SSPX / RCC talks

[wisdomseeker]

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?

How about dissenters advocating for women priests? Church buildings, band, rock music, large screens, statues being removed. Altar rails, no longer kneelers, the disbelieving of the Eucharist. protestant music being sung everywhere. how about the Tabernacle being removed? you dont see this is a trend of protestantism disbelieve?

 

[TMC]

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.

The Church did condemn Fr Feeney’s views on EENS. That said, the SSPX issue has resulted in a more definite rupture because of the actions of its founders. Archbishop Lefebvre defied the Pope and performed illicit ordinations. As far as I know, the MICM has not done anything like that. SSPX has also at times denied the validity of the Church’s sacraments, which I don’t think MICM has done. I agree that it is possible to disagree with some Church doctrines and remain within the Church - certainly most Catholics have an issue with something or other. There is more to the SSPX issue than mere disagreement, however.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Church did condemn Fr Feeney’s views on EENS. That said, the SSPX issue has resulted in a more definite rupture because of the actions of its founders. Archbishop Lefebvre defied the Pope and performed illicit ordinations. As far as I know, the MICM has not done anything like that. SSPX has also at times denied the validity of the Church’s sacraments, which I don’t think MICM has done. I agree that it is possible to disagree with some Church doctrines and remain within the Church - certainly most Catholics have an issue with something or other. There is more to the SSPX issue than mere disagreement, however.

And until these issues are posted here for everyone to see, noone can honestly judge them. it will be just the opinion of what they think it is.

 

[ProVobis]

Ok, then I think that SSPX should accept the fact that NO Mass is in action and it cannot be stopped that fast.

I think many of them see no choice but to accept the OF around them. But I don’t think this should be forced on them either, as many provokers tend to do. There are many valid rites within the Church. Must all Catholics be asked what they think about each one? If they find one which they’re comfortable with and have it available, that should be enough.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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?

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?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I think many of them see no choice but to accept the OF around them. But I don’t think this should be forced on them either, as many provokers tend to do. There are many valid rites within the Church. Must all Catholics be asked what they think about each one? If they find one which they’re comfortable with and have it available, that should be enough.

Exactly. if the dissenters are accepted without being forced to accept Orthodoxy why not accept SSPX?

 

[TMC]

And until these issues are posted here for everyone to see, noone can honestly judge them. it will be just the opinion of what they think it is.

What are you referring to? I posted the main areas of disagreement that the SSPX has with the Church. Also, I do not agree with the SSPX, but I am not judging them. What I mean is that I believe they are taking the stand they are taking because they sincerely believe that they are correct. I think they are wrong, but I do not condemn them for standing up for what they believe in. I would not have done it the way they are, and I don’t think the Church should bend to their demands, but I do think they are trying to do what they think is right.

 

[wisdomseeker]

What are you referring to? I posted the main areas of disagreement that the SSPX has with the Church. Also, I do not agree with the SSPX, but I am not judging them. What I mean is that I believe they are taking the stand they are taking because they sincerely believe that they are correct. I think they are wrong, but I do not condemn them for standing up for what they believe in. I would not have done it the way they are, and I don’t think the Church should bend to their demands, but I do think they are trying to do what they think is right.

What i mean is what is it that they are defending that was not defended by Church in the past?

 

[TMC]

What i mean is what is it that they are defending that was not defended by Church in the past?

For starters, they are defending open rebellion from the Magisterium and illicit ordinations, neither of which the Church has ever countenanced. They are also advocating their own personal views on certain doctrines - views that are at odds with the Deposit of Faith. I think the Church could put up the latter, if it were done properly, but the Church will not put up with the former.

 

[wisdomseeker]

For starters, they are defending open rebellion from the Magisterium and illicit ordinations, neither of which the Church has ever countenanced. They are also advocating their own personal views on certain doctrines - views that are at odds with the Deposit of Faith. I think the Church could put up the latter, if it were done properly, but the Church will not put up with the former.

Again this is your opinion. what issues are they defending that has not been defended by the Church before? I am not talking about their separation from teh Church. we are talking what caused their separation.

