Someone explain again why Ecclesia Dei is ignored by friends and members of SSPX?

I don’t get it. Is the letter from 1988 entitled Ecclesia Dei a statement of teachings on morals and doctrine? Doesn’t it qualify under the “infallibility clause”? Doesn’t it say that we should not support the SSPX-ers in any way. I assume that is to help them realize that they must come back since they are not in FULL communion with the Church.

Please excuse my poor Church legalese, feel free (as I am sure many will) to correct me.

It is of interest to me that the SSPXers and their friends (the ones who go to indult masses for what ever reason, but do go to SSPX masses on occasion) say that they are loyal to the magisterium and the Pope, but they choose to ignore the Pope and the magisterium when it suits them just like any other protestant.

I missed that part of the Bible where Jesus said that Peter would hold the keys to the kingdom and that a few select people will also be given copies of the keys. So that any old Joe can choose to ignore the Pope at any time He wishes as long as they think they are justified.

It is also of interest to note that the good Bishop of Nebraska is calling the SSPX-ers BACK to the Church, and the Vatican has not disagreed and said that the SSPX-ers are with the Church.

I despise this gray area that friends of SSPX-ers embrace. It really puts a damper on some of our relationships at the indult masses.

I would love to get this whole thing blown up and over with…
:banghead:

What you are seeing is really two sides of the same coin. The SSPX ignores one part and the liberals ignore the other part and each point to each other as why they somehow can’t be obedient. And some of us sit in the middle and say “you’re both wrong”.

Has Bishop Bruskewitz done something recently with the SSPX? If so, I’d love to see the link for that one.

He excommunicated them a long time ago.

Here we go again.

Yes, JPII did clearly state that the Archbishop and his four bishops were excommunicated. That was back in 1988 and a lot has happened since with not only those bishops but with members who choose to attend the SSPX services. I suggest you keep current with those discussions.

To those of us who attend the “indults” (a term I find very derogatory, by the way), why should it be a problem that some attend the SSPX services? Rome has acknowledged the Masses (and priests) are valid and Canon Law permits you to attend as well, provided you don’t form a schismatic mindset.

The only Latin Masses I would definitely avoid are those that don’t recognize Pope Benedict as the current Pope and the local ordinary as the valid bishop in the Canon of the Mass.

Now let’s concentrate on those that don’t go to Church at all, can we?

BobP123
Yur Id handle is turning lite gray:eek:. Is something gonna happen to you…soon?http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/conf47.gif

Here we go round and round. http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/bangdesk.gif

You wish. :smiley:

I must have been changing my email address and confirming confirmation. I couldn’t post for about 30 minutes or so. Am I ok now?

I would love to get this whole thing blown up and over with…

We cannot grant your wish.
The SSPX is opposed to certain Articles of VATII.
The Indult ECC.DEI Societies are adherents to those Articles…at least in profession. Though I don’t recall hearing a single sermon praising anything from VATII at an Indult Society Mass.
So, the ECC.DEI Societies ignore VATII for the most part aka passive.
The SSPX is opposed aka pro-active.
THAT’s the difference. Period.
So, you see it’s not just the TLM at all.

Regarding your sig:
Or maybe they were just viewing it from two different angles. Happens all the time. I wouldn’t wanna base history on that.

Lookin good!
I put the Guillotine back in the closet.
http://www.usd.edu/~jbulman/the_guillotine_files/image004.gif

The Novus Ordinarians also oppose articles of VATII. :smiley:

Sacrosanctum Concilium? Such as these?

  1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established…3. Therefore, no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

36.1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

54…steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

115…Composers and singers, especially boys, must also be given a genuine liturgical training.

  1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

  2. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.

  3. The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from liturgical sources.

124…Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.

Glad someone finally responded to my signature. I recently watched some selected World War II footage with my dad and I’m thinking that one can claim what he wants and set his own post war agenda by simply changing the SEQUENCE of those films. And who would question it? A film, after all, is worth tens of thousands of true words, isn’t it?

So what is truth? Glad we have four gospels which, if you really think about it, are astonishingly similar. What are the odds on that, even if there are a half dozen gospels around which the Church has not accepted as factual?

Maybe so, but every time I read your sig, I think about the different perspectives I get from different witnesses at an MVA (motor vehicle accident) when I am trying to find out details about my patient. It all depends on their angle and their attention to detail.

I’ll definitely have to save those. Thanks.

You are

Are you sure that isn’t the SSPX Manifesto?
Other than part of #2, not a single one of those is present in the whole world of the NO Mass.
BTW:
#2 obviates or makes worthless all the other stuff. Clever eh?

And are you surprised???

                 Originally Posted by **TNT**                     [forums.catholic.com/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif]("http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1962564#post1962564")                 
             *Are you sure that isn't the SSPX Manifesto?

Other than part of #2, not a single one of those is present in the whole world of the NO Mass.*

Other than the Prince of Mischief’s #2, doesn’t more it describe the TLM and NOT the NOM?
In other words, the SSPX complies (sans #2) and the NOM empirically violates all of it?

So you really are a medic. Or a doctor (of the Church maybe)?:slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.