SSPX Questions & Discussion

[BobP123]

That authority resides in the office of the papacy and the Pope is bound by the magisterium. No Pope can reinterpret the Assumption of Mary or the Hypostatic Union to mean anything else than it already does.

Sure he can. If Paul VI can get away with creating a New Rite in violation of Trent, and write up Progressio Populorum which is in violation of another divine law, then what’s to stop any Pope from doing what you say? And the liberals will all find a way to defend him, maybe even say that believing in the Assumption of Mary was only a discipline.

 

[BobP123]

Since I read on another thread that providing the matter, form and intent are correct, that suspended priests, although suspended, are always priests and can administer the sacraments. (is this a true statement?)

Communion definitely. Baptism and Extreme Unction/Last Rites possibly. Confession and marriage, probably not. Canon Law seems to be a little vague sometimes.

 

[BobP123]

However you word it, your position amounts to the fact that we can disobey the Pope when we feel like it as long as we feel their is grave enough reason.

St. Paul thought so.

 

[bear06]

Sure he can. If Paul VI can get away with creating a New Rite in violation of Trent, and write up Progressio Populorum which is in violation of another divine law, then what’s to stop any Pope from doing what you say? And the liberals will all find a way to defend him, maybe even say that believing in the Assumption of Mary was only a discipline.

I love how you make all of these accusations and don’t bother to back it up.

 

[Johndigger]

St. Paul thought so.

I assume you are referring to Galatians 2:11

If we look at the passage St. Paul is clearly rebuking the Pope for his actions NOT for his teaching. His teaching is obviously the opposite of his actions, hence why St. Paul calls him a hypocrite.
Galatians 2:11:

And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.
For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. **
And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically **along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Absolutely! The Pope can sin. His actions can be rebuked (St Catherine of Sienna springs to mind)

Peter’s actions weren’t consistent with his teaching - hence why he was called a hypocrite. Not because his teaching was in error. But because he was practicing an action contrary to his teaching!

In Christ,

JD

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Sure he can. If Paul VI can get away with creating a New Rite in violation of Trent, and write up Progressio Populorum which is in violation of another divine law, then what’s to stop any Pope from doing what you say? And the liberals will all find a way to defend him, maybe even say that believing in the Assumption of Mary was only a discipline.

Paul VI didn’t violate Trent. Popes cannot bind their successors on matters of discipline, which is what the liturgy is (the form in which the Holy Sacrifice is clothed). The Assumption of Mary is a dogma.

Here, these links should help you with the difference between discipline and dogma:

newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

 

[JKirkLVNV]

St. Paul thought so.

There is no record that St. Paul disobeyed St. Peter.

 

[BobP123]

Peter’s actions weren’t consistent with his teaching - hence why he was called a hypocrite. Not because his teaching was in error. But because he was practicing an action contrary to his teaching!

Thank you. The kissing of the Koran comes to mind.

 

[Sure]

There is no record that St. Paul disobeyed St. Peter.

No, but there is a clear record of the SSPX apologists on this board attempting to hijack any conversation about the SSPX in order to shut down the thread. We start out by posting and discussing church documents until certain people start sputtering on about “irresistable, Athanasius, ummm, trent, quo primum, JPII bad, Lefebvre good intent, canon law meaningless…and so on.” How tiresome, and yet, funny.

Perhaps those of you who want to discredit the Church in it;s judgement of SSPX could start by making detailed arguments as to how motu proprio’s issued by Pope’s are not binding.

The SSPX should stop claiming to be in union with Rome that’s called lying.

 

[Johndigger]

Thank you. The kissing of the Koran comes to mind.

Perhaps, indeed.

No doubt we can scrutinize every one of John Paul the Second’s “sins” during his 27 year Pontificate. However, I do not think this will be beneficial to either of our souls - or our spiritual growth.

We could, of course, spend many many times longer on my own sins. I am inadequate, but this I know, I don’t think churning out people’s lives and sins is going to get us far.

If you’re just going to use this thread to spew out a Pope’s sins and go ad hominem. Please respect the OP’s wishes and leave.

In the peace of Christ,

JD

 

[Sure]

Thank you. The kissing of the Koran comes to mind.

Bob,

You should print your posts and see how much Fr. Phillips agrees with them.

Or better yet, stick to the topic of this thread.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Peter’s actions weren’t consistent with his teaching - hence why he was called a hypocrite. Not because his teaching was in error. But because he was practicing an action contrary to his teaching!

But what are we to do if his teachings are in error? What if, for example, a Pope were teach by his example a false form of ecumenism that did not seek for the conversion of those outside the Church into the Church, but instead sought a false “unity” with then without their converting? Or what if a Pope began to teach the condemned error of separation of Church and State? Or what if he began to teach the condemned error of religious liberty? Should he be followed in those errors?

The following is what Cardinal De Torquemeda (1388-1468), who was given the title “Defender of the Faith”, by Pope Eugenius IV, and who was the official theologian of the Council of Florence, had to say:

: “Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not… it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘One ought to obey God rather than man’; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)…”

"By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law. by doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism…

"He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See. Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. This same holds true for other aspects of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way, relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons.

