Society Pius X, Lefebvre, Seminary Studies!!!!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter terillmorris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

I hope giving out information received privately does not become a habit. After all – someday it may happen that you hear confessions.
**How wonderfully wise and prudent that a seminarian - who joined these forums only today, and who might be quite young - would have the moral certainty to reject secret information is private relationships. He’s doing what should be done. He’s not a priest and the one who approached him is not a penitent. **

Well done, Terril.
 
**How wonderfully wise and prudent that a seminarian - who joined these forums only today, and who might be quite young - would have the moral certainty to reject secret information is private relationships. He’s doing what should be done. ** He’s not a priest and the one who approached him is not a penitent.

Well done, Terril.

And what is that he did — throw bait into the water. Apparently that is a positive trait in some circles.
 
Look what you just did!!! All subjective!! " Communion in the hand is bad" says who??? Who promotes false ecumenism? etc etc–all your examples are totally subjective.

It is like Protestanism. You take circumstances and decide for yourself what is right. Just like the Archbishop did even if it is against the Holy father’s madates.

I dont care if there were certain times (or if the eastern code doesnt require this) when there wasnt a mandate for Papal permission to consecrate Bishops. The bottom line is that there was when Lefebvre was alive. He was specifically told not to do what he did. He did it anyway. You are defending disobedience to the Pontiff. How dare you?
There seems to be a lot of that around here.
 

And what is that he did — throw bait into the water. Apparently that is a positive trait in some circles.
Your response might have made sense to you but I’ve no idea what was intended as your “point.” Go figure.
 
Originally Posted by terillmorris View Post

It is like Protestanism. You take circumstances and decide for yourself what is right.

There seems to be a lot of that around here.

Don’t mean nothing-- coming from someone who feels EWTN is fundamentalist and reductionist.
 
Oh my, I think everyone here should take a deep breath and count to ten.
 
well sfd just informed me in a private message that he is a sedevacantist!!! so I guees the arguments, I made earlier, about the Pope telling Lefebvre not to do what he did doesnt apply. Because he beleives JPII wasnt the Pope—WHY DIDNT YOU SAY THAT SFD? I It would have made things easier because you dont accept JPII’s rulings!!! You might as well be quiet about this incident(Lefebvre) then because Lefebve believed JPII was the Pope —BIG DIFFERNCE!!!
Because I didn’t know I needed to inform you. 🙂
 
Many people seem to believe that Lefebvre was right and that then Cardinal Ratzinger was a supporter of his.

But let’s look at the facts. Cardinal Ratzinger was the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation on the Faith, formerly the Inquisition.

During his tenure at this post his allegiance was always to Pope John Paul II, not to Lefebvre. During many of his speeches he declares his profound love and admiration for John Paul’s holiness, not Lefebvre’s.

While there may have been disagreements between John Paul II and Ratzinger, he never disobeyed. He executed John Paul’s wishes with humble obedience.

He submitted his resignation to John Paul, because he wanted to go home to Germany and write theology. John Paul declined to accept the resignation. If there had truly been fundamental disagreements between the two men or any kind of conflict, the resignation would have been an opportunity to rid himself of Ratzinger and bring in someone more to his liking. Obviously, there was no such conflict between them. The opposite seems truer; there was a great deal of affection and respect between the two men.

Ratzinger is not an idiot. His job was to protect the faith. There is no recorded or rumoured disagreement between him and the reigning pope.

It may be true that Ratzinger may have been sympathetic to the preservation of certain traditions, such as the Tridentine mass, but he was also dedicated to the preservation of a more important tradition, the Primacy of Peter.

Given his rank and power in the Vatican, Ratzinger had the necessary cards in his hands to proclaim that the Pope was a heretic and that the Chair of Peter was vacant. He did not play those cards.

Was he being cowardly or maybe he did not see the Pope as a heretic at all, but simply someone who had his own style of leading the Church. He was wise enough to recognize that a difference in styles is not a reason for disobedience or infidelity to the person who sits in Peter’s Chair.

To those who see Benedict XVI as Lefebvre’s vindicator, I suggest that you look at his track record when it comes to his loyalty to John Paul II. Let’s not forget the current state of affairs that Cardinal Ratzinger, at the Pope’s funeral eulogized him as The Great John Paul.

This is how Benedict XVI remembers John Paul II and wishes all Catholics to remember him. These are his own words from his sermon at the Pope’s funeral.

**[John Paul II] really went everywhere, untiringly, in order to bear fruit, fruit that lasts

The Holy Father was a priest to the last, for he offered his life to God for his flock and for the entire human family

The love of Christ was the dominant force in the life of our beloved Holy Father

We can be sure that our beloved Pope is standing today at the window of the Father’s house, that he sees us and blesses us **

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4425207.stm

Either Benedict XVI played the game well, which makes him a deceptive person or he saw a holiness in John Paul that some people here seem to bypass. I believe that he saw holiness in this great man and saw him as a great Pope. That’s why he stayed around. More than can be said for Lefebvre. We’re only judging Lefebvre’s actions, not his soul. That’s up to God.

JR 🙂
 
By the way, to those who want to compare the number of seminarians between St. Charles Borromeo and the St. Pius X seminaries, there are more guys at the local stip club than at both seminaries combined.

