SSPX vs Sedevacantism

[CWBetts]

Oh, and Betts, there are no “excommunicates” in the SSPX anymore. Quit using that label in the context of modern day discussions. Thanks.

I use it in reference to one man: Marcel Lefevebre

 

[CWBetts]

Just as a historical side note, St. Athanasius did, in fact, consecrate bishops to serve against the Arian heresy without the approval of the current pope at the time. So yes, he did openly defy the Pope’s wishes. This is one of the things in addition to open opposition to the Arian heresy that got him excommunicated. Twice. Expelled from his diocese five times. He was also accused of murder by his enemies.

So, in a sense, one could say that St. Athanasius was a far more “disobedient” and “renegade” character than Archbishop Lefebvre could ever have hoped to be.

The bottom line is that the Church so far in history has survived every crisis in Her history with Her doctrinal teachings intact. Let us hope that this happens in our modern day as well, where doctrine is often muddied, ignored or outright rejected by many of those who are entrusted with it.

I am thankful that those who stood up against heresy in the Church did so when they did so and, as with all things in life, I believe that time and God will ultimately be the judge.

If you truly value Church Tradition you would remove yourself from asociation with the SSPX, and find a truly faithful group, such as the FSSP.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Just as a historical side note, St. Athanasius did, in fact, consecrate bishops to serve against the Arian heresy without the approval of the current pope at the time. So yes, he did openly defy the Pope’s wishes. This is one of the things in addition to open opposition to the Arian heresy that got him excommunicated. Twice. Expelled from his diocese five times. He was also accused of murder by his enemies.

So, in a sense, one could say that St. Athanasius was a far more “disobedient” and “renegade” character than Archbishop Lefebvre could ever have hoped to be.

See the new thread on true and false obedience.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

When has the any Pope issued a directive not to pray for the intercession of anybody? As we do not know their final fate. Truly, Martin Luther may very well be able to intercede on our behalf. But there is no directive do denounce him for his disobedience. It is common sense that Martin Luther suffer criticism. The same is true for Lefebvre. A formal pronouncement is not needed. To honor him is to praise his disobedience.

CWBetts, I am not unreasonable. I am not telling anybody to honor Abp. Lefebvre or pray to him. But I am not going to make things worse than they really are. Just because you are convinced that Abp. Lefebvre was wrong about the consecrations, and I am not arguing about that, it doesn’t follow that you can correctly accuse his followers of disobedience to the pope in matters upon which the pope has not asked for obedience.

The question is about whether the SSPX has disobeyed the pope in the last 20 years. You cited the fact that they have neither denounced him nor desisted from believing that he could hear their prayers, being in heaven, and thus possibly even a future candidate for canonization. If the pope doesn’t ask for denunciations of Abp. Lefebvre with affirmations that Abp. Lefebvre could never merit canonization, why are you citing these things as examples of disobedience to the pope in the last 20 years?

 

[excubitor]

That was more than 20 years ago. I’m looking for an act of disobedience within the past 20 years.

Its kind of like adultery isn’t it? A man married to a Catholic bride in a Catholic church before Catholic witnesses leaves the church and divorces his wife and marries another woman. A dreadful act of disobedience.

20 years later he has lived a faithful life with his new wife and fathered several bright and shiny children. His house is well ordered, his lawn is nicely mowed. In fact he makes a point of it because in the orderliness and uprightness of his family life he seeks to vindicate his wanton act of adultery.

So when did his adultery become acceptable? Was it 2 years after his first baby was born? Was it after 10 years when they moved into their four bedroom house with its 3 car garage? Or was it 30 years after he got his shining youngest daughter married off to a successful business man? NO. It was never acceptable. Not after 1-2-10-30 years. Not even if he dies at age 100 years will it be acceptable or justifiable. Because he is an adulterer.

The passage of time does not forgive sin. Good works do not vindicate sin. Only repentance, confession, renouncing of sin, amendment of the sinful life, and the resulting washing of the Blood of Christ may the sin of disobedience and adultery be forgiven.

So for the last 20 years EVERY SINGLE DAY has been a sinful act of disobedience, every day spent in defiance of the Pope has been UNACCEPTABLE to the Holy God.

It will not matter how many Rosaries are said. It will not matter how many Latin Masses are said for the intentions of the Pope. Its all vanity unless you obey the Pope.
1 Samuel 8:19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; (who is their King? Msgr Fellay or their own selves)

1 Chronicles 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.

2 Thessalonians 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

It’s unprofitable to disobey the ordinary magisterium. What is profitable then? To submit ourselves to the proper, ordained, anointed, authority, not knowing where it will take us with a willingness of heart that comes from the workings of the Holy Spirit. And in the case of the SSPX, obey the Pope, renounce the disobedient, schismatic deed of ABL, renounce the errors of the doctrine of “false obedience” and “sola traditio”, express fealty to the Vatican 2 council and follow it in its traditional light, and all will be well. Your confessions said to the local ordinary will be heard, your sins will be forgiven, and you will be easily and comfortably back into the fold of Holy Mother Church.

