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

[Dragonslayer]

One need not be in heresy to be in schism.

Then, what has the SSPX ever done that could make them schismatic?

What, moreover, constitutes a schismatic act? Not the mere deed of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. The 1983 Code of Canon Law itself lists this offense under Title 3 (abuse of ecclesiastical powers) and not under Title 1 (offenses against religion and the unity of the Church) of its penal section (Book 6).

Nor would it be a “schismatic act” to consecrate against the express wish of the Holy Father. That could amount to disobedience at most.* But disobedience does not amount to schism; schism requires that one not recognize the authority of the pope to command; disobedience consists in not obeying a command, whilst still acknowledging the authority of the one commanding. “The child who says ‘I won’t!’ to his mother does not deny that she is his mother” (Fr. Glover, in Is Tradition Excommunicated? p. 99 [APPENDIX II]).

 

[Melchior_1]

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.

Actually, Vatican II never re-did the Mass. The new missal happened around the same time, but it wasn’t as a result of the council.

The Latin Mass as we know it today is not the same as it was then which is not the same as it was before which is not the same as the Last Supper. Contrary to popular belief, the Liturgy has never been placed in a time capsule. Further, at some point we all switched over to Latin form whatever they used at the Last Supper, which was probably a big change.

You never addressed most of my post(s). I’m somewhat disappointed, but not surprised.

 

[At_Trent]

Then, what has the SSPX ever done that could make them schismatic?

What, moreover, constitutes a schismatic act? Not the mere deed of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. The 1983 Code of Canon Law itself lists this offense under Title 3 (abuse of ecclesiastical powers) and not under Title 1 (offenses against religion and the unity of the Church) of its penal section (Book 6).

Nor would it be a “schismatic act” to consecrate against the express wish of the Holy Father. That could amount to disobedience at most.* But disobedience does not amount to schism; schism requires that one not recognize the authority of the pope to command; disobedience consists in not obeying a command, whilst still acknowledging the authority of the one commanding. “The child who says ‘I won’t!’ to his mother does not deny that she is his mother” (Fr. Glover, in Is Tradition Excommunicated? p. 99 [APPENDIX II]).

She knows that. She is just in calumny mode.

 

[Denise1957]

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.

Kestrel,
There are several here whom you are communicating with just now, which may be a bit overwhelming, so you needn’t respond to this, but just want to say that the decision about whether or not a pope is ‘outside’ of the deposit of faith is not given to laity, clegy, or bishops to ultimately decide. There are clear rules for this. And clearly no popes of this or the last century have been declared by the proper Church authorities as to have been outside of the deposit of faith. A pope can be weak in passing on the deposit of faith, but we still give him our obedience. He is still the pope. Even if a pope is weak, he alone has The Keys. No one else does. The deposit of faith will always, and has always survived weak popes.

 

[Melchior_1]

She knows that. She is just in calumny mode.

This made me laugh.

(Because it’s true!).

 

[At_Trent]

This made me laugh.

(Because it’s true!).

just sayin

 

[passer_by]

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.

But here you are not talking about the faith changing. You are referring to something that changed in discipline/form.

The teaching behind the mass is still intact. It still celebrates what it celebrated in the last supper of Christ. But the form has changed. The form is not a matter of faith.

But I can agree with you that changing the form might have been a bad idea. I just don’t understand why you insist that this change in form is a change in the deposit of faith.

When it says “We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure”, who do you think the word “our” refers to?

It refers to the Church. The Church can choose to change it if it wills. Why? Because the form of the mass is not a matter of the deposit of faith.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

You may be on to something there. Mewonders now if many confuse ecumenism with something else. For example, why do the Hispanics and the Poles and Ukrainians et al want their own liturgies and churches while the Anglophone Catholics have little problem with accepting Anglicans and many other Anglophone Protestant denominations, sharing hymns, showing how similar they are, etc.? Did someone forget to tell them the Christian churches in China and other Far Eastern countries are also under the same brotherhood umbrella?

That said, no matter what one thinks of the bishops of the SSPX and obedience, they have provided the faithful with a liturgy which has been approved and handed down by the Church. Pope Benedict could have just extended the “Indult” of Pope John Paul but chose instead to state that the priests always had the right to say the pre-Vatican II Mass and that that Mass was never abrogated and thus there is no need for any permissions to say it or attend it. But this is the position the SSPX priests and followers have said all along. So in that sense they were right and the mainstream bishops of the Church were wrong. Now it seems that they are effectively stating that the Vatican II documents were (wrongly) interpreted as trying to undo the 20-some years of Trent and I wouldn’t be surprised if that doesn’t surface as a major obstacle in the months ahead, reconciliation or not.

