The SSPX and True Catholicism

[GerardP]

The thing is, what is truly priceless is that which they have in common, the sacrifice of the Mass and the presence of our Lord. The trappngs of either pale in comparison to the value of this commonality.

Obviously the problem is not with Our Lord’s Presence but rather what we give to Him. The Structure of the TLM more clearly expresses the Catholic Faith than the Novus Ordo.

The lack of consistency and the various options of the Novus Ordo are conducive towards liturgical abuse and aid the Original Sin of many priests. This isn’t “trad talk” this is Fr. Corapi and any number of priests and not to mention the Pope himself has written about the banality of the New Mass and his utter dissatisfaction with it’s construction and implementation.

The very first prayers at the foot of the altar indicate a massive difference in the orientation and relationship between man and God.

P. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit.
S. Amen
P. I will go to the altar of God.
S. To God, the joy of my youth.
P. Do me justice, O God, and fight my fight against an unholy people, rescue me from the wicked and deceitful man.
S. For Thou, O God, art my strength, why hast Thou forsaken me? And why do I go about in sadness, while the enemy harasses me?
P. Send forth Thy light and thy truth: for they have led me and brought me to thy holy hill and Thy dwelling place.

etc…

This was all eliminated in the Novus Ordo and replaced with the Greeting. It’s the orientation of the faithful that is the problem. The prayers of the TLM make many appreciate Our Lord’s presence that much more.

 

[GerardP]

With sincere and due respect, that fact that a private individual makes such a judgment about the necessity of these documents does not mean that they were not needed.

Lisa,

Who were the documents written for? Aren’t we encouraged by everyone to actually read them? Vatican II as far as I can tell is simply a series of policy initiatives. There are no anathemas and no binding statements that don’t already restate that which was already known and taught.

The Holy Father himself has pointed out that the Council purposely remained a humble council and didn’t pronounce anything with the weight of Trent or Vatican II. And he has also pointed out that there are those that treat it as a super dogmatic council when it was not.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

Im afraid that the TLM was not ‘brought’ about by the Church.

It started in the upper room, and matured under the Church’s wings.

The Novus Ordo was created by a single Pope and a liturgical commission.

In all the history of the Church, we have never celebrated a Mass that traced its origins to a Council or Comittee of any kind whatsoever.

Assuming your take to be true, please show through Scripture or Tradition why this difference is significant.

The TLM is from God because it was started by God.

Already in this thread, it has been pointed out by Traditionalists that the curia speaks for the pope. By the same token, the pope, by binding and loosing, speaks for God, so the NOM was also started by God.

The Novus Ordo is valid…but its ridiculous to say its in line with Church tradition.

It is amazing to me that people are willing to risk separation from the Body of Christ because they don’t like the trappings of a licit Mass they admit is valid.

And in the early days of the Church, when the Mass was in vernacular, you still couldnt hear it. Because either the Church was too big and you couldnt hear the priest, or the Priest was whispering the Mass anyway.

Surely you don’t think that the size of the church or the volume of the priest (two things of which we cannot be certain) is proof that the Mass was not meant to be heard in the vernacular when it was once said that way.

Laity participation was never the norm, even if the language was once in the vernacular.

Again, assuming this take to be true, please show from Scripture or Tradition why the difference is significant.

I wouldnt want to participate in the Crucifixion of our Lord, so why partcipate in its re-enactment.

I think someone else already pointed out that this seems to be a strange way of looking at what participation in the re-enactment means. If the priest is supposed to participate, then participation is not objectively bad – it is not participating in the Crucifixion in any evil sense.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

The NO and the TLM weigh the same…but what would you rather have, A priceless statue or a replacement?

But your only proof that we are not talking about two priceless statues is that you personally don’t like the new statue.

 

[GerardP]

This analogy does not work. It was the archbishop’s own actions which led to the result. It is the actions of third parties which have caused trouble in the NOM.

That description isn’t accurate. The archbishop’s actions were reactions to the “ruins” that were accumulating in 1960s and early 70s and continue to this day. As a successor to the Apostles, LeFebvre was obligated to do something about it especially when called upon by begging parents, prelates and seminarians. He’d originally planned a quiet retirement since he believed that to be his only option.

Had the post conciliar Popes been stronger, there would have been no problem with third parties causing trouble. The Popes were the only ones with the power to directly intervene and they didn’t. LeFebvre could only indirectly intervene and did.

