B
Boulder257
Guest
I don’t understand why this is an either/or. People try to determine which group is worse, but in fact both are disobedient to the Church and both should be dealt with. Plain and simple.
- Status
E
Euwe
Guest
I have a lot of respect for the SSPX. Although I’m a VII Catholic, I have a lot of regard for the traditional movement and their adherence to the traditional rite.
V
Veridical16
Guest
Just because the group acknowledges error does not validate the group. It is how one addresses the evil, through fealty to Christ and his way or following one’s own will, with a lack of Faith.
Ultimately, they sided with the devil when Lefevbre panicked and ordained the bishops. Yes I’ve heard the attempts to rationalize his disobedience, but the JPII had authority and JPII disciplined rightfully, a decision acknowledged by God through his office.
I heard the opposite. I heard apologists try to use legalism to justify the act of disobedience. The act was of a lack of faith in God, giving too much belief in the power of the Devil as if it can overcome Christ. Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications, but they were still irregular. Both JPII and Benedict acted like parents.
If SSPXers were faith filled they would know Hebrews 12:6 the Lord disciplines those he loves.
So close, yet so far away.
V
Veridical16
Guest
Usually, the enemies on the outside are strong because the Church is weakened on the inside. Both with the heterodox liberals who uphold Americanism, and certain traditionalists, who abuse the beauty of the Latin Mass and use that as a vehicle to make the sheep distrust the Pontiffs since Pope John XXIII.* (By the way protestantism produced the current American culture and paved the way, for the disintegration of Marriage and this gay marriage nonsense. It started with King Henry’s divorce)*
The Sympathy for the SSPX by some Catholics who found the Latin Mass is misplaced and they should flee from it. While Lay faithful are trying to find their way, they may for a time think they’ve recovered a lost past – unfortunately to keep in conformity with a true recognition one must stay close to Peter when interpreting the continuity – SSPX types muddy up the waters for that individual because they promote the hermeneutic of rupture – should not that be a sign that it is the wrong path, because its relying on oneself, forgetting the guidance of the Pope?
Their leaders however, deserve no sympathy.
From what I’ve observed the Leaders are always disrespecting the Pope, They try to foment distrust and cast doubt on his jurisdiction to put the sheep at odds with his True Shepherd given by Christ and that will always be the Pope, no matter his personal foibles and failings. It doesn’t matter how impeccable, charismatic, or pious a priest or bishop or even lay person , is by appearances – if he sets himself up in opposition to Peter’s successor.
SSPX makes the Faith more complicated than it is, as if it is the faith of high minded scientific theologians. To cast doubt on the novus ordo presents this idea that Christ is so limited, that he can’t be present in the Universal church for us with its existence. That all is lost because of the crises; so look toward the end of the world now; marian prophecies and fear, fear, fear, we are bunker Catholics now.
Whenever you start listening to those within the Church who present themselves as teachers counter to the rightful authority of the Pope?
Run.
Because Jesus says we have to be like children, and none of this have I seen from the priests and bishops associated with them. Rather than develop that child like trust for the Pope regarding the Council or evangelization efforts – they instead encourage the child to constantly question his father and blame the parent for the crises.
The leaders can claim to acknowledge the Pope all they want in order to mislead others to trust in their takes on Vatican II, abusing their baptism.
To put a veneer on their irregular situation to those they want to steal sheep, they claim
"We acknowledge the Holy Father as the Holy Father," the end result is we have laity who hand over their filial trust reserved to the office of Peter , instead to what this priest or this Bishop has to say. And it is usually in waiting for them to attack the Holy Father. That is not grace filled, that is doing the devil’s work from within, because one has to choose for the Holy Father or against him when getting caught up in this mentality that infects the leaders. . .
They present 95 percent truths of the Church and her history, and then hidden underneath is the blueprint of the devil. They point to their crowning achievement of their Bishop as watershed moment for the Church as representative of the “Remnant” : The act of disobedience. That is not the way of the New Eve.
