V2 and SSPX?

[Cluny]

If they [SSPX] were in schism, then the Mass would be invalid. As it is, their Mass is valid, but not licit.

Some say that the Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian Churches are in schism, but Rome has never denied that their orders OR Sacraments, especially the Eucharistic Sacrifice, is invalid.

 

[diggerdomer]

Cluny…whom are you quoting? Did I mis-state something? I’d say that being in schism does not necessarily mean sacraments are invalid, but it would make them illicit.

Cheers

 

[rpp]

diggerdomer, I am not a member of the SSPX (as I am not a cleric) nor do I attend SSPX Masses. In fact, I have no contact with the SSPX. I am not an apologist for the SSPX. I am simply interested in ensuring that accurate information is out there. Unlike you, I will try to describe or speculate what service you are trying perform with regard to the SSPX as I, again apparently unlike you, do not wish to be uncharitable.

In no document that anyone can produce issued by a responsible official at the Holy has the relationship between the Holy See and SSPX been described as “in schism”. The relationship has rather been repeated described as “irregular”.

Remember, there are several qualifications a group must meet in order to bre schismatic.

• They must, of course have engaged in schismatic acts. SSPX did indeed do this with the ordination of four bishops. But that single even is not enough.
• They must reject certain Church teachings (the ones rejected impact the gravity of the offense), and / or latch onto certain heretical ideas (again, what they are impacts the gravity).
• They must reject the authority of the Holy Father.

Since one of the difficulties the SSPX has is with Vatican II, that may constitute a rejection of Church teachings. Apparently Ecclesia Dei does not think so. SSPX holds no heretical. However, they absolutely DO NOT reject Papal authority nor do they hold to any heretical beliefs.

diggerdomer, as you yourself say, the word “schism” was not used. That would be required if they were indeed in schism.

Now if you want to talk about a schismatic group, look at SSPV. They are in schism.

 

[rpp]

If they [SSPX] were in schism, then the Mass would be invalid. As it is, their Mass is valid, but not licit.

Some say that the Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian Churches are in schism, but Rome has never denied that their orders OR Sacraments, especially the Eucharistic Sacrifice, is invalid.

Cluny…whom are you quoting? Did I mis-state something? I’d say that being in schism does not necessarily mean sacraments are invalid, but it would make them illicit.

Cheers

He was quoting me

Their Mass would be invalid if SSPX was in schism. Eastern Churches have their own Apostolic succession. The SSPX relies on the apostolic succession of the the Latin Church in Rome. If they were in schism, that succession would be broken rendering their Masses, and all other sacraments, invalid, not simply illicit.

 

[diggerdomer]

Unlike you, I will try to describe or speculate what service you are trying perform with regard to the SSPX as I, again apparently unlike you, do not wish to be uncharitable.

Thank you for pointing out to me and everyone reading this that you are charitable and I am not. That is new information to me, and I appreciate your sharing it. I had presumed before that both of us were charitable. Again, thanks.

In no document that anyone can produce issued by a responsible official at the Holy has the relationship between the Holy See and SSPX been described as “in schism”. The relationship has rather been repeated described as “irregular”.

I wasn’t aware there were irresponsible officials at the Holy See (otherwise why would you use the adjective “responsible”?) but again am glad for the knowledge you impart. Here are some links to Vatican documents that use the word “schism” (or the terms “schismatic acts”—I’ll leave it to you and canon lawyers to parse what the difference is between performing schismatic acts and being in schism):

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_pro_20051996_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

Note: the above link, the text of the excommunication letter from 1988, refers to Canon Can. 1364 “Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication;…” vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM
So, this was the relevant canon which means those in SSPX who were excommunicated were apostates, heretics, or schismatics. My understanding is the latter…which of the 3 do you choose?

Remember, there are several qualifications a group must meet in order to bre schismatic.

• They must, of course have engaged in schismatic acts. SSPX did indeed do this with the ordination of four bishops. But that single even is not enough.
• They must reject certain Church teachings (the ones rejected impact the gravity of the offense), and / or latch onto certain heretical ideas (again, what they are impacts the gravity).
• They must reject the authority of the Holy Father.

