Will the SSPX talk to Rome before February 28th? Why or Why not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Armor_of_Light
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Iron_Donkey said:
On the contrary, the use of the word “Deux” brings a false complication to the issue of thread names and makes it more difficult to understand the purpose. The common person will not be able to understand what it means. Moreover, it imbues the title with a stiff formality that is not fitting in this day and age. Rather than being attracted by a contrived and outdated attempts at formalism, people prefer the easy going, more natural use “II.”

Also, sounding vaguely Latin, the word “duex” indicates a rampant inherent clericalism.

For some reason.
Click to expand...
yuck!
 
Hello,

My question is this, what makes the SSPX so unhappy about Vatican II? Is it just the liberties many American priests have taken or how Vatican II has been interpretted? I used to think I knew something on this subject, but something’s putting my knowledge to question. I know for some reason, odd things happened after Vatican II like many with vocations leaving monasteries (??) and so on…

My understanding is that it’s mainly an argument about traditions and not necessarily doctrine, or else the SSPX would be schismatic (??).

–Flimmy

PS. I used to attend SSPX.
And this is probably a thick topic.
 
I see that much, seemingly, has to do with the way Mass is carried out in so-called Novus Ordo, or post Vatican II masses, such as the disputed subjects of kneeling for Communion, the music, and the use of ordinaries, and so on… The SSPX dispute that it’s in modernistic spirit that these things have changed (?), and I suppose I wouldn’t blame them, as certain liturgical changes seem odd… but that’s a personal view of little relevance.
 
Flimmy said:
Hello,

My question is this, what makes the SSPX so unhappy about Vatican II? Is it just the liberties many American priests have taken or how Vatican II has been interpretted? I used to think I knew something on this subject, but something’s putting my knowledge to question. I know for some reason, odd things happened after Vatican II like many with vocations leaving monasteries (??) and so on…

My understanding is that it’s mainly an argument about traditions and not necessarily doctrine, or else the SSPX would be schismatic (??).

–Flimmy

PS. I used to attend SSPX.
And this is probably a thick topic.
Click to expand...
From what little I understand, there’s a combination of both. I’ve read things that cause me to believe that the SSPX believes that some abuses of Vatican II and the changes that surrounded it (the dreaded puppet masses, for example) are in fact an integral parts of the council rather than the abuses that they are. I’ve also read a few things where they’ve said that something that is a result of a poor translation of the new mass is a problem with the new mass itself. (And often they were actually right about there being a problem with the translation, though I disagree with the conclusions they drew from the problem being there.) Fortunately, many of these legitimate errors and abuses are being corrected, but they were always errors in practice rather than in teaching.

There also seems to be some disagreement over things that actually are legitimate parts of the council, in which the SSPX tends to think that something contradicts past Church teaching. I don’t know enough to go into details, but the primary things I’ve heard referenced is religious freedom (and I’m not actually entirely sure what this means in this context, except I do not think it has much to do with the legal right to practice the religion one chooses) and a tendency to think that the statement that Christ may possibly save some members of other religions to be equivalent to saying that other religions have salvic power (which is false).

There are also some issues along the lines of the phrase “the true Church subsists in the Catholic Church” rather than “the true Church is the Catholic Church,” whereby they support the latter statement and interpret the former to mean, again, that other religions have salvic power rather than that there is a possibility that members of other religions may be saved. Their interpretation of what the council said Church’s relationship with other faiths is, as I understand, a big deal.

Hopefully I didn’t mess it up too bad.
 
So perhaps the SSPX may be mixing errors of practice with errors of teaching.

Vatican II seems messy in the eyes of the SSPX.
 
Iron_Donkey said:
From what little I understand, there’s a combination of both. I’ve read things that cause me to believe that the SSPX believes that some abuses of Vatican II and the changes that surrounded it (the dreaded puppet masses, for example) are in fact an integral parts of the council rather than the abuses that they are. I’ve also read a few things where they’ve said that something that is a result of a poor translation of the new mass is a problem with the new mass itself. (And often they were actually right about there being a problem with the translation, though I disagree with the conclusions they drew from the problem being there.) Fortunately, many of these legitimate errors and abuses are being corrected, but they were always errors in practice rather than in teaching.

There also seems to be some disagreement over things that actually are legitimate parts of the council, in which the SSPX tends to think that something contradicts past Church teaching. I don’t know enough to go into details, but the primary things I’ve heard referenced is religious freedom (and I’m not actually entirely sure what this means in this context, except I do not think it has much to do with the legal right to practice the religion one chooses) and a tendency to think that the statement that Christ may possibly save some members of other religions to be equivalent to saying that other religions have salvic power (which is false).

