Catholic groups contradicting one another

[Elizabeth.2]

......... They also confess that in private he considered himself the pope, a pope gregory.

Not to be pedantic, but Pope Hadrian.

[dellery]

But why doesn't the SSPX fall into this category? This is something I still haven't been able to figure out. As far as I know, the Church only gave the SSPX permission to operate for 6 years beginning in 1970. ( https://sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx ) Those 6 years are long over, and the permission was never renewed. (I've e-mailed a few SSPX priests about this very thing, and none have explained this to me. Most haven't even replied. I don't know if they simply missed my e-mail, or if they're deliberately ignoring it, or if they just don't have an answer.)

There's also the question of whether the SSPX is the true SSPX, or whether the Resistance is the true SSPX. The Resistance claims itself to be the true SSPX, and says that the group calling itself "SSPX", in failing to remain faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre's principles, has split off from the true SSPX.

Because the Church has said so, repeatedly acknowledging that the SSPX is a Catholic institution despite it's canonical irregularity.

"For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins. (See the "Letter according to which an indulgence is granted to the faithful on the occasion of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy", September 1, 2015.)  For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God's help for the recovery of full communion with the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church's pardon."

--Pope Francis

"With God's grace, the help of the Virgin Mary, of Saint Joseph, and of Saint Pius X, we are convinced that we shall remain faithful to the Roman Catholic Church, to all the successors of Peter, and shall be the 'fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto' ['faithful dispensers of the mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Ghost']."

--Archbishop Lefebvre

Satan can claim that hell is heaven in resistance, struggling against an unjust god, too.
The Resistance will claim whatever it wants.

[John Lamb]

Daniel, your intellectual openness and willingness to learn is quite touching. It's just a shame that you've got it in your head that your eternal salvation and spiritual welfare depends absolutely on your subscribing intellectually to the right dogmas. Those two things (intellectual openness & dogmatic absolutism) don't really go together. The latter's OK if you're intellectually lazy and idle, but with a mind like yours it's a death-trap. You're going to have to jettison one of the two: either abandon your ceaseless intellectual inquiry, or abandon your opinion that you're going to be damned eternally if you don't arrive at the correct doctrinal formulas by the end of your life.

[Mono no aware]

So we have these groups such as the FSSP, the SSPX, the SSPX-Resistance, the MHFM, the CMRI, etc., all calling themselves "Catholic" and all claiming to be right, and they're all are contradicting one another, and telling us more or less that we're heretics and/or schismatics and/or apostates if we side with the wrong group and/or attend the wrong Mass.

I think you could reasonably eliminate some of these groups in the event that you are a sedeplenist.  If it is true, as the Church traditionally taught, that "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff," then you would presumably have to place the sedevacantist sects in the basket of non-Catholics, since they are willfully refusing to make themselves papal subjects.  A minor snag here is that the present pontiff suggests that you don't have to be his subject in order to be saved.  So paradoxically, you can only put sedevacantists outside the Church by ignoring the present pope and clinging to a more ancient one—by becoming a practical sedevacantist.

But if you cannot identify where the Catholic Church is in the first place (if you are as morally uncertain to whether MHFM is correct, or whether the FSSP is), then sectarianism is not your primary problem.  You would have to extend your uncertainty out further: to whether the Church is Roman Catholic or Byzantine, and to whether the true religion commanded by the God of the Hebrews is Christian, Jewish, or Mohammedan, and to whether the God of the Hebrews is the true god and not a Demiurge, &c.  You would have to follow the strand of your uncertainty into a radical skepticism.

[Vetus Ordo]

So we have these groups such as the FSSP, the SSPX, the SSPX-Resistance, the MHFM, the CMRI, etc., all calling themselves "Catholic" and all claiming to be right, and they're all are contradicting one another, and telling us more or less that we're heretics and/or schismatics and/or apostates if we side with the wrong group and/or attend the wrong Mass.

That's because they have no locus of authority to unite and rule them. Each group interprets what they deem to be the deposit of faith to the best of their ability. In epistemological terms, they're not in a substantially different place than that of the Eastern Orthodox or the Protestants. The gravitational center is missing.

On the other hand, you still have the traditional locus of authority in Rome but in order to abide by it, you have to ditch tridentine Catholicism.

