SSPX

[eelpis]

Are you suggesting that Our Holy Father isn’t the Guardian of Holy Tradition but it’s Creator?

No, I said that the pope is the final judge here on earth of what is the Catholic faith, no one can condemn him, only God who is his superior.

 

[eelpis]

Respectfully;

Not wanting to take away from the main thrust of this discussion but;
I have yet to see ANY (“Official”) church documents banning or excommunicating any Catholic that participates in a SSPX Latin Mass or is a member of the SSPX Society.

There aren’t any. except for the bishops who are exommunicated per Eccclesia Dei Adflicta, however I hope those excommunications will be lifted soon.

Let us pray for the unity of Holy Mother Church.

 

[thistle]

Yes, the Church has changed teaching. That is what doctrinal developement is all about. When something becomes dogma, is defined or expounded upon, it is a change. What the Church has* not* done is contradicted teaching.

Yes the Church’s understanding of doctrines can develop and can be explained better to us but truth is truth. It does not change.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s not forget, the Church can change the rules. Are we talking about changing doctrine or changing rules?

JR

 

[EdFoust]

Interesting nuance. I guess I view things simpler. At one time the church did not have the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Now we do. That is by the usual English meaning of the word, a change.

It’s not a “nuance”…it’s a more specific explanation. Your word “change” is too general, don’t you think?

If I say that in 1854 the Church changed the teaching on the Immaculate Conception, is that very clear? How was it “changed”?

It was defined. It was always true…but with the definition it became de fide.

EF

 

[bobzills]

I think that we’re getting stuck on two words: “change” and “outside”. I wonder what would happen if we took these words out.

The Church’s dogma an salvation outside the her remains the same. So what is different in what Vatican II, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are saying and doing?

They are saying that the Orthodox maintain a sacramental communion with us. They are saying that the Orthodox also share the same apostolic succession as us.

They are saying that the excommunications and anathemas are a thing of the past and are asking both sides to forget them (not as in wipe one’s memory), but put them aside. It’s over.

If you look at it this way, the dogma of salvation outside the Church remains the same.

So what’s the status of our relationship with each other, Orthodox and Catholic?

1. We have link of communion that neither side can deny.
2. We also have differences that neither saide can deny.
3. We remain separate separated because of our difference, but we are united because of our share in the same life of faith, grace and our fidelity to the teachings of the Apostles.
4. Therefore, we are Sister Churches. The relationship is schismatic, but the members are not. Neither they nor us are materially responsbile for the separation. That was the result of a sad series of events almost 1000 years ago, which neither today’s Catholics or Orthodox provoked or caused.
5. There is a moral duty on both sides to correct the errors of the past and to bring the unity that exists in sacrament, succession and faith, to a perfect unity. That perfect unity would be unity under the bishop of Rome, while each Church retains her traditions and identity, just like the Eastern Catholics do.

Does this help?

JR

Yes it does. I very much like your presentation on this, it is encouraging on the one hand, and it makes a lot of sense.
However, I know that no one agrees with me on what I will say next, but I don;t see how anyone can deny that there have been changes in the teaching. As I mentioned, before the Orthodox were considered to be schismatics, and Islam was taught
to be an abominable sect. But nothing like this is taught anymore.

 

[JReducation]

Yes it does. I very much like your presentation on this, it is encouraging on the one hand, and it makes a lot of sense.
However, I know that no one agrees with me on what I will say next, but I don;t see how anyone can deny that there have been changes in the teaching. As I mentioned, before the Orthodox were considered to be schismatics, and Islam was taught
to be an abominable sect. But nothing like this is taught anymore.

Those are not changes in dogma. Those are changes in policy and understanding. Those changes are allowed to the Church.

Those changes did take place. They are a fact. We have documents, speeches and events that prove it. You are right.

JR

 

[bobzills]

Respectfully;

Not wanting to take away from the main thrust of this discussion but;
I have yet to see ANY (“Official”) church documents banning or excommunicating any Catholic that participates in a SSPX Latin Mass or is a member of the SSPX Society.

I think it is confusing as to what was taught with reference to the SSPX.
At first it was said that the bishops were excommunicated because the ordination of the bishops was done without papal approval. However, the SSPX contends that it did have in principle permission to ordain a bishop, and because of various necessities, it ordained four bishops at one time. According to the SSPX, this was done out of necessity, and so they did not accept the excommunications of the bishops.
Later on, it was said that if you adhere to the schism of the SSPX, you would be excommunicated, but if you simply attend their Masses, you are not excommunicated. But I don;t know how official any of this is, and as far as I can make out, there is no firm agreement on the situation, except that everyone agrees that it is not a normal situation. I would not advise anyone to take this view of the situation as anything more than my personal opinion.

