If the SSPX where to return to Rome this week...

[pnewton]

As for stabbing the FSSP in the back, you cannot make such an accusation without at least giving some type of proof. .

Sure he can. Such is the nature of dissent; rhetoric over substance, promotion of self- revelation and personla opinion over obedience

 

[NicPais83]

That is ridiculous and makes no sense. They reject an offer as part of a negotiation and they are declared schismatic? on what grounds? They are Catholic and will remain so because they hold the faith and believe in Petrine primacy. If they have never been in schism, they will not be become schismatic in the future.

It was a pastoral council, which means it was the first of its kind and was not protected by the Holy Spirit. I wouldn’t be suprised if it is scrapped and written off the records in this century.

That is ridiculous. The Pope can lift the ex-communication of any person living or dead.
The Pope can declare Lefebvre’s ex-communication void.
St. Athanasius, Blessed Mary MacKillop, St. Lucifer of Cagliari, St. Hippolytus of Rome are example of Catholics who were ex-communicated.

To easily refute your first statement, the Eastern Orthodox believe in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and yet there still was a schism (I also pray for our unity with the Orthodox). To say that someone who has never been in schism will never be in schism is disregarding history, which shows that this is not true.

Your logic regarding that the Second Vatican Council was not protected and guided by the Holy Spirit does not follow from the statement you gave from John XXIII, nor have you given any reason to believe that there was never a Council of its type before hand, other than your word. Likewise, it is naive to say that this Council will eventually be erased, since the only basis that is given for saying that is based on the erroneous logic that a non-dogmatic Council equates to not guided by the Holy Spirit. This is like saying that because because an apple is a type of fruit, that all fruits are apples.

Just because a Pope can lift an excommunication does not mean that he will. It is naive to believe that the power to do something equates to the desire to do something. Along with having the same free will that we all have, the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit to do what is best for Holy Mother Church. If the Pope does not believe that lifting the excommunications is justified, then he won’t, but it’s illogical to assume that he will eventually.

 

[saint_rafael]

These are rather bold statements for you to make about the Vicar of Christ. You are making a generalized judgement about the Popes we currently have and the Popes that we will have. I find it interesting that you seem to know the mindset of a future Pope, in particular.

As for the Pope Benedict XVI lifting excommunications, the Pope does not have to do anything of the sort. If the Pope decides to lift them, that is his call to make as Pope. But he is not bound to lift any excommunications if he feels that they were justified. You are placing conditions on the Supreme power of the Vicar of Christ, which you are not in a position to do.

As for stabbing the FSSP in the back, you cannot make such an accusation without at least giving some type of proof. You claim that the SSPX is within the Church, and it is true that they are not in formal schism, at least at the moment. But attacking the Magesterium of the Church, claiming that the Church back-stabs, and questioning the theology of the Pope does not help to win support to your cause.

Our Lady of Fatima promised the triumph of her Immaculate Heart and St. Don Bosco had a vision of a future traditional Pope who would giude the ship of the Church through bad times.

If the SSPX are regularized, he has to lift the ex-communications. How can Pope Benedict regularize the SSPX and allow their bishops to remain ex-communicated? It makes no sense. Of coarse part of the deal is the full regularization of their bishops too.

As with regards to the FSSP, there is protocol 1411, which forces FSSP priests to concelebrate the New Mass on some special occasions. The FSSP were supposed to only celebrate the TLM until 1411 was forced on them.

The FFSP had their election of a superior general made void by Rome. They refused their choice and foisted a liberal as their superior.

Rome has also removed the seminary rectors of the FSSP when they thought they were too traditional.

Whose attacking the Magisterium of the Church?
The Magisterium of the Church is the infallible teachings of the Church and not the human agents that occupy the offices of the Church at any given time.

 

[NicPais83]

Our Lady of Fatima promised the triumph of her Immaculate Heart and St. Don Bosco had a vision of a future traditional Pope who would giude the ship of the Church through bad times.

