SSPX Teaching Video

  • Thread starter Thread starter PrayforMallory
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I am in agreement with those who do not care to see a propaganda video
Click to expand...
Excuse me? This is Catholic teaching, or at least what used to be Catholic teaching. Call the SSPX what you want, but our faith is not propaganda. I’d rather hear what this SSPX priest says rather than listen to Fr Hans Kung or Fr. Phleger.
 
ProVobis said:
Excuse me? This is Catholic teaching, or at least what used to be Catholic teaching. Call the SSPX what you want, but our faith is not propaganda. I’d rather hear what this SSPX priest says rather than listen to Fr Hans Kung or Fr. Phleger.
Click to expand...
Your post is really hitting the nail on the head for me. I didn’t start looking at this stuff until I saw how crazy the left-leaning elements of the Church have become.
 
PrayforMallory said:
True, but at the same time, the lack of a condemnation certainly has allowed people embracing those tendencies to delve further into them.

There are a lot of things not mentioned in detail in Vat II. One of them is the blessed Virgin Mary, who’s been put on the backburner in a lot of Churches.
Click to expand...
I am curious. Just where are these churches that put Mary “on the back burner”?

I’ve yet to see one.
 
Rather than arguing about the SSPX, historical events of long ago, Protestants, etc. wouldn’t it be more profitable to spend time reading the Bible, the Catechism, great Catholic books (Imitation of Christ, The Secret of the Rosary, etc.), and spending time with Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament?

I don’t want to sound holier than thou, but…we all have so few days on this earth, and it seems to me that we need to be wise about how we use those hours. Why spend time studying a controversial group when there are so many non-controversial books and devotions that we could study?

I confesss that I’m the worse time waster in the world–I could spend hours watching Robert Patrick movies (even the bad ones!), but I am working on spending more time in devotions and prayer.

I think this thread is only causing sharper divisions, not educating anyone. I’ve skimmed through it, but I just can’t justify studying each post. Sorry, everyone.
 
I_Believe said:
Annulments have nothing to do with invalid marriages. If one makes vows and receives the Sacrament of Marriage validly, Lord have mercy on his/her soul if either party seeks to remarry after divorce.

JMO
Click to expand...
Annulments have everything to do with invalid marriages. The declares that a marriage is not valid, even though the vows were made and the couple had sexual intercourse, because any of the other requirements for a valid marriage has been violeted prior to the wedding or was not met prior to the wedding.

Here are some conditions. This is not an exhaustive list.
  1. A religous in SOLEMN VOWS may not validly contract marriage, while a religious in SIMPLE VOWS may.
  2. An ordained man may not validly contract marriage in either the Roman Church or the Eastern Church.
  3. A person who marries because they feel they have, such as in the case of a pegnancy, is not entering freely into marriage.
  4. A person who lacks the maturity, regardless of age, to commit to the married life, enters into marriage invalidly.
  5. A person who is married in another faith to a person of that faith, is already validly married and cannot enter into a valid marriage in the Catholic Church, even if they divorce and the individual converts, because he was of that particular faith at the time of the marriage.
  6. A person who cheats on their fiance prior to the marriage and continues to cheat after the wedding, had no intention to be faithful and has not entered into a valid marriage.
  7. A person who is unable to sustain a marriage, such as a lesbian or homosexual, but enters into the marriage without informing the partner, has entered into the marriage deceptively; therefore the marriage is invalid.
  8. A person who lacks the intellectual ability to give full consent, may not inter into a valid marriage.
  9. A peson who marries someone whom he or she does not love for any other reason enters into an invalid marriage.
10 A person who marries with the prior intention of not having a family when it is biologically possible, enters into an invalid marriage.
  1. A person who is marries a non Catholic without that person’s full understanding and acceptance of the indisolubility of marriage prior to the wedding, enters into an invalid marriage.
  2. A person below the required age by canon law and marries, enters into an invalid marriage.
  3. Relatives of the first degree, such as first cousins, who do not have a dispensation fron the Ordinary of the diocese, enter into an invalid marriage.
  4. A person who has an addiction to drugs, alcohol or sex, before the wedding, unkown to the other partner, enters into an invalid marriage.
  5. A peson who cannot cosumate the marriage and knowingly marries, enters into an invalid marriage.
  6. A person who has kept a secret to which the other partner has the right to know before the wedding, has entered into an invalid marriage by deception.
  7. A person who has undergone sexual reassignment cannot enter into a valid marriage.
  8. A person who is a widower or widow and marries his former brother or sister-in-law, without the dispensation of the Ordinary, enters into an invalid marriage.
  9. A married priest or deacon who is widowed and remarries enters into an invalid marriage.
Like these there are many conditions that make a marriage invalid.

