SSPX Teaching Video

[Deacon_Ed_B]

No, one cannot be a traditional Catholic and believe it is okay to have married priests.
.

Really. Stop and think now. I know of several cases where Anglican rite priests, married, validly ordained, converted and brought their entire congregations into the Roman Catholic church with them. Are you saying this was wrong. Before you answer, think of the consequences. If this was the correct thing to do, you have married priests, which invalidates your argument. If wrong, you, in your own mind and belief are saying that the Church was wrong in letting this priest and entire congregation come into the Catholic Church. I would rethink the above statement if I were you.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[consumedconvert]

No, one cannot be a traditional Catholic and believe it is okay to have married priests.

By definition, a traditional Catholic believes that the discipline of celibacy in the Church from the beginning is true, correct, and should continue as the tradition. Traditonal Catholics are for tradition.

As G.K. Chersterton said, that in regards to the matters of family and sex, the Church has red and white. Red for the sacrament of Marriage and white for the consecrated virginity of priests and lay men. There is no pink. You can’t have pink, the Church hates pink.

What, then, would you say to the Eastern Catholics? Are they not legitimate priests?

Or the Latin Rite priests who lived before the eleventh century and were married? Were they not legitimate priests?

I must say, this is new doctrine you’re driving at here. Everyone knows that celibacy is a discipline, and a very useful one at that; I mean to detract nothing from celibacy. But to argue that one must not accept married priests or deacons…?

 

[rlg94086]

Of course the changes made to the New Mass are similar to those of Luther and Cranmer. **Priest facing the people, active participation, all vernacular, communion in the hand etc. **There is no doubt in my mind these changes were for ecumenical reasons.
I don’t like that fact that the SSPX priest uses the term “norvus ordo churches”. This implies that it is a “new” church which it is not. It has a new rite that is completely different from the old rite.
I don’t know if the claim he makes that in all newly constructed churches {he doesn’t use those exact words} relics of saints are no longer used or that in wooden altars, stone is not used.

I will give a listen to the video later…I can watch it right now but have no earphones, and my surroundings are loud. However, I would like to comment on the above bolded items.

All of the above are not required in the Mass of Paul VI - it can be said ad orientum, in Latin, with an altar rail where the communicants kneel and receive on the tongue.

 

[Sarpedon]

The new liturgy is a direct insult to all the English martyrs including St. John Cardinal Fisher, the courageous Catholic bishop who died for their faith and the Latin Mass.
It’s sad that the very abuses they fought against would be adopted by a misguided hierarchy in Pope Paul VI.

The most ironic thing about this is that St. Fisher and St. More chose martyrdom rather than schism from the church. Note that it was essentially schism, not heresy. Henry VIII didn’t want to change the doctrine of the faith, he only wanted set himself up as the supreme ecclessiastical authority in England. All that St. Fisher and St. More were required to swear was obedience to the King as the head of the English church, not doctrinal heresy. They refused, and choose martyrdom.

Now consider the SSPX. They are in the same situation as Henry VIII, having separated themselves from the church while keeping the doctrine of the faith. They have different motives, but the net result is the same- schism, not heresy.

I’m quite suprised that someone who praises an SSPX video would invoke these two saints as an example.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[saint_rafael]

Really. Stop and think now. I know of several cases where Anglican rite priests, married, validly ordained, converted and brought their entire congregations into the Roman Catholic church with them. Are you saying this was wrong. Before you answer, think of the consequences. If this was the correct thing to do, you have married priests, which invalidates your argument. If wrong, you, in your own mind and belief are saying that the Church was wrong in letting this priest and entire congregation come into the Catholic Church. I would rethink the above statement if I were you.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

The Anglicans have a use right now. There is no rite. It’s a use to the Roman rite. It’s hardly used and most Anglican ministers who have become priests help out in a normal Catholic parish.

I would like to see an Anglican rite separate from the Roman rite. If there are married priests, they should be phased out in order that future priests abide by celibacy.

 

[saint_rafael]

What, then, would you say to the Eastern Catholics? Are they not legitimate priests?

Or the Latin Rite priests who lived before the eleventh century and were married? Were they not legitimate priests?

I must say, this is new doctrine you’re driving at here. Everyone knows that celibacy is a discipline, and a very useful one at that; I mean to detract nothing from celibacy. But to argue that one must not accept married priests or deacons…?

