SSPX - I dont get it

[Dr.Bombay]

demolitionman65:

YOU GO, GIRL!!!

The NO is VALID when it is said VALIDLY.

Hoenstly, I think part of the rad/trad agenda is to freeze the language in latinae. Which is absurd. Do you know why Latin was adopted in the first place? To make sure that the laity understood the Mass!! Then we got locked into it for 1500 years, the vernacular changed, and the Mass became inaccessible. Again.

Latin Mass is fine. But a valid Mass in the vernacular is just as good (if not better) so that the common people may understand.

Of course, one argument for using a dead language like Latin is the meaning doesn’t change over the years. Take, for example, this quote from my Douay-Rheims bible which I happened across the other day:

*"And as they were going together, she was moved by her husband to ask a field of her father, and she sighed as she sat on her **." Josue 15:18 (The *** is another word for donkey.)

That has an unfortunate conotation nowadays, which was completely different from what was intended when it was first translated into English however many years ago.

And it will be the same with our Mass. One hundred years from now, people will probably laugh hysterically looking back at the first English translations of the Mass in 1970.

I’m not saying vernacular Masses are bad and they certainly aren’t invalid. Just that they have to be constantly updated. Quite a bit of work, if you ask me.

 

[pnewton]

geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9463/noschism.html

no schism no excommunication

It is not surprising that any one who does not care about following the rules would be supportive of other who are disobedient to authority. For instance, one the rule here on the CA forums state you are not to post multiple posts are try to push your agenda as in:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43231&page=2

I have yet to see any poster have a problem with this who was not a Protestant out to convert lost Catholics… or SSPX!

 

[demolitionman65]

at Dr. Bombay’s post.

Which is exactly what I am talking about. . .

 

[HagiaSophia]

geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9463/noschism.html

no schism no excommunication

And your source for this information is who precisely? Oh, an SSPX site. What would you expect them to say for heaven’s sake.

The problem with their “findings” is that they do not have the functional nor the administrative authority to “find” for themselves.

Kind of like having a legal charge thrown at you, taking yourself to court and informing it that you have “found” that you are not guilty.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Dr. Bombay:

Of course, one argument for using a dead language like Latin is the meaning doesn’t change over the years.

Actually Latin is not a dead language.

There is an office in the Vatican where new words are created for the Latin Language. After all, Latin is found on the ATM’s in the Vatican.

Also this argument does not hold water when one looks at the Church as a whole, rather than just looking at the Latin Catholic Church and taking that as if it is the only one.

All the Byzantine Churches have used the vernacular for the Liturgy since the beginning.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Though I’m staying away from the SSPX for other reasons, I’ve got to say that based on what has been presented as the grounds for the excommunication of the bishops involved, I can’t understand how the excommunication is still held to be valid even though the authorities delegated cometance in dealing with them by the pope (e.g. the Ecclesia Dei comission) keep coming to the conclusion that they find no attitude of schism, where the intent of schism is very clearly the justificantion given in Ecclesia Dei declaring they had automatically excommunicated themselves.

That’s even more confusing when there is a warning that though attending SSPX chapels occasionally has no penalty but that one has to be careful to avoid the attitude of schism perpetuated by the SSPX. Add in the declarationsone even give a modest donation at SSPX chapels and that such attendance fulfills one’s Sunday obligation, and the issue get really murky.

On a related note on a precedent I’ve seen raised by SSPX affiliates as a defense, was the excommunication of St. Athanasius valid untill repealled (and thus were the faithful and other priests supporting him acting in unlawful disobedience to the pontiff irregardeless of him later perservering) or was the pope’s declaration of excommunication invalid in fact the whole time?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Ray_Scheel:

Though I’m staying away from the SSPX for other reasons, I’ve got to say that based on what has been presented as the grounds for the excommunication of the bishops involved, I can’t understand how the excommunication is still held to be valid even though the authorities delegated cometance in dealing with them by the pope (e.g. the Ecclesia Dei comission) keep coming to the conclusion that they find no attitude of schism, where the intent of schism is very clearly the justificantion given in Ecclesia Dei declaring they had automatically excommunicated themselves.

