S
Shin
Guest
Not necessarily, as the history of troubles that happened in Bishop de Castro Mayer’s diocese illustrates. He simply desired to maintain the traditional mass and traditional teachings and methods. So did his faithful.
- Status
S
ServantofMary
Guest
Of course there was nothing in the SSPX doctrinal position that started this mess. The SSPX has remained faithful to Tradition. The mess was started by those who have promoted and spread the novel teachings that are contrary to Catholic Tradition. It was because of these novel teachings that Archbishop Lefebrve did what he did. You keep saying that we keep bringing up theology, even though you don’t think that this is a theological issue. But what you don’t seem to comprehend is that a person cannot correctly understand the actions of the SSPX without getting into theology, since that is the motivation behind their actions.
Actually, the FSSP was forced to compromise on several points.
P
pnewton
Guest
This is a vintage SSPX response. If one is never willing to concede any culpability, if one is unwilling to compromise in any way, then we will see no change in the SSPX or their position. A little flexibility on the part of the SSPX will be required.
ibkc said it was JR that kept bringing up theology and doctrine. I was only pointing out that it was not him, but people like you and guissepe that did that. I really do not mind in the least if anyone wants to bring it up and sees the need. If it is a derailment, though, then let us at least understand who keeps harping on it and who is responding.
Yes. And they did. Now they are active in ministry within the Catholic Church.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
As a Anglican who was raised Lutheran,
I find this statement hilariously funny.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes, they were. Not only were they forced to perform the Holy Thursday service in the New Rite but also they had some of their superiors reassigned. And they have to accept the configurations of the churches where the bishops permits them Mass. These configurations aren’t always compatible with old customs which the SSPX faithful adhere to.
And then there is the Calgary issue where they “compromised” with the local bishop on receiving in the hand. End result: FSSP Mass suspended in the diocese.
J
JReducation
Guest
The rule of St. Francis says:
Brother Francis, and whoever may be at the head of this religion, promises obedience and reverence to our Lord Pope Innocent and to his successors. And the other brothers shall be bound to obey Brother Francis and his successors. 1
As someone posted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, obedience is defined by the rule of the instiute. Today, the 1.7 million Franciscans are bound to obey the pope and whatever he teachers and commands. After him, they are bound to obey Frnacis and his successors. In his testament, St. Francis threatened with eternal damnatioin any brother who failed to obey him, even after his death. In his lifetime, he had several brothers excommunicated who disobehyed or questioned his rules.
St. Benedict wrote
**The first degree of humility is obedience without delay.
This is the virtue of those
who hold nothing dearer to them than Christ;
who, because of the holy service they have professed,
and the fear of hell,
and the glory of life everlasting,
as soon as anything has been ordered by the Superior,
receive it as a divine command
and cannot suffer any delay in executing it.
Of these the Lord says,
“As soon as he heard, he obeyed Me” (Ps. 17[18]:45).
And again to teachers He says,
“He who hears you, hears Me” (Luke 10:16).
“Narrow is the way that leads to life” (Matt. 7:14),
so that,
not living according to their own choice
nor obeying their own desires and pleasures
but walking by another’s judgment and command.**
Neither of these rules has ever been abrogated or found to be in conflict with the faith of the Church. Both have been held up as the maxim of fidelity and obedience, not only for friars and monks, but for all the faithful
It was reinforced by a papal encyclical.
AUSPICATO CONCESSUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_17091882_auspicato-concessum_en.html
Both of these masters would demand that you follow whatever the pope upholds. They went further. Benedict uses scripture to tell his monks that he who hears the Abbot hears Christ. Francis did not quote Benedict, but governed using the same paradigm. Anyone who heard him [Francis] heard Christ. Francis, in his rule, immitates what Jesus did in the Gospels. Just as Jesus created an Apostolic succession, Francis created a Franciscan succession. That’s why he mentions his canonically elected successors, so that everyone who hears the, hears Francis.
Both Francis and Benedict were very clear on the necessity to obey the pope. They left only one option open, that option is when one is commanded to sin. The old argument about Peter and Paul was not understood by either Benedict or Francis as we try to say it today. They saw in both of these men great humility. Both men give an eternal example of obedience deeply rooted in faith and love.
