Stuff the SSPX are wrong about

[bear06]

In your post, you started off by saying: “At the very best this [story] is a friend of a friend of a friend story with absolutely no proof.”

I think we’re talking about 2 different things in your post. I’m talking of the Hell’s Angels post.

Not so. Fr. McLucas, who tells the story on the tape, is the priest who took part in the sacrilege. He blames himself as much as anyone else.

Just out of curiosity. If he took part in a sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist, isn’t he automatically excommunicated? and isn’t the lifting of this excommuncation reserved only to the Pope? Just curious. Anyone know about this?

 

[batteddy]

I think they are wrong about Quo Primum.

As if a Pope could bind all future Popes in matters purely of discipline or liturgical form! The arguments in this regard are contrived and laughable.

But I also believe Cardinal Kasper is way off the mark when it comes to the true meanings of ecumenism. Way too liberal and modernist.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

USMC:

Here you go:

Priest: Father James McLucas
Tape name: “A Priest’s Heartache and Hope: Reflections on the Present Moment”
Cost: $5

Ordering instruction:

UVOC
980 Dorothea Road
La Habra Heights, CA 90631

Website: uvoc.org/tapes_and_cds.htm

In your post, you started off by saying: “At the very best this [story] is a friend of a friend of a friend story with absolutely no proof.”

Not so. Fr. McLucas, who tells the story on the tape, is the priest who took part in the sacrilege. He blames himself as much as anyone else.

I’ll have to respond to the other posts directed towards me when I have a little more time.

Before I go I have to convey my sympathy for the horror that KirkLVNV witnessed at the SSPX Mass. Let us hear in his own words the horrible abuse that he was forced to endure:

KirkLVNV: "… the [SSPX] priest reach[ed] the minor elevation while the choir is still on Mysterium Fidei… ".

The chior was still singing the Mysterium Fidei during the minor elevation? Someone must put a stop to such madness!

Yeah, they absolutely should, as well as the entire Mass being said *sotto voce *(mumbled, more like). You couldn’t hear a word of any of it, let alone the silent canon. My point was, this Mass can be as abused as any and it is naive or disingenous, depending on one’s motive, to try and maintain otherwise.

 

[EddieArent]

batteddy:

I think they are wrong about Quo Primum.

As if a Pope could bind all future Popes in matters purely of discipline or liturgical form! The arguments in this regard are contrived and laughable.

But I also believe Cardinal Kasper is way off the mark when it comes to the true meanings of ecumenism. Way too liberal and modernist.

“This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever…”

“Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

“This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever…”

“Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

BUT…it regarded as a matter of DISCIPLINE, not DOGMA…so if he was including future POPES in this prohibition, he didn’t have the authority to do so.

 

[bear06]

Come on Eddie, you should know that no pope would try or could bind another in matters of discipline. Not only that, there was a revision of this Mass even before Vatican II.

Here’s a good article on the subject:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM

 

[USMC]

bear06:

Come on Eddie, you should know that no pope would try or could bind another in matters of discipline.

Is Quo Primum merely a disciplinary decree that can be changed, or is it dogmatic?

You decide: catholictradition.org/quo-primum.htm

 

[JKirkLVNV]

USMC:

Is Quo Primum merely a disciplinary decree that can be changed, or is it dogmatic?

You decide: catholictradition.org/quo-primum.htm

Like the Scriptures, Quo Primum means what the magisterium of the Church says it means. He did not have the authority to bind future popes on matters of discipline, even if he thought he did, saint though he may be. Otherwise, the whole of the Church (and I don’t count the SSPX in there, so don’t bother saying “not the whole of the Church!” They are schismatics most certainly and possibly heretics) has been lead into error by the Pope who promulgated it and the last three Popes who have celebrated it.

 

[bear06]

USMC:

Is Quo Primum merely a disciplinary decree that can be changed, or is it dogmatic?

You decide: catholictradition.org/quo-primum.htm

I think you’re missing the point. The Church, when it instituted the Pauline Mass, decided. It’s not up to me, you, Marcel Lefebvre or anyone else besides the Magisterium.

