SSPX Update - Redux

[JReducation]

How can you tell where the Holy Spirit is and isn’t? And can someone be deceived thinking He is there when He isn’t?

St. Paul tells us what love is. Where ever the Holy Spirit is, there is love. The beatitudes are another good barometer to determine where the Holy Spirit is. The first beatitude is poverty. Poverty is about detachment. The biggest problem that groups like the SSPX have is they cannot detach from their opinion, their perception and their idea of what God wants. Christ reminds us that the peace makers shall be blessed. Calling your pope and your hierarchy names such as Modernists and heretics, is not a peaceful activity. Standing in front of thousands of laymen lambasting the Church leadership instead of keeping family business within the family, is sewing dissent, not peace keeping. St. Paul reminds us that love is prudent. This would fall under imprudent actions.

The SSPX honestly feels that there is a crisis in the Church and that they have the obligation to do whatever is necessary in order to keep the traditions of the Catholic Church alivew and functioning. Whether right or wrong, it is what they believe.

However, if we could just say this and walk away, that would be accepting relativism.

As to whether or not the Extraordinary Form is needed or wanted I can only say that the Holy Father himself seems to think that it is.

The Holy Father has made his position on the Extraordinary Form very clear in SP and UE. We should not add anything more to it.

Well not to be argumentative but the same thing can be said about the traditional clergy too.

Not really. I don’t know how much you know about clerical and religious law, which is another branch of Catholic law, aside from Canon Law. As long as the cleric does not say or do anything for which the penalty is suspension or excommunication, he remains in full communion with the Church.

Too much emphasis has been made of the head of the SSPX being anti Jewish but I would like to point out that Jesus himself spoke critically, un-lovingly, harshly, and forthrightly against his Jewish opposition to his teachings.

First of all, we need to look at Jesus statement from through exegesis. The writer deliberately used the word Jews, because he was writing for the Jews and he wanted to drive home the Messianic Identity of Jesus. Secondly, Jesus was not speaking about and to the Jewish people. He was speaking to a target population that happened to be Jewish. This was a small group.

Well meaning Catholics should understand that for over a 1000 years young Jews were schooled by their parents that Christians were the blood enemy of the Jews…call it institutional teaching within the family.

I’m Jewish and I was never taught this or heard of this before. There are many of us who are Jewish Catholics or Hebrew Catholics and we have never heard this before. It must have been a very small sector.

However, regardless of whether this was common or a minority, we don’t respond in kind. That is not the Evangelical way. The Church declared that the Covenant with the Jews is irrevocable. She declared that the Catholics will treat the Jews with respect and will not proselytize to them and this is not up for negotiations with the Holy See. We welcome the Jewish people into the Church and are willing to invite and to share our faith when they ask. Other than that, we share our faith by the way we live. That’s why it’s imperative that we be Catholics on steroids, if you will. How else are non Catholics going to trust us?

In a nutshell the SSPX is worried that Rome will appoint a lukewarm Bishop to oversee their traditional organization and ruin it. That is the crux of the matter.

The SSPX is not over or more special than the Jesuits, Franciscans, Augustinians, Dominicans, Carmelites, Salesians, Marknoll, and other who have done much more for the Church than the SSPX has done and has put up with much more than the SSPX has done. They will just have to trust the Church like the rest of us and when they get a mediocre leader, they bite the bullet like the rest of us, if this is truly the crux of their problem.

Well, thats understandable I suppose. However, the reason I gave is why they open Chapels. In fact, it is the only reason they open Chapels. As to needing and’or wanting, the SSPX doesn’t pick and area and go unless there is a demand for them. They don’t just show up and say here we are. Nope, it doesn’t work that way…

The SSPX, nor any other institute, religious or secular has a moral nor a legal right to open shop in any diocese where they are not invited by the bishop. The question of supply and demand begs the question, what person in authority told them that they were needed?

