J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
This is a post from a thread about to be hijacked (I helped hijack it, sorry!). I told the poster I would start another thread, but I’ve got to get to school and make lesson plans. So feel free to chime in.
- Status
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
It is true that the SSPX accepts John Paul, and now Benedict the Sixteenth, as True Popes.
But their ATTITUDE is schismatic. How so?
They acknowledge Benedict as the Pope, but they feel
perfectly free to “sift” his encyclicals, etc. for those teachings which they decide are orthodox and traditional, and reject the rest. But if Benedict is a true Pope, as they claim to accept, you cannot lawfully sift the documents of his ordinary magisterium and claim parts of them to be heretical novelties, because the Pope’s ordinary magisterium itself cannot contain heresy.
Love,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
But their ATTITUDE is schismatic. How so?
They acknowledge Benedict as the Pope, but they feel
perfectly free to “sift” his encyclicals, etc. for those teachings which they decide are orthodox and traditional, and reject the rest. But if Benedict is a true Pope, as they claim to accept, you cannot lawfully sift the documents of his ordinary magisterium and claim parts of them to be heretical novelties, because the Pope’s ordinary magisterium itself cannot contain heresy.
Love,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Peace be with you!
The pope does not have to be speaking ex cathedra to be right about something. Do you think that the pope doesn’t know Canon Law as well as yourself and Michael Davies? Overseeing the Church is his job. JPII was a scholar as well, meaning that he knew Church doctrine darn well, and was backed in this by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I would venture to say that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger knew Canon Law better than anyone. If they say the SSPX are in schism, then the SSPX are in schism.
Also, one does not have to deny that the pope is the Vicar of Christ to constitute schism. To deny his AUTHORITY, and that of the Magesterium, over the Church is also schism. If someone simply chooses whether to do what they are told by the pope, and by doing so violates Canon Law (and the illicit ordination of bishops is an EXTREME violation), they are excommunicated and therefore in schism.
And the Jews and the Muslims did not at one point accept the authority of the pope, so that is a different issue entirely. The SSPX denies the validity of an INFALLIBLE Church council (VII). No schism there?
In Christ,
Rand
The pope does not have to be speaking ex cathedra to be right about something. Do you think that the pope doesn’t know Canon Law as well as yourself and Michael Davies? Overseeing the Church is his job. JPII was a scholar as well, meaning that he knew Church doctrine darn well, and was backed in this by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I would venture to say that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger knew Canon Law better than anyone. If they say the SSPX are in schism, then the SSPX are in schism.
Also, one does not have to deny that the pope is the Vicar of Christ to constitute schism. To deny his AUTHORITY, and that of the Magesterium, over the Church is also schism. If someone simply chooses whether to do what they are told by the pope, and by doing so violates Canon Law (and the illicit ordination of bishops is an EXTREME violation), they are excommunicated and therefore in schism.
And the Jews and the Muslims did not at one point accept the authority of the pope, so that is a different issue entirely. The SSPX denies the validity of an INFALLIBLE Church council (VII). No schism there?
In Christ,
Rand
T
tpraines
Guest
Very interesting comments, but I would bet the issue will go well beyond the understanding of most on this forum, except maybe the more senior apologists. Regrettable this issue (just like VaticanII) has become more of a cause about supporting your own personal beliefs than about the issues themselves. Speaking unauthoritatively, I thinkthat if it were not for some of the egos of the SSPX, they would be back in communion with Rome now. Yes, there are egos in play on both sides, but you cannot attend a meeting at the Vatican, preach unity and openness and then have one of the SSPX bishops pop off some personal ramblings about the validity of the Holy Fathers position. Just like some of the separated eastern churches, I think we would see unity if they did not try to bite the hand reaching out to them.
You ask for proof that egos are in the way? Explain why the SSPX in Brazil has returned to Rome and not the other bishops? The Priestly Society of Saint Peter is an acceptable old Latin Mass group, yet the SSPX doesn’t merge with them! I understand they want to come back, but only on their terms. i.e. no restrictions on the latin mass. Yes, liberal bishops are pushing their own agenda by not allowing it. Or at least by allowing it only in one parish, with only one service a month! But although I would like to see the widespread return of the old Mass, can you imagine some these priests (graduates of the good ole Post Vatican II american seminaries) trying to celebrate Mass? It would look worse than a Life Teen Mass! ha ha
From the rumblings I have read, SSPX wants Rome to renounce Vatican II. Yes, there were abuses in the name of “Spirit of Vatican II” But the Holy Roman Catholic Church cannot say that a meeting of the bishops of the world was not guided by the Holy Spirit! It is tragic the way Vatican II was abused by the liberals, especially here in America, but that doesn’t mean the documents of VII were in error!
