B
bear06
Guest
Just for the record the “double standards” comment wasn’t directed at the Holy Father.
- Status
D
down_under
Guest
thank you, my confusion. I appreciate you clearing that up so i don’t have to think you are a pope basher anymore. I don’t care for that. then again the pope is a big guy he can take it. He would not be pope if he could not take critisium. just not from you. or in front of me.
G
GerardP
Guest
I wrote:
Who was telling the truth? What did LeFebvre point out? That the TLM was never abrogated legally. What did the Holy Father just point out in Summorum Pontificum? That the TLM was never legally abrogated. The truth does win. LeFebvre was correct.
The attitude of the standard anti-SSPXer is: “I don’t need to know the facts. I know it all already. No one can tell me anything. I don’t need to learn anything and I don’t want to hear another side for more information. Not even to teach the person with an opposing position their error. I’m here to pound the table and shout down the opposition”
I wrote:
You’ll notice the admission on then Cardinal-Ratzinger’s part is that the problem with LeFebvre is the problem the rest of the Church is suffering with. Earlier in the statement, he admits that what he percieves to be LeFebvre’s overreaction was provoked by liberals who were not properly disciplined.
For your position to be accurate you would have to be saying that there is no liturgical abuse, not heterodoxy, no liberal dissention. C’mon.
Secondly, does not the Catholic Church teach that obedience is subordinate to justice? Doesn’t St. Thomas distinguish between perfect, true and false obedience? Doesn’t Vatican I call for “true” obedience? Don’t you know that Popes can abuse their power?
I’ll be curious as to whether you’ll actually answer the questions I’ve presented. Most people who are both ignorant of and against the SSPX (the definition of prejudice) avoid answering them. Actually all of them avoid answering them.
Catharina responded:
That would be a really really bad guess. A horrible guess actually. You are saying that archbishop LeFebvre should have agreed with the Apostolic visitors who denied the historical reality of the Resurrection, supported the ordination of married men and the idea that truth changes with the times. If you think that is the proper response of a Catholic, then you have a funny idea about Catholicism.
I understand it perfectly. I disagree with his use of the term “schism” referring to LeFebvre. I assume it was due to the political climate in the Vatican at the time. But, do you admit the premise? Do you admit what then Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out? That the reaction of LeFebvre was due to actions within the Church structure. More willfull ignorance on your part it seems.
No. It’s painfully obvious that you don’t “get it” at all. Here we are 19 years later and the Holy Father is still talking about the “hermenuetic of rupture” (which means “schism” incidentally) not about the SSPX, but about the conciliar Church.
Who was telling the truth? What did LeFebvre point out? That the TLM was never abrogated legally. What did the Holy Father just point out in Summorum Pontificum? That the TLM was never legally abrogated. The truth does win. LeFebvre was correct.
Why not? You have stated that you purposely remain willfully ignorant about Fellay. Yet you come to conclusions about Fellay. How smart is that? It seems you know nothing of Fellay except recycled anti-SSPX apologists that are only slightly less ignorant on the subject than you are. It’s just like Bishop Sheen used to say about the anti-Catholics. “I don’t know ten people who hate the Catholic Church, but I know hundreds who hate** what they think **the Catholic Church is.”
The attitude of the standard anti-SSPXer is: “I don’t need to know the facts. I know it all already. No one can tell me anything. I don’t need to learn anything and I don’t want to hear another side for more information. Not even to teach the person with an opposing position their error. I’m here to pound the table and shout down the opposition”
Yes. The validity of the “excommunication.” You seem to think that an excommunication is dogma instead of being either just, unjust or invalid. The Catholic Church does teach that.
I wrote:
You’ll notice the admission on then Cardinal-Ratzinger’s part is that the problem with LeFebvre is the problem the rest of the Church is suffering with. Earlier in the statement, he admits that what he percieves to be LeFebvre’s overreaction was provoked by liberals who were not properly disciplined.
First, on the facts you are wrong. The “rest of the Church” did not remain obedient. Traditionalists stayed obedient to the Truth, the SSPX, the SSJV and others. The liberal and conservative bishops all disobeyed the documents of Vatican II and the Popes did virtually nothing to stop them but instead proceeded to persecute traditionalists and deny there was a crisis at all.
For your position to be accurate you would have to be saying that there is no liturgical abuse, not heterodoxy, no liberal dissention. C’mon.
Secondly, does not the Catholic Church teach that obedience is subordinate to justice? Doesn’t St. Thomas distinguish between perfect, true and false obedience? Doesn’t Vatican I call for “true” obedience? Don’t you know that Popes can abuse their power?
I’ll be curious as to whether you’ll actually answer the questions I’ve presented. Most people who are both ignorant of and against the SSPX (the definition of prejudice) avoid answering them. Actually all of them avoid answering them.
