SSPX poised for formal schism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter codefro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizabeth502 said:
Which traditional forms of piety are “rebellious?”

:bigyikes:
Click to expand...
See this is exactly what I am talking about when I spoke of culling words to throw them back in people’s faces.

I did not say that traditional forms of piety were in themsekves rebellious - who would be so ridiculous? I said, rather, that some by their actions that are rebellious, schismatic etc. cause the traditional forms of piety they love to be associated with such acts as cause and effect rather than being fruitful of filial love and devotion to the Church and her Shepherds.
 
Brothers and Sisters, lets all pray for humility, and obedience, like St. Francis, that we never forget it never pays to jump ahead of the Church, or to agree that the Church conforms to the current culture, some things never change.

It also is a scandal that there is 40,000. protestant sects within Christianity, Our Lord
left One Church not 40,000. We must pray that all will be One, as our Lord decreed.
Obedience is better than sacrifice.:signofcross:
 
1AugustSon7 said:
See this is exactly what I am talking about when I spoke of culling words to throw them back in people’s faces.

I did not say that traditional forms of piety were in themsekves rebellious - who would be so ridiculous? I said, rather, that some by their actions that are rebellious, schismatic etc. cause the traditional forms of piety they love to be associated with such acts as cause and effect rather than being fruitful of filial love and devotion to the Church and her Shepherds.
Click to expand...
Sir, I was not “throwing words” into anyone’s “face.” Here is what you actually said, and I quote:
1AugustSon7 said:
The most realistic route for those who wish to keep and promote the extraordinary form in the universal Church is, in my opinion, filial devotion to the Pope and the Church’s Magisterium -to the Church- and to avoid at all costs any association of traditional forms of piety and devotions with rebellion, schism, disobedience, etc.
Click to expand...
If someone is engaging in traditional forms of piety, it doesn’t matter when/how they do it. The piety itself (if sincere) has worth, no matter the context. Hopefully you will agree that God reads hearts, better than you, better than me. If the context is the problem, it’s the context, the motives, etc. that should be examined, not the piety. The very concept of “rebellious” piety is what I find objectionable. That’s all.

The reason I draw you out on this is that it is not a secret how many modern Catholics distrust those who attend the TLM and “their reasons” for doing so, or supposedly what kind of “disobedience” and “rebelliousness” (relative to a modern English Mass) such piety shows. Such Catholics regularly visit the Traditional Catholicism subforum of CAF, to “remind” Latin mass-goers of how suspiciously they are being perceived by the rest of the Catholic world. Merely for choosing to attend, exclusively, an EF Mass. There is an assumption that objectionable motives are in play. And that such “rebellion” (supposedly “against” the second Vatican Council, which of course does not at all oppose the Council) should invalidate the piety of those Mass attendees.

God’s hearing everything: the prayers, the piety, the insincerity (from whatever quarters), the judging of others, the various motives, etc. And hopefully you agree with that, too. 🙂
 
pnewton said:
This shows a lack of context of the statement the Pope made. He was not saying he could never make a disciplinary decision (judgement). He was saying he could not judge the state of one’s soul. I shouldn’t even have to say this. It is so obvious to anyone. What does that say that one would chose to ignore this difference in order to make the pope look hypocritical?
Click to expand...
If this is meant to say I wished to make the Holy Father look hypocritical, then you are mistaken. I am saying it is a mistake to assume the Holy Father EVEN MEANT TO BEGIN with that actions cannot be judged. They can, and have been by the Chair of St. Peter. Some have said they do not believe the SSPX will be excommunicated by this Pope AFTER ALL HE HAS SAID recently. Well guess what folks- he has, he can, he very well might. If he does excommunicate SSPX, I trust his decision. If he does not excommunicate SSPX, I trust his decision. It is his decision to make, not mine. Yet, I will not naivly speak of things about a phantom image of a Pope in office when that is not the reality of the Pope we currently have, and I seek to offer the truth to those who spout out such fiction.
 
Mike30 said:
I would argue whats the big deal if they do? Look the Orthodox schismed. What is their status now? The protestants schismed. What is their status now? The Anglicans schismed. What is their status now?

No problems with any of them. The Church respects, accepts and loves them all.

Apparently everyone has a path and a way to Heaven, no matter what, if anything, they believe as long as they follow their conscience.
Click to expand...
That’s what I’ve been thinking as well. In 20 or 30 years it won’t be a big deal. They will just be another sect fallen into the ecumenism crowd. I mean we have such high respect for Isam and atheism that I don’t see the big deal if they go on their own. If that’s what if going to make them happy then we need to respect their freedom of conscious.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
The reason I draw you out on this is that it is not a secret how many modern Catholics distrust those who attend the TLM and “their reasons” for doing so, or supposedly what kind of “disobedience” and “rebelliousness” (relative to a modern English Mass) such piety shows. Such Catholics regularly visit the Traditional Catholicism subforum of CAF, to “remind” Latin mass-goers of how suspiciously they are being perceived by the rest of the Catholic world. Merely for choosing to attend, exclusively, an EF Mass. There is an assumption that objectionable motives are in play. And that such “rebellion” (supposedly “against” the second Vatican Council, which of course does not at all oppose the Council) should invalidate the piety of those Mass attendees.
Click to expand...
That’s a mild way of putting it, especially when long distances of travel are involved. Why do they travel so far if the closest parish is valid enough, for example? So the worst is assumed, often erroneously. 😦
 
spartan_cop said:
That’s what I’ve been thinking as well. In 20 or 30 years it won’t be a big deal. They will just be another sect fallen into the ecumenism crowd. I mean we have such high respect for Isam and atheism that I don’t see the big deal if they go on their own. If that’s what if going to make them happy then we need to respect their freedom of conscious.
Click to expand...
“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” LG.14

Spartan- your statement sounds like the “Dictatorship of Relativism” to me. What’s the problem? Well even by the standards mentioned here, then UNTIL those next 20 years when the Church lifts an excommunication think of the souls that potentially may not be saved because they ignored the call of the Church. It’s not that there are many paths to Heaven- even Vatican II acknowledges there is only ONE path- i.e. The Catholic Church. Whether one is directly or indirectly on that one path is what God can see. Yet does He not use the Church to be His voice on Earth? So if the Church offers warning, should that not be taken seriously? Dangerous stuff here to put earmuffs on when the Church is speaking, ESPECIALLY when earmuff man is claiming to be a Catholic.
 
