Marcel Lefebvre: Why was he the only Archbishop to disagree?

[Eric_Olsen]

IThis crisis is due to the pontificate of Paul VI, and Paul VI’s inability to be decisive.

True because I believe Paul VI was weak and overwhelmed with the changes going on in the world and he felt powerless to do anything. He cried to Bishops in Brazil because people ignored his encyclical ‘humae vitae’.

It was in the pontificate of Paul VI that the traditional Mass was suppressed.

but the TLM mass was never surpressed. Paul VI never issued a decree surpressing it. My understanding is that Bugnini wanted it surpressed, but paul VI refused to do so. Pope PJ II set up a commision of Cardinals in 1988 to study the matter of the TLM being surpressed. The cardinals all agreed it never was. I also understand that Pope PJ II wanted to issue a motu proprio like the one last summer freeing up the mass, but was halted by the fear of liberal bishops.

 

[LJN21]

I found the source of all the crazy questions about the FSSP:

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q13_fraternity.htm

Has SSPX resorted to stretching the truth to retain their members? Almost seems like they feel they should have the monopoly on the EF.

Edit: Yeah reason some of the other stuff on there site its quite amusing. Everything article is cut up and commentated on to make sure anyone reading it comes away with their point of view.

 

[laudamus_te]

I was responding to the statement “Without Lefebvre there would be no traditional movement. He saved the Tridentine Mass.” My point was there WAS a traditional movement apart from Lefebvre. Interestingly, members of the ORCM tried to get Lefebvre to ordain some priests for them, but he refused. As I mentioned earlier, it was rumored by some people at the time that the SSPX was trying to “take over” the traditional movement because they kept moving into the same areas that ORCM priests were servicing. So, the demise of the ORCM may have been partly the fault of the SSPX and Lefebvre who refused to cooperate with them, but instead seemed to work against them.

On a side note, the ORCM was primarily an organization of priests, not laypeople. Also, while some members tended toward sedevacantism, I don’t believe this was an official viewpoint of the organization, and I don’t think all its priests subscribed to the same idea.

I will concede that I don’t have much knowledge of the ORCM. I don’t believe that Abp. Lefebvre would have been acting responsibly by ordaining priests for that society. He took his responsibilities very seriously, and among them was the training of priests for ordination.

As far as moving in to areas where the ORCM existed and “taking over,” I would think it more likely that the SSPX went where they were called and needed. I know that in the area where I live, the SSPX were given control of their chapel when the independent priest who established it died. The SSPX was and is a more cohesive and stronger group than the ORCM. By virtue of this fact, it is not unreasonable to believe that Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX were the driving force behind the Traditional movement, and the Traditional Mass could have very well died without him.

 

[Silver_Thread]

That is also not correct. Bishop de Castro Mayer, a member of the group of Bishops who agreed to resist the novelties of Vatican II, was present and took part in the Consecrations.

Lefebvre had a set of “kahunas” that’s why he spoke up. That’s why he acted!!

 

[Aramis]

NEVER? How do you of you know what he said or didn’t say on his deathbed? I can’t believe you people who presume his guilt before His Creator. Would you like people to judge you the same way? Yes, objectively his actions to consecrate were most sinful, but what are the conditions again for sin to be mortal? Even the Pope can’t override these conditions.

He never made a public effort towards reconciliation in any substantiative means.

It doesn’t matter the level of culpability. The Pope, who has the power to define sins, according to the teachings of the Church, defined his act as sinful and of competence to be absoloved only by the pope or Christ himself. A power granted to the Apostles by Christ himself, and passed on through Apostolic Succession.

So, his deathbed makes no difference. Only what happened after and before. We can’t know what happened after; we do know what happened before: material schism. (Pope JP II refers to his Schismatic acts in explaining the excommunication.)

He was no longer formally within the church. He and the four priests he ordained bishops ceased being Catholic, suffering excommunication, the moment they agreed to be ordained bishops without Rome’s approval. Said excommunication was formalized by JP II, for all 5 persons.

Those priests following them are not, however, fully outside the church… yet. Just suspended ad divinis.

An Excommunication is a call to repentence, and a public statement that one has committed a sin of grievous and PUBLIC nature.

As to it actually being mortal, that’s another matter, but given his writings, it’s hard to see it otherwise… Intent to disobey, grievous matter, commission of the disobedient act, and knowledge of the sinfulness before the act. I can’t say for certain if it is a mortally sinful act, but I can say it appears to meet all the criteria provided he was mentally healthy.

