The SSPX and protestants

[GerardP]

Interesting how you make obedience a subjective matter. When you agree with what the Church is doing/teaching, then you follow along in the name of obedience. When you disagree with what the Church is doing/teaching, then you don’t follow along claiming that it would be “false obedience.” Is it your position to determine whether to obey or disobey the Pope and Bishops?

What makes you think I’m making obedience a subjective matter? It’s not a matter of whether or not I think I need to obey. It’s a matter of determining whether the commands are licit to obey.

Is there such a thing as “false obedience” giving a son reason to disobey his father?

St. Thomas Aquinas states:

*" Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.

Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful." *

 

[scylla]

Hmm, obedience and disobedience.

Is it being obedient to do good when told not to, or to do evil when you should do good?

Maybe we should start a thread on obedience.

This brings to mind a time in my parish where they decided we shouldn’t kneel for the consecration since there were non-catholics in attendance and they didn’t want to offend them. Is it obedient to not kneel or to kneel to the presentation of our Lord?

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Frosty]

John Paul II said that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by his disobedience in ordaining the four bishops. He also used the word schism again when he stated that those people who formally adhered to the schism incurred excommunication according to the law of the Church.
He never recinded his statements made in “ECCLESIA DEI” nor has his successor as far as I am aware. If anyone can show that either of those popes has done so, would you kindly share that information.
The Pope, as supreme head of the Catholic Church has the last say in these matters, does he not? Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos can say whatever he wants in a newspaper interview or whatever, but until the Pope says otherwise, I think I’ll go along with John Paul’s original decree.

 

[GerardP]

John Paul II said that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by his disobedience in ordaining the four bishops. He also used the word schism again when he stated that those people who formally adhered to the schism incurred excommunication according to the law of the Church.

Pope John Paul II was wrong on this one. His definition of “schism” is completely novel and absurd.

He never recinded his statements made in “ECCLESIA DEI” nor has his successor as far as I am aware. If anyone can show that either of those popes has done so, would you kindly share that information.

JPII never rescinded a lot of statements that he should not have made in the first place.

The Pope, as supreme head of the Catholic Church has the last say in these matters, does he not?

If the Pope says the world is flat,and it is round, does it flatten?

Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos can say whatever he wants in a newspaper interview or whatever, but until the Pope says otherwise, I think I’ll go along with John Paul’s original decree.

Why? Is the Pope actually the Pharoah and we weren’t told?
Also, are you a better Catholic and know the Pope’s mind more than Cardinal Castrillon?

 

[JReducation]

On post 21 the poster quotes Aquinas thoughts on obedience. There are several problems with that quote.

1. The quote it out of context. St. Thomas was writing about religious men and women in vows, not about the laity.
2. The religious superior is not the Pope. He is the head of the community, but enjoys no special protection or immutability from error.
3. If you want to imitate the rules that have been set for religious, then you should also imitate the life that is lived by such religious as Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila or St. Elizabeth Ann Seton. They too lived during turbulent times in history, but remained obedient and faithful to the Church, especially the Holy Father. In fact, every rule for religious orders says that the Pope must always be obeyed, except in matters of sin. Since John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have not commanded us to sin; there is no reason to disobey.
4. This was Aquinas opinion of the obedience that religious should live by. Aquinas was never a religious superior nor was he ever a member of the Congregation for Religious Life. In fact, Aquinas was a very humble Dominican Friar who lovingly obeyed his superiors and the founder of his Order, even though he was more intellectually gifted than they were. I guess there is something to be said about humility too.

Post 24 says that “John Paul’s definition of schism was completely novel and absurd.” What theological authority and whose canonical authority do we have to thank for this clarification?

This kind of statement carries no weight unless it is made by someone who has the authority to make such a judgement. The only ones who can make such a judgement on such a serious statement made by a pope is another pope or a united council of bishops. No one can unilaterally make such a declaration. In fact canon law forbids it. It is very clear in canon law that a decree made by a pope is not subject to review or appeal to any other authority except him. Therefore, the poster is out of line, because he is not a higher authority than the Pope.

To make such a statement about a pope’s statement is to make yourself your own Magisterium. Why does this pope have to be wrong and others right? Can’t we judge all of them and their decrees unilaterally?

