The SSPX and protestants

[GerardP]

So, it is now a requirement of the Church that the homilist MUST refer to Heaven or Hell to be “Catholic enough for you”?

Considering that ALL Catholics are supposed to meditate on the four last things, Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell each and every day, a priest that doesn’t keep those in the forefront of his mission is certainly lacking something.

 

[Just_Lurking]

No. I’m syaing that the Popes and the majority of bishops ignored the Magisterium of the Church and went about with humanist policies that are not the primary mission of the Church.

If this is possible, then it is also possible that it happened before, and the Protestant Reformation was right because the Popes and the majority of bishops of the day ignored the true teachings of the Church in order to extort money out of the laity by using the fear of punishment in hell.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

No. I’m syaing that the Popes and the majority of bishops ignored the Magisterium of the Church and went about with humanist policies that are not the primary mission of the Church. f.

Thats a new one on me. Since they are the Magisterium, you are saying they ignored themselves.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Been gone a few days and just sort of glanced at all that I missed…

Maybe Gerard meant that they didn’t actually invoke the Holy Ghost as the actual Magisterium (i.e. teaching body), since no new definitions of dogma were made, and simply contented themselves with ‘non-magisterial’ work.

 

[PrayforMallory]

So, it is now a requirement of the Church that the homilist MUST refer to Heaven or Hell to be “Catholic enough for you”?

I don’t know what the requirements of a good homily are.

But if people do go to hell, one would think that mentioning it at least once in a 5 year period ought to be warranted? I know I wouldn’t want that on my head, if I was a priest/deacon/catechist.

You do believe in hell right?

The priest who confirmed me told me to follow my conscience when it came to ABC, and didn’t try one time to explain the traditional teaching. Needless to say, he didn’t show a lot of concern for my soul.

Of course you are going to come up with some rebuttal, “So you’re just blaming someone else,” or something like that. The fact remains that if hell/sin/heaven/salvation/purgatory etc are real, then well, people ought to know huh? We want people to be redeemed right?

Don’t get me wrong, people can disagree 100 different ways on the SSPX issue, on both sides, but this intellectual corruption in the mainstream Church is unacceptable from any Orthodox view.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t know what the requirements of a good homily are.

But if people do go to hell, one would think that mentioning it at least once in a 5 year period ought to be warranted? I know I wouldn’t want that on my head, if I was a priest/deacon/catechist.

You do believe in hell right?

The priest who confirmed me told me to follow my conscience when it came to ABC, and didn’t try one time to explain the traditional teaching. Needless to say, he didn’t show a lot of concern for my soul.

Of course you are going to come up with some rebuttal, “So you’re just blaming someone else,” or something like that. The fact remains that if hell/sin/heaven/salvation/purgatory etc are real, then well, people ought to know huh? We want people to be redeemed right?

Don’t get me wrong, people can disagree 100 different ways on the SSPX issue, on both sides, but this intellectual corruption in the mainstream Church is unacceptable from any Orthodox view.

So when Benedict XVI says “Christ is our Hope” and “The Holy Spirit will descend upon you” instead of talking abut Heaven and Hell to a world audience as he had when he visited the USA and World Youth Day, he missed a big opportunity to save souls?

He was on every TV in the world on both occasions and in every newspaper. This was a prime moment to speak about Heaven and Hell. Instead he chose to talk about Hope and about he Holy Spirit. He chose to meet with victims of sexual abuse and apologize for the Church. He chose to meet with leaders of other faiths and invite them to dialogue and jointly discover the deeper meaning of the Christian message.

I guess he got it wrong, because he never mentioned Heaven and Hell. In fact, he has never mentioned it since he has been in office. But he has spoken extensively about Christ’s love for souls.

JR

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

EVERYBODY STOP

Those who are SSPX or lean towards them, are not going to sway those of us who follow Rome. Those of us who follow Rome are not going to sway those who are in SSPX or are leaning towards them.
Stop and think of the harm that is being done for those who may be using this forum as an inquiry for the Catholic faith. Do you think for a minute that this bickering back and forth is going to seem inviting to them. It would drive me away so fast your heads would swim. Think of the potential harm that you are doing. Pray for reconciliation and unity. Do not put pride and human stubbornness in the way.

