W
- Status
W
wasserfall
Guest
Ok, I guess it is time to just say what all of the people in this discussion probably know to be the truth, although no one wants to say it:
One of the goals of the SSPX is to see the OF suppressed.
I don’t mean that the SSPX means to be an active agent in this purpose, but rather intends to preserve traditional doctrine, piety, liturgy, formation, etc. etc. until such time as the Church sees fit to dismantle the postconciliar edifice.
They don’t mind waiting 500 years if that’s what it takes.
The SSPX firmly believes that the new mass is fatally flawed and will not stand the test of time, that’s why they refuse to celebrate it.
The response will be: “Well if that’s true, they can’t be regularized.”
To which I reply: “Maybe, maybe not. Let’s wait and see.”
The response will be: “Well they will be in formal schism. They will be excommunicated.”
To which I reply: “If it comes to that, they will claim it’s not valid and carry on.”
They don’t mind waiting 500 years if that’s what it takes. Remember that.
Please don’t read that as an expression of support or admiration by me.
It’s just my reading of their position.
One of the goals of the SSPX is to see the OF suppressed.
I don’t mean that the SSPX means to be an active agent in this purpose, but rather intends to preserve traditional doctrine, piety, liturgy, formation, etc. etc. until such time as the Church sees fit to dismantle the postconciliar edifice.
They don’t mind waiting 500 years if that’s what it takes.
The SSPX firmly believes that the new mass is fatally flawed and will not stand the test of time, that’s why they refuse to celebrate it.
The response will be: “Well if that’s true, they can’t be regularized.”
To which I reply: “Maybe, maybe not. Let’s wait and see.”
The response will be: “Well they will be in formal schism. They will be excommunicated.”
To which I reply: “If it comes to that, they will claim it’s not valid and carry on.”
They don’t mind waiting 500 years if that’s what it takes. Remember that.
Please don’t read that as an expression of support or admiration by me.
It’s just my reading of their position.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Now Waaserfall…
M
Megan7
Guest
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
What they think is irrelevant. What is relevant is what God thinks. It is the Church who binds and unbinds, not the SSPX. If the Church declares them to be in schism, they can claim that they’re not all they want. God will simply disagree with them. God never disagrees with his Church. The two of you would be smart not to take this so lightly and be so smug about it or find yourselves sharing their fate, if it comes to pass.
Now Waaserfall…
If you truly believe that anyone who is declared to be in schism can legitimately get away with believing that they are not or that it’s OK for them to believe this, then you share in their heresy. That’s very serious.
I do believe that some people, not just SSPXers, but radical liberals too, believe that the Church is wrong on a decree of schism and that they just have to wait their time. I also believe that their belief is radically flawed and I would never have the audacity to present it as an option in such a casual manner, without explaining to others who may not understand the gravity of being in schism and the gravity of such indifference to the fact.
As the law in moral theology says, the person who presents the fault as an acceptable alternative is as culpable as the person who commits the fault. Failure to point out to everyone that this kind of thinking on the part of the SSPX or any other group is flawed, is failure to to stand by the Church and to teach what the Church wants us to teach.
Br. JR, FFV
W
wasserfall
Guest
Brother JR, if you mean “get away with it” in the eyes of God, no they cannot get away with it.
In the sense of maintaining their chapels, their ardent supporters, their seminaries, yes they would get away with it.
Thanks.
I left it in just so we can all read it again.
J
JReducation
Guest
Obviously, the Holy See is not about to send the Swiss Guard after them. This is the case with the Orthodox. But look at how long it has taken to get back into a dialogue with them and to lift the excommunications of the Orthodox, abut 1,000 years, give or take 100?
This is very serious stuff, not to be spoken about lightly.
The flip side of the SSPX is this other liberal group whose name I always forget. The ones who are pro choice, women’s ordination, gay marriage, contracepiton, divorce and remarriage. Help me out here. The ones that were excommunicated up in the Midwest. What is their name??? I’m drawing a blank right now.
They think that they can carry on and that some day the Church will see things their way. That and $2.00 will get them a ride on a metrobus.
Now I won’t be able to sleep trying to recall the name of that goofy group.
I hate it when that happens.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Brother JR, on this and other threads your replies are always so wonderful: informative, tactful, precise, and so necessary. Thank you for being a part of Catholic Answers Forums.
C
CardManningFan
Guest
What is called the “Extraordinary Form” was never abrogated, so how can it be prohibited?
A
Alfonsus
Guest
Never abrogated, but does not means its usage is cannot be regulated by the Church.
Look, the Mozarabic Mass is never abrogated, but the Church regulated its use. Mozarabic Mass is part of Latin Rite liturgy.
How about Anglican Use Mass? It is approved, so its state is non-abrogated. But not all clergy have permission to use it whenever they want.
The Carmelite rite Mass is not abrogated. But its use is strictly regulated by the Order.
So basically, not abrogated means it is not defunct. It is not defunct juridically.
But permission, jurisdiction, regulation of use is of separate issue.