Also in post 24 it says that “John Paul never rescinded many statements that he should have rescinded.” There goes that unilateral magisterial thinking again. There is no Magisterium over that of the Pope. Pope Benedict XVI has made that perfectly clear when he set his conditions for reunification with the SSPX. He said that they must recognize that the only Magisterium in the Church is the Pope.

In fact, he does not use the plural, popes. He says the Pope. The reigning pope is the highest authority in the Church who must be obeyed in all things but objective sin. Observe that it has to be objective. The fact that one believes something is a sin is not the same as actually being a sin.

We must take these things into consideration and into prayer before we go condemning popes or their teaching.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Frosty]

For Gerard P and others who agree with the comments he has made here you might like to take some time and meditate on these readings from yesterday’s Mass,

“Two evils have my people done: they have forsaken me, the source of living waters; They have dug for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that hold no water.” - Jeremiah 2:12-13

And:

“They look but do not see, and hear but do not listen or understand…” - Matthew 13:10-17

 

[Gara3987]

I often hear people say that the SSPX and other extreme traditionalist groups act like the protestants. What do you think they have in common, other than rejecting the authority of the Pope (I know the SSPX calls Pope Benedict XVI the Pope - but they reject about everything he says)?

I don’t think that SSPX rejects the Pope authority, Last I heard SSPX was trying to reunite with Rome. I am not sure about SSPV, and CMRI; I have heard that they reject the authority of the Pope, but that is hear say. I have not spent too much time researching these other societies.

 

[GerardP]

On post 21 the poster quotes Aquinas thoughts on obedience. There are several problems with that quote.

No there aren’t.

1.The quote it out of context. St. Thomas was writing about religious men and women in vows, not about the laity.

We are talking about the SSPX and Archbishop LeFebvre. That is why I chose that portion of question 104 from the Summa

newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm

2.The religious superior is not the Pope. He is the head of the community, but enjoys no special protection or immutability from error.

Neither does the Pope on commands that have no special protection from error. Unless the Pope is binding the Universal Church on a matter of faith and morals he has no protection from error.

3.If you want to imitate the rules that have been set for religious, then you should also imitate the life that is lived by such religious as Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila or St. Elizabeth Ann Seton. They too lived during turbulent times in history, but remained obedient and faithful to the Church, especially the Holy Father. In fact, every rule for religious orders says that the Pope must always be obeyed, except in matters of sin. Since John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have not commanded us to sin; there is no reason to disobey.

It would be sinful for the SSPX to obey the Popes while they are unable to either see the crisis in the Church given license to fester by Vatican II.

4.This was Aquinas opinion of the obedience that religious should live by. Aquinas was never a religious superior nor was he ever a member of the Congregation for Religious Life. In fact, Aquinas was a very humble Dominican Friar who lovingly obeyed his superiors and the founder of his Order, even though he was more intellectually gifted than they were. I guess there is something to be said about humility too.

That’s a badly reasoned point. Have not the Popes consistently pointed out that St. Thomas is THE theologian of the Catholic Church. The Summa was placed on the Altar next to the Scriptures at the Council of Trent in order to demonstrate the venerable quality of the works.

Post 24 says that “John Paul’s definition of schism was completely novel and absurd.” What theological authority and whose canonical authority do we have to thank for this clarification?

John Paul II is not the author of the word “schism”. Authority comes from the author. In the absence of that, etymology provides the definition.

This kind of statement carries no weight unless it is made by someone who has the authority to make such a judgement.

No. That is thelogical fallacy of “appeal to authority.”

The only ones who can make such a judgement on such a serious statement made by a pope is another pope or a united council of bishops.

Nonsense. It’s a fact.

No one can unilaterally make such a declaration. In fact canon law forbids it. It is very clear in canon law that a decree made by a pope is not subject to review or appeal to any other authority except him.

I’m not attempting to overturn Canon law. That is all that it refers to. Canon Law doesn’t require anyone to accept a lie and it can’t.

Therefore, the poster is out of line, because he is not a higher authority than the Pope.

More nonsense. A Pope may not be deposed. That is all. His errors can be rebuked.

To make such a statement about a pope’s statement is to make yourself your own Magisterium.

