Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

04/02/2013 new
(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Let's see, the analysis states that the Pope awaits with open arms the return of the SSPX. I...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:



Let's see, the analysis states that the Pope awaits with open arms the return of the SSPX. If they are not apart, how can the Pope be described as waiting for their "return." If they are not scismatic, why is an agreement needed?



The article also makes a point several times, that the SSPX is not in "formal schism." So now we are to believe there are two possible states: formal schism and informal schism. Utter nonsense.



As part of the argument, the artcle points out that a Catholic who attended an SSPX Mass was not a scismatic. That is also true of a Catholic, who out of necessity, attended an Eastern Orthodox Mass to fulfill his Sunday obligation. But it does not change the fact the Eastern Orthodox churches are, in fact, scismatic.



The argument does not wash.





--hide--


Cardinal Hoyos was the competent Vatican authority at the time, and Pope Benedict wrote the following when he lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops in 2009.

"This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."

www.vatican.va

I guess you are being more Catholic than the Pope.
LOCKED
04/02/2013 new
(Quote) John-336509 said: Paul has made a number of good points and I will not repeat them, except to point out the excell...
(Quote) John-336509 said:



Paul has made a number of good points and I will not repeat them, except to point out the excellence of his point that a Catholic can receive sacraments at an Orthodox Church if necessary, but that doesn't mean that there is no schism.



I am more sympathetic to the whole formal/informal schism facade than Paul, but let's face it; at the end of the day it is a diplomatic fiction. The Church is trying to bring the SSPX back in (and make no mistake- they are out) and that task is made easier if they don't spend a lot of time emphasizing the separation. The SSPX for its part justifies its position by pretending to be "true" Catholics who are waiting for the "mistaken" beurocrats in Rome to come to their senses. If they formally severed all ties with Rome, they'd have a lot of theological explaining to do. Likewise Rome's diplomats don't see any point in burning the bridge since they want the SSPX to come back, but it doesn't change the fact that they are on the other side of a chasm and will need a bridge somewhere sometime to come back into the fold.

--hide--


Again the status of the SSPX is the same as Dignity. Neither has a legitimate canonical status but neither is formally in schism.

Rome views the SSPX differently from the Orthodox.

And considering that Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunication of the Orthodox, which is why we allow them to freely receive communion in the Catholic Church, the dividing line with them also is a bit grayer.
LOCKED
04/02/2013 new
Pope Pius XII said the following in his Encyclical Mediator Dei regarding the elitist liturgical trend that preceded Vatican II and reached fruition shortly thereafter.

62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation.

www.vatican.va

Change the liturgy and then you change the faith. It will be nice once the Vatican II generation has gone out to pasture for good.
LOCKED
04/02/2013 new
(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Monica, What don't you understand about the fact that since ST. Peter's w...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:



Monica,



What don't you understand about the fact that since ST. Peter's was built, every Pope has always said Mass facing the Congregation? It is the olnly way the Mass can be celebrated at the main altar there.



That was how the Mass was celebrated in the early church, in the homes of Christians at the dinner table as part of the communal meal.



I also earlier quoted the rules that specify that thye Altar was to be positioned away from the wall so that, preferably, the Priest faces the people when saying Mass.



And when all is said and done, what possible difference does it make if the Priest does or does not face the people when saying Mass except at those limited times where the rubric insists he faces the people.?



Facing or not facing the people has aboslutely nothing to do with the validity of a Mass.

--hide--


I have never questioned the validity of a Mass where the priest faces the people. And I do understand what you are saying. I just personally think we should all face God together and I've seen way too many priests treat the Mass as if it was their time to entertain an audience. I've rarely had the sense of the Mass being a sacrifice because it's all too often looked upon as only a meal.
LOCKED
04/02/2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: Again the status of the SSPX is the same as Dignity. Neither has a legitimate canonical status bu...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

Again the status of the SSPX is the same as Dignity. Neither has a legitimate canonical status but neither is formally in schism.

Rome views the SSPX differently from the Orthodox.

And considering that Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunication of the Orthodox, which is why we allow them to freely receive communion in the Catholic Church, the dividing line with them also is a bit grayer.
--hide--

That's all true, and not a word of it contradicts anything I've said.

And none of it changes the fact that the Vatican has repeatedly asked the faithful to not attend SSPX chapels because of (among other things) the real danger of falling into a "schismatic mindset" (Vatican's words).

LOCKED
04/02/2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: The article also makes a point several times, that the SSPX is not in "formal schism...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

The article also makes a point several times, that the SSPX is not in "formal schism." So now we are to believe there are two possible states: formal schism and informal schism. Utter nonsense.

--hide--


I believe the two distinctions of schism are formal and material. While the schism of the SSPX may not yet be formal because it is undeclared by both Rome and the SSPX...I think that those with eyes might wager that the SSPX and their adherents have the whiff of material schism (that is, the internal spiritual condition) about them.

LOCKED
04/02/2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: Cardinal Hoyos was the competent Vatican authority at the time, and Pope Benedict wrote the follo...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

Cardinal Hoyos was the competent Vatican authority at the time, and Pope Benedict wrote the following when he lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops in 2009.

"This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."

www.vatican.va

I guess you are being more Catholic than the Pope.
--hide--

What part of the Pope's message don't you understand?

He did not lift any sanctions from the SSPX Organization and his message was clear on that point. What he did lift was the personal excommunication of the Bishops involved, four of them if I remember correctly.

If the society has no cannoical standing it is the same as saying that the Society itself is not part of the Church. It is separated or more precisly in a schismatic standing.

LOCKED
04/02/2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: Cardinal Hoyos was the competent Vatican authority at the time, and Pope Benedict wrote the follo...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

Cardinal Hoyos was the competent Vatican authority at the time, and Pope Benedict wrote the following when he lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops in 2009.

"This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."

www.vatican.va

I guess you are being more Catholic than the Pope.
--hide--


There's no doubt that the latae sententiae excommunication of the SSPX bishops was lifted in regard to their illicit episcopal consecrations. That does not, however, mean that by necessity they have remedied the internal spiritual conditions which allowed them to contract the excommunication in the first place.

On that front, it is very similar to Pope Paul VI lifting the excommunication from the orthodox patriarch Athenagoras I in 1965. There was no presuming that Athenagoras I was repenting his spiritual condition which keeps him apart from the Catholic Church, merely that an impediment to reconciliation was being removed.

LOCKED
04/02/2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: What part of the Pope's message don't you understand? He did not lift any ...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

What part of the Pope's message don't you understand?

He did not lift any sanctions from the SSPX Organization and his message was clear on that point. What he did lift was the personal excommunication of the Bishops involved, four of them if I remember correctly.

If the society has no cannoical standing it is the same as saying that the Society itself is not part of the Church. It is separated or more precisly in a schismatic standing.

--hide--
In your opinion. rolling eyes

LOCKED
04/02/2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: Pope Pius XII said the following in his Encyclical Mediator Dei regarding the elitist liturgical trend th...
(Quote) John-220051 said: Pope Pius XII said the following in his Encyclical Mediator Dei regarding the elitist liturgical trend that preceded Vatican II and reached fruition shortly thereafter.

62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation.

www.vatican.va

Change the liturgy and then you change the faith. It will be nice once the Vatican II generation has gone out to pasture for good.
--hide--

You demonstrate a great ability to read your own meaning into what a Pope said.

No dognma, doctrine or teaching of the Church was or is changed by The Novus Ordo. The essential parts of the Mass are there now as they have been since the Last Supper. For anyone to claim it does is sheer, unadulterated nonsense.

Indirectly condeming Vatican II, as you have, demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge of what the Council said and did.

LOCKED
Posts 141 - 150 of 200