SSPX, Here's The Problem We Have,

[Momofmyangels]

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.

Nicely said and I agree.

 

[StTommyMore]

In a nushell, and very briefly, it means, to me at least, that error has rights.

This is what I understand true ecumenism to be:

• The Fullness of Faith is to be found in the Catholic Church alone, but other faith traditions possess at least partial Truth
• We can work together with other Christian communities for a common goal (the Pro-Life Movement, for example), but this is not an admission that they are “equal” to Catholicism
• The Lord desires that we be one, and this is to be done by evangelization, so they can return to the One True Faith
• Non-Catholics, while they are invited to observe the Holy Sacrifice of Mass, they may not actively participate in the Holy Sacrifice of Mass

 

[maurin]

Would Christ ever abandon his Church? No

Unfortunately for some, it is not. Today we have the Conciliar Church, as opposed to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostalic Church that Jesus founded. As in:

This attempt to re-label the Catholic Church is a red flag, for the “Conciliar Church” is the one that carries the Keys of Peter. That is why the SSPX is attempting to be reconciled to the Holy Father. There will still be those who talk out of both sides of their mouth, using this label as a separater why claiming the SSPX is not separated. Indeed, if the SSPX and the Holy Father do come to agreement, I fear there will be those that break away from the SSPX rather than rejoin the “Conciliar Church” for rest assured, Vatican II is not going to disappear of be denounced. Still, I think most SSPX will be happen to see a successful conclusion to these talks.

Don’t blame Jordan Francis for the use of the term in order to make the distintion. The architects of the “reforms” themselves use the term quite often to make the same distintions. A perusal of interviews with them in thye archives OR from the seventies and eighties makes that quite obvious.

It might not be an unreasonable request on your part, though, to suggest different terms to distinguish pre and post conciliat time if the term the reformers themselves used is found offensive in these days.

 

[pnewton]

Obedience to what? To a Pope or tradition? Traditionally, the two should be in unison. But, we now know this is not always the case.

The Bishop was very much obedient! He was obedient to the sacred traditions of the Catholic religion. These supercede the whims or weakness of a Pope.

Well, if you believe the integrity of our religion is in the hands and the whims of a single personality, good luck to you and your religion!

There is another alternative to this false dichotomy. AB Lefebvre was the head of the SSPX. He could have simply believed what he did, obey the Holy Father as the Vicar of Christ and then trusted in God for what was beyond his control.

We laity can have Faith. We can trust in God and the Holy Spirit. I would rather trust the weakness of any man, who has the divine authority of God that to “lean on my own understanding.” I am amazed that Christians still see weakness through the eyes of the world. Have we forgotten the lesson of Paul that it is only in weakness that God’s strength is made perfect?

Oh, and yes, the Holy Father is also responsible to respond to changes in the world, be it modernism (as St. Pius X and St. Paul VI) did or the Protestant Reformation (as the Council of Trent addressed). This idea of the Pope running a ship on autopilot is simple wrong. IN this he can be imprudent, but whether is is imprudent or not is just an opinion and never justifies defiance.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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.

there is much to be concerned in teh Church. i just read a complaint of a Catholic saying that a bishop consegrated grape fruit juice during the Eucharist instead of wine. dont you think this should be of concern for those who so much oppose the reverence and truth in the Traditional Mass? instead of opposing so veemently a man who wanted nothing but to keep the holy Mass intact? instead of letting the laity take over the Liturgy?

 

[pnewton]

Don’t blame Jordan Francis for the use of the term in order to make the distintion. The architects of the “reforms” themselves use the term quite often to make the same distintions.

I do not blame him. As I said earlier, the term is often borrowed from some of the more extreme sites where it is drilled home as a form of propaganda, for propaganda it is.

In the seventies, the term could be used to distiguish the Church before and after Vatican II. Most of the time I have seen it, it is used to separate themselves from the mainstream Catholic Church, or to put it another way, from the Catholic Church under the Holy Father.

