So, can I attend a SSPX mass or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Armor_of_Light
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation said:
There is nothing to clarify. This was Pope Benedict’s message to the SSPX and he said that it is not up for clarification or discussion. “A council cannot teach error; therefore, there is no error in the Council’s documents.”
Click to expand...
But V2 didn’t teach anything new. It defined no new dogmas. So of course it taught no error, Deo Gratias.
 
Dies_Irae said:
But V2 didn’t teach anything new. It defined no new dogmas. So of course it taught no error, Deo Gratias.
Click to expand...
Vatican II either;

A) Was a pastoral council that clarified existing dogma. Same message, just presented differently. “Here’s H2O, but instead of presenting it as a solid ice cube, here it is the same amount of H2O in liquid format”. Because it was a group of bishops publicly teaching doctrine of the Faith, it was an exercise in infallibility.

B) New dogma declared with the bishops and Pope using a council, which is an exercise in infallibility.

C) Both of the above.

Either way; the council was infallible.
 
proudlycatholic said:
I mean Greeks who belong to the Latin rite. When the creed is said by them in Greek, they do not mention the filioque, not because they do not believe it, but rather because of a linguistic impossibility.
Click to expand...
What is impossible linguistically?
 
ProVobis said:
Was there an official statement on this? I would like to hear the precise uninterpreted wording.
Click to expand...
Does there need to be? We have the definition of infallibility on hand. The council met the requirements.
 
proudlycatholic said:
Didn’t the council define itself as pastoral rather than doctrinal?
Click to expand...
If it’s pastoral, then everything they mentioned was already defined by earlier councils and statements, meaning the bishops were quoting existing teaching. That’s grounds for infallibility.
 
Melchior said:
If it’s pastoral, then everything they mentioned was already defined by earlier councils and statements, meaning the bishops were quoting existing teaching. That’s grounds for infallibility.
Click to expand...
I beleive the problem was the way they “restated” those earlier teachings. There is ambiguity in some lines, ambiguity which in turn has fueled the current crisis. A council (or any church document) should never leave any windows open for ambiguity.
 
ProVobis said:
I’ll take that as a “No.”
Click to expand...
This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful.

Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.

The Council itself says “yes”.
 
We could also ask ourselves if such a council was needed. What was the problem that needed to be solved? Were any problems solved, or were problems created? I mean, just imagine a “Pius XII-era” catholicism in the XXI century… it would just be great.
 
proudlycatholic said:
I beleive the problem was the way they “restated” those earlier teachings. There is ambiguity in some lines, ambiguity which in turn has fueled the current crisis. A council (or any church document) should never leave any windows open for ambiguity.
Click to expand...
There would be a “crisis” regardless. An over-sexed culture with no regard for human life will do that. Whose to say Vatican II actually has made things BETTER than what they would have been?

Pope Paul VI saw all of this coming, especially in HV. The man was a prophet, and will one day probably become a Saint. I trust his judgement.
proudlycatholic said:
We could also ask ourselves if such a council was needed. What was the problem that needed to be solved? Were any problems solved, or were problems created? I mean, just imagine a “Pius XII-era” catholicism in the XXI century… it would just be great.
Click to expand...
I’ve got two World Wars (not just any war, but WORLD wars), a Holocaust, rise of drug use, the sexual revolution, abortion on demand, birth control, religious orders not being true to the vision of their founders, and rampant disobedience that every directed towards both the Church and civil authorities that say a Council was needed.
 
Melchior said:
There would be a “crisis” regardless. An over-sexed culture with no regard for human life will do that. Whose to say Vatican II actually has made things BETTER than what they would have been?

Pope Paul VI saw all of this coming, especially in HV. The man was a prophet, and will one day probably become a Saint. I trust his judgement.
Click to expand...
Didn’t Paul VI also state that the smoke of hell had gotten into the church?

There is also another BIG coincidence… check out the mass attendance levels in the 50s-60s and then 70s (and onwards). Before the 70s they were stable and/or growing… but in the 70s a sharp decline. This is why I think that a church without any Vatican 2 (or rather, post Vatican-2 reforms) would just be better.
 
proudlycatholic said:
Didn’t Paul VI also state that the smoke of hell had gotten into the church?

There is also another BIG coincidence… check out the mass attendance levels in the 50s-60s and then 70s (and onwards). Before the 70s they were stable and/or growing… but in the 70s a sharp decline. This is why I think that a church without any Vatican 2 (or rather, post Vatican-2 reforms) would just be better.
Click to expand...
Well, the Magisterium think otherwise. Please take a look at POST #10 of this thread, made by the moderator of the Traditional Catholic sub-forum:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=486782
 
LightBound said:
Well, the Magisterium think otherwise. Please take a look at POST #10 of this thread, made by the moderator of the Traditional Catholic sub-forum:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=486782
Click to expand...
This is not a defense in favor of the SSPX. I am just telling you my concerns (which are independent from the SSPX) and was hoping to hear some people’s comments, in order for me to get a wider scope of this very-complex problem.
 
proudlycatholic said:
Didn’t Paul VI also state that the smoke of hell had gotten into the church?

There is also another BIG coincidence… check out the mass attendance levels in the 50s-60s and then 70s (and onwards). Before the 70s they were stable and/or growing… but in the 70s a sharp decline. This is why I think that a church without any Vatican 2 (or rather, post Vatican-2 reforms) would just be better.
Click to expand...
You don’t think that church attendance would not have dropped regardless due to the anti-establishment attitude happening at the time? And consider that other faiths also had a sharp decrease in attendance.

A church without any Vatican II would also have no religious orders. You can read about some of that stuff here (note; I’m am not calling you or anyone else in this thread a sedevacantist, but some of what is written is applicable here).
 
In that website they claim:
Which brings me to the last thing; PERFECTAE CARITATIS, which saved religious life in the Church. It’s a call for Orders to go back to the visions of their founders. In the time between Vatican I and Vatican II, the consecrated religious lost their way. You had Franciscans owning property and driving cars, some were living not in community. You had clerics and non-clerics. With the monastics, you had people living beyond the walls. You had Orders not following the Rule of the Order. Orders that should have served the poor were serving middle or upper class folks. Your had Bishops forcing Orders to ordain to covers off priest shortages. It reached the point where some of the Orders looked hard at themselves, and realized that the founder would not have been welcome in their Order. With the Franciscans, it was the realization that if Holy Father Francis showed up in 1960, he could not have been the head of the Order as he was never a priest. He was only a cleric near the end of his life, a Deacon.
Click to expand...
I don’t see today’s orders very different. I even know cases of priests civil-marrying in other countries, or Franciscans living in 5-star convents, or many other weird and sad things which I don’t even want to think about. I just want to say that I do not see a “perfect” state in today’s orders, compared to the 60s… to the point that I even doubnt if they are doing better than in the 60s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top