SSPX Teaching Video

[countertenor]

No, the tradition and norm has always been celibacy. Married clergy were an abuse. The Church tolerated the abuse, but it was an abuse and not tradition.

The abuse got so bad, the it had completely corrupted the Church and clegy, and that is why the Church reformed and made celibacy mandatory without question.

Tradition did not start in the medievil era, but the Church moves linear through time. The Church is always moving forward. Each time it grew organically. Celibacy is never going to change in the Latin rite. It is set in stone. One has to grasp the supernatural to understand why.
The priesthood has flourished with celibacy. It was only when the Church abandoned tradition and the Latin Mass did the priesthood collaspsed.

If you want a married clergy, fine, but it is not a traditional position. It is a liberal position. No traditionalist and the traditional movement do not believe in that position.

I agree with you that the priesthood of the Latin Church went into decline after the abandonment of the EO of the mass, and I don’t think that a married priesthood will fix that decline. Perhaps temporarily, but not in the long run. I haven’t said we need a married priesthood. I just say you are wrong to say that married priests were not part of the tradition of the Church. Even the Latin Church had them, and whether you think they were an abuse or not, this was allowed for years. Just because there was corruption in the Latin Church that flowed from this does not make it an abuse. There has been plenty of corruption with a celibate priesthood.

If this were so much the norm of the Church and if married priests were such an abuse, it would not have been allowed from the beginning, in either the Western, Eastern or Oriental Churches. The Catholic Church has always allowed married priests and it is nothing more than politics and historical revisionism to claim they didn’t or that it was just some anomaly that was done away with…cont.

 

[countertenor]

I know that when you speak of the Church’s Tradition you are speaking for the Latin Church, however the Latin Church is not a vacuum unto itself. It is part (a great part) of the Church, and it has allowed married priests and it once again allows this. Should it become normal to allow married priests? That’s not for me to decide, that is up to the Latin Bishops in union with the Pope to decide. Has it been the norm in many centuries? Of course not. But you try to say that celibacy was always the norm. It wasn’t. If may have been the ideal (but that is a different idea). Celibate priests and Married priests were both a normal part of the Church for centuries, and in reality always have been, outside the Latin Church. The Tradition of the Church must include the Tradition of the whole Church not just the Latin Church.

Yes the Latin Church has things particular to itself–as it should and as do the other Churches, but it is untrue, to claim that at one time the Latin Church did not have married priests as a normal part of its daily life. Married and Celibate priests each have their positives and negatives. In the Latin Church we’ve focused on the married priest’s negatives and the Celibate priest’s positives for centuries, and celibacy is a very wonderful thing and should never be slighted, as some who think we need a married priesthood tend to do. But likewise married priests should not be slighted either. Each has his own special gifts and his own special burdens.

I want to be clear that I in no way think we should lose celibacy in the priesthood, and we never will, but this doesn’t mean that once again we can’t have some married priest working side by side with our celibate priests.

Celibacy it’s its own vocation whether as a single lay person, or a religious person. Marriage is it’s own vocation and throughout the history of the Catholic Church neither of these vocations has been a prerequisite to the vocation to be a priest or a deacon (I speak of the whole Church not just the Latin Church). This is why I get a bit annoyed when some Latins claim otherwise. Yes we have a holy discipline of celibacy, but it is not the only way to the priesthood, nor has it ever been, and again it is not now in the Latin Church.

The Church doesn’t need Married or Celibate priests, it needs priests and good priest will flourish when sacred Tradition is lived, and when the Faith is proclaimed and faith formation is strong. Men will feel the call to the priesthood and will respond, this is why the traditional Latin orders are doing so well. They proclaim the truth of the Catholic Faith. They live it. They inspire their young men to heed God’s call and that call may be heard by single or married men, but it is up to the particular Church to decide which is right for them at a given time.

There are good reasons we’ve had a celibate priesthood. They continue to be good reasons, but there may be good reasons to also have a married priesthood. Honestly I think the celibate priesthood will always be larger, even if it becomes common place to allow married men to become priests, but either way we need strong faith formation and good Catholic spirituality to bring that about.

As far as the deaconate is concerned the deaconate is its own vocation. It is that vocation that was swept away when it became simply a stepping stone to the priesthood. Throughout the Church, east and west the deaconate was its own thing, it was not simply what one did before becoming a priest. The Latin Church once again recognized the difference in the calling and vocation of the Deacon and the Priest, and that is why we have permanent Deacons–because some men are called to be Deacons and some to be priests, and the Church recognizes that fact.

