Too many Sympathetic for SSPX

[EcceAgnusDei]

But indefectibility and infallibility do not imply that the Church hierarchy always do things the best way.

Yes, this is a good point. There is a lot of history that supports this. To use another food analogy (yum!), the Church can never give us poison, but She can offer us dishes that are more nutritious and dishes that are less nutritious, gourmet feasts and also fast food.

• PAX

 

[giuseppeTO]

You are probably wise to settle down with the popcorn. I am curious of the point of this thread. The title is easy enough to address. We can never be too merciful or understanding. The first post goes in a different direction. I don’t think anyone has said, or at least almost no one, that there is nothing wrong with the SSPX. We can think some one is wrong and still be symathetic to their plight, and even understanding to their reasons, without agreeing with them.

Nicely put, Newt.

 

[giuseppeTO]

If one thing I have noticed in the dialogue between the SSPX and the Vatican is that the Vatican has always been respectful and conciliatory, even in disagreement. The SSPX priests and bishops will often load their dialogue with rhetoric and emotional diatribe.

In all fairness Newt, there is plenty of rhetoric and emotional diatribe that comes from both priests and bishops against the SSPX which the Pope addressed in his letter after the remission of the excommunications.

What I will say is that those who are actually involved in the discussions on both sides have been respectful and conciliatory.

 

[gentle_atheist]

So, what are the consequences for the Orthodox Churches for denying the Primacy of Peter? They have valid sacraments. They have licit sacraments. They have access to sanctifying grace. They have their own code of law. The Pope has no jurisdiction over them. Why do they need Peter? Why would they want Peter?

And if there is no consequence, why should anyone who disagrees with the Pope (as the Orthodox most certainly do) want to remain in communion with him or regain communion with him?

What am I missing here? It seems like schism is of little consequence in the long run.

• PAX

What historically happens to those groups that break away from Rome is that they lose their moral compass. The Eastern Orthodox Churches allow divorce and re-marriage. Most also allow contraception. The Russian Orthodox Church approves the use of condoms. Some Old Catholic Churches bless gay unions. And these are the groups that have apostolic succession and supposedly valid sacraments.

Were it not for Rome’s foolhardy fixation on ecumenism that started with Vatican 2, B16 could make a strong argument that the papacy has maintained traditional Christian moral teachings whereas those groups that have broken away have succumbed to the popular culture. But he cannot do so because that would offend those groups, and the overriding principle operative in the Catholic hierarchy since Vatican 2 is, “Do not offend.”

And that’s a shame. Because what Catholics are desperately in need of is a pope who will do what popes are primarily supposed to do: strengthen Catholics in the Catholic faith.

Instead, ecumenism is weakening Catholics in their faith as they ask, “Why is the Pope blowing kisses at the leaders of other groups who are telling their followers that they can do things that the Pope has told us are wrong to do?” It just doesn’t make sense. The Pope is undermining his own authority.

That authority is over every human being on earth. To say otherwise is to deny that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, or to deny that Christ has authority over every human being on earth.

 

[mattkubes]

What historically happens to those groups that break away from Rome is that they lose their moral compass. The Eastern Orthodox Churches allow divorce and re-marriage. Most also allow contraception. The Russian Orthodox Church approves the use of condoms. Some Old Catholic Churches bless gay unions. And these are the groups that have apostolic succession and supposedly valid sacraments.

Were it not for Rome’s foolhardy fixation on ecumenism that started with Vatican 2, B16 could make a strong argument that the papacy has maintained traditional Christian moral teachings whereas those groups that have broken away have succumbed to the popular culture. But he cannot do so because that would offend those groups, and the overriding principle operative in the Catholic hierarchy since Vatican 2 is, “Do not offend.”

And that’s a shame. Because what Catholics are desperately in need of is a pope who will do what popes are primarily supposed to do: strengthen Catholics in the Catholic faith.

