? Why be separate? Why not try to correct the mistakes while remaining in the church?

 

[passer_by]

Again, I speak for myself here and not the SSPX. The Orthodox Church (both Eastern and Oriental) and Armenian Apostolic Church is much MORE Catholic than Vatican II and the conciliar Church. That is what most Catholics do not realize and it is sad. Vatican II “protestantized” the Catholic Church.

You need to study pre-Vatican II more, and more importantly, you should pray about it. Pre-Vatican II also states NO person can willingly go against the Deposit of Faith, for if he does, he is ipso facto excommunicated. The Seat of Peter and Magisterium only rests on the Deposit of Faith handed down by the early Church fathers and Christ’s teachings, therefore, it has infallibility granted by Christ. Anything outside of the DOF has no infallibility. Read the Pre-V II papal bulls, councils, encyclicals, etc etc and see how much V II contradicts it!

As I said before, the Church is NOT a location, nor is it a building, NOR is it a status… and I’ll add > NOR is it a title!

Where has the church gone against the deposit of faith though? None of the Dogmatic and doctrinal truths taught by the Magisterium have been reversed. Or am I missing something?

The above would also not be church teaching but church law. If the church was just the deposit of faith, then law does not apply anyway?

 

[kestrel4Christ]

Here is the thing though, I see where you are coming from. I really do.

I agree that Vatican II might have made some pretty bad decisions. Some decisions were pretty good too. But in the end, they were just decisions regarding policies that can well be changed at a different council or by a different Pope. There was no Dogma declared as I understand in Vatican II.

Do you think the answer is to therefore separate from the church because it made a bad policy decision? I would say our 2000 year deposit of faith tells us that we must stick to it with faith and trust in the Lord that he will bring about proper correction to these decisions. Look at the time of the Arian Heresy. The church still survived through it to become the church you love before Vatican II. So why not trust Divine Providence now? Why be separate? Why not try to correct the mistakes while remaining in the church?

But SSPX never separated themselves from the Church. How can they if they have been faithful to the Deposit of Faith all along? How can they have separated themselves by sticking with a Catholic Mass basically given to us by the Council of Trent? Yes the Church DOES still survive - it has survived WITH SSPX and other Catholics, regardless of Vatican II. Christ even said “…the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

SSPX is trying to correct the mistakes. This is why they are meeting with Rome, but as I said before, the SSPX’s main concern, if not their only concern, is to preserve the Catholic faith and Tridentine Latin Mass. They will not allow themselves to be subject to the spirit of VII. I suspect they are trying to get the Vatican to see and correct the mistakes of Vatican II.

If there is no “reconciliation” between Rome and SSPX, that does NOT make SSPX any less Catholic or outside of the Church. On the contrary, SSPX will remain fully Catholic and within the Church. The Church and faith would only continue to be in eclipse - hidden. If they somehow compromised and became subject to the spirit of VII, then in actuality, they would be LESS Catholic and not fully in the Church.

 

[passer_by]

But SSPX never separated themselves from the Church. How can they if they have been faithful to the Deposit of Faith all along? How can they have separated themselves by sticking with a Catholic Mass basically given to us by the Council of Trent? Yes the Church DOES still survive - it has survived WITH SSPX and other Catholics, regardless of Vatican II. Christ even said “…the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

But the church is also all its leaders. Isnt it?

And about the mass, the mass has changed so many times in history. Even prior to Trent, the mass had gone through so many changes.

There was never an infallible teaching that mass should be like this or that. Or was there?

SSPX is trying to correct the mistakes. This is why they are meeting with Rome, but as I said before, the SSPX’s main concern, if not their only concern, is to preserve the Catholic faith and Tridentine Latin Mass. They will not allow themselves to be subject to the spirit of VII. I suspect they are trying to get the Vatican to see and correct the mistakes of Vatican II.

But if I may honestly ask, why does the Tridentine mass matter so much? Its not a part of the deposit of faith. The form of the mass and other elements were not infallible decrees of the church.

If there is no “reconciliation” between Rome and SSPX, that does NOT make SSPX any less Catholic or outside of the Church. On the contrary, SSPX will remain fully Catholic and within the Church. The Church and faith would only continue to be in eclipse - hidden. If they somehow compromised and became subject to the spirit of VII, then in actuality, they would be LESS Catholic and not fully in the Church.

But the thing is, your bishops and priests have expressly rejected the hierarchy of the church. If disciples of St. Paul rejected St. Peter’s authority, would he still be part of the Catholic faith?

You have to keep in mind, the allegations against the mass change etc are not even valid allegations in the sense that the mass was never infallibly defined.

I know many Catholics in the West think that change of mass has brought about a great destruction on the faith. But the truth is, the changes happened in other countries outside the West which are still having their faith as strong as ever.

