SSPX 1988 Consecration video

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicNick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Those of the SSPX say that ‘traditionalists’ owe the ‘Indult’ Masses to the efforts of Archbishop Lefebvre. I think in some ways they are right.

I like the trumpet voluntary. 😛
 
Just by chance, does anyone actually know who composed the voluntary at the beginning, and what it is called?
 
Caesar said:
Excellent movie 😃
Click to expand...
I’m not sure it’s a good idea to venerate an act of separation from the mystical Body of Christ. In that very scene souls are severing themselves from the life flowing from the Divine Head which is necessary for salvation. Damnable acts are not excellent in any way, shape, or form. 😦

As Pope Pius VI declared: “For the right of ordaining bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions.” (*Charitas, *1791)

That movie is not excellent, but truly pitiful. 😦
 
Genesis315 said:
I’m not sure it’s a good idea to venerate an act of separation from the mystical Body of Christ. In that very scene souls are severing themselves from the life flowing from the Divine Head which is necessary for salvation. Damnable acts are not excellent in any way, shape, or form. 😦

As Pope Pius VI declared: “For the right of ordaining bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions.” (*Charitas, *1791)

That movie is not excellent, but truly pitiful. 😦
Click to expand...
I was reffering to the Traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration, not the schism.
 
It’s kind of like watching adultery on film. People deliberately violating vows that they took before God because they “feel” like they are justified in doing so. It’s pathetic and sad. Especially when one considers the thousands of souls who have been led astray by these men. Thousands of souls who may never reach heaven because they died with their sins unforgiven.

I can’t really see why you would call this an excellent film and at the same time condemn videos of a halloween Mass or a clown Mass. Those of you who claim this is “excellent” cannot then logically condemn modern abusive practices. They are really one and the same - acts of total disobedience to the Body of Christ.
 
Caesar said:
I was reffering to the Traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration, not the schism.
Click to expand...
And a kiss shared by two lovers is beautiful as well. Until you find out that in fact the two are married to other people. Then, that same kiss seems much more disgusting than beautiful.
 
It is nice to see the Traditional Episcopal Consecration. It is of interest to listen to Lefebvre, in what was a historic homily and event.

Saying the liturgy is beautiful, doesn’t imply that we support Lefebvre’s actions, or not view them as schismatic.

PS. If your an atheist, a Muslim, Jew, Protestant - you name it - you’re going to heaven. But if you have leanings towards the SSPX, you’re damned to eternal hellfire.
 
Resurrexit said:
It is nice to see the Traditional Episcopal Consecration. It is of interest to listen to Lefebvre, in what was a historic homily and event.

Saying the liturgy is beautiful, doesn’t imply that we support Lefebvre’s actions, or not view them as schismatic.

PS. If your an atheist, a Muslim, Jew, Protestant - you name it - you’re going to heaven. But if you have leanings towards the SSPX, you’re damned to the bottomless pit.
Click to expand...
See post #9.

Not sure what you mean by your PS or how it’s relevent. I’m not picking on the SSPX. I am picking on people who violate solemn vows/oaths and promises before God. I think those types of actions are repugnant whether you are saying a “clown” Mass, commiting adultery or illegitimately consecrating a bishop. I’m just not a big fan of sinful behavior on video or otherwise.
 
I do not support the SSPX, or the actions of Lefebvre. On the other hand, the validity of the excommunication is dubious, to say the least.

The 1988 consecrations should not have happened, but they were not an atrocity by any stretch of the imagination.

The liturgy is beautiful, and it is interesting.
 
Ham1 said:
It’s kind of like watching adultery on film. People deliberately violating vows that they took before God because they “feel” like they are justified in doing so. It’s pathetic and sad. Especially when one considers the thousands of souls who have been led astray by these men. Thousands of souls who may never reach heaven because they died with their sins unforgiven.

I can’t really see why you would call this an excellent film and at the same time condemn videos of a halloween Mass or a clown Mass. Those of you who claim this is “excellent” cannot then logically condemn modern abusive practices. They are really one and the same - acts of total disobedience to the Body of Christ.
Click to expand...
Ham1 said:
See post #9.