Instead, ecumenism is weakening Catholics in their faith as they ask, “Why is the Pope blowing kisses at the leaders of other groups who are telling their followers that they can do things that the Pope has told us are wrong to do?” It just doesn’t make sense. The Pope is undermining his own authority.

That authority is over every human being on earth. To say otherwise is to deny that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, or to deny that Christ has authority over every human being on earth.

This is an excellent post.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

What historically happens to those groups that break away from Rome is that they lose their moral compass. The Eastern Orthodox Churches allow divorce and re-marriage. Most also allow contraception. The Russian Orthodox Church approves the use of condoms. Some Old Catholic Churches bless gay unions. And these are the groups that have apostolic succession and supposedly valid sacraments.

Were it not for Rome’s foolhardy fixation on ecumenism that started with Vatican 2, B16 could make a strong argument that the papacy has maintained traditional Christian moral teachings whereas those groups that have broken away have succumbed to the popular culture. But he cannot do so because that would offend those groups, and the overriding principle operative in the Catholic hierarchy since Vatican 2 is, “Do not offend.”

And that’s a shame. Because what Catholics are desperately in need of is a pope who will do what popes are primarily supposed to do: strengthen Catholics in the Catholic faith.

Instead, ecumenism is weakening Catholics in their faith as they ask, “Why is the Pope blowing kisses at the leaders of other groups who are telling their followers that they can do things that the Pope has told us are wrong to do?” It just doesn’t make sense. The Pope is undermining his own authority.

That authority is over every human being on earth. To say otherwise is to deny that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, or to deny that Christ has authority over every human being on earth.

This is how I was taught to understand the primacy and supremacy of Peter. Excellent post, and from an atheist, too!

 

[giuseppeTO]

They’re assertions and they often contradict what the current Magisterium asserts. That’s when we are not allowed to agree with them, because they are not a second Magisterium.

Hopefully, soon, someone will make the current magisterium equal the old mageisterium so that we will not need a third magisterium that clarifies why we even need to refer to THE Magisterium as the “current” Magisterium.

 

[curlycool89]

Strawman: not the Holy Father, just a reported opinion. Infallibility does not protect all of his opinions. Of course it didn’t happen and who knows how he would have followed through if he had known beforehand. Maybe ridiculous wasn’t the right word, but I’m free to hold that such a decision would have been wrong. It had nothing to do with the excommunication.

Br. JR has gone on at lengths on these forums before about how the Pope can excommunicate you for not liking the colour of your toothbrush, so excommunication for denying the Shoah seems to be equally legitimate.

Well said. It ought not take calling for a novena to repent of one’s sins and return, unless one thinks it was the father who was prodigal.

Yep. And in our analogy, the Father is the Church.

Unless infallibility is in play, there is always the slight chance that the father is prodigal.

I think for both sides of the situation, St. Athanasius is an excellent example. Despite the rampant heresy in the heirarchy (90%+ were Arians), he held to the truth. He was excommunicated for it. Five times. But when he was recalled he came home. Every time. Five times. He knew that being in communion with the heirarchy was that important. But he also knew that he couldn’t alter the truth. What a hard road he must have tread – clearly an example of heroic virtue and clearly a saint.

As you said, when he was recalled he came home. So what’s stopping the SSPX?

But indefectibility and infallibility do not imply that the Church hierarchy always do things the best way.

But that doesn’t give us to right to disobey and say “I can do better”. There is no right to do what you feel like because you don’t like the way Rome does things.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

As you said, when he was recalled he came home. So what’s stopping the SSPX?

Well, it certainly seems that they are on their way home. That’s why they have been havings talks and agreements and all the other stuff that’s been going on. They can’t just say, “we’re home!” They have to be regularized. And since we have little knowledge as to what is going on, I think it is unfair to say the SSPX is not trying to come home.

• PAX

 

[jam070406]

I would say there are far too little sympathetic to the SSPX. But that’s just me.