 

[bear06]

BTW, I can’t believe we’re even looking at Fr. Paul Kramer as an authority. Heaven forbid we look to the past 2 popes. Let’s look at the guy who supports Feeney and Gruner. What do you think he’s going to say?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholic Dude:

Im not sure what probabilism or casuistry is, but I read the other post you put up which were good .

Thanks. As for probabilism, here’s a quick primer…

Casuisty - “a resolving of specific cases of conscience, duty, or conduct through interpretation of ethical principles or religious doctrine” (Webster’s)

According to Fr. Servais Pinckaers, O.P., *The Sources of Christian Ethics, *(1995):

The traditional position, valid moreover in every field, was to tip doubt toward the solution having the best reasons in its favor.

Probabilism seems to have originated with Spanish Dominican, Bartholomew of Medina, who wrote in 1580:

“It seems to me that if an opinion is probable, it is lawful to follow it, even if the opposite opinion is more probable.” (ibid)

I agree with Fr. Pinckaers’ assessment of the rather untraditional casuistry called probablism:

"In weighing reasons in favor of freedom or of law in doubtful cases, it was permissible [under *probabilism] to follow the opinion in favor of freedom if it was probable and was supported by good reasons, even if the opposite opinion, maintaining a legal obligation, was based on better reasons.

Without fully realizing it, Bartholomew of Medina and his followers had passed the frontier of reason, which naturally favors the opinion with the best reasons behind it. Conscience, as a result, lost its balance

Probablism is used (incorrectly) to justify dissenters of Catholic teaching on contraception, as well as a whole range of modernist objections, just as it is use by the SSPX in their dissent with Vatican II, canon law, and liturgical norms. This irony should give any real “traditionalist” the willies.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

“This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever…”

“Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

This is simply Canon law terminology for “all things to the contrary notwithstanding.” It means it is binding until the Supreme Legislator of the Catholic Church lawfully declares otherwise.

See next post for canonical precedence of this in Catholic history…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From Matt1618’s article In Defense of the Pauline Mass:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html :*An interesting parallel is in 1568 the Apostolic Constitution Quod a Vobix. Here the Pope established the new Roman Breviary with forceful language fully as strong as used in Quo Primum. The so-called Traditionalist view, if to be consistent, (just as they highlight there be absolutely no change to the Missal) would have to argue that there could be no change to the Roman Breviary. If that was the case, why did St. Pope Pius X, not hesitate to revise the Roman Breviary in 1911 by means of his own Apostolic Constitution Divino Afflatu? Just as Pope Pius X made a revision, so did Pope Paul VI revise the Roman Missal by means of his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum. There were no so-called traditionalists around complaining that Pope St. Pius did not have such authority. The reason is that the Popes did have the authority to revise the Roman Breviary, as well as the Missal.
*
Quod a Vobis says this about the Breviary, just as Quo Primum says about the Roman Missal:

“Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult declaration, will decree and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

What happened? Pope St. Pius X CHANGED THE BREVIARY by his 1911 Apostolic Constitution Divino Afflatu.

Hmmmm…seems their poor polemic falls flat on its face…again.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

itsjustdave1988:

From Matt1618’s article In Defense of the Pauline Mass:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html :An interesting parallel is in 1568 the Apostolic Constitution Quod a Vobix. Here the Pope established the new Roman Breviary with forceful language fully as strong as used in Quo Primum. The so-called Traditionalist view, if to be consistent, (just as they highlight there be absolutely no change to the Missal) would have to argue that there could be no change to the Roman Breviary. If that was the case, why did St. Pope Pius X, not hesitate to revise the Roman Breviary in 1911 by means of his own Apostolic Constitution Divino Afflatu? Just as Pope Pius X made a revision, so did Pope Paul VI revise the Roman Missal by means of his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum. There were no so-called traditionalists around complaining that Pope St. Pius did not have such authority. The reason is that the Popes did have the authority to revise the Roman Breviary, as well as the Missal.

Quod a Vobis says this about the Breviary, just as Quo Primum says about the Roman Missal:

“Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult declaration, will decree and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

What happened? Pope St. Pius X CHANGED THE BREVIARY by his 1911 Apostolic Constitution Divino Afflatu.

Hmmmm…seems their poor polemic falls flat on its face…again.

Dave: You should pursue the diaconate.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JKirkLVNV:

Dave: You should pursue the diaconate.

