P
palmas85
Guest
Thats why I like to remind people of history every now and then. In these revisionist times perfectly orthodox behavior can become heretical and vice versa.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
No true Catholics oppose the Pope on important matters.
But this is a strawman, unless one takes liberties with the word “oppose.” The argument is that one should obey the pope in certain things reserved to him as the vicar of Christ, like ordaining of bishops. I do not think anyone ever has said one can not oppose the Pope in debate and apologetics in the way Athanasius did.
BTW, in this context I am not wrong, because if you notice the name Athanasius has been used for other purposes than to refute the above argument. It has almost become a panacea, a mantra for one poster.
P
pnewton
Guest
BTW - I get equally weary of those that say that LeFebvre is just like Martin Luther.
I never made this comment, BTW, but I did say one can just as logically (illogically?) compare him to Luther as Athanasius, just in case some one seems compelled to point this out.
N
nbjayme
Guest
Gal 2:11 But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
…
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
This account of St. Paul shows us that a Pope can be fallible and even bring others with him to error. It also show us that we are servants of the Gospel and not entirely of the Pope.
Remember that the word Pope is an office in the Church and a title and not a name of a person. Thus, when a Pope walks not unto the doctrine of the Church he ceases to have the authority of being obeyed just as St. Paul would not approve on the actions of St. Peter.
Pope Honorius I was excommunicated and condemned not simply because he held heresy but it was more of
not acting in his capacity to quash the heresy at its root. Here too we see that even a pope can be an instrument / source and/or the one that enrourage heresy. From honorius we can
also see that even a pope, being infected with heresy, will do little to save the Faith of the Church.
Same also in the case of Marcel Lefebvre. He sees the danger that will happen to the Church and the many souls that will lose it’s Catholic sense because of the many novelty teachings of V2 Bishops. If one acts for the good of the Church – for the Preservation of the Faith — it is not an action that can be hold against a person. This is the same thing with St. Athanasius. What mattered is the Faith of the Church and not if the Pope is with you or against you. St. Athanasius
even at the time declared excommunicated continue to ordain and offer sacraments of the Church to the faithful
with him.
Some who think are wise in the cause of Marcel Lefebvre claims that he was only fighting against
the Liturgy. Nothing can be far from the Truth. These men are void of Truths and refuse to
hear the just cause for Marcel Lefebvre. A reading of Lefebvre’s citations will clearly show us
that the root cause of it are the doctrines … not just the liturgy as some detractors would claim.
Why did Marcel Lefebvre continued with the consecration? For the very simple fact that there should be a continue supply of Bishops who have the Fidelity to Continue the Faith of the Church and to answer the need of the Faithful for the TLM. Even V2 states that a faithful have the right to ask for TLM.
Since the detractors are too busy with the past … they fail to see the current situation that only vindicates the position of the good Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I am one of those who have come to
know more of the Faith and Increase in the Love of the Church everyday because of God’s providence in preserving men for the cause of the True Faith of the Catholic Church.
…
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
This account of St. Paul shows us that a Pope can be fallible and even bring others with him to error. It also show us that we are servants of the Gospel and not entirely of the Pope.
Remember that the word Pope is an office in the Church and a title and not a name of a person. Thus, when a Pope walks not unto the doctrine of the Church he ceases to have the authority of being obeyed just as St. Paul would not approve on the actions of St. Peter.
Pope Honorius I was excommunicated and condemned not simply because he held heresy but it was more of
not acting in his capacity to quash the heresy at its root. Here too we see that even a pope can be an instrument / source and/or the one that enrourage heresy. From honorius we can
also see that even a pope, being infected with heresy, will do little to save the Faith of the Church.
Same also in the case of Marcel Lefebvre. He sees the danger that will happen to the Church and the many souls that will lose it’s Catholic sense because of the many novelty teachings of V2 Bishops. If one acts for the good of the Church – for the Preservation of the Faith — it is not an action that can be hold against a person. This is the same thing with St. Athanasius. What mattered is the Faith of the Church and not if the Pope is with you or against you. St. Athanasius
even at the time declared excommunicated continue to ordain and offer sacraments of the Church to the faithful
with him.
Some who think are wise in the cause of Marcel Lefebvre claims that he was only fighting against
the Liturgy. Nothing can be far from the Truth. These men are void of Truths and refuse to
hear the just cause for Marcel Lefebvre. A reading of Lefebvre’s citations will clearly show us
that the root cause of it are the doctrines … not just the liturgy as some detractors would claim.