 

[kestrel4Christ]

Actually, Vatican II never re-did the Mass. The new missal happened around the same time, but it wasn’t as a result of the council.

The Latin Mass as we know it today is not the same as it was then which is not the same as it was before which is not the same as the Last Supper. Contrary to popular belief, the Liturgy has never been placed in a time capsule. Further, at some point we all switched over to Latin form whatever they used at the Last Supper, which was probably a big change.

You never addressed most of my post(s). I’m somewhat disappointed, but not surprised.

Vatican II certainly replaced the Tridentine Latin Mass with the Novus Ordo Mass. Six protestant ministers assisted in writing up the Novus Ordo Mass. So in a technical sense, the TLM was replaced, rather than revised. Regardless of what semantics you want to use, a CHANGE in the Mass occurred, which was a revolutionary and drastic change form the Mass promulgated by Pope Pius V, at the Council of Trent, which was to remain forever in essence. I already said the TLM had small additions to it by subsequent Popes since Trent, and it was allowed, but the Mass was to remain forever and **NOT ** be replaced NOR changed where it no longer retains its essence.

As for the rest of what you say, the reason I did not respond to it is because it is mostly just a bunch of padding composed of half truths. I will not engage in discourse with someone that uses these tactics and ad hominems.

Although, I will address one important issue you seem to distort. The Saints you talk about worked with the Church at the top level, the Pope and Magisterium, whom were truly Catholic and adhered to the faith handed down by the Church fathers, to combat the heresies occurring in the Church at lower levels. It’s not even in the same galaxy as what we are talking about in regard to SSPX and the Vatican (which is the spirit of Vatican II) And you implying SSPX and myself are “protestant” is absolutely ridiculous. SSPX and myself are the furthest thing from being protestant. We believe in the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - UNCHANGED. What Mass do you attend that was written with the help of 6 protestant ministers? As I said in an earlier post, the Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic and Syrian Jacobite Church are much MORE Catholic than Vatican II and the conciliar Church you attend.

 

[Melchior_1]

Vatican II certainly replaced the Tridentine Latin Mass with the Novus Ordo Mass. Six protestant ministers assisted in writing up the Novus Ordo Mass. So in a technical sense, the TLM was replaced, rather than revised. Regardless of what semantics you want to use, a CHANGE in the Mass occurred, which was a revolutionary and drastic change form the Mass promulgated by Pope Pius V, at the Council of Trent, to remain forever in essence. I already said the TLM had small additions to it by subsequent Popes since Trent, and it was allowed, but the Mass was to remain forever and **NOT ** be replaced NOR changed where it no longer retains its essence.

Except it didn’t. The missal was put forth in 1969, and released in 1970. V2 ended in 1965. So unless there’s some time travel happening (there wasn’t), V2 didn’t replace it.

As for the rest of what you say, the reason I did not respond to it is because it is mostly just a bunch of padding composed of half truths. I will not engage in discourse with someone that uses these tactics and ad hominems.

What I said about the Rules of those orders vowing obedience to the Vicar of Christ is truth. It’s Truth. They take VOWS. That’s like marriage vows they’re taking, but to be obedient to the Pope. Again, you’re saying you know more than Francis, Dominic, Ignatius, and Benedict.

Although, I will address one important issue you seem to distort. The Saints you talk about worked with the Church at the top level, the Pope and Magesterium, whom were truly Catholic and adhered to the faith handed down by the Church fathers

You know what, we can just cut it off right here. Saying this you have clearly stepped out into sedevacantism.

 

[TrueLight]

You know what, we can just cut it off right here. Saying this you have clearly stepped out into sedevacantism.

I knew Kestrel was a sede as soon as he started speaking of obedience to the CHAIR of Peter.

 

[Melchior_1]

I knew Kestrel was a sede as soon as he started speaking of obedience to the CHAIR of Peter.

I know, I kept on posting in case someone Googles this and wants to see some actual sound Catholic teaching.

You know, instead of sedevacantism.

 

[Denise1957]

Yes, kestrel is probably a sede, but sedes are people, too! And Catholics, too. I hope that he or she will stick around here so as to learn the other side of the situation. From what I’ve been told, the drastic changes after the council were difficult for some Catholics to take.

