Lefevbre exaggerates regarding new offetory prayers

[giuseppeTO]

How is it Pope Paul’s fault that Lutherans are so theologically inept that they can adopt something as their own that does not even represent their beliefs? Would you say the same about Pope Pius V’s missal if , in 1978, the Lutheran’s adopted it as their liturgy?

As I posted earlier from the Calvinist monk, the prayers in Pope Paul’s missal are “distinctly Catholic.”

The only way they conformed to us was by agreeing to a lectionary that we modified to the extent that nothing was included that gave them heartburn. It was a very easy concession, as long we didnt push Macabees or James. They did not change the structure of their communion service. We jointly adopted a service that was, in essence, their service. Ours was starkly different. Regardless of what a Calvinist monk may have said, the Lutherans did not wake up one day and say “hey … we are just not Roman Catholic enough … lets do our best to look more like them in worship”.

No, we woke up one day and said “we don’t look Protestant enough, lets do our best to change and worship like they worship so that they will come flocking to the Catholic church, once they see we are so much alike.” Unfortunaely, the opposite happened and more Catholics look at the Protestant church and said “Hmm … not much difference between the two so it must not matter much where I go to church.”

Not too long ago, an old friend of mine lamented that his daughter, who was married to a Lutheran, had decided to start attending the Lutheran Mass instead of the Novus Ordo. She told her father “Dad, they are exactly the same … except the Lutherans don’t seem to ask for money as often.”

 

[Lainey63]

Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X have never been of one mindset. From the 3 1/2 years I spent in the Seminaries of the SSPX, and the priests and former seminarians I have kept contact with the divisions remain.

Archbishop Lefebvre was a very well educated man, Doctorates in Theology, and I think Philosophy. Having taught in seminaries, and former Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers. He was well versed in Catholic Theology, Dogmatic, Moral and Pastoral. In the first few years at Econe, the Masses celebrated in the Chapel included the John XIII Missal, the 1965 Missal and the 1970 Missal, (Ordinary form nowadays), There were among the seminarians and faculty those who rejected even the reforms of Pope Pius XII, but would not speak of it in front of Abp. Lefebvre. When I was in the Seminary at Ridgefield, we had to shift our mindset from the Pre 1955 Missal to the 1962 Missal and Breviary when Abp. Lefebvre visited. Most went along with what the Rector wanted (to hide from the Abp. our true liturgical use, in order to be ordained some day.)

Now comes my own speculation, and I’m sure the ire and defamation of current SSPX supporters. Given the issues and choices of bishops at the time of the illicit consecrations. The Archbishop was not a young man when the seminary in Econe was established. His stance became more hardline over time, and he became more isolated from what was going on both in the SSPX and the outside world. Wanting to retire and spend his time in a monstary, he was (from what I could see) dusted off and paraded around by those who really controlled the SSPX as his health declined. They fed him stories of the worst of the abuses as if they were everyday activities in allmost all the parishes around the world. In his relative isolation he became further and further driven to the position he eventually took calling the Pope and Curia, “Neo-Modernist Rome” and refusing lawful authority, and the distorted, defective ecclesiology of the SSPX that allows them to claim filial devotion to the Holy See, while at the same time rejecting any obedience to the Pope.

I do hope they are recociled to the Holy See, and fully submit. I will be one of the most grateful to see old friends una cum, the entire Church.

I don’t know but maybe I am misinterpreting your statement. I come from more of the position of an observer. What I have read from their own webpage and your above post…SSPX is anything but of God…from my perception unless I have misread your post they are masters of deception…why would one want that reunited with the RCC? It seems that every move they make against what the Pope has instructed to do or not to do is they use self justification. From what I have observed this organization lacks integrity and honestly to say the least. Every virtue they do not exercise & practice is explained away…major major cause of confusion. As far as I am concerned they can keep it to themselves.

