SSPX update?

[Megan7]

Yes. Is very frustrating to read things like that. Modernists, heterodox, progressives, etc are very dangerous. There are lots of people like that in the Church. Even in places of authority. For example, where I live (South America), this is a problem in some Dioceses. Even the “Vatican II conservative” position is seen as extreme. And, not only the Jesuit Priest I wrote about earlier said questionable or bad things. Now a recently created Cardinal said that the decriminalization of abortion in three cases, was “fine” (“está bien”, in Spanish). Link here: secretummeummihi.blogspot.com/2012/11/las-despenalizaciones-y-el-card.html (in Spanish).

Blessings.

Can you please elaborate on what those 3 cases are? Where he said it is “fine”…

Thanks
Blessings.

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[Boulder257]

I think it is most charitable to remember that the SSPX faithful are just that- faithful Catholics. If they are ever reconciled, as faithful of a personal prelature or whatever, I just can’t see them running amok and causing damage to the Church. That job is already filled, by the heterodox, fifth column cafeteria Catholics who infest nearly every diocese in this country.

One doesn’t have to like or agree with my posts about SSPX but one thing is certain- I am consistent. Quote: “best they are segregated until they prove they can conduct themselves decently & charitably within the fold, as well as be cured of some very strange notions they tenaciously hold onto.” If this applies to the SSPX, doesn’t it equally apply to the heterodox “modernists?” Is it not “warping minds” to say that it is okay to support same sex “marriage” and pro-abortion candidates, to dress provocatively for Mass, to show up after the second reading and duck out right after the Eucharist, to ignore Holy Scripture as antiquated, etc. etc.? I’ll wager that none of these behaviors are characteristic of the SSPX faithful. Just sayin’

At least the SSPX dissenters had the decency to go off and start their own chapels… unlike the heterodox Catholics who stay on and gnaw away at the moral fabric of the church from within, doing far more damage than the SSPX and all the EF lovers put together could ever possibly do.

I have been trying to understand your position through the many posts you have made, especially since they appear to support the SSPX but denegrate those within the Church that you feel are not faithful. I am curious how you so quickly ask for charity when it comes to dealing with a group that is outside of the Church and continues to show public infidelity to the succesor of Peter, but can immediately criticise the other extreme? Wouldn’t it seem truly charitable to offer the same line of reasoning to both sides? Especially since you make the argument about consistency. It seems that both sides are consistently stubborn and wrong to some degree.

Secondly, I am very surprised by your argument about consistency. It seems like a fallacy to say “I may be wrong, but at least I’m consistent.” Personally, I would rather be right than consistently wrong…isn’t this the exact sin that you are accusing the unfaithful within the Church of committing? I have to admit, I am not a member of Mensa or the Dead Philosopher’s Society, so I am probably arguing from a less educated position than you, so you’re aid in helping me to understand this position would be greatly beneficial.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

They’re not a real order as are the Carmelites, Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, Trinitarians, etc. The SSPX are not a religious institute. A third order is a public association of the faithful that is part of a religious family.

The SSPX has made a hatchet job with titles.

They call their lay members “third order”.

They refer to their houses as priories, but they have no priors

They call their brothers religious, but they are not allowed to govern themselves as religious do or form themselves as religious do.

They have lay associates, which is not quite clear what the difference is between that and the SSPX third order.

They have a Third Order of St. Francis, but they are not Franciscan and this Third Order of St. Francis does not have the approval of the superior general of the Franciscan Third Order.

They have really muddied up the waters by using all kinds of terms that do not apply to the secular Catholic. In my mind, another good reason why secular priests and laymen should stay out of the life and and structure of the institutes of consecrated life. They don’t understand us. They are not trained in the canons, rules and constitutions that govern us. They have zero relationship with the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life to guide them. Until you get that under your belt, you’re gong to risk making a mess of things that someone else will have to figure out how to bail you out rather than suppress you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Sounds to me like they were just looking for the romanticness of those titles and names. ‘Priory’ is so much more traditional and religious sounding than ‘house’. But without the correct structure to go along with it; you aren’t following tradition, you are just being sentimental.

 

[catholicjames]

I read that some are suggesting SSPX is currently keeping very close mouthed as negotiations continue. This is an interesting priestly blog, however. ct.dio.org/comment-and-dialogue/question-corner/what-is-status-of-sspx.html Does anyone know more?

