SSPX, Here's The Problem We Have,

[floresco]

“We” are those in the Catholic Church. Those LOYAL to the Catholic Church.

I am loyal to the Catholic Church and you do not speak for me. My loyalty means that I follow the Pope’s lead and seek reconciliation with the SSPX. It means that I do not write confrontational and emotionally-charged posts about them.

 

[Magnus467]

I see the OP’s frustration and unfortunately it came out in an emotional way. People say he upheld Sacred Tradition, but he didn’t. He clung to traditions that were subject to change.

 

[ConstantineTG]

For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
St. Athanasius, AD 373

H.E. Lefebvre and the SSPX would not approve of my assisting both forms of the Mass. Nor would the SSPX flock that post here.

But, H.E.'s intentions were clear. He risked doing what might turn out wrong, to do what he sincerely thought was right, that is, uphold Tradition. His intention was not a questioning of dogma or Doctrine. He decided to give a group of Roman Catholic clergy what they begged him for. A group whose intention was and remains, winning souls for Christ the King.

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”
Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique

Every single priest up until VII took the Oath Against Modenism. H.E. was among them. And he was one of the ones that did not break it.

“It is granted to few to recognize the true Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies, and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace.”
St. Robert Bellarmine

How can a man who gave his life to Holy Mother Church in such a manner be ridiculed and detested repeatedly, while Cardinals allow pagan rituals and lazer light rock shows in their Cathedrals ?

I have no doubts at all H.E.Lefebvre was greeted warmly at the Gates of Heaven.

I think the best example here is St. Paul and the Jewish Christians vs. the Gentile Christians

Clearly in St. Paul’s epistles he called out St. Peter to task. But did St. Paul at any time went on and did his own thing? From where I see it, no. Even when he was arguing with St. Peter, he sought St. Peter’s approval, as well as the other Apostles. Because he knew it was important. He could have just told the Gentiles that circumcision was not important, but he didn’t.

Would we allow abortion to save a woman’s life? No. Then why would we allow disobedience to Church authority for principles? Morals are supposed to be uncompromising.

 

[floresco]

Would we allow abortion to save a woman’s life? No. Then why would we allow disobedience to Church authority for principles? Morals are supposed to be uncompromising.

Abortion is intrinsically wrong. The morality of disobedience can be affected by circumstances. St. Thomas Aquinas writes that obedience is:a moral virtue, since it is a part of justice and it observes the mean between excess and deficency. Excess thereof is measured in respect, not of quantity, but of other circumstances, in so far as a man obeys either whom he ought not, or in matters wherein he ought not to obey.(ST II-II Q.104 A.2)

 

[Momofmyangels]

I hope you can explain it to us.

How is it that you, what in your psyche allows you to logically praise an archbishop that WILLINGLY DEFIED the Church he claims so much to have loved? Obedience is the best thing a priest can do, and he didn’t do that. Really, I want to know, I want to get in your head and understand why is it okay to defy the Church when it suits you and praise a man who has caused a schism in the Church? Why to you canonize this particular troublemaker? Why is it that you are all about the SSPX but not the FSSP or another Latin Mass more in line with the Church? Why do you go out of your way to be devided? Is it pride? Does it make you feel special? Persecuted? Closer to Jesus? Why don’t you accept that the SSPX is not in FULL communion with the Church? …And seriously, why do you venerate tht defiant archbishop?

Thank you.

We should remember that this archbishop was just that…an Archbishop, and as such he deserves respect as he represents Jesus, as all priests, bishops and archbishops do. We may not agree with what some of the clergy do, but it is not for us to judge them and start calling them names. God alone is their judge, not us.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Abortion is intrinsically wrong.

So is disobedience, most especially to a moral authority like the Pope

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We should remember that this archbishop was just that…an Archbishop, and as such he deserves respect as he represents Jesus, as all priests, bishops and archbishops do. We may not agree with what some of the clergy do, but it is not for us to judge them and start calling them names. God alone is their judge, not us.

