Sspx

[RyanML]

Ehem, post #76

You seem to be so preoccupied of having the Bull Quo Primum as Dogmatic.

The Mass is a profession of Faith in thoughts words and actions.

Bull Quo Primum was made to enforce on what precise manner we as Catholics are ought to observe to remedy the numerous errors and even future errors. Lex Orandi … Lex Credendi.

Then we agree it doesn not mean that a future pope can not make changes to the Mass?

 

[nbjayme]

And another thing, if Quo Primum did infact mean that the TLM was to be celebrated in perpetuity, that didn’t give Lefebvre the free for all to consecrate bishops without the Pope’s authority. There’s nothing in Quo Primum that would give a bishop that authority.

Really? … there is by long standing tradition my friend says so…

But the TLM goes back much further than Pius V and as you and I both know, a pope can not just abrogate a liturgical tradition without serious just cause. It becomes the law of the Church by long standing custom.

So the only thing the Archbishop could use for his authority, besides his own, which would be very protestant, would be the possible exceptions in the 1983 code of canon law, which the SSPX likes to use when it suites them but discard when it does not.

You cannot even have a firm grasp of your reasonings how would you expect to undestand theirs. That’s basically only your rhetoric.

Then we agree it doesn not mean that a future pope can not make changes to the Mass?

Here again you eat your own words

Just as Pope Benedict could easily abrogate the Missal of Paul VI tomorrow if he found it in the Church’s best interest. But the TLM goes back much further than Pius V and as you and I both know, a pope can not just abrogate a liturgical tradition without serious just cause.

That mass you said cannot be easily abrogated have already made some numerous inclusion of prayers. But then for the PVI mass you said the pope can scrap it easily. Either the NO were changes made to the PPV mass or a totally new introduction.

Therefore, no… Bull Qou Primum “perpetuity” is still enforceable. Read your own reasoning.

If that is not clear to you. Since the Pope can scap NO easily as you said then it has no part of that living Tradition. Had it been built organically then there is no reason to contest it with TLM.

 

[RyanML]

Unfortunately, I don’t think we are going to find any common ground on this issue. The fact is that the tradition and faith of the Church are not in danger in the Church’s current situation. There is no reason to be in an “irregular” situation. The liberal institutions are dying off and the pendulum is swinging. The seminaries that still teach liberal theology have no vocations while all the traditional seminaries and religious houses can’t build fast enough to meet demands. And of course Benedict has “freed” the TLM and all traditional celebrations of the sacraments. It’s not perfect yet, and it never will be. It never has been. If the SSPX is waiting for that, then I guess they will be in their “irregular canonical situation” until the Second Coming. But i’m afraid by that time they’ll be just like the Orthodox or the Old Catholics crying that they are indeed the true church and that the Romans are the ones who have left the faith. Oh well…

 

[pnewton]

So even if a pope intends to bind the Church forever to a discipline and even speaks that way, he just can’t if another pope wants to change it. It is not in his power to do so. His charism only extends to matters of faith and morals.

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

Yes, Popes can be in error in many areas. See earlier discussion on St. Athanasisus.

 

[RyanML]

Really? … there is by long standing tradition my friend says so…

You cannot even have a firm grasp of your reasonings how would you expect to undestand theirs. That’s basically only your rhetoric.

Here again you eat your own words

That mass you said cannot be easily abrogated have already made some numerous inclusion of prayers. But then for the PVI mass you said the pope can scrap it easily. Either the NO were changes made to the PPV mass or a totally new introduction.

Therefore, no… Bull Qou Primum “perpetuity” is still enforceable. Read your own reasoning.

If that is not clear to you. Since the Pope can scap NO easily as you said then it has no part of that living Tradition. Had it been built organically then there is no reason to contest it with TLM.

Pope Benedict the XVI has already said the New Rite was not an organic growth in the Church and has caused trouble

 

[RyanML]

The arrogance of the SSPX is that they only see their way of fixing the problems in the Church. They refuse to trust the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church. It’s the SSPX way or no way. And if that’s just rhetoric, then please show me where I am wrong. Show me how the SSPX is being obedient to the Church and not just making decisions for themselves like a schismatic group. Again, that’s not to say they are schismatics, but the attitudes sure are

 

[RyanML]

Really? … there is by long standing tradition my friend says so…

You cannot even have a firm grasp of your reasonings how would you expect to undestand theirs. That’s basically only your rhetoric.

