The Deep Divisions in Latin church

[Ben Jamin]

Ben, I wrote,
Even if the Church is filled with heretics and worse, there is no salvation anywhere else.

St. Augustine said we should not be surprised to find non-Catholic things (e.g. sin) occupying the members of the Catholic Church. Nothing of what you mentioned phazes me in any way.

The Catholic Church is still the Church in union with the Pope, no matter how many Korans he kisses. Popes in the history of the Church have often given scandal. Our Faith should not be so weak that we are fazed because the Pope sins, or because there are freak-show groups out there.

The FSSP is not an alternative to "following" the Pope. One can be in communion with the Pope while disapproving of his actions (St. Catherine of Siena? St. Paul, anyone?). That is my position. That is the position of all traditionalist Catholics in union with Rome.

LatinTrad

Latin Trad....

I was not trying to "phaze" you in anyway, I was just pointing out that division exsists in Catholicism..and I was wondering where you fall in that division....

You are correct in saying that FSSP is not an alternative to following the Pope, however FSSP priests can not complain or condmen Vat II or the new Mass or the actions of the Pope. And you must remember that FSSP did not start right after Vat II..for quite a while those who wished to attend the Tridentine Mass had to attend SSPX. And because so many people were going to SSPX, FSSP was created. It is well known if it wasn't for SSPX, they would be no need for FSSP. If the Vatican wouldn't have noticed all of those Catholics going SSPX and falling into "schism" FSSP would not have been created.

Also I must point out that FSSP only celebrates the Tridentine Mass, the other sacraments are administered in their new form. The only way to find un-altered Catholic sacraments is by going to a SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, or an independent chapel.

It is interesting that people who attend FSSP Masses are just fine with the Tridentine Mass, that is all they need, yet they could care less about the other sacraments which have changed drastically since Vat II.

Some here may wonder why I am writting this if I am on my way to Orthodoxy. And that is most certainly a just question, but all who read this please do not misunderstand me. I am Catholic, for the time being, I am not yet Orthodox. I am torn between the two and I don't know where to go.

Latin Trad we have gotten WAY off the subject, and the topic of SSPX or FSSP or John Paul II is not proper for this cafe, however if you wish to continue this over PM, I'd be glad to!

Please pray for me!

[Joe Zollars]

just a few corrections from the "almost seminarian" *

FSSP: Fraterdinalis Sacredotalis Sancti Petris, established 1988 when abp. Marcel Lefebre consecrated four bishops without Rome's consent. Depending upon the local Bishop may use some pre-VII sacramentaries, but primarily use the Tridentine Mass with the 1960 Brevarium Romanum and post vatican II stuff for everything else.

SSPX, actually FSSPX on official documents: Fraterdinalis Sacerdotalis Sancti Pie X established 1969. Was in canonical union wiht Rome until the mid seventies when it went under sensure but no excommunications were dolled out. Was formally excommunicated in 1988, however the vatican has made clear the excommunications pertain only to the clergy and religious who recieve their tonsures from one of the four SSPX bishops. Laity in some cases are even encouraged to frequent these chapels. Use all prevatican II material. This group recognizes John Paul as a pope and recognizes the validity (in many, but not all cases) the post vatican ii mass and sacraments.

CMRI/SSPV: Two different sedevacantist groups who use the missal from the early 40's and the breviary from 1911 believing the 1962 missal to differ from that of 1969 in degree not type (technically they are right).

Independent Chapels are usually a retired Priest who offers a Missa Privata (private or Low Mass) for which someone (almost always a layman given the task) just happens to open the doors right before the Mass is supposed to begin. High Mass is never said in such an instance and no bishop is comemorated due to the fact that most believe their are no Bishops left in the Catholic Church. they believe, in some cases, in the validity of sspx,sspv,cmri and novus ordo bishops but believe them to be seperated from the Catholic Church because of their heresy.

the Indultees to whom LT is a self proclaimed adherent are forbidden from criticizing the actions of the Pope or of Vatican II or of the abherations that have come from them.

There are numerous other players in the field but these are the bigguns.

Nicholas Zollars

[Грешник]

Just a question... Why is there a need for a Roman primer in a Traditional Orthodox forum? According to the Roman mind the Orthodox are Schismatics. I am sorry I just do not see the need to discuss this if it is of no consequence to the Orthodox what the Roman's believe because either side will say that the other is doctrinally or dogmatically flawed and therefore not the Church.

Just my two cents.

Juvenaly

P.S. Nick, define almost seminarian? I spent a yr... (wince)

[Joe Zollars]

good point.

Sorry I meant to describe that in the last line of my post but didnt' get to it.

