why condemn the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter latinmasslover
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walking_Home said:
Spin it anyway you want JKirk. I am not misleading anyone or rebeling—Msgr. Perl’s statements are in print at the request of Ecclesia Dei.
Click to expand...
This is getting rather silly. Msgr. Perle put out a letter TO A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL. When that letter was posted far and wide with the headline VATICAN ADMITS THE SSPX MASSES FULFILL SUNDAY OBLIGATION, Msgr. Perle was forced to print a public letter stating that that letter was intended for a specific person in a specific circumstance. This is just silly to continue to say that anyone can fulfill their obligation there and it’s just silly to say that this letter was a decree from the Church that it was just peachy for anyone to attend. Let’s use a little common sense. If it’s just fine for anyone to attend and the radical traditionalists got their headline correct, why in the world would there need to be a clarification that the letter was inteneded for a private person in a specific circumstance. The headline is quite misleading and quite negligent. If you feel that it’s just fine to attend then you should have no problem with people attending an Orthodox Church. Please.
 
Sure said:
And what do you say to Archbishop Burke’s statements on excommunicated and suspended priests and their Masses? His conclusions seems to be a bit different (and more grounded in Canon law) than Msgr. Perle’s. Plus he writes in a public document not a private document and holds a much higher position in the Vatican than Msgr. Perle.
Click to expand...
Obviously, they’re not going to say anything. It will just be ignored. Bishop Burke is a living saint when he says something that pleases them but is totally ignored or suddenly doesn’t know a thing when it does not please them. 🤷
 
Sure said:
Interestingly, Archbishop Burke states that when a priest attempts to “exercise priestly ministry outside of the communion of the Church” he commits the ecclesiastical crime of schism which, of course, carries with it the penalty of excommunication. It would appear from this that all SSPX priests who celebrate Mass have, in fact, excommunicated themselves even though it has not been officially declared.
Click to expand...
Disobedience pure and simple. Why on earth would I want to partake of any of it? SSPX looks like a beautiful expression of faith. It tastes like an apple.
 
Sure said:
Interestingly, Archbishop Burke states that when a priest attempts to “exercise priestly ministry outside of the communion of the Church” he commits the ecclesiastical crime of schism which, of course, carries with it the penalty of excommunication. It would appear from this that all SSPX priests who celebrate Mass have, in fact, excommunicated themselves even though it has not been officially declared.
Click to expand...
Disobedience pure and simple. Why on earth would I want to partake of any of it? SSPX looks like a beautiful expression of faith. It tastes like the apple.
 
Walking_Home said:
Again JKirk—you are making yourself your own authority to continue your spin. I have stated what Msgr. Perl has stated—what I have not done—is bind the Pope in that he could not have seen things differently and allowed Msgr. Perl to act.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, you’ve taken what Msgr. Perle told ONE INDIVIDUAL in ONE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE and you’ve blown it into a universal indult of sorts. I have not bound the Holy Father or the Msgr. because they are not saying and have not said what you claim they have.
 
Sure said:
Interestingly, Archbishop Burke states that when a priest attempts to “exercise priestly ministry outside of the communion of the Church” he commits the ecclesiastical crime of schism which, of course, carries with it the penalty of excommunication. It would appear from this that all SSPX priests who celebrate Mass have, in fact, excommunicated themselves even though it has not been officially declared.
Click to expand...
That’s also what Canon Law says about disobedience.
 
Aramis said:
That’s also what Canon Law says about disobedience.
Click to expand...
How very ironic that the bishop who is perhaps the greatest proponent of the Traditional movement in the US also presents the most stinging and well reasoned argument against the SSPX.
 
I guess I will add my two cents worth: The reason the liberals hate the SSPX is because the SSPX is diametrically opposed to everything they stand for and seek to promote. The reason the conservatives dislike the SSPX is because “the best is the enemy of the good”
 
latinmasslover said:
Why is it that many Catholics condemn the SSPX with such vehemence and yet say very little, if anything, about the liberals who are trying to rid the Church of all things Catholic? Why do they condemn the SSPX as being outside the Church, while at the same time praising God for the faith being taught at heretic ecclesial communities?

This is question is for anyone, but especially for those Catholics that are in fact orthodox, but still dislike the SSPX.

Please remember Christian charity in your responses.🙂
Click to expand...
This should do the trick:

The Society’s practice of "sifting"or picking and choosing with regard to the magisterium, law, and disciplines of the Church is not supported by the Church herself nor by her theologians. This has rather been the practice of heretics and schismatics, such as the Gallicans and Jansenists. In such a case, the reason for adhering to any given teaching, law or discipline is not because the Roman Pontiff has himself decreed that it is to be adhered to, but rather because the Society of St. Pius X has “sifted” it. The “golden sifter” of the Society has in effect replaced the infallible magisterium of the Church.

"What good is it to proclaim aloud the dogma of the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors? What good is it to repeat over and over declarations of faith in the Catholic Church and of obedience to the Apostolic See when actions give the lie to these fine words? Moreover, is not rebellion rendered all the more inexcusable by the fact that obedience is recognized as a duty? Again, does not the Authority of the Holy See extend, as a sanction, to the measures which We have been obliged to take, or is it enough to be in communion of faith with this See without adding the submission of obedience, a thing which cannot be maintained without damaging the Catholic Faith?

