Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) In communion with the Chair of Peter, YES or NO?

[Sean_O_L]

coralewis wrote:

Adonis33, you’re not wrong. You seem to be right on the mark. Keep up the good work!

It is an objective fact that there is a qualification for attending an SSPX Mass:

…] but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses **unless ** they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing…not being able to assist at the … the so-called “Tridentine” Mass is NOT considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

How do you overcome these limitations, coralewis?

 

[Catholic29]

Hahaha, we beat the Rad-Trads to 100 votes, thanks guys. Now on to 200.

 

[jimmytoes]

Gottle of Geer:

… Obedience, like all good or bad acts, always affects the rest of the Church - & so does disobedience. Because the Church is a Body. ##

Well said.

When I first noticed the SSPX in my home town, and hadn’t heard of them before, I did exactly as Catholic29 is suggesting. I called the Archdiocese, they put me in touch with the Vicar of our area, and his response was an unqualified “No, they are not in communion with Rome.”

I’ve recently had to explain the situation to my saintly 86 year old mother, because a relative started taking her to an SSPX mass.

Disobedience … it seems to have been the problem since Adam & Eve’s time.

 

[Catholic29]

jimmytoes:

Well said.

When I first noticed the SSPX in my home town, and hadn’t heard of them before, I did exactly as Catholic29 is suggesting. I called the Archdiocese, they put me in touch with the Vicar of our area, and his response was an unqualified “No, they are not in communion with Rome.”

I’ve recently had to explain the situation to my saintly 86 year old mother, because a relative started taking her to an SSPX mass.

Disobedience … it seems to have been the problem since Adam & Eve’s time.

When in doubt, a call in to the Chancery will never hurt.:tiphat:

 

[demolitionman65]

Depends upon the chancery.

Not that there is a chancery that will hew to SSPX, but you will find some (Orange County) that DO espouse heretical positions. . .

 

[Catholic29]

demolitionman65:

Depends upon the chancery.

Not that there is a chancery that will hew to SSPX, but you will find some (Orange County) that DO espouse heretical positions. . .

Point well taken, and am in agreement.

Most chancerys (far from all) with heretical positions are usually well to the left of Rome or “modernist” in their thinking, but I do not think you will find one diocese that will espouse anything close to traditionalist SSPX thinking. So I feel I am safe in referring folks to them in learning the essential facts of what the SSPX is all about.

 

[Liberian]

Catholic29:

Okay, lets cut to the chase in this wonderful Forum with a poll to end all polls. Six million dollar question is the SSPX in full communion with the Chair of Peter (John Paul II), YES or NO? You have read all the posts and all the Magisterial documents, I leave it up to you…

This is another one of those “Let’s vote on whether two plus two is equal to four” polls. What part of Ecclesia Dei is unclear?

• Liberian

 

[Lux_in_Tenebris]

atsheeran:

How can you be in communion with the pope if you want to “trash” the Mass that he celebrates?

Without getting into canonical/legal arguments, it seems clear that you cannot be in communion with the pope if you do not believe what he teaches to be true.

Likewise, are those dissenting priests/theologians who disagree with the Church on issues of abortion, contraception, homosexuality, and euthanasia in communion with the Chair of Peter? How could they be? They do not believe what the pope teaches to be true.

The great thing about having a pope in our Catholic Church is that we always have a clear gauge as to what practices and beliefs we are to adhere.

So here is a test to measure whether one is in communion with the Chair of Peter:

Do I accept the beliefs and practices that the pope holds to be true?

Well I never understood, why JPII would excommunicate someone for ordaining Bishops. Especially Bishops devoted to the preservation of Catholic truth. And the reverent celebration of Holy Mass.

When you consider the widespread abuse and downright “craziness” infecting the Church today.
You would think everyone would find a welcome in the Church of JPII
Given His own religious Syncretism, It makes you wonder.
After all this is the Pope who kissed Korans!
Worshiped with the Animists in the groves of Togo!
Was adorned,with the Mark of the Adorers of Shiva!
But don’t you dare say one little tridentine Mass! For that you will be cast into outer darkness!

