SSPX accepts Vatican offer

  • Thread starter Thread starter PazzoGrande
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PazzoGrande said:
In Post 3 I mentioned how nice it is that the Divine Mercy Novena prayer for unity worked so quickly. In post 4 I was accused of insulting the Pope’s work for unity. Obviously if one knows about the Divine Mercy novena, then they know about the work for unity. I’ve prayed the Novena – and thus for unity – every year since 2002.
Click to expand...
In the same post, you implied that the SSPX was composed of heretics and schismatics. It is good that you are praying for unity. It would be better if you also learned to support unity by speaking with tact.
 
floresco said:
In the same post, you implied that the SSPX was composed of heretics and schismatics. It is good that you are praying for unity. It would be better if you also learned to support unity by speaking with tact.
Click to expand...
“Heretics and schismatics” are Jesus’s choice of words, not mine. Look it up.
 
PazzoGrande said:
“Heretics and schismatics” are Jesus’s choice of words, not mine. Look it up.
Click to expand...
Jesus never said that you should call people heretics and schismatics if they are not actually heretics and schismatics.
 
floresco said:
Jesus never said that you should call people heretics and schismatics if they are not actually heretics and schismatics.
Click to expand...
Those bishops excommunicated themselves and became schismatic, therefore they are schismatics. And again, obviously Jesus chose those words. I trust His authority over yours, my friend.

Floresco, if picking fights is what you wish to do, I’d like to invite you to not participate in this thread that I started. I don’t want the discussion here to be marred by that. I’m sure you can find another user in another thread who’s interested in bickering with you. I however am interested in learning from the discussion.

Thank you.
 
floresco said:
In the same post, you implied that the SSPX was composed of heretics and schismatics. It is good that you are praying for unity. It would be better if you also learned to support unity by speaking with tact.
Click to expand...
This is something that we ALL can do better…That is to speak tactfully on the one hand and to listen tactfully on the other hand.

The one who speaks tactfully seeks to do so in Love; to be clear, concise, truthful and charitable - but of course we all can “nibble on our foot”😛 from time to time.
The one who listens tactfully likewise seeks to do so in Love; to find what is good in what is said, build on that good and to correct any error gently and with charity.

In the Christian life, these are foundational principles in reaching consensus among the brethren while drawing closer to God.

This is not pointed at any particular comment or response…Just a more general thought…

Peace
James
 
PazzoGrande said:
Those bishops excommunicated themselves and became schismatic, therefore they are schismatics. And again, obviously Jesus chose those words. I trust His authority over yours, my friend.

Floresco, if picking fights is what you wish to do, I’d like to invite you to not participate in this thread that I started. I don’t want the discussion here to be marred by that. I’m sure you can find another user in another thread who’s interested in bickering with you. I however am interested in learning from the discussion.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
The SSPX was never declared schismatic. The closest was the declaration that some in the SSPX have a “schismatic attitude.” Excommunication by itself does not make one schismatic.

Please read the history and the official documents before you make such bold yet uninformed charges. And it’s asinine to make such a charge and then tell the person who calls you out on it to go away and leave you alone.
  • PAX
 
PazzoGrande said:
Those bishops excommunicated themselves and became schismatic, therefore they are schismatics. And again, obviously Jesus chose those words. I trust His authority over yours, my friend.

Floresco, if picking fights is what you wish to do, I’d like to invite you to not participate in this thread that I started. I don’t want the discussion here to be marred by that. I’m sure you can find another user in another thread who’s interested in bickering with you. I however am interested in learning from the discussion.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
As others have said, excommunication does not make someone a schismatic. Refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff does. Also in any case only the bishops of the organization were excommunicated, not the priests or the people who attend their masses, and some time ago now those excommunications were lifted for the living bishops.

The hard question is, what is the status of members of an organization, or massgoers at their churches, which officially recognizes the Roman Pontiff and insists it is fully in communion with him, yet operates in perpetual grave disobedience? I would hesitate to call them schismatics, though, if Rome has declined to call them that and if they seem to be on the verge of reconciliation.

As for the phrase “real Catholics”, that is rarely a useful phrase in any context.
 
Brooklyn said:
I too believe that one day Archbishop Lefebvre will one day be declared a saint. Like many others, I think he is the one who saved the Latin Mass.
Click to expand...
Why? First, it’s purely argumentative to say that Archbishop Lefebvre himself “saved” the Latin Mass. Secondly, people are canonized, not because of any personal action of their own (martyrs being an exception) but by the sanctity of their lives that can be substantiated by a host of others. I hardly think that leading a society of priests and bishops into suspensions, excommunications and disobedience against the Holy Father, the Church and Canon Law for 20 years is an example of personal sanctity. Add to that the sad fact that the Archbishop died excommunicated and the case gets even weaker.

