SSPX not likely to 'come home'

[OurBeloved]

Not at all. I’m saying that those who call out others shouldn’t act so hurt and betrayed when they are called out themselves. Hold yourself to the standards you hold others. If you can’t catch the ball, don’t throw it.

Really? I think the church should always call out those in error especially when they are in positions of authority like clergy/theologians etc.

I see no reason to not do that since it is essential for not scandalizing the faithful.

I was quite clear in my initial post which sides I am referring to.

I am honestly not sure what you are saying at this point. First it seemed that you were appealing to mercy. But now it seems like you are appealing out of fear of being called out yourself.

So I am not sure…

 

[Melchior_1]

Really? I think the church should always call out those in error especially when they are in positions of authority like clergy/theologians etc.

I see no reason to not do that since it is essential for not scandalizing the faithful.

I never said otherwise, did I?

I am honestly not sure what you are saying at this point.

I’ve made my points fairly clear. I’m not quite sure how you can interpret “don’t be hurt when someone points their finger at you, while you do finger pointing yourself” into “never point fingers!”.

Again, if you can’t catch the ball, don’t throw it.

The mercy component comes stems from dissidents from all sides who preach a hardline stance on several items, yet then plead mercy when they are on the firing line.

Take your lumps as you want others to.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes. But more so on the ones who do confer the illicit sacraments.

I really was only talking about the priests, I am still uncertain as to the state of the laity who attend.

If SSPX are outside the church, then the church has done their part on the issue with respect to SSPX. Anyone who wants to join SSPX has a clear warning that to do so is to put oneself in error.

BUT, the church has not done it’s part in cleaning the rest of the remaining house. There are dissidents inside the church who get away with preaching/teaching and supporting things contrary to the faith. It’s time to put those people outside too.

The Church has made it clear that things like same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception, women priests etc are not acceptable, just as She has made it clear that one must accept VII as a legitimate council, recognize that the “errors” are really false interpretations, and admit that the OF is a valid Mass.

Its not quite true to say that the SSPX are “outside” the Church. They are not in full comunion, but that does not mean they are not in communion of any sort. There’s a reason an SSPX Mass can fulfill ones Sunday obligation but an Orthodox liturgy cannot. The fact that they are more “seperated” than dissidents on the other side comes from the fact that their whole order broke partially with the Church when their founder consecrated the four bishops incurring excommunication on all five of them. In other words, the seperation of the SSPX came not from the Church, but from the society itself.

 

[TimothyH]

Yes. But more so on the ones who do confer the illicit sacraments.

If SSPX are outside the church, then the church has done their part on the issue with respect to SSPX. Anyone who wants to join SSPX has a clear warning that to do so is to put oneself in error.

BUT, the church has not done it’s part in cleaning the rest of the remaining house. There are dissidents inside the church who get away with preaching/teaching and supporting things contrary to the faith. It’s time to put those people outside too.

Eye for an eye was repealed by Christ in the sermon on the mount.

-Tim-

 

[OurBeloved]

Eye for an eye was repealed by Christ in the sermon on the mount.

-Tim-

Do you people really read?

I thought I said that the point of calling out was not really punishment. It is for the sake of the faithful.

Please, stop attacking straw men.

 

[OurBeloved]

The Church has made it clear that things like same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception, women priests etc are not acceptable, just as She has made it clear that one must accept VII as a legitimate council, recognize that the “errors” are really false interpretations, and admit that the OF is a valid Mass.

Its not quite true to say that the SSPX are “outside” the Church. They are not in full comunion, but that does not mean they are not in communion of any sort. There’s a reason an SSPX Mass can fulfill ones Sunday obligation but an Orthodox liturgy cannot. The fact that they are more “seperated” than dissidents on the other side comes from the fact that their whole order broke partially with the Church when their founder consecrated the four bishops incurring excommunication on all five of them. In other words, the seperation of the SSPX came not from the Church, but from the society itself.

Well, what I mean to say here is that the Church is very clear on whether SSPX are acceptable or not. It warns the faithful against attending their masses as well.

What you spoke of about same sex marriage, contraception, or Vatican II teachings are taught through the priests. If the priests starts teaching errors, then the faithful are lead astray.

So in this sense, it is imperative that the church takes action against those who teach error (especially when this deals with person’s in positions of authority like Clergy or Theologians) to warn the faithful about such persons.

 

[thewanderer]

Well, what I mean to say here is that the Church is very clear on whether SSPX are acceptable or not. It warns the faithful against attending their masses as well.