If the SSPX are regularized, he has to lift the ex-communications. How can Pope Benedict regularize the SSPX and allow their bishops to remain ex-communicated? It makes no sense. Of coarse part of the deal is the full regularization of their bishops too.

As with regards to the FSSP, there is protocol 1411, which forces FSSP priests to concelebrate the New Mass on some special occasions. The FSSP were supposed to only celebrate the TLM until 1411 was forced on them.

The FFSP had their election of a superior general made void by Rome. They refused their choice and foisted a liberal as their superior.

Rome has also removed the seminary rectors of the FSSP when they thought they were too traditional.

Whose attacking the Magisterium of the Church?
The Magisterium of the Church is the infallible teachings of the Church and not the human agents that occupy the offices of the Church at any given time.

I suggest that you read this on the living magisterium of the Church: newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm The entry states that the magisterium is the Pope, when speaking infallibly, and the bishops in union with him.

In Fatima, Mary did promise the triumph of her Immaculate Heart…but this statement from Our Lady is not a statement about the SSPX. To say that it refers to the SSPX is claiming some hidden knowledge which places you theologically as a gnostic. As for St. Don Bosco, you make another statement about a vision that he had and apply your own interpretation. The Church herself warns against individual interpretations, and I cannot seem to find the basis for your reasoning behind claiming that Our Lady and Don Bosco were criticizing a Church Council.

The Pope does not have to lift any excommunications as he does not have to do anything contrary to what the Holy Spirit guides him to do. If the bishops repent of their transgressions and comply accept the consequences of their actions, then I could see their excommunications being lifted; however I also am not suggesting that the Pope couldn’t lift them if he wanted. I am simply stating that it is erroneous to assume anything at all.

As for the things that you mention about the FSSP and article 1411, again, if you wish me to convince me of your position then you must provide evidence of each and every accusation that you make of wrong doing done by Rome. You are accusing Rome without any evidence, and are justifying it by stating that the Pope is himself not the magisterium, which is incorrect and unorthodox.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

As with regards to the FSSP, there is protocol 1411, which forces FSSP priests to concelebrate the New Mass on some special occasions. The FSSP were supposed to only celebrate the TLM until 1411 was forced on them.

The FFSP had their election of a superior general made void by Rome. They refused their choice and foisted a liberal as their superior.

Rome has also removed the seminary rectors of the FSSP when they thought they were too traditional.

Whose attacking the Magisterium of the Church?
The Magisterium of the Church is the infallible teachings of the Church and not the human agents that occupy the offices of the Church at any given time.

Yeah, being given a personal parish in the diocese of the Pope himself, a beautiful and historic church right in the bosom of Catholicism… Gee I’d hate to be stabbed in the back like that…

 

[NicPais83]

The problem is that talking with a lack of respect for the office of the Pope and talking about Rome as back-stabbing itself sounds like schismatic thought.

 

[saint_rafael]

To easily refute your first statement, the Eastern Orthodox believe in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and yet there still was a schism (I also pray for our unity with the Orthodox). To say that someone who has never been in schism will never be in schism is disregarding history, which shows that this is not true…

You are dead wrong. The Orthodox Church does NOT believe in the primacy of Peter and that is why they are schismatic. They believe that the bishop of Rome is equal to the other bishops and equal to the five patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. They do not believe the bishop of Rome is the supeme pontiff and leader of the universal Church.

Your logic regarding that the Second Vatican Council was not protected and guided by the Holy Spirit does not follow from the statement you gave from John XXIII, nor have you given any reason to believe that there was never a Council of its type before hand, other than your word. Likewise, it is naive to say that this Council will eventually be erased, since the only basis that is given for saying that is based on the erroneous logic that a non-dogmatic Council equates to not guided by the Holy Spirit. This is like saying that because because an apple is a type of fruit, that all fruits are apples.