No, they are priests. I am soley talking about the Latin rite.
I am not saying it is a doctrine but that the wonderful discipline of celibacy should continue. I am saying that it was a mistake to have allowed married priests in the Latin Rite alone. The Latin rite should continue to observe only the discipline of celibacy.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

most Anglican ministers who have become priests help out in a normal Catholic parish.

You fail to address those who bring their entire congregations with them.

I would like to see an Anglican rite separate from the Roman rite. If there are married priests, they should be phased out in order that future priests abide by celibacy.

So you intend to stop Anglican priests from coming into the Church?. You are not unthinking out your responses to a logical conclusion… How else would you “phase” them out?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[saint_rafael]

The most ironic thing about this is that St. Fisher and St. More chose martyrdom rather than schism from the church. Note that it was essentially schism, not heresy. Henry VIII didn’t want to change the doctrine of the faith, he only wanted set himself up as the supreme ecclessiastical authority in England. All that St. Fisher and St. More were required to swear was obedience to the King as the head of the English church, not doctrinal heresy. They refused, and choose martyrdom.

Now consider the SSPX. They are in the same situation as Henry VIII, having separated themselves from the church while keeping the doctrine of the faith. They have different motives, but the net result is the same- schism, not heresy.

I’m quite suprised that someone who praises an SSPX video would invoke these two saints as an example.

That is wrong. It was about doctrine. To recognize King Henry as the supreme leader of the English Church would have meant that the English martyrs deny the doctrine of Petrine primacy.

The SSPX are not in schism. The Vatican has made that clear already. Their canonical situation is irregular, but they are inside the Church. Pope Benedict made that clear is his letter to the bishops in Summorum Pontificum. Cardinal Hoyos keeps reminding the hard of hearing the same truth.

The excommunications that affect only four people, were unjust and I am confident we will have Pope Benedict remove them in his pontificate. Like St. Joan, the Church will one day celebrate St. Archbishop Lefebvre as a defender of the faith in the late 20th century.

 

[saint_rafael]

You fail to address those who bring their entire congregations with them.

So you intend to stop Anglican priests from coming into the Church?. You are not unthinking out your responses to a logical conclusion… How else would you “phase” them out?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

No, so far Anglicans who have come in have become part of the Latin rite. I said phasing out because right now we have former Anglican ministers as priests.

I am completely in favor of Anglicans converting to the one true Church because of the doctrine no salvation outside the Church.

The TAC is a community of Anglicans wo want to convert. Their bishops have signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church, so they accept clerical celibacy.

I would welcome all Anglicans into a new Anglican rite. Anglican orders are invalid, so the Church has to decide which of them should become priests. I would only allow those who did not marry to become priests. If there are not enough, I would temporarily allow some of the married ministers to become priests on the condition that from then on, the next generation that come after them must abide by celibacy. Married Anglican priests should only be allowed until they produce future priests that can be celibate after them.

 

[saint_rafael]

All of the above are not required in the Mass of Paul VI - it can be said ad orientum, in Latin, with an altar rail where the communicants kneel and receive on the tongue.

That is true. Any priest can say the Novus Ordo Ad orientem. A priest does not need permission from a bishop to say it that way.

I wish priests in this country could understand how much authority and rights they have. Things will never get better until there is a grassroots movement and priests take matters into their own hands for reform.

Every priest in this country should decide that they will celibrate the Novus Ordo Ad Orientem on a traditional fixed altar only.
Lay people should write to their pastors asking for Masses to be said Ad Orientem.

 

[Timothysis]

The excommunications that affect only four people, were unjust and I am confident we will have Pope Benedict remove them in his pontificate. Like St. Joan, the Church will one day celebrate St. Archbishop Lefebvre as a defender of the faith in the late 20th century.

Sorry to tell you but Cardinal Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict XVI was the one in the middle of negotiations between the sspx and the Holy See. HE knows exactly why the excommunications were handed down and will no more lift them than he would the excommunication against Martin Luther.

St. Joan of Arc was rehabilitated because her sentence was politically motivated by ambitious men. There is no way one can compare or excuse the Archbishop’s willful disobedience in regard to Pope John Paul II’s warning of excommunication.

 

[catharina]

…

Peter was married, but he was a widow by the time he became a follower and apostle of Jesus.

Where on earth did you get that impression?
Source, please - and ASAP.

