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

[AlexV]

Hmm, “no credibility”, and yet no memory of repeated exchanges? Fascinating…truly fascinating…

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexV View Post
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.

---

May I suggest seeing a doctor. There is treatment now available --to help with memory problems.

 

[HOLYHEARTS]

Whatever has to do w/our own salvation & sanctification
should interest us much more than that which is outside of
and beyond our grasp. No, we can NEVER know ourselves
if someone is worthy of HELL. And it does not add one iota
to our salvation to have heaps of intellectual knowledge. St.
Therese counseled charity/love & even towards those who
were against the Church/Rome?Pope. She PRAYED &
that is how she helped sanctify herself & save souls! She
is Patroness of the Missions/of those who set out to save
souls/of evangelization.

 

[cam100]

Umm…Don’t Catholics have to take responsibility for what they do and fail to do? Answer: Yes.

Were any of you ever taught this?

NINE WAYS OF BEING ACCESSORY TO ANOTHER’S SIN

By counsel.
By command.
By consent.
By provocation.
By praise or flattery.
By concealment.
By partaking.
By silence.
By defense of the ill done

What is this “sin” that Archbishop Lefebvre would have been an accessory to, if he had not consecrated bishops at that particular time?

 

[SFD]

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?

Well, that’s quite a display of logic there JR.

The vocations are down at the NO seminaries and many of them are beds of iniquity. Vocations are more plentiful in the traditional seminaries.

And yes, “vocations” to the strip clubs are even higher…but we don’t care about that now do we?

SFD

 

[latinmass]

Coming in late here. THe bigger question is, why would this loving, embracing to all, “ecumenical” pope see fit to denying this simple request when he knew this would happen? We can’t know JP2’s heart for why, but discussing the reason he denied Lefebvre is worth discussing. What the Society wanted is to worship as the Church has for almost 2000 years, is that so bad? Popes can be fallible.

 

[lovesMary]

Well, that’s quite a display of logic there JR.

The vocations are down at the NO seminaries and many of them are beds of iniquity. Vocations are more plentiful in the traditional seminaries.

And yes, “vocations” to the strip clubs are even higher…but we don’t care about that now do we?

SFD

I was wondering if you have documentation to support this accusation that I put in bold lettering?

 

[Sure]

The vocations are down at the NO seminaries and many of them are beds of iniquity. Vocations are more plentiful in the traditional seminaries.

Check your facts again. Vocations have risen 77% since 1980. Nearly all of the seminaries have been thoroughly cleaned up and are forming very good young priests.

Do you have any proof that vocations are “more plentiful in the traditional seminaries”?

 

[Sure]

Coming in late here. THe bigger question is, why would this loving, embracing to all, “ecumenical” pope see fit to denying this simple request when he knew this would happen? We can’t know JP2’s heart for why, but discussing the reason he denied Lefebvre is worth discussing. What the Society wanted is to worship as the Church has for almost 2000 years, is that so bad? Popes can be fallible.

So, since he knew that Lefevbre would be a cowboy and go and violate the law, he should have given in and let him have his way.

Should he also have let Arch. Milingo have his way as well?

 

[latinmass]

So, since he knew that Lefevbre would be a cowboy and go and violate the law, he should have given in and let him have his way.

Should he also have let Arch. Milingo have his way as well?

But, it is not Lefevre’s way, it is the Church’s way for 2000 years. I realize he was disobedient, I am trying to dig deeper here. Why make someone disobedient for worshiping as the Church has for 2000 years? JP2 had the power to allow something wonderful to continue. It is too bad JP2 did not give the Society the same acceptance he gives the heretical religions, as in Assisi.

 

[GerardP]

Coming in late here. THe bigger question is, why would this loving, embracing to all, “ecumenical” pope see fit to denying this simple request when he knew this would happen? We can’t know JP2’s heart for why, but discussing the reason he denied Lefebvre is worth discussing. What the Society wanted is to worship as the Church has for almost 2000 years, is that so bad? Popes can be fallible.

Excellent point.

 

[GerardP]

What is this “sin” that Archbishop Lefebvre would have been an accessory to, if he had not consecrated bishops at that particular time?

Essentially, doing nothing when the Church is in chaos and you have the power to do “something” about it.