So I think you might be blaming the wrong change for the loss of the Catholic faith in the West. At the time of Vatican II, there was a group of priests, bishops and theologians in the West that already had liberal ideas. They just Vatican II as a platform to further their ends. But in other countries, the mass changed to the vernacular, and faith still remained in-tact.

 

[severus68]

No… here’s the deal. If a person serving time in prison is found to be wrongly convicted of a crime, it does not end there just because his innocence is proven, rather steps are taken to free the person and give restitution. Benedict XVI knew the excommunication had no merit and was unjust, that is why he lifted the “excommunication”. If he felt SSPX was deserving of it, then he never would have lifted it.

It is no coincidence that JPII immediately founded the FSSP after he “excommunicates” Archbishop Lefebvre and SSPX. He finally realized there were a significant amount of Catholics still wanting to keep the Tridentine Latin Mass and orthodoxy in Catholicism. That is all that Archbishop Lefebvre wanted to ensure by consecrating the 4 Bishops. So, in an attempt to diffuse any possible backlash from Catholics, JPII sets up FSSP as a diversion right after he “excommunicates” Lefebvre/SSPX, when all he had to do was give Lefebvre permission to consecrate the Bishops. For quite awhile it was obvious JPII was NOT concerned with preserving the Tridentine Latin Mass and orthodoxy in Catholicism. This was of grave concern to many Catholics and Archbishop Lefevbre, fortunately, Lefebvre had the grace to move forward to preserve the Catholic faith.

The Pope lifted the excommunication because he hopes for reconcilliation for the SPPX. He did not say it was without merit and unjust. The excommunication was valid and thus had to be lifted as some other poster commented.

The way you speak about John Paul II is to me, rather disrespectful and I would say, not acceptable on this forum.

 

[Dragonslayer]

I am speaking for myself, not the SSPX, in this response. There is a difference between being in “communion with Rome” and being in communion with the Deposit of Faith handed down to us by the early Church fathers for the past 2000 years. The SSPX’s main concern is to preserve the Catholic faith, NOT to be in “communion with Rome.” The true Rome is the Catholic faith - the Church, and the SSPX has always been faithful and loyal to it. This is what many Catholics do not understand. Maybe people need to consider that the Vatican must recognize the errors of Vatican II.

The SSPX and other Catholics will not concede to the Vatican II spirit, nor should they.

Also, I invite everyone to learn Our Lady of La Salette’s message.

Very well said kestrel4Christ. Thankyou.

 

[freshwind]

I think something we need to keep in mind as well are the words of the Holy Father when discussing VII, he does not devalue the documents, but he has been critical of the interpretation and expression of some of the thoughts and concepts proposed via the official documents.

We must remember as well that he had a great hand as the young theologian so has a deep understanding.

The greatest weakness, and downfall in our Church since VI is that the seminaries let us down.
There were all kinds of issues and debates on interpretations and this led to a generation of seminarians not getting solid foundations…a great deal of 60 and 70’s pop psychology creeped in.

Our Holy Father has said pray for our priests, many are good men who may be making errors out of ignorance, not out of disobedience…a simple yet profound thought.

I do believe this is changing, and when I read posts about weak and lax Masses and homilists I can relate, been to many myself.

I attended my first SSPX Mass last weekend and found the message pretty solidly Catholic, imploring the faithful to pray many rosaries for our good Holy Father and the Church, to offer them up for our sinfullness…I found a great humility in this chapel, no air of superiority, just a group of sinners gathering for worship of our Glorious God and His mercy.

I must also say I have been at other Masses celebrated by some younger newly ordained priests who have grown up and studied the writings of PB XVI, and there is an aura of holiness during these Masses … so either form can be holy, either form can be true worship, either form can be beautiful, either form brings Christ to us in the Eucharist …this is the point I think Pope Benedict sees, this seems like the Church he envisions…a holy priesthood, celebrating Mass with the faithful in attendance in reverent respect and gratitude for the miracle taking place on the altar.

Let us continue to pray for our Holy Father, our Church, SSPX and all our separated bretheren, may we all unite within the Church our Saviour founded…then we can truly change the world.

 

[Dragonslayer]

SSPX is trying to correct the mistakes. This is why they are meeting with Rome, but as I said before, **the SSPX’s main concern, if not their only concern, is to preserve the Catholic faith and Tridentine Latin Mass. They will not allow themselves to be subject to the spirit of VII. I suspect they are trying to get the Vatican to see and correct the mistakes of Vatican II. **
If there is no “reconciliation” between Rome and SSPX, that does NOT make SSPX any less Catholic or outside of the Church. On the contrary, SSPX will remain fully Catholic and within the Church. The Church and faith would only continue to be in eclipse - hidden. If they somehow compromised and became subject to the spirit of VII, then in actuality, they would be LESS Catholic and not fully in the Church.