D
down_under
Guest
martin luther said and was right about all those things. but his answer was still wrong. When you form a new church outside christ’s church to preserve the church you LEAVE the church. Luther swingly fellay they all see a problem. a real problem the church is grapling with. That does not make there answers to that problem correct. The church must remain one in spite of the difficulty that arrises when people in the church in america are doing things you do not like. The faithful were warned to stay away because not because he did not react to a problem, but because he failed to correctly identify that problem when he found that v2 was the problem. Morality is the problem. Once again what people are believeing and the way they worship would be fine if they were moral people grapling to be more holy. We have a serious problem in catholic teaching (that is in the schools). Were somewhere along the line we decided not to teach the faith to children but to wait till they were adults then we did not give it to them as adults either. We have another serious problem in the seminaries are priests and not being taught right. Thankfully we seem to have sorted most of that problem out, and will continue to do so for some time. The problem was not v2. the pope has also stated many times that v2 has never been fully applied. read the document and you will know what he means. What it says and what we got in america after the council were very different things. sspx is in trouble for dissent. They saw a problem and left christ’s church in it instead of helping christ’s church be more holy. There have always been weeds in with the harvest. You paint a picture that suggests there is no longer a harvest. Either you are wrong or God is wrong. I think you are wrong.
S
Sure
Guest
The Holy Father is still “talking about a hermeneutic of rupture”???
Like when he says this?
This sounds like he is saying very clearly that there is no rupture. You are incorrect in your assessment. He is going out of his way to emphasize that there are 2 forms to one Roman rite and that there is no rupture between the two.
Archbishop Burke reiterates this point in his recent interview:
The Holy Father and Archbishop Burke disagree with you.
G
GerardP
Guest
Martin Luther was not excommunicated because of what he was correct about. He was excommunicated for his 40 theological errors.
What about when someone forms a new Church inside the organizational structure of Christ’s church? That is leaving the Church. As St. Athanasius told his followers, “They have the buildings but we have the faith.”
There is a huge difference between Luther, Zwingli, Calvin on one side and Bishop Fellay, LeFebvre and the rest of the SSPX on the other.
First, the Protestants had doctrinal errors that were condemned with magisterial authority by the Church. The SSPX have no doctrinal errors.
Second, the Protestants denied that the heirarchy had the God-given authority to govern the Church. The SSPX insists that the heirarchy use it’s God-given authority to restore the Church. Not say things like “I am about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse” as Paul VI told Jean Guitton at the end of the Council.
The answer to that difficulty is that Bishops’ should correct a Pope when he is in error. Just as St. Paul corrected St. Peter. St. Peter’s solution was humble and he accepted the correction.
So what’s the recent Popes’ solution? Tolerate the heretics and try to kick out the faithful.
LeFebvre was an older and wiser man than JPII was. Having been in Africa for 30 years, he was kept away from the creeping modernism that had enveloped many in the heirarchy. LeFebvre knew early on what would take JPII another 15 years to realize when JPII described the “Silent Apostasy” that had taken hold in the Church.
There is no promise from Christ that the Holy Spirit will give good fruit for Vatican II or any other Council. The liberals had a huge sway in Vatican II, the moderates were totally outmaneuvered the traditionalists were completely outnumbered and the Holy Spirit watched the disaster and made sure no overt heresy was promulgated with magisterial authority in the documents.
Claiming that Vatican II was a problem, a bad idea executed badly is not a crime in the Church. There are no anathemas in Vatican II.
T
TMC
Guest
How so? Because you agree with Fellay and LeFebvre?
This can only be true if you deny the current Church teachings on doctrine. As you surely know, LeFebvre was not just upset with NO, he was more upset about current Church teachings on ecumenism and collegiality. The denial of these doctrines is ‘error’ unless the Church changes them. If and only if that were to happen would they be better off then Luther. Right now they are the same as Luther, the Church has agreed on some things (allowing TLM) but maintained its position on most.
Protestants believe that the Popes have no such authority. SSPX believes that the Popes are willfully violating their sacred duty and perverting their authority. Which is more schismatic?
This is always the crux of the argument - the wish that LeFebvre was the Pope. This is the very definition of schism, to replace the duly elected Pope with one of your own choosing.
Although its founder was excommunicated, the members of SSPX are in communion with the Church today because of the mercy, patience and understanding extended by the Pope. To continuing calling his predecessors foolish and accusing him of shirking his God-given duties will likely sorely test that patience.
G
GerardP
Guest
Change the way they worship and you will change how they believe to some extent. It wasn’t the laiety who removed all references to Hell and sin and punishment from the prayerbooks and it wasn’t the Popes who stopped them. And the Popes didn’t restore them. (Yet.)
LeFebvre saw that and set up schools that don’t have that problem. Maybe it’s because the bishops who could only be corrected by the Pope who didn’t correct them were not involved.
