Some SSPX questions

[basinite]

Emmit,
I tried to send you a PM but your mail box was full. This was the message:I respectfully suggest that you change what you have filled in as your religion. If you accept the teachings of the SSPX you are Roman Catholic and that would be the more appropriate response. I can understand you wanting to let people know you support the SSPX. I find it an admirable organization in many ways. But referring to it as your religion actually supports those who erroneously claim it is in schism.

I agree. The SSPX has done alot of good things for the Church by preserving the Traditional Latin Mass. You need to put Catholic (SSPX) as your religion and not just “SSPX”.

 

[StTommyMore]

I agree. The SSPX has done alot of good things for the Church by preserving the Traditional Latin Mass. You need to put Catholic (SSPX) as your religion and not just “SSPX”.

By putting the religion as SSPX, it shows that they accept the SSPX as superior to Rome. In effect the SSPX has created its own “Magisterium.” I can think of no clearer example of pride than this. When the SSPX website says its members may not attend an FSSP parish, you know there are problems.

 

[Bbigam]

Laughable at best…I have a deal. You all accept ALL the councils prior to Vatican II, and will will seriously consider accepting VII. Sound like a deal?

Well, that’s easy on my end. I already accept all of the councils, from the Council of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts, through the Second Vatican Council. So it’s a deal.

 

[ProVobis]

No one (serious, or with authority on the matter) is telling them they can’t receive on the tongue while kneeling, or have statues, altar rails, fiddleback vestments, Latin, or Gregorian chant. Except for Communion while kneeling and an altar rail, we have all of those at my parish at least on occasion - and it’s the Ordinary Form. Also, if someone were to kneel to receive, the priest wouldn’t balk at all. Nor would our good bishop. I’ve seen it happen with both of them.

You are perhaps among the minority. Most of OF do receive CITH and I wouldn’t be surprised if this becomes the final barrier in the current attempts at reconciliation.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, that’s easy on my end. I already accept all of the councils, from the Council of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts, through the Second Vatican Council. So it’s a deal.

Even the councils which condemned CITH?

 

[StTommyMore]

Even the councils which condemned CITH?

Even if a previous council condemned CITH, this is not a matter to which infallibility would apply, as it concerns neither faith nor morals, but practice.

 

[Emmit_Fitzhume]

I was being sarcastic, while trying to prove a point.

sspx.org/sspx_faqs/q6_vaticanII.htm

The Council itself both encouraged liberal trends (and its encouragement became post-conciliar Vatican policy) and departed from traditional Catholic teaching, but it has no authority for either (PRINCIPLE 5).

Our position must be:

…we refuse …to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. (Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre, APPENDIX I)

And it is neo-Modernist tendencies that the Council is all about ("…Pope John Paull II makes not Holy Scripture, but rather Assisi, the shibboleth for the current understanding of the Council." Pope John Paul II’s Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi, Part I, p. 46 [APPENDIX II]).

BUT WASN’T THE COUNCIL INFALLIBLE?

Not by reason of the extraordinary magisterium, for it refused to define anything. Pope Paul VI himself, in an audience on January 12, 1966, said that it “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility” (Cf. the declaration of the Theological Commission of Mar. 6, 1964, and repeated by the Council’s General Secretary on Nov. 16, 1964: “In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” It never did.).

Nor by reason of the ordinary universal magisterium, because this is not a defining power, but one of passing on what was always believed. The “universality” in question is not just one of place (all bishops) but also of time (always) (cf., Vatican I and PRINCIPLE 6).

Nor even by reason of the simply authentic magisterium, because the object of all magisterium is the deposit of faith to be guarded sacredly and expounded faithfully (Vatican I, Dz 1836), and not to adopt as Catholic doctrine the “best expressed values of two centuries of ‘liberal culture,’” even if they are “purified” (Cardinal Ratzinger, Gesu, Nov. 1984, p. 72. Cf. Gaudium et Spes, §§11, 44).

