SSPX Teaching Video

[catharina]

Well, embrace ignorance if you like. Now, if you are talking about the four articles on the SSPX site,and actually read them, you will see that the SSPX does not “grant annulments”, nor do they accept diocean tribunal annulments as a free ticket to remarry. They advise against seeking such decisions.

The do decide if a marriage is valid or not, but do not grant annulments.

From what I can tell, they will accept the “living as brother and sister” arrangement if a marriage is indeed invalid. This would mean Chastity, separate beds, and not eating at the same table together.

Sin against the Sacrament of Marriage is not a game that can be won by finding loopholes in codes of canon law. The SSPX is right in holding this view.

Annulments have nothing to do with invalid marriages. If one makes vows and receives the Sacrament of Marriage validly, Lord have mercy on his/her soul if either party seeks to remarry after divorce.

JMO

Heavens no - I didn’t READ the articles. I don’t read the tracts from sspx, any more than I would read tracts from mormons or jehovah-witnesses. A group under the leadership of an excommunicated bishop holds no credibility with me. However, I did read the following (linked) article. It’s the formal letter of resignation, written by a then-sspx priest, to announce his departure from sspx due to the irregular state of sspx.

One of the things he mentions is the sspx work in annulments.

209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:1J4ZQvKeqSUJ:www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php%3Fid%3D49%26catname%3D12+annulments,+sspx&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

One quote from his letter:

“The inconsistency of the Society’s position may further be seen in its attitude toward marriage annulments. It is a clear fact that the annulment of a Catholic marriage is reserved to the Apostolic See. Now the Society claims that this same See is occupied by John Paul II. At the very same time, the Society has established a “Canonical Commission” to render decisions regarding annulments. This commission usurps the very authority which the Society supposedly recognizes in Rome. These declarations of nullity made by the Society lack the force of law, because they proceed from the Society’s ”Canonical Commission,” which lacks the necessary jurisdiction. I would point out that the Society has declared Paul VI’s suppression of it null and void because he didn’t follow the formalities of the law, but it has not hesitated to act in the same manner with regard to annulments. The only difference is that the Society is bound to the formalities of the law. Hence these declarations are themselves null, because they have no juridical character. At the same time, the priests of the Society are expected to recognize and promote these “annulments,” use them, and administer sacraments to people who are in fact living in public sin. This is somewhat similar to the case of King Henry VIII, and I as a priest will have nothing to do with it.”

(Priest is Father Robert Neville.)

 

[the_Gaudess]

THANK YOU.

No-one can be saved except in subjection to the Roman Pontiff. As Bl Pius IX said" “I am Tradition”.

As a “recovering Lefebvrite” I can say this: if Pope Benedict XVI were to tell me the moon is made of green cheese, I’d get out my bread and butter! The Holy Father is SWEET CHRIST ON EARTH and it behoves us to SUBMIT to him and OBEY him AT ALL TIMES, NO MATTER WHAT.

The joy of being Catholic is that there is no private judgment - we have the Pope to do this, and what the Pope says, goes, even if we do not agree, understand, or THINK that it is wrong. Lefebvrists say that the Popes have contradicted Tradition. IMPOSSIBLE.

I invite my former co-religionists to taste the sweet joy of submission and total, unconditional acceptance. If there are things wrong in my parish, diocese, or the church at large - IT ISN’T MY PROBLEM.

God bless
Mitch

LOL, funny. Not really. Sad. What of the popes with illegitimate children? You support this too? If your golden calf claim was true, then every pope would be a canonzied saint. No Pope would’ve sinned. No Pope would’ve had an active sex life *during *his Pontificate. Try reading your catechism before posting, unless you prefer ignorance.

 

[I_Believe]

I am SORRY - but this is PATHETIC - the SSPX are PROTESTANT!!! I understand that the word can refer to the Reformation groups, but any SANE person will see that the Lefebvrites are** AN EVIL NON-CATHOLIC CULT IN THE SERVICE OF SATAN.**

No pathetic wishy-washy statements and circumlocutions by a superannuated Cardinal (HOYOS) will change the glorious words of OUR BELOVED JOHN PAUL THE GREAT who solemnly cursed the impudent Lefebvre with excommunication for his BLATANT DISOBEDIENCE AND SCHISM. The lefebvrites are non-Catholics, schismatics, excommunicates, outside the church. Period.

