SSPX Could Return This Week - Agreement With Rome Near

[LilyM]

Actually, it has much to do with everything. Sin, blatant sin which is counter to the teachings of the Church, among Catholics and particularly among the clergy, is indicative of the state of the Church and how miserably it has failed to properly catechise, particularly in the last 40+years. What you see as “jumping ship” I see as maintaining an even keel. Abp. Lefebvre may have jumped the VII ship, but not the Church’s ship. It is all of the others who have jumped the ship of the Church, and they want the SSPX to jump out and sink, too! Fellay does not rant about the problems, because he is not a part of them. He is maintaining a thriving Society, with many faithful, without any of the problems that are attacking the “Church of Vatican II.”

Actually your sort of thinking is pre-cisely how Luther and other Protestant leaders justified THEIR abandonment of the Church - only in their day it was things like the sale of indulgences and Church offices and Popes who blatantly broke their vows of celibacy etc that ‘proved’ to their satisfaction that the Church had ‘jumped ship’. THEIR Churches certainly didn’t have any of the above problems, neither did they have the truth that can only be found with full Communion with Rome.

Did St Ignatius of Loyola or any of the other great Saints of the Reformation EVER feel it necessary to blatantly disobey a Pontiff as Lefebvre did in order to achieve reforms? Remember they lived in an era where they were absoutely needed JUST as badly.

In THEIR day clearly a large percentage of people (almost a majority of the huge percentage of Europeans who became Protestant in fact) ALSO didn’t believe in the Real Presence and many other Church doctrines either. Probably, for that matter, as with today, through lack of proper catechesis and teaching from their priests.

 

[consumedconvert]

However, there is not Catholic version of the theory of relativity. The Catholic Church is not something everyone defines for themselves. When Lefebvre was excommunicated, he did not take the Church with him. It remained with Pope John Paul II. It was from the Catholic Church that he was excommunicated.

I likewise acknowledge that many today who call themselves Catholic have cut themselves off from the Church through the sin that you mentioned.

You are absolutely right. (And for PW, I do believe the sins he is mentioning are the lamentable mortal sins of not fulfilling Sunday obligation, birth control, drunkenness, etc., the sins that infect many Catholics today. I believe his point is that you can abandon ship by either port or starboard.)

Can anyone justify Bishop Fellay’s decision to reject the Holy Father’s offer? What Canon does he have to point to now? Many who have previously felt sympathy with the SSPX now will surely turn against them. I suspect this may very well be the last chance for the SSPX, as a whole, to reconcile with Rome. But God help them, as individuals or as a unit, to return to Christ’s Vicar, chosen by God the Holy Spirit Himself.

Where Peter is, there is the Church.

Where Fellay is…?

 

[pnewton]

Cut themselves off through what* sin?* Could you clarify?

In context of the conversation, I was thinking of neglecting Mass attendance on Holy Days of obligation and Sundays. There are also many sloppy Catholics who dissent on many issues. The point was that their foolishness is hardly a good reason to leave the Church.

 

[bobzills]

Keep in mind that society over that same time period has come to accept divorce

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?

 

[bobzills]

Then the will always remain outside looking in. I have no respect for those that desert, then criticize; those that cut and run. Williamson has spoken. Now Fellay has spoken. They both continue to role the dice with their salvation. From Ecclesia Dei:

They do not consider themselves deserting. Quite the contrary, they consider that they are upholding the teachings of the Church as they were in place before Vatican II.

 

[bobzills]

The SSPX has many rules that the consider essential that are no longer the case such as:…
…
women are inferior to men

I didn’t know that the SSPX teaches that women are inferior to men. Could you please provide a reference to a document of the SSPX, where it says that women are inferior to men?

 

[laudamus_te]

In context of the conversation, I was thinking of neglecting Mass attendance on Holy Days of obligation and Sundays. There are also many sloppy Catholics who dissent on many issues. The point was that their foolishness is hardly a good reason to leave the Church.

Who has left the Church? If you’re suggesting that Lefebvre did, I would argue first: he did not leave the Church; second: he did not establish the SSPX because of the foolishness of sinners, but because the VII modernisation of the Church was becoming a danger to souls and the formation of priests in particular. We can all see with our own eyes the fruits of VII: dwindling mass attendance, “Cafeteria Catholics” who pick and choose which actions they consider to be sinful, overwhelming use of artificial birth control, acceptance of same-sex marriage and abortion (at least for others, if not for themselves), closures of seminary after seminary, and those that remain are teaching modernist theology in favor of the classic Thomism, etc.

LilyM, you may spout off with comparisons of Lefebvre to Martin Luther until the cows come home, but it will always be a ridiculous comparison and only reveals your total lack of a thoughtful, honest disagreement. You are only parroting the narrow-minded hate mongers. Lefebvre led an exemplary priestly life, firm and constant in his faith. Luther was a tortured, possibly possessed individual who advocated freedom to sin!

