Sspx

[nbjayme]

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.

My point is that it is about Faith and continuing on the Traditions of the Church but not without the Pope. Whether the Pope understands one’s position or not, that does not make one Outside the Church … just as St. Athanasius during his time.

All this may lead to schism is just another matter not worthy of discussion for the good Archbishop Lefebvre have ruled that the SSPX is not about creating a new Church or separating from the Vicar of Christ. It’s not necessary for separation to fight for the Faith for the SSPX neither desires separation from the Church to fight for the Faith.

Meanwhile those that teach heresies within the Church are considered to be in full communion yet the SSPX who continues on the Faith is regarded as not. Light has no part with Darkness. Those who favor Truth will always be separated from those that Favor Falsehood. The number Bishops causing great pain in the church because of heretical teachings are still considered in full communion. If SSPX is considered separate from the Church it is expected since the current authorities in the church would rather keep those Bishops teaching false doctrines in full communion rather than be humble and give charity towards SSPX. That’s the fad attitude of this time.

My stay in the SSPX had made clear to me the Doctrinal Truths of the Church. Their exhortations on the errors of the Bishops and the Pope simply guides us to understand and see what is Black from White. I have always suspected that the NO mass with other religion to call on their god(s) is anti-Catholic and SSPX confirmed it and I have been more firm and been clear on the doctrines of the Church than when I was into NO.

It increased my desire to pray for the Pope and Bishops that they may be given the strength and that the Church Doctrines be held.

If RyanML grows to hate the Pope because of SSPX exhortations it simply mean he did not take it in correct light of understanding the matter.

Moreover, if the SSPX is indeed breeding hate against the Pope the followers would not have gone to the Vatican each year and do a pilgrimage and chant for the Pope. EWTN even has a video on this. The case in reality is the other way around, that those (who believes to be in) full communion of the Church were actually the one’s uncharitable towards SSPX.

Priests and parishioners would rather have a non-Catholic or pop-rock use the Church for their celebrations than give a space for SSPX to say the TLM.

 

[nbjayme]

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.

You cannot even convince me of those differences by my simple questions.

Keep chanting the same things it’s your right to an opinion.

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

Is that a roundabout way of saying you have no answer?

I think it’s a fair question. If the current situation in the Church is analgous to the Arian crisis, then what’s the great heresy threatening the Church from within the hierarchy?

It does not matter what percentage of the laity believe or practice the faith. What matters is what the bishops are teaching. Are the majority of bishops openly teaching some heresy akin to the heresy that Jesus is not God? If so, I’d like to know what it is.

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.

Amen to that! In Athanasius’ case, wasn’t the pope somewhat coereced into excommunicating him, and wasn’t it later retracted? If so, where’s the evidence that JPII was coerced into excommunicating Lefebvre and the other SSPX bishops?

I am extremely cautious of those who use history seemingly as a weapon to bolster their point of view. It seems all that is necessary to justify one’s cause is to make an analogy between that cause and some other cause that everyone can agree is good. The pro-choice crowd and the pro-gay “marriage” crowd make similar associations between themselves and the Civil Rights Movement. Thus, they imply that, if you’re for equality among races, you must also be for abortion and the gay lifestyle (and contrarily, if you are against their cause you must also be against equal rights). In all of the above instances, it seems like a poor foundation to base your case.

 

[nbjayme]

Is that a roundabout way of saying you have no answer?

There was a priest who taught Christ did not do Miracle in the Loaves and Fishes in his sermon…

One priests who refuse to give mass because living present are few. (He missed the Church suffering)…

Then there were NO celebrations with other religion allowed to call on their god(s)

There was a priest who allowed all people to take the eucharist and dip it to the consecrated wine…

Priests that believe islam and Catholics pray to the same God…

Therefore it’s much worse that saying Christ is not God but placing God equal to other god(s)

Stay confused on the parrellism… you can’t keep up to date with facts anyhow.