 

[TMC]

Again this is your opinion. what issues are they defending that has not been defended by the Church before? I am not talking about their separation from teh Church. we are talking what caused their separation.

Their disobedience is what caused the separation - the seperation came as a result of the illicit ordinations.

As for the issues they are defending that are at odds with the Deposit of Faith, I listed them in an earlier post, did you not see it?

 

[PaulinVA]

What are you referring to? I posted the main areas of disagreement that the SSPX has with the Church. Also, I do not agree with the SSPX, but I am not judging them. What I mean is that I believe they are taking the stand they are taking because they sincerely believe that they are correct. I think they are wrong, but I do not condemn them for standing up for what they believe in. I would not have done it the way they are, and I don’t think the Church should bend to their demands, but I do think they are trying to do what they think is right.

You have described cafeteria Catholics, believing that they know better than the Church.

I agree that the Church has it’s issues right now, but dissent in any form is still dissent.

 

[At_Trent]

So… the disobedient break away faction has nothing to repent, but the Pope and the rest of the Church need to repent for what? Not overturning the will of all the bishops gathered in council in response to the demands of a few dissenters? Are all of you sedevacantists? If not, how does any of this make any sense?

lol,

From Rome - the majority of bishops say no to CITH - they are disobeyed until Rome finally issues an indult

From Rome - abortion is contrary to Catholic teaching - Catholics vote for pro choice politicians, some of which are “catholic”

From Rome - no female clergy - dissident groups and clergy persist and ordain

I could go on, but the point is, the number of dissident and disobedient Roman Catholics, surely equals or outnumbers the SSPX, whose only agenda is the preservation of Roman Catholic Doctrine and Dogma.

Which extreme is most dangerous to the Church ?

 

[TMC]

lol,

From Rome - the majority of bishops say no to CITH - they are disobeyed until Rome finally issues an indult

From Rome - abortion is contrary to Catholic teaching - Catholics vote for pro choice politicians, some of which are “catholic”

From Rome - no female clergy - dissident groups and clergy persist and ordain

I could go on, but the point is, the number of dissident and disobedient Roman Catholics, surely equals or outnumbers the SSPX, whose only agenda is the preservation of Roman Catholic Doctrine and Dogma.

Which extreme is most dangerous to the Church ?

I am not sure what “dangerous” means, I don’t think any of these issues are a danger to the Church and I am not sure why that question is at all relevant to this discussion. But I would point out that the SSPX is not only seeking the preservation of doctrine or dogma, they are trying to force (or at least convince) the Church to change its doctrines.

 

[ProVobis]

But I would point out that the SSPX is not only seeking the preservation of doctrine or dogma, they are trying to force (or at least convince) the Church to change its doctrines.

That seems to be a contradiction. Either you want to preserve all doctrine unchanged or you don’t.

 

[TMC]

That seems to be a contradiction. Either you want to preserve all doctrine or you don’t.

I agree that the SSPX is presenting a contradiction by trying to force the Church to change its doctrines while claiming to be doing the opposite. Not sure if that is what you meant.

 

[At_Trent]

I am not sure what “dangerous” means, I don’t think any of these issues are a danger to the Church and I am not sure why that question is at all relevant to this discussion. But I would point out that the SSPX is not only seeking the preservation of doctrine or dogma, they are trying to force (or at least convince) the Church to change its doctrines.

Hmm, no Doctrine has been introduced since VII has it ? The SSPX doesn’t want Doctrine changed. That’s the issue.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I am not sure what “dangerous” means, I don’t think any of these issues are a danger to the Church and I am not sure why that question is at all relevant to this discussion. But I would point out that the SSPX is not only seeking the preservation of doctrine or dogma, they are trying to force (or at least convince) the Church to change its doctrines.

and what doctrines are they trying to change?

 

[At_Trent]

I agree that the SSPX is presenting a contradiction by trying to force the Church to change its doctrines while claiming to be doing the opposite. Not sure if that is what you meant.

What Roman Catholic doctrine does the SSPX want changed iyo ?

 

[At_Trent]

I’m out of this thread.

Same old stuff. People hate the SSPX for the sake of hating. Fueling the tired old stigma.
“If the SSPX is involved, it must be schismatic”