Okay. Was the suspension automatic as result of some other event? What specifically started it and brought it into action?

The suspension was automatic. To be ordained, you need a letter of permission from the bishop of your diocese. If you’re a member of a religious community, you need a letter of permission from your religious superior. Their priests have no such letters.

In addition, the bishop who does the ordaining needs permission to ordain. Only the diocesan bishop or a male religious superior can grant that permission. The SSPX bishops don’t have said permission.

When you accept to be ordained without the proper permissions, your ordination is valid, but illegal and therefore a sin. As a result, you suspend yourself.

 

[october_baby]

St. Paul tells us what love is. Where ever the Holy Spirit is, there is love. The beatitudes are another good barometer to determine where the Holy Spirit is. The first beatitude is poverty. Poverty is about detachment. The biggest problem that groups like the SSPX have is they cannot detach from their opinion, their perception and their idea of what God wants. Christ reminds us that the peace makers shall be blessed. Calling your pope and your hierarchy names such as Modernists and heretics, is not a peaceful activity. Standing in front of thousands of laymen lambasting the Church leadership instead of keeping family business within the family, is sewing dissent, not peace keeping. St. Paul reminds us that love is prudent. This would fall under imprudent actions.

However, if we could just say this and walk away, that would be accepting relativism.

The Holy Father has made his position on the Extraordinary Form very clear in SP and UE. We should not add anything more to it.

Not really. I don’t know how much you know about clerical and religious law, which is another branch of Catholic law, aside from Canon Law. As long as the cleric does not say or do anything for which the penalty is suspension or excommunication, he remains in full communion with the Church.

First of all, we need to look at Jesus statement from through exegesis. The writer deliberately used the word Jews, because he was writing for the Jews and he wanted to drive home the Messianic Identity of Jesus. Secondly, Jesus was not speaking about and to the Jewish people. He was speaking to a target population that happened to be Jewish. This was a small group.

I’m Jewish and I was never taught this or heard of this before. There are many of us who are Jewish Catholics or Hebrew Catholics and we have never heard this before. It must have been a very small sector.

However, regardless of whether this was common or a minority, we don’t respond in kind. That is not the Evangelical way. The Church declared that the Covenant with the Jews is irrevocable. She declared that the Catholics will treat the Jews with respect and will not proselytize to them and this is not up for negotiations with the Holy See. We welcome the Jewish people into the Church and are willing to invite and to share our faith when they ask. Other than that, we share our faith by the way we live. That’s why it’s imperative that we be Catholics on steroids, if you will. How else are non Catholics going to trust us?

The SSPX is not over or more special than the Jesuits, Franciscans, Augustinians, Dominicans, Carmelites, Salesians, Marknoll, and other who have done much more for the Church than the SSPX has done and has put up with much more than the SSPX has done. They will just have to trust the Church like the rest of us and when they get a mediocre leader, they bite the bullet like the rest of us, if this is truly the crux of their problem.

The SSPX, nor any other institute, religious or secular has a moral nor a legal right to open shop in any diocese where they are not invited by the bishop. The question of supply and demand begs the question, what person in authority told them that they were needed?

The suspension was automatic. To be ordained, you need a letter of permission from the bishop of your diocese. If you’re a member of a religious community, you need a letter of permission from your religious superior. Their priests have no such letters.

In addition, the bishop who does the ordaining needs permission to ordain. Only the diocesan bishop or a male religious superior can grant that permission. The SSPX bishops don’t have said permission.

When you accept to be ordained without the proper permissions, your ordination is valid, but illegal and therefore a sin. As a result, you suspend yourself.

Great counterpoint brother!

 

[choliks]

The SSPX is not over or more special than the Jesuits, Franciscans, Augustinians, Dominicans, Carmelites, Salesians, Marknoll, and other who have done much more for the Church than the SSPX has done and has put up with much more than the SSPX has done. They will just have to trust the Church like the rest of us and when they get a mediocre leader, they bite the bullet like the rest of us, if this is truly the crux of their problem.

