SSPX / RCC talks

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flavius_Aetius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
and neither is an “ecumenism of the return” sought from the Protestants.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ…

What do you call Anglicanorum Coetibus and the subsequent Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham?

If that is not “ecumenism of the return” for Protestants, then what is?
 
At_Trent said:
Hmm, no Doctrine has been introduced since VII has it ? The SSPX doesn’t want Doctrine changed. That’s the issue.
Click to expand...
The SSPX claims that they are the proper judges of what the doctrine of the Church is, even when that judgment disagrees with the bishops sitting in council. That is the issue.
 
wisdomseeker said:
How about the removal of the Tabernacle and instead the Bible is put on top of the Altar and the priest bows to the Bible as if he would be worshipping the Bible instead?
Click to expand...
Huh???

It is a licit option to place the tabernacle in a side chapel for prayer and adoration outside of Mass. The tabernacle was never always placed on top of the altar throughout the history of the Church. It wasn’t until St. Francis starting renovating chapels that the tabernacle was placed on the altar due to lack of space. Cathedrals have and always have had the tabernacle located in side chapels. There is no nefarious motivation in your example.

And as for "worshipping the Bible instead?" What in the world are you talking about???
 
TMC said:
I agree with those that say it is difficult to list all of the areas of disagreement, in part because the movement is not completely homogenous. That said, it appears to me that there are two related issues that are the biggest issues - ecumenism and the interpretation of EENS. This is a bit of an over-simplification, but the SSPX wants the Church to recant its teaching that those not formal members of the physical Catholic Church on earth can be saved, and they want the Church to stop all of its out reach to other faiths. There are some other areas of strong disagreement, the highest profile are probably the Church’s teaching about Jews and the proper form of the Mass. I am sure there are other things, but these are the main areas as I understand them. There are plenty of SSPXers here, they are welcome to correct or expand if I have it wrong.
Click to expand...
Ok. ecumenism is not a doctrine, i dont think it is at least. eccumenism is a sensitive issue at this point and it has brought much pain to the Church. it has caused many to desbelieve in the CC and has brought much heretical beliefs into the Church. the holy father himself has much commented on it. it has even been called ecumaniacs.

The Church always tought that there is no salvation outside the CC. are you saying that what the Saints died for, it should no longer be an issue for us today?

The Church always tough to pray for the conversion of the Jews. The saints died doing this.

The way the Mass is today has become an issue even to the Vatican.

I also see that today in teh Mass there is no prayer for the conversion of no one. when did the mission of the Church stopped? All i hear is prayer that nations may be just to the poor and make peace among themselves. there is never mention of conversion to God. another prayer that i hear is to end all descrimination. go figure this one out.
 
wisdomseeker said:
and what doctrines are they trying to change?
Click to expand...
For one thing, it used to be well known that the Pope could declare a person to be a blessed or a saint. But the SSPX doesn’t like that anymore. So now, according to the revered SSPX bishop His Excellency +Richard (or is it Rowan? I forget) Williamson:
John-Paul II will not be beatified as a Catholic Blessed by a Catholic beatification in the Catholic Church, but as a Newblessed by a Newbeatification in the Newchurch. . . . [N]o Catholic should expect anything other than a Newblessed to emerge from a Newbeatification. . . .The procession is from God to Newgod to Nongod. Right now we still have Newrome pushing the Newgod of Vatican II with Newblesseds to match, but before long sheer criminals will be the “Blesseds” of the Nongod.
But oh, no, he’s not schismatic or anything … :rolleyes:
 