Once the Tribunal decides that the marriage is invalid, both persons are free to validly marry other partners.

SSPX is wrong in stating that a marriage is invalid or valid and in denying the persons due process in an ecclesiastical tribunal.

Also, no individual cleric (deacn, priest or bishop) can declare a marriage invalid, unless it’s an ipso facto condition, such as a religious in Solemn vows (not simple vows) or an ordained cleric. Other than these very obvious cases, the marriage has to stand trial in a tribunal.

The civil divorce is to satisfy civil law. It is only required by the Church in those countries where a civil divorce is required for legal reasons, such as the USA.

To deny anyone due process in an ecclesiastical tribunal is as much a denial of justice as denying smeone a hearing in court in a civil matter. The Church does not stand in the way of justice. If the SSPX is saying that people should not seek a declaration of nullity, they are interfering with human rights and justice.

Neither the SSPX nor anyone in good standing with the Catholic Church can deny someone their day in court. The ecclesiastical tribunal may rule that the marriage is valid and that the couple may live separately, but remain married. They can even rule that the couple may proceed with a civil divorce for the purpose of compliance with the State, but continue to be married andmay not enter into a second marriage until on of the parties dies.

How dare the SSPX deny anyone the right to due process! Shame on them.

JR 🙂
 
It is incorrect to define the SSPX as Protestant. They have many behaviours and have committed many actions that were similar to or the same as the Protestant reformers, but they are not Protestants.

The difference between the SSPX and the Protestants are two very important issues:
  1. The SSPX recognizes that the Pope is the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ.
  2. The SSPX is not in conflict with the Church over dogma or moral theology.
None of the SSPX complaints have anything to do with Catholic dogma or belief. They have to do with pastoral practice, disciplines, theological positions, definitions, form, and obedience.

If they were to declare that the Eucharist is a symbol, that would be against dogma. If they declared that the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ, that is against dogma. If they declared that the saints canonized by the Church are not valid, that would be against dogma.

Right now, their situation is precarious, because they are making statements in an authoritative manner without the authority to make them. This is very similar to how Luther began.

Let us hope that they do not go the route of Luther.

JR 🙂
 
Our_Refuge said:
If you want other sources you must find them. It is not the Archbishop’s job in this article to provide footnotes.

He was there . This are his observations. His observations are verified by other accounts. When Cardinal Ratzinger writes about his observations at the Council does he provide other sources? NO.

It is a fact. The Council spoke of atheism, socialism, capitalism, demoracy but communism is never mentioned or condemnd even though a letter containing over 400 signatures was brought forwarded asking the Council to do so.

I don’t find it vague at all. He has no burden to provide proof. This was a letter not a book.
Click to expand...
In a simple question: is he or is he not trying to prove his point? All I have to go on as a reader are his observations. That is not good enough. I am not calling him a liar, and I am not throwing dirt at all, but if I am to take what he says as God’s honest truth as to what happened, then I need primary sources, which his letter is not.

What I will say is this: the Archbishop’s letter reads to me as something addressed to people already convinced of his point of view. That is obvious. For someone who is not convinced of his point of view, I can critique it until the cows come home (where the cows go to, I don’t know). I am not trying to disrespect him, I am trying to be honest that the audience does not read like it’s meant for me, but for members of SSPX, of which I am not.
 
ethelzguy said:
I am curious. Just where are these churches that put Mary “on the back burner”?

I’ve yet to see one.
Click to expand...
Well, the Churches that took out her statues, stopped saying Memorares, rosaries, etc.

Based on your comment, I’m assuming your Church is not like that.

It certainly is the case in these Southern Catholic Churches, though, where the word “Mediatrix” is never even mentioned in RCIA.
 
JReducation said:
It is incorrect to define the SSPX as Protestant. They have many behaviours and have committed many actions that were similar to or the same as the Protestant reformers, but they are not Protestants.

The difference between the SSPX and the Protestants are two very important issues:
  1. The SSPX recognizes that the Pope is the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ.
  2. The SSPX is not in conflict with the Church over dogma or moral theology.
None of the SSPX complaints have anything to do with Catholic dogma or belief. They have to do with pastoral practice, disciplines, theological positions, definitions, form, and obedience.

