Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Apparently it looks like Rome is going to regularize relationships with SSPX *without* requiring them to recognize Vatican II. I'm disgusted.
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2016/04/27/pope-francis-may-be-on-verge-of-deal-with-traditionalists/
What matters of doctrine in VII do the SSPX not recognize?
Here's something I just found:Wasn't the nature of VII pastoral??
VATICAN II—THE MYTHS
A curious myth has arisen that the Vatican Council overturned many doctrines that the Catholic Church had previously taught.
So far reaching is this revolution supposed to have been that it would almost be pointless, some think, to consult theological books of, say, 30 years ago if one wanted to know whether a particular claim is part of the Church's official doctrinal teaching.
New Church
Since Vatican II, it appears, we are in a new Church. Yet the people who have this outlook are also ready to stress that Vatican II, unlike other General Councils, was pastoral, not dogmatic. Which presents us with an intriguing problem.
How did a Council which wasn't dogmatic manage to change so many teachings? The truth is that Vatican II didn't contradict any official position on doctrine or morals. All that the Church taught when Vatican II began is still Catholic teaching. The changes whether made by the Council or decided upon since, are in practical matters such as the liturgy or discipline, but always leaving doctrine unchanged.
When people say otherwise, they are often at a loss if asked for examples: or if they do offer alleged examples, these turn out to be spurious.
The illusion of change has been promoted by people who have lost their belief in many Catholic positions.
They tell themselves that the things they disagree with are no longer in force, that Vatican II (or perhaps the spirit of Vatican II!) did away with them.
The illusion is strengthened by the notion, very prevalent today, that the Church has few infallible teachings. Someone told me he understands there are only half a dozen or so; while a few bold spirits say there are two!
In fact there are dozens of infallibly defined doctrines, covering a whole range including the nature of God, the Blessed Trinity, creation, the angels, man, original sin, grace, Jesus Christ, redemption, Our Lady, the Church and much more.
Vatican II was in complete harmony with sacred Tradition, but is often distorted to suit a particular view. When one actually reads the documents, without prejudice, one sees how wonderfully traditional they are. However, it is surprisingly how easily one can be influenced by the myth of change.
Take what I said above about the alleged pointlessness of consulting 30 year old books on doctrine.
Even people with an orthodox Catholic outlook may feel dubious about such a book, with no more reason than the fact that it was published before Vatican II.
The second council of ephesus was intended to be a infallible ecumenical council but it was not infallible it was later over turned by the council of Council of Chalcedon.
Vatican 2 does not even claim to be infallible rather it is a pastoral council that it re states previously declared infallible issues.
"The Second Council of Ephesus (commonly known as the Robber Council of Ephesus) was a Christological church synod in 449 AD convened by Emperor Theodosius II under the presidency of Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria.[1] It was intended to be anEcumenical Council, but because of the scandalous nature of the proceedings, canon legalities, and the heterodox nature of the canons and decrees as viewed by the orthodox bishops of East and West (and the later ecumenical councils), it was never accepted as ecumenical. It was explicitly repudiated by the fourth and next ecumenical council, the Council of Chalcedon"
The above is from wikipedia
Scandelous nature of the proceedings... one should check out the proceedings at vatican 2 for its scandelous nature
What matters of doctrine in VII do the SSPX not recognize?
this is what i thought. Nothing new under the sun but just a way to navigate, interpret and apply the faith in this new modern world. My bet is we are going to have a Vlll soon because once again we need to know how to be Catholic in this warped new world.I wasn't aware of any doctrinal changes or developments being made at VII .
Wasn't the nature of VII pastoral??
There are many in SSPX believe that Jews are cursed and are Christ killers, in violation of Nostra Aetate, for example. As a Jew, I've had my run ins with traditional Catholics who violate this teaching. Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX’s superior general, calls the Jews "the enemies of the Church." And how can we ever forget the Bishop Williamson was a notorious holocaust denier? SSPX became a haven for antisemites after Vatican II.
SSPX rejects religious freedom as stated in Vat 2. Do we want them back in the church?What matters of doctrine in VII do the SSPX not recognize?
(oh lord have mercy) Yeah but. Catholics also mistakable think Judaism is something that's still relevant as if there is something that God is still going to use them to do. That it is supposed to be put on some kind of pedestal. It's a ancient faith that God used and became Christian. There is no plan for them. Jewish people, not the religion is like everyone else who are non Christian. They are in need of salvation and I hope they find it. It will be up to the individual to find Jesus. The religion is not going to be saved.There are many in SSPX believe that Jews are cursed and are Christ killers, in violation of Nostra Aetate, for example. As a Jew, I've had my run ins with traditional Catholics who violate this teaching. Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX’s superior general, calls the Jews "the enemies of the Church." And how can we ever forget the Bishop Williamson was a notorious holocaust denier? SSPX became a haven for antisemites after Vatican II.
I'm not a SSPX apologist but no they don't.SSPX rejects religious freedom as stated in Vat 2. Do we want them back in the church?
It is unconscionable to allow them back in so long as they do not agree to Nostra Aetate.There is no excuse of such horrible and unchristian like attitudes and behaviour.
Not to mention how stupid it is to blame our Lords crucifixion on jews living today
The wisdom of God lead to the offering of God's lamb not the jews themselves.
SSPX is more than just antisemitism though.
That is not what the Church teaches. The Jews are a covenanted People, or as Vatican documents state, a people of an unrevoked covenant.Jewish people, not the religion is like everyone else who are non Christian.
Mgr. Lefebvre refused to sign the Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae)I'm not a SSPX apologist but no they don't.
Nope. Nope. Nope. thinking, thinking thinking, do I want to get into this??It is unconscionable to allow them back in so long as they do not agree to Nostra Aetate.
You are not understanding it correctly.That is not what the Church teaches. The Jews are a covenanted People, or as Vatican documents state, a people of an unrevoked covenant.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...i_doc_20011123_kasper-jews-christians_en.html
And he is dead. So what they do now, they are free to do.Mgr. Lefebvre refused to sign the Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae)
There are many in SSPX believe that Jews are cursed and are Christ killers, in violation of Nostra Aetate, for example. As a Jew, I've had my run ins with traditional Catholics who violate this teaching. Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX’s superior general, calls the Jews "the enemies of the Church." And how can we ever forget the Bishop Williamson was a notorious holocaust denier? SSPX became a haven for antisemites after Vatican II.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?