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

  • Thread starter Thread starter ComeHome2Rome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
paaser_by,****

you will have to do your own research on pre-Vatican II and Vatican II because there are a lot of facts that prove the contradictions between the two, therefore as a result, VII in many ways, places itself outside the Deposit of Faith. However, here is one soucre regarding the Tridentine Latin Mass promulgated by Pope Pius V. It is the QUO PRIMUM. Read all of it, but pay special attention to the 5th paragraph: papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm
 
kestrel4Christ said:
paaser_by,****

you will have to do your own research on pre-Vatican II and Vatican II because there are a lot of facts that prove the contradictions between the two, therefore as a result, VII in many ways, places itself outside the Deposit of Faith. However, here is one soucre regarding the Tridentine Latin Mass promulgated by Pope Pius V. It is the QUO PRIMUM. Read all of it, but pay special attention to the 5th paragraph: papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm
Click to expand...
By paragraph 5 you refer to

"All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, w… anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure. "?

Because that again is a disciplinary matter if I understand properly?

I might be wrong now my friend, and I will certainly read the Encyclical in full over the coming weekend. But in my past experiences with reading SSPX allegations, they are mostly founded on contradicted disciplinary restrictions. Some of which had been reformed even prior to Vatican II.

So since contradicting or changing disciplinary matters is ok (while not be the best decision all the time and that I admit), it does not deal with changes to the deposit of faith.

To understand where you are coming from, if I may ask, if the Church decided tomorrow to introduce a married priesthood, would you say it contradicts the deposit of faith? Because in my understanding, it does not. It was a disciplinary matter which the church can choose to change. But of course it would be a very bad decision on the church’s part but not a contradiction of faith.
 
severus68 said:
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.
Click to expand...
They have made the right decision. They are asking them to reconcile. 500 or so orthodox priests would be a blessing .🙂
 
TrueLight said:
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.
Click to expand...
Kestrel4Christ has been posting that the SSPX has never been wrong, that the Vatican needs to correct itself, that JPII was wrong and that the reconciliation is about the SSPX correcting Rome’s wrongs and my responses to him have been on that basis.

Seriously, I do not see how the latin mass would ever have been done away with as long as there are Catholics wanting it. I have attended Latin masses and have no issue with it but it is not the only form of mass.

Mistakes are always made as the Church is run by humans, thus we have very wrong decisions made in the handling of abuse by priests etc. However, it is not for anyone to disobey the Pope outrightly and go against his decisions. Any issues should be dealt with internally and in the right way. If you openly, publically and blatantly disobey the Pope and the Magisterium, how can you be considered to be in communion with Rome?
 
TrueLight said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it is not a cause for concern because SSPX will NOT really be in schism. That has been my point all along. If they stay true to the Catholic faith, then they are loyal to the Seat of Peter and fully Catholic. The Church would only be more in eclipse - hidden by errors of VII.

The Old Catholic Church is heretical. Your Red Herring fails. The SSPX is fully Catholic, adhering to the true faith - unchanged, with love, devotion and faith and communion to the Seat of Peter.

Let me ask you this question. Let’s say there was an official political party called the Pro-Life Party, which for a long time opposed abortion AND preemptive wars waged on other countries in foreign lands that inevitably resulted in the killing of people - including civilians. Then one day, a changed occurred. This party decided that preemptive wars were “justified” and encouraged, notwithstanding the fact people were going to be killed - including civilians. Subsequently, dissent occurred within the party. Those people that disagreed with preemptive wars were kicked out of the party for “not being a ‘Pro-Lifer’”. Who is really pro-life in the truest sense of the word?
 
severus68 said:
Kestrel4Christ has been posting that the SSPX has never been wrong, that the Vatican needs to correct itself, that JPII was wrong and that the reconciliation is about the SSPX correcting Rome’s wrongs and my responses to him have been on that basis.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
kestrel4Christ said:
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.
Click to expand...
You’re using quotations again. I do not think those quotations means what you think they mean.

One crucial item is missing with your prison comparison; there is always an announcement when someone is exonerated. A retraction, so to speak. A mea coupla. No such thing happened. Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications, but made no mea coupla. There was no retraction or annulments. They were lifted because they were valid.

Five people were excommunicated. Faculties were suspended. The Pope is the final stop with Canon Law. If he says “the Canon you are using does not apply”, it doesn’t apply. If he says “if you do this there’s going to be problems”, then there’s going to be problems.

The term “crisis” is bandied about often. Let me tell you something about a “crisis”:

In the 800 years ago, gnosticism was the rage. Groups were “ordaining” women, some clergy thought celibacy was optional. People thought that “truth” was relative. The Church was losing its grip and losing it fast along with its followers. Sound familiar? Might remind you of what’s happening right now. Two men rose during that time to fight it. And fight it they did, and 800 years later their legacy continues to fight it. St. Dominic and St. Francis did not disobey the Pope. They did not have their followers lose their faculties. They worked to reform the Church from within, and did so. I came back to the Church because of their legacy, and I will build my home and family with their legacy. Some day they will be my Holy Fathers, and I look forward to when that day comes.

800 years later and there are trying times. I had the honor to meet a man who decided to fight these things. He gathered some people together, and began the fight. Over the course of several years he built a community. They don’t make Religious Orders any more, but in 2002, his community became a Society of Apostolic Life. On the Feast of the Triumph of the Cross, they celebrated this event. Their founder passed away last week, but that won’t stop the Companions of the Cross from fighting. Father Robert Bedard did not disobey the Pope. He did not have his followers lose their faculties. he worked to reform the Church from within, and did so.

St. Ignatius. St. Don Bosco. St. Benedict. All of them. They did not disobey the Pope. They did not have their followers lose their faculties. They worked to reform the Church from within, and did so.

That’s my issue with this whole situation. This has happened before. We’re not fighting new heresies, a lot of this stuff has been around forever. “New age” is just old age occultism with a fresh coat of paint. When push came to shove, the men above fight back and helped reform the Church. But there were no excommunications, there were no need for preambles. There was zero issues with trying to figure out Canon Law issues about faculties.

There was obedience, and staying within the Church. Working within the framework to affect change within the Church and in the world.

And that’s why the hero worship of the SSPX bothers me. My heroes did it by the book 800 years ago. Some would say they wrote the book on how to affect change and fight a crisis. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre threw their book out, and look where his group is now. Sitting in the waiting room.
 
Melchior said:
You’re using quotations again. I do not think those quotations means what you think they mean.

One crucial item is missing with your prison comparison; there is always an announcement when someone is exonerated. A retraction, so to speak. A mea coupla. No such thing happened. Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications, but made no mea coupla. There was no retraction or annulments. They were lifted because they were valid.

Five people were excommunicated. Faculties were suspended. The Pope is the final stop with Canon Law. If he says “the Canon you are using does not apply”, it doesn’t apply. If he says “if you do this there’s going to be problems”, then there’s going to be problems.

The term “crisis” is bandied about often. Let me tell you something about a “crisis”:

In the 800 years ago, gnosticism was the rage. Groups were “ordaining” women, some clergy thought celibacy was optional. People thought that “truth” was relative. The Church was losing its grip and losing it fast along with its followers. Sound familiar? Might remind you of what’s happening right now. Two men rose during that time to fight it. And fight it they did, and 800 years later their legacy continues to fight it. St. Dominic and St. Francis did not disobey the Pope. They did not have their followers lose their faculties. They worked to reform the Church from within, and did so. I came back to the Church because of their legacy, and I will build my home and family with their legacy. Some day they will be my Holy Fathers, and I look forward to when that day comes.

800 years later and there are trying times. I had the honor to meet a man who decided to fight these things. He gathered some people together, and began the fight. Over the course of several years he built a community. They don’t make Religious Orders any more, but in 2002, his community became a Society of Apostolic Life. On the Feast of the Triumph of the Cross, they celebrated this event. Their founder passed away last week, but that won’t stop the Companions of the Cross from fighting. Father Robert Bedard did not disobey the Pope. He did not have his followers lose their faculties. he worked to reform the Church from within, and did so.

St. Ignatius. St. Don Bosco. St. Benedict. All of them. They did not disobey the Pope. They did not have their followers lose their faculties. They worked to reform the Church from within, and did so.

