Are we not discussing one in this very thread? The meaning of ecumenism and the relationship of the Church to non-Catholics. Of course, the liturgical rites and their changes are sometimes raised to the level of dogmatic difference. Religious liberty versus religious tolerance is topical right now, but I concede that is somewhat related to the ecumenism discussion. Ecclesiology, as defined at Vatican II, was controversial even then (see the later-added explanatory preface).
From my experience, the SSPX believes in an essentially different religion than the "mainstream" Catholic Church. It is my belief, based on my research, that the SSPX "version" is more akin to Catholicism as it was believed and practiced prior to 1969. So, there is a very clear rupture there to be seen. In fact, many prominent people in the Church seem to proclaim that rupture as providential.
Exactly. Look at the anathemas of Trent and then look at what is said and done by the hierarchy today. Look at the Syllabus of Errors and then look at the hierarchy today
At any rate, I'm no expert. I was just sharing what caused me to start looking at Church history to see where the continuity could be found (because I reject the development of doctrine idea, at least as it is exemplified here).
CHOY - I agree with you about the lack of communion. This is particularly true when one is mindful that communion for the Catholic Church is not really a communion of faith, but a communion of attachment to the Pope. This is how so many people who believe wildly different things are still in communion. It is becoming similar to the Anglican Communion (although it is certainly not that bad yet). I note, though, that the liberals in the Catholic Church can apparently believe whatever they want. The only ones called to sign a statement of doctrinal belief are the SSPX. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
From the papolatrous point of view, then I agree too. However, that is not the whole story. The Pope is bound by what has been taught before. He cannot invent new and contrary doctrine(as it now seems to me that the Popes have done since the Filioque, but that is another debate) As such, the Pope has an obedience to take into account as well. Vatican II was supposed to end clericalism and ultramontanism, but I believe that it actually made it worse in many areas. Today, the main argument against those who actually follow the pre-VaticanII teachings or at least take them seriously when trying to interpret what VII actually taught(the hierarchy even publically disagree what VII actually taught and it has taken more than 50 years to try to interpret it, to no avail) is precisely that they don't follow the Pope. Which Pope? If there is some sense in the Roman church, then at least one would reasonably be able to argue that popes have to be in conformity with previously defined doctrine and dogmatic definitions when they insist on obedience?
In addition, the vast majority of both Eastern Catholics and your average Novus Ordo churchman and laity don't follow the "mind of the Pope" at all.
EOs often claim exemption from defined doctrine while NO'ers can believe what they want, including the right of homosexuals to marry, that Judaism is salvific for post-temple followers of this religion, cardinals proclaim that there is no impediment to ordaning women to the priesthood, 70% of laity don't believe in transubstantiation, etc, etc. Never are they threatened with excommunication nor discipline. That is only reserved for traddies. This is like in "the Last samurai", when the Emperor wages war on his most loyal subjects because they refuse to follow him in error.
I just feel the need to attempt to explain the behaviour and the injustices committed, because I was once among them.
It seems to me now that the RC actually IS about papolatry and that the SSPX as such is "wrong" even though they are doctrinally "right", if that makes any sense....