What your thoughts on the SSPX now they are rejecting reunion?

[curlycool89]

If it is true, then it is sad. But, I can’t say that I won’t be happy that there will finally be some closure to the insane ambiguous state this has been in for too long (I daresay that the SSPX prefers the ambiguity over getting to a settled point).

There’s not many trads on Catholic Answers because they can’t properly participate in discussions.

I guess if you define “properly participate” as “parrot SSPX propaganda that is contrary to what is taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium in union with the Pope”, then no, we’d prefer them not to participate because that would lead souls away from the truth and propagate useless scandal towards orthodox priests and bishops.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

If it is true, then it is sad. But, I can’t say that I won’t be happy that there will finally be some closure to the insane ambiguous state this has been in for too long (I daresay that the SSPX prefers the ambiguity over getting to a settled point).

I guess if you define “properly participate” as “parrot SSPX propaganda that is contrary to what is taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium in union with the Pope”, then no, we’d prefer them not to participate because that would lead souls away from the truth and propagate useless scandal towards orthodox priests and bishops.

Wow, you clearly have an axe to grind. Calm down. Have a glass of water. Relax.

Your slander and calumny is gravely sinful. You should reflect on that.

 

[Wowbagger]

With respect, the SSPX teaches against – or, at minimum, breeds suspicions and resentments against – the holdings of Vatican II, as well as much of the legitimate Catholic Church. Vatican II was an ecumenical council promulgated by the Magisterium in union with the Pope. To oppose it, or those loyal to it, is an error. Error has no rights. Error is the enemy of the truth and a threat to souls. It is not unreasonable to suppress error (although it is not required, and would seem to go against the purpose of a public forum such as this).

Curlycool spoke uncharitably, by referring to SSPX holdings by the charged word “propaganda”. He certainly did not commit “slander and calumny”. To accuse him of doing so merely compounds the initial lack of charity. SSPX continues to err. Even should we succeed at reconciliation through the careful and clever construing of anathemas in favorable fashion, many of SSPX’s opinions will still be in error, although that will then only be my opinion, not infallible teaching.

If each of our two camps did not believe the other to be in error, we would not be in two camps to begin with. It is not slanderous to say so.

As for the OP: it would, of course, be sad to lose another group of souls to the darkness outside the properly constituted and legitimately operated Catholic Church. However, at this point, I think it clear that SSPX is not especially ready for reconciliation. Like the high-church Anglicans, the Church has done all it can to open the doors; it is to SSPX to choose to walk through. I would prefer to see the Vatican refocus its reunification resources on less stiff-necked schismatics – people who don’t expect a Catholic outreach right now, but who may find that they really, really want one once the idea is planted. I’m thinking of some of the Protestant churches that are watching in horror as the rest of Protestantism races headlong into the void, like the Baptists, or some of the more conservative Lutheran synods.

There is still hope for SSPX, though, so fingers crossed and prayers continuing.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

With respect, the SSPX teaches against – or, at minimum, breeds suspicions and resentments against – the holdings of Vatican II, as well as much of the legitimate Catholic Church. Vatican II was an ecumenical council promulgated by the Magisterium in union with the Pope. To oppose it, or those loyal to it, is an error. Error has no rights. Error is the enemy of the truth and a threat to souls. It is not unreasonable to suppress error (although it is not required, and would seem to go against the purpose of a public forum such as this).

I’m going to try respond as best I can without violating the forum rules.

You made a few presumptions that are false, and you have not addressed the following: the reason why the SSPX rejects various teachings from Vatican II. You can’t just say “They teach against Vatican II and oppose it, therefore they are in error and enemies to truth”, because that presupposes that there was nothing wrong with the teachings of Vatican II. And that is where there is no agreement.

Curlycool spoke uncharitably, by referring to SSPX holdings by the charged word “propaganda”. He certainly did not commit “slander and calumny”. To accuse him of doing so merely compounds the initial lack of charity. SSPX continues to err. Even should we succeed at reconciliation through the careful and clever construing of anathemas in favorable fashion, many of SSPX’s opinions will still be in error, although that will then only be my opinion, not infallible teaching.

Curlycool has a history of being staunchly anti-traditional, so there is no surprise there. What is slander is accusing the SSPX of teaching against the eternal truths taught by the magisterium, and spreading error. Because that is blatantly false to anyone with an objective, sane point of view on the subject, unhindered by emotional attachments to Pope John Paul II, Vatican II, the New Mass or Pope Benedict XVI.

If each of our two camps did not believe the other to be in error, we would not be in two camps to begin with. It is not slanderous to say so.

