Sspx

[popestpiusx]

If you are not going to regulate the Prot. arguments, then on what basis are you going to regulate trad arguments? There are just as many wacko prots and wacko novus ordo folks as there are trads, and the prots are a heck of a lot more attractive to kids than the traditionalists. I am not denying that there are nutcases on my end of the theological spectrum, but who is more likely to pull kids out of the Church?
And quite frankly I am tired of the entire traditional movement being labeled schismatic. What you people need to do is actually study sound theology so you can distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate traditionalism (and therefore argue more effectively against the latter) instead of painting us all with one brushstroke.

[popestpiusx]

Sorry about that phatcatholic. Hope I've not been to much trouble?

[lilac_angel]

I am aware that not all traditional Catholics are the same and have not said or implied that traditionalism in itself is bad - the Society of St. Peter, for one, is awesome, I hear. I only want to fight error where I see it. The Post-Vatican II Church is just as valid as pre-Vatican II, because the Church says so. Both traditional and non-traditional can be right if they are in line with Holy Tradition, it is not an either/or proposition.

If I see something that is contrary to Holy Tradition, I'd speak against it whether the person is Protestant or Catholic. Why make allowances for certain people who make unfair or incorrect evaluations, no matter what religion they claim to be?

Edited March 16, 2004 by lilac_angel

[Aloysius]

i'm not labeling all traditionalism schismatic. and i definitely didn't mark you schismatic. i commented, and i quote: "this may arise a problem" i think i should have been more clear, but i later was, and i quote: "okay, my comment was about being careful. if it continues the way it is, a discussion of what the SSPX is really about, okay. but if it goes into an anti-VII argument and all that, it's gotta be back alley for the sake of putting down mutinees in the Church."

lilac_angel had it right that traditionalists are the greater threat because they seek to twist the Church against itself.

i understand the distinctions within traditionalism. check the Q in the Q&A board and BLAZEr's answer: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=8855"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=8855[/url]

are you a 1, 2, or 3? if your a 1, there's no real problem. if you're a 2, there's a problem that we should discuss in the back alley so we're not causing a visible scandelous division within the Body of Christ, if your a 3 i'm takin blazer's advice because they DO drive you crazy, and they're the kind that make boards degrade into senselessness and chaos.

[popestpiusx]

I really hate it when I am forced into a corner where I have to defend those I don't necessarily totally agree with. I am not going to get into a debate on the merits of the Old Mass vs. the New (at least not right now), nor am I going to defend baseless accusations no matter who hurls them. What you people are failing to realze is that 1)Traditionalism is a very broad term. 2)The people you are arguing with do not necessarily represent the views of the SSPX. Al (if I may call you that for the sake of brevity) you stated that traditionalists are the enemies of the church and that it breeds bad fruits. Other than a couple morons you may have chatted with on here, how many traditionalists do you actually know? Can you substantiate the accusations you have made? You must stop painting all trads with the same brush.

Edited March 16, 2004 by popestpiusx

[popestpiusx]

blazer's distinctions do not match up exactly either, though he said at the beginning that they were not hard and fast rules. There are a couple things in there that are blatantly false.

[popestpiusx]

Furthermore, it may help you make proper distinctions in the future if you realize that the SSPX is a religious order. It has definitive positions on many issues 99% of which no real Catholic would disagree. It is very important to distinguish the actually members of the Society (priests and brothers) from those folks who may attend their chapels. These people are not members of the society. The SSPX does NOT believe the See of Peter is vacant. The SSPX does NOT believe the Novus Ordo is invalid (so long as it is said properly with all the necessary "stuff"). Please keep this in mind.

[littleflower+JMJ]

Al is not at all biased and has defended both sides very well in the past and does in fact know the difference between the legitimate and illegitimate.

he is very knowledgable in this area and in the faith.

he was merely cautioning how this phorum should be respected.

+JMJ

pax christi

[lilac_angel]

popestpiusx - Did you ever read the article of the guy involved with Canon law who was a member of the SSPX for eight years? It was entitled 'My Journey Out of the Lefebvre Schism.' Because he and others feel that it is schismatic, I was interested to learn more about why that is. (http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/lefebvre.htm)

Whoever I have spoken to, so far, who has been affiliated with traditionalism has rejected Vatican II as wrong and unCatholic. Yes, I know that not all traditionalists do this. But from what I've seen so far of the traditionalist world, one needs to be cautious. It's hard enough for those who have a sincere interest in the topic to determine who is who in the traditionalist world. I have no doubts, though, that a lot of good can come of societies such as the Society of St. Peter.

The reason I posted was because I wanted to learn more about it from sources other than those affiliated with the society. Using a search engine, a lot of SSPX-affiliated pages came up, and I wanted some outside opinions.

[lilac_angel]

[quote]The SSPX does NOT believe the Novus Ordo is invalid (so long as it is said properly with all the necessary "stuff"). Please keep this in mind.[/quote]

What stuff is that? I am curious.

Peace,
lilac

[popestpiusx]

Proper Form, Matter, and intention. The same stuff necessary for any valid sacrament.

[BLAZEr]

The Bishops of the Society of St. Pius X have been excommunicated. The society is in formal schism ever since Bishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained 4 priests as Bishops. They have valid but illicit sacraments.

