The SSPX and True Catholicism

[pnewton]

Alright. You have your opinion on the matter. .

Fair enough. That is one thing I will agree with. We have both posted our point of views.

 

[GerardP]

You’ve missed the point. The point was that what you term his “judgment” on the application of the law could actually be seen not as whether the law applied to action X (in this case, Lefebvre’s consecrations in particular) but as an authoritative clarification of the content of the law, i.e. all episcopal consecrations without papal mandate constitute the refusal of submission by which schism is defined.

Yet Cardinal Husar and many bishops in China both pro-abort Patriotic Church and underground are consecrated and never declared schismatic or excommunicated. We’ve already discussed how extenuating circumstances (and not to mention other canon laws) prevent that law from being a carte blanche application.

Given that you seem to grant, though, that the law is perfectly legitimate, and if I’m not wrong you would admit that the action would normally constitute schism, it seems wisest to focus on the supposed “emergency” that made the obedience necessary.

I think you mean “disobedience”. As I wrote in a previous post, the consecrations over celibacy by archbishop Milingo fall much more clearly into a schismatic situation, though the sanity and free will of bishop Milingo may be impediments to his schism and even the validity of the consecrations.

Typically we would say a lawful order must be disobeyed if it commands immorality.

True, but also a lawful order must be disobeyed if a higher good commands it. As bishop Williamson also said, “Laws about trespassing on your neighbor’s lawn aren’t there to prevent the neighbor from bringing a hose if your house is on fire.”

So, was the liturgical situation enough to constitute an emergency? Let’s ask Bp. Williamson.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP
An interesting point of Bishop Williamson was “If Rome had promulgated a new rite that was superior in all respects to the TLM, then no one would have a complaint.” But the Novus Ordo has so many deficiencies even in the Latin original that no one can honestly make that claim.

Apparently, then, according to one of the illicitly consecrated bishops, Rome was fully within its rights to promulgate a new rite. Presumably this includes making Latin clerics celebrate that new rite.

But not forbidding them from saying a rite that is Apostolic in origins.

So if it is not contrary to faith or morals for Rome to promulgate a new rite, it can’t be against faith or morals for clerics to celebrate that rite. (Since, as we’ve already agreed, a legitimately promulgated rite cannot be contrary to faith or morals.)

There’s a bit of a twist. Rome can legitimately promulgate a new rite. But since rites are disciplinary matters, there is no protection guaranteed. So Rome can promulgate a rite that is contrary to faith or morals but they can’t bind it on people and ironically enough the Novus Ordo was only offered by Paul VI, not officially promulgated. The suppression of the normative Liturgy the TLM was all done with political pressure and without actual canonical legal authority.

One can feel the new rite is highly inferior to the old rite, as I happen to do, but without being ordered to do something contrary to faith or morals the proper mode of resistance would be to constantly and openly voice resistance, seeking to persuade the powers that be to change their policy, while obeying the lawful order.
cont…

But doesn’t that beg the question: Why would Rome promulgate an inferior rite? Aren’t we commanded to love God will ALL of our mind, heart and strength? This hearkens back to the sacrifice of Cain.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

True, but also a lawful order must be disobeyed if a higher good commands it. As bishop Williamson also said, “Laws about trespassing on your neighbor’s lawn aren’t there to prevent the neighbor from bringing a hose if your house is on fire.”

This is why I asked you to provide the emergency. It wasn’t the liturgy or the council, so what was it?

But not forbidding them from saying a rite that is Apostolic in origins.

Everyone knows the pope can forbid clerics from saying rites of Apostolic origin. I highly doubt any SSPX priest would contest the pope’s ability to forbid him from saying the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, Qurbono, Armenian rite, Coptic rite, Ge’ez rite, Syro-Malabar rite, or Chaldean rite. The problem seems to be that now the forbidden rite was the one the clerics happened to want to assist at - then it suddenly became a commonplace that pope’s can’t forbid Apostolic rites.

There’s a bit of a twist. Rome can legitimately promulgate a new rite. But since rites are disciplinary matters, there is no protection guaranteed. So Rome can promulgate a rite that is contrary to faith or morals but they can’t bind it on people and ironically enough the Novus Ordo was only offered by Paul VI, not officially promulgated. The suppression of the normative Liturgy the TLM was all done with political pressure and without actual canonical legal authority.

But doesn’t that beg the question: Why would Rome promulgate an inferior rite? Aren’t we commanded to love God will ALL of our mind, heart and strength? This hearkens back to the sacrifice of Cain.

Do you really even want to say that an official rite of the Catholic Church is contrary to faith and morals, whether everyone has to say it or not? That seems like shaky ground, indeed.

I’ll answer your questions with some more questions. Why would the popes become absentee bishops for decades in Avignon? Why would Rome bastardize the Eastern rites by strong-arming Latinization? The Novus Ordo is not the only questionable action ever to come out of legitimate papacies. You can argue all you want that a pope’s action was not ideal. That doesn’t get you an inch closer to justifying grave disobedience.

 

[GerardP]

Could it be, though, that the emergency came about not because of the new liturgy but because the Abp. and his followers were being ordered to teach heresy?

