SSPX Could Return This Week - Agreement With Rome Near

[saint_rafael]

Entirely debatable - not that I propose to debate it, it has nothing to do with the topic or with Athanasius.

And most unlikely when earlier in his life he repeatedly REFUSED to ratify Eastern bishops councils which condemned Athanasius, repeatedly called for the upholding of the Nicene Creed, and was himself exiled by the Emperor Constantius for it.

newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

From that same article:

“It is not surprising to find that Liberius returned to Rome before the end of 357, and that it was noised abroad that he must have signed the condemnation of Athanasius and perhaps some Arian Creed.”

“St. Athanasius writing apparently at the end of 357, says: “Liberius, having been exiled, gave in after two years, and, in fear of the death with which he was threatened, signed”, i.e. the condemnation of Athanasius himself (Hist. Ar., xli);”

Whether under durres or not, he still signed the condemnation of Athanasius and the Arian Creed.

 

[LilyM]

From that same article:

“It is not surprising to find that Liberius returned to Rome before the end of 357, and that it was noised abroad that he must have signed the condemnation of Athanasius and perhaps some Arian Creed.”

“St. Athanasius writing apparently at the end of 357, says: “Liberius, having been exiled, gave in after two years, and, in fear of the death with which he was threatened, signed”, i.e. the condemnation of Athanasius himself (Hist. Ar., xli);”

Whether under durres or not, he still signed the condemnation of Athanasius and the Arian Creed.

From the VERY same article: “There is no sign of his (Liberius’) ever having admitted that he had fallen.” So whatever he signed he never taught Arianism as Church teaching, clearly. And Athanasius, knowing he signed under duress, still stayed loyal to him.

I just had to say this on a tangent - the ARIAN Creed?

In any case, unless you’re suggesting that John Paul II was forced to excommunicate Lefebvre or signed Ecclesia Dei under threat of death (or indeed any similarly pressing threat of any kind from anyone), then Liberius’ (and hence Athanasius’) situation has no similarity to Lefebvre’s situation.

 

[saint_rafael]

In any case, unless you’re suggesting that John Paul II was forced to excommunicate Lefebvre or signed Ecclesia Dei under threat of death (or indeed any similarly pressing threat of any kind from anyone), then Liberius’ (and hence Athanasius’) situation has no similarity to Lefebvre’s situation.

It shows the Popes make mistakes and errors.

Pope John Paul II was a man who did not have the courage, gall, or desire to stand up to the liberas and modernists in the Curia.

He did not govern the Church at all, letting the men in the secretary of the state run the Vatican from the late 70’s to '00s.

 

[LilyM]

It shows the Popes make mistakes and errors.

Pope John Paul II was a man who did not have the courage, gall, or desire to stand up to the liberas and modernists in the Curia.

He did not govern the Church at all, letting the men in the secretary of the state run the Vatican from the late 70’s to '00s.

And you were in the Vatican all through that time, so of course you’d know all about it. :yawn:

 

[saint_rafael]

And you were in the Vatican all through that time, so of course you’d know all about it. :yawn:

No, but traditional Catholics and Catholic journalists who know how the Vatican works, have written books and articles.

Fr. Malachi Martin worked in the Vatican under Cardinal Bea has written much and his books are informative on how bad things are.

Vatican politics puts American politics too shame. It is major league over there compared to the minors we have here.

 

[thistle]

It shows the Popes make mistakes and errors.

**Pope John Paul II was a man who did not have the courage, gall, or desire to stand up to the liberas and modernists in the Curia. **
He did not govern the Church at all, letting the men in the secretary of the state run the Vatican from the late 70’s to '00s.

What a pompous self righteous person you are. How dare you slander the Pope! Who elected you to head the Magesterium?

 

[pnewton]

Well, yes. Of course we all have heard of this period of time being compared to the Arian heresy, and Lefebvre compared to St. Athansius who was twice exiled.

This is not the age of the Arian heresy. Lefebvre is not St. Athansius. Such comparisons are meaningless and do nothing but beg the question. On the other hand, Pope John Paul II did fill the shoes of St. Peter as an objection reality. Pope Benedict XVI is currently in those shoes. Fellay and Williamson are excomunitcated from the Catholic Church.

 

[pnewton]

What a pompous self righteous person you are. How dare you slander the Pope! Who elected you to head the Magesterium?

Relax. Rafael wasn’t even born during a lost of the stuff he rants against. He obviously had to be fed most of what he spouts.

