SSPX, Here's The Problem We Have,

  • Thread starter Thread starter adstrinity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Onegin said:
I can’t keep track of all these threads but oh well, I’ll respond anyway:

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

Yes, and Archbishop Lefebvre has already been judged by God. There is no need for us to level additional judgment against him.
Click to expand...
And if we do, we will have to answer for it one day at our own judgement.
 
Jordan_Francis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. So now, according to you, the Church of today is not the same as that which proceeded it.

It really isn’t odd that some can have a negative opinion of the people and societies that hold such positions.
 
Great collection of quotes 👍
At_Trent said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
adstrinity said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’d like to point out the sheer lack of humility in your post. If you honestly believe that anyone who takes Jesus’ words thoughtfully read this without a sense of pity then you are mistaken. Who are you, me or anyone who is not Father, Son or Holy Ghost to publicly speak, opine or presume the state of anyone’s soul?

I certainly do not say this in anger, or in a spirit of malice. Nor do I wish to provoke you to anger or to malice in return. Our Lord taught us to pray for forgiveness of our sins in the same way that we forgive those who sin against us.

You are free to offer your opinions about the great Archbishop’s actions in life. They will bw respected, even if refuted. But you stepped far over the line of good taste and common Christian sense and charity above.

Forgive me, please, for my lack of charity, but I don’t believe many will lose sleep awaiting your next thread.
 
I can see two errors with regard to Archbishop Lefvbre. The first I have found myself to be guilty of. The second is an error that is common to those sympathetic to the SSPX, but is by no means common to all of them. The first is that we make too much out of the excommunication of the Archbishop. The second is that it is ignored altogether. While excommunication is serious business, and should not be taken lightly, it is a temporal state that does not follow the individual into the grave. We cannot assume that Lefbvre was not in a state of grace when he died. He was Catholic, and to his mind a member of the Church. If we can pray for the souls of non-Catholics, how much more can we pray for a man (as misguided as we may or may not think he was) whose only intention was to preserve the Sacred Tradition of Holy Mother Church. By extension, we cannot demonize the SSPX. Again, I do believe the Society is misguided, but if, according to Vatican II documents, we are to praise even those aspects of Protestantism which reveal Truth, how much more should we give credit to an authentically Catholic society of clergy. Caution should be exercised, at least until a full restoration of Canonical status is confirmed, but we should not treat them antagonistically. We are all Catholic. If anything, we should pray for an expedient restoration of communion.
 
wisdomseeker said:
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?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should study protestantism, since your statement really doesn’t make any sense.

FYI, when the Lutheran church revised their missal in the late 1970’s, they based their revisions on the Roman Missal of Pope Paul VI. The fact that they copied the missal is the reason why Lutheran services resemble Catholic liturgies, not because the Church “became” protestant. While Catholic Masses celebrated according to the current missal consecrate the true Body and Blood of Christ by a legitimate priesthood, in communion with the local bishop and the pope in Rome, protestant services are devoid of the sacramental nature because they lack the proper element. So, in what way is any of this "exactly what we see today?"
wisdomseeker said:
the good bishop kept the Traditions. the liberals in teh Church like ML turned the Church just like ML wanted.
Click to expand...
He “kept the Traditions” by disobedience, having himself excommunicated, having all of the society priests suspended from their duties and leaving his society without any active ministry in the Church. Is this your vision of what True Catholicism is supposed to be?

And yet, the “traditionalists” here wish to remake the Church in what they consider their image to be. I prefer to leave it to the bishops and the Holy See.
 
adstrinity said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you have a lot to be concerned right now inside the Church. you know like those who dont even believe in the Eucharistia. those who are in the Church but defiant to the teachings of the Church. these you should be concerned. the good bishop did none of these. he kept the 2000 year Tradition. today, the Church doesnt even reminds us of what the Church used to be. it looks just like any protestant communities. you should be paying attention to the heresies that is being tought to Catholics from inside the Church. those who are proud of themselves that they are doing away with kneelers and all the signs giving to us throught the years that make us known as Catholics.
these you need to be concerned. those who made you afraid of the Mass that has been celebrated for two thousand years. this you need to be concerned.
 
