The Latest Public Statement of the SSPX

[Melchior_1]

The remedies of the past may not suit the current crisis. Bishops permitting CITH, altar girls, dull music, a heavily edited mass in the vernacular, a wholesale loss of respect for the sacred, ‘no one goes to Hell’, the ordination of homosexuals, Communion without confession, the altar table …

Actually, I’m wrong.

All the above looks very like what happened in the UK after the Reformation. Apart from the altar girls. Took a while to make a woman a vicar but they got there in the end. The first generation of Protestants didn’t realise that they were no longer Catholics, I read. But their children and grandchildren were Catholic no more.

The SSPX, AFAIK, just want the sacraments in the older forms and unambiguous doctrine. At the time of the schismatic act (the ordination of their own bishops), it looked like the church in France had lost its mind. I haven’t read all of ‘Letter to Confused Catholics’ but I remember what Abp Lefevbre wrote about what he saw.

IMPORTANT: Anyone younger than 60 no has no idea of what and how people believed prior to 60’s. I mean fervent belief, a fear of Judgement and Hell, a knowledge of the Catechism, the TLM as part of everyday life and automatic respect for clergy. Also, given that disease and war would take family members quite easily, a real fear of death.

So now imagine going from that, to what goes on in the average parish today.

And then consider: God has repealed none of his laws. Jesus still suffers. Hell is still eternal and you go there if you die in a state of mortal sin. The Devil is still working 24/7, 365 to ensnare you. And he has it a lot easier, these days.

There have been other troubled times within the church, and no one who stood up and became a hero engaged in the same acts that His Grace and is followers did. What they did, and in some cases continue to do, is exactly what traditionalists complain about modernists and liberals.

I understand the “why”, but the “how” i find troublesome.

 

[otjm]

The remedies of the past may not suit the current crisis. Bishops permitting CITH, altar girls, dull music, a heavily edited mass in the vernacular, a wholesale loss of respect for the sacred, ‘no one goes to Hell’, the ordination of homosexuals, Communion without confession, the altar table …

Actually, I’m wrong.

All the above looks very like what happened in the UK after the Reformation. Apart from the altar girls. Took a while to make a woman a vicar but they got there in the end. The first generation of Protestants didn’t realise that they were no longer Catholics, I read. But their children and grandchildren were Catholic no more.

The SSPX, AFAIK, just want the sacraments in the older forms and unambiguous doctrine. At the time of the schismatic act (the ordination of their own bishops), it looked like the church in France had lost its mind. I haven’t read all of ‘Letter to Confused Catholics’ but I remember what Abp Lefevbre wrote about what he saw.

IMPORTANT: Anyone younger than 60 no has no idea of what and how people believed prior to 60’s. I mean fervent belief, a fear of Judgement and Hell, a knowledge of the Catechism, the TLM as part of everyday life and automatic respect for clergy. Also, given that disease and war would take family members quite easily, a real fear of death.

So now imagine going from that, to what goes on in the average parish today.

And then consider: God has repealed none of his laws. Jesus still suffers. Hell is still eternal and you go there if you die in a state of mortal sin. The Devil is still working 24/7, 365 to ensnare you. And he has it a lot easier, these days.

It would be one thing if the Church stated “no one goes to hell”, of “communion may be received without confessing mortal sins”; but the Church has never taught that. Individual priests may have. But not the Church. The rest of what you list are not matters of morals or faith; they are of discipline. And that is not what the SSPX are about. CITH was practiced to some extent up to about 1000AD =/-; and started again in limited but explicitly permitted circumstances from somewhere around 1500 AD. hardly an innovation, and again, a discipline.

And the SSPX are not just wanting unambiguous doctrine; they dispute that Vatican 2 cam be read in continuity with 2000 years of doctrine, and two popes have said not only that it could, but that it must be read that way.

And that is the essence of the issue of obedience. The four bishops may be very bright - or they may not be. Archbishop Lefebvre may or may not have been. But ordination does not necessarily make one a leading theologian; not does ordination imply that one already is. If the lawfully constituted authority of the Church - the Pope (who is, according to 2000 years of history and the Gospels protected by the Holy Spirit when speaking officially on matters of Faith and Morals) says that the documents of Vatican 2 can and must be read in continuity with the doctrinal history of the Church, then obedience requires - no, demands - that the bishops say “OK, I may not understand how, but I submit”.

