Sspx

[jeff417]

Just read that some monks north of Scotland, who had ties to SSPX recently came into full communion with the Church. Is this going to be a trend? Are the hardliners among traditionalists starting to soften? Praise the Lord!

 

[nbjayme]

** For all we know **far greater reform might have been accomplished had LeFebvre chose to follow the path of Peter and remained faithful to the Holy Father, where his voice would then carry weight.

Then I guess we never could know. Guessing game is dangerous — it is always away from facts and not worthy of the argument.

Boy1: Yuh uh…
Boy2: Nuh uh…
Boy1: Yuh uh…
Boy2: Nuh uh…
Boy1: Yuh uh…
Boy2: Nuh uh…
Boy1: Yuh uh…
Boy2: Nuh uh…

It reminds me of the Looney Tunes …

Being with Peter is no guarantee your voice will be heard… Hook up with Pope Honorius I. St. Athanasius went to the faithful were his voice really mattered and only later was he given a chance in the Church.



Those who joined now in V2 were product of SSPX … I pray that they continue with the True Faith and not be used to extend the heresy of V2. Thanks again to Archbishop Lefebvre now the Pope have more and more priests worthy to carry on the TLM in the Church.



Peace.

I now retire.

(Admin: I tried to unsubscribe to this thread … it doesn’t seem to work. Help appreciated.)

 

[jeff417]

Agreed, I hope all SSPX, and even the sedevacantists come back so we can have ever more priests saying the Tridentine Mass well!

 

[nbjayme]

Agreed, I hope all SSPX, and even the sedevacantists come back so we can have ever more priests saying the Tridentine Mass well!

Peace. Yes, indeed God have His own way of continuing the True Faith of the Church.

If one reminisce at the time of Marcel Lefebvre and others … a lot of authorities in the Church wanted to place the TLM under the rug.
But at a turn of events … now we have a cry for TLM. Great thanks to God for raising Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, even under pain of unjust treatment from the Vatican itself.

If there’s one that the Pope can count on in the restoration of the Tradition of the Church — its those persons who before (and to some extent even today) were unjustly branded as heretics and schismatics.

Glory be to God!

 

[pnewton]

If there’s one that the Pope can count on in the restoration of the Tradition of the Church — its those persons who before (and to some extent even today) were unjustly branded as heretics and schismatics.

When you say “count on” are you talking about the same people who rejected his effort at reconcilliation this summer? Perhaps you refer to someone other than Fellay and Williamson, though.

 

[nbjayme]

When you say “count on” are you talking about the same people who rejected his effort at reconcilliation this summer? Perhaps you refer to someone other than Fellay and Williamson, though.

Of course, rejection doesn’t mean to say they are against the very Church they are fighting for the Faith nor does it mean to say they do not recognize the authority of the Pope.

There are other matters to consider that you haven’t made. In example, discussions on the theology and Doctrines of the Church. This dialogue is helpful for both parties to strengthen more in their resolution to fight for the Faith of the Church. If V2 can forsake the Dogma of the Church by praying with heretics and pagan and even allowing them to use the premises of the Church why is it hard for them to forget their novelties and discusss with those who continued with Traditions? — it’s not like they are going against Her Extraordinary Magisterium. So, it is highly unlikely to accuse pride as coming from the SSPX fence.
And when it comes to “insincerity” in the Catholic Tradition of the Church — it is again highly unlikely to be at the door of SSPX.
Also, it’s not in you or anybody’s position to judge rashly the SSPX – remember … no one should be forced to do something that is against their moral conscience (but then double-standard catholics come into play when it comes to SSPX).

SSPX were faithful who fought and still continue to fight for the Traditions of the Church amidst ridicule and injustice. These men fought to continue with the TLM amidst the many Authorities that don’t want to hear their voice in V2. But then now, they are vindicated for a stronger cry for TLM echoes in the Church.

I, a layman, would rather pray more for the SSPX and should not do severe judgment on them. Even as I pray now for the Pope and the Whole Church. By spreading harsh judgment, those people are not healing the Church and are the real cause of divisions. I take the positive move to pray to God to enlighten the Pope and the SSPX bishops, priests, nuns, and faithful that the Holy Teaching of the Church become more profound in the coming ages.

 

[pnewton]

I, a layman, would rather pray more for the SSPX and should not do severe judgment on them.

Then perhaps you are willing to extend the same courtesy to me, as I did not judge them for their answer, but only referred to it.