 

[I_Believe]

This has been an interesting thread, though most of the discussion seems to focus on the priest’s views of married deacons.

What about some of the other issues? I’m mainly concerned about the history of these practices. For example, a discussion of the Protestant practices that this priest charges were incorporated into the Novus Ordo?

Thanks.

This Cardinal said it well…

**
“In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata.”
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.**

 

[countertenor]

This has been an interesting thread, though most of the discussion seems to focus on the priest’s views of married deacons.

What about some of the other issues? I’m mainly concerned about the history of these practices. For example, a discussion of the Protestant practices that this priest charges were incorporated into the Novus Ordo?

Thanks.

I think many of his comments about the incorporation of Protestant practices into the Novus Ordo, are right on. I think many people today think these incorporations are fine, but I do think it is a bit strange to make our liturgy to seem more Protestant, whether intentional or not.

I must say that I prefer the, EF of the mass, and have seen some horrible renderings of the OF, but I have also experienced many beautiful renderings of the OF. I do agree that the for me anyway the EF lends itself more to prayer and to contemplation and closeness with God. As do most of the older liturgies, be the Western, Eastern or Oriental.

 

[countertenor]

This Cardinal said it well…

**
“In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata.”
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.**

Excellent quote!

 

[AJV]

From the segment that was posted, I thought that fR. Copper made some relevant points. But I also felt that some areas were innacurate and others were completely subjective.

1. I do not see the vernacular as being explicitly Protestant. I felt it was pretty neutral. It is within the competence of the Church to decide, and I don’t think Fr. Cooper would dispute that.
2. Prayer aloud. I’m not making an argument that silence is bad. It can well highlight a prayer or increase solemnity. But some of the arguments strike me as debatable. Prayer aloud has its own advantages. It increases the devotion of the hearers and excites their minds to the object of the prayer – so that the fruit *ex opere operantis/i might be greater. And who is to say, that people cannot pray when prayer is being said aloud? On the contrary. Even in the Traditional Mass, the people are praying when the priest reads a Collect or the Postcommunion. Even ‘private’ prayer, prayed during the silent parts of the Traditional Mass must be in conformity with the liturgical action – it can’t be wholly private. And thus if one is truly attuned to the Mass, hearing the words cannot ‘distract’. As a nitpick, I add that the NO is not fully audible – there are silent prayers also.
3. I can agree that the universal influx of the laity into roles that should preferably be fulfilled by the minor orders (or ministries as they are now called) or to things like distribution of Communion which should be restricted to the ordained. But (1)he can’t use the argument for married deacons, because whether he agrees or not that the lack of celibacy is good idea, it doesn’t change the fact that the deacons are ordained (2) it was not a practice adopted by a lot of Protestant denominations.
   They might have not exactly disagreed with the principle, but in actual fact, in most of the mainstream denominations, there was a very great emphasis on “proper order”. Thus, the ministers usually did things like read and give out Communion. The Anglicans and Lutherans had their parish clerks or readers. In the Reformed tradition it was the presyter (pastor) and the deacons who did all this- even if it was just a name and there was no formal sort of ordination.
4. Three readings instead of one: this is NOT true.

The Anglicans did not have 3 readings- they retained only 2 like the Traditional Mass, the Epistle and the Gospel. In fact, on many days, the readings are the same as in the Traditional cycle for Sundays (sometimes expanded). Likewise for the more liturgical such as the Lutherans. The Reformed/Calvinist practice varied – one long reading or two readings - one OT and one NT (from the Gospel or an Epistle). In the less liturgical churches, Communion (when celebrated, which was not frequently) was merely annexed to the usual order of service.
The OT, NT, Psalm, Gospel format for Sundays and major Holy days was only widely adopted in the Protestant churches AFTER (as much as a decade) the NO Lectionary came out.

It does make one wonder, if the good father could make an error on this simple point, to what extent he has explored the changes of the Protestants.

(contd.)*

 

[AJV]

1. Table vs. altar. I note that the GIRM orders the altar to be made of stone, but leaves discretion in the matter to the local bishops. I can appreciate the priest’s points on appearance of the altar, relics, etc. But everything is twofold- the appearance, and the meaning. If we look at what the altar is intended to be - it is clearly spelled out in the GIRM that the altar (and it is called altar most of the time, not table) is meant for sacrifice. This is also laid out in other documents like the Dedication of the Church, or Dedication of an Altar. I think a solid argument can be made that the appearance should reflect the reality better – but one can’t really say that it’s not meant for sacrifice, when the liturgical books say it is. Furthermore, the church nowhere prescribes a table or a tabular form. When it speaks of the “table (mensa) of the altar” this is no different form the Traditional liturgical books which speak of the same thing.