I will pray daily for reconciliation, and for SSPX to become the second personal Prelature in the Roman Catholic Church.

The SSPX opposes the changes in the church brought in by vatican 2.
For those who know what popes and saints have said before vatican 2 and what they say after, they will know that they are often totally contradictory.

I hope the SSPX does NOT reconsile with the church, I think the changes to the church have left us a legacy of apathy and decimated vocations and the liberalism of the church is diluting the religion into nothing. Most catholics dont even believe what the church teaches, this decadence and infection of the church by modernism ought to be obvious to everybody, we do not live in a bubble, we can see the flaws in the church, and the SSPX are being loyal to what the church has always thought by staying seporate and under its own leadership. I see no harm in this. I actually hope vatican 2 is reversed and the church returns to what it has always thought. It is not the SSPX who are the radicals or the heretics, it is the mainstream church which is going against traditional catholicism, and just because the church under benedict is bigger doesnt make them right, there were numerous heresys in church history which had the support of most of the church and they were defeated in the end. Is vatican 2 a heretical council? Is what people should ask. Blind support is not called for if things against the faith are held up for you to believe.

Thats that i think. I go to latin mass but not to SSPX. but perhaps i should bcoz i agree with them.

 

[choliks]

The SSPX opposes the changes in the church brought in by vatican 2.
For those who know what popes and saints have said before vatican 2 and what they say after, they will know that they are often totally contradictory.

I hope the SSPX does NOT reconsile with the church, I think the changes to the church have left us a legacy of apathy and decimated vocations and the liberalism of the church is diluting the religion into nothing. Most catholics dont even believe what the church teaches, this decadence and infection of the church by modernism ought to be obvious to everybody, we do not live in a bubble, we can see the flaws in the church, and the SSPX are being loyal to what the church has always thought by staying seporate and under its own leadership. I see no harm in this. I actually hope vatican 2 is reversed and the church returns to what it has always thought. It is not the SSPX who are the radicals or the heretics, it is the mainstream church which is going against traditional catholicism, and just because the church under benedict is bigger doesnt make them right, there were numerous heresys in church history which had the support of most of the church and they were defeated in the end. Is vatican 2 a heretical council? Is what people should ask. Blind support is not called for if things against the faith are held up for you to believe.

Thats that i think. I go to latin mass but not to SSPX. but perhaps i should bcoz i agree with them.

I will pray for you, sir.

 

[Melchior_1]

The SSPX opposes the changes in the church brought in by vatican 2.
For those who know what popes and saints have said before vatican 2 and what they say after, they will know that they are often totally contradictory.

I hope the SSPX does NOT reconsile with the church, I think the changes to the church have left us a legacy of apathy and decimated vocations and the liberalism of the church is diluting the religion into nothing. Most catholics dont even believe what the church teaches, this decadence and infection of the church by modernism ought to be obvious to everybody, we do not live in a bubble, we can see the flaws in the church, and the SSPX are being loyal to what the church has always thought by staying seporate and under its own leadership. I see no harm in this. I actually hope vatican 2 is reversed and the church returns to what it has always thought. It is not the SSPX who are the radicals or the heretics, it is the mainstream church which is going against traditional catholicism, and just because the church under benedict is bigger doesnt make them right, there were numerous heresys in church history which had the support of most of the church and they were defeated in the end. Is vatican 2 a heretical council? Is what people should ask. Blind support is not called for if things against the faith are held up for you to believe.

Thats that i think. I go to latin mass but not to SSPX. but perhaps i should bcoz i agree with them.

Ironically, your entire post has the appearance of being modernist and liberal, because even if you don’t like what has happened the traditional practice would be holy obedience, and to follow the successor of Peter.

You don’t see how the kind of attitude you have mirrors that of the people you complain about?

 

[CesarAugustus]

This is a misrepresentation. The cardinal is saying exactly what Bl. John Paul says in Evangelium Vitae. There is a difference between morality and crime. It is always immoral to abort a child. There are no exceptions.

It is always immoral to commit adultery. There are no exceptions.

Same sex intercourse is always immoral. There are no exceptions.

Passing laws the makes any of these and other immoral acts a crime is a very delicate matter. For example. If you were in a Muslim country, you would be executed for all three.

