N/A Gone Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 someone wanna quickly educate me as to what an sspx exactly is? is that a protestant hating trad? I really have no idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 In brief it's a group in schism after the Archbishop superior general of the fraternity Consecrated four Bishops without approval of the Holy Father. It was originally founded in the 70s as a group that wished to preserve the Tridentine Mass and has been on rocky grounds since, and actually only exists today because of the current Holy Father's involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' post='961292' date='Apr 26 2006, 12:51 AM'] According to an ex-SSPX friend of mine they do have some heretical teachings within the society... [/quote] according to a normal Catholic friend of mine (myself) there are some heretical teachings in the Catholic Church but what we should discuss is the leadership. the leadership of the society removes and disciplines priests for sedevacantism and officially teaches in line with the decision of Pius XII against feenyism. the things they positively teach are very close if not within the bounds acceptable for a Catholic to believe. it is those things they negatively teach against which are wrong. it's like if someone believed in Limbo and taught Limbo, that would be acceptable within the bounds of Catholic doctrine. if they taught negatively that not believing in Limbo was heresy, they would be in error-- the type of error the SSPX is in. the SSPX's doctrines on EENS are pretty much within the bounds of Catholic doctrine; the SSPX's teaching that what is taught in Vatican II is heretical is where their error lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 I think that putting the old missal on an equal footing with the new missal would go a long way in restoring unity within the Roman Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='961307' date='Apr 26 2006, 01:39 AM'] I think that putting the old missal on an equal footing with the new missal would go a long way in restoring unity within the Roman Church. [/quote] When has the Church ever acted that way? When has the Church ever moved backward? Quo Primum did the very same thing as Missale Romanum, except it was 399 years earlier. That is naive and that is incorrect disciplinary theology. The Church has never moved backward in order to promote Tradition. Not once. Why now? I disagree. Why don't we simply push for proper implementation of the Missa Normativa? When done correctly it is as beautiful and theologically correct as the so called Tridentine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 There will always be a schism of some sort or another as long as people put their personal loyalty to a certain discipline or faith in an idea before Catholic Church teaching and obedience as a whole. That is protestantism and a lack of trust in God to keep His church on course. They cannot see the fault lies in themselves and not in the Church. They engage in an us[ the big bad wolf] vs them [ the poor little beleagured faithful remnant] mentality. Its their identity now, and many have too much at stake to come back. Hopefully the new generation will see the value of faithfulnesss AND obedience on all sides of the spectrum - trad and liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendan1104 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='961103' date='Apr 26 2006, 12:26 AM'] Bring us back to what? we never left. and no the universal indult is not enough for us to practice the true faith. the Universal indult and novelty teaching is still modernistic. we would need a re-interpretation of the vatican II documents. [/quote] we trad's have never stopped practicing and having the faith! you're crazy! in the words of john paul II, vatican 2 needs to be interpreted in the light of tradition- of course the heresies need to be corrected... [quote name='toledo_jesus' post='961219' date='Apr 26 2006, 01:36 AM'] ladies and gentlemen, you have your answer. Who in their right mind would give up the pleasure of being the sole repository of the TRUE FAITH? SSPX won't come back as an organization, but I think a lot of its members might. Some group will always remain outside...like the Protestants they strive to emulate. [/quote] the sspx, as bishop fellay has stated, is not the mystical body of christ, but it belongs to the mystical body of christ, the church [quote name='qfnol31' post='961292' date='Apr 26 2006, 02:51 AM'] According to an ex-SSPX friend of mine they do have some heretical teachings within the society... [/quote] ive never seen or heard heresy... enlighten us... [quote name='qfnol31' post='961300' date='Apr 26 2006, 03:19 AM'] In brief it's a group in schism after the Archbishop superior general of the fraternity Consecrated four Bishops without approval of the Holy Father. It was originally founded in the 70s as a group that wished to preserve the Tridentine Mass and has been on rocky grounds since, and actually only exists today because of the current Holy Father's involvement. [/quote] father schmidberger was the superior general, not archbishop lefebvre. and it was founded to form priests, and the rocky ground started when archbishop lefebvre refused to compromise the faith, and abandon saying the mass of his ordination... and it actually exists today because it is god's will that it exists... it would still exist without cardinal ratzinger's failed (as he himself admitted) involvement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='961362' date='Apr 26 2006, 06:32 AM'] There will always be a schism of some sort or another as long as people put their personal loyalty to a certain discipline or faith in an idea before Catholic Church teaching and obedience as a whole. That is protestantism and a lack of trust in God to keep His church on course. They cannot see the fault lies in themselves and not in the Church. They engage in an us[ the big bad wolf] vs them [ the poor little beleagured faithful remnant] mentality. Its their identity now, and many have too much at stake to come back. Hopefully the new generation will see the value of faithfulnesss AND obedience on all sides of the spectrum - trad and liberal. [/quote] The Pope says that schism happens when some aspect of the Faith is no longer loved within the Church...the schismatic group grows around that thing. The point of ecumenism is trying to find out what that lost thing is (still present, but no longer loved in the Church) and restoring it. [quote name='brendan1104' post='961421' date='Apr 26 2006, 07:44 AM'] ive never seen or heard heresy... enlighten us...