Here again you eat your own words

That mass you said cannot be easily abrogated have already made some numerous inclusion of prayers. But then for the PVI mass you said the pope can scrap it easily. Either the NO were changes made to the PPV mass or a totally new introduction.

Therefore, no… Bull Qou Primum “perpetuity” is still enforceable. Read your own reasoning.

If that is not clear to you. Since the Pope can scap NO easily as you said then it has no part of that living Tradition. Had it been built organically then there is no reason to contest it with TLM.

Yes i’ll admit i’m not making much sense. I’not a good multi tasker so it helps if i just stick with one topic at a time

 

[Joe_5859]

In order for there to be a parallel between Lefebvre and Athanasius, that would mean that there has to be a parallel to 99.9% of all Catholic bishops and the Arians. Arius taught that Jesus was not God. Exactly what is the parallel between Arius and the majority of today’s bishops? (*Remember, it has to pertain to a majority of the bishops. The example of one or even a handful of bishops is not sufficient.)

 

[nbjayme]

Unfortunately, I don’t think we are going to find any common ground on this issue. The fact is that the tradition and faith of the Church are not in danger in the Church’s current situation.

My dear friend would not agree with you… see quote below

Bad catechesis is another problem. So many people today just don’t know the faith.

Bull Quo Primum was the antidote in order to enforce the Faith in the Mass.

Who are you to say there is no reason to be … the SSPX clearly stated their reason why they remain not convince of the Pope’s sincerity… You want to push your own opinion on the matter.

And of course Benedict has “freed” the TLM and all traditional celebrations of the sacraments. It’s not perfect yet, and it never will be. It never has been. If the SSPX is waiting for that, then I guess they will be in their “irregular canonical situation” until the Second Coming. But i’m afraid by that time they’ll be just like the Orthodox or the Old Catholics crying that they are indeed the true church and that the Romans are the ones who have left the faith.

It’s useless to speak of it may be or could be or would be… you’re guessing and that makes it more rhetoric.
You fear so much… a fear that is unfounded. Probably yes probably no. You’re own fear is what made you justify how one should treat SSPX. It then is your own problem of looking at the situation not the SSPX’s.

[/QUOTE]

 

[nbjayme]

The arrogance of the SSPX is that they only see their way of fixing the problems in the Church. They refuse to trust the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church. It’s the SSPX way or no way. And if that’s just rhetoric, then please show me where I am wrong. Show me how the SSPX is being obedient to the Church and not just making decisions for themselves like a schismatic group. Again, that’s not to say they are schismatics, but the attitudes sure are

I don’t see any arrogance of SSPX. except those who want to push their opinion and make them more right than SSPX’s.

The SSPX fought a long battle for this… these are guys who have fought for the faith while we are simply an onlooker.

Was Athanasius disobedient to the Church or was he fighting for the Faith?

You go accusing of disobedience here and there yet you did not even address my questions on St. Athanasius.

Holy Spirit Guiding the Church… “The Church belongs to those who have the Faith.”

 

[RyanML]

My dear friend would not agree with you… see quote below
RyanML;4144687:

Bad catechesis is another problem. So many people today just don’t know the faith.

Bull Quo Primum was the antidote in order to enforce the Faith in the Mass.

You say all of this is my own opinion. True. But the ideas behind the SSPX are nothing more than their opinions and worth little more than mine at that. They have no authority.

 

[nbjayme]

In order for there to be a parallel between Lefebvre and Athanasius, that would mean that there has to be a parallel to 99.9% of all Catholic bishops and the Arians. Arius taught that Jesus was not God. Exactly what is the parallel between Arius and the majority of today’s bishops? (*Remember, it has to pertain to a majority of the bishops. The example of one or even a handful of bishops is not sufficient.)

Parallelism is not about numbers game.

It’s about who continued on the Faith / Traditions of the Church.

Go ask my friend RyanML what were these bad catechesis in the Church today.

Those are the things that the SSPX is fighting that is why they need to be assured the Pope is also stable on his stand on Theology and Doctrines of the Church… the Mass — as the SSPX point out … is simply the tip of the iceberg.

Now there’s parallelism for you.