Instead, they have set themselves up as an alternative Magisterium.

Which leads, logically, to the issue of sede vacantism, which seems to be what they flirt with but will not say. Either the two popes are lead by the Holy Spirit and what they say is the truth; or they are not; and if they are not, one has to logically conclude they are not valid popes, as the Holy Spirit… QED.

France may have looked like it was going to hell in a hand basket (and history may show that was not far off the mark), but the Archbishop owed obedience to the direct command of the Pope. and the Archbishop made the same mistake that many others make; coincidence is not causality. One may understand there is a problem, and be completely wrong as to the cause of the problem. Because liberal chose to misuse, abuse, or simply ignore the documents of Vatican 2 and go off on their own tangents does not mean the documents are the cause of their errors.

And as an aside; the Church has taught doctrine for 2000 years, and for 2000 years people have misinterpreted it. Given that in 2000 years people have erred (was all that doctrine ambiguous?), one should not be surprised that someone now may be doing the same, and claiming it is “ambiguous”.

Ambiguity, if it truly exists, is to be made clear by the Magisterium; and if they say it can be made clear, then one has the duty of obedience to accept their statement, whether one understands it or not; to do otherwise is to say that one has either a superior knowledge to the Magisterium, or to deny the protection of the Holy Spirit to the Magisterium - which gets us all back to going sede.

Many laity have joined in on the bandwagon. and that without, for the most cases, a training in theology. That in itself should give pause.

 

[clem456]

Ambiguity in doctrine is in the eye of the beholder. God is not ambiguous. Mysterious yes. What would God have us do when we find something ambiguous?

 

[Brendan_64]

If the lawfully constituted authority of the Church - the Pope (who is, according to 2000 years of history and the Gospels protected by the Holy Spirit when speaking officially on matters of Faith and Morals) says that the documents of Vatican 2 can and must be read in continuity with the doctrinal history of the Church, then obedience requires - no, demands - that the bishops say “OK, I may not understand how, but I submit”.

Instead, they have set themselves up as an alternative Magisterium.

Which leads, logically, to the issue of sede vacantism, which seems to be what they flirt with but will not say. Either the two popes are lead by the Holy Spirit and what they say is the truth; or they are not; and if they are not, one has to logically conclude they are not valid popes, as the Holy Spirit… QED.

You either accept the authority of the Pope on issues of faith and morals, and accept that he speaks infallibility on such issues (and on others when required) or you do not. If you don’t accept the infallibility of the Pope on such issues then you are in effect saying that he is not a valid Pope. To maintain any integrity while holding that issue you have either to be Sedevacantist or Protestant.

If the individuals of the SSPX really want to return to full Communion with Rome then all they have to do is come back home, the door has always been open to them and they will be welcomed back like the prodigal son. However if they choose to stay away and not walk through that open door then that is their choice, like the rest of humanity, they have free will. But the responsibility for their choice lies with them and on their heads (or souls) be it. The Church will not, and should not, be changed one iota just to satisfy a very tiny number of individuals who chose to throw their toys out of the pram because they didn’t agree with what their Mother has told them.

 

[Brendan_64]

IMPORTANT: Anyone younger than 60 no has no idea of what and how people believed prior to 60’s. I mean fervent belief,… and automatic respect for clergy.

Automatic respect for the clergy? The SSPX certainly could do with some of that when it comes to respect for the Pope. Or does respect for the clergy not apply also to respecting the the Pope and the doctrine of Papal Infallibility?

(The bold type and underling is mine)

 

[Lormar]

Automatic respect for the clergy? The SSPX certainly could do with some of that when it comes to respect for the Pope. Or does respect for the clergy not apply also to respecting the the Pope and the doctrine of Papal Infallibility?

(The bold type and underling is mine)

The SSPX aren’t the only ones who could do with respect for both pope and clergy.