We are seeing a slow change (sadly I say possibly a division) or at least a polarization of the conservative traditionists who see the errors and those liberals who want even more humanism in the Mass. But to ordain/consecrate without the authority of Rome is a tough position. I understand Archbishop Lefevre (sp?) had permission and sort of lost it without an official censoring from Rome, but he knew it was coming. He probably could have waited a little longer and got what he wanted.
I am not a Canon Lawyer. I am sort of fence sitting on this issue, since I have read a lot of the documents and whether the ordinations/consecrations are valid is well above my head. He knew he was going to get in trouble, but you can’t say that when he laid hands on those men that nothing happened! The Holy Spirit was in play and still is!
I met Archbishop Lefevre as a child and have recently met Bishop Timlin from PA and have attended Latin Masses before. So beautiful, so respectful… I am rambling… Interested in others thoughts!
You ask for proof that egos are in the way? Explain why the SSPX in Brazil has returned to Rome and not the other bishops? The Priestly Society of Saint Peter is an acceptable old Latin Mass group, yet the SSPX doesn’t merge with them! I understand they want to come back, but only on their terms. i.e. no restrictions on the latin mass. Yes, liberal bishops are pushing their own agenda by not allowing it. Or at least by allowing it only in one parish, with only one service a month! But although I would like to see the widespread return of the old Mass, can you imagine some these priests (graduates of the good ole Post Vatican II american seminaries) trying to celebrate Mass? It would look worse than a Life Teen Mass! ha ha
From the rumblings I have read, SSPX wants Rome to renounce Vatican II. Yes, there were abuses in the name of “Spirit of Vatican II” But the Holy Roman Catholic Church cannot say that a meeting of the bishops of the world was not guided by the Holy Spirit! It is tragic the way Vatican II was abused by the liberals, especially here in America, but that doesn’t mean the documents of VII were in error!
We are seeing a slow change (sadly I say possibly a division) or at least a polarization of the conservative traditionists who see the errors and those liberals who want even more humanism in the Mass. But to ordain/consecrate without the authority of Rome is a tough position. I understand Archbishop Lefevre (sp?) had permission and sort of lost it without an official censoring from Rome, but he knew it was coming. He probably could have waited a little longer and got what he wanted.
I am not a Canon Lawyer. I am sort of fence sitting on this issue, since I have read a lot of the documents and whether the ordinations/consecrations are valid is well above my head. He knew he was going to get in trouble, but you can’t say that when he laid hands on those men that nothing happened! The Holy Spirit was in play and still is!
I met Archbishop Lefevre as a child and have recently met Bishop Timlin from PA and have attended Latin Masses before. So beautiful, so respectful… I am rambling… Interested in others thoughts!
B
bear06
Guest
Yes they are and here’s why:
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
No it’s not. Where did you get that definition. Schism is, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
Correct.
Once again, you don’t have the correct definition and infalliblity has nothing to do with this matter. The Pope is the final judge on matters of schism.
ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6
At least in this thread, you have failed to give the formal definition.
Where Catholic teaching does it say that we have to obey the Pope only on infallible matters? Where does it say hat we are free to reject the pope on this matter? Also, is the world being flat a matter of Faith and Morals? You are comparing apples to oranges.
What one needs to understand is when we are bound by obedience. You seem to think we are only bound by obedience if a pope speaks ex-cathedra. Once again please read:
ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6
So, we’re to take Michael Davies on the matter over one who is the “supreme judge” on the matter.
I must remind you again
What is your evidence of this?
Many modern Catholics don’t understand where we are bound to obedience and submission to the the Roman Pontiff. The SSPX is not better than the liberals in this regard.
L
Lorarose
Guest
A good book that clears it all up…
More Catholic Than The Pope by Patrick Madrid.
Yes - they are in schism. They won’t admit it of course, and Mr. Davies certainly is not the one who has the last say on the matter - the pope is. Rome has spoken.
More Catholic Than The Pope by Patrick Madrid.
Yes - they are in schism. They won’t admit it of course, and Mr. Davies certainly is not the one who has the last say on the matter - the pope is. Rome has spoken.
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Peace be with you!
Good points, tpraines. I too love the Latin Mass (I have never atually been to the Tridentine rite Mass, but I’ve been to a Dominican rite Low Mass). I wonder if these SSPX people have been to a Latin Mass of the Novus Ordo. There is a church here in Portland that does a Novus Ordo Latin Mass with incense and Gregorian Chant every Sunday and it is extremely reverent and very beautiful. Once a month this church does a Mass in Latin according to the Dominican rite (this parish is run by the Dominicans). I went to that last week and the entire Mass was in Latin, even the readings, and the priest faced the tabernacle (it was not a Novus Ordo Mass). On certain feast days they do a High Mass and I believe for that one they use the 1962 missal.