Sincere prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Like]

So when Benedict XVI says “Christ is our Hope” and “The Holy Spirit will descend upon you” instead of talking abut Heaven and Hell to a world audience as he had when he visited the USA and World Youth Day, he missed a big opportunity to save souls?

He was on every TV in the world on both occasions and in every newspaper. This was a prime moment to speak about Heaven and Hell. Instead he chose to talk about Hope and about he Holy Spirit. He chose to meet with victims of sexual abuse and apologize for the Church. He chose to meet with leaders of other faiths and invite them to dialogue and jointly discover the deeper meaning of the Christian message.

I guess he got it wrong, because he never mentioned Heaven and Hell. In fact, he has never mentioned it since he has been in office. But he has spoken extensively about Christ’s love for souls.

JR

Come on JR, I don’t think PFM even typed anything about the Pope in his homily of preaching on Heaven and Hell. And that’s caring it a little to far. There is quite a difference in preaching in a parish Mass than in a homily by the pope in such a large event that you are referring to, huh?

In MHO, we never hear preaching on Heaven & Hell & should in our own parish Masses. Since VII, priests are afired of offending people, heck, most priest in confession tend to stop people before they are finished with statements like “You’re being too hard on yourself”. and give a penance of 1 “Our Father” or 1 “Hail Mary” no matter how long it’s been since your last confession or how sinful you’ve been.

 

[Binx]

Those who are SSPX or lean towards them, are not going to sway those of us who follow Rome. Those of us who follow Rome are not going to sway those who are in SSPX or are leaning towards them.

Ed, you make it sound as though the SSPX is not Roman Catholic. Who follows Rome depends on what is meant by “Rome”: the living, post-conciliar Vatican hierarchy only or the whole depository of Faith, handed down magisterially across 20 centuries. The SSPX would claim unreservedly to follow Rome in the latter sense.

Stop and think of the harm that is being done for those who may be using this forum as an inquiry for the Catholic faith.

But that is part of the point. Traditional Catholics worry that those who are inquiring into the Catholic faith will have a very hard time finding it in the modern, popular Catholic Church.

Do you think for a minute that this bickering back and forth is going to seem inviting to them.

It depends on what they are seeking. If their search is true, they will be satisfied with no version of Catholicism but the real one.

“Bickering” seems a misnomer here because it connotes that the issues being discussed are minor and that people are just being petty. Yet in this thread, the very nature and identity of authentic Catholicism are in dispute. Getting that figured out ought to be of crucial importance to any sincere inquirer.

Pray for reconciliation and unity.

Reconciliation and unity have value only in the context of truth. Whoever is in error should reconcile to the truth, wherein authentic unity resides.

Do not put pride and human stubbornness in the way.

Good advice, that.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Ed, you make it sound as though the SSPX is not Roman Catholic. Who follows Rome depends on what is meant by “Rome”: the living, post-conciliar Vatican hierarchy only or the whole depository of Faith, handed down magisterially across 20 centuries. The SSPX would claim unreservedly to follow Rome in the latter sense.

Where there is Peter, there is the Church. Not with an excommunicated bishop and his followers

But that is part of the point. Traditional Catholics worry that those who are inquiring into the Catholic faith will have a very hard time finding it in the modern, popular Catholic Church.

It certainly will not be found in a group founded by an excommunicated bishop

It depends on what they are seeking. If their search is true, they will be satisfied with no version of Catholicism but the real one.

Agreed - that is why they should look to Rome

“Bickering” seems a misnomer here because it connotes that the issues being discussed are minor and that people are just being petty. Yet in this thread, the very nature and identity of authentic Catholicism are in dispute. Getting that figured out ought to be of crucial importance to any sincere inquirer.

The dispute is only with those who followed the excommunicated bishop. Not with those who stayed with Rome

Reconciliation and unity have value only in the context of truth. Whoever is in error should reconcile to the truth, wherein authentic unity resides.

So when will you come home to Rome

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Y’all come home now, ya hear!

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Deacon, I thought SSPX attendees already were home in Rome…

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Deacon, I thought SSPX attendees already were home in Rome…

Not the ones that I know here where I live. You will be home in Rome when you acknowledge that the Pope and those bishops in union with him comprise the Magisterium and only those in union with him. Then I will joyfully say welcome home.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[JReducation]

Deacon, I thought SSPX attendees already were home in Rome…

No they are not. Their relationship with Rome is very irregular to say it mildly or to use John Paul’s words, schismatic.