If they were to declare that the Eucharist is a symbol, that would be against dogma. If they declared that the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ, that is against dogma. If they declared that the saints canonized by the Church are not valid, that would be against dogma.

Right now, their situation is precarious, because they are making statements in an authoritative manner without the authority to make them. This is very similar to how Luther began.

Let us hope that they do not go the route of Luther.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks for this post. I can’t take it when the word “Protestant” is thrown around so lightly. It’s thrown around when it isn’t very applicable to the situation.
 
JReducation said:
Yes it was and it was Pope Benedict XVI who said that Vatican II was authoritative.

Who has the authority to define Vatican II, the Cardinal or the Pope?

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
I know he mentions something about the “binding authority” of Vat. II in SP.

Is there another source for this? Thanks.

Also, what about the arguments that Vat II was a fallible “pastoral” council and not an infallible ecumenical council. Is there any weight to these arguments? Piouswoman, I’d like to hear from you and others also.
 
laudamus_te said:
NicPais, your posts are such good examples of open-mindedness and charity. It is impossible to argue with someone who refuses to educate him/herself to the facts of the argument.

I would like to address some of your comments. Regarding your concern about “taking the Archbishop’s word” about the goings-on at VII, there has been much written about this by others. Have you read the Ottaviani Intervention? Have you read any of Michael Davies excellent writings about the Council and tradition? I’m thinking specifically of Pope John’s Council (which I have not yet read), Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II, The Eternal Sacrifice, Liturgical Shipwreck, etc… Also, a quick internet search has produced a couple of pieces which you may find interesting (and I believe that no one here can cast aspersions on either of these sites):

catholictradition.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_catholictradition_archive.html#114496560365866115

unavoce.org/dietrich.htm

I also believe that you are wrong to think that the Church is not soft on Communism. The “destruction of the USSR” did not destroy Communism. It is alive and well and spreading it’s errors with ever more fury. VII did not condemn Communism, despite the signatures of 450 bishops demanding that it be condemned.
Click to expand...
I looked through your websites, and they are quite interesting. I have always loved Una Voce! I also feel sorry after reading the interview in the blog. Now I can’t say that I have read any of these books, and as a grad student, I am sorry to say that the time and money to read through them all is not something I have at the moment, but I will at least try to browse your websites.

I do, however, know about the Ottaviani Intervention, and its aftermath. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ottaviani_Intervention which goes onto say that Ottaviani shortly afterwards praised the Novus Ordo Missae. As for the Church being soft on Communism, when I was a teen, I went on a number of youth retreats where the topic of liberation theology came up frequently. These were groups of people that made it clear they dissented from the Church…but only after you gave them your money. Anyway, I would come home, and I would always remember that my Dad’s response was that liberation theology was a heresy condemned by the Church because it embraced Communism. Communism itself is atheistic in nature, and the Russian variety violently attacked the Church in Eastern Europe, yet the Church survived (by the way, God bless the Polish!!).

As for the Liturgy, to segue into my feelings on the Una Voce article, there is no doubt in my mind that Latin and Gregorian Chant are what’s proper to the Mass. I love the Novus Ordo, as it is what nurtured me most my life and taught me how to be a Catholic (I frequent a diocesan Tridentine Mass now, and this has caused me to love the Novus Ordo even more). I personally think that the Second Vatican Council called for valid reforms and such, but I think that 1960’s, 1970’s baby boomer era saw more liberty than what was allowed. The GIRM, for example is very clear in what is not allowed, and the ICEL translation itself leaves much to be desired, but that is being fixed.
 
Is it possible to condemn socialism and not condemn communism? Communism is socialism with a loaded rifle. Fabian socialism is socialism with a legislator’s pen.
 
PrayforMallory said:
Also, what about the arguments that Vat II was a fallible “pastoral” council and not an infallible ecumenical council. Is there any weight to these arguments? Piouswoman, I’d like to hear from you and others also.
Click to expand...
It’s an Ecumenical Council in that it addresses the entire Church, but not all Ecumenical Councils promulgate definitive doctrinal judgments. Lyons I is one example–one of the Lateran Councils is another example. Vatican II seeks to restate, synthesize, explain, and apply certain truths to particular historical circumstances. It does exercise the supreme authority of the Church and therefore it’s decrees are bound to be followed. Assuming you are a layperson, I suggest you read it’s directives for lay people and put them into action with holy obedience 👍. People say it is pastoral, and imply therefore one must not obey it–but it is an indispensable part of the Catholic faith that we are to follow our pastors, especially the supreme pastor (and an Ecumenical Council exercises this supreme authority by virtue of its union with the Roman Pontiff).
 
