P
pnewton
Guest
Same here.
- Status
A
athaideb
Guest
You can still go there because the SSPX is in disobedience (for good reasons) not schism.
read the book ’ The Novus Ordo Question " by Robert T Hart at sicutincaelo.org/booklets.html.
You’ll be greatful. Thank you.
M
Mike30
Guest
0f course he isn t the topic. Why target a progressive? Where is the fun in that? The SSPX is a much easier target and more fun to play with. And since this sub forum tends to try to show that what is generally thought of as being traditional really isn t traditional at all it is hardly surprising that they are targeted as much as they are too the exclusion of almost all others
It is relevant if only to demonstrate the anti traditional bias that is very prevalent on this sub forum on the part of some posters.
C
choliks
Guest
Here in the Philippines, it’s either #1 or #4. No such thing as #2 or #3 here.
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
Tell me where you live. I’m buying an air ticket.
I’m just comparing two positions. There is of course a whole spectrum of gradations in between.
D
Dee_S
Guest
Not too sure about “Apostolic Succession” actually
Archbishop Mueller does not think so!
Code:
*Is it possible for reconciliation with Bishop Richard Williamson within the society?*
Williamson is a separate problem to this reconciliation process. It is simply unacceptable that a Christian or even more a bishop —** of course he is not a Catholic bishop, as a bishop is only Catholic when he is in full communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter**, which Williamson is not — denies all that the Nazis had done against the Jewish people, their exterminations. How is it possible to be so cold-hearted about this? It is absolutely unacceptable, but this is a separate problem.
**They [SSPX] need to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church: the confession of faith, the Creed, and also accept the magisterium of the Pope as it is authentically interpreted. **That is necessary. They also need to accept some forms of development in the liturgy. The Holy Father recognized the perennial validity of the extraordinary form of the liturgy, but they also must accept that the new ordinary form of the liturgy, developed after the Council, is valid and legitimate.
D
Dee_S
Guest
Thanks Boulder,…it was hard work:hammering:and yes, “double speak” has always been their ‘forte’, now it seems to have gone a step further…?continued…
“The Pope replied to me in a letter dated June 30 in which he sets three conditions:”
These we discussed in earlier posts because they appeared in his sermon on **November 11 **at St Nicholas du Chardonnet.
“I had sent to Rome the documents of the General Chapter, our final Declaration which is clear, and our conditions for eventually, when the time comes, reaching an agreement about a possible canonical recognition. These are conditions without which it is impossible [for the Society] to live; that would quite simply be self-destruction. For to accept everything that is being done today in the Church is to destroy ourselves.”
CNS july 19
“The statement from the society’s general chapter meeting, which ended July 14, was posted in French, Italian, English, German and Spanish on the society’s website July 19.”
"The Holy See has taken note of this declaration, but awaits the forthcoming official communication" of the society as its “dialogue with the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ continues,” he said… U.S. Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia, is handling the discussions with the SSPX under the guidance of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1203027.htm
This is :hypno:
“The proposed reconciliation, in fact, amounts to to reconciling us with Vatican II … And Rome says: “We have not yet received your official response.” But three times I replied that we could not, that we were not going down that path.”
very odd -considering this Declaration of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on Monday, October 29, 2012
.
"The Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ takes this occasion to announce that, in its most recent official communication (6 September 2012), the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has indicated that additional time for reflection and study is needed on their part as they prepare their response to the Holy See’s latest initiatives."
"At the present time, the Holy See is awaiting the official response of the superiors of the Priestly Fraternity to these two documents .
visnews-en.blogspot.com/2012/10/declaration-of-pontifical-commission_29.html
This is confusing
“Not long ago, we had a position statement from the President of Ecclesia Dei, who is at the same time the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, asserting that the discussions with the Society were over.(Cardinal Mueller)
And last Saturday, a new declaration from the Ecclesia Dei says: “No, we must allow them some time; it is understandable that after thirty years of debate they should need a certain amount of time; we do see that they have an ardent desire to be reconciled.” I have the impression that they have it more than we do. And we wonder: what is happening?”
And his final conclusion
“In all these discussions, I have arrived at the conclusion—and I think that this explains what is happening now—that the pope really, very seriously would like to recognize the Society. However the conditions that he sets are impossible for us. **The conditions that are found in his letter are for us quite simply impossible.”
**
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Nice taxonomy! 
However, the Church’s point is that (2) is never going to try and break away, simply because of its lukewarm and indifferent nature. It will just exist, and maybe fade away or lose devout members to other parishes (or, God forbid, other denominations) over time.
On the other hand, because (3) is strongly grounded in authentic Catholic teaching, the chances of schism - of people being led to believe that (3)'s members are “more Catholic than the Pope” are higher.