 

[Mike30]

I Just simply don’t understand why there are so many Traditionalists who don’t really see anything wrong the the SSPX, or are indifferent to their status. I’ve heard arguments that the SSPX’s actions are “necessary”. While I do believe that there is a genuine crisis in the church in regard to the Sacred Liturgy and in Catechism, I don’t see how that can justify supporting or implying that you endorse the SSPX. To me it seems that the end doesn’t justify the means and that remaining outside of full communion with Christ’s Church and with Peter cannot be ever be justified even if its for a good reason.

Any Thoughts?

Yeah, I have one. I can’t really understand why so many of the more progressive among us hate them so much. It really seems disproportionate.

 

[thewanderer]

Yeah, I have one. I can’t really understand why so many of the more progressive among us hate them so much. It really seems disproportionate.

Yes, it is disproportianate to hate them. However, I am going to point out that it is not disproportionate to be wary of them, or even dislike them for many of the satements their members have made. They have often come across with an antagonistic and judgemental view of good faithful Catholics that is hardly endearing.

 

[curlycool89]

Yeah, I have one. I can’t really understand why so many of the more progressive among us hate them so much. It really seems disproportionate.

…because hopefully by deflecting blame at others no one will notice that you never answered the question?

 

[thewanderer]

…because hopefully by deflecting blame at others no one will notice that you never answered the question?

yes, isn’t it interesting? Just as it is wrong to hate on the SSPX because they follow different traditions it is also wrong to condone the disobedience of the SSPX. Two wrrongs don’t make a right.

 

[JReducation]

This literally blows my mind. It blows it to an extent that I simply cannot believe what you are saying. Are you really saying that there are NO consequences to not being in visible union with the Roman Catholic Church? That the doctrine of the Primacy of Peter is only a legal one? That if the SSPX were to simply deny that the Pope were the Vicar of Christ and the primary and supreme patriarch, then all would be just fine and dandy? Why are we ROMAN Catholics, then? What’s the point? If we want Christian unity, why don’t we all just become Orthodox?

So the laws of the Church of Christ are like laws of nations… if you are citizens, you are bound to them, if not, oh well, diplomatic immunity and all. Brother JR, in all serious I am asking you if you understand the implications of what you are promoting here: that it is OK not to be Catholic.

It seems that logic is throwing the wrench. How can the Pope be primary and supreme for only one group of Christians but not others? Doesn’t that contradict the entire meaning of primary and supreme? It’s like me saying, “I am the supreme leader of the world! But only if you live in my house…” That would be a contradiction on laughable levels.

But you are saying that one can be perfectly saved through the sacraments and sanctifying grace of the Orthodox, yes? In your scenario, I imagine the Orthodox Bishop standing before Christ at judgement, and saying, “oops, I guess Peter was supreme” and Christ saying, “yup, but come on in anyway” and then the Bishop saying, “well, at least I didn’t have to follow that fallen Patriarch of the West and I still got saved!” Oh, Martin Luther would have loved this situation…

I think it is VERY dangerous to separate sanctifying grace and the desires of Christ, as if one could have one without fulfilling the other.

• PAX

The consequences would be moral, not legal. Moral consequences only apply when there is culpability. Bl. John Paul said that the current generation of those born into Orthodxy is not culpable of sin and that Catholics should not hold this position, because this was never the position of the Church. When the Church condemned these folks was when the separations were fresh and the culpable parties were alive. Once several generation has passed, you can’t bring the sins of the father to bear on the son.

As has been very clearly said. Without the moral compass, it’s easy to get derailed. Additionally, you do harm to the unity of the Body of Christ. The Orthodox have not ceased to be part of the Body of Christ. But the schism has divided this body. It should be the desire of every Christian to unite this body. Catholics and Orthodox have an equal obligation to find ways to reconcile, rather than point fingers.

Pope Benedict made a statement in which he said that both sides were culpable of the break. Today, both sides take the highroad and point to the other. It seems to happen more on the ground level than it does at the level of the leadership. It’s almost as if we had an ax to grind with each other, when we don’t even know each other.

