SSPX, Here's The Problem We Have,

  • Thread starter Thread starter adstrinity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ConstantineTG said:
So its okay to disobey the Pope who has supreme authority over the Church?
Click to expand...
It is theoretically possible for conditions to exist under which it would be okay. The argument of the SSPX is that such conditions did exist. If you wish to disagree with them, you need to understand that argument and make a counter-argument to it. You cannot appeal to an analogy to something that is intrinsically evil.
 
StTommyMore said:
This much is true. This is also where Traditionalists have a very good point. Where the Latin Mass grew slowly, the same is not true of the Novus Ordo. Of course, that has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the NO, but it did not develop over time the way the previous liturgy did, and as such, is something to consider and ponder.
Click to expand...
It would also be untrue to pretend what we call OF today was a revolution of the 60’s, Vatican II and Pope Paul VI… You see discussion of the new mass in the 1912 publication “The Mass: A Study of Roman Liturgy” by Fr Adrian Fortescue, which is a classic on the development of the Mass. Clearly more time was spent on this than people readily care to admit.

The Vatican says OF is the valid, more over ordinary Mass. That should be good enough for any traditional Catholic, it’s heart breaking that any would tend to schism over this. If one prefers the EF, then you have recourse to petition your parish, or Bishop for access to it. Pray and you will receive, keep asking and you will get it. But to schism over it, is just unthinkable, at least to me.
 
crazzeto said:
It would also be untrue to pretend what we call OF today was a revolution of the 60’s, Vatican II and Pope Paul VI… You see discussion of the new mass in the 1912 publication “The Mass: A Study of Roman Liturgy” by Fr Adrian Fortescue, which is a classic on the development of the Mass. Clearly more time was spent on this than people readily care to admit.

The Vatican says OF is the valid, more over ordinary Mass. That should be good enough for any traditional Catholic, it’s heart breaking that any would tend to schism over this. If one prefers the EF, then you have recourse to petition your parish, or Bishop for access to it. Pray and you will receive, keep asking and you will get it. But to schism over it, is just unthinkable, at least to me.
Click to expand...
I agree 10000%! As with most issues, the truth is not to be found in the extremes, but in the middle.
 
adstrinity said:
That being said, did the Church ever fully excommunicate anybody else and then retract it? St. Joan of Arc? Anybody?
Click to expand...
Saint Joan’s trial was presided over by a bishop who had no jurisdiction and who denied her appeal to the Council of Basel and the Pope. Her excommunication was local, at most, and not upheld, but rather rejected by the Holy See, which reopened the original trial and found her to be innocent. She was never excommunicated by the Holy See.
 
Timothysis said:
Is not the Church of today the same Church of Christ that has always existed?
Click to expand...
In one sense, yes, absolutely. In another sense, no, absolutely not, although it does retain vestiges of its Traditional self.

That which was condemned yesterday is taught today, ie the false ecumenism and religious freedom. That which was explicated in no uncertain terms yesterday, is done so ambiguously today, ie the prayers of the Liturgy.

But these of course, and others are at the core of the great debate for the past forty some odd years.
 
floresco said:
Hey, I’m a faithful Catholic. I am not scandalized and grieved over what he did.
Click to expand...
Suffice it to say that there were faithful Catholics who were scandalized by his actions in defiance of the Successor to Saint Peter.
 
crazzeto said:
It would also be untrue to pretend what we call OF today was a revolution of the 60’s, Vatican II and Pope Paul VI… You see discussion of the new mass in the 1912 publication “The Mass: A Study of Roman Liturgy” by Fr Adrian Fortescue, which is a classic on the development of the Mass. Clearly more time was spent on this than people readily care to admit.

The Vatican says OF is the valid, more over ordinary Mass. That should be good enough for any traditional Catholic, it’s heart breaking that any would tend to schism over this. If one prefers the EF, then you have recourse to petition your parish, or Bishop for access to it. Pray and you will receive, keep asking and you will get it. But to schism over it, is just unthinkable, at least to me.
Click to expand...
Sensible post.
 
Does anybody here think that attacking the beloved founder of the SSPX and stirring up bad feeling is a good way to work toward reconciliation with them? Just wondering. :rolleyes:
 
maurin said:
In one sense, yes, absolutely. In another sense, no, absolutely not, although it does retain vestiges of its Traditional self.

