Sspx Rejects Pope's Call To Rejoin Rome

[Alycin]

The pope called it a schism. I think if the pope intended to say "schismatic act" he would have done so.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Alycin

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote name='kafka' post='1587419' date='Jun 30 2008, 07:42 PM']Al, some of your thinking is absurd. Rome lifting the excommunication? They and I mean SSPX (and other straggler Traditional groups) are the ones who excommunicated themselves. They are the ones who committed heresy and schism. They did it to themselves since they exalted their own poor and limited understanding over the Faith, and the Magisterium itself.[/quote] True, they excommunicated themselves, But to say that they exalted themselves ABOVE the magisterium seems to much to me. At the time, all you could see around you was an apparent worldwide apostasy of the church. I know you don't understand, and I don;t expect you too, but think of it this way: Imagine you wake up, and find out that the holy father is participating in pagan ceremonies, and that such ceremonies are introduced in mass worldwide. Imagine, that priests are leaving the clerical state, nuns are leaving, priests are spouting heresy from the pulpit, churches are being desecrated by Catholics, etc. That's how things were in the aftermath if Vatican II. Their decision was wrong, but you still must understand the context of it.They were afraid that if they didn't do anything, the Catholic faith would be lost in the west to mass heresy. Anyway, even Fr. Feeney got his excommunications conditionally removed. Could not the same happen for the SSPX?

[quote]SSPX having an important voice within the Church? Absurd, why would heretics and schismatics be given an important voice in the Church shortly upon their reunion (if indeed that ever happens). They have rejected VII[/quote] which, as I understand it was'nt a doctrinal council and declared no new dogmas. Disagreeing with non-doctrinal decisions of the council does'nt make you a heretic. And there are plenty of people who are known for disagreeing with the church, and yet have no discipline imposed on them. Politicians who continue to go to communion unchastised for example, or bishops who refuse to implement Redmptionis Sacramentum, like H.E. Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles. It's true, there are those within the ranks of the SSPX that teach errors that go unchecked, but the same is true for those in communion with Rome.
[quote], the New Mass,[/quote] They say it is valid, licit, but in it's current state, theologically impoverished, and does not often easily display the Catholic faith. That's my own position, and I support the Novus Ordo, though not in it's current state. Let's all pray for a reform of the liturgy.
[quote]the subsequent teachings of the Popes since VII (especially JPII who in my humble theological opinion did teach Infallibly on certain topics of faith and morals.)[/quote] Proof that they denied every single thing a pope has said since Vatican II? That also, doesn't make you a heretic, since no pope since then has defined new dogma. There are plenty of O'Learies, Chittisters, and others who do the same thing, and yet get no flack for it.
[quote]I know the very love child of Levebre. In other words, that man who was once his favorite priest. He thought along the same lines as you though he broke off with SSPX. It wasnt a matter of suppressing the Traditional Mass. They could have celebrated it all along. It was an issue of these Trad groups rejecting the Ecumenical Council known as Vatican II and the Magisterial teachings of the subsequent Popes and the New Mass.[/quote] Sorry, I don't think you understand their position. They reject two ideas that came from the council, neither of which are defined dogmas of the church. Also, you know good and welll that at the time, the former missal was effectively abrogated, and that individual bishops refused to give permission after JPII allowed indult masses with Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.
[quote]It is even predicted in Revelation:

{2:6} But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

~This was a heretical group during the times of the early Church who took their name from one of the first seven deacons namely, the deacon Nicholas. They were known for their sexual promiscuity, (which is a foreshadowing of the attachment SSPX and other Trad groups have to their idea of Truth), and broke away from the Church. Just as the Nicolaitans took their name from a Saint so does SSPX. Yet Saint Pius X would never approve of them, nor did he establish it, nor was he ever a part of it.[/quote] Sorry, the Nicolatians were gnostic docetists. They were also named after another Nicholas, not he who was one of the fist seven deacons of the church. I'm also very sorry that I don't get the parable between sexual promiscuity and attachment to Catholic Dogma. The SSPX only differed doctrinally from the post-conciliar church on the issues of religious freedom, and ecumenism. A better parallel would be the Protestant Reformation.

[quote]Lefevre and his group exalted themselves and their own limited ideas about the Faith over Christ and His teaching.[/quote] Because, it's totally untrue that there were prelates and persons involved with the council who began to teach heresy, or be disobedient to the will of the concillium. Yeah, that never happened. (There was no dutch catechism, female altar servers and communion in the hand, as well as the use of several Eucharistic prayers, all things condemned by Paul VI and the concilium. Mons.Annibale Bugninni, and Fr. Marini never existed.) And there definitely are no people who do the same today. (Arch.Bp. Mario Marini, Sister Chittister, and Voice of the Faithful don't exist.)
[quote]There is no mistaking it. Their is no grey area. Even by the fruits of SSPX you may know them. And the fruits are scary and devastating. I know first hand. Now obviously many priests since VII had their own horrid sins, but that is not the fault of the Council, or the New Mass. These priests chose to sin, and chose to become evil in their own deeds. There is nothing wrong with the documents of the Council or the Novus Ordo Mass (apart from various Liturgical errors caused by neglectful priests).[/quote] Isn't this only another form of post hoc ergo, propter hoc? You just said " The SSPX has bad fruits, and that's their fault, but that bad fruits that came after the council don't have anything to do with it!" There are rose-colored glasses on both side, but sitting pretty and pretending that Vatican II was a perfect council, free of any fault or disagreement that brought about a great and glorious springtime of the church, ignores the disobedience that came about as a result of principles behind the council. And I'm sure it's blatantly obvious that the New mass does have at least some errors, though they be minor.