As bishop Fellay said, “Solve the problems in the Church and you will have no problem with us.” In other words, stop bishops from hammering away at the traditions of the Church, punish heretics and stop raising them to the position of Cardinal (eg. Kaspar )

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

So you are saying that God intended for the Novus Ordo to happen?

I have no reason to believe He did not and every reason to believe He did – since it was given to us by His chosen servants.

Then what was the use of a TLM in the first place.

You could ask the same question of the early Masses in the vernacular.

If the Vernacular was something God wanted the Church to bind on earth…than why wasnt it this way for all of its two thousand years?

Obviously, because the language is not an eternal aspect of the Mass.

Vatican II is one thing…but im afraid Paul VI was not acting as God’s instrument when he butchered the liturgy.

Please give proof that 1) Paul VI was not acting as God’s instrument and that 2) he butchered the liturgy.

And even the “EWTN-style Novus Ordo” is still exactly that. A New Order, a innovation, a novelty.

A failure to trust in God’s Mass of All Ages.

A valid liturgy does not make it God’s choice. The NO could be valid, without it reflecting the will of the Creator.

Who decides that it does not reflect the will of the Creator?

And as for who seems more Protestant, you and I both know that the reforms of Paul VI are the exact reforms the Protestants made.

I know nothing of the sort. Please supply me with a specific example. In any case, the fact that Protestants and Catholics have similarities in beliefs or worship does not mean the Catholics have gone Protestant – it means that the Protestants have got those particular things right.

The Protestant charge is never about trappings – it is about a denial of the structure of authority in God’s Church.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

Who were the documents written for? Aren’t we encouraged by everyone to actually read them?

Read them, yes – not pronounce whether or not they are necessary.

Vatican II as far as I can tell is simply a series of policy initiatives.

As far as *you *can tell – I don’t mean to be harsh, but what’s necessary for the Church is not decided by what you can tell.

There are no anathemas and no binding statements that don’t already restate that which was already known and taught.

A) If everything is exactly the same – no clarifications – then why do people, who agree with what was taught before, argue with the content of the documents?

B) Please explain what you mean by “no binding statements.”

C) Please show where it is taught that anathemas and binding statements are needed to make a council necessary.

The Holy Father himself has pointed out that the Council purposely remained a humble council and didn’t pronounce anything with the weight of Trent or Vatican II. And he has also pointed out that there are those that treat it as a super dogmatic council when it was not.

This is not the same as saying that the Council was unnecessary.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

That description isn’t accurate. The archbishop’s actions were reactions to the “ruins” that were accumulating in 1960s and early 70s and continue to this day. As a successor to the Apostles, LeFebvre was obligated to do something about it especially when called upon by begging parents, prelates and seminarians. He’d originally planned a quiet retirement since he believed that to be his only option.

Here, we’ve gone back to intent.

Perhaps you did not see the beginning of this particular part of the thread. A series of arguments have been exchanged. I’ll recount them from memory and apologize if I misstated any.

Argument A: Archbishop LeFebvre committed a schismatic act.

Argument B: No, he didn’t, because it was not his intent to go into schism.

Argument C: Intent doesn’t matter. Example given.

Argument D: That example falls apart because it can be used to show that the Church Herself is responsible for the NOM abuses.

Argument E (which is mine – the one you quoted): Argument D’s comparision is fallacious because it brings in a third party.

You cannot dispute Argument E by going back to Argument B which was already disproven by Argument C. Argument C has yet to be disproven. So far, I can only see three ways to dispute Argument E:

1. To prove there are no third parties in Argument D’s comparision.
2. To prove that third parties don’t matter.
3. To prove that there are third parties in both sides of the comparison.

There may be another way that I can’t think of – but going back to the already disproven Argument B (which is what you have done here) is not one of them.

Had the post conciliar Popes been stronger, there would have been no problem with third parties causing trouble. The Popes were the only ones with the power to directly intervene and they didn’t. LeFebvre could only indirectly intervene and did.

This does not explain why the actions of third parties who commit liturgical abuses means that the archbishop did not commit a schismatic act because he did not intend to do so. If you think it does – please re-state your argument step by step so that I can understand it.

As bishop Fellay said, “Solve the problems in the Church and you will have no problem with us.” In other words, stop bishops from hammering away at the traditions of the Church, punish heretics and stop raising them to the position of Cardinal (eg. Kaspar )

“No problem with us”!!! Again with the arrogance! Exactly who are they compared with the Church?