Does that make it a better place?
 
Hi all I am currently studying Theology at Saint Charles Borromeo seminary in Philadelphia. …

We came to the following conclusions:
  1. Lefebvre’s arguments were entirely subjective:
The fact that an individual has a subjective reason for performing a certain action against an objective rule of the Church, does not in itself mean that the action was necessarily wrong. :Let me give you a simple example:
It is an objective rule of the Roman Catholic Church that one must attend Mass on Sundays under pain of mortal sin. However, if one has a cold, one may use his or her own subjective discretion to disobey this rule. Some people go to Mass with the cold, as you can hear them coughing or sneezing in Church. Others use their subjective discretion to stay at home, and they do not sin by disobeying this rule of the Church.
 
They are not disobeying the rule, because this exemption is already built into the rule.

The point that I’m making is that some would like to think that Benedict XVI is Lefebvre’s vindicator, but his actions and speech are inconsistent with this belief.

As it looks right now, John Paul II may be on the track for canonization. What are these people going to say to their grandchildren if he does become St. John Paul II? You can say that he’s not a valid saint, but that would mean that the canonization was invalid, which would perpetuate the idea that the canonizing pope was also wrong. So, is there ever a point when the Pope is right according to the St Pius X Society?

Given Benedict’s age, I doubt that he’ll be the one to canonize John Paul, but we never know.

We have also Beatified Mother Teresa who said, “It makes no difference if one is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Communist. We are all brothers and sisters and we must serve one another.” or when asked about opening a house for AIDS victims in Washington. The press asked her if this was not in conflict with the Church’s teachings on homosexual behaviour and drug addiction. She responded “I only see Jesus Christ and he is sick and suffering. What do you see?”

She is up for canonization. Some people find her comments off track.

The only person who could make a judgment on her comments was the Holy Father and he found no conflict between them and the faith. I don’t see the St. Pius X people protesting her Beatification or opposing her canonization.

I believe that there is too much opposition to Pope John Paul rather than respect for the Chair of Peter and his primacy, which is a more important tradition of the Church. I’m not so sure that it’s all coming from the Society. I believe there are many lay people who have a bone to pick with the Church because they don’t like change and have jumped on this wagon of alleged fidelity to Lefebvre and the Society.
 
"Hi all I am currently studying Theology at Saint Charles Borromeo seminary in Philadelphia. We are currently discussing the subject of Archbishop Lefebvre in my systematic theology class "

Is this is the only thing they study in seminaries now? Please tell me they study the rest of Church history as well.
 
Hi! I am new to this; but for what it is worth, here goes:
We do not know ALL the ins and outs of this decades
long problem…Sometimes good people; even holy peo-
ple make mistakes. During the Avignon Period there were
Saints standing behind both Popes! So good people can
be wrong. Rome moves slowly & w/great wisdom & pru-
dence. We tend to see things only from our corner of the
world. It is not w/o reason we say Holy Mother Church…
She sees & judges w/the Heart of Jesus.
 
Hi! I am new to this; but for what it is worth, here goes:
We do not know ALL the ins and outs of this decades
long problem…Sometimes good people; even holy peo-
ple make mistakes. During the Avignon Period there were
Saints standing behind both Popes! So good people can
be wrong. Rome moves slowly & w/great wisdom & pru-
dence.
We tend to see things only from our corner of the
world. It is not w/o reason we say Holy Mother Church…
She sees & judges w/the Heart of Jesus.
Do you think this always applies…even in the post V2 period? Rome seemed to change laws and disiplines rather quickly…contrary to the principles laid down by St. Thomas.

See St. Thomas, in the Summa, in the section on Law. There he explains that all change works some evil, so that rulers must be sure that a great good will be secured, or a great evil mitigated, by any proposed change, or else it will be unworthwhile to make it.

SFD
 
The classic conservative argument: I disagree with you, therefore you’re insane (“psychopathology” indeed).

Spare us.
 
Hi! I am new to this; but for what it is worth, here goes:
We do not know ALL the ins and outs of this decades
long problem…Sometimes good people; even holy peo-
ple make mistakes. During the Avignon Period there were
Saints standing behind both Popes! So good people can
be wrong. Rome moves slowly & w/great wisdom & pru-
dence. We tend to see things only from our corner of the
world. It is not w/o reason we say Holy Mother Church…
She sees & judges w/the Heart of Jesus.
I agree that goodness is always related to an individual’s striving toward goodness. A difference now is that there are those who scamble to stand behind men who have been excommunicated and that’s the case in both ends of the far extremes.
 
The classic conservative argument: I disagree with you, therefore you’re insane (“psychopathology” indeed).

Spare us.
The day will come when many will be thrilled if the justice of God declares them to be too mentally unbalanced to guilty of their actions.
 
I suggest you refrain from your oft-repeated practice of making judgments and veiled threats about the eternal damnation or salvation of souls.
 
I suggest you refrain from your oft-repeated practice of making judgments and veiled threats about the eternal damnation or salvation of souls.
  1. Examples, please.
  2. Do I know you? I have no memory of repeated exchanges with you.
  3. Suggest improvements for yourself. You have no credibility with me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top