Sspx

[Auntie_M]

It is fairly obvious that the SSPX supporters are completely brainwashed. This is what the Pope refers to when he warns against attending their masses. It breeds a schismatic attitude. I have personally seen how this mentality is born. Those who were totally obedient to the Pope, now have this attitude of not even “belonging” when they “have” to go to a NO mass. It is obvious to me and to others around that they are “different” or “indifferent” would be a better word.

This is no different than the Protestant Reformation. Luther “Opposed the Pope” and look what happened, a completely new religion. A Luther follower had that same “indifferent” mentality. We can only pray for them, without ceasing! They have been badly misled. The wolf in sheep’s clothing is the one perpetrating this outrage. And Satan is Smiling.

St Paul DID oppose St Peter to his face, but he did not separated himself from St Peter. There was no “Church of St Paul” that I can remember.

This is exactly how divorces happen. People disagree, one leaves the other stays. Even though they are “still married” they are no longer ONE in heart.

The SSPX, has been the unfaithful spouse by separating themselves. The “divorce” just hasn’t been finalized.

Just as with the law of our lands, IF you are an accessessory to a crime, you are just as guilty, both end up in prison.

Either way, IT IS SEPARATION.

 

[nbjayme]

(Dear Admin: I have already unsubscribed to this thread. But it keeps filling my inbox. 3 times I believe I have chosen the option to unsubscribe.)

I was going to stay out of this fray until I again saw references to Vatican II being referred to as heretical. Let’s set some records and facts straight so all can be on the same page and not be running around chasing red herrings (these are false issues put out meant to mislead from the topic at hand.) Ignore them.

Fact # 1.
Vatican II was called by the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He has the promise of the Holy Spirit always being with him. Not any other individual bishop

Fact #2
It was a certain French Archbishop who did not like what the council did and decided to break off from Holy Mother Church and start his own following. He was chastised for that, but was told nothing else would take place so long as he did not ordain any bishops.

Fact # 3.
The French Archbishop, USURPED THE ROLE OF THE HOLY FATHER in direct disobedience on a matter of faith and ordained bishops of his own choosing, not approved by Rome.

Fact # 4
This French Archbishop is now dead. Please all keep him in your prayers.

Fact # 5.
There were talks between SSPX and Holy Mother Church to try and bring SSPX back into the fold. This was just this last summer. The one thing that prevented reunification was sinful pride and arrogance wherein SSPX refused to accept the Magisterium of the Church, comprised of the Pope and bishops in union with him as the sole teaching authority of the Catholic Church. This has been core to the Church since the time of the apostles, yet SSPX rejected it. It, the magisterium, is the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church comprised of the Pope and bishops in union with him who are all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This was rejected by SSPX in July of 2008.

Fact # 6
SSPX loves to refer to St Athanasius, but overlook the fact that he was not separated from the Church, was not excommunicated and did not disobey nor usurp any role that belonged uniquely to the pope, e.g. choosing those who would be named bishops and thus part of the magisterium.

Fact # 7
All else is smoke screen merely attempting to divert people from these core issues.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Care to review the thread. Are you really that mad that you want to go circular?

The problem with people in the church like you Deacon EdB is that you are the root cause of divisions. Let them SSPX and Officials of Rome handle the situation.

Also, it’s a shame that you don’t even answer critical questions I’ve made not only you but other V2 supporters here.

Want to rewrite history of Athanasius? He was excommunicated and even exiled and did not stop ordaining and giving sacraments. You said St. Athanasius was not outside the Church – sure, because you lived after the fact.

Now answer this… CAN A POPE BE IN HERESY? CAN A POPE BE EVEN HERETICAL? CAN A POPE EVEN FAVOR HERESY?

What DOGMA of the Church legitimizes the Prayers with Pagans and heretics in V2, even using the Church’s premises?
If none, was the Pope in error then of doing such thing?

FACT #1 ----> See Pope Honorius.
It is fact that the NO was created with Protestant ministers. Go deal that with the Bible then.

FACT #2 -----> Read the documents of Lefebvre. Breaking out or Creating a church is out of the Archbishop’s imagination.

Fact # 3.------> He did it precisely to continue with the FAITH of the Church… nothing more nothing less. He did not usurped the role of the Pope… just as St. Athanasius did not in continuing with ordination or delivering sacraments of the Church without PAPAL MANDATE.

