Sspx

[pnewton]

read Arcbishop’s address on the nature of the consecration.
There was no desire for schism nor questioning of the Pope’s authority.

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.

I understand that LeFebvre believed that since he was going to die, that if he failed to act the Church would not survive. Yet here we are posting on this vibrant Catholic website. History has proven him wrong. It is the Holy Spirit that protects the Church, not the spirit of disobedience.

I know he believed he was the only one who could save the Church. More’s the pity.

 

[strugglingalong]

I understand that LeFebvre believed that since he was going to die, that if he failed to act the Church would not survive. Yet here we are posting on this vibrant Catholic website. History has proven him wrong. It is the Holy Spirit that protects the Church, not the spirit of disobedience.

I know he believed he was the only one who could save the Church. More’s the pity.

Do you not see the parallel’s to St. Athanasius? He was excommunicated and exiled. The majority of the Church’s Bishops were Arian. What was he to do? History can look and see a disobedient Saint but his disobedience upheld orthodoxy. And we know him as Saint now.

I’m sure St. Athanasius didn’t think “I am the savior of the Church” just as Archbishop Lefebvre would never have said the same of himself. Have you read the Archbishop’s writings? They are very humble and charitable. You can sense his love of the whole Church and of Rome. I was anti-SSPX for a long time but reading his writings made me understand him better.

And yes the Catholics are here now but we would not have a mtou proprio giving us wider use of the traditional Latin Mass without what the Archbishop did. John Paul II surely would never have given even the indult if it weren’t for the situation with SSPX. Also, many modern errors still are accepted even within the Church. It is starting to change now thanks be to God.

St. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the Pope at one point.

We should always remain loyal to the Pope and I would say, honestly, the majority of the Bishops and priests of SSPX are very loyal to the Pope. That doesn’t mean, however, that everything said or done is right in exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium and if a situation arises of grave necessity, as it did in the time of Archbishop Lefebvre, then you have to cling to the Tradition. The traditional Latin Mass could not be abbrogated, a fact now confirmed by our current Pontiff, so how could the Archbishop be excommunicated for consecrating Bishops for a society wanting to keep the traditional Latin Mass at a time when Rome was forbidding the offering of the traditional Mass? That seems grave to me.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[pnewton]

Do you not see the parallel’s to St. Athanasius?

No, I do not. But no doubt the liberals who ordain women and split off see themselves also as Athanastians. The difference I see is between speaking up, opposing, writing against; and acting against. It is the difference between a dissident and a traitor. Like St. Catherine, Athanasius never tried to establish his own parallel hierarchy.

 

[strugglingalong]

No, I do not. But no doubt the liberals who ordain women and split off see themselves also as Athanastians. The difference I see is between speaking up, opposing, writing against; and acting against. It is the difference between a dissident and a traitor. Like St. Catherine, Athanasius never tried to establish his own parallel hierarchy.

No but St. Athanasius surely had followers. The point is he stood for the Tradition when the majority of the Church was against him. Archbishop Lefebvre did the same thing. I am sure that many argued that St. Athanasius was being disobedient to the Church but the reality was the exact opposite.

Also, SSPX does not attempt to establish their own parallel hierarchy. They are a religious society and as such have a Superior General as any other would.

Those who support woman’s ordination, for example, are clearly going against the Tradition. In the Archbishop’s case, he say actions and teachings that were themselves against the Tradition and in that case he saw a necessity to adhere to the Tradition - just as St. Athanasius. One example: the traditional Mass. It could not be abrogated ever. The Archbishop held to that and he suffered for it. It was forbidden at the time. But now, look, who was right? Benedict XVI has confirmed that very idea, that the traditional Mass could not be abrogated. So the Archbishop was right.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[pnewton]

No but St. Athanasius surely had followers. The point is he stood for the Tradition when the majority of the Church was against him.

It is not what he stood for, but rather his actions that has caused the issue we now have with this splinter group. He could have defied the pope until doomsday in writing and in person, but ordaining his own bishops in direct violation of the Holy See is a schismatic act, be they traditionalist, or women. So, at least in my point of view, his actions put him closer to the women’s ordination camp than the Athanasius camp.

BTW - Paul rebuked Peter, but he did not disobey him. LeFebvre is no St. Paul either for that reason.

 

[strugglingalong]

It is not what he stood for, but rather his actions that has caused the issue we now have with this splinter group. He could have defied the pope until doomsday in writing and in person, but ordaining his own bishops in direct violation of the Holy See is a schismatic act, be they traditionalist, or women. So, at least in my point of view, his actions put him closer to the women’s ordination camp than the Athanasius camp.

BTW - Paul rebuked Peter, but he did not disobey him. LeFebvre is no St. Paul either for that reason.

