Catholics vs the SSPX

[GerardP]

Again, Gerard, you had me until the bold part. I think this will be a huge mistake for you to bring SSPX attendees into this. They can’t help it and will shoot the whole TLM movement in the foot. I’m speaking form experience.
That’s like ignoring sin in order to just focus on salvation.

They will inevitable wander in their comments and put people off. Then you’ll end up with a bunch of people who would be more than happy to attend a TLM who won’t want to because they can’t stand to be around people who make such divisive comments.

Then they have a problem with their faith. I went to the TLM because I was robbed of my religious heritage and denied the “fullness” of catholicism in the post-conciliar debacle. Up that point I was fine with the Novus Ordo because I didn’t know what had been deleted from the TLM and twisted to appeal to a modernist mindset.

It would be a real education for people to obtain the 17 hour tape series of Charles Coulombe and Williams Beirsach going through the missals of the TLM and the Novus Ordo line by line comparing Latin and English and then comparing the consecrations of three traditional rites Byzantine, Coptic and the Latin TLM and Novus Ordo against the translations of the Novus Ordo in multiple languages.

I

completely understand being poked in the eye with modernism. That said, I don’t repeatedly make laundry lists.

Well, that’s a major difference between what was and what is in the diocesan system. The Church is full of laundry lists, 10 commandments, 7 gifts, 3 types of sin etc…Categorizing and cataloging things is helpful.

It’s the pop culture’s post-1960’s trashing of the idea of “labeling” which has contributed to this lack of perception.

It does no good. I avoid it whenever I can and still manage to try and work on changing the situation.

If you’re not going to make a modernist uncomfortable, you aren’t doing anything to stop the spread of modernism.

And like I’ve said, we’re choosy but we don’t jump ship.

Neither do the SSPX but they can develop a true Catholic spirit of combat required of the “Church Militant” without the withering and anemic designs of modernist Church destroyers.

Then I’m sure that you can find a haven.

An SSPX chapel. No different than the catacombs or masses in the glades of Ireland.

Look, the fact is that there is human error everywhere.

Once is error, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.
It doesn’t take much to find out who the enemies are when you push them a bit.

I was just at a TLM this weekend and there were a few errors in the congregation even there. There was inappropriate dress and for some reason the adults left their teens wandering outside with the little ones - and I mean outside the building completely missing the Mass. Does it do me any good to give you the list?

Those aren’t errors, they are lapses in discipline. They even happen at SSPX chapels. (though I’ll bet to a lesser degree since Father isn’t afraid to charitably make a point about dressing inappropriately or fooling around if the need arises.)

[/QUOTE]

 

[GerardP]

Does it make you feel better? And, by the way, I’m sorry to even bring it up but I’m trying to make a point. If we seek perfection in humans, we will always be disappointed

You are associating orthodoxy with perfection. It’s not too much to demand the Catholic faith and practice in Catholic Churches. And even if things aren’t ideal, you should still point to the ideal so people won’t fool themselves into thinking too much of what they are doing and growing complacent and then lax with what they offer to God.

I have to attend outside of my normal parishes from time to time. Believe me, I could give you a list of complaints from some of them and, like the priest you spoke of, some of these pastors are faced with enormous odds. Ranting and raving helps a lot less than getting in those parishes and trying to help out.

That same priest said, “There is no good in pretending that (insert name ) didn’t have weaknesses.”

I understand what these pastors go through because just working with people marriage prep and CCD is no easy task.
It’s a hard thing to teach the truth without sending them fleeing.

Tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Avoiding the truth is cruel. Let them know what the score is instead of fooling them into thinking they know what the Church teaches and that they are in good standing when they’re not. People are more responsive ultimately to the truth than to being coy.

Sometimes it takes a little longer than I’d like but it does get done. I’ve seen some wonderful conversion of hearts and it ain’t done by giving folks a laundry list of errors.

I’ve seen the reverse. Tom Woods, author of How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization said it was only through hard nosed Catholics telling him to “convert to the one true Church” that did it for him. It depends on the errors listed. When they find out they’ve been lied to (by commission or omission) for years, they are often very responsive and convert with a more solid foundation than many that develop odd idolatrous misconceptions about the papacy and the vague definitions of the “magisterium.”

The richness of the Catholic faith as expounded by someone pre-conciliar like Bishop Sheen in the 1950’s or the Catechism of Trent is far more attactive than the vague, shadowy “theology of the body” of JPII or the ever lacking in real clarity modern Catechism.

 

[bear06]

Ironically the SSPX priests have never said a bad word about the local priests yet, the priest at the parish if virulently anti-SSPX. which annoys many of the attendees at his own parish.

I didn’t speak to the SSPX priests. I spoke to the SSPX attendees.

That’s like ignoring sin in order to just focus on salvation.

Are you actually saying that the Novus Ordo and Vatican II are sinful? This is pretty much what I’m talking about. People shoot themselves in the foot when they try to encourage the TLM while denigrating VII. It turns people way off.

Then they have a problem with their faith.

Seriously you think people who believe in Vatican II have a problem with their Faith?

I went to the TLM because I was robbed of my religious heritage and denied the “fullness” of catholicism in the post-conciliar debacle. Up that point I was fine with the Novus Ordo because I didn’t know what had been deleted from the TLM and twisted to appeal to a modernist mindset.

So do you want the Novus Ordo as called for in VII abolished?

It would be a real education for people to obtain the 17 hour tape series of Charles Coulombe and Williams Beirsach going through the missals of the TLM and the Novus Ordo line by line comparing Latin and English and then comparing the consecrations of three traditional rites Byzantine, Coptic and the Latin TLM and Novus Ordo against the translations of the Novus Ordo in multiple languages.

Again, you debate with someone else. Remember, I’m a Fessio gal.

 

[bear06]

You are associating orthodoxy with perfection. It’s not too much to demand the Catholic faith and practice in Catholic Churches. And even if things aren’t ideal, you should still point to the ideal so people won’t fool themselves into thinking too much of what they are doing and growing complacent and then lax with what they offer to God.

That same priest said, “There is no good in pretending that (insert name ) didn’t have weaknesses.”

Tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Avoiding the truth is cruel. Let them know what the score is instead of fooling them into thinking they know what the Church teaches and that they are in good standing when they’re not. People are more responsive ultimately to the truth than to being coy.

I’ve seen the reverse. Tom Woods, author of How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization said it was only through hard nosed Catholics telling him to “convert to the one true Church” that did it for him. It depends on the errors listed. When they find out they’ve been lied to (by commission or omission) for years, they are often very responsive and convert with a more solid foundation than many that develop odd idolatrous misconceptions about the papacy and the vague definitions of the “magisterium.”

The richness of the Catholic faith as expounded by someone pre-conciliar like Bishop Sheen in the 1950’s or the Catechism of Trent is far more attactive than the vague, shadowy “theology of the body” of JPII or the ever lacking in real clarity modern Catechism.

I never said anything about not telling the truth. It’s the way that you tell the truth that works. Let’s see. The Pharisees stoned people to death for the truth and to discourage others from their sins and Christ did not. Who do you think won more souls?

 

[pnewton]

And there is always either a myopia or hypocrisy on the part of the “conservatives” in that they can call anyone any name “wacky” or “schismatic” or whatever (without any supporting data) with impunity. Yet drawing attention to the nature of their attacks is considered “mean.”

Or we actually do support what we believe and the myopia is evident in those who ignore that support. I, for one, have posted several links over the years to documentation supporting the fact that the SSPX is schismatic. Yet I am sure that as intellectually superior as you and your ilk is, you could find a way to address you issues in humility and truth.

This is part of the problem. You are more concerned with what “appears” than whether or not it’s true.

Then perhaps you can support the proposition you made that those who post here and do not support the SSPX are unintellectual. If you were really pointing out a reality I am sure you have some very compelling evidence to this “reality.”

You should listen to one of Bishop Fellay’s conferences and see how well he spells out the SSPX position. Just trying to get Rome to clearly state what has always been the law regarding the TLM despite the de facto suppression of the TLM is evidence that the SSPX was right.

When he is elected pope, or at least out of a state of schism, then I’ll listen. Until then, if his position is built on the subjective criteria of “de facto” then it is I who question who is the one ignoring reality. When I have time to spend in conferences, there are so many solid Catholic priests out there who are faithful sons of the Church. Why would I spend time on one whose current status is not solid?

