SSPX Teaching Video

  • Thread starter Thread starter PrayforMallory
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
piouswoman said:
Have you ever heard of “state of necessity”? No? well good thing there was, good thing he did, otherwise, there would be no TLM today for the neo-trads, there would of been no summorum pontificum issued which** vindicated** Archbishop Lefevbre, and the modernists would of accomplished just exactly what they had set out to do…get rid of the Traditional Latin Mass once and for all…what a major chop…their evil plan was foiled.
Click to expand...
WOW! You’re a conspiracy theorist? I had no idea.

I’ve never even heard of such a conspiracy - a group that works to abolish the Laitn Mass. You have quite an imagination. On the other hand, it’s every bit as easy and logical to say that the Latin Mass would have become much more available and much sooner if it were not for the horrific disrespect perpetrated by M. Lefebvre.
 
saint_rafael said:
That is true but we never had married deacons. That is what Father was talking about. We had the transitional deacons with the different kinds like the subdeacon. These men were deacons who were on their way to the priesthood.

The permanent married deacon is a novelty not part of traditional Catholicism in centuries.

They are ordained, but the priest calls them lay people because it is such a novelty to have a married man with family, who would otherwise be a lay man, raised to the deaconate.
Click to expand...
You cannot be a deacon and be lay man. Whether Father agrees with the permanent deaconate or not, he has to admit that an ordained deacon has undergone an ontological change that is irreversible. He is a cleric until death. Therefore, they are not lay men.

We have not had married permanent deacons in the Western Church for a very long time, this is true. But they have always been in the Catholic Church. The Byzantine rites have always had married deacons and married priests.

They are part of Catholic tradition. To say that they are not is to say that the Byzantine are not part of Catholic tradition either.

Whether we picked up the idea and carried it over from the Byzantine rite or we picked it up from the Acts of the Apostles, in either case, we picked it up from a reliable and holy Catholic source. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with it. A Deacon is a cleric and that’s it.

It is what it is.

JR 🙂
 
I should like to say that I certainly hope and will pray for the full restoration of unity between the SSPX and Rome.

There was no legitimate reason for the split, nor can there be now, especially since the liberalization of the use of the TLM.

CC
 
catharina said:
On the other hand, it’s every bit as easy and logical to say that the Latin Mass would have become much more available and much sooner if it were not for the horrific disrespect perpetrated by M. Lefebvre.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Why don’t you lay out a logical scenario of such a possibility for us? Keeping in mind, of course, the fact that the seminaries post-VII (except for Archibishop Lefebvre’s) were not teaching Thomistic philosophy, but modernist philosophy. Never mind the bothersome little detail that they also gave up teaching Latin and the rubrics of the Latin Mass.
 
consumedconvert said:
What do you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Jehovah’s Witness?

A: Someone who goes around knocking on doors with nothing in particular on his mind. 😃
Click to expand...
Thanks for reminding me. 🙂 I’ve been meaning to place a Crucifix on my front door, in plain site. Those JW’s like to ring our doorbells on Saturday mornings about 9 AM. Very annoying.
 
piouswoman said:
Have you ever heard of “state of necessity”? No? well good thing there was, good thing he did, otherwise, there would be no TLM today for the neo-trads, there would of been no summorum pontificum issued which** vindicated** Archbishop Lefevbre, and the modernists would of accomplished just exactly what they had set out to do…get rid of the Traditional Latin Mass once and for all…what a major chop…their evil plan was foiled.
Click to expand...
I have bad news for you. Summorum Pontificum does not vindicate Archbishop Lefebvre, it sinks him furhter. Read this.

We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum2.htm

In Summorum Pontificum Pope Benedict states that he believes that the old Missal became an EXTERNAL issue, but there are deeper issues with the Archbishop. In other words, he’s not convinced that this was all about the mass. He compares the Lefebvre movement to others who also wanted to see the return of the old missal and find that others never broke with the bishops or the Pope or with the binding character of Vatican II. They remained faithful to the Church.

This does not sound like he’s vindicating Archbishop Lefebvre at all.

JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I have bad news for you. Summorum Pontificum does not vindicate Archbishop Lefebvre, it sinks him furhter. Read this.

We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum2.htm

In Summorum Pontificum Pope Benedict states that he believes that the old Missal became an EXTERNAL issue, but there are deeper issues with the Archbishop. In other words, he’s not convinced that this was all about the mass. He compares the Lefebvre movement to others who also wanted to see the return of the old missal and find that others never broke with the bishops or the Pope or with the binding character of Vatican II. They remained faithful to the Church.

This does not sound like he’s vindicating Archbishop Lefebvre at all.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
I’d say that speaks very much to the credit of those who desired the use of a TLM but remained 100% faithful and obedient to Rome. They are a credit to us.
 
catharina said:
WOW! You’re a conspiracy theorist? I had no idea.

I’ve never even heard of such a conspiracy - a group that works to abolish the Laitn Mass. You have quite an imagination. On the other hand, it’s every bit as easy and logical to say that the Latin Mass would have become much more available and much sooner if it were not for the horrific disrespect perpetrated by M. Lefebvre.
Click to expand...
Actually, you make jest, but quite a bit has been written about the enemies of the Church and Her traditions and their desire to destroy not only the Latin Mass but all of our traditions.