I do not see where you get this.

The excommunication occured when Lefebvre disobeyed the Holy Father and made 3 bishops. Those bishops were excommunicated when they allowed themselves to be made bishops against the will of the Holy Father.

I also have not heard that the Ecclesia Dei comission says that there is no attitude of schism in the SSPX. The SSPX denies the Holy Father, they may say they follow him but they do not. They set up a competing jurisdiction and hear confessions, do weddings, chrismate, and grant annullments without the proper authority. And thats just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Jakub]

You guys/gals really make me laugh, you spend endless hours attacking Lefebrve & the SSPX, but are very quiet in reponse to the modern abusers and rebels who disobey Rome daily, I don’t see you all calling for their excommunication, how sad is that ?

If you want to do something correctly then list them all.

And if the East can have and use at least 2 liturgies, I cannot deny the West from at least 2, is there not room for both ?

james

 

[Ray_Scheel]

ByzCath:

I do not see where you get this.

From a letter written by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos (head of teh Ecclesia Dei comission), dated April 2, 2002, to Bishop Bernard Fellay, excerpted in the link below and available in its enterity elsewhere on the net
latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2002_SU_Ferrara_1.html

In particular, these quotes by the Cardinal lead to my confusion:

After these events, noting your good will and basing myself on the fact that your Fraternity certainly was not disseminating any heresy, nor nurturing schismatic attitudes, …

and

… also because there was not disclosed any inkling of heresy nor any will to incur a formal schism …

I’ve also seen timelines (admittedly only on SSPX biased sites) where several of the pope’s delegates were removed from dealing with the SSPX in earlier negotiations as the conclusions of thier investigations started to favor the arguments presented by the SSPX.

The other things you mentioned are why I’m staying away from the SSPX - whether or not the suspension of thier society and later excommunications were valid, they now lack jurisdiction and should be avoiding enganging in activities which require jurisdiction. But based on what hte competent authorities themselves are actually saying, there are real problems with the blanket accusations of schism unless one redefines what it takes to actually enter into schism.

[fixed formatting issues form cut and paste]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Jakub:

And if the East can have and use at least 2 liturgies, I cannot deny the West from at least 2, is there not room for both ?

Sure, with indult.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ray_Scheel:

there are real problems with the blanket accusations of schism unless one redefines what it takes to actually enter into schism.
]

It’s pretty clear-cut. The Pope, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Successor to Saint Peter, says they’re in schism in Ecclesia Dei.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Ray_Scheel:

From a letter written by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos (head of teh Ecclesia Dei comission), dated April 2, 2002, to Bishop Bernard Fellay, excerpted in the link below and available in its enterity elsewhere on the net

Ray,
That is fine, that is the opinion of one Cardinal in a private letter to Bishop Fellay.

Now tell me how this changes what the Holy Father said in Ecclesia Dei.

Until the SSPX fully enters communion with the Holy Father they will be in schism.

As schism is defined as… (italics emphasis added)

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

And here it is from Canon Law

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
**
Now I think we could even go further and argue that the SSPX are in heresy as they deny that the Holy Father can change the form of the Mass (a discipline). The SSPX also has issues with the current code of Canon Law.

Jakub:

You guys/gals really make me laugh, you spend endless hours attacking Lefebrve & the SSPX, but are very quiet in reponse to the modern abusers and rebels who disobey Rome daily, I don’t see you all calling for their excommunication, how sad is that ?

If you want to do something correctly then list them all.

And if the East can have and use at least 2 liturgies, I cannot deny the West from at least 2, is there not room for both ?

james

James,
Seems you do not fully understand.

Yes in the Byzantine Church we have the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and the Divine Liturgy of St Basil the Great but as far as the person in the pew can tell, they are identical.

The only differences between the two Liturgies are the priest’s private prayers and the opening and closeing of the Royal Doors. All of the Litanies are the same, all of the responses are the same.

What I find funny is that all the rad-trads seems to complain about the “abuses” as if this is something that happens everywhere all the time. As if it is something about the Mass that causes these abuses. Seems to me that the Trad Latin Mass can be and has been the subject of abuses.