 

[pnewton]

Neither do the SSPX but they can develop a true Catholic spirit of combat required of the “Church Militant” without the withering and anemic designs of modernist Church destroyers.

Except that the idea of the Church Militant applies to the Church, not a group that separates, turns around and then attacks the group from which they came. There is an analogous military term for such a group. Perhaps it would be best to read 1 Corinthains 12 in this context. Fighting modernism must never be expanded to the point it includes fighting the Church.

 

[GerardP]

I didn’t speak to the SSPX priests. I spoke to the SSPX attendees.

I know. I was just pointing out that the contention initially comes from the diocesan and conciliar part of the Church, not from the SSPX side. Just as LeFebvre wasn’t the Apostolic Visitor who raised doubts about the historicity of the Resurrection.

Are you actually saying that the Novus Ordo and Vatican II are sinful?

Not objectively sinful. Subjectively yes, if the person who is supporting the N.O. is supporting it for the subversion of the Church. Much like the litrugical innovators of the 30s and 40s in Holland who engaged in much of the practices condemned in Trent and subsequently adopted as part of the “liturgical renewal” of Vatican II.

I view the N.O. more as a punishment from God. He tends to give those who don’t want to follow Him exactly what they want.

This is pretty much what I’m talking about. People shoot themselves in the foot when they try to encourage the TLM while denigrating VII. It turns people way off.

Conversely, ignoring the catastrophe in the Church turns people off. By not putting the responsibility on the Popes who were responsible for guarding the Church, (instead blaming archbishop LeFebvre) no serious dialogue is credible.

Seriously you think people who believe in Vatican II have a problem with their Faith?

There are so many disparate versions of what Vatican II actually says. Fr. Malachi Martin wrote that Vatican II managed to actually express the Catholic faith. But it did so with such unnecessary comprehensiveness and slobberiness of thought that it provided modernists opportunities to finesse the language to spread their poison in the Church. Translational errors lead to dogmatic errors.

So do you want the Novus Ordo as called for in VII abolished?

I would love for the Novus Ordo to go away forever. I don’t even like a Latin ad orientum Novus Ordo. I was watching the Pope’s mass with the Cardinals yesterday on EWTN. Read the Ottaviani Intervention and you’ll see what the problems are. It looks like the TLM in some ways but it’s like a cream puff without the filling.

Again, you debate with someone else. Remember, I’m a Fessio gal.

I don’t dislike Fr. Fessio personally but I remember him on Peter Robinson’s PBS talk show and he struck me as much too liberal. He was at the time looking forward to a more uninvolved papacy and a greater decentralization of the Church from Rome. This is a typical Jesuit line of thinking as reported by Fr. Martin in his book the Jesuits. And also the wonderful Fr. Vincent Miceli who managed to surive as a Jesuit in Rome while being able to critique the policies of the order.

 

[GerardP]

Or we actually do support what we believe and the myopia is evident in those who ignore that support.

Yet you never condemn an uncharitable attack against the SSPX.
THAT is where the myopia is.

I, for one, have posted several links over the years to documentation supporting the fact that the SSPX is schismatic.

I’ll be that I’ve already read them and found counter arguments either from magisterial sources or traditional apologists.

This is why you never see a debate accepted by a “conservative” aagainst a traditionalist apologist.

Yet I am sure that as intellectually superior as you and your ilk is, you could find a way to address you issues in humility and truth.

It’s not bragging to point out where the correct answers are. And it’s not pride or arrogance to point out the logical inconsistency of an opponent.

Then perhaps you can support the proposition you made that those who post here and do not support the SSPX are unintellectual.

Just read the SSPX threads. I’ve labored mightily to move the conversation forward but to no avail. The “sloganeering” about “Peter’s Barque” or “schismatic this” or “obedience” that is the majority of the answers.

An actual question about the Church’s teaching on issues such as obedience, schism, the nature of the magisterium, the limits of papal power is anathema to the majority of anti-SSPX posters.

Everything is emotional in their responses.

If you were really pointing out a reality I am sure you have some very compelling evidence to this “reality.”

