Replies

I must be right in my other assumptions, otherwise I would not have received that kind of reaction from you.

You previously assumed, wrongly, that the SSPX takes the position that the Holy See is vacant. Neither your assumption, whether based on hearsay or ignorance, nor especially mine or anyone else's reaction to your words, should be used as a barometer of the truth, since both of those yardsticks have already failed you.

I would have spoken the same way to you in person if this discussion was brought up in our presence. LOL, I don't think too many people will take kindly to Free Republic being called a "dopey internet forum". I have no problem speaking my mind to others I don't know in person, odds are I'm much more physically imposing than they, thanks to my Nordic blood.

Here you assume correctly, provided you're being truthful. I can't even stand up without the aid of a cane, so if you are a burly Norseman in good health, you could indeed kick my butt. Point conceded.

The crusades/inquisition statement was just a bit of venting of what used to happen to groups such as the SSPX over 600 years ago.

600 years ago, the SSPX stance was the status quo in the Church, which is kind of the whole point here. The Crusades were fought against mongrels occupying Christianity's holiest places. Today, mongrels (i.e., Hindus), are being invited by the Catholic bishops to offer their diabolical worship in holy places (Fatima, for instance). The Inquisition was aimed at stomping out heresy - people publicly denying one or more truths of the Faith; i.e., that the Catholic Church is the one true religion outside of which no one can be saved, that Our Lord is actually present in the Blessed Sacrament, etc. If this were 600 years ago, I dare say that the SSPX would not be the ones on the business end of an inquisition, though they would definitely have their work cut out for them.

The Orthodox are a special case, one that I am not qualified to speak on, because I am not read up on it. I view them as schismatic, yes, but they think the same way about us. They are not under excommunicated status.

You weren't read-up on the SSPX, either, yet you had no problem declaring their excommunication. What makes the Orthodox a "special case?"

They have some issues with the Latin Church, but are not preaching heresies or anything like that.

They hold no dogmatic positions which the Catholic Church teaches are heretical? Are you sure?

They have legitimate authority,

"Legitimate authority," meaning the Roman Pontiff appoints their bishops and gives them territorial jurisdiction? Are you sure?

and reasons for being in schism, and that has been recognized by the Papacy,

They have permission to be in schism? Is this really what you're saying?

unlike the SSPX which is in direct conflict with Church doctrine.

Which ones?

The crux of my argument is that the SSPX needs to accept the reality of things, and that times have changed, and so the Church must, as she always has.

Check it, yo.:

"I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely."
-Pope St. Pius X, Oath against Modernism, 9/1/1910

From the Syllabus of Errors, Pope Pius IX:
[It is an error to believe that]"Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason."

[It is an error to believe that]"The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization."

"'Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed.' This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense -- with some modification when needful -- should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth. The secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. "Blind'- they are, and "leaders of the blind" puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which "they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself."
Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 8/8/1907

Look around & ask yourself who's side you're on. Stop. Think. Reassess. I beg you.

Heres my overdue reply:

The SSPX as a group is antisedavacantism, but, there are many individuals in it who support sedevacantism themselves. That is how I should have phrased my original post.

I was wrong about the excommunication, only Archbishop Lefebvre and the four Bishops he elevated were excommunicated. Whatever the reasons were that he cited from cannon law, something to do with dire necessity, the final say goes to the Pope, and he bypassed the Holy Father, and was duly excommunicated. The SSPX members are still in schism.

The Norseman thing is more of a confidence thing than anything else, but still is the truth none the less. People are less likely to challenge you when you stand six inches taller than they on average. When I type here, I view my words as being in a conversational tone, not threatening at all, and with no anger.

The Crusades/Inquisition statement was meant as a parallel for the present. 600 years ago, the SSPX types definitely would have been the ones conducting them.

The Orthodox have justifiable conflicts with the Roman Church in terms of the power of the Papacy, the Roman calendar, etc... and this is recognized by the Papacy. The Orthodox and Rome are actively trying to reconcile with each other in good faith, as the SSPX takes a stance of all or nothing, and refuses to make concessions to reconcile with Rome. Heresies was the wrong term to use.

Legitimate authority, as you put it, is exactly what I mean, and is justified in Scripture. The Pope has final say in the appointing of Bishops.

If what Pope St. Pius X stated was held all throughout our history, we would not have many of the traditions we have today. Change and modernism. We would still be speaking Aramaic, not Latin or the vernacular. It was not just the Pope who brought about Vatican II, it was the College of Cardinals at the Vatican council who developed the changes in the Church's dogmatic positions. To me, that is the will of God, as the Holy Spirit guided the Church to make these changes. I have FAITH that the Catholic Church will always stand with Christ, as the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Getting hung up on dogma helps no one.

Again, I am on your side, and I would love for the SSPX to be reconciled with Rome, and I would love for greater use of the Tridentine Mass and the use of Latin, but I do not believe Vatican II needs total reversal, as Pope Benedict is setting things straight in how it should be interpreted. Rome has made concessions, now it is time for the SSPX to do the same.