I think it’s not an either/or but rather a both/and situation. As the Holy Father said, he believes the crisis in the Church was directly caused by the “collapse of the liturgy”.

That would, after all, be included in the requirement to affirm the orthodoxy (regardless of prudence) of Vatican II if that council taught heresy. So, did Vatican II teach any heresy? Let’s ask Gerard (that would be you).

No. Vatican II did not teach heresy. But it did evoke heresy by including what Michael Davies called “Time bombs” in the documents. Those bombs gave the liberals the ammunition to either stretch a meaning or take advantage of an ambiguity or create a translational error that would be used to evoke heresy. For example the term “subsistit” in Lumen Gentium means “is contained in.” The council could have used the term “est” which means is. This has lead to the belief that the Mystical Body of Christ is in the Catholic Church but extends outside it’s boundaries. Cardinal Dulles and Allen Schreck believe this. But the actual wording in Lumen Gentium doesn’t say that. Translational errors lead to dogmatic errors. This was done intentionally by the number of the periti at Vatican II.

Well, it seems Vatican II contains no heresy. Statements that are very hard to understand in light of the Tradition? Perhaps.

More likely statements that favor mistaken translations and interpretations. This was a definite plan that was put into action. The whole well-known story of the Nota preavia which made Paul VI break down in tears bears this out. Atila Sinke Guimareas’ two volumes called Animus Delendi “Desire to Destroy” map out the deliberate plans to use the council for liberalizing the Church.

I’m still trying to figure out what to do with religious liberty. But if there is no heresy, then being ordered to say simply that does not preclude attaching a caveat that you feel the language is so ambiguous as to require serious clarification.

LeFebvre wrote a whole book on Religious Liberty that was sent to the Holy Office in the form of a set ofdubia. It’s worth reading if you are trying to reconcile Vatican II with what the Church teaching. It will help sift out the wrong interpretations. The tragedy is why the heirarchy did not clarify Vatican II in light of tradition. Bishop Williamson has always described it as “You can pull the language back onto the high ground and give it a Catholic meaning, but you have to know the Catholic faith to do that. It lends itself very easily to being misinterpreted in a liberal way.” This is why the SSPX has been begging the Popes for decades now to clear up the confusion by invoking the magisterium of the Church. Bishop Williamson also expressed his wish for the Pope to “put his signature” on the anti-modernist encyclicals of his predecessors. Basically, to reaffirm what has always been taught.

And one could do just that without transgressing the bounds of obedience. One would have a duty, even, to voice resistance if one felt the formulation, though true, could be misleading.

This was all done by the SSPX and many others without success. LeFebvre referred to it as a “dialogue with the deaf”

But that’s not an emergency. The Church teaching the truth doesn’t constitute an emergency.

The emergency results from the highest officials to the lowliest priests and nuns teaching a false interpretation of the Council that is at variance with the Catholic truth. That is where the apostasy occurs. For example, I have yet to find a Novus Ordo priest who believes in EENS. They think the council “changed” the Church’s teaching.

 

[GerardP]

It’s perfectly possible to stand up for the truth without being disobedient.

Absolutely, but that requires both parties to be acting in good faith. St. Peter is a model of humility for accepting his rebuke from St. Paul.

In fact, I think one can genuinely argue that Abp. Lefebvre could have done this most effectively as a bishop in good standing.

I don’t think that is as easy to assume when you read about LeFebvre’s experiences after coming back from Africa. He was basically forced into retirement from the leadership of the Holy Ghost fathers. He’d wanted the French Seminary to be put under his control because he thought he could help the cause of tradition that way, but he was thwarted. .

The Church wasn’t wrong. That’s impossible. Churchmen were wrong.

Absolutely.

If Abp. Lefebvre was really so naive as to believe the Church would fall unless he, Marcel Lefebvre, consecrated more bishops for her, then I hope God excuses him that lack of faith.

Unless it was God’s will for him. LeFebvre wasn’t the first bishop to ordain priests and bishops and send them out into the world into other bishop’s territories to take care of the faithful. I’m sure that LeFebvre did not want the mission handed to him. He’d retired quietly. But considering his miraculous accomplishments and the positive fruits of them, he could very well have been God’s man for this time.

But as it stands, the faithful were receiving what the SSPX acknowledges are valid sacraments.

Validity is compromised by liturgical abuse and laxity. Fr. Corapi has often spoke about Rome determining that many, many sacraments are being performed invalidly.

What good is going to Church and being pressured to reduce your devotion? When there is no adoration, when there is no public rosary, when there are no processions, when there are no real spiritual organizations like the Holy Name Society and instead there are secular humanist community building programs, yoga, enneagrams, handwriting analysis, where every abuse and heterodox belief is encouraged.

Those bishops who were heretics could have been combated through proper channels, because the pope could not affirm their heresies to be true at the end of the day.

Unfortunately, I don’t think the Popes have cared whether they were heretics or not. If they did care, they would have done something about it. Card. Ratzinger was reported to have told JPII that Card. Kaspar is a heretic and JPII would not do anything about it.

But while the SSPX disagreed not with the truth of Vatican II or the validity (and even liceity) of the Novus Ordo the society decided to break communion with Rome over what are, at the end of the day, its preferences as to how things should be done. After all, if one could morally celebrate the Novus Ordo and affirm the orthodoxy of Vatican II, what emergency existed?

