Declaration on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecratio
(07-01-2013, 09:15 AM)lumine Wrote: Pope Paul VI suspended Archbishop LeFebvre from ordaining priests.
What about priests ordained by the currently un-excommunicated SSPX bishops?
Reply
(07-01-2013, 09:22 AM)lumine Wrote:
(06-30-2013, 11:23 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(06-30-2013, 07:30 PM)lumine Wrote: We don't have to predict bad outcomes.  They exist as we write.  Bishop Williamson is a loose cannon waiting to be fired off.  The SSPX has splits among them.  People believe that a true Mass, the NO, is a machination of Satan.  The outcomes are bad and have been bad.....
Yes, the Novus Ordo is Protestant and against the Council of Trent, and that is bad.

What you have stated is not Catholic, it is heretical to call the Holy Mass Protestant, to deny that it is truly the Holy Mass.
The comparison isn't perfect because Novus Ordo can be valid, unlike any Protestant "services."
Reply
(07-01-2013, 09:41 AM)lumine Wrote: Pope Paul VI suspended Archbishop LeFebvre from ordaining priests.  Any priests ordained by the SSPX have never been incardinated to serve as priests.
That's not true. As I mentioned earlier on this thread and this thread, there are SSPX priests with faculties explicitly granted to them by their diocese's bishop. And there are also priests with faculties from the indult groups (FSSP, ICRSS, etc.) and elsewhere who have joined the SSPX and not had their faculties revoked.
(07-01-2013, 09:41 AM)lumine Wrote: As for doctrinal differences, it is not within the authority of the SSPX to define doctrine.
But the SSPX bishops can judge—by virtue of their apostolic succession and the concomitant gifts of the Holy Ghost, especially by the gift of knowledge—"what is to be believed, from what is not to be believed, and for this the gift of knowledge is required" (II-II q. 9 a. 1).
(07-01-2013, 09:41 AM)lumine Wrote: That authority belongs to the Pope, and Pope Benedict XVI stated their were doctrinal differences.
Of course there are.
(07-01-2013, 09:41 AM)lumine Wrote: The SSPX has put themselves in a dangerous position spiritually.  They need to reconcile with the Pope and should have done so years ago.  The Pope lifted the excommunications with the hope that the SSPX would reconcile with him.
And, now it seems, also with the hope they'd accept the erroneous and even heretical parts of Vatican II. Are the innovations of Vatican II new symbols of faith, to be appended to the Creed?
Reply
The SSPX bishops have no doctrinal authority.  According to Rome, they do not exercise any legitimate ministry in the Church--teaching is part of legitimate ministry.  You can't preach unless you've been sent.

If the SSPX believe there are errors in certain magisterial acts, there are ways of going about addressing it (see Donum Veritatis 23-31).  They do not do this, however, and instead completely reject the authority of the Magisterium out-right.  They claim there a new kind of magisterium was invented and therefore it is not the real Magisterium and demands not assent, not even obsequium religiousum.  They sever the Magisterium from the subject-Church (which cannot be done).  This is the fundamental doctrinal error of the SSPX and, unfortunatley, it is a favorite of their ecclesiology professor in Econe, Fr. Gleize.

The Magsiterium teaching in a pastoral way is not new, but has existed as long as the Church has existed and as long as bishops have been pastors (this was formalized as the episcopal pastoral letter). The Church has never only defined truths in the abstract, but has always applied them to concrete circumstances in attempts to achieve the greatest good for the flock and all men. The supreme authority of the Chuch has done this frequently especially since the time of Leo XIII. The times when the supreme authority would only interveren to definitively judge doctrinal questions ended centuries and centuries ago.
 
Reply
(07-01-2013, 11:34 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(07-01-2013, 09:15 AM)lumine Wrote: Pope Paul VI suspended Archbishop LeFebvre from ordaining priests.
What about priests ordained by the currently un-excommunicated SSPX bishops?


The currently un-excommunicated Bishops of the SSPX cannot exercise any ministry in the Church, and ordaining priests is a ministerial function....
Reply
The deal here is this.

There are many Catholics that post on forums that have repeated what seems a thousand times that the SSPX clergy are currently suspended and have no active ministry in the Church at this time. At least two Church documents state that. The laity on both sides have read it.

Now, the Society has ignored the suspension and continues to administer Sacraments and pray Mass. We all know that.

The same documents that tell us the SSPX clergy are suspended and have no ministry also states they are free of ecclesiastical penalty at this time.

Instead or repeating ourselves, let's determine if administering sacraments is an ecclesiastical action.

There is a reason the SSPX has not been disciplined further because of their continued administering of Sacraments. Why don't we discuss the possible reason for this ? Rome isn't blind. They know the Society is still operating as they were before the excommunications were lifted.

That's my beef in all of this. Rome hasn't damned them yet, but laity post opinions that include lies and falsehoods as if they have ecclesiastical authority to do so.

Perhaps if we discuss the possible reasons Rome has not declared formal schism, then we might learn something. Both sides of the argument.
Reply
(07-01-2013, 03:30 PM)Whitey Wrote: The deal here is this.

There are many Catholics that post on forums that have repeated what seems a thousand times that the SSPX clergy are currently suspended and have no active ministry in the Church at this time. At least two Church documents state that. The laity on both sides have read it.

Now, the Society has ignored the suspension and continues to administer Sacraments and pray Mass. We all know that.

The same documents that tell us the SSPX clergy are suspended and have no ministry also states they are free of ecclesiastical penalty at this time.

Instead or repeating ourselves, let's determine is administering sacraments is an ecclesiastical action.

There is a reason the SSPX has not been disciplined further because of their continued administering of Sacraments. Why don't we discuss the possible reason for this ? Rome isn't blind. They know the Society is still operating as they were before the excommunications were lifted.

That's my beef in all of this. Rome hasn't damned them yet, but laity post opinions that include lies and falsehoods as if they have ecclesiastical authority to do so.

Perhaps if we discuss the possible reasons Rome has not declared formal schism, then we might learn something. Both sides of the argument.

Why do we not see this same (and conveniently sudden) approach when speaking of the Churches dealings with notorious sketchy theologians and dissident groups and various oddities like the Kiko Charismatics?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The SSPX want us to believe Rome is weak willed and full of modernist queers and so it's up to the less qualified to make judgement where sound judgement is lacking.

But when it comes to the SSPX suddenly we must take the most charitable and back-bending approach to cater to them so that they can get away with various modes of schismatic behaviour (listed throughout this thread) without anybody being allowed to say that they are schismatic (looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc).

That's double standard toff and it's not traditional.

Talk about lies and falsehoods - hah. Just ask the SSPX faithful what happens when you reconcile with Rome. 90% of them will tell you some bullshit story about having to say the new Mass or signing xyz documents or receiving CITH and having to say that such-and-such heresy is true etc. They are told a pack of lies constantly about Rome, about reconciliation, about traddy groups under Ecclesia Dei. It's absolutely sickening the kind of lies that are told and the cultish bullying that sometimes happens in SSPX chapels regarding non-SSPX traddies. I'm sick to death of people acting like SSPX and the Arhcbishop or hallowed ground that traddies need to make kissy-kissy about so that they can get their professional Traddy card.

I agree with a lot of what the SSPX says and I know that some of their priests are good, holy and faithful - and similarly for most of their faithful. Like I have said so many times, I am often tempted to just go ahead and throw in the towel and take the SSPX position. It's nothing to do with bitterness or hating the SSPX or being a neo-con or being a jew or being xyz. It's just common sense and tradition and sound principles and practical experience. Ten years ago one could probably be an SSPX'er no problemo. Post Summorum Pontificum and post-Benedict XVI it's getting harder and harder to sympathize with their behaviour, their sermons and their opposition to everything that isn't SSPX. It just makes no sense any more.
Reply
The difference is the SSPX is a Society of orthodox clergy. No liturgical abuse. No refusal to accept the fact that there will never be women clergy. No mixing of pagan and Eastern spiritualistic with Catholicism. No women showing their cleavage while acting as lector.

I could go on, but the point is, the reason they are disobedient is because they refuse to accept what Rome accepts. To do so is to enable all of these open sores festering on the Church.

Rome has issues and as much as I've stated I think the Society should reconcile and fight for Tradition, I now see the reasons why they won't. Doesn't matter if I support them or not. I can understand.

Reply
(07-01-2013, 04:05 PM)Whitey Wrote: The difference is the SSPX is a Society of orthodox clergy.

And so is Pope Michael and his clergy? Show me where Pope Michael isn't doctrinally orthodox. Doctrinal orthodoxy only goes so far in trying to show that you are not schismatic (and that's what we're dealing with here, not heresy, so their doctrinal orthodoxy I do not question too much).

Quote:No liturgical abuse. No refusal to accept the fact that there will never be women clergy. No mixing of pagan and Eastern spiritualistic with Catholicism. No women showing their cleavage while acting as lector.

All deplorable things - but Rome still teaches that women cannot be ordained priests or did you forgot it was Bl. JPII who reiterated that teaching and set it in stone? The Catechism still teaches that pagans and Eastern religions are wrong - as, evidently, does Pope Francis with his comments, and so did Benedict XVI (Assisi was disgusting but thats his problem not the papacy or the Churches problem). All these things you bring up are horrible yet not good enough reasons not to be in communion with Rome. Far from good enough. The Church will always have liturgical abuse, it will always have liberals, it will always have weirdo's. I promise you that you can live inside the bosom of the Church and never ever have to worry about these things.

Quote:I could go on, but the point is, the reason they are disobedient is because they refuse to accept what Rome accepts.

I know that. It's a bad judgemental call IMO since in fact 'Rome' does not accept these things. It's when you start seperating the eternal Rome from the living Church that you get into trouble. The SSPX see themselves now as Eternal Rome and the living Church now as some modernist heretical anti-Christ sect that takes all the blame for 'accepting' things. From what I see, Rome does not accept a lot of the crap. I agree, they need to do a lot more, and some things are pitiful, but it's just totally poor judgement for a bishop and his society not to submit to Rome when submission will cost them nothing in the way of doctrinal orthodoxy or liturgical life or piety.

Go to an FSSP parish for a year and you'll get exactly what you get at the SSPX minus the vitriol.

Quote:To do so is to enable all of these open sores festering on the Church.

That's anti-Catholic thinking. It's what atheists say about faithful Catholics - by staying Catholic we enable pedo's. I don't buy it. If you are within the bosom of the Church you are no more responsible for whacky liberals dissent than you are for me going out and committing a sin. And if you feel any responsibility, then feel it as a member of the Church and pray for me. Don't sit outside while the house is burning.

Quote:Rome has issues and as much as I've stated I think the Society should reconcile and fight for Tradition, I know see the reasons why they won't. Doesn't matter if I support them or not. I can understand.

I understand too. But as of now, or at least as of last year with PP Benedict XVI they had no reason not to reconcile. Zippo. Guess we will just have to disagree with no hard feelings. I am good friends with avid SSPX supporters and I understand their concerns. Well, not that whatever I understand or think matters much anyway. Just God's will be done.
Reply
Whitey, I agree, and it breaks my heart. I wish they would reconcile with all my soul, that they would accept the explanations clearing Vatican II of heresy charges; they could do so much good, reconciled to Rome and fighting for tradition!

...And yet it seems they're committed to maintaining that V.II is heretical. Rome is committed to the opposite teaching. Immoveable Object vs. Irresistible Force - schism fuel  :'((
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)