I am TIRED of people trying to defend them and promote their literature and propoganda. Why is this even allowed? Are we not Catholics? We have nothing to learn from these schismatics. When they come crawling back, begging pardon for their ERRORS AND DISOBEDIENCE, they will be received back into the Church, not a moment sooner.

I am sorry for being strident, but I was a Lefebvrite for 10 years nearly, before I recanted my errors and returned to the bosom of the One True Church. I will rfight Lefebvrism to the death!

**Catharina, thanks for your pithy put-downs of piouswoman, and others! **These non-Catholics must be put in their place. How pathetic are they!

mitch

Satanists ? Really ? I was wondering why the SSPX priests spoke latin. I thought something was fishy about that. Keeping their backs to us and all, so we could not see what they were doing to the host, and praying some prayers in silence, so we can’t hear the Satanic verses.

Well, pizz on 'em. They can kiss my royal koran.

I’m glad you saved me from joining up with 'em. And thanks for the heads up on that confused Cardinal.

All this time, I thought…oh, never mind.

 

[piouswoman]

I just finished reading the letter written by Archbiship Lefevre. I have to say that he is elegant and I thank you for providing me with this link as it does explain his feelings quite well. However, I cannot agree with him. He makes references to such men as Ottaviani (sp?) and Bugnini, although he won’t call him by name. I regret sounding like a broken down record, but in his statement, which is very well written, I might add, we are left with taking his word that the affairs of the Council occurred in the manner he states, which is contrary to what is written itself about the Council. The references that are given are the same two French documents mentioned in the previous link, and the words of the Archbishop himself.

What is of interest is that the article articulates the position of Lefevre, so functions as a source in that sense. But, being myself an Engineer, I still have a tendency to demand statistics, numbers, and primary documents. While being the Archbishop’s words, it is second-hand at best and still highly anecdotal. I find frustrating the position that the Council and the Church since that time is soft on Communism. Any of us alive in the 1980’s can hardly agree, when considering John Paul II’s role in the destruction of the USSR, which history credits to him among others. The condemnation of liberation theology also springs to mind. These are easy to find facts. As for the Archbishops assertions, they can be vague at best as they do not easily allow for validation. I want to stress that I am referring to him as Archbishop in order to give him respect due to his office. I do not agree with him, and neither does the Vicar of Christ, but I am not going to insult him either.

I admire the fact that you have at least read the links that I have provided. I don’t demand or count on anyone agreeing with me, but it is right to read and research for oneself before forming an opinion. I have read extensively about the life of Archbishop LeFebvre and the SSPX, including the unfolding of events leading up to the consecrations. I have read extensively about the history of the church leading up to Vatican II and the Council itself. The topic is so huge that it cannot be summed up simply, especially by someone such as myself. I am convinced and sure of the position I take, and while I am not a good apologist nor a good debater, I have always been able to see things as though crystal clear, and it is hard for me to understand why others can or may not. Thanks for taking the time to read.
I would suggest that perhaps you read more about the Archbishop, It is hard for me to understand why you question his viewpoint of the events which happened anymore than you would question any of the other cardinals and bishops present at the council, especially in view of the fact that modernism and progressive thinking began seeping into the seminaries and into the church long before the council.
Archbishop LeFebvre could see the direction the church was taking, and held fast to tradition. The statistics and facts are there for anyone to see if they take the time to look, the church did not experience the “new Springtime” that was anticipated…rather we have experienced forty plus years of novelty and destruction. By their fruits you shall know them…the good fruits are not there in the conciliar church.

sspx.org/articles_index.htm#archbishop_lefebvre

 

[laudamus_te]

I really think you cannot be “faithful” without being obedient.

Tell that to St. Athanasius.

Obedience to the Pope is TRADITION. Anyone who has separated themselves from the Pope is NOT following Tradition. You cannot say you uphold Tradition while leaving out some of the other parts of Traditions. Which to me, would negate your whole movement.

Wha?? Where do you come up with this stuff?
The Truths handed down through revelation and Apostolic succession is TRADITION. Obedience to the Pope is secondary to obedience to Jesus Christ and TRADITION. Anyone who separates themselves from the Truths and Teachings of the Church is NOT following TRADITION.

And, whether you all realize it or not, YOU have separated yourselves from Rome.

Do you know me? I have done no such thing.