I remember the story of Pope John Paul II appointing a new (interim) Superior General for the Jesuits when Fr. Arrupe resigned. A lot of the Jesuits bemoaned the appointment, but they obeyed still.

 

[gentle_atheist]

The Church declared that the Covenant with the Jews is irrevocable.

This is simply not true.

 

[JReducation]

This is simply not true.

I’m confused. Are you a believer or an atheist? Because if you’re an atheist, nothing that is said by the Church or about the Church is true to you. If you’re a believer then you know that the Church cannot declare what is not true.

**The root and the wild branches

On the Catholic side, Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the Relations of the Church to Non-Christian Religions was the decisive turning-point. It was irrevocable, as Benedict XVI also reaffirmed clearly during his visit to the Synagogue of Rome on 17 January 2010. It was irreversible for the simple reason that the main theological arguments of Nostra Aetate were firmly established in two of the Council’s most important Constitutions: the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (nn. 6, 9 and 16) and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (nn. 3, 14).

To describe the relationship between Judaism and Christianity the image Paul used in his Letter to the Romans may perhaps be more useful than a conceptual explanation. He spoke of the root of Israel on to which the wild branches of the Gentiles were grafted (Rom 11:16-20). This image, reminiscent of the Prophet Isaiah (11:1), expresses in two ways the meaning of distinction in unity. On the one hand St Paul says that the grafted wild branches did not grow from the root itself and could not derive from it. On the other hand the Church must draw her strength and vigour from the root that is Israel. If the grafted branches are cut from the root, they wither, weaken and, finally, die.

VIS

**

 

[Dee_S]

I’m confused. Are you a believer or an atheist? Because if you’re an atheist, nothing that is said by the Church or about the Church is true to you. If you’re a believer then you know that the Church cannot declare what is not true.

The root and the wild branches

On the Catholic side, Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the Relations of the Church to Non-Christian Religions was the decisive turning-point. It was irrevocable, as Benedict XVI also reaffirmed clearly during his visit to the Synagogue of Rome on 17 January 2010. It was irreversible for the simple reason that the main theological arguments of Nostra Aetate were firmly established in two of the Council’s most important Constitutions: the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (nn. 6, 9 and 16) and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (nn. 3, 14).

http://media01.vatiradio.va/imm/1_0_555220.JPG
To describe the relationship between Judaism and Christianity the image Paul used in his Letter to the Romans may perhaps be more useful than a conceptual explanation. He spoke of the root of Israel on to which the wild branches of the Gentiles were grafted (Rom 11:16-20). This image, reminiscent of the Prophet Isaiah (11:1), expresses in two ways the meaning of distinction in unity. On the one hand St Paul says that the grafted wild branches did not grow from the root itself and could not derive from it. On the other hand the Church must draw her strength and vigour from the root that is Israel. If the grafted branches are cut from the root, they wither, weaken and, finally, die.

VIS

The latest on Vatican News
http://newsva.s3.amazonaws.com/banners/jornada-dialogo-hebreos-EN.jpg

(Vatican Radio) Rome’s chief rabbi, Riccardo Di Segni, joins Catholic bishops and others at the Pontifical Lateran University on Thursday to mark the annual day of Catholic-Jewish dialogue. Held every year just ahead of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, this initiative is celebrated in a number of European countries as a moment to reflect on the Jewish roots of our Christian faith. Three years ago, on this same date, Pope Benedict made a historic visit to Rome’s synagogue, following in the footsteps of his predecessor, John Paul II, who first described the Jewish people as ‘our elder brothers and sisters’ in the faith.
Fr Norbert Hofmann is secretary of the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. He told Philippa Hitchen more about the origins of this annual observance and about the current state of Jewish-Catholic dialogue……
news.va/en/news/deepening-the-jewish-catholic-dialogue

 

[Dee_S]

