SSPX not likely to 'come home'

[Andre1000]

The SSPX does the same like Saint Athanasius. He was also a excommunicated schismatic because he rejected Arianism.

 

[JM3]

The SSPX does the same like Saint Athanasius. He was also a excommunicated schismatic because he rejected Arianism.

Not by Rome.

newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm

In the year 340, after the failure of the Eusebian malcontents to secure the appointment of an Arian candidate of dubious reputation names Pistus, the notorious Gregory of Cappadocia was forcibly intruded into the Alexandrian See, and Athanasius was obliged to go into hiding. Within a very few weeks he set out for Rome to lay his case before the Church at large. He had made his appeal to Pope Julius, who took up his cause with a whole-heartedness that never wavered down to the day of that holy pontiff’s death. The pope summoned a synod of bishops to meet in Rome. After a careful and detailed examination of the entire case, the primate’s innocence was proclaimed to the Christian world.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The SSPX does the same like Saint Athanasius. He was also a excommunicated schismatic because he rejected Arianism.

No. St. Athanasius did not violate any dogma of the Church. The SSPX violated the dogma on Papal Supremacy. So there is no way the SSPX is like St. Athanasius, no matter how people want to make it fit. It’s a round peg into a small triangle hole kind of fit.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

That saying really is annoying. The pope himself is not infallible fyi.

I’m sorry but I thought only Protestants would go through that route.

 

[awkwardcustomer]

The problem is that your understanding of Pope Pius XI’s encyclical are not right, and you are not trusting the teachings of the Church. Pius XI’s Encyclical MORTALIUM ANIMOS is on the Vatican website for all to read. But be careful to not misinterpret what Pope Pius XI was saying.

I’m very careful. The condemnation of Ecumenism in ‘Mortalium Animos’ is as clear as day. Similarly, the condemnation of Religious Liberty in Pope Leo XIII’s 1885 Encyclical ‘Immortale Dei’ is there for everyone to read. It’s no use picking out random paragraphs from various documents and comparing them. You have to read the whole thing.

Vatican II’s documents represent an attempt to bring the teachings of the Church in line with Liberal thought and, as such depart from positions previously held by the Popes. It’s hard to take on board, I know, but are you saying that a Council which claimed no infallibility was incapable of making such a move?

 

[pnewton]

The SSPX does the same like Saint Athanasius. He was also a excommunicated schismatic because he rejected Arianism.

Wow! One page before St. Athanasius came up. That was quick.

Despite all the good that a reconcilliation would bring both to the Church and the SSPX, I am having my doubts. I know this is part of the negotiations, but at some point the SSPX will have to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit has not lead the Church in their direction, none of them sit in the Chair of Peter and they do not get to set the terms.

 

[Andre1000]

No. St. Athanasius did not violate any dogma of the Church. The SSPX violated the dogma on Papal Supremacy. So there is no way the SSPX is like St. Athanasius, no matter how people want to make it fit. It’s a round peg into a small triangle hole kind of fit.

Papal Supremacy = We have to do everything the pope wants; is a heresy!
The Vatican know best what papal supremacy means and they say that the SSPX is not heretic and not schismatic.

 

[Andre1000]

Not by Rome.

newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm

They have been excommunication because of the illicit ordination of bishops, I agree that was an error, but only one.

 

[Andre1000]

Wow! One page before St. Athanasius came up. That was quick.

Despite all the good that a reconcilliation would bring both to the Church and the SSPX, I am having my doubts. I know this is part of the negotiations, but at some point the SSPX will have to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit has not lead the Church in their direction, none of them sit in the Chair of Peter and they do not get to set the terms.

Sorry maybe I misunderstand you, but I think that we need to wait for the final agreement to give an answer.

 

[Melchior_1]

They have been excommunication because of the illicit ordination of bishops, I agree that was an error, but only one.

They’ve done a few more than one error, namely continuing illicit ordinations, illicit Masses, and invalid Confessions.

Not to mention a list of errors on their website.

 

[Melchior_1]

I have all the popes on my side and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So what. That has always been the case since the beginning of the Church— and realize that it will always be the case. Read what was happening in the First Century, or fast-forward to Germany in the 1500s. The fact is that the Church will always teach the truth despite the wrongdoings of both the clergy and laity. In fact, the Church has been quite busy dealing with Catholics who thought they knew better than the Church. All these problems were started by people in the Church, some of whom were priests and bishops:

The Circumcisers (1st Century)
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
Arianism (4th Century)
Pelagianism (5th Century)
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
Nestorianism (5th Century)
Monophysitism (5th Century)
Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)
Catharism (11th Century)
Protestantism (16th Century)
Jansenism (17th Century)

The problem is not just the clergy, but just as much the laity. But again, nothing in Vatican II council documents are to blame for this. The blame falls upon individual bad and lukewarm Catholics inside the Church, bothy clergy and laity.