Finally, Francis made a very important statement in his admotions to the Church of his time. He told them that they were to obey, even when the person in authority was in error, because such obedience was pleasing to God and man. The only time that disobedience is justified is when you are commanded to sin. Unless the pope commands sin, there is no justification to disobey. There are other avenues to resolve differences. We must use them for the sake of preserving unity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Brother, I have the utmost respect for what St. Francis and St. Benedict are saying, and I believe their rule should indeed be strictly adhered to by religious. However, are you therefore saying St. Thomas Aquinas is wrong? That St. Robert Bellarmine is wrong? That the saints who reproved their superiors were sinners? That the Church erred in canonizing them? That the councils who reproved the popes were in error, and that Church recognition of such councils are also erroneous? How far are we carrying this argument?The rule of St. Francis says:
Brother Francis, and whoever may be at the head of this religion, promises obedience and reverence to our Lord Pope Innocent and to his successors. And the other brothers shall be bound to obey Brother Francis and his successors. 1
As someone posted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, obedience is defined by the rule of the instiute. Today, the 1.7 million Franciscans are bound to obey the pope and whatever he teachers and commands. After him, they are bound to obey Frnacis and his successors. In his testament, St. Francis threatened with eternal damnatioin any brother who failed to obey him, even after his death. In his lifetime, he had several brothers excommunicated who disobehyed or questioned his rules.
St. Benedict wrote
**The first degree of humility is obedience without delay.
This is the virtue of those
who hold nothing dearer to them than Christ;
who, because of the holy service they have professed,
and the fear of hell,
and the glory of life everlasting,
as soon as anything has been ordered by the Superior,
receive it as a divine command
and cannot suffer any delay in executing it.
Of these the Lord says,
“As soon as he heard, he obeyed Me” (Ps. 17[18]:45).
And again to teachers He says,
“He who hears you, hears Me” (Luke 10:16).
“Narrow is the way that leads to life” (Matt. 7:14),
so that,
not living according to their own choice
nor obeying their own desires and pleasures
but walking by another’s judgment and command.**
Neither of these rules has ever been abrogated or found to be in conflict with the faith of the Church. Both have been held up as the maxim of fidelity and obedience, not only for friars and monks, but for all the faithful
It was reinforced by a papal encyclical.
AUSPICATO CONCESSUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_17091882_auspicato-concessum_en.html
Both of these masters would demand that you follow whatever the pope upholds. They went further. Benedict uses scripture to tell his monks that he who hears the Abbot hears Christ. Francis did not quote Benedict, but governed using the same paradigm. Anyone who heard him [Francis] heard Christ. Francis, in his rule, immitates what Jesus did in the Gospels. Just as Jesus created an Apostolic succession, Francis created a Franciscan succession. That’s why he mentions his canonically elected successors, so that everyone who hears the, hears Francis.
Both Francis and Benedict were very clear on the necessity to obey the pope. They left only one option open, that option is when one is commanded to sin. The old argument about Peter and Paul was not understood by either Benedict or Francis as we try to say it today. They saw in both of these men great humility. Both men give an eternal example of obedience deeply rooted in faith and love.
Finally, Francis made a very important statement in his admotions to the Church of his time. He told them that they were to obey, even when the person in authority was in error, because such obedience was pleasing to God and man. The only time that disobedience is justified is when you are commanded to sin. Unless the pope commands sin, there is no justification to disobey. There are other avenues to resolve differences. We must use them for the sake of preserving unity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Sts. Thomas and Robert Bellarmine are Doctors of the Church, St. Thomas the Common and Angelic Doctor, while, I may respectfully add, St. Francis and St. Benedict are not. Is their opinion of no worth? What exactly are we trying to say here?
We may feel that Archbishop Lefebvre was out of line in the consecration of these 4 men, but to say he had no ground to disagree with the pope outside of being ordered to sin is simply without foundation. How can one say otherwise? The Rules of St. Benedict and St. Francis applied explicitly to their own religious, and to extend their rule as necessary examples for all states in life, including lay and secular clergy, is not in the norm for these Rules, nor, I believe, were they meant to be.