Attending these Masses, I just can’t understand how some
one could say that they are invalid. There’s also another church that does the Tridentine Mass once a week. There are Latin Masses approved of by the archbishop, and yet the SSPX would rather have their own churches than attend an indult Mass. Why? The FSSP was PERSONALLY given the go ahead by JPII to spread the old Mass again, and yet the SSPX would rather have their own churches than come back into communion with Rome. Why?
In Christ,
Rand
Good points, tpraines. I too love the Latin Mass (I have never atually been to the Tridentine rite Mass, but I’ve been to a Dominican rite Low Mass). I wonder if these SSPX people have been to a Latin Mass of the Novus Ordo. There is a church here in Portland that does a Novus Ordo Latin Mass with incense and Gregorian Chant every Sunday and it is extremely reverent and very beautiful. Once a month this church does a Mass in Latin according to the Dominican rite (this parish is run by the Dominicans). I went to that last week and the entire Mass was in Latin, even the readings, and the priest faced the tabernacle (it was not a Novus Ordo Mass). On certain feast days they do a High Mass and I believe for that one they use the 1962 missal.
Attending these Masses, I just can’t understand how some
one could say that they are invalid. There’s also another church that does the Tridentine Mass once a week. There are Latin Masses approved of by the archbishop, and yet the SSPX would rather have their own churches than attend an indult Mass. Why? The FSSP was PERSONALLY given the go ahead by JPII to spread the old Mass again, and yet the SSPX would rather have their own churches than come back into communion with Rome. Why?
In Christ,
Rand
P
pbm
Guest
Where is this stated? In Canon Law?
If no one is allowed to scrutinize the teachings, then how will
hereseys be detected?
B
bear06
Guest
You might want to read this:
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is an organ of infalliblity.
T
tpraines
Guest
I think the Universal Church lost some of its unity when it approved the Mass in the local languages!
I also think that we decrease the faithful’s belief and acceptance in the Real Presence when we allow communion in the hand!
But I am not going to say that because these 2 potentially damaging pratices have creeped into my Church, that the Holy Spirit left it!
I receive communion kneeling and a lot of liberals get made, but the Vatican has spoken on this issue and its still my Church too. I cannot support the belief of some SSPX, that they did not leave the Catholic Church, but instead the Catholic Church left them. If you want to change the group, you have to be a member, else you have no say! It has been that way since preschool! No outsider is going to tell 3 happily playing prepschoolers that they are playing with ball the wrong way.
I also do not believe that just because humans vote on something that it makes it right! But I will fight the good fight from within! To be a catholic you must first follow the magisterium of the Church. Good Holy bishop or bad bishop! You must endure for the faith and send your petitions up the chain to Rome, not form your own church. The entire SSPX could have done more good by staying and fighting! Look at what the liberal have done from within, because they left and the liberal saw yet another opportunity.
Do you want to know who the true Prayer Warriors are? They are the little old ladies on the front row at Mass either praying the Rosary through the Novus Ordo Mass or mouthing the responses quitely to themselves in Latin!
Glory be!
I also think that we decrease the faithful’s belief and acceptance in the Real Presence when we allow communion in the hand!
But I am not going to say that because these 2 potentially damaging pratices have creeped into my Church, that the Holy Spirit left it!
I receive communion kneeling and a lot of liberals get made, but the Vatican has spoken on this issue and its still my Church too. I cannot support the belief of some SSPX, that they did not leave the Catholic Church, but instead the Catholic Church left them. If you want to change the group, you have to be a member, else you have no say! It has been that way since preschool! No outsider is going to tell 3 happily playing prepschoolers that they are playing with ball the wrong way.
I also do not believe that just because humans vote on something that it makes it right! But I will fight the good fight from within! To be a catholic you must first follow the magisterium of the Church. Good Holy bishop or bad bishop! You must endure for the faith and send your petitions up the chain to Rome, not form your own church. The entire SSPX could have done more good by staying and fighting! Look at what the liberal have done from within, because they left and the liberal saw yet another opportunity.
Do you want to know who the true Prayer Warriors are? They are the little old ladies on the front row at Mass either praying the Rosary through the Novus Ordo Mass or mouthing the responses quitely to themselves in Latin!
Glory be!
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Peace be with you!