 

[NicPais83]

sspx.org/articles_index.htm#archbishop_lefebvre

Oh yes, I am very familiar with this website. My reasoning for disagreeing with SSPX is that personal experience and my own research seems to contradict much of what they say regarding the Novus Ordo specifically, and the Church after the Council in general. Many of their arguments state that they believe that the Novus Ordo is intrinsically invalid and insufficient. They give arguments based on Bugnini allegedly being a Free Mason, which is something that I have not seen sufficient evidence of, and condemn the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. A lot of the FAQ that is on this website tends to be anecdotal and hearsay, for example.

I will admit that from my point of view, the Tridentine Mass is the new Mass (I love it though, and on weekends help out at a diocesan parish as an Altar Boy for one). Personally, I think that the proper calling for the SSPX, in full union with Rome, would be to educate lapsed and cafeteria Catholics on the faith, and demand an end to liturgical abuse. That is my prayer for them, to return to full union. However, I do not view the Second Vatican Council as invalid, and I have a deep love of the Novus Ordo, and I deeply admire John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI.

 

[laudamus_te]

I am SORRY - but this is PATHETIC - the SSPX are PROTESTANT!!! I understand that the word can refer to the Reformation groups, but any SANE person will see that the Lefebvrites are AN EVIL NON-CATHOLIC CULT IN THE SERVICE OF SATAN.

This type of slander is beyond the pale.

mitch:

As a “recovering Lefebvrite” I can say this: if Pope Benedict XVI were to tell me the moon is made of green cheese, I’d get out my bread and butter! The Holy Father is SWEET CHRIST ON EARTH and it behoves us to SUBMIT to him and OBEY him AT ALL TIMES, NO MATTER WHAT.

This is very pathetic. You need to get back to the Church’s true teachings, pronto. The Pope is NOT Christ on Earth. That is papolotry, and is a very serious error. This kind of thinking is from Satan himself.

The joy of being Catholic is that there is no private judgment - we have the Pope to do this, and what the Pope says, goes, even if we do not agree, understand, or THINK that it is wrong. Lefebvrists say that the Popes have contradicted Tradition. IMPOSSIBLE.

I invite my former co-religionists to taste the sweet joy of submission and total, unconditional acceptance. If there are things wrong in my parish, diocese, or the church at large - IT ISN’T MY PROBLEM.

God bless
Mitch

More frightening papolotry! Your attitude is very scary, and I hope that no impressionable souls are being taken in by your errors. “It isn’t my problem”? People like you are one of the reasons that our Church is in the mess it is.

 

[catharina]

For those who insist on posting links to M. Lefebvre’s supporters and to sspx, maybe I should point out that more than a few of us lived through those times as mature Catholic adults. We grew to adulthood in the Church prior to the pronouncements that flowed from Vatican. We were raised with the Latin Mass and love it to this day. We remember the sspx scandals and the necessary excommunications as if they happened yesterday. There’s no way I wish to re-visit any of the absurd argumentations that were launched at those times. The actions that earned excommunications were appalling then and they are appalling now.

 

[laudamus_te]

I just finished reading the letter written by Archbiship Lefevre. I have to say that he is elegant and I thank you for providing me with this link as it does explain his feelings quite well. However, I cannot agree with him. He makes references to such men as Ottaviani (sp?) and Bugnini, although he won’t call him by name. I regret sounding like a broken down record, but in his statement, which is very well written, I might add, we are left with taking his word that the affairs of the Council occurred in the manner he states, which is contrary to what is written itself about the Council. The references that are given are the same two French documents mentioned in the previous link, and the words of the Archbishop himself.

What is of interest is that the article articulates the position of Lefevre, so functions as a source in that sense. But, being myself an Engineer, I still have a tendency to demand statistics, numbers, and primary documents. While being the Archbishop’s words, it is second-hand at best and still highly anecdotal. I find frustrating the position that the Council and the Church since that time is soft on Communism. Any of us alive in the 1980’s can hardly agree, when considering John Paul II’s role in the destruction of the USSR, which history credits to him among others. The condemnation of liberation theology also springs to mind. These are easy to find facts. As for the Archbishops assertions, they can be vague at best as they do not easily allow for validation. I want to stress that I am referring to him as Archbishop in order to give him respect due to his office. I do not agree with him, and neither does the Vicar of Christ, but I am not going to insult him either.

NicPais, your posts are such good examples of open-mindedness and charity. It is impossible to argue with someone who refuses to educate him/herself to the facts of the argument.