This update is at the opposite end of the spectrum…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Bishop Williamson convicted again after re-trial for denying Holocaust

Bishop Richard Williamson, the controversial traditionalist leader, has been fined €1,800 ($2,400) by a German court for his broadcast comments questioning the severity of the Holocaust.
In a Swedish radio interview that aired in 2008, Bishop Williamson voiced his doubts about the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, and about the use of gas chambers. He was convicted in 2010 under a German law that prohibits denial of the Holocaust, but the conviction was overturned on procedural grounds. The case was retried, and the bishop has now been found guilty once again.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16819

 

[JReducation]

This update is at the opposite end of the spectrum…

http://www.focusonisrael.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/williamson-focus-on-israel.jpg
Bishop Williamson convicted again after re-trial for denying Holocaust

Bishop Richard Williamson, the controversial traditionalist leader, has been fined €1,800 ($2,400) by a German court for his broadcast comments questioning the severity of the Holocaust.
In a Swedish radio interview that aired in 2008, Bishop Williamson voiced his doubts about the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, and about the use of gas chambers. He was convicted in 2010 under a German law that prohibits denial of the Holocaust, but the conviction was overturned on procedural grounds. The case was retried, and the bishop has now been found guilty once again.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16819

I didn’t realize that he is 72 years old. I thought that he was younger. He looks very good for his age. I hope I look that good at 72. I wonder if he realizes that his mouth gets him into trouble. What a shame, because he’s a good man and an intelligent one. His ideas are different, that’s for sure.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I didn’t realize that he is 72 years old. I thought that he was younger. He looks very good for his age. I hope I look that good at 72. I wonder if he realizes that his mouth gets him into trouble. What a shame, because he’s a good man and an intelligent one. His ideas are different, that’s for sure.

As good as one might look, a variety of maladies can confuse thinking in us as we age. Perhaps he is a victim of a Vitamin B deficiency and it accounts for his rather bizarre views of the Holocaust.

One hopes.

 

[Aramis]

As good as one might look, a variety of maladies can confuse thinking in us as we age. Perhaps he is a victim of a Vitamin B deficiency and it accounts for his rather bizarre views of the Holocaust.

One hopes.

Sadly, he’s been making equally obnoxious statements since the mid 1980’s. Around 30 years of it. It’s just he finally chose a venue that will call him to task over it…

And to hear Bp. Fellay make similar sounding sentiments explains why there are so many SSPX clerics who echo Bp. Williamson.

One leader of a group making irresponsible comments that are echoed by a subset of the group is quite possibly coincidence. Two, far less likely to be coincidental.

 

[Jonponwon]

Oh but for someone who can think logically about this. Until Vatican II the Church believed and practised in a particular way. The SSPX continues precisely in that way, rejecting a number of the changes ALLEGEDLY introduced by Vatican II as heretical. And it is clear that a number of the changes made were NOT authorised by Vatican II. These being the basic facts, I would have thought SSPX has a greater right to claim that it is truly the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I am not a member of SSPX and have never been to one of their Masses. But I am able to see a clear argument (and a convincing one) when I see it. and by the way, on his last visit to Fatima the Holy Father himself warned of the heresies at the heart of the Church. Makes you thnk!

 

[JReducation]

Oh but for someone who can think logically about this. Until Vatican II the Church believed and practised in a particular way. The SSPX continues precisely in that way, rejecting a number of the changes ALLEGEDLY introduced by Vatican II as heretical. And it is clear that a number of the changes made were NOT authorised by Vatican II. These being the basic facts, I would have thought SSPX has a greater right to claim that it is truly the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I am not a member of SSPX and have never been to one of their Masses. But I am able to see a clear argument (and a convincing one) when I see it. and by the way, on his last visit to Fatima the Holy Father himself warned of the heresies at the heart of the Church. Makes you thnk!

No one can make this claim and if they do, they cannot sustain it. To claim that the SSPX is truly the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, there are a number of things that have to be proven.