 

[tcm22]

The only way they conformed to us was by agreeing to a lectionary that we modified to the extent that nothing was included that gave them heartburn. It was a very easy concession, as long we didnt push Macabees or James. They did not change the structure of their communion service. We jointly adopted a service that was, in essence, their service. Ours was starkly different. Regardless of what a Calvinist monk may have said, the Lutherans did not wake up one day and say “hey … we are just not Roman Catholic enough … lets do our best to look more like them in worship”.

No, we woke up one day and said “we don’t look Protestant enough, lets do our best to change and worship like they worship so that they will come flocking to the Catholic church, once they see we are so much alike.” Unfortunaely, the opposite happened and more Catholics look at the Protestant church and said “Hmm … not much difference between the two so it must not matter much where I go to church.”

Not too long ago, an old friend of mine lamented that his daughter, who was married to a Lutheran, had decided to start attending the Lutheran Mass instead of the Novus Ordo. She told her father “Dad, they are exactly the same … except the Lutherans don’t seem to ask for money as often.”

Hopefully someone informed the misguided woman that, while some of the forms may be the same, Lutherans do not have the Eucharist. We can all debate our personal preferences for the Mass, but that’s really what it comes down to. Well that and obedience to the Vicar of Christ (though I suspect that point won’t fly far in this tread.)

 

[giuseppeTO]

Hopefully someone informed the misguided woman that, while some of the forms may be the same, Lutherans do not have the Eucharist. We can all debate our personal preferences for the Mass, but that’s really what it comes down to. Well that and obedience to the Vicar of Christ (though I suspect that point won’t fly far in this tread.)

In my experience over the last 40 years, this is more the rule than the exception. Unfortunately, the general trend over the last couple of decades by the church hierarchy (with the exception of the Pope) and the likes of Cardinal Kasper is to downplay, if not discourage Protestants to convert, but to rather intimate that the “measure of the truth” they may possess is sufficient for their salvation. It appears to be the mission of the post-conciliar church to refrain from calling for the conversion of any Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc but rather, to “dialog” with them. It is bad form to intimate that anyone lacks the justification for salvation … except, of course, the SSPX.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I don’t know but maybe I am misinterpreting your statement. I come from more of the position of an observer. What I have read from their own webpage and your above post…SSPX is anything but of God…from my perception unless I have misread your post they are masters of deception…why would one want that reunited with the RCC? It seems that every move they make against what the Pope has instructed to do or not to do is they use self justification. From what I have observed this organization lacks integrity and honestly to say the least. Every virtue they do not exercise & practice is explained away…major major cause of confusion. As far as I am concerned they can keep it to themselves.

Thank you for this post. As one who assists regularly at an SSPX chapel with my family and many other devout Roman Catholic families, it is good to be humbled.

 

[Filioque]

I don’t know but maybe I am misinterpreting your statement. I come from more of the position of an observer. What I have read from their own webpage and your above post…SSPX is anything but of God…from my perception unless I have misread your post they are masters of deception…why would one want that reunited with the RCC? It seems that every move they make against what the Pope has instructed to do or not to do is they use self justification. From what I have observed this organization lacks integrity and honestly to say the least. Every virtue they do not exercise & practice is explained away…major major cause of confusion. As far as I am concerned they can keep it to themselves.

All of us want to justify our own sin. If and when the SSPX returns to full communion with the Holy See, it will take several things, most importantly, the acceptance of God’s Grace. Secondly great humility, to admit that the practice of “honnoring” the Holy Father, while denying in practice his authority, and Universal Jurisdiction. I have friends, and former classmates from the Seminary who were received back into the Church and regularized who are very good and loyal priests now in either local diocese or in the FSSP. I think the experiences of SSPX, both the abuse, psychological threats, and threats of physical violence to them and their families by the SSPX made them stronger, and better Catholics when they came back to the Church. I don’t think all of the SSPX followers are bad, but feel abandoned and confused by bad seeds on the other extreme of the Church. Hopefully many, but I doubt all will return to full communion. I’d venture a guess that a good 30-50% will sadly spin off into a group of Old Catholic like sects, hopefully I am wrong. Hopefully more will return to the Church.

