SSPX, Here's The Problem We Have,

[Momofmyangels]

I agree, but that would have to be a moderator decision. I do know that if one starts a thread praising his virtues, especially when the praise slips into degradation of others, that a response is acceptable.

This thread was started as a degradation of Archbishop Lefebrve and labeling him a troublemaker and in no way praised his virtues. The questions the OP was asking were valid questions, but the way they were presented and the way the archbishop was labeled was uncharitable.

 

[maurin]

The point is that this council does not contradict others. The Church isn’t changing its teachings on error. Jesus gave his keys to Peter not the SSPX. I do wish they can be reconciled, but it is this attitude that is going to cause obstacles.

Magnus, if and when you find the time please research the term religious liberty.

I agree that there are obstacles, but the Society is nothe party who put them there. They are the ones doing their best to remove them.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I do not want Catholics to attend Masses from priests who disobey rubrics or preach heresy. I guess we are both out of luck.

 

[At_Trent]

Amen. he was never a disobedient soul. He was a protector of the Faith giving by Christ. i am sure our Lord will call him, a good servant.
to those unfaithfull in the Church , our Lord will judge them accordling.

My view as well my friend. His only motive was the preservation of Tradition.

 

[Timothysis]

Luther left the Church. No comparison at all. Not even remotely.

The comparison is completely apt, since Luther took it upon himself to decide what is and was truly Catholic. You still see supporters of the sspx slicing and dicing Canon law in order to support the disobedience of the Archbishop.

 

[At_Trent]

The comparison is completely apt, since Luther took it upon himself to decide what is and was truly Catholic. You still see supporters of the sspx slicing and dicing Canon law in order to support the disobedience of the Archbishop.

Valid point, but a specific Canon law contains something that would give credence to what H.E. did.

 

[maurin]

Sounds suspiciously like the Church’s expression of “ecclesial communities” which applies to protestant branches. Is that your insinuation here?

I suppose we could say that “false ecumenism” has and is always condemned. Ecumenism as a way of recognizing the Truth in a non-catholic’s beliefs should certainly not be condemned; indeed, it is the very stepping stone in order to bring one into the fullness of Faith.

Pertaining to religious liberty, "This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a
right to religious liberty. Liberty of this kind consists in
this, that all persons should be immune from coercion either on
the part of individuals, or of social societies, and of any
human power at all, and this in such a way that in a religious
matter neither should anyone be forced to act against his
conscience, or impeded from acting according to his conscience
privately and publicly. either alone or in association with
others, within due limits."

Sounds reasonable to me.

Sound sreasonable, yes, but this is certainly not how it is played out in my neck of the woods, or even in this country given all the press about keeping Catholic Morality out of politics. What religious liberty comes down to here, with very few exceptions and objections by the American Hierarchy, is that error has rights to coesist and even supercede Catholic Morality. I witnessed, while living not to long ago in a Diocese just north of the archdiocese where I currentoly reside, a ptotestant “pastor” preaching during Mass. He preached at more than my home Parish in that area. This occurred little more than 2 This is the liberty, or is it license, to which I have in mind when I speak of such things. Letters of protest, kindly worded, were received with a resounding silence by the Bishop’s office.

In response to your first question, a good example from my pov is a simple reading of the Traditional Confiteor and the reformed one.

 

[floresco]

The comparison is completely apt, since Luther took it upon himself to decide what is and was truly Catholic.

One important difference is apparent in the organizational structures of the institutions they founded. Luther founded an independent “church”. Abp. Lefebvre founded a religious society within the Catholic Church and the SSPX retains that structure to this day. It is not even set up to operate independently of the Church.

Another crucial difference is that Luther was a heretic, while the Archbishop had orthodox beliefs. Making comparisons between them seems rather forced.

 

[josephdaniel29]

It upset me that others were cultishly prostrating themselves before this man rather than God’s Church.

I guess I’m the only one who sees the irony in this?

 

[StTommyMore]

The comparison is completely apt, since Luther took it upon himself to decide what is and was truly Catholic. You still see supporters of the sspx slicing and dicing Canon law in order to support the disobedience of the Archbishop.

Actually a comparison between Luther and Lefbvre is on no way constructive. Luther wanted to jettson Tradition. Lefbvre wanted to preserve tradition. The only thing they have in common is that they were both excommunicated.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by adstrinity
It upset me that others were cultishly prostrating themselves before this man rather than God’s Church.

i guess for us, the Worship of God is too important, for the liberals not so much. for liberals, they are more concerned with what they want than what God wants. to us the House of God should be better than any of our houses. for liberals their houses should be better than God’s house. that is the difference between the good bishop and the liberals that proudly claim to be in teh Church yet are very much in dissobedience and causing scandals almost everyday to the Church before the world. the liberals and not the good bishop has brought great shame and pains to the Church. the world knows all about.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

It’s a total slap in the face to rip out communion rails and high altars, turn the priest the wrong way, stick communion in the hand, observe the near abandonment of Benediction (I was raised in the early 90’s, never encountered it once in my childhood, had no idea what it was) not only make the Mass basically devoid of Latin, but give us utterly banal vernacular (the new translation still lacks a sacred English) …and say nothing really changed, deny there was a revolution of sorts there.