Therefore, in Evangelium Vitae, Bl. John Paul speaks separately between immoral actions that can never be condoned and the right of the state and the limits of the state to criminalize immoral actions. Why? Because nations have abused the law. The punishment often does not fit the crime. For example execution of a mother who has an abortion is a disproportionate response, because it’s not a choice in favor of the greater good, which is to preserve life, even of those who have committed a grave immoral act.

I read the cardinal’s statement and he is well within the parameters that Bl. John Paul sets regarding penalization of certain actions and the limits of the state.

The problem with the interview is that it clips, probably for the sake of space. For anyone who has read and is an expert in Evangelium Vitae, as are the Sisters of Life, Franciscans of Life, and Priests for Life, we can see what part of Evangelium Vitae the cardinal is coming from.

In reading Evangelium Vitae, it is important to read the entire document keeping in mind that the Holy Father wrote about life, not just abortion in that document. Each area is going to be treated separately. Crimes are in one section and immoral acts in another. The cardinal is saying what the Holy Father said about punishing crimes and the abuses that states often commit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

But, now, in Colombia, women can get abortions in three cases. It wasn’t only a lifting of penalties. It was a legalization of abortion. That can’t be fine.

Megan7, the three cases are:

Rape, malformation of the fetus, and when the mother’s life is in danger.

Also, another thing he said, that the embryo was a “potential human”.

If life begins at conception. The embryo is a new human since that.

The full interview here:

eltiempo.com/gente/por-que-la-iglesia-no-esta-sentada-en-la-mesa-con-las-farc_12374775-4

Previously, he said some polemic things about drug legalization:

aciprensa.com/noticias/controversia-en-colombia-por-declaraciones-de-arzobispo-sobre-despenalizacion-de-drogas/#.UKzvD2fTBa1

Blessings.

 

[Mike30]

Unfortunately, humanity is tainted by Original Sin and all its concomitant ramifications. The one thing that is most effective here is to follow the advice of the Spiritual Masters: Benedict, Francis, Thomas A Kempis, Teresa of Avila and Teresa of Calcutta.

Their advice was to pray for the world. Look only for the good in the other person and learn from it. Look only for sin and evil only in yourself. The Spirit of God will come to rest in a soul that is silent and detached. While it may seem to us that it is less virtuous, the truth is that there is greater virtue in the cultivation of such discipline said Teresa of Avila.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Well Brother, that all sounds very well and good and in a perfect world would probably work quite well. However, as you yourself have pointed out, quite often the laity is not as well educated in and doesn’t have as keen an understanding of theological matters as do Religious. So, we as the laity depend on Priests, Brothers, Sisters, Bishops and the Pope to lead us in the right direction and instruct us properly. That being the case, just one Priest, Sister, Brother or Bishop who teaches what could be considered contrary to Church Dogma, Doctrine and Discipline or active heresy, could and probably will adversely affect the spiritual development of and quite possiby cause irreversible harm to literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people.

With that in mind I would think it is of vital importance that such matters be addressed promptly and decisively by those in authority. To not do so I see as an almost total abdication of responsibility on the part of those in authority.

And I just don’t see how the Church can allow that to happen.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Well Brother, that all sounds very well and good and in a perfect world would probably work quite well. However, as you yourself have pointed out, quite often the laity is not as well educated in and doesn’t have as keen an understanding of theological matters as do Religious. So, we as the laity depend on Priests, Brothers, Sisters, Bishops and the Pope to lead us in the right direction and instruct us properly. That being the case, just one Priest, Sister, Brother or Bishop who teaches what could be considered contrary to Church Dogma, Doctrine and Discipline or active heresy, could and probably will adversely affect the spiritual development of and quite possiby cause irreversible harm to literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people.

With that in mind I would think it is of vital importance that such matters be addressed promptly and decisively by those in authority. To not do so I see as an almost total abdication of responsibility on the part of those in authority.

And I just don’t see how the Church can allow that to happen.

It is rare that one priest/sister/etc could affect hundreds or thousands of people. We all have many sources for learning these days, and hear and can be affected by other priests or religious who are teaching the truth.

Certainly someone cannot be culpable for something that they truly did not know any better about. But we are responsible for our own education - especially when good resources are readily available.

