SSPX statement

[JKirkLVNV]

For purposes of claification, regarding the arts in the Church, THIS is where I would go to Mass had I my druthers. Follow link and enjoy the visual feast:

atonementonline.com/sanctuary.html

 

[toppro77]

Catholic Dude:

This should tell you how they think:

These guys are a bunch of dogs. Dont worry about them. They act as if its in their hands to make a difference in the world, they are a bunch of doublespeak dogs.

Hi Catholic Dude,
since you state that the SSPX priests “are a bunch of dogs” I wonder if you have ever studied your faith enough to make such a comment. Have you ever read any of Pope St Pius X’s encyclicals against modernism?

I think not or you would see that a true saint of the Catholic Church denounced all the ecumenism and modernistic changes that have and are taking place in the Church. This was condemned by him back in 1907 in an encyclical called
“Pascendi Dominci Gregis” Here is a link to it. I suggest you read it then see what you think.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

 

[tuopaolo]

JKirkLVNV:

Tuopaulo: Beauty is only a matter of truth because truth alone is truly beautiful. In matters of art, music, etc., absent something that is objectively evil (a head banger tune that lauds Satan, for example), it becomes a matter of taste.

Your view is common in the modern world, but it is not the historic Catholic teaching of St Thomas Aquinas and other philosophers and theologians in Catholic Tradition.

The historic Catholic philosophical teaching is that everything that exists, including art and music insofar as it exists is true, good and beautiful. These number among what in traditional Catholic philosophy is called the transcendentals. There is some debate as to whether beauty is its own proper transcendental or whether it is simply the combination of the good and the true, but in traditional Catholic philosophy there is no doubt that beauty – in all its forms whether moral, artistic, musical or physical – is objective in nature, inhering in the object which the mind recognizes beautiful.

This can be proved philosophically from the fact that when the mind apprehends something as beautiful, there must be a quality of the object by which the mind apprehends it as beautiful.

This historic, traditional Catholic position comes as a surprise to many because secular society educates them to believe otherwise. For example in many schools they will teach children what is supposed as a difference between “fact” and “opinion.” In some of the examples they will say that the statement that a certain art work is beautiful is not a “fact” (or a statement in contradiction to a fact) but is rather an “opinion.” This and other forms of societal brainwashing causes people to lose sight of the objective character of beauty. This aesthetic relativism is a dangerous counterpart to moral relativism and as such part of the “dictatorship of relativism” condemned by Benedict XVI prior to the conclave.

Pope Benedict XVI also condemned while Cardinal the lack of objective beauty in certain music:

“On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. “Rock”, on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit’s sober inebriation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments.”

adoremus.org/1101musicliturgy.html

I much prefer church’s to have an abundance of religious art, but there are monastic chapels that have next to none, apart from one or two stained glass windows. Do the Masses there fail to confect the Sacrifice? Austerity can also give glory to God.

What you are observing here is completely compatible with the objective nature of beauty. Beauty’s being objective does not mean that there cannot be manifold, diverse expressions of beauty, different kinds of participation in Beauty.

It is not simply academic but critical to our relationship with God that we recognize that what He made – including things as simple as trees – were made by Him objectively beautiful, reflecting in however a dim way His Beauty. In music and art, insofar as we accurately reflect the eternal Beauty of God whether in sacred or profane* music, they too are objectively beautiful.

*profane here means non-religous

 

[mercygate]

dumspirospero:

I hope and pray that our separated bretheren are once again brought back into the Church.

That statement read to me more like the SSPX might be willing to entertain dialogue provided Benedict XVI submits to the authority of the SSPS. Call me a cynic, but these people have been adamant in the past. Maybe the Holy Spirit has a few more surprises in store for us. I hope so.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

toppro77:

Hi Catholic Dude,
since you state that the SSPX priests “are a bunch of dogs” I wonder if you have ever studied your faith enough to make such a comment. Have you ever read any of Pope St Pius X’s encyclicals against modernism?

I think not or you would see that a true saint of the Catholic Church denounced all the ecumenism and modernistic changes that have and are taking place in the Church. This was condemned by him back in 1907 in an encyclical called
“Pascendi Dominci Gregis” Here is a link to it. I suggest you read it then see what you think.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

I will get at this link right now. About the dogs part, I have made myself clear about how they act. For example they talk about people like John Paul II as their pope and say that they pray for him and offer mass for him, but as you keep reading their pages they begin to put daggers in his back, it is clear to me. Those guys are trash for that, Im not saying that every sspx’er holds those exact views, but the ones at the top do.