Pope St. Pius X. described it essentially as I cited earlier from “Pascendi”

*The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to **guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith **delivered to the saints, **rejecting the profane novelties of words **and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. **There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body; **for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things” (Acts xx. 30), “vain talkers and seducers” (Tit. i. 10), “erring and driving into error” (2 Tim. iii. 13). Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ’s kingdom itself. **Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office. ** *

 

[GerardP]

So, since he knew that Lefevbre would be a cowboy and go and violate the law, he should have given in and let him have his way.

Should he also have let Arch. Milingo have his way as well?

As pointed out, it’s not LeFebvre’s way, it’s the Church’s way.

But taking your premise into consideration, that’s the method that JPII allowed any number of novelties to become policies. Communion in the hand being one, altar girls being another.

 

[bear06]

But, it is not Lefevre’s way, it is the Church’s way for 2000 years. I realize he was disobedient, I am trying to dig deeper here. Why make someone disobedient for worshiping as the Church has for 2000 years? JP2 had the power to allow something wonderful to continue. It is too bad JP2 did not give the Society the same acceptance he gives the heretical religions, as in Assisi.

Are you comparing the SSPX to heretical religions? BTW, I think that SSPX has been invited to the Vatican on more than one occasion. It’s quite silly to go on and on about the Vatican being meanies to the SSPX. There is this tendency to think the Vatican treats the SSPX like a thorn in the side that must be dealt with. In fact, if the Vatican ignored them, they’d get very little press. The Holy Father deals with them because they are his flock and he loves them.

 

[bear06]

As pointed out, it’s not LeFebvre’s way, it’s the Church’s way.

But taking your premise into consideration, that’s the method that JPII allowed any number of novelties to become policies. Communion in the hand being one, altar girls being another.

Actually, that would be Lefebvre’s take on it. I disagree.

 

[Sure]

As pointed out, it’s not LeFebvre’s way, it’s the Church’s way.

But taking your premise into consideration, that’s the method that JPII allowed any number of novelties to become policies. Communion in the hand being one, altar girls being another.

No. The indult for Communion in the hand was issued before JPII became Pope. And, since he was the Supreme Legislator, his interpretation of canon law as allowing for altar girls was completely authoritative and valid. Since Lefevbre was not the Supreme Legislator, his interpretation of canon law can be overuled and invalid as it was.

 

[latinmass]

Are you comparing the SSPX to heretical religions? BTW, I think that SSPX has been invited to the Vatican on more than one occasion. It’s quite silly to go on and on about the Vatican being meanies to the SSPX. There is this tendency to think the Vatican treats the SSPX like a thorn in the side that must be dealt with. In fact, if the Vatican ignored them, they’d get very little press. The Holy Father deals with them because they are his flock and he loves them.

I am comparing them to heretics, schismatics, etc. because that is what many on this website call the SSPX. It seems that the Church has treated protestants and non-Christian better than the SSPX, and they are miles away from Church teachings, yet we do not do the minimum to bring back Catholics who worship as all the Saints did. You are right the SSPX is part of the flock, just as you and I, and always was.

 

[GerardP]

No. The indult for Communion in the hand was issued before JPII became Pope. And, since he was the Supreme Legislator, his interpretation of canon law as allowing for altar girls was completely authoritative and valid. Since Lefevbre was not the Supreme Legislator, his interpretation of canon law can be overuled and invalid as it was.

As archbishop Ranjinth said and as I cited earlier in the thread, it was an abuse that was later given permission.

*“The archbishop said the Second Vatican Council never authorized the practice of Catholics receiving Communion in the hand, **a practice that was “introduced abusively and hurriedly in some spheres” and only later authorized by the Vatican.” ***

And JPII publicly told Mother Teresa that there would never be altar girls while he was Pope:

As Dr. Tom Drolesky reported:

*I was told by Father Joseph Fessio, S.J., in December of 1993 that a nun of the Missionaries of Charity had heard from Mother Teresa that the Holy Father had told her that there would never be altar girls as long as he was the Pope. Father Fessio felt fairly confident that the remarks were accurate. So did I, believing in my waning days as a true believer in all things papal that Pope John Paul II would hold the line on this abomination. When word reached me in March of 1994 that the Pope was about to permit altar girls, I telephoned Father John A. Hardon, S.J., who had heard the same thing about Mother Teresa having been assured by the Holy Father that there would never be altar girls in his pontificate. Father Hardon instructed me to track down Mother Teresa and to ask her to call the Holy Father directly to plead with him not to permit altar girls.