Since you wish to re-enter this discussion, let me respond to something I was going to let earlier. You mention the heresy of Vatican II. Since you hold fast to the Traditions of the Church, do you not consider the the infallinbility of the Church meeting in council one of those traditions? Can good traditional Catholics choose which councils to believe and which ones are heretical?

I find it highly illogical to hold to a faith that accepts the authority of the Church meeting in council up until the point one is convened that they do not agree with. That is why I would find SSPX one of the strangest, most contradictory religious sects in all of Christendom.

 

[nbjayme]

Dear friends,

I know we all agree that a “formalities for union” will do Good for the Church …

We have spent much time being eloquent at bashing SSPX and other Traditionalist (to speak of). Yet, on the one hand, we believe that a greater force for the True Teaching of the Church will truly happen when all force are united. In our eloquence we forgot one thing … PRAYER.

We spent too much time judging rather than praying.

 

[Aramis]

The eastern churches are not in communion at all. They are schismatics…and heretics since after Vatican I. Schismatics are by definition “cut off” from the Mystical Body. There are severed members and are no longer part of the Body. There is NO communion with the true Church.

SFD

1. Canon law provides that the Eastern Churches, in union or not, are still valid. (CIC 1983, #844 §4)
2. 22 eastern Churches are in perfect communion with the Roman Church. The blanket description Eastern Churches applies to the 22 Catholic, 30 or so Eastern Orthodox, dozen or so Oriental Orthodox, and several Church of the East groups as an inclusive whole.
3. of those 22 eastern churches in union, 2 have no history of schism, only a history of loss of contact for the Maronites, and the Italo-Albanians have never been in schism nor isolation from Rome.
4. Vatican I specifically allowed for the Eastern Churches in Union to remain Eastern Churches and be in full union and communion with Rome. Mind you, the term used was Eastern Rites, however the terminology now used under canon law is Eastern Churches. (Eccelsiam Orientalum.)

 

[nbjayme]

Then perhaps you are willing to extend the same courtesy to me, as I did not judge them for their answer, but only referred to it.

Since you wish to re-enter this discussion, let me respond to something I was going to let earlier. You mention the heresy of Vatican II. Since you hold fast to the Traditions of the Church, do you not consider the the infallinbility of the Church meeting in council one of those traditions? Can good traditional Catholics choose which councils to believe and which ones are heretical?

I find it highly illogical to hold to a faith that accepts the authority of the Church meeting in council up until the point one is convened that they do not agree with. That is why I would find SSPX one of the strangest, most contradictory religious sects in all of Christendom.

are you referring to the “pastoral” council?
the council that accepted a mass from protestant ministers?

My Catholic Church have no part with heretics.
II Corinthians 6:14 Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?

And oh, Pope Benedict XVI calls the NO a break in Tradition and faulted it as the source of division. Sometimes, out of prudence, there are words left unspoken.

“V2 can forsake the Dogma of the Church by praying with heretics and pagan and even allowing them to use the premises of the Church” – may I know which V2 doctrine legitimizes this?

If none, was this then a mistake of the Pope?

If you find it illogical it probably because you haven’t yet resolved that the Church belongs to those who continued on with the True Faith.

Again… let us spend more prayers for the Pope and the Church.

no more reply from me…

I have unsubscribed … before this forum did not appear in the list of subscribed thread. Bye.

Grow in God’s grace.

 

[pnewton]

are you referring to the “pastoral” council?

Then if it were a pastoral council only, and did not delve into matters of faith and morals, how can heresy exist with in Vatican II, since heresy involves matters of faith and morals?

 

[Claudius]

You need to show that he (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre) didn’t use the correct form. Your doubt is negative…there is no evidence for it.

SFD

I really should not refer to him as Archbishop since he renegged that title when he got excommunicated. Sure, he remained a Bishop, but one who was barred from performing his clarical duties.

Here is the problem with him. He was EXCOMMUNICATED by the Catholic Church.

“What you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven…”

He was not excommunicated for a simple political difference or a reverance for the older form, but for a SCHISMATIC act.

This tells me that there are BIG problems with the SSPX and that it would be MORALLY wrong to attend their services or to support them regardless of validity of orders.

But on the subject of validity of orders: We know that the leader of the SSPX got excommunicated for not ordaining correctly. There was something wrong. Now we know that the part that was most VISIBLY wrong was that he had no apostalic mandate. However, we do not know if that is ALL that was wrong with it.