 

[TimothyH]

We have no idea what Francis and Dominic thought about the popes of their time. We will not know until we get to heaven, because they never made a single public statement about their popes. Everyone else did. That’s how we know so much about these popes. Yet, those who said all of the things they said about these popes failed to reform the Church. Whereas Francis and Dominic, who never made a public statement and did not allow their followers to do so either, were able to rescue the Church of the 13th century. My idea of tradition begins with renewing the Church using the traditional means used by our great reformers.

These men reformed the Church, and Christ redeemed the whole world through obedience.

**Not my will but thy will be done. **(Luke 22:42)

People confuse obedience with subservience. Subservient has to do with someone who is subordinate or less important. Paul is not talking about that when he says that wives are to be obedient to their husbands. He is not saying that wives should do what their husbands tell them because they should be subordinate to their husbands or because their husbands are more important than they are. He is talking about preferring someone elses will to our own. Obedience has to do withpreferring the will of another over one’s own will as Christ did in the garden and on the Cross.

The word obedience has such negative connotations in today’s western society. I like to think of it as making someone else happy by doing what they want rather than what I want to do - “Not my will but thy will be done.”

Living out Luke 22:42 in the small things of everyday life is living out the life of Christ in the garden and on the Cross. That’s the power which redeemed all of mankind, in action, in our everyday lives. Imagine a marriage where husband and wife preferred each other’s will… wow! That’s what Paul was talking about.

That’s why I love Pope Francis. He seems to prefer the will of other’s to his own. That’s how the Vicar of Christ on Earth can be obedient, by preferring the will of others to his own.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

The remedies of the past may not suit the current crisis. Bishops permitting CITH, altar girls, dull music, a heavily edited mass in the vernacular, a wholesale loss of respect for the sacred, ‘no one goes to Hell’, the ordination of homosexuals, Communion without confession, the altar table …

The altar table is ancient.

Luther, who was a Catholic Augustinian monk, brought the freestanding altar used by the Augustinian monastics into the Lutheran Church. That’s where people get the idea that it is Protestant.

There are pictures on the internet of the freestanding altar “Table” in Benedictine abbey churches from the tenth and eleventh century.

-Tim-

 

[Reborn2013]

The SSPX aren’t the only ones who could do with respect for both pope and clergy.

Everything that I have read from the bishop fellay (granted it has not been much) has spoken about the holy father in a very reverent tone. Almost as if he goes out of his way to express respect.

 

[Lormar]

Everything that I have read from the bishop fellay (granted it has not been much) has spoken about the holy father in a very reverent tone. Almost as if he goes out of his way to express respect.

Actions speak louder than words.

 

[otjm]

Everything that I have read from the bishop fellay (granted it has not been much) has spoken about the holy father in a very reverent tone. Almost as if he goes out of his way to express respect.

One can speak in a very respectful tone and still be disobedient.

 

[ProVobis]

Ambiguity in doctrine is in the eye of the beholder. God is not ambiguous. Mysterious yes. What would God have us do when we find something ambiguous?

The question is what will God to do us after we translate in such a way as to show ambiguity and confusion.

 

[Dee_S]

If the individuals of the SSPX really want to return to full Communion with Rome then all they have to do is come back home, the door has always been open to them and they will be welcomed back like the prodigal son. However if they choose to stay away and not walk through that open door then that is their choice, like the rest of humanity, they have free will. But the responsibility for their choice lies with them and on their heads (or souls) be it. The Church will not, and should not, be changed one iota just to satisfy a very tiny number of individuals who chose to throw their toys out of the pram because they didn’t agree with what their Mother has told them.(red is mine)

I hark back to this letter (below is the introduction), because I believe that the only way to truly understand and decide ‘to stay or leave’ the SSPX is:
to know their beginnings + compare it to their present = an answer
POPE PAUL VI’S LETTER TO ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE

(This letter was sent to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre one month after he visited the Pope on September 11, 1976. The archbishop had rejected parts of the Vatican II decrees and some of the subsequent post-conciliar enactments of the Holy See and had been the object of widespread publicity as he celebrated Tridentine Masses in various parts of Europe. In June, 1976, the archbishop had defied a direct order from the Pope not to ordain seminarians at the seminary he founded in Econe, Switzerland. In this letter, the Pope told the archbishop that while pluralism in the church is legitimate, it must be a licit pluralism rooted in obedience. The Pope said the archbishop, rather than practicing obedience, had propagated and organized a rebellion. This, he added, “is the essential issue” in the archbishop’s regard. In this letter, the Pope outlined his conditions for rectifying matters, including a call for a declaration from the archbishop affirming adherence to Vatican II, a declaration that, among other things, retracts accusations or insinuations leveled against the Pope. The text of the Pope’s letter has been taken from Origins, NC Documentary Service, December 16, 1976.)