1. The pope is not the pope, for where there is Peter, there is the Church.
2. The 22 Catholic Churches of the East are not the Church. Even if the Latin Church were to crumble and fall, which is not possible, there are 22 Catholic Churches with Apostolic Succession and higher ranking prelates than the SSPX.
3. That the Church that Christ founded subsists only in the SSPX.

As we can see, it’s not just a matter of complaining about this or that heresy. It’s not a matter of complaining about this or that law being broken or not being correctly implemented. There are some serious facts that the eye cannot see, which must be proven.

The plain fact that the Eastern Catholic Churches would never concede to the SSPX disproves any claim that they are the remnant of the Catholic Church. One of the most important points that those who claim that they are the remnant are ignoring is the other Catholic Churches. If there are other Catholic Churches and they are united to Rome, then there is a Catholic Church and it does not subsist in the SSPX.

It takes us back to the beginning. The SSPX is a clerical institute, which some people are making bigger than life, because it’s noisier than the Chaldean Church, Melkite Church, Greek Church, Maronite Church, Syriac Malankar Church, Ruthuanian Church and so forth.

Never since the Protestant Reformation have we seen such a loud group of defiant clerics who are so focused on their point of view and have a lay following equally focused on that ideology at the exclusion of every other Catholic, Latin and Eastern. No on else exists, except them. And the Church of Christ does not subsist in the Catholic Church, if it does not adhere to their vision of it, forgetting the other 22 visions of Catholicism and all of the millions of faithful men and women who are in the Latin Church.

To hear some people speak of heresy in the Church, one would think that it is dominant, when in fact, heretics have always been louder than the whole, but only a fraction of the whole.

The danger here is that heresies that come from the left have never survived. They turn into fads of the moment and they fade away. Heresies that have come from the right have not only survived, but have divided the Christian people for generations. The reason that they survive is because they sound logical, as long as one does not look at the universal Church and limits one’s eye to Rome and the Latin Church.

 

[JReducation]

As good as one might look, a variety of maladies can confuse thinking in us as we age. Perhaps he is a victim of a Vitamin B deficiency and it accounts for his rather bizarre views of the Holocaust.

One hopes.

His comments and his behavior do not fit the profile of any kind of dementia, vitamin deficiency, or low testosterone. His comments are consistently divisive. People who have any of these other medical conditions may make outrageous comments, but they make them about anything from religion to ice cream. Someone else would have picked up on it. Often the patient himself notices that he’s behaving differently from his usual.

 

[MarySal]

First and foremost, Archbishop Lefebvre was in disobedience to the Holy Father, not excommunicated. SSPX will not “come home” until the Church does. There are so many
errors in Vatican II, no wonder we attend service in a protestant looking churches and its more a Disneyland services, rather then the Holy Sacrifice. I have been to the NO, and I am appalled at how disobedient the priests are to the Holy Father. One priest told me, after requesting that I not be denied Holy Communion on the tongue, and I quote “well, lets not be holier than the pope”. My reply, “no disrespect, the pope only receives on the tongue, and he only gives on the tongue. I have never seen anything different.” His reply, lets just say, he had no reply. I could go on about how many practices are sacrilegious, irreverent, totally a joke in the NO. The SSPX was a God send, to be able to attend Mass without all the entertainment. Mass is the unbloody Holy Sacrifice or our Lord Jesus Christ. I will pray that this pope has enough good and holy people around him to bring the Church back and start teaching truth, "that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church, stop being the Church of the “NICE”…and become the soldiers of God we were confirmed to be. Consecrate Russia, do as our Lady told the Fatima children! I was confirmed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and I am ready to fight for Him, are you?