I therefore can not assume that the men ordained by the leader of SSPX were in fact properly and actually ordained at all. I must doubt the validity of the orders until the Vatican assures me that the orders are valid. I trust the Vatican, not the SSPX.

Catholic priest in the Catholic Church have valid orders, I can not say the same for the SSPX since I don’t know. I have no authority in the Church to tell others that this is true.

The leader of the SSPX committed a schismatic act in public. Therefore, it could be said that he lacked the proper intent to do what the Church does, manifest in public. This again, makes me doubt the validity of SSPX orders and I will continue to do so until the Vatican says they are in fact valid.

Let us all recall by the way EXTRA ECCLESIA NULLA SALVA.
In other words: Haud Salvatio extra Ecclesia.

Therefore, the SSPX is not only engaged in a schismatic act but are also putting the lives and souls of many people in jepordy.

They teach that the current men who are being ordained as Catholic Priest are not validy ordained. This means that they do not understand the sacrament of Holy Orders and puts their own orders under suspicion. Therefore, I must doubt the validity of SSPX orders.

They teach that the Eucharist at Catholic Mass celebrated arround the world by todays Catholic Priest are not valid and that the Eucharist does not become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I must therefore question the validity of their own Eucharist and validity of their Holy Orders until they offer proof that they are vailid because they show a supreme lack of understanding of the sacraments as well as a supreme disrespect for the Eucharist.

They disrespect that the SSPX shows to the Eucharist in this matter even outstripps the disrespect by some protestants. Protestants know not what they don’t have, they believing that it is just a symbol but the SSPX is supposed to know better than that.

I comes down to this, they set up their guy as their own Pope in opposition to the teachings of the Universal Church. They now want to become the “western” orthodoxy.

 

[Claudius]

No, not what is “celebrated” today. There is nothing Catholic about Halloween.

SFD

We did invent Halloween. It is supposed to be a Holy Day of Obligation. It is treated as such in Faithful Catholic Countries. It was English speakers who deformed it.

 

[Claudius]

Why would you make fun of any man’s name?

He was a sucessor to the Apostles…who are you?

SFD

He WAS a successor to the Holy Apostles, until he was excommunicated.

Who am I, A Faithful Catholic. A Catholic who reads the documents of the Church. A Catholic who allows myself to be taught by the Church. A Catholic admits when I am wrong instead of subornly ignoring the will of Christ that all his true followers be ONE.

 

[Claudius]

Why would anyone post on an English-speaking forum, and then insult people who speak English?

Who cares? Let’s just pray for the poor people of Japan, who are cursed with his obnoxious presence.

I consider is a great of charity that I come here to speak to you all in a language that is not my own. I am the one reaching out to you. What I said about the English language and English speakers is true. English is a poor language. Just compare basic Latin to the most beautiful English and you should be able to see my point if you know both languages.

Besides, the old line Perfidius Albion, still rings to this day. If not for the English speakers lending support to the protestant anti-christianity protestantism might have ended centuries ago. It might not have lasted beyond the deaths of the original protestors of Christ, Luther and the gang.

Now I will say that you should pray for Japan but You pray for the wrong reason. You should be praying that they convert to Christianity, which I am here to help do, not that someone you disagree with should die.

And yes, I suppose I must seem pretty obnoxious when I throw the truth at you all and you can’t handle it. What is wrong in your life that you can not accept the truth of Catholic teaching?

If the truth of Catholic teaching is uncomfortable for you it is probably a good sign that you need to fix something in your life.

 

[pnewton]

I consider is a great of charity that I come here to speak to you all in a language that is not my own. I am the one reaching out to you.

And right you are. It is a sad lack of charity and ethnocentrism that attacks someone for the language they speak when the are here speaking our language for us.

 

[maurin]

Then perhaps you are willing to extend the same courtesy to me, as I did not judge them for their answer, but only referred to it.

Since you wish to re-enter this discussion, let me respond to something I was going to let earlier. You mention the heresy of Vatican II. Since you hold fast to the Traditions of the Church, do you not consider the the infallinbility of the Church meeting in council one of those traditions? Can good traditional Catholics choose which councils to believe and which ones are heretical?

I find it highly illogical to hold to a faith that accepts the authority of the Church meeting in council up until the point one is convened that they do not agree with. That is why I would find SSPX one of the strangest, most contradictory religious sects in all of Christendom.

