Sspx Rejects Pope's Call To Rejoin Rome

[Aloysius]

All this harsh talk against the SSPX reminds me of the elder brother complaining about the prodigal son. Why should they have an important voice within the Church so shortly after returning? because we rejoice that they return and need that voice for the sake of bridging the gap that the 60's generation tried to forge between the modern Church and the traditional Church

The traditional mass was never suppressed according to the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict XVI. However, the bishops throughout the world acted as if it were supressed. Every act of suppressing the traditional mass they made, because the Church herself had not done so and they had no authority to do so, was in a way a schismatic act pushing groups away. Both sides bear the blame. In Roman circles they say that lifting the excommuncations is considered a much easier task than the freeing of the traditional mass was... ie we can expect that Rome will have no problem lifting the excommunications of the four bishops as well as the excommunication of lefebvre when the SSPX re-enter communion.

abericus, it is more than a mere academic postulation. we believe that the patriarchs experienced the worship of the Blessed Trinity and that Rabbinical Judaism does not... that is hugely important and to shrug it off because individuals believe they worship the same way as the patriarchs did doesn't change that. in any event, the charges of anti-semetism against the SSPX as a whole or against the Early Church Fathers are largely unfounded.

comparing the SSPX to every heretical group under the sun doesn't make it true. I don't think the situation has any perfectly accurate parallels in history but it would parallel St. Athanasius more than it would parallel the arians, except that the SSPX had a degree of error involved that I do not believe the saint had... but the bishops of the Church, the Pope and even Ratzinger himself, had a degree of error involved as well. Read Summorum Pontificum: it pretty much says as much. The pope and the bishops were treating the traditional mass as if it were suppressed and they were not cracking down hard enough on those who would twist the words of the council to their liberal agendas throughout the world (probably because there were too many of them to effectively combat it) and this whole atmosphere pushed the SSPX away as much as they moved themselves away.

Rome is offering a personal prelature, ie an important status within the Church (ie they're going to slaughter the fattened calf for them), and will likely lift all five excommunications (excommunicatios can be lifted post-mortum either retroactively or from the point of the lifting, which would likely apply to the good archbishop in purgatory if they did it from the time of the lifting)... Benedict has made no secret about the fact that he regrets that he was unable to stop the schism when it happened and you better believe he's not so prideful as to not think both sides made big mistakes.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']That is a nice and tiddy academic statement, but not a practical one at all.

At what point did the Jews no longer be Jews?[/quote]
All the early Christians were Jews, and Christianity is the true Judaism, because it is the continuation of the religion of the Patriarchs and the Prophets. So anyone who rejected the Messiah, at that very moment ceased being a Jew. In other words, Christians are the true sons of Abraham, because we have embraced the faith of Abraham, as he himself lived it.

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']Was it after Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter? No, because Jesus recognized the Seat of Moses in Caiaphas when He adjured Him to testify at His trial, thereby recognizing Caiaphas' authority as High Priest.[/quote]
This is nonsensical to me as an Eastern Christian, because I do not recognize that there is a distinction to be made between the authority of the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, and the authority of Moses; instead, the bishops truly possess the authority of Moses, since it has been subsumed into the powers of the historic episcopate according to Apostolic Tradition.


[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']Was it after Pentecost? No, because the Early Church struggled with questions as to whether or not Gentile converts needed to follow the Jewish prescriptions of the Old Covenant as did the Jewish Christians.[/quote]
You are confusing the Judaizing heretics with the Jewish Christians. In fact, all Christians can be called Jews, so long as you are speaking about the faith of the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets, for the Christian faith is identical to the faith of the holy ancestors of Christ.

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']Was it after the Romans assassinated all members of the Jewish priesthood and destroyed the Temple? Perhaps for those Jews who participated in Temple worship amidst the priests.[/quote]
The Herodian Temple was destroyed, but the true Temple, i.e., the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is the body of Christ, was not destroyed, nor will it ever be destroyed. The Church is the true Israel, it is the true People of God, it is the place where the divine glory resides, and it offers unfailing worship to the Triune God.

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']And the synagogues never disappeared.[/quote]
[i]Ekklesia[/i] and [i]synagogue[/i] both mean "assembly" or "congregation," but the Church is the true synagogue, and not the Rabbinic synagogues organized in opposition to the true faith.

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']Was it when the Rabbis joined at the Council of Jamnia and rejected many elements of the Christian faith -- possibly recognizing many Anti-Catholic elements of the Talmud? Yes, maybe for the high ranking Rabbis at Jamnia.[/quote]
The Council of Javneh (Jamnia) can be seen as the moment when Rabbinic Judaism – as opposed to Biblical Judaism – was formed, and it was formed precisely in opposition to the true faith.

