Take the SSPX challenge

[yosupman]

Who knows what the SSPX believes? They do not have their own creed. As a society, they are diverse in their belief. I remember even once or twice when their website was quoted it was claimed that the statement was out of date and the SSPX no longer believed that. This is the very problem with any group that seeks to teach the Church instead of being taught by Her.

I have heard the claim and the contradition this thread speaks, but from different SSPX sources.

I’ve had close personal contact with lots of traditional catholics from the SSPX on a sustained and daily basis. I can tell you at least in St. Mary’s Kansas, the typical SSPX’er believes that Vatican II departed from Tradition.

I’m just asking that everyone be honest. I’ve had conversations with people on this forum that hem and haw, and play semantics when it comes to Vatican II.

Lets all be honest. You either believe Vatican II is in accord with Tradition, or taught heresy. There is no middle ground.

 

[ProVobis]

Who knows what the SSPX believes? They do not have their own creed. As a society, they are diverse in their belief.

Same can be said for the various factions of the “mainstream” Catholic Church, can’t it? The SSPX is composed of individuals, who have individual rights and individual beliefs. The SSPX itself doesn’t have rights or special privileges from God, but neither do the Franciscans, Benedictines, the guitarist unions, and Sisters of Providence for that matter.

 

[ProVobis]

You either believe Vatican II is in accord with Tradition, or taught heresy.

You’re trying to paint with a broad brush and mixing definitions, pastoral growth, and dogma. You have to be more specific and define your boundaries. For example, did or did not Vatican II vote to retain Latin in its liturgy? From this it is easy to generalize who is really in line with Vatican II and who’s not. In my view, the mainstream Catholic Church has deviated from its own basic Vatican II concepts and, if heresy is existent today, it’s not Vatican II but its “spirit.” I’ll bet if you question your SSPX friends a little more carefully, you would find that its the spirit of Vatican II that’s the real problem. If anyone blames Vatican II for their problems, they are looking at some bad fruits and not health of the tree itself. Can’t really fault them for that.

 

[yosupman]

Pro-vobis. Ideas have consequences so they tell me. I don’t think the SSPX and their adherents believe the “Spirit of Vatican II” is the problem. They clearly lay the problem at the “progessivist” bishops who infiltrated and hijacked the council, producing flawed documents. They then accuse JP II of continuing to hold these “progressivist” ideas.

I don’t agree with you at all on that point. There is too much evidence. Just check out the SSPX webside, the Remnant website, and many others. I don’t think they believe the “spirit of VII” is the problem.

 

[yosupman]

Also, if you believe the “Spirit of VII” was the problem, why not go back not only to the council for answers, but we have a ton of magisterial writings from JPII on the correct meaning of the council. There is no ambiguity on what the council really taught, or the churches interpretation. It’s already out there.

Either VII taught heresy, and JP II has taught heresy, or they did not in the official magisterium.

So again, I challenge those that are on the ultra-trad right, did Vatican II teach heresy or not. If not, then stop making the contention Vatican II strayed from “Tradition”.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t agree with you at all on that point. There is too much evidence. Just check out the SSPX webside, the Remnant website, and many others. I don’t think they believe the “spirit of VII” is the problem.

I’ve demanded that someone updates their websites to reflect a more current official position. But I’m not holding my breath. Besides, I’ve been lacking in updating my own websites. That’s why I take all websites with a grain of salt.

But if you insist on getting all your current news from old websites, visit www.traditio.com. They attack SSPX because they are selling out their own membership by even talking to Rome. I’d like to hear your comments after reading some of the other daily updates on that website.

I’ve cancelled my Remnant subscription. It seems that they have really had nothing new to talk about since the issuance of the SP of 2007. Still too much mariology, in my opinion.

 

[yosupman]

I’ve demanded that someone updates their websites to reflect a more current official position. But I’m not holding my breath. Besides, I’ve been lacking in updating my own websites. That’s why I take all websites with a grain of salt.

But if you insist on getting all your current news from old websites, visit www.traditio.com. They attack SSPX because they are selling out their own membership by even talking to Rome. I’d like to hear your comments after reading some of the other daily updates on that website.

I’ve cancelled my Remnant subscription. It seems that they have really had nothing new to talk about since the issuance of the SP of 2007. Still too much mariology, in my opinion.

My hope is that there is a change going on in the hearts of people who adhere to the SSPX, and in the priests of the Society. Up to til now, if any priest had a change of heart he had to leave and come over to the FSSP or other similar order. With that change came scorn of all the people that supported the priest, and former friends, etc. But now, maybe those with leaning of reunion with Rome will just come into full communion, and exercise thier minsitry with full credentials.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I’m making a point. According to ultra-trads, Vatican II departed from Tradition. This is heresy.

There’s a difference between a Pope departing from Tradition and a Pope teaching “heresy from the chair of peter in his official magisterium”.

For an example of John Paul II departing from Tradition, one thing I would point to was when he inviited Mulsims, Buddhists, Witch Doctors, Hindus, African Animists (devil worshippers), and various other false religions to Assisi for a “prayer meeting”. He also provided many of these false religions with a room where they were asked to offer false worship - which is a mortal sin against the first commandment. This mortal sin against the first commandment was a scheduled event at the “prayer meeting”

This is a departure from Tradition since the Church has always taught that false worship is objectively a mortal sin against the first commandment, and no Pope has ever done such a thing.

Here’s a picture of John Paul II greeting the Witch Doctor at Assisi (there’s also a video available online).

 

[pnewton]

Same can be said for the various factions of the “mainstream” Catholic Church, can’t it?

No. The Catholic Church actually has several creeds. We also have the Catechism.

 

[yosupman]

There’s a difference between a Pope departing from Tradition and a Pope teaching “heresy from the chair of peter in his official magisterium”.

For an example of John Paul II departing from Tradition, one thing I would point to was when he inviited Mulsims, Buddhists, Witch Doctors, Hindus, African Animists (devil worshippers), and various other false religions to Assisi for a “prayer meeting”. He also provided many of these false religions with a room where they were asked to offer false worship - which is a mortal sin against the first commandment. This mortal sin against the first commandment was a scheduled event at the “prayer meeting”

 

[alih]

from a point of view of simplisticity.
canon vi of the 1983 code of canon law states that the code of canon law of 1917 is abrogated upon its promulgation.
with that, we know the laws governing the catholic church according to 1917, by admission
were in full force and effect.
in ecclesia dei, (sp?) pope john paul ii used the term latae sententiae, meaning they ex-
communicated themselves, with regard to arch-bishop levefre et al.****
with this however, opens a unique admission.
in accordance with praestantia scripturae sacrae, whose laws were incorporated into the
code of canon law of 1917 it is stated that "to become a modernist heretic is not some option or choice, bishops of whatever ecclesiastical rank, priests and religious, etc…but rather there is a severe penalty attached to this heresy namely that of automatic excommunication “latae sententiae.”
with this, there seems to be a problem. it raises questions re:the validity of the consecration of bshops and the orders of the priests since then.
from a personal point of vew, it is my hopefull wish that somewhere along the line our house can be put back in order. have a good year. (alih)

 

[santodomingo]

The resurection - my point on this, is the Church holds that Christ was resurected from the dead. This is a Dogma. No pope or council approved by the Pope will officially teach different from this. This is a classic case of infallibility at work.

Funnily enough, the Resurrection (2 r´s) is not dogma, in that it has never been dogmatically definied. Probably because nobody (at least for the first 1700 years) dared to deny the Resurrection. There are lots of things that are infallibly taught by the Church that have not been defined dogmatically.

 

[yosupman]

Funnily enough, the Resurrection (2 r´s) is not dogma, in that it has never been dogmatically definied. Probably because nobody (at least for the first 1700 years) dared to deny the Resurrection. There are lots of things that are infallibly taught by the Church that have not been defined dogmatically.

What I mean to say is that the resurrection is obviously contained in the deposit of faith, and is to be believed. See the paragraph from the Document on the catholic faith from the 1st Vatican council.

“Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”