Questions about the SSPX

[maurin]

Au contraire, it’s the Pope’s own words that lead me to believe SSPX is in schism.

What do you see the Pope saying that leads you to believe otherwise? Again, any specific sources or references would be welcome.

Cheers

your faulty understanding of the Pope’s words lead you to believe what you believe.

When I see the Pope release a statement which says differently, then I will believe differently.

 

[diggerdomer]

your faulty understanding of the Pope’s words lead you to believe what you believe.

When I see the Pope release a statement which says differently, then I will believe differently.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record…

Please give us a reference or source for your belief?

Cheers

 

[maurin]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record…

ahh, go ahead and risk it.

Please give us a reference or source for your belief?

again? why? you didn’t listen the first ninethousandninehundredandninetyninetimes. If you push a book off the table it’s going to drop on the floor. Every time.

Cheers

was a great tv show, although I really never missed Diane once she was gone. And I hated her return on Frazier.

 

[PaulinVA]

Paul’s Quote:
The Pope said 11 days ago they have no canonical status. No canonical status. No canonical status.
Maurin’s retort:
canon law canon law canon law gives supplied jurisdiction supplied jurisdiction supplied jurisdiction.

How are canonical status and jurisdiction related? Clearly, the Pope says the Society has no canonical status. That’s definitive.

The claim to ecclesia supplet is a different matter. If you want to hang the validity of the sacraments you recieve on the belief that the average Catholic in your diocese believes that your local ordinary gave jurisdiction to SSPX priests, go right ahead. You don’t have to believe they have jusidiction, the average Catholic wandering in from the street has to.

 

[maurin]

Paul’s Quote:
The Pope said 11 days ago they have no canonical status. No canonical status. No canonical status.
Maurin’s retort:
canon law canon law canon law gives supplied jurisdiction supplied jurisdiction supplied jurisdiction.

How are canonical status and jurisdiction related? Clearly, the Pope says the Society has no canonical status. That’s definitive.

The claim to ecclesia supplet is a different matter. If you want to hang the validity of the sacraments you recieve on the belief that the average Catholic in your diocese believes that your local ordinary gave jurisdiction to SSPX priests, go right ahead. You don’t have to believe they have jusidiction, the average Catholic wandering in from the street has to.

At least you’re consistent! What I said, and what you say I said are, of course, two different things.

Paul, our conversation is fruitless. It is excruciating. I bid you well. bye bye. Until we meet again in a different discussion.

 

[Auntie_M]

I must confess I have not read this entire thread. But I have seen just why our Holy Father tells us Not to go to the SSPX masses. It does (exactly as he said it would) create a “schimatic” attitude.

I have seen where the SSPX takes some of this and some of that in articles and “creates” their own version. Lending just enough of the truth to keep you hanging on.

There is NOTHING wrong with the Latin mass but with the SSPX I cannot say the same.

If you cannot find a Latin Mass that is in communion with Rome (FSSP), then you are putting yourself in grave danger by going to an SSPX mass. It does lead to schism…

Don’t believe everything you read unless it’s coming directly from our Pope.

 

[Auntie_M]

Where in the Accompanying Letter are these words you cite?

You ignore supplied jurisdiction, which makes up a large part of Canon Law, and gives the SSPX their although irregular status, canonical status all the same.

But I agree with you, I don’t care much for the NO Church as it is in practice here at the local level in this Diocese. **Lay preachers as well as non-Catholic preachers, the public denial of Catholic teaching as it pertains to sexual morality, as well as the denial of certain Marian and Christological Dogmas, have all convinced me that this local Church is near ruins. **
Thank God for the Mercy of supplied jurisdiction, or I wouldn’t have access to Catholic teaching.

No need to discuss it further.

Dear,

if you will read more of the Old Testament, you fill find this same stuff happening back then also. Sexual immorality and denial of certain beliefs have been around since time began. It is not a new Vatican II happening.

If this local church is near ruins, do what a good Catholic should do and help it come back from the ruins. Go to your priest there, the Bishops, etc. It sounds as if this church is in an “irregular” state also. Go help…

 

[malphono]

I must confess I have not read this entire thread. But I have seen just why our Holy Father tells us Not to go to the SSPX masses. It does (exactly as he said it would) create a “schimatic” attitude.

I have seen where the SSPX takes some of this and some of that in articles and “creates” their own version. Lending just enough of the truth to keep you hanging on.