Fact # 4 And yet you have the audacity to Judge the Archbishop.
Irony of Irony…

Fact # 6 He was excommunicated and was in exile. Moreover, the Pope is only infallible in Extraordinary Magisterium — meaning ex cathedra – definition of the Dogma of Faith and Morals. In judgment, the pope is fallible.

Fact # 7 I think you’re not through making your own smoke.

Now pray, pray, pray.

"The time for an agreement has not yet come,” Fellay wrote. The decree on the old Latin Mass was “not accompanied by logically co-related measures in the other areas of the life of the Church … Nothing has changed in Rome’s determination to follow the council’s orientation, despite 40 years of crisis, despite the deserted convents, abandoned rectories and empty churches.”

• Fellay

Nobody should be forced to accept a thing which is against their Moral Conscience. Shame on you V2 supporters of not following the Teaching of the Church. Speaking of Double-standard.

 

[Auntie_M]

I guess we are going to end up with …

The Holy Roman Catholic Church AND

The “Holy Church of Felley and Williamson”

I’ll be in the first…

 

[Auntie_M]

nbjayme

Dear, IF you really don’t want to be on this thread, all you really have to do is just delete it when it comes up. You really
DON"T have to answer…

 

[nbjayme]

Auntie M,

Luther used his Will to question the DOGMA of the Catholic Church. He was opposed against the Church’s Defined DOGMAS. Moreover, Luther intentionally want to break away from the Church.

Marcel Lefebvre simply continued with the Faith of the Church just as St. Athanasius was. If there is a separation it is because one continued and the other left the Tradition of the Church.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
— St. Athanasius

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

My first response to you was all that had to be said. I now know all I need to know about you and SSPX. Now I am a root cause of the division. Little Ol Me, a root cause. I wish you knew what you were talking about, but son, you missed the boat. Yet you say let Rome and SSPX handle it. By your own statement, neither of us should be having this exchange. Which is just OK with me. I will end with my usual statement. You will remain in my prayers. Please keep me in yours.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Auntie_M]

Auntie M,

Luther used his Will to question the DOGMA of the Catholic Church. He was opposed against the Church’s Defined DOGMAS. Moreover, Luther intentionally want to break away from the Church.

Marcel Lefebvre simply continued with the Faith of the Church just as St. Athanasius was. If there is a separation it is because one continued and the other left the Tradition of the Church.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
— St. Athanasius

I am sorry to tell you, dear, but Luther NEVER intended to leave the Catholic Church, he even asked for a Catholic Priest when on his death bed. It was just another one of those domino affect things. Just like the SSPX. Starting out with good intentions, but ending up blown WAY out of preportion.

 

[nbjayme]

nbjayme

Dear, IF you really don’t want to be on this thread, all you really have to do is just delete it when it comes up. You really
DON"T have to answer…

For the Faith of the Church what would we not do. And, if my moral conscience dictates me to… you can do nothing about it.

That is why the best thing for my conscience is to not receive anything and completely unsubscribe.

Who knows … sometimes the Holy Spirit moves in mysterius ways to let Truth shine…

 

[nbjayme]

I am sorry to tell you, dear, but Luther NEVER intended to leave the Catholic Church, he even asked for a Catholic Priest when on his death bed. It was just another one of those domino affect things. Just like the SSPX. Starting out with good intentions, but ending up blown WAY out of preportion.

He did… even broke his vows. Even challenge the Bible itself.

There is such a thing as “repentance”. Who knows…

 

[RyanML]

Better to ask, why did he think it was necessary?

A very good point! There is a wonderful series of books on the history of the SSPX and the Archbishop written by Michael Davies that gives a lot of background to the events that eventually led to the consecrations in 1988. Sometimes I think the titles “Vicar of Christ” and “Supreme Pontiff” get in the way of understanding the simple truth of why Jesus gave Peter the keys and all the apostles authority. It becomes “popolatry”, as stated by a previous poster. We forget that the reason Our Lord gave us the apostles and their successors was so that what He had given to them, they would safeguard and faithfully hand down to the Church. If they don’t do their job, then it is the duty and right of the faithful to admonish them. As far as I understand it, to say that a pope or council is free from error only means that they can not positively teach as doctrine that which is false. It does not mean that they can not teach error. A pope can, and several have, taught erroneous doctrines, but never as matters de fide. While I believe that there is no longer any reason for the SSPX to remain in their irregular situation, I also believe that had it not been for Archbishop Lefebvre, we would not have the experience of tradition that we see today, if at all. God bless!