Timothysis said:
Oh, I see. So now, according to you, the Church of today is not the same as that which proceeded it.

It really isn’t odd that some can have a negative opinion of the people and societies that hold such positions.
Click to expand...
Nor can it be surprising that some can have a negative opinion of people and societies who hold the position that nothing has changed when the proof is all around us.
 
Onegin said:
I can’t keep track of all these threads but oh well, I’ll respond anyway:

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

Yes, and Archbishop Lefebvre has already been judged by God. There is no need for us to level additional judgment against him.
Click to expand...
Yes, like the Latin Mass.
 
maurin said:
Nor can it be surprising that some can have a negative opinion of people and societies who hold the position that nothing has changed when the proof is all around us.
Click to expand...
Is not the Church of today the same Church of Christ that has always existed?
 
wisdomseeker said:
I think you have a lot to be concerned right now inside the Church. you know like those who dont even believe in the Eucharistia. those who are in the Church but defiant to the teachings of the Church. these you should be concerned. the good bishop did none of these. he kept the 2000 year Tradition. today, the Church doesnt even reminds us of what the Church used to be. it looks just like any protestant communities. you should be paying attention to the heresies that is being tought to Catholics from inside the Church. those who are proud of themselves that they are doing away with kneelers and all the signs giving to us throught the years that make us known as Catholics.
these you need to be concerned. those who made you afraid of the Mass that has been celebrated for two thousand years. this you need to be concerned.
Click to expand...
The Latin Mass is not a 2000 year tradition.
 
wisdomseeker said:
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.
Click to expand...
The concerns are not mutally exclusive. One can be concerned about both and for the same reason. And to say that Archbishop Lefebreve caused no scandal is simply inaccurate. The “liberals” you mention, at least the vast herd of the sad and wrong-headed McBrien/Kung/Chichester/Gumbleton mindset, probably don’t ever even THINK about the Archbishop or the SSPX, except to decry the Holy Father’s attempts at reconcilliation. The Archbishop isn’t even a blip on their radar screen. No, it’s the faithful Catholics that are scandalized and grieved over what he did.
 
StTommyMore said:
Am I understanding that you think the Latin Mass should be done away with entirely? Please tell me this is not so.
Click to expand...
No, he means, essentially, that the Missal containing the Tridentine Mass does not come to us from the hands of the Apostles. It was a slow, organic development.
 
adstrinity said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is not really for you to agree with or not. We are not his judge and should not even be discussing the condition of his soul. God alone knew his heart. If you worry about the condition of his soul at death, do what could help him the most, pray for him and leave the judging to God.
 
maurin said:
Nor can it be surprising that some can have a negative opinion of people and societies who hold the position that nothing has changed when the proof is all around us.
Click to expand...
I think we would all agree that change, good and bad, has happened. We merely attribute responsibility for it to different sources.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
No, he means, essentially, that the Missal containing the Tridentine Mass does not come to us from the hands of the Apostles. It was a slow, organic development.
Click to expand...
This much is true. This is also where Traditionalists have a very good point. Where the Latin Mass grew slowly, the same is not true of the Novus Ordo. Of course, that has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the NO, but it did not develop over time the way the previous liturgy did, and as such, is something to consider and ponder.
 
Momofmyangels said:
It is not really for you to agree with or not. We are not his judge and should not even be discussing the condition of his soul. God alone knew his heart. If you worry about the condition of his soul at death, do what could help him the most, pray for him and leave the judging to God.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is judging his soul, but stating the objective truth. He died excommunicate.
 
StTommyMore said:
This much is true. This is also where Traditionalists have a very good point. Where the Latin Mass grew slowly, the same is not true of the Novus Ordo. Of course, that has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the NO, but it did not develop over time the way the previous liturgy did, and as such, is something to consider and ponder.
Click to expand...
No, but it has its antecedents IN the EF and other, older liturgies and is a simplified form thereof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top