 

[tcm22]

In my experience over the last 40 years, this is more the rule than the exception. Unfortunately, the general trend over the last couple of decades by the church hierarchy (with the exception of the Pope) and the likes of Cardinal Kasper is to downplay, if not discourage Protestants to convert, but to rather intimate that the “measure of the truth” they may possess is sufficient for their salvation. It appears to be the mission of the post-conciliar church to refrain from calling for the conversion of any Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc but rather, to “dialog” with them. It is bad form to intimate that anyone lacks the justification for salvation … except, of course, the SSPX.

I can’t argue with your experience, but would suggest you examine them in light of what the Church as publicly and regularly proclaimed about the path to salvation. That our Church no longer teaches antagonism and conflict with our separated brethren isn’t reflective of a change of mission as much as a change of approach. If you think the SSPX is somehow singled out by the Church, then I would suggest you are projecting your own prejudices.

Ultimately, all many Protestants need to return to the Church is for them to learn the truth about the role of the Church. From reading this forum, it seems that many in the SSPX community know the truth, but can’t put aside their pride and personal grievances long enough to join in full communion the Body of Christ. Lets face it, SSPX is not the first group to nail their grievances to the church door.

 

[giuseppeTO]

All of us want to justify our own sin. If and when the SSPX returns to full communion with the Holy See, it will take several things, most importantly, the acceptance of God’s Grace. Secondly great humility, to admit that the practice of “honnoring” the Holy Father, while denying in practice his authority, and Universal Jurisdiction. I have friends, and former classmates from the Seminary who were received back into the Church and regularized who are very good and loyal priests now in either local diocese or in the FSSP. I think the experiences of SSPX, both the abuse, psychological threats, and threats of physical violence to them and their families by the SSPX made them stronger, and better Catholics when they came back to the Church. I don’t think all of the SSPX followers are bad, but feel abandoned and confused by bad seeds on the other extreme of the Church. Hopefully many, but I doubt all will return to full communion. I’d venture a guess that a good 30-50% will sadly spin off into a group of Old Catholic like sects, hopefully I am wrong. Hopefully more will return to the Church.

Filioque,

I can’t argue with your personal experiences, but I believe your unfortunate situation has taken on a life of its own and has grown large and festered in the years since you were a seminarian. As you know, the seminary moved from Ridgefield over 20 years ago … a very long time. And we have also exchanged posts so that you know my son is currently in the seminary and, consequently, I know a great many seminarians and priests, especially priests that have been ordained since the move from Ridgefield and since Bishop Wiliiamson was the rector.

Why the church must suffer scandals and abuses, whether in the diocesan institutions or in the traditional orders of the church is only known by God. Your long and growing distance from the growing number of faithful who assist at SSPX chapels, as well as your association with seminarians and priests at a conflicted time are putting you out of touch with the reality of the situation. I can only guess that your prediction of a 30-50% spin-off is based on rancor associated with your earlier experience and I certainly pray for your healing. My personal experience, knowing and understanding many who assist at SSPX chapels, especially meeting and gathering at various events throughout the year, would completely refute your estimates, perhaps based on old and injured relations and experiences. The sentiment your friends are telling you about simply does not exist to the degree you portray, although I can understand the continued animosity of those injured seminarians now working in the indult orders or in the diocese. You will certainly find those that are of that mind, as sure as you will find those who do not follow the teachings of the Pope in the conciliar church. They also need our prayers.

Your continued rancor on this subject does give scandal to the situation (see the post by Lainey63) and undermines the Holy Father’s recognition that there are issues to discuss and resolve.

I am certain that the 12 million rosaries to Our Lady will ensure a positive conclusion to the doctrinal discussions, that canonical regularization will be the result, that most of the faithful who assist at SSPX chapels will rejoice, and that the Pope will not find more dedicated defenders of himself, and the Catholic faith than the priests and Bishops associated with the SSPX.

 

[Lainey63]

Thank you for this post. As one who assists regularly at an SSPX chapel with my family and many other devout Roman Catholic families, it is good to be humbled.