 

[nbjayme]

St Paul DID oppose St Peter to his face, but he did not separated himself from St Peter. There was no “Church of St Paul” that I can remember.

The is no Church of Marcel Lefebvre either…
SSPX is not a church in itself… it’s a called SOCIETY of Saint Pope Pius X.

There is One Holy Roman Catholic Church— keeper of Traditions and the Faith of the Fathers.

Keep the Faith … Keep the Church.

 

[RyanML]

St Paul DID oppose St Peter to his face, but he did not separated himself from St Peter. There was no “Church of St Paul” that I can remember.

There is no “Church of St. Peter” either. Just the one founded by Christ.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Let’s set some records and facts straight.

Fact # 1.
Vatican II was called by the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He has the promise of the Holy Spirit always being with him. Not any other individual bishop

Pope John XXIII certainly had the right to call a council and it was a valid council, a fact undisputed by the SSPX.

Pope Paul also observed that the same council that was called to let in fresh air also let in the smoke of Satan.

The Holy Spirit being “with him” is undisputed. What the Holy Ghost allows and what is pleasing to Him are different. I can’t profess to know what pleases Him, but I’ll bet there are aspects of how the Council was conducted and how it was in fact implemented that are particularly displeasing to Him.

Fact #2
It was a certain French Archbishop who did not like what the council did and decided to break off from Holy Mother Church and start his own following. He was chastised for that, but was told nothing else would take place so long as he did not ordain any bishops.

Wow … I wonder what blogs you have been reading. You certainly haven’t read any of the accounts of the negotiations between the SSPX and Cardinal Ratzinger or else you would know how patently false this “FACT” is. It would be great to see your evidence of how the Archbishop was told “…nothing else would take place so long as he did not ordain any bishops.”

If you really knew the facts, you would be able to honestly state that the Vatican had agreed to allowing for the SSPX to consecrate one Bishop in August of 1988 instead of four Bishops in June 1988.

Fact # 3.
The French Archbishop, USURPED THE ROLE OF THE HOLY FATHER in direct disobedience on a matter of faith and ordained bishops of his own choosing, not approved by Rome.

HIs disobeyed the Pope on a matter of Canon Law, not of faith.

Fact # 6
SSPX loves to refer to St Athanasius, but overlook the fact that he was not separated from the Church, was not excommunicated and did not disobey nor usurp any role that belonged uniquely to the pope, e.g. choosing those who would be named bishops and thus part of the magisterium.

I understand that you are a Senior Member and I take it you are a Permanent Deacon from your handle, but if you are going to cite facts, you have to know your facts because you are otherwise in danger of calumny. St. Athanasius was excommunicated in 355 by Pope Liberius and had he died that day, would have gone to his grave under the order of excommunication but raised by Our Lord’s justice, excommunication notwithstanding. The same will be true of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Prayers & blessings

 

[maurin]

My first response to you was all that had to be said. I now know all I need to know about you and SSPX. Now I am a root cause of the division. Little Ol Me, a root cause. I wish you knew what you were talking about, but son, you missed the boat. Yet you say let Rome and SSPX handle it. By your own statement, neither of us should be having this exchange. Which is just OK with me. I will end with my usual statement. You will remain in my prayers. Please keep me in yours.
Deacon Ed B

Deacon Ed,

c’mon… Making yourself a victim? Really? You certainly are not “a root cause” but your misinformation is certainly more divisive. You have gone, in your “facts”, far beyond what the Church Herself has. Of course, you have done so out of love, and that is forgivable.

I actually wish any of us knew what we were talking about…but because much of the dialogue is not made public, you may be right, and we are all just “spinning our wheels”, or is it better said, “spinning our hopes?”

May God forgive us all our errors, especially those made out of sincerity.

 

[maurin]

It is fairly obvious that the SSPX supporters are completely brainwashed. This is what the Pope refers to when he warns against attending their masses.

Auntie, please link sources of this statement that the Pope is referring to “brainwashing” of the SSPX, or retract it.

It breeds a schismatic attitude.

The SSPX is not in schism. Please link sources for this statement or retract it. Noone will deny that the SSPX is in an irregular state. The Pope himself in the Motu Proprio, when addressing the SSPX refers to the statrs as an “Internal matter of reconciliation WITHIN the Church.”