Hence the unsolvable conundrum of traditional Catholicism.

The FSSP treads the middle path quite well. As does the Anglican Ordinariate and other groups.

None of which are tridentine Catholic in any sense by virtue of their acceptance of Vatican II.

[Daniel]

Because the Church has said so, repeatedly acknowledging that the SSPX is a Catholic institution despite it's canonical irregularity.

"For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins. (See the "Letter according to which an indulgence is granted to the faithful on the occasion of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy", September 1, 2015.)  For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God's help for the recovery of full communion with the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church's pardon."

--Pope Francis

I'm still not seeing it. What the quote says is that the SSPX is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, and that the SSPX priests don't have faculties apart from the fact that Pope Francis has granted them temporary faculties for the Jubilee Year and has also extended the faculties beyond the Jubilee Year. (And these faculties are only for hearing confessions, as far as I'm aware. I see nothing about marriages or Mass or sermons or anything else.)

I suppose this is good to know, if I ever have the opportunity to receive absolution from a SSPX priest. But it doesn't show that the SSPX isn't outside the visible Church.

[The Theosist]

The FSSP treads the middle path quite well. As does the Anglican Ordinariate and other groups.

None of which are tridentine Catholic in any sense by virtue of their acceptance of Vatican II.

And the same if they rejected Vatican II. It would appear impossible to be Tridentine Catholic then.

[Daniel]

The FSSP treads the middle path quite well. As does the Anglican Ordinariate and other groups.

None of which are tridentine Catholic in any sense by virtue of their acceptance of Vatican II.

And the same if they rejected Vatican II. It would appear impossible to be Tridentine Catholic then.

It seems that the SSPX is an option. The SSPX is bound to reject Vatican II, since Vatican II is heretical. But unlike all the other so-called "trad" groups who reject Vatican II, the SSPX is (supposedly) Church-approved.


My only question with the above is that I'm not so sure that the SSPX actually is Church-approved. It clearly was Church-approved back in 1970. But is it still Church-approved to this day? I'm not a lawyer so I could be misunderstanding something. But it looks to me that the Church only gave the SSPX permission to operate for 6 years. That was almost 50 years ago, and I don't think the permission was ever renewed.

[Jayne]

My only question with the above is that I'm not so sure that the SSPX actually is Church-approved. It clearly was Church-approved back in 1970. But is it still Church-approved to this day? I'm not a lawyer so I could be misunderstanding something. But it looks to me that the Church only gave the SSPX permission to operate for 6 years. That was almost 50 years ago, and I don't think the permission was ever renewed.

The SSPX lacks canonical status but is recognized as a Catholic group.  It does not have a structure that makes clear its relationship to the rest of the Church.  The negotiations, as I see them, are more about structure than having permission to operate. 

There is permission from the Vatican for lay people to attend Mass celebrated by SSPX priests and to make financial contributions to the Society (depending on their motives for doing so).  That ought to be enough approval for most purposes.

[Vetus Ordo]

The FSSP treads the middle path quite well. As does the Anglican Ordinariate and other groups.

None of which are tridentine Catholic in any sense by virtue of their acceptance of Vatican II.

And the same if they rejected Vatican II. It would appear impossible to be Tridentine Catholic then.

Ergo, paradoxon.

[paul14]

-.. . -.-. .. ... .. --- -. ... --..-- / -.. . -.-. .. ... .. --- -. ... -.-.--

[The Theosist]

The FSSP treads the middle path quite well. As does the Anglican Ordinariate and other groups.

None of which are tridentine Catholic in any sense by virtue of their acceptance of Vatican II.

And the same if they rejected Vatican II. It would appear impossible to be Tridentine Catholic then.

It seems that the SSPX is an option. The SSPX is bound to reject Vatican II, since Vatican II is heretical. But unlike all the other so-called "trad" groups who reject Vatican II, the SSPX is (supposedly) Church-approved.


My only question with the above is that I'm not so sure that the SSPX actually is Church-approved. It clearly was Church-approved back in 1970. But is it still Church-approved to this day? I'm not a lawyer so I could be misunderstanding something. But it looks to me that the Church only gave the SSPX permission to operate for 6 years. That was almost 50 years ago, and I don't think the permission was ever renewed.