 

[Catholic29]

Lux in Tenebris:

Well I never understood, why JPII would excommunicate someone for ordaining Bishops. Especially Bishops devoted to the preservation of Catholic truth. And the reverent celebration of Holy Mass.

When you consider the widespread abuse and downright “craziness” infecting the Church today.
You would think everyone would find a welcome in the Church of JPII
Given His own religious Syncretism, It makes you wonder.
After all this is the Pope who kissed Korans!
Worshiped with the Animists in the groves of Togo!
Was adorned,with the Mark of the Adorers of Shiva!
But don’t you dare say one little tridentine Mass! For that you will be cast into outer darkness!

Spoken like a true Sede, or Rad-Trad at least.

One question I have for your type is, what part of Ecclesia Dei don’t you understand? To me it is quite self exclamitory. The document straight off the Vatican website is here vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html if you care to read it…

 

[OrthoCath]

Catholic29,

Ecclesia Dei is a joke. There are only a handful of Bishops in the world which allow “wide and generous application” of the Traditional Latin Mass. This document along with many others Pope John Paul II has written has been completely ignored by the Bishops.

 

[TNT]

OrthoCath:

Catholic29,

Ecclesia Dei is a joke. There are only a handful of Bishops in the world which allow “wide and generous application” of the Traditional Latin Mass. This document along with many others Pope John Paul II has written has been completely ignored by the Bishops.

Although I am in sympathy with the goals of the SSPX, and E-Dei may be ignored, it speaks with Apostolic Authority.
After all, the Gospels are a joke to a billion Muslims. What point would that make EXCEPT, that they are in spiritual jeopardy. Well, same with SSPX.
The valid dilemma of the TRADS is this:
They cannot reconcile Our Apostolic Mandate-PiusX/ MORTALIUM ANIMOS-Pius XI and Ut Unum Sint /Unitatis Redintegratio. They stand in apparent contradiction and no one in authority has offered to reconcile them logically. Nor do the latter reference the former even though they deal in the same subject…HIGHLY unusual, and probably says a lot in itself. These glaring facts are swept under the “enrichment of the faith” carpet.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

OrthoCath:

Catholic29,

Ecclesia Dei is a joke. There are only a handful of Bishops in the world which allow “wide and generous application” of the Traditional Latin Mass. This document along with many others Pope John Paul II has written has been completely ignored by the Bishops.

That is in your opinion by the way you define “wide and generous application” the bishops have not met it.

TNT:

The valid dilemma of the TRADS is this:
They cannot reconcile Our Apostolic Mandate-PiusX/ MORTALIUM ANIMOS-Pius XI and Ut Unum Sint /Unitatis Redintegratio. They stand in apparent contradiction and no one in authority has offered to reconcile them logically. Nor do the latter reference the former even though they deal in the same subject…HIGHLY unusual, and probably says a lot in itself. These glaring facts are swept under the “enrichment of the faith” carpet.

Huh? Can you repharse this so that I can make some sense out of what you are trying to get at.

 

[TNT]

ByzCath:

Huh? Can you repharse this so that I can make some sense out of what you are trying to get at.

NO.
It might be better if someone else explains it to you.

Ok. ONE try:
Ecumenism:
The Destruction of internal unity (expressed by the 1st 2 Encylclicals) in the false hope of external unity (expressed in the latter 2 documents.)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

TNT:

NO.
It might be better if someone else explains it to you.

Whats the problem? You can’t explain it or what?

I am just trying to understand what you were trying to say there. Seems you got issues if you refuse to clarify what you are attempting to say.

So I guess I will go with what it looks like your saying, which is that a pope is bound by what earlier pope says in matters of discipline. Which is that is true then I guess you are against both species being offered at Mass as well as the fact that Pope John Paul II approved the ordination of a number of married men to the priesthood.