 

[LightBound]

First and foremost, Archbishop Lefebvre was in disobedience to the Holy Father, not excommunicated. SSPX will not “come home” until the Church does. There are so many
errors in Vatican II, no wonder we attend service in a protestant looking churches and its more a Disneyland services, rather then the Holy Sacrifice. I have been to the NO, and I am appalled at how disobedient the priests are to the Holy Father. One priest told me, after requesting that I not be denied Holy Communion on the tongue, and I quote “well, lets not be holier than the pope”. My reply, “no disrespect, the pope only receives on the tongue, and he only gives on the tongue. I have never seen anything different.” His reply, lets just say, he had no reply. I could go on about how many practices are sacrilegious, irreverent, totally a joke in the NO. The SSPX was a God send, to be able to attend Mass without all the entertainment. Mass is the unbloody Holy Sacrifice or our Lord Jesus Christ. I will pray that this pope has enough good and holy people around him to bring the Church back and start teaching truth, "that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church, stop being the Church of the “NICE”…and become the soldiers of God we were confirmed to be. Consecrate Russia, do as our Lady told the Fatima children! I was confirmed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and I am ready to fight for Him, are you?

I see you are new here at CAF and perhaps you were unaware of some of the rules. It would benefit you to read the following, especially #9 of the moderator’s post

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6989569&highlight=For+those+who+wish+to+do+so%2C+you+may+again+discuss+the+SSPX.#post6989569

Also, you should read this regarding your comments on Mass in OF

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=488839

 

[Melchior_1]

First and foremost, Archbishop Lefebvre was in disobedience to the Holy Father, not excommunicated.

Except for the public declaration of him and the other four Bishops being excommunicated. The excommunications were lifted on the four. If they were not valid, they would not be binding, thus no need for any announcements.

SSPX will not “come home” until the Church does.

The Church is the home and is home.

There are so many
errors in Vatican II

Can you explain what these errors are, please? If the Council defined no new doctrine, it means it was Bishops talking about existing doctrine, meaning it was infallible in nature.

I have been to the NO, and I am appalled at how disobedient the priests are to the Holy Father.

The SSPX are being disobedient writ large, but they’re fine? I’m confused, because I thought disobedience was disobedience.

I could go on about how many practices are sacrilegious, irreverent, totally a joke in the NO.

There has always been sacrilegious actions which have taken place during Mass. Now that we have a global village and social media, some get more publicity than others. Would the Ordinary Form get a bad rap from traditionalists if it was implemented 200 years ago? Probably not.

I will pray that this pope has enough good and holy people around him to bring the Church back and start teaching truth, "that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church, stop being the Church of the “NICE”

One can obtain salvation without being Catholic, by being Catholic. Aquinas talked about this.

…and become the soldiers of God we were confirmed to be. Consecrate Russia, do as our Lady told the Fatima children!

Russia was consecrated already. Do we want to do a double-consecration no take backs?.

I was confirmed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and I am ready to fight for Him, are you?

No, because when I go to confession I want them to be valid, among other reasons. To advocate and promote the EF, I’d go with a more reputable group like the FSSP.

 

[LightBound]

Except for the public declaration of him and the other four Bishops being excommunicated. The excommunications were lifted on the four. If they were not valid, they would not be binding, thus no need for any announcements.

The Church is the home and is home.
MarySal;10251740:

There are so many
errors in Vatican II

 

[Jonponwon]

Let’s take a moment to analyse what Redux says. He doesn’t deny the heresies of which the Holy Father speaks, and he does not deny the position SSPX has taken, as set out in my original post. The heresies he sweeps aside (without investigating one of them) as unimportant but maintains that the SSPX is narrowly focused. The Church lives, apparently comfortably, with the heresies deriving from Vatican II and others known to the Pope. SSPX refuses to accept ANY of these heresies. Now who has the moral high ground? SSPX, quite clearly. It was in this sense that I said that they were the “true Church” so to speak, and I meant nothing more than that. Perhaps I expressed it badly in my original post.