Again, when you really study the history of this, listen to the people involved talk about it and do more than just read Ecclesia Dei, you will find out that there was a much bigger drama involved. The Society did not decide to break communion, the Pope or his advisors decided to “use the Howitzer” on LeFebvre because he was raining on the parade that was the French Revolution in the Catholic Church.

As Fr. Malachi Martin put it, “Rome’s greatest tactic has been to wait. And Rome isn’t bothered at all by heresy. People like Richard McBrien are talking theology and nobody in Rome cares about that. What LeFebvre did that was unforgivable was he was going to take power. Because he was successful, and growing, he would insure a small but valid and traditionally trained supply of priests for the Church. And that would attract people and that would translate into money being lost by the bishops. And when he consecrated bishops, he was insuring that the society would be able to wait alongside Rome for a long, long time instead of dying out.”

The emergency is a crisis of faith. Mass apostasy. A liturgy that “does the trick” regarding validity isn’t enough. If someone believes that the Novus Ordo was concocted for the sole purpose of undermining the Catholic faith, it can’t be offered morally. I have to give God my best and the Churchmen do not allow us to give God our best. God bless the people that get benefits from the Novus Ordo but if they haven’t studied the TLM and been to a reverent one, they are hobbled and they dont’ know it.

LeFebvre pointed out that the Novus Ordo begins in Protestantism and ends in Protestantism. This isn’t a matter of preferences, it’s a matter of the faith whole and entire. If the N.O. is offered and the priests give bad advice, people go to communion in an unworthy state because the confessional lines are empty, the people believe nothing about the real presence. What graces are coming from that? Why should God shower his graces when He is shunned in His own Church and offered an inferior rite when it’s been the norm to offer him a superior rite when it was more difficult to do so?

 

[GerardP]

This is why I asked you to provide the emergency. It wasn’t the liturgy or the council, so what was it?

That’s like saying, “The problem isn’t the broken dam. It’s the water that came in afterward flooding the town.” My other post to you provides the evidence of the emergency. The crisis of faith.

Everyone knows the pope can forbid clerics from saying rites of Apostolic origin.

Yes, taking into account the rite of origin of the priest’s ordination. But no apostolic rite has been suppressed en masse with a brand new “banal-on the spot production” The Holy Father himself said this was never done before in the history of the Church.

The problem seems to be that now the forbidden rite was the one the clerics happened to want to assist at - then it suddenly became a commonplace that pope’s can’t forbid Apostolic rites.

The problem is that the Pope never forbade the TLM. If he’d wanted to overturn Quo Primum he would have had to use language of the same weight. “offering” the Novus Ordo as an “option” to the bishops is not officially promulgating it.

Read Dietrich von Hildebrand’s essay: “the Case for the Latin Mass” and you’ll see what he was observing in the early 1970’s about the declared intent and the facts about the implementation and illegal suppression of the TLM.

Do you really even want to say that an official rite of the Catholic Church is contrary to faith and morals, whether everyone has to say it or not? That seems like shaky ground, indeed.

Not everyone has to say it. The Easterns don’t have to say it.

I’ll answer your questions with some more questions.

Why would the popes become absentee bishops for decades in Avignon?

Cowardice.

Why would Rome bastardize the Eastern rites by strong-arming Latinization?

Actually that was probably a good idea since the Easterns are so prone to heterodoxy since they rely on mysticism and don’t have the protection of Thomism. It helped the Maronites stay with Rome and not splinter.

The Novus Ordo is not the only questionable action ever to come out of legitimate papacies.

But the Novus Ordo is worse than all of those actions. It’s worldwide, it’s “ruined” the highest form of worship in the life of the Church.

You can argue all you want that a pope’s action was not ideal. That doesn’t get you an inch closer to justifying grave disobedience.

To call these actions after Vatican II “not ideal” is sugar coating it. Listen to the current Pope: “The Church is like a boat that is sinking” “Anyone like myself, who was moved by this perception in the time of the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for.” Similar statements are from JPII and Paul VI. Unfortunately while the Popes could name some of the problems (too little too late) they didn’t do anything about it.

The highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls. LeFebvre did something about it. Had the Popes had the same response that Pope St. Pius X described in the opening paragraphs of Pascendi. LeFebvre would not have had to sacrifice the rest of his life to do what he could while the Popes did nothing. It’s lamentable to say, but it’s true. They did nothing to save the Church from the crisis that they identified and acknowledged and that the majority of Catholics don’t even seem to notice or care about.

 

[Ham1]

That’s like saying, “The problem isn’t the broken dam. It’s the water that came in afterward flooding the town.” My other post to you provides the evidence of the emergency. The crisis of faith.

Yes, taking into account the rite of origin of the priest’s ordination. But no apostolic rite has been suppressed en masse with a brand new “banal-on the spot production” The Holy Father himself said this was never done before in the history of the Church.

The problem is that the Pope never forbade the TLM. If he’d wanted to overturn Quo Primum he would have had to use language of the same weight. “offering” the Novus Ordo as an “option” to the bishops is not officially promulgating it.