When We received you in audience on last September 11 at Castelgandolfo, We let you freely express your position and your desires, even though the various aspects of your case were already well known to Us personally. The memory that We still have of your zeal for the faith and the apostolate, as well as of the good you have accomplished in the past at the service of the church, made Us and still makes Us hope that you will once again become an edifying subject in full ecclesial communion. After the particularly serious actions that you have performed, We have once more asked you to reflect before God concerning your duty.

We have waited a month. The attitude to which your words and acts publicly testify does not seem to have changed. It is true that We have before Us your letter of September 16, in which you affirm: “A common point unites us; the ardent desire to see the cessation of all the abuses that disfigure the church. How I wish to collaborate in this salutary work with Your Holiness and under Your authority, so that the church may recover her true countenance.” How must these few words to which your response is limited - and which in themselves are positive - be interpreted? You speak as if you have forgotten your scandalous words and gestures against ecclesial communion - words and gestures that you have never retracted!

You do not manifest repentance, even for the cause of your suspension a divines. You do not explicitly express your acceptance if the authority of the Second Vatican Council and of the Holy See - and this constitutes the basis of the problem - and you continue in those personal works of yours which the legitimate authority has expressly ordered you to suspend. Ambiguity results from the 'duplicity of your language. On Our part, as We promised you, We are herewith sending you the conclusion of Our reflections…

 

[Dee_S]

Very well put, Br. JR. Great post.

I might add, with all due respect, I think fewer people would think of you as “anti-traditional” if you devoted half a much time to telling liberals on CAF to be more traditional as you do telling trads to be more open-minded. I think that is where most of the perception comes from.

Hi Rich…a perception is just that! After all, this is a forum for Traditional Catholicism - should CAF ever start one for “Liberal Catholicism” I’m pretty sure we would all head over there en masse to do our service for king and country.

To dispel the accusation of bias, read Br JR’s recent post. It’s pretty clear where he stands - exactly in the right place - he’s a Catholic
*“This is why I am often criticized for being anti tradition or anti traditionalist. I’m neither. I’m actually very traditional. Christian tradition has shown us that obedience and love of God are inseparable. Christ’s love for his Father and for us is made manifest through obedience. His was an obedience that had terrible consequences for him. He ended up being executed.”*Br JR

 

[kentcara2003]

Well said.

I second, or rather THIRD THAT?!!

We submit to the Infallibility of the Living MAGISTERIUM, THE SUPREME PONTIFF.
Who is the gift of the the Lord to His Church.

We may object to daily governance , and object conscientiously. …AND YET HUMBLY SUBMIT TO AUTHORITY…for whatever He binds will be considered bound and whatever he looses will be considered loosed in Heaven. THAT IS SUPREME AUTHORITY.!!!
It resides with the Office which Our Lord guarantees, in the person of the Holy Father.

SSPX alludes that the Pope must repent,…this implies at least implicitly… though not maliciously(as they are in good faith), AND submit to their INTERPRETATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF CHURCH TEACHINGS. They become as it were the NEW POPE. See the problem…while all the time declaring they are true to the Faith…AND YET THE Faith can never exist apart fm the Holy Father…He is the sole GUARANTOR OF ITS PURITY AND APOSTOLIC TRADITION AND UNDERSTANDING. A LIVING COURT OF APPEALS AS IT WERE…

This is making it too simplistic to some but the underlying problem is this. I may be wrong…and am open to correction as I do not know the whole intricate problem…only an overview with obvious shortcomings.

In this time and age where we can hear so many voices who claim our allegiance, WHICH LEADS US…I feel to the following and perennial question…

If the Pope is ever wrong…the question we must ask is…“WHO DO YOU SAY I AM?”