 

[Adonis33]

Catholic Dude:

I will get at this link right now. About the dogs part, I have made myself clear about how they act. For example they talk about people like John Paul II as their pope and say that they pray for him and offer mass for him, but as you keep reading their pages they begin to put daggers in his back, it is clear to me. Those guys are trash for that, Im not saying that every sspx’er holds those exact views, but the ones at the top do.

I for one hope their is an end to this situation with the SSPX. I believe with PBXVI, it will be sooner rather than later.

When has the SSPX “put daggers” in the back of JPII? It is one thing be to unjustly critical in comments about the Pope - but quite another thing to be concerned about the direction the Church appears to be headed.

I do not believe allowing all priests to say the TLM is so unreasonable.

I would also like to ask all posters to stop making this thread so interesting, I’m not getting any work done.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

JKirkLVNV:

Tuopaulo: Beauty is only a matter of truth because truth alone is truly beautiful. In matters of art, music, etc., absent something that is objectively evil (a head banger tune that lauds Satan, for example), it becomes a matter of taste.

Whoops, no it does not. Art (including music) asks to be apprehended by means of the trained senses and the trained mind and the trained community. “I like it / I hate it” is the lowest possible level of response. It is inherently exclusionary and provides no growth of insight whatsoever.

JKirkLVNV:

Otherwise, there is no beauty in the simple Santos that decorate the churches of Northern New Mexico, there is only beauty in the apointments of St. Peter’s, which pretty much means that only white Europeans can produce anything of beauty.

Nope. That’s just wrong. Mexican art has beauty drawn from the experience and sensibilities of the Mexican people. It is as much art as the appointments of St Peters, only different.

JKirkLVNV:

Austerity can also give glory to God.

Yes, but in doing so it makes no comment as to the validity of more ornate or more colourful art. Again it is different. Not better, but different.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

toppro:

“Pascendi Dominci Gregis” Here is a link to it. I suggest you read it then see what you think.

After almost two hours I got to about paragraph 30 (with about 25 more I didnt get to.) From what I have read and understand it is right on target with a movement that has happened. There were two levels he was talking about, the first was those who did their work out in the open, and the second who were more secretive (which is the group your are talking about.). Most of the acts he warns about and condemns are usually dealing with the out in the open group which I see as nothing more than modern day liberals (who get worse as time goes on). The second group is the one I had a hard time being convinced that they run the Church and that V2 was the devils workings…

For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within; hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of her. Moreover they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skilful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest morality.

Is this passage referring to the Church? The way he puts it there is no recovery when something like this happens, so the question is did the devil prevail or is this passage not referring to what happened to the Church.

Here are some passages that I see as talking about only the first group:

…But how the Modernists make the transition from Agnosticism, which is a state of pure nescience, to scientific and historic Atheism, which is a doctrine of positive denial; and consequently, by what legitimate process of reasoning, starting from ignorance as to whether God has in fact intervened in the history of the human race or not, they proceed, in their explanation of this history, to ignore God altogether,…

Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles.

Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true.

But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they write history they pay no heed to the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between theological and pastoral exegesis and scientific and historical exegesis. So, too, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, when they treat of philosophy, history, criticism, feeling no horror at treading in the footsteps of Luther, they are wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines, or the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty.

The Church and the Sacraments, they say, are not to be regarded as having been instituted by Christ Himself. This is forbidden by agnosticism, which sees in Christ nothing more than a man whose religious consciousness has been, like that of all men

Their general directions for the Church may be put in this way: Since the end of the Church is entirely spiritual, the religious authority should strip itself of all that external pomp which adorns it in the eyes of the public.

This looks like nothinig more than liberalism 101.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Adonis33:

When has the SSPX “put daggers” in the back of JPII? It is one thing be to unjustly critical in comments about the Pope - but quite another thing to be concerned about the direction the Church appears to be headed.

Here is one of my old posts I was lucky to find.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Here is what Benedetto has written on the the Lefebvre Schism:

---

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3032

Some excerpts:

---

One of the basic discoveries of the theology of ecumenism is that schisms can take place only when certain truths and certain values of the Christian faith are no longer lived and loved within the Church. The truth which is marginalized becomes autonomous, remains detached from the whole of the ecclesiastical structure, and a new movement then forms itself around it. We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally.