That which was condemned yesterday is taught today, ie the false ecumenism and religious freedom. That which was explicated in no uncertain terms yesterday, is done so ambiguously today, ie the prayers of the Liturgy.

But these of course, and others are at the core of the great debate for the past forty some odd years.
Click to expand...
Would Christ ever abandon his Church? No
 
maurin said:
In one sense, yes, absolutely. In another sense, no, absolutely not, although it does retain vestiges of its Traditional self.

That which was condemned yesterday is taught today, ie the false ecumenism and religious freedom. That which was explicated in no uncertain terms yesterday, is done so ambiguously today, ie the prayers of the Liturgy.

But these of course, and others are at the core of the great debate for the past forty some odd years.
Click to expand...
This is a tad off topic, but I need clarification. What do you mean “false ecumenism”? I hear this phrase bandied about, and before I say anything, I want to make sure we are on the same page.
 
floresco said:
Does anybody here think that attacking the beloved founder of the SSPX and stirring up bad feeling is a good way to work toward reconciliation with them? Just wondering. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
A possible conclusion is that the defamers and detractors don’t want reconciliation. Every age needs its scapegoat.
 
floresco said:
Does anybody here think that attacking the beloved founder of the SSPX and stirring up bad feeling is a good way to work toward reconciliation with them? Just wondering. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes…perhaps we should parallel our behavior to that of our Pope. I don’t hear any of this comdemnation of the Archbishop coming out of the vatican these days.
 
StTommyMore said:
This is a tad off topic, but I need clarification. What do you mean “false ecumenism”? I hear this phrase bandied about, and before I say anything, I want to make sure we are on the same page.
Click to expand...
In a nushell, and very briefly, it means, to me at least, that error has rights.
 
crazzeto said:
It would also be untrue to pretend what we call OF today was a revolution of the 60’s, Vatican II and Pope Paul VI… You see discussion of the new mass in the 1912 publication “The Mass: A Study of Roman Liturgy” by Fr Adrian Fortescue, which is a classic on the development of the Mass. Clearly more time was spent on this than people readily care to admit.

The Vatican says OF is the valid, more over ordinary Mass. That should be good enough for any traditional Catholic, it’s heart breaking that any would tend to schism over this. If one prefers the EF, then you have recourse to petition your parish, or Bishop for access to it. Pray and you will receive, keep asking and you will get it. But to schism over it, is just unthinkable, at least to me.
Click to expand...
sure. here is just a sample what the House of a King should be. the above. below it is what we think that a king should have.

montfort.org.br/index.php?secao=veritas&subsecao=igreja&artigo=missa-nova&lang=bra
 
Magnus467 said:
Would Christ ever abandon his Church? No
Click to expand...
I do believe it might take some calisthenics to make that inference from my post. For me the Society is proof positive that Christ continues visibly and without a doubt to keep His Promise.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Suffice it to say that there were faithful Catholics who were scandalized by his actions in defiance of the Successor to Saint Peter.
Click to expand...
And there were faithful Catholics who were scandalized by the way the Novus Ordo was introduced and the Tridentine Mass apparently abrogated. Their worship was changed and their sacred objects destroyed. It was a time of distress and confusion. Archbishop Lefebvre was motivated by concern for these souls. He was a man with decades of faithful service to the Church and, first of all, a pastor of souls. While it is possible that what he did was wrong (and I am not sure about this) I have seen nothing that leads me to think he acted from the bad motives being attributed to him in this thread.
 
Timothysis said:
Is not the Church of today the same Church of Christ that has always existed?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for some, it is not. Today we have the Conciliar Church, as opposed to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostalic Church that Jesus founded. As in:
Jordan_Francis said:
No, I would not give him a pass. He pitched tradition. Kind of like what the Concilliar Church has done.
Click to expand...
This attempt to re-label the Catholic Church is a red flag, for the “Conciliar Church” is the one that carries the Keys of Peter. That is why the SSPX is attempting to be reconciled to the Holy Father. There will still be those who talk out of both sides of their mouth, using this label as a separater why claiming the SSPX is not separated. Indeed, if the SSPX and the Holy Father do come to agreement, I fear there will be those that break away from the SSPX rather than rejoin the “Conciliar Church” for rest assured, Vatican II is not going to disappear of be denounced. Still, I think most SSPX will be happen to see a successful conclusion to these talks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top