Furthermore, I point out that altars versus populum were not forbidden in the Traditional Mass. Pius XII condoned it at the address to the delegates of the liturgical conference at Assisi. His only concern was that the tabernacle should not be separated from it, and he spoke of the problem being addressed by liturgical experts. Because of the variety of novel methods that were appearing, the Congregation of Rites put a prohibition one year later until a satisfactory method could be found. But this, as the consulter Fr. Lowe, explained was NOT a blanket prohibition of versus populum. Versus populum altars were still permitted. The decree only prohibited ad populum at the altar where the tabernacle was, and if there was only one altar * in the church (in which case that would have the tabernacle), then the altar could not be ad populum.

1. Sitting: in the Traditional Mass, the rules are different for High and Low Masses. Low Masses are kneeling and standing (in some places by local custom people sit at certain points). This has its origin in the Low Mass was originally (and the name stuck in many documents) the “private Mass” celebrated at a side altar. The High Mass has standing, sitting and kneeling- that of course, has its origin in the High Mass being the normative form of Sundays.** In the NO, there is one rule observed for all the Masses.
   If you compare the NO with a High Mass, I would say that there is only maybe slightly more sitting allowed in the NO, as compared to a High Mass. If one takes in the fact that people sit when the priest does during the Gloria, Kyrie, etc. (when they are long polyphonic pieces) then a High Mass would have more sitting.
2. As for standing for Communion, at the time of the NO, barely any Protestants stood for Communion. They either knelt (Anglicans/Lutherans) or sat. They didn’t stand. Standing was only introduced in some denominations after the NO (and it is still not a majority practice by any means)

• i.e. no side altars, or altars placed in front

** Before someone points it out, I hasten to add that there are no rubrics as such for the laity. However, the Congregation of Rites declared that it was “laudable and proper” that the laity should observe the rubrics for the choir at High Mass. There was also local legislation in the mater, sometimes found in Appendix’s to the liturgical books.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Archbishop Lefebvre’s excommunication was also politically motivated. Pope John Paul II could not stand up to the mafia cardinals in the Vatican. He also did not accept Lefevre’s defense of state of emergency. He was unjustly denied a canonical trial.

Cardinal Ratzinger was sympathetic to the SSPX but he was not the Pope at the time. He was deeply sadened and was famously said to have stated that it was one of the two biggest things that he felt troubled by. He was said to have stated “I Failed”.

Cardinal Hoyos also told the head of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay, that lifting the ex-communications would be easier than granting a Motu Proprio liberating the Latin Mass.

St Rafael, you have got to be the biggest source of misinformation I have run across in a long time. You not only read the mind of the popes. You are privy to their innermost thoughts and deliberations. Much of what I read in your posts, tells me you have the “Wanderer” as one of your sources of misinformatin. If I am wrong, please, what are your other sources. To flat say that a Pope is wrong in what he does is a strong statement. I pray for you that this does not come back to bite you.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

This Cardinal said it well…

**
“In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata.”
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.**

Just a small catechism lesson… Cardinals and bishops , as members of the magisterium are infallible only when they are in unison with the rest of the magisterium including the pope in their collegial deliberations. His separate opinion does not fit that bill.
Prayers & blessings
Deacocn Ed B

 

[Cat]

Once again on CAF, I will state, as an ex-extremely active evangelical Protestant, that even the most abusive, liberal, modern, rocky Catholic Mass bears absolutely NO resemblance to the evangelical, fundamental, Pentecostal, or non-denominational Protestant worship services.

NO RESEMBLANCE, other than mention of Jesus. Occasionally we will see an open Bible during the Protestant worship “experience,” but not necessarily.

A modern Mass may bear some resemblance to older Protestant services; e.g., Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist. But these services were “borrowed” from Catholic Mass, not the other way around. And in this day and age, even these older Protestant churches are striving to offer more worship “experiences” along the lines of the non-denominational megachurch worship “experiences.”

I think people who make the claim that the “modern” Masses are “protestantized” have no experience with Protestant worship services other than perhaps a Lutheran wedding or funeral. I wish that people would stop making these claims.