It’s because of these two reasons - the closeness of the Church to (3)'s teachings, and the greater risk of schism with (3) - that the Church is focusing on (3) now.
However, this does not excuse uncharitable or thoughtless comments against (3).
Personally, I would wish for (1), but have experienced both (1) and (2). My home parish is a huge (2), in which sermons like to quote Muhammad Ali and misquote St. Thomas Aquinas. The church I attend regularly at Pondicherry is much closer to (1). My parish as a kid, when I was growing up in Geneva, was (2) in many ways, though I can realize that only in hindsight.
Since I’ve never known (3) personally, and was born after Pope Paul VI was dead and buried, I can’t wish for something I’ve never known. But I do believe that, given the current stance of our Popes, the (2)s will either fade away or slowly become (1)s, obviating the need for (3)s at all in the first place. One can always hope.
I think (2) is more harmful in that it could lead its parishioners into errors or even sins, as they might believe (because of poor catechesis) that “action X, Y or Z isn’t all that sinful at all.”
However, the Church’s point is that (2) is never going to try and break away, simply because of its lukewarm and indifferent nature. It will just exist, and maybe fade away or lose devout members to other parishes (or, God forbid, other denominations) over time.
On the other hand, because (3) is strongly grounded in authentic Catholic teaching, the chances of schism - of people being led to believe that (3)'s members are “more Catholic than the Pope” are higher.
It’s because of these two reasons - the closeness of the Church to (3)'s teachings, and the greater risk of schism with (3) - that the Church is focusing on (3) now.
However, this does not excuse uncharitable or thoughtless comments against (3).
Personally, I would wish for (1), but have experienced both (1) and (2). My home parish is a huge (2), in which sermons like to quote Muhammad Ali and misquote St. Thomas Aquinas. The church I attend regularly at Pondicherry is much closer to (1). My parish as a kid, when I was growing up in Geneva, was (2) in many ways, though I can realize that only in hindsight.
Since I’ve never known (3) personally, and was born after Pope Paul VI was dead and buried, I can’t wish for something I’ve never known. But I do believe that, given the current stance of our Popes, the (2)s will either fade away or slowly become (1)s, obviating the need for (3)s at all in the first place. One can always hope.
A
Aramis
Guest
Attending the SSPX chapel on any regular basis renders you not able to licitly request a proper diocesan TLM in your local diocese, and gives the bishop reason to ignore your desires.
And that’s before the tendency of some (especially north american) SSPX priests to preach in a manner that tends to drive people into schismatic attitudes. And to preach that Rome has promulgated an invalid liturgy.
And also before noting the SSPX supporting an excommunicated society of UGCC priests using a suppressed variation of the UGCC liturgy which was originally adopted in violation of papal letters ordering delatinization. The SSPX has ordained priests and deacons for the officially suppressed and excommunicated SSJK.
They also provide a wonderful breeding ground for the attitudes that groups like the fully schismatic SSPV exploit to draw faithful-but-ignorant Catholics out of the church.
They run right to the jagged edge of material schism. They occasionally drive ignorant members of the faithful fully into material schism.
B
Boulder257
Guest
IYou are in the sub-forum of Traditional Catholocism in a thread regarding the SSPX. Thus, they are going to be the topic. I would assume if you started a thread about the topic you mention you would get plenty of discussion on the matter.
I can assure you that the priest or situation in which you speak does not receive a “pass” on this forum. This thread alone is full of those who are arguing that your priest is more dangerous than the SSPX. Not in name, but certainly in substance.
I would also add that the moderators are very clear about the forum rules and do not tolerate certain activity, including but not limited to “bashing” those that are within the Church. Therefore, some people here may be more reserved because they are trying to stay within the bounds of the rules set by the moderators.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Are there really any good reasons to be disobedient?
M
Melchior_1
Guest
- Our Bishop’s parish is outstanding, and offers Mass in both French & English. Our Bishop does things like this. He also does things like this too, and another other matters. On top of training other Jesuits, of course. Because the Society of Jesus apparently never sleeps.
- Our second Basilica has an ARCT organist. Also offers the “last chance Mass” - a 9pm Mass Sunday night which is a nice Mass as there’s no music at all. During Lent the Priest there offers the EF once a week.
- We have a FSSP parish here. Met the Priests there, very solid. Some of their parishioners called me a heretic due to my involvement with the charismatic renewal, and said that Vatican II wasn’t a real Council and other “rad trad” rhetoric. From what I understand, this has calmed down some because there’s apparently a SSPX chapel in the city and those parishioners go there now.
- I will challenge anyone and everyone who denies these guys are incredible.
- Several parishes have good youth programs. I’ve been helping at my parish’s program for nine years.
- We have a Dominican Priory here, they run a successful college.