Read Dietrich von Hildebrand’s essay: “the Case for the Latin Mass” and you’ll see what he was observing in the early 1970’s about the declared intent and the facts about the implementation and illegal suppression of the TLM.

Not everyone has to say it. The Easterns don’t have to say it.

Cowardice.

Actually that was probably a good idea since the Easterns are so prone to heterodoxy since they rely on mysticism and don’t have the protection of Thomism. It helped the Maronites stay with Rome and not splinter.

But the Novus Ordo is worse than all of those actions. It’s worldwide, it’s “ruined” the highest form of worship in the life of the Church.

The highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls. LeFebvre did something about it. Had the Popes had the same response that Pope St. Pius X described in the opening paragraphs of Pascendi. LeFebvre would not have had to sacrifice the rest of his life to do what he could while the Popes did nothing. It’s lamentable to say, but it’s true. They did nothing to save the Church from the crisis that they identified and acknowledged and that the majority of Catholics don’t even seem to notice or care about.

If you truly and fully hold these opinions that the Mass is invalid or illicit, you should be intellectually honest and note that you are not a Catholic but one who has separated from the Church (perhaps you already do, I may have missed that).

A couple of points in your post strike me as odd. First is the notion that the Novus Ordo is a sinister and magically corrupting Mass. The fact that people believe that the Novus Ordo causes abuses is absolute silliness. A liturgy cannot cause an abuse. Just as a gun cannot, by itself, commit a murder.

It should be noted that in the 70’s and 80’s when abuses in the liturgy were at their height, the abuese were being perpetrated and accepted by pastors and bishops who nearly ALL attended seminary and received their formation PRIOR to Vatican II. So, did these pre-Vatican II priests just wake up one day and decide that, despite their “solid pre-Vatican II formation”, they would now begin abusing the new liturgy? Nothing could be more ludicrous. The fact is that these priests ordained in the 40’s and 50’s received HORRIBLE formation in the seminaries because only a very poorly formed priest would abuse the Mass.

It is also interesting to note that good seminaries in many places are producing fine young orthodox priests who celebrate beautiful and devout liturgies using the current Mass.

Please, let’s toss onto the trashheap right next to “guns kill people” the idea that the current Mass is “magically corrupting.”

The second point is your treatment of Lefebvre. Lefebvre is not a hero. He may have sacrificed his life for a liturgy, he also sacrificed his soul - not a wise choice. Also, Lefebvre and company were a major coup for Satan. Satan was actually able to take Catholics who love tradition are generally VERY devout and orthodox and separate them from the Church of Christ. I guarantee there are still “high-fives” being exchanged in hell over this one. I mean really, what an ultimate triumph for the devil. He peeled off some the most devout believers and got them away from Christ. And before you answer with the tired tactic of all the other dissidents who are not excommunicated: 1. By most comparisons, Lefebvre did something truly spectacularly public that warranted a strong public condemnation and 2. Many of the other dissidents should be reprimanded and excommuncated, as well.

We should always remember that no matter how people “feel” about Lefebvre and Co., they are a group of priests who are suspended. There is no debate on this and is clearly defined by many within the Church who LOVE and protect the old Mass. We should pray for this separated band of priests who, on a daily basis, intentionally profane the Body of Christ and commit a grievous sin of sacrilege and disobedience. Fortunately, there are relatively few men who choose to offend our Lord so deeply.

I pray for their repentance and their return to the Church.

 

[pnewton]

If you truly and fully hold these opinions that the Mass is invalid or illicit, you should be intellectually honest and note that you are not a Catholic but one who has separated from the Church (perhaps you already do, I may have missed that).
.

I think the idea is that the Church separated from him, or more accurately from the true remnant that is the SSPX.

Talk about deja vu. I remember this same type of thinking back when I used to talk to Landmark Baptists.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

It seems to me that the SSPX is so despised because it is the only organized group in the Church today (and they are most certainly IN the Church) that is actually willing to speak the plain truth-- the truths of the Faith in an unambiguous manner, and the truth about the current state of the Church.

I’m a member of a pro-life group on my college campus. There are literally hundreds of other student groups on our campus as well. Many of them demonstrate or set up booths on campus from time to time. Some groups who have done this recently include: The Gay-Straight Alliance, the Feminist Alliance, and the Green Thumb group (environmentalists). No one disturbs these groups when they are out there. Why? Because they’re not confronting anyone with the truth. They deliver feel-good messages that tell people everyone is okay where they are-- no need to change anything (except perhaps for giving this or that group more rights).

Now, when our pro-life group demonstrates, you better believe that we don’t receive a peaceful response! Why? Because we are showing people the truth-- the hard truth of the situation we are in today with the reality of abortion. And it angers people because it means they may have to acknowledge a problem and change their lives.

I’m not trying to draw a direct parallel between the evil of abortion and the current state of the Church, but I do see the same pattern with regard to those who are preaching a hard truth to those who would rather turn a blind eye and pretend everything is okay. The SSPX preaches nothing heretical. Their doctrine is nothing more and nothing less than pure Catholicism. So they can’t be accused of heresy. It seems it all comes back to the “obedience” issue. It’s open season on the SSPX because they refuse to blindly follow a revolution in the Church which has left her nearly crippled. It is for this-- that they love the Church and Her teachings too much to see them thrown out in the name of ecumenism and modernity-- that they are constantly villified. Even though there are thousands of “liberal” Catholics (more accurately called heretics) who are walking around and spreading false teaching, they are not villified, but are welcomed, or written off as “harmless” and “silly” at the very least. Not so with the SSPX. No, the SSPX is condemned for holding fast to Tradition, for refusing to compromise our Holy Faith. What a sad state of things!