Most evangelicals/fundamentalists/Pentecostals/non-denominational Protestants (or “Christian” as they prefer to be called) would find the Catholic Mass, even the most modern Catholic Mass, utterly, completely, totally, absolutely FOREIGN to anything they have ever experienced in a church before. There are many Protestants (Christians) who REFUSE to enter a Catholic Church for Mass because they actually believe that the Mass is an ancient pagan ritual that hearkens back to Babylonian goddess worship and mocks the final sacrifice of Jesus Christ. A little bit of contemporary music (written in the 1970s, therefore it is NOT contemporary) is NOT going to make the typical Protestant say, “Wow, this is just like MY church!” OH, NO!!! Will NOT happen! Just the opposite–the typical Protestant would say, “Why are they playing this moldie oldie folk music?”

I am not suggesting that Catholics visit Protestant worship “experiences” to learn more. I am suggesting that unless they are very familiar with Protestant worship "experiences, that they STOP making the accusation that modern Masses are “protestantized.” That is just laughable.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Cat, thanks for post #90. You bring a perspective of lived experience into this discussion which many of us, myself included, are not able to contribute. As lifetime cradle Catholics, we are unable to bring these experiences into the discussion. It gives us a perspective that would otherwise be closed to us. Thank you for this contribution.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[nannygirl]

Once again on CAF, I will state, as an ex-extremely active evangelical Protestant, that even the most abusive, liberal, modern, rocky Catholic Mass bears absolutely NO resemblance to the evangelical, fundamental, Pentecostal, or non-denominational Protestant worship services.

NO RESEMBLANCE, other than mention of Jesus. Occasionally we will see an open Bible during the Protestant worship “experience,” but not necessarily.

A modern Mass may bear some resemblance to older Protestant services; e.g., Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist. But these services were “borrowed” from Catholic Mass, not the other way around. And in this day and age, even these older Protestant churches are striving to offer more worship “experiences” along the lines of the non-denominational megachurch worship “experiences.”

I think people who make the claim that the “modern” Masses are “protestantized” have no experience with Protestant worship services other than perhaps a Lutheran wedding or funeral. I wish that people would stop making these claims.

Most evangelicals/fundamentalists/Pentecostals/non-denominational Protestants (or “Christian” as they prefer to be called) would find the Catholic Mass, even the most modern Catholic Mass, utterly, completely, totally, absolutely FOREIGN to anything they have ever experienced in a church before. There are many Protestants (Christians) who REFUSE to enter a Catholic Church for Mass because they actually believe that the Mass is an ancient pagan ritual that hearkens back to Babylonian goddess worship and mocks the final sacrifice of Jesus Christ. A little bit of contemporary music (written in the 1970s, therefore it is NOT contemporary) is NOT going to make the typical Protestant say, “Wow, this is just like MY church!” OH, NO!!! Will NOT happen! Just the opposite–the typical Protestant would say, “Why are they playing this moldie oldie folk music?”

I am not suggesting that Catholics visit Protestant worship “experiences” to learn more. I am suggesting that unless they are very familiar with Protestant worship "experiences, that they STOP making the accusation that modern Masses are “protestantized.” That is just laughable.

I have to disagree with you. That has not been my experience at all.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Just curious. What was your protestant background, and how was it different.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[consumedconvert]

Once again on CAF, I will state, as an ex-extremely active evangelical Protestant, that even the most abusive, liberal, modern, rocky Catholic Mass bears absolutely NO resemblance to the evangelical, fundamental, Pentecostal, or non-denominational Protestant worship services.

NO RESEMBLANCE, other than mention of Jesus. Occasionally we will see an open Bible during the Protestant worship “experience,” but not necessarily.

A modern Mass may bear some resemblance to older Protestant services; e.g., Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist. But these services were “borrowed” from Catholic Mass, not the other way around. And in this day and age, even these older Protestant churches are striving to offer more worship “experiences” along the lines of the non-denominational megachurch worship “experiences.”

I think people who make the claim that the “modern” Masses are “protestantized” have no experience with Protestant worship services other than perhaps a Lutheran wedding or funeral. I wish that people would stop making these claims.

Most evangelicals/fundamentalists/Pentecostals/non-denominational Protestants (or “Christian” as they prefer to be called) would find the Catholic Mass, even the most modern Catholic Mass, utterly, completely, totally, absolutely FOREIGN to anything they have ever experienced in a church before. There are many Protestants (Christians) who REFUSE to enter a Catholic Church for Mass because they actually believe that the Mass is an ancient pagan ritual that hearkens back to Babylonian goddess worship and mocks the final sacrifice of Jesus Christ. A little bit of contemporary music (written in the 1970s, therefore it is NOT contemporary) is NOT going to make the typical Protestant say, “Wow, this is just like MY church!” OH, NO!!! Will NOT happen! Just the opposite–the typical Protestant would say, “Why are they playing this moldie oldie folk music?”