---

We ought to get back the dimension of the sacred in the liturgy. The liturgy is not a festivity; it is not a meeting for the purpose of having a good time. It is of no importance that the parish priest has cudgeled his brains to come up with suggestive ideas or imaginative novelties. The liturgy is what makes the Thrice-Holy God present amongst us; it is the burning bush; it is the Alliance of God with man in Jesus Christ, who has died and risen again. The grandeur of the liturgy does not rest upon the fact that it offers an interesting entertainment, but in rendering tangible the Totally Other, whom we are not capable of summoning.

---

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

 

[Adonis33]

Here is one of my old posts I was lucky to find.

You seem to suggest that calling JPII “Holiness” and being critical of something he wrote is contradictory. His Holiness" is one of the tiltles that many people refer him too. Are you saying we may not refer to Pres. Bush as “Mr. President” if we are to critisize him?

I found the comments to be consistent. While they do not question his authority (which would be a mortal sin), they point to some of the more liberal leanings the Chuch has appeared to be having.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

oo

RSiscoe:

…They reject what has come about since Vatican II - under the name of Vatican II. What has come about since Vatican II is, as they said, a new religion. And this new false heretical religion is incampatible with Catholicism. I am not saying everyone within the Church has succumbed to that new religion, but it is there, and it has invaded our Churches like a deadly plague.

So please give me a specific doctrine that the SSPX rejects. And remember, according to our new Pope, Vatican II did not define any new doctrines (see my signature)., which means you cannot point to anything in the Vatican II documents as being newly defined doctrine.

I found this, at their site. What do you think of the Pope after you read this?

The validity of the reformed rite of Mass, as issued in Latin by Paul VI in 1969, must be judged according to the same criteria as the validity of the other sacraments; namely matter, form and intention. The defective theology and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass. The intention of doing what the Church does, even if the priest understands it imperfectly, is sufficient for validity.
…

…In fact, most liturgies present the contrary intention of a celebration by the community of the praise of God. In such circumstances it is very easy for a priest to no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, and for the New Mass to become invalid for this reason. …

Clearly, an invalid Mass is not a Mass at all, and does not satisfy the Sunday obligation. Furthermore, when it comes to the sacraments, Catholics are obliged to follow the “pars tutior,” the safer path. It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative.

However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in today’s Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it. …

…Here we are speaking of a real sacrilege, the dishonoring of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by the elimination of the prayers and ceremonies that protect its holiness, by the absence of respect, piety and adoration, and by the failure to express the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a true propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. …

Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecumenical celebration, etc. …

However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050424/i/r2508341476.jpg

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Adonis33:

You seem to suggest that calling JPII “Holiness” and being critical of something he wrote is contradictory. His Holiness" is one of the tiltles that many people refer him too. Are you saying we may not refer to Pres. Bush as “Mr. President” if we are to critisize him?

I found the comments to be consistent. While they do not question his authority (which would be a mortal sin), they point to some of the more liberal leanings the Chuch has appeared to be having.

I dont understand where you are going. Did you read any of the other posts on here?
Here is what they said about John Paul 2

The Society of Saint Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope John Paul II, the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ. The priests of the Society pray for His Holiness and the local Ordinary at every Mass they celebrate

Pope John Paul II is preaching a new religion

In this we cannot follow this Pope’s ideas but must hold fast to the doctrine constantly taught by the Church of all time.

It is not for us to judge his culpability in the destruction of the Church

 

[JKirkLVNV]

tuopaolo:

Your view is common in the modern world, but it is not the historic Catholic teaching of St Thomas Aquinas and other philosophers and theologians in Catholic Tradition.

The historic Catholic philosophical teaching is that everything that exists, including art and music insofar as it exists is true, good and beautiful. These number among what in traditional Catholic philosophy is called the transcendentals. There is some debate as to whether beauty is its own proper transcendental or whether it is simply the combination of the good and the true, but in traditional Catholic philosophy there is no doubt that beauty – in all its forms whether moral, artistic, musical or physical – is objective in nature, inhering in the object which the mind recognizes beautiful.

This can be proved philosophically from the fact that when the mind apprehends something as beautiful, there must be a quality of the object by which the mind apprehends it as beautiful.

This historic, traditional Catholic position comes as a surprise to many because secular society educates them to believe otherwise. For example in many schools they will teach children what is supposed as a difference between “fact” and “opinion.” In some of the examples they will say that the statement that a certain art work is beautiful is not a “fact” (or a statement in contradiction to a fact) but is rather an “opinion.” This and other forms of societal brainwashing causes people to lose sight of the objective character of beauty. This aesthetic relativism is a dangerous counterpart to moral relativism and as such part of the “dictatorship of relativism” condemned by Benedict XVI prior to the conclave.