 

[JReducation]

I think it is confusing as to what was taught with reference to the SSPX.
At first it was said that the bishops were excommunicated because the ordination of the bishops was done without papal approval. Hopwever, the SSPX contends that it did have in principle permission to ordain a bishop, and because of various necessities, it ordained four bishops at one time. According to the SSPX, this was done out of necessity, and so they did not accept the excommunications of the bishops.
Later on, it was said that if you adhere to the schism of the SSPX, you would be excommunicated, but if you simply attend their Masses, you are not excommunicated. But I don;t know how official any of this is, and as far as I can make out, there is no firm agreement on the situation, except that everyone agrees that it is not a normal situation. I would not advise anyone to take this view of the situation as anything more than my personal opinion.

If you scroll back to the letter from the commission you will see the status of things.

The bishops are excommunicated. Their argument of necessity cannot trump the authority of John Paul II. If the Pope said there was no such necessity, Church law and Church tradition is on his side.

The Vatican has never excommunicated the laity. They incur excommunication if they agree with the bishops of SSPX, because they are accepting the bishops of SSPX as a parallel magisterium with authority to make decisions, which is not possible. That is spliting the Church. No Catholic can split the Church. That is schism.

The entire SSPX community, lay and clergy are not in schism, only those who are in union with the idea that the authority of the Pope can be trumped by a bishop.

JR

 

[maurin]

with all this talk of changed teachings:

Condemned by Pius IX in Quanta cura
Liberty of conscience and of forms of worship is a right proper to every man.

Asserted by Vatican II in Dignitatis humanae
The person has a right to religious liberty.

Now I am neither asserting nor denying that each person has a right to religious liberty…it just seems that the teaching has changed.

 

[maurin]

If you scroll back to the letter from the commission you will see the status of things.

The bishops are excommunicated. Their argument of necessity cannot trump the authority of John Paul II. If the Pope said there was no such necessity, Church law and Church tradition is on his side.

The Vatican has never excommunicated the laity. They incur excommunication if they agree with the bishops of SSPX, because they are accepting the bishops of SSPX as a parallel magisterium with authority to make decisions, which is not possible. That is spliting the Church. No Catholic can split the Church. That is schism.

The entire SSPX community, lay and clergy are not in schism, only those who are in union with the idea that the authority of the Pope can be trumped by a bishop.

JR

JR, you’re off a little bit here. your 3rd and 4th paragraphs are a bit of a contradiction at worst–at best you’re choice of wording is extremely confusing.

 

[JReducation]

JR, you’re off a little bit here. your 3rd and 4th paragraphs are a bit of a contradiction at worst–at best you’re choice of wording is extremely confusing.

I think my run-on sentence didn’t help. Sorry.

1. Not everyone who attends an SSPX chapel is excommunicated.
2. There has not been a decree of excommunication of the laity or the priests of the society, to the best of my knowledge.
3. The bishops of the society are excommunicated, because of disobedience to the Pontiff.
4. The rationale of the excommunication is that such disobedience a violation of canon law.
5. Those who agree with the bishops that the ordinations were necessary can incur excommunication. They become materially involved with the bishops. They are accepting the SSPX’s bishops’ position as if it were a parallel magisterium.
6. There cannot be a parallel magisterium. Either the Pontiff is right or the bishops are.
7. The bishops’ interpretation of the “need” does not trump the Holy Father’s belief that there is no need for such an ordiantion.
8. Those who agree with the Bishops and join the SSPX because of their allegience to the bishops run the risk of incurring the same fate as the bishops.
9. Those who attend mass at the SSPX because of their desire for the Gregorian mass are not in the same situation. They are not giving their assent to the bishop’s judgment. They are simply going for the mass.

The Church discourages Catholics from attending mass at the SSPX to avoid the possibility of being contaminated by the SSPX bishops’ position, which John Paul II said was a schismatic position.

Hope this is clearer.

JR

 

[maurin]

I think my run-on sentence didn’t help. Sorry.

1. Not everyone who attends an SSPX chapel is excommunicated.
2. There has not been a decree of excommunication of the laity or the priests of the society, to the best of my knowledge.
3. The bishops of the society are excommunicated, because of disobedience to the Pontiff.
4. The rationale of the excommunication is that such disobedience a violation of canon law.
5. Those who agree with the bishops that the ordinations were necessary can incur excommunication. They become materially involved with the bishops. They are accepting the SSPX’s bishops’ position as if it were a parallel magisterium.
6. There cannot be a parallel magisterium. Either the Pontiff is right or the bishops are.
7. The bishops’ interpretation of the “need” does not trump the Holy Father’s belief that there is no need for such an ordiantion.
8. Those who agree with the Bishops and join the SSPX because of their allegience to the bishops run the risk of incurring the same fate as the bishops.
9. Those who attend mass at the SSPX because of their desire for the Gregorian mass are not in the same situation. They are not giving their assent to the bishop’s judgment. They are simply going for the mass.

