Sspx alternatives in communion with rome

[Andreas_Hofer]

You wouldn’t dare speed would you. Just because laws exist doesn’t mean people follow them. This is a direct result of original sin, which we seem to ignore these days. We are an imperfect people living in an imperfect world. The most we can accomplish on the subject is to agree to disagree on the SSPX question and follow your conscience.

I do dare speed sometimes, but feel guilty about it and refuse to try to justify it by the fact that other people also disobey the law. Paul and Peter made it clear that our obedience to the secular order is required by the divine order. If we must obey the prince, why try to justify disobeying the Prince of the Apostles?

:
“putting your soul in harms way by doing something the Vatican does not recommend”
As others of the Vatican faithful have affirmed all over this Forum, when one acts in good conscience, as he must do, they are in the way of salvation. Therefore danger to one’s soul is objectively greater under the tutelage of modernism than traditionalism, especially the youth.Fourth and Final we have:
"if SSPX gets excommincated tommorow what are you going to do? Answer that one really think about it. and give me an answer."
The answer is that if it isn’t already excommunicated, the SSPX does/would not recognize its excommunication by the Vatican Conciliar church.
It is renegade to the Conciliar church. So why would it gasp at being under the enemy’s excommunication?
It’s kinda like G. Washington reacting to King George’s declaring him an enemy of the Crown. The British colonists didn’t en-mass abandon Washington.
They would simply see it as Modernism condemning Traditionalism.

Both you and mgrobertson mention conscience, but there has been no concern to pointing out that one must act according to a well-formed conscience, and good formation must actively be sought. If a person’s moral decision-making is so severely warped that the man he supposedly considers and obeys as the valid pope is called the “enemy” and issues excommunications of no consequence, we’re dealing with someone who needs some education to resolve his inconsistency.

Apart from the consecration of bishops done without the consent of Rome, explain how the SSPX are even disobedient by Rome’s standards.

Easy - they celebrate the sacraments while suspended! Duh! Confecting the Eucharist while suspended is an incredibly grave abuse of the sacrament, not just disobedience.

Don’t hate them for their beliefs and remember it is not our place to condemn them either. Only Christ knows the condition of one’s soul. If they separate themselves from Christ’s Church, that is between they and He.

It is not our place to condemn individuals, but it is most certainly our place to condemn objectively immoral activity. Whether their sincerity gets them an ultimate pass for their objectively evil actions, we have a duty to point out the errors of such activity lest others be emboldened to similarly imperil themselves.

 

[mgrobertson79]

I do dare speed sometimes, but feel guilty about it and refuse to try to justify it by the fact that other people also disobey the law. Paul and Peter made it clear that our obedience to the secular order is required by the divine order. If we must obey the prince, why try to justify disobeying the Prince of the Apostles?

Both you and mgrobertson mention conscience, but there has been no concern to pointing out that one must act according to a well-formed conscience, and good formation must actively be sought. If a person’s moral decision-making is so severely warped that the man he supposedly considers and obeys as the valid pope is called the “enemy” and issues excommunications of no consequence, we’re dealing with someone who needs some education to resolve his inconsistency.

Easy - they celebrate the sacraments while suspended! Duh! Confecting the Eucharist while suspended is an incredibly grave abuse of the sacrament, not just disobedience.

It is not our place to condemn individuals, but it is most certainly our place to condemn objectively immoral activity. Whether their sincerity gets them an ultimate pass for their objectively evil actions, we have a duty to point out the errors of such activity lest others be emboldened to similarly imperil themselves.

What was once right or good can never be wrong or evil. [Edited by Moderator]

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

What was once right or good can never be wrong or evil. [Edited by Moderator]

What is intrinsically good can never be evil. What is intrinsically evil can never be good. But what is morally neutral can change from good to evil depending on the circumstances. Feeding Bob is good when he is starving and evil when his is overeating himself to death. Obedience is a circumstance that can change the moral value of an action.

 

[down_under]

