Pushed to the SSPX

[ServantofMary]

JR, you never answered my question…

Would Saints Benedict and Francis obey their superior if their superior told them to accept something that was contrary to what the Church has always believed and taught?

 

[numealinesimpet]

The vagueness of the references means, if one looks beyond Lefebvre’s spin, that the documents he refused to sign do **not **say that all religions are equal and there is not one true faith. He onlysees this as the influence behind it. People are not blind because they do not see Modernist and Mason under every rock. Most people only look at the documents themselves. It is those that are protected by the Holy Spirit’s guidance. In fact, if such influences existed, then we can see the protection God provides by the omission of these erroneous ideas.

Yet when asked, Lefebvre brought out what sure looks to me like a strawman. If the statements he made are not in the documents, but just influenced in or what he calls insinuated into them, then he side-stepped the question, choosing to focus on personalities, not the documents themselves.

pnewton, asking just as a point of info, have you ever read any of the pre-Vatican II documents we are trying to discuss? Have you read the Pope’s definitions of Modernism in, e.g. Pascendi dominici gregis of Pope S. Pius X (1907)

www.vatican.va/…/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en. html -

I ask because I am puzzled that you claim that Lefebvre is focussing on personalities. Assuming you have read this encyclical – what is your comment on the descriptions Pope Pius X gives to Modernism? Can you comment on the phrases in* Quanta cura* (Pius IX, Dec. 8, 1864)

www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm

referring to the very same policy of ‘Freedom of Religion in the Public Forum’ that is declared to be a Right in Dignitatis humanae?

www.vatican.va/…/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html -

And can you tell us what personalities have to do with any of it?

 

[pnewton]

You’re making the mistake of thinking that everything that a pope or a Church council says is infallible and binding on the faithful. Even the Theological Commission of the Vatican II Council stated (emphasize mine):

“In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the

No, you misunderstand. I most definitely know that not every thing that is said, even though it is authoritative, is not infallible. I turn this back to you and ask if you, did you not confuse the fact that I was speaking about authority and change it to infallibility? As you say, the two are not equal in the least.

 

[pnewton]

But the majority aren’t always right either.

Of course not. But whether the majority or right or wrong, it is quite an assumption to consider someone blind.

 

[bkovacs]

We have to go with the movements of the Church. What we are seeing is an honest attempt to bring back the SSPX. Everything that has been released to the faithful has been about the SSPX, not about Msgr. Lefebvre. That’s what we should support and focus on.

I have no more information than you do. But we can all read what has been said and see where the energy is being placed. It seems to be placed on bringing the SSPX home. Maybe, someday, someone will bring up the topic of Msgr. Lefebre. But that topic, if it’s on the table, has not been shared with the world.

Therefore, we go with what has been shared with us. The discussions on Msgr. Lefebvre seem to cause division. The activities of the Church seem to focus on reunification. We must, in charity to each other, refocus our discussion. Let us work on reunification. That’s hard work enough.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

We have to go with the movements of the Church.

And where has that got us?. Did you get my PM about Prince of Peace in Daytona Beach Fl… Is that part of the movements of the Church?. Rock Bands during Adoration.
Seems like the majority of clergy are not paying one bit of attention to Pope Benedict’s reform of the reform. Are they going with the movements that the liberals want or do they follow their earthy shepard and his movement?.

 

[ServantofMary]

No, you misunderstand. I most definitely know that not every thing that is said, even though it is authoritative, is not infallible. I turn this back to you and ask if you, did you not confuse the fact that I was speaking about authority and change it to infallibility? As you say, the two are not equal in the least.

No, I didn’t confuse that fact that you were speaking about authority and change it to infallibility. Your comment clearly touched on the issue of the infallibility of the pope and Vatican II, and the possiblity of them asking the faithful to believe teachings that the Church has always taught against.

 

[pnewton]

And can you tell us what personalities have to do with any of it?

When one refers to the blind obedience of others, he goes beyond the documents themselves and is making an assumption about others. The quote you gave by the AB

I ask because I am puzzled that you claim that Lefebvre is focussing on personalities.

I have no idea where his focus was, but he sure as fire mentioned a whole lot of people and categories of people. I do not see how anyone could possible read this post and not see a focus on personality:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6147701&postcount=605

I have not read all of the Church documents in existence. I have read most that have been referred to here, like St Pius X on modernism. I am also familiar with modernism from a philosophical stand, which is more germaine than most people’s understanding of modernism. It seems like AB Lefebvre’s use of “modernism” is the same as St. Pius.

 

[pnewton]

and the possiblity of them asking the faithful to believe teachings that the Church has always taught against.

That is the question. This possibility you speak of begs it.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Of course not. But whether the majority or right or wrong, it is quite an assumption to consider someone blind.

