The SSPX and True Catholicism

[GerardP]

part two:

Look at it this way…
God did not always permit divorce, but because of the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts, he permitted it through Mosaic law. Once society was “ready,” Jesus let it be known that it was never so, and He corrected us all

.

Whoa. Stop there. Jesus did not “let it be know that is was never so.” Jesus changed the essence of marriage. He elevated it to a Sacrament. Natural marriage was one thing, and Jesus made it a sanctifying sacrament. Just as John’s baptism did not wash away original sin, Jesus’ sacrament had the same level of difference in marriage.

Now, this was a MUCH more “serious” change than “whether or not you may receive the Eucharist in the hand or not,” but everyone knows from the Bible that this is what God allowed to happen…(but no one would suggest that somehow Moses “got it wrong!”)

NO, they would say as it’s always been said…God reveals His plan to us according to His timetable only, and there is DEVELOPMENT in our understanding of this revelation (No new revelation…YES, we agree, but our “understanding” of His revelation develops over time.

That’s completely circular. God “reveals” over time, but there is no new revelation. That doesn’t hold. The deposit of faith is complete and the understanding of it is complete. It is the expression of it that changes with time. St. Augustine called the body of Our Lord in the Blessed sacrament. “flesh”. He didn’t understand anything beyond that. He took it as a fact with a “latent mystery” towards understanding it. St. Thomas worked out the concept of “transubstantiation” but that only developed the idea of how the miracle happens. It’s still just as much “flesh” as it has always been. You just have reason supporting the faith behind it. When we move to the modern philosophies, a Maronite priest once told me , “transubstantiation doesn’t work anymore.” because people don’t understand it. But at the same time, he denied that it was real flesh, he denied the existence of angels, demons, the devil, Hell, the resurrection of the body as a physical event and other things. I asked him where he got all of this. He said, “Karl Rahner.”

Vatican I. says : *For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
*

So, if it’s not unreasonable for God to allow disciplinary changes within the Church without affecting the faith, then we MUST agree that if, for example,

This is where we disagree. There have been disciplinary changes within the Church that have affected the faith. God does not prevent this from happening. There is no protection guaranteed by God that disciplinary changes will be good ones.

next year a new ecumenical council convenes, and they revert to receiving only on the tongue, then does this somehow “vindicate” the SSPX view?

NO, because Vatican II was not “wrong,” we know this from Matthews Gospel…"…and the gates of Hell SHALL NOT PREVAIL. Whatever YOU, (PETER) bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven." This goes for ALL the Popes.

That’s the problem. Vatican II didn’t “bind” anything. It loosened virtually everything. And it’s the “gates of Hell” will not prevail against the Church. It doesn’t say, “the gates of the Church will prevail against the forces of Hell.” There must be aggressive action on the part of the Church for the gates of Hell to be broken.

It just means that the H.S. guided them to do what was in the best interest of the faithful AT THAT TIME, with regards to DISCIPLINES.

No, I believe you are mistaken on that point. You are ascribing powers to a council that it doesn’t have. The Holy Spirit wasn’t invoked to guide the council into certain decisions. It can only protect from heresy. There is no heresy in Vatican II. There are however many many bad policy initiatives that have been disastrous for the Church.

Now, if our current Pope decides to teach that Mary had other children, for example, THEN we can all start our new SSJPII Just kidding…we know this won’t happen.

It won’t happen with any binding authority. To go further, if some future Pope is an utter crackpot and allows speculation into the matter “in a way that will allow a new understanding of the virginity of Mary without compromising the essential meaning of the dogmas of the Church.” we’ll know that he’s not to be trusted. The only problem is that many people will side with him because he’s the Pope.

 

[sfp]

You are essentially saying that the Pope has positive revelation given to him on how to conduct the affairs of the Church. The only Pope that had revelation given to him was St. Peter and even he stumbled several times. Antioch and at the Appian Way. Revelation closed with the death of St. John. …

…Another point, “Doctrine” means “to teach” it isn’t the matter of revelation itself.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying what the Church teaches…that the Pope has the authority to bind and loose on earth, and this is considered AUTHORITATIVE interpretation.

We agree that no Pope is given “new” revelation, but that his job is to PROTECT the deposit of faith. But for you or anyone to deny the Popes right to make changes to DISCIPLINARY things, denies this basic, fundamental concept of the keys to the kingdom.

No, sorry…the popes are not necessarily “wrong,” when they disagree on DISCIPLINARY things. DOCTRINAL things cannot and will not change, but disciplinary things MUST. This does NOT require that one pope is “right” and another is “wrong” regarding matters of faith and morals. And even if we were to agree that one was “right” or “wrong” on any given discipline, which is subjective anyway, it doesn’t matter…this is NOT DOCTRINE.

You seems to have a hard time understanding the difference. You are raising disciplines to the level of doctrine, and applying the same criteria to discipines as you would doctrine, and you can’t do that.

FYI, Peter’s “stumbles” had nothing to do with faith and morals, he was corrected for things that had nothing to do with faith. (ie. he refused to sit at table with the gentiles…this is NOT a matter of faith and morals).