Pope Benedict XVI also condemned while Cardinal the lack of objective beauty in certain music:

“On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. “Rock”, on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit’s sober inebriation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments.”

adoremus.org/1101musicliturgy.html

What you are observing here is completely compatible with the objective nature of beauty. Beauty’s being objective does not mean that there cannot be manifold, diverse expressions of beauty, different kinds of participation in Beauty.

It is not simply academic but critical to our relationship with God that we recognize that what He made – including things as simple as trees – were made by Him objectively beautiful, reflecting in however a dim way His Beauty. In music and art, insofar as we accurately reflect the eternal Beauty of God whether in sacred or profane* music, they too are objectively beautiful.

*profane here means non-religous

Thank you for your clarification. I cannot find anything that I am unable to submit to in your very excellent post. I had run across the following on a rad trad site which illustrates what I was trying to say. Here’s the link:

traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a022htVaticanArtExhibit.htm

Note the drawing of a distiniction between the crozier of a former pope and the pastoral staff of the last four popes, to the detriment of the pastoral staff. One can say that, certainly, the pastoral staff is “modern,” less ornate, more streamlined, but one cannot reasonably argue that it is not as “beautiful,” nor as worthy to the hand of the Vicar of Christ (IMHO). Note, too, the comparison of the two processional crosses, one in the European tradition, the other representative of the African tradition, in which we are supposed to see the obvious: ie., that the African cross is inferior, not as lovely, not giving as “much” (however that is measured) due glory or reverence to Our Lord. My contention is that this isn’t true and that I still contend. Now, if we’re talking about some of the barns that are being reared as churches and sanctuaries for the Blessed Sacrament, I imagine you and I are on the same page. Thanks. Sorry for the thread drift.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ani Ibi:

Whoops, no it does not. Art (including music) asks to be apprehended by means of the trained senses and the trained mind and the trained community. “I like it / I hate it” is the lowest possible level of response. It is inherently exclusionary and provides no growth of insight whatsoever.

Nope. That’s just wrong. Mexican art has beauty drawn from the experience and sensibilities of the Mexican people. It is as much art as the appointments of St Peters, only different.

Yes, but in doing so it makes no comment as to the validity of more ornate or more colourful art. Again it is different. Not better, but different.

I agree, but please see my immediate previous post for what I was trying to say.

 

[Adonis33]

Catholic Dude:

I dont understand where you are going. Did you read any of the other posts on here?
Here is what they said about John Paul 2

I am not trying to defend what the SSPX say about PJPII. Your point was they were stabing him in the back.

If they were professing a devotion to JPII, then turning around and saying the Chair of Peter was vacant - you would have a point. That is not what they do. They are saying that what JPII was preaching was contrary to Catholic Tradition. One can have reservations about what the Pope is preaching while not questioning his authority.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

RSiscoe:

My background is that I grew up Episcopal and was an altar boy at Church. And yes, we also knelt for communion and received on the tongue. As you may, or may not know, the Episcopal church has always been considered somewhere between Protestant and Catholic. Although we, as Episcopals, received communion on the tonuge, while kneeling, the Protestants received in the hand while standing. This just shows that the “reforms” that have been based on the “spirit of Vatican II” are even more Protestant that the Episcopal Church that you and I attended.

***Here, RSiscoe, and with respect, I must ask,“Which Protestants?” The Fundamentalists virtually all rec. sitting in their pews, not standing, having taken a piece of bread and a little plastic cup of grape juice from trays passed to them. The only ones standing are the pastors and deacons/elders that are standing around the Lord’s Supper Table. Everyone else is sitting down, they eat the bread, drink the juice, then put the little plastic cups in the holes of the backs of the pews. In the Methodist churches I’ve attended, they actually kneel at a rail in that divides the sanctuary from the main body of the church. So who is walking to the front of the church, rec. the bread, then going to another station for the chalice, other than us? ***

What is your point? Are you excusing what took place under the “spirit of Vatican II” because it originated during the 60’s? The “Spirit of Vatican II” is the spirit of the 60’s.