 

[GerardP]

It doesn’t matter the level of culpability. [Yes. It does.]

The Pope, who has the power to define sins, according to the teachings of the Church, defined his act as sinful and of competence to be absoloved only by the pope or Christ himself. A power granted to the Apostles by Christ himself, and passed on through Apostolic Succession.

[This is pure fiction. The Pope has power to define doctrine infallibly. His judgements in all other matters can be wrong. Nothing is bound in Heaven that is false. Especially excommunications that are invalid ]

So, his deathbed makes no difference. Only what happened after and before. We can’t know what happened after; we do know what happened before: material schism. (Pope JP II refers to his Schismatic acts in explaining the excommunication.)

[That is a logical fallacy. You are arguing that JPII was an irresistible authority in this matter. He was not. There is a stronger argument that JPII fell into objective material schism than LeFebvre. ]

He was no longer formally within the church. He and the four priests he ordained bishops ceased being Catholic, suffering excommunication, the moment they agreed to be ordained bishops without Rome’s approval. Said excommunication was formalized by JP II, for all 5 persons.

[Invalid excommunications may be ignored without sin.]

Those priests following them are not, however, fully outside the church… yet. Just suspended ad divinis.

[Please…not the partial communion oxymoron.]

An Excommunication is a call to repentence, and a public statement that one has committed a sin of grievous and PUBLIC nature.

As to it actually being mortal, that’s another matter, but given his writings, it’s hard to see it otherwise… Intent to disobey, grievous matter, commission of the disobedient act, and knowledge of the sinfulness before the act. I can’t say for certain if it is a mortally sinful act, but I can say it appears to meet all the criteria provided he was mentally healthy.

If you can’t say for certain that mortal sin was committed you can’t say for certain that he was validly excommunicated.

Learn about Catholicism and then comment. By your definition, JPII excommunicated himself with his breaking of the first commandment at Assisi.

These appeals to legalisms are exactly what Our Lord chastised the religious leaders of His day during his years of earthly ministry for. Seeing only the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.

The Popes especially scandalous ones like the previous two major Popes are not irresistible and in cases like those, the morally correct thing to do is to resist them according to one’s station in life.

LeFebvre’s unlucky station was that he could rebuke the Pope but that the Pope could exact revenge against him for that rebuke if he (the Pope) didn’t have the humility to see the error of his ways.

 

[LJN21]

Yes. It does.]

[This is pure fiction. The Pope has power to define doctrine infallibly. His judgements in all other matters can be wrong. Nothing is bound in Heaven that is false. Especially excommunications that are invalid ]

[That is a logical fallacy. You are arguing that JPII was an irresistible authority in this matter. He was not. There is a stronger argument that JPII fell into objective material schism than LeFebvre. ]

[Invalid excommunications may be ignored without sin.]

[Please…not the partial communion oxymoron.]

If you can’t say for certain that mortal sin was committed you can’t say for certain that he was validly excommunicated.

Learn about Catholicism and then comment. By your definition, JPII excommunicated himself with his breaking of the first commandment at Assisi.

These appeals to legalisms are exactly what Our Lord chastised the religious leaders of His day during his years of earthly ministry for. Seeing only the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.

The Popes especially scandalous ones like the previous two major Popes are not irresistible and in cases like those, the morally correct thing to do is to resist them according to one’s station in life.

LeFebvre’s unlucky station was that he could rebuke the Pope but that the Pope could exact revenge against him for that rebuke if he (the Pope) didn’t have the humility to see the error of his ways.

This whole thing just doesn’t even sound right, a lot of it I can’t quite put my finger on though.

You seem to give Lefebvre more authority than the Pope and denied the fact the Pope didn’t excommunicated anyone, Lefebvre excommunicated himself through disobedience. It had nothing to do with this pure Church nonsense. That was an excuse after the fact in an attempt to justify their tedious position.

Personally, I think that Lefebvre displayed a lack of faith. He acted in disobedience because he was afraid the rightful authority (that is guided by the Holy Ghost, mind you) was just going to let the old mass die out. He didn’t think God would protect the Old Mass through the Vicar of Christ. The FSSP then had to be founded (remember this happened in the same year, by priests who refused to go along with the consecrations of the bishops) to carry out the work that the SSPX was supposed to do.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Personally, I think that Lefebvre displayed a lack of faith. He acted in disobedience because he was afraid the rightful authority (that is guided by the Holy Ghost, mind you) was just going to let the old mass die out. He didn’t think God would protect the Old Mass through the Vicar of Christ.