Not sure what you mean by your PS or how it’s relevent. I’m not picking on the SSPX. I am picking on people who violate solemn vows/oaths and promises before God. I think those types of actions are repugnant whether you are saying a “clown” Mass, commiting adultery or illegitimately consecrating a bishop. I’m just not a big fan of sinful behavior on video or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Another great post… We have to be consistent. A lot of Catholics are willing to let these type of things slide. It is wrong either way.
 
Resurrexit said:
I do not support the SSPX, or the actions of Lefebvre. On the other hand, the validity of the excommunication is dubious, to say the least.

The 1988 consecrations should not have happened, but they were not an atrocity by any stretch of the imagination.

The liturgy is beautiful, and it is interesting.
Click to expand...
Beauty shouldn’t be your guide, even if it holds your interest. It is what it is.
 
Resurrexit said:
I do not support the SSPX, or the actions of Lefebvre. On the other hand, the validity of the excommunication is dubious, to say the least.

The 1988 consecrations should not have happened, but they were not an atrocity by any stretch of the imagination.

The liturgy is beautiful, and it is interesting.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t think that we need to derail this thread into a debate about the validity of the excommunications. That debate has been hammered out on numerous threads. The vatican has confirmed that they (the bishops) are excommunicated.

And when someone willfully disobeys the Body of Christ and violates his own personaly solemn vow made before God, I call that an atrocity. Maybe you don’t.

How is this any less of an atrocity than the “clown” mass videos/photos? Is it less of an atrocity because you prefer the “traditional” disobedience to “modern” disobedience?
 
Resurrexit said:
On the other hand, the validity of the excommunication is dubious, to say the least.
Click to expand...
Decided that on your own, have you?

The Pope is the Supreme Legislator, according to the law and tradition of the Church (funny how “traditionalists” have problems with some traditions). Canon law means what the Pope says it means. The pope didn’t excommunicate them, he merely confirmed that they had excommunicated themselves. Nothing dubious about it.
 
I don’t think it was a schismatic act, but as you say, let’s not get derailed on that issue. Therefore I do not view it as an atrocity.

On the other hand, in my opinion, the SSPX have since Lefebvre died in 1991, become a schismatic sect.

Even if this was an act of schism, I would rather watch it than a ‘clown mass’ or priest dancing with the Blessed Sacrament in a disco.

Jkirk - not relevant to this discussion, but - the 1983 Code of Canon law says that a bishop may consecrate without permission, if in his opinion, there is a very good reason to do so. Lefebvre thought he was ‘saving the priesthood’. Whether that is the case (I certainly don’t think so), is irrelevant, but Lefebvre thought it was necessary, and that’s the key.

As you say, the Pope did not excommunicate him, nor was he automatically excommunicated.
 
Resurrexit said:
Even if this was an act of schism, I would rather watch it than a ‘clown mass’ or priest dancing with the Blessed Sacrament in a disco.
Click to expand...
In the interest of at least subjective fairness, I would agree that at least it’s better done than either the clown mass or the dancing.
 
Resurrexit said:
I don’t think it was a schismatic act, but as you say, let’s not get derailed on that issue. Therefore I do not view it as an atrocity.

On the other hand, in my opinion, the SSPX have since Lefebvre died in 1991, become a schismatic sect.

Even if this was an act of schism, I would rather watch it than a ‘clown mass’ or priest dancing with the Blessed Sacrament in a disco.

Jkirk - not relevant to this discussion, but - the 1983 Code of Canon law says that a bishop may consecrate without permission, if in his opinion, there is a very good reason to do so. Lefebvre thought he was ‘saving the priesthood’. Whether that is the case (I certainly don’t think so), is irrelevant, but Lefebvre thought it was necessary, and that’s the key.

As you say, the Pope did not excommunicate him, nor was he automatically excommunicated.
Click to expand...
In Ecclesia Dei (which was given Motu Propio so it has the full force of Canon Law), Pope John Paul II says: “Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act…Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.”

So, clearly the Pope is declaring that their actions are schismatic and incur the penalty of excommunication. There is really no debate here. They were excommunicated for a schismatic act.

As for your personal preference to viewing “traditional” disobedience over “modern” disobedience, that is your opinion. I cannot agree as I find both abhorrent. I have a problem with admiring something for it’s apparent superficial beauty when in it’s essence it is a sinful act of violence toward the Church. I’m not sure how one gets past that. And I’m not sure if one should.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top