I keep praying about it. I have some unholy habits I’m trying to conquer first. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif

 

[JKirkLVNV]

itsjustdave1988:

I keep praying about it. I have some unholy habits I’m trying to conquer first. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif

I’m jonesing for a cig now, I hear ya. You pray for me and I’ll pray for you.

 

[USMC]

DavidJoseph:

USMC, did you not see my post earlier in this thread regarding St. Athanasius? Here it is if you didn’t see it: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1027514&postcount=72

The following is the above mentioned post:

DavidJoseph:

It is wrong to compare Archbishop Lefebvre to St. Athanasius. Most of St. Athanasius’ persecutors were themselves heretics, usurpers or intrusive emperors. One exception was, of course, Pope Liberius, who under duress condemned Athanasius in 357.

Things often seem clear to us when we are separated from the actual events, but when we are in the midst of them, the clarity become greatly diminished. Think about what you just wrote: You said the persecuters of Athanaius were mostly heretics. True, but that is because just about all of the hierarchy believed and taught that particular heresy. They did not have a sign on their head saying “we are heretics”. They claimed that they were teaching the truth. Cardinal Newman said that about 90% of the hierarchy were Arian. In the book “The Faith of our Fathers” it is said that only 1% to 3% were not led astray by that that error. So, we can rephrase what you wrote by saying this: “Virtually all of the hierarchy, including the Pope, was against Athanasius”. Of course it was later said that Pope Liberius excommunicated St. Athanasius under durress, but who knew that at the time? All that was know was that St. Athanasius was teaching something different than everyone else and was excommunicated for it.

With these circumstances in mind, how difficult must it have been for those who supported the excommunicated schismatic St. Athanasius? How strong would their faith have had to be in order to stand with him “againts the world” (Athanasius contra mundum)? Who would have had a strong enough faith (certitude in their belief) to be absolutely sure that what virtually all the hierarchy was teaching was heresy; and that Athanasius, who was excommunicated by the Pope, and banned from his diocese, was right?

And the heresy was actually pretty convincing when you really look into it and consider how it was probably presented. I am pretty sure that if I explained that heresy to you, I could confuse you. In fact, the opposite of that heresy is alive and well today, and it has entrapped many priests and laity: the opposite heresy is this: They do not claim, as did the Arians, that Jesus is not God; rather, they claim that man becomes god. It is basically the same fundamental error, but in reverse. I was confronted with this error in confession years ago by a very evil modernist “theologian”. I knew at once it was an error, but it actually took me about one full year of thinking about it before I grasped the precise error, and was able to completely refute it (which I did in a letter to that priest).

But the point is: it may seem very clear to us today that Athanasius was right, and all the others were wrong, but that is only because we are not living in the midst of that confusion. If we were in the midst of that confusion it would not be so clear. And, judging by what most people do today, when they became a little confused, and not exactly sure what to think, they would simply hold fast to what the majority of the clergy was teaching at the time, which was, or course, heresy.
David Joseph:

By contrast Archbishop Lefebvre has defied legitimate holders of ecclesiastical office, including Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

St. Athanasius did the same: According the the Catholic encyclopedia “the old charges”, against Athanasius, “were refurbished with a graver ecclesiastical accusation added by way of rider. Athanasius had ignored the decision of a duly authoriized synod. He had returned to his see without the summons of excclesiastical a authority… Constantius was induced to prepare drastic measures against Athanasius and the priests who were devoted to him. Ordeers were given that if the Saint attempted to return to his see, he should be put to death” (newadvent.org).

Athanasius was persecuted and condemned many times by the legitimate authorities. “In 355 a council was held at Milan, where… a fourth condemnation of Athanasius was announced to the world… On the night of 8 February, 356… a band of armed men burst into secure his arrest. It was the beginning if his third exile” (Catholic Encyclopedia).