 

[st_bernard]

“No problem with us”!!! Again with the arrogance! Exactly who are they compared with the Church?

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

Lisa, there was someone else arragant enough to stand in opposition of ‘the’ Church… St. Maximus of Constantinople.

While the great majority of the Church drifted into error, St. Maximus stood his ground and held the True Faith.

Only time will tell who is in error here. I would not presume based on majority as you appear.

Gratias

 

[pnewton]

Obviously the problem is not with Our Lord’s Presence but rather what we give to Him. The Structure of the TLM more clearly expresses the Catholic Faith than the Novus Ordo.
.

Obviously many of the lay faithful here agree with this opinion.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

Lisa, there was someone else arragant enough to stand in opposition of ‘the’ Church… St. Maximus of Constantinople.

You will have to explain the whole situation to me before I can understand how and if it applies here.

While the great majority of the Church drifted into error, St. Maximus stood his ground and held the True Faith.

When you say “the great majority of the Church” – who, specifically, do you mean? Was their error ever manifested in a council?

Only time will tell who is in error here. I would not presume based on majority as you appear.

Gratias

I don’t know what I’ve said that makes you think majority matters to me. When the world woke up and groaned to find itself Arian, I would not have joined the bandwagon.

What do you think could possibly happen in time that would prove that the Council made an error? Proclamation by another council? By a pope? According to the Traditionalist arguments posted here, those things would be open to debate and not proof of anything.

Of course, such a thing cannot happen anyway. Who is in error has already been decided – it’s just that some people refuse to accept the judgment.

 

[GerardP]

Here, we’ve gone back to intent.

No. We’re not going to intent. We’re going to objective cause and effect. Intent is only the argument for culpability in the act that determines whether schism actually occurred since the subjective state of the person is required for an act to be schismatic.

Read them, yes – not pronounce whether or not they are necessary.

On what magisterial pronouncement do you base this assumption? I’m curious especially in light of the opening speech of Pope John
who said a council was not necessary to reiterate what was well known and understood doctrine at the time.

The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a Council was not necessary.(…)And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.—John XXIII opening speech of Vatican II.

“Vatican II as far as I can tell is simply a series of policy initiatives.”

As far as you can tell – I don’t mean to be harsh, but what’s necessary for the Church is not decided by what you can tell.

You’re engaging in the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Denigrating my observations by citing my lack of prominence doesn’t answer the argument. Show me that they are not policy initiatives. That is a reasonable counter to my argument.

I maintain that they are policy initiatives that have proven to be failures in the life and health of the Church. Policy initiatives by the Churchmen in power at a certain time are certainly within the limits of criticism by the laiety. Canon law I believe gives the faithful the right to air their grievances with the heirarchy. Not to mention a long tradition of the faithful going to great lengths to pull the bishops back into line. And bishops rebuking Popes in public when necessary

Originally Posted by GerardP
There are no anathemas and no binding statements that don’t already restate that which was already known and taught.

A) If everything is exactly the same – no clarifications – then why do people, who agree with what was taught before, argue with the content of the documents?

I didn’t say everything is exactly the same. The Deposit of Faith remains the same. The policies have changed through the loosening of restrictions of Vatican II. Ceding so much power to the bishops in terms of liturgical reform is the direct cause of the collapse of the liturgy. The obvious misreadings of the council by Cardinals, bishops and Popes have evoked any number of doctrinal deviations.

B) Please explain what you mean by “no binding statements.”

There are no statements issued in Vatican II that settled any matter dogmatically, whereas prior to Vatican I a Catholic could remain in good standing without having an explicit belief in papal infallibility, after the binding statment of Vatican I, that liberty was no longer a possibility. There are no comparable statements in Vatican II.

C) Please show where it is taught that anathemas and binding statements are needed to make a council necessary.

No council is intrinsically necessary. The Pope himself can invoke the magisterium of the Church all by himself without ever having to call a council. Councils are simply canonical constructions to help the bishops synergize their efforts. It’s the invocation of the magisterium that gives them any supernatural protection. But there is no promise of good fruit or necessity. Cardinal Tardini I believe told John XXIII that to call a council without a specific crisis to address was to “tempt the Spirit”.

This is not the same as saying that the Council was unnecessary.