[quote]STATUS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X 
Msgr Camille Perl
Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following letter was sent to an Australian man in response to a letter he addressed to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. He provided it to EWTN for use as we saw fit. The author is the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission responsible for the implementation of Ecclesia Dei, the Holy Father's letter announcing the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and encouraging broader implementation of the Indult allowing the celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei

N. 343/98
Rome, 27 October 1998




Dear ______,

We wish to acknowledge receipt of your document, Statements and Allegations Made By Some Australian Members of The Society of St. Pius X, which you sent to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger for evaluation. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters that come within our particular competence.

[u]First of all, we thank God that you have been able to be Sufficiently objective about the claims of the Society of St. Pius X to leave it and return to full communion with the Church.[/u] We recognize that this has been a long journey for you and your wife and we trust that all that you have experienced has helped you to be a better Catholic, aware of the wounds of the Church in its members on earth, but even more conscious of its indefectibility.

You will have noted that we are that very Pontifical Commission referred to in Father Jean Violette's letter to you of 21 January 1995 as made up of "liberals, modernists who have infiltrated the positions of authority in the Church and who are using their authority to do away with Tradition..." We trust that you will now understand that this is not a fair description of us or of our often difficult and delicate work.

We will now attempt to address ourselves to your questions in the order in which you have raised them.

a. The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that

[b]Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, [u]have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication[/u] envisaged by ecclesiastical law.[/b] (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).

Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.

b. [u]While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination [/u](cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.

[u]While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church[/u] classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

[b]It is precisely because of this [u]schismatic mentality[/u] that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.[/b]

b. Thus far the Church has not officially declared what Constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.

c. [b]It may still be difficult to characterize the entire Society of St. Pius X, but the documentation which you have submitted witnesses to a consistent condemnation of the new Mass, the Pope and anyone who disagrees with the authorities of the Society in the smallest degree. [u]Such behaviour is not consistent with the practice of the Catholic faith[/u].[/b]

d. We reiterate what we stated above: "The Pope is the Supreme legislator in the Church." Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself (cf. Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium #22-25).

e. The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.

f. You want to know how authoritative our responses are. We Must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but it is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the variou dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.

g. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rules primarily on the interpretation of the law. Any more Authoritative response to your questions than the one we have given would be more likely to come from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact that that Congregation has transmitted your dossier to us indicates that at this time our response should be sufficient. Statements of dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which touch on faith and morals are not considered infallible, but should be taken as norms of moral certitude.

i. Our response to your questions may be made public.



With prayerful best wishes I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,

(signed) Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary
[/quote]

[popestpiusx]

littleflower, If Al knows the difference (and I do not doubt that he does) then this should be reflected in his writing. In this thread, he has painted all trads the same, except when pressed on the isue and he stated that he was not calling all trads schismatic.

I am also suggesting that there may be a lack of experience outside of this forum and that may lend to the idea that all, or even most, trads are schismatic.

lilac, you state:
Whoever I have spoken to, so far, who has been affiliated with traditionalism has rejected Vatican II as wrong and unCatholic. Yes, I know that not all traditionalists do this. But from what I've seen so far of the traditionalist world, one needs to be cautious.

Leaving aside the issue of the merits (and nature of) the Second Vatican Council, let me pose to you a question. Let's say I am a protestant and I want to convert. I come upon two people. One is you and the other is Archbishop Weekland. You are both Novus Ordo Catholics but you are telling me different things (at least I hope you would be telling me different things than Weekland). Who am I to believe? You or the sodomite Archbishop? He is an Archbishop after all.

The point is, do not try to act as though the Trad world is full of wackos but the Novus Ordo world is quiet calm and stable. The Novus Ordo world is in a perpetual state of chaos. Who do you believe? Who does one listen to? For every one bad traditionalists you could name me I can find you 50 horrid Novus Ordo Catholics. Let's be realistic then when discussing these matters.

[popestpiusx]

blazer, at no point on this forum (that I am aware of) have I said that the SSPX is not in schism.

[BLAZEr]

[quote]PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO


"ECCLESIA DEI"



Rome, 28th September 1999



Dear Mr. R,

With regard to the [b][u]schismatic[/u] Society of St.Pius X[/b] we can say the following:


The priests of the Society of St.Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See and also because those ordained after the episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop. They are also excommunicated if they adhere to the schism. While up to now the Holy See has not defined what this adherence consists in, one could point to a wholesale condemnation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council and a refusal to be in communion with it. Further, it is likely that these priests, after eleven years in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, effectively adhere to the schism.


Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St.Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e, contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St.Pius X do not have the proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplied these faculties so that the sacrament was valid (cf. Code of Canon Law c.144).


The situation of the faithful attending chapels of the Society of St.Pius X is more complicated. They may attend Mass there primarily because of an attraction to the earlier forms of the Roman Rite in which case they incur no penalty. The difficulty is that the longer they frequent these chapels, the more likely it is that they will slowly imbibe the schismatic mentality which stands in judgement of the Church and refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff and communion with the members of the Church subject to him. If that becomes the case, then it would seem that they adhere to the schism and are consequently excommunicated.

For these reasons this Pontifical Commission cannot encourage you to frequent the chapels of the Society of St.Pius X. On the other hand it would seem that you are among those who attend Mass in chapels of the Society of St.Pius X because of the reverence and devotion which they find there, because of their attraction to the traditional Latin Mass and not because they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff or reject communion with the members of the Church subject to him. At the same time it must be admitted that this is an irregular situation, even if the circumstances which have caused it have come about through no fault of your own, and it should be remedied as soon as circumstances permit.

With prayerful best wishes I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Msgr Camille Perl (Secretary)[/quote]