Can anyone explain the logic behind the stance of SSPX?

[saint_rafael]

It seems this thread has been hit by so many posters. Some of them have left like ten posts in a row pathetically not offering any substance.

Some of those who have fallen for Modernism called for their backups and cohorts to flood this thread.

 

[Joe_5859]

It seems this thread has been hit by so many posters. Some of them have left like ten posts in a row pathetically not offering any substance.

Some of those who have fallen for Modernism called for their backups and cohorts to flood this thread.

You sure like to toss around the “modernist” label a lot, don’t you, SR?

I always thought modernism had come and gone and that we are now in the midst of post-modernism.

 

[saint_rafael]

Anyone who has attacked Catholic traditonalist’s criticisms of Pope John Paul II need to read this:

“The Secret of Pope John Paul II’s Success”

cfnews.org/JP2-Success.htm

 

[catharina]

The error of Pope John Paul II was that he did not govern the Church at all. Lefebvre knew Pope John Paul II was not going to do a single thing about the Modernist bishops. The Chuch was collapsing under Pope John Paul’s watch.

You attribute to M. Lefebvre that perfect knowledge you also claim for yourself.
The Church was “collapsing under John Paul” - yet it didn’t collapse. What do you think of that?

 

[bobzills]

Omitting the filioque is false ecumenism is action. .

This is one point that I don’t understand. Wasn’t the filioque omitted from the original Nicene creed and was not there until at least 700AD, and even then, it was not in every creed. Further, the Eastern Catholic Churches do not say the filioque in their creed.

 

[ethelzguy]

Lefebvre did it for the Church and the Catholic faith. God knows that and he is in heaven.

And you have this information from whom?

 

[consumedconvert]

My only response is that I do not call the Pope devine. I call him infallible in matters of faith and morals in his official teachings. To deny this is to deny a central Catholic dogma.

**You still did not answer my post. You cannot reconcile Lefevrve being a saint or even having the possibility of salvation with your insistence that all men must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation (wherein you interpret “being subject to” as “being obedient to”). **

 

[saint_rafael]

You sure like to toss around the “modernist” label a lot, don’t you, SR?

I always thought modernism had come and gone and that we are now in the midst of post-modernism.

Wow. You really don’t understand. I am not talking about political or philisophical modernism or post-modernism.

I am talking about the heresy that was called Modernism and is relevant to the Catholic Church.

St. Pius X was the great enemy of this heresy. He tried to stop it and it went underground. It resurfaced and started gaining steam in the 40’s and 50’s. Vatican II was the vehicle for their revolution and great conquest.

Pascendi Dominici Gregis was his great encyclical against Modernism. It’s one hundred year anniversary passed without a single whisper from the Church, only celebrated by Trads on the net.
It needs to be read:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

 

[laudamus_te]

Anyone who has attacked Catholic traditonalist’s criticisms of Pope John Paul II need to read this:

“The Secret of Pope John Paul II’s Success”

cfnews.org/JP2-Success.htm

Excellent article. Unfortunately it will fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes) around here, for the mere fact that it was written by Mr. Vennari, a person they disapprove of for daring to tell it like it is:

"Two star progressivists who undermined this dogma were Father Henri de Lubac and Father Yves Congar. Both were proponents of the New Theology that taught religion must change with the times. Both were considered theological misfits by Pope Pius XII’s Vatican. Both had their writings and activities curtailed under Cardinal Ottaviani’s Holy Office.** Yet both Yves Congar and Henri de Lubac, along with other progressivist theologians, emerged as leading lights of Vatican II, and of the post-Conciliar period, without ever changing their heretical views.**

The young Bishop Karol Wojtyla from Poland sided with these progessivists during the Council. Father Ludvik Nemec, a conservative, wrote in 1979 in praise of John Paul II, “Bishop Wojtyla took a progressive stand” at Vatican II, and he “interacted with progressive theologians” at the Council. Years later, Pope John Paul II would make Congar and De Lubac Cardinals, despite the fact that neither rejected their un-orthodox ideas. Henri de Lubac, in fact, was a stalwart defender of the pantheist evolutionist, Teilhard de Chardin. Thus John Paul II rewarded red hats to two modernist theologians whose pre-Vatican II writings — and post-Vatican II writings — undermined the doctrine, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”.

 

[saint_rafael]

My only response is that I do not call the Pope devine. I call him infallible in matters of faith and morals in his official teachings. To deny this is to deny a central Catholic dogma.

**You still did not answer my post. You cannot reconcile Lefevrve being a saint or even having the possibility of salvation with your insistence that all men must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation (wherein you interpret “being subject to” as “being obedient to”). **

You do know that a Pope is only infallible in faith and morals when he speaks Ex-Cathedra?