No, my point was that the “spirit” cannot be blamed on the Council. I don’t excuse any of the abuses that rose out of the “spirit” of the council. Now, what you and I call abuses may be two different things. I call the “clown mass” an abuse. I don’t call Communion in the hand an abuse, though I elect to rec. on the tongue. Is that what I’m not being clear about? I do not call not kneeling for the reception of Communion an abuse, as it’s allowed by the Church, which has the authority to govern the discipline and order of the Mass.

But do you agree with these changes? If so, why? When did Rome ever say that the communion rails should be removed; that the statues should be removed, etc.? Rome never said these changes should take place! So why do you defend them? I agree that they are not heresy, per se… but when did Rome ever reverse what it has taught?

***This sounds awkward, but if it isn’t permitted, why is it permitted? We have an indult, given by Rome, that permits us to rec. in the hand. We’ve been told not to kneel for Holy Communion, indeed, while those who persist in doing so are to be given Holy Communion, the reasons for not kneeling are to be explained to them. ***

It didn’t. These changes did not come from Rome, nor from Vatican II, but from the so called “spirit of the Council”, which is the same spirit that was present in the 16th century.

***I confess, I’m not as literate as you when it comes to the Council. ***I simply do not see these things as deficient, merely different. I also believe that none of the things are, in and of themselves, bad or icompatible with the core of Catholicism. I don’t like the idea of little girls serving at the altar because A) they cannot attain the priesthood and serving at the altar has been a time honored source of vocations and B) they wear an enormously distracting and sometimes loud array of footwear, in which they either slide or click their way across the Sanctuary.

But when did the Church ever overturn the disciplines of Trent?
***Each and every time an indult is given? At least in spirit? ***

I am not saying you are a heretic. I do not think your arguments are heretical. But why would you defend these “reforms” that have been based on the so called “spirit of the council”, when neither the Council, nor Rome, ever called for them?

Thanks. I don’t know how to end this really (I’m quite tired, though I must apologize for how long it took to get back to you) except to say that if Mass was celebrated the way HH Pope Benedict XVI celebrated it today everywhere, in the language of the locale, I’d be happy. That’s what I envision/hope for.

---

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Adonis33:

I am not trying to defend what the SSPX say about PJPII. Your point was they were stabing him in the back.

If they were professing a devotion to JPII, then turning around and saying the Chair of Peter was vacant - you would have a point. That is not what they do. They are saying that what JPII was preaching was contrary to Catholic Tradition. One can have reservations about what the Pope is preaching while not questioning his authority.

But one cannot disobey the Pontiff and consecrate bishops or allow oneself to be consecrated a bishop without incurring automatic excommunication. To persist in that is schsim.

 

[toppro77]

Catholic Dude:

I dont understand where you are going. Did you read any of the other posts on here?
Here is what they said about John Paul 2

Can a true Catholic defend a priest who gives acceptance to communion in the hand, which causes countless sacrileges from particles dropping to the floor or remaining on the hands of those who receive?

Can a true Catholic defend a priest who would allow a statue of Buddha to be placed on top of a tabernacle, giving precedence to a little fat man instead of Jesus Christ who is present on the altar?

Can a true Catholic defend a priest who would offer cucumber peelings to a snake god while worshiping with African Animists?

Can a true Catholic defend a priest who would show reverence to the Koran by kissing it, which denies the dogma of the Trinity?

Can a true Catholic defend a priest who prays with countless false religions, a practice condemned by numerous popes of the Holy Catholic Church?

Can a true Catholic defend a priest who would allow food and flowers to be placed on a Catholic altar by heretics to offer to their false god?

This was done at Fatima in 2004 by Hindu’s visiting the shrine.

Can a true Catholic defend a priest who would state that the Catholic Church erred in saying that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ?

We have St Paul’s own words stating in: II Thes. 2:14-15 “The Jews, Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men.”

Can a true Catholic defend a priest who would cause the Catholic Church to confess it was wrong in condemning Luther for his teachings?

“In the 1999 document, Roman Catholics and the LWF affirmed their common understandings of the central doctrine at the heart of the disputes that have divided the churches since the 16th century Lutheran Reformation.”

“The Joint declaration affirms essential agreement on justification, stating that sinful human beings are saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ. It also lifts the mutual condemnations the churches heaped on each other, stating they no longer apply to the churches’ teachings on this central doctrine of the faith.”

This is in direct opposition to the Infallible Council of Trent which states in Canon IX:

“ If anyone says that by faith alone the impious is justified…Let him be anathema.”

Not only this but the Infallible Council guided by the Holy Spirit condemned many of Luther’s teachings.

Perhaps these are the type of things that the Society of St. Pius X is talking about when dealing with Pope John Paul II.