It may seem very clear to us living today that St. Athanasiu was right, and virtually everyone else was wrong, but would we really have thought if we lived at that time?

continue

 

[USMC]

continuation

There is one big difference between then and today. The difference is that the errors of today are much more easily recognized since they have been solemnly condemned by the Popes many times, and anyone who has access to a computer can read these magisterial documents. Back then, in the days of the Arian heresy, the availability of information was no where near what it is today. They could not sit down and study dozens of papal encyclicals that condemn the Arian heresy. Today, however, we can study the magisterial documents that condemn our modern errors. Studying (and learning( the past magisterial documents that exposed and condemned the errors of our day is the answer. That, combined with prayer, is the only way to will keep from being deceived in this day of deception and error. That is why Traditional Catholics never tire if quoting old Papal Encyclicals. These encyclical are the light for our day of darkness.

Most people today have been so deceived that they believe that the errors which were explicitly condemned yesterday are no longer errors today! They have been led to believe that “everything changed at Vatican II” (the exact words a priest once said to me), and that the Church simply has a “new understanding” of what it used to teach. They justify this complete reversal by claiming that the doctrine has “developed”. I’m sure that is what the Arians said as well.

Many people (but certainly not all) see the complete contradiction between what was taught prior to Vatican II, and what is taught today by virtually all of the hierarchy, yet they cannot bring themselves to reject these condemned errors.

So, in conclusion, just like Archbishop Lefebvre, St. Athanasius was excommunicated by the Pope and stood virtually alone against the hierarchy of his day. The Church was in a crisis back then, it is in crisis today; heresy was everywhere back then, it is everywhere today. The difference between then and now is that today things are far worse. Back then the sacraments were not being tampered with and the liturgy had not become corrupted. Today is far worse. Athanasius gave every appearance of being an excommunicated schismatic, but in the end he was canonized. The reason Athanasius was justified in doing what he did (and praised for it) is because faith is greater than obedience. He refused to go along with the errors, and not speak out against them, under the guise of false obedience. When the faith is being attacked, actions that normally would not be justified, are both allowed and even necessary. It was true then and it is true today.

Today the faith is being undermined by those at the highest levels of the Church. During his 26 years as Pope, John Paul II “the great” took no effective actions to correct the abuses within the Church, which only got worse with each passing year. And his own actions would have been condemned by any Pope prior to 1960. For example: He invited those of false religions, including snake worshippers and Animists (devil worshippers) to the Vatican and in order to offer worship to their false gods in the hopes that this mortal sin, and violation of the first commandment, would bring about “world peace”. Are we in the twilight zone? He praised one of the worst heretics in the history of Christianity, and signed an agreement with the Lutherans which says we are justified by “faith alone”. He signed the Belamand agreement which assures the schismatic Orthodox, who reject Papal Primacy, that Catholics will not try to convert them. Honorius did far less and was condemned as a heretic by a future Pope. Yet John Paul II is called “the great”. If the actions of John Paul II made him “great” then someone owes Pope Honorius an apology.

continue

 

[USMC]

continuation

The days that we are living in are almost unbelievable. How many people back in the 4th century rejected the “schismatic” Athanasius, continued going to their local parish, and eventually became infected with the Arian heresy themselves? And how many people today reject what Archbishop Lefebvre did, continue to go to their local corrupted Parishes, and have become infected with the errors of liberalism and modernism? Sin is like leprosy. If we mingle too close to the lepers (liberals and modernists) we too will become infected with their spiritual disease. This is exactly what has happened in our day, and what has caused so many Catholics to lose the faith. The following stats were posted by TPJCatholic on another thread:

“70% of all Catholics surveyed do not believe in the Real Presence.
Only 25% go to Mass regularly.
Only 5-10% of Catholics go to regular confession.
Something like 30% of people raised Catholic receive Confirmation.
Divorce rate among Catholics is high.
Abortion among Catholics is high.
Birth control is high among catholics.”

“By their fruits you shall know them”

Faith is greater than obedience. When the faith is under attack, as it is today and as it was during the Arian crisis, things that in normal times would not be allowed, become justified. That is why I firmly believe that it is more than justifiable to attend Mass at an SSPX Church during our day of apostasy.

(NOTE: I will be going out of town for a few weeks starting Monday, so I won’t be able to respond to any posts.)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

And how many people today reject what Archbishop Lefebvre did, continue to go to their local corrupted Parishes, and have become infected with the errors of liberalism and modernism?

I reject the Jansenest propositions and disobedience of Lefebvre just as much as the errors of liberalism and modernism. One does not need to embrace one sinful extreme in order to reject another.