Originally Posted by numealinesimpet 
The example of Athanasius (not to mention Peter & Paul over the Jewish dietary laws) shows that this is not the final answer. Paul did not defer to Peter. Athanasius did not defer to Liberius.
The interesting fact is that every one of the questionable novelties introduced since 1965, when you look closely, contains some defect in its legality. This is in part inherent in the error of Liberalism. If one does not follow the rules, one cannot then demand compliance according to the Book. One cannot have it both ways.
Both of these have the assumption that your analogy is right to make a point.
The example of Athanasius does not apply here, in my mind and the mind of Church authority. The idea of a defective novelty implies that there is a defect and a novelty. I know this sounds silly, but this type of break from the Church, while maintaining one is still Catholic, requires a suspension of logic and inclusion of circular reasoning.
Athanasius did not differ in matters of discipline or canon law. Athanasius, Athanasius, Athanasius until the sun set. Lefebvre was no Athanasius. Would that we had Athanasius instead of Lefebvre.
I repeated the name so many times because I get the impression that this is an argument that the SSPX feels if the say it more often will make it better.
We haven’t even started on the discussion of S. Athanasius yet,
pnewton, so I hope you will be more patient in the future.
I don’t know why you think I’m using circular arguments. Circular argument means one is assuming what one is trying to prove. Im not
assuming that Mgr Lefebvre is justified: I am
quoting general principles, from Canon Law and the historical record, and then
showing that they apply to Mgr Lefebvre. Others are free to put a contrary case, so long as they can likewise justify their position. That is the correct way to argue.
What has been happening to the trads is that a double standard has often been applied. Laws & sanctions which are not being enforced against others, or only after literally decades of delay, have been applied swiftly and ruthlessly against trads. These assertions are open to being confirmed by anyone who will look at the record. No circularity there.
Now while we are at it, you have compared Mgr Lefebvre with Luther.
Luther is recorded as saying this:
“I declare that all brothels, murders, thefts, adulteries, are less evil than this abominable Mass!”
On one occasion when he was given a written papal reprimand he responded “Another fart from the Pope”.
He declared that contrition does not take away our sins, but ‘covers’ it “as a fall of snow covers a dunghill”. He taught that it was in this condition that the Elect would enter Heaven.
I wrote that charity prevented my responding to your original comment. However, I may as well mention that by equating Lefebvre with Luther, in light of these and innumerable other instances, you do but condemn yourself out of your own mouth (unless you can find some similar quotes from Mgr Lefebvre).
You have not yet proved that your knowledge of the Arian Crisis is any better than your knowledge of the Lutheran Rebellion - or of the Modernist Crisis. Let us go through it point by point.
Both of these have the assumption that your analogy is right to make a point.
Sorry, what are you trying to say here? (… and a little clearer grammar would do no harm – it is the tool of clear thought).
Can we break this down into checkable points?
Point one: The examples of Paul/Peter and Athanasius/Liberius show that {irrespective of the position of the SSPX} occasions can conceivably arise, and have arisen in the past concerning canonised saints, who have ‘withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed’. In neither of the above cases did Peter or his successor teach heresy directly, but they left their actions open to an heretical interpretation.
True or false?
Point two: Pope John Paul II publicly kissed the Koran in a Moslem mosque. He did not teach that the Religion of Mohammed (or his ghost writers - the ‘secretaries’ who wrote it for him) is true, or that he himself had departed from the True Faith, but his action was open to an heretical interpretation, such that some have left the Catholic Church, to join the sedevacs, stating this as a prime example that has destroyed his – and the Church’s – credibility. I have been among those who have endeavored to keep them within the Church by pointing to fallacies in their reasoning, but this has been the actual reaction of many who have now left the Church.
True or false?
The example of Athanasius does not apply here, in my mind and the mind of Church authority.
Neither you nor I nor any anonymous ‘authority’ can erase the facts of history. As the Romans said, ‘There is no arguing with a fact’. As for whether it applies to the present case, that is the very topic of this thread.
Consider the following:
Point three: During the Arian Crisis, innumerable bishops and priests began preaching heresy from the pulpits, and they were not stopped by their superiors, even the Pope.
True or false?
Point Four: During the Modernist Crisis, innumerable bishops, priests and Religious Superiors began preaching heresy from the pulpits and in the seminaries under their authority, and they were not stopped by their superiors, even the Pope.
True or false?
To be continued……