How much would you like? Your next answer is evidence.

When he is elected pope, or at least out of a state of schism, then I’ll listen.

Here’s a perfect example of someone who has had the well poisoned. You don’t question the nature of schism, the Church’s actual teaching, the historical facts or the other side at all. They’ve been called “schismatic” and that’s good enough for you. You don’t care whether it’s accurate, just or unjust.

That is pure anti-intellectualism.

Until then, if his position is built on the subjective criteria of “de facto” then it is I who question who is the one ignoring reality.

How about objective criteria of “de facto”? And why is your “de jure” criteria absolute? It’s otherwise called Legalism.

When I have time to spend in conferences, there are so many solid Catholic priests out there who are faithful sons of the Church.

This is how you set yourself up. How do you know what makes a faithful son of the Church? You sound like the Isrealites who bragged to Christ about being “sons of Abraham”. He said God could make the stones themselves into sons of Abraham.

Why would I spend time on one whose current status is not solid?

Because an honest debated depends on the openness of the other side to facts. The Church has always studied heresies, other religions and philosophies in order to understand them and eventually win them over. The Natural Law arguments of the Church equip the Church to convert pagans.

It’s a Protestant attitude to try and convert someone by beating them over the head with tautological arguements.

 

[GerardP]

Except that the idea of the Church Militant applies to the Church, not a group that separates, turns around and then attacks the group from which they came.

Church Militant applies to each Catholic especially one who has been confirmed as a soldier for Christ.

You keep automatically assuming that the SSPX has “separated.” They have not. This is the big scam on the part of the PR of the situation.

The group that has separated from the traditions of the Church, turned around and attacked those traditions and those who adhere to them are the true schismatics. The fact that they had the Popes permission and approval is a mark against the Pope. Not those who don’t follow that line of thinking right out of the faith.

There is an analogous military term for such a group. Perhaps it would be best to read 1 Corinthains 12 in this context. Fighting modernism must never be expanded to the point it includes fighting the Church.

“Fighting the Church?” You are now equating fighting modernists and modernism within the Church as fighting “the Church” herself.

That simply doesn’t hold.

One of the big CA posters’ problems is the term “The Church” as if every policy of the heirarchy is a “Magisterial teaching” of “the Church.” This isn’t so.

Just because the recent Popes have refused to fight modernism, does not mean that Catholics are not obliged to fight modernism and do whatever is required to expel it from the Church. It’s gotta go, with or without the help of the Popes.

It was the laiety that finally did away with the Arian heresy, more than the bishops and the Popes.

 

[bear06]

This is how you set yourself up. How do you know what makes a faithful son of the Church? You sound like the Isrealites who bragged to Christ about being “sons of Abraham”. He said God could make the stones themselves into sons of Abraham.

I have to run out the door in a minute but this one deserves a response.

Pot meet kettle. You do this all of the time with Lefebvre, et. al. Is it only you who can decide?

 

[GerardP]

Originally Posted by GerardP
I don’t think they present themselves as having any authority. I don’t think they have a “rating system” in which they decide who is or who isn’t loyal to the mysterious “Magisterium.” But they do reference the magisterium of the Church, tradition and logical arguments to make their points.

Disguised as authority. When they were Petersnet, they assumed a rating system of other sites that had no authority.

I’m pretty sure that they’ve never said that they represent the Magisterium.

No. They just are the authority who determines “loyalty” to the Magisterium.

CC also referencest he Magisterium pre and post Vatican II.
And, while I’m sure you disagree, CC also uses tradition and logical arguments.

I didn’t see any of that in their “review” of Tradition In Action.

You see one as following the Church’s teachings more closely and I see the other as doing so. And, quite frankly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen them make a comment about any Holy Father like this one:

Quote:
On December 7, 2005, while being greeted by military men, Pope Ratzinger put on one of their hats trying to be funny. The incident projects the image of a clownish papacy turned toward making the world laugh. It is a quite different message than that of the Man of Sorrows, Who came to teach us the way of the Cross. Alas, the indirect attacks upon the sacrality of the Papacy under the pretext of pleasing men did not end with Pope Wojtyla. They should have stopped, however, because people have had enough of such antics

Why would they address a sad scenario that we had to witness in the early days of the Pope’s reign? He was playing JPII and it didn’t work when JPII was Pope.