There is NOTHING wrong with the Latin mass but with the SSPX I cannot say the same.

If you cannot find a Latin Mass that is in communion with Rome (FSSP), then you are putting yourself in grave danger by going to an SSPX mass. It does lead to schism…

Don’t believe everything you read unless it’s coming directly from our Pope.

First off, it’s not only the FSSP that offers the EF. There’s also the ICRSS plus many faithful secular clergy (plus some religious of other Orders and congregations) who willingly offer the EF.

Secondly, whether the FSSPX is in “schism” or not I suggest be left to the canon lawyers to sort out.

 

[diggerdomer]

again? why? you didn’t listen the first ninethousandninehundredandninetyninetimes.

I and others have asked numerous times. I have never seen you provide a legitimate response to our requests. If I missed something, as I said, I apologize, and I would hope you would respect my sincere question and any apparent mistake I made in missing something you shared.

But I still have no idea what if any Magisterial teaching you’re referring to. If you don’t want to or can’t share it, fine, but please just say so. I’m really interested in learning, not going back and forth uselessly.

Cheers

 

[maurin]

Dear,

if you will read more of the Old Testament, you fill find this same stuff happening back then also. Sexual immorality and denial of certain beliefs have been around since time began. It is not a new Vatican II happening.

If this local church is near ruins, do what a good Catholic should do and help it come back from the ruins. Go to your priest there, the Bishops, etc. It sounds as if this church is in an “irregular” state also. Go help…

sweetie pie, pookums, honey-doodle,

if the Church local would only believe and teach what the Church Universal always taught everywhere, I wouldn’t have this conundrum. Dear.

Tell ya what, :blush:lovey, shmoopy, love of my lifey, you come sort it out if you’d like. I found the Church. In the SSPX. For those of you in Reverent and Catholic Dioceses: my hat’s off to you. You don’t know how lucky you are.

 

[maurin]

I and others have asked numerous times. I have never seen you provide a legitimate response to our requests. If I missed something, as I said, I apologize, and I would hope you would respect my sincere question and any apparent mistake I made in missing something you shared.

But I still have no idea what if any Magisterial teaching you’re referring to. If you don’t want to or can’t share it, fine, but please just say so. I’m really interested in learning, not going back and forth uselessly.

Cheers

You have eyes, yet refuse to read. Good luck with that, digger.

 

[Extempore]

I must confess I have not read this entire thread. But I have seen just why our Holy Father tells us Not to go to the SSPX masses. It does (exactly as he said it would) create a “schimatic” attitude.

Now that’s an interesting claim. Considering that the SSPX consider themselves to be in complete union with the Magisterium, I would think you would be hard pressed to find an example of a Fraternity priest encouraging a schismatic attitude. Sure, there might be some schismatic-minded laity that attend, but it is foolish to base one’s faith on the teachings of the laity, no?

Though, since you speak as if you are familiar with the deleterious effects of attending an SSPX Mass, I’d be interested in hearing a specific example.

I have seen where the SSPX takes some of this and some of that in articles and “creates” their own version. Lending just enough of the truth to keep you hanging on.

I’d be interested in hearing a specific example of what you believe the SSPX “creates” that is not in conformity with Catholic tradition?

Don’t believe everything you read unless it’s coming directly from our Pope.

And I’m sure you meant that to include those Popes preceding Benedict XVI as well, right?

 

[diggerdomer]

Now that’s an interesting claim. Considering that the SSPX consider themselves to be in complete union with the Magisterium,

No they don’t.

They explicitly reject the Vatican II Council.
Cheers

 

[rpp]

No they don’t.

They explicitly reject the Vatican II Council.
Cheers

Again, you are incorrect and post false information about the SSPX. The SSPX most certainly do claim that they are faithful to the Pope and the Magisterium. Whether you think they was not the question. Finally, you mischaracterize their rejection of some of the documents produced by the Second Vatican Council. Since that council did not propose any doctrines, there is no inherent problem.

 

[rpp]

I and others have asked numerous times. I have never seen you provide a legitimate response to our requests. If I missed something, as I said, I apologize, and I would hope you would respect my sincere question and any apparent mistake I made in missing something you shared.

But I still have no idea what if any Magisterial teaching you’re referring to. If you don’t want to or can’t share it, fine, but please just say so. I’m really interested in learning, not going back and forth uselessly.

