Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Trinity on October 27, 2007, 07:49:59 AM
-
What is SSPX trying to accomplish with Rome?
-
I'm not a spokesman for the SSPX, but I think I can answer this question by stating that all the Society is really trying to do it to preserve Catholic tradition by maintaining the same doctrines of of the Faith, the same Sacraments, and the same traditional Catholic Mass that were in existence prior to the Second Vatican Council which, even if it wasnt meant to do so, changed virtually everything in mainstream Catholic society.
This is admittedly very hard to do, especially since most if not all of the ordinary hierarchy are disdainful of (at best) and hostile to (at worst) the Society.
The Society does this in the hopes that, one day, a truly Catholic pope who respects and enforces Catholic tradition will ascend to the See of St. Peter. In the meantime, the bishops, priests, and laymen who align themselves with the Society recognise the current Pope (Benedict XVI) as such, and pray him.
-
Yes, I know you recognize Benedict XVI. So what you are saying is that SSPX is trying to get Rome to go back to the valid ordinations, consecrations and Masses which got bumped in favor of invalid ones. Is that correct?
What about the mission of the Church? Are they trying to do anything about that? What is the history of the active response to false ecuмenism?
-
"Yes, I know you recognize Benedict XVI. So what you are saying is that SSPX is trying to get Rome to go back to the valid ordinations, consecrations and Masses which got bumped in favor of invalid ones. Is that correct?"
Unfortunately, it's not that cut and dried.
The way it looks to me, the members (by which I mean the priests and bishops) look at Catholic Tradition as it existed for, say, 1,960 years. Then they look at what happened to the Church after, say, 1965. After comparing the two, they go, "Wait a minute: something is wrong! Holy Father, please take a look at the mess that has been made!"
So, they try to get Rome to at least talk about the problems that have occurred in the wake of Vatican 2, but Rome wont do that. When it comes right down to it, the Society cannot say with absolute, 100%, magesterial authority that everything that changed (such as the ordinations, consecrations, and Masses) is wrong. What they can say is that the state of the Church has deteriorated, and that it happened after -- and most likely, as a result of -- Vatican 2. In other words, they can just point out the facts and let Catholics of good will draw their conclusions.
Again, unfortunately, Rome will not even consider the possibility that Vatican 2 was (putting it mildly) not a good idea. The Society's position is "But, look what happened after Vatican 2! Cant we at least re-address the issue?" Rome says "No."
So, that being the case, the members of the Society shake their heads, shrug their shoulders, and try to go back to the way it was before the Council because that was the last point at which the Catholic Church clearly taught and defended the Catholic Faith.
This irks the Vatican to no end, I suspect, probably because they know that the Society is not, was not, and (I pray to God) will never be in Schism. Despite all the propaganda about the Society being schismatic, clerics in the highest circles of the Church have admitted at one time or another that the reality of the situation is precisely the opposite. I'm sure that has to make them angry.
The Society does not reject a single point of traditional Catholic doctrine and maintains Catholic Tradition almost fanatically. The rest of the Church is in a shambles, yet the Society is flourishing. They see that, too.
The Society is like the 900 lb. gorilla in the room: you just cant ignore it. On the other hand, Rome pretty much ignores the sedevacantists because they will simply die out over time. They have nothing to unite them: they bicker with each other and -- most importantly -- they deny the Pope, which is totally un-Catholic. They are, in effect, protestants with a small "p". I'm sorry if that offends you, but if you think about it logically, you'll see what I mean.
Rome also has nothing to fear from those working "within the system". They "drank the Kool-Aid", so to speak. In exchange for the *privilege* of saying the traditional Latin Mass, members of the FSSP or the ICKSP had to accept the validity and veracity of Vatican 2. So, like the crazy uncle you invite to dinner every once in a while, the ordinary hierarchy tolerates the traditional (now the "extraordinary" form of the) Mass to be said, and then goes back to being Novus Ordo the rest of the time.
"What about the mission of the Church? Are they trying to do anything about that? What is the history of the active response to false ecuмenism?"
Well, the SSPX websites say it better than I ever could, but I would say that the SSPX has tried in fact to take up the mission of the Church, in that it is going forth to all peoples and trying to bring them the traditional Catholic Faith. The Society is on every continent, albeit in small numbers and far-flung locations; but they are there.
As far as the active response to false ecuмenism, I go back to my earlier statement that the Society does not reject a single point of traditional Catholic doctrine; which, by extension, means that it absolutely rejects false ecuмenism and holds only the Catholic Faith to be the True Faith.
I hope this helps.
-
Yes, I know you recognize Benedict XVI. So what you are saying is that SSPX is trying to get Rome to go back to the valid ordinations, consecrations and Masses which got bumped in favor of invalid ones. Is that correct?
