Stuff the SSPX are wrong about

[USMC]

Catholic Dude:

I agree. The missalettes where I go say no communion for non Catholics as well. So I question what was said earlier.

The one I read last Sunday did say that in the first (or second) paragraph, but then in the next paragraph it said that Orthodox (and another group or two) were allowed to receive communion. It then reference Canon 844.3.

 

[Genesis315]

USMC:

The one I read last Sunday did say that in the first (or second) paragraph, but then in the next paragraph it said that Orthodox (and another group or two) were allowed to receive communion. It then reference Canon 844.3.

I think Polish National Catholics can and maybe Old Catholics as well.

 

[Fortiterinre]

USMC:

Ideally, violations of the first commandmend will be forbidden by the State. Let’s phrase it this way: Ideally, human law will reflect Divine Law. That is obviously the goal.

In other words, just because Saudi Arabia may believe that other religions should be forbidden, does not mean that the basic principal is false. The principal is based on God’s law. The problem is that they belong to false religion so they would be outlawing the true religion and thus in violation of a true “right” of man: The right to worship God in the true religion.

Theocracy is obviously the goal? Ideally the pope should be an ayatollah issuing fatwas to the secular world? Why did Jesus bother to preach for three years, He should have conquered Galilee one town at a time.

USMC:

Doctrinal developement does not at all mean change.

Dictionary.com describes development as “change,” in fact it describes it as “significant” too.

USMC:

Whether or not the SSPX is truly in schism is another matter. By what appears, they are in schism; but so was St. Athanasius and his followers. They were “outside” of the normal diocese. This was an extraordinary case in an extraordinary time. The situation with the SSPX may very well be the same as that of St. Athanasius. They claim it is. Time will tell.

Time has already told, and the pope has repeatedly and definitively stated that the SSPX is in a state of schism. There is no maybe here.

USMC:

But is this based on doctrine? Of course not. It was probably on the level of Canon law, which does indeed change with the times. For example it used to be forbidden to even work with heretics. Today that would be impractical. Canon law deals with the application of the faith, and can be changed.

I agree that one would expect railroads to be more of a Department of Transportation sort of issue, but I’m pretty sure Gregory XVI called them “engines of Satan” and forbade them on moral terms, not “canon law.”

USMC:

I agree with what Pope Pius IX did. I think it was a good thing that resulted in a good end.

I’m guessing you don’t have kids.

USMC:

One thing I do agree with is that churchmen (not the Church itself) have done some very embarrassing things. For example John Paul II inviting snake worshippers to the Vatican to violate the 1st commandment at his request was more than embarrassing

“More than embarrassing”? As in, more than a real pope could do? Maybe (if he was a real pope) John Paul II was just proving what Boniface VIII said in the 1300’s. “Every creature subject to the Roman Pontiff” certainly includes snakes!

 

[Genesis315]

Fortiterinre:

Dictionary.com describes development as “change,” in fact it describes it as “significant” too.

That’s not what Catholic doctrinal development is, however. I suggest you read John Cardinal Newman’s “Development of Christian Doctrine”
newmanreader.org/works/development/

Here’s a little summary from Wikipedia:

Development of doctrine is a term used by John Henry Newman and other theologians influenced by him to describe the way Catholic teaching has become more detailed and explicit over the centuries, while later statements of doctrine remain consistent with earlier statements. The term was introduced in Newman’s 1845 book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Newman used the idea of development of doctrine to defend Catholic teaching from attacks by some Anglicans and other Protestants, who saw the newer elements in Catholic teaching as corruptions or innovations. He argued that, on the contrary, various Catholic doctrines not accepted by Protestants (such as devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or Purgatory) had a developmental history analogous to doctrines that were accepted by Protestants (such as the Trinity or the divinity and humanity of Christ). Such developments were, in his view, the natural and beneficial consequences of reason working on the original revealed truth to draw out consequences that were not obvious at first.

Let’s all also remember that not everything that comes out of an ecumenical council or the mouth or pen of a pope is infallible. Likewise, we must view the present through the lens of the past, the lens of Tradition.

 

[Fortiterinre]

Genesis315:

That’s not what Catholic doctrinal development is, however. I suggest you read John Cardinal Newman’s “Development of Christian Doctrine”

Um, thanks, this is actually the topic of my dissertation. Remember that for Newman doctrine impresses itself upon us like a seal in wax. We don’t have to shy away from the problem of “change” because the wax is never worthy of the seal. “Change” is a human limitation, for Newman safeguarded by the Petrine office throughout time for all that the details were messy in a profundly incarnational world. Remember also that Newman explicitly rules out the Vincentian canon (trying to limit “doctrine” to only those things believed “everywhere by everyone at everytime”) and the *disciplina arcani *(the idea that lost teachings could explain all apparent development). If I may quote Newman at the end of Paragraph 5: “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” We don’t have to be afraid of history. The Lefebvrists have become Protestant by refusing recent history and basically reverting to a Tridentine Vincentian canon.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Fortiterinre:

If I may quote Newman at the end of Paragraph 5: “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” We don’t have to be afraid of history. The Lefebvrists have become Protestant by refusing recent history and basically reverting to a Tridentine Vincentian canon.