The errors of Communism are repudiated in various documents by the Council (and also the contrary truths are affirmed), but not Communism by name. That being said, Pope Paul VI renewed the condemnations of Communism of his predecessors in his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam which was promulgated during the Council.
Communist Oppression
Click to expand...
  1. It is for these reasons that We are driven to repudiate such ideologies as deny God and oppress the Church-We repudiate them as Our predecessors did, and as everyone must do who firmly believes in the excellence and importance of religion. These ideologies are often identified with economic, social and political regimes; atheistic communism is a glaring instance of this.
Click to expand...
 
ethelzguy said:
I am curious. Just where are these churches that put Mary “on the back burner”?

I’ve yet to see one.
Click to expand...
I can **validate **that Our Lady was put on the back burner. Throughout my grade school and high school years, never was emphasis or so much as serious mention given to me by any of my religion teachers on the importance of Our Lady, the rosary fell into obscurity when I was in grade school….I have lived through the changes, I still remember the complete and total annihilation of the Holy Mass…I remember the nuns suddenly appearing at school in short skirts and little veils that flew out behind them when they walked, and shortly thereafter disappeared entirely, I remember the quite sudden wreckovation of our beautiful old mission style church that was replaced by an odious and modern monstrosity that still stands today, with an “altar” (read table) that looks like Fred Flintstones dining room table, I remember the sickeningly trendy guitar masses, the big deal when we suddenly could go to the Saturday afternoon “golf Mass” and it counted for Sunday, the overwhelming force of modernistic priests instructing us to take Holy Communion in the hand, the sale of a beautiful pipe organ that had been installed in the choir loft of the new monstrosity but had rarely been used…they quickly sold it and replaced it with a cheap organ in the front right of the church, and a small grand piano to boot, the lie to the parishioners that the votive stand had to go because the fire insurance wouldn’t cover it, the removal of the baptismal fount in a special alcove off of the vestibule to the front left of the church, and well, I could go on and on…not to mention the zero Catholic education that I received going to “Catholic” schools all of my youth. It is an absolute joke, and I am sick to death of those who think that everything is hunky dory…the worst, and I mean the WORST offenders of all, are the older people, my parents age and my parents included, who never stood up to the devil’s assault on the church and to this day follow blindly along and refuse to hear the truth…yes, the modernists infiltrated the church LONG before Vatican II, they indoctrinated the laity with the false notion that you do what the pope says regardless of whether it is Catholic or not, you blindly obey, you accept error, and deprived of the truths, that is exactly what happened. Well, I’ll be darned if I’m going to sit around with stars in my eyes over the current papacy and the current state of the church, I’ll be darned if I’m going to sit idly by and follow error like some sort of dumb lamb. You know what they have neglected to instruct us all of these years? That it is THE DUTY of a Catholic to KNOW his faith, and to REJECT ERROR.
 
JReducation said:
Yes it was and it was Pope Benedict XVI who said that Vatican II was authoritative.

Who has the authority to define Vatican II, the Cardinal or the Pope?

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t know…if the pope is a progressive thinker, if his formation was founded upon the modern philosophers, and he is a modernist to the core despite little whimsical moments of traditionally inspired acquiescences, then it is certainly the duty of a Catholic to question that authoritative definition.
 