This was done on purpose by modernists within the Church. The same ones that inserted the ambiguous language into the Vatican II documents. Again, the Popes allowed this to happen.
Obviously when you do away with all real theological censures you are not going to be able to form good priests. Again, the Popes didn’t exercise their duty to excommunicate the liberals.
I don’t think it’s even close. Liberals like Cardinal Avery Dulles and wild theologians like Hans Urs Von Balthasar are portrayed as sensible and conservative. They aren’t.
That’s because Vatican II is “un-implementable” in the final analysis. Too much freedom is given to too many disloyal bishops (who are approved and appointed by Popes who won’t act like Popes) The Pope might say something but the bishop will dissent and the Pope (JPII in particular) will oblige the faithful to be obedient to the bishops who are disobedient to the Popes. It’s nuts. Vatican II is Utopian Christianity in it’s naivete’. Nowhere is the word “Hell” mentioned in it’s documents.
America is tame compared to the rest of the world. Cardinal Mahoney can make the documents of Vatican II sing like a bird to his tune. Chris Ferrara did an excellent article a few years ago where he cited Sacrosanctum Concilium and proved that we got exactly what Vatican II allowed us to get.
No. You have it exactly backwards. They (or rather he, LeFebvre) saw “the problem” and did something about in a completely legal manner.
The “problem” then went after LeFebvre (the French bishops and the corrupt Apostolic visitors as well as Card. Villot and others) and persecuted him relentlessly. LeFebvre was helping the Church. And the man that was supposed to be on LeFebvre’s side,(the Popes) instead allowed the persecution to continue and contributed to it personally.
LeFebvre had retired peacefully. He didn’t want to be a crusader for the Church. It’s so obvious God called him to be the man for our times. God often pulls his champions from the most unlikely places. (A French archbishop of all things in our day) Just as he pulled Mel Gibson to take a shot at Hollywood.
There is a giant Apostasy and a small harvest and LeFebvre’s green thumb has helped the harvest considerably. I think God is right. I think LeFebvre was right. The liberal Popes (JPII and Paul VI ) have been wrong and this 40 year blip on the screen of the Church is going to die. The Novus Ordo will be gone in 20 years, the documents of Vatican II will be cleaned up. (Bishop Fellay has requested that Pope Benedict revise the documents and specify what they don’t mean instead of a vague idea of what they do mean. He wants the Pope to issue condemnations of the various errors being promoted as conservative Catholicism. )
http://ecclesia-militans.blogspot.com/2007/10/meeting-between-pope-benedict-xvi-and.html
S
Sure
Guest
You call it legal and yet the motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei, and subsequent authoritative statement from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts clearly define his act of consecrations illegal. This is the authoritative position of the Church and a position that Catholics ought to follow. Of course, you are free to disagree with this teaching, but don’t pretend that it doesn’t exist or that it is just something optional that we are free to disregard without consequence.
I notice that you have yet to support your claim that there is a liturgical rupture in light of the statements by the Holy Father.
G
GerardP
Guest
No. When he says this:
"On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture”; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology…The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts. "
**Now, to analyze your quoted passage: **
Right. Contradictions aren’t the issue. There is an impoverishment of the Old “form” to create the “new.”
He’s talking about history. Not the present situation where there is a rupture. He doesn’t mention what actually “grew” and “progressed” concerning the New “form.” (because nothing did) As Cardinal Ratzinger he called it “Liturgical ruins…Fabricated Liturgy…a banal, on-the-spot-product put together by committee” He’s hoping that the Novus Ordo will grow from the influence of the TLM. (Hegelian dialectic)
So, here he is agreeing with Archbishop LeFebvre.
(ie. tradition)
(a bone is thrown to the liberals in order to engage the Hegelian dialectic of finding the truth in a balance of opposing forces.)
Here’s also part of the Holy Father’s modern philosophy. What is “experiencing” full communion? You are either in it or out of it whether you “experience” it or not. Second, priests can’t exclude the new rite on “principle” if they want to “experience” full communion. The question is, Can they exclude it on theological grounds? He doesn’t say. He says that politically they can’t.
HOLD EVERYTHING!
I thought it wasn’t a **“new rite” **but a **“new form” ** ??? Looks like a contradiction. Didn’t he also say:
It says that the Old Rite was never abrogated. Just what Archbishop LeFebvre said.
Nope.
The “2 forms” argument is debatable. The Pope himself can’t keep it straight. And it’s not going to sell. But the “hermenuetic of rupture” is real and he did talk about it.
That’s fine. I’m free to disagree with them as well. It’s not an excommunicable issue or a magisterial determination. Just as Pope Stephen made a series of proclamations that were wrong about Pope Formosus, Popes and bishops can be wrong. The Holy Father and Archbishop Burke disagree with you.