The disagreement with Archbishop Lefebvre and the Pope went deeper than just the mass. But, let’s add a twist to what you said to see if this corresponds more to reality. The Pope, for whatever reason, was not protecting the Old Mass. Rather, he was going along with the false impression that it had been abrogated. In fact, the Pope even issued an indult (which is special pemission to do what the law does not allow) for the old Mass. Therefore, since the Pope WASN’T protecting the old Mass, as he should have, God raised up Archbisop Lefebvre the Great to do what the Pope failed to do.

The FSSP then had to be founded (remember this happened in the same year, by priests who refused to go along with the consecrations of the bishops) to carry out the work that the SSPX was supposed to do.

Also keep in mind what John Paul II said in Ecclesia Dei: he referred to those who liked the old Mass as those who * feel attached to some *"previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition". Notice that he called it a “previous” liturgical form.

 

[LJN21]

The disagreement with Archbishop Lefebvre and the Pope went deeper than just the mass. But, let’s add a twist to what you said to see if this corresponds more to reality. The Pope, for whatever reason, was not protecting the Old Mass. Rather, he was going along with the false impression that it had been abrogated. In fact, the Pope even issued an indult (which is special pemission to do what the law does not allow) for the old Mass. Therefore, since the Pope WASN’T protecting the old Mass, as he should have, God raised up Archbisop Lefebvre the Great to do what the Pope failed to do.

If that is true why didn’t the Pope just let the Old Mass go out with the SSPX when they went in to schism, instead of starting the FSSP?

Rome said he would get his bishops, it didn’t happen like Lefebvre the Schismatic thought it would (or should), so he panicked, he doubted God would take care of His Church and took things in his own hands. He totally disregarded the Popes GOD given authority. ends never justify the means.

Also keep in mind what John Paul II said in Ecclesia Dei: he referred to those who liked the old Mass as those who * feel attached to some *“previous liturgical and disciplinary forms **of the Latin tradition”. Notice that he called it a “previous” liturgical form.

What Pope John Paul II said in this case isn’t infallible, you and I both know that. Your using semantics to justify the SSPX’s ends justify the means mentality. Bottom line is while there was a lot of confusion about the TLM passed on by other popes and a lot of pressure form liberal forces to totally abrogate it, it didn’t ever happen. In fact, slowly things have devolped to where we are today and we have a Pope thats actively reforming the NO AND bring back the TLM.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

If that is true why didn’t the Pope just let the Old Mass go out with the SSPX when they went in to schism, instead of starting the FSSP?

Beause they wanted to draw people out of the SSPX.

Rome said he would get his bishops, it didn’t happen like Lefebvre the Schismatic thought it would (or should), so he panicked, he doubted God would take care of His Church and took things in his own hands. He totally disregarded the Popes GOD given authority. ends never justify the means.

The Pope wasn’t protecting the faith so Archbishop Lefebvre the Great did what needed to be done. The Seminaries under John Paul II were cesspools of heresy and immorality. John Paul II took no effective action to clean them out. The Seminaries of Archbishop Lefebvre the Great were like the Seminaries of old: the true faith was taught, modernism and liberalism explained and condemned, and the “Mass of the saints” was preserved.

God did not abandon us. When the Pope failed in his duty by allowing the Seminaries, where the Priests are formed, to become cellpools of heresy, God raised up a saint to preserve the Priesthood, just like he did during the Arian crisis. And this was predicted by the approved apparition of Our Lady of Good Success, who predicted the crisis of the “second half of the 20th century”, to a “T”, and also predicted the “prelate” who God would send to form real Priests. You ought to read what Our Lady of Good Success had to say.

What Pope John Paul II said in this case isn’t infallible, you and I both know that.

Yes, I understand that.

Your using semantics to justify the SSPX’s ends justify the means mentality.

Not at all. I used that quote as one more example of John Paul II implying that the old Mass was a thing of the past, rather than a legitimate form of the Mass that was “never abrogated, and in prinicple, always permitted”.

Bottom line is while there was a lot of confusion about the TLM passed on by other popes and a lot of pressure form liberal forces to totally abrogate it, it didn’t ever happen.

Yes, we know that now (and the Traditionalists knew if then), but every self professed “apologists”, including the Catholic Answers staff, all thought it had been abrogated, and ridiculed the Traditionalists who knew the truth.