Vatican I defined that as de fide. A Pope was only infallible when he speaks Ex-Cathedra.

Pope Pius XII was the last Pope to use Infallibility when he proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

Lefebvre is a saint and was subject to the Pope because he never rejected Pope John Paul II as universal Pontiff like the schismatic Orthodox Church.

Lefebvre always knew Pope John Paul II was the lawful and valid Pope with all authority. He felt it was his duty to disobey the Pope when the Pope did no listen to reason and did nothing to stop the crisis.

Lefebvre had to do what was best for the Church and the faith. It was not Lefebvre’s fault that the Pope was not doing his job.

To not be subject to the Roman pontiff a man has to leave the Church and reject the Papacy. Lefebvre never left the Catholic Church. Being subject to the Roman Pontiff is a doctrine against Schismatics.

 

[consumedconvert]

Excellent article. Unfortunately it will fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes) around here, for the mere fact that it was written by Mr. Vennari, a person they disapprove of for daring to tell it like it is:

"Two star progressivists who undermined this dogma were Father Henri de Lubac and Father Yves Congar. Both were proponents of the New Theology that taught religion must change with the times. Both were considered theological misfits by Pope Pius XII’s Vatican. Both had their writings and activities curtailed under Cardinal Ottaviani’s Holy Office.** Yet both Yves Congar and Henri de Lubac, along with other progressivist theologians, emerged as leading lights of Vatican II, and of the post-Conciliar period, without ever changing their heretical views.**

The young Bishop Karol Wojtyla from Poland sided with these progessivists during the Council. Father Ludvik Nemec, a conservative, wrote in 1979 in praise of John Paul II, “Bishop Wojtyla took a progressive stand” at Vatican II, and he “interacted with progressive theologians” at the Council. Years later, Pope John Paul II would make Congar and De Lubac Cardinals, despite the fact that neither rejected their un-orthodox ideas. Henri de Lubac, in fact, was a stalwart defender of the pantheist evolutionist, Teilhard de Chardin. Thus John Paul II rewarded red hats to two modernist theologians whose pre-Vatican II writings — and post-Vatican II writings — undermined the doctrine, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”.

I am finding it more and more ironic that those who insist that (1) the greatest “error” of the Church is denying that outside the Church there is no Salvation (which She does not), and (2) the Church denies that all men must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for Salvation (where being subject to = being obedient to) follow Bishops who have been EXCOMMUNICATED FOR DISOBEDIENCE by the Pope.

You follow Bishops who have been excommunicated from the Church, by the Pope. You flirt with being outside the Church. One must also ask whether your defence of the SSPX here does not cross the line of “Formal Adherence” and incur excommunication for yourselves. Of course, I am not certain of this.

It is something I would look into, by writing your Bishop or the Vatican if nothing else. It’s a very dangerous line to cross. But you have or are very close to crossing it, it would seem.

 

[Joe_5859]

Anyone who has attacked Catholic traditonalist’s criticisms of Pope John Paul II need to read this:

“The Secret of Pope John Paul II’s Success”

cfnews.org/JP2-Success.htm

I only read the first few paragraphs. Once I got to this statement, I realized it would just be a waste of time (it’s a long article):

Yet nowhere in this tsunami of sentiment did I see anyone praise him for achieving the primary purpose of the papacy: unswervingly fidelity to the teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church as taught and practiced throughout the centuries. Nowhere did I see him praised for preserving the purity of doctrine and the maintenance of discipline in the Church worldwide. Pope John Paul II was not praised for this because he did not achieve it. And for a Pope to fail in this area is to fail mightily.

This just goes to show that the author did not look very hard for coverage of JPII’s death. I certainly read such statments about him.

I find the whole premise of the article a bit self-contradictory. The author is doing exactly what he is criticizing: he is appealing to emotion. He’s appealing to the target reader’s preconceived sense of emotional indignation that other people over-emphasize emotions. (Those who agree with the article should ask themselves if their emotions don’t swell up in indignation after reading the opening section).

In any case, the whole premise that the world’s emotional response to JPII’s death was “too much” is a bit melodramatic. I think the author was probably responding emotionally himself. Why is he the arbiter of how much emotion is appropriate to express at the death of a pope? And where is his “evidence” that it was “too much”? He doesn’t give any because his observation is itself based on his emotions.

 

[MrS]

Wow, look at what I highlighted. That is a VERY good point s-r.
So BEFORE Vatican II, the Pope was sensed to be an alter Christus.

