SSPX??

[diggerdomer]

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.

Not at all true. Communion in the hand is not sacrilege according to the Church’s thinking, or she wouldn’t have allowed it. The Pope and Bishops teach authoritatively whether or not they exercise the charism of infallibility on a particular teaching. Yes, many times Popes and Bishops teach or preach and we are free to consider it their opinion. But they also teach in binding fashion via letters, motu proprios, encyclicals, etc.

 

[Mumbles140]

For anyone who belongs to an SSPX Church or is in support of SSPX, I was wondering–how do you all feel about FSSP? I don’t know much about either, but I have attended 2 FSSP Masses that truly captured the Sacrifice of the Mass in the beautiful way that Latin can. It appears that there are many similarities in the ‘overall’ missions/visions of these two groups, so how did one become involved with animosity, imperfect communion, and rogue ordinations while the other received pastoral blessings and has remained in perfect communion with the Universal Catholic Church since its inception?

 

[I_Believe]

That would be fantastic because it would mean that the SSPX have reunited with Rome, which is so important to the traditional movement.

hi Ted, well, the Society has to reunite first. Then I think it will be some time before we see a SSPX Archbishop.

Many wonder why BXVI lifted the excommunications before an agreement between Rome and the Society was made. It had to be done, imo, first, because traditionally, Rome does not enter into discussions on doctrinal matters with excommunicated clergy. And, again jmho, the excommunications were unjust anyway.

Then of course, there are years of stigma to erase. The SSPX has been branded “renegade” for decades. We can see how deeply rooted the stigma is when a Pope has to write a letter to his Bishops in response to the venom spewed forth from certain ones over the lifting of the excommunications. That is sad imo, and shows just how damaging the fruits of VII are.

 

[diggerdomer]

That is sad imo, and shows just how damaging the fruits of VII are.

You can’t blame the schism on the fruits of Vatican II. The SSPX leaders disagreed with the teachings of Vatican II itself, and still do. Not just the fruits.

 

[I_Believe]

Finally someone tells it like it is.

Well, jmho of course. Just trying to be realistic

 

[giuseppeTO]

For anyone who belongs to an SSPX Church or is in support of SSPX, I was wondering–how do you all feel about FSSP? I don’t know much about either, but I have attended 2 FSSP Masses that truly captured the Sacrifice of the Mass in the beautiful way that Latin can. It appears that there are many similarities in the ‘overall’ missions/visions of these two groups, so how did one become involved with animosity, imperfect communion, and rogue ordinations while the other received pastoral blessings and has remained in perfect communion with the Universal Catholic Church since its inception?

Well Mumbles, although the story has been told many times before on this board, they were initially the same Priestly Order - the SSPX. This was the only order of priests committed to preserving the Mass of Pius V against the assault of novelties being introduced into the Novus Ordo. The SSPX was erected as a fully and canonically approved Society of priests in 1970. Somewhere along the line in 1976, the original Bishop who sponsored the SSPX retired and the orthodoxy of the SSPX rubbed the new bishop and several others in France the wrong way. So, the new bishop withdrew his canonical approval and for 12 years, they operated without canonical approval, just as they operate today. When Archbishop Lefebvre could not come to an agreement with the Vatican over the consecration of a bishop to succeed him, he went forward and consecrated 4 bishops from among his priests in 1988. At that time, Pope JPII issued a declaration that the Archbishop and the those bishops committed a schismatic act and had automatically excommunicated themselves by Canon Law. He offered to take any priests from the SSPX under a new structure named Ecclesia Dei. These priests who left the SSPX became the Fraternity of St. Peter, hence the similarities in structure, Mass, and sacraments.

 

[I_Believe]

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.

Those clergy are dead, GRTS’s, and all of that matters not now.

btw, I don’t think it can be argued the SSPX is outside of the Church now that the excommunications have been lifted.

I stand with H.H. BXVI, and with what he wrote in his letter to his Bishops. He didn’t take sides, he didn’t pull any punches. He told it like it is.

 

[I_Believe]

You can’t blame the schism on the fruits of Vatican II. The SSPX leaders disagreed with the teachings of Vatican II itself, and still do. Not just the fruits.

Please identify this schism you speak of . And please identify the specific teaching(s) you think the Society stands against.

 

[I_Believe]

You can’t blame the schism on the fruits of Vatican II. The SSPX leaders disagreed with the teachings of Vatican II itself, and still do. Not just the fruits.

Are you speaking of the groups within the Church who have displayed the “schismatic” tendencies in regards to the lifting of the excommunications ? You know, the very mannerisms and attitudes they claim to despise about the SSPX, and now display themselves. :ehh:

 

[diggerdomer]

Please identify this schism you speak of . And please identify the specific teaching(s) you think the Society stands against.

Pope John Paul II identified the schismatic acts here: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

The specific teachings the society stands against are available from their website: sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm

Not only do they reject teachings of Vatican II, they also reject at least parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church. Hope this helps.

 

[diggerdomer]

Are you speaking of the groups within the Church who have displayed the “schismatic” tendencies in regards to the lifting of the excommunications ? You know, the very mannerisms and attitudes they claim to despise about the SSPX, and now display themselves. :ehh:

no

 

[I_Believe]

Pope John Paul II identified the schismatic acts here: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

The specific teachings the society stands against are available from their website: sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm

Not only do they reject teachings of Vatican II, they also reject at least parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church. Hope this helps.