The prohibition/permission is related to authority given to a person/body to perform non-abrogated-rites available.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Are you thinking of “Spiritus Christi” in Buffalo, NY?
R
ready
Guest
Somebody please answer this for me!
In his sermon Fr. Pfeiffer says that Pope Benedict XVI does not believe that Jews need to be converted. Another traditionalist person I know has said the same thing. Are Fr. Pfeiffer and the other traditionalist mistaken about Pope Benedict XVI? Doesn’t our Holy Father believe in evangelizing Jews? What could make these two traditionalists say this about our Holy Father? Your help with this is greatlly appreciated!
In his sermon Fr. Pfeiffer says that Pope Benedict XVI does not believe that Jews need to be converted. Another traditionalist person I know has said the same thing. Are Fr. Pfeiffer and the other traditionalist mistaken about Pope Benedict XVI? Doesn’t our Holy Father believe in evangelizing Jews? What could make these two traditionalists say this about our Holy Father? Your help with this is greatlly appreciated!
T
TrueLight
Guest
There was a thread where this was being discussed. If can find it, I’ll post the link, but to my horror, some were saying that the Jews do not need to convert.
T
TrueLight
Guest
There was a thread where this was being discussed. If can find it, I’ll post the link, but to my horror, some were saying that the Jews do not need to convert.
Edited: I think it was somewhere in this huge ecumenism thread. You probably have already seen it. Ecumenism
And also on this thread about praying for the conversion of the Jews. I don’t know if anyone said specifically the Pope said this, but some say this is current Church teaching.
R
ready
Guest
Thanks, TrueLight! You are a true light!
Best wishes!
R
ready
Guest
Dear TrueLight,
I once read an article about this matter in a traditionalist newspaper and I after reading it I did not come to the same conclusion as Fr. Pfeiffer and my traditionalist friend. I think the Pope has been misunderstood on this. Peace!
T
TrueLight
Guest
You’re welcome, Ready.Thanks, TrueLight! You are a true light!
J
JReducation
Guest
The Holy Father has been misunderstood. What he said was that it is not the mission of the Catholic Church to convert the Jews and that the Church would not lend support or the Catholic name to any organized campaign to proselytize to attempt to convert the Jews. To clarify what he meant, he made reference to methods use by some Protestant groups that actively seek out others of other faiths to bring into their own.
This is not the same as saying that the Jewish people need not accept Jesus Christ. The official teaching of the Church is that God has a plan for this to happen (Jewish acceptance of Jesus Christ) and that we don’t know what it is or when it will happen. However, we know that it will happen, because God always keeps his promises and because the Jewish people hold a special place in Christ’s heart, because they are his people. They were the first to whom God revealed himself.
In the meantime, Catholics are encouraged to give witness to our faith through a life of virtue and fraternal relationships with the Jews, but DO NOT attempt to preach to them. This does not rule out answering questions that they may ask about the faith, inviting them to our activities and even our liturgy.
I’ll insert a personal note here, as a Catholic, most Jewish people are honored when Catholics invite them to a wedding, ordination, baptism, first Holy Communion, Confirmation or another special occasion. They are very uncomfortable at a Christmas and Easter mass. That would be one of those that the Holy Father would suggest that we not insist on. The other sacraments are truly easy for practicing Jews to follow. They feel honored, because they don’t feel rejected or excluded. They are also very happy when Catholics share in their special occasions, which Catholics can do. There is no reason for a Catholic not to attend a Bar Mitzvah, wedding, funeral, confirmation, Passover or a Seder for another event.
The Holy Father was not saying that Jewish people did not have to accept Jesus. He is speaking to Catholics and he’s telling Catholics to back off and that the Church will deny having anything to do with any organized attempt on the part of Catholics to convert Jews. Proselytizing to Jews and Muslims is not her policy.
Until very recently, the only Catholic that were allowed to preach to Jews were Dominicans, Carmelites and Franciscans, because their approach was non threatening. They did not proselytize to them. The Jews respect them. They have very good diplomatic relations with Jews. They have never bought into the Jews being perfidious. That prayer was never part of the Good Friday service among Dominicans, Carmelites and Franciscans. It was banned by the major superiors. The prayer that he Church currently uses is the one that was written by St. Francis for the Franciscans and has now been adopted for the Latin Church. These orders were not involved in the political and economic conflicts between Jews and Christians in Europe, because the Mendicants don’t own property. They had no financial interest in the Jews.
Today, the situation is different, because the economic and political conflict around the world is not Jews vs Christian. It’s everyone vs everyone. After WW I, there was no longer a need to limit the Catholic - Jewish contact to only some religious orders. It’s open to religious, clergy and lay as long as we follow the Holy Father’s rules, “no organized attempt to convert the Jews.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
R
ready
Guest
Dear Br. JR, FFV,
So the Pope sees that Jews are in need of conversion, but he feels there should be no organized attempt to convert them. Am I understanding him right? Peace!
In Christ,
ready
So the Pope sees that Jews are in need of conversion, but he feels there should be no organized attempt to convert them. Am I understanding him right? Peace!
In Christ,
ready
- Status