They champion private judgment." You are alone as a remnant. There is no universal church. No more Beacon. Reliance on oneself. "
That saying “No” to the Holy Father can bring good.
To sum it up, the SSPX bad standing is based in the theology of the Emancipated minor.
That is all one needs to know, that ultimately in the end, they have chosen poorly and have made a shipwreck of their faith, until they reconcile with the True visible Father on Earth, not follow themselves with Fellay as their interim “father”
Whoop dee doo, they want to preserve the Latin Mass, but at what cost? To run down the Popes after the 2nd Vatican Council is not worth it.
If I were the devil, I’d preserve Modernism, by tricking those who zealously beat their chests and boast how brave they are in opposing it; I’d give them the charisma and the appearance of elite orthodoxy on one condition : Do away with your love, trust and respect for the Vicar of Christ on Earth.
It would be unwise to give too much sympathy for them, other than desiring their growth in humility through the sacraments and that they run from the error and deception that holds their leaders.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Some Catholics are uncomfortable with the modern liturgies seen today.
L
Lormar
Guest
That they do - “do away with a Catholic’s love, trust and respect for the Vicar of Christ on Earth.” Once that is gone, it is very hard to regain.
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
MODERATOR NOTICE
Please to not make this discussion about the liturgy or Summorum Pontificum. That’s not what this is about. You’re post will be removed if you go off topic in this direction. Please stick to Bishop Fellay’s statement and to the Holy See’s position. Otherwise, the thread ends up all over the map.
Please to not make this discussion about the liturgy or Summorum Pontificum. That’s not what this is about. You’re post will be removed if you go off topic in this direction. Please stick to Bishop Fellay’s statement and to the Holy See’s position. Otherwise, the thread ends up all over the map.
A
Aramis
Guest
Two popes have both said there is no “crisis in the church.”
Are you accusing them of lying?
O
otjm
Guest
Rome seems to think there is an issue, so I would be extremely hesitant to say there is no threat - which is a bit akin to saying there is no problem.
This whole fracas broke wide open when Archbishop Lefbvre ordained four bishops in direct and specific disobedience to a direct order from Rome. That resulted in automatic excommunications of all 5. To say they are no threat - is that the same as saying there was no reason to excommunicate them?
They were on the outside looking in; as a gesture of reconciliation, Benedict lifted the excommunications in an attempt to move things forward.
They have not moved forward since then, as all are in the same position, and it appears that the three remaining bishops have said they wil not compy with the minimum that Rome requires.
And that is no threat?
Yes the Church ahs tremendous problems elsewhere - and your comment is right on point. But that does not change the fact that this is an issue of direct, right-in-your-face disobedience to the Pope by three bishops. And never mind the fact that the bishops are caught in a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument as to the ills of the Church.
And the longer this goes, the closer we all approach the point where the bishops will want to ordain one or more bishops, and then it will hit the fan.
The documents of Vatican 2 are not the source of the problems the Church is having, and trying to blame the problems the Church is having on the language of the documents is either a smoke screen for something much deeper, or an example of the inability to think critically. Lets get real; three bishops have this absolute, fall down kicking and screaming issue about the documents causing all the ills in the Church, and something around 2000 bishops don’t have that problem. Does that put things into a bit of perspective?
While John 23 was just another bishop, I was taught Rule #1:
The Holy Spirit always protects the Church from Error when it teaches on faith and morals.
I was also taught Rule #2:
When you think the Church has taught error, go back and read Rule #1.
We have three bishops who don’t believe Rule #1.
And you think they are no threat to the Church?
We are not even talking primarily about the priests who are part of the SSPX, and we are not even considering all the people who support the SSPX.
We are talking about three bishops, and if there is a schism, It will not be because of the priests, and not because of the laity; it will be because of the three bishops.
O
otjm
Guest
And that encapsulates what the problem is not.