That’s the point: Abuse. Vatican II never taught anything other than the truth. Read the documents. They are brilliant. There’s no question that abuses and misrepresentations of Vatican II have caused problems.

So please tell me where in the Vatican II documents does it say that priests should be stand up comedians, discourage Catholic devotions and never mention sins by name or to stop teaching the doctrine of hell?

Can you tell me when the Church has not been in crisis? Have you never read the Acts of the Apostles? There were plenty of people inside the Church causing problems.

And that’s the history of the Church. There’s a long list of heresies which the Church has fought–heresies coming from people inside the Church. Heresies have been with us from the Church’s beginning, started by Church leaders, who were then corrected by councils and popes. Vatican II was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I would suggest you make it clear that the issue is not Vatican II but rather individuals in the Church who have misinterpreted the Council.

On the one hand we have the heretics teaching false doctrines, and on the other hand we have the schismatics who shun legitimate authority. SSPX are schismatic and borderline heretics, as they seem to also reject the teachings of the Church. If you read the* Diary of Sister Faustina,* one of the things which displeases Christ the most is disobedience, especially among religious.

Understand that there was, is and always will be traitors, hypocrites, liars, adulterers, thieves, perverts and all sorts of wolves and weeds among the clergy, the religious, and the laity. These are the wolves among the sheep which Scripture said would always be among us until the end of the world. You’ll turn blue if you wait until the Church is cleaned out of scandal or rotten members inside the clergy, religious, and laity. It seems to me that you haven’t read the Acts of the Apostles very carefully. There were plenty of problems in the Church back then too: "I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, keeping in memory, that for three years I ceased not, with tears to admonish every one of you night and day. Acts:20:29-31

Nonsense. That’s like saying it was unreasonable to ask anyone to join the Church in the First Century because of scandals that rocked the Church back then. Even Jesus said: Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.

You seem to forget that the Church is at war, and has always been at war with an enemy which seeks to divide and conquer. The problem I have with SSPX is that Pope John Paul II pleaded, prodded, warned, and ordered people not to support SSPX in any way. If you actually read JPII’s Ecclesia Dei Motu Propio, you will see that way back in 1988 the Pope offered the availability of the Traditional Latin Mass to those who desired to have it, and urged the bishops to make it accessible.

A beautiful example of a parish that has been offering the Latin Mass for many years in full union with the Church is the Society of St. John Cantius in Chicago. Please visit: www.cantius.org to see what is possible if those who want the Latin Mass were obedient to the Magisterium.

The problem is that many people are channeling their energies into complaining about the laxities found in parishes and end up wondering if they should attend an SSPX chapel in order to receive the Eucharist. There are two problems with this view. First, one must realize that the Eucharist is valid in the Novus Ordo Mass and running away to a distant chapel Ipso Facto implies a borderline denial of the real prersence.

SSPX should have taken heed of Ecclesia Dei and spearheaded a movement inside the Church to bring back the Sacredness to the Liturgy. This is exactly what the Society of St. John Cantius did in Chicago and their parish is thriving. Since Vatican II, the liberal mentality has infiltrated the Clergy, Religious and Laity and caused chaos in our Churches; but SSPX has caused division, and both sides have been disobedient to the Pope. What the Holy Father is calling for is an authentic interpretation of the Council; not a false interpretation—nor a repudiation of it.

Let us be clear: The hallmarks of demonic deception is chaos, division, and disobedience to legitimate authority. One must never, ever forget to realize that the gates of hell are furiously slamming against the Church, and forces working inside of the Church have spread the seeds of chaos, division and disobedience. Hell’s demonic hatred for God works for the ruin of souls. Thus the battle continues, and the Church Militant must rise up with courage and conviction. Members of the Clergy, Religious and Laity must not run AWOL in the midst of battle.

I hope and pray that SSPX leaders come to their senses and accept the Second Vatican Council’s documents, and focus their energies on licitly making the Sacraments available to the flock under the authority of the Magisterium.