All councils before Vatican II were dogmatic because they were called to deal with a crisis in dogma.
In every other council, the bishops of the Church called down the protection of the Holy Spirit by name and in words before they started it.

If one looks at all the adresses and statements of VII, the bishops never invoked the protection of the Holy Spirit for Vatican II. They never called on the Holy Spirit before the Council because they wanted a pastoral council and did not want to use infallibility.

Just because a Pope can lift an excommunication does not mean that he will. It is naive to believe that the power to do something equates to the desire to do something. Along with having the same free will that we all have, the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit to do what is best for Holy Mother Church. If the Pope does not believe that lifting the excommunications is justified, then he won’t, but it’s illogical to assume that he will eventually.

The Pope has to use his free will and listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He is guided by the Holy Spirit, but he has to listen to the Holy Spirit. He can use his free will to ignore his guidance.

 

[NicPais83]

You are dead wrong. The Orthodox Church does NOT believe in the primacy of Peter and that is why they are schismatic. They believe that the bishop of Rome is equal to the other bishops and equal to the five patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. Thyey do not believe the bishop of Rome is the supeme pontiff and leader of the universal Church.

All councils before Vatican II were dogmatic because they were called to deal with a crisis in dogma.
In every other council, the bishops of the Church called down the protection of the Holy Spirit by name and in words before they started it.

If one looks at all the adresses and statements of VII, the bishops never invoked the protection of the Holy Spirit for Vatican II. They never called on the Holy Spirit before the Council because they wanted a pastoral council and did not want to use infallibility.

The Pope has to use his free will and listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He is guided by the Holy Spirit, but he has to listen to the Holy Spirit. He can use his free will to ignore his guidance.

The Orthodox do believe in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The question wasn’t with Primacy, but with Supremacy. One of the issues during the schism was the fact that Rome had primacy, but that there was an argument for Constantinople to be second to Rome. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Roman_Pontiff#Challenges_to_the_primacy_of_the_Roman_Pontiff The Pentarchy was headed by the Bishop of Rome, and this belief can he seen even today in the Orthodox Church as the Ecumenical Patriarch (think “universal” patriarch) is referred to as the “First Among Equals,” a title that would go to Rome in Orthodoxy, except that the Orthodox believe that Rome fell.

As for not finding any evidence that the Holy Spirit was invoked during the Council, again the burden of proof is on you for making the claim. Not invoking the Holy Spirit in the addresses and documents again does not equate not invoking the Holy Spirit at all. If He was invoked even during an opening Mass, then He was invoked.

As for lifting the excommunications, while it could theoretically happen in the future, it is wrong to assume that they will happen as we are not in the authority to lift them or keep them in place.

 

[saint_rafael]

I suggest that you read this on the living magisterium of the Church: newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm The entry states that the magisterium is the Pope, when speaking infallibly, and the bishops in union with him.

You are accusing Rome without any evidence, and are justifying it by stating that the Pope is himself not the magisterium, which is incorrect and unorthodox.

The infallible teachings of the Popes are the Magisterium. The definition says a Pope has to speak with infallibility or Ex-Cathedra.

The Last time a Pope spoke with infallibility, it was Pope Pius XII when he proclaimed the Assumption of Mary. No Pope since Pius XII has used infallibility.

In Fatima, Mary did promise the triumph of her Immaculate Heart…but this statement from Our Lady is not a statement about the SSPX. To say that it refers to the SSPX is claiming some hidden knowledge which places you theologically as a gnostic. As for St. Don Bosco, you make another statement about a vision that he had and apply your own interpretation. The Church herself warns against individual interpretations, and I cannot seem to find the basis for your reasoning behind claiming that Our Lady and Don Bosco were criticizing a Church Council.

Whose talking about hidden knowledge?
All I said was that many Catholics including the SSPX believe there will be a traditional Pope in the future. There must be a great Pope at the time of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart. All I said was since she will triumph, we will have a traditional Pope.