Ok, one at a time.
First on the list is:
“excommunicated bishops who are not really bishops at all.”
IF this were true, you just blew up the entire E-Orthodox church. A bishop may be excommunicated but he retains his title and his raw ability/power to consecrate & ordain. All of whom would be valid assuming legit matter & form.
Second up is:
"support the alternatives the church gives you "
Well, the church gives but the ruling bishop may not which is still the majority condition as others have testified herein.
In addition, the SSPX is not JUST about the TLM, it’s about VAT_II documents and the aftermath. So just a TLM solves 50% of a wreck, which still gives you a wreck.
Third we have:
*“putting your soul in harms way by doing something the Vatican does not recommend”
*As others of the Vatican faithful have affirmed all over this Forum, when one acts in good conscience, as he must do, they are in the way of salvation. Therefore danger to one’s soul is objectively greater under the tutelage of modernism than traditionalism, especially the youth.Fourth and Final we have:
*"**if SSPX gets excommincated tommorow what are you going to do? Answer that one really think about it. and give me an answer."
***The answer is that if it isn’t already excommunicated, the SSPX does/would not recognize its excommunication by the Vatican Conciliar church.
It is renegade to the Conciliar church. So why would it gasp at being under the enemy’s excommunication?
It’s kinda like G. Washington reacting to King George’s declaring him an enemy of the Crown. The British colonists didn’t en-mass abandon Washington.
They would simply see it as Modernism condemning Traditionalism.

okay the easten church is an irrelevent argument. they are not in communion with rome and dont protend to be. In fact I have heard several make a point of stating that they are not in communion with rome. So this is a dubious claim. I am not certain on the point and it is another post in an of itself. off topic for now. you want to discuss the eastern church make another post I will be there.

okay then as far as I can tell you start to blame the church for the plauges of mordernism and relativism. This is not the churchs fault. you get mad about v2 you read v2. If you did you would probably be shocked to see that many of the inovations you see in church today are not in there. Moving the tabernacle is not in a v2 document. go ahead look it up. where did that come from. Not V2

as far as your argument goes you are right in that ones soul is in greater danger under moderisum then traditionalism. The church under the pope stands for traditionalism. The world in general stands for modernism. Decenting bishops stand for confusion. where do you stand?

 

[bear06]

What was once right or good can never be wrong or evil. [Edited by Moderator]

This is just silly. Remember, we are warned against anitquarianism. What is right for one time may not be necessarily proper for another time. Take for instance the Church and it’s different rulings on kneeling, receiving Communion, etc. Our preference doesn’t make it necessarily right or wrong. The Church’s rulings on the matter do.

 

[mgrobertson79]

I ask again, WHY do we have to argue and fight about this? One group accusing another group and so on. I have gotten myself caught up in this as well. I had a post edited earlier today because I said something that now even I consider inappropriate. Is this Christian, Is this Catholic. I say NO, it is not. We should not be pointing fingers, or backstabbing, or judging anyone for the way they choose to worship within the Church. H.H. Pope John Paul 2(the Great) gave back to us the Traditional Mass as codified by Pope St. Pius V. Not that it had been taken away, but that it had been replaced or fell out of favor by the majority.

The Mass is a beautiful and Holy thing that should not be the subject of such bitterness. I still say lets agree to disagree and try to come to an amicable resolution.

H.H. Pope Benedict XVI is expected to release a Motu Prorio in the future freeing the use of the TLM, this is a good and Holy thing. It will serve to unite the Church of today with the Church’s Traditions, which seem to have been forgotten or even lost by some.

I apologize to Andreas Hofer for what I said, which has subsequently been edited by the moderator. I should have watched what I said and not made it personal, which I will do in the future.

 

[bear06]

We debate this because people make statements that other people disagree with or see as contrary to Church teaching and/or the Church’s position. I don’t think anyone has any ill will (at least I don’t). We feel strongly about our position and I’m sure that we all feel that our position is in line with the Church. I also don’t see anyone, at least me, having a problem with the way someone worships as long as it’s consistent with the laws and teachings of the Church. This isn’t about someone worrying about someone preferring or adoring the TLM. This has everything to do with worrying about someone going so far as being disobedient and/or schismatic. We don’t write off someone like Bishop Williamson. We pray for his return to full communion with the Church every bit as much as we pray for those on the opposite side of the coin (and all of us in between as a matter of fact!)

I think that we can all agree to pray for the Moto Proprio and for the reconciliation of the SSPX, right?

 

[mgrobertson79]

Yes, and there has to be a charitable way for everyone to come to a consensus on the matter. It is disturbing to see so many threads in this part of the forum locked because of one reason or another. They start out generally as good conversations and become rants or worse. I know the moderator here isn’t censoring us, only making it so all can come and enjoy the forum as was originally intended.

 

[TNT]

Yes, and there has to be a charitable way for everyone to come to a consensus on the matter. It is disturbing to see so many threads in this part of the forum locked because of one reason or another. They start out generally as good conversations and become rants or worse. I know the moderator here isn’t censoring us, only making it so all can come and enjoy the forum as was originally intended.