Since one of the difficulties the SSPX has is with Vatican II, that may constitute a rejection of Church teachings. Apparently Ecclesia Dei does not think so. SSPX holds no heretical. However, they absolutely DO NOT reject Papal authority nor do they hold to any heretical beliefs.

Remember? No, I don’t. Where do you get these criteria for schism?

May? May? Are you kidding? SSPX rejects the II Vatican Council, an ecumenical council, which is the highest form of teaching authority the Church has. How can you really think their rejection “may” constitute a rejection of Church teaching? There are no ifs ands or buts about it…SSPX rejects Church teaching plain and simple. And what in the world would prompt you to claim Ecclesia Dei does not think so? They DO REJECT PAPAL AUTHORITY because the Popes would require them to assent to Vatican II.

Benedict XVI made this clear in his letter last week: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

If SSPX does not accept Vatican II, they are also rejecting Papal authority as all the Popes from Paul VI forward have of course embraced Vatican II as authentic and binding Church teaching.

Cheers

 

[diggerdomer]

If they were in schism, that succession would be broken rendering their Masses, and all other sacraments, invalid, not simply illicit.

Nope, not true. They can have valid sacraments and be in schism. This has been the case since oh the 3rd century or so with the Donatist controversy.

Cheers

 

[The_Catholic]

Thank you for pointing out to me and everyone reading this that you are charitable and I am not. That is new information to me, and I appreciate your sharing it. I had presumed before that both of us were charitable. Again, thanks.

I wasn’t aware there were irresponsible officials at the Holy See (otherwise why would you use the adjective “responsible”?) but again am glad for the knowledge you impart. Here are some links to Vatican documents that use the word “schism” (or the terms “schismatic acts”—I’ll leave it to you and canon lawyers to parse what the difference is between performing schismatic acts and being in schism):

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_pro_20051996_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

Note: the above link, the text of the excommunication letter from 1988, refers to Canon Can. 1364 “Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication;…” vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM
So, this was the relevant canon which means those in SSPX who were excommunicated were apostates, heretics, or schismatics. My understanding is the latter…which of the 3 do you choose?

Remember? No, I don’t. Where do you get these criteria for schism?

May? May? Are you kidding? SSPX rejects the II Vatican Council, an ecumenical council, which is the highest form of teaching authority the Church has. How can you really think their rejection “may” constitute a rejection of Church teaching? There are no ifs ands or buts about it…SSPX rejects Church teaching plain and simple. And what in the world would prompt you to claim Ecclesia Dei does not think so? They DO REJECT PAPAL AUTHORITY because the Popes would require them to assent to Vatican II.

Benedict XVI made this clear in his letter last week: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

If SSPX does not accept Vatican II, they are also rejecting Papal authority as all the Popes from Paul VI forward have of course embraced Vatican II as authentic and binding Church teaching.

Cheers

Diggerdomer, you ARE charitable!! and rpp is most certainly NOT being charitable. It irritates me when people hide behind a computer and ommit the spirit of anger! Shame on you rpp. I love you, but shame on you!

 

[rpp]

Thank you for pointing out to me and everyone reading this that you are charitable and I am not. That is new information to me, and I appreciate your sharing it. I had presumed before that both of us were charitable. Again, thanks.

Okay, let’s see what you wrote next.

I wasn’t aware there were irresponsible officials at the Holy See (otherwise why would you use the adjective “responsible”?) but again am glad for the knowledge you impart. Here are some links to Vatican documents that use the word “schism” (or the terms “schismatic acts”—I’ll leave it to you and canon lawyers to parse what the difference is between performing schismatic acts and being in schism):

{snip}

My use of the word "responsible certainly did not imply that anyone was irresponsible. That is certainly an intentionally uncharitable reading of what I wrote. Rather it meant that there are officials who are responsible for dealing with the issues regarding the SSPX and others who are not responsible. For example, it would be wrong to call you irresponsible because you do not pay your neighbor’s mortgage. However, you may express opinions regarding your neighbor’s mortgage company.

Addi tonally, your snarky and sarcastic tone is not one that I would find in a charitable post.

As for the rest of what you wrote, it is just not worth responding to. These issues have been settled a long time ago and your opinion of the situation is incorrect. You have been unable to prove your assertions because, well, there is nothing to back them up.

