Removal Of Sspx Excommunications?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1758199' date='Jan 21 2009, 10:21 PM']The Holy Father will probably not require more of them than Catholic orthodoxy requires. Just because Catholics are allowed to hold a certain opinion doesn't necessarily mean it's a good opinion. It just means that the opinion does not go beyond the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy. Does the SSPX hold any views/opinions that prevent their full communion with the Church? We don't know. That is something for the Holy Father to decide.

Unless and until the Holy Father makes a decision, this report is nothing more than rumor, and there is no reason to get anxious over rumor.[/quote]

Thank you for graciously answering.

[[edit.]]

My primary concern is if they are accepted back into full communion, but they uphold certain opinions, non-Catholics may misunderstand and assume that the Church accepts such opinions. (My example being their views on women and how women should not attend college because they "distract" the good men...among other things.)

Edited January 22, 2009 by HisChildForever

[rkwright]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1758233' date='Jan 21 2009, 10:51 PM']Thank you for graciously answering.

[[edit.]]

My primary concern is if they are accepted back into full communion, but they uphold certain opinions, non-Catholics may misunderstand and assume that the Church accepts such opinions. (My example being their views on women and how women should not attend college because they "distract" the good men...among other things.)[/quote]

There are opinions people can hold and still be accepted in the Church. As far as I know believing that women should not attend college is perfectly acceptable in the Church.

Opinions that are not acceptable would be Christ is not divine, ect.

As far as I remember, the SSPX put themselves outside the Church by ordaining 4 bishops without Rome's approval. This action put them outside the Church.

There are certain actions and opinions that can land you outside the Church - I don't think believing women shouldn't be in college is one of these.

Anyways, back on topic...

These threads come up every 3-4 months, and they always say its about to happen... yet here we still are... I do pray this is the real deal.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
[quote name='benedict_x' post='1758127' date='Jan 21 2009, 07:06 PM']Does this mean we're allowed to go to their masses now?[/quote]
wait for an official statement from the Church first.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1758199' date='Jan 21 2009, 08:21 PM']Unless and until the Holy Father makes a decision, this report is nothing more than rumor, and there is no reason to get anxious over rumor.[/quote]
too true.

[doe-jo]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1758254' date='Jan 21 2009, 09:16 PM']There are opinions people can hold and still be accepted in the Church. As far as I know believing that women should not attend college is perfectly acceptable in the Church.

Opinions that are not acceptable would be Christ is not divine, ect.

As far as I remember, the SSPX put themselves outside the Church by ordaining 4 bishops without Rome's approval. This action put them outside the Church.

There are certain actions and opinions that can land you outside the Church - I don't think believing women shouldn't be in college is one of these.

Anyways, back on topic...

These threads come up every 3-4 months, and they always say its about to happen... yet here we still are... I do pray this is the real deal.[/quote]
Amen. I really hope and pray that this is the real thing.

These rumors remind me of the rumors of Summorum Pontificum. It eventually happened but it took some time. I hope it's the same for these SSPX rumors.

Edited January 22, 2009 by doe-jo

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1758254' date='Jan 21 2009, 11:16 PM']There are opinions people can hold and still be accepted in the Church. As far as I know believing that women should not attend college is perfectly acceptable in the Church.[/quote]

Their reasons for holding this belief are pretty bizarre. Is believing that men should not attend college also perfectly acceptable?

They have some very bizarre beliefs concerning women.
Source: [mod]Link removed. --Era Might[/mod]

[b] For indeed women's trousers, as worn today, short or long, modest or immodest, tight or loose, open or disguised (like the "culottes”), are an assault upon woman's womanhood and so they represent a deep-lying revolt against the order willed by God. [/b]

How can the Church leave this thinking alone if SSPX is brought back to full communion?

[b] Original sin, whereby Eve made Adam sin and not the other way round (I Tim II 14), entailed Eve's being punished, amongst other things, by the turning of her natural and painless subordination to Adam into a punishing domination of his over her, for she had shown by seducing him that she needed to be controlled... "thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee" (Genesis III, 16). Thenceforth with the transmission of original sin to all children of Adam passes to all daughters of Adam (except, of course, the Blessed Virgin Mary) this punitive subordination. [/b]

This is rather contrary to the Church, as [u]both[/u] Adam and Eve sinned (Eve sinned first, yes, but Adam sinned by not being present to protect her or guide her away from the fruit). Through this wrongful interpretation, SSPX has the opinion that a woman needs to be "controlled."

[Aloysius]

those are the opinions mostly of Bishop Williamson, the most polemical of the four bishops who often says things which are quite radical; in any event, those opinions are allowed for by the Church; Williamson there does not deny the sin of Adam but rather discusses the special way in which Eve sinned and tempted Adam into sin. I wouldn't agree with the way he words this, but he's not excluded from the Church for this opinion, nor should anyone get up in arms over the opinion; if you disagree, then disagree, there's no need to get angry about it.

[rkwright]

Al explained it well.

Lil Red posted these 'Rules' in the debate board a long time ago... I think these 3 will help explain this.

2. The Rule of Publicity: “Think with the mind of the Church.”
This rule is simply a translation of the Latin axiom “Sentire cum Ecclesia.” This means that, when we disagree, the final measure for judging what’s on target and what’s off the mark is what the Church thinks, not, ultimately, what you think or what I think – not private opinion, but what the Church has said to all to know.

This is the reason I call this the “The Rule of Publicity.” The criterion for our deciding our disagreements is not one’s own private opinions, but the mind of the People of God, what the Church thinks.

In order to apply this rule effectively, we need to use a corollary: “Measure everything against the authoritative documents of the Magisterium.”

The logical question to follow any call for us to “think with the mind of the Church” is: How do I know what that is?

The answer is: “Look in the places where the Church has expressed her mind with authority.” Look in the writings of the Councils and the popes, in the Church’s laws, and in the teachings of her Fathers and Doctors. Any survey or poll, no matter how extensive or accurate, if it contradicts the Magisterium, is not the Church’s mind.

3. The Rule of Legitimate Freedom: “What the Church allows is not to be disallowed.”
This rule means that in situations where the Church says that a variety of views or opinions is legitimate, I should not impose my option as a mandate on others. For example: we can receive Holy Communion in the hand or on the tongue. Either one is acceptable.

4. The Rule of Catholic Freedom: “There’s something for everybody, but not everything is for everybody.”
This fourth rule is an extension of the one above. It applies the same sort of respect for diversity to the wider spheres of our common life. This rule is based on the recognition that “It’s a big Church.” God has given gifts of grace in an almost dizzying variety. Some folks are attracted to the Carmelite Third Order, others gather for charismatic prayer. Nobody has to live the Christian life exactly the way I do.

Remember: “Think (and act) with the mind of the Church.” We need to respect every practice or approach that has a legitimate place in the life of the Church, and we cannot make our favorite practice or approach mandatory for others if the Church has not.

[foolishmortal]

I think they went "out there" as much as any group that separates itself from the Church in any way. Still, Vatican 2 didn't have any excommunication words at the end of the documents. Wouldn't being loyal to the Magisterium as the authority be enough?

It would be great to have traditional Masses in other countries than just those handful with them, even if the sermon would be in the vernacular.

Still, if you read Dedicated Decades and use The Rosary Album to say the rosary, you'll see they are not all full of hate and resentment. I don't get why we coddle the Protestants and hear praises of what one or the other wrote, but have nothing to do with the SSPXs', Fatima Crusaders', etcs'. stuff. Well, bookstores sell the Protestant stuff, SSPXish stuff and Catholic stuff made in China (which I think is dangerous and the latter is the worst scandal, as they are abused and are making our rosaries!). To a comment I made about selling Protestant literature, one admitted the stuff made money.

I heard about the sad state of affairs in seminaries, that involved neglect of teaching of important Catholic theology (which does not excuse us from knowing it nor should it keep people out, but the FSSP definitely teaches it all), and you see silly stuff that goes on in some Masses with rock band liturgical music and liberties with the liturgy and you have to have sympathy with the fear the SSPX people had, though doing what they did wasn't right, either. I think we should be as ecumenical with other Catholics in our thoughts. You hear on EWTN about something great a Protestant wrote or said, but nothing positive and educational said by an SSPX person. EWTN people should not let the Pope be the only one opening up dialogue with schismatics and sedevacantists. They should help us warm up o them as well. Yeah, the SSPX should know better, but they are like Orthodox Christians in just being illicit, and the sedevacantists are in modern times, what Protestants were in the 1500s. Those Protestants thought they picked up a fallen torch as well from a perceived fallen church, though the sedevacantists and the modern schismatics, never saw themselves as outside the Church. At least the sedevacantists and schismatics haven't killed anyone or spread their errors pandemically over their differences with those sticking with the Magisterium and they hold to Church teaching on more things than most Catholics. Reuniting with them would be like upping your GPA with an A- test (mistakes would be made in parts of charity, but the Masses done without innovations will repair much damage). We shouldn't give Protestants the most favored outside group status over ones who are still Catholic.



[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1758222' date='Jan 21 2009, 10:37 PM']Yes, good point. -Katie[/quote]

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1758281' date='Jan 22 2009, 12:44 AM']Their reasons for holding this belief are pretty bizarre. Is believing that men should not attend college also perfectly acceptable?

They have some very bizarre beliefs concerning women.
Source: [mod]Link removed. --Era Might[/mod]

[b] For indeed women's trousers, as worn today, short or long, modest or immodest, tight or loose, open or disguised (like the "culottes”), are an assault upon woman's womanhood and so they represent a deep-lying revolt against the order willed by God. [/b]

How can the Church leave this thinking alone if SSPX is brought back to full communion?

[b] Original sin, whereby Eve made Adam sin and not the other way round (I Tim II 14), entailed Eve's being punished, amongst other things, by the turning of her natural and painless subordination to Adam into a punishing domination of his over her, for she had shown by seducing him that she needed to be controlled... "thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee" (Genesis III, 16). Thenceforth with the transmission of original sin to all children of Adam passes to all daughters of Adam (except, of course, the Blessed Virgin Mary) this punitive subordination. [/b]

This is rather contrary to the Church, as [u]both[/u] Adam and Eve sinned (Eve sinned first, yes, but Adam sinned by not being present to protect her or guide her away from the fruit). Through this wrongful interpretation, SSPX has the opinion that a woman needs to be "controlled."[/quote]

Oh, wow....that is really disturbing. I would also be worried that they would be brought back in full communion spouting some of these ideas. Except the one about culottes-I agree that those are the cause of all sin in the world. -Katie

Edited January 22, 2009 by Tinkerlina

[KnightofChrist]

It is really too bad this could not have been a prayer thread and instead has turned into a thread on what divides us, there are pently of threads on phatmass devoted to that. I really hoped and prayed we could have just had one where we just focused on praying for them.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1758322' date='Jan 22 2009, 12:14 AM']those are the opinions mostly of Bishop Williamson, the most polemical of the four bishops who often says things which are quite radical; in any event, those opinions are allowed for by the Church; Williamson there does not deny the sin of Adam but rather discusses the special way in which Eve sinned and tempted Adam into sin. I wouldn't agree with the way he words this, but he's not excluded from the Church for this opinion, nor should anyone get up in arms over the opinion; if you disagree, then disagree, there's no need to get angry about it.[/quote]

I'm sorry that I take issue with being told that, as a woman, I need to be "controlled" and under the "punitive subordination" of man (the Church teaches we are to submit out of sacrifice and love, [b]not[/b] out of punishment).

[Archaeology cat]

I pray that the division is healed.

[IrishSalesian]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1758448' date='Jan 22 2009, 09:59 AM']I pray that the division is healed.[/quote]
Amen to that!

[Church Punk]

I hope this happens! We NEED the SSPX back in the fold!

[Deeds]

I'm very happy about this. I was thinking of going to one of their Masses a while back, but I decided against it.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1758436' date='Jan 22 2009, 08:37 AM']I'm sorry that I take issue with being told that, as a woman, I need to be "controlled" and under the "punitive subordination" of man (the Church teaches we are to submit out of sacrifice and love, [b]not[/b] out of punishment).[/quote]

Why do you care what these people are "telling" you. Why should it upset you. You don't have to listen to them.

Robert Sungenis thinks the earth is flat. I don't give a flying flapjack what he thinks.

He is still a Catholic in good standing as far as I know. I think it would be great to have the SSPX in the big tent with us. They can take their seat between Mr. Sungenis and the "amish" Catholics.

[Luthien]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1758429' date='Jan 22 2009, 10:12 AM']Oh, wow....that is really disturbing. I would also be worried that they would be brought back in full communion spouting some of these ideas. Except the one about culottes-I agree that those are the cause of all sin in the world. -Katie[/quote]

Don't worry too much about that Katie. Honestly, what this man says is not doctrine, and is not required to be believed by Catholics. Not all SSPXers feel this way Im sure. And also, not all lovers of the traditional Mass feel this way either. I myself am a self proclaimed traddy, but I reject that women are in any way less than men, and I wear jeans. Im an anomaly I suppose...

[Maggyie]

More than thirty years ago the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church each lifted the excommunication they leveled on each other at the time of the schism. This was a huge step forward in Orthodox-Catholic relations but we still have impaired communion with them. I imagine this would be a similar situation.

I can understand why some people might be hesitant to embrace those in the SSPX as brothers and sisters in Christ - if Pope Benedict was about to do the same thing for a very progressive group that had some leadership with wacky liberal beliefs I am sure I would be concerned too. But we are called to move beyond our fear and trust in the work of the Holy Spirit to fulfill our Lord's desire that we all be one.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Luthien' post='1758617' date='Jan 22 2009, 04:05 PM']Don't worry too much about that Katie. Honestly, what this man says is not doctrine, and is not required to be believed by Catholics. Not all SSPXers feel this way Im sure. And also, not all lovers of the traditional Mass feel this way either. I myself am a self proclaimed traddy, but I reject that women are in any way less than men, and I wear jeans. Im an anomaly I suppose...[/quote]
Thanks. I'm not against the traditional mass at all-I think both the old rite and Novus Ordo are wonderful and different people prefer different "styles" so to speak, the important thing is to be celebrating the Eucharist and have a reverent frame of mind, I just hope and pray that if/when their excommunication is reversed, the founders/leaders making such statements as the ones on women wearing pants, etc will have to refrain from preaching this as any kind of Church teaching-it could be very confusing and upsetting. Good to know that not all Traditionalists are like some of the men who were quoted. -Katie

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1758433' date='Jan 22 2009, 08:29 AM']It is really too bad this could not have been a prayer thread and instead has turned into a thread on what divides us, there are pently of threads on phatmass devoted to that. I really hoped and prayed we could have just had one where we just focused on praying for them.[/quote]

Well, honestly I haven't read any of the other threads and didn't know much about SSPX-I just wanted to know exactly what they differ on as opposed to the R.C Church and was a bit put off by what I read. I'll definitely pray for unity-I just also want to pray that some of the leaders of the SSPX are able to see the error of their ways when it comes to certain things. -Katie