G
GerardP
Guest
You’re getting way ahead of the history here. I’m talking about the legal establishment of the SSPX. LeFebvre went through all of the proper channels to establish them. It was when his seminary filled up and the other French Bishops seminaries emptied out that they set their sights on him. The Apostolic Visitation came to Econe, denied the Resurrection and Card. Villot decieved Paul VI and falsely told him that LeFebvre made the seminarians sign an oath against the Holy Father. This an Paul VI’s “smoke of Satan” remark prompted LeFebvre to make his declaration against the apostasy in the Church.
Ecclesia Dei was still 16 years away.
G
GerardP
Guest
Um…I explained that there is a difference based on doctrine. The SSPX is Catholic. Lutherans and Calvinists are not.
Those aren’t teachings. They are policies. Bad policies that are undermining doctrine. Revelation is closed.
The Church can’t change doctrines. What has always been held for belief everywhere by everyone. That is Catholicism. Vatican I states that Peter cannot bring about new doctrines.
They are not the same as Luther. There is no heresy. They have not denied the papal office it’s privileges. Luther wanted the papacy to disappear. The SSPX want the papacy to exercise the keys.
The Protestants are schismatic. The SSPX are not schismatic or in schism at all. Many bishops in so-called “full communion” who are undermining Summorum Pontificum are de facto schismatic.
How did you come up with that bit of horse hockey? Please argue with facts and don’t set up a straw man. LeFebvre ultimately was the best friend of the papacy.
No. It’s founder was falsely declared excommunicated by the human weakness, imprudence, injustice and lack of understanding of the late Pope. The heretics are considered still “in communion” because of the imprudent inactions of the late Holy Father. Sorry to drop all that on you, but he was so far from being “the Great” that it’s a tragedy for the Church.
I’m not talking about Pope Benedict. He’s at least in the process of trying to right some of the wrongs of the past. We’ll see how he does. But he’s either going to lead as a fully traditional Catholic Pope and cause the liberals to go into a formal schism or he’s going to do nothing of consequence to preserve a false veneer of unity. The third alternative is that he’s going to lead as a full blooded liberal and then God is going to have to intervene Himself.
T
TMC
Guest
As long as you get to decide what is a “doctrine” and what is a “policy” I guess you will win all the arguments. I can not understand how the Church’s teaching on who is and is not saved, which is at the heart of both ecumenism and the opposition to ecumenism, is a “policy”.
Also interesting how you can lablel bishops in good graces with the Church as heretics, while insisting that the one that was excommunicated is really (secretly, I guess?) in full communion with Rome.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with or leaving the Church over a good faith issue of conscience. To redefine basic terms to make it appear that there is no division is simply intellectual dishonesty.
M
Marina14
Guest
I actually called and asked our local SSPX St. Michael’s Church years ago and asked him just that. He said that they view themselves similar to the Byzantine and Melkite Greek Catholic Churches who were in schism from around 1054 until around the 1400’s. That they think that the Roman Catholic Church will “come around” and seek reunification with them even if it’s not in their life time. He didn’t seem concerned about it as far as their salvation being in jepardy because they are not in union with Rome.
I made one visit to his Church…women & girls are given doylies to put on their heads and everyone kneels for Holy Communion at a railing. Apparently the same way the Catholic Church did it for centuries before Vatican II. My daughter was really young and continued to yank the doylie off my head. It was very distracting. That’s all I remember.
C
catharina
Guest
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Wow - this thread is still going???
Wow - this thread is still going???
S
Sure
Guest
Well, silly people keep jumping in and saying non-sensical things like “The SSPX are not schismatic or in schism at all.”
And lest anyone get confused it, some of us decide to counter such obvious lies by stating what the Church teaches on the matter. But you’re right it is silly to spend so much writing in response to a fringe view that is clung to by less than .01% of Catholics. We should probably discuss something that affects more people like whether aliens exist or not.
B
bear06
Guest
And I’m betting if nobody ever tried to say that the SSPX wasn’t in schism, these threads would die a lot quicker.Well, silly people keep jumping in and saying non-sensical things like “The SSPX are not schismatic or in schism at all.”
And lest anyone get confused it, some of us decide to counter such obvious lies by stating what the Church teaches on the matter. But you’re right it is silly to spend so much writing in response to a fringe view that is clung to by less than .01% of Catholics. We should probably discuss something that affects more people like whether aliens exist or not.
B
BobP123
Guest
Blame it on the popularity of the SSPX Masses.
C
catharina
Guest
how about dem aliens???Well, silly people keep jumping in and saying non-sensical things like "The SSPX are not schismatic or in schism at all."
And lest anyone get confused it, some of us decide to counter such obvious lies by stating what the Church teaches on the matter. But you’re right it is silly to spend so much writing in response to a fringe view that is clung to by less than .01% of Catholics. We should probably discuss something that affects more people like whether aliens exist or not.
- Status