All one has to do to observe the absurd mindset that so many have towards the SSPX is the following: Attend a protestant service (any “standard” protestant denomination would do), and tell your Catholic friend about it. He or she will not bat an eye. He or she may even say something like, “Oh neat. How was it?” Then, attend an SSPX Mass, and tell your Catholic friend about it. Watch as he/she reacts in disbelief and horror. “You know they’re in schism, right? It’s dangerous to go there.”

So, it’s ecumenical and good to attend non-Catholic services where heresy is preached, but damning and schismatic to attend a thoroughly-Catholic Mass where solid Catholic doctrine is expounded?

If that’s not a diabolical disorientation, I don’t know what is!

 

[pnewton]

So, it’s ecumenical and good to attend non-Catholic services where heresy is preached,

Who has said this? It is certainly not a “good” thing and joining with such a Church might easily be mortal sin.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Who has said this? It is certainly not a “good” thing and joining with such a Church might easily be mortal sin.

I’m not speaking here of formally joining a protestant church, but attending protestant services. And the Vatican seems to think it’s a fine idea:

In liturgical celebrations taking place in other Churches and ecclesial Communities, Catholics are encouraged to take part in the psalms, responses, hymns and common actions of the Church in which they are guests. If invited by their hosts, they may read a lesson or preach.

Taken from “Principles and Norms on Ecumenism”, ordered by Pope John Paul II on March 25, 1993. Full text online at Vatican’s website.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

bump

 

[Ham1]

It seems to me that the SSPX is so despised because it is the only organized group in the Church today (and they are most certainly IN the Church) that is actually willing to speak the plain truth-- the truths of the Faith in an unambiguous manner, and the truth about the current state of the Church.

…

I’m not trying to draw a direct parallel between the evil of abortion and the current state of the Church, but I do see the same pattern with regard to those who are preaching a hard truth to those who would rather turn a blind eye and pretend everything is okay. The SSPX preaches nothing heretical. Their doctrine is nothing more and nothing less than pure Catholicism. So they can’t be accused of heresy. It seems it all comes back to the “obedience” issue. It’s open season on the SSPX because they refuse to blindly follow a revolution in the Church which has left her nearly crippled. It is for this-- that they love the Church and Her teachings too much to see them thrown out in the name of ecumenism and modernity-- that they are constantly villified. Even though there are thousands of “liberal” Catholics (more accurately called heretics) who are walking around and spreading false teaching, they are not villified, but are welcomed, or written off as “harmless” and “silly” at the very least. Not so with the SSPX. No, the SSPX is condemned for holding fast to Tradition, for refusing to compromise our Holy Faith. What a sad state of things!

All one has to do to observe the absurd mindset that so many have towards the SSPX is the following: Attend a protestant service (any “standard” protestant denomination would do), and tell your Catholic friend about it. He or she will not bat an eye. He or she may even say something like, “Oh neat. How was it?” Then, attend an SSPX Mass, and tell your Catholic friend about it. Watch as he/she reacts in disbelief and horror. “You know they’re in schism, right? It’s dangerous to go there.”

So, it’s ecumenical and good to attend non-Catholic services where heresy is preached, but damning and schismatic to attend a thoroughly-Catholic Mass where solid Catholic doctrine is expounded?

If that’s not a diabolical disorientation, I don’t know what is!

I’ll ignore the straw man on people attending protestant services. All the Catholics who would say “Oh neat.” That seems like a pretty big generalization on your part. I would say most of the Catholics who are uninformed enough to say “Oh neat” probably don’t even know what the SSPX is. Oh…generally the protestant services don’t include sacrilige as part of their service.

I don’t know where you live but I have met hundreds of fine young priests. It seems there are vibrant traditional minded Bishops being placed all over. Not sure if you’ve noticed but all the newer Bishops are exceptional men as are most of the new priests. You have to admit the quality of Bishops currently in the US compared to 20 years ago is greatly improved. Most of the bishops who seem to be prone to allowing abuses, etc are set to retire in the next 3-5 years. We need to stop with the whole Church in crisis, the sky is falling attitude.

Furthermore, IF the SSPX priests really LOVED the Church, they could always pick up the phone and call the FSSP and join. They could “hold fast to tradition” there. But why don’t they? Imagine the good they could do? What stops them from joining the FSSP? What are they waiting for? Are they waiting for Rome to say that VII was a total mistake - not going to happen. No, these guys are not kicked out for being traditional. They are kicked out for disobeying the Pope and refusing to submit to the Body of Christ. Remember that each individual priest of the SSPX is responsible for remaining separated from the Church. Some brave SSPX priests have come back to the truth. Let’s hope more follow. They could do immensely more good if they and their flocks returned to the truth. What a witness to obedience! What a great example for liberal dissenters who claim to be Catholic despite ignoring Church teaching.