 

[nbjayme]

In Athanasius’ case, wasn’t the pope somewhat coereced into excommunicating him, and wasn’t it later retracted? If so, where’s the evidence that JPII was coerced into excommunicating Lefebvre and the other SSPX bishops?

The parallelism is that the excommunication is baseless. As it was not in the desire of schism on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre. That being excommunicated by the Pope does not automatically make one Outside of the Church.

The case is an internal matter of the Church.

Or probably your idea of parallelism would also include that Bishops need to have the same names?

 

[Joe_5859]

There was a priest who taught Christ did not do Miracle in the Loaves and Fishes in his sermon…

Bad biblical scholarship? Absolutely. Heresy? It depends if it is being used to make the case that Jesus did not perform any miracles. Either way, I don’t think this is the reason Lefebvre illicitly consecrated four bishops.

One priests who refuse to give mass because living present are few. (He missed the Church suffering)…

Again, this is most unfortunate. But does this constitute heresy? I don’t think so.

Then there were NO celebrations with other religion allowed to call on their god(s)

Do you mean there were no celebrations or are you using NO as short hand for the ordinary form of the Mass? I take it you mean the latter as the former wouldn’t make sense.

This is a rather general comment. It’s hard to comment on unless you have something more specific (what exactly do you mean by “their God”? Do they have a different God because they have an incorrect understanding of Him? was it at Mass or just a prayer service? was it another Christian religion or a non-Christian religion?)

There was a priest who allowed all people to take the eucharist and dip it to the consecrated wine…

This is a liturgical abuse. It is not heresy.

Priests that believe islam and Catholics pray to the same God…

Certainly the Muslims have a much different (and incorrect) idea of exactly who God is. But does that mean this is heresy? Remember Acts 17 with Paul preaching in the Areopagus. Paul had no problem believing that the people worshipped the true God even with their lack of knowledge of who He is.

Therefore it’s much worse that saying Christ is not God but placing God equal to other god(s)

I think this is a bit of an overstatement. Even the most liberal priest is not saying that “their God is equal to our God.” I think they’re just saying that their God is our God. Notice the difference? Certainly polytheism is against Church teaching, but this is, at worst, a misplaced attempt at ecumenism and interreligious dialogue.

Stay confused on the parrellism… you can’t keep up to date with facts anyhow.

I’ll try.

Of your examples, nothing comes close to the Arian heresy in either its gravity or its breadth of acceptance. If it were, why is there no other bishop that has come to Lefebvre’s defense (besides the four he illicitly consecrated)? If the situation were so dire and so severe as to warrant such an act on Lefebvre’s part, I would suspect that there would be at least one other bishop to come to his defense.

If the situation is truly parallel to that of Athanasius, and not one other bishop backed Lefebvre’s action, then I could only conclude that 99.9% of the Catholic Church has fallen into a grave and serious apostasy.

Another difference between Lefebvre and Athanasius is that Athanasius never illicitly consecrated any bishops after the pope asked him not to.

The parallelism is that the excommunication is baseless. As it was not in the desire of schism on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre. That being excommunicated by the Pope does not automatically make one Outside of the Church.

Both excommunications are baseless? This is what Pnewton meant by saying it begs the question. Why is the excommunication baseless? “Because Lefebvre is like Athanasius.” Why is he like Athanasius? “Because the excommunication is baseless.” It’s circular reasoning.

The case is an internal matter of the Church.

I agree that this is an internal matter of the Church, and one which I hope is resolved very soon. Then we won’t have to have this discussion anymore!

Or probably your idea of parallelism would also include that Bishops need to have the same names?

It’s not a requirement, but it would help!

 

[ProVobis]

I do not know. That would depend on who succeeds them and who the next generation of leaders will be. Will they seek to maintain their own power base, or put a priority on full communion for them and their members?

It certainly would be interesting to see who appoints the new leaders. That might provide a clue as to what the permanent canonical status of the SSPX will be.

