SSPX??

[treba]

According to the Post Vatican II Church it doesn’t
matter if they are in “full” communion with the Church. Why should they even bother? They are following their consciences, so let them be. Why join up?

 

[I_Believe]

It seems that is the main problem, The pope says that the SSPX is not in full communion with Rome and the members of the SSPX tell the pope he is wrong. If they were in full communion, they wouldn’t be telling the holy father what his position in this matter should be.

Whoa. What makes you think the Society considers itself in full communion with Rome right now ? Are you aware that talks concerning doctrinal issues are underway ?

And what about all of the Bishops in full communion with Rome ? Didn’t quite a few of them tell BXVI he was wrong to exercise his authority in lifting the excommunications of the SSPX Bishops ? Some even dared demand our Holy Father resign !

Folks need to get off of this “schismatic” kick. Unless they are willing to stop denying the Conciliar Church is infested with “schismatics”. Dissidents are the threat to the Church, not the pre - VII mindset.

Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t reject the authority of the Chair of Peter. He acted under a provision of Canon Law. And it may well be proven he was right. The Society has not strayed from Tradition. They have rejected only what the Church has always stood against.

 

[I_Believe]

NONE of Vatican II’s teachings are irreconcilable with tradition. As Pope Benedict XVI has said more than once, the council and its teachings must be interpreted IN LIGHT OF TRADITION. He did not say that some teachings can’t be interpreted as such and must be discarded. As an ecumenical council, Vatican II, just like all other ecumenical councils, DID NOT teach heresy. True, it didn’t proclaim any dogma, but then again, it chose to teach via the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which isn’t as solemn but JUST AS INFALLIBLE. And before you give me the old line that Vatican II was pastoral and not doctrinal and thus non-binding, consider what Pope Paul VI had to say to Archbishop Lefebvre (long before the 1988 consecrations): “You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn Magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application” (Nov. 10, 1976).

I don’t have to argue about the Council. There were enough of those who were there that felt the same way as the Archbishop.

 

[Seminarian_Matt]

You may say that as your personal opinion but it doesn’t make it true. Pope Benedict has said twice this year that the sspx does not have any active ministry in the Church. The reason is because of the imperfect union between the sspx and the Holy See.

While many hope for full reunion between the Holy See and the sspx, one of the sspx bishops has said that there are many obstacles between the two. I , personally, doubt a reconciliation any time soon.

The Pope is not impeccable and he does make mistakes. He has committed apparent sacrilege before (allowing Communion in the hand, etc). His opinion - when not ex-cathedra - is a mere opinion and nothing more.

 

[ProVobis]

While many hope for full reunion between the Holy See and the sspx, one of the sspx bishops has said that there are many obstacles between the two. I , personally, doubt a reconciliation any time soon.

Thanks for your optimism.

You are probably still denying that the excommunications were lifted. Or will undermine the actions of the Pope in some way.

 

[Timothysis]

Thanks for your optimism.

You are probably still denying that the excommunications were lifted. Or will undermine the actions of the Pope in some way.

No sir, I do not deny the excommunications were lifted and I never said that. DON’T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Seminarian Matt has his opinion that he is entitled to, no matter how erroneous it may be, and so do I. Your beef is not me but with the sspx bishop himself who said it will be “years” before all discrepancies are cleared up.

 

[Timothysis]

The Pope is not impeccable and he does make mistakes. He has committed apparent sacrilege before (allowing Communion in the hand, etc). His opinion - when not ex-cathedra - is a mere opinion and nothing more.

And your opinion is just that," mere opinion and nothing more;" it is irrelevant to anything in regards to the actions of the pope.

 

[giuseppeTO]

NONE of Vatican II’s teachings are irreconcilable with tradition. As Pope Benedict XVI has said more than once, the council and its teachings must be interpreted IN LIGHT OF TRADITION. He did not say that some teachings can’t be interpreted as such and must be discarded. As an ecumenical council, Vatican II, just like all other ecumenical councils, DID NOT teach heresy. True, it didn’t proclaim any dogma, but then again, it chose to teach via the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which isn’t as solemn but JUST AS INFALLIBLE. And before you give me the old line that Vatican II was pastoral and not doctrinal and thus non-binding, consider what Pope Paul VI had to say to Archbishop Lefebvre (long before the 1988 consecrations): “You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn Magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application” (Nov. 10, 1976).

And finally, the crux of the matter. The Second Vatican Council appears to be the first council that needs to be interpreted. The Pope appears to believe so as do so many others. Previous councils have made clear and unambiguous pronouncements, particularly in matters of faith, usually in response to a heresy or a controversy or ambiguity.

By the Pope’s words, Vatican 2 took the faith and introduced ambiguity that needed to be interpreted, which, it would appear was not properly done (according to, at least the current Pope), although who was in change of this first faulty interpretation is puzzling, if not the Pope himself, who should be the keepsake of the Eternal Catholic Faith.

So now, we must “reinterpret” what the council really meant. This pastoral ambiguity has led to the most significant crisis in the church since the Reformation.

 

[DavidJoseph]

I don’t have to argue about the Council. There were enough of those who were there that felt the same way as the Archbishop.

Let me provide this quote from Pope Paul VI again:

“You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn Magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application” (Nov. 10, 1976).

Archbishop Lefebvre wasn’t the Magisterium (nor is any individual bishop, for that matter). The pope and the bishops in union with him are. If you choose not to submit to the Magisterium, you’ve placed yourself outside the Church.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Let me provide this quote from Pope Paul VI again:

"You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others.