Doesn’t it scare you that the Catholic Faith teaches us the Holy Spirit chooses who is to be the Pope, then he is recognized by God, the Roman Catholic Church & the world to be the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and then the Pope says that the mass at an SSPX chapel is valid, but illicit, however, priests of the SSPX cannot confer the sacrament of penance and or any of the other sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, if one goes to the mass of the SSPX, receives the Body & Blood of Christ, then let’s say one commits a mortal sin and goes to a SSPX priest for confession to receive the sacrament of reconciliation , but according to the directives of the Pope that person in fact has not received absolution, because the SSPX priest cannot confer the sacrament has said it is neither valid nor licit, then that person is committing a sacrilige if they then receives Holy Communion at that same SSPX chapel which is valid & the cycle goes on & on. So my question is this…do the priests of SSPX, adminster absolution and all the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church…or were they honest and tell you that the Roman Ponitiff has issued a statement that they cannot confer the sacraments? If they have not been upfront with you I would be gravely concerned and if you are not, then why not?

 

[giuseppeTO]

That our Church no longer teaches antagonism and conflict with our separated brethren isn’t reflective of a change of mission as much as a change of approach.

So, you are saying that Church taught antagonism and conflict? I guess that would be part of the Magisterium then right? I wonder which of the Popes and doctors of the church would agree with you on this?

I am not sure how one would “dialog” Jews or Muslims into heaven. And I certainly don’t see much interest in either of these groups of being dialoged into understanding the role of the Catholic Church in their salvation.

Luther was a heretic, my friend. His nailings presaged his heresy. Specifically, he wanted to change the faith, in justification, the priesthood, and the sacraments. Archbishop Lefebvre was afraid that this was also happening in the aftermath of the council and bishops were using the council texts as the justification.

It wouldn’t be the first time a bishop warned a Pope about the danger of heresy brewing in the episcopate.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Doesn’t it scare you that the Catholic Faith teaches us the Holy Spirit chooses who is to be the Pope, then he is recognized by God, the Roman Catholic Church & the world to be the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and then the Pope says that the mass at an SSPX chapel is valid, but illicit, however, priests of the SSPX cannot confer the sacrament of penance and or any of the other sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, if one goes to the mass of the SSPX, receives the Body & Blood of Christ, then let’s say one commits a mortal sin and goes to a SSPX priest for confession to receive the sacrament of reconciliation , but according to the directives of the Pope that person in fact has not received absolution, because the SSPX priest cannot confer the sacrament has said it is neither valid nor licit, then that person is committing a sacrilige if they then receives Holy Communion at that same SSPX chapel which is valid & the cycle goes on & on. So my question is this…do the priests of SSPX, adminster absolution and all the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church…or were they honest and tell you that the Roman Ponitiff has issued a statement that they cannot confer the sacraments? If they have not been upfront with you I would be gravely concerned and if you are not, then why not?

Your premise is all wrong. The Vatican has been consistent in saying you do not commit sin in attending Mass at an SSPX chapel and that’s it’s acceptable if you’re attending out of a love for the old Mass.

Concerning confession there is a strong case for supplied jurisdiction found here by a non-SSPX Catholic apologist, John Salza:

scripturecatholic.com/tradissues_qa.html#sspx

 

[giuseppeTO]

Doesn’t it scare you that the Catholic Faith teaches us the Holy Spirit chooses who is to be the Pope, then he is recognized by God, the Roman Catholic Church & the world to be the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and then the Pope says that the mass at an SSPX chapel is valid, but illicit, however, priests of the SSPX cannot confer the sacrament of penance and or any of the other sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, if one goes to the mass of the SSPX, receives the Body & Blood of Christ, then let’s say one commits a mortal sin and goes to a SSPX priest for confession to receive the sacrament of reconciliation , but according to the directives of the Pope that person in fact has not received absolution, because the SSPX priest cannot confer the sacrament has said it is neither valid nor licit, then that person is committing a sacrilige if they then receives Holy Communion at that same SSPX chapel which is valid & the cycle goes on & on. So my question is this…do the priests of SSPX, adminster absolution and all the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church…or were they honest and tell you that the Roman Ponitiff has issued a statement that they cannot confer the sacraments? If they have not been upfront with you I would be gravely concerned and if you are not, then why not?

I am concerned about the canonical situation but I am not concerned about the efficacy of SSPX Confessions. You have to be careful about your statements on the Pope saying they “cannot confer the sacraments”. You cant take what you think you understand the Pope to mean and make that what he said. The Pope did not say “they cannot confer the sacraments”. Canon Law always favors the salvation of souls so if I go to an SSPX priest seeking absolution for a mortal sin, the church supplies the jurisdiction in place of ordinary jurisdiction. Hopefully, this will not sidetrack this thread into a discussion of Supplied Jurisdiction because there have already been numerous of such threads.

Does all this concern me? You bet! But not the part of the efficacy of Confession. It will be best to have this all resolved, so lets all pray for this to happen soon.

Only God knows what will be discussed on this board once this is resolved!

 

[Lainey63]

The latest question to the Ask An Apologist is about SSPX and here is part of the answer:

                 Originally Posted by **Lamb100**                                      
             *Are my sins forgiven if I confess to an SSPX priest?*
                             If you were in danger of death and the only validly-ordained priest available to hear your confession was an SSPX priest, yes.  Otherwise, no.  For more information, see the article linked below.

**Recommended reading:

SSPX Confessions** by Jimmy Akin __________________
**“If anyone comes to me, I want to lead them to Him.” --St. Edith Stein

**Recent apologetics answers by Michelle Arnold

This information is inaccurate as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned?

The original question I believe was from 2007, but I am almost positive that when the excommunications were lifted the Pope did reiterate the position of the Roman Catholic Church and the status of SSPX and the validity of sacraments. I read this on the website of Catholic World News (I think, I’m just going by memory here).

 

[giuseppeTO]

The latest question to the Ask An Apologist is about SSPX and here is part of the answer:

                 Originally Posted by **Lamb100**                                      
             *Are my sins forgiven if I confess to an SSPX priest?*
                             If you were in danger of death and the only validly-ordained priest available to hear your confession was an SSPX priest, yes.  Otherwise, no.  For more information, see the article linked below.

**Recommended reading:

SSPX Confessions** by Jimmy Akin __________________
**“If anyone comes to me, I want to lead them to Him.” --St. Edith Stein

**Recent apologetics answers by Michelle Arnold

This information is inaccurate as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned?

The original question I believe was from 2007, but I am almost positive that when the excommunications were lifted the Pope did reiterate the position of the Roman Catholic Church and the status of SSPX and the validity of sacraments. I read this on the website of Catholic World News (I think, I’m just going by memory here).

And here’s what the other apologist says:

**Canon 844, sec. 2 provides that the Christian faithful can even approach non-Catholic ministers for Penance, the Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick in whose churches these sacraments are valid if it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister for the sacraments. If SSPX priests were really not Catholics (which is not true), Catholics could still approach them for the sacraments if it were physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic priest. Unfortunately, in many Novus Ordo parishes, Catholics in good conscience believe that it is morally impossible to approach their priests for the sacraments, due to their questionable intentions in celebrating the sacraments (e.g., whether they intend to offer the Sacrifice; because they deny mortal sin, etc.), grave disregard for liturgical rubrics, abuses of the Eucharist, modernist theology, immodest dress, and anything else that endangers their souls and the souls of their children. The faithful have a right to be certain of the doctrine and the sacraments that they receive…Canon 844 demonstrates that the Church wants the faithful to have the broadest access possible to the sacraments of Jesus Christ. Why? Because the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. SSPX priests do what they do for that very reason.

We must also remember that canon law is not the only law of the Church that applies to situations like this. There are traditional, ecclesiastical and hierarchical laws, and even the general principles of law (virtue of equity, epikeia), that are fundamental and divine, even if not written down (see canon 19). All these laws are ordered to the supreme law: salus animarum suprema lex. Man has an obligation to save his soul, and thus has a right to receive the means of salvation. While the law of receiving jurisdiction from the hierarchy is a divine law, it is subordinated to the superior law of exercising the priestly ministry.

When there is a conflict, the superior law must prevail over the inferior law, which is why ecclesia supplet exists. A man’s right to receive the means of salvation should never be limited by positive law, for in such cases, “the letter killeth” (2 Cor 3:6). This is why the Church can fulfill what the hierarchy does not do through supplied jurisdiction. … The sacrament of confession is integrally linked to the sacrament of the Eucharist. You need one (confession) to generally receive the other (the Eucharist). I believe the Church’s law on ecclesia supplet resolves the question. Nevertheless, let us pray for a definitive judgment from the Church on this matter.

As I have demonstrated, it is not hard to build a case for ecclesia supplet under the Church’s divine and canon laws. That the Church allows Catholics to fulfill their Sunday obligation at SSPX chapels is also favorable to the position of supplied jurisdiction. I don’t believe we can be as definitive (as Mr. Akin is) against supplied jurisdiction, especially since Rome has not definitively resolved it. The question is too complicated and many souls are affected. Based on the foregoing, in my opinion, the law favors supplied jurisdiction for SSPX priests **

 

[tcm22]

So, you are saying that Church taught antagonism and conflict? I guess that would be part of the Magisterium then right? I wonder which of the Popes and doctors of the church would agree with you on this?

I am not sure how one would “dialog” Jews or Muslims into heaven. And I certainly don’t see much interest in either of these groups of being dialoged into understanding the role of the Catholic Church in their salvation.

Luther was a heretic, my friend. His nailings presaged his heresy. Specifically, he wanted to change the faith, in justification, the priesthood, and the sacraments. Archbishop Lefebvre was afraid that this was also happening in the aftermath of the council and bishops were using the council texts as the justification.

It wouldn’t be the first time a bishop warned a Pope about the danger of heresy brewing in the episcopate.

Perhaps I should have chosen better terms. Clearly the Catholic Church has changed it’s approach to relationships with other Christian denominations and non-Christian religions over time. I have no problem with that. I’m not sure how you “dialogue” anyone anywhere, but that’s your term, not mine. Dialogue with other religions and religious leaders is certainly not a bad thing. I don’t see that as an effort by the Catholic Church to appease anyone or make our beliefs palatable to non-Catholics. Again, I think that’s more a reflection of your own prejudices than any policy of the Church.

As for Lefebvre, whatever his fears, he has put himself at odds with the Holy Father and the rest of the Church. He’s certainly entitled to his opinion, as we all are. However he has gone beyond that and put himself at odds with the Church. Are you arguing that one man’s “fears” are justification to split the Body of Christ? Is he guided by the Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church not? Is he not subject to the discipline of the Church or can he choose to reject those things he doesn’t adhere to? How is that any different from what Luther did?

 

[Filioque]

Filioque, …Your continued rancor on this subject does give scandal to the situation (see the post by Lainey63) and undermines the Holy Father’s recognition that there are issues to discuss and resolve.

I am certain that the 12 million rosaries to Our Lady will ensure a positive conclusion to the doctrinal discussions, that canonical regularization will be the result, that most of the faithful who assist at SSPX chapels will rejoice, and that the Pope will not find more dedicated defenders of himself, and the Catholic faith than the priests and Bishops associated with the SSPX.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that you have read or quoted only those portions of my posts that you wish to and ignored the rest. I’ve stated in the past that I know very good and holy priests and people in the SSPX, and that I continue to remain in contact with many, I also remain in contact with some of the more stable “Independent” priests who I know, although like the SSPX I do not support the irregular status they hold. I understand the mindset, and the fortress mentality. I also post that these are my own opinions formed by not simply what I saw some 30 years ago, but from reports I get from the inside.

I’m sure that your son is seeking to do the will of God as he knows it, as I’m sure you have the same intention. I have no jurisdiction to sit in judgement, or pronounce on your personal motivations. I also do not deny that many have affiliated themselves with the SSPX because of Catholic Clergy and laymen on the opposite extreme, who are just as resistant to fidelity to the Pope as I have and continue to see in the SSPX. The prediction of 30-40% remaining in schism is not my own, by the way but that of a couple of SSPX priests I know from my days with them, who remain good friends, and themselves scandalized by the SSPX. They tell me that they remain within the SSPX in order to minimize the damage that they see by some of the SSPX policies, something I admire them for, but obviously could/would not do myself. True reunion is very much in my prayers every day.

It has been said that the Church (on earth) is a Hospital for sinners, not a Hotel for Saints. From what I have seen of the Pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, he is perscribing a stronger, and sometimes bitter medicine to the Church, both the Liberal Left and the Far Right. My hope is that the medicine he offers to the Church heals not just the extremes of their illness, but the center too.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Perhaps I should have chosen better terms. Clearly the Catholic Church has changed it’s approach to relationships with other Christian denominations and non-Christian religions over time. I have no problem with that. I’m not sure how you “dialogue” anyone anywhere, but that’s your term, not mine. Dialogue with other religions and religious leaders is certainly not a bad thing. I don’t see that as an effort by the Catholic Church to appease anyone or make our beliefs palatable to non-Catholics. Again, I think that’s more a reflection of your own prejudices than any policy of the Church.

As for Lefebvre, whatever his fears, he has put himself at odds with the Holy Father and the rest of the Church. He’s certainly entitled to his opinion, as we all are. However he has gone beyond that and put himself at odds with the Church. Are you arguing that one man’s “fears” are justification to split the Body of Christ? Is he guided by the Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church not? Is he not subject to the discipline of the Church or can he choose to reject those things he doesn’t adhere to? How is that any different from what Luther did?

For reference, “dialog” is the catchphrase of the new ecumenism. You really are behind the times - it is used everywhere, all the time, and is a required word in all church documents dealing with non-Catholics.

Lefebvre consecrated 4 bishops to carry on priestly ordinations without Papal permission (he actually received permission for one bishop but could not get the vatican to accept a particular candidate), the intention of which was to continue what the Catholic Church does. Luther preached heresy against the Blessed Sacrament, the Priesthood, and the means of salvation. If understanding that difference escapes you, I’m afraid I can’t help.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I would be remiss if I did not point out that you have read or quoted only those portions of my posts that you wish to and ignored the rest. I’ve stated in the past that I know very good and holy priests and people in the SSPX, and that I continue to remain in contact with many, I also remain in contact with some of the more stable “Independent” priests who I know, although like the SSPX I do not support the irregular status they hold. I understand the mindset, and the fortress mentality. I also post that these are my own opinions formed by not simply what I saw some 30 years ago, but from reports I get from the inside.

I’m sure that your son is seeking to do the will of God as he knows it, as I’m sure you have the same intention. I have no jurisdiction to sit in judgement, or pronounce on your personal motivations. I also do not deny that many have affiliated themselves with the SSPX because of Catholic Clergy and laymen on the opposite extreme, who are just as resistant to fidelity to the Pope as I have and continue to see in the SSPX. The prediction of 30-40% remaining in schism is not my own, by the way but that of a couple of SSPX priests I know from my days with them, who remain good friends, and themselves scandalized by the SSPX. They tell me that they remain within the SSPX in order to minimize the damage that they see by some of the SSPX policies, something I admire them for, but obviously could/would not do myself. True reunion is very much in my prayers every day.

It has been said that the Church (on earth) is a Hospital for sinners, not a Hotel for Saints. From what I have seen of the Pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, he is perscribing a stronger, and sometimes bitter medicine to the Church, both the Liberal Left and the Far Right. My hope is that the medicine he offers to the Church heals not just the extremes of their illness, but the center too.

My intent was not to be over-harsh with your posts. You have to admit that your bitterness comes through more than anything else. I am sure that the 30-40% prediction is an opinion held by a couple of SSPX priests. I am immersed in it and I believe that it is limited to a couple priests and perhaps some right-leaning faithful. I personally grieve over some independent priests I know that are “affiliated” with the SSPX but will not go along with with a regularization. So, you see, I am not blind to the danger of a priest being his own Bishop and Pope for a long period of time. There have been at least a couple of priests kicked out of the Society in the last year for their public statements against the Pope and the church. Good riddens, may God guide them. If I might paraphrase your great ending statement, saints only exist in heaven, and heaven aint here.

I started saying a novena three months ago for the Holy Father which was published by the Superior General of the FSSP and I ended up incorporating it into my regular morning office (too bad its not in Latin ). I think that if you and I continue use the two most powerful weapons we have, the rosary and our knees, we can win the reunion of the church.

 

[tcm22]

For reference, “dialog” is the catchphrase of the new ecumenism. You really are behind the times - it is used everywhere, all the time, and is a required word in all church documents dealing with non-Catholics.

Lefebvre consecrated 4 bishops to carry on priestly ordinations without Papal permission (he actually received permission for one bishop but could not get the vatican to accept a particular candidate), the intention of which was to continue what the Catholic Church does. Luther preached heresy against the Blessed Sacrament, the Priesthood, and the means of salvation. If understanding that difference escapes you, I’m afraid I can’t help.

I’m certainly not behind the times. I guess I don’t see how ecumenism can be accomplished without dialogue. Taking an ecumenical approach to other sects and religions does not mean the Church is pandering to anyone. Dialogue does not have to be a pejorative term.

As for AB Lefebvre, I guess we can split hairs. Luther certainly preached heresy against basic Church doctrine. However, for AB Lefebvre to openly defy the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (a pretty solid teaching of the Church), is not something to be glossed over. The difference seems to be to more just a matter of degree. Once Church leaders set themselves in public, overt opposition to the Holy Father, whatever the matter or justification, they are certainly not staunch defenders of the faith. Who decides what matters are worthy of oppositon and what isn’t? Suppose AB Lefebvre wakes up tomorrow and decides the Roman Church is wrong and misguided about priestly celibacy or the ordination of women? Obviously those things are at the other end of the spectrum, but the point is the same. If understanding that comparison escapes you, I’m afraid I can’t help.

 

[AJV]

The only way they conformed to us was by agreeing to a lectionary that we modified to the extent that nothing was included that gave them heartburn. It was a very easy concession, as long we didnt push Macabees or James.

The adoption is of the Sunday lectionery only. The Traditional Sunday lectionary didn’t contain James or Macabees either. Do you think that’s why the Protestant observers recommended we keep it? (actually they recommended we keep the whole lectionery)

To be honest there were quite a few things that gave Protestants “heartburn”. That’s why the RCL differs from the Catholic lectionery [in recent years, also due to the “continuous” vs. “thematic” reading]. They just simply substituted other readings.

And perhaps you would be surprised, but both the Catholics and the Lutherans do read James (chapter 2) within the Sunday cycle. In the NO, it is read twice - once on Sunday and also in the regular weekday when all the verses from 2:14-24 (which I presume wa the passage you had in mind) are read. The difference between the two Sunday readings is v. 18 of chapter 2.

They did not change the structure of their communion service.

Actually they have. Quite drastically for some Lutheran denominations, even moving away from the classical Lutheran “Verba only”-sim.

We jointly adopted a service that was, in essence, their service. Ours was starkly different. Regardless of what a Calvinist monk may have said, the Lutherans did not wake up one day and say “hey … we are just not Roman Catholic enough … lets do our best to look more like them in worship”.

We didn’t jointly adopt anything. And that is precisely what the Lutherans and other Protestants did do - in some cases, attempting to come closer to the Catholic church regarding it as the classical Western heritage, but in other cases - just being more “Liturgical” than “R. Catholic” simply becoming far more appreciative of a liturgical structure and realizing how woefully deficient their’s were. Looking at Protestant changes in worship is quite interesting when one realizes how much Protestant worship ha evolved in less than a century. If you want an overview, Senn’s Chritian Worship is not bad, but the best results, IMHO, would just come of sitting down with a pile of books - Green, Blue, Red hymnals and even earlier, and seeing what changes have been made. It is quite surprising.