R
roseofmary
Guest
I’ve heard talk of this, but don’t know whether to believe it or not.
If anyone could explain it to me, it would be great!
If anyone could explain it to me, it would be great!
- Status
E
EddieArent
Guest
R
rwoehmke
Guest
I read a comment by their Bishop this week and it was along the line of,"If anyone thinks that bringing back the TLM will solve our differences they are mistaken. He seemed to have said that some of the changes wrought by Vatican II would have to be rolled back before he would even think about returning to the fold. Sounded pretty intransigent to me.
P
ProVobis
Guest
What I don’t understand is why do they feel that way since the Archbishop had signed those documents of Vatican II. So is it the documents themselves that they disagree with or is it some erroneous interpretation of those documents?
I’m kind of like many here, surprised that the SP hasn’t swayed them back into the fold, unless, of course, they feel that they would be made to say the Novus Ordo and/or abide by modern liturgical practices, which would really freak out many of their supporters, validity aside.
The priests may eventually (if they haven’t already) join the Church on an one-by-one basis, though many would have to give up their parishes (and leave the bishops who ordained them) in order to come into full communion. Easier said than done.
R
roseofmary
Guest
But what is all this about the Pope changing his views on ecumenism at Vatican II?
R
rwoehmke
Guest
I don’t think the Pope since at least Pius XII have changed the stance on ecumenism. What has changed is treating other Christians and Faiths as untouchables and a common feeling among some clergy and most lay people that unless one actually was a signed up member of the Catholic Church there was no salvation possible for them. The Popes in several documents have reiterated time and again that salvation is only possible through the merits of Jesus Christ mediated through the Catholic Church. What has happened is that this teaching has been clarified in the documents of Vatican II and the situation is not at all what many people commonly thought and taught that it was.
Even in 1947 Fr. Feeny in Boston was disciplined by the papacy for insisting that only “card carrying” actual members of the Catholic Church could be saved. No Pope has ever said that all religions are equally correct and true.
When it gets right down to such issues, when many people think they have read the documents correctly they are mistaken, and like the Bible only the magisterium and ultimately the Pope has the final word on what it all means.
R
roseofmary
Guest
That’s what I thought, but I was reading about how the SSPX put it, and it sounded worse.
D
DonaNobis_Pacem
Guest
The SSPX is only “seeking” full communion with Rome? tilts head I’ve read up on the Society, and from what I’ve read, it seems like the clergy who belong to it (as well as the people who attend Mass at their chapels) believe that they are what’s “left” of Rome. I mean, hasn’t it been their long-standing belief that they are the “remnant” of the “one, true Catholic Church”? Or did I get that wrong? 
I
I_Believe
Guest
The SSPX has offices in the Vatican. Cardinal Hoyos has stated the situation regarding the SSPX is an “internal matter”.
I can’t find the article to cite it, but not long ago, Pope BXVI told those around him that he did not want to hear the words “schism” or “excommunication” in regards to the SSPX. That does not mean the excommunications are lifted of course, but it does indicate that the matter is not cut and dried, as some assume.
The SSPX does not hold the views of Feeney. They are not sedevacantists. They are simply a society of Clergy which embrace Traditon. They reject any “about face” concerning traditional Roman Catholic Doctrine.
The excommunications of HE Marcel Lefebvre and the four Bishops he ordained still stand. The rest of the Clergy of the SSPX are suspended. Thus the Masses prayed by the SSPX are ilicit. But they are also valid. This is Rome’s stance until they deem otherwise. The fact that discussions are ongoing indicates that the lifting of the excommunications is a possibility.
I can’t find the article to cite it, but not long ago, Pope BXVI told those around him that he did not want to hear the words “schism” or “excommunication” in regards to the SSPX. That does not mean the excommunications are lifted of course, but it does indicate that the matter is not cut and dried, as some assume.
The SSPX does not hold the views of Feeney. They are not sedevacantists. They are simply a society of Clergy which embrace Traditon. They reject any “about face” concerning traditional Roman Catholic Doctrine.
The excommunications of HE Marcel Lefebvre and the four Bishops he ordained still stand. The rest of the Clergy of the SSPX are suspended. Thus the Masses prayed by the SSPX are ilicit. But they are also valid. This is Rome’s stance until they deem otherwise. The fact that discussions are ongoing indicates that the lifting of the excommunications is a possibility.
J
Joe17
Guest
The SSPX should be consistent with their views. Either accept what Vatican II says and the New Mass and go under Benedict or say not theo VII and NO and recognize the VII Church not to the the Catholic Church. Show some consistancy. Either he is the Holy Father in all things or he is in none. Cafeteria style cannot be an option. They should have listened to the nine in 83’ and they wouldn’t have to be dealing with this now.
Joe
Joe
I
Icarus210
Guest
I thought that we must accept what the Magisterium over the last 2000 years have deemed as proper and Licit. Using this as a benchmark, I think the SSPX have done the right thing. During our great history we have had some bad popes, but NONE have “altered” our basic tenants of the faith and put in place a vehicle where a branch of Traditional Catholics are further outside the Church than protestants or heathens.
S
Spiller
Guest
Are the SSPX clergy considered apostates or heretics by the Catholic Church? How about their laity? Are they heretics or schismatics?
I
I_Believe
Guest
The Clergy of the SSPX have never rejected Roman Catholic Doctrine, nor do they attempt to modify it, or reinterpret it. They embrace it. They have not lost the Faith. They do not reject the Papacy. They don’t count apostates and heretics in their ranks.
The laity of the SSPX do not embrace heresy, nor do they embrace schism. They embrace what they hear from the pulpits of their chapels, and they tend to enrich their spirituality by embracing the teachings of Christ and the Saints, and by imitation of Christ and the Saints. They do not reject Tradition, they embrace it.
IMO, the Church has not deemed the SSPX a lost cause, nor can it declare them in true schism, due to their faith and devotion to Tradition. Thus continuing talks between Rome and the SSPX.
One thing should be considered. There is indeed an ongoing crisis in the Church. It will be a long while, in God’s due time, before the sex scandal is fully resolved. The shortage of priests remains a major concern. Parishes are being forced to “cluster” in metro areas. Liturgical abuses … and on and on.
The SSPX has had no hand in, nor bears any responsibility in any of this. The SSPX is no threat to HMC.
- Status