The pattern with heterodox priests/religious is that they (priests in particular) often leave the Church - to marry or join other groups. Those who don’t and become ‘famous’ for their stands are chastised by authority, which should be noted by us laity. Some of the more famous folk that are complained about did take the Churches admonition to heart and stopped teaching or writing on the forbidden topic. The fact that others are dredging up old writings or talks is out of their control.

I think it is disengenuous of us to be on an internet forum that is run by sound apologists, with access to Vatican documents, the CCC, and other materials at our fingertips, and continue to complain about lack of knowledge.

 

[CesarAugustus]

It is rare that one priest/sister/etc could affect hundreds or thousands of people. We all have many sources for learning these days, and hear and can be affected by other priests or religious who are teaching the truth.

Certainly someone cannot be culpable for something that they truly did not know any better about. But we are responsible for our own education - especially when good resources are readily available.

The pattern with heterodox priests/religious is that they (priests in particular) often leave the Church - to marry or join other groups. Those who don’t and become ‘famous’ for their stands are chastised by authority, which should be noted by us laity. Some of the more famous folk that are complained about did take the Churches admonition to heart and stopped teaching or writing on the forbidden topic. The fact that others are dredging up old writings or talks is out of their control.

I think it is disengenuous of us to be on an internet forum that is run by sound apologists, with access to Vatican documents, the CCC, and other materials at our fingertips, and continue to complain about lack of knowledge.

But maybe you haven’t been at some of the most problematic Dioceses.

For example, where I live, Priests say any sort of bad doctrine from their pulpits, and nothing. They are still there. The catechism classes are very poor in some Parishes, the Catholic schools and universitites are in a rather mediocre situation, people don’t care about some moral theology topics, relativism and indifferentism is widespread… I have spoke with some friends in the Curia, one of them a Pastoral Vice Chancellor in a Catholic University (where I studied the recent semesters), and he is aware of the bad situation. One of the topics we frequently speak about, is how to reach young people. That is difficult. I don’t even know what to do now, besides praying. Is very frustrating to be treated like some kind of fanatic because you mention writings from the CCC (and most times is about basic doctrine…). And that is not the only strange situation I have been.

Blessings!

 

[Melchior_1]

But maybe you haven’t been at some of the most problematic Dioceses.

For example, where I live, Priests say any sort of bad doctrine from their pulpits, and nothing. They are still there. The catechism classes are very poor in some Parishes, the Catholic schools and universitites are in a rather mediocre situation, people don’t care about some moral theology topics, relativism and indifferentism is widespread… I have spoke with some friends in the Curia, one of them a Pastoral Vice Chancellor in a Catholic University (where I studied the recent semesters), and he is aware of the bad situation. One of the topics we frequently speak about, is how to reach young people. That is difficult. I don’t even know what to do anymore, besides praying. Is very frustrating to be treated like some kind of fanatic because you mention writings from the CCC (and most times is about basic doctrine…). And that is not the only strange situation I have been.

Blessings!

Something to keep in mind; if the Vatican yields to all the demands of the SSPX, would it be any different than if they yielded to all the demands of another dissident group?

Also, people are assuming in these “problem dioceses” that the SSPX would be welcome. They won’t be able to just show up in an area without permission.

 

[CesarAugustus]

Something to keep in mind; if the Vatican yields to all the demands of the SSPX, would it be any different than if they yielded to all the demands of another dissident group?

Also, people are assuming in these “problem dioceses” that the SSPX would be welcome. They won’t be able to just show up in an area without permission.

It would be very different. The nature of the demands of SSPX and the ones of progressives/liberals/modernist/how-you-call-them are not similar regarding doctrine.

Here is a very interesting article about dissent, and if postconciliar dissent is similar to the SSPX position (in Spanish):

infocaotica.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/la-confusion-de-los-disensos/

Here, an translation (maybe it would be sloppy in some places, sorry in advance)

Professor José Luis Illanes from Opus Dei, -unsuspicious of belonging to the mythological filolefebvrian cathegory- published a commentary on the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian (24-V-1990) in which he analyzes the phenomenon of progressive dissent. To the reader, note the definition, root, the truths that are in question and the ideological foundation, and judge whether the position of the SSPX has enough similarities with postconciliar dissent.