It is slanderous and calumnious to go on the usual rant about the SSPX and accuse traditionalist contribution as “parrot SSPX propoganda” and claiming they teach things against the magisterium.

As for the OP: it would, of course, be sad to lose another group of souls to the darkness outside the properly constituted and legitimately operated Catholic Church. However, at this point, I think it clear that SSPX is not especially ready for reconciliation. Like the high-church Anglicans, the Church has done all it can to open the doors; it is to SSPX to choose to walk through. I would prefer to see the Vatican refocus its reunification resources on less stiff-necked schismatics – people who don’t expect a Catholic outreach right now, but who may find that they really, really want one once the idea is planted. I’m thinking of some of the Protestant churches that are watching in horror as the rest of Protestantism races headlong into the void, like the Baptists, or some of the more conservative Lutheran synods.

A few points:

• Reconciliation is not possible at the moment.
• Equating a heretical sect (the Anglicans) with a completely Catholic society is wrong and offensive.
• Reconciliation ≠ being in communion with the Roman See.

There is still hope for SSPX, though, so fingers crossed and prayers continuing.

The SSPX is in communion with Rome and always has been. The current talks have almost nothing to do with being in communion with the Church. It’s about regularization.

 

[Melchior_1]

What is slander is accusing the SSPX of teaching against the eternal truths taught by the magisterium, and spreading error.

If any member of the SSPX are saying that their Confessions are valid, they are spreading error. If any of them are saying any number of things that are listed on the FAQ of their official website, they are spreading error. I’ve quoted from their website before, it’s not hard to pull something from their site that is an error. You know, gems like;
*
"the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available. "*

This an error, that is being taught by the SSPX on their website. How many members talk and teach this content?

The SSPX is in communion with Rome and always has been. The current talks have almost nothing to do with being in communion with the Church. It’s about regularization.

As I have said before, they aren’t in full communion in the sense they are not in the house proper. They’re not all the way gone, but they’re not all the way home.

 

[pnewton]

No, not at all. That was not my intention. I was just being honest. Trads can’t fully participate in the discussions here without violating various forum rules

I think it is erroneous to lump traditional Catholics with the SSPX. Most traditional Catholic are not in the SSPX and do not support many of the views the SSPX hold. The rules here are somewhat specific for those who do support the SSPX, like not being able to promote that group, but there is a valid reason for this. Confession has been mentioned. It would be a mistake for Catholics to allow other Catholics promote invalid confession, in the same sense as it would be a mistake to promote any Sacrament that was invalid under the guise of being uber Catholic.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

If any member of the SSPX are saying that their Confessions are valid, they are spreading error.

They are valid. They have supplied jurisdiction supplied by the Church herself in this time of great crisis.

If any of them are saying any number of things that are listed on the FAQ of their official website, they are spreading error. I’ve quoted from their website before, it’s not hard to pull something from their site that is an error.

You are presupposing that the SSPX are in fact wrong in regard to these positions, in order to proclaim that they are “spreading error”. Note as well, we were never talking about their doctrinal stance on the New Mass or the teachings of Vatican II. I was responding to allegations that the SSPX supposedly teach against the eternal truths taught by the magisterium.

You know, gems like;
*
"the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available. "*
This an error, that is being taught by the SSPX on their website. How many members talk and teach this content?

That’s an error is it? Well, you may think so. I’m not going to address it because it’s bannable.

As I have said before, they aren’t in full communion in the sense they are not in the house proper. They’re not all the way gone, but they’re not all the way home.

As I have said before, “full communion” is a meaningless pastoral term. You’re either in communion with the Church or you are not. It’s black and white.

 

[Melchior_1]

They are valid. They have supplied jurisdiction supplied by the Church herself in this time of great crisis.

If by “crisis” you mean “someone is going to die and they need confession”, sure. Someone who shows up as they would ordinarily do on a weekly basis is not a crisis.

They need facilities, they do not have them. The Pope had said that His Grace was incorrect regarding his reading of canon law, and the Pope is the arbiter of canon law. If the ordinations resulted in excommunication due to the “crisis” reasoning not being valid, do you really think that confession would be any different?

There has been zero indication from Rome that the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction in the manner of which you speak. There is clear indication the SSPX has no legitimate ministry within the Church and does not have faculties.

I’ll side with Pontiff, thanks.

That’s an error is it? Well, you may think so. I’m not going to address it because it’s bannable.

There’s a reason why it’s bannable, you know. Sort of like how it probably isn’t a good idea to say the Pope practices and promotes sacrilege EVERYDAY, which is what the SSPX is saying with the section I posted from their website.

Again, I’ll side with the Pontiff. Benedict and I stand together as sacrilegious brothers-in-arms, over our attendance and participation with the “immoral” “new” Mass.

As I have said before, “full communion” is a meaningless pastoral term. You’re either in communion with the Church or you are not. It’s black and white.

It’s not meaningless. If it was meaningless, there wouldn’t be the current dialogue.

 

[pnewton]

They are valid. They have supplied jurisdiction supplied by the Church herself in this time of great crisis.

I would not rely on a canon law that was never designed for priests who have no function under canon law within the Catholic Church. To do so places ones eternal soul in jeopardy. To come here and assert this error is to place the souls of others in jeopardy. This is precisely the problem that the SSPX brings to this forum. We are talking about sacramental grace. It is not worth gambling that any poster here is correct in their SSPX apologetics, not when a priest is available with proper faculties from the bishop to administer reconcilliation.

Please people, do not gamble with your soul!

Now is the time to be patient while the Church reaches out to the SSPX and tries to restore them to the ministry of the Church.

 

[clem456]

They are valid. They have supplied jurisdiction supplied by the Church herself in this time of great crisis.

.

There is no great crisis, although there are always crises of one degree or another. There -may- be a great crisis if your soul is in jeopardy from… say for instance… disobedience and causing scandal. That would be a great crisis on the level of personal salvation. But the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Have trust.

 

[clem456]

Curlycool has a history of being staunchly anti-traditional, so there is no surprise there. What is slander is accusing the SSPX of teaching against the eternal truths taught by the magisterium, and spreading error. Because that is blatantly false to anyone with an objective, sane point of view on the subject, unhindered by emotional attachments to Pope John Paul II, Vatican II, the New Mass or Pope Benedict XVI.

It is slanderous and calumnious to go on the usual rant about the SSPX and accuse traditionalist contribution as “parrot SSPX propoganda” and claiming they teach things against the magisterium.

.

I have a common sense attachment to JP2 and Vatican 2, and also have emotional attachments to them for various reasons. Does that mean I am not traditional? I think you may be defining the word traditional very narrowly to your own liking. Labels have a place in politics and so forth, to generically converse and classify people. But in Catholicism, by definition, they are pointless and counterproductive, especially when uses the label to hijack a whole group of teachings in order to separate and divide.

 

[Stylites]

As I have said before, they aren’t in full communion in the sense they are not in the house proper. They’re not all the way gone, but they’re not all the way home.

What’s the proper folk phrase? Reject their cake and eat it, too.

 

[Stylites]

[Confessions in an SSPX chapel] are valid. They have supplied jurisdiction supplied by the Church herself in this time of great crisis.

The Church recognizes their Sacrament of Reconciliation only in the case of imminent death, which hardly applies to the vast majority of attendees. To teach otherwise is to spread error and is to not have the mind and intentions of Christ or His Church.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

I have a common sense attachment to JP2 and Vatican 2, and also have emotional attachments to them for various reasons. Does that mean I am not traditional? I think you may be defining the word traditional very narrowly to your own liking. Labels have a place in politics and so forth, to generically converse and classify people. But in Catholicism, by definition, they are pointless and counterproductive, especially when uses the label to hijack a whole group of teachings in order to separate and divide.

No, I was not saying that. Re-read my post.

 

[OraLabora]

The Church doesn’t cut people off from her, people cut themselves off from the Church. It appears that’s where the SSPX is headed by their own choice.

So be it. The Church reached out. They refused. Time to move on. Unity is a great thing, but it may have to happen one soul at a time, not en bloc.

 

[clem456]

No, I was not saying that. Re-read my post.

Ok, maybe I misunderstand, this is what you said:

Curlycool has a history of being staunchly anti-traditional, so there is no surprise there. What is slander is accusing the SSPX of teaching against the eternal truths taught by the magisterium, and spreading error. Because that is blatantly false to anyone with an objective, sane point of view on the subject, unhindered by emotional attachments to Pope John Paul II, Vatican II, the New Mass or Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Stylites]

Wow, you clearly have an axe to grind. Calm down. Have a glass of water. Relax.

Your slander and calumny is gravely sinful. You should reflect on that.

Wow, indeed. Forgive me for judging that curlycool89 did not commit any gravely sinful act, and for believing that slander (or even libel) cannot be committed against an organization, even if a member of the organization calumniates on their website about how attending an OF Mass is supposedly a sin. You should reflect on that.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

This is premature

CLOSED