And you all say that “Tradition” must be upheld, right.

Was it “tradition” to argue with Christ? Only the pagans, “argued” with Christ and they eventually “WON” out and got Him killed.

Huh?

 

[Ahlman]

I am also eagerly awaiting an answer to consumedconvert’s question. It grasps perfectly the dilemma of SSPX and other traditionalist movements.

Either you accept that the Church has the authority to reinterpret earlier teachings that seem to imply that everyone who disobeys the pope is in hell.

Otherwise you claim that the Church has been in error when softening up its interpretations of the fate of those not obedient to the pope, and consequently stays obedient to the pope in order not to risk going to hell. This becomes a moment 22.

I would like to quote the full passage of ethelzguy’s signature from Mediator Dei, no 63. It may have been written back in 1947, but following the logics of ultra-traditionalists, it must be perfectly well to apply to the situation of today also (which, in fact, I totally agree with in this case since the Church hasn’t said otherwise about these things yet).

Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

 

[saint_rafael]

You attribute to M. Lefebvre that perfect knowledge you also claim for yourself.
The Church was “collapsing under John Paul” - yet it didn’t collapse. What do you think of that?

I did not say the Church was dead or had been overcome by the gates of Hell.

We have the promise of Jesus that the gates well never prevail.

Collapsing means a strong structure was reduced to ruins.

The Church is in ruins and the situation looks bleak. It is an illusion of the devil. Many Catholic sainst have prophesied the times of utter decay in the Church.

The strong pre-Vatican II Church is no longer recognizable.
**
23% Mass attendance, 20% belief in the real presense of Jesus in the Eucharist, over 50% divorce rate, and 90% contraception rate sure looks like collapse. **

 

[consumedconvert]

You do know that a Pope is only infallible in faith and morals when he speaks Ex-Cathedra?

Vatican I defined that as de fide. A Pope was only infallible when he speaks Ex-Cathedra.

Pope Pius XII was the last Pope to use Infallibility when he proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

Lefebvre is a saint and was subject to the Pope because he never rejected Pope John Paul II as universal Pontiff like the schismatic Orthodox Church.

Lefebvre always knew Pope John Paul II was the lawful and valid Pope with all authority. He felt it was his duty to disobey the Pope when the Pope did no listen to reason and did nothing to stop the crisis.

Lefebvre had to do what was best for the Church and the faith. It was not Lefebvre’s fault that the Pope was not doing his job.

To not be subject to the Roman pontiff a man has to leave the Church and reject the Papacy. Lefebvre never left the Catholic Church. Being subject to the Roman Pontiff is a doctrine against Schismatics.

How can one reject obedience to the Pope and not reject the Papacy? “I recognize you as head of the Church, but I will not obey you!” Yowza. That’s more like an Orthodox understanding as the Patriarch of Rome as the “First Among Equals”.

 

[laudamus_te]

I only read the first few paragraphs. Once I got to this statement, I realized it would just be a waste of time (it’s a long article):

It’s a shame that your prejudice prevents you from reading the entire article. It’s very enlightening. But since you didn’t read it, you are unqualified to comment on it.

I find the whole premise of the article a bit self-contradictory. The author is doing exactly what he is criticizing: he is appealing to emotion. He’s appealing to the target reader’s preconceived sense of emotional indignation that other people over-emphasize emotions. (Those who agree with the article should ask themselves if their emotions don’t swell up in indignation after reading the opening section).

But, how can you reach such a conclusion if you didn’t read the article?

 

[consumedconvert]

Good grief. I think we–or myself at least–am devoting way too much time to disputing the errors of the SSPX and their (formal?) adherents.

They have been refuted and refuted and refuted again.

A man of my meager age (25) or younger has audacity to correct the Holy Father. Someday, I think, you will find you have wasted a good deal of time and emotion on an organization that preaches multiple errors and has no true allegience to the Vicar of Christ. You will find that you have followed the wrong “magisterium.”

When that happens, I pray you run to the nearest Priest and find a warm embrace, back in the bosom of the Church.

Where Peter is, there is the Church.

 

[consumedconvert]

I would also appeal to you that it is a frightful thing to confess your sins to a priest whose faculties to absolve sins have been suspended. Worse than useless. You might as well confess to an Episcopal Vicar.

Does that not frighten you?

 

[Joe_5859]

Wow. You really don’t understand. I am not talking about political or philisophical modernism or post-modernism.

Wow. You really need to polish your bedside manner.

I am aware of what modernism is. I suppose tongue-in-cheek posts are prone to going over people’s heads. Such is the nature of the internet. I guess I need to make better use of the smileys.