In fact, slowly things have devolped to where we are today and we have a Pope thats actively reforming the NO AND bring back the TLM.

Yes, I agree. I think our new Pope is doing a lot of good. I believe the restoration has begun. It is beginning with a restoration of the Mass (that was saved by Archbishop Lefebvre the Great), and hopefully soon there will be a restoration of the faith that goes along with it… but I think the restoration of the faith will be for our next Pope. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt this Pope will turn his back on the “new ecclesiology” of John Paul II, and the false ecumenism that goes along with it.

 

[LJN21]

Beause they wanted to draw people out of the SSPX.

Says the SSPX… for some reason they have a bitter hatred of the FSSP and make up all sorts of slander against them.

The fact is the FSSP was started by priests who refused to be part of Lefebvres schism. Had nothing to do with leeching off the SSPX just not being part of his disobedience.

The Pope wasn’t protecting the faith so Archbishop Lefebvre -]the Great/-] did what needed to be done. The Seminaries under John Paul II were cesspools of heresy and immorality. John Paul II took no effective action to clean them out. The Seminaries of Archbishop Lefebvre -]the Great/-] were like the Seminaries of old: the true faith was taught, modernism and liberalism explained and condemned, and the “Mass of the saints” was preserved.

Except after the illicit ordination of his bishops they were in schism. Yes the Seminaries were bad but it had little to do with Pope John Paul II and more so the Church he inherited.

What your describing about seminaries of old is actually the FSSP seminary today.

God did not abandon us. When the Pope failed in his duty by allowing the Seminaries, where the Priests are formed, to become cellpools of heresy, God raised up a saint to preserve the Priesthood, just like he did during the Arian crisis. And this was predicted by the approved apparition of Our Lady of Good Success, who predicted the crisis of the “second half of the 20th century”, to a “T”, and also predicted the “prelate” who God would send to form real Priests. You ought to read what Our Lady of Good Success had to say.

Your comparison to the Arian heresy has already been debunked a couple times. Also the great saint your looking for is Fr. Josef Bisig, wonder how many people actually know who he is.

Not at all. I used that quote as one more example of John Paul II implying that the old Mass was a thing of the past, rather than a legitimate form of the Mass that was “never abrogated, and in prinicple, always permitted”.

He never said it wasn’t a legitimate form of the Mass, your point is moot.

Yes, we know that now (and the Traditionalists knew if then), but every self professed “apologists”, including the Catholic Answers staff, all thought it had been abrogated, and ridiculed the Traditionalists who knew the truth.

So he wasn’t the strongest pope ever… theres a shocker.

Yes, I agree. I think our new Pope is doing a lot of good. I believe the restoration has begun. It is beginning with a restoration of the Mass (that was saved by Archbishop Lefebvre the Great), and hopefully soon there will be a restoration of the faith that goes along with it… but I think the restoration of the faith will be for our next Pope. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt this Pope will turn his back on the “new ecclesiology” of John Paul II, and the false ecumenism that goes along with it.

I think there is going to be full blown Schism on two fronts, the modernist are going to start the “Catholic Church of Everyone Goes to Heaven in a Love Mist” and the SSPX are not ever going to come back. Once disobedience takes hold, the freedom it affords is horrible attractive. Whats left will be fully with the Pope and a much smaller Pure Church.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Says the SSPX… for some reason they have a bitter hatred of the FSSP and make up all sorts of slander against them.

Here’s a secret. Many of the SSPX Priests are friends with the FSSP Priests. They realize they are on the same team, fighting the same fight. One group is the “good guys”, and the other group are the “bad guys”. Just as the good cop and bad cop work together, so too do the FSSP and the SSPX.

I don’t deny that there is sometimes harsh talk between the two groups on one level, but many of the Priests are actually friends who realize they are fighting the same fight.

The fact is the FSSP was started by priests who refused to be part of Lefebvres schism.

The President of Ecclesia Die - Cardinal Castrillon - has said numerous times that the SSPX is not in schism. In order to save face after John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei document, which implied that the SSPX was in schism, Rome is now distinguishing between a “schismatic act” and schism, and saying that the SSPX is NOT in schism.

Except after the illicit ordination of his bishops they were in schism.

Not according to what the Church is saying now:

**Cardinal Castrillón: ** “Please accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra.” The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics”.

**Cardinal Castrillón: ** “Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.”

The reason the SSPX is not a schism is because the Bishops of the SSPX are “auxillary” Bishops and thus do not possess jurisdiction. This is different than the situation was for Campos Brazil, for example, as the Cardinal points out:

**Cardinal Castrillón: ** “There [in Campos] the situation was very different, because while the Saint Pius X Fraternity is an unrecognized association, served by bishops who declare themselves “auxiliaries,” in Brazil instead Bishop Castro Mayer when he renounced the diocese, was followed by 50 or so priests who in fact maintained a parallel organization to the diocese.”

**Cardinal Castrillón: ** [With respect to the SSPX] “We are not confronted with a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church.”

So tell me, do you accept what the Church is now telling us about the SSPX, or are you going to hold to your own contrary opinion?

And according to Msgr. Camille Perl, Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the Church has never declared that the SSPX is in schism. In response to a recent letter written to the commission, the Cardinal stated the following:

**Msgr Perl: ** “Statements made by Cardinal Castrillón need to be understood in a technical, canonical sense. Stating that the Society of St. Pius X “is not in formal schism” is to say that there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism.”

So tell me, why do you calumniate the SSPX by saying they are in schism when this is not what the Church teaches? Do you pretend to have a more clear understanding of the situation than the Ecclesia Dei commission?

Yes the Seminaries were bad but it had little to do with Pope John Paul II and more so the Church he inherited.

Little to do with the Pope? John Paul II was Pope for 26 years. If there is one person who had the power to clean house, it was him.

What your describing about seminaries of old is actually the FSSP seminary today.

I’m all for the FSSP. I promote them all the time.

Your comparison to the Arian heresy has already been debunked a couple times.

Bishop Rudolf Graber: "What happened over 1600 years ago [at the time of the Arian heresy] is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria [the patriarchal see of St. Athanasius] is today the whole universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into silence of being ignored; killing, by assassination of character."

I understand that people try to debunk the parallel, but it won’t work. Don’t be gullible enough to fall for it. The same people who try to debunk the parallels between the current situation and the Arian crisis are the same ones who used to try and convince everyone that the old Mass had been abrogated and the pro multis should be translated as “for all”. How these people have any credibility left is beyond me.

BTW, here is a link to some interesting quotes from the saints who lived during the Arian crisis. Only an ignoramous could read these and not spot the parallel.

traditio.com/tradlib/arians.txt

Also the great saint your looking for is Fr. Josef Bisig, wonder how many people actually know who he is.

Again, I am a fan of the FSSP. I think they are doing a lot of good for the Church

He never said it wasn’t a legitimate form of the Mass, your point is moot.

He implied that it had been abrogated and was a thing of the past. He even issued two indults which is permission to do what the law does not allow. The only reason the law would not allow it is if it had been abrogated.

So he wasn’t the strongest pope ever… there’s a shocker.

It may not be a shocker to you, but it may be to those who think whatever he did or said was of the Holy Ghost.

I think there is going to be full blown Schism on two fronts, the modernist are going to start the “Catholic Church of Everyone Goes to Heaven in a Love Mist” and the SSPX are not ever going to come back. Once disobedience takes hold, the freedom it affords is horrible attractive. Whats left will be fully with the Pope and a much smaller Pure Church.

Time will tell.

 

[ProVobis]

You seem to give Lefebvre more authority than the Pope and denied the fact the Pope didn’t excommunicated anyone, Lefebvre excommunicated himself through disobedience.

If it were only disobedience that excommunicates people from the church, there’d be a ton of excommunicants, believe me.

But look at the Anglicans who oppose their new liberal leadership. Wouldn’t you say that they are disobedient to their leadership? Would that cause them damnation? Of course not. Then what about being disobedient to a modernistic swing of the Catholic Church? From all appearances it sure looked like it to many people.

 

[ProVobis]

Rome said he would get his bishops, it didn’t happen like Lefebvre the Schismatic thought it would

So the question is who really was the wishy-washy party? We all read the protocol and what the Archbishop signed. It seemed legit. So will we know who reneged on the deal? Could have been a setup for an excommunication too. There certainly were enough liberal bishops to do it.

 

[LJN21]

Here’s a secret. Many of the SSPX Priests are friends with the FSSP Priests. They realize they are on the same team, fighting the same fight. One group is the “good guys”, and the other group are the “bad guys”. Just as the good cop and bad cop work together, so too do the FSSP and the SSPX.

I don’t deny that there is sometimes harsh talk between the two groups on one level, but many of the Priests are actually friends who realize they are fighting the same fight.

Harsh talk?

