Cam42 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 [quote name='CrossCuT' date='Oct 20 2005, 10:41 PM'][color=330000]Both masses are valid and approved. I go to the new mass usually. But I have been to the old mass a couple times, it is very beautiful! [/color] [right][snapback]765598[/snapback][/right] [/quote] CrossCut, the Masses celebrated by the SSPX are not approved. The only approved indult is that which is sanctioned by the Church through Coalition Ecclesia Dei. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 20 2005, 09:43 PM']Sam, it doesn't matter....John Henry Cardinal Newman was an Anglican, I can deduce that at some point he would have kissed the ring of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He was a fellow at Trinity College after all. Sam, you are being ridiculous. [right][snapback]765600[/snapback][/right] [/quote] he kissed it before he was catholic. so maybe he regretted it. we don't know and i don't think its very important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Whatever Sam, The SSPX is schismatic. It is illicit to attend their Masses. The priests and bishops are excommunicated. These are facts. These are indisputable. If you think otherwise, prove it.... The rest is symantics....and as far as Card. Newman is concerned......you have no idea, AGAIN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 you have no idea about cardinal newman either. you just made something up about how "you where sure" he did before he was even a priest or a catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Oct 20 2005, 10:50 PM']you have no idea about cardinal newman either. you just made something up about how "you where sure" he did before he was even a priest or a catholic. [right][snapback]765610[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Actually, I do. I am just not getting into this with you. Perhaps you should study [url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ22.HTM"]this website.[/url] There are some other things you should read, perhaps his [url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia/index.html"]Apologia Pro Vita Sua.[/url] Then you can talk about Cardinal Newman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Hey Cam. Something was left out from the Msr Perl quote: ______________ Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was: "1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X." His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating: "2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin." [url="http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm"]http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm[/url] _________________ The few sentences previous to that quote state what you had posted: The Masses are valid but illicit, the priests are suspended, etc; So the Masses are valid but illicit but one may attend but one should not. These nuances do exist and I ask why if it's a clear-cut case of schism? Well, no one's going to tell ME, I'll be left wondering, oh well. Nor am I am trying to shovel dirt nor troll , but still the same person as when I was a catechumen, asking what's the deal. I thank you for detailed responses, that's much better than the barbs coming out w/ the "s" word being hurled. That's what bugs me, whether it's liberal Catholics moaning about the pope should raise all their children if he wants birth control, with never one word about the true teaching. Or whether it's this. I'd still be interested why the Roman Pilgrimage was allowed to take place and SSPX Masses celebrated in Rome if all are schismatic and excommunicated. This is a sincere inquiry on my part because I don't know. Cam, I am not confused nor mistaking sedvacantism with the SSPX. The reasons behind the illicit episcapol consecrations have some bearing (not even mentioning the new code which supports this), and those have much to do with celabrating the Tridentine Mass: with not upholding St. Pius' V's document Quo Primum - which is supposed to protect from penalties and centures inflicted from saying that Mass. As an aside, it strikes me as quite odd that a pope would warn against clergy persecuting priests for saying Mass! The assertion that Quo Primum is diciplinary and examples given why it is, I have heard. I don't agree with them. Have a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 [quote name='Donna' date='Oct 21 2005, 02:26 AM'] The assertion that Quo Primum is diciplinary and examples given why it is, I have heard. I don't agree with them. [right][snapback]765829[/snapback][/right] [/quote] QP is a disciplinary document dealing with the Mass.The Mass itself was altered less than 40 years after it was written. It has been altered many times since, because it serves the needs of the Church. Like or dislike doesn't change facts. If you want to persue this matter with Cam please do so on PMs. This thread is closed [and not because of Donna] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts