I Can Not Support The Idea Of The SSPX Signing Anything

[Tapatio]

I am praying hard for the SSPX. If we could get all those chapels and priests within the legal structures of the Church oh how marvelous that would be! It would also give the liberals something to chew on.

Oh yeah, look how much good the FSSP has done! 

The FSSP brings the traditional Mass to thousands of Catholics and educates people on traditional Catholicism. 

If we are going to complain about results lets look at the SSPX.  The SSPX has been around twice as long as the FSSP and hasn't fixed the Church either.  By your standard they are a failure too. 

At least they are trying - or was it the FSSP that was in Rome recently?  Oh that's right, they would never be allowed by their Modernist bishop to question Vatican II and the New Mass openly to Rome - they are censored in that regard.

Rome has not asked the SSPX to engage in discussions to help Rome.
Rome is trying to be merciful to the SSPX by bringing them back into canonical regular standing.
The FSSP is fine.

Why aren't the real enemies of the Church held to the same standard as the SSPX? Just look at a typical NO parish website. It's a protestant invasion. Horrifying!!

I completely agree.
I personally think the FSSPX are fine, other than the points I have raised before.
I am just stating what Rome states the discussions are about.

The real enemies of the Church need to man up much more than the FSSPX.

I must admit I never in a million years expected you to say that, based on your other posts in the tank...

I have only criticised the Society on two counts in my past posts.
Everyone knows what they are.
Other than them [and they are big] the FSSPX as a whole are great priests, in my experience.

That's how we Mexicans refer to the society. FSSPX.

[Arun]

Notice how in the other thread I posted a quote from St Pius V in which he stated that the Mass was the Mass - nothing was to be added to, taken away from &c.

Using QUO PRIMUM to argue that the TLM can never be altered or even abolished is a pretty lousy argument and makes traditionalists look like they have no arguments against the NO, when in fact they have many good critiques, which is why you find very few traditional priests making this argument.  The Pope does not have the power the make binding on all his successors a specific liturgy.  The reason why the NO is bad liturgy isn't because it violates QUO PRIMUM, which doesn't.  It's a bad liturgy because it has a different theology behind it that obscures traditional views of the Mass.  

I dunno. You're the only person that has responded to it in two separate threads...

Father Cekeda has written the following.  Although he is advocating a sedevacantist argument, he is correct here:

      Father Laisney trots out yet another old canard: the tale that Paul VI did not abrogate (revoke) St. Pius V’s Bull Quo Primum.

      Advocates of this position sometimes cite a passage in the Code which states that “a more recent law given by competent authority, abrogates a former law, if it expressly orders abrogation.”

      Paul VI, the argument goes, did not mention Quo Primum by name, so he did not expressly abrogate it. Quo Primum, then, never lost its force, and we are all still free to celebrate the old Mass.

      But proponents of this notion are engaging in wishful thinking. Expressly, in the canon quoted above, does not just mean “by name.” A legislator may “expressly” revoke a law in another way — and this is what occurred here, when Paul VI, after he gave his volumus to the New Mass, added the following clause:

      “Notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinances of Our Predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those worthy of special mention and amendment.”

      This clause expressly abrogates Quo Primum.

      First, the Bull Quo Primum falls into the category of the most solemn type of pontifical legal Act — a Papal or Apostolic Constitution.[30] And in the passage quoted from Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution, he specifically revokes the “Apostolic Constitutions” of his predecessors.

      Second, in order to revoke a law expressly, a pope is not required to mention it by name. Express revocation also takes place, says the canonist Cicognani, if the legislator inserts “abrogatory or derogatory clauses, as is common in decrees, rescripts, and other pontifical acts: notwithstanding anything to the contrary, notwithstanding  in any respect anything to the contrary, though worthy of special mention.”

      Paul VI, in other words, used the exact type of language required to expressly revoke a prior law.

      And in so doing, Paul VI again used some of the same phrases St. Pius V employed in Quo Primum to revoke liturgical laws of his predecessors:

      “Notwithstanding preceding Apostolic constitutions and ordinances… and whatever laws and customs there be to the contrary.”

      Again, if this language worked in 1570, it also worked in 1969.

      In light of all the foregoing, one cannot continue to promote the myth that Paul VI’s legislation did not expressly abrogate Quo Primum.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=19&catname=8

.

I know Fr Laisney personally. I tend to go along with what he says about things. If you met him, you'd understand.

[JayneK]

JayneK and Old Salty will beg to differ. Their stance seems to be that the only possible interpretation of anything ever* is "Roma locuta est, causa finita est." Although I don't think they like to see that "dead" language being used, as the vernacular is FAAAAAR more efficacious.

I love the Latin language.  I do the majority of my personal prayers in Latin.  I am taking senior level Latin courses at my local university to improve my skill in the language.  I tutor some altar boys who are discerning vocations and want to prepare themselves by learning Latin.  I think that the Mass should contain significant amounts of Latin, although I would not object to the readings being in the vernacular.

*with the exception of anything and everything said prior to V-II.

I have the same response to magisterial teaching regardless whether it preceded or followed V2.

Notice how in the other thread I posted a quote from St Pius V in which he stated that the Mass was the Mass - nothing was to be added to, taken away from &c.

Neither JayneK nor Old Salt had a response so they simply ignored it and let the discussion move past it by fostering other arguments - read through the thread, you can actually see it happening. The fostering of other arguments serves as a distraction - one could perhaps refer to this as the Japanese saying goes "kyojitsu tenkan ho". Lol.

I wrote a reply to that post.  http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3447051.msg33660551.html#msg33660551
This is basically the same explanation that Someone gave you, although he did a better job than I did.

Every thing you said about me in this post was not true.  I am really puzzled about where you are getting these ideas about me.

[Arun]

Erm. I get them from the things that you say, Jayne.

[Stubborn]

It seems to me that people's reactions to the Vatican's offer to the SSPX show who has a schismatic attitude and who does not. 

In reality, it is "Rome" who has the "schismatic attitude."  They are the ones who have broke with their own Tradition.  The SSPX are doing what they can to bring "Rome" back to the fold, not the other way around.

Look at the assumptions you are making here:  Rome has left the Church.  The SSPX is the Church.  The visible structure of the Church is not the true Church. 

Nic wrote:

TRUE -  They are the ones who have broke with their own Tradition.
TRUE -  The SSPX are doing what they can to bring "Rome" back to the fold, not the other way around.


JayneK replies:

MAKES NO SENSE -  Rome has left the Church.
FOOLISH STATEMENT DESIGNED TO ADD SLANDER THE SSPX -   The SSPX is the Church.
MISAPPLIED PURPOSELY IN SUPPORT OF MODERNIST ROME -  The visible structure of the Church is not the true Church. 

Hey Stubborn - notice how JayneK and Old Salt put words into my mouth.  Never did I say that the visible structure of the Church is not the true Church.  It still is, only enemies have seized upon it.  Unfortunately the true religion isn't preached there much.  Old Salt, using common neo-con tactics, tries to say that I am spouting heresy when I did no such thing.  It isn't hard to figure out that the Catholicism taught by the SSPX and "Rome" are NOT the same, but "Rome" has the authority.  In these times it is like the SSPX is St. Paul trying to admonish St. Peter (Rome).  If I or the SSPX believed that they had the authority, then they would have no need to be in Rome - there would be no need for these doctrinal discussions.

People like JayneK and Old Salt cannot grasp lessons from history, they suffer from a very severe normalcy bias - a very severe sense of denial.  The Arians usurped the ecclesiastical structure of the Church way back in the 3rd-4th centuries.  It is a proven fact.  It is believed that over 90% of Churchmen at that time were thoroughly Arian - and guess what? - they held positions of ecclesiastical authority, meaning that they made up the majority of the ecclesiastical structure of the Church!  St. Athanasius was not in the ecclesastical structure as perceived by the Arian usurpers - the great saint was thrown out along with the Tradition he lauded to live as a "fringe element," an exile and a "rebel."  As the history of our religion shows, these things unfortunately DO happen (and are happening again).

These types cannot seem to grasp that this can happen again in their cushy, privileged age - even when dealt the overwhelmingly staggering evidence supporting that this is indeed happening again - only worse this time.  We have lessons from history concerning how to handle such crises - and it definitely isn't what people like JayneK and Old Salt are doing - it is what people associated with the SSPX are doing, and those of a like mind.  St. Athanasius and his followers didn't turn a blind eye and whitewash everything that their ecclesiastical superiors did in error, no way - they confronted it head on and suffered exile and "excommunications" for it.  They realized that error is error no matter who is speaking it, and to hold fast to Tradition no matter what the costs.  Does this sound like the common neo-con of today or does it sound more like the SSPX and its proponents?  There are a LOT of parallels between the Arian Crisis and this modern crisis, and a LOT of lessons to be learned from history.

I know Nic, unfortunately they're still heavily under the influence of the modernism they've embraced prior to discovering the truth. What we see from them is the result of embracing modernism and the faith at the same time.

Truly pernicious modernism is.   

 
 

[Stubborn]

Notice how in the other thread I posted a quote from St Pius V in which he stated that the Mass was the Mass - nothing was to be added to, taken away from &c.

Using QUO PRIMUM to argue that the TLM can never be altered or even abolished is a pretty lousy argument and makes traditionalists look like they have no arguments against the NO, when in fact they have many good critiques, which is why you find very few traditional priests making this argument.  The Pope does not have the power the make binding on all his successors a specific liturgy.  The reason why the NO is bad liturgy isn't because it violates QUO PRIMUM, which it doesn't.  It's a bad liturgy because it has a different theology behind it that obscures traditional views of the Mass.  

Someone1776, I agree  Pope St. Pius V could not bind his successors, but were it possible, that is precisely the thing he was trying to do with Quo Primum.

About the only thing we can say with absolute certainty, is that per the dictate of Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum,  the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul was incurred with the NO. . . . . . a good enough reason the SSPX cannot sign anything that makes them accept the NO.

 

[TrentCath]

Where is this mysterious infallible document that says a Pope couldn't foster a harmful rite on the Church?

I have to say I do wonder this myself 

This is the only thing I have found. Afterwards is SSPX commentary:
In 1794, the constitution Auctorem Fidei stated that " as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome, but which is even dangerous and harmful."

 Father Gaudron SSPX comments: This text, which has neither the authority or the precision of a dogmatic definition, shows very well that the ecclesiastical authorities enjoy a certain infallibility in disciplinary and liturgical matters, but does not indicate the conditions of its exercise nor its exact limits. While waiting for the Church to decide the matter, theologians are reduced to hypotheses on the matter.

I quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:  

 1124 The Church's faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]).45 The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.

1125 For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.

A quote from the Catechism of the Catholic church is unlikely to prove or solve anything.

[TrentCath]

Where is this mysterious infallible document that says a Pope couldn't foster a harmful rite on the Church?

I have to say I do wonder this myself 

This is the only thing I have found. Afterwards is SSPX commentary:
In 1794, the constitution Auctorem Fidei stated that " as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome, but which is even dangerous and harmful."

 Father Gaudron SSPX comments: This text, which has neither the authority or the precision of a dogmatic definition, shows very well that the ecclesiastical authorities enjoy a certain infallibility in disciplinary and liturgical matters, but does not indicate the conditions of its exercise nor its exact limits. While waiting for the Church to decide the matter, theologians are reduced to hypotheses on the matter.

Thanks for that, guess I should looked in Denzinger before replying lol

[ggreg]

I am just going to wait for God to destroy Rome and most of the hierarchy and then gloat.

I don't believe the SSPX are going to sign any agreement before that.
I want nothing to do with the modern church so it makes no difference. I would lapse sooner than make the sign of peace with those limp wristed paedos. Different religion so I am not interested. I don't believe the modern church has the truth.

[JayneK]

Erm. I get them from the things that you say, Jayne.

How could you possibly have gotten that I disapprove of Latin when I have never said anything remotely resembling that (and it is not the least bit true)?  Have I ever said anything that even slightly suggests that I do not accept pre-Vatican II teaching?  And you accused me of not replying to a post that I did, in fact, reply to.

You are not arguing with me and my opinions.  You have some imaginary opponent whom you have given my name.