Stuff the SSPX are wrong about

[itsjustdave1988]

Athanasius had ignored the decision of a duly authoriized synod.
**

St. Athanasius never rejected the decisions of an ecumenical council ratified by the pope. Nor did he dissent with the doctrines of the pope. We can learn a lot from St. Athanasius.

We should all reject Lefebvre and the claims of his apologists because they reject the decisions of an ecumencial council ratified by Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.

How many popes before Lefebvrists will realize that they are wrong? Will they, like the Old Catholics who rejected Vatican I, remain in their schism even after 4 more popes? At what point does the absurdity of their position become clear? Or will they, like the faithful at Campos realize that, “If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.” (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November against dissenting priests, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Faith is greater than obedience.

According to St. Catherine of Sienna, doctor of the Catholic Church:

"For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil. (Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza)

 

[USMC]

itsjustdave1988:

According to St. Catherine of Sienna, doctor of the Catholic Church:

"For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil. (Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza)

That is true except in matters of faith. If a Pope devaites from the faith, he CAN be disobeyed and contradicted.

POPE PAUL IV, CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO: “1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing [the Protestant Reformation], We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind * is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,* who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.”

Faith is greater than obedience. If a Pope deviates from the faith, they should not be followed. For example you should never invite a snake worshipper to your Church and ask them to commit the mortal sin of breaking the first commandment. That would be just as wrong for you as it was for John Paul II.

Also note that the above magisterial document shows that it is certainly within the realm of possibility that a Pope could deviate from the faith.

 

[USMC]

One more thing. The danger of blindly following a Pope who deviates from the faith is that those who follow them in the errors will themselves be in error.

For example, if a Pope were to sign a document that agreed with the Lutheran heretics that we are “justified by faith alone”, those Catholic who blindly followed them, may themselves attempt to defend that heresy, and thus fall into error themselves

BTW, since John Paul II signed that document with the Lutherans, I am curious what you now believe. Do you believe that man is justified by faith ALONE?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Also note that the above magisterial document shows that it is certainly within the realm of possibility that a Pope could deviate from the faith.

Certainly, their teaching as a private person, pastor, homilist, etc. by their bad example, most definitely, the pope can harm the faith. But not when exercising his papal authority, whether in his ordinary or solemn teachings to the universal Church.

For example, John XXII taught erroneously regarding the Beatific Vision. His teachings were not presented by him as sententia certa, by his own admission, but were speculative, and at the time related to things still not yet defined by the Church. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, *as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. *

So, as long as what is taught is NOT formal doctrinal pronouncements of the Vicar of Christ to the universal Church to be held as sententia certa of the Catholic Church (Ratzinger’s books, for example), then there is a theoretical possibility that it may be heretical. Never has the Church ever judged a pope to be heretical, however, so this is merely a theoretical possibility. Honorius was condemned, for example, for his poor defense against heresy, not for positively teaching heresy.

Thus, although Paul IV was neither canonized nor a doctor of the Church, and whose reign as pope was a great disappointment (see newadvent.org/cathen/11581a.htm), I agree with his assertion that the pope theoretically can teach heresy, but this is confined to his speculative opinions, not when he speaks formally and authoritatively as the pope. Consequently, I agree with Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman and St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine…

“I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience…when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak…therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience*” *(John Henry Newman, “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman (1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26)

History shows us that at no point has the formal and authoritative ordinary or solemn papal pronouncements to the universal Church have ever been contrary to the faith. Never. History also shows us that heresy and schism is always a result of disobedience to the pope. Always. And never was there ever a heretic or schismatic who simply submitted with humble obedience to the formal teachings and judgement of the pope. Never. It is always those who fancy themselves more Catholic than the pope that start heresies and schisms.