Please show me a magisterial invocation that states that Vatican II was necessary. I’ve just pointed to the opinion of the Pope that called the council and he said “no.”

 

[GerardP]

Argument A: Archbishop LeFebvre committed a schismatic act.

Argument B: No, he didn’t, because it was not his intent to go into schism.

Argument C: Intent doesn’t matter. Example given.

Argument D: That example falls apart because it can be used to show that the Church Herself is responsible for the NOM abuses.

Argument E (which is mine – the one you quoted): Argument D’s comparision is fallacious because it brings in a third party.

You cannot dispute Argument E by going back to Argument B which was already disproven by Argument C. Argument C has yet to be disproven.

*St. Thomas Aquinas: **
Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit. Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, **wilfully and intentionally ***separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body.

Argument C is disproven.

Therefore Argument B still holds.

Therefore Argument A is disproven.

Argument D holds as will be shown further down.

Therefore Argument E is disproven.

This does not explain why the actions of third parties who commit liturgical abuses means that the archbishop did not commit a schismatic act because he did not intend to do so. If you think it does – please re-state your argument step by step so that I can understand it.

Simple.

1. Vatican II freed the bishops from the standards that the Church had established with no accountability.
2. The bishops allowed the liturgical abuse.
3. The Popes who were the only people capable of reigning in the bishops refused to do so.

LeFebvre by virtue of his apostolic mission was bound to continue to propagate the faith as it had been handed on to him. He was not in a state like Padre Pio who was cloistered who could utilize his persecution to his spiritual benefit. He had a more important mission as a shepherd.

The Holy Ghost does not force Popes to be good or wise if they don’t want to be.

The loose verbage of Vatican II gives Cardinal Mahoney every justification for every liturgical abuse he engages in. He’s a master at using the documents that come out of Rome and finding the language that gives him free reign. If you’ve ever seen him in action at the bishops conferences you know what I mean.

“No problem with us”!!! Again with the arrogance! Exactly who are they compared with the Church?

Can you define what you mean by “the Church”? Fellay was directing his statement to the Curia, not the Church. And after your emotional reaction would you concede that the SSPX is not guilty of liturgical abuse, heterodoxy or any of the other novelties that plague the diocesan parishes with the blessings of their bishops. The SSPX didn’t protect pedophiles, The SSPX didn’t cover up homosexual activity. The SSPX didn’t cruelly deny the traditions of the people in direct contradiction to some of the suggestions of the Holy Father and the documents of Vatican II that left the final decisions to the local ordinary.

Had the Popes been stronger and quashed the bishops that were running rampant because Vatican II gave them the permission to run rampant, the SSPX would not exist.

And don’t think I’m being unjustly harsh on the Popes. They themselves Paul VI and JPII both towards the end of their lives criticized themselve for not being stronger in the governance of the Church.

 

[GerardP]

What do you think could possibly happen in time that would prove that the Council made an error? Proclamation by another council? By a pope? According to the Traditionalist arguments posted here, those things would be open to debate and not proof of anything.

Of course, such a thing cannot happen anyway. Who is in error has already been decided – it’s just that some people refuse to accept the judgment.

Errors are not decided. Errors are determined. There is objective right and wrong. Popes don’t control that. Their judgements are often wrong. Look at the trial of Formosus as an example of papal “decisions” being turned over and overturned multiple times. Not on the guilt of a bishop but on the guilt of Popes.

Traditionalists listen to the voice of the Pope when he speaks as Peter. The Popes have been unwilling to utilize that voice in areas where it is desperately needed. Unfortunately nobody can coerce a Pope to speak infallibly if they don’t want to.

JPII’s personal opinions an so many of his governing decisions are perfectly within the limits of criticism for their wisdom by the faithful. In some cases, they must be resisted if the salvation of souls is at stake. This has been the constant teaching of the Church since the beginning.

 

[pnewton]

It amazes me that some SSPX still think there was no schism. I think most know better, but how can one not understand that it is not the schismatic that defines who is in communion with the Holy Father, but the Holy Father himself. To want to judge their own standing makes as much since as wanting to sit on the Great White Throne themselves come judgement day.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

It amazes me that some SSPX still think there was no schism. I think most know better, but how can one not understand that it is not the schismatic that defines who is in communion with the Holy Father, but the Holy Father himself. To want to judge their own standing makes as much since as wanting to sit on the Great White Throne themselves come judgement day.