- We have one “trouble parish”, and issues with one of the Universities that teaches theology (the University was not run, nor founded, by Jesuits by the way). Most of the “liberals” go to both places. His Grace avoids sending people there by sending Seminarians to Toronto.
So you see, there’s very little reason for the SSPX to be in my city, or for people to go there. But they’re here for some reason.
E
Esrb99
Guest
No there are not, but I think the post you quoted was a bit off the mark. It’s less about the SSPX being disobedient, and more about them offering valid, Catholic masses. The Holy Father has said they offer valid (yet illicit) masses, and that faithful who attend out of devotion to the EF and not out of rejection of Papal authority can fulfill their obligation at SSPX Chapels.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
If validity is something to go by, I go to confession before every Sunday Mass. I wouldn’t be able to do that at a SSPX chapel.
T
TimothyH
Guest
#4 is the parish Christ told us would exist.
People are imperfect vessels of the Holy Spirit. We have to accept that the sinner in the pew next to us is there because God is being a patient father. Anyone looking for an ideal or a perfect parish has set themselves up for disappointment and failure.
We are supposed to build each other up and encourage each other. I’d rather be part of a parish which feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, buries the dead and welcomes drug addicted prostitutes at the front door.
-Tim-
E
Esrb99
Guest
That has no bearing on the validity of their masses. One does not need to go to confession to participate in the sacrifice of calvary and fulfill canonical obligations for a holy day. In fact, if one has the stain of Mortal Sin on their soul, they can still fulfill an obligation to assist at Holy Mass at an SSPX Chapel, so long as they refrain from Holy Communion.
They would be in a similar situation as if they arrived to a diocesan EF mass (or OF, really) just in time and confession before mass had already ended. This person with the stain of Mortal Sin cannot take communion, but can still assist at mass and fulfill their Sunday obligation.
The Holy See has spoken on this issue already. SSPX masses are valid Catholic masses, and one can attend out of ignorance to their state of irregularity, and/or out of devotion to the EF coupled with the desire to remain faithful to the Pontiff.
D
Dee_S
Guest
**It appears that one would have to be ‘genuinely ignorant’
Moral impediment**
In 1995, it declared it “morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these (the SSPX) Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing”, and added that “the fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called ‘Tridentine’ Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.”[12] The Commission recognized the validity of the ordination of the SSPX priests, but added that they were prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because of not being properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See. It also said that** the Masses they celebrated were valid but illicit, but the lack of proper faculties on the part of the SSPX priests meant that celebrations of Penance and Matrimony under their auspices were invalid. **The Pontifical Commission reaffirmed various of these statements in 2003.[13]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X
**PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO “ECCLESIA DEI”***N. 539/99 Rome, *28 September 1999
Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary
“2. Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of
the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to Canon
Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the
priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since
that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It
remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the
priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have the proper faculty to
absolve, the Church supplied these faculties so that the sacrament was valid
(cf. Code of Canon Law c. 144).”
unavoce.org/resources/protocol-53999/
S
St_Donatus
Guest
Everyone seems to be forgetting FSSP parishes which use the Extraordinary form yet are in full communion with the Church. I go to one and it is definitely a #1 parish in every way. Yes, I have met ones that were bitter about how some priests and bishops threw away all the tradition (both in theology and in architecture) that they could find, but all seem to be thankful and loyal to the magesterium and Pope Benedict.
I have to drive from my city to a neighboring city to attend mass but it is very well worth it. I haven’t found any #1 or #3 in my current diocese. I understand there was a Bishop who was very liberal, going so far as to remove kneelers and all statues. The Bible was a nice fairytale and social justice through politics was the only way. God was more attune to the ‘force’ than the Trinity. Really destroyed the Church here. Very few faithful Catholics left. Can you imagine going through that for 40 years.
I have to drive from my city to a neighboring city to attend mass but it is very well worth it. I haven’t found any #1 or #3 in my current diocese. I understand there was a Bishop who was very liberal, going so far as to remove kneelers and all statues. The Bible was a nice fairytale and social justice through politics was the only way. God was more attune to the ‘force’ than the Trinity. Really destroyed the Church here. Very few faithful Catholics left. Can you imagine going through that for 40 years.
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
No need to hope. This is guaranteed, and Christ is the guarantor.Since I’ve never known (3) personally, and was born after Pope Paul VI was dead and buried, I can’t wish for something I’ve never known. But I do believe that, given the current stance of our Popes, the (2)s will either fade away or slowly become (1)s, obviating the need for (3)s at all in the first place. One can always hope.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Christ told us to let the wheat and the weeds grow together, and guaranteed that if we tried to tear out the weeds we would be left with nothing.No need to hope. This is guaranteed, and Christ is the guarantor.
The ideal parish will exist after the second coming, not before. Until then, we remain imperfect.
-Tim-
- Status