SSPX Myths

[JReducation]

I would bet a year’s salary that this will happend before…

His personal secretary, I believe, just wrote a wonderful book Life With Karol. Has anyone seen it? I’ve read bits and pieces that have been put out here and there. I want to pick it up. There was a wonderful interview with him about John Paul’s mysticism.

JR

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Unless he’s beatified and canonized.

Even if he was…so what? Even the saints have erred. Even pope saints have erred…starting with Peter.

 

[ProVobis]

What sense does it make to say that #3 doesn’t make sense?

It’s the pope’s decision whether a penalty is mitigated. He has authority to bind and loose,and so he has authority over canon rules.

Yes, it’s his decision but why make two opposing decisions? The Pope through his Canon Laws leaves it to the individual to determine if the fear is real while his other decision is dictorial and ignoring his own rules. There was nothing in the Bible about contradictions binding and loosing. You need to change the law first before you hang someone on what should be law.

That’s all I’m going to say on this as I’m exhausted from the research I’ve done. Let’s go to another topic.

 

[ethelzguy]

C’mon…you’re kidding, right? God isn’t ‘gender specific’, however, Jesus is. Also, Jesus, a man, calles his parent “Father”. Also, Mary conceived of the Holy Ghost. Wouldn’t it seem strange that she cenceived of a ‘female’ spirit? God does have ‘maternal’ ‘instincts’ (but He also has Paternal ones, of course) but I think those things I mentioned above basically cover that.

Also, “Holy Mother Church” is a ‘mother’ because she is the Bride of Christ (a man). Just as a man is the head of his wife, so is Christ the head of the church. I heard that when I got married…

Actually, I was and I wasn’t (kidding). I’m sure Sister Euthanasia beat the “male” Holy Spirit into my head as a child, and it’s been there subconsciously ever since.

What I am referring to, was the claim that a priest referred to the HS in the “feminine”, stating it to be an “abuse”. It may not be what we are accustomed to, but I can’t say that I would qualify it as an “abuse”…unless someone can direct me to documentation otherwise. (that it constitutes abuse).

BTW, I like your explanation though.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Even if he was…so what? Even the saints have erred. Even pope saints have erred…starting with Peter.

Could you explain? Thanks.

 

[Jenny_Z]

Could you explain? Thanks.

Denying Christ 3 times, off the top of my head…

 

[GerardP]

Wow o wow dept again! Myths indeed! More like wishful thinking! Rome has spoken on the matter. Time to get over your schism and come home.

Wow! More sloganeering! What does “Rome has spoken” mean? Answer: Nothing. It’s just a theft of a statement of St. Augustine that is not even applicable to the issues at hand.

The reality is, Rome has not spoken on the doctrinal issues and avoids it at all costs. It prefers politics to doctrine nowadays. Because when Rome does speak on the doctrine of the Church with the authority of Peter, the SSPX will be vindicated.

I’m a convert and I happen to love the sounds of Latin and am even trying to learn it on my own.

The lovely sounds aren’t the reason for the Latin. The precision of the language protects the doctrine. Consubstantial means something completely different than “One in Being” for example.

I’d go to a local Latin Mass, but I was invited to join the schismatics as we gathered for cake and coffee after going to it.

Join the Schismatics? Is that a Pop Music group? Or are you referring to the Orthodox Schismatics?

Or, do you not know what the word schism really means?

I cannot get to another around here. When the schimatics clear out and it is safe to go back I will. Until then…

…You’ll keep making up stories?

What I don’t like is telling folks I love Latin and the Latin Mass and having them wonder if I’m a SSPX fruit loop too!

What kind of fruit loop would you prefer they wonder about you?

They’ve cast a shadow over all those who would love to have the Latin Mass more frequently and it is my belief have in fact stymied the return of same by their horrid acts of disobedience.

Now who’s talking about wishful thinking? Yes. JPII’s first item on ascending to the papacy was to correct the illegal suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass. If only that terrible archbishop LeFebvre hadn’t forced JPII to have all of those ridiculous papal masses, if only LeFebvre hadn’t forced JPII to appoint all of those bad bishops who aided priests who raped boys. If only archbishop LeFebvre hadn’t forced Archbishop Weakland to have an affair with a man and pay him 400 grand in hush money.

Oh that LeFebvre did such terrible damage. He actually made all of the bishops and priests of the World engage in the “Spirit of Vatican II” a clever invention of the SSPX, it forced almost all diocesan priests to stop believing in the real presence and the dogmas of the Church. It was LeFebvre (obviously) that tragically forced priests to think they were creative, nuns to forsake their habits, mislead leaders of other religions into thinking that they were on equal footing with the Catholic Church.

What I wonder is how the SSPX have stopped the FSSP from getting a bishop for the last 20 years.

Rarely do I admit loving Latin -

Yes. That question comes up all the time in normal conversation. It must be tough to be a “closet Latin fan.”

I’ve learned in the years I’ve been catholic that admitting that starts tongues waging about fidelity to the Holy Father and the whole ball of wax.

Shows you just how much of the Church is in crisis. Cowardice on your part and apostasy on the part of those allegedly “in full communion”

God bless the SSPX idiots who gave Latin a bad name!

Peace,

Gail

Hah! Pathetic. C’mon Gail. That argument is just dumb, I haven’t seen the legal and science communities abandon Latin.

And as far as the little, itty bitty insults go, we’ve heard far worse from “good conservative Catholics” who aren’t nearly as boring as you are in your arguments.

I’ll never forget the cute rhyme one of these “loyal to the Holy Father” so-called Catholics used to write on one forum. “Marcel, Marcel is squealing in Hell.” ah…the LUV. Who wouldn’t want to be a part of the “Springtime of Vatican II” as represented by such witty and zealous defenders of truth?

I’m sure the Holy Father would be proud of you and his other “loyal” Catholics for your charity and class as well as the intellectual rigor of your arguments. He must warm to it, like a bunch of semi-nude pseudo-savages do a goofy liturgical dance around him in body paint making a mockery of him, his office and the holy sacrifice of the Mass as well as thousand of malformed in conscience catholics who lap it up like it’s actually something good.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Denying Christ 3 times, off the top of my head…

Ok, I was thinking he was referring to Peter in the role of Pope.

Thanks.

 

[Jenny_Z]

Ok, I was thinking he was referring to Peter in the role of Pope.

Thanks.

Oh shoot! I had a bunch of threads open at once, I thought I was replying to another (the “Saints with sinful pasts” thread) Was wondering why I didn’t remember this one…

Carry on! My bad.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Ok, I was thinking he was referring to Peter in the role of Pope.

Thanks.

I was. I was thinking of Paul’s rebuke of Peter.

Also, there’s the ol’ “Quo Vadis” tale.

God: “Peter, where the heck are you going?”
Peter: “Uh…away from Rome…?”
God: “Get back there dummy, otherwise I’ll have to go back and get crucified a second time”

I’m pretty sure that’s how it went…

 

[GailMac]

O dear! I’d like to thank Maurin for her lovely compliments!

And as for this one: “I’m sure the Holy Father would be proud of you and his other “loyal” Catholics for your charity and class as well as the intellectual rigor of your arguments. He must warm to it, like a bunch of semi-nude pseudo-savages do a goofy liturgical dance around him in body paint making a mockery of him, his office and the holy sacrifice of the Mass as well as thousand of malformed in conscience catholics who lap it up like it’s actually something good.” Gee I didn’t know my post would make me personally responsible for such!

Or is it me?

I think the purpose of the OP was to distort the truth and thereby subvert those of the faithful who don’t know what the SSPX is all about to a group of self-righteous prideful schimatics who would rather remain excommunicated imagining they are somehow rescuing the Church from the errors of our modern ways. Pseudo-heroes and self-proclaimed martyrs for a lost cause.

Faithfulness is an act that takes a lifetime and it would take Hell freezing over before I will see anything heroic about their supreme acts of disobedience. I kinda think they are of the same ilk as those who’ve ordained women in their alliances. They have one alliance - to themselves and their opinions. Both groups are the same.

Peace,

Gail

P.S. The fact that they have ignored the Church’s supreme act of Mercy in imposing an excommunication in order to shock those involved into repentance and have instead for years plowed full steam ahead through the vineyards of the Lord speaks volume’s about what they are really all about. Actions speak louder than words!

 

[maurin]

O dear! I’d like to thank Maurin for her lovely compliments!

you’re welcome, sir.

the following, though, were not my comments:

And as for this one: “I’m sure the Holy Father would be proud of you and his other “loyal” Catholics for your charity and class as well as the intellectual rigor of your arguments. He must warm to it, like a bunch of semi-nude pseudo-savages do a goofy liturgical dance around him in body paint making a mockery of him, his office and the holy sacrifice of the Mass as well as thousand of malformed in conscience catholics who lap it up like it’s actually something good.” Gee I didn’t know my post would make me personally responsible for such!

Or is it me?

