Do you support the SSPX?

[Resurrexi]

I do not support the SSPX, but I was wondering how many Phatmassers did...

[Cam42]

No way.

I support them returning to Rome with all humility and acceptance of ALL Church teaching.

[brendan1104]

Oremus pro invicem.

[Cam42]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Apr 5 2006, 10:02 PM']Oremus pro invicem. 
[right][snapback]937150[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That would be "Oremus Pro Invincem." And yes, we should pray for each other.

My prayer for the SSPX is that they return to the Church in all humility and accept ALL the Church teaches.

[OLAM Dad]

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

my prayer is that i pass my latin quiz tommorow.

[MilesChristi]

Absolutely not.

I pray that they will submit and return to full communion with the Holy See.

[goldenchild17]

Even though I have been supporting ultra-traditionalists in certain threads, SSPX is one that I cannot support. No matter where my search takes me, I highly doubt I will ever reconcile with their arguments.

[Peccator]

I'd be lying if I said I do not feel sympathies toward their cause...because I do. I however would not support them because they chose to go into schism rather than reform the church the right way - from the inside.

I do pray that they come back...

[cappie]

SSPX leader hopes Vatican will take "first step"

Apr. 04 (CWNews.com) - Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), says that a Vatican initiative allowing wider use of the Latin Mass would be a welcome "first step" to satisfy the demands of traditionalist Catholics. But the leader of the Lefebvrist group says that it is still "premature" to speak about a full reconciliation between the SSPX and the Holy See.

In an exclusive interview posted on the DICI web site, Bishop Fellay acknowledged the widespread rumors that Pope Benedict will soon issue a "universal indult," allowing priests anywhere to celebrate Mass using the Tridentine rite, which prevailed throughout the Roman Church before the liturgical changes that followed Vatican II. The traditionalist leader said such a document could help to "create a new atmosphere in the official Church." He explained: "It would be a first step toward making traditional Catholic life possible again."

In talks with Vatican officials, aimed at restoring full communion between the Holy See and the breakaway traditionalist group, SSPX leaders have demanded that the Vatican allow free use of the Latin Mass throughout the world, and rescind the decrees of excommunication issued against Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the four traditionalist bishops he ordained in 1988.

Those two steps, explained Bishop Fellay (who is one of the prelates involved), would help restore traditionalists' confidence in the Vatican. "The traditional Mass being no longer on probation and the ministry of traditional priests no longer clouded by the suspicion of excommunication," he said, would give traditionalists reason to trust Vatican negotiators in further talks.

However, the SSPX leader discouraged further speculation about a Vatican move setting up an apostolic administration to serve traditionalists. Such a move, he said, would be "premature" until a climate of trust had been restored.

Bishop Fellay told his interviewer that SSPX leaders believe that they are fulfilling a crucial need for the Catholic Church, by "safeguarding what is first and foremost the patrimony of the universal Church." He said that SSPX leaders are not deterred by the decrees of excommunication issued by the Vatican, "to which we never ascribed any canonical validity."

[DemonSlayer]

Only if they end their schism.

[Amator Veritatis]

My answer is contingent upon the clarification of the meaning of "support".

[OLAM Dad]

[quote name='Peccator' date='Apr 6 2006, 03:37 AM']I'd be lying if I said I do not feel sympathies toward their cause...because I do. I however would not support them because they chose to go into schism rather than reform the church the right way - from the inside.

I do pray that they come back...
[right][snapback]937432[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oh, they very much have my sympathies. I even considered joining their movement... for about a microsecond. Either you believe in the Truth or you don't, period. You can't [b]mostly [/b]believe.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 6 2006, 07:03 AM']My answer is contingent upon the clarification of the meaning of "support".
[right][snapback]937504[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


"It depends on what is is"

[Amator Veritatis]

By the way, Cam, [i]invincem[/i] is not a Latin word, as far as I am aware. Perhaps it represents a usage variant, but it is most likely simply an error. I have not found it in any of my Latin dictionaries as a variant. Interesting, however, is the fact that this error seems to be widespread in various articles or statements widely dispersed, especially on the Internet. My best conjecture is that, among those who have completed little or no formal studies in Latin, there is some confusion with the widely known verb [i]vinco, vincere, vici, victum[/i] meaning [i]to conquer, to overcome, et al[/i]. The popular phrase, "let us pray for one another", was properly cited originally, i.e., [i]oremus pro invicem[/i]. The word [i]invicem[/i] is an adverb meaning [i]mutually, reciprocally [/i]or [i]in turn, alternately [/i][i]et al[/i].