IF JESUS IS GOD…HE IS ALL POWERFUL…AND HIS LIFE GIVING DOCTRINE MUST PASS ON FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT TO THE END OF TIME…IS HE ABLE TO DO SO AND PRESERVE ONE FAITH, ONE LORD ONE BAPTISM…

IF HE IS NOT ABLE TO GRANT THAT THE THE FULLNESS OF HIS LIFE DOCTRINES ARE PASSED ON, THEN … …

HE IS NOT THE ALL-MIGHTY GOD.!!!

WHAT IS THE POINT OF COMING TO EARTH AND PROVING HE IS GOD BY MIRACLES AND YET NO ONE HAS YOUR DOCTRINE THAT GIVES FULLNESS OF LIFE…UNLESS WE FEEL 40000 CONTRADICTORY DOCTRINES AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 40001 INTREPRETATIONS IS OK…

Personally, I BELIEVE HE IS THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD, THE 2ND PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY, AND TRULY THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD.!!!
AND THE CHURCH , UNDER THE GOVERNANCE OF THE HOLY FATHER, IS THE PLACE GOD WANTS ALL TO BE, TO RECEIVE THE FULLNESS MEASURE OF THE ETERNAL LIFE WE CAN GROW IN THE DEPTHS OF OUR BEING.

JESUS IS LORD!!!

God bless
Kentcara2003(3rd Order SSCC)

 

[Armor_of_Light]

I second, or rather THIRD THAT?!!

We submit to the Infallibility of the Living MAGISTERIUM, THE SUPREME PONTIFF.
Who is the gift of the the Lord to His Church.

We may object to daily governance , and object conscientiously. …AND YET HUMBLY SUBMIT TO AUTHORITY…for whatever He binds will be considered bound and whatever he looses will be considered loosed in Heaven. THAT IS SUPREME AUTHORITY.!!!
It resides with the Office which Our Lord guarantees, in the person of the Holy Father.

SSPX alludes that the Pope must repent,…this implies at least implicitly… though not maliciously(as they are in good faith), AND submit to their INTERPRETATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF CHURCH TEACHINGS. They become as it were the NEW POPE. See the problem…while all the time declaring they are true to the Faith…AND YET THE Faith can never exist apart fm the Holy Father…He is the sole GUARANTOR OF ITS PURITY AND APOSTOLIC TRADITION AND UNDERSTANDING. A LIVING COURT OF APPEALS AS IT WERE…

This is making it too simplistic to some but the underlying problem is this. I may be wrong…and am open to correction as I do not know the whole intricate problem…only an overview with obvious shortcomings.

In this time and age where we can hear so many voices who claim our allegiance, WHICH LEADS US…I feel to the following and perennial question…

If the Pope is ever wrong…the question we must ask is…“WHO DO YOU SAY I AM?”

IF JESUS IS GOD…HE IS ALL POWERFUL…AND HIS LIFE GIVING DOCTRINE MUST PASS ON FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT TO THE END OF TIME…IS HE ABLE TO DO SO AND PRESERVE ONE FAITH, ONE LORD ONE BAPTISM…

IF HE IS NOT ABLE TO GRANT THAT THE THE FULLNESS OF HIS LIFE DOCTRINES ARE PASSED ON, THEN … …

HE IS NOT THE ALL-MIGHTY GOD.!!!

WHAT IS THE POINT OF COMING TO EARTH AND PROVING HE IS GOD BY MIRACLES AND YET NO ONE HAS YOUR DOCTRINE THAT GIVES FULLNESS OF LIFE…UNLESS WE FEEL 40000 CONTRADICTORY DOCTRINES AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 40001 INTREPRETATIONS IS OK…

Personally, I BELIEVE HE IS THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD, THE 2ND PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY, AND TRULY THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD.!!!
AND THE CHURCH , UNDER THE GOVERNANCE OF THE HOLY FATHER, IS THE PLACE GOD WANTS ALL TO BE, TO RECEIVE THE FULLNESS MEASURE OF THE ETERNAL LIFE WE CAN GROW IN THE DEPTHS OF OUR BEING.

JESUS IS LORD!!!