There are also some issues along the lines of the phrase “the true Church subsists in the Catholic Church” rather than “the true Church is the Catholic Church,” whereby they support the latter statement and interpret the former to mean, again, that other religions have salvic power rather than that there is a possibility that members of other religions may be saved. Their interpretation of what the council said Church’s relationship with other faiths is, as I understand, a big deal.

Hopefully I didn’t mess it up too bad.
Click to expand...
Doesn;t the Orthodox Church have true Sacraments, including confession and Holy Eucharist and therefore have salvic power?
 
Tomdstone said:
Doesn;t the Orthodox Church have true Sacraments, including confession and Holy Eucharist and therefore have salvic power?
Click to expand...
Yes. There’s more information on how it came to be separated from the Roman rite, but I only know enough to be dangerous…
 
Tomdstone said:
Doesn;t the Orthodox Church have true Sacraments, including confession and Holy Eucharist and therefore have salvic power?
Click to expand...
Yes, their sacraments are valid. I was actually thinking non-Christian religions. More of a “if you’re saved, you’re saved by Christ not by anything else” sort of thing. Although there are those who say that if you’re not Catholic, you’re going to Hell, I am not one of them.
 
Moore11 said:
I refuse to accept Redux II as a valid SSPX posting thread. I will refer to it as the Thread from here on out and I demand that there is a clarification of what terms have changed from previous threads to a post RII thread. How many forum rules will be broken in the name of the “spirit” of Redux II?
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Best post I’ve ever read on this forum!
 
Saints_Alive said:
He said exactly what I knew he’d say. He’ll wait and see who the next pope is.
Click to expand...
He may not be given the option of waiting. The Pope may have decided to take action before he retires, he may not want to simply pass this on, again, to another Pope.
 
Julia_Mae said:
He may not be given the option of waiting. The Pope may have decided to take action before he retires, he may not want to simply pass this on, again, to another Pope.
Click to expand...
No matter. It’s over.

I wish I was wrong. But after 5 years of praying for an agreement, what I’ve seen transpire on both sides is telling. Actually all four sides. The pope and +Fellay can come to an agreement today, but there are those who will ignore the pope and there are those who will ignore +Fellay. That’s what it has come to and it’s just how it is.

jmo of course
 
Saints_Alive said:
No matter. It’s over.

I wish I was wrong. But after 5 years of praying for an agreement, what I’ve seen transpire on both sides is telling. Actually all four sides. The pope and +Fellay can come to an agreement today, but there are those who will ignore the pope and there are those who will ignore +Fellay. That’s what it has come to and it’s just how it is.

jmo of course
Click to expand...
I think that’s a very sound opinion. I also think if the Pope forces the issue, it will be the same. As it is, there is so little chance of bringing a significant portion home. If he forces it, there is a strong likelihood of bringing many home.
 
Flimmy said:
Hello,
My question is this, what makes the SSPX so unhappy about Vatican II? Is it just the liberties many American priests have taken or how Vatican II has been interpreted?..
My understanding is that it’s mainly an argument about traditions and not necessarily doctrine, or else the SSPX would be schismatic (??).
–Flimmy
PS. I used to attend SSPX.
And this is probably a thick topic.
Click to expand...
I think that there were 4 main issues on which Mgr Lefebvre challenged the proceedings of the Second Vatican Council -
(a) The Vatican Agreement with the Soviet Union not to condemn Marxist Communism;
(b), Collegiality (which was being used by the Rhine Group & followers to attack the Papal Primacy), - in fact in many exchanges, Mgr Lefebvre & followers have championed the primacy of the Papacy against those who would downgrade it.
(c) Ecumenism: the final paragraph of the document does lay out very clearly the true Catholic doctrine, but many passages in the body of the text have been used to promote the idea that we now no longer strive to convert our non-Catholic bretheren. I think that the SSPX have been urging a more explicit statement of the Catholic position - and
(d) Religious Liberty (which was being promoted during the council in a form previously explicitly condemned).
And also
(e) Mgr Lefebvre always maintained that the tension between ‘Doctrinal versus Pastoral’ led to endless confusion during and after the Council.

