Replies

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.

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 suppose it's possible for indiviuals to hold all sorts of errors while maintaing an outward adherance to something which contradicts that error. All you have to do is look at the statistics on the numbers of people calling themselves Catholic who disregard Church teaching with respect to abortion, birth control, and divorce. Still, you can't know the minds and souls of individuals. Here again, you're throwing your own personal assumption up as fact.

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.

Can the Pope bypass Canon law? Is Papal authority limitless?

The SSPX members are still in schism.

There you go again. What is a SSPX member? Who is in schism, and what, exactly, makes them schismatic?

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.

But you said previously:

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.

I'll buy that you were "venting," but not that you meant to say the same thing in two contradictory statements; that it's not what you said that's changed, but that you've arrived at a new and deeper understanding of what you said. Come now.

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.

So the Orthodox have doctrinal issues with the primacy of the Roman Pontiff (to say the least), meaning that they do not believe that he's the Vicar of Christ, that he's a false leader of a false Church. Yet their beefs are "justifiable" and "recognized" whereas the SSPX, which does recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ are vilified as "outside the Church." See what's going on here? Those who don't want to be inside are being brought in by hook or by crook. Those who wish to stay are being kicked out.

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.

Two things that stand against each other can't be reconciled without the death of one or the other. In this case, either the Pope will have to agree that it's not necessary for the Orthodox to submit to his authority (the death of Catholicism, and, in fact,a heresy), or the Orthodox will have to convert to Catholicism (the death of Orthodoxy). Even if the two can be nice to each other and agree to disagree, that doesn't mean that anyone's actively trying to reconcile wth anybody. This is false ecumenism. It's an error.

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.

You're right. He does. There's an important distinction to make, however. The 4 bishops of the SSPX have no authority in terms of territorial jurisdiction. They have the episcopal dignity, the fullness of Holy Orders, the power to validly ordain & confirm, but that's it. They have no ordinary jurisdiction. Only the Pope can give that. Had Archbishop Lefebvre attempted to bestow jurisdiction on the bishops he consecrated, that would have been the establishment of a parallel church, a truly schismatic act. The Archbishop couldn't give them any jurisdiction, as he had none to give. His intent was to ensure the perpetuation of valid Orders and sacraments, not to found a new religion.

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.

If any Pope said anything that wasn't consistent with what has always been believed, that would be an error. Modernism is not a tradition. It's a heresy.

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.

Which dogmatic positions were changed at Vatican II?

I have FAITH that the Catholic Church will always stand with Christ, as the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So do I.

Getting hung up on dogma helps no one.

To depart from dogma makes one a heretic, and is the very definition of heresy. Did you evn know that? I dare say it's extremely helpful to be hung up on dogma. Your eternity depends on it. To ignore dogma is to place onesself outside the Church, the very thing you accuse the SSPX of having done!

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.

What either of us want may or not be what God wants. We have to wait & see what He allows, do good and avoid evil, and tell the two apart by their fruits. If one holds the Catholic Faith, there's nothing to concede to anyone. Ever.

Q: How many of the martyrs, when faced with either making concessions or having their heads removed from their bodies, chose to make concessions?

A: None.

Let's pray for each other.