Maurin, I really have no idea how common this is in a real SSPX chapel. You would know far better than I if there is still bitterness to the idea of being once again a mainstream Catholic. The SSPX itself has shown a great deal of restraint in rhetoric of late (in the press) and are to be commended. I really do not know what the rank and file feel about current affairs.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is theoretically possible for conditions to exist under which it would be okay. The argument of the SSPX is that such conditions did exist. If you wish to disagree with them, you need to understand that argument and make a counter-argument to it. You cannot appeal to an analogy to something that is intrinsically evil.

But doesn’t the result of the actions speak for itself? The fact that there were excommunications at the time and that until today they are not fully reinstated to the Church speaks about the gravity of their actions.

 

[pnewton]

Does anybody here think that attacking the beloved founder of the SSPX and stirring up bad feeling is a good way to work toward reconciliation with them? Just wondering.

Yes…perhaps we should parallel our behavior to that of our Pope. I don’t hear any of this comdemnation of the Archbishop coming out of the vatican these days.

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.

 

[wisdomseeker]

But doesn’t the result of the actions speak for itself? The fact that there were excommunications at the time and that until today they are not fully reinstated to the Church speaks about the gravity of their actions.

No, you should be more concerned with the souls of the Catholics who are being tought heresies within the Church. this should be a big concern. the good bishop only wanted what the preceeding popes stablished. the sentiment in teh Church today is that they dont want anything to do with the Church of 2000 years. they only care what the Church is today.

 

[floresco]

IThe SSPX itself has shown a great deal of restraint in rhetoric of late (in the press) and are to be commended. I really do not know what the rank and file feel about current affairs.

Not just in the press. I’ve noticed it in their official communications with their adherents. And I have seen this echoed in the rank and file, although it is hard to get a sense of the proportion in support of reconciliation. I just don’t have a broad enough experience.

 

[Magnus467]

I do believe it might take some calisthenics to make that inference from my post. For me the Society is proof positive that Christ continues visibly and without a doubt to keep His Promise.

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.

 

[At_Trent]

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.

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

 

[floresco]

I agree, but that would have to be a moderator decision.

I would rather that people understood the importance of supporting the Pope in his initiatives toward reconciliation than have this imposed by moderators.

Besides, they have enough to do.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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.

i do agree, that fast they come back the better it is for us. but the liberals wont allow this to happen. they are the obstacles.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, you should be more concerned with the souls of the Catholics who are being tought heresies within the Church. this should be a big concern. the good bishop only wanted what the preceeding popes stablished. the sentiment in teh Church today is that they dont want anything to do with the Church of 2000 years. they only care what the Church is today.

I am concerned that is why I do not want Catholics to attend Masses from priests without faculties

 

[floresco]

But doesn’t the result of the actions speak for itself? The fact that there were excommunications at the time and that until today they are not fully reinstated to the Church speaks about the gravity of their actions.

These are matters of Church governance and therefore not infallible teaching. It is theoretically possible that these decisions were wrong, so it is problematic to make arguments based on assuming they were right.

 

[pnewton]

I am concerned that is why I do not want Catholics to attend Masses from priests without faculties

You know I do not think I am. I have heard some give their reason, that while I do not agree, I at least understand. The only thing I am concerned is that they may recruit Catholic here. If the SSPX does not reconcile, then who knows what will happen. Msgr. Perl does after all mention a danger in association with the SSPX.

 

[At_Trent]

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.

I see what you are saying, but H.E.'s disobedience wasn’t allowed was it ? He remained excommunicated until his death. No matter what me or you think, H.H. JPII didn’t let is slide.

 

[floresco]

I am concerned that is why I do not want Catholics to attend Masses from priests without faculties

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

 

[Timothysis]

In one sense, yes, absolutely. In another sense, no, absolutely not, although it does retain vestiges of its Traditional self.

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

That which was condemned yesterday is taught today, ie the false ecumenism and religious freedom. That which was explicated in no uncertain terms yesterday, is done so ambiguously today, ie the prayers of the Liturgy.

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.