Are you implying accepting previous councils means we cannot accept VII? Did I misread your point? If that’s what you meant how so?

 

[Emmit_Fitzhume]

Consequently, there are some statements in the documents of Vatican II that belong to the Ordinary Magisterium, and that are infallibly true. These are the doctrinal statements that simply repeat what the Church has everywhere and always taught. However, there are many other statements that do not do this, and that do not belong to the Ordinary Magisterium, but rather to the Authentic Magisterium, which simply means that they authentically come from the Council or pope who has authority in the Church. Under normal circumstances they would be accepted with reverence, but never as infallible. At the present time, it is clear that many of these are radical modernist novelties, such as religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality and the adaptation of the Church to the modern world. Since they are clearly in direct contradiction to infallible statements of the Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium, these novelties can and must be refused.

The consequences of this confusion concerning the question of the Ordinary Magisterium are very far reaching. On the one hand those who follow Michael Davies draw the conclusion that these documents are all a part of the Ordinary Magisterium, although they still have a few errors. They end up by accepting their contents (even if rather reluctantly), just as they have ended up by accepting the legitimacy of the New Mass, alas.

On the other hand, the sedevacantists say that all that Vatican II and the post-Conciliar popes say is the Ordinary Magisterium. However, these documents contain errors that are incompatible with the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. The conclusion is that Vatican II was not a Church Council and that the subsequent popes were not popes. A small error of principle leads them to entirely distort the reality, and refuse its real complexity for their a priori mindset that all teaching is infallible. The correct understanding of the Ordinary Magisterium is consequently of the utmost importance in the present crisis. I strongly recommend the reading of the book Pope or Church? [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

By putting the religion as SSPX, it shows that they accept the SSPX as superior to Rome. In effect the SSPX has created its own “Magisterium.” I can think of no clearer example of pride than this. When the SSPX website says its members may not attend an FSSP parish, you know there are problems.

 

[StTommyMore]

I was being sarcastic, while trying to prove a point.

sspx.org/sspx_faqs/q6_vaticanII.htm

The Council itself both encouraged liberal trends (and its encouragement became post-conciliar Vatican policy) and departed from traditional Catholic teaching, but it has no authority for either (PRINCIPLE 5).

Our position must be:

…we refuse …to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. (Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre, APPENDIX I)

And it is neo-Modernist tendencies that the Council is all about ("…Pope John Paull II makes not Holy Scripture, but rather Assisi, the shibboleth for the current understanding of the Council." Pope John Paul II’s Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi, Part I, p. 46 [APPENDIX II]).

BUT WASN’T THE COUNCIL INFALLIBLE?

Not by reason of the extraordinary magisterium, for it refused to define anything. Pope Paul VI himself, in an audience on January 12, 1966, said that it “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility” (Cf. the declaration of the Theological Commission of Mar. 6, 1964, and repeated by the Council’s General Secretary on Nov. 16, 1964: “In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” It never did.).

Nor by reason of the ordinary universal magisterium, because this is not a defining power, but one of passing on what was always believed. The “universality” in question is not just one of place (all bishops) but also of time (always) (cf., Vatican I and PRINCIPLE 6).

Nor even by reason of the simply authentic magisterium, because the object of all magisterium is the deposit of faith to be guarded sacredly and expounded faithfully (Vatican I, Dz 1836), and not to adopt as Catholic doctrine the “best expressed values of two centuries of ‘liberal culture,’” even if they are “purified” (Cardinal Ratzinger, Gesu, Nov. 1984, p. 72. Cf. Gaudium et Spes, §§11, 44).

This post proves my point. The SSPX imagines itself to be the authentic Magisterium, and that Rome must answer to the SSPX and not the other way around.

 

[Emmit_Fitzhume]

I can see the virtue of Christian charity is in abundance on this board and in The Church. I simply joined a conversation and I have been attacked for the sole reason that I am afiliated with the Society. You all kindly accept protestants of all flavors and atheists, etc. yet when you come in contact with someone in the Society, you loose all your Christian virtues and attack us as if we are destroying The Church, meanwhile we are trying to save OUR Church be defending it against the true enemy of modernism.

Thank you so much for your kind reception I will be praying for you all at Mass

 

[Emmit_Fitzhume]

No, if you got that from what you read, you need to read it over again. It is an explanation of the Society’s stance on the issue. All the hatred you have for the society is a knee jerk reaction with pre-determined talking points that you spit out against any of us when we even do as much as greet you.

This post proves my point. The SSPX imagines itself to be the authentic Magisterium, and that Rome must answer to the SSPX and not the other way around.

 

[StTommyMore]

No, if you got that from what you read, you need to read it over again. It is an explanation of the Society’s stance on the issue. All the hatred you have for the society is a knee jerk reaction with pre-determined talking points that you spit out against any of us when we even do as much as greet you.

I bear no hatred towards the society, only pity. My position comes from reading the error-ridden articles on the SSPX website.

 

[Emmit_Fitzhume]

Oh, I didn’t know you are a trained and practicing Theologian and Canon Lawyer. I apologize. IF you would be kind enough to tell us where we are theologically wrong on something, I will make sure Bishop Fellay and The Society is brought up to speed on it. Thank you

StTommyMore;6951031]I bear no hatred towards the society, only pity. My position comes from reading the error-ridden articles on the SSPX website.

 

[maurin]

I can see the virtue of Christian charity is in abundance on this board and in The Church. I simply joined a conversation and I have been attacked for the sole reason that I am afiliated with the Society. You all kindly accept protestants of all flavors and atheists, etc. yet when you come in contact with someone in the Society, you loose all your Christian virtues and attack us as if we are destroying The Church, meanwhile we are trying to save OUR Church be defending it against the true enemy of modernism.

Thank you so much for your kind reception I will be praying for you all at Mass

I think a good question to ask may be if modern Catholics have an inferiority complex, and if so, why?

It is true that modern, or maybe it is expressed best as contemporary Catholics, “ialogue” with, as you say, all flavors of protestants in the hopes of converting them. These contemporary Catholics jpoin in so called ecumenical prayer services, downplaying the roles of the helpers God Himself gave us in His Blessed Mother, the Communion of Saints, the Priesthood, and in the process these contemporary Catholics, instead of elevating the hears, souls and minds of these protestants to the Truth of Our Lord, end up losing the basics of the Faith themselves.

This is why they attack you, and those of us who think like you. Being accepted neither by theprotestants for hanging on to the vestiges of the True Faith, nor by 2000 years of their own history, they lash out at what they perceive to be the weaker target.

The devil has a shrill scream when he’s angry.

 

[Emmit_Fitzhume]

Very, very true. Everything I see happening in THe Church today is happening verbatim as Bella Dodd predicted it would when she gave her interview way back a long time ago and dicussed the Communist subversion of The Church. Sixty years ago. these people attacking you, me, the Society, and other Traditional Catholics would have been refused Communion for some of their heretical stances, yet today they are embraced and cheered as champions of The Faith. Trust The Holy Spirit. It will fix this problem and time will prove The SSPX was on the right side of history.

I think a good question to ask may be if modern Catholics have an inferiority complex, and if so, why?

It is true that modern, or maybe it is expressed best as contemporary Catholics, “ialogue” with, as you say, all flavors of protestants in the hopes of converting them. These contemporary Catholics jpoin in so called ecumenical prayer services, downplaying the roles of the helpers God Himself gave us in His Blessed Mother, the Communion of Saints, the Priesthood, and in the process these contemporary Catholics, instead of elevating the hears, souls and minds of these protestants to the Truth of Our Lord, end up losing the basics of the Faith themselves.

This is why they attack you, and those of us who think like you. Being accepted neither by theprotestants for hanging on to the vestiges of the True Faith, nor by 2000 years of their own history, they lash out at what they perceive to be the weaker target.

The devil has a shrill scream when he’s angry.

 

[kozlosap]

Do I hear “grassy knoll” here? Not being familiar with the SSPX, I would like someone to please explain how the word “modernist” is used in reference to those who are not part of the SSPX or attend a EF parish. Thanks in advance for the clarification!

 

[Sirach2]

Emmit Fitzhume:

Oh, I didn’t know you are a trained and practicing Theologian and Canon Lawyer. I apologize. IF you would be kind enough to tell us where we are theologically wrong on something, I will make sure Bishop Fellay and The Society is brought up to speed on it. Thank you

All an astute person has to do is read the posts of SSPX posters and they will discern immediately that the Spirit not evident in their mouths and words, leading to the conclusion that this sect is not of God. As if words, quotes, arguments, debates will convince others of your righteousness, when the fruit is totally lacking.

Emmit, your posts so far, exhibit the same similarity to to Sonny’s and Maurin’s - both SSPX proponents. We have been taught to examine the fruit and test the Spirit.
Galatians 5:19, " Now the works of the flesh are …] hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions
I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

22, In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
Do you believe condescending sarcasm is the fruit of one walking in the Spirit? For one who is to become a priest, I wonder how your flock will take to this, unless all SSPX-ers are of the same mold and would feel right at home?

 

[ProVobis]

Even if a previous council condemned CITH, this is not a matter to which infallibility would apply, as it concerns neither faith nor morals, but practice.

But it does concern morals, if you read the conditions that come with the allowance. Please don’t dismiss this just as a “practice.” Divine laws, specifically the ones which command utmost respect for God and condemn sacrilege and profanity, are indeed infallible.

 

[Emmit_Fitzhume]

So in your eyes, the SSPX is a sect not of God outside of The Catholic Church? So I guess you are the arbiter of who is and is not within The Catholic Church. You accuse me of sarcams, I call it admonishment. We are called to admonish our brothers and sisters when they are wrong. If you personally get offended, perhaps you have a guilt complex. Maybe your inner conscience knows what I am saying is the truth and it conflicts you.

Besides your personal insults and opinions on the SSPX, I am still waiting for you to find one; JUST ONE of our beliefs that is contradictory to authentic Catholic Dogma and Doctrine.

All an astute person has to do is read the posts of SSPX posters and they will discern immediately that the Spirit not evident in their mouths and words, leading to the conclusion that this sect is not of God. As if words, quotes, arguments, debates will convince others of your righteousness, when the fruit is totally lacking.

Emmit, your posts so far, exhibit the same similarity to to Sonny’s and Maurin’s - both SSPX proponents. We have been taught to examine the fruit and test the Spirit.
Galatians 5:19, " Now the works of the flesh are …] hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions
I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

22, In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
Do you believe condescending sarcasm is the fruit of one walking in the Spirit? For one who is to become a priest, I wonder how your flock will take to this, unless all SSPX-ers are of the same mold and would feel right at home?

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

I believe he asked you to point out at least one Doctrinal error that the SSPX hold…are you going to accept his challenge?

All an astute person has to do is read the posts of SSPX posters and they will discern immediately that the Spirit not evident in their mouths and words, leading to the conclusion that this sect is not of God. As if words, quotes, arguments, debates will convince others of your righteousness, when the fruit is totally lacking.

Emmit, your posts so far, exhibit the same similarity to to Sonny’s and Maurin’s - both SSPX proponents. We have been taught to examine the fruit and test the Spirit.
Galatians 5:19, " Now the works of the flesh are …] hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions
I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

22, In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
Do you believe condescending sarcasm is the fruit of one walking in the Spirit? For one who is to become a priest, I wonder how your flock will take to this, unless all SSPX-ers are of the same mold and would feel right at home?