This is very true. I notice there are many well-intentioned and good catholics on this forum hoping and praying for the SSPX to return to full communion with Rome. This is very heart warming and charitable.

However, whilst I’m sure the SSPX would ideally love to return to full communion it will not do so if it has to compromise the tradition that it has sacrificed so much for and fought so hard to retain. In fact, at our SSPX parish these discussions have only been mentioned in passing and always with the proviso that our beliefs will not be compromised.

The general feeling is that if it doesn’t happen it doesn’t happen, and we will just keep doing what we’ve been doing.

If it does happen, it will be a fantastic outcome, as it will be a sign that Rome has at least ackowledged the errors emanating from VII, and could well be prepared to work with the SSPX to correct these errors. This is what we should be praying for.

 

[TrueLight]

The general feeling is that if it doesn’t happen it doesn’t happen, and we will just keep doing what we’ve been doing. .

If it doesn’t happen, you will probably be placed in formal schism. Is that not cause for concern?

A branch severed from the tree can only wither.

Look at the Old Catholic Church.

 

[passer_by]

I think something we need to keep in mind as well are the words of the Holy Father when discussing VII, he does not devalue the documents, but he has been critical of the interpretation and expression of some of the thoughts and concepts proposed via the official documents.

We must remember as well that he had a great hand as the young theologian so has a deep understanding.

The greatest weakness, and downfall in our Church since VI is that the seminaries let us down.
There were all kinds of issues and debates on interpretations and this led to a generation of seminarians not getting solid foundations…a great deal of 60 and 70’s pop psychology creeped in.

Our Holy Father has said pray for our priests, many are good men who may be making errors out of ignorance, not out of disobedience…a simple yet profound thought.

I do believe this is changing, and when I read posts about weak and lax Masses and homilists I can relate, been to many myself.

I attended my first SSPX Mass last weekend and found the message pretty solidly Catholic, imploring the faithful to pray many rosaries for our good Holy Father and the Church, to offer them up for our sinfullness…I found a great humility in this chapel, no air of superiority, just a group of sinners gathering for worship of our Glorious God and His mercy.

I must also say I have been at other Masses celebrated by some younger newly ordained priests who have grown up and studied the writings of PB XVI, and there is an aura of holiness during these Masses … so either form can be holy, either form can be true worship, either form can be beautiful, either form brings Christ to us in the Eucharist …this is the point I think Pope Benedict sees, this seems like the Church he envisions…a holy priesthood, celebrating Mass with the faithful in attendance in reverent respect and gratitude for the miracle taking place on the altar.

Let us continue to pray for our Holy Father, our Church, SSPX and all our separated bretheren, may we all unite within the Church our Saviour founded…then we can truly change the world.

To be fair to SSPX, I think there is a problem today in the church with Ecumenism. This of course does not invalidate the Church or anything. But it has made some pretty bad decisions.

If you compare countries where the faith is still strong and the West (North America & Europe to be specific) where the faith is dwindling, you will find that Ecumenism is the biggest missing element. In fact, if you read the reports by the Vatican centers for Ecumenism, the places they identify as the hardest places to carry out ecumenical movements are the strongest Catholic countries today. It might be just a co-relation but I can see a causal connection when reading Mortalium Animos.

On a side note, I personally was offended when I read in the report titled “Ecumenism today: the situation in the Catholic Church” by the “PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY” that one of the “Problems and Resistances” to ecumenism was “- in some places excesses in Catholic Marian devotions are a problem”

You can read the complete text here if you want
(vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20041121_farrell-ecumenismo_en.html)

It might have been just bad wording. But I wonder what they will decide next. Is it going to be ways to systematically reduce Marian devotions?

So I personally think that the Roman Catholic Church in North America and Europe have a major problem with Ecumenism. I hope it gets fixed there before it gets imported to us.

 

[pnewton]

SSPX have ALWAYS been in the Catholic Church. They never left it. That is what most Catholics do not understand about SSPX. How can anybody be outside of the Church if they adhere to the Deposit of Faith (UNCHANGED) handed down the past 2000 years? They were NEVER outside of the Church, regardless of any “excommunication,” which was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI anyway…
T

The four bishops were outside the Church for a time. This is a fact. The Holy Father lifted this, but never stated it was wrong or invalid. Your posts show the basic problem I have with the SSPX. To the extent they set themselves in apposition to the Holy See, the can claim 2000 years of tradition until they are blue in the face, but they such a position missed the most important traditions, like authority, obedience, and humility.

