SSPX...come home

[Dee_S]

Wait, what? By all accounts, at the time of St. Athanasius, it was the majority of the clergy who had fallen into objective heresy (Arianism).

Only recently I learnt that there is much more to the story of St Athanasius and Pope Liberius that we were told.

At this link, there is lots of info, more than you can believe. Almost certain doubt has been cast on the fragments of letters that accused that Pope of having condemned Athanasius after two years in exile so that he could return to Rome and triumphantly depose the current anti-Pope.
“It would seem that when St. Hilary wrote his book “Adversus Constantium” in 360, just before his return from exile in the East, he believed that Liberius had fallen and had renounced St. Athanasius; but his words are not quite clear. At all events, when he wrote his “Adversus Valentem et Ursacium” after his return, he showed the letter “Studens paci” to be a forgery… If St. Athanasius believed in his fall, this was when he was in hiding, and immediately after the supposed event; he was apparently deceived for the moment by the rumours spread by the Arians.”

In fact, there is a lot of evidence as to how the Pope supported St Athanasius and the bishops of the Church at peril to his own life and was treated very badly by the emperor’s at that time. Definitely does not read him as the “weak man” some publications enjoy casting him as:

“…The pope wrote a letter, generally known as “Quamuis sub imagine”, to the exiled bishops, addressing them as martyrs, and expressing his regret that he had not been the first to suffer so as to set an example to others; he asks for their prayers that he may yet be worthy to share their exile.”

"That these were not mere words was proved, not only by Liberius’s noble attitude of protest during the preceding years, but by his subsequent conduct. Constantius was not satisfied by the renewed condemnation of Athanasius by the Italian bishops who had lapsed at Milan under pressure. He knew that the pope was the only ecclesiastical superior of the Bishop of Alexandria, and he “strove with burning desire”, says the pagan Ammianus, “that the sentence should be confirmed by the higher authority of the bishop of the eternal city”.

“St. Athanasius assures us that from the beginning the Arians did not spare Liberius, for they calculated that, if they could but persuade him, they would soon get hold of all the rest”

“Who are you”, adds Constantius, “to stand up for Athanasius against the world?” Liberius replies: “Of old there were found but three to resist the mandate of the king.” The eunuch Eusebius cried: “You compare the emperor to Nabuchodonosor.” Liberius: “No, but you condemn the innocent.” He demands that all shall subscribe the Nicene formula, then the exiles must be restored, and all the bishops must assemble at Alexandria to give Athanasius a fair trial on the spot.

Liberius: “Do not employ bishops, whose hands are meant to bless, to revenge your own enmity. Have the bishops restored and, if they agree with the Nicene Faith, let them consult as to the peace of the world, that an innocent man be not condemned.”

Constantius: “I am willing to send you back to Rome, if you will join the communion of the Church. Make peace, and sign the condemnation.”

Liberius: “I have already bidden farewell at Rome to the brethren. The laws of the Church are more important than residence in Rome.”

“The emperor gave the pope three days for consideration, and then banished him to Beroea in Thrace,…”

“But the strongest arguments for the innocence of Liberius are a priori. Had he really given in to the emperor during his exile, the emperor would have published his victory far and wide; there would have been no possible doubt about it”
newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

 

[pnewton]

In the end, the best way of reconciling SSPXers is to eradicate the abuses.

The logic disconnect with this solution is that it addresses something that does not exist. No one has asked any SSPX priest, or any priest to engage in anything labeled abuse. That such things exist should have zero effect on them. If they will not join back in the ministry of the Church until the Church is perfected, they are in for a long wait.

 

[RadRomCath]

On this forum it is not allowed to “Church bash” and saying that Vatican II is heretical will get you and us here into trouble - . . .

. . . .

This is baiting. You name a thread “SSPX … come home” and proceed to make simplistic statements about very complicated matters that are serious enough that many denounce the council and still others denounce several popes, and you do so with impunity because you know you can get away with bashing the “traditionalist” position and that the traditionalists are under threat of “infractions,” banishment, censorship, etc. if they offer their refute.

I have been in parishes in perfect communion with Rome my entire life (I’m 40). I have always been brushed off when talking about tradition going back to my days in Catholic elementary school. I have been placated by a diocesan TLM for the past few years. But I started hearing some “non-Catholic” sounding homilies and started looking around. Nothing has changed–traditionalists still with diocesan churches have merely been placated and silenced by the motu TLM. But on the whole it is still the same modernist overrun church.

I have been thinking about seeking out true Catholic tradition for quite sometime. I believe the moral and doctrinal ambiguity and poor formation I have witnessed on this forum, and hostility against traditionalists, is proving to be my last straw.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

The SSPX are wasting a valuable opportunity to contribute by not accepting the Personal Prelature as repeatedly offered over many years now, and the regularization of their organization.