It’s funny how you call them “IN” the Church. I guess then that all the priests who have been suspended for molesting children, commiting other crimes, and getting married are also “IN” the Church. What do you mean by IN the Church? I suppose you could say that suspended priests are IN the Church in the sense that they are Catholic but cannot celebrate or receive the sacraments. But we should remember that they choose to remain in this suspended state, it is not forced upon them.

 

[GerardP]

**Ham1 wrote: **

If you truly and fully hold these opinions that the Mass is invalid or illicit, you should be intellectually honest and note that you are not a Catholic but one who has separated from the Church (perhaps you already do, I may have missed that).

Hmm…it seems you’ve missed a lot since you’re so far off base. . Your “if/then” proposition is really just a distraction filled wth pot-boiler rhetoric which has no connection with the points I’ve been making. Do you open up your comments like this with the purpose of distracting the discussion from the valid points I’ve been making?

It has all the relevance of asking me about how your car is running or suggestions for how to tie shoes correctly. I should just respond in kind and say , “Perhaps you are a material heretic because you’ve been taught so poorly.”

A couple of points in your post strike me as odd.

It really doesn’t matter how they strike you. It’s whether or not they are true that counts. A virgin birth can strike someone as odd but it just happens to be true in one case.

First is the notion that the Novus Ordo is a sinister and magically corrupting Mass.

No. Magic has nothing to do with it. That’s actually just a “reframing” tactic on your part. Onto the point, the Popes for over a century and a half in recent times (Church speaking) gives evidence to the danger and the possibility. (if it weren’t possible, why would they warn us?) of a mass apostasy.

What seems magical is that the condemned propositions of the Synod of Pistoia are suddenly wonderful disciplines that have enriched the Church and borne great fruit. It’s patently untrue and a real trick that it’s been sold to the minority number of Catholics that attend the Novus Ordo.

The fact that people believe that the Novus Ordo causes abuses is absolute silliness. A liturgy cannot cause an abuse. Just as a gun cannot, by itself, commit a murder.

You’re looking at this the wrong way. I know it’s convenient and lets you paint any opposing view in a cartoonish light (defense mechanisms are like that) but let’s take an accurate look at the situation using a similar modern day secular analogy.

If you are a military commander in charge of arming your troops, do you think it’s a great idea to suddenly stop training your troops properly? And how about if you take away all of the heavy armor that protects them? Give them some small firearms that really aren’t too reliable. Sure, they shoot most of the time correctly but the soldiers haven’t been trained well.
Call the forces before you came to town the TLM brigade
Call the forces after you came to town the N.O. platoon. (since the numbers of effective soldiers are so reduced)

Any military leader who endorsed this kind of “sitting duck” strategy and then talked about how wonderful and improved everything is would be reasonably understood to be either insane or a traitor and his plans and equipment should be scrapped when the old is still recoverable.

It should be noted that in the 70’s and 80’s when abuses in the liturgy were at their height,

It’s simply not true that abuses in the liturgy were at their height in the 70’s and 80’s and somehow ebbed in the last few years. The acceptance of those abuses has just been mainstreamed. Just go to youtube and take a look at the Barney Mass and the Halloween Mass and the Clown Masses that are still going on.

the abuese were being perpetrated and accepted by pastors and bishops who nearly ALL attended seminary and received their formation PRIOR to Vatican II. So, did these pre-Vatican II priests just wake up one day and decide that, despite their “solid pre-Vatican II formation”, they would now begin abusing the new liturgy?

Perhaps you meant to post on another thread. I’ve not contended once that the Church did not have modernist dangers in the pre-conciliar era. The fact that I’m pointing out that the Popes were ringing the fire alarm prior to the council should indicate that.

But you are arguing at cross-purposes, are you saying that those bishops and priests should have been resisted in the early 70’s? (Like LeFebvre did) Or would you have (or did you) just go along to get along and take the blessed sacrament from a paper cup in a clown get-up? ----continued----

 

[GerardP]

**Ham1 wrote: **

the abuese were being perpetrated and accepted by pastors and bishops who nearly ALL attended seminary and received their formation PRIOR to Vatican II. So, did these pre-Vatican II priests just wake up one day and decide that, despite their “solid pre-Vatican II formation”, they would now begin abusing the new liturgy?

…continued…

The truth is that a priest who was disposed to abuse the liturgy had fewer opportunities to abuse the TLM because the rubrics and the altar servers would “hem him in” so to speak.
Those priests wanted the Novus Ordo and they got it, just like their spiritual ancestors at Pistoia.

Nothing could be more ludicrous. The fact is that these priests ordained in the 40’s and 50’s received HORRIBLE formation in the seminaries because only a very poorly formed priest would abuse the Mass.

Taking that as a fact, you must mean people like John Paul II and Pope Benedict, Fr. Groeschel and a host of others who were ordained in the 40’s and 50s, correct? That would explain a lot regarding the failure by some of these priests to even recognize where they’d gone wrong. And since LeFebvre was ordained in 1929 the odds are favorable that he had a superior formation as a priest including his doctorates in theology and philsophy.

It is also interesting to note that good seminaries in many places are producing fine young orthodox priests who celebrate beautiful and devout liturgies using the current Mass.

