SSPX Proselytism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jo_Benedict
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jo_Benedict

Guest
Please consider this a postscript to the thread SSPX Discussions:

CAF is an outreach project of Catholic Answers. Catholic Answers is a lay Catholic apostolate in communion with the Catholic Church. CAF welcomes all Catholics and non-Catholics of all levels of adherence to and/or interest in the Catholic Church. We ask only that members act politely to each other and treat the Catholic religion with courtesy. While we welcome non-Catholics and Catholics who have difficulties with the Catholic Church’s teachings on doctrine and morals, we do not allow proselytism for non-Catholic groups or for Catholic groups whose status in the Church is questionable and/or irregular.

In this forum then this means that while members are free to discuss the SSPX, adherents to that group are not allowed to proselytize for the SSPX, especially to members who have come to CAF searching for information about the Catholic Church. As a rule of thumb, discussion entails talking about a topic and expressing one’s opinion; proselytism entails encouraging others to join a non-Catholic religion or an irregular Catholic group. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. God bless.
 
Jo_Benedict said:
Please consider this a postscript to the thread SSPX Discussions:

CAF is an outreach project of Catholic Answers. Catholic Answers is a lay Catholic apostolate in communion with the Catholic Church. CAF welcomes all Catholics and non-Catholics of all levels of adherence to and/or interest in the Catholic Church. We ask only that members act politely to each other and treat the Catholic religion with courtesy. While we welcome non-Catholics and Catholics who have difficulties with the Catholic Church’s teachings on doctrine and morals, we do not allow proselytism for non-Catholic groups or for Catholic groups whose status in the Church is questionable and/or irregular.

In this forum then this means that while members are free to discuss the SSPX, adherents to that group are not allowed to proselytize for the SSPX, especially to members who have come to CAF searching for information about the Catholic Church. As a rule of thumb, discussion entails talking about a topic and expressing one’s opinion; proselytism entails encouraging others to join a non-Catholic religion or an irregular Catholic group. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. God bless.
Click to expand...
Is it ok to appeal to non-catholics to enter the Catholic Church or to those whose views run counter to the Church’s to be faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church?
 
natsclem said:
Is it ok to appeal to non-catholics to enter the Catholic Church or to those whose views run counter to the Church’s to be faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
We should all pray that SSPX see sense, admit their errors, repent and submit to Rome.
 
All I can say is, a woman tried her darndest to talk me out of going to a licit Latin Mass in order to go to an SSPX Mass two miles away at the exact same time. Yet, she says that she isn’t a sedevacantist and that the Novus Ordo is valid. Hmm… I wonder what her motive is?

:hmmm:
 
natsclem said:
Is it ok to appeal to non-catholics to enter the Catholic Church or to those whose views run counter to the Church’s to be faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Yes, so long as it is done charitably – meaning, with respect for legitimate freedom of conscience – and so long as you’re not equating the SSPX with “the Church.” In other words, SSPX adherents cannot tell non-Catholics to enter the SSPX because they think the SSPX is the “true, remnant, eternal Catholic Church” and they cannot tell Catholics to “become true Catholics” by joining the SSPX.
 
Hey, just to clear the air, it wasn’t me that snitched. I said this several time in the threads, but I didn’t run to the coppers. 😉

Not this time. :rolleyes:
 
Jo_Benedict said:
Yes, so long as it is done charitably – meaning, with respect for legitimate freedom of conscience – and so long as you’re not equating the SSPX with “the Church.” In other words, SSPX adherents cannot tell non-Catholics to enter the SSPX because they think the SSPX is the “true, remnant, eternal Catholic Church” and they cannot tell Catholics to “become true Catholics” by joining the SSPX.
Click to expand...
Does that cut both ways? What about people that insist that the SSPX supporters are not Catholics and who tell them to “come back to the Church?” The priests at the local parishes and abbeys who hear my confession and talk to me about the TLM would be surprised to hear that I’m not in the Church because I go to mass at the SSPX.

I could save an awful lot of time if people would actually educate themselves on the proper terminology and the real issues of the SSPX instead of relying on repeating slogans ad nauseum to somehow justify the lack of truth in their comments.

I’m getting PMs from one guy that wanted me to call him at home so he could “straighten me out” on archbishop LeFebvre. When I told him I don’t call people I meet on the Internet, he started e-mailing me back calling me “coward” and badgering me to “work up the courage” to call him.

I’ve also tried to bring out multiple times that nobody “joins” the SSPX. Some people who attend SSPX chapels may go exclusively but most will go anyplace where they can depend on a valid, traditional liturgy and sacraments.

There is a much more fluid situation in some places between the SSPX and the diocesan or religioius priests. There is more cooperation than is made publicly known.

I humbly suggest that that the policy of “no proselytizing” also include “no anathematizing” the SSPX.
 
pnewton said:
Hey, just to clear the air, it wasn’t me that snitched. I said this several time in the threads, but I didn’t run to the coppers. 😉

Not this time. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
CAF is being really nice. They have warned about SSPX in the past. It is a free forum, and it is their forum, and can make whatever rules they want.

Frankly, I’d ban them, but…It aint my house. I am tired of all this hatred of Vatican 2, the love of extreme traditional forms of worship and beliefs, and attacking the Papacy, looking for exhonoration of Lefebreve, even canonization, etc.
 
GerardP said:
Does that cut both ways? What about people that insist that the SSPX supporters are not Catholics and who tell them to “come back to the Church?” The priests at the local parishes and abbeys who hear my confession and talk to me about the TLM would be surprised to hear that I’m not in the Church because I go to mass at the SSPX.