“Fighting” against Vatican II is NOT something that “faithful” Catholics should do! The Novus Ordo is MASS and it is a VALID MASS. While there have certainly been some abuses since Vatican II, it was not due to the council itself. Why would a good Catholic sit and pray the Rosary instead of participating in Mass? I love the Rosary, but during Mass we should be focusing on the prayers and readings of the Mass, not something else. I recieve kneeling too, but not to “fight” against the New Mass or to show everyone that I’m more “traditional” than them. I only do it because I feel that that’s the way I should be before God.
Something that many traditionalists forget is that Mass is Mass whether it is in Latin, English, Spanish, German, whatever. We recieve Christ either way. The New Mass is Mass and the Old Mass is Mass.
In Christ,
Rand
T
the_phoenix
Guest
ET CUM SPIRITU TUO, Rand. 
Dittos on your post.
Last week, maybe I should have knelt to receive Communion. Am at a new parish, where it appears the pastor is not used to anyone receiving on the tongue. He ended up with the Host at about the level of my knees, apparently since he expected me to extend my hands and was surprised when I didn’t. Like you, I don’t receive on the tongue to make a political statement or be a fighter … but rather because I’ve been taught that receiving on the tongue shows greater respect for Our Eucharistic Jesus, so I do so to honor Him as best I know how.
As for the language of the Mass … I’m with you! Latin, English, Spanish, Japanese (My Japanese 102 class starts this week at the university), … or even a language I don’t know. It’s all cool by me, with the understanding that whatever the language, it communicates reverence befitting the worship of God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
~~ the phoenix
P.S. (To answer the main topic of this thread – While there’s an SSPX parish located very close and convenient to where I live, in obedience to and love for the Pope, I will not attend this SSPX parish even though I love the Latin Mass … because the Vatican has ruled that the SSPX is in schism. Instead, I’m in a Novus Ordo English-language Mass parish. When I want to attend the Latin Mass, I drive about 35 - 40 minutes downtown to attend the indult Latin Mass approved by the bishop in union with Rome.)
Dittos on your post.
Last week, maybe I should have knelt to receive Communion. Am at a new parish, where it appears the pastor is not used to anyone receiving on the tongue. He ended up with the Host at about the level of my knees, apparently since he expected me to extend my hands and was surprised when I didn’t. Like you, I don’t receive on the tongue to make a political statement or be a fighter … but rather because I’ve been taught that receiving on the tongue shows greater respect for Our Eucharistic Jesus, so I do so to honor Him as best I know how.
As for the language of the Mass … I’m with you! Latin, English, Spanish, Japanese (My Japanese 102 class starts this week at the university), … or even a language I don’t know. It’s all cool by me, with the understanding that whatever the language, it communicates reverence befitting the worship of God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
~~ the phoenix
P.S. (To answer the main topic of this thread – While there’s an SSPX parish located very close and convenient to where I live, in obedience to and love for the Pope, I will not attend this SSPX parish even though I love the Latin Mass … because the Vatican has ruled that the SSPX is in schism. Instead, I’m in a Novus Ordo English-language Mass parish. When I want to attend the Latin Mass, I drive about 35 - 40 minutes downtown to attend the indult Latin Mass approved by the bishop in union with Rome.)
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Two things I want to talk about.
tpraines:
Please refer to the document MEMORIALE DOMINI.
In it, it says, “It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.”
So I can not see how either of these two things can do what you say.
Unless you think that the early Church lacked a belief in the Real Presence and that the existance of the Eastern Churches wounds the unity of the Universal Church.
Please explain this. How can the unity of the Universal Church be harmed when it is a fact that in the whole history of the Universal Church that the liturgies have been in the vernacular? It is only the Latin (or Roman) Church that had one language for its liturgies and even then, at the time of the council of Trent, the Latin Church had granted indults for certain local areas to use the vernacular. So even in the Latin Church, the Mass was not universally done in one language.
How can this be when the Church recognizes the fact that reception of the Eucharist in the hand is an ancient practice of the Church?
Please refer to the document MEMORIALE DOMINI.
In it, it says, “It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.”
So I can not see how either of these two things can do what you say.
Unless you think that the early Church lacked a belief in the Real Presence and that the existance of the Eastern Churches wounds the unity of the Universal Church.
T
tpraines
Guest
Rand & Phoenix!
I agree with you, I was trying to make a point…
If I felt prideful receiving our Lord kneeling, I would stop. Mass is no place to make any sort of personal statement. I kneel out of reverence. If I really wanted to do as I please, I would lay prostrate before my Lord, then receive Him, if I could. I do not kneel to ‘fight’ Vatican II and that is percisely my point. Why is receiving on the tongue and studying Latin seen as an attack on Vatican II? Traditionist still in communion with Rome are not your enemy! If you feel this way, you should join the American Catholic Church. ha ha. B-16 has encouraged the faithful to study Latin.