Except without Bishops the traditional Mass and the Traditional understanding of the Faith would have been in danger. When he died he knew he needed others to perpetuate the traditional Mass - or else he would die, the traditional Mass would remain forbidden and the New Mass would be the only Mass. Remember, John Paul II created the FSSP only because of the consecration of Bishops, as a way for those who wanted to offer the TLM to be able to do so in full communion with the Church. The FSSP was not created before the consecrations. That to me sounds like a grave necessity and I for one am so thankful for what he did because without it I probably would not have the immense blessing of worshiping God in the traditional Mass that has existed for centuries.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[RyanML]

Perhaps Archbishop Lefebvre had a case back in 1988, but I am convinced if he was alive today, the SSPX would be back in canonical good standing with Rome. It’s sad, but the Society and it’s leadership is becoming more and more radical. If they keep it up, no amount of word gymnastics will keep them from being schismatics. In the past several years there have been many priests and religious who have left or disassociated themselves with the SSPX because they could no longer ignore the call from Rome for union. Then the leadership of the SSPX denounces them and accuses them of compromising the faith. It seems no matter how traditional you are, if you’re not with the Society, then to them you are less than Catholic. And having been with them for several years before “seeing the light”, I can tell you that’s very much the attitude i experienced.

 

[strugglingalong]

Perhaps Archbishop Lefebvre had a case back in 1988, but I am convinced if he was alive today, the SSPX would be back in canonical good standing with Rome. It’s sad, but the Society and it’s leadership is becoming more and more radical. If they keep it up, no amount of word gymnastics will keep them from being schismatics. In the past several years there have been many priests and religious who have left or disassociated themselves with the SSPX because they could no longer ignore the call from Rome for union. Then the leadership of the SSPX denounces them and accuses them of compromising the faith. It seems no matter how traditional you are, if you’re not with the Society, then to them you are less than Catholic. And having been with them for several years before “seeing the light”, I can tell you that’s very much the attitude i experienced.

Exactly. I agree, which is why I could never attend an SSPX chapel now. I do think the Archbishop had a case when he went ahead with the consecrations and I think that without them we’d not have all the TLM’s we have now but, as you say, now there is no excuse to be in full, perfection communion - following the example of the Transalpine Redemptorists.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[nbjayme]

The Holy Spirit indeed will protect the Church but how?

The Holy Spirit uses men as instrument.

And reality check, new priests nowadays do not know how to deliver the Tridentine Mass.

Thus, it’s fact that Archbishop Lefebvre did the right thing.



Athanasius fought for the faith and yet he was excommunicated and exiled by the Church. The faithful were with him because they understood the True Teaching of the Church. Yet when we go to those days V2 supporters will be one of those that will unjustly call St. Athanasius as causing splinter groups in the Church.



In matters of judgment on other issues the Pope is not infallible.
Therefore, if the judgment of the Pope will be detrimental to the Faith of the Church — one has the right to do what is right.
Read the Teachings of the Fathers of the Church.

 

[nbjayme]

“If they keep it up, no amount of word gymnastics will keep them from being schismatics.”

Here indeed is a V2 supporter that does not see reality.
Castrillon Hoyos already said it’s an internal matter of the Church. So SSPX being schismatic has been ruled out.

The SSPX recognize the Papacy of Rome.

But then V2 supporters never tire to go round and round the bush on this issue. It’s like a mantra that they keep on chanting and chanting until they are convince of that idea.

So i also guess that Athanasius was a radical fellow that he refuses to bow down to the new ideas / teachings perpetuated by other bishops of his time.

 

[nbjayme]

St. Athanasius while in exile and excommunicated and gave mass — would you considered they were Outside the Church that time?
and that those other bishops were in “Full Communion” with the Church?

I challenge those who accuse the SSPX wrongly to direcly answer the above as your rhetoric were void of the real situation.

I’ll use the Bible as a Basis… so answer Yes and No and be concise. Don’t go long winding round the bush.

 

[RyanML]

“If they keep it up, no amount of word gymnastics will keep them from being schismatics.”

Here indeed is a V2 supporter that does not see reality.
Castrillon Hoyos already said it’s an internal matter of the Church. So SSPX being schismatic has been ruled out.

The SSPX recognize the Papacy of Rome.

But then V2 supporters never tire to go round and round the bush on this issue. It’s like a mantra that they keep on chanting and chanting until they are convince of that idea.

So i also guess that Athanasius was a radical fellow that he refuses to bow down to the new ideas / teachings perpetuated by other bishops of his time.

I did not intend to say that the SSPX was schismatic at this point,right now, but, as Michael Davies once said, the longer the Society insists on remaining in an unfavorable situation, the more likely it is there will be a schism. The attitude that one can not be truely Catholic without belonging to the SSPX, an attitude espoused by many SSPX adherents, is saying no less than the Society and the True Church are one and the same thing. Yes I know Bishop Fellay and the priests will say “no we don’t believe that” but if that’s the case they need to reprimand their flock because there are plenty of Society faithful who do.

 

[nbjayme]

BTW - Paul rebuked Peter, but he did not disobey him. LeFebvre is no St. Paul either for that reason.

St. Paul rebuked St. Peter because his judgment made his actions not conform to the Faith of the Church.

If the Pope is not up to preserving the Faith why would one go with him in Spiritual suicide?