Why did Marcel Lefebvre continued with the consecration? For the very simple fact that there should be a continue supply of Bishops who have the Fidelity to Continue the Faith of the Church and to answer the need of the Faithful for the TLM. Even V2 states that a faithful have the right to ask for TLM.
Since the detractors are too busy with the past … they fail to see the current situation that only vindicates the position of the good Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I am one of those who have come to
know more of the Faith and Increase in the Love of the Church everyday because of God’s providence in preserving men for the cause of the True Faith of the Catholic Church.
N
nbjayme
Guest
The Pope is not a personality figure it’s an office. Follow the Faith of the Church and see past whether John Paul II or Benedict XVI.
F
Fran65
Guest
And finally we have a clear statement of your position.
Just to clarify publicly though, SSPX is the “True” and Faithful “Catholic Church” ?
That is quite a claim.
N
nbjayme
Guest
When are you V2 supporters going to stop distorting the words…?
“preserving men for the cause of the True Faith of the Catholic Church”
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
You have just told me all I need to know about you and SSPX
You and yours remain in my prayers
Deacon Ed B
R
RyanML
Guest
I don’t think that nbjayme is saying that the SSPX and the Catholic Church are one in the same. The Society’s position is pretty simple. They exist as a group of bishops and priests to uphold and defend the Catholic Faith and her traditions. Now certainly there are some that believe the pope is the anti-christ and the New Mass is invalid, and that they are the remanat faithful, but that’s no worse than denying the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. That’s a big problem with many “catholics” in union with the local bishops and the pope. I don’t agree with the canonical status the SSPX insists on keeping themselves in and I think they could do so much more good if they were in good standing with the Pope. But if i had to choose my friends, more would probably come from these traditionalist groups then my local parishes, many which seem to have become country clubs for social gatherings rather than the Body of Christ coming together to worship at the Holy Sacrifice. Just my :twocents: . God bless!
R
RyanML
Guest
Amen!
I’m all for unity with the Holy Father, but too many conservative Catholics get mighty close to “popeolatry”
F
Fran65
Guest
I’m not a ‘V2’ supporter as such.
You have said what you have said. There is no distortion in your words. I understand what you mean.
God Bless.
R
RyanML
Guest
I think it is for nbjayme to decide the meaning of what he writes.
F
Fran65
Guest
I haven’t said anything to the contrary.
Although it does make it difficult to communicate if meaning is determined by the individual and we cannot infer meaning.
Karen
Although it does make it difficult to communicate if meaning is determined by the individual and we cannot infer meaning.
Karen
R
RyanML
Guest
Since nbjayme is a supporter of the SSPX and since the SSPX does not believe themselves to be the same as the Church, I will assume that nbjayme believes the same. Of course there are many SSPX supporters who hold more radical views, but I don’t think nbjayme has given any indication that he is one of them.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Well Its a little more than just an office. Since the person to which this obligation has fallen on it now responsible for shepherding the whole Church. I am very thankful that god did not place that burden upon me.
B
Binx
Guest
You may, of course, word the argument however you like (I tried to frame it in general terms true to the spirit of SSPX critics). You may even disagree that the example of Athanasius disproves the major premise as I have stated it. My point, however, remains: the saint is not used by the SSPX (as you implied) to validate their own actions but to disprove a common argument of their critics.
But back to your preferred wording. Does your argument against the SSPX go like this?
An act of disobedience with regard to the Pope cannot be justified.
Archbishop LeFebvre acted in disobedience with regard to the Pope.
Therefore, Archbishop LeFebvre’s act cannot be justified.
You’ll have to be more specific here. The statement you made that I was responding to was this:
“I haven’t mentioned this in a while but all this talk of Athanasius presumes a correlation with the SSPX, which is the very thing it is used to prove. Therefore it is a circular argument composed of nothing but wind.”
It’s kind of hard to follow what you are saying, but as it is written, you are claiming two things:
- “All the talk of Athanasius presumes a correlation” between his situation and that of the SSPX.
- This correlation is also what the talk of Athanasius is trying to prove.
A
Anacletus
Guest
That’s a very vague statement. “Not the same as the church…?”. Could you clarify, please?
Bishop Richard Williamson and his supporters in the SSPX are on the hardline of traditionalism. If memory serves, the good Bishop has accused HH Benedict XVI of heresy.
There are genuinenly good people in the SSPX whose overriding concern is the preservation of the Church. However, the SSPX also has a significant number of embarrassing conspiracy theorist kooks who give the rest of the organization a bad name (See above paragraph). If the SSPX wants to fight the good fight, they need to ditch the nuts and get regularized.