And even if the vandalism against the sanctuary was not mandated by the reforms, they still rendered some of the most important and beautiful treasures of the sanctuary totally useless.

What happened to the altar servers? When I observe the Traditional Mass, I see them execute their duties with beautiful precision. Kissing the sacred vessels, genuflecting in unison, giving form to a sacred and unseen order.

When I was an altar boy in the 90’s they could train us to do our duty in 10 minutes.

Tradition is not just words and doctrines to assent to. **Small “t” tradition is as imporant as TRADITION **. Sacred tradition is a practice. it is a way of life. It is a mode of worship handed down to us by our ancestors that embodies the dogmas of the Faith in the most miniscule gestures.

That way of life was assaulted with the hierarchy’s own assent to the point of near extinction. This is simply objectively the case. It is one thing for small “t” traditions to die out organically. It is quite another for a Pope to take an axe to that ancient, venerable and holy tree and say “I’m going to plant a new one”.

The Archbishop spoke well:

**

Far be from me to set myself up as a pope. I am simply passing on what I received

**

The transmission of the Faith was deeply hindered. Any excesses and extremes in the Society not withstanding (I am not even a member!), the Archbishop knew that loyalty is not to the person of the Pope and his potentially destructive whims. He knew the role of the Pope is that of a servant of tradition. For goodness sake, the Office exists only because tradition has handed it to us!

Whatever the excesses of the Society, they had the sanity to see that what was happening was gravely against essential Catholic principles and corrosive to the faith.

I am glad Benedict understands this to an extent as well.

 

[At_Trent]

Great collection of quotes

Well, those quotes show that the Church has been fighting off those who would discard Tradition since the earliest days of the Church.

While I have you Emmit, how does your Chapel view the Transalpine Redemptorists today ?

Honestly, the reaction of the SSPX to their reconciliation with Rome is the only thing that makes me raise an eyebrow. Were the reports of having the Catholic paper removed from the Chapels true ? Has the tension eased the last year or so ?

 

[rben20]

It’s a total slap in the face to rip out communion rails and high altars, turn the priest the wrong way, stick communion in the hand, observe the near abandonment of Benediction (I was raised in the early 90’s, never encountered it once in my childhood, had no idea what it was) not only make the Mass basically devoid of Latin, but give us utterly banal vernacular (the new translation still lacks a sacred English) …and say nothing really changed, deny there was a revolution of sorts there.

And even if the vandalism against the sanctuary was not mandated by the reforms, they still rendered some of the most important and beautiful treasures of the sanctuary totally useless.

What happened to the altar servers? When I observe the Traditional Mass, I see them execute their duties with beautiful precision. Kissing the sacred vessels, genuflecting in unison, giving form to a sacred and unseen order.

When I was an altar boy in the 90’s they could train us to do our duty in 10 minutes.

Tradition is not just words and doctrines to assent to. **Small “t” tradition is as imporant as TRADITION **. Sacred tradition is a practice. it is a way of life. It is a mode of worship handed down to us by our ancestors that embodies the dogmas of the Faith in the most miniscule gestures.

That way of life was assaulted with the hierarchy’s own assent to the point of near extinction. This is simply objectively the case. It is one thing for small “t” traditions to die out organically. It is quite another for a Pope to take an axe that ancient, venerable and holy tree and say “I’m going to plant a new one”.

The Archbishop spoke well:

---

The transmission of the Faith was deeply hindered. Any excesses and extremes in the Society not withstanding (I am not even a member!), the Archbishop knew that loyalty is not the person of the Pope and his potentially destructive whims. He knew the role of the Pope is a servant of tradition.

 

[adstrinity]

And there were faithful Catholics who were scandalized by the way the Novus Ordo was introduced and the Tridentine Mass apparently abrogated. Their worship was changed and their sacred objects destroyed. It was a time of distress and confusion. Archbishop Lefebvre was motivated by concern for these souls. He was a man with decades of faithful service to the Church and, first of all, a pastor of souls. While it is possible that what he did was wrong (and I am not sure about this) I have seen nothing that leads me to think he acted from the bad motives being attributed to him in this thread.

He concecrated bishops without the approval, and indeed, in direct opposition to The Pope. You do not see that that was wrong? You do not see this as pride?

And, to the person who answered about St. Joan of Arc’s “excommunication”, thank you. I didn’t know the specifics. So, there’s nobody, then, that the Catholic Church excommunicated (officially) that they took back postumously?

 

[StTommyMore]

It’s a total slap in the face to rip out communion rails and high altars, turn the priest the wrong way, stick communion in the hand, observe the near abandonment of Benediction (I was raised in the early 90’s, never encountered it once in my childhood, had no idea what it was) not only make the Mass basically devoid of Latin, but give us utterly banal vernacular (the new translation still lacks a sacred English) …and say nothing really changed, deny there was a revolution of sorts there.