 

[severus68]

But SSPX never separated themselves from the Church. How can they if they have been faithful to the Deposit of Faith all along? How can they have separated themselves by sticking with a Catholic Mass basically given to us by the Council of Trent? Yes the Church DOES still survive - it has survived WITH SSPX and other Catholics, regardless of Vatican II. Christ even said “…the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

SSPX is trying to correct the mistakes. This is why they are meeting with Rome, but as I said before, the SSPX’s main concern, if not their only concern, is to preserve the Catholic faith and Tridentine Latin Mass. They will not allow themselves to be subject to the spirit of VII. I suspect they are trying to get the Vatican to see and correct the mistakes of Vatican II.

If there is no “reconciliation” between Rome and SSPX, that does NOT make SSPX any less Catholic or outside of the Church. On the contrary, SSPX will remain fully Catholic and within the Church. The Church and faith would only continue to be in eclipse - hidden. If they somehow compromised and became subject to the spirit of VII, then in actuality, they would be LESS Catholic and not fully in the Church.

So the SPPX is trying to correct the Vatican? While I would be happy for reconciliation, that can only be on Rome’s terms. I will leave it to the Pope and Rome with God’s guidance, to make the right decision for the Church.

 

[TrueLight]

So the SPPX is trying to correct the Vatican? While I would be happy for reconciliation, that can only be on Rome’s terms. I will leave it to the Pope and Rome with God’s guidance, to make the right decision for the Church.

Why is it impossible to correct the Vatican? Did not Paul correct Peter?

Is it impossible for Rome to look back on a fallible decision and say, “this could have been handled better”?

I’m seriously asking.

The reality is without the SSPX and other traditional groups who advocated for the Traditional mass, it might not be around today.

 

[freshwind]

Why is it impossible to correct the Vatican. Did not Paul correct Peter?

Is it impossible for Rome to look back on a fallible decision and say, “this could have been handled better”?

I’m seriously asking.

I think this is EXACTLY what the Holy Father means by “the reform of the reform”

good call

 

[passer_by]

Why is it impossible to correct the Vatican. Did not Paul correct Peter?

Is it impossible for Rome to look back on a fallible decision and say, “this could have been handled better”?

I’m seriously asking.

I think it must be possible. Because Vatican II did “correct” what it thought were wrong ways of approaching unity by the church pre-Vatican II.

So logically speaking, I would think Rome can correct it-self in the near future regarding its departure from pre-Vatican II.

 

[roadsend]

."- in some places excesses in Catholic Marian devotions are a problem"…
It might have been just bad wording. But I wonder what they will decide next. Is it going to be ways to systematically reduce Marian devotions?..

Well, “excesses in Catholic Marian devotions” are not a problem in my local parish. In this month of October dedicated to Mary and the Rosary I have not yet heard even one hymn offered at Mass to Our Lady, notwithstanding that she is the patron saint of our parish.
Our music ministers are pretty much dialed in to the four hymn sandwich a la OCP. If, somehow, a Marian hymn should happen to slip in before the end of the month I would bet that it will be post Vatican II pop slop.

 

[ciero]

SSPX=Neo-protestantism ********

 

[TrueLight]

SSPX=Neo-protestantism ********

Ciero, that is very trollish behavior.

 

[kestrel4Christ]

The Pope lifted the excommunication because he hopes for reconcilliation for the SPPX. He did not say it was without merit and unjust. The excommunication was valid and thus had to be lifted as some other poster commented.

The way you speak about John Paul II is to me, rather disrespectful and I would say, not acceptable on this forum.

I meant NO disrespect at all. I only spoke the facts. You can go ahead and report me if you desire… I will not be surprised to see this thread deleted anyway, considering we live in an age of Satan, the father of lies, where the truth is censored and lies are propagated.

God bless you anyway.

 

[passer_by]

Well, “excesses in Catholic Marian devotions” are not a problem in my local parish. In this month of October dedicated to Mary and the Rosary I have not yet heard even one hymn offered at Mass to Our Lady, notwithstanding that she is the patron saint of our parish.
Our music ministers are pretty much dialed in to the four hymn sandwich a la OCP. If, somehow, a Marian hymn should happen to slip in before the end of the month I would bet that it will be post Vatican II pop slop.

I have heard about such things. Feasts of patron saints where I live are preceded by novenas. It’s a big deal for the parish, almost like a smaller version of Christmas. Rosary is very common in May and October. Families usually pray it too. Those are the things I really don’t want to see disappear because of this Ecumenism business.

Looking through the document, this was even more unbelievable

“Some Catholics think that ecumenism compromises their faith and is an admission of an insufficiency in the Catholic Church, which they are not ready to accept.”

I really hope the person who wrote this back in 2004 is not part of this council anymore. He either has some weird ideas, or he just doesn’t know how to use proper wording.