SSPX poised for formal schism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter codefro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike30 said:
So someone in the Church, who believes in the Church but disagrees in some areas has less ability to follow their conscience than one who flat out rejects everything about the Church? I fail to see how you can reconcile that. Doesn’t seem quite fair. In fact it doesn’t seem fair at all and I really don’t think given what the Holy Father has said recently, that God will condemn the SSPX even if it goes into formal schism as long as they continue to approach God with an open heart. If following your conscience is what we need to do, and a path to salvation can be found in doing just that, then the SSPX can reasonably be said to be following their conscience and thereby be OK in the eyes of the Church.

I don’t see how you can spin it any other way. I would say the days of heretics and schismatics are over for good.
Click to expand...
So then what about the 2 priests he excommunicated? How do you make sense of the Holy Father’s words and actions after that?
 
As I see it, the problem with the SSPX is not that they disagree with the Church. The problem is that they are saying that they get to say what the Church is and what the Church teaches. That is the problem.

I certainly disagree with the Church on some issues. Most Catholics that I know disagree with the Church on one thing or another. But I do not deny the Church’s authority over its own teaching or claim that my view is the REAL view of the Church. I think the Church is wrong on some things, I hope the Church will change on those things, but I don’t declare that the Church is not the Church unless it conforms to my own views.

That is what I see in the SSPX currently - they are not just disagreeing with the Church, they are claiming authority to define the Church. As another poster pointed out (and I have been saying for years) it is the same thing that the Old Catholics went through nearly 150 years ago.

If the leadership of the SSPX want to start their own religion, I am sure they will end up in exactly the same position as all the others that have split from the Church - the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Old Catholics and so forth.
 
Mike30 said:
So someone in the Church, who believes in the Church but disagrees in some areas has less ability to follow their conscience than one who flat out rejects everything about the Church? I fail to see how you can reconcile that. Doesn’t seem quite fair. In fact it doesn’t seem fair at all and I really don’t think given what the Holy Father has said recently, that God will condemn the SSPX even if it goes into formal schism as long as they continue to approach God with an open heart. If following your conscience is what we need to do, and a path to salvation can be found in doing just that, then the SSPX can reasonably be said to be following their conscience and thereby be OK in the eyes of the Church.

I don’t see how you can spin it any other way. I would say the days of heretics and schismatics are over for good.
Click to expand...
Is it good for a serial killer to follow his conscience and continue killing? Is it good for an abortionist to follow his conscience and continue killing? Mankind has been following his conscience since Adam - how did that work out?
 
Monkey1976 said:
Is it good for a serial killer to follow his conscience and continue killing? Is it good for an abortionist to follow his conscience and continue killing? Mankind has been following his conscience since Adam - how did that work out?
Click to expand...
Yup and that is my problem. Just because one follows their conscience doesn’t automatically mean one is saved. It means one MAY be saved. The problem with these “follow your conscience without formation” types is that they paint a world devoid of God in which we are left in a void to figure it all out. We do not live in a deistic world. Christ came with a sword, not a shrug.
 
codefro said:
Yup and that is my problem. Just because one follows their conscience doesn’t automatically mean one is saved. It means one MAY be saved. The problem with these “follow your conscience alone” types is that they paint a world devoid of God in which we are left in a void to figure it all out. We do not live in a deistic world. Christ came with a sword, not a shrug.
Click to expand...
"follow your conscience alone" types 😃 That’s priceless! Thanks for the laugh. I am going to remember that one. I run into a lot of these “types”, especially on Catholic fora~

👍
 
Lormar said:
"follow your conscience alone" types 😃 That’s priceless! Thanks for the laugh. I am going to remember that one. I run into a lot of these “types”, especially on Catholic fora~

👍
Click to expand...
Hey Lormar, haven’t heard back after I answered your question. Glad I was able to help.
 
Lormar said:
Yes, and??? I answered your question. Thank you for your response. We are even steven! 👍 Thanks again for the laugh too! 😃
Click to expand...
So once again my friend, glad I answered your questions and was able to help.
 
Mike30 said:
If athiests, and all others can have a path to God through following their conscience, then so should the SSPX.
Click to expand...
Individuals in that group can. However, the SSPX would not be a vehicle of salvation anymore than atheism would be the vehicle of salvation.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
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?
Click to expand...
That is a big problem today. Every Catholic should accept the teachings of the Mother Church. It is not OK to deny Church teaching.

No one ever said that SSPX Catholics weren’t saved. However, no one ever said that they are guaranteed salvation.

No one ever said that an unbaptized non-believer is damned. However, no one ever said that they are guaranteed of salvation.

So what did we say? “We must entrust them to God’s mercy.”
 
codefro said:
So then what about the 2 priests he excommunicated? How do you make sense of the Holy Father’s words and actions after that?
Click to expand...
I never heard about it. When did it happen? What are the circumstances?
 
larsont7 said:
Those who think they are more Catholic than the Pope? Here I assume you are referring to those who believe contraception, gay marriage, and abortion are okay, like the vast majority of Catholics in the US. These are the ones we need Our Lord to save us from, not from the very small minority of SSPX’ers who do their best to follow Church teaching (at least that’s what the society members I have encountered do).