And even if the vandalism against the sanctuary was not mandated by the reforms, they still rendered some of the most important and beautiful treasures of the sanctuary totally useless.

What happened to the altar servers? When I observe the Traditional Mass, I see them execute their duties with beautiful precision. Kissing the sacred vessels, genuflecting in unison, giving form to a sacred and unseen order.

When I was an altar boy in the 90’s they could train us to do our duty in 10 minutes.

Tradition is not just words and doctrines to assent to. **Small “t” tradition is as imporant as TRADITION **. Sacred tradition is a practice. it is a way of life. It is a mode of worship handed down to us by our ancestors that embodies the dogmas of the Faith in the most miniscule gestures.

That way of life was assaulted with the hierarchy’s own assent to the point of near extinction. This is simply objectively the case. It is one thing for small “t” traditions to die out organically. It is quite another for a Pope to take an axe that ancient, venerable and holy tree and say “I’m going to plant a new one”.

The Archbishop spoke well:

---

The transmission of the Faith was deeply hindered. Any excesses and extremes in the Society not withstanding (I am not even a member!), the Archbishop knew that loyalty is not the person of the Pope and his potentially destructive whims. He knew the role of the Pope is a servant of tradition.

You are going to the other extreme. Step back, take a deep breath, and think about what you are saying. You prefer the EF? Good for you. Do not insinuate that John Paul II was anything less than a servant of God. It really makes me cranky. It seems to me that you are enamored with the form to the extent that you are blind to the fact that the form of a sacrament is not immutable. The matter is immutable. As was pointed out earlier, the NO was not invented out of thin air in 1968.

 

[crazzeto]

Small t tradition is in no way as important as Tradition, the small t ones can be subject to change with out corrupting the faith as a whole. With regard to OF, again it was a much longer process than many self described ‘Traditional Catholics’ like to pretend it was. Now of course, we’re getting a new missal, we will see what all it brings in the way of changes.

I think however, its’ abit much to claim OF constitues a crime of any sort. Rather, it provided the tools the Vatican needed moving into a new era, honestly I believe that it has done quite a bit to help bring about the healing of far older divisions than those of SSPX.

I would say this, if you prefer the traditional over OF make the same choice I did! Attend EF masses as often as you are able, promote them and if necessary petition for more EF masses, rather than complain about the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

Catholic are united by doctrine, not by style of worship. This isn’t to say liturgy is unimportant, certianly not. It is to suggest that perhaps the Vatican actually knows what’s doing.

 

[At_Trent]

It’s a total slap in the face to rip out communion rails and high altars, turn the priest the wrong way, stick communion in the hand, observe the near abandonment of Benediction (I was raised in the early 90’s, never encountered it once in my childhood, had no idea what it was) not only make the Mass basically devoid of Latin, but give us utterly banal vernacular (the new translation still lacks a sacred English) …and say nothing really changed, deny there was a revolution of sorts there.

And even if the vandalism against the sanctuary was not mandated by the reforms, they still rendered some of the most important and beautiful treasures of the sanctuary totally useless.

What happened to the altar servers? When I observe the Traditional Mass, I see them execute their duties with beautiful precision. Kissing the sacred vessels, genuflecting in unison, giving form to a sacred and unseen order.

When I was an altar boy in the 90’s they could train us to do our duty in 10 minutes.

Tradition is not just words and doctrines to assent to. **Small “t” tradition is as imporant as TRADITION **. Sacred tradition is a practice. it is a way of life. It is a mode of worship handed down to us by our ancestors that embodies the dogmas of the Faith in the most miniscule gestures.

That way of life was assaulted with the hierarchy’s own assent to the point of near extinction. This is simply objectively the case. It is one thing for small “t” traditions to die out organically. It is quite another for a Pope to take an axe that ancient, venerable and holy tree and say “I’m going to plant a new one”.

The Archbishop spoke well:

---

The transmission of the Faith was deeply hindered. Any excesses and extremes in the Society not withstanding (I am not even a member!), the Archbishop knew that loyalty is not the person of the Pope and his potentially destructive whims. He knew the role of the Pope is a servant of tradition.

It was indeed an about face on so many levels. Throughout history the Church has fought of revolutionary change, and then, bang. All in the name of the “spirit of VII”.

I can’t believe H.H. JXXIII had that in mind when he called the Council, considering he approved the 1962 missal.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Just take a look at this, watch out! you might cry.

which of these houses does Our Lord, the King of all Kings, after all His sufferings deserve?

montfort.org.br/index.php?secao=veritas&subsecao=igreja&artigo=missa-nova&lang=bra

 

[CradleCath]

I agree with your last sentence, though I point out that the SSPX is the one that broke from full communion, not vise versa. There are priests that screw up in our Churches. However, they are still in full communion with Rome.

I’ve always gotten a kick out of the term “in full communion.” After all, outstanding orthodox Roman Catholics like Cardinal Mahony and Archbishop Weakland are “in full communion.”