Absolutely. Agree 100%

Throughout the history of the Church there have always been problems - to say that the Church must change back to the way that suits the SSPX - that the Church must eradicate the abuses first - before they will consider “coming home to their Father’s house” - is self serving.

Absolutely. Agree 100%

The Holy Father’s of the past 27 years have done their duty by following after them with repeated entreaties/appeals as any caring parent would do. Does the rebel child not have a duty to their parent? Suppose if they are bent on having their own way, they are hardly capable of helping sort out problems “at home”.

Your blanket condemnation that “nobody seems quite ready to do that” is simply not true. See the link in my previous post, it shows how much effort the CDW has been putting in over the years.

let me clarify: Nobody in authority seems prepared to enforce limits strict enough to ensure that an OF Mass is decently celebrated, no matter where it is celebrated and by whom. The EF Mass, by contrast, is always celebrated decently - perhaps not perfectly, but decently. The CDW has made some changes to the wording of the Mass and perhaps a couple of liturgical gestures (I may be wrong on the latter) but this is not the same thing as making sure, for example, that the Beatles don’t appear during the Communion rite. Lamenting liturgical abuses is not the same thing as stamping them out.

Add to that the words of Pope Paul VI in his letter to Archbishop Lefebvre in 1976:
Moreover, you act as if you had a particular role in this regard. But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops who work together with Us. Indeed We do not cease to raise Our voice against these excesses: Our discourse to the consistory of last May 21 repeated this in clear terms. More than anyone else We hear the suffering of distressed Christians, and We respond to the cry of the faithful longing for faith and the spiritual life. This is not the place to remind you, brother, of all the acts of Our pontificate that testify to Our constant concern to ensure for the church fidelity to the true tradition, and to enable her with God’s grace to face the present and future.
jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm

True. The Popes have deplored the liturgical excesses, but thus far seem incapable of doing anything effective to eradicate them. A Pope cannot do much of a practical nature without the co-operation of the bishops, and there seems to be an across-the-board paralysis in the hierarchy when it comes to liturgical discipline.

 

[eustachius234]

The Impossible “Road Map” of Peace with the Lefebvrists

A leading representative of the traditionalist camp lays down the conditions for healing the schism. There are four of them, but three appear impracticable. Fr. Divo Barsotti’s criticisms of Vatican Council II

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350426?eng=y

 

[Dee_S]

On this forum it is not allowed to “Church bash” and saying that Vatican II is heretical will get you and us here into trouble - because this is a Catholic forum and it firmly enforces the obedience and respect we owe to the Holy Father and the Church. If your statement had been for example “I was told that Vatican II was heretical, but I …etc” - this thread is for discussion/sharing of how being or having been a trad has influenced your life, in the hopes we can be of use in the bigger picture.

Archbishop Mueller has already addressed this issue:
http://www.catholicnews.com/images/muller_web.jpg
VATICAN CITY (CNS) Nov-29-2012 – Traditionalist and progressive camps that see the Second Vatican Council as breaking with the truth both espouse a “heretical interpretation” of the council and its aims, said the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

What Pope Benedict XVI has termed “the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity” is the “only possible interpretation according to the principles of Catholic theology,” Archbishop Gerhard Muller said in remarks published Nov. 29.

"Outside this sole orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a heretical interpretation, that is, a hermeneutic of rupture, (found) both on the progressive front and on the traditionalist" side, the archbishop said.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1205009.htm

It is only polite to refrain from name calling or accusations of heresy and the like - no matter which forum one happens to be on. I don’t think many would disagree with me on this.

Calling Vatican II Coucil ‘heretical’ is one such example - and particularly offensive when on a Catholic forum such as this. What would be the reaction if a person posted similar statements on a radtrad forum - equally offensive. I know some may its it’s semantics, but there is a way of saying what one wants to without generalizing and ‘labeling’ and for giving reasons why, after the example of Archbishop Mueller above.

 

[Seeking_Him_1]

This might upset a few of you, but I’m actually glad that the SSPX is sticking to its guns with regard to this. I highly admire Archbishop Lefebvre…it’s the Church that changed (with regard to what happened at V2 and the New Mass), not the SSPX. To my way of thinking, they’ve always held to Church teaching.

 

[pnewton]

This might upset a few of you, but I’m actually glad that the SSPX is sticking to its guns with regard to this.

Your position is not unique. We get SSPX supporters here.

The Church has changed a lot over 2000. The SSPX is not sticking with the way the Church has always been, but where it was at a particular period in time. This part is allowable, as in the use of the extraordinary form by licit ministers, or the Neocatecuminate Way that mirrors liturgy of the early Church. Unfortunately, being the way thing always have been is not sufficient for the SSPX. They want their way to be the way. They want to change the rest of the Church, not just find their own place.

