SSPX update?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faithdancer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St_Donatus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Where I live (Durban, RSA) I have yet to find a parish that I would call a #1. My definition of an ideal parish is exclusive, i.e. it is not an Irish stew, with a bit of good catechism from Mrs Smith and some really hairy stuff from Sr. Sue, a nice Mass on Wednesday and something very different on Sunday evening. I’m thinking of a parish that has an unmistakeable Catholic identity, where you can go without having to cross your fingers on what you’ll get.

If #4 has solid sermons/catechetical instruction and reverence in the liturgy, I can live with it.
 
TimothyH said:
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.

The ideal parish will exist after the second coming, not before. Until then, we remain imperfect.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Solid catechetical and moral formation, and reverence in church liturgies. That is the bottom line for wheat and weeds combined. Anything less and the Church is not fulfilling its divine mission.
 
I am blessed with a #1 style parish and a wonderful diocese.Thankfully the SSPX has not set up shop here although they are just over the river (which is also a good diocese).

All that aside though, Tim is right in that the weeds are growing in with the wheat and if we tried to torch them, we’d be buring the wheat too. However, we can hope (to mix my Biblical metephors) thast if we fertalize the soil with education and good practice, that those seeds in the weak soil will grow up strong as the soil improves. 😃
 
Dee_S said:
Not too sure about “Apostolic Succession” actually:confused: Archbishop Mueller does not think so!
Click to expand...
I’m curious. Could you provide a link where where this statement is confirmed by the Church? You will excuse me, if the good Archbishop said something to that effect, I find it somewhat difficult to believe that would also be the Churches position on the matter. I mean, I guess it could, but that would seem to also cast doubts on the validity of the SSPX Priestly ordinations. No one denies that they are validly ordained Priests just that they are suspended.

In the same way, if the Bishops who ordained these Priests are not true Bishops, how could they have been validly ordained in the first place? :confused:

Doesn’t make sense…

And, if the Bishops are not valid Bishops, why was there any concern at all over them being consecrated in the first place? The Church doesn’t seem to pay a lot of attention to illegal ordinations and consecrations, women Priests and several others, anti popes and what have you that are floating around. Why be so concerned about a few more invalid consecrations?

I think the Archbishop may have been stating his own personal feelings on the matter more so than stating a definitive answer to the question.
 
The papal newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, issued on 11-30-12, stated that Cardinal Gerhard Muller declared that Bishop Fellay and the SSPX to be heretics because they believe the Second Vatican Council to be a rupture from Catholicism. This is a “heretical interpretation” according to Cardinal Gerhard Muller.

Traditional Catholics define the Second Vatican Council as a rupture from Catholicism, kind of like the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. Traditional Catholicism and the conciliar Church are diametrically opposed to each other. Even if the SSPX became canonically recognized, they would work in an opposite direction with the conciliar Church. The conciliar Church works to modernize and Protestantize society while traditional Catholics like the SSPX work to Christianize society.

Once when Rome converts back to Eternal Rome, the constant teaching of the Church as defined in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, then the SSPX will become regularized.
 
The seven parishes in my area are all 2s. In fact most parishes I have seen have been 2s. I suppose that I have seen a couple of 1s but they were usually in rural outlying areas. In the 4 diocese I have been a member of I have seen mostly 2s.
I have been to a 3 (SSPX) one time near my home. I have been to 1s in some parts of Italy.
 
Mrs_Sally said:
.Thankfully the SSPX has not set up shop here although they are just over the river (which is also a good diocese).
😃
Click to expand...
Things like this are where we go wrong. “Thankfully” is not a good word to use here and personally attitudes like this which run rampant on CAF are just as divisive as anything the SSPX says.
 
Moore11 said:
Things like this are where we go wrong. “Thankfully” is not a good word to use here and personally attitudes like this which run rampant on CAF are just as divisive as anything the SSPX says.
Click to expand...
I agree, and “set up shop” is equally derogatory. Let’s try to keep it on the high ground, eh?
 
Mike30 said:
I’m curious. Could you provide a link where where this statement is confirmed by the Church? You will excuse me, if the good Archbishop said something to that effect, I find it somewhat difficult to believe that would also be the Churches position on the matter. I mean, I guess it could, but that would seem to also cast doubts on the validity of the SSPX Priestly ordinations. No one denies that they are validly ordained Priests just that they are suspended.

In the same way, if the Bishops who ordained these Priests are not true Bishops, how could they have been validly ordained in the first place? :confused:

Doesn’t make sense…

And, if the Bishops are not valid Bishops, why was there any concern at all over them being consecrated in the first place? The Church doesn’t seem to pay a lot of attention to illegal ordinations and consecrations, women Priests and several others, anti popes and what have you that are floating around. Why be so concerned about a few more invalid consecrations?

