P
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
But since the Archbishop signed all the Vatican II documents, it couldn’t be Vatican II itself that was the issue, though it’s often represented as such.
O
otjm
Guest
Then you have not followed closely.
O
otjm
Guest
Neither he nor the vast majority of the bishops of the world - they hold what he noted.
D
Dolores49
Guest
@Mayita30;13793734
I am quite alarmed by your obvious “contempt” for faithful Catholics who are attached to the Latin Rite. I think you ought to receive an infraction by a Moderator for this contempt! (sarcastic) I received an infraction for pointing out the truths of another religion, the one from Asia. Yet, you can ridicule Catholics all day and get no infraction!
**Thought Exercise – Here is your Comment with the Spirit of Mecca II: The Society of Asians X **
Based on my experience, most of them are arrogant and obnoxious. They wear their religion on their sleeves and shove their beliefs down your throat. They look down on other people critcizing women’s role in the family and work place, criticizing the imam’s gestures and movements at mosque, criticizing not wearing a hijab etc… they are the Holier than thou types but when you really ask them what spiritual works of mercy they do…they normally cannot answer because they are just busy in complicated theology instead of doing what Mohammad tells us to do which is to focus and help other people especially the poor.
They whine and complain how Muslims after post Mecca II is not the true Umma…It’s what they always do…its what they are known for. They attack, blame, criticize, divide and destroy! Sorry but I do not have anything nice to say about them at all!
**End of thought exercise. **
I am quite alarmed by your obvious “contempt” for faithful Catholics who are attached to the Latin Rite. I think you ought to receive an infraction by a Moderator for this contempt! (sarcastic) I received an infraction for pointing out the truths of another religion, the one from Asia. Yet, you can ridicule Catholics all day and get no infraction!
**Thought Exercise – Here is your Comment with the Spirit of Mecca II: The Society of Asians X **
Based on my experience, most of them are arrogant and obnoxious. They wear their religion on their sleeves and shove their beliefs down your throat. They look down on other people critcizing women’s role in the family and work place, criticizing the imam’s gestures and movements at mosque, criticizing not wearing a hijab etc… they are the Holier than thou types but when you really ask them what spiritual works of mercy they do…they normally cannot answer because they are just busy in complicated theology instead of doing what Mohammad tells us to do which is to focus and help other people especially the poor.
They whine and complain how Muslims after post Mecca II is not the true Umma…It’s what they always do…its what they are known for. They attack, blame, criticize, divide and destroy! Sorry but I do not have anything nice to say about them at all!
**End of thought exercise. **
K
Kevin12
Guest
Fisheaters is a den of antisemitism, among other kinds of hatred. It represents absolutely the worst of the traditionalist movement. Any resources of value there should be sought elsewhere.
See for example their endorsement of White Nationalist Kevin MacDonald. Or better yet, read their forums. Being exposed to FishEaters made me seriously question whether I could continue being in the same church as these people.
C
CuriousMike
Guest
Fair enough, but I don’t go there to read that sort of information.
I go there to read about traditional practice, among other things - and I don’t read or participate in the forums, because frankly, I read enough on the 'net as it is.
If you consider it hatred, fine - but remember they are still free to express an opinion on topics. As with anything, you can compare different articles to get a broader understanding on a topic.
D
djames99
Guest
A lot of generalizing here. What are some of the actual statements and arguments.? Who said what.
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
What an incredibly uncharitable and slanderous post.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
I am always amazed at the arrogance of those who purport to know the state of a man’s soul when he died (with the sacraments), and profess it as some sort of known fact.
L
larsont7
Guest
I can’t say I’ve found a more uncharitable or judgmental post on CAF as this one, and I’ve seen many. So, in your opinion, Archbishop Lefebvre died in a state of mortal sin (complete rejection of the Vicar of Christ), and I am guessing as a faithful Catholic that you are of the opinion that one who dies in state of mortal sin goes to hell. Well, this can only lead to one conclusion, and that conclusion is harsh when dealing with lay persons, let alone a prelate of the Church. Your post has been reported to the moderators.
U
user1234
Guest
The purpose of this tread was not to bash the sppx and say everything that is or might be wrong about it. It was about how to defend the Novus Ordo. I think everyone here has forgotten that.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I have said EXACTLY what was my experience as priest and theologian of that era
It is you who are extrapolating things that I have not said to arrive at conclusions I have not made. Since you have now said them as an accusation against me, I will respond to your allegations and explain what I wrote
The former archbishop and former superior general of the Holy Ghost Fathers was repudiated by the general chapter of his own religious congregation on account of his governance of the institute. This is a fact in the external forum that he himself cited when he resigned from office
Having occasioned the foundation of the Society of St. Pius X, which was dissolved for cause by competent ecclesiastical authority, he persevered in conducting ordinations in June 1976 against the command of Blessed Paul VI. This is a fact in the external forum
His Holiness denounced by name the rebellion of the emeritus archbishop to the Sacred College of Cardinals, who were assembled in consistory – this was an all but unprecedented act in the modern era. This is a fact in the external forum.
The pope suspended Marcel Lefebvre from all exercise of the priestly ministry effective in 1976, along with the priests he ordained illicitly and without incardination. This is a fact in the external forum
Marcel Lefebvre’s disobedience increased, such that he was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, as said by Saint John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei:
*3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.
- The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.
- Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted
For one who has lived through the tragic history of Marvel Lefebvre since the end of the Council, I assure you: I have no hesitancy to tell what was lived
I will add that I think he was gifted – particularly his work in Africa – until he tragically lost his way and rejected the Vicar of Christ and descended into a cycle of disobedience to the head of the College of Bishops
I was happy that Saint John Paul II made generous provision for those priests who had been in Marvel Lefebvre’s company but who, faced with his schismatic act, would not remain outside of communion with Rome. They chose to forsake their errors and ceased to attempt to exercise priestly ministry, which Rome had deprived them of
I am glad that the Priestly Society of Saint Peter was brought into existence, literally from one day to the next, to provide them with incardination and the opportunity to finally exercise their priesthood in the Church as opposed to acting in opposition to the Church and her hierarchy
What I wrote is a fraction of what I could write. I choose however to measure my words and so I echo what Saint John Paul II pronounced against the person and actions of Marcel Lefebvre
L
larsont7
Guest
So what other conclusion could a faithful Catholic arrive at with the quote you gave below?
So are you saying that one can die in disobedience and rejection of the Pope and still get to heaven?
I don’t disagree with your points about Archbishop Lefebvre’s disobedient acts. They are well documented, and I am not an “SSPX’er” nor have I ever attended a Mass at one of their chapels. However, it does not change the fact that we have no idea whether or not he died in disobedience as you have suggested. I hope and pray you will change your wording in your previous post.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
That rests with God.
My comment derives from what happened in March and April of 1991…and, no, I am not changing my formulation at your request. What I wrote in the post expresses my thought now – just as it did 25 years ago, less some three days.
U
user1234
Guest
Can you please remember what this thread is for?
O
otjm
Guest
Getting back to your question: IMHO, the best thing to do is to stay completely out of the conversation. That comes from a bit of experience in the matter.
Why? Because it is extremely unlikely that on any forum - where anonymity is guaranteed, that you are going to have any personal exchange with others.
Because those who hold such positions are not doing so from a rational standpoint (and I consider what the Church taught concerning the protection of the Holy Spirit, taught well before Vatican 2, to still be the case - so, no rationality to their arguments). To argue with an irrational person is beyond a waste of time; it is highly likely to get you to an advanced state of frustration.
And there is the old saying" Never argue with a fool. A bystander may not be able to tell which is which."
Their arguments are fueled by emotion, not logic; and one cannot successfully address emotions of another, most particularly when the other will not acknowledge the level of emotion and how it flies in the face of logic.
P
plefe
Guest
It’s been some time since I’ve responded, asked for help and or thoughts. I’m living in an area with many Catholic Churches; not any TLM being offered. I strongly believe in what you folks are suggesting here and do not know a place for my question and or comments. I attend a NO regularly and endure its differences. Yesterday our Priest, and I do not know how old he is, suggested that a person needed to be around 70 years old to have witnessed a non-unified Catholic Church to the days prior to VII. I was aghast. I’m almost 55 and I used to attend TLM services as a child using a 1962 Missal. Anyhow, he suggested, no he told us that VII unified the Church, did away with Latin so everyone could take full part in the Mass. It strangled me. I wanted to blurt out that he was wrong in so many ways. And this is a church with 75% old white German-Americans attending. I almost got up to leave before Communion and was genuinely upset. This is what the NO has maipulated in our Priests in some circles. The closest TLM is a CMMI
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
On the (genuine) internet are a huge series of propositions. Each with their varying information or amusement value.
It is absolutely down to the conscience and discretion of the reader to evaluate and take his individual stance vis a vis every separate fragment of what is there.
We shouldn’t be package dealers and should always hope that those others who appear to be so, will stop it soon and be more matter-of-fact about the varying value of varying details.
There are surely lots of people who are “vaguely” friendly towards SSPX members’ efforts to offer something closer to some of the most valued traditions.
There’s a lot of good in the world! What is the effect of the Pope, or the NO in our lives? There is such a thing as a bad attempt at a good thing.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
I don’t know whether “Novus Ordo” as an actual organisation is the culprit. But “sermons” are to be even more “endured” than “NO”.
Senior officers of my diocese, doubling as local parish clergy, recently printed in the bulletin, pinned to a board facing the public street, that (paraphrased) “around 1970 (I forget exact date) the Church implemented the Council’s wish to see the Mass in the vernacular” and that recent changes were the tinkering with that. Well I might have been a slow child but it was precisely during my early teens that I witnessed with my own first hand experience that, despite not having been much catechised, the 1962, pre-NO English Mass meant so much to me (unsentimentally) and the tinkering which WAS done around 1970 are a significant part in things coming unstuck (by no means the only part). It was probably even more the manner of the tinkering than its substance.
(The Church wished for the Mass, pre-Council, in various languages and the 1962 liturgies are the genuine fruits of that, pre-Council, in whatever language. I don’t think Council things are necessarily bad just because they are Council. Bad things are bad because they are bad. Much of the Council preparation, the fudging of documents’ wording in places, and much of the implementation, were hijacked to some extent by people whose heart wasn’t in it.)
Company men that are insincere (wanting to pull wool over the eyes of vulnerable children, “re-writing” the history the children know perfectly well they have lived through) don’t speak much for the integrity of the company.
I have known occasional Masses that must surely be NO, in English, done unusually reverently.
So, “endure” is very much the right word for it all!
- Status