We ought to obey God…rather than men. – Acts 5:29

St. Athanasius while excomunicated still believes he can preach, do mass, and keep a handful of faithful on his own. Action speaks louder than words. St. Athanasius was challenging the Authority of the Church – it may not only be direct as the condition of the time was different. But one thing is clear, it is never a disobedience when one upholds the True Dogmatic Teachings of the Church.

 

[nbjayme]

RyanML,
“If they keep it up, no amount of word gymnastics will keep them from being schismatics.”

Yea rhetorics.

St. Athanasius while in exile and excommunicated and gave mass — would you considered they were Outside the Church that time?
and that those other bishops were in “Full Communion” with the Church?

Where did the True Church of Christ belong that time?

SSPX would not dare say we are the True Church without the Pope.
For separating from the Holy See is not what the SSPX is all about.

Read Lefebvre address.

 

[RyanML]

“If they keep it up, no amount of word gymnastics will keep them from being schismatics.”

Here indeed is a V2 supporter that does not see reality.
Castrillon Hoyos already said it’s an internal matter of the Church. So SSPX being schismatic has been ruled out.

The SSPX recognize the Papacy of Rome.

But then V2 supporters never tire to go round and round the bush on this issue. It’s like a mantra that they keep on chanting and chanting until they are convince of that idea.

So i also guess that Athanasius was a radical fellow that he refuses to bow down to the new ideas / teachings perpetuated by other bishops of his time.

Yes I am familiar with all the quotes from the SSPX literature about how they are not schismatics and it’s just an “internal” affair. I use to push it on people all the time as a staunch SSPX supporter. And again, they may not be schismatics…yet. But the attitudes of the priests and the people lean in that direction. And if you want to talk about being long winded and beating around the bush, try talking to an SSPX priest about how they can canonically justify their confessions and marriages. It will make your head spin!

 

[RyanML]

RyanML,
“If they keep it up, no amount of word gymnastics will keep them from being schismatics.”

Yea rhetorics.

St. Athanasius while in exile and excommunicated and gave mass — would you considered they were Outside the Church that time?
and that those other bishops were in “Full Communion” with the Church?

Where did the True Church of Christ belong that time?

SSPX would not dare say we are the True Church without the Pope.
For separating from the Holy See is not what the SSPX is all about.

Read Lefebvre address.

No but they sure don’t respect you if you’re in communion with Rome. Read the latest newsletter from the US Headquarters and there’s a jab at the Transalpine Redemptorists for “compromising the faith”. That’s nice, but no explanation as to how, just being recognized by Pope Benedict XVI I guess is enough to qualify as compromising the faith. There’s more to union with the Pope than hanging his picture in the vestibule.

 

[nbjayme]

The motu propio of the Holy Father; It’s a good first step but it still does not solve the problem. Again, I encourage V2 supporters to make a bit of scrutiny on it first.

Now, to mean in “Full Communion” with Rome means to accept the New Mass has the same equal standing and validity as that of the Tridentine Mass.

1. See my friends the fight is not simply about the Mass. The Mass is simply an effect of what is underneath — Belief. “Lex Orandi Lex Credendi.”
2. That Papal Bull Quo Primum continues to be in effect and thus one either have to enforce it or ignore it. And the Papal Bull Quo Primum already gave us the proper way of celebrating the Mass – a mass that precisely exercise the Faith in words, action, and thought.

The New Mass facing the people is a disorientation of the Faith and thus I do not see it as valid and the fruits speak of itself. (Yes, I can prove this.)

Moreover, the motu propio sees no need for the Bishops to exercise the Tridentine Latin Mass since it is only perceived as nostalgia or something of beauty. For the Novus Ordo Bishops, “So what about nostalgia?!?”, the Novus Ordo mass has the same valid standing therefore let just continue with it.

That’s why Tridentine Mass does not fully regain it’s right on those that made a compromise with Rome because one would no longer see it as a fight for the Faith.

 

[nbjayme]

God does not care of your nostalgia.
He cares about the Faith.

This is treasure we ask from the Church — FAITH.

 

[nbjayme]

RyanML,

So ryan if they do not respect the Transalpine… simply because we cannot respect those that do not give value to the Faith of the Church.

But charity has its way… the SSPX is asking the faithful to pray to those that have fallen in compromise with Rome for the sake of convenience. St. Athanasius surely do not care about convenience.

You just read too much negative things about SSPX.

 

[RyanML]

RyanML,

So ryan if they do not respect the Transalpine… simply because it we cannot respect those that do not give value to the Faith of the Church.

But charity has its way… the SSPX is asking the faithful to pray to those that have fallen in compromise with Rome for the sake of convenience. St. Athanasius surely do not care about convenience.

You just read to much negative things about SSPX.

Who are the SSPX to judge how others value the Faith just because they can no longer, in conscience, remain outside full communion with Rome? It’s a trend i’m all too familiar with…the SSPX is right and everybody else is wrong. And I read to much negative stuff about the Society because that’s all they put out. That’s all I ever did when I was with the SSPX was talk about how bad everything and everybody else was. The few months I lived in Kansas City at their priory that’s all I got was how stupid the pope was and how bad all the bishops were and how we were the true remnant faithful. Yikes