Receiving on the tongue and kneeling was a significant topic at the Synod! Not to renouce or attack Vatican II, but taken in the global perspective (USA compared to other countries), receiving on the hand MAYBE (I did not say IS) a cause of the decline in the belief in the Real Presence.
My point regarding the various languages is that it may have caused some damages to the unity of the Church, but that doesn’t mean its not the True Church founded by Christ.
Although I have great respect for SSPX, their means does not justify the ends. “Fighting the good fight” was not against Vatican II. Please read my other posts were I support Vatican II as inheritely good and guided by the Holy Spirit. It was the liberalism and humanism that I was referencing with fighting. Please see Benedict XVI comments where he cautions about the liberalism and humanism in the Church.
Whether SSPX is a Schism is a technicality! I definitional matter. As you state, Rome has spoken and I cannot validly receive communion in their churches. period. As I stated above, to be Catholic is to pledge obedience to the entire magisteriam (sp?) not just the parts you agree with.
My first post made it clear that this topic has more become about egos than about facts and truth, but I contributed none the less with that disclaimer. I pray that SSPX will reunite themselves with the True Church.
P.S.: By the way, when I met ABp Lefevre, he was still in full communion with Rome! I am sure he never wanted to be another Martin Luther.
I agree with you, I was trying to make a point…
If I felt prideful receiving our Lord kneeling, I would stop. Mass is no place to make any sort of personal statement. I kneel out of reverence. If I really wanted to do as I please, I would lay prostrate before my Lord, then receive Him, if I could. I do not kneel to ‘fight’ Vatican II and that is percisely my point. Why is receiving on the tongue and studying Latin seen as an attack on Vatican II? Traditionist still in communion with Rome are not your enemy! If you feel this way, you should join the American Catholic Church. ha ha. B-16 has encouraged the faithful to study Latin.
Receiving on the tongue and kneeling was a significant topic at the Synod! Not to renouce or attack Vatican II, but taken in the global perspective (USA compared to other countries), receiving on the hand MAYBE (I did not say IS) a cause of the decline in the belief in the Real Presence.
My point regarding the various languages is that it may have caused some damages to the unity of the Church, but that doesn’t mean its not the True Church founded by Christ.
Although I have great respect for SSPX, their means does not justify the ends. “Fighting the good fight” was not against Vatican II. Please read my other posts were I support Vatican II as inheritely good and guided by the Holy Spirit. It was the liberalism and humanism that I was referencing with fighting. Please see Benedict XVI comments where he cautions about the liberalism and humanism in the Church.
Whether SSPX is a Schism is a technicality! I definitional matter. As you state, Rome has spoken and I cannot validly receive communion in their churches. period. As I stated above, to be Catholic is to pledge obedience to the entire magisteriam (sp?) not just the parts you agree with.
My first post made it clear that this topic has more become about egos than about facts and truth, but I contributed none the less with that disclaimer. I pray that SSPX will reunite themselves with the True Church.
P.S.: By the way, when I met ABp Lefevre, he was still in full communion with Rome! I am sure he never wanted to be another Martin Luther.
P
pbm
Guest
Here are the arguments claiming SSPX is in schism:
Here is a quote from Cardinal Hoyos made recently:
The pope said it. You have to believe that SSPX is in schism.
So is Cardinal Hoyos a dummy or a liar ???
Does Bishop Williamson know what he is talking about?
He should know the position of SSPX, for sure.
More later …
The argument goes like this:
- Pope John Paul II said SSPX is in schism.
- Pope John Paul II alone has the authority to declare who is in schism.
- Catholics cannot doubt the Pope on this matter.
Here is a quote from Cardinal Hoyos made recently:
Here is a quote from Bishop Williamson made recently:
On the Latin Mass, here is another quote by Hoyos:
And quoting Williamson:
Here is another quote on the excommunication of Archbishop Lefevbre:
So the argument boils down to:
The pope said it. You have to believe that SSPX is in schism.
So is Cardinal Hoyos a dummy or a liar ???
Does Bishop Williamson know what he is talking about?
He should know the position of SSPX, for sure.
More later …
U
USMC
Guest
Rome is finally admitting two things that the SSPX has been saying all along: the first is that, although the SSPX is certainly in a irregular ecclesial situation (due to the crisis of the Church), the SSPX is NOT in formal schism; and the second thing Rome is finally beginning to admit (contrary to the impression and general believe of the past 35 + years), is that the Latin Tridentine Mass was never abolished.