[quote]In the final analysous, there should be one form of the Mass (and Liturgy), translated into each and every language of the world.[/quote] But you know that Vatican II said to preserver the use of Latin and chant as the norm. And by saying there should be only one form of the mass, aren't you going against the will of the current pontiff, who says in SP that there are two forms of the Roman Rite?

[Alycin]

Furthermore, why would we need to invite someone to return to communion with rome if they already were in communion?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1585698' date='Jun 28 2008, 01:10 PM']There is a substantial anti-semitism that exists in the Lefebvrite movement that lead them to not accept the Decrees of Vatican II.[/quote]
Certainly any kind of racial or ethnic hatred is immoral. Nevertheless, Christianity is the continuation of biblical Judaism, while Rabbinic Judaism – on the other hand – is a false man made religion.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1587493' date='Jun 30 2008, 08:51 PM']I wasn't comparing the two in action or really anything, I said that Jesus picked Judas and therefore anything is possible.[/quote]

Perhaps you may consider retraction of the statement all together. For it serves no purpose, there is no proof that Cardinal Castrillón is any but loyal to Mother Church.

[Apotheoun]

Hopefully, Rome and the SSPX will continue talking to each other. Ultimately, the Western Church would benefit from the restoration of the SSPX to full communion: (1) because of their liturgical sensibilities, and (2) because of their strong sense of the immutable nature of Apostolic Tradition.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Apotheoun

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1587498' date='Jun 30 2008, 08:54 PM']Furthermore, why would we need to invite someone to return to communion with rome if they already were in communion?[/quote]

"They are inside the Church; there is only lacking a full, a more perfect — as was said in the meeting with Msgr. Fellay — a fuller communion, because there is communion"

[abercius24]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1587499' date='Jun 30 2008, 09:54 PM']Certainly any kind of racial or ethnic hatred is immoral. Nevertheless, Christianity is the continuation of biblical Judaism, while Rabbinic Judaism – on the other hand – is a false man made religion.[/quote]

That is a harsh way to put it, but yes, that is true. The rabbis reinvented their religion after the complete loss of the Sanhedrin and the Temple.

But, if there is a "conversion of the Jews" to be prayed for (as the Traditional Movements correctly maintain), then there must be an important relationship of Faith that would make their particular conversion of such a distinct importance to us -- and that their relationship with the Old Testament Patriarchs still stands to some degree for them to still be considered Jews. If such a relationship exists, then there still remains a brotherhood to honor.

Edited July 1, 2008 by abercius24

[Alycin]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1587507' date='Jun 30 2008, 10:03 PM']Perhaps you may consider retraction of the statement all together. For it serves no purpose, there is no proof that Cardinal Castrillón is any but loyal to Mother Church.[/quote]


I will edit it for you. Again it was just to make one think. You'll need to edit where you quoted me, too.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1587493' date='Jun 30 2008, 08:51 PM']In other words, I was saying that Jesus picked someone who was not perfect (actually many someones since no one is perfect except Jesus). It wasn't a matter of saying the Cardinal is wrong I was just pointing out something to think about. I'm an intellectual, sue me. [/quote]

Christ picked Judas for a prefect reason, knowing full well that Judas would betray Him. If we are to think it possible that the Cardinal wrong or anything but loyal to the true teaching of Mother Church, then some actual proof should be given for it to be intellectually sound.

[quote name='Alycin' post='1587493' date='Jun 30 2008, 08:51 PM']The pope called it a schism. I think if the pope intended to say "schismatic act" he would have done so.[/quote]

The Pope called the act of making bishops without permission schism. According to his pointed Cardinal who has authority in these matters.

Edited July 1, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Alycin]

I am not making those implications, KoC, I'm sorry you're taking it there.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1587523' date='Jun 30 2008, 09:14 PM']I am not making those implications, KoC, I'm sorry you're taking it there.[/quote]

I apologize it is difficult to understand people over the internet sometimes. Was not the purpose to say the Cardinal could be wrong? Yet if that is it there is no proof.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587516' date='Jun 30 2008, 08:08 PM']That is a harsh way to put it, but yes, that is true. The rabbis reinvented their religion after the complete loss of the Sanhedrin and the Temple.

But, if there is a "conversion of the Jews" to be prayed for (as the Traditional Movements maintain), then there must be an important relationship of Faith that would make their particular conversion of such a distinct importance to us -- and that their relationship with the Old Testament Patriarchs still stands to some degree for them to still be considered Jews. If such a relationship exists, then there still remains a brotherhood to honor.[/quote]
The Eastern Church Fathers held that the Patriarchs believed in the Holy Trinity, and that it was the rabbis during and after the time of Christ who fell away from the true faith. Thus, in a sense Rabbinic Judaism can be called the first major heresy (cf. the letters of St. Ignatios of Antioch), because those who accepted it broke with the undefiled Triadological faith of the Patriarchs of the Old Covenant.

As I see it, it is absolutely vital that any form of theological indifferentism be avoided, because salvation comes only from and through faith in Christ; and so as a Christian I believe it is my duty to pray for the conversion of the Jews living today in order that they may come into a living relationship with the Tri-hypostatic God revealed in sacred scripture, i.e., in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1587498' date='Jun 30 2008, 07:54 PM']Furthermore, why would we need to invite someone to return to communion with rome if they already were in communion?[/quote]
There are varying degrees of communion.

[Alycin]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1587530' date='Jun 30 2008, 10:19 PM']I apologize it is difficult to understand people over the internet sometimes. Was not the purpose to say the Cardinal could be wrong? Yet if that is it there is no proof.[/quote]

Not to say that he could be or even that it is likely that he is wrong, he probably isn't wrong, but it is not impossible. That's all.