The Church discourages Catholics from attending mass at the SSPX to avoid the possibility of being contaminated by the SSPX bishops’ position, which John Paul II said was a schismatic position.

Hope this is clearer.

JR

it’s clearer, but it’s wrong…well, out of date. The new Pontiff, His Holiness Benedict XVI has clearly stated in his accompanying letter to his Motu Proprio addressed to the Bishops of the world that the Society’s situation is an internal matter if reconciliation within the Church.

 

[JReducation]

it’s clearer, but it’s wrong…well, out of date. The new Pontiff, His Holiness Benedict XVI has clearly stated in his accompanying letter to his Motu Proprio addressed to the Bishops of the world that the Society’s situation is an internal matter if reconciliation within the Church.

But he has not lifted the excommunication. And in his invitation last summer the spoke person for the Holy Father said there could be excommunications. I realize that did not happen, the excommunications; but the original ones still stand.

That’s why it is dangerous to align oneself with the arguments of the bishops of the SSPX. It was their disobedience that got them into trouble, not dogma. It stands to reason that one who subscribes to that disobedience would suffer the same consequences. Otherwise, the bishops are being targeted and that is not the case.

JR

 

[maurin]

But he has not lifted the excommunication. And in his invitation last summer the spoke person for the Holy Father said there could be excommunications. I realize that did not happen, the excommunications; but the original ones still stand.

That’s why it is dangerous to align oneself with the arguments of the bishops of the SSPX. It was their disobedience that got them into trouble, not dogma. It stands to reason that one who subscribes to that disobedience would suffer the same consequences. Otherwise, the bishops are being targeted and that is not the case.

JR

it’s even more dangerous not to align oneself with the arguments of the bishops of the SSPX, JR. They believe now what you believed then. If you were right then, they are right now. If they are wrong now, you were wrong then.

It’s just a matter of time before the excommunications are lifted, JR. I trust in Him.

 

[bobzills]

with all this talk of changed teachings:

Condemned by Pius IX in Quanta cura
Liberty of conscience and of forms of worship is a right proper to every man.

Asserted by Vatican II in Dignitatis humanae
The person has a right to religious liberty.

Now I am neither asserting nor denying that each person has a right to religious liberty…it just seems that the teaching has changed.

That’s what I thought also.

 

[JReducation]

it’s even more dangerous not to align oneself with the arguments of the bishops of the SSPX, JR. They believe now what you believed then. If you were right then, they are right now. If they are wrong now, you were wrong then.

It’s just a matter of time before the excommunications are lifted, JR. I trust in Him.

I can identify with their concerns, but I cannot identify with their disobedience to a direct order from the Pontiff. He said “do not ordain”. The Archbishop should not have dne so. The priests should not have accepted the invitation to be ordained.

Obedience to the Pontiff was the right thing to do in the past and the right thing to do in the present.

JR

 

[bobzills]

I can identify with their concerns, but I cannot identify with their disobedience to a direct order from the Pontiff. He said “do not ordain”.

JR

On what day and in what pastoral letter did he say exactly such: “do not ordain” ? I thought he told Archbishop Lefebvre he could ordain at least one bishop?

 

[JReducation]

On what day and in what pastoral letter did he say exactly such: “do not ordain” ? I thought he told Archbishop Lefebvre he could ordain at least one bishop?

Nooooooo. That was the big stink between the good Archbishop and the Holy Father. He sent him a letter telling him not to ordain the bishops and advising him that he would incur excommunication.

There is a copy of the letter on the Vatican web site, but it’s in Italian, if you read Italian. Let me see if I can Google an English translation for you.

JR

 

[bobzills]

Nooooooo. That was the big stink between the good Archbishop and the Holy Father. He sent him a letter telling him not to ordain the bishops and advising him that he would incur excommunication.

There is a copy of the letter on the Vatican web site, but it’s in Italian, if you read Italian. Let me see if I can Google an English translation for you.

JR

I believe you have made a small mistake here, since I read that the Pope agreed in principle for the archbishop to ordain one bishop.although the Pope did not give a specific approval for a particular bishop, and I think that the Pope had rejected those names which were placed before him on the grounds of insufficient quality of background.