God bless
Kentcara2003(3rd Order SSCC)

Ohhhhkay…

Easy… Go easy there man.

 

[JReducation]

Brother, people will just tell you that:

1. “This takes us back to the idea of authority acting in a sinful manner and expecting others to follow along” - they’ll say the current Pope is doing just this.
2. They don’t take vows of obedience, so they are not bound to obey.

It’s rather interesting, because if we pay close attention to Pope Paul VI’s letter to the Archbishop, he says something that applies not only to the SSPX, but to all Catholics. The Holy Father makes it very clear that the Pontiff must be obeyed, not because he’s infallible, but because he’s the Pontiff. In other words, along with being the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, he is also the Sovereign Pontiff of the Catholic Church. That word, “sovereign” gives him the right of authority and jurisdiction. Jurisdiction has nothing to do with infallibility. It has to do with the office. Therefore, everyone under his jurisdiction owes him obedience just as we do to the cop who signals us to pull over.

I think it’s almost funny that most people would never dare to ignore a traffic cop, but they blow off the pope, because “we don’t have a vow of obedience.” Maybe we should be honest and say that we blow off the pope because he won’t throw us in the slammer. :yup:

Very well put, Br. JR. Great post.

I might add, with all due respect, I think fewer people would think of you as “anti-traditional” if you devoted half a much time to telling liberals on CAF to be more traditional as you do telling trads to be more open-minded. I think that is where most of the perception comes from.

I have to be more careful then. I certainly don’t want to give the impression that I am biased. In my own defense (only a fool has himself for a lawyer, I know), that being said, I have posted in many other forums on CAF addressing such points as: same-sex marriage, abortion, women’s ordination, artificial birth control, prayer, contemplation, mysticism, the singularity and primacy of the Catholic Church and a few other things that most people to the left don’t support or at least question.

As far as liturgy is concerned, my position is rather simple. If the Church allows it, I have no right to disapprove of it. I don’t have to use it, but I cannot disapprove of it. I have no jurisdiction to do so. This would apply to such things as CITH, female altar servers, EMHC, mass in the vernacular, modern church architecture (by the way, most modern architecture is ugly), and a detached altar.

Realistically, I look at myself in the mirror and I realize that I am no one. I’m insignificant. The pope and the Church at large does not know that I exist and does not care whether I exist, must less does it care about my opinion on any of this. My authority is limited to my domain. I have no right to express any opinion on anything that the Church allows. I just have to suck it up and go with it.

We often like to throw around the term “Church Militant”. I remember when I was confirmed, that they taught us that we were going to be “Soldiers of Christ”. I have often thought that those terms were really not very well thought out or they probably would not be used by the average Catholic.

I grew up the son of a diplomat. We lived in different countries. The US embassies and consulates are protected by military personnel. Those folks are not allowed to have an opinion. Most people don’t realize it, but our servicemen and women can be arrested for simply disagreeing with the President. He is the highest ranking authority in the Armed Forces and whatever he thinks is law to them. If we really want to be Church Militant and Solders, we may need to learn what it means to be in the military and how members of the military respond to authority.

Having grown up in that environment, I have learned that whatever the Vatican allows is what I have to defend. Whatever I think, it what I have to stuff it. The Vatican is no more interested in what I think than the President is in what a lowly recruit thinks. We Catholics have delusions of grandeur. I don’t know how we came to have them. But we seem to think that we have a right to speak on everything in the Church. If that’s the case, then we need to look for other terms that do not invoke the image of an army. That’s not how armies function. Any army that is as free with its mouth as are Catholics will surely end up divided and lose the war.

 

[JReducation]

The remedies of the past may not suit the current crisis. Bishops permitting CITH, altar girls, dull music, a heavily edited mass in the vernacular, a wholesale loss of respect for the sacred, ‘no one goes to Hell’, the ordination of homosexuals, Communion without confession, the altar table …

Actually, I’m wrong.

All the above looks very like what happened in the UK after the Reformation. Apart from the altar girls. Took a while to make a woman a vicar but they got there in the end. The first generation of Protestants didn’t realise that they were no longer Catholics, I read. But their children and grandchildren were Catholic no more.