Nor can any text of the council be interpreted to teach contrary to the teachings of the Church, the Magisterium, as it existed before the council, no matter how much we desire to bring Protestants into the Catholic church. That is what Lefebvre was trying to defend and that is what Pope Benedict apparently recognizes and is willing (perhaps anxious) to discuss and correct.

I’m willing to leave it to the Curia and the SSPX to sort out and hopefully, we can all live with the corrections and sustentions.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Nor can any text of the council be interpreted to teach contrary to the teachings of the Church, the Magisterium, as it existed before the council, no matter how much we desire to bring Protestants into the Catholic church. That is what Lefebvre was trying to defend and that is what Pope Benedict apparently recognizes and is willing (perhaps anxious) to discuss and correct.

I’m willing to leave it to the Curia and the SSPX to sort out and hopefully, we can all live with the corrections and sustentions.

I’m glad you agree, but my above comments were directed to I_Believe, who claimed that at least some of the council texts indeed taught contrary to the Magisterium.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I’m glad you agree, but my above comments were directed to I_Believe, who claimed that at least some of the council texts indeed taught contrary to the Magisterium.

I think the rub is what individual bishops conferences have taught in their “interpretation” of council texts since the time of the council. It is not as much a question of the council texts, but of the way they were used to “teach” if you will, and/or introduce aggiorniamento into the Mass and Church that are contrary to the Magisterium. The council, by virtue of the fact that it was a validly called council by a true Pope, is part of the Magisterium of the church. The issue is when sacramental abuse, and distortion of the faith, is taught by Bishop’s Councils in the name of the Council.

That is what the upcoming doctrinal discussions with sort out. Acceptance of the Council and of the council text is the least of the problems that will be faced.

 

[Seminarian_Matt]

And your opinion is just that," mere opinion and nothing more;" it is irrelevant to anything in regards to the actions of the pope.

But the opinion of His Grace Marcel Lefebvre is THE infallible teachings of all pre-Vatican II pontiffs. That is far higher than the opinions of any of us or the opinions of the modern men in the Vatican.

 

[Timothysis]

But the opinion of His Grace Marcel Lefebvre is THE infallible teachings of all pre-Vatican II pontiffs. That is far higher than the opinions of any of us or the opinions of the modern men in the Vatican.

Individual opinion is NOT the infallible teachings of the Church. The pope in union with the bishops of the Church speak authoritatively. You cannot elevate Archbishop Lefebvre to a position that he has never occupied. The pope speaks for the Church, not one dissident bishop.

 

[Lainey63]

What is the difference between SSPX and the Roman Catholic Church?? The church by me that is SSPX, is also Latin rite… What is the difference between all of these? Thanks sooo much!!

I don’t know if you notice this new questions to Ask an Apologist but here is the link: [ forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=363905]( ) another good source would be EWTN which also has links to catholic news organizations which you can do another search .

 

[Lainey63]

What is the difference between SSPX and the Roman Catholic Church?? The church by me that is SSPX, is also Latin rite… What is the difference between all of these? Thanks sooo much!!

Just in case you didn’t catch this question to the Apologist forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5549498#post5549498

 

[Bruce_in_Iloilo]

Here’s my take, for what it’s worth…

I am a traditionalist and a convert from a church that is full of hubris, the Episcopal Church. My faith is centered on humility–I hope–including humbling myself to higher authority. Because of my experience with the Episcopal Church, I am deeply bothered by people who ACT against authority, who act arrogantly.

I am deeply bothered therefore by the SSPX ordaining priests and bishops against the explicit instructions of the Vatican. It is OK to disagree over what Vatican II means but it is not OK to ordain priests and bishops against the will of the Pope. That is not humble. That is saying that you know better. I have seen enough of such arrogance in the Episcopal Church that I have little tolerance for it.

Disagree over many, many, many things but do not ordain without the permission of Church; do not act when the Church says do not act. Ordinations are just too serious an act to allow lone wolf operators to ordain without any check. That is my first test of communion, of humility – do you ordain only with permission the Church?

 

[diggerdomer]

Well, whether Vatican II “taught” anything is part of the controversy. It certainly changed practices, disciplines and liturgy and made statements regarding the Chruch’s positions on a lot of external matters, but it’s not quite so clear if it pronounced any actual teaching. John XXIII, I believe, specifically stated that he would not speak ex cathedra, and there is support for the prospect that Varican II was meant to be a pastoral council.

Actually, even the anti-SSPX forces don’t claim they are heretical, they say they are disobedient and/or schismatic. Of course, the SSPX takes issue with the latter label as well.

Though, I will agree that, whatever the nature of Vatican II, the SSPX are opposed to what came out of it.

Of course Vatican II taught. That’s what Ecumenical Councils do. Whether or not a Pope spoke ex cathedra is irrelevant.

 

[diggerdomer]

I am SSPX and do not believe the validity of the claims that the SSPX is excommunicated or not in full union, etc.

To learn about each group, consider reading from the sources themselves:

sspx.org/
fssp.org/

Ok, but from a Catholic perspective: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m sorry diggerdomer, but if you mean “Dogma” when you use the word “teachings”, you are very wrong. The SSPX denies no Catholic Dogma, and actually reaffirms it constantly.

Deo Gratias.

It denies certain teachings of Vatican II. Vatican II was an ecumenical council, the highest teaching form the Church has. No need to quibble about semantics like “dogma” or “doctrine” or “teaching”-- the Magisterium warrants the assent of the faithful no matter what the “hierarchy” of the teaching.

It seems a case of the oft-mentioned “cafeteria Catholicism” to pick and choose what teachings one wants to believe or adhere to.