[quote]Oh, they very much have my sympathies. I even considered joining their movement... for about a microsecond. Either you believe in the Truth or you don't, period. You can't mostly believe.[/quote]

OLAM Dad, this is, as far as I understand it, precisely the position of the SSPX. They maintain that one cannot simply believe part of the truth but must hold all of it, namely every dogma of the Catholic Faith. Those who compromise these teachings have "erred from the way of truth", cf., Wis. v.6, and have abandoned part of the Truth. This problem presents itself primarily in the heresy of Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies cf., [i]Pascendi[/i]. In any event, the SSPX, whatever may be one's opinion of the organisation, does not fail in any regard pertaining to the Catholic Faith. They do not fail to hold any teaching of the Church. They are by no means heretics. Quite the contrary, they are one of the few organs within the Church still defending Truth, their canonical status notwithstanding. If one were to argue against supporting them as a result of their canonical status, that position would be more tenable.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Amator Veritatis]

[quote]"It depends on what is is"  [/quote]

This comparison is not equivalent. Support might entail moral support for their cause, ideological support for their irregular canonical status, monetary support of their Order, spiritual support by prayer for them or by assisting at their Masses, [i]et al[/i]. What precisely is meant by "support" in the original question is not yet clear, and as a result, I have withheld a response.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I prostrate myself before the Lord that the Spirit of Truth might move and support them in returning to communion with Rome and giving up their obstinant refusal to submit to the authority of the Holy Father.

[Era Might]

The SSPX is whack.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 6 2006, 08:11 AM']OLAM Dad, this is, as far as I understand it, precisely the position of the SSPX. They maintain that one cannot simply believe part of the truth but must hold all of it, namely every dogma of the Catholic Faith. Those who compromise these teachings have "erred from the way of truth", cf., Wis. v.6, and have abandoned part of the Truth. This problem presents itself primarily in the heresy of Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies cf., [i]Pascendi[/i]. In any event, the SSPX, whatever may be one's opinion of the organisation, does not fail in any regard pertaining to the Catholic Faith. They do not fail to hold any teaching of the Church. They are by no means heretics. Quite the contrary, they are one of the few organs within the Church still defending Truth, their canonical status notwithstanding. If one were to argue against supporting them as a result of their canonical status, that position would be more tenable.
[right][snapback]937562[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
My problem with them is that, they see so many grave errors, and there are many sedevacantist priests(okay maybe not many but they are there) within the order. And yet they are trying so hard apparently to reconcile with something they don't agree with. If they reconcile they are going to be forced to accept Vatican II and the new mass as valid and fine. This is something they had been fighting up until the time they happen to want back in...

[Amator Veritatis]

Their hope is that they will not have to accept Vatican II and the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] as "valid and fine". In fact, they would never be regularised under such circumstances. The SSPX does not necessarily hold that the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] is invalid. On their website they state that its validity is doubtful, at least in the vernacular form, as a result of the improper rendering of the [i]pro multis[/i] as [i]pro omnibus[/i]. In fact, the priest of the SSPX with whom I am most closely associated expressed thoughts that would indicate his acceptance of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] as a valid Mass, even if it be objectively inferior to the traditional Mass. As far as accepting the Mass as "fine", that is another question entirely which is not relevant to the matter at hand, for the Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil was not required to accept the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] to this extent in their rapprochement. As far as accepting Vatican II as "valid and fine", all in the SSPX already recognise Vatican II as a Council of the Church, and this is the official position of the SSPX. Whether the interpretations of the Council or the ambiguous pastoral statements within the Council are "fine" is another matter entirely, one which was not necessary for the rapprochement for Campos. With that being said, it would seem that the SSPX would not be required to accept as many terms as some might. In fact, it is entirely possible that they will be regularised without any retractions whatsoever.