That’s my issue with this whole situation. This has happened before. We’re not fighting new heresies, a lot of this stuff has been around forever. “New age” is just old age occultism with a fresh coat of paint. When push came to shove, the men above fight back and helped reform the Church. But there were no excommunications, there were no need for preambles. There was zero issues with trying to figure out Canon Law issues about faculties.

There was obedience, and staying within the Church. Working within the framework to affect change within the Church and in the world.

And that’s why the hero worship of the SSPX bothers me. My heroes did it by the book 800 years ago. Some would say they wrote the book on how to affect change and fight a crisis.
Click to expand...
True obedience is to the Deposit of Faith, and coincidentally to the Pope , as long as the Pope adheres to the DOF. A pope or Council cannot be infallible if he/it is outside the DOF. There is NO disobedience for not being loyal to a man or council that is outside the DOF, even if that man sits in the Seat of Peter. Obedience is still to the Seat of Peter, for it is infallible, not the errors of the man that sit in it. That is not to say the man is NOT the Pope either, but anything he does or promulgates that’s against the DOF cannot be considered infallible, rather it is in error.

Again, I speak for myself here. I don’t speak for the SSPX.
 
kestrel4Christ said:
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.
Click to expand...
I do not make a practice of reporting someone just because I disgree with them… I may disagree with you vehemently and I will say you are wrong if I think you are.

God bless you too.
 
TrueLight said:
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.
Click to expand...
To be placed in schism would you not have to commit some form of heresy?

The SSPX are not heretics, they can’t be, they follow traditional catholic teaching.
 
kestrel4Christ said:
True obedience is to the Deposit of Faith, and coincidentally to the Pope , as long as the Pope adheres to the DOF A pope or Council cannot be infallible if he/it is outside the DOF. There is NO disobedience for not being loyal to a man or council that is outside the DOF, even if that man sits in the Seat of Peter. Obedience is still to the Seat of Peter, for it is infallible, not the errors of the man that sit in it. That is not to say the man is NOT the Pope either, but his anything against the DOF cannot be considered infallible, rather it is in error.

Again, I speak for myself here. I don’t speak for the SSPX.
Click to expand...
You are manifestly incorrect, it’s obedience to the Vicar of Christ. Unless you want to argue with the Rules adopted by Francis, Dominic, Benedict, and Ignatius. Do you know more than those men? Those four men? I’ll answer for you; you don’t know more than those four men. The Rules of their orders are clear.

You have yet to prove anything that recent Popes have done which damage the DOF. You also have conveniently ignored the bulk of my post where I talked about how several Great Saints have worked within the framework of the Church to produce the change needed for the Church to grow. But no, you will go ahead and continue to ignore my Fathers and the others.

But then again, if you believe the sitting Pope isn’t actually the Pope, I can see how you would want to swear allegiance to the Chair instead of the man. That way you can claim to be “Catholic” without appearing too Protestant or schismatic. It still places you outside of the Church mind you, but I can understand on an objective level.

I wonder what would have happened if Paul said the same thing to Peter.
 
ciero said:
Thats right!! I am scandalized by the heterodox teaching of the heretic **NEO PROTESTANT SSPX!!!

**
Click to expand...
How about you let the grown ups talk for a bit, would you please? We’re trying to have an adult conversation.
 
severus68 said:
Kestrel4Christ has been posting that the SSPX has never been wrong, that the Vatican needs to correct itself, that JPII was wrong and that the reconciliation is about the SSPX correcting Rome’s wrongs and my responses to him have been on that basis.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. I am saying the Catholic faith is never wrong and SSPX are defenders of the Catholic faith for wanting to preserve it and the Tridentine Latin Mass. The TLM, which Pope Pius V declared, in Quo Primum, was supposed to remain unchanged. Subsequent Popes were allowed to make small additions or whatever, and they did, BUT the essence was supposed to remain forever. It did remain for almost 400 years until the second vatican council, ASSISTED BY 6 PROTESTANT MINSTERS in revising the Mass, occurred to “modernize” the Church.

Eastern Rites were allowed in the eastern Church and Rites that existed 200 years before this Quo Primum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top