What you spoke of about same sex marriage, contraception, or Vatican II teachings are taught through the priests. If the priests starts teaching errors, then the faithful are lead astray.

So in this sense, it is imperative that the church takes action against those who teach error (especially when this deals with person’s in positions of authority like Clergy or Theologians) to warn the faithful about such persons.

I’m fairly certain all of those teachings are in the CCC, easily found by any Catholic who wishes to find them. The CCC is even available for free at the Vatican website if someone doesn’t have the money to buy a copy they can search out the issue there. Yes, it is important to encourage priests to ensure their theology is correct and in line with the Church. This is one of the main ways that faithful learn about their faith, but it is by no means the sole means, nor should it be. Today Catholics have the special advantage of all the information technology that has been developed that makes it so easy to go look up an official Church source to find out the answer to their questions. This just wasn’t available to people in the past. The Church has always had priests who taught errors, and even periods where there were great and widespread errors being preached, today we should realize how lucky we are that we don’t need to rely solely on the priests homily at Mass as our guide to the faith. I am not trying to belittle the importance of the homily, but just trying to point out how much better we have it than the many generations before us.

 

[jam070406]

What you’re doing here is called a category mistake (a fallacy originally defined by Gilbert Ryle). The SSPX are not in the same category as Easter Catholics Churches. The ECs are Churches in the proper sense of the word, while the SSPX is not. They do not have traditions that are apart from the Roman Catholic Church, nor are they negotiating as equals with the CDF. The ECs negotiate as equals because they are a Church, the SSPX are subordinates.

Please drop the condescending arrogance. I never said the two were in the same catagory. And if you believe the SSPX doesn’t have traditions then you are oblivious to why the society exists in the first place. It is exactly your attitude that makes them cautious in their approach. I’m not saying what they are doing is right either.

 

[OurBeloved]

I’m fairly certain all of those teachings are in the CCC, easily found by any Catholic who wishes to find them. The CCC is even available for free at the Vatican website if someone doesn’t have the money to buy a copy they can search out the issue there. Yes, it is important to encourage priests to ensure their theology is correct and in line with the Church. This is one of the main ways that faithful learn about their faith, but it is by no means the sole means, nor should it be. Today Catholics have the special advantage of all the information technology that has been developed that makes it so easy to go look up an official Church source to find out the answer to their questions. This just wasn’t available to people in the past. The Church has always had priests who taught errors, and even periods where there were great and widespread errors being preached, today we should realize how lucky we are that we don’t need to rely solely on the priests homily at Mass as our guide to the faith. I am not trying to belittle the importance of the homily, but just trying to point out how much better we have it than the many generations before us.

I think my point is simple.

The primary method of teaching in the church is not the internet or books. It is through the Clergy. The average Catholic does not have the luxury that you might have to dwell on the internet forums and find answers. The average Catholic in isolated Town X,Y,Z might not even have access to a Catechism.

Also, some of the issues are not clear even in the Catechism since they are usually reproduction of the same Council teachings i.e. Ecumenism, Liturgy etc.

So overall, what you are saying is impractical. I have met many Catholics, on this very forum, who advocate use of Contraception for an example because their priests approves. If shown the Catechism they simply say that we are mistaken in interpreting it and the priest is right and that you should know better. Now, WHO is right on this issue? You? Or that person?

Or lets consider modest dress. The Catechism states that you must dress modestly, but how many priests can actually advise you on HOW to dress modestly? Frankly, if I recall, you were having quiet the crisis on what it meant to dress modestly according to traditional values.

Don’t undermine the importance and the responsibility of clergy in the Church. Remember the words of Jesus
**
“It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble.”** – Luke 17:2

 

[pnewton]

I’m sorry, but I have to ask, does this apply to those who sin by confecting illicit sacraments yet continue to do so because they are convinced they are right as well?

I think it would apply, but proportionally. Here’s why. The Holy Sacrament can never be said to be licit or illicit. It is still the Body of Christ whether done by an illicit SSPX priest or an illicit ad-libbing priest. However, I think the degree to which a priest operates outside of the Church’s law may be a sin that is proportional to the offense. A priest who changes a few words to fit his own style is illicit, but not as bad as a priest that tries Mass with doughnuts and has an invalid Mass. The SSPX is somewhere in between. Everything they do is illicit, but I doubt the ever invalidate the Holy Sacrament.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Just like you, the SSPX wants to retain their traditions. I would think that someone like you could appreciate that. The difference is, the SSPX would feel a greater impact against their traditions then your EC church.

I do indeed. That is why I became interested in this issue to begin with. My only point, for consideration, is that other groups have gone through similar trials.

