missionseeker Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 It seems like they have much more than this issue that they don't agree with. EENS, women, the valdidty of documents after VII. So I was wondering what's gonna happen with them?
Dave Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 It would take a lot more than a universal indult to bring SSPXers back to the Church. One of the main things they'd need to help bring them back is a huge dose of humility -- something in which most of them seem to be sorely lacking.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 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.
Aloysius Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 I don't foresee a long-term schism. They could not sustain it unless they went full out sedevacantist. So long as they believe the seat of Peter to be filled, they cannot tolerate a multi-century schism. Short term roadblocks to reunion notwithstanding, we're not witnessing a great schism like that of 1054, we're witnessing a temporary one to be sure. and their doctrines regarding extra ecclesiam nulla sallus is not feenyite, they officially reject feenyism, so it's not really outside the realm of Catholic doctrine. the problem is not their pro-EENS doctrine, but their anti-Vatican II doctrine; and that's really not the same thing. anyway, a long-term schism could not be sustained so long as they continue to believe in the primacy of the Pope and that the pope in Rome is the valid pope.
Cam42 Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='961103' date='Apr 25 2006, 10:26 PM'] 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] So you're SSPX again, Sam?
MichaelFilo Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 Many would. Many would not. Ecumensism, and the teaching that heretics are, for whatever reason, a part of the same church they reject, bothers most. And no matter how you see it, if you see the Novus Ordo, and the same people who call you Catholics, you'll just have an elite class and then the common rabble. There is a sure rift between those who keep to the traditions of the past, and those who live in the moment. God bless, Mikey
toledo_jesus Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='961103' date='Apr 25 2006, 10:26 PM'] 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] 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.
MichaelFilo Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='toledo_jesus' post='961219' date='Apr 25 2006, 11:36 PM'] 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] That was beautiful... because we know the SSPX wants to emulate the Protestants. Surely, I don't like the SSPX in it's actions, but at least throw some fair criticism. It wasn't even ironic, as they dont' want to leave the Church, while Protestants wanted to see the whore of babylon destroyed.... and by that I mean what they supsected that whore was. God bless, Mikey
toledo_jesus Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='MichaelFilo' post='961222' date='Apr 25 2006, 11:40 PM'] That was beautiful... because we know the SSPX wants to emulate the Protestants. Surely, I don't like the SSPX in it's actions, but at least throw some fair criticism. It wasn't even ironic, as they dont' want to leave the Church, while Protestants wanted to see the whore of babylon destroyed.... and by that I mean what they supsected that whore was. God bless, Mikey [/quote] Please, work with me. They are like Protestants in that they feel they can determine what is the True Faith, and deny the legitimacy of the current Magisterium. They have this Protestant attitude...it's a stretch I know, but it's not supposed to be academic, it's supposed to make the point that they are rebellious and by their rejection of authority have set up a Protestant Church which apes 1960s Catholicism.
MichaelFilo Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='toledo_jesus' post='961226' date='Apr 25 2006, 11:46 PM'] Please, work with me. They are like Protestants in that they feel they can determine what is the True Faith, and deny the legitimacy of the current Magisterium. They have this Protestant attitude...it's a stretch I know, but it's not supposed to be academic, it's supposed to make the point that they are rebellious and by their rejection of authority have set up a Protestant Church which apes 1960s Catholicism. [/quote] I would, but to do so would mean to assume something about the natur eof the two parties (protestants and SSPXers) tha twould not be true. So I must debate your use of the word. Surely Protestants sought to leave the Church altogether, SSPXers seeks to return it to the old fformat, they have no intention of leaving the Catholic Church, regardless of the possible excommunication declared on them. God bless, Mikey
qfnol31 Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='961103' date='Apr 25 2006, 09:26 PM'] 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] The problem with this mentality is that it implies that Vatican II cannot be re-interpreted as of right now...which makes me sad. Both "sides" work off of a mentality of reactionism, which is sad. The universal indult itself couldn't be modernity itself. The current teachings are heretical in some senses, but not from the Magisterium itself. It does need to be interpreted again, as the Pope has asked. Why do you have to join the loyalties of SSPX to ask for that re-interpretation? I think that to follow that line of thinking only leads to errors and a bad theology...Plus, it gives the wrong impression to say that only SSPX really doesn't fall into Modernism. It also implies that if SSPX holds the truth that no where else does so it means that it should re-interpret Vatican II to bring back the Church. However, it completely rejects the council and so this can never happen. If SSPX really wanted a re-interpretation, it would give its own...Sadly it cannot and will not.
toledo_jesus Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='MichaelFilo' post='961251' date='Apr 26 2006, 12:13 AM'] I would, but to do so would mean to assume something about the natur eof the two parties (protestants and SSPXers) tha twould not be true. So I must debate your use of the word. Surely Protestants sought to leave the Church altogether, SSPXers seeks to return it to the old fformat, they have no intention of leaving the Catholic Church, regardless of the possible excommunication declared on them. God bless, Mikey [/quote] but they can't go back without rejecting the current Church. So, they have left. They are in schism, like the Protestants. Like, not as. Besides, I only speak for effect. I see the parallels between Protestantism and SSPX and I like to think about them. I think it's fun and close to the mark to call them Protestants. Plus, it really annoys them and I'm petty like that.
Aloysius Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 this will not be a long term schism because the SSPX formally accepts the papacy, the current pope, and the unity of St. Peter. they have schismatic actions and a schismatic attitude but NOT schismatic intention OR major erroneous ecclesiological doctrines therefore they will not be and are not like the Protestant Reformation or the great schism of 1054. they have a heteropraxis similar to the protestant reformation, but not a heterodoxy. that's the major difference.
qfnol31 Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 According to an ex-SSPX friend of mine they do have some heretical teachings within the society...
N/A Gone Posted April 26, 2006 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
qfnol31 Posted April 26, 2006 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.
Aloysius Posted April 26, 2006 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.
Apotheoun Posted April 26, 2006 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.
Cam42 Posted April 26, 2006 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.
Recommended Posts