 

[catharina]

…

That is why Pope John Paul II made a huge mistake when he allowed certain former Protestant ministers to become priests.

You have some imagination.
Pope JP II ERRED when he allowed married converts/priests to become Catholic priests?
Did he also ERR by expecting obedience from the supposedly faithful bishop M. Lefebvre?

 

[catharina]

Sorry to tell you but Cardinal Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict XVI was the one in the middle of negotiations between the sspx and the Holy See. HE knows exactly why the excommunications were handed down and will no more lift them than he would the excommunication against Martin Luther.

St. Joan of Arc was rehabilitated because her sentence was politically motivated by ambitious men. There is no way one can compare or excuse the Archbishop’s willful disobedience in regard to Pope John Paul II’s warning of excommunication.

In addition re Joan of Arc, Rome had never ratified the LOCAL excommunication aimed at her.

 

[Timothysis]

In addition re Joan of Arc, Rome had never ratified the LOCAL excommunication aimed at her.

Very true…thanks for the clarification!

 

[Sarpedon]

That is wrong. It was about doctrine. To recognize King Henry as the supreme leader of the English Church would have meant that the English martyrs deny the doctrine of Petrine primacy.

You can call it doctrine if you want. My point was that it was about obedience to the Church, which both Henry VIII and now the SSPX flaunt.

Perhaps you could say that the SSPX are heretics because they deny the doctrinal ability of the church to control the liturgy.

The SSPX are not in schism. The Vatican has made that clear already. Their canonical situation is irregular, but they are inside the Church. Pope Benedict made that clear is his letter to the bishops in Summorum Pontificum. Cardinal Hoyos keeps reminding the hard of hearing the same truth.

Okay, but they disobeyed church authority nonetheless. Sts. More and Fisher refused to disobey church authority and take the oath, and thus became glorious martyrs for the Faith. Nowadays, the SSPX disobeys church authority just like all the bishops and clergy in England who took the oath (I believe that Fisher was the only one loyal to the faith). Whether either situation resulted in schism is irrelevant, because either way both are disobeying church authority, which is wrong.

The excommunications that affect only four people, were unjust

You have no authority to say this.

 

[catharina]

The excommunications that affect only four people, were unjust …

You have no authority to say that
AND you risk your Catholic Faith by embracing such a lie.

 

[countertenor]

No, one cannot be a traditional Catholic and believe it is okay to have married priests.

By definition, a traditional Catholic believes that the discipline of celibacy in the Church from the beginning is true, correct, and should continue as the tradition. Traditonal Catholics are for tradition.

As G.K. Chersterton said, that in regards to the matters of family and sex, the Church has red and white. Red for the sacrament of Marriage and white for the consecrated virginity of priests and lay men. There is no pink. You can’t have pink, the Church hates pink.

Yes one can be a traditional Catholic, because “Catholic” and “Traditional” don’t mean post Great-Schism medieval Latin Church. The tradition of allowing both celibate and married priests is much older than the tradition of a celibate only priesthood. Even in the Latin Church. Even if the Latin Church only “tolerated” married men becoming priests it was still part of the tradition. It is those who try to pass these priests off as some sort of second-class clergy that are breaking with Tradition, as well as belittling, those priests/deacons of the other Catholic Churches within the Catholic Church.

Why is it that some of us Latins seem to think or act as if by allowing a married priests there will no longer be celibate priests? The eastern Churches prove that is not true, and so do the oriental Churches.

It is also a fallacy to pretend that Latin Tradition starts in the medieval period, and that’s how many Traditionalist behave, even though they are willing to bring up earlier writings, when it suits their purpose, while ignoring other things that don’t.

Yes things have had a tendency to get extremely liberal, and this needs to be fixed, but when people blatantly create their own version of that which is Tradition/traditional within the Church or the Latin Church there is always fallacy.

As much as I respect Chesterton, he is not an ultimate authority on this, and he is certainly not above the Pope. The Pope is also not above Tradition, and from the earliest traditions of the Church there have been both Married and Celibate priests/deacons, and to deny it or say it is wrong is to deny Truth and Tradition of the Catholic Church and all its particular Churches including the Latin Church.

And obviously the Church doesn’t “hate pink” or it would never have “tolerated” married priests.

 

[Sarpedon]

Didn’t the practice of having celibate priests begin in Spain during the 300s and only later spread throught the Latin Rite?