I have personally seen how this mentality is born. Those who were totally obedient to the Pope, now have this attitude of not even “belonging” when they “have” to go to a NO mass. It is obvious to me and to others around that they are “different” or “indifferent” would be a better word.

and your sociological, psychological or any other professional qualifications please? Why should we accept your opinion as a fact?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I look at all these posts with wonder. But my biggest wonder is why no one addressed the fact that the hold back on the part of SSPX was because they did not accept the Magisterium as the sole teaching authority of Holy Mother Church. Would this be because you believe that it is not. How does this fit in with being truly Catholic. Hummmmm I wonder.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Anacletus]

A very good point! There is a wonderful series of books on the history of the SSPX and the Archbishop written by Michael Davies that gives a lot of background to the events that eventually led to the consecrations in 1988. Sometimes I think the titles “Vicar of Christ” and “Supreme Pontiff” get in the way of understanding the simple truth of why Jesus gave Peter the keys and all the apostles authority. It becomes “popolatry”, as stated by a previous poster. We forget that the reason Our Lord gave us the apostles and their successors was so that what He had given to them, they would safeguard and faithfully hand down to the Church. If they don’t do their job, then it is the duty and right of the faithful to admonish them. As far as I understand it, to say that a pope or council is free from error only means that they can not positively teach as doctrine that which is false. It does not mean that they can not teach error. A pope can, and several have, taught erroneous doctrines, but never as matters de fide. While I believe that there is no longer any reason for the SSPX to remain in their irregular situation, I also believe that had it not been for Archbishop Lefebvre, we would not have the experience of tradition that we see today, if at all. God bless!

Any idea where I can get some of these?

 

[RyanML]

Any idea where I can get some of these?

The series is called “Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre” and i think it’s in three volumes. You should be able to get them from www.angeluspress.org

The author, Michael Davies passed away a few years ago, but shortly before, I sent him a letter asking him if Rome considered the Society to be in schism and he responded “no”. He was well respected by many in Rome and the Ecclesia Dei Commission for his writtings and defense of tradition. Unfortunately when he started seeing a need for the Society to be regularized, the SSPX began to distance themselves from him. Another work of his that I would highly recommend is “Pope Paul’s New Mass”. God bless!

 

[maurin]

I look at all these posts with wonder. But my biggest wonder is why no one addressed the fact that the hold back on the part of SSPX was because they did not accept the Magisterium as the sole teaching authority of Holy Mother Church. Would this be because you believe that it is not. How does this fit in with being truly Catholic. Hummmmm I wonder.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Deacon Ed,

what I wonder is why you believe that the SSPX does not accept the Magisterium as the sole teaching authority? The SSPX has issues with the changes, one example is the replacement of “is” with “subsists in” in the definition of the Church. This certainly is a change from the past.

If the charges you level are true, when will Rome excommunicate all of the SSPX? It would seem to be a logical step, wouldn’t it? Why then does Rome say it is an internal matter of reconciliation within the Church?

The “fact” remains, Deacon Ed, that our Magisterium is still debating the points that SSPX raise. Otherwise, why all the hesitation, and leaving all the doors open? The only thing–unless you can show me otherwise–that the Rome denounced was the Consecrations of 1988, and thus only the Bishops’ excommunications.

In 2005, Fellay had given Cardinal Hoyos a list of the Society’s objections to what he called “the novelties.” The Cardinal responded that though on certain points he did not agree, Rome did not consider the Society to be outside of the Church. So he suggested that Fellay write a letter to the Pope asking for the excommunications to be lifted. Are the wheels in motion? Only those behind the closed doors having the dialogue know. We do not.

What we do know is that you far overstep what has been made public. It’s almost as if you want that the Society not be reconciled.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I look at all these posts with wonder. But my biggest wonder is why no one addressed the fact that the hold back on the part of SSPX was because they did not accept the Magisterium as the sole teaching authority of Holy Mother Church. Would this be because you believe that it is not. How does this fit in with being truly Catholic. Hummmmm I wonder.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Again, I have never seen where the SSPX (through its Superior General) has made this statement.

The Magisterium cannot teach as truth, what it has previously taught was error (modernism, indifferentism, religious freedom).

The SSPX takes issue with that which has been previously condemned by the Magisterium as now being espoused (I won’t say taught) by members of the Magisterium, including in some cases, the Pope.

As I’m sure you know, the Magisterium (both Pope and Episcopate) can teach both infallibly and non-infallibly and can say whatever they please in sermons and speeches which we are under no obligation to believe or agree with. But many/most Catholics do not understand the distinction and assume that everything the Pope “says” is what the Pope “teaches”, austensibly ‘infallibly’ (unless of course it has to do with something they think is none of the Pope’s business like artificial birth control).