SSPX Questions & Discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter MMLJ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please let us remember how Jesus Christ who is God would want us to behave and respond. Try not to mock anyone or other groups, etc., it will do no good to any of us.

If it is possible, and believe me I know it can be difficult at times, try not to respond in a way that will only further deteriorate our discussion.

Thanks to you all and GOD bless.
 
QUESTION:

Canonically, what is the highest/greatest good of the Catholic Church ?
 
MMLJ said:
Thank you for your reply.

Was that not the intention of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre?
Click to expand...
He claimed he had a real necessity and what he did was okay. The Supreme Legislator wrote a motu proprio saying that, in fact, there was no such necessity and his consecrations constituted a schismatic act.

I’m sure it was Archbishop Milingo’s intention as well. And Martin Luther’s.
 
Sure said:
He claimed he had a real necessity and what he did was okay. The Supreme Legislator wrote a motu proprio saying that, in fact, there was no such necessity and his consecrations constituted a schismatic act.

I’m sure it was Archbishop Milingo’s intention as well. And Martin Luther’s.
Click to expand...
It should also be noted (and I’m sure it will be called bashing) that the Archbishop signed an agreement in which he got, in large part, precisely what he wanted, an agreement that he reneged on.
 
mrdrifter said:
You sure about this? In this interview, Cardinal Castrillón refers to Bp. Fellay as “The Superior General, His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay.”
renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070410
And here Cardinal Castrillón refers to him as “His Excellence Monsignor Fellay.”
friendsoflanef.blogspot.com/2005/12/cardinal-castrillon-hoyos-interview.html
Click to expand...
Ummm…you should re-read what Bear06 wrote:
You won’t find the Vatican referring to any to them as Father or Msgr.
Click to expand...
…because they refer to them as BISHOP!
 
Sure said:
He claimed he had a real necessity and what he did was okay. The Supreme Legislator wrote a motu proprio saying that, in fact, there was no such necessity and his consecrations constituted a schismatic act.

I’m sure it was Archbishop Milingo’s intention as well. And Martin Luther’s.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that it is justified to group Luther the manifest heretic with The Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. But as I can see that you have, so can you show me, if the Archbishop taught heresy?
 
mrdrifter said:
You sure about this? In this interview, Cardinal Castrillón refers to Bp. Fellay as “The Superior General, His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay.”
renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070410
And here Cardinal Castrillón refers to him as “His Excellence Monsignor Fellay.”
friendsoflanef.blogspot.com/2005/12/cardinal-castrillon-hoyos-interview.html
Click to expand...
It’s Vatican policy to address non-Catholic religious leaders by the titles their own religious polities use. Thus, the Holy See calls the Archbishop of Canterbury “His Grace, the Archbishop of Canterbury,” not (for example) the “Archlayman of Canterbury,” despite the fact that Holy Mother Church regards Anglican orders as null and void.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
It should also be noted (and I’m sure it will be called bashing) that the Archbishop signed an agreement in which he got, in large part, precisely what he wanted, an agreement that he reneged on.
Click to expand...
Did this agreement also include the enforcement to acknowledge the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council?
 
MMLJ said:
Thank you for your reply.

Was that not the intention of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre?
Click to expand...
And what was the intention of Luther? and other schismatics? The problem seems to come when pride mixes with good intentions.
 
MMLJ said:
I am not sure that it is justified to group Luther the manifest heretic with The Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. But as I can see that you have, so can you show me, if the Archbishop taught heresy?
Click to expand...
No one is saying that the Archbishop taught heresy.

The point I believe, Sure and myself are trying to make is:

“Intentions don’t necessarily make an action just”

What seemed to be the point of view you were trying to put across was that the Archbishop was trying to save souls, therefore the action is morally correct.

JD
 
MMLJ said:
I am not sure that it is justified to group Luther the manifest heretic with The Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. But as I can see that you have, so can you show me, if the Archbishop taught heresy?
Click to expand...
No one has said that the Archbishop taught heresy. Read carefully. What is being addressed is his INTENTION, Milingo’s INTENTION, Luther’s INTENTION.
 
bear06 said:
And what was the intention of Luther? and other schismatics? The problem seems to come when pride mixes with good intentions.
Click to expand...
So can you clarify, are you saying that the Archbishop is anti-Catholic/taught heresy? If so how is he anti-Catholic or taught heresy if the Holy See was still in contact with him and with the SSPX today? As I know that Luther was a heretic to put it lightly, and possibly of the Occult.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
No one has said that the Archbishop taught heresy. Read carefully. What is being addressed is his INTENTION, Milingo’s INTENTION, Luther’s INTENTION.
Click to expand...
Was his Intention the Salvation of Souls and why did he renege on the agreement?
 
MMLJ said:
So can you clarify, are you saying that the Archbishop is anti-Catholic/taught heresy? If so how is he anti-Catholic or taught heresy if the Holy See was still in contact with him and with the SSPX today? As I know that Luther was a heretic to put it lightly, and possibly of the Occult.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not what is being said at all.

You know, the Holy See was in contact with the Protestant “Reformers.” Protestant religious leaders were invited and given safe passage to the Council of Trent.
 
Johndigger said:
No one is saying that the Archbishop taught heresy.

The point I believe, Sure and myself are trying to make is:

“Intentions don’t necessarily make an action just”

What seemed to be the point of view you were trying to put across was that the Archbishop was trying to save souls, therefore the action is morally correct.

JD
Click to expand...
Sorry I think I asked the same question after you posted your response. Please forgive me as I am trying to keep up.

Yes, I had read that he was trying to save souls, and I can understand his position.

Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top