This is why Pope Benedict offered them the opportunity to come back and gave them the means to do so.

1. They have to recognize that the entire Magisterium lies with him (Pope Benedict XVI).
2. They must suspend all public criticism of the Church.
3. They must not create a second Magisterium by teaching against Vatican II, must accept Vatican II as an authoritative council just as we do with all the other councils.
4. The must submit to obedience to the Pope.
5. They must accept a prelature just like the Opus Dei and the Redemptorist monks (not the same Redemtorists as the ones founded by St. Alphonsus Ligouri).

Until they comply with these five points, they run the risk of being excommunicated.

As has been said before, no one knows what talks are going on behind closed doors, but this is what the Holy Father made public and he said that he would not back down on these points.

If he does not back down and they claim to obey the Pope and accept the authority of the Pope, it would seem that the next step is for them to accept these five conditions. Otherwise, they are not in communion with Rome. You cannot be in communion with Rome if you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

As to what Deacon Ed says, it’s very true. This argument is confusing people and probably scaring them away. The solution is for those who followed Archbishop Lefebvre to back down and follow Benedict XVI. The Redemptorist monks did it and they are very happy they did.

JR

 

[PrayforMallory]

Not the ones that I know here where I live. You will be home in Rome when you acknowledge that the Pope and those bishops in union with him comprise the Magisterium and only those in union with him. Then I will joyfully say welcome home.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I follow Rome. I am always thrilled to see, hear, and read about the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. Outside of a couple of confusing events, I admire Pope John Paul II as well. I go to a traditional Church in complete communion with Rome, and have never been to an SSPX Chapel in my life. I don’t argue the Novus Ordo is intrinsically wrong, or that there’s a contradiction in Vat II, or anything like that.

My beef is that other Catholics aren’t fortunate enough to be in one of the few Orthodox Catholic dioceses in the United States, like I am.

To be honest, I think it’s common sense that a society in an irregular situation is better than a parish in which basic Catholic moral teachings, eschatology, liturgy, etc. are routinely flouted in order to appease the anti-Catholic secular culture.

As for the other post, the Pope can say what he wants. He knows what’s best to say in any given situation. I just know that if I had died two years ago, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I would have been certainly lost. I would be in hell right now and it makes me shudder.

Frankly, you guys have no idea how lost the youth are. If there is a hell, and people who die in a state of unrepentant mortal sin, or who knowingly reject the Catholic faith go there, then don’t you think it out to be pointed out at least once? I’m not saying go around being overly-scrupulous, or with a sour expression all the time. All I’m saying, is that over the course of a five year period, shouldn’t it be mentioned once? I’m not pulling this out of some 19th century encyclical, or off of an SSPX website. This is straight out of the catechism of Pope John Paul II. If you want to call him the “Great,” why not actually teach what he taught for a change? Ironically the average SSPX sermon online includes more of Pope John Paul II’s teachings than most of the Novus Ordo’s/

The fact is, when I am in another city, and go to a random parish, I’m just as likely to see all the errors preached against by John Paul II and Benedict XVI as I am to hear any semblance of Orthodox preaching. That said, the endless SSPX sermons about Vatican II are not what I want to hear about, either. Just faithfulness to the Gospel, and Catholic faith and morals, please. I want to hear about salvation, miracles, given some encouragement to continue following the path, teaching for my child, etc. I don’t want to hear the democratic party’s platform dressed up as the Gospel. It’s not that I disagree with everything the democratic party argues for, either. I’m just not going to expose my child to banal prayers about heterosexism and climate change. I just want to come into contact with religion when I got to Mass. Is that so much to ask for?

With all that said, if I was out of town, and there was no traditional parish in range, or an Eastern or conservative N.O. parish, I would look for an SSPX Chapel, especially in some regions of the U.S. I wouldn’t have a choice.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Not the ones that I know here where I live. You will be home in Rome when you acknowledge that the Pope and those bishops in union with him comprise the Magisterium and only those in union with him. Then I will joyfully say welcome home.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

What about bishops who promote a gay rights or pro-choice agenda, explicitly or implicitly? There are plenty of them. Should people be taught Catholicism by these men?

 

[PrayforMallory]

But that is part of the point. Traditional Catholics worry that those who are inquiring into the Catholic faith will have a very hard time finding it in the modern, popular Catholic Church.