Oh, so there is no schism ? Only “schismatic acts”. That clears that up.

I know what the Society stands against. Same as that which Tradition dictates we reject.

 

[I_Believe]

Are you speaking of the groups within the Church who have displayed the “schismatic” tendencies in regards to the lifting of the excommunications ? You know, the very mannerisms and attitudes they claim to despise about the SSPX, and now display themselves. :ehh:

no

Well, that’s ok, no one else wants to speak of those clergy either. The SSPX is such an easier target after all.

 

[diggerdomer]

Oh, so there is no schism ? Only “schismatic acts”. That clears that up.

I know what the Society stands against. Same as that which Tradition dictates we reject.

If you can distinguish between “schism” and “schismatic acts” and explain how some doing the former who have “priests” whom the Pope teaches do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church I am sure we would benefit from that understanding. thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

Well, that’s ok, no one else wants to speak of those clergy either. The SSPX is such an easier target after all.

What schismatic group are you referring to that objects to the Pope’s lifting the excommunications?

 

[I_Believe]

If you can distinguish between “schism” and “schismatic acts” and explain how some doing the former who have “priests” whom the Pope teaches do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church I am sure we would benefit from that understanding. thanks.

Well, you don’t consider the SSPX clergy priests I presume, since you put the word in parentheses. If we deny they are priests, then we’d have to deny Apostolic Succession.

Permission granted form JPII or not, those 4 are Bishops. The ordinations they conduct are valid, but illicit. At this time, they are suspended. No jurisdiction, no recognized ministry.

The Masses they pray are valid, but illicit in the eyes of the Holy See at this time. There is nothing to explain. Those are the facts regarding their standing today. I have no problem accepting that.

Bottom line, the SSPX priests are suspended. That’s it. No priest can minister if suspended, including the non-SSPX ones. Ha, that would be an interesting assembly of stats wouldn’t it ? I’d like to see the number of, and reasons for, the suspensions of priests who have always been in full communion with Rome.

We know why the SSPX clergy are suspended. I think the reasons for all of the other current suspensions might make the SSPX look like Saints. Talk about a can of worms lol.

Seriously though, it’s all right there in our Holy Father’s words to his Bishops. He’s speaking of the Society.

Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

See how ugly this has become diggerdomer ? The stigma has now become an obsession. Why, in Heaven’s name, should a Pope have to write a letter like this ?

Please read the whole letter. We either accept him as Pope or not, and if we do, how can we continue to fuel the stigma cast over the Society ? H.H. was deeply hurt by the outcry over his decree lifting the excommunications.

How can anyone read that letter, and continue looking for opportunities to attack the SSPX, at the same time claiming to stand with the Pope ?

 

[I_Believe]

What schismatic group are you referring to that objects to the Pope’s lifting the excommunications?

He mentions them in the letter without naming anyone. I see no need to either.

 

[diggerdomer]

Well, you don’t consider the SSPX clergy priests I presume, since you put the word in parentheses. If we deny they are priests, then we’d have to deny Apostolic Succession.

What parentheses? I used quotation marks only to make it clear that some who might read my post need to understand that “priests” in the SSPX are not equivalent to “priests” in the Catholic Church. That’s all.

Permission granted form JPII or not, those 4 are Bishops. The ordinations they conduct are valid, but illicit. At this time, they are suspended. No jurisdiction, no recognized ministry.

Exactly. I think Catholics need to know this.

The Masses they pray are valid, but illicit in the eyes of the Holy See at this time. There is nothing to explain. Those are the facts regarding their standing today. I have no problem accepting that.

Me neither.

Bottom line, the SSPX priests are suspended. That’s it. No priest can minister if suspended,

Yep.

We know why the SSPX clergy are suspended.

I’m not sure you do. Why do you think they are?

See how ugly this has become

Schism is indeed ugly. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has a long history of dealing with schismatics. When will it end? Ecumenism is so important.

Please read the whole letter.

I did.

We either accept him as Pope or not,

Accepting the Pope includes accepting everything the Pope teaches authoritatively, which would include all of Vatican II, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and the Catechism of the Catholic CHurch. As SSPX notes on their web site, they do not.

 

[diggerdomer]

He mentions them in the letter without naming anyone. I see no need to either.

Where? I’m sorry, I didn’t see where. Thanks for any help.

 

[Abenadar]

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.

I’ll say it again: The SSPX denies no Catholic dogma. On the other hand, it is quite clear that the SSPX has reservations about certain interpretations of what should be clear and concise Catholic teaching by the very fact that there are so many interpretations. The SSPX isn’t against a Catholic understanding of Vatican II. The SSPX is against the oft very un-Catholic “interpretations” of Vatican II’s nebulous “spirit”. It seems that Pope Benedict XVI understands this point, thus the doctrinal talks that are currently taking place.

And one more time for emphasis: The SSPX denies no Catholic dogma.

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

Not so! The SSPX believes and teaches Catholic dogma without changing one iota of it.