I don't think they consider the various new rites invalid, necessarily.
But the certainty of the validity of the traditional rites would be preferable. And the traditional rites are superior.
-
Of course, the Society isn't exactly spending all of its resources trying to solve the problems in Rome. In fact, from what I can tell, they actually devote very little time and energy to "fixing" the hierarchy. This might be obvious to some, but it seems that the little they do to keep an open line of communication with Rome marks the Society as nothing but "Rome friendly" and detracts from all of the other things they're doing to support priests and the faithful.
If the SSPX were tomorrow to decide that they don't believe Benedict to be a valid pope, what would change? For the Society, they'd simply drop the prayers for the Pope from their Masses and Bp. Fellay would stop sending the occassional letter to Rome asking for an opportunity for discussion. For Rome, it would mean they could write off the Society as yet another schismatic group and then go about their business without that 600 lb. gorilla watching closely every decision they make. How would that benefit anyone?
-
I was really wondering what will happen if suddenly the Superior General of the SSPX either declare that Benedict XVI is not the Pope or embrace the Novus Ordo novelty.
I guess this world would be really turned into a greatest madness.
-
And it seems to me that the greatest madness is the Shepherd in bed with the wolves who are decimating his flock. And worse, turning the hearts of the sheep from the true shepherd and toward their enemies. Also the sheep who are aware that he is doing that suffer the agony of mistrust in the shepherd and have to scrutinize everything he does for possible danger to themselves. So on the one hand we have the wolves who make no secret that they want us for lunch and on the other we have the shepherd telling us to "pet the wolves".
At best he is a near occasion of sin. And death.
-
"I was really wondering what will happen if suddenly the Superior General of the SSPX either declare that Benedict XVI is not the Pope or embrace the Novus Ordo novelty."
It would destroy the only doctrinally pure, organised resistance to the Novus Ordo within the Catholic Church. This is why both the Novus Ordo and the Sedevacantists hate the SSPX: because they are right.
-
If I hated SSPX I wouldn't be on this forum.
-
You know, the SSPX is doing concrete things to help remedy the Crisis, one priest at a time.
They have a house of re-formation where Novus Ordo priests can go to learn Thomistic philosophy/theology, Latin, moral theology, etc. and get conditionally re-ordained if necessary.
When Novus Ordo priests wake up to the Crisis, they can become great apostles of the truth. Of course Novus Ordo priests have been deceived to some degree -- but some haven't consciously turned from the truth themselves. Yes, I know that some have. But others haven't!
I know some sedes would disagree with me, but I've had enough experience to know that this is true. I have also talked to many others who ASSURE me this is true, and cite examples.
Matthew
-
What part of the SSPX broght me here is not clear. And, I think the world of Lefebvre, Mallerais and Williamson. Nonsense that I do not like them. THe SSPX sticker on the rear window of our family van has put me under surveillance at my independent chapel that is not-pro SSPX. So that theory does not prove true for me either.
-
"And, I think the world of Lefebvre, Mallerais and Williamson."
That's good to hear.
"Nonsense that I do not like them. THe SSPX sticker on the rear window of our family van has put me under surveillance at my independent chapel that is not-pro SSPX. So that theory does not prove true for me either."
I didnt mention the independents, although I probably should've. Is there some reason you go to an Independent chapel? Is there no SSPX chapel nearby? (The reason I ask is that you seem to be pro-SSPX.)
-
I know that from experience, Chant. That's why I said the NO should be declared a missionary field. There are a lot of NO's who are there for all the wrong reasons; primarily social reasons. The overall sense that you get inside the NO is that it is not about God or His Church, but about who's wearing, doing, saying what, who is a member because their great, great grandfather helped build he church and who isn't because they moved to the parish within recent memory. There are scandals and gossip galore and I could go on.
But there are some who ARE concerned about what is going on in Rome and in their diocese and parish; who don't think it is right and proper, but don't know what to do about it. It was a shock to some of us when word came down from the bishops that we were no longer allowed to even genuflect before receiving communion. Nor to bow our heads and cross ourselves after. We had to march up, receive and march back, chop chop.
When I was young I was warned that I would have the same reputation of the kids I associated with, so I was always careful not to get in with the "wild ones". SSPX association with Benedict XVI puts them in association with their brothers' murderers and the sworn enemies of Christ. I see no doctrinal purity there.
-
"SSPX association with Benedict XVI puts them in association with their brothers' murderers and the sworn enemies of Christ."
So, then what is your exact opinion of the SSPX? What you seem to be saying is that the SSPX are "guilty" by association by being loyal to the Pope, i.e. the successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ. In other words, the SSPX are "guilty" of upholding Catholic doctrine. Is that your opinion?