That’s just it. They somehow have it in their heads that your average parish follows Rome. It doesn’t. The American Church is only in communion with Rome on paper. 90% of American Catholics are not in spiritual communion with Rome. Go to google, type in ,“National Catholic Reporter,” and tell me those people are in communion with Rome.

Ironically enough, in the last Novus Ordo I attended , the priest actually taught that we could disagree with the Pope if we wanted to.

When I went to the traditional Mass, people were singing hymns after Mass in the Pope’s honor, and praying “Salve Regina” for him. Archbishop Burke was and is in complete communion with the Pope, and is entirely faithful to the Pope. Where there’s a bishop like that, there’s no need for the SSPX. Where there’s not, there is. It’s that simple.

 

[scylla]

That’s just it. They somehow have it in their heads that your average parish follows Rome. It doesn’t. The American Church is only in communion with Rome on paper. 90% of American Catholics are not in spiritual communion with Rome. Go to google, type in ,“National Catholic Reporter,” and tell me those people are in communion with Rome.

Ironically enough, in the last Novus Ordo I attended , the priest actually taught that we could disagree with the Pope if we wanted to.

When I went to the traditional Mass, people were singing hymns after Mass in the Pope’s honor, and praying “Salve Regina” for him. Archbishop Burke was and is in complete communion with the Pope, and is entirely faithful to the Pope. Where there’s a bishop like that, there’s no need for the SSPX. Where there’s not, there is. It’s that simple.

There is a good point there, in my diocese I have visited many parishes and found 3 where faithful Catholicism is taught, my parish is certainly excluded.

If I want a faithful Mass, I have to drive an hour or so away, what is a faithful Catholic to do? Should I follow my Bishop when he encourages error?

I have a question Deacon Ed B, what am I supposed to do when my Bishop encourages disobedience to the Church? He is in union with Rome and I have an independant Chapel 5 minutes away from my house which is more faithful to the Church’s teachings it just is “too Catholic” to be even visited by my Bishop.
I can just pray for him and hope that eventually he starts to teach the faith, but what are faithful Catholics to do?

As a father I have the responsibility to make sure my kids are not taught error, what do I do when it is taught?

In Christ
Scylla

 

[GerardP]

Where there is Peter, there is the Church. Not with an excommunicated bishop and his followers

It certainly will not be found in a group founded by an excommunicated bishop

Agreed - that is why they should look to Rome

The dispute is only with those who followed the excommunicated bishop. Not with those who stayed with Rome

So when will you come home to Rome

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Y’all come home now, ya hear!

You really seem to have no clue about Catholicism. And that is a shame if you are a Deacon.

You make assertions that you simply can’t prove.

You are relying on slogans with no understanding of what level of truth is behind them.

You can’t even seem to get the facts straight.

1. “Where Peter is, There is the Church” is not a dogma nor a doctrine. It is the equivalent of a pep talk from St. Ambrose that has been hijacked and twisted into a new form of Ultramontanism.
2. You wrongly assume that excommunications are infallible declarations by Popes. You’re wrong.
3. You seem to have what is referred to as “the Convert’s zeal” which wrongly believes that all answers lie in the mysterious and conveniently vague idea of “Rome.”
4. The SSPX was not founded by an excommunicated bishop. It was found 18 years before 1988. The bishop was invalidly and unjustly tarnished with the calumny that he’d excommunicated himself. All because he didn’t want to trash the Church that Paul VI and John Paul II were perfectly willing to be destroyed.

That’s like watching your Father beat your Mother, trying to stop him and then being accused of the assault by your Father for not taking a few swings at her when he tells you to.

Anyone claiming that the problem is not in Rome is simply the equivalent of being an enabler of an abusive drunk.

 

[Binx]

Where there is Peter, there is the Church.

Who is Peter? The present occupant only of his chair? What then of Peter of the Church Triumphant? Are not those who receive his teaching a sign of the Church’s presence?

And since you raise an insinuation, please clarify: does the Society of St. Pius X claim among the living someone other than Benedict XVI as its pope?

[The Church is]
Not with an excommunicated bishop and his followers. It certainly will not be found in a group founded by an excommunicated bishop.

Are all alleged excommunications real? Are all real excommunications just? In any case, what if those whom you would label “followers” of an excommunicated bishop were to claim for their pope the same man that you claim? Are you certain then that the Church is not with them?