No it isn’t. To notice errors and point them out is simply observing the truth.

Why does this pope have to be wrong and others right? Can’t we judge all of them and their decrees unilaterally?

The law of non-contradiction states they can’t all be right when they don’t all agree.

Also in post 24 it says that “John Paul never rescinded many statements that he should have rescinded.” There goes that unilateral magisterial thinking again.

No. JPII made many statements that have caused untold confusion. His lack of clarity was a scandal.

There is no Magisterium over that of the Pope.

There is no Magisterium “of the Pope” It’s the Magisterium of the Church. The Pope is capable of invoking it and he is also bound by it.

Pope Benedict XVI has made that perfectly clear when he set his conditions for reunification with the SSPX. He said that they must recognize that the only Magisterium in the Church is the Pope.

And that statement is wrong. If Pope Benedict thinks he can “undo” the Assumption of the Blessed Mother or some other Magisterially bound doctrine. He is wrong.

In fact, he does not use the plural, popes. He says the Pope. The reigning pope is the highest authority in the Church who must be obeyed in all things but objective sin.

What do you think makes a sin objective?

Observe that it has to be objective. The fact that one believes something is a sin is not the same as actually being a sin.

So are you saying that if someone does not believe something is a sin, it is an objective sin? Does that make it mortal or venial?

We must take these things into consideration and into prayer before we go condemning popes or their teaching.

Yes. We must. But sometimes we do and the Popes still come out on the losing end of the argument.

Pope Paul VI’s close personal friend Jean Guitton (who was the only lay person to address the Council) in 1992 said in “La Stampa” that, “Speaking of Econe is very painful to me. Because when you come down to it, LeFebvre was right.”

So, even the liberals like Guitton eventually figure it out. Took him till his 90’s. Maybe it won’t take Pope Benedict till his 90’s.

 

[JReducation]

We are talking about the SSPX and Archbishop LeFebvre. That is why I chose that portion of question 104 from the Summa

Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX are not religious. The quote does not apply to them. They are secular priests.

Neither does the Pope on commands that have no special protection from error. Unless the Pope is binding the Universal Church on a matter of faith and morals he has no protection from error.

He has the right of authority, which Bishop Lefebvre did not.

It would be sinful for the SSPX to obey the Popes while they are unable to either see the crisis in the Church given license to fester by Vatican II.

The so called festering has to be proven.

That’s a badly reasoned point. Have not the Popes consistently pointed out that St. Thomas is THE theologian of the Catholic Church. The Summa was placed on the Altar next to the Scriptures at the Council of Trent in order to demonstrate the venerable quality of the works.

Aquinas has been called the Angelic Doctor of the Church. But his writings are not binding on the Church. They are respected, because they are excellent theology, but so are the writings of many other Doctors. Our current Pope prefers the theology of Bonaventure and Augustine.

Bonaventure, Augustine and Thomas are not in conflict with each other, but they take different approaches. Bonaventure is highly influenced by the theology of St. Francis, Augustine is infuenced by mysticism, and Thomas by Aristotle. In the end they take you to the same place, down different paths.

The only binding work on the Church are the Scriptures.

John Paul II is not the author of the word “schism”. Authority comes from the author. In the absence of that, etymology provides the definition.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way the Church operates. The Church reserves the right to define words on its own terms.

No. That is thelogical fallacy of “appeal to authority.”

The appeal to authority has been the tradition of the Church since its foundations. Religious orders appeal to the authority of their founders. The diocese appeals to the authority of its bishop. The universal Church appeals to the authority of it Doctors, the Fathers of the Church, the Apostles and the Pope. That’s the way the system is built. You can move to the Protestant ecclesia communities where there is no authority to appeal to, if you like.

I’m not attempting to overturn Canon law. That is all that it refers to. Canon Law doesn’t require anyone to accept a lie and it can’t.

Canon law does not demand that anyone accept a lie. It simply says that the decree by a pope cannot be appealed except to the Pope. The SSPX have to appeal to him and he can overrule their appeal.

More nonsense. A Pope may not be deposed. That is all. His errors can be rebuked.

He can be rebuked by anyone, but it doesn’t hold water.

No it isn’t. To notice errors and point them out is simply observing the truth.

The truth according to whose authority?