Thats a pretty bold claim.

However…just as some cant believe the SSPX could have…well…the guts to even assume they have the authority to deem wether or not they are in schism.

Many of traditionalists (in the SSPX or not) can hardly believe Paul VI assumed he could just impose a brand new liturgy on the Church and completly supress the others. Then have his future successors act like they dont know why Trads are so “disobedient”.

But thankfully the Spirit of Vatican II is fading away…and so will the Pauline Mass one day.

Sic semper tyrannis.

 

[GerardP]

It amazes me that some SSPX still think there was no schism. I think most know better, but how can one not understand that it is not the schismatic that defines who is in communion with the Holy Father, but the Holy Father himself. To want to judge their own standing makes as much since as wanting to sit on the Great White Throne themselves come judgement day.

Your argument is circular. You say the schismatic wants to define who is in communion with the Holy Father instead of the Holy Father defining who is in communion with himself.

As I pointed out in the definition of schism as explained by St. Thomas Aquinas (approved of by the Church) The schismatic must **intentionally and willfully **separate himself. It doesn’t necessitate a statement from the Holy Father. So, it is the schismatic who defines his position as separate from the Holy Father. The Holy Father is basically just guessing or being malicious when it comes to his judgement. The problem with the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei is that the Holy Father judges the interior disposition of LeFebvre by his statment “this implies a schismatic act” (Actually what the Holy Father should have said is "I infer a schismatic act from this disobedience) But that would have opened up another can of worms. Since as St. Pius X said “no man may judge the interior disposition of a man’s soul”

JPII’s statements don’t affect the actual schism or lack thereof. His statement either conforms to reality or not.

The situation that is presented is the non-schismatic being falsely accused of schism by a superior.

The alternative is for you to support the idea that either the pope is exercising infallibility in this declaration (which he can’t) or that he is impeccable and therefore incapable of error. Or third that he has the power to alter reality to conform to his whims.

 

[GerardP]

I don’t see how the claim that “Lefebvre never intended to break from Rome” can be translated as “Lefebvre never broke from Rome.” Lots of people never intend some end result, but the end result happens anyway.

“Joe never intended to lose all his money by gambling on horses” but nevertheless Joe did lose all his money. Just because he didn’t intend an end result (which was the logical outcome of a particular course of action) doesn’t mean the end result was avoided.

Upthread you’ll see that I posted a relevant part of St. Thomas’ definition of schism. You’ll see that schism must be both willful and intentional.

To follow your analogy, Paul VI may not have intended for the liturgy to collapse with the promulgation of the N.O. and throw the Church into crisis (to use the current Holy Father’s words) but it happened.

The difference is, the crisis in the Church could have happened either with or without the explicit will and intent of the Holy Father. He could have intended the collapse or not. If he intended it, he’s guilty of a heinous crime. If he’s not, he did something that just turned out to be wrong with no guilt on his soul. The same holds true for LeFebvre.

Especially in the fact that he explicitly described the bishops as “sacrament machines” with “no jurisdiction” there is no evidence that LeFebvre implied a schism with his constant efforts to get the Popes to abandon the post conciliar policies and reconnect with the traditions of the Church.

The last few Popes did nothing and the current Holy Father has validated LeFebvre by speaking of the “Hermenuetic of Discontiniuty” or “Rupture” (I cant’ remember the term at the moment.)

 

[pnewton]

Your argument is circular. You say the schismatic wants to define who is in communion with the Holy Father instead of the Holy Father defining who is in communion with himself.

It is a definition, not an arguement. LeFebvre was told that the ordinations would be and act of schism. Do you think he accidently ordained them or accidently ordaind them? In any case, whatever my arguements, one of the lengths posted earlier linked back to the AAA forum where the letter was referenced defining the schism. No arguement by any poster her is going to over-ride a the pope, at least for faithful Catholics.

 

[GerardP]

Zombieism has to do with OBEDIENCE. Salvation comes* only* from obedience it has nothing to do with other behavior or any circumstances whatsoever.

Where did you learn this? Obedience is subordinate to Justice according to the teaching of the Church. As St. Thomas explains it is also contingent on the quality of the obedience. True obedience (which Vatican I requires of the faithful) Perfect obedience which no one can be completely sure of and False obedience (doing that which is against natural law or is damaging to the faith through servility)