That is debatable. I’ve found many young priests who have to re-educate themselves in tradition and have learned to circumvent the modernism that is still being taught. One in particular wants to say the TLM but is forced to say the Novus Ordo, so he applies as much a traditional attitude as possible according to how much his pastor and bishop will allow.

Please, let’s toss onto trashheap right next to “guns kill people” the idea that the current Mass is “magically corrupting.”

Since those were your phrases which I’ve refuted. I agree. You’ll have to find more accurate descriptions and toss the caricatures onto the trashheap. (Just be careful not to hit the altar rails, statues, stained glass windows, confessionals and other relics of the past… The SSPX will be by to trash pick and restore them in the chapels they are building.)

The second point is your treatment of Lefebvre. Lefebvre is not a hero.

Oh he absolutely is.

He may have sacrificed his life for a liturgy, he also sacrificed his soul - not a wise choice.

False. Either you have a shallow knowledge of LeFebvre or you are trying to sell a shallow perceptions of him. And take heed the words of St. Pius X, what judgment you give will be dealt out to you. “the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge,” is not your area to make judgments.

Also, Lefebvre and company were a major coup for Satan. Satan was actually able to take Catholics who love tradition are generally VERY devout and orthodox and separate them from the Church of Christ.

No. As LeFebvre said, “The masterstroke of Satan was his ability to sow disobedience out of obedience.”

I guarantee there are still “high-fives” being exchanged in hell over this one

.

How do you guarantee this? Do you believe you are somehow in communication with Hell? Are you a visionary?

continued…

 

[GerardP]

**Ham1 wrote: **

—continued—

I mean really, what an ultimate triumph for the devil. He pealed off some the most devout believers and got them away from Christ.

LOL! Are you serious with this? This is melodrama and propaganda that outranks the most confused sedevacantist or charismatic.

Before you answer with the tired tactic of all the other dissidents who are not excommunicated:

Please. Tired tactics? I would swear you’ve made most of your statements with some cut and paste from some file in your computer. I’m waiting for an actually relevant statement based on facts and not histrionics and logical fallacies. Perhaps its a “tired tactic” because it’s an observation that justice demands an answer to and you have no valid answer as I’ll show below.

1. In most comparisons, Lefebvre did something truly spectacularly public that warrented a strong public condemnation and

Just reverse that. Assisi was something truly spectacularly public that warrants (still!) a public condemnation. Twice!

1. Many of the other dissidents should be reprimanded and excommuncated, as well.

“Should” is self-evident regarding real dissidents, the pertinent question that can’t be ignored is “Why aren’t they?”

We should always remember that no matter how people “feel” about Lefebvre and Co., they are a group of priests who are suspended.

Just always remember , objectively the suspensions are unjust and as invalid as the supposed excommunicatations, They should be ignored just as “lazy feelings” that you should not actually look into all of the facts should be ignored.

There is no debate on this and is clearly defined by many within the Church who LOVE and protect the old Mass.

Strange…there is a debate on this. And it is defined by the facts, not by the feelings and political motivations of those opposed to tradition whether full blown or moderate in their modernism.

We should pray for this separated band of priests who, on a daily basis, intentionally profane the Body of Christ and commit a grievous sin of sacrilege and disobedience.

Even the prayers of the hopelessly confused will be put to God’s use. Perhaps those who believe the slurs, calumny, errors and in some cases outright lies about the SSPX will be enlightened by Our Lord and see the SSPX for the blessing and boon from God they are.

Fortunately, there are relatively few men who choose to offend our Lord so deeply.

On what objective criteria do you base this? I really should be honored I suppose, since you obviously are in direct verbal communication with the Almighty.

I pray for their repentance and their return to the Church.

Ah, there is nothing like finishing up one’s comments by using a pious action as a weapon. Eh?

Thank you for your response and contribution to the discussion. I would love to say I know so much more now than I did before I read your comments. But I can’t. Instead I’m reminded of St. Pius X : “They [modernists] are proposing a universal apostasy even worse than the one that threatened the age of Charles. It is worse, We say, because it stealthily creeps into the very veins of the Church, hides there, and cunningly pushes erroneous principles to their ultimate conclusions.”
And quoting St. Charles Borromeo the Holy Father said, *“If those who associate with heretics are not firmly rooted in the Faith there is reason to fear that they will easily be seduced by the heretics into the trap of impiety and false doctrine.”— *encyclical Editae Saepe

 

[GerardP]

I think the idea is that the Church separated from him, or more accurately from the true remnant that is the SSPX.

Talk about deja vu. I remember this same type of thinking back when I used to talk to Landmark Baptists.

That’s a strange way you think. How you can distort and bear false witness againt me concerning what I think is not a good Catholic example.

I’m more than happy to clarify myself if you want. But, I’d appreciate it if you’d have both the class and the courage to address me directly with a sensible and rational question commensurate with an adult.

But answer me this, why the straw men? Why the cartoonish characterizations made up out of total lies? Why the deciet, why the need to sin in a simple discussion concerning the faith and the Church?

Is the truth of the argument so disturbing to your sensitivities that you must concoct fiction in order to avoid dealing with it?