I would like to address some of your comments. Regarding your concern about “taking the Archbishop’s word” about the goings-on at VII, there has been much written about this by others. Have you read the Ottaviani Intervention? Have you read any of Michael Davies excellent writings about the Council and tradition? I’m thinking specifically of Pope John’s Council (which I have not yet read), Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II, The Eternal Sacrifice, Liturgical Shipwreck, etc… Also, a quick internet search has produced a couple of pieces which you may find interesting (and I believe that no one here can cast aspersions on either of these sites):

catholictradition.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_catholictradition_archive.html#114496560365866115

unavoce.org/dietrich.htm

I also believe that you are wrong to think that the Church is not soft on Communism. The “destruction of the USSR” did not destroy Communism. It is alive and well and spreading it’s errors with ever more fury. VII did not condemn Communism, despite the signatures of 450 bishops demanding that it be condemned.

 

[catharina]

As I said, lliving through the life, times and sorry ending of the days of M. Lefebvre was bad enough. Forcing myself to do it again (in the interest of argumentation?): NEVER.

 

[catharina]

I also believe that you are wrong to think that the Church is not soft on Communism. The “destruction of the USSR” did not destroy Communism. It is alive and well and spreading it’s errors with ever more fury. VII did not condemn Communism, despite the signatures of 450 bishops demanding that it be condemned.

Bishops give advice and counsel.
They do not “demand,” a point that should have been apparent to all.

 

[NicPais83]

NicPais, your posts are such good examples of open-mindedness and charity. It is impossible to argue with someone who refuses to educate him/herself to the facts of the argument.

I would like to address some of your comments. Regarding your concern about “taking the Archbishop’s word” about the goings-on at VII, there has been much written about this by others. Have you read the Ottaviani Intervention? Have you read any of Michael Davies excellent writings about the Council and tradition? I’m thinking specifically of Pope John’s Council (which I have not yet read), Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II, The Eternal Sacrifice, Liturgical Shipwreck, etc… Also, a quick internet search has produced a couple of pieces which you may find interesting (and I believe that no one here can cast aspersions on either of these sites):

catholictradition.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_catholictradition_archive.html#114496560365866115

unavoce.org/dietrich.htm

I also believe that you are wrong to think that the Church is not soft on Communism. The “destruction of the USSR” did not destroy Communism. It is alive and well and spreading it’s errors with ever more fury. VII did not condemn Communism, despite the signatures of 450 bishops demanding that it be condemned.

Thank you very much for your kind words. Topics such as these tend to get too heated too quickly that before long it turns into a mess of people yelling at each other, and I appreciate your kind way of disagreeing with me; both you and Piouswoman. God bless you all. In the mean time, I might not respond to the websites you gave me for a few hours, as I have to give myself time to read what you offered me, and I need to tend to my other responsibilities of the day. I plan to respond later this afternoon, or early evening.

 

[Our_Refuge]

NicPais83;3755166]I just finished reading the letter written by Archbiship Lefevre. I have to say that he is elegant and I thank you for providing me with this link as it does explain his feelings quite well. However, I cannot agree with him. He makes references to such men as Ottaviani (sp?) and Bugnini, although he won’t call him by name. I regret sounding like a broken down record, but in his statement, which is very well written, I might add, we are left with taking his word that the affairs of the Council occurred in the manner he states, which is contrary to what is written itself about the Council./

I am not with the SSPX but I have read as much as I can on Vatican II. I think we need to be fair to history. Report it accurately and not hide the truth. There was a very active liberal element at the Council .I found nothing contray in the article. Read *The Rhine flows into the Tiber *and it verifies what the Archbishop writes.

What is of interest is that the article articulates the position of Lefevre, so functions as a source in that sense. But, being myself an Engineer, I still have a tendency to demand statistics, numbers, and primary documents. While being the Archbishop’s words, it is second-hand at best and still highly anecdotal

.
Actually it is first hand since he was there and again there is nothing that he says that is not verified by *The Rhie Flows into the Tiber *which is the most trusted book written on Vatican III

find frustrating the position that the Council and the Church since that time is soft on Communism. Any of us alive in the 1980’s can hardly agree, when considering John Paul II’s role in the destruction of the USSR, which history credits to him among others.

It is a fact that the council agreed not to condemn communism. You will not find the word “communism” anywhere in the documents of Vatican II.

As for the Archbishops assertions, they can be vague at best as they do not easily allow for validation

.

Not vague at all. Everything he says has been well documented elsewhere.

 

[NicPais83]

I am not with the SSPX but I have read as much as I can on Vatican II. I think we need to be fair to history. Report it accurately and not hide the truth. There was a very active liberal element at the Council .I found nothing contray in the article. Read *The Rhine flows into the Tiber *and it verifies what the Archbishop writes.