"What is, in effect, the dissent? Putting aside other possible meanings or usages of the word, let's say for theological dissent is generally understood, and understand the instruction, not merely diversity, nor the mere existence of friction or even conflict between theologians and pastors -phenomena, that with greater or lesser extent, have occurred many times in history-, but the attitude of "systematic opposition", more precisely, the consideration of theological and scientific activity in a supreme judge of the truth of faith or, at least, as an autonomous instance that may conflict equally ("parallel magisterium") to the magisterial function exercised by ecclesiastical authority. The debate is therefore no longer about legal and disciplinary matters, nor merely on freedom of research, discussion and criticism, but, before, and more radically, about the nature of truth, including the Christian  truth- and the being of the Church. It is precisely this essential core which the Instruction aims to remind  ...

At the root of the phenomenon of dissent -the Instruction says- "the ideology of philosophical liberalism," that is, the approach according to which "A judgment is more authentic when comes from an individual that relies on its own strength" and in this way, he adds, "is opposes freedom of thought to the authority of tradition, considered source of slavery" and ends by stating that "freedom of judgment, so understood, is more important than truth itself '"

Published in: Scripta Theologica 22 (1990/3), ps. 865-880.

Also, I wasn’t speaking about the SSPX in my post, I was just writing about the bad situation where I live.

Blessings!

 

[Melchior_1]

It would be very different. The nature of the demands of SSPX and the ones of progressives/liberals/modernist/how-you-call-them are not similar regarding doctrine.

They are similar, as both sides says “these documents are wrong, and Rome must follow what we say”.

 

[CesarAugustus]

They are similar, as both sides says “these documents are wrong, and Rome must follow what we say”.

But, how can one compare, opposition to Religious Liberty, with opposition to, -for example-, Biblical Inerrancy, the Virginity of Mary, the Ressurrection, the Real Presence, or 6th Commandment related doctrine? (just naming some of the popular ones)

Also, I edited my post and added a short article from an Opus Dei Professor about the nature of postconciliar dissent.

Blessings!

 

[Dee_S]

The SSPX opposes the changes in the church brought in by vatican 2.
For those who know what popes and saints have said before vatican 2 and what they say after, they will know that they are often totally contradictory.

I hope the SSPX does NOT reconsile with the church, I think the changes to the church have left us a legacy of apathy and decimated vocations and the liberalism of the church is diluting the religion into nothing. Most catholics dont even believe what the church teaches, this decadence and infection of the church by modernism ought to be obvious to everybody, we do not live in a bubble, we can see the flaws in the church, and the SSPX are being loyal to what the church has always thought by staying seporate and under its own leadership. I see no harm in this. I actually hope vatican 2 is reversed and the church returns to what it has always thought. It is not the SSPX who are the radicals or the heretics, it is the mainstream church which is going against traditional catholicism, and just because the church under benedict is bigger doesnt make them right, there were numerous heresys in church history which had the support of most of the church and they were defeated in the end. Is vatican 2 a heretical council? Is what people should ask. Blind support is not called for if things against the faith are held up for you to believe.

Thats that i think. I go to latin mass but not to SSPX. but perhaps i should bcoz i agree with them.

Hi catholicjames and welcome …:takethat:…it tends to get a little heated on these SSPX discussions, but stick around because there is a lot to absorb and contributions are the order of the day (if you read from the beginning of this thread you will notice that others have said similar things to what you say here.

We all, and I think this is without exception, lament the forces (modernists) within the Church that actually 'hijacked" Vatican II and misused it to further their own crazy agendas. Do remember that they are ‘extreme’ and do not represent in their attitudes and actions that of the Pope, the heirarcahy, the religious or the majority of sensible catholic folks.

Pope Benedict XVI has and is putting a huge emphasis on the **correct **interpretation of Vatican II being implemented, even now, so many years later. We Catholics need to support him in this restoration of the true spirit of the Council - and send packing those who are constantly trying to de-rail it.

