I
Iohannes
Guest
SNORE!!!
- Status
B
bear06
Guest
Is that an argument?
I
Iohannes
Guest
New Hampshire.Is that an argument?
B
bear06
Guest
Live free or die!
M
Madaglan
Guest
If I were in this hypothetical situation, I most likely would attend an Orthodox service. According to the RCC, the Orthodox, although schismatic, still have valid sacraments; and so you would at least be able to experience the Real Presence. Plus, the Orthodox Liturgy is that of St. John Chrysostom, which is much older than the TLM which one would find with the SSPX. The Orthodox believe the same things as did the Catholics of the first millenia, they have valid apostolic succession, their beliefs are supported by Tradition and Scripture: so why not go to one of their services?
The SSPX have dubious apostolic succession, since the consecrations of the bishops were declared invalid. Therefore, any ordinations made by these bishops is also invalid. To attend a Lutheran service is just crazy, even if one believes that the ex-priest still has consecratory powers from his holy orders.
The SSPX have dubious apostolic succession, since the consecrations of the bishops were declared invalid. Therefore, any ordinations made by these bishops is also invalid. To attend a Lutheran service is just crazy, even if one believes that the ex-priest still has consecratory powers from his holy orders.
M
Madaglan
Guest
How do you define “primacy of the Pope”? I have always understood that the SSPX do not reject the concept that the pope has a primacy over all the other bishops, and that the pope should normally be the central voice of orthodoxy. However, I don’t think that the SSPX are as uncritical of what the pope says and does as are many non-SSPX Catholics. This can be good or bad. I have not decided this yet.
I think that history alone shows that several popes have erred or have oscillated in confirming or denying a certain belief.
T
Triumpha
Guest
No they do not!
Triumpha.
T
Triumpha
Guest
When were the consecrations of the SSPX bishops declared invalid, exactly?
The fact is they haven’t been declared invalid. And the priests they ordain are valid too.
You’ve been misinformed.
Triumpha.
I
Iohannes
Guest
That is completely false and you cannot argue that.
The SSPX Bishops are considered valid bishops here is one proof.
The Four SSPX Bishops consecrated Bishop Rangel to become the head of the Society of Saint John Vianney. Rome in the year 2001 recongized and reconcilled Bishop Rangel as a valid and licit Bishop, allowing him to coconsecrate his sucessor Bishop Rifan.
As long as there is proper form, proper matter, proper intent. They are Bishops.
If Rome recongized Bishop Rangel as a legit Bishop, then they have to recongize the four SSPX as validly consecrated bishop.
D
Diaconia
Guest
To all:
JKirkLVNV hit the nail squarely on the head with this nice post (emphasis mine) :
A communion service approved by the ordinary, at which the Sacred Species are given to the faithful, is infinitely preferable to a unquestionably valid, but entirely illicit Mass celebrated by schismatics (remember, though they pray for the Holy Father and the local bishop, they live in total disobedience and they possess no faculties, which MUST be granted by the local ordinary).
If your parish has a deacon you should attend the communion service for two reasons:
JKirkLVNV hit the nail squarely on the head with this nice post (emphasis mine) :
A communion service approved by the ordinary, at which the Sacred Species are given to the faithful, is infinitely preferable to a unquestionably valid, but entirely illicit Mass celebrated by schismatics (remember, though they pray for the Holy Father and the local bishop, they live in total disobedience and they possess no faculties, which MUST be granted by the local ordinary).
If your parish has a deacon you should attend the communion service for two reasons:
*]He is a cleric that has both the authority (from the ordinary) and the training to conduct such a service.
*]He has received sacred ordination to proclaim the Gospel, and to preach the homily. He blesses the people in the name of the Church. Furthermore, he also shares in the pastoral care of the souls of the parish.
A great portion of this discussion thread has centered on whether you participate in the sacrifical offering of the Mass. Two points to consider:
*]Even if you were not personally there at the previous Mass when the elements were consecrated, other members of your parish were.
*]By attending the communion service you are participating in the Liturgy of the Word, which itself, is a source of grace. You are also receiving previously-consecrated Gifts in holy communion. Both of these participations are being done in your own parish church by the ministers your ordinary has entrusted them to.
A service that is both LICIT and VALID in your own parish should always be preferred.
God bless you all,
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
It is truly a fact that the bishops and priests of the SSPX have valid holy orders. These orders were given them illicitly (in an act of disobedience) and are in themselves illicit, but they are valid. Thus, every sacramental act they perform is valid, but illicit. They do not lawfully possess any faculty to act as priests. Their own bishops cannot grant them faculties, because they themselves do not possess them. Thus, they pile disobedience on top of disobedience with every Mass, every baptism, every confirmation, etc. They are formal schismatics, a far more serious state in which to be, for they KNOW better (a material schismatic or heretic is BORN in a state of seperation from the true Church).
As for whether they affirm the primacy of the Pope, what a laugh! They may profess it with their lips, but every day they do not submit to his lawful authority, they give the lie to their profession. In the 21st Chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, Our Lord nailed the priests and pharisees with the question of the two sons and their father. The father goes to the first and tells him to go and work in the vineyard. The first tells him, “I will not,” but latter repents and goes to obey his father. The father goes to the second and tells him also to go and work in the vineyard. The second says,“I will,” but doesn’t go. Jesus poses the question,“Who then did the father’s will?”
It doesn’t matter that the SSPX professes to acknowledge the primacy of the Holy Father. What matters is whether or not they obey him. They don’t.