 

[mgsk]

or the Neocatecuminate Way that mirrors liturgy of the early Church

This is absolutely laughable.

 

[pnewton]

This is absolutely laughable.

I thought so. Yet, it is amazing how many comparisons pop up. However, they are not the same, of course. TNW goes back, as opposed to having continuity in time. On the other hand, they have a licit ministry in the Catholic Church. unlike SSPX. Many differences. I only meant they had the one thing in common.

 

[Dee_S]

Originally Posted by pnewton forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
or the Neocatecuminate Way that mirrors liturgy of the early Church

This is absolutely laughable.

you guys really brightened my day,It’s a first for me, had *never *heard of the Neocatecuminate Way (thought they’d named a new constellation)…ok, not that funny

Anyhow, for those like me out there, here is some info on this:


Icon of the Virgin Mary by Kiko Argüello,* the Spanish painter who initiated the Neocatechumenal Way.*

The Neocatechumenal Way, also known as the Neocatechumenate, NCW or, colloquially, The Way, is a group within the Catholic Church that focuses on the formation of Christian adults. It was formed in Madrid in 1964 by Kiko Argüello and Carmen Hernández[1] and received approval from the Holy See in 2008. Taking its inspiration from the catechumenate of the early Catholic Church, by which converts from paganism were prepared for baptism, it provides post-baptismal formation to adults who are already members of the Church.[2] It also runs 85 seminaries in various locations, and is responsible for hundreds of “families in mission,” living in many cities around the World.
The Neocatechumenate is implemented in small, parish-based communities of between 20-50 people. There are around 40,000 such communities throughout the World, with an estimated million members.[3]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocatechumenal_Way

 

[Dee_S]

This is absolutely laughable.

:wave:nice of you to pop in again. Mind telling us why you say this? I’m curious

 

[Dee_S]

I am glad that you posted this. Because I am an ex-Traditionalist. I suggest that you check out my forum that I made the other day entitled ‘Is “Tradition” The Truth?’ it explains my story of how I came out of Traditionalism and what errors take place within it. I have met many SSPX’ers in my day even though I never really was one myself (I grew up going to an independent chapel). Most of the ones that I’ve come into contact with are very stubborn and aren’t really willing to listen to anyone who’s not a Traditionalist.
Typical Traditionalist: “Well, it’s coming from a Modernist (modernist is the title they give anyone Catholic that follows Vatican II) so it’s got to be wrong.” I say the best way to deal with them is to deal with them the same way that we deal with Protestants. Traditionalists privately interpret church documents out of context to create their false notions of church teaching the same way that Protestants privately interpret the Bible out of context to create their false doctrines. We need to read to them church documents that they misinterpret “in context” to show them the error of their ways. But most of all, we should pray for them. We should offer daily rosaries for them and for the return of the SSPX to Rome and we should have prayers offered for their intentions at Mass.

God bless

Hi, I only got around to reading your “thread” on the Traditional Catholic Forum today. Very interesting and impressive, especially coming from a young person too. It’s worth a read and the thread can be found here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10342206#post10342206

 

[Faithdancer]

The SSPX are wasting a valuable opportunity to contribute by not accepting the Personal Prelature as repeatedly offered over many years now, and the regularization of their organization.

I think that the SSPX would thrive and do great good by becoming the second Personal Prelature of the Church.

 

[Dee_S]

I think that the SSPX would thrive and do great good by becoming the second Personal Prelature of the Church.

 

[otjm]

This might upset a few of you, but I’m actually glad that the SSPX is sticking to its guns with regard to this. I highly admire Archbishop Lefebvre…it’s the Church that changed (with regard to what happened at V2 and the New Mass), not the SSPX. To my way of thinking, they’ve always held to Church teaching.

Language all too often is a source of confusion.

A couple of (old) ideas; one of them being that the Holy Spirit will always guard the Church from error. As V 2 was an official work of the Church, either the first statement is false; or the second is supported by the first.

If the first statement is false, then we can all go home and do something else.

The second (old) idea: the Pope is the final arbiter of the truth of statements of faith and morals.

either that statement is true or false; if false see above.

If true, then the issues proposed by the SSPX are wrong (such as their critiques of V 2 documents) as the current (for the next few days) Pope has said that the documents are not a rupture withe the past, and are in no need of modification.

There has always been tension in the Church between theologians who hold one position and those who hold another. In at least one circumstance, there have been groups holding positions in which the Church has refused to side with one or the other.

In the issues concerning the complaints of the SSPX as to their perception of doctrinal error, the one who is the final arbiter has said they are wrong.

The door is open; but the door opens only one way. The request that they enter has been given repeatedly; it will be up to them to accept the request, or reject it. As noted elsewhere, there was a similar reaction after V 1; the results were less than satisfying as that group chose not to enter.