 

[thistle]

PARIS: 27 June 2008 (AFP) – The Lefebvrites have no intention of responding to the Vatican’s ultimatum.
The Fraternity of Sain Pius X [SSPX], founded by [Archbishop] Lefebvre, has no intention of responding to the “ultimatum” which was put by the Vatican to bring to a conclusion the schism provoked twenty years about for the traditionalist movement, the spokesman for the SSPX indicated.

Copied this from another thread. Interesting that the SSPX spokesman at least admits the SSPX movement is in schism.

 

[ethelzguy]

This, of course, is a ridiculous argument and does not in any way give a reasonable defense of the huge increase in the number of marriage annulments as compared with the much smaller increase in the number of divorces.
Let’s compare the number of divorces with the number of annulments in the USA.
Divorces in the USA
1930: 195, 961
1979: 1,179,000
1998: 1,135,000
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
The divorces have increased by a factor of about 6 (5.9)
The annulments in the RCC have increased over the same period by a factor of 6824, or more than one thousand times as much as the divorces in the USA at large.
And that is not the only problem seen since Vatican II. Did you want more examples?

Bob, we all know that annulments are your favorite subject.

But what do they have to do with the possibility of the SSPX returning to union with Rome?

 

[laudamus_te]

Bishop Williamson’s Letters
Girls at University
Emancipation’s Mess of Pottage (Gen. XXV, 29-34)
Winona, September 1, 2001

Dear Friends and Benefactors:

Canadians strike me as a gentle people; but “strike” is the word! Ten yeas ago I was innocently asked in Canada whether women should wear trousers. Some ten weeks ago, also in Canada, I was asked whether a girl should go to a conservative Novus Ordo university. The answer now to the second question may be as stormy as the answer to the first:- because of all kinds of natural reasons, almost no girl should go to any university!

The deep-down reason is the same as for the wrongness of women’s trousers: the unwomaning of woman. The deep-down cause in both cases is that Revolutionary man has betrayed modem woman; since she is not respected and loved for being a woman, she tries to make herself a man. Since modem man does not want her to do what God meant her to do, namely to have children, she takes her revenge by invading all kinds of things that man is meant to do. What else was to be expected? Modem man has only himself to blame.

In fact, only in modern times have women dreamt of going to university, but the idea has now become so normal that even Catholics, whose Faith guards Nature, may have difficulty in seeing the problem. However, here is a pointer in the direction of normalcy: any Catholic with the least respect for Tradition recognizes that women should not be priests - can he deny that if few women went to university, almost none would wish to be priests? Alas, women going to university is part of the whole massive onslaught on God’s Nature which characterizes our times. That girls should not be in universities flows from the nature of universities and from the nature of girls: true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls…

That was the entire intro to his letter. If “ideas are not for true girls” isn’t saying that girls are less smart, or less than equal to men, I don’t know what would.

Well, in a way maybe your answer proves his point. Kidding aside, no, that is NOT saying that girls are less smart (or in your original words, women are inferior to men) or less equal to men. That is the feminist attack mentality seeping in, Margarite.

I have two brothers and three sisters, all the girls get better grades than the boys, all of the girls get straight A’s while my brothers get quite a few B’s. They are equally as smart as us, it is just they aren’t smart enough to apply themselves. I don’t know how you can say that this letter is saying that women are equal to men.

And please point out to me how it is saying that women are inferior to men.

And laudamus te, you never answered my question:
Who gave the SSPX the authority to say that they are right in separating themselves from full communion with the Church?

Canon Law.

What is wrong with the five requirements? Why are they offensive?

That is not for me to answer.

Those rules that a listed earlier, I am sorry if I didn’t mention that most of them are unwritten rules, most of them are only preached, or taught in some other way because it is fairly consistent with all SSPX people who I have ever met, and I have met many (especially when I lived in St. Marys).

No, you are not being honest. You plainly stated that those falsehoods were rules of the SSPX, and followed them up by stating that there were many other, unwritten, ones.

It is apparent that your prejudice towards the SSPX, which is a product of your family experience, has colored your interpretation of everything which they say.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Male and female God created them.

Margarite

Each of us has a reason for being. God’s reasons are not our reasons. We do know that women were chosen to give life to the future generations. We do know that men were to provide women that life. Women are to protect the children from harm and the man is to protect the family from harm. These are knowns. In our society they are not the norms. Women are “free” to kill the children and men have no “rights” to protect them. The “family” is being redefined daily and in many if not most cases the children are no longer being raised by their biological mother, daycare, nanny, grandparents, school teachers and society provide most of the nurturing of our young.