In the case of my own EC’s history, there was plenty of ill-fated reaction and response from all sides - Church, clergy and laity. The results were not good, and the damage is still being undone. Yet it is the Church and those faithful who remained who are responsible for this progress. A complete rupture would not have yielded the same result.

And my friend, I don’t see how anyone at this stage is saying that the SSPX and it’s members have to surrender their traditions (really, a subset of Catholic tradition, no?). The situation seems to be well pass that. But basic obedience, respect for the broader traditions of the Church, and a commitment to handle differences “in the family” so to speak, do not seem unreasonable from a lay Catholic perspective.

There may likely be more to the story, and it does seem that His Holiness is most willing to see this through, despite everything, yet it is difficult at times (for me, at least) to fully appreciate the SSPX position.

 

[curlycool89]

BUT, the church has not done it’s part in cleaning the rest of the remaining house. There are dissidents inside the church who get away with preaching/teaching and supporting things contrary to the faith. It’s time to put those people outside too.

And the Church will do so in it’s own time. The SSPX case is mutually exclusive from every other case though, you can’t say that the Church needs to “clean up” before the SSPX will move.

Not at all. I’m saying that those who call out others shouldn’t act so hurt and betrayed when they are called out themselves. Hold yourself to the standards you hold others. If you can’t catch the ball, don’t throw it.

Ah yes, the Silver Rule: “Do not do to other what you don’t want them to do to you”.

What you spoke of about same sex marriage, contraception, or Vatican II teachings are taught through the priests. If the priests starts teaching errors, then the faithful are lead astray.

Yes they do. Of course, that also applies when they start teaching that the OF is an invalid or lesser Mass or that disobedience to legitimate ordinaries (diocesan bishops) is acceptable if it’s done for “the right reasons” (aka: ends justify means).

Please drop the condescending arrogance. I never said the two were in the same catagory.

It was heavily implied that they were.

And if you believe the SSPX doesn’t have traditions then you are oblivious to why the society exists in the first place. It is exactly your attitude that makes them cautious in their approach. I’m not saying what they are doing is right either.

No, the SSPX don’t have their own tradition, they follow some traditions (for them strongly defined as anything pre-VII) of the Roman Catholic Church. The EF is a rite of the Roman Church, not their own.

They’re not like the former Anglicans who got an entire structure to allow for them to continue some traditions. The SSPX can continue what they do within the mainstream Church.

 

[OurBeloved]

And the Church will do so in it’s own time. The SSPX case is mutually exclusive from every other case though, you can’t say that the Church needs to “clean up” before the SSPX will move.

Actually, my point is that for the sake of the Catholic Faithful and for the sake of SSPX or any potential converts, the church needs to clean house. Why is it so difficult to understand?

It is disappointing to have to go to one priest and here that contraception is ok and then go to another and hear that it is not. The faithful can be scandalized. Some might not even go to another priest and simply take the first priest’s word for it. The average lay Catholic is scandalized and lead to sin when those with authority teach error.

Yes they do. Of course, that also applies when they start teaching that the OF is an invalid or lesser Mass or that disobedience to legitimate ordinaries (diocesan bishops) is acceptable if it’s done for “the right reasons” (aka: ends justify means).

ABSOLUTELY. And as I said many times before, that has already been made very clear by the church. What is less clear is the church stance against those inside the church who are dissident.

If the Vatican had taken too long to point out the problem with the SSPX, many more faithful might have been scandalized. In short, when it involves those with authority teaching error, prompt action is required to warn the faithful of that person and the error in his teaching. IF that person persists, even an excommunication is necessary.

 

[CesarAugustus]

From an earlier post I did. This is from this article:

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350219?eng=y

The vast majority of theologians in Catholic institutions in Europe, North America, and Australasia would reject most or all of these teachings. These theologians are followed by the majority of religious orders and a substantial part of the bishops in these areas.* It would be difficult, for example, to find a Jesuit teaching theology in any Jesuit institution who would accept a single one of them. The texts above are only a selection from the teachings of Vatican II that are rejected by these groups; they could be extended to many times the number.

Such teachings however form part of the 95% of Vatican II that the FSSPX accepts. Unlike the 5% of that council rejected by the FSSPX, however, the teachings given above are central to Catholic faith and morals, and include some of the fundamental teachings of Christ himself.