Individual interpretation? The Vision speaks for itself. St. Don Bosco saw a Pope standing on a ship between the pillars of the Eucharist and Mary. The vision is clear.

I never mentioned anything about Mary and St. Don Bosco criticizing a Church Council.

 

[kleary]

I was wondering if the SSPX were to return this week, would that mean that I can attend Mass at an SSPX Church as though I were going to a normal church under the diocese? Do I need to wait for some ceremony of regularization where the bishop re-consecrates the building and reconciles with the priest first and the priest renounces his sin or is it just an automatic transition? I don’t want to debate, I just want a simple answer. Use of church documents would be nice if it supports your answers.

Thanks

Under the agreement not even your diocesean bishop would have such authority over them… they would only answer to Bishop Fellay who would then answer to the Pope I believe through Cardinal Hoyos. They would have a personal prelature similar to that of Opus Dei.

If they sign the agreements they will be fully reconciled. No ceremony would be needed, no renouncement of “sin” for I am sure they will get radical sanation as part of the agreement which would mean that the excomunication “decree” was not “valid” since no schismatic act was intended- Yes Virginia - Archbishop Lefebvre could be a saint someday! There is a lot behind the story of why the consecrations took place - and they could be justified - may be justified if they receive full canonical status.

Ken

 

[saint_rafael]

The Orthodox do believe in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The question wasn’t with Primacy, but with Supremacy. One of the issues during the schism was the fact that Rome had primacy, but that there was an argument for Constantinople to be second to Rome. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Roman_Pontiff#Challenges_to_the_primacy_of_the_Roman_Pontiff The Pentarchy was headed by the Bishop of Rome, and this belief can he seen even today in the Orthodox Church as the Ecumenical Patriarch (think “universal” patriarch) is referred to as the “First Among Equals,” a title that would go to Rome in Orthodoxy, except that the Orthodox believe that Rome fell.

As for not finding any evidence that the Holy Spirit was invoked during the Council, again the burden of proof is on you for making the claim. Not invoking the Holy Spirit in the addresses and documents again does not equate not invoking the Holy Spirit at all. If He was invoked even during an opening Mass, then He was invoked.

As for lifting the excommunications, while it could theoretically happen in the future, it is wrong to assume that they will happen as we are not in the authority to lift them or keep them in place.

Petrine primacy is the doctrine that the Bishop of Rome alone is the leader of the universal Church.
“first among equals” is a heresy and denies Petrine Primacy because the Pope is equal. “First among equals” is not primacy.

The Holy Spirit was not invoked anywhere period. Not in the opening ceremony, opening statement, or Mass.
The historical record speaks for itself. Nowhere was the Holy Spirit invoked by the bishops at Vatican II.

 

[NicPais83]

The infallible teachings of the Popes are the Magisterium. The definition says a Pope has to speak with infallibility or Ex-Cathedra.

The Last time a Pope spoke with infallibility, it was Pope Pius XII when he proclaimed the Assumption of Mary. No Pope sin Pius XII has used infallibility.

Whose talking about hidden knowledge?
All I said was that many Catholics including the SSPX believe there will be a traditional Pope in the future. There must be a great Pope at the time of the triumpf of the Imaculate Heart. All I said was since she will triumph, we will have a traditional Pope.

Individual interpretation? The Vision speaks for itself. St. Don Bosco saw a Pope standing on a ship between the pillars of the Eucharist and Mary. The vision is clear.

I never mentioned anything about Mary and St. Don Bosco criticizing a Church Council.

Yet the authority to speak infallibly resides with the Pope and with the bishops in union with them. Showing them disrespect is showing disrespect for the teaching authority of the Universal Church. While not necessarily ex cathedra, there may be considered instances of infallibility since 1950 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_papal_infallibility.