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']But not for the poor, local rabbi and his congregation whose lives were completely unchanged by Jamnia. To them the decisions of the council would have been little more than interesting news. THEIR SPIRITUAL LIVES WERE UNCHANGED OTHERWISE.[/quote]
You continue to confuse the subjective knowledge of individuals with objective reality. Of course the spiritual lives of those who followed the Rabbis into heresy were changed, and they were changed for the worse, because they no longer had a true living experience of Triune God in worship. Now, whether they knew it or not subjectively, which is irrelevant to our present discussion, they had in fact left behind the faith of their Father Abraham, because they no longer worshipped the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and as scripture says, "No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 John 2:23). Thus, I will simply reiterate what I have said before: Rabbinic Judaism is a man made religion; while Christianity is the revealed religion of both the Old and the New Testaments.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Innocent' post='1587850' date='Jun 30 2008, 10:56 PM'][quote name='Apotheoun' post='1587619' date='Jun 30 2008, 09:02 PM']
I once believed something akin to this, but as an Eastern Christian I no longer hold that faith is a discursive form of knowledge; instead, faith involves an experiential participation in God's uncreated life and glory through grace.[/quote]
Sorry for the hijack, but that's a beautiful definition of faith. I never thought of faith that way. Thanks for sharing this. Can you recommend any writings on the net where the Eastern Christian view of faith is explained in more detail? Thanks.
[/quote]
I do not know of any internet sites that discuss this topic in any detail, but I can recommend some books that touch on this subject:

Fr. Georges Florovsky, [u]Revelation, Philosophy and Theology[/u], translated by Richard Haugh.

Jean Cardinal Danielou, [u]From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa's Mystical Writings[/u], translated by Herbert Musurillo.

and

Martin Laird, [u]Gregory of Nyssa and the Grasp of Faith: Union, Knowledge, and Divine Presence[/u], Oxford Early Christian Studies series.

[XIX]

[quote]The traditional mass was never suppressed according to the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict XVI. However, the bishops throughout the world acted as if it were supressed. Every act of suppressing the traditional mass they made, because the Church herself had not done so and they had no authority to do so, was in a way a schismatic act pushing groups away. Both sides bear the blame.[/quote] This I don't get. How is it Rome's fault if the bishops surpressed the traditional Mass?

[quote]In Roman circles they say that lifting the excommuncations is considered a much easier task than the freeing of the traditional mass was... ie we can expect that Rome will have no problem lifting the excommunications of the four bishops as well as the excommunication of lefebvre when the SSPX re-enter communion.[/quote] I'll believe it when I see it. Thee's really no way to know for certain until it happens.

[quote]the charges of anti-semetism against the SSPX as a whole or against the Early Church Fathers are largely unfounded.[/quote] true.

[quote]comparing the SSPX to every heretical group under the sun doesn't make it true. I don't think the situation has any perfectly accurate parallels in history but it would parallel St. Athanasius more than it would parallel the arians, except that the SSPX had a degree of error involved that I do not believe the saint had... but the bishops of the Church, the Pope and even Ratzinger himself, had a degree of error involved as well.[/quote]The error is not the point. The point is that Levebvre was disobedient to higher authority. They challenged, they voiced their concerns adamantly, they made it clear they weren't completely on board with this whole thing. I get that. That's fine.

Building your own society against the wishes of the Pope is not okay.

[quote]Read Summorum Pontificum: it pretty much says as much. The pope and the bishops were treating the traditional mass as if it were suppressed and they were not cracking down hard enough on those who would twist the words of the council to their liberal agendas throughout the world (probably because there were too many of them to effectively combat it) and this whole atmosphere pushed the SSPX away as much as they moved themselves away.[/quote]
I'll read it, but nobody forced the SSPX to go out and form their own society. The Church probably could have handled it better, but it was ultimately the SSPX's decision. The Church wasn't doing enough to crack down on liberalism? Maybe they could have done more. But that's motivation for splintering off? I'm sorry, I can't buy that. The SSPX takes the lion's share of the blame here. A questionable interpretation of V2 is not nearly as grevious as splintering off.

[quote]Rome is offering a personal prelature, ie an important status within the Church (ie they're going to slaughter the fattened calf for them), and will likely lift all five excommunications (excommunicatios can be lifted post-mortum either retroactively or from the point of the lifting, which would likely apply to the good archbishop in purgatory if they did it from the time of the lifting)... Benedict has made no secret about the fact that he regrets that he was unable to stop the schism when it happened and you better believe he's not so prideful as to not think both sides made big mistakes.[/quote] Leaving the Church (in any capacity) is a far greater mistake than anything Rome did. But hey, I wouldn't be dissapointed if the excommunications were lifted. I just don't see it happening.

I regret the fact that my friend lost her faith, and I'll even accept responsibility for part of it. But that doesn't excuse her in any capacity. It was still her choice, just as it was the SSPX's choice.