 

[pnewton]

The parallelism is that the excommunication is baseless.

A perfect example of begging the question, showing the logic of the SSPX is nothing but a circle.

 

[nbjayme]

Yea that the moslems can pray with the Bishops and call on their God. Moslems have the idea of who their God is. Paul was introducing the idea of the God they seek. Big big difference.

I thought you know what parralelism is.

If the situation is truly parallel to that of Athanasius, and not one other bishop backed Lefebvre’s action, then I could only conclude that 99.9% of the Catholic Church has fallen into a grave and serious apostasy.

Numbers game again. or probably you also want those bishops to have the same brand of soap.

Another difference between Lefebvre and Athanasius is that Athanasius never illicitly consecrated any bishops after the pope asked him not to.

The pope asked St. Athanasius not to… hmmmm… are you asleep or awake.

St. Athanasius may see the need for that… it hasn’t come yet so why would he do it. Do you think athanasius will be as naive as you not to leave a pastor for his flock to continue on his work if the matter have not been solved?

All your reasonings are only “After the Fact” effects. Go to RyanML … he understands it now.

Both excommunications are baseless? This is what Pnewton meant by saying it begs the question. Why is the excommunication baseless? “Because Lefebvre is like Athanasius.” Why is he like Athanasius? “Because the excommunication is baseless.” It’s circular reasoning.

You ain’t paying attention. He is Athanasius why becuase Marcel Lefebvre continued to firght the Faith of the Fathers. He is Athanasius becuase he was judged unjustly.

I agree that this is an internal matter of the Church, and one which I hope is resolved very soon. Then we won’t have to have this discussion anymore!

And yet most of you claim they are in schism. That makes it all the more Athanasius.

It’s not a requirement, but it would help!

I know how your logic goes. That everything should be the same even the number of bishop that need to oppose him.

We in this community are very much thankful for Lefebvre for, if not, we would not have the TLM since most bishop doesn’t care about it.

The facts vindicates Arcbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

 

[nbjayme]

A perfect example of begging the question, showing the logic of the SSPX is nothing but a circle.

Probably taking off the football gear will help you ?!?

You guys are the ones pushing what ought to be an SSPX opinion, and what you push is the source of your circular expectation.

 

[nbjayme]

Bad biblical scholarship? Absolutely. Heresy? It depends if it is being used to make the case that Jesus did not perform any miracles. Either way, I don’t think this is the reason Lefebvre illicitly consecrated four bishops.

Again, this is most unfortunate. But does this constitute heresy? I don’t think so.

It’s not what you think. It’s what Lefebvre thinks — that there are decadence in the teaching of the Doctrines of the Church and that the Church need priests to continue on what have always been the Church Teaching.

What I present to you are only some of the errors that exist today in the Church and it has become rampant.

You’re not paying attention really.

 

[nbjayme]

John 6

9 There is a boy here that hath five barley loaves, and two fishes; but what are these among so many?
10 Then Jesus said: Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. The men therefore sat down, in number about five thousand.
11 And Jesus took the loaves: and when he had given thanks, he distributed to them that were set down. In like manner also of the fishes, as much as they would.
12 And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: Gather up the fragments that remain, lest they be lost.
13 They gathered up therefore, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above to them that had eaten.
14 Now those men, when they had seen what a miracle Jesus had done, said: This is of a truth the prophet, that is to come into the world.

John 6
25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him: Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
26 Jesus answered them, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

Had Jesus performed the miracle of the Loaves and Fish?

 

[SFD]

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.

"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."

This is part of the problem. Can you show us any reference prior to the council of this novel idea of “partial” and “full” communion. The Church has been defined time and time again as a body…there never was nor could there ever be a “partial communion”. This is a novel and false idea of the Church and it cannot be defended.

SFD

 

[SFD]

A perfect example of begging the question, showing the logic of the SSPX is nothing but a circle.