The law of non-contradiction states they can’t all be right when they don’t all agree.

So we have to find what they have in common or examine all of them.

No. JPII made many statements that have caused untold confusion. His lack of clarity was a scandal.

Just because people get confused doesn’t make it a scandal. Scandal is what people do, because they’re confused instead of trying to understand.

There is no Magisterium “of the Pope” It’s the Magisterium of the Church. The Pope is capable of invoking it and he is also bound by it.

And that statement is wrong. If Pope Benedict thinks he can “undo” the Assumption of the Blessed Mother or some other Magisterially bound doctrine. He is wrong.

Who said he was wrong? He and the bishops don’t think so.

What do you think makes a sin objective?

For something to be ojectively sinful it has to meet three criteria

1. It must be materially sinful.
2. The person must have full knowledge.
3. The person must have full freedom (emotional, intellectual, physical) to choose.

If the first condition is missing, there is not objective sin.

So are you saying that if someone does not believe something is a sin, it is an objective sin? Does that make it mortal or venial?

The sin is still a sin, but the person’s culpability may be diminished.

JR

 

[PrayforMallory]

This anti-SSPX stuff is such a croc.

The SSPX are Catholic but in an irregular situation. There are plenty of other groups like that out there, who are not traditionalists, and people don’t have a problem with any of them.

They have a problem with the SSPX because they are afraid of them.

 

[Timothysis]

This anti-SSPX stuff is such a croc.

The SSPX are Catholic but in an irregular situation. There are plenty of other groups like that out there, who are not traditionalists, and people don’t have a problem with any of them.

They have a problem with the SSPX because they are afraid of them.

You’re right. I am afraid of priests who place themselves outside of the Church, who are suspended of their faculties and yet still celebrate illicit Masses. Yes, I’m afraid of anyone who may do something that may endanger their soul and of those faithful souls who turn to them for guidance. I’m afraid of anyone who would undermine Christ’s Church.

 

[Just_Lurking]

GerardP;3970069:

Neither does the Pope on commands that have no special protection from error. Unless the Pope is binding the Universal Church on a matter of faith and morals he has no protection from error.

He has the right of authority, which Bishop Lefebvre did not.

Aside from the matter of authority, the Church’s non-infallible magisterium also enjoys the assistance of the Holy Spirit in its exercise. Says the Vatican (see here):

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.

 

[GerardP]

Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX are not religious. The quote does not apply to them. They are secular priests.

You’re just fishing for anything to avoid conceding the point.

You can’t be serious. Aquinas isn’t relating special circumstances is which religious get an “out” from obedience. He’s pointing out that the principals of true obedience extend EVEN to the religious who make special vows of obedience. The quote applies those same principals to the SSPX and the Catholic laiety who

He has the right of authority, which Bishop Lefebvre did not.

He does not have the right of abuse of authority.

The so called festering has to be proven.

It does not have to proven at this point. It has been proven and is now self-evident. Any denial of this is either through ignorance or maliciousness.

Aquinas has been called the Angelic Doctor of the Church. But his writings are not binding on the Church. They are respected, because they are excellent theology, but so are the writings of many other Doctors. Our current Pope prefers the theology of Bonaventure and Augustine.

No Pope is going to contradict Aquinas and no Doctor or Father of the Church is going to, or has contradicted Aquinas, particularly on obedience. As the Popes have said, Aquinas’ thought has influenced the Councils. Vatican I declared infallibly the necessity of “True” not “False” obedience. Therefore, Aquinas’ understanding and formulation on obedience has the infallible magisterial stamp of approval on it and it is binding.

Why in God’s name would you even be trying to reject Aquinas’ arguments on obedience? Can’t you see how correct they are and how much they protect both the faithful and the deposit of faith?

Bonaventure, Augustine and Thomas are not in conflict with each other, but they take different approaches. Bonaventure is highly influenced by the theology of St. Francis, Augustine is infuenced by mysticism, and Thomas by Aristotle. In the end they take you to the same place, down different paths.

That’s irrelevant to the point on obedience. Aquinas even quotes Augustine on Obedience in his treatise. They are all correct. Obedience is not absolute.

The only binding work on the Church are the Scriptures.