Here is something quite worthy of your time:

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Survivals_and_New_Arrivals:_The_Old_and_New_Enemies_of_the_Catholic_Church/Chapter_IV
 
JReducation said:
I have bad news for you. Summorum Pontificum does not vindicate Archbishop Lefebvre, it sinks him furhter. Read this.

We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum2.htm

In Summorum Pontificum Pope Benedict states that he believes that the old Missal became an EXTERNAL issue, but there are deeper issues with the Archbishop. In other words, he’s not convinced that this was all about the mass. He compares the Lefebvre movement to others who also wanted to see the return of the old missal and find that others never broke with the bishops or the Pope or with the binding character of Vatican II. They remained faithful to the Church.

This does not sound like he’s vindicating Archbishop Lefebvre at all.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict knows full well that, where Lefebvre and the SSPX is concerned, it is not about the Mass. Where Lefebvre was vindicated by SP is in the admission that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated.
 
piouswoman said:
Your Catholic Encyclopedia may of been printed long before Vatican II, but the error of modernism started creeping into the Church LONG before Vatican II…it began with the French Revolution in fact. Here is my answer to you…and I suggest you read:

geocities.com/catholic_profide/renew2.html
Click to expand...
Ok, round two:

The left side of Religious freedom affirms that the Church is the true faith. The right side reads as an attack on institutions that do not allow for a practice of the faith, namely Soviet Russia. On collegiality, the two sides do not even talk about the same issue. One says that the bishops do not have supreme authority equal to the Pope. The other side state that supreme authority resides in the bishops in union with the Pope…along the lines of the Magesterium of the Church. On Truth, Christ has given all truth to the Church, but we are still called to embrace our fellow man and search out the truth in our lives. Truth is an objective issue, given by Christ to the Church. Life can give the appearance of gray, but in all moral issues the objective truth is there. It is wrong to say that abortion is acceptable. Searching for the truth is applying what Christ taught us to the modern world. Abortion is murder. Embryonic stem cell harvesting is immoral. These are truths that need to be sought out with man so that he sees as Christ does.

On the next section, the one titled Ecumenism, again no citations. The Canadian Bishops are known for their liberal views and schismatic twisting of teaching, so this is hardly evidence.

On the Modern World, I take issue with the statement: These post-Vatican II reforms include the abandonment of a distinctive religious habit for nuns, brothers and priests, a softening of the “offensive” teachings on artificial birth control, abortion and homosexuality, and the increasing involvement of the Church in socialist “causes.” All of these were condemned Post-Vatican II, such as in Humana Vitae (which is NEVER mentioned here) and in Rome’s condemnation of Liberation Theology. Likewise, it fails to mention John Paul II working with the Polish Solidarity movement to bring down the USSR. Again, any statement that says that the Second Vatican Council condones abortion disregards Humana Vitae, and disregards everything that Rome has stated about abortion since. It is a mortal sin to procure an abortion, period. On collegiality, the article contradicts itself since these bishops were NOT in union with the Pope (see the article’s section on collegiality earlier for citation).

As for the remainder, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence. Many times the article talks about “a text” without stating the specific text or citing it. It mentions that Campos, Brazil has had massive growth due to keeping the Tridentine Liturgy, but does not give statistics, or any data at all. It mentions Fr. Ratzinger, but does not elaborate on what his role in the Council was.
 
laudamus_te said:
Hmm. Why don’t you lay out a logical scenario of such a possibility for us? Keeping in mind, of course, the fact that the seminaries post-VII (except for Archibishop Lefebvre’s) were not teaching Thomistic philosophy, but modernist philosophy. Never mind the bothersome little detail that they also gave up teaching Latin and the rubrics of the Latin Mass.
Click to expand...
Are you implying that Almighty God and God Alone does not carry the day with HIS will for HIS Church. Are you implying that the prayer of the faithful does no good in moving mountains? Are you implying that M. Lefebvre alone was the only man qualified to serve as God’s instrument in promoting the Latin Mass? Or did his public persona leave little room for others - including the acknowledgement of the prayers of MANY who lived and loved the Latin Mass, long before Vatican II became a graced part of Church history.

Keep your blind spots to yourself - or limit the grace, love and power of God.
 
Piouswoman, I am curious whether you believe that canonisation is an exercize of the Magisterium and therefore cannot be mistaken?

There is a great and beautifu array of variety in our Canonized Saints. Think of the contrast between St. Josemarie Escriva and St. Padre Pio–very different personalities and charisms. But both sainted, nonetheless.

God uses a beautifully colorful palatte. 😃
 
JReducation said:
The Church does acknowledge they exist. They are not known to us. That’s different. That’s why the Church has the solemnity of All Saints.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
True as well. Actually, are not all who make it to Heaven saints ?
 
JReducation said:
I have bad news for you. Summorum Pontificum does not vindicate Archbishop Lefebvre, it sinks him furhter. Read this.

We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum2.htm

In Summorum Pontificum Pope Benedict states that he believes that the old Missal became an EXTERNAL issue, but there are deeper issues with the Archbishop. In other words, he’s not convinced that this was all about the mass. He compares the Lefebvre movement to others who also wanted to see the return of the old missal and find that others never broke with the bishops or the Pope or with the binding character of Vatican II. They remained faithful to the Church.

This does not sound like he’s vindicating Archbishop Lefebvre at all.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
I appreciate you good intent in posting that, but I must say that I would take everything I read on EWTN with a grain of salt. May I recommend this book to you to read? It is very insightful.
networkgonewrong.com/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top