Thats a good point, we need to stop desecrating the name of one of our popes by applying it to schismatics, they are properly termed the Lefebvrists.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Dropper:

pnewton:

Thanks for the links.

CNS said of the photo:

It wasn’t a mistake though. I know what the article says. Brother Roger was “in” with many in the Church Hierarchy. His Holiness most certainly knows and knew who he was…
Here’s a link…

and a quote from the article…

This quote has even more problems, but that’s for a different debate…

I thought this of interest:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=79136&highlight=taize

 

[Genesis315]

Fortiterinre:

The Lefebvrists have become Protestant by refusing recent history and basically reverting to a Tridentine Vincentian canon.

I don’t think they reject anything doctrinally. Obviously they reject the new Mass and I think they also dislike the general ecumenical policy as well as the modernism that has infected many of the clergy–they think this gives them the moral right to disobey the pope in matters of discipline and Church governement, which goes against Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I. To me, they are like Luther in that they left when things got rough, instead of someone like St. Athanasius who stuck around to lead everyone back to Truth when so many bishops fell into the Arian heresy.

 

[Fortiterinre]

Genesis315:

I don’t think they reject anything doctrinally. Obviously they reject the new Mass and I think they also dislike the general ecumenical policy

A Decree on Ecumenism by an Ecumencial Council is doctrinal, not a matter of policy. But remember that the Anglicans didn’t intend to reject doctrine either, just the general diplomatic policy, then the general marriage policy, etc. No one starts out as a schismatic; the small steps over “policy” are what takes one there, and I still stand with Newman that they stem from a refusal to live in the messiness of human history.

 

[USMC]

Genesis315:

To me, they are like Luther in that they left when things got rough, instead of someone like St. Athanasius who stuck around to lead everyone back to Truth when so many bishops fell into the Arian heresy.

Did St. Athanasiuis really stay inside and mingle with the Arians, who did he refuse to have anything to do with that error? Let’s read a letter from St. Athanasius himself to find out.

St. Athanasius: "May God console you! … What saddens you … is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way …

"You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

The situation in St. Athanasius’ days is very similar to that of our day; the difference being that the heresy and scandal of our day is much worse. In his day they only denied the Divinity of Jeus: today everything is denied.

Athanasius stook virtually alone. The famous saying was" Athanasius contra mundum - Athanasius against the world

Someone said to St. Athanasius: “But all the Bishops are against you”. His reply was “that just shows that all the Bishops are wrong”.

The following are just a few more quote from that time:

A.D. 360: Saint Gregory Nazianzen: “Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for excepting a very few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel (the Church. ed.) by the influence of the Spirit, all temporised, only differing from each other in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle, being overcome by fear, or by interests, or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance”.

Ad 372, Saint Basil: “Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in the Faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude, with groans and tears to the Lord in Heaven.”

continue

 

[USMC]

continue

Four years St. Basil writes: “Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assembled in the deserts, – a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snowstorms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven." Again: "Only one offense is now vigorously punished an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries and transported into deserts.”

The Faith of the Early Fathers, by Fr. Jurgens: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory [Nazianzen]'s present preaching (A.D. 380), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.” (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 39.)

Bishop Rudolph Graber, in his book “Athanasius and the Church of Our Time”: “What happened over 1600 years ago [at the time of the Arian heresy] is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria [the patriarchal see of St.Athanasius] is today the whole universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into silence of being ignored; killing, by assassination of character.”

Our days are not without precedent and neither are the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. Time will tell if his actions were justified or not.

John Henry Cardinal Newman called St. Athanasius, not Pope Liberius (the Pope at the time), the “principal instrument, after the Apostles, by which the sacred truths of Christianity have been conveyed and secured to the world.”

Will the same be said of Archbishop Lefebvre? Time will tell. Today it is “Lefebvre contra mundum”

 

[USMC]

Fortiterinre:

A Decree on Ecumenism by an Ecumencial Council is doctrinal, not a matter of policy.

You better tell that to the Pope, because he thinks Vatican II defined no doctrines at all:

Cardinal Ratzinger: “The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest” (given 13 July 1988, in Santiago, Chile before that nation’s Bishops).