 

[kestrel4Christ]

But here you are not talking about the faith changing. You are referring to something that changed in discipline/form.

The teaching behind the mass is still intact. It still celebrates what it celebrated in the last supper of Christ. But the form has changed. The form is not a matter of faith.

But I can agree with you that changing the form might have been a bad idea. I just don’t understand why you insist that this change in form is a change in the deposit of faith.

When it says “We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure”, who do you think the word “our” refers to?

It refers to the Church. The Church can choose to change it if it wills. Why? Because the form of the mass is not a matter of the deposit of faith.

“Our Displeasure” means against the Church, therefore, suffering the consequences, among many are anathema. I already said, for the third time, small additions occurred by some subsequent Popes, and it was allowed, but the essence was to remain forever, unchanged and never replaced.

First, the form can effect faith. The Novus Ordo Mass concentrates on the community gathering and a meal, rather than focusing primarily on God and the Holy Sacrifice. The TLM is a much more pure and reverent form of worship to God. The TLM makes it almost impossible to allow liturgical abuses that occur too often in the Novus Ordo Mass.

Second, as I already told you, I will not do your research for you. Do the research yourself. It is not hard to find. There are bulls, encyclicals, Councils etc that state anyone who engages in ecumenism is in anathema.

VII or at least the Church resulting from VII, says it’s fine to pray with religions and pagans (think of what happens at Assisi) whom deny Jesus Christ. In fact, some of these religions, one being an Abrahamic religion, think some rather disgusting and abominable things about our Lord and our Blessed Mother… something I will not write. Praying with these people is against the Deposit of Faith and causes a person to be in anathema. Look it up. papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

VII and the subsequent Popes claim Jews do not need Jesus Christ to be saved. This is absolute heresy. If they do not need Jesus to be saved, then why did He become man, suffer and die for us? What is the point? Christ said the only way to the Father in Heaven is through Him! Jesus Christ said it. And the **pre-**Vatican II Church emphasized it. LOOK IT UP! Read Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra… then read Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate #4. Look it up.

There are just a few.

There is much more… do your research. Pray about it, too.

 

[kestrel4Christ]

I’m not a Sedevacantist. I believe Pope Benedict is the Pope, so how does that make me a Sedevacantist? It is typical for people to resort to the use of ad hominems, insults and labels when their arguments are built on false premises that have been exposed. You are all mad at me for telling the truth and defending the faith; and for making you see the flaws in your arguments?

Chastise me all you want… as Saint Theresa of Avila says, “truth suffers but never dies”.

 

[Melchior_1]

I’m not a Sedevacantist. I believe Pope Benedict is the Pope, so how does that make me a Sedevacantist? It is typical for people to resort to the use of ad hominems, insults and labels when their arguments are built on false premises have been exposed. You are all mad at me for telling the truth and defending the faith; and for making you see the flaws in your arguments?

Chastise me all you want… as Saint Theresa of Avila says, “truth suffers but never dies”.

I can say I’m not white, but that doesn’t change the fact that I’m white.
*
Although, I will address one important issue you seem to distort. The Saints you talk about worked with the Church at the top level, the Pope and Magesterium, whom were truly Catholic and adhered to the faith handed down by the Church fathers

Says something different from what you said above.*

 

[passer_by]

“Our Displeasure” means against the Church, therefore, suffering the consequences, among many are anathema. I already said, for the third time, small additions occurred by some subsequent Popes, and it was allowed, but the essence was to remain forever, unchanged and never replaced.

First, the form can effect faith. The Novus Ordo Mass concentrates on the community gathering and a meal, rather than focusing primarily on God and the Holy Sacrifice. The TLM is a much more pure and reverent form of worship to God. The TLM makes it almost impossible to allow liturgical abuses that occur too often in the Novus Ordo Mass.

But all disciplinary issues do have an effect on the faith. So your defense in this sense does not make sense. Just because disciplinary matters effect the faith, it does not mean that they are in the deposit of faith. This is the error that you are falling in to.

You are equating disciplinary and matters of form with unchanging doctrine and dogma. That is not true.

Second, as I already told you, I will not do your research for you. Do the research yourself. It is not hard to find. There are bulls, encyclicals, Councils etc that state anyone who engages in ecumenism is in anathema.