As for whether they affirm the primacy of the Pope, what a laugh! They may profess it with their lips, but every day they do not submit to his lawful authority, they give the lie to their profession. In the 21st Chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, Our Lord nailed the priests and pharisees with the question of the two sons and their father. The father goes to the first and tells him to go and work in the vineyard. The first tells him, “I will not,” but latter repents and goes to obey his father. The father goes to the second and tells him also to go and work in the vineyard. The second says,“I will,” but doesn’t go. Jesus poses the question,“Who then did the father’s will?”
It doesn’t matter that the SSPX professes to acknowledge the primacy of the Holy Father. What matters is whether or not they obey him. They don’t.
M
Madaglan
Guest
Yes, thank you for the correction. The SSPX bishops are in fact “valid” even though they be “illicit,” since they were performed in opposition to the Holy See, and were performed with less than three bishops in what was a dubious “necessity.” I admit my error in saying that they were invalid, according to RCC standards.
I oftentimes forget that the Western understanding of consecration implies that one can still perform valid consecrations of the apostolic succession even after one has formally broken from communion with the Church. This is why the Western Church still views the Orthodox Churches as still having valid consecrations, sacraments, apostolic bishops, etc.
What I find interesting is that many traditionalist Catholics believe that it is not “Catholic” to agree with everything that the pope says and does. And, to tell you the truth, I tend more to agree with them than I do with many modern Catholics, since the pope is not always right, even though he tries to be (i.e. Pope Vigilius and the Three Chapters; and Pope Honorius I).
I oftentimes forget that the Western understanding of consecration implies that one can still perform valid consecrations of the apostolic succession even after one has formally broken from communion with the Church. This is why the Western Church still views the Orthodox Churches as still having valid consecrations, sacraments, apostolic bishops, etc.
What I find interesting is that many traditionalist Catholics believe that it is not “Catholic” to agree with everything that the pope says and does. And, to tell you the truth, I tend more to agree with them than I do with many modern Catholics, since the pope is not always right, even though he tries to be (i.e. Pope Vigilius and the Three Chapters; and Pope Honorius I).
B
bear06
Guest
Madaglan,
I don’t need to define it. The Church has already spoken on the matter. Here’s just part of Ecclesia Dei that says they rejected the primacy:
.
Triumpha,
Yes they do! Is someone not because they say they are not? This is what the SSPX does. They reject the primacy of the Pope and yet they wander around saying “No, we don’t!” The Pope is the one who has authority in this matter and he has spoken.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
But the SSPX is patently wrong in their stance on the Mass of Paul VI. Why? Because it was promulgated for the Church by the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He is preserved from error in this by Christ’s promise to Peter. The Mass, the “source and summit” of our faith, is a matter of faith and morals, which fall into Peter’s perview of binding and loosing.
B
bear06
Guest
You don’t have to agree with everything the Pope says or does. I’m not a Trad and I believe this too. That said, this document does show you where you owe the Pope obedience **and ** submission.
ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6
J
JOHNYJ
Guest
The lefebvreist renegades including the SSPX crowd love to get legalistic and arcane. To justify themselfs.
So here is another Legalism. The decrees of 1054 have been revoked for 40 years so technicaly the Eastern Orthodox are not Schismatics.
The lefebvreists and their supporters were Excommunicated and declared Schismatics in 1988 .Those decrees are in full force. So it is wrong to try to put the lefebvreists and the E O in the same catagory.
So here is another Legalism. The decrees of 1054 have been revoked for 40 years so technicaly the Eastern Orthodox are not Schismatics.
The lefebvreists and their supporters were Excommunicated and declared Schismatics in 1988 .Those decrees are in full force. So it is wrong to try to put the lefebvreists and the E O in the same catagory.
O
oat_soda
Guest
i think in the west, the pope is looked at almost as the embodiment of the faith. it’s easy to look at their personal opinions as binding or infallible.
personally, i don’t like to disagree with a popes decision. but some things JPII has done or permitted like kissing the koran, asissi ecumenical prayers, women altar servers, liturgical innovations, i tend to disagree with. even the promulgation of the novus ordo and the total ban on the trindentine mass by paul vi appears to be a questionable decision. while valid, it might have been imprudent.
but then again, i’m not nearly as holy or as smart as these popes. so i very well could be wrong. you never want to be more catholic then the pope.
B
bear06
Guest
oat soda:
I used to say disagree regarding women altar servers and now I use the term dislike. It’s not my place to disagree with disciplines the Pope sets. This doesn’t show the submissiveness that I owe the Pope in these matters.
You’ve lumped different things together. There’s a difference between the Pope kissing the Koran (which may or may not be a personal error on his part) and women altar servers.
I used to say disagree regarding women altar servers and now I use the term dislike. It’s not my place to disagree with disciplines the Pope sets. This doesn’t show the submissiveness that I owe the Pope in these matters.
If you look at the example of a child…A child may not always like the disciplines that his parents set but he is not free to disagree with them. Of course, my children are technically “free” to disagree with me but it’s not a good idea!
O
oat_soda
Guest
i’m not following you here. the pope is not impeccible. we owe him obedience, but not our intellect. these are matters outside of faith and morals and we are free to disagree with him, as a child may disagree with his parent, but the child owes his parent obedience. and even then, the child can’t submit to a sinful act no matter who tells them to.therefore, we are only subject to our conscience.
the pope is not above the liturgy, or the bible, or the faith, but he serves them. i think much of the problems in the western church may be a result of blurring the distinction between the unchangeable infallible faith, and the pope who serves it. now we may disagree with how he serves the faith, but we can’t disagree with the faith itself, and neither can the pope. revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
People who attempt to be obedient to the Pope aren’t brain washed automatons! For example, the Holy Father likes cats. I don’t…though I’ve heard they taste like chicken! 
Sorry, sorry.
Sorry, sorry.
- Status