Yes, I suppose that IS important. It is equally important to remember that the Archbishop died an excommunicate.

 

[Momofmyangels]

Yes, I suppose that IS important. It is equally important to remember that the Archbishop died an excommunicate.

But, that really is between him and God, is it not?

 

[wisdomseeker]

For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
St. Athanasius, AD 373

H.E. Lefebvre and the SSPX would not approve of my assisting both forms of the Mass. Nor would the SSPX flock that post here.

But, H.E.'s intentions were clear. He risked doing what might turn out wrong, to do what he sincerely thought was right, that is, uphold Tradition. His intention was not a questioning of dogma or Doctrine. He decided to give a group of Roman Catholic clergy what they begged him for. A group whose intention was and remains, winning souls for Christ the King.

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”
Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique

Every single priest up until VII took the Oath Against Modenism. H.E. was among them. And he was one of the ones that did not break it.

“It is granted to few to recognize the true Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies, and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace.”
St. Robert Bellarmine

How can a man who gave his life to Holy Mother Church in such a manner be ridiculed and detested repeatedly, while Cardinals allow pagan rituals and lazer light rock shows in their Cathedrals ?

I have no doubts at all H.E.Lefebvre was greeted warmly at the Gates of Heaven.

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.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

I wonder that if Martin Luther had expressed the same sentiment as you express here, would you give him a pass for what he did?

Obedience means submitting yourself to the legitimate Authority, not what you “think” is right.

No, I would not give him a pass. He pitched tradition. Kind of like what the Concilliar Church has done. It’s more complicated however, because they only did it in practice whereas Luther did it also in word.

But practice and word go together, and that’s why the Church is in such curious state at the moment. We think we can tell people the Mass is the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross while presenting it to the people like its the Protestant Lord’s Supper.

Loyalty to many centuries of tradition takes precedence over loyalty to a Pope.

Or is the law of prayer no more the law of belief?

How we pray is what we believe. Liturgy is the heart of orthodoxy.

The Mass is the highest prayer of the Church—the prayer of the Church. When you change the law of prayer, you have changed the beliefs of the Church—even if you say you have not. This becomes clear over time. In fact, its clear to many today.

Now we are seeing the hierarchy back peddle to an extent.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But, that really is between him and God, is it not?

Oh, yes, that’s so. But part of the purpose of excommunication as a tool of discipline and, really, of love is to point out error, to seperate truth from error, obedience from disobedience, etc., for the sake of the faithful. To ignore the Archbishop’s excommunication is to ignore the message that is intended for us, for the faithful.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I hope you can explain it to us.

How is it that you, what in your psyche allows you to logically praise an archbishop that WILLINGLY DEFIED the Church he claims so much to have loved? Obedience is the best thing a priest can do, and he didn’t do that. Really, I want to know, I want to get in your head and understand why is it okay to defy the Church when it suits you and praise a man who has caused a schism in the Church? Why to you canonize this particular troublemaker? Why is it that you are all about the SSPX but not the FSSP or another Latin Mass more in line with the Church? Why do you go out of your way to be devided? Is it pride? Does it make you feel special? Persecuted? Closer to Jesus? Why don’t you accept that the SSPX is not in FULL communion with the Church? …And seriously, why do you venerate tht defiant archbishop?

Thank you.

I think you should be more concern with the liberals and their attempt to destroy the Church, these remain in teh Church for one reason only, to destroy what God has built. this should be your concern.

you know, those who have desecrated the temple of God. those who took all the Latin from the Mass when the Council said it should remain. those who speak against priest celibacy, those who seek women’s ordination when the holy father said this is not possible. those who advocate for altar girls and have women running all around the Sanctuary. these should be your concern. those who advocate for gay marriage inside the Church. i think you should be more concerned with these abominations caused by those who remained inside the Church. leave the good bishop alone. he is a holy man. he has caused no scandal to the Church, but the liberals cannot leave him alone. he suffered for the Truth and you should be gratefull for that. you sound more like a protestant coming against the CC.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I wonder that if Martin Luther had expressed the same sentiment as you express here, would you give him a pass for what he did?