Cheers

That is because it is extremely difficult to prove a negative. For example, prove that you are not in schism with the Church. I can point to thoings you havee posted that are contrary to the faith and other posts that contradict and improperly state Church teaching and cocuments. That does not mean that you are actually in schism. But fpr you to prove you are not in schism would bve impossible.

You are the one who keeps falsely insisting the SSPX is in schism. You seem to have a special hatred for this group which seems to motivate to make false statements regarding them. You have, not surprisingly, been unable to provide ANY evidence to support your assertions. Despite several attempts on multiple threads.

I should add that on other threads, you expressed support for President Obama’s policies and actions (in a very general manner). I would not expect a faithful Catholic to express unqualified support for the him.

 

[diggerdomer]

Again, you are incorrect and post false information about the SSPX. The SSPX most certainly do claim that they are faithful to the Pope and the Magisterium. Whether you think they was not the question. Finally, you mischaracterize their rejection of some of the documents produced by the Second Vatican Council. Since that council did not propose any doctrines, there is no inherent problem.

What did I post that was false?

I went to the SSPX web site and saw that they professed they reject the authority of Vatican II.

Do you disagree? If so please share your proof so we can be enlightened.

Benedict XVI has said that SSPX needs to accept Vatican II in order to restore full communion.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

Simply because Vatican II did not propose any doctrines (your claim) is basically irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was an ecumenical council, which is the highest form of teaching authority in the Catholic Church. We don’t have the option to pick and choose whether or not we accept the teachings of Vatican II. It’s part of the Magisterium, and faithful Catholics are obliged to receive that teaching as they do all other Magisterial teaching.

Please, if you have anything that can help me better understand this issue share it.

Cheers.

 

[rpp]

What did I post that was false?

I went to the SSPX web site and saw that they professed they reject the authority of Vatican II.

Do you disagree? If so please share your proof so we can be enlightened.

Benedict XVI has said that SSPX needs to accept Vatican II in order to restore full communion.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

Simply because Vatican II did not propose any doctrines (your claim) is basically irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was an ecumenical council, which is the highest form of teaching authority in the Catholic Church. We don’t have the option to pick and choose whether or not we accept the teachings of Vatican II. It’s part of the Magisterium, and faithful Catholics are obliged to receive that teaching as they do all other Magisterial teaching.

Please, if you have anything that can help me better understand this issue share it.

Cheers.

You are not open to learning or understanding so any effort is wasted. You will continue to post false information and twist Church documents to say exactly what they do not mean but what you want them to say. Since you are not being honest, there is no reason to continue discussing actual facts.

Since you have to use false statments to make your point, your point and perspective is, by definition, invalid.

My mother always said that there was a certain types of person one should not argue with. I think Billy Joel repeated that instruction in one of his early hits.

 

[diggerdomer]

You are not open to learning or understanding so any effort is wasted. You will continue to post false information and twist Church documents to say exactly what they do not mean but what you want them to say. Since you are not being honest, there is no reason to continue discussing actual facts.

Since you have to use false statments to make your point, your point and perspective is, by definition, invalid.

My mother always said that there was a certain types of person one should not argue with. I think Billy Joel repeated that instruction in one of his early hits.

What did I post that was false?

I think that’s the second time I asked you that, so if you continue to not respond I won’t bother you again.

Please, help.

Contrary to your assumption, I am open to learning.

Thank you.

 

[maurin]

What did I post that was false?

I think that’s the second time I asked you that, so if you continue to not respond I won’t bother you again.

Please, help.

Contrary to your assumption, I am open to learning.

Thank you.

You should ask what did you post that isn’t false. The list would be shorter. And contrary to your assertion of openness to learning, your actions speak much louder than your words.

 

[maurin]

No they don’t.

They explicitly reject the Vatican II Council.
Cheers

Actually digger, there are many Bishops here in the US who reject VII judging from the state of the Liturgies in their Dioceses.

But this statement of yours wouldn 't make it on the shorter list.

Both Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay have publicly announced their acceptance of the Council insofar as it is in harmony with Catholic Teachings always and everywhere. There is very little that they “explicitly reject.”

AS a matter of fact, your local Bishop (maybe, not necessarily) probably rejects more of the Council than either of the above-mentioned Bishops. When is the last time the NO was celebrated ad orientum or in Latin at your Mass? When was the last time the music was only Gregorian Chant?