Cardinal Dario Castrillion Hoyos is the President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, and the person appointed by Pope Benedict to assist with negotioations for a formal reconcilliation with the SSPX. Cardinal Hoyos recently had a four hour meeting with Bishop Fellay of the SSPX.
In a recent interview the Cardinal said the following:
Question: Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity?
Answer: The audience is part of a process that began with a very important intervention by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who signed a protocol of agreement with Monsignor Lefebvre before the latter decided to proceed to the episcopal consecrations of 1988.
Question: Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off…
Answer: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.
Now, the Cardinal just admitted that the SSPX is not in formal schism, which is what the SSPX has been saying all alone. Next the Cardinal will admit that the Old Mass has never been abolished, thereby confirmintg what Traditional Catholics have been saying all along.
Question: It is known that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is asking the Holy See for a liberalization of the so-called Tridentine mass and a declaration affirming that this liturgy has never been abolished.
Answer: “The mass of Pius V has never been abolished…”.
The full interview is can be found here: 30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360
The same thing was admitted to by the then Cardinal Ratzinger during his EWTN interview with Raymond Aroyo several years ago. I never heard anyone comment on it, but if you read the transcript you will see that Cardinal Ratzinger stated that he didn’t believe the Old Mass was ever abrogated.
Cardinal Dario Castrillion Hoyos is the President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, and the person appointed by Pope Benedict to assist with negotioations for a formal reconcilliation with the SSPX. Cardinal Hoyos recently had a four hour meeting with Bishop Fellay of the SSPX.
In a recent interview the Cardinal said the following:
Question: Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity?
Answer: The audience is part of a process that began with a very important intervention by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who signed a protocol of agreement with Monsignor Lefebvre before the latter decided to proceed to the episcopal consecrations of 1988.
Question: Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off…
Answer: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.
Now, the Cardinal just admitted that the SSPX is not in formal schism, which is what the SSPX has been saying all alone. Next the Cardinal will admit that the Old Mass has never been abolished, thereby confirmintg what Traditional Catholics have been saying all along.
Question: It is known that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is asking the Holy See for a liberalization of the so-called Tridentine mass and a declaration affirming that this liturgy has never been abolished.
Answer: “The mass of Pius V has never been abolished…”.
The full interview is can be found here: 30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360
The same thing was admitted to by the then Cardinal Ratzinger during his EWTN interview with Raymond Aroyo several years ago. I never heard anyone comment on it, but if you read the transcript you will see that Cardinal Ratzinger stated that he didn’t believe the Old Mass was ever abrogated.
T
tpraines
Guest
ByzCath,
I am impressed!
I have not posted on this forum in a while and I quickly under estimated the level of discussion!
You are ABSOLUTELY right! The Eastern churches were more nationally based and the use of the local vernacular was common. I also agree that receiving in the hand is found in the history of the church. I was speaking more toward my opinion on why the Church in America has seen a bit of confusion in the pews. Vatican II was a change. I did not say unprecedented change, but change none the less. To speak to the original post, SSPX did not appear to like the changes and tried to hold on to the traditions. They just went about holding on to the changes in manner that later found them outside the church. I cannot find that Vatican II ever explicitly banned the Tridentine Mass, Latin, Communion Kneeling, Altar Rails, Kneeler, Statues, Ornate Altars, etc. And it did not say that americans must build their parishes in a auditorium style seating and install a rock band! My point here is that I am not attacking Vatican II. I cannot attack Vatican II and still be a catholic. But I can be a little bit on the traditional side and prefer to use those traditions still available to me.
It appears in America that we have seen a dramatic (not really dramatic considering the history of the church) shift in views. We have what I believe is a crisis in faith in America. I am not blaming Communion on the Hand or English on the cause. I am only saying that maybe there was too much change, too quick. Too much unregulated change that allowed Vatican II to be abused. I hear that many catholics were confused and fell away or simply do not believe anymore. That is why we have Catholic Answers today! EWTN has regular shows explaining the faith. The core of Catholicism never changed, but many people think so and fell away. I am merely trying to discern why and do my part to spread the Word and foster a personal relationship with Christ!
I do not believe the early Church lacked a belief in the Real Presence and that the existance of the Eastern Churches wounds the unity of the Universal Church. I was baptize, confirmed and attended the Byz Church before moving away from Birmingham, AL so I certainly do not believe Eastern Churches wound the unity!
Again, I am impressed and humbled…
I am impressed!
I have not posted on this forum in a while and I quickly under estimated the level of discussion!