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q13_fraternity.htm

Its down right slander…

I’m not talking about peoples personal relationship, I’m talking what the organization itself says about the FSSP. “By there fruits you shall know them.”

The President of Ecclesia Die - Cardinal Castrillon - has said numerous times that the SSPX is not in schism. In order to save face after John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei document, which implied that the SSPX was in schism, Rome is now distinguishing between a “schismatic act” and schism, and saying that the SSPX is NOT in schism.

Not according to what the Church is saying now:

**Cardinal Castrillón: ** “Please accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra.” The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics”.

**Cardinal Castrillón: ** “Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.”

The reason the SSPX is not a schism is because the Bishops of the SSPX are “auxillary” Bishops and thus do not possess jurisdiction. This is different than the situation was for Campos Brazil, for example, as the Cardinal points out:

**Cardinal Castrillón: ** “There [in Campos] the situation was very different, because while the Saint Pius X Fraternity is an unrecognized association, served by bishops who declare themselves “auxiliaries,” in Brazil instead Bishop Castro Mayer when he renounced the diocese, was followed by 50 or so priests who in fact maintained a parallel organization to the diocese.”

**Cardinal Castrillón: ** [With respect to the SSPX] “We are not confronted with a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church.”

So tell me, do you accept what the Church is now telling us about the SSPX, or are you going to hold to your own contrary opinion?

I accept what the Church says. They are in regular standing caused by an act of schism. They’re situation doesn’t seem to be getting closer to “normal” status.

What I disagree with is the published opinion by the SSPX on the FSSP.

And according to Msgr. Camille Perl, Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the Church has never declared that the SSPX is in schism. In response to a recent letter written to the commission, the Cardinal stated the following:

**Msgr Perl: ** “Statements made by Cardinal Castrillón need to be understood in a technical, canonical sense. Stating that the Society of St. Pius X “is not in formal schism” is to say that there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism.”

So tell me, why do you calumniate the SSPX by saying they are in schism when this is not what the Church teaches? Do you pretend to have a more clear understanding of the situation than the Ecclesia Dei commission?

Why do you continue to canonize Lefebrve and demean the Pope?

Honestly I think Rome is being extremely diplomatic and attempting to reconcile the situation.

Little to do with the Pope? John Paul II was Pope for 26 years. If there is one person who had the power to clean house, it was him.

As much as I think we’d like, he can’t walk in and fire everyone. Its like turning a battleship, ones it get some momentum going one one way it take a lot of space to turn it completely round.

I’m all for the FSSP. I promote them all the time.

Sure doesn’t sound like it.

Bishop Rudolf Graber: "What happened over 1600 years ago [at the time of the Arian heresy] is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria [the patriarchal see of St. Athanasius] is today the whole universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into silence of being ignored; killing, by assassination of character."

I understand that people try to debunk the parallel, but it won’t work. Don’t be gullible enough to fall for it. The same people who try to debunk the parallels between the current situation and the Arian crisis are the same ones who used to try and convince everyone that the old Mass had been abrogated and the pro multis should be translated as “for all”. How these people have any credibility left is beyond me.

BTW, here is a link to some interesting quotes from the saints who lived during the Arian crisis. Only an ignoramous could read these and not spot the parallel.

traditio.com/tradlib/arians.txt

Truth has no baring what people think about anything. I think you know that. Nothing was abrogated as the liberals wanted everyone to believe.

Yes, there are parallels but saying Lefebve was never excommunicated because of what happened to St. Athanasius just doesn’t cut it.

He implied that it had been abrogated and was a thing of the past. He even issued two indults which is permission to do what the law does not allow. The only reason the law would not allow it is if it had been abrogated.

Yes, I’m aware of what an indult is and I understand the point. I just don’t agree with it. I think there was a lot of pressure to do some things what were some what… subversive… BUT he never out right said it was AND the “indults” did somewhat protecting TLM.

It may not be a shocker to you, but it may be to those who think whatever he did or said was of the Holy Ghost.

Unless he was speaking about things like Contraception then it was just his opinion and not binding

Time will tell.

Yup, I’m actually some what excite to see what the next 20 years or so brings, there are changes all around these days. One of our newly ordained diocesan priests first Mass was TLM, his first NO Mass was done Ad Orientem!

 

[LJN21]

If it were only disobedience that excommunicates people from the church, there’d be a ton of excommunicants, believe me.

That statement doesn’t make since. So if your could only get excommunicated for disobedience (which of course isn’t the only way) there would be MORE excommunications?