Well, it took some doing, but I tracked down Mother Teresa to Hong Kong. She came to the phone when I explained to a nun the purpose of my telephone call. She was very kind. I told her that the Pope was about to announce permission for altar girls. There was silence on the phone for a good twenty seconds. Mother then said, “This will be a disaster for the Church. They will be pushing for women’s ordination next.” She assured me that she would try to call the Pope, which I was told later that she did. She spoke with then Monsignor Dziwisz, who told her that the matter had been decided. I am told that Mother Teresa was stunned by the Pope’s change of mind.

True to form, though, Navarro-Valls dismissed all criticism of the unprecedented novelty of altar girls as the carping of some “extremists,” to quote exactly the term he used at the time in April of 1994. His boss had spoken, and anyone who took issue with his boss was simply an extremist. Navarro-Valls thus showed himself to me for the first time as a man who was willing to step on yesterday’s allies in order to preserve his own position of power and influence, which are vast, in the Vatican. The gospel according to Joaquin Navarro-Valls is this: reality is what we say it is. He is the one of the Vatican’s most artful practitioners of positivism. That the Holy Father let confusion fester about the issue before he reversed field was lost on many Catholics around the world. *

 

[JReducation]

"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.

If your seminary courses are as rigorous as mine were at university and I have no reason to believe they shouldn’t be, you’ll be exposed to many areas of theology: systematic theology, ecclesiology, church history, patristic, scripture, moral theology, soteriology, eschatology, mystical theology (spirituality), liturgy, sacramentology, Christology, the Doctors, pastoral counselling, Roman Catholic studies, catechesis, canon law, pastoral care, then there are the internships that you’ll have to do.

If you decided to get the MA instead of the M.Div, you will have to major in one of these areas and you’ll have to write a thesis. I don’t know what the rules are at St. Charles, at our school we had a choice between M.Th. M.Div., and MA. The MA was the longest and more rigorous program. The M.Div was a requirement for Holy Orders.

 

[Sure]

As archbishop Ranjinth said and as I cited earlier in the thread, it was an abuse that was later given permission.

*“The archbishop said the Second Vatican Council never authorized the practice of Catholics receiving Communion in the hand, **a practice that was “introduced abusively and hurriedly in some spheres” and only later authorized by the Vatican.” ***

And JPII publicly told Mother Teresa that there would never be altar girls while he was Pope:

As Dr. Tom Drolesky reported:

*I was told by Father Joseph Fessio, S.J., in December of 1993 that a nun of the Missionaries of Charity had heard from Mother Teresa that the Holy Father had told her that there would never be altar girls as long as he was the Pope. Father Fessio felt fairly confident that the remarks were accurate. So did I, believing in my waning days as a true believer in all things papal that Pope John Paul II would hold the line on this abomination. When word reached me in March of 1994 that the Pope was about to permit altar girls, I telephoned Father John A. Hardon, S.J., who had heard the same thing about Mother Teresa having been assured by the Holy Father that there would never be altar girls in his pontificate. Father Hardon instructed me to track down Mother Teresa and to ask her to call the Holy Father directly to plead with him not to permit altar girls.

Well, it took some doing, but I tracked down Mother Teresa to Hong Kong. She came to the phone when I explained to a nun the purpose of my telephone call. She was very kind. I told her that the Pope was about to announce permission for altar girls. There was silence on the phone for a good twenty seconds. Mother then said, “This will be a disaster for the Church. They will be pushing for women’s ordination next.” She assured me that she would try to call the Pope, which I was told later that she did. She spoke with then Monsignor Dziwisz, who told her that the matter had been decided. I am told that Mother Teresa was stunned by the Pope’s change of mind.

True to form, though, Navarro-Valls dismissed all criticism of the unprecedented novelty of altar girls as the carping of some “extremists,” to quote exactly the term he used at the time in April of 1994. His boss had spoken, and anyone who took issue with his boss was simply an extremist. Navarro-Valls thus showed himself to me for the first time as a man who was willing to step on yesterday’s allies in order to preserve his own position of power and influence, which are vast, in the Vatican. The gospel according to Joaquin Navarro-Valls is this: reality is what we say it is. He is the one of the Vatican’s most artful practitioners of positivism. That the Holy Father let confusion fester about the issue before he reversed field was lost on many Catholics around the world. *

That’s nice.

The indult is still perfectly valid and authoritative. And the interpretation of canon law by the Supreme Legislator is still valid and binding. You may not like either of these decisions, but they still are lawful and binding.