“Regardless of the reaction, the fact is, that Vatican II was NEVER meant to be an excuse to do away with traditional Catholicism, be it history, central or Magisterial teachings, or liturgical aspects vital to our Catholic identity, including the Latin Mass/Extraordinary Form/Tridentine Mass/1962 Mass. Well, if anyone has read Pope Benedict’s Spirit of the Liturgy, you will understand how our blessed father GETS this fact when and counters arguments for why those things had to go, and modernist criticisms of tradition(s) in that book. And he did it again today in Rome during the Synod for the New Evangelization”

"The Pope, Benedict XVI, tells his audience of people present, *INCLUDING *bishops who were present at Vatican II, what Vatican II was really about. I am sure some of them were not too pleased at hearing the Holy Father’s words as he set the record straight on what “aggorigiamento” means. To me this is a powerful excerpt from this video with my bolded emphasis:

youtube.com/watch?v=tvEiuGywi4c

" “Aggiornamento”, the Pope explained, " does not mean breaking with tradition; rather, it is an expression of that tradition’s ongoing vitality. It does not mean reducing the faith, debasing it to the fashion of the times …"
torontotlmserving.blogspot.com/2012/10/pope-benedict-truly-knows-what-vatican.html

Rather stay with the Pope & the Church - it’s where we belong

 

[Mrs_Sally]

But, how can one compare, opposition to Religious Liberty, with opposition to, -for example-, Biblical Inerrancy, the Virginity of Mary, the Ressurrection, the Real Presence, or 6th Commandment related doctrine? (just naming some of the popular ones)

Also, I edited my post and added a short article from an Opus Dei Professor about the nature of postconciliar dissent.

Blessings!

The point is that opposition to the Church’s authority is bad no matter which direction it is coming from.

You are right to say that I don’t live in a situation where dissent is a huge problem. The problems in some areas is very bad, that is true. However, the Church views things with a very long lens for time and a much wider perspective than most of us. In Latin America there have been many, many difficult situations with suppression of the Church by government, lack of respect for indigenious people and their cultures, and a very few priests (or religious of any kind) - each problems feeding off the other and all contributing to poor theology and education. I am sure you are very well aware of these situations.

I have a feeling that these issues not only contribute to the problem, but also make correction harder. I will continue to pray for you and the Church in Latin America. In particular I will pray for the springtime of evangalization among young adults which has followed World Youth Day in every other place where it has been held.

 

[Faithdancer]

I have been trying to understand your position through the many posts you have made, especially since they appear to support the SSPX but denegrate those within the Church that you feel are not faithful. I am curious how you so quickly ask for charity when it comes to dealing with a group that is outside of the Church and continues to show public infidelity to the succesor of Peter, but can immediately criticise the other extreme? Wouldn’t it seem truly charitable to offer the same line of reasoning to both sides? Especially since you make the argument about consistency. It seems that both sides are consistently stubborn and wrong to some degree.

Secondly, I am very surprised by your argument about consistency. It seems like a fallacy to say “I may be wrong, but at least I’m consistent.” Personally, I would rather be right than consistently wrong…isn’t this the exact sin that you are accusing the unfaithful within the Church of committing? I have to admit, I am not a member of Mensa or the Dead Philosopher’s Society, so I am probably arguing from a less educated position than you, so you’re aid in helping me to understand this position would be greatly beneficial.

First of all, I don’t believe I am wrong to support the traditionalism expressed by those who assist at SSPX Masses; this is not the same thing as being “rebellious” or having a “schismatic spirit,” etc. etc. it is most importantly the traditional Catholic values which traditionalists seem to practice which I support. I also don’t believe I’m wrong to rail against the heterodox attitudes of the “modernists,” for lack of a better term, including those who have introduced non-Catholic, secular and moral relativistic views into aspects and institutions of the faith, perhaps most importantly into religious education, including college and university education. This phenomenon has produced at least two generations now of poorly catechized Catholics and the result is the election of pro-abortion and pro-same sex “marriage” candidates and the passage of legislation that is contrary to Catholic teaching. So yes, I am consistent- but not consistently wrong, in my opinion. I am sure I am consistently wrong in the opinion of the leftist/secularist/moral relativist heterodox Catholics who seem to comprise a near majority in the Church today, however. I’m not labeling anyone here as one of these; CAF is one of the shining lights, overall, of the battle against heterodoxy, although highly tolerant of those who practice and preach it.

Echoing the Magisterium, I believe that secularism and moral relativism are the greatest danger to the Church today. I believe that this danger far outweighs whatever “danger” might accrue from repatriating a half million traditionalists who, at least in their laity numbers, simply want to be able to observe the EF mass and to see the Church membership return to traditional* morality*. Further, I believe that the solution to the crisis of heterodoxy is religious education. Catholic religious education needs a total overhaul and a strong re-emphasis on traditional Catholic morality needs to be re-inculcated. As a youth ministry coordinator and confirmation teacher, I’m doing my own little part in this regard.