"By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the
observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope could fall into schism. The conclusion is sound and the premises are not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been established for the common order of the Church. Thus it is that [Pope] Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed…" (Summa de Ecclesia [1489])

Cardinal Cajetan wrote: "The famous axiom “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia” [Where the Pope is, there is also the Church] holds true only when the Pope acts and behaves as the Pope, because Peter “is subject to the duties of the Office”; otherwise, “neither is the Church in him, nor is he in the Church.” (Apud St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 39, Art. 1, ad 6)

Pope Pius IX wrote: “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him” (Letter to Bishop Brizen).

This post is not to advocate disobedience, but to show that in extraordinary circumstances - when a Pope acts in ways that are scandelous, and when he seems to be teaching and doing things directly contrary to the faith - blind obedience is not necessary; and in fact would be most imprudent.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I thought I would also quote the Papal Coronation Oath. When reading this, keep in mind that Paul VI, who took this Oath, changed every single one of the sacraments.

Papal Coonation Oath or Pope St. Agatho (678-681):

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

"To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

"To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear;

"To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

"I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

"I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

"If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

“Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone – be it ourselves or be it another – who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.” (Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, Patrologia Latina 1005, S. 54)

Paul VI changed every single sacrament and invented a brand new Mass. Not a Mass that was the “fruit of developement”, but one that was “manufactured”.

I’ll end with two quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger.

Cardinal Ratzinger: "J.A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our time, defined the liturgy of his day, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a ‘liturgy which is the fruit of development… What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product".

Cardinal Ratzinger: “Cardinal Ratzinger: “After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 165-166).”

 

[bear06]

I’d suggest reading this section of canon law on who the authority in matters of ecclesiastical law is.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P5A.HTM

This contains the highlights.

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id75.html

 

[MMLJ]

Thank you. The kissing of the Koran comes to mind.

Although This may be indirectly relevant to the SSPX, and is true that he did kiss the Qur’an, it would preferable if we Stay on topic and not get into tit-for-tat arguments.

St Matthew 19:19. … Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

 

[MMLJ]

Canon Law is not the Holy Scriptures for one thing. I find this denial that anyone can actually read something and know what it means to be astounding. Romano Amerio pointed this out in Iota Unum as “Pyrrhonism”

Agreed.

How do you know anything is right? How do you know 2+2=4?
Do you wait for an authority to tell you? Or can you determine it on your own?

Good point.

We’ve had a Pope stating that there is no emergency in the Church when the roof is collapsing all over the place and he was punishing a bishop for defending the very formation he (the Pope) was supposed to have had. It’s utter madness.

This seems logical.

God doesn’t give us Canon Law. Canon Law is a human element in the Church.

Of course True.

Popes have failed often in the course of their duties. Go to new advent’s website and look in the encyclopedia for the trial of Pope Formosus. And then try to imagine the confusion for those close to the papacy in those days.

Indeed. Very interesting. Was not aware of this trial of Pope Formosus.

 

[MMLJ]

With regards to ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’, which the SSPX states, so
changing the Mass and the Sacraments can only result in a change of belief:

Are the Novus Ordo priests, bishops, and cardinals now using this same argument pertaining to the SSPX?

If the SSPX were not able to claim ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’;
changing the Mass (TLM) and the Sacraments can only result in a change of belief, why is it now possible that those who oppose the SSPX are utilizing their same argument (pertaining the the NO service since now the TLM is more readily available and increasing both in members and in # of days Churches offer it)?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

With regards to ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’, which the SSPX states, so
changing the Mass and the Sacraments can only result in a change of belief:

Are the Novus Ordo priests, bishops, and cardinals now using this same argument pertaining to the SSPX?

If the SSPX were not able to claim ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’;
changing the Mass (TLM) and the Sacraments can only result in a change of belief, why is it now possible that those who oppose the SSPX are utilizing their same argument (pertaining the the NO service since now the TLM is more readily available and increasing both in members and in # of days Churches offer it)?

There are no Novus Ordo priests, bishops, or cardinals. They’re only Catholic ones.

 

[MMLJ]

I apologize for the typo (I thought priests ordained in the New rite are also called new order priests):

With regards to ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’, which the SSPX states, so
changing the Mass and the Sacraments can only result in a change of belief:

Are the priests, bishops, and cardinals who minister/support/etc. the Novus Ordo service now using this same argument pertaining to the SSPX?

If the SSPX were not able to claim ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’;
changing the Mass (TLM) and the Sacraments can only result in a change of belief, why is it now possible that those who oppose the SSPX are utilizing their same argument (pertaining the the NO service since now the TLM is more readily available and increasing both in members and in # of days Churches offer it)?

Hope that is more clear and members can now address the post.
Thank you and God Bless.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

There are no Novus Ordo priests, bishops, or cardinals. They’re only Catholic ones.

I think you know what it is MMLJ meant. A supercilious manner is unbecoming and of course may show a deficiency in refinement.

absit iniuria verbis

beatus homo qui invenit sapentiam