.
Actually it is first hand since he was there and again there is nothing that he says that is not verified by *The Rhie Flows into the Tiber *which is the most trusted book written on Vatican III

It is a fact that the council agreed not to condemn communism. You will not find the word “communism” anywhere in the documents of Vatican II.
.

Not vague at all. Everything he says has been well documented elsewhere.

I am being fair to history. The article was very much so contradictory, in that it first presents that the bishops, in union with the Pope are the authority with the Church. It then gives an example where the bishops in Canada embraced heresies, and are in schism with Rome as evidence of the error of that statement. However, using the article’s own words as evidence, the Canadian bishops were not in union with the Pope and therefore do not meet the requirements that the article defined itself; a contradiction.

No, the article is second hand information. The Archbishop, God rest his soul, does not present any citations or references for what he says. In order to be taken as being factual, it is required that he provides the reader, in this case, myself, with the sources of his accusations, instead of simply stating that he was there. He makes some heavy accusations without presenting any proof other than his word.

It is NOT a fact that the Council didn’t condemn Communism. You are trying to prove a negative, which in science is rarely something you can do. The lack of an explicit reference does not imply an acceptance.

Yes, the article is still VERY vague. If what he says is well documented elsewhere, then the burden is on the Archbishop to present this evidence. He did not. I cannot simply assume that he is referring to these documents when he does not say so; and if he is, then he’s guilty of plagerism (sp?). In an article that is meant to be persuasive, it does not suffice to say that the evidence is elsewhere.

 

[PrayforMallory]

I am SORRY - but this is PATHETIC - the SSPX are PROTESTANT!!! I understand that the word can refer to the Reformation groups, but any SANE person will see that the Lefebvrites are AN EVIL NON-CATHOLIC CULT IN THE SERVICE OF SATAN.

No pathetic wishy-washy statements and circumlocutions by a superannuated Cardinal (HOYOS) will change the glorious words of OUR BELOVED JOHN PAUL THE GREAT who solemnly cursed the impudent Lefebvre with excommunication for his BLATANT DISOBEDIENCE AND SCHISM. The lefebvrites are non-Catholics, schismatics, excommunicates, outside the church. Period.

I am TIRED of people trying to defend them and promote their literature and propoganda. Why is this even allowed? Are we not Catholics? We have nothing to learn from these schismatics. When they come crawling back, begging pardon for their ERRORS AND DISOBEDIENCE, they will be received back into the Church, not a moment sooner.

I am sorry for being strident, but I was a Lefebvrite for 10 years nearly, before I recanted my errors and returned to the bosom of the One True Church. I will rfight Lefebvrism to the death!

Catharina, thanks for your pithy put-downs of piouswoman, and others! These non-Catholics must be put in their place. How pathetic are they!

mitch

Look. Read the above post of mine.

Non-Catholic does not equal Protestant.
Schismatic does not equal Protestant
Heretic does not equal Protestant.
The Cathars from the middle ages were not Protestants.
Protestantism has a certain cultural/historical context, which in no way is analogous to the situation of the SSPX.

You can hate the SSPX, their teachings, etc. But please, like I said earlier, don’t call them “Protestants,” as if they were the same as Baptists. A whole lot more goes into being “Protestant” than simply being disobedient against the Pope on one occassion.

An excommunicated Catholic is an excommunicated Catholic, not a Protestant. He only becomes a Protestant when he embraces protestant teachings.

 

[PrayforMallory]

THANK YOU.

No-one can be saved except in subjection to the Roman Pontiff. As Bl Pius IX said" “I am Tradition”.

As a “recovering Lefebvrite” I can say this: if Pope Benedict XVI were to tell me the moon is made of green cheese, I’d get out my bread and butter! The Holy Father is SWEET CHRIST ON EARTH and it behoves us to SUBMIT to him and OBEY him AT ALL TIMES, NO MATTER WHAT.

The joy of being Catholic is that there is no private judgment - we have the Pope to do this, and what the Pope says, goes, even if we do not agree, understand, or THINK that it is wrong. Lefebvrists say that the Popes have contradicted Tradition. IMPOSSIBLE.

I invite my former co-religionists to taste the sweet joy of submission and total, unconditional acceptance. If there are things wrong in my parish, diocese, or the church at large - IT ISN’T MY PROBLEM.