-
Quit misquoting. I said association with murderers and the sworn enemies of Christ, not doctrines. Besides, the pope doesn't necessarily uphold the doctrines. I believe SSPX does, but the Vatican is suspect and you know that yourself. So keep it straight.
A fair statement would be, SSPX upholds the doctrines of the Catholic church and the popes who have made common cause with the sworn enemies of Christ and murderers of their fellow Catholics. That they also uphold the pope cuts no ice at the bargaining table. Though why the heck Catholics should have to bargain with their own leader is a mystery to me.
I'll take it a bit further. For having upheld the doctrines of the Church, those popes have treated the SSPX as the enemy, while holding dear and near the enemies of Christ and His bride.
Is this not true?
-
I don't think they consider the various new rites invalid, necessarily.
Their so-called sacramental theology, especially where it touches upon the new so-called sacraments, is downright embarrassing.
-
"A fair statement would be, SSPX upholds the doctrines of the Catholic church and the popes who have made common cause with the sworn enemies of Christ and murderers of their fellow Catholics. That they also uphold the pope cuts no ice at the bargaining table. Though why the heck Catholics should have to bargain with their own leader is a mystery to me."
Trinity, what colour is the sun on the planet you inhabit?
-
I uphold the Papacy, I give no quarter to heretics. It is a blasphemy that a heretic holds the Chair of Peter.
Souls are being lost due to the false teachings of Ecuмenism while we stand and defend the cause for the damnation of so many. For shame.
-
I uphold the Papacy, I give no quarter to heretics. It is a blasphemy that a heretic holds the Chair of Peter.
Souls are being lost due to the false teachings of Ecuмenism while we stand and defend the cause for the damnation of so many. For shame.
It's almost humerous that you quote as your signature "when you define the sins of another, you define yourself as well" yet you just defined the sins of blasphemy, damnation of souls, and heresy.
I hope you think your quote means it applies to everyone but yourself because it seems there's hypocrisy running around. But that's what people do.
-
Day in and day out, MS, you define the sins of others, saying over and over again that they are ignorant and should read what you have read. You ought to blush at this statement:
"when you define the sins of another, you define yourself as well"
-
Am I a sinner, you bet. Am I a hertic that is for God to judge and not you. And, I choose that quote for some others who have appointed themselves Grand Inquisitor with no authority. Why would you believe someone even doubted the advice given by a priest in the SSPX and wanted to subject the priest to the inquisition as well. They are beginning to remind me of the members of the former "Heaven's Gate." Where all outside their little parish are doomed.
-
Day in and day out, MS, you define the sins of others, saying over and over again that they are ignorant and should read what you have read. You ought to blush at this statement:
"when you define the sins of another, you define yourself as well"
FOR THE READING IMPAIRED *** ALERT *** FOR THE READING IMPAIRED
That was her mantra, not mine. To use that as a sig line has nothing to do with me. You have to uphold yourself to the quotes you use. If not why quote it to begin with?
I don't care what you think of me Trinity, just use some logical thought once in a while, you will find a soothing relaxing sensation come to your soul. Until then get fired up because you can't understand anything.
-
ALERT for the answering impaired. I didn't say it was your statement---I said you should blush at the statement. You talk of charity, and make the rudest, crudest remarks you can think of. You hunt out sin like a blood hound and bay about it like one, too. And if you can't find any true sin, you build something into a sin. You talk about other people's ignorance and ignore your own. Your fangs are showing again.
-
I'd be more interested in hearing what you are trying to do without Rome.
-
I am no more without Rome than you are. I just don't spend my time deleting the errors and trying to figure out why the "pope" is in this condition and how to get him out of it. Been there, done that, exercise in futility. I figure I pray for him in that I pray for all souls. You stick to Catholicism before Vatican II; I stick to Catholicism before Vatican II. We are in the same boat, you just won't admit it.
-
I'd be more interested in hearing what you are trying to do without Rome.
We are simply living as Catholics have always lived - which is more than can be said for "Rome".
We should be glad to tell you any specifics, provided that you tell us how the Immaculate Spouse of Christ can be identified with the Novus Ordo Church.
You are sedevacantist in all but name; we are so in word and deed.
-
FOR THE READING IMPAIRED *** ALERT *** FOR THE READING IMPAIRED
A written message for the reading impaired?
BRILLIANT, Mikey!
What next? An audio message for the hearing impaired?
-
Gladius Veritatis said:
We should be glad to tell you any specifics, provided that you tell us how the Immaculate Spouse of Christ can be identified with the Novus Ordo Church.
Now here is a moral question that each of us must answer in guiding our own journey. Can one support a person who supports evil without supporting evil in the process???