The SSPX is a thorn in the theological side of many, and for as many reasons.
On the other hand SSPX sympathizers find the Conciliar mentality a thorn in their side.
So, what were you expecting, a May Pole dance?
Just keep it IMPERSONAL, support your position adequately, and stay on point.
The Threads get closed because one or more of the above is suffering.
On this Forum, the Mods tend to Close the Thread rather than mass execution of violators. Well, mostly.There is a well populated cemetery on this Forum.
**Re:
**

here has to be a charitable way for everyone to come to a consensus on the matter.

Forget about it. Banish the thought. Consensus is Anathema. It could happen, but it would be an assident.

That goes for other threads.
Finally, Just watch how I, Bear, n ParamedicGirl do it an follow THEIR example, n avoid mine.

 

[bear06]

Yes, and there has to be a charitable way for everyone to come to a consensus on the matter. It is disturbing to see so many threads in this part of the forum locked because of one reason or another. They start out generally as good conversations and become rants or worse. I know the moderator here isn’t censoring us, only making it so all can come and enjoy the forum as was originally intended.

Well, I don’t believe we can actually come to a consensus on this matter when both parties believe that their position is in line with the Church and they are both different. We can’t really both be right when some agree that SSPX bishops were rightly excommunicated and declared in schism and others say that they were wrongly excommunicated and they aren’t in schism, can we? That said, I think it would be nice to focus on the fact tha many of us do share a wish to see the whole situation reconciled.

 

[BobP123]

Easy - they celebrate the sacraments while suspended! Duh! Confecting the Eucharist while suspended is an incredibly grave abuse of the sacrament, not just disobedience.
…
It is not our place to condemn individuals, but it is most certainly our place to condemn objectively immoral activity. Whether their sincerity gets them an ultimate pass for their objectively evil actions, we have a duty to point out the errors of such activity lest others be emboldened to similarly imperil themselves.

Then how do you explain the Church’s position on all vernacular, complete elimination of Latin, dancing, communion in the hand, altar girls, EM, et al, which have allegedly been started as abuses but now are tolerated if not “accepted”? Seems the argument is that they are NOW OK made them ALWAYS OK.

 

[agent_grey]

I think it has to due with trying to find a priesthood and tradition that refuses the so called Novus Ordo. but still has lines to the church as it existed prior to V2.

My understanding is that any Catholic church with a connection to the vatacan Bishop must perform the new mass. Too many traditionalists the priest that is willing to perform the N.O. is invalid(in the mind of the traditionalist). There is then a logical conclusion to try and find a priesthood with a line to pre V2 yet never accepting V2.

hope that helps.

Yeshua bless!

 

[xsuasox]

The Oratorians of St. Philip Neri also celebrate the TLM.

Perhaps it is because it might be easier to get to an SSPX chapel and some are ignorant of the problems associated with the SSPX. There are three parishes in Toronto that celebrate the TLM. One of them is run by the Oratorians, I don’t know who runs the other two. There is also an SSPX parish in Toronto. For me, the SSPX chapel is much easier to get to than the other TLM parishes, although I would never go to it.

And then there are people who genuinely support the SSPX.

Maybe in canada…
all the parishes in my county are run by those same Oratarians (The first group established in the US) and are churches aren’t known to be too traditional. But they’re a great group of men, and I love 'em to death anyways.

 

[down_under]

Well, I don’t believe we can actually come to a consensus on this matter when both parties believe that their position is in line with the Church and they are both different. We can’t really both be right when some agree that SSPX bishops were rightly excommunicated and declared in schism and others say that they were wrongly excommunicated and they aren’t in schism, can we? That said, I think it would be nice to focus on the fact tha many of us do share a wish to see the whole situation reconciled.

Well the whole problem is much bigger than the tlm unfortunatly as stated so accurately a while back when I asked what they would do if the whole movement was declared a schism. I was quite pointedly possibly poilitely told they would stay where they were the gaultlet was already thrown down. which was the point. its like getting to close and personal with a devotion that has not been approved. you need to be careful because the church has the athority to rule on it. If they rule agianst what you think is right. now you are in a sticky place. you have to choose between the church you love and the devotion you love. real easy to find yourself on the outside of the church looking in. That is why it is not recommended. least you form an emotional attachment to a movement that goes right off the deep end into schism. We hope the approval of the TLM will bring closure, but only time will tell if it comes and if it brings closure. or is the bishops who have grown use to being on the outside stay there and force the issue a little further in a direction noone really wants to go. We want to fix how christians are living which in many instances is sinful and shameful. not what or how they believe.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Then how do you explain the Church’s position on all vernacular, complete elimination of Latin, dancing, communion in the hand, altar girls, EM, et al, which have allegedly been started as abuses but now are tolerated if not “accepted”? Seems the argument is that they are NOW OK made them ALWAYS OK.