Obedience means submitting yourself to the legitimate Authority, not what you “think” is right.

right, except that the good bishop fought the modernists who wants to make the CC look just like protestant churches. that is exactly what we see today. is it not?

the good bishop kept the Traditions. the liberals in teh Church like ML turned the Church just like ML wanted.

 

[floresco]

So is disobedience, most especially to a moral authority like the Pope

No, disobedience is not intrinsically wrong and I just gave you a Summa Theologica quote that clearly stated this. Are you disagreeing with St. Thomas? The number of acts that are intrinsically evil is fairly limited. Here is a quote with a brief overview of Catholic moral theology: the Catechism makes it clear that the sources for the morality of a human act are the object chosen (what one is doing here and now), the end for whose sake the object is chosen, and the circumstances in which the action takes place (no. 1750)—and that all of these elements must be morally good, i.e., in accordance with moral truth, if the whole human act is to be morally good (no. 1755). The Catechism clearly identifies the object as the subject matter of the human act as willed and chosen by the agent (e.g., freely chosen intercourse with one’s wife [the marital act], freely chosen intercourse with one’s daughter [incest]) (no. 1751). It insists that a good intention, in the sense of the intention of the end for whose sake an object is chosen (and intended as an object of one’s free choice) cannot justify the means chosen if this means is evil (immoral) by reason of its object (no. 1753). It likewise clearly affirms that there are specific kinds of acts, specified by their freely chosen objects, that are always wrong for one to choose, e.g., fornication, precisely because the willingness to choose an object of this kind displays a disordered will, i.e., moral evil (no. 1755). In other words, the Catechism clearly teaches that there are some kind of human acts, specified by the object of choice, that are intrinsically evil and that, corresponding to such acts, there are absolute moral norms, admitting of no exceptions.(from christendom-awake.org/pages/may/catechism.htm )

The same article gives some examples of intrinsically evil acts:infanticide (no. 2268), abortion (no. 2281), mercy killing or euthanasia (no. 2277), and suicide (no. 2281); masturbation (no. 2352); fornication (no. 2353); rape (no. 2356); homosexual acts (no. 2357); adultery (no. 2380-2381) (the numbers are Catechism references)

 

[adstrinity]

But, that really is between him and God, is it not?

I cannot agree to this fully because he died without receiving viaticum; he died, POSSIBLY, in mortal sin. I do not know, it IS unfair for me to assess this, perhaps he made a perfect act of contrition for his pride and disobedience in his last moments, BUT, I do not think it is…permissible, to let his death as an excommunicant go without note. He has scandalized the Church and clearly, some would rather follow him and thumb their noses at the church rather than go through the proper channels and reconcile to the Church fully.

There is a big asterisk next to his name because of how he has harmed the Church. ~I~ don’t think his excommunication unto his death should go unnoticed. The Church pronounced it, the Church has the authority to bind.

That being said, did the Church ever fully excommunicate anybody else and then retract it? St. Joan of Arc? Anybody?

And it does disturb me ever so much that many people, again, as I’ve said before, worship this man and follow him rather than join up one of the three Latin-only approved, or another Latin approved Mass in full communion with the Church, one that has the Church’s blessing.

Hmm. I guess that will be my next thread.

And, I’d like to point out, as many people know but do not want to admit, though VII had granted use of the vernacular, it is not VII that codefied clown masses and altar dancing.

 

[Momofmyangels]

Oh, yes, that’s so. But part of the purpose of excommunication as a tool of discipline and, really, of love is to point out error, to seperate truth from error, obedience from disobedience, etc., for the sake of the faithful. To ignore the Archbishop’s excommunication is to ignore the message that is intended for us, for the faithful.

I agree, but that does not give us license to judge him and continually rake him over the coals. It is uncharitable and wrong. Again, God alone is his judge, let’s leave it in His hands.