 

[LilyM]

LilyM, you may spout off with comparisons of Lefebvre to Martin Luther until the cows come home, but it will always be a ridiculous comparison and only reveals your total lack of a thoughtful, honest disagreement. You are only parroting the narrow-minded hate mongers. Lefebvre led an exemplary priestly life, firm and constant in his faith. Luther was a tortured, possibly possessed individual who advocated freedom to sin!

All right I’ll play along, even though your failure to look PAST my choice of example speaks volumes about your own intellectual blindnesses. Let’s look earlier - to Arius, Pelagius, Nestorius. Or even to Origen and Tertullian. Were any of them advocating freedom to sin? Not from what we know of them. Were they of impeccable personal life? Probably. Were they wrong to put themselves out of communion with Rome? ABSOLUTELY.

And I congratulate you on missing my MAIN point, which wasn’t about Luther at all. It was about those great reforming saints - Francis, Dominic, Catherine of Siena, Ignatius of Loyola and the rest. Or again, if you want to go earlier, those who fought Arius’ widespread heresy. How many of them, desperate as the times were in which they lived and dire as the Church was (and it was every bit as dire as in our day to look at), dared ever disobey the Pontiff and get excommunicated by the Pope in order to achieve their aims? I’ve yet to learn of any that did.

 

[laudamus_te]

All right I’ll play along, even though your failure to look PAST my choice of example speaks volumes about your own intellectual blindnesses. Let’s look earlier - to Arius, Pelagius, Nestorius. Or even to Origen and Tertullian. Were any of them advocating freedom to sin? Not from what we know of them. Were they of impeccable personal life? Probably. Were they wrong to put themselves out of communion with Rome? ABSOLUTELY.

??? I don’t follow you, sorry. You are comparing Lefebvre to still other heretics?

Or again, if you want to go earlier, those who fought Arius’ widespread heresy. How many of them, desperate as the times were in which they lived and dire as the Church was (and it was every bit as dire as in our day to look at), dared ever disobey the Pontiff and get excommunicated by the Pope in order to achieve their aims? I’ve yet to learn of any that did.

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.

 

[LilyM]

??? I don’t follow you, sorry. You are comparing Lefebvre to still other heretics?

To other clerics who put themselves out of communion with Rome, yes. It’s not my call as to whether the cap of heresy fits. You’re not going to deny that Lefebvre did choose to put himself out of communion, are you?

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.

Do I need to remind you that Athanasius was ALWAYS loyal to the Pope, and in fact was sheltered by the Pope during one of his periods of exile, and certainly never excommunicated by the Pontiff for rank disobedience to him? THAT is the stuff of which saints and true Catholic reformers are made, as the examples of the other saints I’ve mentioned proves.

 

[Margarite]

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

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).

 

[Margarite]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3853848#post3853848

Here is a thread about how Bishop F. says he won’t submit.

 

[LilyM]

To other clerics who put themselves out of communion with Rome, yes. It’s not my call as to whether the cap of heresy fits. You’re not going to deny that Lefebvre did choose to put himself out of communion, are you?

Do I need to remind you that Athanasius was ALWAYS loyal to the Pope, and in fact was sheltered by the Pope during one of his periods of exile, and certainly never excommunicated by the Pontiff for rank disobedience to him? Athanasius, not Lefebvre, is the stuff of which saints and true Catholic reformers are made, as the examples of the other saints I’ve mentioned proves.

 

[anthony022071]

Cut themselves off through what* sin?* Could you clarify?

Becoming a schismatic is a sin and a heresy.

Jerome:
“Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism there is this difference: that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the bishop. Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church” (Commentary on Titus 3:10–11 [A.D. 386]).

Augustine:
“We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor” (Faith and the Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

Ignatius of Antioch:
"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism , he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine , he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

 

[saint_rafael]

Do I need to remind you that Athanasius was ALWAYS loyal to the Pope, and in fact was sheltered by the Pope during one of his periods of exile, and certainly never excommunicated by the Pontiff for rank disobedience to him? THAT is the stuff of which saints and true Catholic reformers are made, as the examples of the other saints I’ve mentioned proves.

Pope Liberius did fall victim to Arianism. He like the other bishops held the same error of Jesus having only human nature.

 

[saint_rafael]

article from Catholic Family News:

cfnews.org/JuneOffer.htm

“I do not presume to speak for the Society of St. Pius X, but I would be surprised if the SSPX accepts these conditions. The conditions are remarkably vague and could be easily interpreted against the SSPX’s public resistance to the Council and the New Mass.
As for “The commitment to avoid the claim to a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father and to not propose the Fraternity in contraposition to the Church,” the SSPX has never done this, but only adheres to what the Church has always taught, and judges today’s progressivist teachings in that light. This, in fact, is the duty of all Catholics, and it is what Saint Vincent of Lerins instructed Catholics to do when “some new contagion threatens a part of the Church or the whole Church at once”.
The conditions sent by Cardinal Castrillón do not deal with the doctrinal issues of Vatican II, despite the fact that the Society of St. Pius X has stated repeatedly for decades that an honest discussion of the manifold problems with the Council is vital before any regularization can be seriously considered.”

