The Sspx

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

Why is it ridiculous? The vast majority of Greek Orthodox clergy are not those who left the Catholic Church personally. The SSPX priests are all in personal, formal schism from the Catholic Church. They were once a part of the Church, fell into heresy and denied the faith. Todays Greek Orthodox were never in the Catholic union in the first place.
What do the number of years really have to do with anything? Luther was only "arguably heretical or schismatic" for one day when he posted his 95 theses, does that make any marriages he witnessed post-excommunication any more valid?

Also - the Orthodox are not a "sect", they are a True Sacramental Church with valid orders and sacraments - as Catholics one should have the same respect our Holy Father has for the Eastern Churches.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1424352' date='Nov 24 2007, 07:46 PM']That's ridiculous. So a sect which denies the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff (among other dogmas) and is in a more than half-a-millennium old schism (the divide between the Catholic Church and the Eastern schismatics only formally occurred in the post-Florentine era) has valid Penance and Matrimony but a group which is only arguably heretical or schismatic and has only been so for less than 30 years which accepts all the dogmas of the Catholic Church (if not also the doctrines) does not?[/quote]

Edited November 25, 2007 by PopeClementI(MorClemis)

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='PopeClementI(MorClemis)' post='1424432' date='Nov 24 2007, 10:05 PM']Why is it ridiculous? The vast majority of Greek Orthodox clergy are not those who left the Catholic Church personally. The SSPX priests are all in personal, formal schism from the Catholic Church. They were once a part of the Church, fell into heresy and denied the faith. Todays Greek Orthodox were never in the Catholic union in the first place.
What do the number of years really have to do with anything? Luther was only "arguably heretical or schismatic" for one day when he posted his 95 theses, does that make any marriages he witnessed post-excommunication any more valid?

Also - the Orthodox are not a "sect", they are a True Sacramental Church with valid orders and sacraments - as Catholics one should have the same respect our Holy Father has for the Eastern Churches.[/quote]

There are several Princes of the Church, such as Cardinal Hoyos, who have said the SSPX is not in formal schism. Moreover, the SSPX are not heretics since they don't deny any dogmas (certain priests may possibly deny certain doctrines, which is what this poll was originally about, but, as I have mentioned, the purpose of this poll was merely to demonstrate that the Eastern Catholics must accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Church just like the SSPX must).

The situation of the SSPX and that of Luther are really not comparable since not only were most of Luther's theses condemned (cf. [i]Exsurge Domine[/i] of Leo X, Denzinger 741-781), but an entire Ecumenical Council (that of Trent) was convoked to deal with his heresy (i. e. Protestantism). In addition, Luther was solemnly excommunicated, whereas only the Bishops of the SSPX, and not its priests were excommunicated (cf. Ecclesia Dei, No. 3).

It is incorrect to claim that the Greek Orthodox are not a sect. The first definition of sect is this: "A dissenting or schismatic religious body" (cf. Webster's Dictionary). The Greek Orthodox are a sect as they are in schism with the Church of Christ which "subsistit in Ecclesia catholica." (cf. Lumen Gentium) and are therefore schismatic ([i]nota bene[/i]: I am not using this term in an uncharitable or rude manner, I am merely trying to state a fact).

I would like to add, though, in case some may think I am a member or attendee of the SSPX, I am not. I assist at what was, before [i]Summorum Pontificum[/i], an indult Mass according to the 1962 Missal said by diocesan priests.

I would also like to add that the confessions heard by and marriages assisted at by SSPX priests may be invalid, but I have not seen any convincing evidence that this is so. And, as always, I submit to the authority of the Church.

Edited November 25, 2007 by StThomasMore

[qfnol31]

Just for fun...

If the council were heretical, as some claim, would it in fact be Ecumenical?

If it's not (which if it were indeed heretical it could not be), then the last Ecumenical would be Vatican I (which is actually negated by the same stance as that which rejects Vatican II, though most people ignore the connection), so that leaves us with Trent as the last Ecumenical Council, according to the SSPX logic.