While I personally think that the Archbishop was not completely conscious of his actions due to age and health, one cannot deny the effects of these same actions. Hopefully, he is resting peacefully in heaven now but at the same time, he is far from a good candidate for canonization.
 
PazzoGrande said:
Those bishops excommunicated themselves and became schismatic, therefore they are schismatics. And again, obviously Jesus chose those words. I trust His authority over yours, my friend.

Floresco, if picking fights is what you wish to do, I’d like to invite you to not participate in this thread that I started. I don’t want the discussion here to be marred by that. I’m sure you can find another user in another thread who’s interested in bickering with you. I however am interested in learning from the discussion.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Floresco has brought much insight and helpful info on these boards and she is an active member on the traditional forum. I haven’t seen much of you here before and the first post I see you post tends to be offensive. We have been through this too many times, , the search function if your friend, on these boards and making it clear that the excommunications of the SSPX Bishops has been lifted and that their society is not in “schism” but irregular and that their sacraments are not licit at this time. That is a BIG difference from being heretics and schismatics. The SSPX have never denied the any dogmatic or moral constitution so they are not heretics. This is a open public forum and floresco has much right to post as much as you do as long as the conversation remains civil.
 
PazzoGrande said:
Those bishops excommunicated themselves and became schismatic, therefore they are schismatics. And again, obviously Jesus chose those words. I trust His authority over yours, my friend.

Floresco, if picking fights is what you wish to do, I’d like to invite you to not participate in this thread that I started. I don’t want the discussion here to be marred by that. I’m sure you can find another user in another thread who’s interested in bickering with you. I however am interested in learning from the discussion.
Click to expand...
The excommunication of the bishops was lifted some time ago. They are not schismatics nor is the Society as a whole. You have no authority from Jesus to say things that are contrary to fact.

I am not picking a fight and I am sorry if it seems that way. You wrote two posts in a row that were really offensive (and inaccurate). While the Pope and his Bishops work out this reconciliation, it is up to all of us to support it. Two ways to do this are in our prayers and in our language. It is not supportive to take a position of “It’s about time you schismatics admitted you were wrong. Now I want to see you grovel for a while.”
 
EcceAgnusDei said:
The SSPX was never declared schismatic. The closest was the declaration that some in the SSPX have a “schismatic attitude.” Excommunication by itself does not make one schismatic.

Please read the history and the official documents before you make such bold yet uninformed charges. And it’s asinine to make such a charge and then tell the person who calls you out on it to go away and leave you alone.
  • PAX
Click to expand...
I asked that user not to participate on the grounds of his/her attitude of picking fights. Like I said, I’m interested in learning, not in bickering. I however thank you Ecce for educating me and contributing to the conversation instead of fighting.

In any case, please view this:

devthrone.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/SSPX

The question posed is “I have read that the St. Pius X Society (SSPX) is anywhere from schismatic to irregular. What is the truth?” The immediate following sentence answers it. While it is not an official Vatican pronouncement, I do trust it to be an accurate assessment given the source.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
The hard question is, what is the status of members of an organization, or massgoers at their churches, which officially recognizes the Roman Pontiff and insists it is fully in communion with him, yet operates in perpetual grave disobedience? I would hesitate to call them schismatics, though, if Rome has declined to call them that and if they seem to be on the verge of reconciliation.
Click to expand...
This is a question that has been promptly ignored by many on this board. Once, I started a thread asking what it meant to people personally to attend celebrations of the Mass that are legally illict and the question was quickly dodged and rationalized. While the Holy See never declared them to be in schism, the fact that they persisted in grave disobedience for 20 years is a serious matter. While the sspx has many good and fine priest who will welcome reconciliation, what of those with the siege mentality who either refuse to reconcile or do reconcile while still harboring the same mentality? Just a glance at the FAQs on the official sspx website reveals many shocking positions against the modern Church, Pope John Paul II, the Catechism, and the Missal of Pope Paul VI. How does one reconcile what was once such an extreme position?
 