Wrong. Magisterial decrees from Popes and Councils in union with Popes are binding depending on the language employed.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way the Church operates. The Church reserves the right to define words on its own terms.

The Church doesn’t “own” the word “schism” and John Paul II is not “the Church.”

The appeal to authority has been the tradition of the Church since its foundations.

Not the way you appeal to it. It is always conditional since God is the only one who warrants absolute obedience.

Religious orders appeal to the authority of their founders.
The diocese appeals to the authority of its bishop. The universal Church appeals to the authority of it Doctors, the Fathers of the Church, the Apostles and the Pope. That’s the way the system is built. You can move to the Protestant ecclesia communities where there is no authority to appeal to, if you like…

Is this guy a Protestant?

“All disciplinary authority, all obedience to a bishop presupposes the pure teaching of the Holy Church. Obedience to the bishop is grounded in complete faith in the teaching of the Holy Church. As soon as the ecclesiastical authority yields to pluralism in questions of faith, it has lost the right to claim obedience to its disciplinary ordinances.” --Professor Dietrich von Hildenbrand, The Devastated Vineyard

Canon law does not demand that anyone accept a lie. It simply says that the decree by a pope cannot be appealed except to the Pope. The SSPX have to appeal to him and he can overrule their appeal.

So what’s your point?

He can be rebuked by anyone, but it doesn’t hold water.

Again, so what’s your point?

The truth according to whose authority?

What makes you think you need an authority to know the truth?

By what authority is 2+2=4 true?

So we have to find what they have in common or examine all of them.

To what end?

Just because people get confused doesn’t make it a scandal. Scandal is what people do, because they’re confused instead of trying to understand.

Confusing people is what the Devil does. The Church’s job is to define and clarify matters. JPII was a scandal in his behavior. He knew it and did it anyway without regard to his state of life and his responsibilities.

Who said he was wrong? He and the bishops don’t think so.

First, you have to acknowledge that the Pope is bound by the Magisterium. Once you do that, you have an objective body of truth that the Pope can either re-affirm and strengthen or be in contradiction with.

For something to be ojectively sinful it has to meet three criteria

1. It must be materially sinful.
2. The person must have full knowledge.
3. The person must have full freedom (emotional, intellectual, physical) to choose.

If the first condition is missing, there is not objective sin.
The sin is still a sin, but the person’s culpability may be diminished.

So you are arguing that LeFebvre did not objectively commit a mortal sin when he consecrated the bishops.

 

[GerardP]

Aside from the matter of authority, the Church’s non-infallible magisterium also enjoys the assistance of the Holy Spirit in its exercise. Says the Vatican

It doesn’t say that the authentic magisterium of the Church always accepts this assistance of the Holy Ghost. It’s yet another badly worded and cryptic document to be issued in the post-conciliar period. But it’ll do.

It says:

“It follows that the sense and the weight of the Magisterium’s authority are only intelligible in relation to the truth of Christian doctrine and the preaching of the true Word. **The function of the Magisterium is not, then, something extrinsic to Christian truth nor is it set above the faith. **It arises directly from the economy of the faith itself, inasmuch as the Magisterium is, in its service to the Word of God, an institution positively willed by Christ as a constitutive element of His Church.”

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.

This is an attempt to reign in ultra liberal theologians who were and still are insisting that “habitual” meant for centuries prior to Vatican II the Church’s Magisterium was wrong.

We’ve had a reign predominantly of two very unsuccessful papacies. We’ve got a third that is an improvement in Pope Benedict. The errors of JPII and Paul VI are less than a historical bump in the road for the Church historically speaking but they are unprecedented in the damage done in such a short time.

Two papacies hardly count as “habitual” failures of the Magisterium especially when those Popes avoided invoking the Magisterium of the Church in it’s full splendor.

One example is that when JPII issued his only infallible statement. On the subject of women’s ordination, he cloaked the language to the point where Card. Ratzinger had to verify that it met the marks of infallibility. Had JPII used the traditional language, the movement wouldn’t be arguing that he didn’t condemn it infallibly.

 

[JReducation]

You’re just fishing for anything to avoid conceding the point.

You can’t be serious. Aquinas isn’t relating special circumstances is which religious get an “out” from obedience. He’s pointing out that the principals of true obedience extend EVEN to the religious who make special vows of obedience. The quote applies those same principals to the SSPX and the Catholic laiety who

He does not have the right of abuse of authority.