You are ABSOLUTELY right! The Eastern churches were more nationally based and the use of the local vernacular was common. I also agree that receiving in the hand is found in the history of the church. I was speaking more toward my opinion on why the Church in America has seen a bit of confusion in the pews. Vatican II was a change. I did not say unprecedented change, but change none the less. To speak to the original post, SSPX did not appear to like the changes and tried to hold on to the traditions. They just went about holding on to the changes in manner that later found them outside the church. I cannot find that Vatican II ever explicitly banned the Tridentine Mass, Latin, Communion Kneeling, Altar Rails, Kneeler, Statues, Ornate Altars, etc. And it did not say that americans must build their parishes in a auditorium style seating and install a rock band! My point here is that I am not attacking Vatican II. I cannot attack Vatican II and still be a catholic. But I can be a little bit on the traditional side and prefer to use those traditions still available to me.
It appears in America that we have seen a dramatic (not really dramatic considering the history of the church) shift in views. We have what I believe is a crisis in faith in America. I am not blaming Communion on the Hand or English on the cause. I am only saying that maybe there was too much change, too quick. Too much unregulated change that allowed Vatican II to be abused. I hear that many catholics were confused and fell away or simply do not believe anymore. That is why we have Catholic Answers today! EWTN has regular shows explaining the faith. The core of Catholicism never changed, but many people think so and fell away. I am merely trying to discern why and do my part to spread the Word and foster a personal relationship with Christ!
I do not believe the early Church lacked a belief in the Real Presence and that the existance of the Eastern Churches wounds the unity of the Universal Church. I was baptize, confirmed and attended the Byz Church before moving away from Birmingham, AL so I certainly do not believe Eastern Churches wound the unity!
Again, I am impressed and humbled…
T
the_phoenix
Guest
Dear tpraines,
Hail and well met. * bows good greetings *
Please know that I’ve read and appreciate your posts as well. The only tiny area which didn’t seem to resonate with me was where you mention little old ladies praying the Rosary during the Mass. I would under normal conditions think that these ladies should pray the Rosary either before or after the Mass. Maybe an exception would be made where I could see them praying the Rosary if the homily was one where the priest’s teaching was not in line with the Vatican’s?
Looking forward to further conversations with you,
~~ the phoenix
Hail and well met. * bows good greetings *
Please know that I’ve read and appreciate your posts as well. The only tiny area which didn’t seem to resonate with me was where you mention little old ladies praying the Rosary during the Mass. I would under normal conditions think that these ladies should pray the Rosary either before or after the Mass. Maybe an exception would be made where I could see them praying the Rosary if the homily was one where the priest’s teaching was not in line with the Vatican’s?
Looking forward to further conversations with you,
~~ the phoenix
S
stanley123
Guest
Might we ask who are these people who have set up this site and are so strongly opposed to the SSPX? The site quoted gives an article by a Mr. Pete Vere, and the site itself appears to be run by a Mr. William P. Grossklas, both of whom were themselves members of the SSPX for several years. Why did they join SSPX in the first place and why did they leave? Another site against the SSPX is http://www.sspx-schism.com
This site was set up by Mr. Michael Dupuis and Mr. John Thomson who were previous members of the SSPX for many years and wrote a book together while they were in the SSPX. On this site, they tell why they left SSPX.
http://www.sspx-schism.com/who-r-we.htm
According to the site, it has to do with a “lottery organized by the SSPX, where the first prize was a trip for two to the topless beaches of Cancun Mexico”. They make a big deal about the fact that the SSPX organized a lottery to a beach in Cancun, Mexico, and they give this as the reason why they left SSPX. Now first of all, you don’t have to go to that section of the beach, Secondly, the local Catholic Church here that we go to, also has a lottery with the very same prize to the very same beach, so quitting the SSPX for this reason makes no sense. Thirdly, they don’t seem to object if the Pope conducts a Mass with a reader similarly attired. So the question I would have is why did they join the SSPX in the first place and why did they stay with an organization that they knew to be schismatic for so many years? Or was it only after they had this dispute with SSPX over the lottery that they changed their minds ? A dispute over a prize in a lottery does not seem like a good reson to quit an organization, especially if you were happy with it for so many years.
P
pbm
Guest
There seems to be two schools of thought on this issue:
Novus Ordo: The pope determines schism and you must accept his decision.
Traditional: Schism has a definition and the pope’s statement can be questioned.
I was never taught in Catholic schools that the pope is a dictator
and should never be questioned. History shows that some saints
questioned the pope and openly disagreed with him – St
Athanasius is one. There were others.
If the pope can never be questioned the what is faith?
Faith in the pope? No, that is not faith. Faith is belief in the
doctrines of the Catholic church, which never change. Faith
is greater than obedience. Archbishop Lefevbre concecrated
the four bishop because he understood this principle.