The problem is not about dogma half so much as it is about obedience; the issue started in direct and defiant disobedience and it continues in the same.
And as I noted above; the three bishops appear incapable of separating out the differences between cause and effect. But more directly, they defy the Pope.
And as to dogma/doctrine; you have three bishops on one side who say that Vatican 2 cannot be found to be in continuity with prior teachings of the Church, and 2000 bishops and a Pope (actually, three now) who say it can. That dog don’t hunt. The Church does not need to listen to three bishops; they need to listen to the Church.
There is no question that the wheat needs to be separated from the chaff; but the three insist the wheat is the chaff. On that, they have nothing to teach the Church.
O
otjm
Guest
Which is fine, as Benedict pointed out in SP. That is a bit different than saying the OF is not a legitimate Mass, or that the documents of /Vatican 2 cannot be reconciled with prior teachings of the Church.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Yes there is an issue, but that does not equate to a threat. There are many internal issues within our Church, but these do not generally represent threats, more a case of internal house-keeping.
Our real threat is, as always, Satan and his grip over the world, and his influence can be seen all around us. That is where we ought to concentrate our efforts.
Satan is a very powerful adversary, it will take a lot to fight him properly. We need to stand together with our Catholic brothers and sisters in the SSPX (even if they are disobedient), with our Orthodox brothers and sisters, with our brothers and sisters in Protestant denominations, and also with Jews, Muslims and all good men of faith. Satan is our enemy, and our enemy’s enemies ought to be regarded as our friends.
When we turn on each other, Satan smiles in satisfaction.
J
JReducation
Guest
Without getting sucked into a debate, because I’m not interested in debating, there are some important doctrinal issues here that are bigger than the mass.
When a bishop chooses to ordain other bishops without a papal mandate and priests accept the ordination, which they should decline, it raises serious questions about the individuals’ fidelity and understanding of doctrine.
Archbishop Lefebvre had invoked the “state of emergency” canon. Pope John Paul had told him that the canon did not apply to him. This is documented in some letter that was sent to the Archbishop. You’ll have to find it yourselves. The Archbishop proceeded to ordain. This raises red flags concerning fidelity to the Church’s faith concerning the Bishop of Rome. The Church believes that unlike civil law where a Prime Minister or President can misinterpret law, in which case, it is legitimate for a citizen to act, the pope is not capable of misinterpreting law, because Christ writes the law in the pope’s heart and from there the pope himself proclaims it in the form of canon law. Therefore, canon law is subject to the pope, not the pope to canon law. If the pope says that a canon “does not apply to you,” then to assume the contrary is to place the law above the pope.
Along the same lines, only the pope can offer anyone the Order of Bishop. No bishop has the authority to make that offer. A priest, who receives such an offer from anyone other than the pope and accepts that offer, knowing that the law says differently, has to be questioned. Is that priest placing the person who is making the offer above the pope? Is that priest capable of promising obedience to the pope, which is a part of the ordination rite, while at the same time violating the pope’s law? We are presented here with a moral dilemma and an ecclesiological one as well. In both cases, that of the Archbishop and that of the priests who accepted the ordination one has to question their ecclesiology.
It is not enough to be faithful to the liturgy, moral law, and traditional devotions, if how one understands of the Church is brittle. No matter how many issues there may be in the Church or how many abuses one may see in the liturgy, one cannot change the nature of the Church. When one acts contrary to the nature of the papacy, one is in fact redefining the Church.
Pope Paul made this very clear in another letter to Archbishop Lefebvre. I warned him and reminded him that the pope does not have to be infallible to exercise the power of his office and to demand obedience. He actually called him out on the infallibility card that so many people at both ends like to play saying that unless it’s an infallible statement, we don’t have to submit. Pope Paul did not agree with this. He told the Archbishop so in a letter. He actually went as far as to call him a brat and tell him that he was acting like a rebellious child, because he was forgetting that authority has rights and one of those rights is the right to be obeyed. He again is another doctrinal issue. Peter has authority to bind and unbind, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in matters of discipline. As long as the discipline involved is not contrary to faith and morals, those affected are bound, whether they like it or not.