Below is a link to a short audio talk by Archbishop Fulton J Sheen, who clearly speaks about what the Laity should be doing with their lives and warns slef-centered pious Catholics to stop living in an Igloo and begin to share the light of Christ in this dark world in which we live: CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

An incredible post. +9003 internet points to you.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Er4SysgY7...CATHOLICPOPESpope-john-paul-ii-1920--2005.jpg

This picture is worth well over a thousand words.

 

[OraLabora]

An incredible post. +9003 internet points to you.

This picture is worth well over a thousand words.

I’ll make it 9004!

 

[Andre1000]

They’ve done a few more than one error, namely continuing illicit ordinations, illicit Masses, and invalid Confessions.

Not to mention a list of errors on their website.

Then why does the Vatican say that they are not heretic and I can fulfill my Sunday obligation. Better to go to a suspended priest for mass than to go to a heretic. Here in Germany it is hart to find a priest that is neither.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

+1 = 9005!

Heck, 1 million points and a gold star for Gabriel Serafin!

Brilliant!!! :clapping:

I’ll make it 9004!

 

[ProVobis]

A beautiful example of a parish that has been offering the Latin Mass for many years in full union with the Church is the Society of St. John Cantius in Chicago. Please visit: www.cantius.org to see what is possible if those who want the Latin Mass were obedient to the Magisterium.

The problem is that many people are channeling their energies into complaining about the laxities found in parishes and end up wondering if they should attend an SSPX chapel in order to receive the Eucharist. There are two problems with this view. First, one must realize that the Eucharist is valid in the Novus Ordo Mass and running away to a distant chapel Ipso Facto implies a borderline denial of the real prersence.

SSPX should have taken heed of Ecclesia Dei and spearheaded a movement inside the Church to bring back the Sacredness to the Liturgy. This is exactly what the Society of St. John Cantius did in Chicago and their parish is thriving. Since Vatican II, the liberal mentality has infiltrated the Clergy, Religious and Laity and caused chaos in our Churches; but SSPX has caused division, and both sides have been disobedient to the Pope. What the Holy Father is calling for is an authentic interpretation of the Council; not a false interpretation—nor a repudiation of it.

St. John Cantius was ready to close its doors back in the late 80’s, after most of its parishioners had fled to the suburbs. The Latin Mass (and strangely enough the late Cardinal Bernadine) saved it and it now attracts the suburbanites. The ICRSP took over another abandoned parish on the southside and now have flourished. There are several other parishes in the Chicago area which now offer the EF and have restored some Church attendance. But note that this all happened after the Ecclesia Dei was issued. The FSSPX OTOH goes back to the 70’s when the world was much more hostile to the Latin Mass. You could say they were the pioneers in the traditionalist movement; they also seem to be much more sensitive and aware of whatever hostility is left. And there still is a significant amount of it on both sides. I’m not defending them but do consider their situation. The Law of Distribution says that you will have extreme positions within any organization and there are far many more FSSPX priests than the SJC so therefore you will have more resistance as well as people such as Bishop Fellay et al who are much more open to full communion.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Whatever case the SSPX have should be answered, simply and clearly. If it can’t be, then they must have solid arguments on their side.

They are accused of being disobedient. Disobedient in what?

1. Ordaining their own bishops.
2. Not accepting some parts of Vatican II documents OR not accepting the interpretation of those parts.
3. They simply don’t like the New Mass.
4. Has been sorted out.
5. Is under discussion.
6. Turns out the old rite wasn’t abrogated after all and the new one has just been altered to be a bit more in keeping with it.

People should stop touting the Vatican II documents as being like the Mosaic tablets. If it turns out that some correction is necessary, what then? Will liberals go into schism if it turns out that ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality and inculturation are to be interpreted conservatively instead of liberally?

Could the Pope ban CITH, ethnic masses, lay lectors, EMHCs and the new Mass tomorrow? Yes. Could he demand that his clergy push the hard sayings of Jesus? Yes. Would it cause a rupture? Probably not now, thank God. I think mainstream Catholics are finally starting to understand that we need to stop assuming we’re as good as saved, that they’ll always have a priest to hand and that The World loves us.

The list of schisms posted above is impressive, but I don’t think the SSPX have the numbers as were involved in those. Up to 5 years ago, 99.99% of Catholics would have been unaware of them. They are an itch, not a wound.

They have a case. It is now being answered. Pray that the outcome is greater rigour in the Church, because liberalism leads to empty seminaries.

 

[CesarAugustus]

…

People should stop touting the Vatican II documents as being like the Mosaic tablets. If it turns out that some correction is necessary, what then? Will liberals go into schism if it turns out that ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality and inculturation are to be interpreted conservatively instead of liberally?