God bless
Mitch

Forgive me, but I can’t accept this. I can’t accept that if the Pope were to tell me the moon is made of green cheese that I would have to accept it. That’s faith without reason, something Pope Benedict himself has condemned.

As far as no one being saved without being in submission to the Roman Pontiff, well, there’s a problem there. Apparently, after Vatican II people can and are saved by Protestant faiths that don’t acknowledge the Papacy at all, much less acknowledge the papacy but don’t agree with him when he does not speak infallibly.

There’s no logic supporting what you are saying.

 

[PrayforMallory]

It is NOT a fact that the Council didn’t condemn Communism. You are trying to prove a negative, which in science is rarely something you can do. The lack of an explicit reference does not imply an acceptance.

True, but at the same time, the lack of a condemnation certainly has allowed people embracing those tendencies to delve further into them.

There are a lot of things not mentioned in detail in Vat II. One of them is the blessed Virgin Mary, who’s been put on the backburner in a lot of Churches.

 

[Our_Refuge]

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

Some of what it stated is true but some of it is taken out of context. It is true that the documents of Vatican II are ambigious. But if read in light of tradition I can see that there is not break from tradition. But they MUST be read in the light of traditional teaching.
The article speaks of the document on Revelation. It is true that the liberals at the Council, for ecumenical reasons, wanted to water down the doctrine of two sources of revelation, scripture and tradition.
It is true that the voting was delayed so that a document could be written that would not offend protestants. But that is NOT what ended up happenning. The final text is true to Catholic tradition
On Divine Revelation
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

It is also true that a document on the VIrgin Mary was highly debated. The liberals did not want Mary to have her own document because they felt it would be a setback for ecumenism It is really shocking when you read the debate as recorded in The Rhine flows into the Tiber. So many put ecumenism above the Virgin Mother.
But in the end it DID NOT happen. While Mary did not receive here own document, she was given Chapter 8 in the Constitution on the Church and it is more traditional then the liberals wanted and it was NOT pleasing to the protestants.
Protestant professor Oscar Cullman, " We cannot pass over in silence the disappointment that we experienced at seeing the title of “Mediatrix” given to Mary…The fact that the text on Mary, after so much discussion as to where it should be placed, should have finnally become the concluding chapter of the schema on the Church, a decision which was in fact intended to weaken Mariology, has in reality made it even stronger, because everything stated about the Church culminates, so to speak, in this chapter…it must be concluded that Mariology at this Council has in general been intensified to a degree which is not in keeping with the ecumencial tendencies of Protestantism…and with a return to the Bible. Our expectations in this connection have not been fullfilled."* Rhine flows into the TIber*
Go to Chapter 8 on Mary
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[PrayforMallory]

For those who insist on posting links to M. Lefebvre’s supporters and to sspx, maybe I should point out that more than a few of us lived through those times as mature Catholic adults. We grew to adulthood in the Church prior to the pronouncements that flowed from Vatican. We were raised with the Latin Mass and love it to this day. We remember the sspx scandals and the necessary excommunications as if they happened yesterday. There’s no way I wish to re-visit any of the absurd argumentations that were launched at those times. The actions that earned excommunications were appalling then and they are appalling now.

I can understand that. However:

1. The fact that we weren’t alive during Vat II and a lot of the aftermath has nothing to do with whether or not our arguments are true or false.
2. No one has to participate if they don’t want to.

I understand your feelings, though.

 

[Our_Refuge]

=NicPais83;3756943]
No, the article is second hand information. The Archbishop, God rest his soul, does not present any citations or references for what he says. In order to be taken as being factual, it is required that he provides the reader, in this case, myself, with the sources of his accusations, instead of simply stating that he was there.

If you want other sources you must find them. It is not the Archbishop’s job in this article to provide footnotes.

He makes some heavy accusations without presenting any proof other than his word.

He was there . This are his observations. His observations are verified by other accounts. When Cardinal Ratzinger writes about his observations at the Council does he provide other sources? NO.

It is NOT a fact that the Council didn’t condemn Communism. You are trying to prove a negative, which in science is rarely something you can do. The lack of an explicit reference does not imply an acceptance.

It is a fact. The Council spoke of atheism, socialism, capitalism, demoracy but communism is never mentioned or condemnd even though a letter containing over 400 signatures was brought forwarded asking the Council to do so.

Yes, the article is still VERY vague. If what he says is well documented elsewhere, then the burden is on the Archbishop to present this evidence.

I don’t find it vague at all. He has no burden to provide proof. This was a letter not a book.