Timothysis said:
Why? First, it’s purely argumentative to say that Archbishop Lefebvre himself “saved” the Latin Mass. Secondly, people are canonized, not because of any personal action of their own (martyrs being an exception) but by the sanctity of their lives that can be substantiated by a host of others. I hardly think that leading a society of priests and bishops into suspensions, excommunications and disobedience against the Holy Father, the Church and Canon Law for 20 years is an example of personal sanctity. Add to that the sad fact that the Archbishop died excommunicated and the case gets even weaker.

While I personally think that the Archbishop was not completely conscious of his actions due to age and health, one cannot deny the effects of these same actions. Hopefully, he is resting peacefully in heaven now but at the same time, he is far from a good candidate for canonization.
Click to expand...
I think I tend to agree with you. So I hope that Archbishop Lefebvre is a saint, but I think its somewhat unlikely that he’ll be venerated as a saint. If that makes sense.

In a more appropriate mood-this is excellent news and I’m glad that the SSPX is reconciled.
 
floresco said:
The excommunication of the bishops was lifted some time ago. They are not schismatics nor is the Society as a whole. You have no authority from Jesus to say things that are contrary to fact.

I am not picking a fight and I am sorry if it seems that way. You wrote two posts in a row that were really offensive (and inaccurate). While the Pope and his Bishops work out this reconciliation, it is up to all of us to support it. Two ways to do this are in our prayers and in our language. It is not supportive to take a position of “It’s about time you schismatics admitted you were wrong. Now I want to see you grovel for a while.”
Click to expand...
The Bolded section is Absolutely correct…However, my dear floresco - if you are not picking a fight, I’d recommend not including the last sentence…Unless of course I missed the post where PazzoGrande actually made the verbatim statement that you placed in quotation marks.
Like you , I’m not picking a fight, just suggesting.

Peace
James
 
Timothysis said:
This is a question that has been promptly ignored by many on this board. Once, I started a thread asking what it meant to people personally to attend celebrations of the Mass that are legally illict and the question was quickly dodged and rationalized. While the Holy See never declared them to be in schism, the fact that they persisted in grave disobedience for 20 years is a serious matter. While the sspx has many good and fine priest who will welcome reconciliation, what of those with the siege mentality who either refuse to reconcile or do reconcile while still harboring the same mentality? Just a glance at the FAQs on the official sspx website reveals many shocking positions against the modern Church, Pope John Paul II, the Catechism, and the Missal of Pope Paul VI. How does one reconcile what was once such an extreme position?
Click to expand...
Well, it is a question that’s no longer relevant. There always has been and always will be feuding “under the tent”, so to speak; it isn’t a good thing and we should always work to get rid of it, but better to argue around the dinner table than to scream at each other on the front lawn.
 
Boulder257 said:
Let’s just be grateful and not worry about who “won” or who owes who an “engraved apology.” We are about to witness the awesome power of God as he reconciles more souls to His Church. Praise be to God!
Click to expand...
Amen to that! 👍

I was over on Spirit Daily when I saw their link to this story; but I couldn’t bring it up when I clicked on the link. Probably too many visitors…😛

But anyway…thanks be to God, indeed!

As someone on this thread has already stated, this will certainly secure the legacy of our Papa Benedict XVI!

HUZZAH! :extrahappy:
 
Thanks be to God and the power of the most Holy Rosary of our Blessed Mother.
 
Lujack said:
I think I tend to agree with you. So I hope that Archbishop Lefebvre is a saint, but I think its somewhat unlikely that he’ll be venerated as a saint. If that makes sense.

In a more appropriate mood-this is excellent news and I’m glad that the SSPX is reconciled.
Click to expand...
I like your style of thinking of this. And I agree, this is excellent news!
 
PazzoGrande said:
I asked that user not to participate on the grounds of his/her attitude of picking fights. Like I said, I’m interested in learning, not in bickering. I however thank you Ecce for educating me and contributing to the conversation instead of fighting.

In any case, please view this:

devthrone.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/SSPX

The question posed is “I have read that the St. Pius X Society (SSPX) is anywhere from schismatic to irregular. What is the truth?” The immediate following sentence answers it. While it is not an official Vatican pronouncement, I do trust it to be an accurate assessment given the source.
Click to expand...
Declarations of schism need to come from the Magisterium, not from Catholic Answers. The Magisterium (Pope John Paul II) has only said that the SSPX has a schismatic attitude. I will go with the Magisterium over Catholic Answers. The SSPX has not ever been in the situation of the Eastern Orthodox, as the SSPX never denied the validity of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. They were disobedient, not schismatic.

Again, read the various Magisterial documents regarding the SSPX to get a fuller view.
  • PAX
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top