Sspx

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrooklynBoy200
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton,

licit and illicit is another question?

So were the mass of the excommunicated Athanasius “licit” or “illicit”?

Was the excommunicated Athanasius ever Outside the Church?

Was it wrong for the flock to attend the mass of the excommunicated Athanasius?

How did the Church universally celebrated the mass for 1500 years? and what of the 1962 Missals?

So by accident all priests were celebrating facing the people in almost the same time they received the NO?
(I sense you’re reading too much of fairy tales my freind).
 
Why Athanasius? Let me point out that all this talk of comparing LeFevrbe to Athanasius (again, I pointed out one major difference earlier - obedience), only is a begging of the question. It assumes that Lefebvre is right and everyone else is wrong, or else the whole comparison is invalid. Since it assumes what it attempts to prove, it is a logical fallacy.

One could just as validly insert Martin Luther in the comparison and make the same logical mistake.
 
Martin Luther questioned the Defined Dogmas of the Church.

Lefebvre continued with the Defined Dogmas of the Church like St. Athanasius.

You’re standing on soft ground my friend.
 
nbjayme said:
Martin Luther questioned the Defined Dogmas of the Church.

Lefebvre continued with the Defined Dogmas of the Church like St. Athanasius.

You’re standing on soft ground my friend.
Click to expand...
I said Luther would be an invalid comparison. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. Lefebvre was not Athanasius. Comparing them assumes that he is like him, the very point you are proving. It is a house of cards.
 
pnewton said:
One could just as validly insert Martin Luther in the comparison and make the same logical mistake.

I said Luther would be an invalid comparison. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. Lefebvre was not Athanasius. Comparing them assumes that he is like him, the very point you are proving. It is a house of cards.
Click to expand...
rhetorics will not prove any point.
 
pnewton said:
I have. He may not have had the desire, but he acted anyway. Disobedience always involves a questioning of authority, even disregard for authority. Remember the parable of the two sons? One said the right things, but then failed to do his father’s will.
Click to expand...
But what if he followed his mother’s will in doing so?

Obedience to your own well-formed conscience trumps everything else. Expecting people to accept novelties (dictatorships in previously democratic countries, for example) is unreasonable and hardly grounds for sinful disobedience. I submit the real disobedience is turning away from what you’ve been taught to do by lawful authority, be it past or present. Where there is a contradiction, there is no disobedience.

That said, Lefebvre has already stood before his Creator and I don’t know what we will gain by judging him as well.
 
ProVobis said:
That said, Lefebvre has already stood before his Creator and I don’t know what we will gain by judging him as well.
Click to expand...
Consider this: Let us for the sake of an experiment assume that everything Lefebvre said about needing to ordain four bishops to preserve the TLM is correct. Where does that leave us? Today we have the MP issued by the Holy Father to help preserve this liturgy for those that desire it.

Yet one might say it is still not widely available except through the SSPX, at least in such and such place. Then can anyone exlplain why this year the SSPX has not rejoined into full communion under the authority of Pope Benedict? They would still be allowed to practice their liturgy, operate their seminaries and perpetuate everything in reference to the TLM that, according to Lefebvre was his justification for commiting a schismatic act. There is nothing inherent in the emergency seen by LeFebvre that would not be addressed if the SSPX was in full communion, at least that I can see. I know that many here when they first heard of the offer was elated because it addressed all of Lefebvre’s concerns.

Now it seems more concerns have been added to the list of issues that necessitate the SSPX. As someone who knows a thing or two about discerning truth (from individuals, anyway), when justifications change, they were never justifications to begin with, but rather excuses. This reflects nothing on Lefebvre. For all we know he may have jumped at the chance for re-unification. It does raise serious questions about the SSPX today, though.
 
pnewton,

Both Athanasius and Lefebvre have defied the Authority in order to continue on the Faith.

Putting Martin Luther in the picture is a fallacy from the start for Martin Luther drifted away from the Dogmatically defined Doctrines of the Church and questions the Authority of the Pope himself.

The Tridendine was available througout the Church during Athanasius time. But they (Athanasius) have the right Faith. The Church does not reside solely on who celebrates the Tridentine Mass but on who teaches the Dogmatically Defined Doctrines of the Church inviolate.

you seem to not pay attention on post #76.

tsk-tsk.
 
pnewton said:
Consider this: Let us for the sake of an experiment assume that everything Lefebvre said about needing to ordain four bishops to preserve the TLM is correct.
Click to expand...
Why experiment? let us see reality and it’ll prove Lefebvre was correct.
pnewton said:
Where does that leave us? Today we have the MP issued by the Holy Father to help preserve this liturgy for those that desire it.

Yet one might say it is still not widely available except through the SSPX, at least in such and such place.
Click to expand...
And that is indeed what is reality. New priests in our area do not know TLM neither do they bother to celebrate it even if a faithful request it. We even have tried requesting it from the Bishop. No answer. And also, the old Priests have forgotten and have been clumsy and need to relearn it.