-
A fair statement would be, SSPX upholds the doctrines of the Catholic church and the popes who have made common cause with the sworn enemies of Christ and murderers of their fellow Catholics. That they also uphold the pope cuts no ice at the bargaining table. Though why the heck Catholics should have to bargain with their own leader is a mystery to me.
Both the sedes and the Society look forward to a restoration of Rome and the papacy. But the former have no "bargaining table," nor do they suggest in its place, a means of improving the situation. They broke the "bargaining table" to pieces, thus declaring that they'll do no business with the post-V2 Vatican. Their only real (missionary?) function, as I see it, is to carp against and criticize the Society for its continued "association" with Rome. Their leadership doesn't really have any kind of a viable, proactive agenda, if I observe correctly. For them it's simple: the Chair is empty. The 'Rock' has vanished, and with it logically, the Church built upon that Rock. They have taken a position not unlike that of the early Protestant Reformers. They are in spiritual freefall.
-
Their only real (missionary?) function, as I see it, is to carp against and criticize the Society for its continued "association" with Rome. Their leadership doesn't really have any kind of a viable, proactive agenda, if I observe correctly.
What one sees on various fora is not the whole picture. I am sure your powers of observation are well above average, but often we simply do not have all the information necessary for a solid conclusion.
For them it's simple: the Chair is empty. The 'Rock' has vanished, and with it logically, the Church built upon that Rock.
The rest does not flow from the Chair being empty.
They have taken a position not unlike that of the early Protestant Reformers. They are in spiritual freefall.
Whilst I appreciate your pronouncement upon the spiritual state of an entire group of men about whom you know nothing, it might have been better if you had left this remark out of your post. God speed.
-
If the Chair is empty, that means that the visible head of the Church is no longer exists. He is gone. Why can't one reasonably speculate that if the head is gone, the body, effectively speaking, has disappeared, as well? We have no pope, so we have no visible, viable Church structure either?
This is not far from Protestant thinking, in my opinion. Luther called the pope a fraud and an "anti-Christ." Following on that He reasoned that the entire Roman Church had no legitimacy either. The sedes refer to the last four popes, if I am not mistaken, as "anti-popes." "(A)nti-Christ," "anti-popes," take your pick. These two pejoratives differ from one another but little.
I came out of a division of Protestant fundamentalism which argued that the church is invisible. That is, it doesn't have a visible, organized structure. Our sect's spiritual forefather, J.N. Darby, argued that the visible church had ceased to exist centuries earlier.
The sede thinks much the same way, in my opinion, though there may some qualitative differences, one being that, unlike many Protestants, the former does not overthrow and abandon, wholesale, basic tenets of the Catholic Faith.
-
If the Chair is empty, that means that the visible head of the Church no longer exists.
On the contrary, the chair has been empty over 250 times.
-
That's the problem -- it's not just about the "sede" (the Seat of Peter)
It's always an issue about the whole CHURCH --
So they should be called Ecclesiavacantists or some other term that implies that the True Church has gone "underground", "invisible", etc.
And THAT doctrine is even harder to swallow than their teaching on the current Pope.
Notice that even Gladius didn't address most of your points.
I agree that it smacks of the early Protestant reformers, who asserted that the Church had gone "invisible".
How many Sedevacantists have no problem with the current college of Cardinals? Do they grant them the Episcopacy, or do they deny them this, just as they deny the Pope his papal office?
Sorry, but without a college of Cardinals there will NEVER be a "true pope" elected. Hence the reason most sedes are extremely apocalyptic. They expect that St. Michael is going to personally choose the next pope, or that the world will end in a few years, etc. Others, breaking off into sub-sects, elect their own "popes".
As Bishop Williamson is fond of saying of late, "Kyrie Eleison!"
Matthew
-
If the Chair is empty, that means that the visible head of the Church no longer exists.
On the contrary. The chair has been empty over 250 times, yet the Church continues.
Yes, but not for 40 years at a stretch.
I suppose if I asked you "how will the Church return to normal?" or "How will we ever GET a pope?" you'd just respond with a trite response like "God knows".
That helps to dupe more people, because you're evading discussion about sedevacantism's logical conclusion. If one "thinks too much" about sedevacantism, he might be spiritually nauseated and repulsed.
Matthew
-
I don't mean to put words into his mouth, but I think by "empty 250 times," he refers to interim periods, during which, for any number of reasons, a pope's election was postponed or disputed. That is not the case here. We have a pope duly elected, (to all appearances), by the cardinals, and accepted by the majority of Catholics.
-
Notice that even Gladius didn't address most of your points.
As I was off to a meeting, it was not possible to address all points.
As I am off again to another obligation, I shall leave it for the present.
Btw, of course it is about the Church - and the Novus Ordo Church either is, or is not, identical with the Catholic Church.