The abuses have nothing to do with it and are just brought up as an excuse.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

ByzCath:

What I find funny is that all the rad-trads seems to complain about the “abuses” as if this is something that happens everywhere all the time. As if it is something about the Mass that causes these abuses. Seems to me that the Trad Latin Mass can be and has been the subject of abuses.

The abuses have nothing to do with it and are just brought up as an excuse.

Well put, as always. They fail to distinguish between the nature of the Mass (to assert that the NO Mass is of its nature flawed is a heresy, since that is an assertion that the Popes, having promulgated It and celebrated It, have thereby lead the faithful into error) and the abuses of that Mass (which should concern every faithful Catholic).

 

[Ray_Scheel]

ByzCath:

Ray,
That is fine, that is the opinion of one Cardinal in a private letter to Bishop Fellay.

Now tell me how this changes what the Holy Father said in Ecclesia Dei.

Not just “a” cardinal, but the head of the comittee created by the Ecclesia Dei comission to speak on the matter, in correspondence involved withteh continuing negotiation to bring the SSPX back intot hte fold. Unless you are saying that the head of the comission established by Ecclesia Dei isn’t competent to speak on the issue that comission was created to address, we have a case of the pope’s voice on the matter finding no trace of the grounds assumed by the pope to declare the bishops involved had invoked self-excommunication. That is significant. You will also note that the cardinal has also dismissed in advance the claim that the SSPX is perpetuating heresy. I wouldn’t casually brush off (or contradict) letters by Cardinals Ratzinger or Arinze in thier official capacities, and see no reason to do so in this case either, though if there is a distinction that can be elaborated on I’m certainly open to hearing it.

That in turn brings me back to the question of the status of St. Athanasius during the time of his (supposed?) excommunication. If there is consensus that his excommunication was valid even though the eyes of history show his actions to be heroic, then the case is more clear. But if the understanding is that the excommunication was technically invalid and that his supporters committed no fault - which is my understanding up to this point - then the uncertainty remains.

And to be clear, I haven’t attended an SSPX mass in close to a year, and regularily attend (and receive) at the local diosecean parish. I haven’t even driven to the closest Indult (an hour away) in a couple of months. I’ve got very few issues with a well-said “novus ordo” outside of translation nit-pickings, though the recent turnover at the ICEL indicates my misgivings are probably shared further up the food chain. But I think the level of condemnation aimed at the SSPX in public is far and above - and frequently contradicted by - what I’m seeing from the relevant voices within the Vatican. Legitimate criticism I have no problem with, but I don’t see why legitimate criticism would require minimizing the most current statements by the head of the competent Vatican comission.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Ray_Scheel:

Not just “a” cardinal, but the head of the comittee created by the Ecclesia Dei comission to speak on the matter, in correspondence involved withteh continuing negotiation to bring the SSPX back intot hte fold.

This is another point that many seem to have a hard time understanding.

Unless this “letter” you are speaking of is address as coming from the Ecclesia Dei committee then it does not speak for the committee.

As it appears to be addressed as from the Cardinal, not everything said by the Cardinal comes from the committee.

It also appears that this is a private letter from the Cardinal to the Bishop, so it carries no weight.

Also, a Cardinal, no matter who is he nor what committee he sites on or chairs, can not over rule the Holy Father.

The only way something from the committtee is binding is if the Holy Father promulgates it.

Unless you are saying that the head of the comission established by Ecclesia Dei isn’t competent to speak on the issue that comission was created to address, we have a case of the pope’s voice on the matter finding no trace of the grounds assumed by the pope to declare the bishops involved had invoked self-excommunication. That is significant. You will also note that the cardinal has also dismissed in advance the claim that the SSPX is perpetuating heresy. I wouldn’t casually brush off (or contradict) letters by Cardinals Ratzinger or Arinze in thier official capacities, and see no reason to do so in this case either, though if there is a distinction that can be elaborated on I’m certainly open to hearing it.

Again, this Cardinal can not say other than the Holy Father has said. The leaders of the SSPX are excommunicated and they are in schism.