In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this see), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema. (From the encyclical Quae in patriarchatu of Pope Pius IX, September 1, 1876, to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean Rite.)"
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
I guess I will add my two cents worth: The reason the liberals hate the SSPX is because the SSPX is diametrically opposed to everything they stand for and seek to promote. The reason the conservatives dislike the SSPX is because “the best is the enemy of the good”
Click to expand...
No one hates anyone, as far as I know, or dislikes them. We’re simply relating factual information. The Archbishop and the bishops were excommunicated, the priests are suspended ad divinis, and the faithful are warned against the danger of schism by
attendance at their masses. Why is that “hate” or “dislike?”

And you’ve rendered a judgment that is very Protestant in it’s mindset. You’ve set yourself up against the Vicar of Christ and the Magisterium of the Church, declaring “best” what they’ve declared excommunicate and schismatic.

The more the SSPX’s fans argue, the more convinced I am that they’re wrong.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
No one hates anyone, as far as I know, or dislikes them. We’re simply relating factual information. The Archbishop and the bishops were excommunicated, the priests are suspended ad divinis, and the faithful are warned against the danger of schism by
attendance at their masses. Why is that “hate” or “dislike?”

And you’ve rendered a judgment that is very Protestant in it’s mindset. You’ve set yourself up against the Vicar of Christ and the Magisterium of the Church, declaring “best” what they’ve declared excommunicate and schismatic.

The more the SSPX’s fans argue, the more convinced I am that they’re wrong.
Click to expand...
It is easy to talk the talk -----but by the enthusiastic gusto with which people jump on board to throw schism, schism, mortal sin, etc. at the SSPX—apparently they can’t walk the talk.
 
fatima1917 said:
This should do the trick:

The Society’s practice of "sifting"or picking and choosing with regard to the magisterium, law, and disciplines of the Church is not supported by the Church herself nor by her theologians.
Click to expand...
I have a hypothetical question for you: What would you say Catholics should do it the Pope and majority of the Bishops began to teach and promote what had been formally condemned by the Church?

Let’s say that, for a persiod of about 150 years, the Popes had been warning of certain grave errors that had sprung up and were beginning to work their way into the Church; and what if, afte 150 years of these errors being condemned again and again, we had several Popes, and the majority of the Bishops, who began teaching and promoting these previously condemned errors?

Would it be wrong for Catholics to continue to reject the errors, and continue to follow what the Church had always taught, even of the majority of the hierarchy had fallen into these errors? Or would it be best for the faithful to forget what the Popes had comdemned for 150 years, and accept the errors simply because the vast majority of the hierarchy had accepted them, and were promoting them?

So, for example, when, according to Fr. Jurgins who wrote “Faith of the early Fathers”, 97% of the hierarchy had fallen into Arianism (even though it had previously been condmemned), would you have suggested that the faithful simply follow what the majority of the Bishops were now teaching? In your opinion, would it have been best to foget that Arianist had already been condemned and just follow blindly? After all, the magisterium was teaching it, and who are the faithful to disagree with the magisterium, right? Would you say that those who refuse to accept Arianism were “picking and choosing”?

If such a situation arose today, what would you suggest that the faithful do?
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
I guess I will add my two cents worth: The reason the liberals hate the SSPX is because the SSPX is diametrically opposed to everything they stand for and seek to promote. The reason the conservatives dislike the SSPX is because “the best is the enemy of the good”
Click to expand...
Oh, please! They are Lutherans in disguise. SSPX is defiantly disobedient. They are becoming increasingly fringy (if that’s even possible) and irrelevant. All we can do is pray for a restoration of obedience.
 
Walking_Home said:
It is easy to talk the talk -----but by the enthusiastic gusto with which people jump on board to throw schism, schism, mortal sin, etc. at the SSPX—apparently they can’t walk the talk.
Click to expand...
I don’t suppose it’s ever crossed your mind that if people didn’t spread misinformation, no one would feel the need to counter it.
The facts remain that the Archbishop and the bishops are excommunicate, the priests are suspended ad divinis, and the faithful are warned against the danger of schism by attendance upon their masses.
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
I have a hypothetical question for you: What would you say Catholics should do it the Pope and majority of the Bishops began to teach and promote what had been formally condemned by the Church?

Let’s say that, for a persiod of about 150 years, the Popes had been warning of certain grave errors that had sprung up and were beginning to work their way into the Church; and what if, afte 150 years of these errors being condemned again and again, we had several Popes, and the majority of the Bishops, who began teaching and promoting these previously condemned errors?

Would it be wrong for Catholics to continue to reject the errors, and continue to follow what the Church had always taught, even of the majority of the hierarchy had fallen into these errors? Or would it be best for the faithful to forget what the Popes had comdemned for 150 years, and accept the errors simply because the vast majority of the hierarchy had accepted them, and were promoting them?

So, for example, when, according to Fr. Jurgins who wrote “Faith of the early Fathers”, 97% of the hierarchy had fallen into Arianism (even though it had previously been condmemned), would you have suggested that the faithful simply follow what the majority of the Bishops were now teaching? In your opinion, would it have been best to foget that Arianist had already been condemned and just follow blindly? After all, the magisterium was teaching it, and who are the faithful to disagree with the magisterium, right? Would you say that those who refuse to accept Arianism were “picking and choosing”?

If such a situation arose today, what would you suggest that the faithful do?
Click to expand...
The Magisterium of the Church has NEVER submitted to heresy or taught it. It will never happen. I suggest the faithful stay in the boat. No matter what sinners are at the helm, it’s still the barque of Peter.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Bigotry—just plain bigotry.

Factual truth—just plain factual truth.
Click to expand...
Yes — the factual truth is becoming more clear with each thread—the prejudice some people have toward the SSPX
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top