 

[Onegin]

I use it in reference to one man: Marcel Lefevebre

Excommunication is a penalty that is not considered to extend into judgment. God judged the soul of Marcel Lefebvre when he died in 1991.

Again, I say that your label is unnecessary for present day discussion.

 

[Onegin]

If you truly value Church Tradition you would remove yourself from asociation with the SSPX, and find a truly faithful group, such as the FSSP.

I don’t want to throw you for a loop, but I do associate with the FSSP. And the FSSPX. In my college days, I went to Mass at Franciscan. And, despite all of this, I do sleep fairly well at night.

 

[CWBetts]

Excommunication is a penalty that is not considered to extend into judgment. God judged the soul of Marcel Lefebvre when he died in 1991.

Again, I say that your label is unnecessary for present day discussion.

I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. :crying:

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

The denunciation of an excommunicate and a schismatic is unreasonable?

I did not say it was unreasonable. I expressed my doubt that the pope has in this instance issued any demands in this regard for the last 20 years. I guess you don’t like the answer to the question as to when the SSPX has disobeyed the pope for the last twenty years? Is this the best you can come up with? When and if the pope ever charges anyone with disobedience for not denouncing Abp. Lefebvre, it will need to be after, not before he issues a request that anyone do so.

Come on CWBetts. It isn’t that big of a concession. Do like excubitor has done and just claim it doesn’t make any difference because the original act stains every subsequent obedience. But stop trying to make matters worse than they are. There is no papal demand for denunciations and it cannot be disobedience until the demand for denunciation is made.

 

[catharina]

Just as a historical side note, St. Athanasius did, in fact, consecrate bishops to serve against the Arian heresy without the approval of the current pope at the time. So yes, he did openly defy the Pope’s wishes. This is one of the things in addition to open opposition to the Arian heresy that got him excommunicated. Twice. Expelled from his diocese five times. He was also accused of murder by his enemies.

So, in a sense, one could say that St. Athanasius was a far more “disobedient” and “renegade” character than Archbishop Lefebvre could ever have hoped to be.

The bottom line is that the Church so far in history has survived every crisis in Her history with Her doctrinal teachings intact. Let us hope that this happens in our modern day as well, where doctrine is often muddied, ignored or outright rejected by many of those who are entrusted with it.

I am thankful that those who stood up against heresy in the Church did so when they did so and, as with all things in life, I believe that time and God will ultimately be the judge.

Comparing the recognized holiness of St. Athanasius to the actions of M. Lefebvre
is a comparison that cannot be justified within the Catholic Church. That’s simple fact.

 

[catharina]

Excommunication is a penalty that is not considered to extend into judgment. God judged the soul of Marcel Lefebvre when he died in 1991.

Again, I say that your label is unnecessary for present day discussion.

In any review of the history of sspx, the use of the term “excommunication” is essential.
It should not be ignored or denied.

 

[catharina]

I did not say it was unreasonable. I expressed my doubt that the pope has in this instance issued any demands in this regard for the last 20 years. I guess you don’t like the answer to the question as to when the SSPX has disobeyed the pope for the last twenty years? Is this the best you can come up with? When and if the pope ever charges anyone with disobedience for not denouncing Abp. Lefebvre, it will need to be after, not before he issues a request that anyone do so.

Come on CWBetts. It isn’t that big of a concession. Do like excubitor has done and just claim it doesn’t make any difference because the original act stains every subsequent obedience. But stop trying to make matters worse than they are. There is no papal demand for denunciations and it cannot be disobedience until the demand for denunciation is made.

There is no plausable reason for anyone to pretend to know of “holiness” of M. Lefebvre.
It cannot be justified by anyone at this time.

The “bad example” of such a practice as it is put before children is a horror.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

The “bad example” of such a practice as it is put before children is a horror.

Does this apply to John Paul II as well? Keep in mind that John Paul II held a prayer meeting at Assisi, at which members of assorted false religions were asked to commit a mortal sin against the first commandment, through false worship. They were even provided with a special room where each member of the false religion could commit this mortal sin. The thought was that God would be so pleased with this mortal sin against the first commandment, that he would grant “world peace”. Do you object to those who praise the alleged holiness of John Paul II when you consider his part in this public mortal sin?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thanks to all, thread closed.