You seem to wish to ignore what the Pope has said on this matter.

 

[Jakub]

David,

You & your compadres are playing dodge ball again, redirecting to the SSPX and Lefebvre and deflecting from the present day offenders and abusers, not calling for their excommunication etc.

Please apply this conception to the present as well as the past.

I guess many here have selective hearing, reading and obedience, be it to the past, present and future.

Of course I am not going to waste my time on close minded and short sighted people who don’t think with both the heart and mind.

Adios,
james

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Jakub:

David,

You & your compadres are playing dodge ball again, redirecting to the SSPX and Lefebvre and deflecting from the present day offenders and abusers, not calling for their excommunication etc.

Well now… Unlike you and your comrades, we are able to keep to a single topic. This thread is about the SSPX, not about abuses of the Mass.

It is you guys who try to redirect the argument against the Church.

I guess many here have selective hearing, reading and obedience, be it to the past, present and future.

This is not the case. The case is that you are taking a private letter from one individual to another where the first individual expresses an opinion. If you can show me an offical document from the Ecclesia Dei committee that the Holy Father has promulgated, then I will believe you.

But until then, what has been said by the Church, that the SSPX leaders are excommunited and that the SSPX are in schism stands.

No one in the Church can over rule the Pope.

Of course I am not going to waste my time on close minded and short sighted people who don’t think with both the heart and mind.

Adios,
james

Yes, the final word of those who fight from a position with no proof on their side, when they are losing an argument, personally attack the individual rather than provide proof for you side, but then you can’t provide any proof as there is none.

 

[dumspirospero]

Why are we still having arguments on this topic…the undeniable facts are that the SSPX ARE IN SCHISM…they ARE excommunicated and there are numerous reasons why they are and they have been exhausted on other threads. No one should support these guys…but that doesn’t mean we shut the door on them either. I believe we should try to mend fences and bring them back into full communion with Rome.

Why would someone excommunicate themselves by taking part in the SSPX I will never know…because if your love for the Latin Mass is that great, and trust me…I love it…then do what I do…go to an Indult TLM.

 

[jlw]

dumspirospero:

Why are we still having arguments on this topic…the undeniable facts are that the SSPX ARE IN SCHISM…they ARE excommunicated and there are numerous reasons why they are and they have been exhausted on other threads. No one should support these guys…but that doesn’t mean we shut the door on them either. I believe we should try to mend fences and bring them back into full communion with Rome.

Why would someone excommunicate themselves by taking part in the SSPX I will never know…because if your love for the Latin Mass is that great, and trust me…I love it…then do what I do…go to an Indult TLM.

AMEN.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

ByzCath:

If you can show me an offical document from the Ecclesia Dei committee that the Holy Father has promulgated, then I will believe you.

~ At the bottom of this post is what I’m basing both the authority I assign to Curial posts and why the president of a Comittee is the solitary decision maker in the region of his competence until contradicted by the Holy Father, as the rest of the comittee members are (though well educated and certainly having valuable opinions just advisors. Until there is a clarification from the pope, I don’t see any reason to doubt the conclusions of the president of any pontifical comission, as such statrements (or in this case, efforts at negotiation and investigating claims) are implicitly considered to be made in the pope’s name and authority until shown otherwise.

If someone tried to make the argument in this forum that every decision made by other curial posts changing the status quo on practical matters had to be promulgated by the pope before being legitimate, they’d be run through the meat grinder before they could refresh the page. I see no special exceptions limiting the authority of the president of the Ecclesia Dei comission in its area of competence, and am wondering where you are getting your opinion that Curial decisions require promulgation by the Pope before being viewed as binding or even relevant when such a decision is within the competence of a particular commission.

vatican.va/roman_curia/
THE ROMAN CURIA
In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.
CHRISTUS DOMINUS, 9

And:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_pro_20051996_en.html
The commission has a president, Cardinal Angelo Felici, a secretary, Msgr. Camille Perl, and several assistants. A group of “permanent experts” composed of representatives of the dicasteries concerned offer their advice and expertise.