wisdomseeker said:
Ok. ecumenism is not a doctrine, i dont think it is at least. eccumenism is a sensitive issue at this point and it has brought much pain to the Church. it has caused many to desbelieve in the CC and has brought much heretical beliefs into the Church. the holy father himself has much commented on it. it has even been called ecumaniacs.
Click to expand...
Maybe ecumenism is more of a policy than a doctrine. I completely disagree with everything else you have to say about it.
The Church always tought that there is no salvation outside the CC. are you saying that what the Saints died for, it should no longer be an issue for us today?
Click to expand...
The Church teaches the same today. The Church also teaches that those that are not formally members of the physical Church on earth may be saved in ways we do not fully understand by an extension of God’s saving Grace to them through the Church. The bishops teach us (and I believe) that this teaching is fully consistent with the deposit of faith, but the SSPX rejects this teaching.
The Church always tough to pray for the conversion of the Jews. The saints died doing this.
Click to expand...
And the Church teaches this today. But some in the SSPX teach the blood curse and other slurs against Jews and Judaism that have no place in Catholicism.
The way the Mass is today has become an issue even to the Vatican.
Click to expand...
This is simply untrue. The Holy Father celebrates the Ordinary Form of the Mass, in fact it is the only way he has celebrated the Mass as Pope. The Vatican has no “issue” with the Ordinary Form of the Mass.
I also see that today in teh Mass there is no prayer for the conversion of no one. when did the mission of the Church stopped? All i hear is prayer that nations may be just to the poor and make peace among themselves. there is never mention of conversion to God. another prayer that i hear is to end all descrimination. go figure this one out.
Click to expand...
Maybe you are listening to the wrong prayers. I hear prayers for conversion all the time. What is wrong with praying for justice, praying for the poor or praying for the end of all discrimination?
 
TMC said:
That said, it appears to me that there are two related issues that are the biggest issues - ecumenism and the interpretation of EENS. This is a bit of an over-simplification, but the SSPX wants the Church to recant its teaching that those not formal members of the physical Catholic Church on earth can be saved, and they want the Church to stop all of its out reach to other faiths.
Click to expand...
But, as I see it, that is NOT a Vatican II issue. If the Baltimore Catechism reflected the mindset of the Catholic Church (or at least in the English-speaking world) back in 1900 something, then it was quite possible for someone outside of the Catholic Church to attain salvation. Why they bring this up as accepting all doctrine of Vatican II is someone’s fabrication, IMO.
 
John-Paul II will not be beatified as a Catholic Blessed by a Catholic beatification in the Catholic Church, but as a Newblessed by a Newbeatification in the Newchurch. . . . [N]o Catholic should expect anything other than a Newblessed to emerge from a Newbeatification. . . .The procession is from God to Newgod to Nongod. Right now we still have Newrome pushing the Newgod of Vatican II with Newblesseds to match, but before long sheer criminals will be the “Blesseds” of the Nongod.
Click to expand...
I used to be sympathetic towards the SSPX, but I no longer take them seriously because of statements such as the one above.

The SSPX should humbly submit to Rome and accept that Vatican II contains no heresy. I have issues with certain interpretations of the Council, but I don’t think anyone can rightly claim that Vatican II is heretical.

Furthermore, I can’t see why the upcoming beatification of John Paul would be a cause for concern. It is one thing to disagree with certain actions that John Paul did, but it is quite another to reject his legitimate beatification by the Church.
 
ProVobis said:
But, as I see it, that is NOT a Vatican II issue. If the Baltimore Catechism reflected the mindset of the Catholic Church (or at least in the English-speaking world) back in 1900 something, then it was quite possible for someone outside of the Catholic Church to attain salvation. Why they bring this up as accepting all doctrine of Vatican II is someone’s fabrication, IMO.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. I think Vatican II is used as an excuse by some that simply disagree with the Church. It gives them a focal point and somewhere to fix blame.
 
TMC said:
This is simply untrue. The Holy Father celebrates the Ordinary Form of the Mass, in fact it is the only way he has celebrated the Mass as Pope. The Vatican has no “issue” with the Ordinary Form of the Mass.
Click to expand...
Actually that poster had a point. While they celebrate the OF, they have made numerous statements about the growing irreverence in the Mass. I’m sure even the “banal fabrication” comment made by the then-Cardinal Ratzinger was not applicable to all liturgies performed; but nevertheless the records do show he made the comment. Cardinal Arinze has made numerous comments and now so has Cardinals Burke and Ranjith so it is an issue. The SSPX, however, might have pushed the issue too far; it certainly wasn’t flattering to the newer form.
 