It does not have to proven at this point. It has been proven and is now self-evident. Any denial of this is either through ignorance or maliciousness.

No Pope is going to contradict Aquinas and no Doctor or Father of the Church is going to, or has contradicted Aquinas, particularly on obedience. As the Popes have said, Aquinas’ thought has influenced the Councils. Vatican I declared infallibly the necessity of “True” not “False” obedience. Therefore, Aquinas’ understanding and formulation on obedience has the infallible magisterial stamp of approval on it and it is binding.

Why in God’s name would you even be trying to reject Aquinas’ arguments on obedience? Can’t you see how correct they are and how much they protect both the faithful and the deposit of faith?

That’s irrelevant to the point on obedience. Aquinas even quotes Augustine on Obedience in his treatise. They are all correct. Obedience is not absolute.

Wrong. Magisterial decrees from Popes and Councils in union with Popes are binding depending on the language employed.

The Church doesn’t “own” the word “schism” and John Paul II is not “the Church.”

Not the way you appeal to it. It is always conditional since God is the only one who warrants absolute obedience.

Is this guy a Protestant?

“All disciplinary authority, all obedience to a bishop presupposes the pure teaching of the Holy Church. Obedience to the bishop is grounded in complete faith in the teaching of the Holy Church. As soon as the ecclesiastical authority yields to pluralism in questions of faith, it has lost the right to claim obedience to its disciplinary ordinances.” --Professor Dietrich von Hildenbrand, The Devastated Vineyard

So what’s your point?

Again, so what’s your point?

What makes you think you need an authority to know the truth?

By what authority is 2+2=4 true?

To what end?

Confusing people is what the Devil does. The Church’s job is to define and clarify matters. JPII was a scandal in his behavior. He knew it and did it anyway without regard to his state of life and his responsibilities.

First, you have to acknowledge that the Pope is bound by the Magisterium. Once you do that, you have an objective body of truth that the Pope can either re-affirm and strengthen or be in contradiction with.

So you are arguing that LeFebvre did not objectively commit a mortal sin when he consecrated the bishops.

I give up on you. You want to justify what the Church cannot justify, the separation of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX.

The Church tried to reach out just a month ago. All she required was that the SSPX accept that the fulness of the Magisterium is posited on Pope Benedict, that they not make any more public comments that were critical of the Church, that they submit to the authority of Pope Benedict and they were offered a prelature just like the Redemptorists were and Opus Dei.

So far we have seen no public attempt on the part of the SSPX to accept this generous offer from the Holy Father.

I have no idea what they are talking about behind closed doors. Let’s hope and pray that they will reconcile and submit to his authority.

As far as this discussion is concerned, there is nothing more to be said. Because you have made up your mind that Popes John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II were bad popes, even though the majority of Catholics and the hierarchy disagrees with you.

If that is your opinion, then go your way.

Please pray for me.

JR

 

[PrayforMallory]

You’re right. I am afraid of priests who place themselves outside of the Church, who are suspended of their faculties and yet still celebrate illicit Masses. Yes, I’m afraid of anyone who may do something that may endanger their soul and of those faithful souls who turn to them for guidance. I’m afraid of anyone who would undermine Christ’s Church.

Bleh. I’ve seen the same anti-SSPX posters express heretical views in other fora.
There are a few people who are Orthodox Catholics who are opposed to the SSPX, but not many.

Vat II means nothing to most anti-SSPX people, then suddenly when the SSPX is brought up, they are these great “Orthodox” Catholics, eager to cite Church documents.

When the non-traditional wings of the Church actually follow one iota of one encylical, conciliar document, or liturgical directive from the Vatican, I will take these arguments seriously.

“Are you tired of priests never mentioning heaven and hell in their homilies? Tell them you are going to a chapel of the SSPX.”

 

[ethelzguy]

“Are you tired of priests never mentioning heaven and hell in their homilies? Tell them you are going to a chapel of the SSPX.”

So, it is now a requirement of the Church that the homilist MUST refer to Heaven or Hell to be “Catholic enough for you”?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The SSPX celebrate Mass, believe in Papal infallibility,** pray to Saints, etc.**, and those things aren’t generally considered protestant.