The JP2 told Lefebvre not to found the SSPX, or else he would be excommunicated.
Lefebvre founded the SSPX anyway.
Lefebvre was excommunicated.

1+1+1=3

Edited July 1, 2008 by XIX

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']But doctrines, beliefs and practices are no more than theoretical concepts if they are not understood from the perspective where they ultimately matter -- at the level of the average believer.[/quote]
I completely disagree. The dogmas and doctrines of the faith are in fact immutable experiential encounters with God, and the customs and practices that arise within the Church's liturgical life over the course of the centuries are expressions of the divinely inspired Tradition, which they convey to us as a living reality. Tradition (even at the level of particular customs), dogma, and doctrine, are not reducible to abstract concepts; instead, they are the very living experience of God, who always remains essentially beyond human thought and predication, while He simultaneously condescends to be experienced through His manifesting energies.

The quotation below explains the Eastern Christian position on this issue in a more comprehensive manner than my own comments above:

[size=3][quote]Dogma is by no means a new Revelation. Dogma is only a witness. The whole meaning of dogmatic definition consists of testifying to unchanging truth, truth which was revealed and has been preserved from the beginning. Thus it is a total misunderstanding to speak of "the development of dogma." Dogmas do not develop; they are unchanging and inviolable, even in their external aspect — their wording. Least of all is it possible to change dogmatic language or terminology. As strange as it may appear, one can indeed say: dogmas arise, dogmas are established, but they do not develop. And once established, a dogma is perennial and already an immutable "rule of faith" ("regula fidei;" o kanon tis pisteos, ο κανων της πιστεως). Dogma is an intuitive truth, not a discursive axiom which is accessible to logical development. The whole meaning of dogma lies in the fact that it is expressed truth. Revelation discloses itself and is received in the silence of faith, in silent vision — this is the first and apophatic step of the knowledge of God. The entire fullness of truth is already contained in this apophatic vision, but truth must be expressed. Man, however, is called not only to be silent but also to speak, to communicate. The silentium mysticum does not exhaust the entire fulness of the religious vocation of man. There is also room for the expression of praise. In her dogmatic confession the Church expresses herself and proclaims the apophatic truth which she preserves. The quest for dogmatic definitions is therefore, above all, a quest for terms. Precisely because of this the doctrinal controversies were a dispute over terms. One had to find accurate and clear words which could describe and express the experience of the Church. One had to express that "spiritual Vision" which presents itself to the believing spirit in experience and contemplation.

[Fr. Georges Florovsky, "Revelation, Philosophy and Theology," this article originally appeared as "Offenbarung, Philosophic und Theologie" in Zwischen den Zeiten, Heft 6 (München, 1931). Translated from the German by Richard Haugh][/quote][/size]

Once again, your posts tend to confuse subjective intellectual knowledge with objective experiential reality.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Apotheoun

[mortify]

The sad irony is had it not been for the SSPX, there would have been no indult, and who knows what would have happened to the Church's traditional form of woship.

Edited July 1, 2008 by mortify

[Dave]

[quote name='XIX' post='1588304' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:10 PM']Building your own society against the wishes of the Pope is not okay.
I'll read it, but nobody forced the SSPX to go out and form their own society. The Church probably could have handled it better, but it was ultimately the SSPX's decision. The Church wasn't doing enough to crack down on liberalism? Maybe they could have done more. But that's motivation for splintering off? I'm sorry, I can't buy that. The SSPX takes the lion's share of the blame here. A questionable interpretation of V2 is not nearly as grevious as splintering off.[/quote]

[quote]The JP2 told Lefebvre not to found the SSPX, or else he would be excommunicated.
Lefebvre founded the SSPX anyway.
Lefebvre was excommunicated.[/quote]

The SSPX had already been in existence for several years at the time of Archbishop Lefebvre's illicit consecration of 4 bishops. Lefebvre was never told not to found the society but rather not to ordain bishops for it unless he had the Holy Father's permission first.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='mortify' post='1588346' date='Jul 1 2008, 03:04 PM']The sad irony is had it not been for the SSPX, there would have been no indult, and who knows what would have happened to the Church's traditional form of woship.[/quote]
exactly why I say that in the end, the historical analysis will not include any of this polemical angry tirades against the SSPX but instead recognize the tremendous errors on both sides, and even probably recognize the courage it took for Lefebvre to take a stand whilest also saying he may have gone too far. I have every confidence that the excommunication against him will be lifted and all the tirading I see against him and the other bishops is far harsher than anything Rome actually says about them.

when they're a personal prelature with all the excommunications lifted, all the tirades against Lefebvre and all that are going to seem pretty silly. I'm not saying Lefebvre didn't make a mistake, I'm saying both sides made many mistakes and Rome herself will likely recognize that in the end... Ratzinger has always expressed regret that he was unable to stop the schism.

[kafka]

[quote name='Deo Iuvente' post='1587497' date='Jun 30 2008, 09:54 PM']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?

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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.)
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.

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?[/quote]
O.k. first off you dont have a good understanding of the Sacred Magisterium which is common among Catholics nowdays and this isnt the time or place to give you a lesson.

Second, the Nicolatians I was referring to is different from the Gnostic sect you are referring to.

Third, Vatican was indeed an ecumenical council and it is the opinion of more than a few theologians that yes some of the documents do indeed express infallible teachings.

Fourth, my opinion about the Mass and Liturgy, is based on my understanding of the life of the Church. Yes at this time their are two forms of the Roman Rite, and more than a few forms of the Eastern Rite. To a great extent this is a temporal decision of the Magisterium and not infallible (though the very core of the Mass is infallible, namely the words of Consencration.) So yes I may hold my own opinion and disagree with a non-infallible temporal decision of the Magisterium. I was merely stating something that in my humble opinion will occur in the short distance of the future.

"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."

you are implicitly denying the teaching authority of VII. The disobedience DID NOT come from the principles of the council it came from the personal choices of the Faithful made up of both clergy and laity. Yes perhaps it wasnt a perfect council in my opinion it emphasised the laity too much, yet the influence of secular society was and still is a great factor in the downfall of the Church. It has been predicted in Sacred Scripture.

Fifth, you act like I have no understanding of the state of the Church and the World and I find that offensive. You have no idea what things I have discovered, and you have no idea where I've been and what insights I have discovered in my life. Your understanding of the Church and Faith is weak, and your charity and mercy is lacking.

Last you said, "I'm also very sorry that I don't get the parable between sexual promiscuity and attachment to Catholic Dogma."

Saint Augustine taught and admitted that discovering Truth is more joyful than sexual pleasure. SSPX and other Trad groups are guilty of being attached to their own idea of the Faith. And it gives them a twisted joy as a man who gets a twisted joy out of lust.

Edited July 2, 2008 by kafka

[kafka]

oh and Deo Iuvente I just looked at your profile. You are a mere teenager. I cant believe you have the gall and presumption to presumably correct and teach a 29 year old who knows a whole lot more than you and has seen a whole lot more than you. Maybe you need to play a little sports and take a girl on a date.

[abercius24]

My Dear Friend Apotheoun, we need to continue this discussion in another thread for the sake of those who may be bothered by our wanderings.

[Jaime]

[quote name='mortify' post='1588346' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:04 PM']The sad irony is had it not been for the SSPX, there would have been no indult, and who knows what would have happened to the Church's traditional form of woship.[/quote]

Ridiculous. The HOLY FATHER succumbed to the wishes of an excommunicated group? Dumb dumb dumb. All of the Traditions of the Church are alive and well.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1588404' date='Jul 1 2008, 03:08 PM']exactly why I say that in the end, the historical analysis will not include any of this polemical angry tirades against the SSPX but instead recognize the tremendous errors on both sides, and even probably recognize the courage it took for Lefebvre to take a stand whilest also saying he may have gone too far. I have every confidence that the excommunication against him will be lifted and all the tirading I see against him and the other bishops is far harsher than anything Rome actually says about them.

when they're a personal prelature with all the excommunications lifted, all the tirades against Lefebvre and all that are going to seem pretty silly. I'm not saying Lefebvre didn't make a mistake, I'm saying both sides made many mistakes and Rome herself will likely recognize that in the end... Ratzinger has always expressed regret that he was unable to stop the schism.[/quote]


Then you're saying that the excommunication was wrong. You are romanticizing SSPX and showing absolute ignorance. They defied the Holy Father. Period end of statement.

So who made the mistake Al? Remember who the Prefect of the CDF in 1988? Who was the appointed defender of the Faith? Was he the one who made Romes mistakes?

no

no one in Rome made mistakes

[abercius24]

The continuing debate on the value of Rabbinic Judaism can be found here:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=82166"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=82166[/url]

[mortify]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1588710' date='Jul 1 2008, 09:23 PM']Ridiculous. The HOLY FATHER succumbed to the wishes of an excommunicated group? Dumb dumb dumb. All of the Traditions of the Church are alive and well.[/quote]

Edit: I left a response to this but I'm going to double check some sources.

Edited July 2, 2008 by mortify

[Jaime]

[quote name='mortify' post='1588753' date='Jul 1 2008, 11:08 PM']Edit: I left a response to this but I'm going to double check some sources.[/quote]


Mortify you can check all the sources you want. The Holy Father has ALWAYS been a fan of the TLM. And it wasn't their views on the latin mass that caused schism.

You guys are making the SSPX out to be martyrs. Schismatics are not martyrs.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1588782' date='Jul 1 2008, 10:29 PM']Schismatics are not martyrs.[/quote]

The SSPX are not schismatics.

"The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics."

+Cardinal Castrillón