The SSPX, AFAIK, just want the sacraments in the older forms and unambiguous doctrine. At the time of the schismatic act (the ordination of their own bishops), it looked like the church in France had lost its mind. I haven’t read all of ‘Letter to Confused Catholics’ but I remember what Abp Lefevbre wrote about what he saw.

IMPORTANT: Anyone younger than 60 no has no idea of what and how people believed prior to 60’s. I mean fervent belief, a fear of Judgement and Hell, a knowledge of the Catechism, the TLM as part of everyday life and automatic respect for clergy. Also, given that disease and war would take family members quite easily, a real fear of death.

So now imagine going from that, to what goes on in the average parish today.

And then consider: God has repealed none of his laws. Jesus still suffers. Hell is still eternal and you go there if you die in a state of mortal sin. The Devil is still working 24/7, 365 to ensnare you. And he has it a lot easier, these days.

You may be painting with some very broad strokes here. Go back and read what I said about what the Church allows. You don’t want to put that into the same category with what is evil.

I second, or rather THIRD THAT?!!
Personally, I BELIEVE HE IS THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD, THE 2ND PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY, AND TRULY THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD.!!!
AND THE CHURCH , UNDER THE GOVERNANCE OF THE HOLY FATHER, IS THE PLACE GOD WANTS ALL TO BE, TO RECEIVE THE FULLNESS MEASURE OF THE ETERNAL LIFE WE CAN GROW IN THE DEPTHS OF OUR BEING.

JESUS IS LORD!!!

I had to get my glasses to read this.

 

[Dee_S]

"It is true that We have before Us your letter of September 16, in which you affirm: “A common point unites us; the ardent desire to see the cessation of all the abuses that disfigure the church. How I wish to collaborate in this salutary work with Your Holiness and under Your authority, so that the church may recover her true countenance.” How must these few words to which your response is limited - and which in themselves are positive - be interpreted? You speak as if you have forgotten your scandalous words and gestures against ecclesial communion - words and gestures that you have never retracted!

You do not manifest repentance, even for the cause of your suspension a divines. You do not explicitly express your acceptance if the authority of the Second Vatican Council and of the Holy See - and this constitutes the basis of the problem - and you continue in those personal works of yours which the legitimate authority has expressly ordered you to suspend. Ambiguity results from the 'duplicity of your language. On Our part, as We promised you, We are herewith sending you the conclusion of Our reflections…

Archbishop Lefebvre wrote twice (Jan 1978 & July 1988) about how he"sees obedience to the Pope". These extracts are from his 1988 article still posted on their website.

"The Society(SSPX) and its history show publicly this need to remain faithful to God and to the Church. The years 1974, 1975 and 1976 leave us with the memory of this incredible clash between Econe and the Vatican, between the Pope and myself.

           The result was the condemnation, the suspension               *a divinis*, wholly null and void because the pope was                tyrannically abusing his authority in order to defend laws                contrary to the good of the Church and to the good of souls.

           These events are an historical application of                the principles concerning **the duty to disobey.**

(my bold)

 

[felsguy]

Having grown up in that environment, I have learned that whatever the Vatican allows is what I have to defend. Whatever I think, it what I have to stuff it. The Vatican is no more interested in what I think than the President is in what a lowly recruit thinks. **We Catholics have delusions of grandeur. I don’t know how we came to have them. But we seem to think that we have a right to speak on everything in the Church. ** If that’s the case, then we need to look for other terms that do not invoke the image of an army. That’s not how armies function. Any army that is as free with its mouth as are Catholics will surely end up divided and lose the war.

Brother, I sometimes wonder if it is not a spillover from the secular world, at least, for American (as in United States) Catholics. We so readily now divide up in opposing camps, be they conservative, progressive, right wing, liberal, Tea Party, libertarian, just to name a few and then demonize anyone who holds different view from ours. I sense that sometimes it is done to gain a certain intellectual satisfaction or pleasure in vanquishing the opposition and sometimes for more devious motives. Secondly, thanks to the need for cable “news” to fill the air 24/7, talk radio, and especially the internet (case in point ), everyone is now an expert with a firmly held view on practically everything, the facts be damned.

.