As Catholics, we do not pray to saints, we pray for the intercession of saints, i.e., that they pray to God for us.

I for one see a certain irony in Archbishop Lefebvre’s doctrinal positions vis-a-vis his actions:

He complains that the Vatican II definition of episcopal collegiality takes too much authority away from the Pope, yet he then proceeds to usurp the Pope’s authority of selecting who to ordain as bishops.

He complains that the Vatican II view of Protestants as having some part in God’s plan of salvation is wrong, because no one is saved outside the Catholic Church, yet he then proceeds to place himself outside the authority of the Pope, being excommunicated just like Martin Luther, but nonetheless viewing the SSPX as having an essential part in God’s plan of salvation.

I don’t call this irony, I call it contradiction.

Actually LeFebvre simply applied the teaching of the Church on obedience.

It was not archbishop LeFebvre that destroyed tradition in the Church. It was Bishops and Popes who allowed it. Obedience to such bishops and Popes is not the true obedience called for by the First Vatican Council.

It would have been a false obedience to the Pope and disobedience to God and his state in life for him to refuse to aid those faithful who requested authentic Catholic teaching and sacraments and practice in their lives.

So what you are saying is that the guidance of the Holy Spirit left the Magisterium, the Pope and Bishops in union with him, and followed a lone bishop who left because he did not like what they taught. Interesting juxtaposition if you can prove that one.

Please, lets all pray that this can be resolved and that this fracture may be healed.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[GerardP]

I give up on you. You want to justify what the Church cannot justify, the separation of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX.

Not true. There was no separation. The scam on the faithful that has occurred since the Council is what you are trying to justify.

The Church tried to reach out just a month ago.

Churchmen (not the Church) sent an ultimatum to the SSPX.

All she required was that the SSPX accept that the fulness of the Magisterium is posited on Pope Benedict, that they not make any more public comments that were critical of the Church, that they submit to the authority of Pope Benedict and they were offered a prelature just like the Redemptorists were and Opus Dei.

There was nothing clear in those demands. They were full of implications that the heirarchy is still playing games and avoiding the doctrinal issues that should be more important to the heirarchy than canonical regularity.

Until Pope Benedict starts condemning and punishing liberals, he is not serious about the crisis.

So far we have seen no public attempt on the part of the SSPX to accept this generous offer from the Holy Father.

There is nothing generous about it. The Holy Father should declared the excommunications null, condemn John Paul II’s behavior, declare the Church in an emergency state and Clearly condemn the errors prevalent since the Council.

I have no idea what they are talking about behind closed doors. Let’s hope and pray that they will reconcile and submit to his authority.

That all depends on the Pope’s behavior vis a vis the liberals.

As far as this discussion is concerned, there is nothing more to be said. Because you have made up your mind that Popes John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II were bad popes, even though the majority of Catholics and the hierarchy disagrees with you.

The majority of Catholics don’t have a clue about what a good or bad Pope is. The heirarchy seems to have a too human pride in acknowledgeing the errors of recent Popes. It will probably take a while for a Pope to come along and straighten it out.

If that is your opinion, then go your way.

Please pray for me.

okay. You too.

 

[GerardP]

As Catholics, we do not pray to saints, we pray for the intercession of saints, i.e., that they pray to God for us.

Uh…As Catholics we DO pray to saints. We don’t worship them but we do pray to them for their intercession.

So what you are saying is that the guidance of the Holy Spirit left the Magisterium, the Pope and Bishops in union with him,

No. I’m syaing that the Popes and the majority of bishops ignored the Magisterium of the Church and went about with humanist policies that are not the primary mission of the Church.

and followed a lone bishop who left because he did not like what they taught. Interesting juxtaposition if you can prove that one.

The Holy Ghost doesn’t “follow” anyone bishop or Pope. The archbishop didn’t “go” anywhere, he simply continued to teach and hand on what had been handed on to him.

Please, lets all pray that this can be resolved and that this fracture may be healed.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Doctrinal issues first, then canonical regularization. It’s absurd that the Pope wouldn’t want this to be the situation anyway and betrays something seriously wrong if he wants unity without unity in belief.