N
nbjayme
Guest
Hello RyanML,
We really ought to define what the Church mean and know where it IS. As covered at length in this thread, as also pointed out by St. Athanasius;-- it belongs to those who have the Faith. Remember that there is formal and non-formal heretics or shall we say those who incur mortal sins are cut off from the Body of the Church (Church Suffering – Church Militant – Church Triumphant).
So, if the SSPX says they are separated from the church — one should dig deeper into that context. The “church” that is referred to here is a church that cradles novelty which is the foundation of most heresies and resulting to such. It has always been a stand of the SSPX to work with the Pope in restoring Catholic Traditions in the Church — (SSPX do not take the sedavacantist position). And no need for formality to say they are “in”; for the Faith that they fight already places them in the Church. This Catholic Church – that is Faithful to Traditions – is not, at all exclusive to SSPX, as other detractors would accuse the society falsely. If the pope is not up to the duty to Preserve the Faith of the Church — are we going to wait until he does? St. Athanasius answers a clear NO — one ought to fight and preserve the Faith. And, I may also say the same thing if I lived at the time of Pope Honorius I. I said “may” because, by the grace of God, I lived in this time and not during Honorius I. The fight for the True Faith of the Church always continues … it never weakens because Evil is always at the door waiting to seduce.
Now, what the SSPX is wary of is the statement; “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” (please see post #276). That is why there is no need to rush on for the sake of convenience of being called “in”; one ought to make necessary measures that the Dogma of the Church and Her Teachings be understood clearly before formal “union” can be made. This is the same thing with St. Athanasius… it’s about fighting for the True Faith and Dogma of the Catholic Church — that is the focal point of all this struggle; even, if it goes to the point that St. Athanasius’ stand as a good Catholic becomes a question - due to numerous unjust excommunications. If the Pope ,in example, is heading to USA, as well as, the SSPX, no formalities are needed — for they are fighting for the same cause. Different planes but the same destination in the Fight for the Faith of the Church.
Others would also say, are the SSPX doubting the power of the Holy Spirit? Of course not. St. Athanasius didn’t doubt the Holy Spirit in his fight. It is because the Dogma comes from the Holy Spirit who is Truth and therefore, one needs to keep and make it understood. God always use men in the fight and even in the old Testament God said He have kept to Himself reserved holy men — even amidst the chaos and the number of un-Godliness of Israel.
There was one time a faithful who promoted the idea that the Pope was imprisoned and that there was a double pope and that the pope is anti-Christ. The priest, with prudence, disciplined the faithful to not promote such useless talks and theories. Yes there can be radical folks and these are not exclusive at all in the SSPX alone. In every organization there are those radicals who are still yet to understand fully. There are even V2 priests and bishops that are radical – in the sense of novelties —; they refuse to accept the Summorum Pontificum (and we consider them to be in “good standing”). Remember that a coin have two-sides. So let us be fair.
The Church my dear friend RyanML does not solely rest on the physical and visible structure… it is the Faith that determines who are still with Her and who are not. In fact, one does not even have to be excommunicated to be Outside of the Church. Any person who calls themselves Catholic yet deny one – just even one – Dogma of the Church; they are already outside Her and no excommunication is needed.
“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
— St. Athanasius
N
nbjayme
Guest
My dear friends,
I end this by saying that we all can learn a lot from each other.
I pray that God will continue to give strength to the Pope (now, Benedict XVI) to continue to affirm the True Teaching of the Church.
(This is the same exhortation that the SSPX priests are telling us. From those that I have come in contact with, of course. To double our prayers for the Church and the Pope).
Peace in Christ,
nbjayme
I end this by saying that we all can learn a lot from each other.
I pray that God will continue to give strength to the Pope (now, Benedict XVI) to continue to affirm the True Teaching of the Church.
(This is the same exhortation that the SSPX priests are telling us. From those that I have come in contact with, of course. To double our prayers for the Church and the Pope).
Peace in Christ,
nbjayme
P
pnewton
Guest
No one has ever said that one can not argue or oppose the Pope. Lefebvre surely had the right to oppose the Holy Father and speak the truth to his face as he did. This is not the same as disobeying once a decision has been reached. On the contrary, it is an important part of the process. For all we know far greater reform might have been accomplished had LeFebvre chose to follow the path of Peter and remained faithful to the Holy Father, where his voice would then carry weight.
- Status