 

[pnewton]

TNT:

They stand in apparent contradiction and no one in authority has offered to reconcile them logically.

I would see a possible solution to some of the conflict here. While the Pope and curia has no obligation to enter into joint dialogue, I do see some wisdom in bringing some of the traditional movement leadership into the process of reconciling these documents. We do not hesitate to dialogue and issue joint statements with protestants, why not others who are separated, yet nearer to us.

Also, such statements would be more readily accepted by those in schism and lead them to embrace the Church as she stands today. in light of where she has been. No, joint cooperation is not need for the Church to explain her disciplines, but charity sometimes walks the second mile.

 

[TNT]

ByzCath:

Whats the problem? You can’t explain it or what?

I am just trying to understand what you were trying to say there. Seems you got issues if you refuse to clarify what you are attempting to say.

So I guess I will go with what it looks like your saying, which is that a pope is bound by what earlier pope says in matters of discipline. Which is that is true then I guess you are against both species being offered at Mass as well as the fact that Pope John Paul II approved the ordination of a number of married men to the priesthood.

You can’t explain it or what?

No. I want you to read the encyclicals.

a pope is bound by what earlier pope says in matters of discipline.

I see it as a matter of Faith and morals.
M-Animos:
“Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called;… ** 3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.”

**"...****in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a *most grave error***, by which the *foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed*."


"** 5. Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by *dangerous fallacies***, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in *avoiding this evil*;"

I could load the post with more but this by itself is sufficient that P-XI was teaching Faith, Morals, and the errors threatening them.


So, like I said. Read them.

 

[usqueadmortem]

I see no need to comment on Ut Unum Sint since it is only an encyclical, and it is common knowledge as far as I understand that encyclicals are only infallible when in unity with the Ordinary Magisterium. I.E. They can contain departures from Tradition.
The path toward reconciling Mortalium Annos and Unitatis Reintegratio lies in the fact that both are treating of DISCIPLINARY ISSUES. While I find that Pius XI’s approach was far more prudent, the discrepencies are rooted in conflicting disciplinary approaches. I.E. Neither is treating of Dogma per se, but of the guidlines for Catholics and ecumenical activity.
Still, this problem has not been treated authoritatively yet, and it most certainly should have been by now.
I hope this can help clear up the argument.

Usque.

 

[usqueadmortem]

While I am of the position that Levebvre did not justifiably consecrate the bishops, I should mention to all those slamming the “Rad-Trad’s” right and left, that many high-profile canonists in Rome are arguing that the SSPX is not at all in schism. It may even be that Benedict will lift the excommunications.
I should also mention that Lefebvre was a premium theologian and well loved by the Pope before the Second Vatican Council.
The case is not open and shut. Yes, Ecclesia Dei is very clear, and we owe our allegiance to it. But shouldn’t the Truth be “soaked in charity”?
Lets try to bridge this gap before it is too late!!

Usque.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

usqueadmortem:

While I am of the position that Levebvre did not justifiably consecrate the bishops, I should mention to all those slamming the “Rad-Trad’s” right and left, that many high-profile canonists in Rome are arguing that the SSPX is not at all in schism.

This may be true but it really doesn’t matter.

The final say in matters of Canon Law is the Holy Father, who writes the Law. He has stated that the action violated Canon Law and thet Levebvre and his bishops excommunicated themselves by their actions.

 

[TNT]

ByzCath:

This may be true but it really doesn’t matter.

The final say in matters of Canon Law is the Holy Father, who writes the Law. He has stated that the action violated Canon Law and thet Levebvre and his bishops excommunicated themselves by their actions.

TRUE.
THERE IS NO APPEAL IN CANON LAW TO AN EDICT OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF… FOR, HE IS THE MIND OF THE LAW GIVER. PERIOD.
They must either admit that the Pope was NOT the Pope or submit. There is no in-beween… At least the Sede’s are logical.