Whether the SSPX is a threat or not, you can judge for yourself. Traditionally heresies have always come from the right. Even among Protestants, the rebellions have always come from those who are seeking a purer form of Christianity. Hence the Puritans come out of the Church of England, etc. There is a possibility that history can repeat itself. A community that has bishops can start its own Church with apostolic succession. We’ve seen this before. But this renders a tear in the unity of the Church. That’s something to be concerned about. How far are these bishops willing to go to protect their ideal? Movements can and have become ideologies. When that happens, they lose their grounding in faith? That has happened as well. These are all things that we as Catholics must be aware of.
As I said, I’m not interested in debating them, especially with people whose minds are made up. It’s only a waste of time for you and me. I’m posting this for those who do not know this other side that has been brought up by Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
When a bishop chooses to ordain other bishops without a papal mandate and priests accept the ordination, which they should decline, it raises serious questions about the individuals’ fidelity and understanding of doctrine.
Archbishop Lefebvre had invoked the “state of emergency” canon. Pope John Paul had told him that the canon did not apply to him. This is documented in some letter that was sent to the Archbishop. You’ll have to find it yourselves. The Archbishop proceeded to ordain. This raises red flags concerning fidelity to the Church’s faith concerning the Bishop of Rome. The Church believes that unlike civil law where a Prime Minister or President can misinterpret law, in which case, it is legitimate for a citizen to act, the pope is not capable of misinterpreting law, because Christ writes the law in the pope’s heart and from there the pope himself proclaims it in the form of canon law. Therefore, canon law is subject to the pope, not the pope to canon law. If the pope says that a canon “does not apply to you,” then to assume the contrary is to place the law above the pope.
Along the same lines, only the pope can offer anyone the Order of Bishop. No bishop has the authority to make that offer. A priest, who receives such an offer from anyone other than the pope and accepts that offer, knowing that the law says differently, has to be questioned. Is that priest placing the person who is making the offer above the pope? Is that priest capable of promising obedience to the pope, which is a part of the ordination rite, while at the same time violating the pope’s law? We are presented here with a moral dilemma and an ecclesiological one as well. In both cases, that of the Archbishop and that of the priests who accepted the ordination one has to question their ecclesiology.
It is not enough to be faithful to the liturgy, moral law, and traditional devotions, if how one understands of the Church is brittle. No matter how many issues there may be in the Church or how many abuses one may see in the liturgy, one cannot change the nature of the Church. When one acts contrary to the nature of the papacy, one is in fact redefining the Church.
Pope Paul made this very clear in another letter to Archbishop Lefebvre. I warned him and reminded him that the pope does not have to be infallible to exercise the power of his office and to demand obedience. He actually called him out on the infallibility card that so many people at both ends like to play saying that unless it’s an infallible statement, we don’t have to submit. Pope Paul did not agree with this. He told the Archbishop so in a letter. He actually went as far as to call him a brat and tell him that he was acting like a rebellious child, because he was forgetting that authority has rights and one of those rights is the right to be obeyed. He again is another doctrinal issue. Peter has authority to bind and unbind, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in matters of discipline. As long as the discipline involved is not contrary to faith and morals, those affected are bound, whether they like it or not.
Whether the SSPX is a threat or not, you can judge for yourself. Traditionally heresies have always come from the right. Even among Protestants, the rebellions have always come from those who are seeking a purer form of Christianity. Hence the Puritans come out of the Church of England, etc. There is a possibility that history can repeat itself. A community that has bishops can start its own Church with apostolic succession. We’ve seen this before. But this renders a tear in the unity of the Church. That’s something to be concerned about. How far are these bishops willing to go to protect their ideal? Movements can and have become ideologies. When that happens, they lose their grounding in faith? That has happened as well. These are all things that we as Catholics must be aware of.