The SSPX does NOT reject the Council. Cardinal Hoyos supports this position in an interview with L’Osservatore Romano (I think, you’ll have to forgive me here. I am a regular at CCF, and the link I will need to support this statement is there. Right now that Forum is down. if it comes up soon, I will post the link. In the meantime, I hope this will suffice: catholicforum.com : Debate Liturgical Issues, thread: can anyone really explain the SSPX?")

From Bishop Fellay: …Whether or not you find this strictly in the texts of the Council, they leave many doors open to this spirit [After the Council, all of Christian life was made very easy]. The Council is very ambiguous; in other words, if you put on Catholic glasses, you can have a Catholic reading of the Council. But if you put on other glasses, you find an entirely different reading. This is the problem with ambiguous words. From a Council, you expect clear and precise texts. Besides some obvious errors, we find much imprecision and an ambivalent terminology [one obvious error is the change in the definition of the Church from the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church to the Church of Christs ‘subsists in’ the Catholic Church.].

Thanks for your patience on the link for Hoyos’ take on this.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I was going to stay out of this fray until I again saw references to Vatican II being referred to as heretical. Let’s set some records and facts straight so all can be on the same page and not be running around chasing red herrings (these are false issues put out meant to mislead from the topic at hand.) Ignore them.

Fact # 1.
Vatican II was called by the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He has the promise of the Holy Spirit always being with him. Not any other individual bishop

Fact #2
It was a certain French Archbishop who did not like what the council did and decided to break off from Holy Mother Church and start his own following. He was chastised for that, but was told nothing else would take place so long as he did not ordain any bishops.

Fact # 3.
The French Archbishop, USURPED THE ROLE OF THE HOLY FATHER in direct disobedience on a matter of faith and ordained bishops of his own choosing, not approved by Rome.

Fact # 4
This French Archbishop is now dead. Please all keep him in your prayers.

Fact # 5.
There were talks between SSPX and Holy Mother Church to try and bring SSPX back into the fold. This was just this last summer. The one thing that prevented reunification was sinful pride and arrogance wherein SSPX refused to accept the Magisterium of the Church, comprised of the Pope and bishops in union with him as the sole teaching authority of the Catholic Church. This has been core to the Church since the time of the apostles, yet SSPX rejected it. It, the magisterium, is the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church comprised of the Pope and bishops in union with him who are all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This was rejected by SSPX in July of 2008.

Fact # 6
SSPX loves to refer to St Athanasius, but overlook the fact that he was not separated from the Church, was not excommunicated and did not disobey nor usurp any role that belonged uniquely to the pope, e.g. choosing those who would be named bishops and thus part of the magisterium.

Fact # 7
All else is smoke screen merely attempting to divert people from these core issues.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[maurin]

I was going to stay out of this fray until I again saw references to Vatican II being referred to as heretical. Let’s set some records and facts straight so all can be on the same page and not be running around chasing red herrings (these are false issues put out meant to mislead from the topic at hand.) Ignore them.

Fact # 1.
Vatican II was called by the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He has the promise of the Holy Spirit always being with him. Not any other individual bishop

Fact #2
It was a certain French Archbishop who did not like what the council did and decided to break off from Holy Mother Church and start his own following. He was chastised for that, but was told nothing else would take place so long as he did not ordain any bishops.

Fact # 3.
The French Archbishop, USURPED THE ROLE OF THE HOLY FATHER in direct disobedience on a matter of faith and ordained bishops of his own choosing, not approved by Rome.

Fact # 4
This French Archbishop is now dead. Please all keep him in your prayers.

Fact # 5.
There were talks between SSPX and Holy Mother Church to try and bring SSPX back into the fold. This was just this last summer. The one thing that prevented reunification was sinful pride and arrogance wherein SSPX refused to accept the Magisterium of the Church, comprised of the Pope and bishops in union with him as the sole teaching authority of the Catholic Church. This has been core to the Church since the time of the apostles, yet SSPX rejected it. It, the magisterium, is the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church comprised of the Pope and bishops in union with him who are all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This was rejected by SSPX in July of 2008.

Fact # 6
SSPX loves to refer to St Athanasius, but overlook the fact that he was not separated from the Church, was not excommunicated and did not disobey nor usurp any role that belonged uniquely to the pope, e.g. choosing those who would be named bishops and thus part of the magisterium.

Fact # 7
All else is smoke screen merely attempting to divert people from these core issues.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

With all due respect, Deacon Ed, here are some more facts:

Fact #1
Some of what you present above is a smoke screen merely attempting to divert people from the core issues behind the SSPX.