Whatever horrible rebelliousness the traditionalists might be accused of, as a group whether they attend SSPX masses or diocesan EF masses or OF and EF masses I posit that they monolithically oppose abortion, euthanasia, and same sex “marriage.” The papal nuncio has just reminded us that the issue of abortion in particular trumps all others. Same sex “marriage” may not be as vital an issue as abortion and euthanasia- it does violate Church teaching, however, and desacralizes what Catholics are required to believe is a Holy Sacrament.

(My membership in Mensa and the Dead Poet’s Society are irrelevant to the discussion.)

 

[JReducation]

But, now, in Colombia, women can get abortions in three cases. It wasn’t only a lifting of penalties. It was a legalization of abortion. That can’t be fine.

Blessings.

I read the interview and I also heard it on Spanish EWTN. The problem with interviews is that things are edited for the sake of brevity, usually by the journalist and the person being interviewed. When I heard it on Spanish EWTN, I heard more than what is on the Internet. I could hear the parts of Evangelium Vitae that he’s paraphrasing. Everything he said is in Evangelium Vitae. There is one mistake that he makes. I’m not sure if it was poor choice of words or that he blended two ideas that don’t go together. He defends the idea of not criminalizing abortion, which is consistent with what the Church says. But he is not clear that something can be illegal and not be criminalized. For example, in the USA the use of marijuana is illegal in most jurisdictions, but it is not a felony. To rise to a felony, the violation has to be very grave. That’s an example of something that is illegal, but not truly a crime. He does not go into the smaller details of law. Maybe in Colombia the law is not broken down as it is in the USA, misdemeanors, 1, 2, 3rd class, then felonies and so forth. So that you can have something that is illegal, but you won’t be executed if you break the law. I know nothing about Colombian law.

Well Brother, that all sounds very well and good and in a perfect world would probably work quite well. However, as you yourself have pointed out, quite often the laity is not as well educated in and doesn’t have as keen an understanding of theological matters as do Religious. So, we as the laity depend on Priests, Brothers, Sisters, Bishops and the Pope to lead us in the right direction and instruct us properly. That being the case, just one Priest, Sister, Brother or Bishop who teaches what could be considered contrary to Church Dogma, Doctrine and Discipline or active heresy, could and probably will adversely affect the spiritual development of and quite possiby cause irreversible harm to literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people.

With that in mind I would think it is of vital importance that such matters be addressed promptly and decisively by those in authority. To not do so I see as an almost total abdication of responsibility on the part of those in authority.

And I just don’t see how the Church can allow that to happen.

The one thing that people have to be careful about is not to panic. If someone in authority says something that is misleading and the person who hears it follows in good faith, the person is not culpable. There is a very radical arm of traditionalism that is thriving on fear and that’s not right. It’s telling people that this or that priest are leading people to hell, because he taught something incorrectly and the people followed him. God does not punish us for what we don’t know. This kind of pressure is abusive. Once the person finds out the truth, then the duty is his to adjust to the right path. As long as the person is acting in good faith and knows nothing else, he is not culpable of sin. We are responsible for trying to learn as much as we can about truth. Then we go with what we have.

Something to keep in mind; if the Vatican yields to all the demands of the SSPX, would it be any different than if they yielded to all the demands of another dissident group?

Also, people are assuming in these “problem dioceses” that the SSPX would be welcome. They won’t be able to just show up in an area without permission.

The difference between the SSPX and someone like Fr. Hans Kung are essentially two.

1. The SSPX is outside and Father Kung is inside, because when he has been disciplined, he has complied.
2. Father Kung is not organizing an entire population to get the Vatican to convert to his way of thinking. The SSPX is.

But, how can one compare, opposition to Religious Liberty, with opposition to, -for example-, Biblical Inerrancy, the Virginity of Mary, the Ressurrection, the Real Presence, or 6th Commandment related doctrine? (just naming some of the popular ones)

Also, I edited my post and added a short article from an Opus Dei Professor about the nature of postconciliar dissent.

Blessings!

The problem that people are having with this is that religious liberty is not a dogma. The Church can adapt her position on religious liberty to respond to what is happening in our time. What the radical traditionalist does not see or does not care about is that without religious liberty, people are being executed for their religious belief. Whether one is Catholic or Muslim, no one has the right to execute a person for his faith. People are being denied basic human rights, because of their faith. That too is immoral. The Church must always choose the greater good. The greater good is to allow man the freedom to come to the truth, not to bound him, penalize him or execute him for not being where we say he should be.