As I said, I’m not interested in debating them, especially with people whose minds are made up. It’s only a waste of time for you and me. I’m posting this for those who do not know this other side that has been brought up by Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Is it true that Pope John Paul II gave Archbishop Lefebvre the permission to ordain one bishop?
P
ProVobis
Guest
L
Lormar
Guest
If you can get a hold of Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre - Book III, you will be able to read about that. The reason that Archbishop Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration of bishops is he didn’t trust Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope John Paul II to not pull a fast one. That may horrify some people here, but it is true. That is the reason. He didn’t trust them.
The case of Archbishop Lefebvre is not cut and dry. You also have to understand what was going on during those decades. How many times have I read on CAF that you have to also take into consideration the context of the times in which people lived. Well. In his case, you have to do that too.
If you want to know about it, get the three volumes of the Apologia… series written by Michael Davies. Is it written with a slant toward the Archbishop? Yes, but not so much that anyone reading it of good will cannot see the truth of what went on.
J
JReducation
Guest
Yes he did as you can see in the document that ProVobis offered. He offered to allow the Archbishop to nominate the man. Regardless of whether the Archbishop liked Pope John Paul or not, the fact is that he has already been told by Pope Paul VI that he could not, under any circumstances, separate himself from the governance of Peter.
Here is what Pope Paul VI wrote about a year to two before he died.
**
In regard to the Pope, every Catholic admits that the words of Jesus to Peter determine also the charge of Peter’s legitimate successors: “. . . whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Mt. 16:19); “. . .feed my sheep” (Jn. 21:17); “. . .confirm your brethren” (Lk. 22:32). And the First Vatican Council specified in these terms the assent due to the sovereign pontiff: “The pastors of every rank and of every rite and the faithful, each separately and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and of true obedience, not only in questions of faith and morals, but also in those that touch upon the discipline and government of the church throughout the entire world. Thus, by preserving the unity of communion and of profession of faith with the Roman pontiff, the church is a single flock under one pastor. Such is the doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can separate himself without danger for his faith and his salvation” (Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3, DZ 3060).
Concerning bishops united with the sovereign pontiff, their power with regard to the universal church is solemnly exercised in the ecumenical councils, according to the words of Jesus to the body of the apostles: “. . .whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Mt. 18:18). And now in your conduct you refuse to recognize, as must be done, these two ways in which supreme authority is exercised.**
He tells him three very important points.
- It is part of the deposit of faith that the pope has supreme authority in matters of discipline and governance over the universal Church. Universal includes clergy, religious and laity. There is none of this nonsense that left and right claim that one is bound only to what is Ex Cathedra or dogma. That’s not what Vatican I said.
- If you separate yourself from number 1, you put your soul at risk.
- A bishop can only exercise authority over the Universal Church in an ecumenical council. Other than that, a bishop’s authority is limited to his diocese or whatever other area the pope assigns him. Therefore, a bishop cannot give himself authority to make decisions that affect the Church.
Whether one thinks it’s fair or not, does not change the fact that he has this power and that no one can question it. Canon Law is his law. As Vatican I said, bishops have to submit to the pope. If a pope tells a bishop that he’s not covered by a certain law, that bishop is playing Russian Roulette if he tries to use that law to justify his actions. There is a serious problem here. The SSPX and friends say that he could use the law, but the pope said he could not use the law and the tradition has been that the pope decides when a law applies or not and there is no recourse. Tradition is in favor of Pope John Paul as explained by St. Boniface.
The longer this situation drags out the messier it will get. That’s what I think.
J
JReducation
Guest
PS. Just an afterthought . . . no matter what happens, the Holy See will not lose. I firmly believe that when it comes to compromising on the authority of the pope over Catholics, the Church would rather excommunicate than yield on that point. This is what this is really about.
The Pope Paul VI said, “You have to accept A, B and C.”