The Pope has left this matter in the hands of an Archbishop who is not capable of impartial judgment in view of his stance (already taken) against SSPX. It makes it look so bad for the Church, and leaves one suspecting its motives.

SSPX is not going to go away. It is, as Redux says, a right wing movement, and such movements have a way of carrying on indefinitely. When Luther began his reform movement he wanted only to have the Church reform itself, and the Church already knew it had to be reformed. Instead of coming to terms with Luther, an intransigent Church dug in its heels and the result was to shatter forever the catholicity of the Church so that we now have untold millions of Protestants. Was that a sensible move? I think not. And here is history repeating itself. Do we want millions more “heretics” walking the globe. Carry on the way you are treating SSPX and you can expect many more breakaway groups. Reach an accommodation with SSPX and the sooner the better.

 

[Melchior_1]

I can understand where some people are coming from. I really can. To be filled in a spiritual way by a specific element of the Church, there is nothing more satisfying.

When I see my heroes, my Holy Fathers, I see how things should be done and how things should happen. I always remember the story of Dominic, who went with Rule in hand and was told “there are no more new Rules allowed, take the Rule of Augustine”. A few weeks later Francis shows up, and he gets his own Rule whereas Dominic still didn’t. Francis got rules for all three of his Orders. The Order of Preachers kept the Rule of Augustine. Dominic didn’t complain, he didn’t form a splinter group. He continued to reform the church from within, with charity, love, and obedience.

I also see Jerome, a man whose temper was legendary. He thought that certain books should not be in the canon. The Pope said otherwise, and Jerome of all people apologized and wrote a letter to the Pope with said apology, and reaffirmed his obedience to the Successor of Peter. This is the same Jerome who once told someone that he would feast upon the portion of someone’s canine eloquence.

From my point of view, and how I view Catholic spirituality, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I find the SSPX position to be intellectually dishonest and in an ironic twist it’s not in line with Catholic tradition, nor are they approaching things in a Biblical fashion.

I’m all for people promoting the EF, and advocating it being more widely available. I love the FSSP and the work they do in their aposolate. However I do not believe the ends justify the means. When I see different “trouble” groups, they always have this attitude. I never have, and probably never will. It’s an incredibly dangerous mindset, and I don’t think the SSPX will be coming back until they ditch it.

 

[triumphguy]

Let’s take a moment to analyse what Redux says. He doesn’t deny the heresies of which the Holy Father speaks, and he does not deny the position SSPX has taken, as set out in my original post. The heresies he sweeps aside (without investigating one of them) as unimportant but maintains that the SSPX is narrowly focused. The Church lives, apparently comfortably, with the heresies deriving from Vatican II and others known to the Pope. SSPX refuses to accept ANY of these heresies. Now who has the moral high ground? SSPX, quite clearly. It was in this sense that I said that they were the “true Church” so to speak, and I meant nothing more than that. Perhaps I expressed it badly in my original post.

The Pope has left this matter in the hands of an Archbishop who is not capable of impartial judgment in view of his stance (already taken) against SSPX. It makes it look so bad for the Church, and leaves one suspecting its motives.

SSPX is not going to go away. It is, as Redux says, a right wing movement, and such movements have a way of carrying on indefinitely. When Luther began his reform movement he wanted only to have the Church reform itself, and the Church already knew it had to be reformed. Instead of coming to terms with Luther, an intransigent Church dug in its heels and the result was to shatter forever the catholicity of the Church so that we now have untold millions of Protestants. Was that a sensible move? I think not. And here is history repeating itself. Do we want millions more “heretics” walking the globe. Carry on the way you are treating SSPX and you can expect many more breakaway groups. Reach an accommodation with SSPX and the sooner the better.

So you are saying the Church since Vatican II is heretical and needs reform, and the SSPX are the brush that sweeps clean, and if the Church does not accommodate the SSPX there are going to be more right-wing breakaway groups…

Just trying to be clear.

If that is what you are saying, then you are wrong, wrong and dead wrong.