piouswoman said:
I can **validate **that Our Lady was put on the back burner. Throughout my grade school and high school years, never was emphasis or so much as serious mention given to me by any of my religion teachers on the importance of Our Lady, the rosary fell into obscurity when I was in grade school….I have lived through the changes, I still remember the complete and total annihilation of the Holy Mass…I remember the nuns suddenly appearing at school in short skirts and little veils that flew out behind them when they walked, and shortly thereafter disappeared entirely, I remember the quite sudden wreckovation of our beautiful old mission style church that was replaced by an odious and modern monstrosity that still stands today, with an “altar” (read table) that looks like Fred Flintstones dining room table, I remember the sickeningly trendy guitar masses, the big deal when we suddenly could go to the Saturday afternoon “golf Mass” and it counted for Sunday, the overwhelming force of modernistic priests instructing us to take Holy Communion in the hand, the sale of a beautiful pipe organ that had been installed in the choir loft of the new monstrosity but had rarely been used…they quickly sold it and replaced it with a cheap organ in the front right of the church, and a small grand piano to boot, the lie to the parishioners that the votive stand had to go because the fire insurance wouldn’t cover it, the removal of the baptismal fount in a special alcove off of the vestibule to the front left of the church, and well, I could go on and on…not to mention the zero Catholic education that I received going to “Catholic” schools all of my youth. It is an absolute joke, and I am sick to death of those who think that everything is hunky dory…the worst, and I mean the WORST offenders of all, are the older people, my parents age and my parents included, who never stood up to the devil’s assault on the church and to this day follow blindly along and refuse to hear the truth…yes, the modernists infiltrated the church LONG before Vatican II, they indoctrinated the laity with the false notion that you do what the pope says regardless of whether it is Catholic or not, you blindly obey, you accept error, and deprived of the truths, that is exactly what happened. Well, I’ll be darned if I’m going to sit around with stars in my eyes over the current papacy and the current state of the church, I’ll be darned if I’m going to sit idly by and follow error like some sort of dumb lamb. You know what they have neglected to instruct us all of these years? That it is THE DUTY of a Catholic to KNOW his faith, and to REJECT ERROR.
Click to expand...
Great post, and it’s so true of many parishes. I believe that churches that have not been affected in such a way, at least to some degree, are very few and far between.

The bit about fire insurance reminds me of another instance: the pastor of our parish church notified the congregation that the altar rail needs to go because it’s a danger, since an EEM tripped coming down the steps to the altar and fell into it! :rotfl:
 
piouswoman said:
I can **validate **that Our Lady was put on the back burner. Throughout my grade school and high school years, never was emphasis or so much as serious mention given to me by any of my religion teachers on the importance of Our Lady, the rosary fell into obscurity when I was in grade school….I have lived through the changes, I still remember the complete and total annihilation of the Holy Mass…I remember the nuns suddenly appearing at school in short skirts and little veils that flew out behind them when they walked, and shortly thereafter disappeared entirely, I remember the quite sudden wreckovation of our beautiful old mission style church that was replaced by an odious and modern monstrosity that still stands today, with an “altar” (read table) that looks like Fred Flintstones dining room table, I remember the sickeningly trendy guitar masses, the big deal when we suddenly could go to the Saturday afternoon “golf Mass” and it counted for Sunday, the overwhelming force of modernistic priests instructing us to take Holy Communion in the hand, the sale of a beautiful pipe organ that had been installed in the choir loft of the new monstrosity but had rarely been used…they quickly sold it and replaced it with a cheap organ in the front right of the church, and a small grand piano to boot, the lie to the parishioners that the votive stand had to go because the fire insurance wouldn’t cover it, the removal of the baptismal fount in a special alcove off of the vestibule to the front left of the church, and well, I could go on and on…not to mention the zero Catholic education that I received going to “Catholic” schools all of my youth. It is an absolute joke, and I am sick to death of those who think that everything is hunky dory…the worst, and I mean the WORST offenders of all, are the older people, my parents age and my parents included, who never stood up to the devil’s assault on the church and to this day follow blindly along and refuse to hear the truth…yes, the modernists infiltrated the church LONG before Vatican II, they indoctrinated the laity with the false notion that you do what the pope says regardless of whether it is Catholic or not, you blindly obey, you accept error, and deprived of the truths, that is exactly what happened. Well, I’ll be darned if I’m going to sit around with stars in my eyes over the current papacy and the current state of the church, I’ll be darned if I’m going to sit idly by and follow error like some sort of dumb lamb. You know what they have neglected to instruct us all of these years? That it is THE DUTY of a Catholic to KNOW his faith, and to REJECT ERROR.
Click to expand...
I’m extremely sdorry to hear of the stressors you suffered in the midst of changes at your parish church, post-Vatican II. It sounds like it could be very shattering for a child. Your exposure has not been my exposure, thanks be to God, and right now I attend Mass (belong to a parish) that is 100 years old; the church from 100 years ago is the church where we worship. I should add that the churches of my childhood and young-adult years were only reconstructed if they were beaten and battered by Midwestern weather. Many of our older churches (100+ yrs) are still standing, still in use, and the Masses offered are always quite reverent. (As for the Rosary falling into obscurity, of course it didn’t or we wouldn’t have it still.)

I’m very sorry especially that you choose to blame your parents since you will never experience their lives or times and passing judgment on them is a very dangerous choice. They did their best to raise you Catholic and you ARE Catholic. Our oldest laws (the Ten Commandments) command us to honor our parents. One can’t claim “exception” in that regard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top