As for hidden knowledge, you are implying it in your last statement. There will be a triumph of the Immaculate Heart, and all Popes are traditional Popes in that they adhere to Holy Tradition. But when you say “traditional,” it is implied that you mean one that rejects the Second Vatican Council, unless I misunderstood. If this is what you mean, then it implies that you have a knowledge that the rest of us do not have as you are certain of that Pope’s understandings of the Council. Likewise, as for Don Bosco, in what way does this speak of a future “traditional” Pope?

You are using Fatima and Saint Bosco for an agenda, rather than for what their intentions are. Fatima said nothing about a “traditional” Pope, an adjective that is misleading itself since all Popes adhere to tradition. Yet, to gleam an understanding about the Popes that will reign at the Immaculate Heart of Mary’s triumph is taking a personal interpretation, instead of what is actually stated. It is attaching a knowledge that is not known to the majority of people, and is only meant to be divisive; it is meant to criticize the Council, not directly, but through implication. If this were the message of Fatima, then Sr. Lucia would have stated this to any of the Popes during and after the Council. Instead, there is a reduction to grasping at straws.

If we are not united under the leadership of the Pope and loyalty to his office, then Jesus lied when He said that He would build His Church on the Rock of Peter.

 

[NicPais83]

Petrine primacy is the doctrine that the Bishop of Rome alone is the leader of the universal Church.
“first among equals” is a heresy and denies Petrine Primacy because the Pope is equal. “First among equals” is not primacy.

The Holy Spirit was not invoked anywhere period. Not in the opening ceremony, opening statement, or Mass.
The historical record speaks for itself. Nowhere was the Holy Spirit invoked by the bishops at Vatican II.

The problem here is that the word Primacy means “first.” The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome was established very early on in the Church, and is reflected in the governance of the Pentarchy of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. The article I gave you explains this very well. You’re confusing Primacy and Supremacy. The Orthodox reject Supremacy, in that they do not believe that the Pope has Supreme power over the Church. They do not reject that he is the first among all bishops. Because Rome fell, in the eyes of the Orthodox, they refer to the Ecumenical Patriarch as “first among equals,” which I never once stated is a term used to describe the Pope, but simply reflects the Orthodox understanding of Primacy.

Again, I have asked you to give me proof that the Holy Spirit was never invoked in the Council, and am still waiting for the proof.

 

[saint_rafael]

Yet the authority to speak infallibly resides with the Pope and with the bishops in union with them. Showing them disrespect is showing disrespect for the teaching authority of the Universal Church. While not necessarily ex cathedra, there may be considered instances of infallibility since 1950 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_papal_infallibility.

As for hidden knowledge, you are implying it in your last statement. There will be a triumph of the Immaculate Heart, and all Popes are traditional Popes in that they adhere to Holy Tradition. But when you say “traditional,” it is implied that you mean one that rejects the Second Vatican Council, unless I misunderstood. If this is what you mean, then it implies that you have a knowledge that the rest of us do not have as you are certain of that Pope’s understandings of the Council. Likewise, as for Don Bosco, in what way does this speak of a future “traditional” Pope?

You are using Fatima and Saint Bosco for an agenda, rather than for what their intentions are. Fatima said nothing about a “traditional” Pope, an adjective that is misleading itself since all Popes adhere to tradition. Yet, to gleam an understanding about the Popes that will reign at the Immaculate Heart of Mary’s triumph is taking a personal interpretation, instead of what is actually stated. It is attaching a knowledge that is not known to the majority of people, and is only meant to be divisive; it is meant to criticize the Council, not directly, but through implication. If this were the message of Fatima, then Sr. Lucia would have stated this to any of the Popes during and after the Council. Instead, there is a reduction to grasping at straws.

If we are not united under the leadership of the Pope and loyalty to his office, then Jesus lied when He said that He would build His Church on the Rock of Peter.

I did not say that a traditonalist has to reject VII, but that some traditional Catholis do. Vatican II will have to dealt with in the future by the Church in which ever manner.