This whole argument boils down to one thing – the “disobedience”
of Archbishop Lefevbre. Because of the “disobedience” he was
said to “have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication”.
Because of excommunication he and his bishops are in schism,
because Pope John Paul II said so.
If you do not question Pope John Paul II you are a wimpy Catholic, a sheep, blindly submitting to the pope.
Look what kind of dilema that creates.
The Easter Orthodox Church has been known to be in schism for
many years. It was well established. They did not accept the pope and created a hierarchy of their own. Now that is truly schismatic.
But nowadays when a Russian priest declares that he was in schism and desired to join the Roman Catholic church, he is rejected by Rome. Can you believe it. True Russian Orthodox
schismatics cannot become truly united with Rome. At the
same time SSPX is declared to be in schism. Why? For
consecrating bishops as a “disobedient” act. All the while SSPX
is accepting the Pope.
This makes no sense at all.
We Catholics certainly have the right to question and even the
duty to question what is going on in our chures. We have a duty to know our Faith !!! Faith is greater than obedience. Read the book by Father Drexel.
On the issue of excommunication … Pope John Paul II said
Archbishop Lefevbre “has incurred the grave penalty of excommunication” by his actions. The pope did not say,
“I excommunicate you”.
Why did A. Lefevbre incur excommunication??
For disobeying the Pope? NO. An archbishop does not
need the Pope’s permission to consecrate bishops.
This is what canon law says.
An archbishop has every right to consecrate bishops if he thinks
it is a necessary. This is in canon law also.
The real argument is whether there was a crisis in the church,
which required the consecration of bishops. JP II did not think
there was a crisis in the Church. A Lefevbre did.
If you don’t see the crisis in the church, you are not looking.
The immorality of the priests and the lawsuits is bankrupting the
dioceses. The number of new priestly vocations has diminished
since 1960 (Vatican II).
The Vatican is preaching all kinds of nonsense.
No you don’t have to blindly accept the teachings of Vatican II.
You can have a mind of your own. But you have to know the
Faith first.
More later …
Novus Ordo: The pope determines schism and you must accept his decision.
Traditional: Schism has a definition and the pope’s statement can be questioned.
I was never taught in Catholic schools that the pope is a dictator
and should never be questioned. History shows that some saints
questioned the pope and openly disagreed with him – St
Athanasius is one. There were others.
If the pope can never be questioned the what is faith?
Faith in the pope? No, that is not faith. Faith is belief in the
doctrines of the Catholic church, which never change. Faith
is greater than obedience. Archbishop Lefevbre concecrated
the four bishop because he understood this principle.
This whole argument boils down to one thing – the “disobedience”
of Archbishop Lefevbre. Because of the “disobedience” he was
said to “have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication”.
Because of excommunication he and his bishops are in schism,
because Pope John Paul II said so.
If you do not question Pope John Paul II you are a wimpy Catholic, a sheep, blindly submitting to the pope.
Look what kind of dilema that creates.
The Easter Orthodox Church has been known to be in schism for
many years. It was well established. They did not accept the pope and created a hierarchy of their own. Now that is truly schismatic.
But nowadays when a Russian priest declares that he was in schism and desired to join the Roman Catholic church, he is rejected by Rome. Can you believe it. True Russian Orthodox
schismatics cannot become truly united with Rome. At the
same time SSPX is declared to be in schism. Why? For
consecrating bishops as a “disobedient” act. All the while SSPX
is accepting the Pope.
This makes no sense at all.
We Catholics certainly have the right to question and even the
duty to question what is going on in our chures. We have a duty to know our Faith !!! Faith is greater than obedience. Read the book by Father Drexel.
On the issue of excommunication … Pope John Paul II said
Archbishop Lefevbre “has incurred the grave penalty of excommunication” by his actions. The pope did not say,
“I excommunicate you”.
Why did A. Lefevbre incur excommunication??
For disobeying the Pope? NO. An archbishop does not
need the Pope’s permission to consecrate bishops.
This is what canon law says.
An archbishop has every right to consecrate bishops if he thinks
it is a necessary. This is in canon law also.
The real argument is whether there was a crisis in the church,
which required the consecration of bishops. JP II did not think
there was a crisis in the Church. A Lefevbre did.
If you don’t see the crisis in the church, you are not looking.
The immorality of the priests and the lawsuits is bankrupting the
dioceses. The number of new priestly vocations has diminished
since 1960 (Vatican II).
The Vatican is preaching all kinds of nonsense.
No you don’t have to blindly accept the teachings of Vatican II.
You can have a mind of your own. But you have to know the
Faith first.
More later …
- Status