So, even if theoretically the pope can be a heretic as a private person, such an instance has never been declared by the Church in all of Christian history. Futhermore, you ought ot note that Honorius was condemend because of his poor defense of the Faith BY ANOTHER POPE. He was not condemend for his positive teaching of heretical views. So, Honorius was definitely condemend BY ANOTHER POPE. Why? Because only another pope HAS THE AUTHORITY to condemn another pope. Has this happened for John XXIII? Paul VI? John Paul I, John Paul II? Has any POPE every condemend the teachings of these prior popes as error? If not, then I suggest ALL YOU HAVE is the theoretical possibility that these men may have been heretical in their private opinions, yet you cannot prove it. And if that is the basis for disobedience, then it is a weak and rather untraditional basis indeed.

Tell me, do you agree or disagree with Pope St. Pius X’s allocution: “If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.” (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November against dissenting priests, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Perhaps the Society of St. Pius X ought to change their name to the Society of Paul IV. As it seems they reject St. Pius X’s allocution against those that dissent from the pope, in favor of fanciful theories derived from Paul IV’s constitution.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

USMC:

Do you believe that man is justified by faith ALONE?

De ja vu … see here: Are we justified by faith alone?

 

[Dropper]

Here’s a question. Would any one of you who are aruging against the SSPX say that procuring Bishop Williamson (SSPX) to perform some conformations would consitute a schismatic act?

Just curious…

 

[migurl]

I think that the poor education Catholics have been recieving has resulted in Masses that are less reverent. I mean, if people really understood what mass was about and what was going on, they wouldn’t need upbeat music and hand clapping, they wouldn’t need to spend 10 minutes waling around giving the sign of peace to everyone they know. Homily’s would have much more power beacuse of the atmosphere, and perhaps priests would find the courage to talk about social immorality and exactly what are responsibilities as catholics are in the world today.

People have spent so much time trying to make mass more fun or more exciting, what could possibly be more exciting and fulfilling than being in the real prescence of CHrist?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

USMC-

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”.

At the Council of Nicea there were 318 Bishops who were orthodox (and that is only counting the ones who attended the council). You make it sound as if today there is only Lefebvre holding onto the truth.

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?

Your way oversimplifying this situation. Athanasius was not the only orthodox Christian left in the world. Not to mention most of the problem was in the east.

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.

Where do they say/teach “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).

We dont know what your talking about here? What did the Priest say? “I absolve you, go and become God”? Was that priest John Paul II?

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.

Again, oversimplifying to make your case sound stronger. There are many priest who are good orthodox men, the ones who arent orthodox are tarnishing the rest.

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).

It seems like you left out some important information in the article here is what it says a few sentences down from where you first quote:…Within a very few weeks he set out for Rome to lay his case before the Church at large. He had made his appeal to Pope Julius, who took up his cause with a whole-heartedness that never wavered down to the day of that holy pontiff’s death. The pope summoned a synod of bishops to meet in Rome. After a careful and detailed examination of the entire case,** the primate’s innocence was proclaimed to the Christian world**.
Also it goes onto say:Early in the year 343 we find the undaunted exile in Gaul, whither he had gone to consult the saintly Hosius, the great champion of orthodoxy in the West. The two together set out for the Council of Sardica which had been summoned in deference to the Roman pontiff’s wishes. At this great gathering of prelates the case of Athanasius was taken up once more; and once more was his innocence reaffirmed. …

…Meanwhile the Eusebian party had gone to Philippopolis, where they issued an anathema against Athanasius and his supporters. …Constantius was induced to prepare drastic measures against Athanasius and the priests who were devoted to him. Orders were given that if the Saint attempted to re-enter his see, he should be put to death.
The information you have presented sofar is misleading.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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?

Again here is more info you left out of your quote:
Pope Julius had died in the month of April, 352, and Liberius had succeeded him as Sovereign Pontiff. For two years Liberius had been favourable to the cause of Athanasius; but driven at last into exile, he was induced to sign an ambiguous formula, from which the great Nicene test, the homoöusion, had been studiously omitted. In 355 a council was held at Milan, where in spite of the vigorous opposition of a handful of loyal prelates among the Western bishops, a fourth condemnation of Athanasius was announced to the world. With his friends scattered, the saintly Hosius in exile, the Pope Liberius denounced as acquiescing in Arian formularies, Athanasius could hardly hope to escape. On the night of 8 February…
Your misleading information is not helping your case one bit, its no different that protestants selectively citing Scirpture.