The people at Catholic Culture are excuse makers for the Popes because they are quasi-idolatrous of the Popes. And they resent anyone raining on their parade with a non-idolatrous perspective.

 

[pnewton]

This is how you set yourself up. How do you know what makes a faithful son of the Church? You sound like the Isrealites who bragged to Christ about being “sons of Abraham”. He said God could make the stones themselves into sons of Abraham.

I did not say I was a faithful son of the Church. You are insulting me for something I did not even say. I was referring to others. Specifically, their objective relationship to the Church in Rome and the current Vicar of Christ. This is set in apposition to one whose status is not so solid. To twist what I said into what the Israelites said is inaccurate.

It’s a Protestant attitude to try and convert someone by beating them over the head with tautological arguements.

Really. I thought what made Protestants protestant was their separation from the Catholic Church.

I have read the SSPX arguements in the past. They have been going on here since the first year of operation. The one consistency to the documentation used for their positions seem to be the lack of proper context, specifically historical context. I will let the rest of your post speak for itself. I am betting that even the ignorant masses who post here can discern from the tone where you are coming from.

 

[pnewton]

Church Militant applies to each Catholic especially one who has been confirmed as a soldier for Christ.

You keep automatically assuming that the SSPX has “separated.” They have not. This is the big scam on the part of the PR of the situation.

One of the big CA posters’ problems is the term “The Church” as if every policy of the heirarchy is a “Magisterial teaching” of “the Church.” This isn’t so.

Then one must wonder why you post here. You call us ignorant. The apologists here are now part of a big scam, since it is they who have provided the documentation showing the schism. I mean, I wouldn’t dream of going to an SSPX site and engage in name-calling. Besides being futile, it strikes me as just rude. Also, even though I despise the attempt of SSPX adherents to convert faithful Catholics, I respect them enough not to try to convert. There are lost enough for everyone.

If the SSPX wanted to effectively fight modernism in the Church, they should have stayed in the Church instead of cutting and running. I accept that this was viewed as a prudential move, but it sures cuts their credibility.

 

[GerardP]

Quote:
Conservatism is simply the other side of the coin of wild liberalism.

Only in a Hegelian model. The Catholic model was described by Pope St. Pius X in “Pascendi”

Hence, studying more closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as resulting from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force in the Church is tradition, and tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact; for by right it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition, and, in fact, for authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs lies in the individual consciences and ferments there - especially in such of them as are in most intimate contact with life. Note here, Venerable Brethren, the appearance already of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity a factor of progress in the Church. Now it is by a species of compromise between the forces of conservation and of progress, that is to say between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place.

They both do the same thing. They give themselves the role in deciding what Magisterial teachings are right and wrong.

Not really. Liberals like to pretend that policies are magisterial and dogmas aren’t. Conservatives like to pretend that everything that the Pope says is magisterial even if it’s contradictory.

Traditionalists (generally) listen to the Pope and obey and accept magisterial things and give careful consideration and authentic respect to his non-magisterial statements.

Uh, copy the first line of each citation CC gave and go to TIA and paste it in their search engine. The articles pop right up. Want more examples of what CC is trying to point out with TIA, type in clownish.

And? Are you contesting that “clownish” is the wrong adjective used? Would you describe the photos and vestments pointed out as “dignified” and “refined” or “majestic” ?

Catholic Culture points out in their section on the “strengths” of Tradition in Action “None.” This is pure bias on their part.

Look at their comments.

*“However, TIA’s members attempt to do this by ridiculing the Roman clergy, the Pope, and many prominent Catholic leaders and religious.” *

Are they “ridiculing” the clergy and the Popes and prominent Catholic leaders or are those individuals doing ridiculous things and wearing ridiculous things?

*Their manner of presenting pictures and commentary completely aside from any context is both a misrepresentation of facts and disgraceful to the Church and Her hierarchy. *

They actually don’t give proof of a misrepresentation on the part of TIA. The fact is, the Popes, clergy etc aren’t going to be around to explain (or spin) their ridiculous behavior. And in some of those pictures, there is no context that would justify what is being allowed to go on in the Church or at Church approved functions by clergy.