Good day.

 

[diggerdomer]

I reread what I wrote, and I can see where it came across in ways I didn’t intend. I sincerely apologize for any offense. I’ll try to do better about reviewing what I write before sending. Thank you.

 

[rpp]

Nope, not true. They can have valid sacraments and be in schism. This has been the case since oh the 3rd century or so with the Donatist controversy.

Cheers

In this, again you are completely wrong. If you were correct then Anglican sacraments would be valid and they are not.

I will not participate in this thread any longer. I will not be a party to someone posting misinformation.

 

[diggerdomer]

Because the Church doesn’t consider their Orders valid.

The Orthodox on the otherhand, while there’s still schism between them and Catholics, celebrate valid sacraments because Catholics consider their Orders valid.

Cheers

 

[The_Catholic]

Thank you for pointing out to me and everyone reading this that you are charitable and I am not. That is new information to me, and I appreciate your sharing it. I had presumed before that both of us were charitable. Again, thanks.

I wasn’t aware there were irresponsible officials at the Holy See (otherwise why would you use the adjective “responsible”?) but again am glad for the knowledge you impart. Here are some links to Vatican documents that use the word “schism” (or the terms “schismatic acts”—I’ll leave it to you and canon lawyers to parse what the difference is between performing schismatic acts and being in schism):

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_pro_20051996_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

Note: the above link, the text of the excommunication letter from 1988, refers to Canon Can. 1364 “Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication;…” vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM
So, this was the relevant canon which means those in SSPX who were excommunicated were apostates, heretics, or schismatics. My understanding is the latter…which of the 3 do you choose?

Remember? No, I don’t. Where do you get these criteria for schism?

May? May? Are you kidding? SSPX rejects the II Vatican Council, an ecumenical council, which is the highest form of teaching authority the Church has. How can you really think their rejection “may” constitute a rejection of Church teaching? There are no ifs ands or buts about it…SSPX rejects Church teaching plain and simple. And what in the world would prompt you to claim Ecclesia Dei does not think so? They DO REJECT PAPAL AUTHORITY because the Popes would require them to assent to Vatican II.

Benedict XVI made this clear in his letter last week: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

If SSPX does not accept Vatican II, they are also rejecting Papal authority as all the Popes from Paul VI forward have of course embraced Vatican II as authentic and binding Church teaching.

Cheers

In my experience, the biggest problem caused by the SSPX’s is that they rant and rave that V2 was influenced by Satantic forces and infultrated with Free Masons—and that all the changes were done so to cause the church to fall away.

Whether they’re in schism or not, this is the problem I have with them.

 

[The_Catholic]

Actually, SSPX is not in schism, but their relationship with the Holy See is “irregular”.

As for their actually “problems” with Vatican II, can you please provide a link? I have never actually seen the SSPX objections to specific parts of Vatican II. I have only heard (and to a great extent agree with) their railings against the liberalism and gross abuse and disobedience that has occurred since the council all in the “spirit of Vatican II”.

This is something I typically hear my mother-in-law complain about. What you have to take into account though, that if all these “priests” and laymen began acting disobidient since V2 (and during it), what was the state of their soul or faith to begin with? I hear V2 dilluted the Eucharist, but it did nothing of the sort, in fact it’s crystal clear in keeping the doctrine identical as it has always been. How can one misunderstand this? And if so, then why not ask questions and refute as St. Thomas Moore did against the corruption in the Church during the Reformation? None of those “liberals” after V2 were like this, instead, it seemed they had true rebelion in their hearts, and it came out not only during and after the council, but also crazy time in America, the 60’s.

I’m convinced this rebellion was already in their hearts, and that V2 had nothing to do with it. I converted to the Church, witnessing first the Novus Ordo and found it beautiful, never “Satanic” as what the SSPXs I talked with commonly claim.

 

[ncstevem]

renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070410

Cheers

 

[diggerdomer]

renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070410

Cheers

What?

Oh, let’s see, it’s been three weeks or more since my last post here, and now you’re coming up with this? Did you read any of the prior messages on the Thread? Any of the links I posted?

Umm…ok…so let’s see…it seems I have a choice? Is that what you’re implying? I can choose between:

1. One article from “The Wanderer” that you posted or
2. Numerous references from the Vatican and the Popes that I shared…

Wow. Let me think about this.