 

[Onegin]

I can’t keep track of all these threads but oh well, I’ll respond anyway:

I see the OP’s frustration and unfortunately it came out in an emotional way. People say he upheld Sacred Tradition, but he didn’t. He clung to traditions that were subject to change.

Like “clinging” to the Traditional Form of the Mass?

We should remember that this archbishop was just that…an Archbishop, and as such he deserves respect as he represents Jesus, as all priests, bishops and archbishops do. We may not agree with what some of the clergy do, but it is not for us to judge them and start calling them names. God alone is their judge, not us.

Yes, and Archbishop Lefebvre has already been judged by God. There is no need for us to level additional judgment against him.

 

[adstrinity]

I think you should be more concern with the liberals and their attempt to destroy the Church, these remain in teh Church for one reason only, to destroy what God has built. this should be your concern.

you know, those who have desecrated the temple of God. those who took all the Latin from the Mass when the Council said it should remain. those who speak against priest celibacy, those who seek women’s ordination when the holy father said this is not possible. those who advocate for altar girls and have women running all around the Sanctuary. these should be your concern. those who advocate for gay marriage inside the Church. i think you should be more concerned with these abominations caused by those who remained inside the Church. leave the good bishop alone. he is a holy man. he has caused no scandal to the Church, but the liberals cannot leave him alone. he suffered for the Truth and you should be gratefull for that. you sound more like a protestant coming against the CC.

Hmmm. I am not more concerned with those who want to destroy the Church from the left and the outside, but, this is the Traditional Catholicism folder and, lately, posts about how great this French archbishop is have been popping up. I am concerned about those who will defend this man who was defiant. I am enjoying reading about the mindset of WHY people tend to adhere to his teachings, it is clarifying things, and I hope for other people as well.

I am just as equally concerned about those who want to destroy the Church in THEIR traditionalist ways rather than be a part of the living Church of Christ in HER traditionalist ways. I take issue with people wanting to worship this man, this, mere man who died outside of the Church, but, I am understanding it more now.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, disobedience is not intrinsically wrong and I just gave you a Summa Theologica quote that clearly stated this. Are you disagreeing with St. Thomas? The number of acts that are intrinsically evil is fairly limited. Here is a quote with a brief overview of Catholic moral theology: the Catechism makes it clear that the sources for the morality of a human act are the object chosen (what one is doing here and now), the end for whose sake the object is chosen, and the circumstances in which the action takes place (no. 1750)—and that all of these elements must be morally good, i.e., in accordance with moral truth, if the whole human act is to be morally good (no. 1755). The Catechism clearly identifies the object as the subject matter of the human act as willed and chosen by the agent (e.g., freely chosen intercourse with one’s wife [the marital act], freely chosen intercourse with one’s daughter [incest]) (no. 1751). It insists that a good intention, in the sense of the intention of the end for whose sake an object is chosen (and intended as an object of one’s free choice) cannot justify the means chosen if this means is evil (immoral) by reason of its object (no. 1753). It likewise clearly affirms that there are specific kinds of acts, specified by their freely chosen objects, that are always wrong for one to choose, e.g., fornication, precisely because the willingness to choose an object of this kind displays a disordered will, i.e., moral evil (no. 1755). In other words, the Catechism clearly teaches that there are some kind of human acts, specified by the object of choice, that are intrinsically evil and that, corresponding to such acts, there are absolute moral norms, admitting of no exceptions.(from christendom-awake.org/pages/may/catechism.htm )

The same article gives some examples of intrinsically evil acts:infanticide (no. 2268), abortion (no. 2281), mercy killing or euthanasia (no. 2277), and suicide (no. 2281); masturbation (no. 2352); fornication (no. 2353); rape (no. 2356); homosexual acts (no. 2357); adultery (no. 2380-2381) (the numbers are Catechism references)

So its okay to disobey the Pope who has supreme authority over the Church?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think you should be more concern with the liberals and their attempt to destroy the Church, these remain in teh Church for one reason only, to destroy what God has built. this should be your concern.

We should be concerned by both the left and the right. Not because one group adheres to traditionalism means they cannot do anything wrong.