 

[RyanML]

And you base your understanding of the situation with St. Athanasius on faulty information. It has no bearing on the situation with Lefebvre and the Church today. But adherents to the SSPX mentality can not see that as it is the battle cry of the SSPX.

 

[RyanML]

Parallelism is not about numbers game.

It’s about who continued on the Faith / Traditions of the Church.

Go ask my friend RyanML what were these bad catechesis in the Church today.

Those are the things that the SSPX is fighting that is why they need to be assured the Pope is also stable on his stand on Theology and Doctrines of the Church… the Mass — as the SSPX point out … is simply the tip of the iceberg.

Now there’s parallelism for you.

Yes there is bad teaching in the Church today and the Pope is trying to fight it so why not be with the pope?

 

[nbjayme]

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

Yes, Popes can be in error in many areas. See earlier discussion on St. Athanasisus.

Including judgment regarding excommunication.

So even if a pope intends to bind the Church forever to a discipline and even speaks that way, he just can’t if another pope wants to change it. It is not in his power to do so. His charism only extends to matters of faith and morals.

Which brings us again to the point that the focal point of declaring the Bull Quo Primum is to protect the Church of the numerous errors that can crept in to the Faith.

Go talk to RyanML or the Pope

‘Pope Benedict the XVI has already said the New Rite was not an organic growth in the Church and has caused trouble’

Or Paul the VI (i don’t know what he was smoking…)

Or the numerous priests and bishops who use the NO to pray with other religion that call upon their gods.

Matthew 16
Chapter 16
1 AND there came to him the Pharisees and Sadduccees tempting: and they asked him to shew them a sign from heaven.
2 But he answered and said to them: When it is evening, you say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.
3 And in the morning: To day there will be a storm, for the sky is red and lowering. You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times?

 

[nbjayme]

Yes there is bad teaching in the Church today and the Pope is trying to fight it so why not be with the pope?

You’re the only one claiming us not to be with the Pope. The SSPX are … we are by his side in fighting for the right Doctrine of the Church and TLM but we cannot participate in spiritual suicide of the Church.

Read post #76

 

[nbjayme]

And you base your understanding of the situation with St. Athanasius on faulty information. It has no bearing on the situation with Lefebvre and the Church today. But adherents to the SSPX mentality can not see that as it is the battle cry of the SSPX.

Was it a faulty information that St. Athanasius claimed to be in the True Church while being excommunicated?

Was it a faulty information that the flock of the excommunicated Athanasius attended his service?

You’re battle cry seems to be no there’s no parallelism, it cannot be the same. So far, I got no answers coming from you regarding the excommunicated Athanasius and his followers’ case at the time.

 

[RyanML]

I guess the only point i’m trying to make through all of this is that I do not believe that it is necessary to be seperated from the Church or even in an “irregular canonical situation” to fight for the faith. So I believe that the SSPX’s situation is completely unecessary and will eventually lead to schism if they do not return to full communion. Obviously I can not argue to nbjayme’s satisfaction and i’ll admit, i’m not up on my material to adequately make my point. But I can say the main reason I left the SSPX was because it cause serious damage to my spiritual life. Instead of concerning myself with growing in intimacy with the Lord and a life of prayer, I was worried about how bad the pope was or how bad this or that bishop or priests was, and it just wore me down. So maybe i’m a little bias. But the scriputures teach that the fruits of the Spirit are peace and joy and I had neither of those in my experience with the Society.

 

[pnewton]

Repeating the same logical fallacy will never make it true. Lefebvre was not Athanasius. He is not even a saint. Comparing the two assumes there is a parallel. Since that is the point you attempt to prove, it is begging the question. I will try to repeat this point every ten “Athanasius” posts are so for any that miss it. There are far more differences in the two cases than there are similarities.

 

[saint_rafael]

Lefebvre was just as courageous as St. Athanasius even though the current apostasy is ten times worse than the Arian heresy. The current Apostasy is the worse in the history of the Catholic Church.
Had I and most Traditionalits no faith, it would seem to be the end. The secular atheist world looking from outside and having no faith, believe the Church to be dead. That is why they mock and ridicule the Church and they get away with it.

Never before have so many laity, priests and bishops apostatized from the Catholic faith. Well over 80% of the Catholic faithful have ceased to practice the Catholic faith. The Church is out of priests and the Church shrinks by the day. Only the great chastisement can save the Church because the Previous Popes have blown it big time.