But look at the Anglicans who oppose their new liberal leadership. Wouldn’t you say that they are disobedient to their leadership? Would that cause them damnation? Of course not. Then what about being disobedient to a modernistic swing of the Catholic Church? From all appearances it sure looked like it to many people.

The Anglican Church is not protected by the Holy Spirit obviously, the example does not apply.

So the question is who really was the wishy-washy party? We all read the protocol and what the Archbishop signed. It seemed legit. So will we know who reneged on the deal? Could have been a setup for an excommunication too. There certainly were enough liberal bishops to do it.

He and then Cardinal Ratzinger signed it on May 5th. Did our future Pope who has done so much for TLM then lie?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Harsh talk?

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q13_fraternity.htm

Its down right slander…

I have my disagreements with the SSPX. I do not claim that they are an infallible organization. I actually disagree with some things they do and with the mentality of some of the people. I think the devil works on people inside the SSPX just like he does everyone else. He will attack different people, and different groups, in different ways.

For example, he will search for our weak points and attack us there. This goes for us as individuals, and even as groups. So, think about how he would attack the SSPX. He will not attack them in the area of the faith because they are too strong. They know the faith too well, and it would be a waste of time. Therefore, he will attack them at the area of one of the other two theological virtues: either charity or hope - and that is what he does. Therefore, you sometimes see the SSPX going too far and becoming uncharitable.

He will probably attack the FSSP in the area faith by trying to get them to compromise. Not that they FSSP Priests are necessarily weak in faith, but they get more pressure in that are from the “left” - their Bishops. They will try to get them to concelebrate a Novus Ordo Mass and/or use the new ambiguous Catechism, which the FSSP must realize is not good.

I’m not talking about peoples personal relationship, I’m talking what the organization itself says about the FSSP.

You are talking about one link from their website. I have a tape from Bishop Fellay where he talks about the good that the FSSP is doing for the Church.

I admit that there is sometimes harsh language on one level, but I don’t think that is the general tone between the two groups.

What I disagree with is the published opinion by the SSPX on the FSSP

And you are free to disagree with that.

Why do you continue to canonize Lefebrve and demean the Pope?

Because I think Archbishop Lefebvre is a saint and will be canonized; and I think the later led millions of Catholics into error and indifferentism.

Honestly I think Rome is being extremely diplomatic and attempting to reconcile the situation.

I agree.

Sure doesn’t sound like it.

When have I ever said anything that could even be interpreted in a negative way about the FSSP? I always promote them. If I had an FSSP Church in my area that is where I would go.

Yes, there are parallels but saying Lefebve was never excommunicated because of what happened to St. Athanasius just doesn’t cut it.

I wasn’t referring specifically to the excommunication. But, since you brought it up, I believe the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre was null and void because he acted out of what he believed to be necessity, and canon law says that anyone who acts out of what they believe to be necessity does not incur an ipso facto excommunication.

Unless he was speaking about things like Contraception then it was just his opinion and not binding

I hear ya.

Yup, I’m actually some what excite to see what the next 20 years or so brings, there are changes all around these days. One of our newly ordained diocesan priests first Mass was TLM, his first NO Mass was done Ad Orientem!

Yes, I think the restoration has begun. Like I said in a previous post, the restoration has started with the Mass. But the faith itself still needs to be restored. Let me elaborate on that a little.

Before Vatican II there were a group of boarder line heretics (liberals and modernists) who were promoting a “new theology”. These boarder line heretics and their ideas were condemned by Rome. To make an extremely long story short, the promoters of this New Theology who were condemned under Pius XII in the 50’s were resurrected by Pope John XXIII in the 60’s and became the leading lights of Vatican II. Their ambiguous New Theology is now reigning supreme and is destroying the faith.

If you have some time to look into that subject, I think you would find it interesting.

 

[LJN21]

I have my disagreements with the SSPX. I do not claim that they are an infallible organization. I actually disagree with some things they do and with the mentality of some of the people. I think the devil works on people inside the SSPX just like he does everyone else. He will attack different people, and different groups, in different ways.

For example, he will search for our weak points and attack us there. This goes for us as individuals, and even as groups. So, think about how he would attack the SSPX. He will not attack them in the area of the faith because they are too strong. They know the faith too well, and it would be a waste of time. Therefore, he will attack them at the area of one of the other two theological virtues: either charity or hope - and that is what he does. Therefore, you sometimes see the SSPX going too far and becoming uncharitable.

I agree mostly.

He will probably attack the FSSP in the area faith by trying to get them to compromise. Not that they FSSP Priests are necessarily weak in faith, but they get more pressure from the “left” - their Bishops. They will try to get them to concelebrate a Novus Ordo Mass and/or use the new ambiguous Catechism, which the FSSP must realize is not good.

You really don’t seem to have spend much time with anyone from the FSSP, for every one I’ve met, it would be a cold day in you know where before a concelebration happened.

The new Catechism seem to be an overly huge issue for the SSPX, yeah its way to vague on a lot of stuff, but its hardly the book of ultimate evil they make it out to be. If half the “modern” Catholics read and followed it we’d be a alot better off.

You are talking about one link from their website. I have a tape from Bishop Fellay where he talks about the good that the FSSP is doing for the Church.

I admit that there is sometimes harsh language on one level, but I don’t think that is the general tone between the two groups.

That the general tone I hear. SSPX shouts form the roof tops that the FSSP has been “compromised” so you better not have anything to do with them

Because I think Archbishop Lefebvre is a saint and will be canonized; and I think the later lead millions of Catholics into error and indifferentism.

I’d error on the save side and pray for the repose of both there souls and not judge either one till the Church has done so Herself.

When have I ever said anything that could even be interpreted in a negative way about the FSSP? I always promote them.

I dunno you, you seem to think they are overly likely to compromises them self to please some liberal bishop that doesn’t hold any real weight over them.

I wasn’t referring specifically to the excommunication. I believe the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre was null and void because he acted out of what he believed to be necessity and canon law sys that anyone who acts out of what they believe to be necessity does not incur an ipso facto excommunication.

That is a possible, however I don’t really buy it. Rome promised him bishops 2 months later he got tried of waiting and did it himself.

Yes, I think the restoration has begun. Like I said in a previous post, the restoration has started with the Mass. But the faith itself still needs to be restored. Let me elaborate on that a little.

Before Vatican II there were a group of boarder line heretics (liberals and modernists) who were promoting a “new theology”. These boarder line heretics and their ideas were condemned by Rome. To make an extremely long story short, the promoters of this New Theology who were condemned under Pius XII in the 50’s were resurrected by Pope John XXIII in the 60’s and became the leading lights of Vatican II. Their ambiguous New Theology is now reigning supreme and is destroying the faith.

If you have some time to look into that subject, I think you would find it interesting.

Boarder line heretics … thats being nice.

VII was a hijacked counsel, the heresy of modernism put down strong roots because of it. That really however has little to dowith this topic, besides it being the current excuse the SSPX uses for why that can’t operate normally under Rome and why the FSSP is Corrupt.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You really don’t seem to have spend much time with anyone from the FSSP, for every one I’ve met, it would be a cold day in you know where before a concelebration happened.

It happens. In fact. Cardinal Castillion recently said that FSSP Priests are no longer allowed to refuse to concelebrate the Novus Ordo with their Bishops. Did you know that? What do you think about that?

I dunno you, you seem to think they are overly likely to compromises them self to please some liberal bishop that doesn’t hold any real weight over them.

You must have had that in your mind when we started this discussion because I have never said that. If you read through some of my old posts, you won’t find me saying anything bad about the FSSP. But you will find me saying a lot of good about them.

 

[LJN21]

It happens. In fact. Cardinal Castillion recently said that FSSP Priests are no longer allowed to refuse to concelebrate the Novus Ordo with their Bishops. Did you know that? What do you think about that?

First of I’d like a source and the whole context. I’ve noticed SSPX likes to take things apart. things and take one phrase and use it out of context against people.

Secondly I’m aware that they may, that was a bit of a stink a couple years ago. Honestly I haven’t decided what I think about it. NO is a valid mass, finding a licit one is a bit of a **** shoot but its valid. I don’t think even a perfectly done NO holds a candle to TLM.

You must have had that in your mind when we started this discussion because I have never said that. If you read through some of my old posts, you won’t find me saying anything bad about the FSSP. But you will find me saying a lot of good about them.

Sorry but the tone of your posts here anyway seem to hold up the SSPX as saints and the FSSP as sell outs.

Yes it was, but one of them is our current Pope

traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_001_CondemnationRatizinger.htm

I’d be careful calling the Pope a heretic. Read a couple of those before my eyes just glazed over. Frankly most of that is context less snippets and conjecture based on fairly vague statements. There is nothing wrong with taking someone that disagree with you and then finding a common ground and building form there.