I think the purpose of the OP was to distort the truth and thereby subvert those of the faithful who don’t know what the SSPX is all about to a group of self-righteous prideful schimatics who would rather remain excommunicated imagining they are somehow rescuing the Church from the errors of our modern ways. Pseudo-heroes and self-proclaimed martyrs for a lost cause.

Faithfulness is an act that takes a lifetime and it would take Hell freezing over before I will see anything heroic about their supreme acts of disobedience. I kinda think they are of the same ilk as those who’ve ordained women in their alliances. They have one alliance - to themselves and their opinions. Both groups are the same.

Peace,

Gail

P.S. The fact that they have ignored the Church’s supreme act of Mercy in imposing an excommunication in order to shock those involved into repentance and have instead for years plowed full steam ahead through the vineyards of the Lord speaks volume’s about what they are really all about. ** Actions speak louder than words**!

very true: and it works both ways, both for the SSPX Priests and the Diocesan ones who contradict the Church’s Teachings.

 

[GerardP]

Gee I didn’t know my post would make me personally responsible for such!
Or is it me?

Just blame LeFebvre.

I think the purpose of the OP was to distort the truth

Distort what truth? That should be easy for you to identify and correct. But I think you are just ticked off because the original post puts your slogans and bloviating into the proper light.

and thereby subvert those of the faithful who don’t know what the SSPX is all about

So your precision logic and argumentation consists of calling them “idiots” and repeating the same vague and fallacious arguments?

to a group of self-righteous prideful schimatics who would rather

Blah, blah.blah. More useless hot air to subsitute for the fact that you haven’t got an argument.

C’mon Gail do better. Your points are pointless so far.

remain excommunicated imagining they are somehow rescuing the Church from the errors of our modern ways.

More repeats of your assertions of excommunications as if they are infallible in your imagined non-Catholic unreasonable psuedo religion.

Why don’t you actually correct the errors for all of those “faithful” you have appointed yourself to protect. They might be more convinced if you make an argument instead of spewing venom.

Pseudo-heroes and self-proclaimed martyrs for a lost cause.

Ah…now it comes out.

Faithfulness is an act that takes a lifetime

That’s nonsense.

and it would take Hell freezing over before I will see anything heroic about their supreme acts of disobedience.

You seem to only see what you want to see.

I kinda think they are of the same ilk as those who’ve ordained women in their alliances. They have one alliance - to themselves and their opinions. Both groups are the same.

Peace,

Gail

Ah yes. Guilt by association. Alright let’s play.

SSPX-haters and their Nazi pals pull this stunt all the time. This is why those haters and their ilk are like Abortionists. They have to go into denial to support their false ideas that are death-dealing.

P.S. The fact that they have ignored the Church’s supreme act of Mercy in imposing an excommunication in order to shock those involved into repentance and have instead for years plowed full steam ahead through the vineyards of the Lord speaks volume’s about what they are really all about. Actions speak louder than words!

The “Church” has always taught that invalid excommunications are to be ignored. The fact that the Pope as Pharoah worshippers refuse to acknowledge the very serious and very real faults of JPII and Paul VI and the Church organizational structure that followed them is indicative of the loss of reason among them and more proof of their apostasy.

Actions do speak louder than words. JPII particularly didn’t intend to guard the deposit of faith if one looks at his actions.

Deal with it.

 

[Binx]

I’ve been looking at another one of the SSPX annulment documents:

Until the 1983 Code, deceit was never accepted as a grounds for nullity of marriage, and this in order to protect the permanence of the conjugal bond. However, the authors admit that the Church could introduce, in her positive law, deceit as a grounds

, especially if the deceit concerned something necessary to the primary object of marriage, such as the bonum prolis (e.g., one of the spouses deliberately hiding the fact that he/she was sterile).

But canon 1098 of the 1983 Code is much broader than this, and includes such deceit as the hiding of drunkenness, drug addiction, or even an angry temperament, which would make the common life impossible. The personalist inspiration of this new canon is quite clear and such that we cannot accept it. Nor is it our place to reformulate it in a Catholic sense.

Now compare that with Trent:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the Church could not establish impediments dissolving marriage

; or that she has erred in establishing them; let him be anathema.

From the bolded part of each quote, it seems as though the SSPX accepts, at least in general principle, the authority of the Church to enact impediments to marriage. However, from the bolded and underlined part of each quote, it seems as though the SSPX rejects the actual impediment enacted by the Church, in effect claiming that the Church has erred in establishing that particular impediment.

In summary, I don’t see how it is possible for the SSPX to reject parts of the 1983 canon law on marriage without also thereby rejecting the Council of Trent’s dogmatic statement giving the Church the authority to enact such law.

