Comments on: Vatican-SSPX talks to start “in next few days” – Schönborn

By: John Kokenge

John Kokenge — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:22:07 +0000

To the post-conciliar and conciliar mind, would this encyclical be anti-semitic?To the reader who takes the time to view the link below, please note, the pope whose tone though harsh when speaking an inconvenient truth, takes pains to remind the episcopacy of Poland that, “…The Jews are not to be persecuted…” Is the reminding of the world of the danger of creating a false reality concerning,”…those whose color have changed…”, an example of being insensitive? God Bless +Richard Williamson of speaking in the same manner as POPES previous!www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/ b14aquo.htm”…Furthermore, by means of their particular practice of commerce, they amass a great store of money and then by an exorbitant rate of interest utterly destroy the wealth and inheritance of Christians. Even if they borrow money from Christians at heavy and undue interest with their synagogues as surety, it is obvious to anyone who thinks about it that they do so to employ the money borrowed from Christians in their commercial dealings; this enables them to make enough profit to pay the agreed interest and simultaneously increase their own store. At the same time, they gain as many defenders of their synagogues and themselves as they have creditors.”"On Jews and Christians Living in the Same Place” – Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on June 14, 1751Submitted by a former seminarian cleric of the Society of Saint Pius X

By: Mouse

Mouse — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:58:07 +0000

SSPX has never ever refused to recongise Pope JPII or Pope Benedict!

By: Joe Spencer

Joe Spencer — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:06:04 +0000

Mr. Pio, while there is nothing against ignorance, as it’s clear you don’t know much about SSPX, there is an issue with communicating error publicly, like SSPX refusing to recognize that Benedict XVI is the Pope. This is clear slander, whether intended or not. What you have described is “sede vacantism”, from which the SSPX has continually distanced themselves. They even post it on the top of their splash page. Again, heretic does not fit in any way. With regard to the Jesuits, I was educated by them. The orthodox members are quite few, and the others are teaching outright heresy many times.Rich, agreed that it is more appropriate to describe SSPX as “schismatic” rather than heretics, while still not accurate. The Holy Father has removed the excommunications. To be in schism, you are excommunicated.With regard to the question of Padre Pio and the new mass, good question. There are many accounts of his doings late in his life, as he was a very public figure by 1965 (against his desires). One of which follows extracted from an article by By Fr. Jean, OFM…”[Padre Pio] was a model of respect and submission towards his religious and ecclesiastical superiors, especially during the time when he was persecuted. Nonetheless, he could not remain silent over a deviation that was baneful to the Church. Even before the end of the Council, in February 1965, someone announced to him that soon he would have to celebrate the Mass according to a new rite, ad experimentum, in the vernacular, which had been devised by a conciliar liturgical commission in order to respond to the aspirations of modern man. Immediately, even before seeing the text, he wrote to Paul VI to ask him to be dispensed from the liturgical experiment, and to be able to continue to celebrate the Mass of Saint Pius V. When Cardinal Bacci came to see him in order to bring the authorization, Padre Pio let a complaint escape in the presence of the Pope’s messenger: ‘For pity’s sake, end the Council quickly.’”

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:29:18 +0000

Also, Joe, it is important to note that Padre Pio died in 1968, 41 years ago, before the N.O. Mass really got rolling. I ask this out of ignorance, not to provoke: Is it documented that he refused to say the N.O. Mass? I would also suggest to P.P. above that it may be more proper to define the SSPX as schismatic than heretical given the facts as he sets them out.

By: Padre Pio

Padre Pio — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:30:48 +0000

Joe, thanks for the reply. Of course my nom de plume is intended to be sarcastic.And yes, I understand the nature of Vatican II as pastoral. The heretical part of SSPX is that they refuse to recognize that there is a Pope even though JPII and Benedict were both elected through the dogmatically defined process.So, there you have it…heretic DOES fit.Your question regarding Jesuits vs SSPX isn’t terribly relevant. The Jesuits have members who are orthodox (think Spitzer, Int’l Chaplain of Legatus), and some members who question orthodoxy.Patricia — are you seriously still praying for the conversion of Russia? To what?

By: Joe Spencer

Joe Spencer — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:06:26 +0000

It’s very interesting, Padre Pio, that you should choose such a name on this blog, the saint who refused to say the novus ordo mass until his death recently.Another interesting point to consider, sir, is that you call ultraditionalists heretics… definition of heretic is “one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church”. Dogma was not defined in any way, shape, or form at Vatican II, as it was declared a pastoral (versus dogmatic) council. Hmmm… so heretics doesn’t fit because SSPX embraces all defined dogma of the Catholic Church.In response, I will pose a fun question to consider. Who today disagrees most with the defined dogma of the church, the Jesuits or the SSPX?

By: Patricia Wolfenden

Patricia Wolfenden — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:48:37 +0000

I pray for the success of the SSPX Discussions. The SSPX were never offically excommunicated in the first place. I know they will hold steadfast to their traditional beliefs and NOT MAKE ANY COMPROMISE with Rome. Vatican II has destroyed out Catholic Church all over the world. I continue to say our Family Rosary for the release of the Third Fatima Secret and the Conversion of Russia – “Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will Triumph!” but first there is a terrifying time that awaits us all!PatriciaScotland

By: Padre Pio

Padre Pio — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:32:11 +0000

Ultra-traditionalist means not recognizing the validity of Vatican II. If you’d prefer, you could call them heretics.And, no, the Church of Rome and SSPX are not interdependent in the least. SSPX doesn’t want to be a part of the Roman Church and they’re free to split off and call themselves whatever they want to. They are no different than the PROTESTants were.Now, if the Roman Church does want to bring them back into the fold under the current demands of SSPX, they then logically have set precedent that requires the welcoming of WomenPriests and Married Priests.The Big Tent, as it were…

By: JamesD

JamesD — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:58:45 +0000

Bishop Fellay is the only friend Pope Benedict has. He is surrounded by wolves. Don’t forget that Pope Benedict has read the Third Secret. He knows the SSPX are his friends. Good things will come from this.

By: Lance Lassiter

Lance Lassiter — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:37:30 +0000

I remember the traditional latin mass of my early childhood. I was ten or eleven when vatican II ushered in changes to the mass and local bishops felt at liberty to go far beyond actual intent. I respect the uniqueness of both celebrations. The bishop in our Archdiocese has liberally allowed the offering of the traditional latin mass in many of our parishes. I am of the opinion that many of our newer priest are learning latin as well a the spanish language to better serve the needs of the individual parishes. Many of our churches have also returned to more traditional funishing and fixtures. I feel that both type of masses afford an individual to celebrate the Euchrist in a proper manner base on his/her spiritual understanding. The latin masses that I have personally attended have been sprasely attended but are readily availble.