In conclusion moral theologians tell us there are nine ways to cooperate in evil or aid another in sin:

1. counseling or advising another to sin
2. commanding another to sin
3. provoking another to sin
4. consenting to another’s sin
5. showing another how to sin
6. praising another’s sin
7. concealing, remaining silent about, or doing nothing to prevent another’s sin
8. taking part in or rejoicing in the results of another’s sin
9. defending another’s sin.

For a True Catholic to defend such actions would cause him to participate in another’s sin. If they had remained silent on these issues as stated in #7 above, they would have been guilty of his sin.

Any real Catholic should know this and it would be his responsibility to admonish the sinner or instruct the ignorant, as required by the Spiritual works of mercy. I think this is precisely what the Society of St Pius X was doing.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

toppro77:

Can a true Catholic defend a priest who gives acceptance to communion in the hand, which causes countless sacrileges from particles dropping to the floor or remaining on the hands of those who receive?

There is already a thread about this. (But to save you time that line doesnt work on me.)

Can a true Catholic defend …statue of Buddha … African Animists?.. show reverence to the Koran by kissing it,… prays with countless false religions… allow food and flowers to be placed on a Catholic altar by heretics to offer to their false god?

So what are you? Freedom fighter? So whats a “true Cathoilc”? There is a logical explaination for all those, most people cant see it though. Most have no concept of anything outside of America.

Can a true Catholic defend a priest who would state that the Catholic Church erred in saying that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ?

Boy, you must have a shallow view of the Bible. Did the Jews do evil all the time sure, but they are a chosen people and God doesnt let anyone touch them and get away with it.
Also look at history, some of the most blessed people were Jews, it had nothing to do with how rich or poor or educated, God blessed them because He felt like it, and immortalized many famous names. Second of all I highly doubt that the Pope said that they were 100% innocent the way you put it.

Can a true Catholic defend a priest who would cause the Catholic Church to confess it was wrong in condemning Luther for his teachings?

"In the 1999 document, Roman Catholics and the LWF affirmed their common understandings …

This is in direct opposition to the Infallible Council of Trent which states in Canon IX:

…

If I had to guess I would say you are leaving out some important info. I skimmed over this, and for the most part I dont even see where progress was made, just talk on the surface. I also did catch this: " In light of this consensus, the corresponding doctrinal condemnations of the sixteenth century do not apply to today’s partner."
It seems there is more than what you put out, however I havent spent the time to do an in depth on the situation so I cant say much more.

Perhaps these are the type of things that the Society of St. Pius X is talking about when dealing with Pope John Paul II.

You have a small case, but for the most part it is blow out of proportion and/or misleading. The attacks at the Pope dont help their position or yours. Also what about post #71? Those dogs have no room to talk like that. Thats where I stand, and I know most of the people in these forums have the same thoughts.

In conclusion moral theologians tell us there are nine ways to cooperate in evil or aid another in sin:

1. counseling or advising another to sin
2. commanding another to sin
3. provoking another to sin
4. consenting to another’s sin
5. showing another how to sin
6. praising another’s sin
7. concealing, remaining silent about, or doing nothing to prevent another’s sin
8. taking part in or rejoicing in the results of another’s sin
9. defending another’s sin.
   …

Dont even go there. Your a nothing, the pope is something. What are you sspxers going around with halos? Your not the doctor, pulling the guilt trip as if you have a clean slate is the saddest thing possible. One of the biggest laughs is the crime when they went off ordaining people knowing full well what they were doing, that right there condemns them on issues #1-9.

Any real Catholic should know this and it would be his responsibility to admonish the sinner or instruct the ignorant, as required by the Spiritual works of mercy. I think this is precisely what the Society of St Pius X was doing.

The bottom line in all these issues is that they priest your attacking happens to be the Pope, but I guess people dont understand that. In the old fashion days there wasnt any of this opinion from the little guy BS, if someone talked openly about the pope in a negative way that was the end of them.
To believe that a small sect like sspx is somehow preserving the truth is a very unrealistic look at the world. Im not saying what he did was the best option, but the way people attack him its like he was an evil man and the Church is out of God’s control. Anyone who goes out of their way to attack the pope is a nothing in my book. Dont give us the run around the bush, there are people who didnt like what they saw but decided to keep quiet or wait it out. We have a new Pope now and from what I have already read some of his views are no different than the last pope. Go to confession and stop defending those dogs.
(p.s. a lot was edited due to size)