I think the Archbishop may have been stating his own personal feelings on the matter more so than stating a definitive answer to the question.
Click to expand...
He was not stating his own personal feelings. It seems he is correct, in that to ‘qualify’ as a Catholic bishop they must be appointed by the Pope and be working in hierarchical communion:

DECREE CONCERNING
THE PASTORAL OFFICE OF BISHOPS
IN THE CHURCH
***CHRISTUS DOMINUS ***
PROCLAIMED BY
HIS HOLINESS, POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965

"4. By virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college, bishops are constituted as members of the episcopal body.(1) “The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in teaching and pastoral direction, or rather, in the episcopal order, the apostolic body continues without a break. Together with its head, the Roman pontiff, and never without this head it exists as the subject of supreme, plenary power over the universal Church. But this power cannot be exercised except with the agreement of the Roman pontiff.”
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_en.html

THE POPE EXERCISES SUPREME JURISDICTION
**Extracts from a General Audience Pope John Paul II
**
"…the definition of the Council of Florence (1439), which stated: “We define that the Holy Apostolic See–and the Roman Pontiff–has primacy over the whole world, and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles and true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians, and that upon him, in blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ conferred the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the universal Church, as is also stated in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons” (DS 1307).

“For its part, Vatican I (1870) cited the Council of Florence’s definition (cf. DS 3060) and, after mentioning the Gospel texts (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:16f.; Jn 21:15f.), expresses the meaning of this power in further detail. The Roman Pontiff “does not only have the office of inspection and direction,” but enjoys “full and supreme power of jurisdiction, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and governance of the Church dispersed throughout the world” (DS 3064).”

“The individual bishops, insofar as their own discharge of their duty permits, are obliged to enter into a community of work among themselves and with the Successor of Peter, upon whom was imposed in a special way the great duty of spreading the Christian name” (LG 23)."
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html
 
Esrb99 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well said. Such a decision must be made with the utmost care and on a case by case basis, but the Church has made it clear that at this time it is possible in some cases to attend their Mass. I re-read the post in question and I think I too misunderstood the point. Thanks for clearing it up.
 
pnewton said:
Another thing I find suspect. There is no “good” reason for a schismatic act.
Click to expand...
The SSPX is not currently in schism and we are not to refer to them as being so, or to their members or congregations as schismatic. We were recently reminded of this by the moderator. Thank you for your compliance.
 
The SSPX is not currently in schism and we are not to refer to them as being so, or to their members or congregations as schismatic. We are also not to praise or encourage acts of disobedience against the Vatican. We were recently reminded of these things by the moderator.

This may be the longest running thread on SSPX in CAF history, and our civil tone, reasoned discourse and charity are probably a big part of that. Thanks for understanding!🙂
 
Mike30 said:
Doesn’t make sense…
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t. The Church has repeatedly affirmed the validity of their Mass. Inherent in a valid Mass is that the priest is a valid priest, thus he had valid Holy Orders and apostolic succession. I suspect this is a case of a quote being taken in a different direction than was intended.
 
Faithdancer said:
The SSPX is not currently in schism and we are not to refer to them as being so, or to their members or congregations as schismatic.
Click to expand...
FYI - I did not say that they are in schism, or refer to any of their members as such, if I am the one you are referencing. I was referring specifically to the singular act of disobedience that left their situation irregular. The phrase I used I got from Bl. John Paul who was the one person in authority to make such a determination. From Ecclessia Dei:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition.
Click to expand...
To clarify, I said, as did the late pontiff, it was the* act* that was schismatic, not the group, and no one in it. In the context of the discussion, this type of disobedience is not something I can every see as “good.” That being said, I am grateful you posted what you did so I could be more precise and clarify what I said. The current terminology of the Church is that their position is one of no canonical ministry in the Church. This in and of itself speaks that they are actual considered** in** the Church, as canon law only applies to those in the Church.
 
TimothyH said:
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.

The ideal parish will exist after the second coming, not before. Until then, we remain imperfect.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
An interesting thought. When I became Catholic, I was on the border between two parishes. One was markedly better in areas of worship and available ministries. I tried to attend there. However, I quickly came to realize that the better parish was not where God wanted me. I went to the one where the music in the liturgy was, let me say, less desirable, so that I could become involved in improving it. Sometimes God may want us where we are not as comfortable to be an instrument of change, or at least improvement. I know this type of path isn’t for everyone, but for some, it is something to consider.

Note that this motivation can apply to one attending SSPX, or not attending SSPX. I just throw it out for something new to think about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top