VII or at least the Church resulting from VII, says it’s fine to pray with religions and pagans (think of what happens at Assisi) whom deny Jesus Christ. In fact, some of these religions, one being an Abrahamic religion, think some rather disgusting and abominable things about our Lord and our Blessed Mother… something I will not write. Praying with these people is against the Deposit of Faith and causes a person to be in anathema. Look it up. papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

You are in luck because I have actually read Mortalium Animos.

You are again confusing a matter of discipline here.

The warnings of Mortalium Animos are teachings. But the excommunication stuff is discipline.

What that means is that a Pope can decide to still pursue those events by deciding that the risk is worth it. So he can change the discipline associated with it. Is that a good call on the part of the Popes? I heartily say NO. BUT, it is not a sin and it does not definitely excommunicate him.

Do you see what I am saying? Discipline can be changed. Was it a good decision? I would say no but that is not the same as saying its a sin.

VII and the subsequent Popes claim Jews do not need Jesus Christ to be saved. This is absolute heresy. If they do not need Jesus to be saved, then why did He become man, suffer and die for us? What is the point? Christ said the only way to the Father in Heaven is through Him! Jesus Christ said it. And the **pre-**Vatican II Church emphasized it. LOOK IT UP! Read Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra… then read Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate #4. Look it up.

There are just a few.

There is much more… do your research. Pray about it, too.

I am not sure that any Pope after Vatican II taught in an infallible document that Jews can be saved without Christ. Are you sure about this?

So Nostra Aetate still applies today.

 

[Dragonslayer]

I’m not a Sedevacantist. I believe Pope Benedict is the Pope, so how does that make me a Sedevacantist? It is typical for people to resort to the use of ad hominems, insults and labels when their arguments are built on false premises that have been exposed. **You are all mad at me for telling the truth and defending the faith; and for making you see the flaws in your arguments? **

Chastise me all you want… as Saint Theresa of Avila says, “truth suffers but never dies”.

I’m not mad at you. I think you are doing a good job and your arguments are sound.

And I thought I’d get in and say that before this thread disappears.

 

[passer_by]

I can say I’m not white, but that doesn’t change the fact that I’m white.
*
Although, I will address one important issue you seem to distort. The Saints you talk about worked with the Church at the top level, the Pope and Magesterium, whom were truly Catholic and adhered to the faith handed down by the Church fathers*

Says something different from what you said above.

Hey,

Lets take it easy a bit.

I can see where he/she is coming from. After Vatican II, the decisions taken were not the best ones. So there are indeed problems in the church today as a result of Vatican II.

Sometimes it can be hard to read the old encyclicals and put them in to perspective. At first read, it can reasonably look like the Pope’s are heretics today. Then after combining it with something like Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, you can see how someone can become or lean toward Sedevecantist positions. So it takes a bit of understanding what these documents are, and how to read them to get out of this problem. I have never been Sedevecantist but I have been at the point of struggling with these documents my self when been questioned by them.

The matter is especially difficult because there is something actually wrong with the policies today and the effects shows in the church.

So lets take it easy on Kestrel. I am sure he/she means well.

 

[kestrel4Christ]

Vatican II is a “protestantization” of the Catholic faith. There were heresies to it and it has allowed more heresies to occur as time passes. It “protestantized” the Mass, therefore, making it irreverent and water downed while taking the Catholicity away from it. Go to a lutheran, episcopalian, anglican, etc. service and you will NOT see much difference. It was all by design. Six protestant minsters helping write the Novus Ordo Mass.

Pope Benedict is not perfect, but he is still the Pope. I think he realizes something might be wrong, therefore, he is taking measures to correct things. This is why he lifted the excommunication and why he issued the MOTU PROPIO. But I wonder if there are some things/people holding him back for reasons we cannot see and possibly hidden.

Going back to Paul VI? Not so sure, but it’s not for me to judge. God only knows and judges. However, God did give us the Deposit of Faith to live by… so we must be faithful members of the Body of Christ.

Christ even said the elect will be deceived and an apostasy will occur in the Church. Our Blessed Mother has warned us about the apostasy in the Church on several occasions. What makes any Catholic (or any other Christian) think that this apostasy cannot happen in their lifetime. Are they somehow immune to any such thing, therefore the Church is too? You might ask, what makes me or any Catholic think the apostasy can be occurring now? Read what our Lord said in Scripture… listen to what the Blessed Mother has said… look at the Church from the beginning all the way leading up to 1969. Now, look at the Church since 1969. Not just the scandals inside the Church, but with laypeople was well. There are more nominal “catholics” out there than true Catholics. I think the Vatican would even admit assertion.