The first question that the communiqué of the Holy See raises for a theologian is thus:*** why does the rejection by the FSSPX of a small part of the teachings of Vatican II give rise to a rift between that Society and the Holy See, while the rejection of more numerous and important teachings of Vatican II by other groups in the Church leave these groups in good standing and possessed of full canonical status?*** Rejection of the authority of Vatican II by the FSSPX cannot be the answer to this question; the FSSPX in fact shows more respect for the authority of Vatican II than most of the religious orders in the Church.

**It is relevant that the texts of Vatican II that are rejected by the FSSPX are accepted by the groups within the Church that reject other teachings of that council. **One might then suppose that it is these specific texts – on religious liberty, the Church, ecumenism, and collegiality – that are the problem. The rift between the Holy See and the FSSPX arises because the Society rejects these particular elements of Vatican II, not because of an intention on the part of the Holy See to defend Vatican II as a whole. The rift does not arise with the groups outside the Society that reject far more of Vatican II, because these groups accept these particular elements. But if this is the case, the first question simply reoccurs with greater force.

• “Dei Verbum” 11, “Dei Verbum” 19, “Lumen gentium” 3. “Lumen gentium” 8, “Lumen gentium” 10, “Lumen gentium” 14, “Gaudium et spes” 48, “Gaudium et spes” 51

Why various heterodox theologians, Priests, Bishops, can get away with their wrongdoings while there is a focus in the FSSPX and a environment of suspicion around regularized Traditionalist Institutes, societies, etc?

Blessings!

 

[thewanderer]

I think my point is simple.

The primary method of teaching in the church is not the internet or books. It is through the Clergy. The average Catholic does not have the luxury that you might have to dwell on the internet forums and find answers. The average Catholic in isolated Town X,Y,Z might not even have access to a Catechism.

Also, some of the issues are not clear even in the Catechism since they are usually reproduction of the same Council teachings i.e. Ecumenism, Liturgy etc.

So overall, what you are saying is impractical. I have met many Catholics, on this very forum, who advocate use of Contraception for an example because their priests approves. If shown the Catechism they simply say that we are mistaken in interpreting it and the priest is right and that you should know better. Now, WHO is right on this issue? You? Or that person?

Or lets consider modest dress. The Catechism states that you must dress modestly, but how many priests can actually advise you on HOW to dress modestly? Frankly, if I recall, you were having quiet the crisis on what it meant to dress modestly according to traditional values.

Don’t undermine the importance and the responsibility of clergy in the Church. Remember the words of Jesus

"It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble." – Luke 17:2

I must admit to being a little confused by this response. I specifically said I was not trying to belittle the importance of the homily and priests being faithful to the magisterium and so teach accordingly.

Also I do not see how me disagreeing with your understanding of modest dress has anything to do with my post, or even this thread. I believe the forum rules prohibit bringing discussions from one thread into another.

 

[thewanderer]

From an earlier post I did. This is from this article:

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350219?eng=y

Why various heterodox theologians, Priests, Bishops, can get away with their wrongdoings while there is a focus in the FSSPX and a environment of suspicion around regularized Traditionalist Institutes, societies, etc?

Blessings!

This train of thought really confuses me. FSSPX has been partially seperated from the Church ever since the original excommunications. What is happening right now is not a matter of disciplining the FSSPX, but an attempt to bring them back into full union with the Church so that they can licitly confect the sacraments. This is something that is good for them, not bad. Without such an action they are, assuming they have knowledge, intent etc, constantly engaging in immoral activity by illicitly confecting the sacraments. It is entirely to their benefit to be fully united with the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

FSSPX has been partially seperated from the Church ever since the original excommunications.

To be more accurate, AL and the priests have been in suspension since 1975, 13 years before the illicit consecrations. The matter of the excommunications has been resolved, still leaving the priests and bishops in suspension.

 

[thewanderer]

To be more accurate, AL and the priests have been in suspension since 1975, 13 years before the illicit consecrations. The matter of the excommunications has been resolved, still leaving the priests and bishops in suspension.

Thanks for the correction!.

 

[triumphguy]

From an earlier post I did. This is from this article:

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350219?eng=y

Why various heterodox theologians, Priests, Bishops, can get away with their wrongdoings while there is a focus in the FSSPX and a environment of suspicion around regularized Traditionalist Institutes, societies, etc?

Blessings!

Just because someone writes an article saying “The vast majority blah blah blah,”
doesn’t make it accurate.

I would say that 90% of Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans etc, etc are orthodox.

And you can quote me!

 

[TimothyH]

Do you people really read?

I thought I said that the point of calling out was not really punishment. It is for the sake of the faithful.

Please, stop attacking straw men.

I’m sorry I stuck my nose into a private fight. I’ll leave you all alone now.