I said a “traditional Pope” because the last couple of Popes have had errors. The Popes since Pope Paul VI have been infected by modernism in different ways. They have held erroneous ideas, positions, and philosophies such as separation between Church and state, religious freedom, and ecumenism. I believe one day there will be a giant like Pope Pius X who will fix the mess, clean out the gutter, take no nonsense, will not be infected with modernism, and will not infected with modern philosophies.

The entire third secret of Fatima has not been released by the Vatican. They have not given us the entire thing. There are rumors that Vatican II might be mentioned by the third secret.

Sr. Lucia was under orders of complete silence for four decades. She had not given a public interview in decades before her death. Sadly, she was not given the chance to speak out and could have been misled.

Third secret cover-up: fatima.org/thirdsecret/

A Catholic can criticize the pruential decisions of the Popes. We have a promise from God that there will always be a Pope but we can have good and bad Popes. We had bad Popes in the past centuries, with one of them being declared a heretic in the caese of Pope Honorius.

 

[saint_rafael]

Again, I have asked you to give me proof that the Holy Spirit was never invoked in the Council, and am still waiting for the proof.

Excuse me? I have to give proof? The burden falls on you. My proof is clear. There is not one word or anything recorded is history showing that the bishops called the Holy Spirit. There is nothing.

Show me the evidence, document, or anything showing the bishops asking the Holy Spirit for protection.

There is none. I know that is a fact.

 

[NicPais83]

I did not say that a traditonalist has to reject VII, but that some traditional Catholis do. Vatican II will have to dealt with in the future by the Church in which ever manner.

I said a “traditional Pope” because the last couple of Popes have had errors. The Popes since Pope Paul VI have been infected by modernism in different ways. They have held erroneous ideas, positions, and philosophies such as separation between Church and state, religious freedom, and ecumenism. I believe one day there will be a giant like Pope Pius X who will fix the mess, clean out the gutter, take no nonsense, will not be infected with modernism, and not infected with modern philosophies.

The entire third secret of Fatima has not been released by the Vatican. They have not given us the entire thing. There are rumors that Vatican II might be mentioned by the third secret.

Sr. Lucia was under orders of complete silence for four decades. She had not given a public interview in decades before her death. Sadly, she was not given the chance to speak out and could have been misled.

A Catholic can criticize the pruential decisions of the Popes. We have a promise from God that there will always be a Pope but we can have good and bad Popes. We had bad Popes in the past centuries, with one of them being declared a heretic in the caese of Pope Honorius.

I will respond to this, but then I have to go to bed as it is late here on the East coast. Once again, I do not believe in using labels to describe people, as they are simply divisive. The Second Vatican Council is a valid Ecumenical Council; if it is rejected, or done away with, or “dealt” with, then there is nothing stopping anyone from doing the samething to any other Council.

It is true that there have been anti-popes in the past, but it is still a slanderous accusation to claim that any of our Popes since the Council are filled with errors in any way, as they have said and done nothing contradictory to Holy Tradition and Sacred Scripture. We can go in circles like this indefinitely, and perhaps we should simply agree to disagree, but an individual, or a group such as SSPX are in no position to accuse any Pope of being “infected” with modernism or errors, or bad theology, as the authority to do so was never granted to them by Christ. The SSPX is not itself the Church. If it is part of the Church, then it should act as part of the Church. But the group itself tends to condemn Popes, while claiming loyalty to the Bishop of Rome, and therefore assumes a power for itself that it does not have the right to.

As for the Third Secret, it is only speculation by a group that the entire secret was not revealed en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Secret_of_Fatima#Third_secret. The Vatican has stated that the whole secret has been revealed. Not believing them is simply conspiracy theory, and a lack of trust. The fact of the matter is this: if the third secret were not revealed in full, then any rumor that it is about the Second Vatican Council can immediately be called into question as the people who started these rumors would most likely not been in a position to know the secret before the year 2000 anyway. We cannot allow ourselves to be reduced to doubting the Church. That is a tool of the devil, to try and get us to think we’re being lied to and kept from a hidden secret. That is what I meant by gnostic.

