Nope a statement of fact which can be proved from a cursory glance of their posts. I notice that you responded to this but don’t actually address any of the canons raised or cite canons or interpretations of canons or even a definitive statement saying that the society has invalid sacraments.
Oh what a surprise another ad hominem attack
I have not made a single ad hominem remark here. Nor have I referred to the SSPX as an enemy. Although I have read the opinions of the SSPX, I have no need to read what the SSPX says as they have no canonical mission in the Church and cannot pretend to speak for it. Nor can they sit in judgment on anyone else. One does not need a ruling from Rome when the case is obvious. The SSPX may always petition Rome for a ruling but they would reject that unless it was in agreement with them. They submit to NO ONE. That’s their whole problem.Oh what a surprise another ad hominem attack
Do yourself a favour and go and read something on the society before attacking them because frankly you’re attacking a strawman, a caricature of the society not what it really is. And if you really believe that the society is an enemy, then should you not know your enemy? Instead of citing any sources, canons or any authority whatsoever you’ve made unsubstantiated allegations and insults regarding the society, do you in fact have any authorities whatsoever for your view that the societies sacraments are invalid? Or that they’re in bad conscience? Or in fact any of your allegations?
The sister has joined the Dominican Sisters of Waganui which submits to the SSPX. But so far there is no confirmation from the Vatican on this. And the Waganui sisters have removed the announcement from their website.Another question has arisen in my mind regarding this story:
Who exactly did the Sister join?
My understanding is that the SSPX is an organization of PRIESTS. Period. Laypeople who attend SSPX masses are not members of the SSPX. I know of monastaries that have affiliated themselves with the SSPX, even sent brothers and priests to study at SSPX seminaries, but who were not members of SSPX.
So am I correct in that understanding that the SSPX is a priestly organization? If so, it would be impossible for a sister to join them. She could however join a religious community that affiliates themselves with the SSPX in some manner. If that’s the case, I’d still take the approval of the move as a positive sign, but it’s not the same thing as the Vatican approving an individual joining the SSPX. Which if it is a priestly organization and the Vatican did approve a woman joining- we’d have all sorts of problems!
Pax.
Then, how can you judge that the SSPX has “bad” conscience. This implies the SSPX has acted against what they believe to be morally right. Whether you like it or not the SSPX acted as they did out of good intentions, to try and preserve the traditional values of the Catholic church they believe were being undermined.
I checked with Mother…it is true!!
As the saying goes ‘take the plank out of your own eye before you remove the speck of dust in your brothers’ , you accuse the society of pride and yet you commit the same sin with your ignorant posts and then claim its alright to be ignorant because well it just is
Thanks. Still to be clear, are the brothers and sisters that the society “has”, members themselves of the SSPX, or are only priests?
This is my understanding as well. That they are in suspension is irrelevant in this thread. The issue is what exactly does the particular nun’s new association (if true) under Bishop Fellay mean. What are her limits as far as receiving sacraments, etc. etc. Can she participate in her bishop’s Masses, for example. And then we can go from there. But all this is moot if none of the OP is factual.
friends of the Society & are attended to by the SSPX Fathers. These include: Franciscans, Carmelites, Dominicans, & others…jmj1984’s post was not very helpful, but he’s right. A very small amount of investigation on your part would make it clear that the SSPX both 1) always denied that the excommunications were valid and also 2) nonetheless asked for their lifting and also 3) still denies that the excommunications ever were valid and also 4) gratefully thanks Pope Benedict for lifting the excommunications.
“Detrimental to the mission of the SSPX”?? The SSPX has NO MISSION as the Vatican has made clear many times. I’ve read enough SSPX stuff for one lifetime, they will never run out of rationalizations and their conscience will still trouble them.
I doubt anyone could make a case that the SSPX is in a state of invincible ignorance. Rome has made itself clear; we should obey, plain and simple. They refuse. No Catholic needs to waste much time on this.
I don’t know how you can accuse me of having a plank in my eye when you don’t even know me, but the rash judgments of the SSPX and their followers is predictable. They blast all popes since Vatican II so those of us who obey the Holly Father can expect no less. I am not ignorant; I have followed all of the directives of Rome vis a vis the SSPX; that is all that any faithful Catholic needs to do.As the saying goes ‘take the plank out of your own eye before you remove the speck of dust in your brothers’ , you accuse the society of pride and yet you commit the same sin with your ignorant posts and then claim its alright to be ignorant because well it just is
I am not going to engage in discussion with you any longer at least not until after September 14th
Don’t be so hasty to anathematize whole groups of Catholics who simply disagree with the conclusions you’ve made based on some vague statements dealing with the Society’s “legitimacy” (which isn’t even a Canonical term).
What about making conclusions based on the statement of the pope that the SSPX has no legitimate ministry?
Pope Benedict is an intelligent man and, I’m sure, a brilliant Canonist - do you think he was trying to make a Canonical statement about the SSPX using decidedly uncanonical language in a papal letter?