SSPX Could Return This Week - Agreement With Rome Near

[BrendanD]

You are wrong because Cardinal Hoyes is wrong. Pope John Paul II declared them to be in schism in the Ecclesia Dei document and that is the only valid declaration and it has not been revoked. The only one who can change it is Pope Benedict XVI. It is irrelevant what a particular cardinal or bishop might say because that it simply their opinion.

The Pope personally selected Cardinal Hoyos as the President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which is in charge of handling relations between the Vatican and the SSPX. It’s hardly obedient to ignore the statements of the Bishop chosen by the Pope himself to work on these issues.

Hoyos explains that Lefebvre’s schismatic action did not make all members of the whole SSPX organization schismatics. I’ve never been to an SSPX Mass, and I don’t plan to, but I’m amazed that some Catholics truly enjoy calling them schismatics without regard for the views of Vatican officials selected by the Pope himself.

 

[LilyM]

Pope John Paul II is dead and his actions were unjust. Archbishop Lefebvre had a valid doctrinal case in that there was a state of necessity because the Church is in crisis.

Cardinal Hoyos stated the the four ex-communications affected only four men.

It is up to Pope Benedict to do the right thing, right the previous wrong, and lift the ex-communications.

So you’re an expert on the interpretation of Canon Law and an expert on judging the necessity of Lefebvre’s ordinations now, as well as on everything else?

 

[Dauphin]

Pope John Paul II is dead and his actions were unjust. Archbishop Lefebvre had a valid doctrinal case in that there was a state of necessity because the Church is in crisis.

Cardinal Hoyos stated the the four ex-communications affected only four men.

It is up to Pope Benedict to do the right thing, right the previous wrong, and lift the ex-communications.

It’s up to Bishop Williamson to accede to the five conditions, and the acknowledge that they entail absolutely no doctrinal compromise.

He should withdraw his deluded statements.

 

[saint_rafael]

So you’re an expert on the interpretation of Canon Law and an expert on judging the necessity of Lefebvre’s ordinations now, as well as on everything else?

I just hold the position that many traditional Catholics hold in Lefebvre’s valid case. Much ink has been spilled in defense of “state of neccessity.”

There are many books and articles dealing with the defense of Lefebvre and necessity. Look them up if you want.

 

[saint_rafael]

It’s up to Bishop Williamson to accede to the five conditions, and the acknowledge that they entail absolutely no doctrinal compromise.

He should withdraw his deluded statements.

Bishop Fellay is in charge of the SSPX and not Williamson.

Fellay is the superior of the SSPX and everyone must wait for his decision.

 

[Margarite]

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/the-holy-sees-5-conditions-for-the-sspx/

Please read this article, it is wonderful!

 

[bobzills]

I read somewhere that there are those who are contesting the validity of the confessions and marriages performed by the SSPX. Does that mean then that if SSPX agrees to the conditions, that all of the confessions and marriages performed by SSPX will be declared retroactively valid? How can it be possible to retroactively validate a Sacrament?

 

[BrendanD]

I read somewhere that there are those who are contesting the validity of the confessions and marriages performed by the SSPX. Does that mean then that if SSPX agrees to the conditions, that all of the confessions and marriages performed by SSPX will be declared retroactively valid? How can it be possible to retroactively validate a Sacrament?

There’s an argument that the SSPX priests can’t hear confession because the bishops haven’t granted them the necessary faculties. The SSPX say that the Church supplies them with the jurisdiction to absolve in these extenuating circumstances. I’m not that familiar with this subject, but that’s my understanding of the two sides.

I would think that the Vatican would have spoken out by now if it believed that SSPX confessions were invalid. I can’t see the Church letting millions of Catholics to go decades without receiving absolution.

 

[bobzills]

There’s an argument that the SSPX priests can’t hear confession because the bishops haven’t granted them the necessary faculties. .

I heard that a canon lawyer, Mr. Pete Vere, says that these confessions and marriages are invalid. Now if the SSPX were to sign the agreement, would that mean that all those confessions and marriages would suddenly become valid?

 

[thistle]

Pope John Paul II is dead and his actions were unjust. Archbishop Lefebvre had a valid doctrinal case in that there was a state of necessity because the Church is in crisis.

Cardinal Hoyos stated the the four ex-communications affected only four men.

It is up to Pope Benedict to do the right thing, right the previous wrong, and lift the ex-communications.