I was about to go to the seminary for the local NO Diocese with intentions of being one of those renegades after ordination who refused to say anything other than the Trid mass. However the bishop asked my opinions of the Novus Ordo and I said I thought there were some problems (this was to me the understatement of the century) and he asked what was the best way to solve them. When I told him the best way to fix the novus ordo missal was a match, he basically said so long. Then I thought about it a while and determined to study with one of the traditionalist groups after I finished my assosciates (which they all requirse so as to save money). Fortunatly I came to my senses before doing so.

Nicholas Zollars

[LatinTrad]

Also I must point out that FSSP only celebrates the Tridentine Mass, the other sacraments are administered in their new form.

This is not true, Ben--I don't know where your info comes from, but I've been to FSSP baptisms, marriages, ordinations, confession, etc., and it is all done according to the traditional rite. I've been to confirmations also, where the diocesan bishop administered old rite confirmation to the FSSP community. Obviously the Eucharist is old rite. That leaves Extreme Unction--the only sacrament I've never seen an FSSP priest administer. I think that your statement above may come from rumors or information provided by fringe sources.

Also, I challenge anyone to find a document prohibiting Catholics from criticizing the Pope or the reforms. Cardinal Ratzinger himself has done so publicly. Michael Davies, the former head of Una Voce International--widely criticized in the SSPX for being a pro-indult group--has offered scathing critiques of the post-V2 reforms.

However, this is all off my point. To answer Mr. Reeves:

1) Was there a consensus before the year 1000 that the Pope taught infallibly when he issued solemn doctrinal pronouncements to be definitively held by the whole Church? Well, was there a consensus before 451 that there were two physes in Christ? Was there any consensus whatsoever before 325 that Christ was homoousios ho Patér? Throughout the Church's history, the exact nature of many dogmas--at first, even those that related to Christ's own person--were not fully hammered out. To suggest otherwise--e.g. to suggest that the Apostles would have used the word homoousios--is also pure fantasy. I'm not saying that you would suggest that. But I am saying that "development of doctrine" is simply the clarification of the Faith-once-given. Dogmas are not defined until it is necessary to define them, in condemnation of error.

Thus, it is not a sound argument to assert that because the word "infallible" was not widely used by the pre-1000 Church, it must not have an Apostolic foundation. That is the exact same line of reasoning employed by those who reject Chalcedon, by those who reject Ephesus, and by those who reject Nicea. The Church clarifies her own position, throughout history, in response to new errors and new threats. New terminology may come into play. Those throughout history who have severd themselves from the Church--e.g. early Arians, semi-Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, even (for you guys) the Old Believers--have seen themselves as guardians of tradition against innovation. Homoousios, Theotokos, two natures in Christ, etc., are legitimate clarifications of the Faith that was once-given to the Church. Only the Church is allowed to make those clarifications.

Thus, just as I believe homoousios to be Apostolic, so do I believe infallibility to be Apostolic.

And those pictures of the Pope were completely beside the point. He's not the first Pope who's done things that he shouldn't have, and he probably won't be the last.

Blessings.

LatinTrad

[Грешник]

I spent a year at Seton Hall in NJ. I was studying for a religious community based on the East Coast and then decided that this was the best place to send me, BOY WERE THEY WRONG!! The things that we were taught, the things that we condoned, the ideas that were planted in our heads by the rector and 'spiritual director' are atrocious. People may deny it and say that none of it goes on but I would ask many of them if they have ever experienced being outcasted because you weren't 'on the in' with alot of this garbage... I came, I saw, I ran as fast as I could...

Juvenaly

[Ben Jamin]

Latin Trad,

I am very sorry if I made a mistake but my local Indult chapel, run by two FSSP priests, does not offer the old traditional form of confession and confirmations done by the novus Ordo bishop at this chapel are not in the traditional form.

I could be totaly wrong but when I asked the priest he said that most FSSP chapels, if not all, do not offer any of the old sacraments other than the eucharist.

If what I said was unture, I said it out of ignorance, I am sorry.

But Latin Trad under Eclesia Dei FSSP priests are forbidden from critizing and condmening JPII, Novus Ordo, and Vat II in their sermons.

Joe,

A few corrections.....

SSPX was never excomunicated, niether was Archbishop Lefebvre. On July 2 1988, the Pope merely declared that an "ipso facto" excommunication had taken place. It did not, according to Can. 1323 (1983 Code). And due to that fact that Lefebvre said: 'I am creating
bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church' most Roman Catholic experts on Canon Law do not believe the SSPX to be in schism.

Joe I have NO idea where you got that info on independent chapels. The independent chapels around here do believe there are ture Catholic bishops out there and they do have high Masses, at least thats what the independent chapels are like in Colorado.

Anyway I am done with this....this is not proper for an ORTHODOX forum....