It’s very telling that in this interview with Fr. Thomas Rosica, Bishop Fellay says that they in the SSPX “did not consider” themselves excommunicated and the reason they sought reconciliation is because “they were told to write a letter to Pope Benedict XVI.” I don’t think they were ready to be reconciled.

youtube.com/watch?v=4XhhM8WXjFA
 
larsont7 said:
I wouldn’t say anyone is “entrapped” in the SSPX. They choose to be there based on the crisis in the Church. While I don’t agree with Bishop Fellay and the SSPX on various issues, they are still Catholics who uphold the teachings of the Church better than most Catholics I have come across. Yes, they need our prayers, but so does every Catholic living during these times.
Click to expand...
👍 Couldn’t have said it better myself if I tried.

Also, I honestly don’t know what the big deal is with this. After all, the SSPX is only following their conscience. With ecumenism and all, we should extend them the same benevolence that we show to others. To each his own. 🙂
 
spartan_cop said:
That’s what I’ve been thinking as well. In 20 or 30 years it won’t be a big deal. They will just be another sect fallen into the ecumenism crowd. I mean we have such high respect for Isam and atheism that I don’t see the big deal if they go on their own. If that’s what if going to make them happy then we need to respect their freedom of conscious.
Click to expand...
Precisely. I wouldn’t have posted my comment almost saying the same had I seen this one. 👍
 
codefro said:
Sure am. Let me know when you find it please.
Click to expand...
Of course I know it isn’t in the Catechism. It couldn’t be. And this is why Catholics have a hard time reconciling what is in the Catechism with what is done in practice. And if what is done in practice is acceptable, it should be extended to groups such as the SSPX.

A few weeks ago, a Jesuit who lives in my diocese told me that it would be acceptable for me, or anyone, to attend, in good conscience, not only the SSPX, but a sedevacantist chapel as well if either one or the other suited my “spirituality” (I put the word in quotation marks because it was the term he used). Was he wrong, or right? If he was wrong, how do you tell a man who has been a Jesuit for over thirty years he is wrong?
 
I think this is the best response to the SSPX:
And now, therefore, I say to you: Refrain from these men and let them alone. For if this council or this work be of men, it will come to naught. But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. Acts 5:38-39
Click to expand...
 
=codefro;11305339]Does what everyone believes dictate the Catholic faith?
Click to expand...
No, but “catholics” are not excluded from possible damnation either.:o
 
Lormar said:
Of course I know it isn’t in the Catechism. It couldn’t be. And this is why Catholics have a hard time reconciling what is in the Catechism with what is done in practice. And if what is done in practice is acceptable, it should be extended to groups such as the SSPX.

A few weeks ago, a Jesuit who lives in my diocese told me that it would be acceptable for me, or anyone, to attend, in good conscience, not only the SSPX, but a sedevacantist chapel as well if either one or the other suited my “spirituality” (I put the word in quotation marks because it was the term he used). Was he wrong, or right? If he was wrong, how do you tell a man who has been a Jesuit for over thirty years he is wrong?
Click to expand...
To your first paragraph- What is done in practice is not always acceptable. I do not know of anything in Church teaching that states that one’s actions trumps Church teaching. In fact it is the opposite and the Church constantly calls all of us to conform our actions to the teachings of the Church. So instead of seeing error and saying everything must be gray, instead study up on the faith and discern that which is of Christ and that which is not. (P.S.- As in the Devil- a creation that Pope Francis spends a lot of time talking about.)

To your second- yes if a valid Church is not around, one may attend an SSPX Chapel, an Orthodox Church, or a Church with valid sacraments at this point in time. Should they be excommunicated, that will be decided by the Magisterium.
 
=TimothyH;11305828]I advocate for the salvation of all.
Click to expand...
-Tim-
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Hoosier Daddy
Seriously. I have never met a Catholic who believes like a perfect Catholic. In my short time on these threads “Good” Catholics have advocated for ABC, gay marriage, salvation of all, married priests, female priests, divorce and remarriage, etc. Heck, a war will break out if you mention music, or dress at Mass.

How can we claim we believe even the unbaptized non believer can be saved but not the SSPX.

In the words of Francis. Who am I to judge?

Dear friend,

One MAY NOT use the term “GOOD Catholic” for anyone holding the views you suggest.

Truth is singular. PERIOD!

Archbishop Sheen explains:"Even if everyone accepts a lie it remains a lie. If everyone denies THE TRUTH, it STILL remains THEE truth. GOD WILL; BECAUSE GOD MUST JUDGE US BASED ON WHAT HE MAKES POSSIBLE FOR US TO know; not WHATWE CHOOSE TO AGREE WITH.

THIS EXPLAINS WHY HELL IS A GREAT DEAL LARGER THAN HEAVEN.
Matthew 7:13
Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat

Further as a member of MANY years [and post], I have NOT seen the evidence of which you speak. Perhaps it is because I’m not looking for it:shrug:

God Bless you, and welcome to CAF!
Patrick [PJM]
I advocate for the salvation of all.
Click to expand...
-Tim-
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top