You are treading on thin ice slandering Pope John Paul II. I didn’t realise you are equal to God in judging the Pope.
Stop being so pompous!!

The SSPX movement is in schism. It is what the Pope declared in writing that counts and not what a Cardinal talks about.
Although I did not mention the excommunications, you have brought them up and yes you are correct that the excommunications applied to the four at that time. However Ecclesia Dei makes it clear that those who will continue to support the schism are will also be subject to excommunication.
See the paragraph relating to this.

Ecclesia Dei:

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.

 

[pnewton]

I’m just wondering why you claim that its authenticity is debatable.

Again, I will not be drawn into this again, although I did address it in a thread specifically on that topic.

 

[bobzills]

You are treading on thin ice slandering Pope John Paul II. I didn’t realise you are equal to God in judging the Pope.
Stop being so pompous!!

The SSPX movement is in schism. It is what the Pope declared in writing that counts and not what a Cardinal talks about.
Although I did not mention the excommunications, you have brought them up and yes you are correct that the excommunications applied to the four at that time. However Ecclesia Dei makes it clear that those who will continue to support the schism are will also be subject to excommunication.
See the paragraph relating to this.

Ecclesia Dei:

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.

However the phrase here is “formal adherence to the schism”. What exactly is meant by this term? I thought that Cardinal Hoyos said that only the four bishops were excommunicated?

 

[laudamus_te]

I heard that a canon lawyer, Mr. Pete Vere, says that these confessions and marriages are invalid. Now if the SSPX were to sign the agreement, would that mean that all those confessions and marriages would suddenly become valid?

It is not up to Mr. Pete Vere to declare any sacraments invalid. Take the case of Campos as an example to answer your question.

 

[cazayoux]

I have a broader question.
If this reunification happens, won’t that open the door to the same happening for the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Could this, if it happens, be a positive in the eyes of these other separated brethren?

Let’s hope and pray!!

michel

 

[BrendanD]

I heard that a canon lawyer, Mr. Pete Vere, says that these confessions and marriages are invalid. Now if the SSPX were to sign the agreement, would that mean that all those confessions and marriages would suddenly become valid?

I really don’t know enough to say how that would be handled, but I sincerely doubt that Rome considers SSPX confessions/marriages invalid. I’m just guessing that if they did, they would have said something by now.

 

[laudamus_te]

Someone said that I was young and loyal to my parents, that is true. I am 19 and I am extremely loyal to my parents as I should be. But that does not mean that I am exaggerating or lying. My mother new when she left the SSPX, when it left the Church, that her family would stay and that there would be a rift “They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother”, but she knew that she had to follow Rome. “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

It was my mother’s sister who said that she could not fathom why God had given my mother six children only so that she could lead them to hell. It was my mother’s sister who, when my sister and I went over to Germany to help her during her last month of pregnancy with her four other children all under age 6, who wouldn’t take us to the local mass that was in union with Rome, so we had to walk over a mile each way, even though she had promised my mother that she would take us.

We do not prefer the NO, we have seen many abuses, my father has corrected many priests and choir directors, we have walked out of many masses; but we know that it is our duty to stay with Rome, so we continue to fight. That is why my father is insisting that all of us get a Catholic liberal arts education before we get our degrees, he wants us to have the college education to back up our words when we confront these people who cause the abuses.

I’m not looking for sympathy, I have dealt with it all my life, I am just trying to show the truth of the situation. My SSPX family lives in St. Marys, KS, that is one of the SSPX’s main hubs in the USA. Most of the people in St. Marys have the same attitude as my aunts and uncles and grandparents. When we lived there, none of my mother’s old friends from when she was in the SSPX, would talk to us because we went to the FSSP mass, or the NO, and because my mom wore pants and shorts. It isn’t a myth, this is real, though I know it sounds like something out of some weird movie.

They are like the Pharisees, they are so concerned with the rules, they forget the spirit of the law. They are so concerned with making sure they don’t even associate with people outside the SSPX, that they forget that person is their own flesh and blood. It is really strange.