I went to university. I also know what Bishop Williamson meant in that women are not meant to go to any university. All of the above issues and many others have come about with the “free don” to do as we please. The university has not proved to be a fertile place for moral issues or life. Not every young girl (and yes in our society it is young girls that attend university) is capable of withstanding the pressures of the “new” society.

As strange as it might seem it was not the men that were pushing for more sexual freedoms. It was the girls. It was also EVE that was deceived by the devil. So I can understand why in some if not many cases university is not the best thing for the soul of a girl/woman. It is not because we are not as smart (or even smarter) then the men. It is because we are more easily deceived by society as a whole when we are in our youth. Look at the many women that pushed for “rights” in their late teen and early twenties and now have returned to Holy Mother Church. Ask them if they had to do it again would they. I wouldn’t and I know many others that wouldn’t.

This is not an issue with the SSPX it is more an issue as to what society has become and the backlash made to try to protect moral and religious values.

 

[pnewton]

I also know what Bishop Williamson meant in that women are not meant to go to any university.

So Margrite was right? I just wanted to bold this so that no one missed who we are dealing with when we deal with these excommunicated men. Does this strike anyone else as just a little bit cultish?

 

[Our_Refuge]

So Margrite was right? I just wanted to bold this so that no one missed who we are dealing with when we deal with these excommunicated men. Does this strike anyone else as just a little bit cultish?

That is not what Bishop WIlliamson is saying. What is the God given purpose of women? Is it motherhood or a university degree.?
Can a woman truly be a devoted mother and at the same time be devoted to her secular job? Some can. But if you look at the decline in morals and respect for authority , that begins at home, it clear to see that the majority of parents are not fullfilling their parential responsibility. They are too involved in the secular world.
That is all that the Bishop is pointing out. Again, what is the God give purpose of women, motherhood or a university degree?

 

[pnewton]

Again, what is the God give purpose of women, motherhood or a university degree?

Neither. Their purpose is to know, love and serve God. For some this is motherhood and for others a university degree. For some it may be both.

 

[Our_Refuge]

Neither. Their purpose is to know, love and serve God. For some this is motherhood and for others a university degree. For some it may be both.

What better way to "know, love and serve God’ than motherhood?
My wife has a masters degree. She is an excellent mother. All of our children are grown and are faithful Catholics. But for many families, this is not the case.
What I believe is the concern of Bishop WIlliamson is that most mothers neglect the spiritual upbringing of their children because they are too involved in the secular world. A university degree is not required to get to heaven but being a great mother is. That is all he is is pointing out.

 

[pnewton]

A university degree is not required to get to heaven but being a great mother is.

Being a great mother is not a requirement for salvation. Also, the whole idea presents a false dichotomy. Williamson’s generaliztion of women is absurd. He may not believe it, but some are really smart enough to handle being and excellent mother and a career. They are also women smart enough not to get themselves excommunicated.

 

[catharina]

That is not what Bishop WIlliamson is saying. What is the God given purpose of women? Is it motherhood or a university degree.?
Can a woman truly be a devoted mother and at the same time be devoted to her secular job? Some can. But if you look at the decline in morals and respect for authority , that begins at home, it clear to see that the majority of parents are not fullfilling their parential responsibility. They are too involved in the secular world.
That is all that the Bishop is pointing out. Again, what is the God give purpose of women, motherhood or a university degree?

The purpose of women - and of men - is to know, love and serve God in this world and to be happy with Him in heaven forever. If the bishop’s thinking is followed to its logical conclusion then the purpose of men is to be fathers and none of them should have a university degree either. Or, more relevantly, when did the acquisition of a university degree equal a FT employed mother outside the home?

Plenty of people home-school, perhaps a few more than the norm among some rigidly traditionalist groups. Should Mommy finish high school - or should she even finish eighth grade? She can homeschool far more adequately if she’s acquired a decent education.

In the past two days while following separate threads, I’ve learned that sspx-ers are comfortable with anti-Semitism and against higher education for women. sspx is built on prejudice? What else don’t I know about it? It reviles the teachings of the Holy Father and embraces bigotry against Jews and women. Hmmm. This group believes it’s on the fast track to heaven? Huh?

 

[ethelzguy]

A university degree is not required to get to heaven but being a great mother is.

Boy howdy, now here’s a new teaching for ya. I guess all the unmarried females or those married without children are up the creek without a paddle.

 

[catharina]

Boy howdy, now here’s a new teaching for ya. I guess all the unmarried females or those married without children are up the creek without a paddle.

Well, ya’ know, if bishop fellay SAYS SO, then …