 

[bear06]

Dropper:

Here’s a question. Would any one of you who are aruging against the SSPX say that procuring Bishop Williamson (SSPX) to perform some conformations would consitute a schismatic act?

Just curious…

Now, none of us can really pronounce anyone a schismatic but I would guess that most people who would try and get Bishop Williamson to confirm them would probably have adhered to the schism but, like I said, it would only be speculative.

Why would anyone want Bishop Williamson, lover of Poem of the Man-God which made the banned book list in, I think, 1959? This always amazes me that someone who would call themselves a traditionalist would ever dare to promote that piece of garbage.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

USMC-

You have one unfounded case with Athanasius for disregarding papal authority, but somehow it has become acceptable today? Why did the past Popes not condemn this? Why was there not a section to the Syllabus of Errors devoted to open defyance of Papal Authority? Did they think it was acceptable or something?

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 never heard such things from any Priest I know. Your twisting and confusing issues. The first is the average misinformed Catholic. The second is the Church leadership, especially the Pope and official Church teaching. Your mixing the two groups to make your schismatic views fit.

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.

Your living in dreamland. So much changed in the world in the last 50-100 years your in total dreamland to talk like that. To start off two main points: 2 world wars as well as lesser ones, and a huge turn in technology, cars, tv, phones, etc that changed the way people live. To say its V2 is living in la la land outside of reality. Go back and read that Arian article you were selectively citing from, look at how much influence on the Arian situation that outside influences had, like the state of the empire, political divisions, the Emperrors themselves, etc.

So, in conclusion, just like Archbishop Lefebvre, St. Athanasius was excommunicated by the Pope and stood virtually alone against the hierarchy of his day.

Gross oversimplification. Infact its such gross oversimplifcations that are at the heart of all second generation followers of schisms.

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.

The pope is the leader, he does what he wants. We are nothing compared to the successor of Peter in terms of auhtority. And to smear his name in such shameful manner only reveals your true colors.
You make it sound as if he walked by abuses everyday and started clapping.

And his own actions would have been condemned by any Pope prior to 1960.

I assure you one thing. That all popes in history have condemned open defyance to their Authority.

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”.

And you were there to see it? How did you get that information? Im not saying it didnt happen, all Im getting at is that you have your priorities confused. The biggest error held today is people like you who think what the pope does is their business. Second of all your jumping to conclusions on what “sins” and commandment “violating” that the Pope “committed”.

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”.

If you have actually read that document you will see in the end it basically was a “we both agree to disagree” type statements. (It is also often used as an attack tool by rad trads who dont support such claims with citations from it)

He signed the Belamand agreement which assures the schismatic Orthodox, who reject Papal Primacy, that Catholics will not try to convert them.

Go back and read my first post on this thread, where I showed the Lefebvrists attacking the orthodox for not submitting to the Pope. And then look at who is the group not submitting to papal authority.

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.

Again the deep rooted modernism displayed again in your words. You hold the unCatholic notion that your opinion matters in terms of Papal Authority. Notice that it was a pope that condemned a pope, not a nobody like you trashing and condemning a good man.

 

[Dropper]

bear06:

Now, none of us can really pronounce anyone a schismatic but I would guess that most people who would try and get Bishop Williamson to confirm them would probably have adhered to the schism but, like I said, it would only be speculative.

I only ask because a lot of the people here (not necessarily you) seem to throw around the terms schismatic/shism when referring the SSPX quite frequently.

I also ask, because there is an actual case where some Catholics requested Bishop Willimason to perform confirmations in Hawaii. The Bishop then sent them a formal canonical warning. The letter stated…

by that very association with the aforementioned bishop (you) incurred ipso facto the grave censure of excommunication

They appealed the “excommunication” it was overturned.