[/quote] I honestly wish I could...when she's done with her finals maybe she can help us on it, but it'll be about three weeks... [quote]father schmidberger was the superior general, not archbishop lefebvre. and it was founded to form priests, and the rocky ground started when archbishop lefebvre refused to compromise the faith, and abandon saying the mass of his ordination... and it actually exists today because it is god's will that it exists... it would still exist without cardinal ratzinger's failed (as he himself admitted) involvement[/quote] Thanks for that part about the superior general. Although I believe that since the society had its roots in a city and the Archbishop of the city suppressed them. Cardinal Ratzinger helped them after they had been suppressed the first time to help the society open again, but that's when the troubles really started. It was not just since the Archbishop refused to compromise the Faith. And reading some of his writings, I do wonder about some of the things he has said. I would only argue that it exists by God's will only so far as the Orthodox exist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='brendan1104' post='961421' date='Apr 26 2006, 08:44 AM'] we trad's have never stopped practicing and having the faith! you're crazy! in the words of john paul II, vatican 2 needs to be interpreted in the light of tradition- of course the heresies need to be corrected... the sspx, as bishop fellay has stated, is not the mystical body of christ, but it belongs to the mystical body of christ, the church ive never seen or heard heresy... enlighten us... father schmidberger was the superior general, not archbishop lefebvre. and it was founded to form priests, and the rocky ground started when archbishop lefebvre refused to compromise the faith, and abandon saying the mass of his ordination... and it actually exists today because it is god's will that it exists... it would still exist without cardinal ratzinger's failed (as he himself admitted) involvement [/quote] I somehow doubt God wills such schism and sin to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='brendan1104' post='961421' date='Apr 26 2006, 08:44 AM'] we trad's have never stopped practicing and having the faith! you're crazy! in the words of john paul II, vatican 2 needs to be interpreted in the light of tradition- of course the heresies need to be corrected... [/quote] I would love to know just what you think are heresies.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 I suspect he'd probably cite things like ecumenism and religious liberty as "heresies," although he's been corrected more than once about that and shown how Vatican II's teachings on those don't contradict previous councils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezic Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 honestly i wonder if they would. It seems like the people who break with the Church commit the same sin that Eve did. She thought that she knew better than God, of course she was tempted, but it comes down to having it her way. The Protestant movement was about rejecting this authority because it was "wrong" and doing it their own way. There are now more than 30 000 denominations. While the schism of the SSPX doesn't compare directly to either of these, it basically says that the judgement of the Pope and God's Church was compromised and we want to do it our way because we are right and our judgement isn't compromised. If humility and obedience again enter into the equation it is possible. Bredan i would disagree about the Holy Spirit willing the division that has ensued from the SSPX. It might be said though that He is using this society to refocus the eyes of the Church on traditional ways of doing things, essentially using something that was bad as something that can be done to build up the Church, but this is not willing it to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='Dave' post='961637' date='Apr 26 2006, 11:51 AM'] I suspect he'd probably cite things like ecumenism and religious liberty as "heresies," although he's been corrected more than once about that and shown how Vatican II's teachings on those don't contradict previous councils. [/quote] Yes, I know that he's been corrected. I have had a hand in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 It may just be me, but it seemed that Brandon was saying the heresies following from a bad interpretation of Vatican II need to be corrected...With that I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='Cam42' post='961357' date='Apr 26 2006, 04:15 AM'] When has the Church ever acted that way? When has the Church ever moved backward? Quo Primum did the very same thing as Missale Romanum, except it was 399 years earlier. [. . .] [/quote] I don't see it as "moving backward"; instead, I see it as simply recognizing the beauty of the previous missal. You are of course free to hold your own opinion on this matter. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts