Well, I'm not sure of that, but the traditional understanding and practice of the faith found in SSPX parishes is certainly vibrant and sound compared to what one enounters in most diocesan churches these days.
Prayers will be said at Mass tomorrow for this intention as well as prayers for those who are in rebellion. I always say it doesn't matter if one jumps ship port or starboard, one is still in the drink.
Agreed, though I hope you don't see the SSPX as having jumped ship, despite that knee-jerk reaction by so many otherwise good, conservative, orthodox Catholics.
I tried to reply to this a second ago and it seems that the post didn't go through so I'm reposting my thoughts
Bosh, they jumped ship starboard. Interesting that you characterize truth as knee jerk. I have studied and debated this issue for years and years. I don't plan to debate it any longer. I'll just make statements of truth.
The SSPX was legitimately founded in 1970 and approved by the Holy See. Despite what many seem to think, it is not a "schismatic" or "heretical" sect. Otherwise the Holy Father could not have licitly lifted the "excommunications" of 1988. As the referenced in PP's post on Rhonheimer, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos denied (in 2007) that the SSPX is in schism, as did Cardinal Cassidy (in 1994). and Msgr. Perl (in 2003). I should add that former Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger (in 1993) said the same thing in response to an incident involving Bishop Ferrario of Hawaii, and several leading canon lawyers.
The controversy over the SSPX may be reduced to merely TWO issues. (1) Abp Lefebvre's consecration of four bishops in 1988 over Vatican objections, and (2) the Society's adherence to pre-Vatican II Catholic orthodoxy, which seems anathema to all Catholics today who maintain an attitude rupture with the past.
Representative is the Wikipedia article on the Society of St. Pius X, which maintains that the reason the SSPX has no canonical status in the Church is for "doctrinal rather than disciplinary reasons."
This is highly ironic. For one thing, until the Holy Father's lifting of the 1988 excommunications, it was widely maintained that the chief reason for treating the SSPX as pariahs was disciplinary: the fact that their bishops were excommunicated.
The REAL reason why the majority of Catholic bishops and priests and laity detest the SSPX, however, is the fact that they adhere to pre-Vatican II Catholic tradition, and THESE bishops and priests and lay Catholics see the contemporary Catholic Church as a "different" Church from the one preceding the Council.
The irony is compounded by the fact that the doctrinal beliefs of the SSPX do not differ in one detail from the beliefs of pious doctors of the Church and popes of Catholic history, from St. Thomas Aquinas to Pius XII, and yet THIS is now enough to keep the SSPX from having a canonical status within the post-Vatican II Church.
Yet again, the irony is heightened by the repeated claims that Vatican II was not a dogmatic or teaching council but a "pastoral" council, which did not, therefore, define any new dogmas or teach any new doctrines, and YET the SSPX is now meeting with the CDF to have its doctrine vetted to see whether it conforms to the teachings of Vatican II!!
I would wish to reiterate, quite simply the words of the Holy Father concerning the Traditional Latin Mass, which I find no less applicable to the traditional beliefs of the SSPX:
"What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful."
6 comments:
That will begin to happen when the SSPX is legitimated and turned loose in the Church.
Well, I'm not sure of that, but the traditional understanding and practice of the faith found in SSPX parishes is certainly vibrant and sound compared to what one enounters in most diocesan churches these days.
Prayers will be said at Mass tomorrow for this intention as well as prayers for those who are in rebellion. I always say it doesn't matter if one jumps ship port or starboard, one is still in the drink.
Agreed, though I hope you don't see the SSPX as having jumped ship, despite that knee-jerk reaction by so many otherwise good, conservative, orthodox Catholics.
I tried to reply to this a second ago and it seems that the post didn't go through so I'm reposting my thoughts
Bosh, they jumped ship starboard. Interesting that you characterize truth as knee jerk. I have studied and debated this issue for years and years. I don't plan to debate it any longer. I'll just make statements of truth.
Donna
Donna,
The SSPX was legitimately founded in 1970 and approved by the Holy See. Despite what many seem to think, it is not a "schismatic" or "heretical" sect. Otherwise the Holy Father could not have licitly lifted the "excommunications" of 1988. As the referenced in PP's post on Rhonheimer, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos denied (in 2007) that the SSPX is in schism, as did Cardinal Cassidy (in 1994). and Msgr. Perl (in 2003). I should add that former Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger (in 1993) said the same thing in response to an incident involving Bishop Ferrario of Hawaii, and several leading canon lawyers.
The controversy over the SSPX may be reduced to merely TWO issues. (1) Abp Lefebvre's consecration of four bishops in 1988 over Vatican objections, and (2) the Society's adherence to pre-Vatican II Catholic orthodoxy, which seems anathema to all Catholics today who maintain an attitude rupture with the past.
Representative is the Wikipedia article on the Society of St. Pius X, which maintains that the reason the SSPX has no canonical status in the Church is for "doctrinal rather than disciplinary reasons."
This is highly ironic. For one thing, until the Holy Father's lifting of the 1988 excommunications, it was widely maintained that the chief reason for treating the SSPX as pariahs was disciplinary: the fact that their bishops were excommunicated.
The REAL reason why the majority of Catholic bishops and priests and laity detest the SSPX, however, is the fact that they adhere to pre-Vatican II Catholic tradition, and THESE bishops and priests and lay Catholics see the contemporary Catholic Church as a "different" Church from the one preceding the Council.
The irony is compounded by the fact that the doctrinal beliefs of the SSPX do not differ in one detail from the beliefs of pious doctors of the Church and popes of Catholic history, from St. Thomas Aquinas to Pius XII, and yet THIS is now enough to keep the SSPX from having a canonical status within the post-Vatican II Church.
Yet again, the irony is heightened by the repeated claims that Vatican II was not a dogmatic or teaching council but a "pastoral" council, which did not, therefore, define any new dogmas or teach any new doctrines, and YET the SSPX is now meeting with the CDF to have its doctrine vetted to see whether it conforms to the teachings of Vatican II!!
I would wish to reiterate, quite simply the words of the Holy Father concerning the Traditional Latin Mass, which I find no less applicable to the traditional beliefs of the SSPX:
"What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful."
Post a Comment