ProVobis said:
Actually that poster had a point. While they celebrate the OF, they have made numerous statements about the growing irreverence in the Mass. I’m sure even the “banal fabrication” comment made by the then-Cardinal Ratzinger was not applicable to all liturgies performed; but nevertheless the records do show he made the comment. Cardinal Arinze has made numerous comments and now so has Cardinals Burke and Ranjith so it is an issue.
Click to expand...
Proper celebration of the Mass in accord with the norms is always an issue, and always has been. The difference is that the SSPX says that even when it is properly celebrated, there is something inherently wrong with the OF.
 
Dempsey1919 said:
I used to be sympathetic towards the SSPX, but I no longer take them seriously because of statements such as the one above.
Click to expand...
I think it’s rather unfair to lump all SSPX members with a particular SSPX bishop, who BTW happens to be a former Anglican, not even a cradle Catholic. He certainly does not express the thoughts of the other SSPX bishops and in fact has been publically disowned by them.
 
I’d like to thank everyone who asked questions and to those who answered while I was away from the forum (computer crash + College classes) Everything said has been very helpful in information. As of now I can only further observe since my knowledge on the subject is quite dim.
 
TMC said:
Proper celebration of the Mass in accord with the norms is always an issue, and always has been. The difference is that the SSPX says that even when it is properly celebrated, there is something inherently wrong with the OF.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but they had lots of company. Cardinal Ottaviani, a Pro-Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Bacci et al, had major issues even with the Latin edition before it was even promulgated, mostly I believe dealing with Sacrifice vs Meal. The issues with “many” and “all” were fortunately only confined to the English translations.

That said, since the 2007 SP I haven’t heard that much criticism of the OF by any of the SSPX priests. (Let’s not count a certain bishop.)
 
ProVobis said:
Actually that poster had a point. While they celebrate the OF, they have made numerous statements about the growing irreverence in the Mass. I’m sure even the “banal fabrication” comment made by the then-Cardinal Ratzinger was not applicable to all liturgies performed; but nevertheless the records do show he made the comment. Cardinal Arinze has made numerous comments and now so has Cardinals Burke and Ranjith so it is an issue. The SSPX, however, might have pushed the issue too far; it certainly wasn’t flattering to the newer form.
Click to expand...
this is the closest documented quote from genuinely Cardinal Ratzinger:
Yet because – necessarily, and more and more clearly – people’s judgements as to what is pastorally effective are widely divergent, the “pastoral” aspect has become the point at which “creativity” breaks in, destroying the unity of the Liturgy and very often confronting us with something deplorably banal. That is not to deny that the Eucharistic Liturgy, and likewise the Liturgy of the Word, is often celebrated reverently, and “beautifully” in the best sense, on the basis of people’s faith. Yet since we are looking for the criteria of reform, we do also have to mention the dangers, which unfortunately in the last few decades have by no means remained just the imaginings of those traditionalists opposed to reform.
Click to expand...
adoremus.org/1104OrganicLiturgy.html

He is criticising the result of the so called ‘pastoraly effectiive changes’, not the new rite as it is defined. If there would be no new rite, than the old rite would be abused, the abuse comes from the people, not from the rite.
 
SouthpawLink said:
You’re right, there isn’t an equality; the SSPX has kept the Faith.
Click to expand...
No one among the SSPX has the charism for keeping the deposit of the faith. That is only bestowed upon the successors of St. Peter. Insinuating that the Holy Catholic Church has lost the Faith with the quote above is uncharitable slander and anticatholic rhetoric. It is pitiable to try to promote one’s cause by tearing others down, especially when it is the Holy Catholic Church that is attacked.
 
MarkThompson said:
For one thing, it used to be well known that the Pope could declare a person to be a blessed or a saint. But the SSPX doesn’t like that anymore. So now, according to the revered SSPX bishop His Excellency +Richard (or is it Rowan? I forget) Williamson:…But oh, no, he’s not schismatic or anything … :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
We can not judge the SSPX by Bp. Williamson. He is a case unto himself. Let us not forget our recent history. The SSPV has already splintered away from the SSPX and now Ab. Williamson seems to be doing his own thing. It may well be that if the SSPX is reconciled, that a portion will refuse to concede to whatever concord is reached. That is the nature of… well, what ever you want to call it. Once breaks start, they tend to continue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top