…

They have a case. It is now being answered. Pray that the outcome is greater rigour in the Church, because liberalism leads to empty seminaries.

Well said!

The books of Mons. Gherardini are interesting regarding that, too.

---

Also, from this article:

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

The four polemic points:

*"The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration ‘Dignitatis humanae,’ contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in ‘Mirari vos’ and of Pius IX in ‘Quanta cura’ as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in ‘Immortale Dei’ and those of Pope Pius XI in ‘Quas primas.’

"The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution ‘Lumen gentium,’ contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in ‘Mystici corporis’ and ‘Humani generis.’

"The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of ‘Lumen gentium’ and no. 3 of the Decree ‘Unitatis redintegratio,’ contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the ‘Syllabus,’ those of Leo XIII in ‘Satis cognitum,’ and those of Pope Pius XI in ‘Mortalium animos.’

“The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution ‘Lumen gentium,’ including no. 3 of the ‘Nota praevia’ [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution ‘Pastor aeternus’.”*

About other Vatican II teachings:

The FSSPX does not reject Vatican II in its entirety: on the contrary, Bishop Fellay has stated that the society accepts 95% of its teachings. This means that the FSSPX is more loyal to the teachings of Vatican II than much of the clergy and hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Consider the following assertions of that council:

“Dei Verbum” 11:

“Holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.”

“Dei Verbum” 19:

“The four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).”

“Lumen gentium” 3:

“As often as the sacrifice of the cross in which Christ our Passover was sacrificed, is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried on.”

“Lumen gentium” 8:

*“But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.”
*
“Lumen gentium” 10:

“Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity.”

“Lumen gentium” 14:

“Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.”

“Gaudium et spes” 48:

“By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown.”

“Gaudium et spes” 51:

*“Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.” *

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.

---

Very interesting, eh?

Blessings!

 

[jam070406]

Well said!

The books of Mons. Gherardini are interesting regarding that, too.

---

Also, from this article:

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

The four polemic points:

About other Vatican II teachings:

---

Very interesting, eh?

Blessings!

Yet you can hold the heterodox view of liberation theology and be the head of the CDF.

Ever manner of dissent is tolerated within Catholicism and no action taken. Yet you would think the SSPX are the most sinister dissenters from Catholic teaching the Church has ever seen. Absolutely mind boggling.

Maybe Fellay can soften his reputation by doing a tour with Nuns on a Bus.

 

[Rich_C]

Whatever case the SSPX have should be answered, simply and clearly. If it can’t be, then they must have solid arguments on their side.

They are accused of being disobedient. Disobedient in what?

1. Ordaining their own bishops.
2. Not accepting some parts of Vatican II documents OR not accepting the interpretation of those parts.
3. They simply don’t like the New Mass.
4. Has been sorted out.
5. Is under discussion.
6. Turns out the old rite wasn’t abrogated after all and the new one has just been altered to be a bit more in keeping with it.

People should stop touting the Vatican II documents as being like the Mosaic tablets. If it turns out that some correction is necessary, what then? Will liberals go into schism if it turns out that ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality and inculturation are to be interpreted conservatively instead of liberally?

Could the Pope ban CITH, ethnic masses, lay lectors, EMHCs and the new Mass tomorrow? Yes. Could he demand that his clergy push the hard sayings of Jesus? Yes. Would it cause a rupture? Probably not now, thank God. I think mainstream Catholics are finally starting to understand that we need to stop assuming we’re as good as saved, that they’ll always have a priest to hand and that The World loves us.

The list of schisms posted above is impressive, but I don’t think the SSPX have the numbers as were involved in those. Up to 5 years ago, 99.99% of Catholics would have been unaware of them. They are an itch, not a wound.

They have a case. It is now being answered. Pray that the outcome is greater rigour in the Church, because liberalism leads to empty seminaries.

+9006

Best post in this thread.

 

[CesarAugustus]

Yet you can hold the heterodox view of liberation theology and be the head of the CDF.

Ever manner of dissent is tolerated within Catholicism and no action taken. Yet you would think the SSPX are the most sinister dissenters from Catholic teaching the Church has ever seen. Absolutely mind boggling.

Maybe Fellay can soften his reputation by doing a tour with Nuns on a Bus.

Yes Jam, I don’t understand why there is a focus in FSSPX while some Bishops, Institutes, theologians, etc are still in “good standing” despite their heterodoxy.