I am just writing this because I feel that I have a unique perspective of the SSPX.
I prefer the EF, but I go to the OF because it is the right thing to do. I have family in the SSPX and my parents long to give in and live the easy life in the SSPX, but instead they have taught us to argue and prove ourselves to priests, bishops, and anyone else who crosses the line. Until I was 9 I attended mostly FSSP, then EWTN’s hybrid, then a really reverent NO, then now in Vegas, it is a weekly struggle to find a good mass. I have family in the SSPX, I have lived in a SSPX town, my grandfather owns a business that employs only SSPX members, I have a mother who was disowned by family and friends simply because she goes to a mass in a different language.
I have a unique perspective, it is a true perspective, I wish there was more hope for the SSPX, but they are so stubbornly wrong.

I said earlier that my priest was trying to learn Latin, I was corrected, he must just be trying to learn the EF, sorry I was just told that he was studying and trying to learn so he could say a EF.

Have a good day everyone, continue to pray for more workers in the vineyard.

It was I who said that you were young and loyal to your parents. It was not meant as an insult. I was young once, too, and am still loyal to my parents. But age and experience away from one’s parents does tend to change one’s outlook. All that aside, my main concern, as I said earlier, is your airing of family problems on a public forum. I can only imagine what you tell your close friends. Please beware of the sin of detraction. It is a very serious sin. Already, some comments on your story:

am sorry that those SSPX people are not living a true Catholic lifestyle as their self righteousness is shocking.

It’s always been amazing to me how people claim to be the “true” followers of Christ yet there appears to be no love in their hearts.

These people do not know your family. Yet they’ve already formed conclusions and made judgments on them from what you have said. It matters not if all that you have said is true. We are not allowed to reveal the sins of others, real or imagined. We must carry our crosses in silence, God in heaven knows our problems and deals with them in His way.

 

[pnewton]

(Sin )of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them

First, this place is anonymous. Second, I believe the poster cosiders her reason valid as it is germaine to the discussion and done with out any harm. But then I try to interpret deeds in the most favorable way.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

 

[Margarite]

Margarite,

I am not a SSPX member, but I support them. I myself go to the TLM in my diocese.

The SSPX are not schismatic and are inside the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Hoyos has made that clear in so many interviews.

Some SSPX members have no sensitivity, understanding or tact, but they hold the tradtional Catholic faith and traditional cultural Christian beliefs. They believe in the authority of the Popes and are loyal to Pope Benedict.

Traditional Catholicism includes traditional Catholics in the SSPX and traditional Catholics who belong to parishes of the diocese, along with the FSSP and ICK.

You are completely wrong. If the SSPX respected the authority of the Pope, they why don’t they do what the pope says? Why are the five conditions to them being regularized, why do those five conditions all have to do with respecting the authority and person of the pope? They were excommunicated, they are not in complete union with Rome, their masses are valid but not licit. They keep the name Catholic, but they refuse the terms under which that name should be used. They do not follow the Pope, thus they are not in full union with the Church. Please don’t say they respect the pope, when Bp. Fellay called the pope a “perfect liberal” in a sermon recently.
Have a wonderful day.

 

[Margarite]

Unfortunately, there was someone in another thread here claiming that Archbishop Lefebvre died in mortal sin and was definitively sentenced to hell because of the excommunication.

I’m sorry, according to the Church we can never condemn a person to hell, we can only condemn a condition of the soul, but we cannot know that anyone is in hell, unless it is divinely revealed.

The SSPX don’t say that all Novus Ordo Masses are invalid. They have an article on their website explaining that they don’t like the NO, but that they believe it is celebrated validly. They even published a tract defending the new rite of episcopal ordination against those that claim it’s invalid. We won’t get any closer to reconciliation by misrepresenting their beliefs.

What they say on their website, and what they actually preach are two completely separate things. They say they respect the authority of the Pope on their website, and yet they will not do what he says. They say they believe in the validity of the NO, yet, they would rather skip Sunday mass than attend a NO. The SSPX priests have even preached that it is better to skip Sunday mass than to attend a NO. The priests give permission for this. The SSPX members even question the validity of the FSSP masses because the FSSP priests accept and sometimes celebrate the NO mass. So, BrendanD, what you say may be true of their website, but it is not true in practice. I wish it was the way you say it is, but it is not.

 

[bobzills]

You are completely wrong. If the SSPX respected the authority of the Pope, they why don’t they do what the pope says? .

I guess it’s because they see problems with what happened to the Church since Vatican II. Do you want examples? There are many, but one that I see is the huge increase in marriage annulments. For example, in 1930, there were 9 marriage annulments per year in the USA, whereas in recent times it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year in the USA.