SSPX District Superior: Tradition and Democracy

  • Thread starter Thread starter EcceAgnusDei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Melchior said:
*“after the Second Vatican Council the Church’s official authorities **separated themselves from the Catholic truth ***and now they seem determined, as before, to remain faithful to conciliar doctrine and practice"

This line, found in the link that Jason posted, is really concerning.
Click to expand...
But the FSSPX weren’t the only ones to start labels such as AmChurch and Mexican Church and so forth. If that wasn’t concerning, it certainly should have been IMO.
 
jwinch2 said:
At the end of the day, I am hopeful that the SSPX will come home completely and that the Church will embrace them as Christ taught in the parable of the prodigal son.
Click to expand...
Eventually they will have to. Unless the bishops start consecrating other bishops. Then it would be virtually an irreconcilable position.
 
curlycool89 said:
And yet one wrong is still not a justification for doing another wrong. Others doing wrong does not release you from doing what is right.

There’s a popular phrase that says “character is what you do when no one is watching”. This is the same idea, “right is what you do even when everyone else is doing wrong”.
Click to expand...
Right, but pay attention to what happened on this thread. It was the other way around.

An SSPX priest pointed to a real problem in the way Catholics think and act, and others responded with applying that to the 1988 Consecrations. Not a logical problem, perhaps it did apply, but rhetorically that it a device that can distract from the point by trying to descredit the group making the point.

But it’s actually a good point we should care about.

If an overweight doctor gives me some advice on losing weight (which I could stand to do), I could point at his weight, or I could benefit from his advice.
 
newyorkcatholic said:
I have seen, and read, and known, and spoken to, so so so so many bishops and priests and laypeople in “good standing” with the Church in every way who not only deny articles of Trent or things taught with clarity in Scripture.
Click to expand...
Good point. Here is an example I encountered in the past few months.

I was reading a blog run by a man who is a priest and professor, wherein the blog owner posted in a comment, that Jesus Christ did not institute the sacraments.

I thought that was odd, and so I sent a note wherein I asked what his position is on the following Tridentine canon:

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.

He didn’t reply to me, but he did repeat the same statement later on his blog - directly contrary to this Tridentine canon.

(question: can we conclude that this person has excommunicated himself?)
 
wasserfall said:
(question: can we conclude that this person has excommunicated himself?)
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. It needs to be obstinate refusal, not ignorance. However, I find it hard to believe that he wouldn’t know that; going through seminary to become a priest. He could of never found the email you sent him. I’d give the benefit of the doubt, but yes that is concerning he is leading souls astray. Try contacting him again.
 
wasserfall said:
Fr. is referring to the breakdown in lines of authority after Vatican II.

While it is true that the hierarchy formally remained intact, many priests and bishops felt empowered to follow their own desires and to openly resist any attempt by authority to rein them in. This is blamed on the concept of “collegiality”.
Click to expand...
ImmaculataFides said:
No. The reason being, modernist Bishops who interpreted “collegiality” incorrectly were rejecting lawful authority, not just being disobedient. Archbishop Lefebvre was simply disobedient. There is a difference between doubting the legitimacy of the command and the commander’s right to command. (to quote Iotaunum)
Click to expand...
I was merely asking based on the framework that wasserfall provided which also fits the Abp . Lefebvre’s actions: “follow one’s desires and openly resist any attempt by authority to rein them in.” Because for some people, Abp. Lefebvre rejected lawful authority with his disobedience.
 
choliks said:
I was merely asking based on the framework that wasserfall provided which also fits the Abp . Lefebvre’s actions: “follow one’s desires and openly resist any attempt by authority to rein them in.” Because for some people, Abp. Lefebvre rejected lawful authority with his disobedience.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not correct. Archbishop Lefebvre did not reject lawful authority. He was only disobedient. Rejecting lawful authority means rejecting the fact that someone has authority. Archbishop Lefebvre never rejected the fact that the Roman Pontiff had authority. Doing so would make one a schismatic and effectively make them non-Catholic. Archbishop Lefebvre simply disobeyed an order. That does not equate to rejecting the authorities right to command.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top