Don’t worry, nbjayme, newton often uses this “begging the question” argument when he can’t think of a real one.

The SSPX position does not attempt to solve the crisis…it merely identifies the problem (it’s a doctrinal problem fellows) and seeks to hold fast to the traditions they have learned. To say it’s “illogical” or “circular” is beside the point…the position is minimalist and makes the fewest number of assertions.

SFD

 

[ac_claire]

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

Amen, and very well said! I would only disagree with the last statement: the SSPX are. by definition, in schism. I don’t know why they didn’t come back into full communion (or regular canonical status) this year when the Holy Father reached out.

I’ve read pages and pages of SSPXers dodging and obfuscating the question, changing the subject and attacking the asker for months now. But no real answer to the question. I think it comes down to a matter of faith. They’ve lost their faith in Christ’s Church and doubt the promise of the Holy Spirit. I think it’s best for all to just keep your distance from any and all schismatics.

 

[pnewton]

Don’t worry, nbjayme, newton often uses this “begging the question” argument when he can’t think of a real one.

That is because the logic of the SSPX’s existence is built on a house of cards. If it were not so, then why does the same circular argument keep occuring? You are right. I do point out this error a lot and make no apology for it. I use titles of these fallacies for the sake of those that are familiar with critical thinking. It makes the error easy to see.

What does this poster expect when he comes on to a Catholic website and find people loyal to the Holy Father? There are a billion Catholics in the world a a relatively small number of SSPX. This is a Catholic website, not an SSPX website. Numerous times discussion and recruitment for the SSPX has become so intense that the discussion has had to be banned.

Did this new poster expect faulty thinking and circular reasoning to go unchallenged? I point out circular reasoning when it is blatant, not when I “can’t think” of something else. You are wrong in making such an assumption about me, both morally and logically.

 

[SFD]

That is because the logic of the SSPX’s existence is built on a house of cards. If it were not so, then why does the same circular argument keep occuring? You are right. I do point out this error a lot and make no apology for it. I use titles of these fallacies for the sake of those that are familiar with critical thinking. It makes the error easy to see.

What does this poster expect when he comes on to a Catholic website and find people loyal to the Holy Father? There are a billion Catholics in the world a a relatively small number of SSPX. This is a Catholic website, not an SSPX website. Numerous times discussion and recruitment for the SSPX has become so intense that the discussion has had to be banned.

Did this new poster expect faulty thinking and circular reasoning to go unchallenged? I point out circular reasoning when it is blatant, not when I “can’t think” of something else. You are wrong in making such an assumption about me, both morally and logically.

You consistently avoid answering the substance of my posts:

SFD:

The SSPX position does not attempt to solve the crisis…it merely identifies the problem (it’s a doctrinal problem fellows) and seeks to hold fast to the traditions they have learned. To say it’s “illogical” or “circular” is beside the point…the position is minimalist and makes the fewest number of assertions.

You don’t think there is a crisis of a doctrinal nature…isn’t that right?

There are a billion Catholics in the world a a relatively small number of SSPX.

Numbers mean nothing here…are doctrinal questions answered by a majority opinion?

SFD

 

[fbl9]

You consistently avoid answering the substance of my posts:

You don’t think there is a crisis of a doctrinal nature…isn’t that right?

SFD

is this a reference to the doctrine of …there is no salvation outside of the church…?may i ask you SFD which spirit cause one to repent of thier sinful ways and choose to live a life that is pleasing to God?

 

[SFD]

is this a reference to the doctrine of …there is no salvation outside of the church…?may i ask you SFD which spirit cause one to repent of thier sinful ways and choose to live a life that is pleasing to God?

No, it is not. If you’d read some of my other posts you’d see that quite clearly. The question is about the nature of the Church.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

You consistently avoid answering the substance of my posts:

not the substance, only the rhetoric

You don’t think there is a crisis of a doctrinal nature…isn’t that right?

I didn’t know I was the topic of this thread.