If they were not in schism, then it would seem that most if not all of SSPX attendees would not be in schism.

Here’s a link with all the information and copies of the letters…

Honolulu Diocese and the “Hawaii Six”

 

[Catholic_Dude]

USMC-

“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.”

*And what is this “data” supposed to prove? Where does the Church teach that the Real Presence, attending mass, being confirmed, are bad/errors? Where does it teach divorce and abortion are ok? As usual bogus data used as filler to make your schismatic views work out. Infact it was John Paul II that was in the very midst of the wide spread use of birth control and abortion from the late 70’s to present was the one who condemned such things regularly. Not many popes have had to deal with such wide spread errors, especially on a global scale.

“By their fruits you shall know them”

Exactly, thats why to take a few things you dont like from John Pauls life and build your hatred for him around them, while ignoring the rest of what he did.

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.

Wake up sir, your fed lies by those dogs and buying into them. The prey on second generation followers like you and entice you will half truths and even lies to suck you in. In the little amount of Luther’s work I have read I see the same tactics, he trashes the Pope and Catholics in general with cheap shots here and there, until luther’s audience can only see Catholics as evil nomatter what. This hanging on to the Lefebvrists versions of Athanasius that you ignore the facts and common sense. You clearly showed that in your selective citing of the Catholic Encyclopedia article.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

USMC:

That is true except in matters of faith. If a Pope devaites from the faith, he CAN be disobeyed and contradicted.

Luther couldnt be more pleased! Spoken like a true protestant.

 

[twiztedseraph]

Wow, I put this thread up just for a few quick rebuttles…look at it now lol Keep the posts coming guys.

 

[bear06]

Dropper:

I only ask because a lot of the people here (not necessarily you) seem to throw around the terms schismatic/shism when referring the SSPX quite frequently.

I also ask, because there is an actual case where some Catholics requested Bishop Willimason to perform confirmations in Hawaii. The Bishop then sent them a formal canonical warning. The letter stated…

They appealed the “excommunication” it was overturned.

If they were not in schism, then it would seem that most if not all of SSPX attendees would not be in schism.

Here’s a link with all the information and copies of the letters…

Honolulu Diocese and the “Hawaii Six”

Dropper,

I’m starting to think these are not innocent questions on your behalf but a way to drop more SSPX “info” on people. Why in heaven’s name do people keep using SSPX as the authority of the Church?

If you don’t already know this, and since you read the SSPX sites I’m assuming you do, Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated anyone who would not cease associating with the SSPX in the Lincoln Diocese. These excommunications were upheld by the Vatican.

As far the Hawaii Six are concerned, even Chuck Wilson who defended the Hawaii Six says you conclusion is wrong.

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=132
ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/BOTHWAYS.HTM

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dropper:

Would any one of you who are aruging against the SSPX say that procuring Bishop Williamson (SSPX) to perform some conformations would consitute a schismatic act?

It depends upon whether or not the recipient was acting in “good faith.” Good faith presumes unintended ignorance. Absent of such ignorance, it is at least sinful disobedience to the Vicar of Christ, and may be a schismatic act dependent upon whether or not the recipient is formally adhering to the schismatic Lefebvrist movement.

John Paul II himself called the Lefebvrist movement “the schism” in his encyclical Ecclesia Dei - John Paul II - Motu Proprio (2 July 1988)

According to John Paul II,

“In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”

According to *Unam Sanctum *(1302), “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

What John Paul II pronounced in a papal encyclical demands our consent, unless it is loosed or abrogate by the Roman Pontiff.

According to Pius XII, Humani Generis,:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

Can one be subject to the Roman Pontiff by disregarding his Encyclicals?

According to Pope Piux IX:

And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church. (Denzinger 1698)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If they were not in schism, then it would seem that most if not all of SSPX attendees would not be in schism.

Wow. It’s difficult to decide which textbook logical fallacy this exemplifies, but here are two likely candidates…

Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population
Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole

I’m thinking maybe it’s a combination of the two. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif