SSPX

[jmjtina]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Oct 19 2005, 05:54 PM']We all know what cam42 and the others, and those who embrace modernist thought and yet are official theologians of PM think, and if another SSPX thread starts again, it'll just be the same- arguments.


[right][snapback]764246[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



CAm?!!! ARe we talking about the same Cam we know and love and who is the definition of orthodoxy to the T? Who has kept and earned the right to have "Lord and Master of Orthodoxy"?

Not only do you not study, but obviously you do not read people's posts. Either that or it's your total lack of understanding text.

Edited October 20, 2005 by jmjtina

[Cam42]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Oct 19 2005, 10:22 PM']

CAm?!!! ARe we talking about the same Cam we know and love and who is the definition of orthodoxy to the T? Who has kept and earned the right to have "Lord and Master of Orthodoxy"?

Not only do you not study, but obviously you do not read people's post. Either that or it's your total lack of understanding text.
[right][snapback]764314[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Oct 19 2005, 09:03 PM']sspx=bad bad BAD

schism is bad

thats all

lol :
[right][snapback]764305[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hey! Missed you on here, Semper!

[Donna]

Msr Perl of the Ecclesia Dei Commission replied to a layman that assisting at an SSPX Mass "for devotion" is licit. I've heard many a diocesan priest say it fulfills one's Sunday/holyday obligation, always w/ a warning against going, which always confuses people. It's not just like the Orthodox, this society is saying a once-revered Latin Rite Mass and sacraments. Anyway, Msr Perl warned against going to SSPX Masses with the intent of separating one's self from the Roman Pontiff, that that was a schismatic action apparently. He did not recommend doing so, he thinks there is inherent danger in it, even when it is licit.

There may be folks who do that. For the rest, I don't know how one can be "tempted" by the Mass. Maybe, if going on the assumption that SSPX layppl are disobedient, they don't trust /follow ANY priest and hold their little padre's feet to the fire, or are indifferent. Maybe some just want the old rite sacraments. Maybe some are just born into it the way the rest of the folk are and ho-hum.

I understand in this public phorum why people say as they do. Pope John Paul II did indeed make the excommunication and all the rest which has followed. Things like the Msr Perl letter, the Roman Cardinal Commission on the status of whether the Trid. Mass is forbidden (essentially Quo Primum) and the Roman Pilgrimage in 2000 where they let the SSPX Bishop Fellay preach in St. Peter's beg questions. Even if it's only, "did they let him speak publicly because now any non-Catholic leader can do thus in St. Peter's?" Either way, it does not make the Vatican always appear coherent with Tradition or with itself.

Ppl don't get the suspension...not the SSPX being suspended, or excommunicated. I mean the suspension, the limbo that the SSPX stays in. There is not (presently) a parellel heirarchy with SSPX layppl dis-recognizing their diocesan bishops and pretending the four SSPX bishops have jurisdiction over them. The SSPX say they resist post-concilliar Rome, up to the Holy Father, but I don't see them acting any different than 25 years ago (I mean in retrospect in writings, etc;). A. Lefbrve refused obedience to leaving the Mass and other things of his ordination. He didn't say "You are not the Pope. There is no such thing as the Supreme Pontiff". I suppose they could be acting in subterfuge and are lying when they say they're going on pilgrimage to pray for the Pope. Luther and Henry VIII and others did indeed say "There's no such thing as a supreme pontiff" which constitues schism, and those were judged in time and detail w/ written accounts of their errors, point by point. A. Lefbvre asked to be judged by the doctrine of the faith.

As far as I can see, the SSPX is literally and deliberately holding to a course in limbo; it's frozen at 1962, everything is. That 1958/1962 missal has a place to pray for the Holy Father and the diocesan bishop...they can't be praying for anyone but Benedict XVI and the local ordinary. How a priest can pray for the bishop and Pope and at the same time refuse that there is any such thing I do not know.

Edited October 20, 2005 by Donna

[Dreamweaver]

Hey, my newspaper just had an article today about the SSPX. Next Sunday they're having a "mission" of sorts in our town.

"Latin for the masses: Society of St. Pius X concerns Catholic diocese
By Sherri Richards, The Forum

Fargo diocese officials are warning parishioners not to attend an unauthorized Latin Mass offered by an international Catholic society.

Rome considers the Society of St. Pius X to be schismatic, or divided from the church.

But a priest with the society disagrees. The Rev. Paul Kimball said the group is preserving traditional Catholic doctrine."

[url="http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=106238&section=news"]Read the rest here.[/url]

All I can do is to pray for these people, that we may be all one under the Holy Father's leadership.

(edit: the link requires a name/password using Firefox, but links directly to the article using Internet Explorer.)

Edited October 20, 2005 by Dreamweaver

[Cam42]

[quote name='Donna' date='Oct 20 2005, 04:40 AM']Msr Perl of the Ecclesia Dei Commission replied to a layman that assisting at an SSPX Mass "for devotion" is licit. I've heard many a diocesan priest say it fulfills one's Sunday/holyday obligation, always w/ a warning against going, which always confuses people. It's not just like the Orthodox, this society is saying a once-revered Latin Rite Mass and sacraments. Anyway,  Msr Perl warned against going to SSPX Masses with the intent of separating one's self from the Roman Pontiff, that that was a schismatic action apparently. He did not recommend doing so, he thinks there is inherent danger in it, even when it is licit.

There may be folks who do that. For the rest, I don't know how one can be "tempted" by the Mass. Maybe, if  going on the assumption that SSPX layppl are disobedient, they don't trust /follow ANY priest and hold their little padre's feet to the fire, or are indifferent. Maybe some just want the old rite sacraments. Maybe some are just born into it the way the rest of the folk are and ho-hum.

I understand in this public phorum why people say as they do. Pope John Paul II did indeed make the excommunication and all the rest which has followed. Things like the Msr Perl letter, the Roman Cardinal Commission on the status of whether the Trid. Mass is forbidden (essentially Quo Primum) and the Roman Pilgrimage in 2000 where they let the SSPX Bishop Fellay preach in St. Peter's beg questions. Even if it's only, "did they let him speak publicly because now any non-Catholic leader can do thus in St. Peter's?"  Either way, it does not make the Vatican always appear coherent  with Tradition or with itself.

Ppl don't get the suspension...not the SSPX being suspended, or excommunicated. I mean the suspension, the limbo that the SSPX stays in. There is not (presently) a parellel heirarchy with SSPX layppl dis-recognizing their diocesan bishops and pretending the four SSPX bishops have jurisdiction over them. The SSPX say they resist  post-concilliar Rome, up to the Holy Father, but I don't see them acting any different than 25 years ago (I mean in retrospect in writings, etc;). A. Lefbrve refused obedience to leaving the Mass and other things of his ordination. He didn't say "You are not the Pope. There is no such thing as the Supreme Pontiff".  I suppose they could be acting in subterfuge and are lying when they say they're going on pilgrimage to pray for the Pope.  Luther and Henry VIII and others did indeed say "There's no such thing as a supreme pontiff" which constitues schism, and those were judged in time and detail w/ written accounts of their errors, point by point. A. Lefbvre asked to be judged by the doctrine of the faith.

As far as I can see, the SSPX is literally and deliberately holding to a course in limbo;  it's frozen at 1962, everything is. That 1958/1962 missal has a place to pray for the Holy Father and the diocesan bishop...they can't be praying for anyone but  Benedict XVI and the local ordinary. How a priest can pray for the bishop and Pope and at the same time refuse that there is any such thing I do not know.
[right][snapback]764718[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Donna,

Here is the [url="http://unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm"]link[/url] to the letter that you are speaking of. I believe that you may have made a mistake in your wording. Msgr. Perl says:

[quote]Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.[/quote]

It is never licit to attend their Mass. The reason being that:

[quote name='Msgr. Perl'] The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.[/quote]

While one can fulfill his obligation by going on Sunday, it is a sacrilege to do so, because the Mass is illicit.

The letter goes on to say (quite correctly):

[quote] Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice."[/quote]

The Vatican is quite consistent. I think that your misunderstanding of the licitness of the Mass creates the conundrum for you. There is none.

The heirarchy and the presybyterate of the SSPX are excommunicated. They are excommunicated, not because they celebrate the Tridentine Mass, but because they adhere to the licitness of the ordinations to the epispcopate and the incorrect view of Tradition. This is per [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html"]Ecclesia Dei, given Motu Proprio[/url] by Pope John Paul II.

The SSPX is not holding a course in limbo. The SSPX is in schism. There is more to being in schism than denying the Holy Father.....by definition. They refuse to submit to the Holy Father on the standing issues. (cf. CCC #2089)

I believe that you are confusing the SSPX with a sedevacantist view. They are not sede vacantist....they simply refuse to submit to the Holy Father on the pertinent issues.

[Dave]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Oct 15 2005, 06:34 PM']I unfourtunatley place my alliegance with tradition and not with pre-concliar ideas or a new mass that was written by protestants.
[right][snapback]759595[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Novus Ordo Mass was NOT, I repeat, [b]NOT
[/b]created by Protestants! That is a vicious lie that has existed for years and years!

[Dave]

[quote name='Donna' date='Oct 20 2005, 04:40 AM']How a priest can pray for the bishop and Pope and at the same time refuse that there is any such thing I do not know.
[right][snapback]764718[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, Catholics who are members or supporters of groups like Call to Action could probably be said to be in schism as well. They acknowledge Benedict XVI to be the pope, but they won't obey him. Same with the SSPX. That's what schism is -- refusal of submission to the pope and the bishops in union with him.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[img]http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images/090_PaulVIandProts.jpg[/img]


Paul VI posing with six Protestant theologians
who were part of the commission
encharged with writing the New Mass.

These Protestants were invited by Paul VI in order to make sure
that nothing in the New Mass would shock their heresy.
It is not surprising that the resulting Novus Ordo Mass has the flavor of Protestantism,
which means the taste of heresy.

[Dave]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Oct 20 2005, 07:20 PM'][img]http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images/090_PaulVIandProts.jpg[/img]
Paul VI posing with six Protestant theologians
who were part of the commission
encharged with writing the New Mass.

These Protestants were invited by Paul VI in order to make sure
that nothing in the New Mass would shock their heresy.
It is not surprising that the resulting Novus Ordo Mass has the flavor of Protestantism,
which means the taste of heresy.
[right][snapback]765428[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

They were observers ONLY! They didn't participate in writing the Mass! The Vatican has said more than once that they didn't. On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: "The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal" (Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649).

Edited October 21, 2005 by Dave

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[img]http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images/033_WilliamsJPII%20Kiss_SunVis_10-19-03.jpg[/img]


On October 4, 2003 at the Vatican,
John Paul II kisses the hand of Rowan Williams, head of the Anglican sect. He is known for his support of homosexuality.

[Dave]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Oct 20 2005, 08:16 PM'][img]http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images/033_WilliamsJPII%20Kiss_SunVis_10-19-03.jpg[/img]
On October 4, 2003 at the Vatican,
John Paul II kisses the hand of Rowan Williams, head of the Anglican sect. He is known for his support of homosexuality.
[right][snapback]765461[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So? That's the traditional mark of respect for a bishop. Non-Catholics kiss the pope's ring or a bishop's ring just as Catholics do, but it doesn't mean they accept the pope's or bishop's authority. In the same way, Pope John Paul II kissing the Archbishop of Canterbury's ring doesn't mean he accepts the latter's authority.

Another example, if you met Queen Elizabeth, you'd bow. But that wouldn't mean you were being a traitor to America by bowing in her presence. It would just mean you were showing her respect. That's how one shows respect to a king or queen!

You know, EENS, that rash judgment is a sin, don't you?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

believe me im not judging anything rashly. nor am i to say that the pope is sinning. but i also think its wrong for the vicar of christ to do that. show me some pre-concliar popes kissing an aglicans hand. do you think saint peter would kiss the hand of a heretic?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Oct 20 2005, 07:36 PM']believe me im not judging anything rashly. nor am i to say that the pope is sinning. but i also think its wrong for the vicar of christ to do that. show me some pre-concliar popes kissing an aglicans hand. do you think saint peter would kiss the hand of a heretic?
[right][snapback]765488[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Oh get over it!

I'm sure the Holy Father would've been much more effective if he ran around spitting on everyone he met who wasn't a Catholic rather than showing them respect!

Do you "Trads" really have nothing better to do than dig through everything straining to find any way a Pope was at fault, then dwell on this inordinately even after the Pope in question is dead?
What's the point??

Sam, you should spend more time training for wrestling, and less time mucking around on schismatic websites!

[Dave]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Oct 20 2005, 08:36 PM']believe me im not judging anything rashly. nor am i to say that the pope is sinning. but i also think its wrong for the vicar of christ to do that. show me some pre-concliar popes kissing an aglicans hand. do you think saint peter would kiss the hand of a heretic?
[right][snapback]765488[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Did any pre-conciliar popes meet with any Anglican leaders? Somehow I doubt that. So they didn't have the occasion to kiss any Anglican bishop's hand.

And the St. Peter allusion is irrelevant -- they didn't have Protestants in those days, and the only bishops they had were in the Catholic Church.