*While ostensibly seeking to reinstate traditions in the Church, this site ridicules the living Tradition of the Church’s Magisterium and therefore, it cannot validly claim a right to defense of Holy Mother Church. We recommend avoiding this site altogether. *

Come on. This is a totally modernist mindset. “The living Tradition of the Church’s Magisterium”??? is a bunch of jumbled words. It’s pseudo-theological razzmatazz. They don’t even know what they are talking about. They don’t even try to explain their terms. You have your guess, I have my guess. But they don’t say what they actually mean. I’m surprised they didn’t try to say that TIA is interrupting the Church’s “mojo.”

At least we agree on G.I. Joe

 

[GerardP]

I did not say I was a faithful son of the Church.

I didn’t say you made that claim. I said you were setting yourself up as being a person who was going to provide one of those anti-intellectual answers.

You are insulting me for something I did not even say.

Nope. Not insulting you at all.

I was referring to others. Specifically, their objective relationship to the Church in Rome and the current Vicar of Christ.

I know. But you are referring to their de jure relationship to the Church and Pope. I know plenty of priests that are “in full communion” and are flat out heretics.

This is set in apposition to one whose status is not so solid. To twist what I said into what the Israelites said is inaccurate.

No. I didn’t twist it at all. I pointed out that you refer to “faithful priests” by their de jure status just as those Isrealites referred to themselves at “sons of Abraham.” As if they had a free pass on their behavior because of their legal status.

Really. I thought what made Protestants protestant was their separation from the Catholic Church.

And one of the characteristics of that separation is their attitude. That tendency towards tautology is being adapted by the post-conciliar conservatives.

I have read the SSPX arguements in the past. They have been going on here since the first year of operation. The one consistency to the documentation used for their positions seem to be the lack of proper context, specifically historical context.

??? Care to cite an example? or will you only do so when they are not in “schism”?

I will let the rest of your post speak for itself. I am betting that even the ignorant masses who post here can discern from the tone where you are coming from.

Yes. Of Course! They should always make determinations based on the TONE of the argument and not the Validity of the Argument.

Maybe a sweet talking heretic will come along and schmooze them right out of the Catholic Church.

…hmmmmm…maybe it’s happened already.

 

[GerardP]

Then one must wonder why you post here.

Because people ask me to and thank me for clarifying things.

You call us ignorant.

Who is “us”? I’m describing a number of posters who are willfully ignorant and anti-intellectual. Not all.

The apologists here are now part of a big scam, since it is they who have provided the documentation showing the schism.

Actually the scam was perpetrated by those who wrote the documentation. Not the apologists who foolishly and unquestioningly believe it.

I mean, I wouldn’t dream of going to an SSPX site and engage in name-calling.

Nonsense. People do it here all the time and they probably don’t even realize it. And I haven’t engaged in name-calling. I described a type of attitude, I didn’t name a specific person.

Besides being futile, it strikes me as just rude.

Better to be wrong and mannerly than tell the truth and upset some modern attitudes?

Also, even though I despise the attempt of SSPX adherents to convert faithful Catholics, I respect them enough not to try to convert. There are lost enough for everyone.

How rude! And how untrue!

If the SSPX wanted to effectively fight modernism in the Church, they should have stayed in the Church instead of cutting and running.

You don’t seem to know what you’re talking about. It was either capitulate to modernism or continue to fight with a false charge of schism and invalid excommunications levied against them.

I didn’t see Bishop Fellay cutting and running from Castel Gandolfo in 2005. I didn’t see Bishop Fellay asking the Pope to clarify Vatican II and condemn the errors as cutting and running.

That’s a faithful son of the Church going to the proper authority to put an end to a crisis that his predecessors have been unwilling to put an end to.

I accept that this was viewed as a prudential move, but it sures cuts their credibility.

Ecclesia Dei besides being an errant document was meant to cut their credibility. The Pope could have simply approved a bishop as LeFebvre was lead to believe would happen until they pulled the rug out from under him with the fine print, the rejections of the candidates, the inability to give him a date and the “apology” written for him to give to JPII when all he did was defend the Church while JPII apologized to the world for the Church.