Agreed - that is why they [inquirers into the Catholic Faith] should look to Rome.

Rome, in its fullest sense, as in the whole of the deposit of faith, handed down magisterially through 2 millenia? Yes, agreed.

The dispute is only with those who followed the excommunicated bishop. Not with those who stayed with Rome.

Rome, in its fullest sense, as in the whole of the deposit of faith, handed down magisterially through 2 millenia? You really must define how you mean this word, “Rome.”

Even disregarding that ambiguity, though, your statement denies the very real disunity throughout the modern Church, completely apart from the quantitatively miniscule SSPX. Most Catholics do not know their faith because they were not properly formed in it. And many that do know it (a good number of clergyman, for example) are happy to hold openly dissenting opinions while conducting openly dissenting behavior. In short, there is very little agreement about what it means to be Catholic among those who–as you put it–“stayed with Rome.”

So when will you come home to Rome

Do you speak to me, personally? Ah, but you assume that I have left it or perhaps that I was never there. A mistake.

 

[GerardP]

No they are not. Their relationship with Rome is very irregular to say it mildly or to use John Paul’s words, schismatic.

The problem is JPII’s words are not accurate.

This is why Pope Benedict offered them the opportunity to come back and gave them the means to do so.

No it isn’t. He played a gambit by offering canonical regularity for the price of protecting Vatican II and the liberals running most of the Church from the condemnation it so sorely needs.

1. They have to recognize that the entire Magisterium lies with him (Pope Benedict XVI).

Maybe if Pope Benedict would use it to crush the errors of the liberals, the rest of the Church would recognize that he has the right to invoke the Magisterium of the Church.

The entire Magisterium does not lie with him. His office has the power of the Magisterium and he is bound by what his office has bound as regards previous definitions.

1. They must suspend all public criticism of the Church.

They don’t criticize the Church. They criticize and rebuke the Churchmen and rightly so.

1. They must not create a second Magisterium by teaching against Vatican II, must accept Vatican II as an authoritative council just as we do with all the other councils.

But it’s not. Paul VI and John XXIII and Cardinal Ratzinger said so. And the documents themselves indicate that they are not magisterial.

1. The must submit to obedience to the Pope.

True obedience, not servility.

1. They must accept a prelature just like the Opus Dei and the Redemptorist monks (not the same Redemtorists as the ones founded by St. Alphonsus Ligouri).

You just made this one up.

Until they comply with these five points, they run the risk of being excommunicated.

None of that is excommunicable.

As has been said before, no one knows what talks are going on behind closed doors, but this is what the Holy Father made public and he said that he would not back down on these points.

And that is tragic. They are all humanistic and prideful.

If he does not back down and they claim to obey the Pope and accept the authority of the Pope, it would seem that the next step is for them to accept these five conditions.

No it doesn’t. That is a non-sequitur. If the Pope is serious, and a prudent leader of the Church. He should allow the doctrinal discussions first. What is a leader of if there is no unity of belief?

Otherwise, they are not in communion with Rome.

That’s a false idea of communion.

You cannot be in communion with Rome if you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

You can’t be out of communion with the Bishop of Rome if you haven’t departed from the faith. The Pope doesn’t decide who is an isn’t in communion with him on a whim. That is turning the Pope into God.

As to what Deacon Ed says, it’s very true. This argument is confusing people and probably scaring them away.

Then they have to pray for light. The argument is confusing to some because the situation is confusing. That’s the truth of it.

The solution is for those who followed Archbishop Lefebvre to back down and follow Benedict XVI.

Solution? To what problem? The supposed “irregularity/ excommuncations” isn’t the problem. The problem is the crisis in the Church. Who gives a toot about canonical regularities when this defilement of Holy Mother Church goes on with the Pope himself participating in garbage liturgies, promotign garbage policies, making garbage humanist commentaries, spouting garbage theology, allowing garbage catechesis and garbage philosophy and a thousand other noxious devices brought on the Church by liberals that the Pope won’t condemn?

The Redemptorist monks did it and they are very happy they did.

Give them time. They are already having to cave. Protocol 1411 is just around the corner for them.

Mater Ecclesia was nice and happy for a while. Of course they were crushed and dismantled. All under the “protection” of John Paul II. The leader of them eventually wrote back to the SSPX stating that the SSPX had been right. Rome did nothing but slowly dismantle them.