Oh. Ok. You are right. Thank you for sharing. Now that I am familiar with that one article from The Wanderer, which of course completely and thoroughly addresses the questions I had from the Vatican and Papal sources I referred to earlier (that I was looking for greater understanding on) I am all set and convinced. Thank you for helping lift me out of the hole I dug myself into.

Thanks, and have a great Easter.

 

[The_Catholic]

What?

Oh, let’s see, it’s been three weeks or more since my last post here, and now you’re coming up with this? Did you read any of the prior messages on the Thread? Any of the links I posted?

Umm…ok…so let’s see…it seems I have a choice? Is that what you’re implying? I can choose between:

1. One article from “The Wanderer” that you posted or
2. Numerous references from the Vatican and the Popes that I shared…

Wow. Let me think about this.

Oh. Ok. You are right. Thank you for sharing. Now that I am familiar with that one article from The Wanderer, which of course completely and thoroughly addresses the questions I had from the Vatican and Papal sources I referred to earlier (that I was looking for greater understanding on) I am all set and convinced. Thank you for helping lift me out of the hole I dug myself into.

Thanks, and have a great Easter.

lol, ok now, be nice Diggerdomer

 

[Axion]

I hear V2 dilluted the Eucharist, but it did nothing of the sort, in fact it’s crystal clear in keeping the doctrine identical as it has always been. How can one misunderstand this? .

V2 didn’t change the Eucharist but advocated a new and slightly modified order of Mass, with some vernacular content.

What happened was the new mass (produced by a commission) was almost completely vernacular and without the centrality of gregorian chant. More importantly, the new order allowed a less reverent approach to the mass, congregation-facing altars and reception of the Host standing and in the hand, rather than kneeling and on the tongue. The wording, particularly of the English-language version, was less specific about the sacrificial aspect of the mass. The changes (including the removal of tabernacles from altars) have gone hand-in-hand with a heavy fall-off in mass attendance, and a decline in belief in the Real Presence among mass-goers. Many traditionalists believe that these effects are no unconnected. Lack of reverence in the Mass reducing belief in the essentiality and holiness of the Eucharist, and an allied decline in mass-going.

 

[The_Catholic]

V2 didn’t change the Eucharist but advocated a new and slightly modified order of Mass, with some vernacular content.

What happened was the new mass (produced by a commission) was almost completely vernacular and without the centrality of gregorian chant. More importantly, the new order allowed a less reverent approach to the mass, congregation-facing altars and reception of the Host standing and in the hand, rather than kneeling and on the tongue. The wording, particularly of the English-language version, was less specific about the sacrificial aspect of the mass. The changes (including the removal of tabernacles from altars) have gone hand-in-hand with a heavy fall-off in mass attendance, and a decline in belief in the Real Presence among mass-goers. Many traditionalists believe that these effects are no unconnected. Lack of reverence in the Mass reducing belief in the essentiality and holiness of the Eucharist, and an allied decline in mass-going.

When the apostles sat and ate with Christ, they themselves were holding the blessed Sacrament in their very own hands.

When I first began going to Mass, after abandoning my Protestant Church, the Eucharist–Jesus blew me away!!! Everything about the Eucharist, the prayers, the kneeling, the . . . feeling of truly believing He’s present, wonderful!!! I have never found a thing wrong or confusing about it, I understood it completely and I am from an anti-Catholic background (does not include my parents and brother, they’re Cathoic, but rather my first true belief in God, when I became Protestant).

Why would one, just because the structure has changed, why would they so easily abandon Mass? Does it HAVE to be “their” way or the way of the SSPX or it just doesn’t count? Such reasons to me are so ilogical and make little sense. I believe the decline in laymen was because they began showing their true colors sadly.

If one claims to be a faithful Catholic and abandons the Church because they do not like the Novus Ordo, were they ever really a Catholic to begin with or did it the latin Mass just “fit” or “work well with them?”?

 

[napad]

Vatican II was the attack by Masons, Communists, and Modernists on the Church.

 

[The_Catholic]

Vatican II was the attack by Masons, Communists, and Modernists on the Church.

Oh boy.