Sspx

[nbjayme]

RyanML,

Have you read St. Athanasius discourse to his flock?



And yea, you did no direct answers on my St. Athanasius questions… oh well…

How else could they point out the errors… if error is error … you need not call it good.

 

[RyanML]

RyanML,

Have you read St. Athanasius discourse to his flock?



And yea, you did no direct answers on my St. Athanasius questions… oh well…

How else could they point out the errors… if error is error … you need not call it good.

Athanasius was Catholic. Those who supported Arianism were heretics.

 

[nbjayme]

RyanML,
They were arians only after the fact have you held this Saint of good account. But you would be one of those that will course the Saint for claiming he and his flock have the True Church.

(you did no direct answers my friend).

 

[RyanML]

RyanML,
They were arians only after the fact have you held this Saint of good account. But you would be one of those that will course the Saint for claiming he and his flock have the True Church.

(you did no direct answers my friend).

I am very familiar with St. Athanasius and the situation with the Arians. I used it all the time to defend the SSPX. Those who rejected the faith of the Church were heretics and apostates and those who followed Athanasius were the Church. If, as you seem to be implying, Lefebvre was the modern Athanasius and the SSPX are his faithful followers then what doctrines are the Pope trying to force the SSPX to hold to that would cause them to cling to there present, unfavorable situation?

 

[RyanML]

I might also add that if one studies the facts, any comparison between Archbishop Lefebvre and St. Athanasius doesn’t hold water. The two situations were actually very different.

 

[nbjayme]

RyanML,

ehem post #76 ???



And to continue on my point of St. Athanasius.

People at the time have no idea of Arianism. They simply held the idea as majority of Bishops are teaching it. Majority of the Church only knew they were heretics after the fact that the Church declared it and vindicated St. Athanasius. So, when reasoning place yourself as if you were alive at the time of St. Athanasius.

And, yes St. Athanasius claimed they are the remnants and the True Church. You hold this same view only because you live after the fact.

What of today? What shall we call those that mixed the Catholic Mass with those of Protestant services / doctrines?
… Bugninarians… and the teaching is Bugninarianism.

The mass is a sacrifice of calvary not about the last meal.
When Jesus declared this is my body and my blood he was referring to his future sacrifice on calvary. So the act of Eucharistic offering or sacrifice always points to Calvary not the Last Supper.

But hey, check out how V2 teach about the Mass…

 

[pnewton]

If, as you seem to be implying, Lefebvre was the modern Athanasius and the SSPX are his faithful followers then what doctrines are the Pope trying to force the SSPX to hold to that would cause them to cling to there present, unfavorable situation?

LeFebvre was no Athanasius, except perhaps in his own mind. It has been stated over and over again, one defied the papacy in words and writings, the later one has added disobedience to the his defiancy. That makes all the difference in the world.

Okay, if Athanasius is the example for the SSPX and they believe they are vital to the Church, what is their excuse for existence now that the TLM has expanded, the Pope has issued MP and other groups in communion with Rome offer teh TLM? Rome handed out an olive branch to bring them back and it was rejected. You may convince some that the SSPX doesn’t thrive on pride, but you will never convince me.

 

[nbjayme]

I might also add that if one studies the facts, any comparison between Archbishop Lefebvre and St. Athanasius doesn’t hold water. The two situations were actually very different.

rhetorics again. we are studying the facts in history and parallelism.

 

[nbjayme]

pnewton,

ehem post #76

 

[RyanML]

RyanML,

ehem post #76 ???



And to continue on my point of St. Athanasius.

People at the time have no idea of Arianism. They simply held the idea as majority of Bishops are teaching it. Majority of the Church only knew they were heretics after the fact that the Church declared it and vindicated St. Athanasius. So, when reasoning place yourself as if you were alive at the time of St. Athanasius.

And, yes St. Athanasius claimed they are the remnants and the True Church. You hold this same view only because you live after the fact.

What of today? What shall we call those that mixed the Catholic Mass with those of Protestant services / doctrines?
… Bugninarians… and the teaching is Bugninarianism.