 

[saint_rafael]

Excerpts from Bishop Fellay’s Ordination Sermon:

cfnews.org/JuneOffer.htm

"… When we see the Latin Mass Motu Proprio, we get the impression that they have taken the tip [of Tradition], which means they have accepted everything below the tip of that iceberg. That is not what they did. They tried to take the tip [of Tradition] and plant it on the other iceberg, on the iceberg of the new thing.
And so we have two tips, and they say it is only one tip…If you try to look under the water, what is below, you will see that they maintain the only thing you can have below is the new thing, but they call it “Tradition”. It may create a lot of confusion…
…And now, we are, should we say, something like at a crossroads. And in a certain way, Rome is telling us, “OK, we are ready to lift up the excommunication, but you cannot continue this way.”
So, we have no choice, we are not going this way, we are continuing what we have done, **we have fought now for forty years to keep this Faith alive; to keep this Tradition not only for ourselves, but for the Church. **And we are just going to continue, happens what happens. Everything is in God’s hands. If God wants this proof, this trial to continue, it may continue. He will give us the grace we need for it. No fear, we’ll wait for better times. That’s what the Archbishop said twenty years ago. That’s what we continue to say today. Of course we have to do all we can to have this Faith to be continued, to be preached everywhere, this Faith to be really — and all this Tradition to be really — back in the Church. We have to do whatever we can for this, but nothing else. It is a hard time, my dear brethren, but it is not ourselves who are going to change it. We are in these circumstances, we did not cause them. So we depend on God."

 

[JReducation]

Well…if you believe Christ’s words to Peter, whatever The Church binds on Earth is bound in Heaven, and whatever The Church Church looses on Earth is loosed in Heaven…also, She has the power to forgive and retain sins…Like I stated earlier…is St. Joan of Arc in Heaven or Hell? She was burned as a heretic, and then 24 years later, The Pope reopened the case and declared her a Martyr…not a heretic. Then she was canonized in 1920. This is just one example of The Church changing its mind…so you tell me, is she in Heaven or in Hell?

St. Joan of Arc was not excommunicated by the Holy See. She was condemned as heretic by an English bishop. Any time a bishop excommunicates someone he must report it to the Holy See. The Holy See has the final voice on whether the excommunication is merited or not.

In Joan’s case, the Holy See ruled against the Bishop and declared that she was never excommunicated, because the motivation was purely to satisfy the state, her faith or lack thereof had nothing to do with it. Therefore, she was a martyr. All martyrs go to Heaven.

JR

 

[anthony022071]

Pope Liberius did fall victime to Arianism. He like the other bishops held the same errot of Jesus having only human nature.

Pope Liberius “fell victim to Arianism” only in the sense that he was under duress to sign onto an Arian formula. But he never taught the Arian heresy.

mwt.net/~lnpalm/librius1.htm
< Now, granted for the moment that he did sign a formula, it is admitted that he signed it under violent pressure at the hands of imperial jailers; but such an act would be practically valueless. Secondly, the act, therefore, could not be interpreted to imply a wish to so teach the Church, in which case alone the Pope is declared infallible. Thirdly, since the creed said to have been probably signed by Liberius contained nothing positive against the faith, and only omitted an important word, even if intentionally, it would be interesting to know by what process of judicial interpretation his merely signing it could be called heretical teaching. Admitting, then, for argument’s sake the fact of the signature of a Sirmian formula by Liberius, he cannot be said, as universal doctor of the Church, to have taught heresy. But we deny the fact of the signature absolutely. We are not called upon here to prove a negative; but as the alleged fact rests on the historic value of certain documents, we would have only to show that these documents are untrustworthy, in order to make clear the character of the accused. But we will not rest here. The presumption in favor of Liberius is strengthened by the favorable testimony of his contemporaries and immediate successors. We quote a few: St. Basil, in his Epistle 263, calls him “the most blessed bishop,” and says that his faith and authority never failed. St. Ambrose, in the third book de Virginibus, calls him “beatæ memoriæ,” of blessed memory—a term which he repeats frequently throughout the work. Pope Damasus, writing to the Illyrian bishops concerning the assent to be given the Nicene definition, says expressly that, though the council of Ariminum (Rimini) had decreed otherwise, “the Roman bishop Liberius, whose judgment must be sought before all others, gave no consent to its decrees.” How could Damasus use this language, or enforce his own authority by the example of his predecessor, if there had been even a doubt of the latter’s integrity? The inference is plain. >

 

[LilyM]

Pope Liberius did fall victim to Arianism. He like the other bishops held the same error of Jesus having only human nature.

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