Different treatment from Holy Mother Church

[AJV]

---

And here I thought----The Church was to set the example.

Reading it again…my comment was overly flippant…I apologise.

 

[bear06]

For the record, the Archbishop used Canon Law in his defense. And unless someone knows more than I know, the Archbishop never sought to leave the Church.

But even so, that was the state then and 19 years later they have a different relation with the Vatican.

Usually people don’t get into trouble because they want to leave the Church. Usually they get into trouble because they want to take over the Church, rule the Church, make the Church conform to their thinking or will or however else you want to say it. I’m betting 95% of those think they are doing what God wants them to do too.

 

[Walking_Home]

Usually people don’t get into trouble because they want to leave the Church. Usually they get into trouble because they want to take over the Church, rule the Church, make the Church conform to their thinking or will or however else you want to say it. I’m betting 95% of those think they are doing what God wants them to do too.

---

It would seem —that is what the “Spirit of Vat II” —is in the process of doing.

 

[BobP123]

Usually people don’t get into trouble because they want to leave the Church.

Then I must have missed something. I thought EENS. What exactly are you arguing anyway? Are you saying you support the French bishops’ position in threatening schism if the MP goes through? Or that maybe the Archbishop would have been better off if he had threatened to leave the Church as they are doing now? Or is it a numbers game, and maybe the Archbishop should have ordained a lot more bishops so that he could have some more weight behind his movement? :banghead:

 

[bear06]

Then I must have missed something. I thought EENS. What exactly are you arguing anyway? Are you saying you support the French bishops’ position in threatening schism if the MP goes through? Or that maybe the Archbishop would have been better off if he had threatened to leave the Church as they are doing now? Or is it a numbers game, and maybe the Archbishop should have ordained a lot more bishops so that he could have some more weight behind his movement? :banghead:

I hardly think my post was cryptic. Saying that the Archbishop didn’t seek to leave the Church is useless. If you’ll look through history, most schismatics sought to take over the Church and circumvent the Pope all together (as many on both sides of the fence are doing right now).

And Walking Home, you comment is correct. That said, you left off the others who do the same in the opposite direction.

There is more than one way away from the Church, my friends. Many here only seem to think there’s one.

 

[TraditionalCath]

My understanding is that not all SSPXers have been excommunicated for starters .

when you state “SSPXers” are you referring to the laity? the canonical status of the laity has not been determined, they are neither “SSPXers” nor are they excommunicated. The actual members of the SSPX are the bishops and the priests, not the laity.

 

[BobP123]

when you state “SSPXers” are you referring to the laity? the canonical status of the laity has not been determined, they are neither “SSPXers” nor are they excommunicated. The actual members of the SSPX are the bishops and the priests, not the laity.

The priests may not be either.

renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070410

BTW, schismatic acts do not necessarily lead to or are in schism. Otherwise, you’d have a ton of bishops who are “in schism.”

 

[bear06]

The priests may not be either.

And again, they may be.

The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See and also because those ordained after the episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop. They are also excommunicated if they adhere to the schism. While up to now the Holy See has not defined what this adherence consists in, one could point to a wholesale condemnation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council and a refusal to be in communion with it. Further, it is likely that these priests, after eleven years in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, effectively adhere to the schism.

latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm

 

[gorman64]

bear06:

Saying that the Archbishop didn’t seek to leave the Church is useless.

Bear, it is a Catholic principle that one think the best until we can no longer do so…what evidence do you have that Archbishop Lefebvre was “seeking to leave the Church”. I believe he once said this:

“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church…”

Was he declaring that the conciliar church was schismatic…he was refusing to be united to a schismatic church.

If you’ll look through history, most schismatics sought to take over the Church and circumvent the Pope all together (as many on both sides of the fence are doing right now).

And most heretics sought to change the liturgy to suit and foster their heretical ideas. Lex orandi est lex credendi.

And Walking Home, you comment is correct. That said, you left off the others who do the same in the opposite direction.

There is more than one way away from the Church, my friends. Many here only seem to think there’s one.

Heresy is another way to separate oneself from the Church…and it applies to all Catholics…not just laymen.

Gorman

 

[bear06]

Bear, it is a Catholic principle that one think the best until we can no longer do so…what evidence do you have that Archbishop Lefebvre was “seeking to leave the Church”. I believe he once said this:

Actually, it’s Catholic teaching to avoid temptation and not lead other people there. In the case of the SSPX and their priests, it is best to err on the side of caution lest we also adhere to the schism.

Was he declaring that the conciliar church was schismatic…he was refusing to be united to a schismatic church.

Thanks for the quote. It is quite an answer to those who doesn’t think he was trying to separate himself. That said, he is not the arbiter of schism.

And most heretics sought to change the liturgy to suit and foster their heretical ideas. Lex orandi est lex credendi.

Again, now we’re going into an argument on sedevacantism which isn’t the topic of the thread.

Heresy is another way to separate oneself from the Church…and it applies to all Catholics…not just laymen.

Visible Church, Visible Church, Visible Church… Like I said, this is the gateway to off-topicness.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Life maybe unfair, because it is run by Man… But God is ALWAYS 100% FAIR and if the Pope can admit pentecostals, Islamic clerics, kiss the Quran, hug the Dali Lama, and yet refuse to see the ex Archbishop of the whole of Africa, something really is wrong:shrug:

Paul VI did not refuse to Abp. Lefebvre. No did John Paul II. And the Archbishop saw both of them​

FWIW, Mgr. Lefebvre was Archbishop Emeritus of Dakar in Senegal.

The scandals mentioned do not justify schism - nothing can, because schism is the rending of the Mystical Body; it is an enormous crime. It is not something trivial - nothing is worth that; not even the older form of the Roman Rite. Mass on a kitchen table using household things, if one can do no more, is as much an offering of the Mass as a Mass of the Nativity in St.Peter’s according the pre-1962 Missal.

It is not the outward splendour that is the main thing - there was no splendour on view at the offering on the Cross.

If the Popes do ghastly things, schism is no answer - prayer is, penance is, things of that nature: but never, on any account, the division of Christ’s Immaculate Bride. Nothing could ever justify that