As to your question regarding obedience of the laity to the clergy, I must say I’ve never heard that one. We have to be obedient to Our Lord and His Holy Catholic Church, but obedience to clergy is not a Catholic doctrine. Yes, we need to be obedient to the Holy Father, insofar as he is the Supreme Head of the Church and is infallible when teaching ex cathedra on issues regarding faith and morals. But what about clergy who are unfaithful in their ministry or preach error? Are we still supposed to be obedient to them?
Click to expand...
Your reaction to my missive is so typical of those who have to be right. No where did I even suggest that Contraception, Abortion, and other evils of our secularist society were correct. I was referring to those who deny the Holy Father as well as those who twist the meanings of the VII reforms to their own ends.
I come from a Jesuit school background that pre-dated V II by more than 20 years, and I was taught that the laity owed their loyalty and obedience to their clergy. I was also taught that although Catholics were encouraged to read the Bible, as well as other documents, it was not their right to interpret them. That right belonged only to those trained to interpret such things - which meant the Clergy. In those days, if a Priest or other religious strayed from the “straight and narrow” in their sermons or teaching, they were immediately turned in to their Bishop or regional head of their order. There was strict discipline within the Clergy.
All of this seems to have changed in the late 1960’s and the '70’s when seminaries relaxed their rules as to who was admitted, and young priests rebelled against their pastors and we ended up with pseudo-folk Masses, Masses with Mimes, Polka Masses and even Clown Masses! And let us not forget, Nuns who not only shed their Habits, but agitated to be Priests!
In addition to all of this, we now witness Catholics who feel free to interpret Scripture and Canon Law, as is evidenced by many correspondents on this site, I was raised to think that only Protestants did such things.
Pope John Paul II had his hands full just keeping the Church together! That is why he and the Cardinals and Bishops tolerated such abuses, and is also why the Church lost membership. It lost the respect of a good portion of the people.
I do believe in something that Pope Benedict said: “Perhaps we would be better off with a smaller church.” And I do think that our present Pope Francis will be the one to bring this about.
 
George_Stegmeir said:
Your reaction to my missive is so typical of those who have to be right. No where did I even suggest that Contraception, Abortion, and other evils of our secularist society were correct.
Click to expand...
I never said that you suggested any of those things were correct. I asked if that’s who you were referring to when you were talking about those who were more Catholic than the Pope, and I said that those who DO support those things fit that description better than members of the SSPX. Why would that make you think I was talking about you? I don’t even know you.

And my reaction is typical of those who have to be right? 🤷
George_Stegmeir said:
I was referring to those who deny the Holy Father as well as those who twist the meanings of the VII reforms to their own ends.
I come from a Jesuit school background that pre-dated V II by more than 20 years, and I was taught that the laity owed their loyalty and obedience to their clergy. I was also taught that although Catholics were encouraged to read the Bible, as well as other documents, it was not their right to interpret them. That right belonged only to those trained to interpret such things - which meant the Clergy. In those days, if a Priest or other religious strayed from the “straight and narrow” in their sermons or teaching, they were immediately turned in to their Bishop or regional head of their order. There was strict discipline within the Clergy.
All of this seems to have changed in the late 1960’s and the '70’s when seminaries relaxed their rules as to who was admitted, and young priests rebelled against their pastors and we ended up with pseudo-folk Masses, Masses with Mimes, Polka Masses and even Clown Masses! And let us not forget, Nuns who not only shed their Habits, but agitated to be Priests!
In addition to all of this, we now witness Catholics who feel free to interpret Scripture and Canon Law, as is evidenced by many correspondents on this site, I was raised to think that only Protestants did such things.
Pope John Paul II had his hands full just keeping the Church together! That is why he and the Cardinals and Bishops tolerated such abuses, and is also why the Church lost membership. It lost the respect of a good portion of the people.
I do believe in something that Pope Benedict said: “Perhaps we would be better off with a smaller church.” And I do think that our present Pope Francis will be the one to bring this about.
Click to expand...
Well, I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said here. I think we may just be using different language. I certainly agree that we should respect the clergy and be obedient to them INSOFAR as they are not teaching anything apart from Catholic doctrine. As you said, there used to be a strict discipline among the clergy that is not as prevalent nowadays. I also agree that we would be better off with a smaller church (I use that Pope Benedict quote all the time).

The point I was making in my previous post was that the SSPX is not the enemy we should be fighting. Every SSPX post on CAF brings about the anti-SSPX crowd that claims they are Protestant, they are “holier than the Pope”, they are dividing the Church, etc. And they do this with SSPX members unable to defend themselves, since the rules here do not allow them to.

Truth is, the SSPX is a relatively small group of Catholics who believe they are doing what’s best in this time of crisis while still acknowledging Pope Francis as Supreme Pontiff. Any faults they have with obedience or their interpretation of Vatican II is minor compared to the destruction of the Church we see around the world. And though it’s a real longshot now, I still pray for their unification with the Holy See, as should we all.
 
Maybe this is a minor detail but wouldn’t the FSSPX be losing a chapel at the Vatican, which I didn’t even know they had until yesterday?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top