Fact #2
There not only WERE talks between the SSPX and the Pope’s representatives, but there CONTINUE to be talks between the SSPX and the Pope and his representatives.

Fact #3
In November of 2007 when Fellay last visited Rome Hoyos replied that the Pope does not want to hear the word ‘schimsmatic’ applied to the SSPX. In the Motu Proprio, when he explained why it was released he mentioned the SSPX, and wrote that it is an internal matter of reconciliation WITHIN the CHurch. “Internal” and “within” do not mean “outside.”

Fact #4
On January 13, Cardinal Hoyos granted an interview to Zenit in which he clearly stated that the bishops alone were excommunicated.

Fact #5
Facts #3 and #4, taken together, although it is a sad state, suggests that not even the Church considers SSPX outside of Communion with Her, thereby further suggesting that the SSPX has LEGITIMATE points being raised, and points that the Church Herself is considering.
Fact #6
SSPX IS IN AN IRREGULAR STATE. We cannot deny this. Nor should we. But the facts #3, #4 and #5 offer all of us hope that “Internal” and “Within” will lead to full Reconciliation.

Fact #7
It is the spread of misinformation which creates bad blood. As a Deacon of Holy Mother Church, you have a huge responsibility in the proper dissemination of information about Her. Please live up to it better. Or at least label that which is your opinion as your opinion, rather than as facts.

Fact #8
Pope Benedict the Sixteenth is the Successor of Peter, and the Head of the Visible Church on earth, the Vicar of Christ. Long may he reign.

 

[Anacletus]

I was going to stay out of this fray until I again saw references to Vatican II being referred to as heretical. Let’s set some records and facts straight so all can be on the same page and not be running around chasing red herrings (these are false issues put out meant to mislead from the topic at hand.) Ignore them.

If these are your “facts” you need to check some of your sources.

Fact # 1.
Vatican II was called by the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He has the promise of the Holy Spirit always being with him. Not any other individual bishop

The Holy Spirit is always with The Church. Popes can be bad. We’ve had murderers, adulterers, thieves, etc, as the pope. Even an anathematized heretic. So spare me the popalotry.

Fact #2
It was a certain French Archbishop who did not like what the council did and decided to break off from Holy Mother Church and start his own following. He was chastised for that, but was told nothing else would take place so long as he did not ordain any bishops.

Actually, it was several Archbishops. Abp. Lefebvre was only the most vocal.

Fact # 3.
The French Archbishop, USURPED THE ROLE OF THE HOLY FATHER in direct disobedience on a matter of faith and ordained bishops of his own choosing, not approved by Rome.

Better to ask, why did he think it was necessary?

Fact # 4
This French Archbishop is now dead. Please all keep him in your prayers.

Amen

Fact # 5.
There were talks between SSPX and Holy Mother Church to try and bring SSPX back into the fold. This was just this last summer. The one thing that prevented reunification was sinful pride and arrogance wherein SSPX refused to accept the Magisterium of the Church, comprised of the Pope and bishops in union with him as the sole teaching authority of the Catholic Church. This has been core to the Church since the time of the apostles, yet SSPX rejected it. It, the magisterium, is the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church comprised of the Pope and bishops in union with him who are all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This was rejected by SSPX in July of 2008.

I’m sorry, last I checked, the response of the SSPX’s Bishop Fellay to HEDCH was secret. Furthermore, HEDCH was “satisfied” with the response. Are you privy to the correspondence of the SSPX? Do you have some inside track that we are not aware of? Or are you just spreading baseless slander?

Fact # 6
SSPX loves to refer to St Athanasius, but overlook the fact that he was not separated from the Church, was not excommunicated and did not disobey nor usurp any role that belonged uniquely to the pope, e.g. choosing those who would be named bishops and thus part of the magisterium.

Athanasius, to my knowledge, was never excommunicated. He was, however, exiled, multiple times, primarily because the church was overrun with heretics, both at the lay level and at the the level of the episcopacy. “The whole world woke and groaned to find itself Arian…”, remember?

Further more saying Athanasius never “usurped the Pope” is close to being a straw man because the Pope had nowhere near the recognized power then that he does now. Athanasius’ disputes were with Arius and the Emperor, get your facts straight.

Fact # 7
All else is smoke screen merely attempting to divert people from these core issues.

You mean like your post?