"Traditional Catholicism"...problematic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamalChristophr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am asking if you know, because we really need to represent the facts, rather then a bunch of urban myths and old wives tales.
It’s an urban myth to claim that the SSPX is in schism rather than the other way around. It’s…odd that you refer to a “very clever loophole” that permits the SSPX to avoid the schism loophole but then you refuse to expand. So it would seem you’re the one spreading myths…

But here – it’s as easy as a quick glance through Wikipedia:
Apart from the formal declarations by the Catholic Church, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, president of the PCED, commented about the status of the SSPX in a 2005 interview that the 1988 consecrations, without a pontifical mandate, created a “situation of separation […] even if it was not a formal schism.”[17] Castrillón Hoyos commented in 2005, about a 2004 meeting between Benedict XVI and Fellay, that it was said at that meeting that, in Castrillón Hoyos words, “It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. […] They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking […] a fuller communion, because communion does exist.”[18] Castrillón Hoyos commented in 2007, when asked “Does the Indult support ecumenism, ‘ad intra’ (internal)?” Castrillón Hoyos answered that he “reject the term ’ ecumenism ad intra '.” He explained that the SSPX priests and adherents “are not schismatics” since it was Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics. I do, however, share St Jerome’s fear that heresy leads to schism and vice versa. The danger of a schism is big, such as a systematic disobedience vis-à-vis the Holy Father or by a denial of his authority. It is after all a service of charity, so that the Priestly Society gains full communion with the Holy Father by acknowledging the sanctity of the new Mass."[19]

 
That’s kind of me thinking for them, which I hesitate to do.

I would say it’s disillusionment with how the mass is celebrated in many Churches and a desire to participate in a liturgy that is perhaps more equipped to transcend the earthly and manifest the mystery of what is taking place as a mass is celebrated.

That’s two things I can think of. But like I said, it’s not really my place to say.

(I suppose you were just making a joke, but I took it seriously.)
 
Last edited:
We have a bit of that here JamalChristopher. But it seems to tie in with the satisfaction , or not, of particular Priests.

So for example my Vicar General has just changed. The new Priest is perhaps a bit more progressive than the last vicar general, who TCs consider very modern. So I am likely to hear how wrong he is for the next 4 years.

I think our outgoing VG was wonderful.
 
Last edited:
It isn’t only about the words. How it is done and who does it matters as well.

Unless you think a shirtless 15 years old lay kid, by saying the right words, celebrates a valid Mass
Are shirtless 15yo’s commonly celebrating Mass in your area? I’ve never seen or heard of that.

If you’re suggesting that a priest who dosn’t give off the feels is as good as a half-naked 15yo that’s quite disrespetful.
 
It’s really, grace poole, just a one sentence answer. And we cannot rely on Wikipedia for it.

A very simple answer as to which loophole they are using. It’s for another thread though. We must respect the wishes of JamalChristopher
 
40.png
Roseeurekacross:
I am asking if you know, because we really need to represent the facts, rather then a bunch of urban myths and old wives tales.
It’s an urban myth to claim that the SSPX is in schism rather than the other way around. It’s…odd that you refer to a “very clever loophole” that permits the SSPX to avoid the schism loophole but then you refuse to expand. So it would seem you’re the one spreading myths…

But here – it’s as easy as a quick glance through Wikipedia:
Apart from the formal declarations by the Catholic Church, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, president of the PCED, commented about the status of the SSPX in a 2005 interview that the 1988 consecrations, without a pontifical mandate, created a “situation of separation […] even if it was not a formal schism.”[17] Castrillón Hoyos commented in 2005, about a 2004 meeting between Benedict XVI and Fellay, that it was said at that meeting that, in Castrillón Hoyos words, “It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. […] They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking […] a fuller communion, because communion does exist.”[18] Castrillón Hoyos commented in 2007, when asked “Does the Indult support ecumenism, ‘ad intra’ (internal)?” Castrillón Hoyos answered that he “reject the term ’ ecumenism ad intra '.” He explained that the SSPX priests and adherents “are not schismatics” since it was Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics. I do, however, share St Jerome’s fear that heresy leads to schism and vice versa. The danger of a schism is big, such as a systematic disobedience vis-à-vis the Holy Father or by a denial of his authority. It is after all a service of charity, so that the Priestly Society gains full communion with the Holy Father by acknowledging the sanctity of the new Mass."[19]

Canonical situation of the Society of Saint Pius X - Wikipedia

It seems like speaking out of both sides of ones mouth to me.

It’s in no way clear cut like ICK.
 
I don’t mind a short digression, but that can easily snowball. Anyways, it is probably best to consider SSPX in another thread as it is a sufficiently complex issue that does not lend itself to a few posts.
 
I love the American custom of peanut butter and chocolate, also jelly bellies!

We would prob try to put vegemite in chocolate…hmm why hasn’t anyone yet
Surprising given you now have chili in chocolate and seaweed in chocolate and other things.
 
It’s really, grace poole, just a one sentence answer. And we cannot rely on Wikipedia for it.

A very simple answer as to which loophole they are using. It’s for another thread though. We must respect the wishes of JamalChristopher
I do so love when folks are cryptic… Either explain it or don’t mention it. It’s just that simple. And if you wanted to respect the wishes of JamalChristopher, the latter would have been the better choice.
 
Who are you speaking to here? There are PLENTY of threads on the SSPX and it isn’t a particular interest of mine. I was only correcting the mistaken claim that the SSPX is in schism. It’s not.
 
OK, why don’t you two just agree to disagree here. To do otherwise, will necessitate a debate. Am I wrong?
 
It hasn’t been INS for a long time. It’s been ICE since 2003.
 
Last edited:
I don’t mind a short digression, but that can easily snowball. Anyways, it is probably best to consider SSPX in another thread as it is a sufficiently complex issue that does not lend itself to a few posts.
See, respect the wishes of the op and make a new thread. We can discuss it there.

As the op points out, we are not discussing Sspx.
 
(That show you how well-informed I am on the issue. I really am not well informed and should do something about that.)
 
Well, that’s it. Grounds for suspension. If you were Australian, it could have been overlooked. You can’t not care for something that you have never tried.
 
OK, I’m going to go watch my second episode ever of Poirot.

Everyone please try to behave.
 
40.png
JamalChristophr:
I don’t mind a short digression, but that can easily snowball. Anyways, it is probably best to consider SSPX in another thread as it is a sufficiently complex issue that does not lend itself to a few posts.
See, respect the wishes of the op and make a new thread. We can discuss it there.

As the op points out, we are not discussing Sspx.
:roll_eyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top