In this case, I think we are talking about the contradictions between the statements on Modernism & Religious Liberty in the Vatican II documents, and those that came before. Hence my last posting. I can understand someone objecting to Mgr Lefebvre’s statements if they haven’t actually read the latter. I know there are many of these, although maybe there are none among the posters on this thread. If they have read them, I am curious to know how they explain the differences. If they cannot reconcile the differences, but persist in contradicting “What has been taught, always, by everyone, everywhere” (thank you, S. Vincent of Lérins and Vatican I) out of an exaggerated respect for statements made by Vatican II, then I think “blind obedience” is the correct technical term. The irony is that the intentions can be laudatory.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Originally Posted by **ServantofMary **

:*
and the possiblity of them asking the faithful to believe teachings that the Church has always taught against.*

That is the question. This possibility you speak of begs it.

“Begging the question” again… Do you mean by this, that individuals in high authority in the Church have never, ever, asked the laity to believe something contradictory to what has previously always been believed? I am looking forward to your analysis of Dignitatis Humanae in the light of Quanta cura and Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

 

[pnewton]

If they cannot reconcile the differences, but persist in contradicting “What has been taught, always, by everyone, everywhere” (thank you, S. Vincent of Lérins and Vatican I) out of an exaggerated respect for statements made by Vatican II, then I think “blind obedience” is the correct technical term. The irony is that the intentions can be laudatory.

It is no more the position of the laity to resolve every difficulty in Church doctrine than it is the right of the laity to interpret every Scripture for themselves. I do not spend most of my time in Church teaching throughout history because I spend most of my effort in Scripture, the original documents of the Church.

Does one have to reconcile the brethren of the Lord in order to except the perpetual virginity of Mary? Does the Catholic need to understand the nature of God and time to believe Mary could have been redeemed before the Redeemer?

As a Catholic, I do not believe in sola scriptura, or its counterpart involving each Catholic individually interpreting Church documents. This belief is not blind, but grounded in an understanding of the Catholic postition of the papacy.

 

[numealinesimpet]

It is no more the position of the laity to resolve every difficulty in Church doctrine than it is the right of the laity to interpret every Scripture for themselves. I do not spend most of my time in Church teaching throughout history because I spend most of my effort in Scripture, the original documents of the Church.

Does one have to reconcile the brethren of the Lord in order to except the perpetual virginity of Mary? Does the Catholic need to understand the nature of God and time to believe Mary could have been redeemed before the Redeemer?

As a Catholic, I do not believe in sola scriptura, or its counterpart involving each Catholic individually interpreting Church documents. This belief is not blind, but grounded in an understanding of the Catholic postition of the papacy.

pnewton, please read the three documents I have given the links to. You will notice I have given the links to Vatican’s own website. Then you will see what we are getting at. I am not talking about abstruse interpretations, but of the very plainest of plain language. But have a look for yourself.

 

[pnewton]

pnewton, please read the three documents I have given the links to.

I haven’t read everything, but I have read those. We have had several threads on those topics specifically.

 

[JReducation]

JR, you never answered my question…

Would Saints Benedict and Francis obey their superior if their superior told them to accept something that was contrary to what the Church has always believed and taught?

And you never acknowledged that Benedict and Francis never ordained anyone without permission, which is what got some people excommunicated. It was not theological disagreement and we all know this.

As far as theological issues, Benedict and Francis never set themselves up as authorities higher than the reigning pope. They allowed what the pope allowed and forbade what he forbade. Their faith was based on the Gospels. They knew what was wrong in the Church around them. But they also knew that they had discovered something much more important. They had discovered intimacy with God. They saved the Church of their time not by arguing with her, but by serving as guides and teachers on the spiritual life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ibkc]

And you never acknowledged that Benedict and Francis never ordained anyone without permission, which is what got some people excommunicated. It was not theological disagreement and we all know this.

I don’t think anyone has ever suggested it was theological, Br. JR.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think anyone has ever suggested it was theological, Br. JR.

This question was asked.

*JR, you never answered my question…

Would Saints Benedict and Francis obey their superior if their superior told them to accept something that was contrary to what the Church has always believed and taught?*

What JR is pointing out is that these questions have not been the souce of conflict with the SSPX. While the beliefs of most of the SSPX members may not all be the mainstream teaching of the Church, to my knowledge their beliefs are acceptable theological positions. So why is theology always the focus? That is not the issue that lead to the current condition, whatever you want to call it.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think anyone has ever suggested it was theological, Br. JR.

Some people, not you, believe that the big issue was theological difference. But we know that is not what strained the situation was the ordinations. I know this is water under the bridge right now, because the deed is a done deal.

The important thing right now is to speak the language of reconciliation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ibkc]

This question was asked.

*JR, you never answered my question…

Would Saints Benedict and Francis obey their superior if their superior told them to accept something that was contrary to what the Church has always believed and taught?*

What JR is pointing out is that these questions have not been the souce of conflict with the SSPX.

Well, then, why bring discussions and points that are not pertinent to the situation into the discussion at all?

I have to admit I am completely flummoxed by 90% of the points that Br. JR introduces to the discussion, as they don’t have anything to do with the actual situation and only serve to derail conversation about it; then he turns around and asks us why we are discussing what we’re discussing.

 

[ibkc]

Some people, not you, believe that the big issue was theological difference.

Which people? Which theological differences are under dispute?

 

[human_being]

What in the world does SSPX stand for anyway and how do you even find a church like that.? I’m not intending on going but just wonndering about all the complicatedness and all.