I am not suggesting that Catholics visit Protestant worship “experiences” to learn more. I am suggesting that unless they are very familiar with Protestant worship "experiences, that they STOP making the accusation that modern Masses are “protestantized.” That is just laughable.

As a former very active Baptist, I’ll back you up here. You’re absolutely right.

Episcopals, Anglicans, and perhaps your occasional traditional liturgical Lutheran will find similarities between the RCC NO Mass and their services. That’s because those Churches have retained some traditions from the RCC. So those denominations imitate Rome as it was when they broke off–not the other way around.

 

[Cat]

I have to disagree with you. That has not been my experience at all.

nannygirl, what is your Protestant background? By any chance were you part of one of the “older” Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.?)

I grew up Conference Baptist, attended a Christian church (yes, small “c” in for church to denote non-denominational) in college, spent two years in the Southern Baptist convention, ten years in the Christian and Missionary Alliance, two mores in a church plant C and MA, two years Reformed Church in American (RCA), two years back in the Conference Baptist, and seven years in an Evangelical Free Church in America.

My husband was born and raised Assemblies of God, and I often attended church with him while we were in high school. Eventually he left this church and kept company with me in church!

I have also played piano in many other denominations of Protestant church.

My parents in law have attended the Methodist church for several years (after leaving the Assemblies of God over a scandolous accusation).

I subscribe to and read several Protestant periodicals and denominational magazines. My husband listens on a regular basis to Protestant radio programs.

We live a few blocks away from a megachurch (approximately 7000 people in attendance on Sundays). Several of my high school friends are Protestant pastors now.

And like all good evangelical Protestants, I attended a lot of seminars over the years!

In the 1990s while we were involved with the EFree church, we began questioning a lot of the trends in evangelical church growth. We read a lot and tried to follow some of these trends, e.g., megachurches, seeker services, needs-based church, emergent church, etc.

I will stick with what I said. The evangelical church (Conference Baptist) that I grew up in had services with simliarities to the NO Mass. But that was 40 years ago. My childhood church is unrecognizable now, and many of the older folks have either died or left that church in search of more “traditional” churches, and some have actually become Catholics!

Most evangelical Protestant churches these days are going to great lengths to avoid any hint of “traditional” worship. Many magazine articles are about new methods of worship that pastors can try, and how different churches are trying “new” things and incorporating modern practices into the worship services. In fact, many churches avoid the term “worship services” and use terms like “experiences with God” or “spiritual journeys.”

In fact, one of the radio programs that my husband listens to denounces many of the “traditions” as “too close to Romanism,” and advises Christians to avoid churches that use things like “candles,” “lectio divina,” “chant,” “taize,” “vestments,” etc. because these things will set a Christian on the Road to Roman Catholicism!

What my husband and I saw happening in the EFree church was an avoidance of Communion and Baptism. When we were growing up, these were usually done at least once a month. In the years that we were EFree, we saw one baptismal service and only a few Communion services each year. It seems that these “rituals” are embarrassing to modern Christians, and since they aren’t necessary for salvation anyway, why bother to scare people away with them? Hmmm…

(Please keep in mind, BTW, that the EFree churches are autonomous, and it is possible that while our EFree church functioned as I described, other EFree churches might be very conservative and traditional. This is true of all autonomous and non-denominational churches–they are each run locally, and you have to take each church as you find it and not expect it to be run like other churches that you are familiar with.)

 

[Auntie_M]

Could somebody give me a well-rounded critique of this video?

I’d like to know how accurate/inaccurate it is?

youtube.com/watch?v=n4l6TvRX0EI

As an X protestant, I can vouch for the references to the Protestants that what he is saying is only half truths.

His reference to the “woman” priest is only heresay, he said himself he didn’t know if it was true or not. So WHY is he repeating gossip?

As far as a “meal”, MY priest says “sacrifice”. Don’t know where he is coming from on this.

This is the kind of “sermons” I have heard from the SSPX masses that I visited for about 5 times. AND REFUSE TO GO BACK

I go to church to hear the word of God and to worship. They, on the other hand, seem to go to preach hatred of other denominations and to induce doubt and mistrust, and disobedience of the Catholic Faith. Even heard one priest bragging about having the “Vatican on the run”…Is this REALLY a Catholic priest?