You tell me how rejecting a Pope's authority and an Ecumencial Council is Tridentine, let alone in the spirit of Vatican I. Yes, the SSPX will jump through hoops and play four-dimensional Twister, like very other trad group, to concoct an ecclesiology and theology that excuses themselves. That's a given. They wouldn't be calling themselves "traditional" if they didn't think they are. Reality, however, is left unimpressed.

[Daniel]

The FSSP treads the middle path quite well. As does the Anglican Ordinariate and other groups.

None of which are tridentine Catholic in any sense by virtue of their acceptance of Vatican II.

And the same if they rejected Vatican II. It would appear impossible to be Tridentine Catholic then.

It seems that the SSPX is an option. The SSPX is bound to reject Vatican II, since Vatican II is heretical. But unlike all the other so-called "trad" groups who reject Vatican II, the SSPX is (supposedly) Church-approved.


My only question with the above is that I'm not so sure that the SSPX actually is Church-approved. It clearly was Church-approved back in 1970. But is it still Church-approved to this day? I'm not a lawyer so I could be misunderstanding something. But it looks to me that the Church only gave the SSPX permission to operate for 6 years. That was almost 50 years ago, and I don't think the permission was ever renewed.

You tell me how rejecting a Pope's authority and an Ecumencial Council is Tridentine, let alone in the spirit of Vatican I. Yes, the SSPX will jump through hoops and play four-dimensional Twister, like very other trad group, to concoct an ecclesiology and theology that excuses themselves. That's a given. They wouldn't be calling themselves "traditional" if they didn't think they are. Reality, however, is left unimpressed.

The SSPX explains it here. The Pope has three kinds of magisterium, of which only two are infallible. His fallible "authentic magisterium" is what enables him to publicly teach heresy. But the fact that the Pope teaches heresy doesn't mean that he's not the Pope (as sedevacantists claim), nor does it mean that the heresy is true and/or binding (as FSSP/ICKSP/etc. claim). These two false "traditionalist" positions arise as a result of denying this third kind of magisterium (the former by way of modus tollens; the latter by modus ponens). The Pope still has authority, and the heresy ought to be publicly rejected.

[The Theosist]

The SSPX explains it here. The Pope has three kinds of magisterium, of which only two are infallible. His fallible "authentic magisterium" is what enables him to publicly teach heresy. But the fact that the Pope teaches heresy doesn't mean that he's not the Pope (as sedevacantists claim), nor does it mean that the heresy is true and/or binding (as FSSP/ICKSP/etc. claim). These two false "traditionalist" positions arise as a result of denying this third kind of magisterium (the former by way of modus tollens; the latter by modus ponens). The Pope still has authority, and the heresy ought to be publicly rejected.

I know they "explain" it. I know they have their own carefully selected and pruned ad hoc theology to "make sense" of what happened and excuse their position. I already said that. But Vatican II and changing the entire Roman liturgy is the Pope at his most Popishness, not an act of friggin "fallible magisterium". That's retarded.

[Daniel]

The SSPX explains it here. The Pope has three kinds of magisterium, of which only two are infallible. His fallible "authentic magisterium" is what enables him to publicly teach heresy. But the fact that the Pope teaches heresy doesn't mean that he's not the Pope (as sedevacantists claim), nor does it mean that the heresy is true and/or binding (as FSSP/ICKSP/etc. claim). These two false "traditionalist" positions arise as a result of denying this third kind of magisterium (the former by way of modus tollens; the latter by modus ponens). The Pope still has authority, and the heresy ought to be publicly rejected.

I know they "explain" it. I know they have their own carefully selected and pruned ad hoc theology to "make sense" of what happened and excuse their position. I already said that. But Vatican II and changing the entire Roman liturgy is the Pope at his most Popishness, not an act of friggin "fallible magisterium". That's retarded.

But how do we know it's ad hoc? Maybe this is just what the Church has always taught

Though, I think the MHFM's hypothesis also appears to make a lot of sense. Here we see the prophecies fulfilled before our very eyes. (Not in the way we'd have expected, but still.) Then again, if John Paul II really was Antichrist then what ever happened to the physical persecution and the physical mark of the beast? And why have Catholic missionaries not yet preached to the Sentinelese? When are the Jews going to convert? If Pope Francis really is Peter the Roman, then there's not much time left. But it's not impossible.