The mods undercut the credibility of the SSPX Just as the modernists in the Church and the heirarchy have undercut the creditibility of much of the heirarchy itself. Vatican II’s ambiguous language also undercut the credibility of the organizational structure of the Church. Of course, liturgical abuse, abuse scandals and a wholesale exodus from the Church since the 60’s has also undercut the credibility of the Church.
The inaction of the post-conciliar Popes has also undercut the credibility of the Church.

Make no bones about it, LeFebvre was going to be pushed out, down or silenced since he defended the TLM against unlawful suppression and defended the faith against heresy when it was being spread rampantly.

 

[pnewton]

I
Yes. Of Course! They should always make determinations based on the TONE of the argument and not the Validity of the Argument.

Maybe a sweet talking heretic will come along and schmooze them right out of the Catholic Church.

…hmmmmm…maybe it’s happened already.

You know, veiling judgementalism with qualifiers like “maybe” doesn’t really fool anyone. While tone is not a basis for a validity of an arguement, it can have a bearing on how much one is listened to. For example, if one speaks with charity in words seasoned with salt, it is more likely to be given an initial hearing. After all, Charity is a primary attribute of God. On the other hand, if one speaks with arrogant and pride, these are recognized as primary attributes of Satan. It doesn’t make what is being said wrong, but, since Christians are called to be discerning of spirits and not just good debaters, it can put off an otherwise willing listener.

I will say one thing about your debating skills. They do represent what I have come to expect of SSPX. This is one reason that I do not trust that they are of God.

 

[Sure]

Ecclesia Dei besides being an errant document was meant to cut their credibility.

Funny. According to whom?

 

[GerardP]

You know, veiling judgementalism with qualifiers like “maybe” doesn’t really fool anyone.

Speak plainly then. What do you mean? And what do you mean by judgmentalism? And how is that not judgmental on your part?

While tone is not a basis for a validity of an arguement, it can have a bearing on how much one is listened to.

How about if we focus on the validity first and then deal with the tone?

For example, if one speaks with charity in words seasoned with salt, it is more likely to be given an initial hearing. After all, Charity is a primary attribute of God.

Charity is the desire for the person to get the truth and get to Heaven. Prudence dictates the form of the charity and Christ himself used honey and vinegar in His words.

On the other hand, if one speaks with arrogant and pride, these are recognized as primary attributes of Satan.

Yes. And I detect an awful lot of arrogance and pride on the part of many anti-SSPXers. A slogan is good enough for them and should dispatch all contention in their minds.

It doesn’t make what is being said wrong, but, since Christians are called to be discerning of spirits and not just good debaters, it can put off an otherwise willing listener.

If you think I’ve written arrogantly or pridefully, point out the post and I’ll re-examine it in a spirit of addressing a fraternal correction.

I will say one thing about your debating skills. They do represent what I have come to expect of SSPX. This is one reason that I do not trust that they are of God.

Yet somehow you exonerate yourself from writing charitably and instead injectt your own venom with hubris and percieved impunity.

 

[GerardP]

Funny. According to whom?

Me for one. I listened to a number of interviews with Fr. Martin and he pointed out that modernists in Rome were loathe to have any exercise of papal authority except when it came to archbishop LeFebvre and they “took out the Howitzer and blew him out of water.”

His main argument was that the Vatican didn’t care about dissident liberal theologians to a certain point. They cared about power and LeFebvre was taking away power and contributions and people. And by consecrating bishops, LeFebvre would take away the one thing Rome has always counted on, the ability to outwait an opponent.

They expected the traditionalists to simply die out and they were willing to wait for the individual priests and faithful to simply die away. LeFebvre started schools, was worldwide, was financially secure, and was ordaining young priests. The bishops would insure the SSPX would keep on Rome’s back for longer than Rome was wanting to wait.

So, the excommunication in Fr. Martin’s view as a scholar, theologian and former high level Vatican secretary was invalid on its face and simply intended to dissuade people from supporting LeFebvre and gave the SSPX a “black eye” in the process.

The success of the SSPX was Fr. Martins’ belief a boon from God that the SSPX would provide a small and steady supply of reliable valid priests, giving valid sacraments and providing valid Catholic instruction during the crisis.