We have been promised always to have the leadership of the Pope, but it is not up to us as individuals, or in any group to claim the right to label a Pope as heterodox in anyway. We simply do not have the authority or the power to do so. That is the real issue here: who has the right to criticize the Pope, if the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff? I would start with the hierarchy of the Church, herself, such as future Popes, Councils, etc. But to assume that each Pope since the Council is a bad Pope shows a lack of faith and trust in the Spirit, as it is the Holy Spirit that guides the Church, and the Pope, and it shows that you claim the wisdom to do so. But Padre Pio did not seem to see anything wrong with Pope John Paul II.

 

[NicPais83]

Excuse me? I have to give proof? The burden falls on you. My proof is clear. There is not one word or anything recorded is history showing that the bishops called the Holy Spirit. There is nothing.

Show me the evidence, document, or anything showing the bishops asking the Holy Spirit for protection.

There is none. I know that is a fact.

Actually, you made a statement without citations, references, sources, quotes, or any type of evidence. I did not. If you are to make such a statement, then you need to have the proof ready when such a statement is questioned. This is basic English essay skills.

If you know this as a fact, then you can provide me the proof, instead of saying that your proof is clear. If it is so clear, I would like to see it. I will accept transcripts, syllabi, agendas, homilies, any type of primary document you can give me. I didn’t claim that the didn’t invoke the Holy Spirit, you did, so now I want to see what evidence you have.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

Petrine primacy is the doctrine that the Bishop of Rome alone is the leader of the universal Church.
“first among equals” is a heresy and denies Petrine Primacy because the Pope is equal. “First among equals” is not primacy.

The Holy Spirit was not invoked anywhere period. Not in the opening ceremony, opening statement, or Mass.
The historical record speaks for itself. Nowhere was the Holy Spirit invoked by the bishops at Vatican II.

Do you think not one bishop ever prayed for wisdom and blessings from the Holy Spirit once in the entire council? Do you believe the holy spirit was truly not there?

An educated Catholic knows that the main problems that came after Vatican II were the fault of progressives who purposefully twisted the words of the documents and adhered to some willy-nilly notion of the “spirit of the council” instead of what it actually said. Benedict XVI has spent his entire post-VIIcareer trying to undo this.

 

[rpp]

In this thread, we can see the seeds of disobedience that SSPX has sown. People who lack the humility to subit to the lawful authorityof the Pope and the Holy See, while claiming some sort of “special knowledge” or some kind of greater degree of faithfullness. A person who is disobediant to legitimate authority cannot claim to be more holy, righterous or correct.

This is the fruit Marcel Lefebvre. And bitter fruit it is.

I can only imagine what the Lord thinks of those who treat His Vicar so disrespectfully.

 

[Timothysis]

If they sign the agreements they will be fully reconciled. No ceremony would be needed, no renouncement of “sin” for I am sure they will get radical sanation as part of the agreement which would mean that the excomunication “decree” was not “valid” since no schismatic act was intended- Yes Virginia - Archbishop Lefebvre could be a saint someday! There is a lot behind the story of why the consecrations took place - and they could be justified - may be justified if they receive full canonical status.

Ken

I don’t know where you people get your information. Archbishops Lefebvre’s excommunication was incurred because of his disobedience in ordaining bishops without a papal mandate and specifically against the will of Pope John Paul II. The sspx doesn’t even enter in to it. There is no “reason” why someone can act against the Pope and still be in the right. The Archbishop’s actions cannot be “justified” under Canon Law. Period. If the archbishop is ever rehabilitated then it will be because of the generosity of the Pontiff. Noone else has the authority.

Why is it surprising that the people who support the sspx have such a problem with rules, regulations and obedience?