There is one Magisterium, one final arbiter. Some of the complaints of the SSPX have had validity; but they can work from within the Church, or the Church will work on its own.

So the short of it is that one cannot say they have always held to Church teaching, because Church teaching includes V 2, which they appear to reject in part. That gets right down to the nub of it. They may choose to use language to explain doctrine and morals which was used prior to V 2; but they cannot say that V 2 no longer teaches what the Church has always taught; and that appears to be a substantive part of their position.

 

[Dee_S]

In the issues concerning the complaints of the SSPX as to their perception of doctrinal error, the one who is the final arbiter has said they are wrong.

The door is open; but the door opens only one way. The request that they enter has been given repeatedly; it will be up to them to accept the request, or reject it. As noted elsewhere, there was a similar reaction after V 1; the results were less than satisfying as that group chose not to enter.

There is one Magisterium, one final arbiter. Some of the complaints of the SSPX have had validity; but they can work from within the Church, or the Church will work on its own.

So the short of it is that one cannot say they have always held to Church teaching, because Church teaching includes V 2, which they appear to reject in part. That gets right down to the nub of it. They may choose to use language to explain doctrine and morals which was used prior to V 2; but they cannot say that V 2 no longer teaches what the Church has always taught; and that appears to be a substantive part of their position.

The Holy Father in his Apostolic letter (motu proprio) Ecclesiae Unitatem says what you are saying & proposes means to solving their problems “within the Church”.

"4. In the same spirit and with the same commitment to encouraging the resolution of all fractures and divisions in the Church and to healing a wound in the ecclesial fabric that was more and more painfully felt, I wished to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the “Society of St Pius X” to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church.

As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties.** However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.**

1. Precisely because the problems that must now be addressed with the Society are essentially doctrinal in nature, I have decided 21 years after the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei and in conformity with what I had proposed (cf. *ibid., *art. 11 781) to rethink the structure of the Commission Ecclesia Dei, linking it closely to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
2. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Deiwill therefore have the following configuration:
   a) The President of the Commission is the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
   b) The Commission, with its own allocation of staff, is composed of the Secretary and officials.
   c) The task of the Cardinal President, assisted by the Secretary, is to refer the principal cases and doctrinal questions to the judgment of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith through its ordinary procedures, and to submit the results thereof to the superior dispositions of the Supreme Pontiff.

**7. With this decision I have wished in particular to show fatherly solicitude to the “Society of St Pius X” in order that it rediscover full communion with the Church. **

I address to all a pressing invitation to pray the Lord tirelessly, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, “ut unum sint”.

*Given in Rome, at St Peter’s, on 2 July 2009, the fifth year of Our Pontificate.
*vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html

 

[Brendan_64]

The irony of it that in rejecting much of Vatican II and effectively ‘stomping off’ the SSPX are, through their defiance, at the same time rejecting the order of hierarchy as set out at the Council of Trent.

We are the Roman Catholic Church, we bow to the authority of Rome. That includes accepting decisions that we find uncomfortable to accept.

 

[pnewton]

That includes accepting decisions that we find uncomfortable to accept.

Let me generalize to a good life principle. It is only in those areas that we do not agree, or that we find uncomfortable, that we can discover if we have any respect for those in authority. It may well be that some who were slow in accept the Church on this are more obedient than many who embraced it. Scott Hahn used a term Cafeteria Catholic by coincindence for those that agree with everything the Church says, but only because it coincides with their beliefs. Ex-Protestants get this. While we acknowledged the authority of the pastor, as soon as we disagree too much, then we believed God would be leading us to another Church.

So being in agreement with the Catholic Church is nothing to be puffed up about, unless that agreement is at times difficult and uncomfortable. That is when we see Catholic faith.

 

[YoungTradCath]

From the interview granted by Father Claude Barthe to French conservative daily Présent - reproduced in Italian by Messa in latino (the French original text is not available online):

[Présent:] -What will happen to the discussions and to the future of the FSSPX [SSPX: Society of Saint Pius X]?

[Fr. Claude Barthe:] As unbelievable as it may seem, nothing is changed in the immediate future. I will make myself clear.

Everybody now knows that the Ecclesia Dei Commission sent a letter to Bishop Fellay [Superior General of the Society] on January 8, and that an answer is expected from him by February 22, the day of the feast of the Chair of Saint Peter. The erection of the Prelature of Saint Pius X could be dated from this day, February 22. This would represent the true conclusion of the pontificate of Benedict XVI: the rehabilitation of Abp. Lefebvre. Can you imagine what thunderous roar [this would be] and even, indirectly, what weight this would have in the orienation of the events of March?

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-february-surprise.html

Hmm… -_-