“Wooden” altars? haven’t seen one of those at all, and I have been to quite alot of different churches, (when traveling), and I have NOT seen anything but a stone, usually marble.

These are all the same “apoligetics” that they all use. Oh yes, he left out one. They refer to Jesus’ death on the cross with the quote from Matthews as “for many”, so their theory is that Jesus only died “for many” and that “many” are the SSPXers

Sorry folks, what about the rest of us. (Isn’t that judgemental)

 

[Auntie_M]

That is wrong. It was about doctrine. To recognize King Henry as the supreme leader of the English Church would have meant that the English martyrs deny the doctrine of Petrine primacy.

The SSPX are not in schism. The Vatican has made that clear already. Their canonical situation is irregular, but they are inside the Church. Pope Benedict made that clear is his letter to the bishops in Summorum Pontificum. Cardinal Hoyos keeps reminding the hard of hearing the same truth.

The excommunications that affect only four people, were unjust and I am confident we will have Pope Benedict remove them in his pontificate. Like St. Joan, the Church will one day celebrate St. Archbishop Lefebvre as a defender of the faith in the late 20th century.

Would you please show me the quote where the Pope (JP11 or Benedict) has said that the excommunications were unjust?

Should we all vote to have Lefebvre declared a saint. What about Martin Luther, make him one also…?

 

[Auntie_M]

Archbishop Lefebvre’s excommunication was also politically motivated. Pope John Paul II could not stand up to the mafia cardinals in the Vatican. He also did not accept Lefevre’s defense of state of emergency. He was unjustly denied a canonical trial.

Cardinal Ratzinger was sympathetic to the SSPX but he was not the Pope at the time. He was deeply sadened and was famously said to have stated that it was one of the two biggest things that he felt troubled by. He was said to have stated “I Failed”.

Cardinal Hoyos also told the head of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay, that lifting the ex-communications would be easier than granting a Motu Proprio liberating the Latin Mass.

Oh my, you are accusing some of the Vatican officials as being “mafia cardinals”. I do hope you can PROVE that. Cause if you can’t, you do realize that is liable/slanderous. I would be VERY careful if I were you.

Please, people, LISTEN to the POPE, not people who TRY to induce fear and doubt into the Catholic Church. The chair of Peter is STILL EXACTLY where it has always been. And PETER’S
suscessor is still sitting in it!!!

I do love scenerios, please excuse me…

The US Congress. Supreme Court, and the President has declared laws that we all have to obey. IS OUR CATHOLIC CHURCH ANY LESS? Gimme me a break>>>>>>>>>>>>

oh yes, we have also made amendments to our laws, Did you know that years ago it was lawful to “BEAT” your wife?

Glad that was changed…

 

[Auntie_M]

Just curious…

Is it true that the SSPX are granting annullments? But isn’t THAT against tradition?

 

[AJV]

nannygirl, what is your Protestant background? By any chance were you part of one of the “older” Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.?)
(snip)

(Please keep in mind, BTW, that the EFree churches are autonomous, and it is possible that while our EFree church functioned as I described, other EFree churches might be very conservative and traditional. This is true of all autonomous and non-denominational churches–they are each run locally, and you have to take each church as you find it and not expect it to be run like other churches that you are familiar with.)

It’s true Cat, as you point out, that the Evangelical/Pentecostal worship is different, night and day, from the Mass. I remeber well my own days attending such meetings (I was Anglican on Sunday, Evangelical on weekdays ).

That I think, is the danger, of many of the arguments blanket using “Protestant” when they actually *mean *a certain subgroup usually those who adhere to a more liturgical form. And certainly the worship of the more liturgical of the Protestants has drawn closer to Catholic worship. Nowadays unless one really takes a good hard look at the prayers, in certain denominations the outlines are of the same general pattern.

Not that this exactly represents a retrenchment on the part of the Church- it has quite a bit to do with the greater acceptance of the liturgical movement, and ritual worship in Protestant churches as a whole. I was just reading three articles the other day. One was commenting on a new Reformed Common Order and said how it “would have shocked [their] Puritan ancestors”. Another was by a Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) minister lamenting the fact that choral services, robed choirs, chanting and other things have become commonplace in that denomination. And the third was a commentary on some of then-new Anglican Eucharistic Prayers. Reviewing some of the phrases, the study group concluded “Cranmer would have excommunicated them!”. This is a small window into Protestant liturgical thinking. Nowadays a lot of them are repeating the “take, bless, break, eat” mantra of liturgical worship.