The mass is a sacrifice of calvary not about the last meal.
When Jesus declared this is my body and my blood he was referring to his future sacrifice on calvary. So the act of Eucharistic offering or sacrifice always points to Calvary not the Last Supper.

But hey, check out how V2 teach about the Mass…

Yes I would actually encourage you to read what V2 teaches about the Mass and not what some SSPX priest says V2 teaches. You will find V2 and the Council of Trent to be in agreement.

 

[RyanML]

pnewton,

ehem post #76

Your post #76 mentions Mass facing the people and “protestant” doctrines in the Mass. Where does the Church teach that it is intrinsically evil to face the direction of the people for Mass and what protestant doctrines does the New Mass teach?

 

[nbjayme]

I have read it.

Would you want to discuss about the priest facing the people as a disorientation of Faith then?

Why did they do that? If the teaching is indeed same as that of the Council of Trent then we would not have departed the way the priest is celebrating mass.

 

[RyanML]

I have read it.

Would you want to discuss about the priest facing the people as a disorientation of Faith then?

Why did they do that? If the teaching is indeed same as that of the Council of Trent then we would not have departed the way the priest is celebrating mass.

By the way, I support the return of the priest ad orientam and so does the Pope. And if you have read V2 on the Mass then you can not say that V2 contradicts the Church’s teaching on the matter. But yes, please show me Church teaching on the matter of the priest facing the direction of the people at Mass.

 

[nbjayme]

pnewton,

while reading post #76

can a priest being excommunicated offer a valid and licit mass?

So what of St. Athanasius offering mass under excommunicated status? Were his mass valid and licit then?

 

[RyanML]

pnewton,

while reading post #76

can a priest being excommunicated offer a valid and licit mass?

So what of St. Athanasius offering mass under excommunicated status? Were his mass valid and licit then?

I know you weren’t asking me but yes an excommunicated priest can offer a valid mass but it would be illicit.

 

[nbjayme]

So St. Athanasius insist on offering mass even though he knew the declaration made against him. Violah! Action speaks louder than words.

Ryan,

So here you laudly supports the return ad orientiam. Why is it better than facing? What is the basis for Vatican II to have the priests face the people and then made a step backward?
(can we not make up our mind on this…?) Are we to go left or right? Row south or north?

 

[nbjayme]

RyanML,

Who then made the priests face the people? What was the basis?
So the priests face the people without V2’s order?

(I’m seeing flying elephants and raining chocolates and a tooth fairy dancing).

 

[nbjayme]

RyanML and pnewton,

Were the flock of St. Athanasius right in attending his “illicit” mass?

St. Athanasius was defiant and would not silence himself even a ruling was made against him. This he suffered in the fight to continue with the Faith of the Church.

Like St. Athanasius; Archbishop Lefebvre does not question the Supremacy of the Vicar of Christ and would be happy to be at the Pope’s side bringing back Catholic sense and fight of enforcing the Tridentine Latin Mass — not because of nostalgia and TLM fan club aweness — but, a matter of FAITH.

 

[pnewton]

pnewton,

while reading post #76

can a priest being excommunicated offer a valid and licit mass?

So what of St. Athanasius offering mass under excommunicated status? Were his mass valid and licit then?

Always valid. Whether they were licit or not is another question. Might have to get a canon lawyer to answer that one. And, BTW, I have read all the posts here.

In reference to ad orientem, Cardinal Ratzinger said in his book that it happened somewhat by accident. The priest always faced the people in some Church in Rome because of a design flaw. Other saw this and thought this was supposed to be the norm and flipped around. That is how the practice started and grew. I do not have the details, as my Spirit of the Liturgy is on loan. I believe the return to facing litrugical east is one of the Holy Father’s goals.

 

[nbjayme]

RyanML,

Was the excommunicated Athanasius right in claiming he and his flock belonged to the True Church and part of the remnants?

Were the mass of the excommunicated Athanasius “illicit”?

---