The Sspx

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1413311' date='Nov 2 2007, 04:39 PM']Moderators, if this poll breaks any phorum guidelines, feel free to delete it.[/quote]
Not again tyler...how many sspx threads do we need!? We've covered every thing on this subject.

[goldenchild17]

I wouldn't go that far. We sure have had a lot of threads on the subject (though how this compares in number to the many guitars in mass threads or harry potter threads I can't imagine it being just a whole lot more). But just because we've had many such threads doesn't mean that we've really covered all that much material. I'd say that we've barely scratched the surface. Is their much more we can discuss given the understandable censorship of the issue? Probably not, and it may be prudent to let such discussions go as they don't really seem to serve much purpose except to annoy certain people. But all in all, we haven't come anywhere close to covering the bulk of issues surrounding the topic.

Edited November 18, 2007 by goldenchild17

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' post='1421304' date='Nov 17 2007, 07:02 PM']Not again tyler...how many sspx threads do we need!? We've covered every thing on this subject.[/quote]

I actually didn't make this thread because of the SSPX per se but to accompany the thread on Eastern Catholics denying the Church's teachings which got moved to Transmundane Lane.

[faithfulrock3r]

just so you all know, I accidently hit yes instead of no for the last question. My B

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

Greek Orthodox priests are not excommunicated by anyone.
Neither are SSPX priests, but they do not have faculties from the legitimate diocesan bishop to celebrate the Sacraments. Their bishops are all excommunicated and in formal schism. Marriages performed by the SSPX are invalid according to the Church, so are confessions (unless at deathbed) - this does not apply in any way to the Orthodox.
[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1413824' date='Nov 3 2007, 06:38 PM']Yes, it is possible for excommunicated priests to celebrate Mass. Greek-Orthodox priests do it all the time.[/quote]

[Aloysius]

the invalidity of their marriages is very debatable if not entirely ridiculous.

when that group in Brazil that had broken off with the SSPX was brought back, no remarriages were requested, not even conditional remarriages, the marriages were valid. is the Church sanctioning mass adultery in Brazil?

the Church does not consider SSPX marriages to be invalid; and really, I've seen the canonical arguments, but I simply do not accept them unless the Church herself indicates that this is so, because it would seem to be so contrary to western sacramental theology it's not even funny; if the priest does not even DO the sacrament (it is the couple who administers the sacrament to each other in the west), how could the presence of a priest out of communion with the local bishop invalidate it? it's utterly ridiculous. they are illicit, not invalid.

moreover, I take issue with people who consider their confessions invalid too. it's a case of legalism which does not look at the intention of the law, but merely interprets it according to the strict legalistic letter of the law. quite ironic, actually, as these people are making the same mistake many traditionalists are accused of all the time, but usually they're only making this mistake when it comes to the SSPX whereas on other issues, they are quite content to see the reasonable position which understands the spirit of the law.

[Dave]

When the Campos crowd was reconciled with the Church, the married couples in the group weren't "re-married" because their marriages were sanated (sanatio in radice). But other than that, SSPX priests don't have faculties for marriages and confessions. Simple as that.

Edited November 24, 2007 by Dave

[Dave]

And as for confessions, please read this: [url="http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/02/sspx_confession.html"]http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/02/sspx_confession.html[/url]

[Aloysius]

I've seen Jimmy Akin's argument, I disagree with it vehemently (and think it represents a terrible perversion of the Catholic faith worse than anything the radical traditionalists have come up with), don't have time to present a good rebuttal to it now, maybe in the next couple days though.

This is the same guy who has proposed that there is no actual canonical requirement for some sort of penance on fridays throughout the year; and if you read his argument for why that is, you'll see the radically different angle he takes on canon law when dealing with that issue than he takes when dealing with this issue; here, he's looking for a way to discredit the SSPX so he'll utilize the canons to that end; there, he's trying to see any bit of leeway he can so he'll utilize the canons to that end.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='PopeClementI(MorClemis)' post='1424304' date='Nov 24 2007, 03:24 PM']Greek Orthodox priests are not excommunicated by anyone.
Neither are SSPX priests, but they do not have faculties from the legitimate diocesan bishop to celebrate the Sacraments. Their bishops are all excommunicated and in formal schism. Marriages performed by the SSPX are invalid according to the Church, so are confessions (unless at deathbed) - this does not apply in any way to the Orthodox.[/quote]

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?

Edited November 25, 2007 by StThomasMore

[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