Ergo, the answer must be yes to the first one no matter what...it's a trick question!

[goldenchild17]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1435137' date='Dec 16 2007, 11:03 PM']Just for fun...

If the council were heretical, as some claim, would it in fact be Ecumenical?

If it's not (which if it were indeed heretical it could not be), then the last Ecumenical would be Vatican I (which is actually negated by the same stance as that which rejects Vatican II, though most people ignore the connection), so that leaves us with Trent as the last Ecumenical Council, according to the SSPX logic.

Ergo, the answer must be yes to the first one no matter what...it's a trick question!
[/quote]

Since when have the SSPX denied any dogmas or doctrines defined by Vatican I? The last I heard the only ones who denied that Council were the Old Catholics...

[goldenchild17]

[jeffpugh]

I think our friend Goldenchild is hinting something...

[goldenchild17]

maybe? paper bags are amazing...

actually though I'm really just getting tired of these kinds of discussions. The same old stuff is circulating through these discussions and a correct (in what I believe is the Church's mind) understanding is not going to be found on this forum for awhile I think. Which is why I've stopped pushing for the allowance of discussing my beliefs (which do not mirror that of sspx btw...). That's not a criticism by any means. I think some people here know enough about it, but by and large until the restrictions on such discussions are fully lifted, a general forum understanding of the other side's position will not be reached. But in the meantime it's pointless to carry on these repetitive superficial discussions that never actually go anywhere useful.

p.s.if this discussion were to continue I certainly would also (as STM asked) like to see just what doctrines and/or Church laws the SSPX (or any alleged legitimate "rad-trad" community i.e. CMRI, SSPV etc.) rejects or has violated.

Edited January 13, 2008 by goldenchild17

[qfnol31]

I actually agree that your beliefs are different than those of the society.

I just think your beliefs are a little more thought-through and honest.

Of course, I think you're a lot more like the Orthodox than you'll ever know or admit.


I like the Orthodox.

Edited January 13, 2008 by qfnol31

[goldenchild17]

One big difference. I don't reject the primacy of the office of the papacy, just the man claiming it. It is against Catholic teaching to hold the former position, and allowable to hold the latter.


I like the Eastern Rite Catholics. I used to go to a Maronite Rite parish for three years. It was pretty sweet.

Edited January 13, 2008 by goldenchild17

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070410"]Cardinal Castrillón: SSPX not in schismCatholics who attend SSPX masses not schismatic[/url]

[url="http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070807"]SSPX in schism? You can believe Fr. Newman... or you can believe the Church[/url]

[url="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/03/ecclesia-dei-sspx-priests-and-faithful.html"]Ecclesia Dei: SSPX priests and faithful are not "excommunicates"[/url]

[qfnol31]

Pope has supreme authority in those matters, an authority flowing directly from Christ and not given by Canon Law or Council. It is just spelled out by a Council.

Ergo, no one can disagree with his judgments according to the Catholic Tradition.

I'm taking a class on Ecclesiology, and I can tell you that this has been something that the Church determined well before Vatican I.

[qfnol31]

Plus it is the Bishops which matters.

What they teach is not in accord with the Church's tradition, or anything outside of the years 1800-1935.

[Resurrexi]

Bump.

P.S. I would now marriages presided over and confessions heard by SSPX priests are invalid, whereas, earlier in the thread, I stated I didn't understand why, now I do

BTW, if I recall correctly, the priests of the SSPX are excommunicated as well, but by by latae sententiae, and not by [i]Ecclesia Dei adflicta[/i].

Edited August 24, 2008 by StThomasMore

[Justin86]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1636497' date='Aug 24 2008, 06:00 PM']BTW, if I recall correctly, the priests of the SSPX are excommunicated as well, but by by latae sententiae, and not by [i]Ecclesia Dei adflicta[/i].[/quote]
That doesn't make them any more sympathetic. Politicians who claim to be Catholic, but vote for abortion are excommunicated under latae sententiae as well.