J
JReducation
Guest
I will not labor over this any longer, since it does no good for you, other posters or me. OK, you are right about everything that you have said regarding Archbishop Lefebvre’s defence and all the postiions of the SSPX. I am totally wrong. I will bow out of this discussion, since my presence here serves no purpose and certainly is not contributing to reunification and preparing to minister to those who will be very unhappy with the results of these talks on both sides of the aisle. They are my main concern, not Msgr. Lefebre’s perceptions. I entered religious life to live according to the Gospel and to bring my joy and my experience to those who suffer, not to engage in endless debates. That, I could have done as a secular man.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
PaulAndrew83
Guest
In however many years when all these abuses and scandals cease for a while, I think it would be legititimate to consider that this period of Church History will be worse than any other. This is what could lead the Archbishop to see a state of necessity.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Brother,I will not labor over this any longer, since it does no good for you, other posters or me. OK, you are right about everything that you have said regarding Archbishop Lefebvre’s defence and all the postiions of the SSPX. I am totally wrong. I will bow out of this discussion, since my presence here serves no purpose and certainly is not contributing to reunification and preparing to minister to those who will be very unhappy with the results of these talks on both sides of the aisle. They are my main concern, not Msgr. Lefebre’s perceptions. I entered religious life to live according to the Gospel and to bring my joy and my experience to those who suffer, not to engage in endless debates. That, I could have done as a secular man.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
God’s blessings to you and guidance in your ministry. Indeed, anything you accomplish in your mission will be greater than the words we transcibe here in passing. God guide you truly on your path.
-EnchantedEve
S
ServantofMary
Guest
One cannot compromise or be a little flexible when it comes to the Truth, pnewton.
P
pnewton
Guest
Of course not. But that still leaves a whole lot or area where one must be willing to give and take.
S
ServantofMary
Guest
So since accepting a belief that is contrary to the Faith of the Church would be a sin (the sin of heresy), then Saints Francis and Benedict would say that if a superior commanded them to accept such a contrary belief, then it would be permitted to disobey. Correct? If that is so, then why do you condemn Archbishop Lefebrve for doing just that?
S
ServantofMary
Guest
But where the SSPX is being asked to give is in matters of Truth.
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, that is what they say. I did not know that ordaining a certain person at a specific time is a matter of divine revelation though. I must have missed that in Scripture.
Obviously the SSPX will argue such thngs are a matter of truth. I have never seen it.
It is the same circular arguement that is presented in 730. I invite anyone reading this to look at this post and 730 and see if you can see the circle.
L
Lycorth
Guest
The ordinations were not a matter of divine revelation and the SSPX themselves admit so. Excommunication over the SSPX ordinations seems to me to be a matter of rough relations getting out of hand and not so much a matter of genuine disobedience.
I pray that the reconciliation of the Society and the Vatican continues. The Society’s work is hampered as long as a full reconciliation is not in effect and the Church needs the injection of traditionalism the Society can help provide (certainly, what the efforts of traditionalists inspire is already of benefit). But, a full reunion needs to happen.
Nothing good can come when even partial separation from Rome is in effect.
I pray that the reconciliation of the Society and the Vatican continues. The Society’s work is hampered as long as a full reconciliation is not in effect and the Church needs the injection of traditionalism the Society can help provide (certainly, what the efforts of traditionalists inspire is already of benefit). But, a full reunion needs to happen.
Nothing good can come when even partial separation from Rome is in effect.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The SSPX in Calgary are meeting in a school gymnasium.
They’re back, now - it was only during the “emergency period” which ended just before Christmas.
S
surritter
Guest
Excommunication was not a matter of “rough relations.” Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated by virtue of the law, and not by any penalty imposed by a judge. It was a plain violation of Canon 1013. Thus, Canon 1364(1) provides: “…a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication…”
It is also clear from the language of Ecclesia Dei that John Paul II considered Archbishop LeFebvre and his followers to be in schism.
More about this whole thing can be found at an article that ran in Envoy magazine.
N
NeelyAnn
Guest
It is also clear that Pope Benedict XVI does not. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he was involved in the discussions with the SSPX under Pope John Paul II. He knew all that happened on both sides. Since becoming Pope, all indications from him are that he does not consider them to be schismatic.
Same was true with the Mass. He (Cardinal Ratzinger) was part of the commission that met to review whether or not the traditional Latin Mass was abbrogated or not, under John Paul II again. They determined it was not and their findings were suppressed and not acted on. Once he became Pope, he took care of the problem.
S
surritter
Guest
Yes, that is correct. As Supreme Pontiffs, both John Paul and Benedict are free to apply the law as they see fit.
If the SSPX will concede to Benedict’s other stipulations (which we do not know), they will be a welcome part of the Catholic Church. Until that pronouncement is made, we should all be attending Mass at facilities that are fully united to Rome.
If the SSPX will concede to Benedict’s other stipulations (which we do not know), they will be a welcome part of the Catholic Church. Until that pronouncement is made, we should all be attending Mass at facilities that are fully united to Rome.
- Status