SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter eichenb2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eichenb2

Guest
I ran across the following blog. ecclesia-militans.blogspot.com
One link on this blog has the statement, “A Modern Day St. Athanasius”, in reference to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I understand that SSPX is on the outs now with the Papa; however, could it be that, like St. Athanasius, SSPX will be, 100 years from now, seen as the defenders of orthodoxy?
 
eichenb2 said:
I ran across the following blog. ecclesia-militans.blogspot.com
One link on this blog has the statement, “A Modern Day St. Athanasius”, in reference to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I understand that SSPX is on the outs now with the Papa; however, could it be that, like St. Athanasius, SSPX will be, 100 years from now, seen as the defenders of orthodoxy?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. Only time (and God) will tell.

We are better off praying for the SSPX and the doctrinal discussions than this speculation.

😃
 
We do not live either in the past, at the time of Athanatius, nor the future, which will remain forever hidden from us. While we can study the past, whether the example of Athanasius applies is determined by how one view Lefebvre. In any case, God only has us live in the present, the time he has put us in. In this present, we have the Holy Father to follow and the Holy Catholic Church as our teacher.
 
I have to agree with the other two posters. While I lean in the direction that this will be the case (Lefebvre vindicated) we have no way of knowing. We just pray that God guide gives us the wisdom to recognize the signs of His Will.
 
eichenb2 said:
I ran across the following blog. ecclesia-militans.blogspot.com
One link on this blog has the statement, “A Modern Day St. Athanasius”, in reference to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I understand that SSPX is on the outs now with the Papa; however, could it be that, like St. Athanasius, SSPX will be, 100 years from now, seen as the defenders of orthodoxy?
Click to expand...
H.E. Marcel Lefebvre is already vindicated. Take a hard look around.

The Society isn’t on the outs with Papa BXVI. But the “spirit of VII” is on the way out. We can bank on that.

You can see today, that the Society are defenders of the Faith. They’ve been doing it since the days of the Holy Ghost Fathers. 🙂
 
eichenb2 said:
I ran across the following blog. ecclesia-militans.blogspot.com
One link on this blog has the statement, “A Modern Day St. Athanasius”, in reference to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I understand that SSPX is on the outs now with the Papa; however, could it be that, like St. Athanasius, SSPX will be, 100 years from now, seen as the defenders of orthodoxy?
Click to expand...
You have to keep in mind that Archbishop Lefebvre did disobey the Pope and refused to accept the decrees of Vatican II. He is the one that broke from the church. The church did not break from him. Also since it is our belief that Vatican II was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can we say that the Holy Spirit was in error in His guidance, or did the
council misunderstand or misinterpret the Holy Spirit’s guidance, or refuse to listen to Him in totality?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem
 
DonLeon said:
You have to keep in mind that Archbishop Lefebvre …refused to accept the decrees of Vatican II. He is the one that broke from the church.
Click to expand...
How can this be when the Archbishop had signed all the Vatican II documents? Don’t forget that many who voted against the Vatican II documents still remained in the Church so this really seems to be a meaningless caveat brought up by liberals who harbor a sour grapes attitude regarding the lifting of the excommunications.
Also since it is our belief that Vatican II was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can we say that the Holy Spirit was in error in His guidance, or did the
council misunderstand or misinterpret the Holy Spirit’s guidance, or refuse to listen to Him in totality?
Click to expand...
Do all who express discomfort with Latin in the liturgy feel the same way?
 
Even if the Archbishop did sign the documents, he still broke from the Church. Why else tthen did he incur excommunication. He claimed that the changes to be brought about by
Vatican II were too liberal and damaging to the church (which is my opinion also, I’m a Traditionalist) and wanted the pope to abrogate them. Since he did not get his way, he left rarther that stay in the dhurch and work towards repairing the “damage”. He also compounded his disobedience by ordaining bishops without approval of the Holy See.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem
 
DonLeon said:
Even if the Archbishop did sign the documents, he still broke from the Church. Why else tthen did he incur excommunication. He claimed that the changes to be brought about by
Vatican II were too liberal and damaging to the church (which is my opinion also, I’m a Traditionalist) and wanted the pope to abrogate them. Since he did not get his way, he left rarther that stay in the dhurch and work towards repairing the “damage”. He also compounded his disobedience by ordaining bishops without approval of the Holy See.
Click to expand...
Since he signed those documents, he must have felt betrayed to some extent in order to incur the wrath of the Pope. Be that as it may, he was still a bishop and his ordinations were valid. After all, Peter betrayed Christ three times and that didn’t disqualify him as Pope.
 
ProVobis said:
Since he signed those documents, he must have felt betrayed to some extent in order to incur the wrath of the Pope. Be that as it may, he was still a bishop and his ordinations were valid. After all, Peter betrayed Christ three times and that didn’t disqualify him as Pope.
Click to expand...
Yep. His ordinations may have been valid but they were ilicit. Also, Peter was never pope nor bishop even though we’d like to think so.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem
 
DonLeon said:
Even if the Archbishop did sign the documents, he still broke from the Church. Why else tthen did he incur excommunication. He claimed that the changes to be brought about by
Vatican II were too liberal and damaging to the church (which is my opinion also, I’m a Traditionalist) and wanted the pope to abrogate them. Since he did not get his way, he left rarther that stay in the dhurch and work towards repairing the “damage”. He also compounded his disobedience by ordaining bishops without approval of the Holy See.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem
Click to expand...
“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
  • Pope St. Felix III
Click to expand...
 
DonLeon said:
Yep. His ordinations may have been valid but they were ilicit. Also, Peter was never pope nor bishop even though we’d like to think so.
Click to expand...
As if Peter’s betrayal of Christ were licit. And who was he if not the first Pope? Wow! Aren’t all the popes Peter’s successors? Please educate us.

By the way, I don’t consider myself a traditionalist. Today I even attended a Novus Ordo Mass at a hospital chapel. But what I cannot take are those who think they control the moral high road over those who have kept the faith as they were taught. And if the lifting of the excommunications weren’t proof that the Pope wants all our Holy Sacrifices of the Mass to be most pleasing to God without arguing about the legal issues, I don’t know what else can convince you and all other Lefebvre scholars of that.
 
Peter really was not considered the first pope, but I do not want to get into an agrument with you. We can go round and round in circles and not get anywhere. You consider youself knowledgeable and i consider myself just as knowledgeable. Let’s let it go at that.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top