SSPX / RCC talks

[TMC]

Do you know exactly what separates them?

I know what the SSPX says seperates them, but what does it matter? Is the Magisterium to change its teaching based on the threat of schism by a small group? I have no problem with Catholics seeking discussion of doctrine and even expressing disagreement over doctrinal issues. But this thread suggests that the SSPX should seek something more than that - that the Church must bend to the will of this small group of dissenters before they will admit to the authority of Rome. I think that the Church is on the right side of the issues here, but I also find it astounding that anyone that claims to be a faithful Catholic would suggest that the Church’s authority is limited to those issues where they personally agree with the Church’s teaching.

 

[Timothysis]

I think would be a good thing if someone can post the exactly issues that SSPX has. this way the discussion could be fruitful and many who opposed them could understand better what is really going on instead of mumbling around something that we dont understand. before throwing stones at each other, this would be a good idea. dont you think?

There is no way that one can list exact issues that pertain to the problem of the sspx. If you read the FAQs on their website you will notice an attempt to twist and mangle logic and reason, canon law and Tradition to justify their stance.

One issue that irritates me to no end is that they declare as a “novelty” the concept that salvation is open to those who commit suicide. I assume that this is the offending statement:

“Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.”

Is this really such a novel concept? Is it better to simply declare that all people who commit suicide are going to hell?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I know what the SSPX says seperates them, but what does it matter? Is the Magisterium to change its teaching based on the threat of schism by a small group? I have no problem with Catholics seeking discussion of doctrine and even expressing disagreement over doctrinal issues. But this thread suggests that the SSPX should seek something more than that - that the Church must bend to the will of this small group of dissenters before they will admit to the authority of Rome. I think that the Church is on the right side of the issues here, but I also find it astounding that anyone that claims to be a faithful Catholic would suggest that the Church’s authority is limited to those issues where they personally agree with the Church’s teaching.

it matters because it would clearfy what exactly they are against, so people could understand better what really the issues are.

 

[wisdomseeker]

There is no way that one can list exact issues that pertain to the problem of the sspx. If you read the FAQs on their website you will notice an attempt to twist and mangle logic and reason, canon law and Tradition to justify their stance.

One issue that irritates me to no end is that they declare as a “novelty” the concept that salvation is open to those who commit suicide. I assume that this is the offending statement:

“Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.”

Is this really such a novel concept? Is it better to simply declare that all people who commit suicide are going to hell?

this could just be your opinion. we really need to see why they object certain things concerning the Council. dont you think?

 

[TMC]

I think would be a good thing if someone can post the exactly issues that SSPX has. this way the discussion could be fruitful and many who opposed them could understand better what is really going on instead of mumbling around something that we dont understand. before throwing stones at each other, this would be a good idea. dont you think?

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.

 

[Timothysis]

Some fun quotes;

"Thus retirement has a real purpose, in total opposition to the modern concept of retirement as a well-earned right to unlimited sloth, pleasure and self-indulgence for as long as one’s health holds out, as practiced by snowbirds, winter Floridians and Texans."

“It is perfectly permissible to perform old time country folk music for income. It is to be understood, however, that there can be no sensual or immoral themes behind the lyrics used in the songs, and that the style remains that of folk music, refusing the **deformations of Jazz and Rock.”
**

"It is perfectly permissible to perform old time country folk music on TV, even on TV run by a heretical organization."



“It is not permissible to perform Gospel music, either on TV or in public. For this kind of music is an expression of the false protestant religion, and is consequently an active participation in the propagation of a false religion. It is consequently not permissible to perform Gospel music in a nursing home.”

 

[wisdomseeker]

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.

Thank you. About the Mass, is it not ok with the Vatican that they can continue to celebrate the Mass as they wish?

 

[TMC]

Thank you. About the Mass, is it not ok with the Vatican that they can continue to celebrate the Mass as they wish?

My understanding is that they have no problem with that, but the Vatican wants them to stop suggesting that there is something wrong with the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

Thank you. About the Mass, is it not ok with the Vatican that they can continue to celebrate the Mass as they wish?

Supposedly it is illicit for them to say Mass, although permission has been granted to say Mass at the Vatican and some other selected places.

That being said, I understand they follow the letter of the 2007 SP, that the 1962 Missal be used and not some other pre-Vatican II Missal.

 

[wisdomseeker]

My understanding is that they have no problem with that, but the Vatican wants them to stop suggesting that there is something wrong with the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

Ok, then I think that SSPX should accept the fact that NO Mass is in action and it cannot be stopped that fast. Perhaps some comprimese would be a good idea at this stage. but i think that the bigger problem is with the modernists not wanting the union.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Supposedly it is illicit for them to say Mass, although permission has been granted to say Mass at the Vatican and some other selected places.