.

 

[Fortiterinre]

USMC, I cringe every time I see “continue” at the bottom of your post. If you are a member of the SSPX then declare yourself already. I am a Catholic, I believe everything the Church teaches, and schism will never be the answer no matter how messed up things get. Your mega-posts are not helping your cause as much as answering the questions we asked you would.

 

[Fortiterinre]

USMC:

You better tell that to the Pope, because he thinks Vatican II defined no doctrines at all:

Cardinal Ratzinger: “The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest” (given 13 July 1988, in Santiago, Chile before that nation’s Bishops).

.

Surely with all this quoting you know the difference between dogma and doctrine. I have no problem with anything Cardinal Ratzinger said, but then I believe he’s succeeded JPII as the pope, and you haven’t answered that question. I have no intention of over-emphasizing Vatican II, believe me, there are plenty of days when I’m sick of hearing about it. But it can’t be dismissed either.

 

[USMC]

Fortiterinre:

USMC, I cringe every time I see “continue” at the bottom of your post.

I am not surprised you cringe. But are you cringing, or are you holding your fingers in your ears, jumping up and down and saying “I can’t hear you”?

If you are a member of the SSPX then declare yourself already.

Are you ready for the admission? I am not a member of the SSPX.

I am a Catholic, I believe everything the Church teaches,

I too am a Catholic and believe everything the Church teaches.

and schism will never be the answer no matter how messed up things get.

I agree, schism is not good and will not solve any problems. But, are they in schism? From what appears on the surface, it does appear so. But keep in mind, it also appeared on the surface that St. Athanasius’ and his followers were “outside the Church”. Why did it appear that way? Because they WERE outside the church buildings (read his letter).

Schism is when a group separates itself from the Church by denying the authority of the Pope and refusing communion with the members of the Church.

The SSPX does not deny the authority of the Pope, and they do not refuse communion with those in the Catholic Church. They just refuse to associate with the “wicked liberal leaven”. Remember the quote from St. Basil, who said those who were strong in the faith avoided the “wicked Arian leaven”? Well today it is a “wicked liberal leaven”, which is far worse.

I don’t want to get into a defense of the canonical situation of the SSPX. They may be in schism, and they may not. My personal opinion, for what it’s worth (and that’s not much), is that the Archbishop was justified in what he did; that in th end they will be vindicated and, like St. Athanasius, who stood virtually alone against the world, Archbishop Lefebvre will be canonized. That is what I think.

Your mega-posts are not helping your cause as much as answering the questions we asked you would.

Is there any question I have not answered? I thought the problem was that my answers were too long.

 

[USMC]

Fortiterinre:

A Decree on Ecumenism by an Ecumencial Council is doctrinal, not a matter of policy…

Surely with all this quoting you know the difference between dogma and doctrine.

Yes I do, but here is something that I really and truly do not know: what is the “doctrine” of ecumenism. I am very anxious to hear this definition.

 

[Fortiterinre]

You still have not answered if you believe John Paul II was the pope, if Benedict XVI is the pope. Why AREN’T you a member of SSPX if they are right and the pope is wrong? Your very long quotes create a dichotomy between the Church and the Magisterium and are every bit as bad as the people who constantly compare the Magisterium to the Pharisees. Below is the link to Unitatis Redintegratio, why don’t you quote the parts to which you object. That would certainly focus the discussion. Meanwhile I will go find Ecclesia Dei about the excommunication; it should be a desktop icon as often as I paste it on these forums. As for Marcel Lefebvre, I am reminded of Tacitus: *Omnium consensus capax imperii nisi imperasset *(All would have thought him fit to rule, if only he never had).

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

 

[Fortiterinre]

APOSTOLIC LETTER***
“ECCLESIA DEI”
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO
***1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)

1. This affliction was particularly felt by the Successor Peter to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church,(2) even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few. For every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the Cross for the salvation of all.

The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted, provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his Church.

1. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.

 

[Iohannes]

Is the government required to submit to the laws of Christ? The answer is yes!

1. It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power. Nevertheless, during his life on earth he refrained from the exercise of such authority, and although he himself disdained to possess or to care for earthly goods, he did not, nor does he today, interfere with those who possess them. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia.[27]

 

[Iohannes]

From the same encylical: Quas Primas:
Here is true liberty!!!

1. When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord’s regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen’s duty of obedience. It is for this reason that St. Paul, while bidding wives revere Christ in their husbands, and slaves respect Christ in their masters, warns them to give obedience to them not as men, but as the vicegerents of Christ; for it is not meet that men redeemed by Christ should serve their fellow-men.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11PRIMA.HTM