Your analysis is good, I think, all the way up to your final conclusion. Particular canons, of course, are not dogmatic, nor is Trent claiming that they are. Rather, the anathema seems directed at those who reject the notion that the Church has the right to establish impediments dissolving marriage or that she has been in error to exercise such right. As you have effectively pointed out (in the first quotation above), the Society rejects no such thing. Rather, they reject the apparently “personalist inspiration” behind Canon 1098 and the consequent ambiguous application of the concept of deceit.

Here, for the record, is that canon: “Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.”

“Some quality of the other partner” and “gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life” are vague phrases that allow for the abuse of the spirit of the law regarding annulments. As such it is a clear break from traditional jurisprudence. It is this looseness of language–typical of the post-conciliar church–that the Society is rejecting and NOT (as the above quotation notes), the concept of deceit per se as a legitimite basis for annulment, nor the Church’s inherent right to formulate corresponding law in the spirit of the traditional church’s intent regarding marriage.

 

[strugglingalong]

Without what Archbishop Lefebvre did, we probably wouldn’t have the traditional Latin Mass. I do wish Rome would come out and clearly, unequivocally state SSPX’s condition. I’d like to go to their Masses but right now I just can’t because there is no necessity. Most of all, we need them to be regularized!!!

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[EddieArent]

His personal secretary, I believe, just wrote a wonderful book Life With Karol. Has anyone seen it? I’ve read bits and pieces that have been put out here and there. I want to pick it up. There was a wonderful interview with him about John Paul’s mysticism.

JR

His wonderful secretary also disobeyed the HOLY FATHER’S DEATH WISH that his writings be destroyed.

 

[Diak]

Myth #1: The SSPX has been excommunicated.

When in 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated without a papal mandate four bishops, Pope John Paul II invoked the latae sententiae excommunication of Canon 1382 to be applied to the Archbishop as well as to the four newly-consecrated bishops.

Myth #1 is no myth but a fact. The initial post did not indicate the entirety of Rome’s proclamations regarding the “Priestly Society of St. Pius X”.

From the Magisterial document Ecclesia Dei:

1. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - **constitutes a schismatic act.(**3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, **Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(**4)

A schismatic act was performed as documented by Rome herself. “**Have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication **” is also clearly stated. It is written by the Holy Father himself. Rome has never retracted this edict of *ipso facto * excommunication; nor is there a deadline to this edict.

If it is the intention of the SSPX to remain outside of filial obedience to Rome, that is certainly their decision. But it is simply deceptive to portray this very explicit edict of excommunication as a “myth”.

Since Myth #1 is actually true according to Rome’s own words given through a Magisterial document, then myths #2 and #3 are also true and not myths.

But since the SSPX bishops are schismatic but validly ordained, the masses are not invalid and thus out of the four “myth” statements which began this thread I can only see that Myth #4 is actually a myth.

 

[Binx]

Nope! He is correct

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

JPII did not excommunicate Archbishop LeFebvre. Rather, in Ecclesia Dei he calls attention to the excommunication-by-law, which occurs automatically when Canon 1382 is violated. What is claimed, then, is a canonical excommunication, not a papal one. But as Myth #1 in the original post explains, in this particular case, the penalty of excommunication cannot be applied according to Canon 1323.4.

The only decree made by JPII in Eccesia Dei is in relation to the establishment of what would be called the Ecclesia Dei Commission (see Part 6 of the document).

 

[pnewton]

Without what Archbishop Lefebvre did, we probably wouldn’t have the traditional Latin Mass.

That is an interesting speculation since most of the TLM’s I know have no part lf Lefebvre’s movement. Why do you believe this to be true?

 

[strugglingalong]

That is an interesting speculation since most of the TLM’s I know have no part lf Lefebvre’s movement. Why do you believe this to be true?

Because:

1. After the New Mass was promulgated those who wanted to continue to offer the traditional Mass were told they could not.
2. John Paul II was not attached to the traditional Mass and betrayed no sympathies for those who were (unlike Benedict XVI). He created the FSSP as a way for SSPX priests to be in full communion with the Church and to offer the traditional Mass.

Archibishop Lefebvre did what he did because of the grave situation with no only errors being taught after the Council (such as on religious freedom) but also priests not being allowed to offer the traditional Mass. Because of Archbishop Lefebvre’s courage John Paul II made the FSSP to deal with the situation and to have the indult. SSPX was a continual call for Tradition and the traditional Mass. They persisted. I think without the Archbishop we do not get the FSSP nor the indult (since John Paul II gave no sign of affection for the TLM); without those we probably would not have the Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI.

Pax Christi tecum.