Thanks to SSPX.
 
nbjayme said:
you seem to not pay attention on post #76.

tsk-tsk.
Click to expand...
In re: Bull Quo Primum

This has been answered to death here. Before I continue, a little anecdote. I notice when I have posted scripture here I seldom get a reply except that the Church is not sola scriptura and I shouldn’t contradict centuries of Church interpretation with my own interpretation, etc. I have never contradicted any authoritative interpretation of a single verse, by the way. SO, I pointed out that Church tradition is often posted the same way, in that the poster interprets it differently that Vatican II, John Paul II or some recent encyclical. The response I get is that these documents are self-explanitory and can’t be interpreted in more than one way. :rotfl:

IN light of that, here is my answer. Pardon me if I cheat, since I have done this a dozen times and just give you a link.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=3400&highlight=Quo+Primum

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=35146&highlight=Quo+Primum

Bottom line, it is too old and disciplinary documents do not bind the next pope. Why, because the pope’s temporal authority ends with his death.
 
pnewton,

the Bull Quo Primum is not discipline it’s a perpetual law and binding and remains to be enforceable. Otherwise, let’s forget about Bull Quo Primum in motu propio.

(Did i hear “house of cards”?)

😉

Pay attention next time.

This is the attitude i get on those praising the motu propio and V2 supporters.

“Yippeee! The pope confirmed that the 1962 Missal was never abrogated.” but you know what? let’s ignore it. It’s just plain nostalgia thing.
 
Also, the celebration of the Mass facing the people have been common (among protestants like Luther) during the time of Pope Pius the V and by his Authority as Pope and guidance of the Holy Ghost the Church brought us the standardized proper observance and celebration of the Sacrifice of Our Lord.
 
Reality is also self explanatory my dear pnewton.

A priest twice refuses to say the Sacred Sacrifice because there were no living persons present to attend it. At one time he did not gave the mass because there were only too few people.

See. The mass facing the people is a disorientation of the Faith in the Priest of what the real Doctrine and Teaching behind it.

Hence, instead of giving in to how the Protestants like Luther at the time celebrated the Mass; Pope St. Pius the V released the Bull Quo Primum in order to protect the faithful amidst many errors and codified on how mass is to be observed.

Any change that edifies the Doctrinal Teaching of the Church is never considered a grave or sinful matter. But any contradition thereof or departure of the Tradition of the Church is deemed to be rejected.

Self explanatory isn’t it?!?😃

St. Pius V who, sustained by great pastoral zeal and following the exhortations of the Council of Trent, renewed the entire liturgy of the Church, oversaw the publication of liturgical books amended and ‘renewed in accordance with the norms of the Fathers,’ and provided them for the use of the Latin Church.

And, I guess dear pnewton you would treat St. Pope Pius V, a man out of line? or abnormal pope? for declaring the mass to be retained valid and enforceable in “perpetuity” Knowing that he himself will not last that long…

St. Pope Pius the V knows the danger and he meant what he declared.

So I challenge you in this question… Was the Bull Quo Primum then an erroneous document and law since the start of it’s proclamation by St. Pope Pius the V?

(let us see your self-explainatory on that).
 
pnewton said:
Bottom line, it is too old and disciplinary documents do not bind the next pope. Why, because the pope’s temporal authority ends with his death.
Click to expand...
You mean St. Pope Pius wasn’t aware that discipline only lasts until his temporal death. Or is it you V2 supporters and NO authorities treating it just a discipline?

catholictradition.org/Encyclicals/primum.htm

So, was Bull Quo Primum in Error to start with?

:rolleyes:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm
This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women - even of military orders - and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church.

(Maybe you have your own translation of Bull Quo Primum we don’t know???)
 
nbjayme said:
pnewton,

:whistle:

I’m waiting…
Click to expand...
Patience is a virtue. I am going to have to decline to answer, as it is outside my experience and I lack expertise in canon law. Perhaps you can address your concern to the AAA forum if you desire an answer. Not being an ex cathedra document it is certainly not impossible for it to be in error and I will attempt to find out your answer. Off hand, it seems possible. I would like to not that the Mass of Trent had actually been change before Vatican II and the Mass of 1962 wasn’t a carbon copy of what Pius V propugated.

Now, as to my comment about documents being self explainatory, you missed my point. I did a poor job of communicating. I do not believe the document are self explainatory. Some one else made that statement. If you had been around here as long as I have you would know that much of the debate is over what documents mean. It is one reason we have an authority structure. Not everyone can be an expert on patristics, canon law, Thomism, etc.
 
pnewton,

you declined a whole lot of simple questions my dear friend.

And for those simple things you are inexperienced then i suggest to please do not do rash judgments on SSPX. For there are issues that are gray and unclear to you yet.

Peace.
 
nbjayme said:
pnewton,

you declined a whole lot of simple questions my dear friend.

And for those simple things you are inexperienced then i suggest to please do not do rash judgments on SSPX. For there are issues that are gray and unclear to you yet.

Peace.
Click to expand...
That is not for you to say. Must the SSPX recruiters here always turn it into a person thing? Okay. You have zero authority to state what questions I should or should not answer. You are inexperienced and new here. I have seen SSPXers come and go, usually by being banned or suspended. I have the authority of the Church. I have the great Catechism as a standard of Catholic teaching. I do not need every document to know where lies the Church. I only need one. The Chair of Peter is where my loyalties lie. Those that oppose Him oppose me. You may be a kid, but I am not. I have opposed the SSPX at every turn here because I will not see this place turned into a recruitment ground and put souls in jeopardy by drawing them away from the Church.

The SSPX feigns belief that Pope Benedict is the Holy Father yet refuse submision to his authority.
Matthew 21:28"What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went. 30 The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did his father’s will?" They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, "Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top