Pope John Paul II said, “You cannot ordain bishops.”
Pope Benedict said, “You have to accept everything in Vatican II without criticism, the entire Pauline mass without criticism, the CCC without criticism and you must accept the laws that govern a prelature, which means that you have to ask a bishop for permission to enter his diocese.”
In all three situations the leadership of the SSPX declined. The Holy See is not interpreting this as “They don’t like our offer.”
It’s being interpreted as, “They refuse to recognize our authority over them.”
Many people ask why the difference in how the Holy See deals with SSPX and non Catholics, the key is here. The Holy See has no authority over non Catholics. They come to the table as equals. The non Catholics do not have to recognize the authority of the Holy See over them, because the Holy See does not have authority over them.
In the case of the rest of us, the Holy See does have authority. It’s like your mother. She has no authority over the neighbor’s kids, but she has authority over you. She can suggest that the neighbor’s kids not go swimming, because it’s too cold. She can command you not to go swimming.
If you disobey, you’re raising the bar. The issue is no longer swimming, it’s your oppositional behavior.
Maybe time will prove me wrong; but that’s my belief right now. The Holy See will not compromise much more of its authority with the SSPX.
The Pope Paul VI said, “You have to accept A, B and C.”
Pope John Paul II said, “You cannot ordain bishops.”
Pope Benedict said, “You have to accept everything in Vatican II without criticism, the entire Pauline mass without criticism, the CCC without criticism and you must accept the laws that govern a prelature, which means that you have to ask a bishop for permission to enter his diocese.”
In all three situations the leadership of the SSPX declined. The Holy See is not interpreting this as “They don’t like our offer.”
It’s being interpreted as, “They refuse to recognize our authority over them.”
Many people ask why the difference in how the Holy See deals with SSPX and non Catholics, the key is here. The Holy See has no authority over non Catholics. They come to the table as equals. The non Catholics do not have to recognize the authority of the Holy See over them, because the Holy See does not have authority over them.
In the case of the rest of us, the Holy See does have authority. It’s like your mother. She has no authority over the neighbor’s kids, but she has authority over you. She can suggest that the neighbor’s kids not go swimming, because it’s too cold. She can command you not to go swimming.
If you disobey, you’re raising the bar. The issue is no longer swimming, it’s your oppositional behavior.
Maybe time will prove me wrong; but that’s my belief right now. The Holy See will not compromise much more of its authority with the SSPX.
L
larsont7
Guest
Which two popes, and do you have quotes available? Below are a few quotes I just pulled up doing a simple google search about papal quotes, and I still have yet to run across one where a pope has said there is “no crisis in the church”. In fact, you’ll see our past two popes say the opposite, especially regarding the sexual abuse crisis.
So to answer your question, NO, I am not accusing any pope of lying, nor would I ever do so. Why one would even suggest that is ludicrous.
And one can easily see there is in fact a crisis just by looking at the Church in the West today. Not counting the mess we have here in the states (churches and schools closing, priest shortages, numbers of religious brothers and sisters declining rapidly, polling data regarding Catholics views on abortion, gay marriage, contraception, etc.), Europe is even in worse shape. I believe that in the Netherlands, only 3% of Catholics attend Sunday Mass. The number of priests in France has decreased by 50% between 1965 and 2006, from 41,000 to 20,500. Even looking south, 80% of all Sunday celebrations in Brazil are done by the laity because of the priest shortage there.
So unless your definition of crisis is different than mine (and Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI), then I think we can safely say there is a crisis.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
It is a thin line between crisis and apostasy. The Catholic Church will be until Jesus returns and ends this age (He has promised us that), but the apostasy, the crisis, is to be expected prior to the end. Robert Bellarmine. Believe me, the Catholic Church is far stronger and definitive than it’s separated brothers the Christian protestants. The fact that there is so much opinion and no clear direction among them (the Protestant movement) is what lead me to seek the Catholic Church in the first place.
- Status