That being said, I understand they follow the letter of the 2007 SP, that the 1962 Missal be used and not some other pre-Vatican II Missal.

right. that is a big problem i would say. I think that SSPX should comprimise on this issue since the pope is not willing to change. I think we need them to come back and come back fast giving the state of the Church today which has embraced much of protestants ways of religion.

 

[Timothysis]

this could just be your opinion. we really need to see why they object certain things concerning the Council. dont you think?

If you read their response to the excommunication of the Archbishop, you will notice the great lengths that they go to in order to validate their point. On the one hand, they disparage the 1983 Code of Canon Law as an attempt to solidify the “modernism” of Vatican II, yet regularly quote it in order to excuse the actions of consecrating bishops without a papal mandate.

Their treatment of the FSSP is also interesting. The FSSP was founded by priests of the SSPX who thought that the actions of the Archbishop went too far and did not wish to remain outside of the Church. They basically say that, since FSSP priests accept the Church as it is today, since they accept the Missal of Pope Paul VI, and since they act in accord with the bishops, "They are therefore Conciliar Catholics and not traditional Catholics." Having said that, they declare:
*
"This being so, attending their Mass is:

* accepting the compromise on which they are based,

* accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church and the consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and

*accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.

**
That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses.**"*

And yet, the fact that SSPX priests are suspended of their duties, celebrate illicit Masses, act in disobedience against the Holy See and Canon law, and have “*no active ministry in the Church” * allows attending their Masses as being acceptable.

 

[Timothysis]

I think we need them to come back and come back fast giving the state of the Church today which has embraced much of protestants ways of religion.

Please explain.

 

[TMC]

Ok, then I think that SSPX should accept the fact that NO Mass is in action and it cannot be stopped that fast. Perhaps some comprimese would be a good idea at this stage. but i think that the bigger problem is with the modernists not wanting the union.

Who do you mean by “modernists,” Pope Benedict and the bishops?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Who do you mean by “modernists,” Pope Benedict and the bishops?

You know, not wanting to derail the thread. last year i heard a journalist from England who said that the next pope would be a much younger guy who would change the Churchs views to be more in line with the world. I found this to be interesting. I think he sees how things are in the Church today with so many dissenters and they are embraced by the Church despite of what they advocate for and still being able to stay within the Church, and i thing this was his conclusion. Believe me I dont believe this will ever happen but it is something to not take lightly.

I also find interesting that those like SSPX who loves the Church and lives holy lives and fight to protect her teachings are treated like outsiders and rebels.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Please explain.

Well, if you see how many dissenters are within the Church today, dont you think that they would be a great driving force against these modernists dissenters? including to help the holy father with his mission to fix the problems within the Church?

 

[jonpd]

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.

Interesting that the followers of Fr. Feeney (Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) have an even more restrictive view of EENS than the SSPX (MICM does not accept the baptism of blood or desire but SSPX does) yet they are in communion with Rome. So the issues must lie elsewhere than EENS.

 

[Timothysis]

Well, if you see how many dissenters are within the Church today, dont you think that they would be a great driving force against these modernists dissenters? including to help the holy father with his mission to fix the problems within the Church?

There have always been dissenters in the Church…it is nothing new.

How does that translate to "the Church today which has embraced much of protestants ways of religion?"

How has the Church embraced protestantism in Her exercise of the Catholic religion?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Interesting that the followers of Fr. Feeney (Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) have an even more restrictive view of EENS than the SSPX (MICM does not accept the baptism of blood or desire but SSPX does) yet they are in communion with Rome. So the issues must lie elsewhere than EENS.

Interesting enough is the public issues in which many within the Church preach in disobedience to the Church are well embraced and no punishment comes to them.
Lets take for example many bishops and priests who public defends women priests, gay marriage and do not prohibit Eucharist to public politicians who advogate for these things.
Believe me I have the upmost respect for all of our bishops and priest including the SSPX and am gratefull to God for them. but i find rather interesting that they are allowed to stay and turn the people against the Church yet remain without any punishment at all. Bishop Dolan is one of them who says he will not negate Eucharist to those who disobey the Church s teaching, yet nothing will happen to him, he is directly in disobedience to the Vatican.

 

[TMC]

You know, not wanting to derail the thread. last year i heard a journalist from England who said that the next pope would be a much younger guy who would change the Churchs views to be more in line with the world. I found this to be interesting. I think he sees how things are in the Church today with so many dissenters and they are embraced by the Church despite of what they advocate for and still being able to stay within the Church, and i thing this was his conclusion. Believe me I dont believe this will ever happen but it is something to not take lightly.

I also find interesting that those like SSPX who loves the Church and lives holy lives and fight to protect her teachings are treated like outsiders and rebels.

How are the SSPX not outsiders and rebels? They have literally rebelled against the Church’s authority. It seems to me that the Church is bending over backward in an attempt to bring them back home, something the Church is not doing for other dissident groups.