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

[Melchior_1]

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.

Pope Paul VI also issued the landmark encyclical Humanae Vitae, and helped usher in the updated Canon Law.

Do you take umbrage with Blessed John Paul II?

 

[thistle]

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.

They are not heretics. They are schismatic due to their disobedience to the Pope.

 

[kestrel4Christ]

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.

Oh I know… I never thought you were mad at me or against me. Thanks

 

[Planty_Pall]

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.

kestrel…The post, if not the thread will disappear soon. We can’t talk about a future Consecration of Russia because they say it is done, and we can’t explain Abp. LeFebvre’s actions because that is proselytizing for the SSPX. We can’t even suggest that other Trad groups agree with the Society about the things you are saying but have agreed to be quiet. That is “uncharitable”. We are enjoying the great springtime, don’t you know?

 

[kestrel4Christ]

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.

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.

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.

passr_by,

I’m sorry but but I’m having a hard time following what you are saying. There seems to be some strawmans with your responses. I’m NOT saying you are doing it on purpose, but what you are saying is not from a correct premise. I think maybe you are misunderstanding the encyclicals or just giving your own personal interpretation to it. I don’t know what else I can tell you, but study them, there is a lot. Even I have a lot more research to do about it.

 

[kestrel4Christ]

kestrel…The post, if not the thread will disappear soon. We can’t talk about a future Consecration of Russia because they say it is done, and we can’t explain Abp. LeFebvre’s actions because that is proselytizing for the SSPX. We can’t even suggest that other Trad groups agree with the Society about the things you are saying but have agreed to be quiet. That is “uncharitable”. We are enjoying the great springtime, don’t you know?

Indeed my friend.

 

[Dragonslayer]

They are not heretics. They are schismatic due to their disobedience to the Pope.

No, no, no, no, no. They are not schismatic.

*(But there is no disobedience, cf. An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, pp. 129-136, [APPENDIX II]. Cf. “The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope’s permission) is not itself a schismatic act,” Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988)

 

[thistle]

No, no, no, no, no. They are not schismatic.

*(But there is no disobedience, cf. An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, pp. 129-136, [APPENDIX II]. Cf. “The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope’s permission) is not itself a schismatic act,” Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988)

Oh really!! Then what are they? They are certainly not in full union with the Church. What is the word for that??

 

[NewsTheMan]

Oh really!! Then what are they? They are certainly not in full union with the Church. What is the word for that??

Sigh. They are not schismatic, nor are they in schism. Fact.

They are suspended priests.

1.) The SSPX is not in schism
2.) You can attend SSPX Masses and it is NOT a sin
3.) You may put money in the collection basket
4.) It does fulfill your Sunday obligation

Over here you can read a 2008 interview with Msgr. Camille Perl, Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei who explains just why you are wrong.

 

[TrueLight]

Oh I know… I never thought you were mad at me or against me. Thanks

I doubt anyone is mad at you.

I’m glad you are not a Sedevacantist, but beware of pride.

I’m not even against most of what you’re saying, but you deliver your arguments as if you’re attacking, so of course people are going to respond in kind.

 

[ProVobis]

Oh really!! Then what are they? They are certainly not in full union with the Church. What is the word for that??

You don’t need a word for that, certainly not an English one anyway.

As clerics, they are not in regular canonical status. As Catholics, they are in full communion with the Church.

 

[pnewton]

They are not heretics. They are schismatic due to their disobedience to the Pope.

No, no, no, no, no. They are not schismatic.

I believe this question falls under opinion. There have been canon lawyers on both side of this issue. For example, those here at CAF have said they are (or were) in schism. Some traditionalist and all the SSPX canon expers have said the SSPX was never in schism. I have my own opinion which is entirely irrelevant. We can all just hope and pray that everything to do with the SSPX will soon be irrelevant and relegated to historical dialogue. Yes, we should all pray for them, their supporters, but mostly their detractors. This is a Pauline mandate. The SSPX is part of the Body of Christ on Earth. We are commanded to seek the good of others more than our own.

 

[passer_by]

passr_by,

I’m sorry but but I’m having a hard time following what you are saying. There seems to be some strawmans with your responses. I’m NOT saying you are doing it on purpose, but what you are saying is not from a correct premise. I think maybe you are misunderstanding the encyclicals or just giving your own personal interpretation to it. I don’t know what else I can tell you, but study them, there is a lot. Even I have a lot more research to do about it.

Well can you point out at least one straw man that I attacked? Because I never attacked any of your positions other than what you claimed.

As far as I understand, your claim is the following:-

Vatican II and Popes after have contradicted what is in the deposit of faith

My answer has been that in each case you mention as a contradiction, everything has been against a discipline or form. Both of which do not fall under infallibility and can be changed by the Pope.

So I am happy to hear criticism, but I don’t see what straw man I have attacked?

Is it not possible that you have misinterpreted the form of the Mass from Council of Trent to be an infallible teaching? Because the form of the mass certainly is not an infallible teaching.

 

[thistle]

Sigh. They are not schismatic, nor are they in schism. Fact.

They are suspended priests.

1.) The SSPX is not in schism
2.) You can attend SSPX Masses and it is NOT a sin
3.) You may put money in the collection basket
4.) It does fulfill your Sunday obligation

Over here you can read a 2008 interview with Msgr. Camille Perl, Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei who explains just why you are wrong.

The Orthodox Church is in schism but we are allowed to attend Mass there and receive Communion if no Catholic Mass is available.

As for 4. above SSPX Mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation.

Yes I have read the article in the link you gave and you are stating things that are simply not there.

 

[freshwind]

The Orthodox Church is in schism but we are allowed to attend Mass there and receive Communion if no Catholic Mass is available.

As for 4. above SSPX Mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation.

Yes I have read the article in the link you gave and you are stating things that are simply not there.

PCED: "Catholics who frequent the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X do not incur any sin or canonical delict by doing so.

if the Mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation, how can one not incur sin?

not arguing, just askin’

 

[roadsend]

."… SSPX Mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation…

Source please?

 

[NewsTheMan]

The Orthodox Church is in schism but we are allowed to attend Mass there and receive Communion if no Catholic Mass is available.

As for 4. above SSPX Mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation.

Yes I have read the article in the link you gave and you are stating things that are simply not there.

Meh. Some people just wanna argue. If you believe the SSPX is in schism well, tell that to the Pope. He seems to disagree

 

[thistle]

PCED: "Catholics who frequent the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X do not incur any sin or canonical delict by doing so.

if the Mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation, how can one not incur sin?

not arguing, just askin’

The sin is in not fulfilling the Sunday obligation and not by attending an SSPX Mass.

 

[NewsTheMan]

The sin is in not fulfilling the Sunday obligation and not by attending an SSPX Mass.

Attending the SSPX Mass fulfills your obligation. So no sin. I am confused.

 

[TrueLight]

The sin is in not fulfilling the Sunday obligation and not by attending an SSPX Mass.

I have been told by more than one priest that it does fulfill your obligation.

Usually, they are not crazy about the idea, but they say it is okay to go if one does not have another EF that one can attend that Sunday, and as long as one does not go regularly enough to begin to adhere to some of the viewpoints. Yeah, sorry SSPXers.

Since I have to miss mass once a month, it is better for me to attend an afternoon mass celebrated by the SSPX, than to attend a tourist mass at St Patricks, with people walking around chatting and taking pictures.