As to the pope having authority over the whole world, theologically he is the ruler of the world. However, as Pope Benedict said in In Light of The World{/u]. The pope is a ruler with very little power. He has no legal authority outside of the actual Catholic Church.

This brings us back to the SSPX. As long as they identify as Catholic, they must comply with Canon Law.

As to the degrees of Communion, it’s not what I would call a doctrinal position, but a rational position. The more you have in common, the stronger your communion. This was never thought in the scriptures or the early Church, because the current divisions in the Christian Church did not exist. The question never came up. Again, we go to Pope Benedict who recently said that Protestantism today is not the same as Protestantism during Luther’s time. He pointed out that reason shows us two major difference. First, the Protestan person is born into a particular faith. He’s not rebelling against anything. Second, Protestantism is a phenomenon that Catholics do not understand and should spend time trying to understand it. It’s a phenomenon, because even the founders never imagined that it would look as it does. In their mind, they were reforming Catholicism. Today’s Protestant does not see himself as a reformer, because he does not see himself as part of the Catholic Church.

Again, we go back to the SSPX, the canonical freedom that is allowed to Protestants, cannot be allowed to us, because we do believe that we are part oft the Catholic Church. We can fool others and say that we no longer believe, but we can’t fool God our ourselves.

The reward for becoming Catholic, which seems to be what you’re looking for, is that only in the Catholic Church, does the fullness of the Christian Church subsist. For a rational Christian, not should be greater motivation than some canonical penalty.

In many ways, Canon Law is like constitutional law. Just look at the fact that we have more than one code of law inside the Catholic Church, because the Eastern Catholics would not submit to the Code of Canon Law as it was written by Rome. It was too Latin, which made it very foreign to them and difficult to implement, because their infrastructure is very different.

As to who is saved outside the Church, we do not know. We have only one thing to say. The surest way to salvation is inside the Catholic Church. Bl. John Paul also said that the Orthodox are not really outside of the Catholic Church, because of Communion in Sacris. The communion is imperfect, not non-existent.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[curlycool89]

yes, isn’t it interesting? Just as it is wrong to hate on the SSPX because they follow different traditions it is also wrong to condone the disobedience of the SSPX. Two wrrongs don’t make a right.

Pointing at “those bad liberals” doesn’t make any difference with respect to the situation of the SSPX though. The SSPX are in their current situation largely because of their own actions, not because of what “those bad liberals” are doing. The 2 cases are irrelevant to each other, and trying to bring up the latter case just serves to confuse the issues.

 

[ProVobis]

yes, isn’t it interesting? Just as it is wrong to hate on the SSPX because they follow different traditions it is also wrong to condone the disobedience of the SSPX. Two wrrongs don’t make a right.

But do we know which came first? Do we know exactly in the 70’s when the first case of real disobedience occurred? They were legitimately set up in 1970, as you know. They were probably immediately hated. And I suspect they still will be after any further reconciliation.

 

[Melchior_1]

But do we know which came first? Do we know exactly in the 70’s when the first case of real disobedience occurred? They were legitimately set up in 1970, as you know. They were probably immediately hated. And I suspect they still will be after any further reconciliation.

If the Wikipedia entry has an ounce of truth, they never finished the process of becoming a group of pontifical right, which means they are bound by every single Canon Law that a normal secular priest is. So the breaking of any of those Canons would be an act of disobedience.

 

[thewanderer]

But do we know which came first? Do we know exactly in the 70’s when the first case of real disobedience occurred? They were legitimately set up in 1970, as you know. They were probably immediately hated. And I suspect they still will be after any further reconciliation.

I’m really confused. Why in the world does it matter which came first? It is impossible to justify one by the other. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Its that simple. They are both wrong and so should both be avoided.

 

[Mike30]

yes, isn’t it interesting? Just as it is wrong to hate on the SSPX because they follow different traditions it is also wrong to condone the disobedience of the SSPX. Two wrrongs don’t make a right.

I was just wondering why some people hate them so much. Odd that no one has answered that one.