There is a callousness in the thinking of those who oppose the Church’s teaching on religious liberty. “Don’t touch the Catholics and we’re not going to address what you do to the Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others. That’s their problem.”

 

[JReducation]

The SSPX opposes the changes in the church brought in by vatican 2.
For those who know what popes and saints have said before vatican 2 and what they say after, they will know that they are often totally contradictory.

Popes are not bound by what saints, doctors, previous popes or previous councils say. See St. Boniface on this. Even when they contradict, a pope can do so as long as he does not contradict divinely revealed truth. No pope has touched divine revelation, nor has the Council.

I hope the SSPX does NOT reconsile with the church,

This is contrary to the wishes of the Holy Father. You are placing your hopes over those of Peter. This constitutes a schismatic attitude. You must be careful not to cross that line.

I think the changes to the church have left us a legacy of apathy and decimated vocations and the liberalism of the church is diluting the religion into nothing. Most catholics dont even believe what the church teaches, this decadence and infection of the church by modernism ought to be obvious to everybody, we do not live in a bubble, we can see the flaws in the church, and the SSPX are being loyal to what the church has always thought by staying seporate and under its own leadership.

Remaining under its own leadership is a schismatic act. That’s a more serious problem than the others that you mention. What you mention is something that the Church has been dealing with and that is not the product of Vatican II, but the product of social changes that concurred with Vatican II. There is a big difference between correlations and direct cause and effect.

I actually hope vatican 2 is reversed

Pope Benedict has already said that it’s not going to happen. Again, you’re placing yourself in direct conflict with the pope. Even Bishop Fellay has not gone that far.

It is not the SSPX who are the radicals or the heretics, it is the mainstream church which is going against traditional catholicism, and just because the church under benedict is bigger doesnt make them right,

No one called the SSPX heretics. But you have just called the Church heretical and have just shown great disrespect for POPE Benedict. You have also failed to remember that no one has the right or the authority to judge a pope. Your statement is judgmental. You are violating Canon Law.

Is vatican 2 a heretical council? Is what people should ask. Blind support is not called for if things against the faith are held up for you to believe.

The Church is not a democracy. We don’t take votes on what we believe. In the past, those heresies that were held in mass and suppressed were suppressed by legitimate authority. In this case, Pope Benedict has already said that only he has the authority to decide what is and what is not in line with tradition. Even Bishop Fellay has admitted that this is true.

Thats that i think. I go to latin mass but not to SSPX. but perhaps i should bcoz i agree with them.

It is against current Ecclesia Dei regulations to attend the chapels and mass at the SSPX because one embraces a schismatic mindset or because one wants to lend support to their irregular status. It would constitute an objectively grave sin to pass up a licit Latin mass to attend an illicit one to support disobedience. You need to think about the greater picture here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[CesarAugustus]

I read the interview and I also heard it on Spanish EWTN. The problem with interviews is that things are edited for the sake of brevity, usually by the journalist and the person being interviewed. When I heard it on Spanish EWTN, I heard more than what is on the Internet. I could hear the parts of Evangelium Vitae that he’s paraphrasing. Everything he said is in Evangelium Vitae. There is one mistake that he makes. I’m not sure if it was poor choice of words or that he blended two ideas that don’t go together. He defends the idea of not criminalizing abortion, which is consistent with what the Church says. But he is not clear that something can be illegal and not be criminalized. For example, in the USA the use of marijuana is illegal in most jurisdictions, but it is not a felony. To rise to a felony, the violation has to be very grave. That’s an example of something that is illegal, but not truly a crime. He does not go into the smaller details of law. Maybe in Colombia the law is not broken down as it is in the USA, misdemeanors, 1, 2, 3rd class, then felonies and so forth. So that you can have something that is illegal, but you won’t be executed if you break the law. I know nothing about Colombian law.

The punishment to abortion in the other cases is 3 years. Since 2006, women can get abortions without problem (in the 3 cases). And now, there is a campaign to allow abortion in all cases. I find problematic that he said that, because there was opposition to the 2006 law from the Church, and now he says another thing. Maybe he had a poor choice of words, but that is what the majority of population are going to read/hear.

Blessings!