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

I’ll ignore the straw man on people attending protestant services. All the Catholics who would say “Oh neat.” That seems like a pretty big generalization on your part. I would say most of the Catholics who are uninformed enough to say “Oh neat” probably don’t even know what the SSPX is. Oh…generally the protestant services don’t include sacrilige as part of their service.

I admit that was not a hard-fact example, but one that I believe would still hold to be fairly accurate in real life. That is, I would confidently assert that most Catholics (informed Catholics) would think it less shocking to attend a protestant service than an sspx Mass. Do you agree?

I’m not sure I agree with you that protestant services do not include sacrilege . . . but that depends on one’s definition of sacrilege, which would take us far off topic. I’m more concerned with your implication that SSPX Masses somehow do contain sacrilege? Or did I misunderstand what you meant? My apologies if I did, but if I understood that correctly, please explain.

I don’t know where you live but I have met hundreds of fine young priests. It seems there are vibrant traditional minded Bishops being placed all over. Not sure if you’ve noticed but all the newer Bishops are exceptional men as are most of the new priests. You have to admit the quality of Bishops currently in the US compared to 20 years ago is greatly improved. Most of the bishops who seem to be prone to allowing abuses, etc are set to retire in the next 3-5 years.

I do admit that the younger bishops are better, in general, than the older ones on their way out. However, I still think they are liberal compared to pre-conciliar standards. They see no problem with the New Mass, with Vatican II, etc. They have bought into the idea that we’re somehow in a “new springtime” of the faith, when in actuality the Church seems to be crumbling around us.

We need to stop with the whole Church in crisis, the sky is falling attitude.

I disagree. We do not serve the Church by pretending everything is ok when it’s not. The fact is the Church is in the greatest crisis she has ever known (worse than the Arian heresy in my opinion), and until we honestly face that fact, it’s not going to get any better.

Furthermore, IF the SSPX priests really LOVED the Church, they could always pick up the phone and call the FSSP and join. They could “hold fast to tradition” there. But why don’t they? Imagine the good they could do? What stops them from joining the FSSP? What are they waiting for? Are they waiting for Rome to say that VII was a total mistake - not going to happen. No, these guys are not kicked out for being traditional. They are kicked out for disobeying the Pope and refusing to submit to the Body of Christ. Remember that each individual priest of the SSPX is responsible for remaining separated from the Church. Some brave SSPX priests have come back to the truth. Let’s hope more follow. They could do immensely more good if they and their flocks returned to the truth. What a witness to obedience! What a great example for liberal dissenters who claim to be Catholic despite ignoring Church teaching.

I have nothing but respect for the holy priests of the FSSP-- let me make that very clear. At the same time, I understand why the SSPX has not seen fit to follow in their footsteps. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I understand, the FSSP is essentially forced to take the position that “Vatican II was a good council, the New Mass is fine, we’re just here to celebrate ‘our spirituality’ of the traditional Mass.” The SSPX, on the other hand, (from what I understand) says, “No. The traditional Mass is not just some spirituality that can coexist peacefully with the New Mass. The New Mass is hurting the Church, along with the other reforms, and we must go back to the Traditional Mass to stop the bleeding.” That’s part of their reasoning for not following the same pattern as the FSSP, as I see it. I’m open to correction, however.

It’s funny how you call them “IN” the Church. I guess then that all the priests who have been suspended for molesting children, commiting other crimes, and getting married are also “IN” the Church. What do you mean by IN the Church? I suppose you could say that suspended priests are IN the Church in the sense that they are Catholic but cannot celebrate or receive the sacraments. But we should remember that they choose to remain in this suspended state, it is not forced upon them.

I only meant that they are good Catholics who are inside the Catholic Church, not some evil, heretical group that so many people seem to imagine them to be.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Just always remember , objectively the suspensions are unjust and as invalid as the supposed excommunicatations, They should be ignored just as “lazy feelings” that you should not actually look into all of the facts should be ignored.

I’d like to point out that your line of argumentation precludes any objective analysis of the suspensions and argumentations, as it is based on the unknowable internal dispositions of the suspended and excommunicated parties. Thus, while the true status of those men is, indeed, objectively true (either the law applied or did not, no matter how I or Fr. Brown feel about it), it makes little sense to invoke this objectivity. As soon as you invoke interior dispositions you shunt the decision of an onlooker to his subjective judgment: he has to judge whether the story is plausible. Are you willing to apply that universally? Now, if I were arguing with you about how Abp. Milingo is not actually excommunicated, would you be as willing to buy my case from his perception/feeling of a crisis due to lack of married clergy? I don’t think a married clergy ranks anywhere close to the problems of the Church post Vatican II, but I do think based on the arguments in favor of the SSPX bishops one could demand a similar benefit of the doubt for most excommunicates out there.

 

[pnewton]

Is the truth of the argument so disturbing to your sensitivities that you must concoct fiction in order to avoid dealing with it?

I have concocted no fiction. I do see a parallel in some earlier arguements I have had. Also, I am not avoiding dealing with the issues. I have dealt with it. I am done. SSPX is not a single-minded agenda for me here. I have collected enough data to stand by my conclusion that they are prideful and treasonous, putting their own authority above that which God has established. I believe that those who follow them are objectively outside the Church and possibly in mortal sin.