I do not think that the issue of the Liturgy was very high on the agenda at the time: the text of the Novus Ordo Missae, 1969, was very considerably different from that apparently being suggested in the appropriate Vatican II document. Note that, at first, Mgr Lefebvre was in favour of some modifications to the 1958 version of the Liturgy, and accepted the 1962 revision.
My understanding is that it’s mainly an argument about traditions and not necessarily doctrine, or else the SSPX would be schismatic (??).
Click to expand...
Well, if the SSPX had proclaimed doctrines that were contrary to Catholic teaching, and after having been reprimanded, had ‘pertinaceously’ refused to recant, they would be guilty of heresy. If they had denied the primacy of Peter, either by word or by invading his jurisdiction (such as appointing a rival bishop to a diocese) they would be guilty of schism. What they actually did was to refuse certain commands (notably the instruction to close their seminary), and to consecrate 4 bishops, assisted by Mgr de Castro Mayer of Brazil, against the express command of the Pope, stating that it was out of obedience to the Faith. But this takes the discussion away from your main point, which was the objections of the SSPX to Vatican II.
 
numealinesimpet said:
I think that there were 4 main issues on which Mgr Lefebvre challenged the proceedings of the Second Vatican Council - (etc)…
Click to expand...
Relevant to the above, Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, recently spoke about the theological positions of the SSPX. The link provides some of his statements, with commentary from Dr. John Lamont, who holds a degree in philosophy from Oxford University and in theology from Ottawa University, both in Canada. He is an honorary fellow in the Faculty of Philosophy and Theology at the Australian Catholic University. Dr. Lamont has taught at the University of Notre Dame Australia and the Catholic Institute of Sydney, where he had the canonical mandate to teach theology from the Sydney Archdiocese.
As far as I know, Dr Lamont is not affiliated with the SSPX.
See sspx.org/miscellaneous/cardinal_koch_on_sspx_lamont_2-20-2013.htm
 
:yukonjoe:I just had to come back again and see how y’all were doing…😃

Sorry to say, but looks like all my previous hard work was in vain - linking to SSPX articles to prove a point against the Church and the Holy Father - defies reason and logic and charity. Do you notice the snide put-downs of the Holy Father?

Now before you shout ‘bashing’, hate speech & the like - think about this:

Why should anyone take Bishop Fellay’s (or Joe Soap or who-ever’s) word against that of the Holy Father and the Church:confused: The SSPX as an organization have been trying for 40 years to prove the Church and Pope’s to be in the wrong, and have as yet failed to do so. All they have achieved to date is to test the patience of the Popes, Church & catholics in general.

They have never put their case clearly enough to be properly resolved and appear to trade on liturgical abuses, so-called flaws in the documents of Vatican II and unfounded accusations against prominent clergy (including the Pope) as they continue on their own pathway.

Remember the Conditions laid down to them by Ecclesia Dei Commission in 2009?

. A commitment to avoid any public speech which does not respect the person of the Holy Father and which can be negative for ecclesial charity
.
A commitment to avoid the pretense of a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father and to not put forward the Fraternity [SSPX] in opposition to the Church.

A commitment to demonstrate the will to behave honestly in full ecclesial charity and in respect to the authority of the Vicar of Christ.

I’d say it’s better to listen to what the Holy Father says in Ecclesiae Unitatem rather than believe anything they have to say.

"5. Precisely because the problems that must now be addressed with the Society are essentially doctrinal in nature, I have decided 21 years after the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei and in conformity with what I had proposed (cf. *ibid., *art. 11 781) to rethink the structure of the Commission Ecclesia Dei, linking it closely to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
  1. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Deiwill therefore have the following configuration:
    a) The President of the Commission is the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
b) The Commission, with its own allocation of staff, is composed of the Secretary and officials.

c) The task of the Cardinal President, assisted by the Secretary, is to refer the principal cases and doctrinal questions to the judgment of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith through its ordinary procedures, and to submit the results thereof to the superior dispositions of the Supreme Pontiff.
  1. With this decision I have wished in particular to show fatherly solicitude to the “Society of St Pius X” in order that it rediscover full communion with the Church.
    I address to all a pressing invitation to pray the Lord tirelessly, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, “ut unum sint”.
    *Given in Rome, at St Peter’s, on 2 July 2009, the fifth year of Our Pontificate. *
    vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html
 
Dee, wonderful post!
…linking to SSPX articles to prove a point against the Church and the Holy Father - defies reason and logic and charity.
Click to expand...
Actually I think it speaks volumes, don’t you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top