I could save an awful lot of time if people would actually educate themselves on the proper terminology and the real issues of the SSPX instead of relying on repeating slogans ad nauseum to somehow justify the lack of truth in their comments.

I’m getting PMs from one guy that wanted me to call him at home so he could “straighten me out” on archbishop LeFebvre. When I told him I don’t call people I meet on the Internet, he started e-mailing me back calling me “coward” and badgering me to “work up the courage” to call him.

I’ve also tried to bring out multiple times that nobody “joins” the SSPX. Some people who attend SSPX chapels may go exclusively but most will go anyplace where they can depend on a valid, traditional liturgy and sacraments.

There is a much more fluid situation in some places between the SSPX and the diocesan or religioius priests. There is more cooperation than is made publicly known.

I humbly suggest that that the policy of “no proselytizing” also include “no anathematizing” the SSPX.
Click to expand...
The Archbishop and his ordinandi were excommunicated. They anathematized themselves. They are outside the Mystical Body of Christ by virtue of their excommunication.

Yes, they should, they must return to the Church to save their souls, for outside the Church there is no salvation.

So, no one here is saying ‘let them be anathema’ - because the Pope already said that in 1988 in Ecclesia Dei. He personally signed the anathema.

Charity, true charity for them is to pray for their return.
 
GerardP said:
Does that cut both ways? What about people that insist that the SSPX supporters are not Catholics and who tell them to “come back to the Church?” The priests at the local parishes and abbeys who hear my confession and talk to me about the TLM would be surprised to hear that I’m not in the Church because I go to mass at the SSPX.
Click to expand...
While it is true that a Catholic who supports the SSPX and attends SSPX liturgies is still a Catholic, it is also true that John Paul II said to those Catholics:
In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law (Ecclesia Dei 5c).
Click to expand...
For a Catholic to remind another Catholic of this provision of Ecclesia Dei and then to invite that Catholic to reconsider his support for the SSPX in light of that provision is not uncharitable. Of course, what does “cut both ways” is that such an invitation and appeal needs to be made with respect for legitimate freedom of conscience.
 
The current situation in the Catholic Church is one of crisis. It is tempting for all here to analyze other’s positions as if there were no crisis. If an individual Catholic opposes an unorthodox bishop (and, keep in mind, said bishop is undisciplined by any ecclesiastical authority) that Catholic may be denounced quite easily as “disobedient”. Of course, there are circumstances surrounding this “disobedience”. It is inconvenient for many here to consider those circumstances…that might cause them to have to think a bit, and not just condemn. The people they are condemning appear to be solidly Catholic…it is an act of false charity to condemn them in the midst of such turmoil.

SFD
 
SFD said:
The current situation in the Catholic Church is one of crisis. It is tempting for all here to analyze other’s positions as if there were no crisis. If an individual Catholic opposes an unorthodox bishop (and, keep in mind, said bishop is undisciplined by any ecclesiastical authority) that Catholic may be denounced quite easily as “disobedient”. Of course, there are circumstances surrounding this “disobedience”. It is inconvenient for many here to consider those circumstances…that might cause them to have to think a bit, and not just condemn. The people they are condemning appear to be solidly Catholic…it is an act of false charity to condemn them in the midst of such turmoil.

SFD
Click to expand...
SSPX are not solidly Catholic. They still will not submit to Rome so their disobedience continues. The Church’s position on this group is made very clear in Ecclesia Dei to which another poster has given a link.
 
Wasn’t Ecclesia Dei written back 20 years ago? Certainly there have been a number of clarifications from the Vatican since then, have there been not? I mean, do we still take Quo Primum at its face value, even though that really didn’t require clarifications?
 
Regardless of one’s position on the SSPX, the moderator’s have stated the rules. Play by the rules, or take your ball and play elsewhere. I wonder how many of the SSPX ever gave to this ministry anyway. I for one would not support it if they became an SSPX recruiting ground.
 
thistle said:
SSPX are not solidly Catholic. They still will not submit to Rome so their disobedience continues. The Church’s position on this group is made very clear in Ecclesia Dei to which another poster has given a link.
Click to expand...
Is “disobedience” the only issue? What is behind this “disobedience”? Your post illustrates my point exactly.

SFD
 
SFD said:
Is “disobedience” the only issue? What is behind this “disobedience”? Your post illustrates my point exactly.

SFD
Click to expand...
Disobedience is disobedience.

M. Lefebvre’s actions come to mind. His defenders will tell you he had his reasons. Maybe yes, maybe no, but either way: NOT relevant and NOT good enough. When someone takes an action that has been pre-defined as a break with the Papacy and hence with the Church, then that someone is in error. You’ve posted many times about your own stance as a “sede.” That’s your described stance. That does not excuse you or give you any opening to argue your mistaken views. As a child, sixty years ago, I learned as did all other Catholics in those times, that one remains faithful to the Church and to the chair of Peter.

No allowance was given for “reasons” for any willful separation. It was ever thus.
 
SFD said:
Is “disobedience” the only issue? What is behind this “disobedience”? Your post illustrates my point exactly.

SFD
Click to expand...
Yes of course disobedience and obedience is the only issue among many Catholics that have a recent formation especially as it applies to traditionalists. The false understanding that is prevalent is a source of influence and power over the ignorant.

Ignorance of what the Catholic Church teaches regarding obedience only goes so far before people are willfully culpable.

At some point soon, Catholic Answers must make an effort to give the correct “Catholic Answer” to what perfect, true and false obedience is.

To do otherwise would be manifestly, dishonest, uncharitable and indicative of true contempt for Catholicism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top