The fact that something is now morally permissible doesn’t retroactively justify doing it when this was not so. The Dutch Catholics of the 60s-80s (as an embodiment of the many innovations you’ve cited) were in the wrong in so many ways, and the pope’s eventually changing discipline to accomodate them doesn’t excuse them from the objective evil of decades of abuse. If you knew me well enough you’d realize just how much of a stickler I am for obedience, even when it means you have to replace a better traditional practice with a novel mandated one, so my condemnation of abuse is meant to swab both sides of the deck.

PS - If it seems like the argument runs “now okay, always okay,” you’ve simply been arguing with the wrong people.

 

[BobP123]

The fact that something is now morally permissible doesn’t retroactively justify doing it when this was not so. The Dutch Catholics of the 60s-80s (as an embodiment of the many innovations you’ve cited) were in the wrong in so many ways, and the pope’s eventually changing discipline to accomodate them doesn’t excuse them from the objective evil of decades of abuse. If you knew me well enough you’d realize just how much of a** stickler I am for obedience**, even when it means you have to replace a better traditional practice with a novel mandated one, so my condemnation of abuse is meant to swab both sides of the deck.

PS - If it seems like the argument runs “now okay, always okay,” you’ve simply been arguing with the wrong people.

And then there is the little matter of attending something you think is permissible, then later you find out everything you had attended had been invalid, such as the Anglican Mass. That’s right, Pope Leo XIII RETROACTIVELY invalidated all their Masses!!!

What’s to stop a future Pope from doing the same? Where’s this obedience thing going to take you when you should have known better with the formed conscience that God provided you with?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

And then there is the little matter of attending something you think is permissible, then later you find out everything you had attended had been invalid, such as the Anglican Mass. That’s right, Pope Leo XIII RETROACTIVELY invalidated all their Masses!!!

What’s to stop a future Pope from doing the same? Where’s this obedience thing going to take you when you should have known better with the formed conscience that God provided you with?

You can’t retroactively invalidate a sacrament - it was either valid or wasn’t, is now (if previous defects have been supplied, such as the baptism of a spouse) or isn’t. What do you do if you’ve thought something was permissible, then find out it isn’t or is no longer? You stop going, recognize that your error was in good faith, and start doing what is permissible. I don’t see the insurmountable conundrum there. Using “conscience” to trump the law of the Church - which cannot be vicious - sounds very spirit of Vatican II.

 

[bear06]

And then there is the little matter of attending something you think is permissible, then later you find out everything you had attended had been invalid, such as the Anglican Mass. That’s right, Pope Leo XIII RETROACTIVELY invalidated all their Masses!!!

What’s to stop a future Pope from doing the same? Where’s this obedience thing going to take you when you should have known better with the formed conscience that God provided you with?

You’ve actually just proven the point with your example but you’ve just got the players in the wrong parts.

Beside that, to say that a future pope will invalidate the Novus Ordo Mass, you’d have to be saying #1- that the priests are invalidly ordained and #2 that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid. The SSPX doesn’t even do this. This would be the sedevacantist position. The Church (i.e. the one with the Pope) can’t promulgate an invalid Mass.

 

[BobP123]

You can’t retroactively invalidate a sacrament - it was either valid or wasn’t, is now (if previous defects have been supplied, such as the baptism of a spouse) or isn’t. What do you do if you’ve thought something was permissible, then find out it isn’t or is no longer? You stop going, recognize that your error was in good faith, and start doing what is permissible. I don’t see the insurmountable conundrum there. Using “conscience” to trump the law of the Church - which cannot be vicious - sounds very spirit of Vatican II.

Ok, let’s try it with Pope Paul VI’s Progressio Populorum. Have you read that? What about Catholics who only read that and put full credibility of that instead of Humanae Vitae? Which is the law of the Church to them?

My point is that if there seems to be conflicting laws of the Church, one must rely on his own formed conscience to which one is right or, at least, sounds right. What else can you do, take a vote?

 

[parvenu74]

Ok, let’s try it with Pope Paul VI’s Progressio Populorum. Have you read that? What about Catholics who only read that and put full credibility of that instead of Humanae Vitae? Which is the law of the Church to them?

My point is that if there seems to be conflicting laws of the Church, one must rely on his own formed conscience to which one is right or, at least, sounds right. What else can you do, take a vote?

I think the rules are that you go with the “heavier” document (with Ex Cathedra statements being the heaviest, of course). If they are both the same (as in this case they are both Encyclicals) then you go with the later one. If either/both contradict or obscure the Church’s traditional teaching, you go with the last clear teaching that is consistent with tradition since the truths of Faith and Morality don’t change.