I think what pnewton was trying to say, and I agree 100%, is that it “seems” like the SSPX has a real problem with obedience to authority, which is why he made the crack about the military. No one is denying the integrity or the faithfulness, or committment, or even the noble intentions of the SSPX, but there’s no doubt that there’s a real problem of obedience here, which is unnacceptable in the military…and “should” be in our faith, as well.

The Israelites “murmered” too, this is nothing new. But who had the authority? Moses, to be sure.

Gerard, you can murmer all you want, but until one can assent his intellect and will to the teachings of the CURRENT authority, whether disciplinary OR doctrinal, “he ain’t Catholic.” (no offense)

 

[GerardP]

Then you follow anyway. That is the meaning of the word authority

 

[GerardP]

Quote:
LeFebrve believed, and it has been born out that the Chuch is in a massive crisis of apostasy

Then he was wrong.

No he was correct.

I look around at the church today. I see growth.

First I disagree. Churches are being sold at an astonishing rate. More allegations keep coming out about abuse. Lip service has been paid to the remedies. Cardinal Law has not been santioned. Bishop Wuerl and Egan will not defend the unborn or prevent the Blessed Sacrament, Our Divine Lord and Savior from being defiled by political heretics who eat and drink the Lord unto their own destruction. And that is just in the U.S.

Second, are we talking about LeFebvre in 1988 or Bishop Fellay today? Because Fellay can give plenty of examples of the same problems in the Church from Cardinal Kaspar to the pictures of Liturgical abuse that he brought to the Holy Father.

I see a solid new Pope in Benedict.

I’m hopeful and believe he’s sincere but not impressed with his “solidity”. He has my prayers every morning for strength though and his picture is by my bed next to a holy candle.

That said, We could have done without the trip to the Mosque, the cowtowing to the Jewish leaders in Germany and the appointment of gay friendly bishops like Wuerl and Levada to positions of enormous importance in the Church.

But, on the other hand, he has pointed out that the Church is in crisis. He said as much to Bishop Fellay. He also said it publicly in 2005 when he described the Church as a “sinking ship” and “full of so much filth”.

I see that homosexuals are now barred from seminaries and the old liberal guard dying off.

Homosexuals have always been barred from the seminaries. It’s just that the newest instruction is not as strict as John XXIII’s instruction. Compare the two of them and you’ll find more “wiggle room” than in the previous guidelines.

I see no church dogma ever denied.

Not explicitly. Implicitly it’s all over the place. Especially “Outside the Church No Salvation.”

I definietly do not see a repudiation of Christ.

What do you call bishops and Cardinals (princes of the Church) who give communion to non-Catholics and heretical pro-abortion politicians?

Apostasy? That’s just nuts.

JPII finally admitted it. Are you calling JPII nuts?

Unless of course you’re going sedevacantist. Then it’s really nuts.

I’m not sede. Are you a modernist? Sedes are not heretics though. The big mistake of the sedes is an incorrect understanding of papal infallibility.

Quote:
We do have SSPX in the U.S. military. And they serve admirably.

I guess I’m glad to hear that, although I wonder if thy are just as willing to cut and run and desert their country as they were their church.

Cheap shot and untrue. That’s like calling a Vietnam Vet a “babykiller.”

I’d feel very sorry for you if you said that to the face of the soldiers who come into the chapel I attend in full uniform. Though I suspect they would have the grace of restraint.

You seem more concerned about your country than your Church, which is more important to you? Would you take the side of your Church or your Country if push came to shove?

 

[sfp]

Whoa. Stop there. Jesus did not “let it be know that is was never so.”

Yes He did…that’s a direct quote from the Bible…

Mt. 19 (NAB)…

*3 *Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, 4 saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”
*4 5 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ *
*5 **and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? *
*6 **So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” *
*7 6 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” *
*8 *He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
*9 *I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery." ."

That’s completely circular. God “reveals” over time, but there is no new revelation. That doesn’t hold. The deposit of faith is complete and the understanding of it is complete. It is the expression of it that changes with time.

I was only referring to the O.T. when I said “God reveals himself to us over time.” Yes, you say it more correctly when you say it is our “expression” of it that changes with time now (in the Church age), but that’s my whole point…disciplines are an EXPRESSION of the faith! They are NOT doctrine, and they CAN change because they are not matters of faith and morals.

This is where we disagree. There have been disciplinary changes within the Church that have affected the faith.

Please give examples.

God does not prevent this from happening. There is no protection guaranteed by God that disciplinary changes will be good ones.

Yes, and the reason the H.S. allows this is because disciplines can. IT DOESN’T MATTER that they change…they’re SUPPOSED to change…IT’S O.K., because the doctrines don’t.

That’s the problem. Vatican II didn’t “bind” anything. It loosened virtually everything

First of all, that’s the CHURCH’S prerogative…the Church has the authority to do that. Second, IT’S ONLY REGARDING DISCIPLINARY THINGS! :banghead:

No, I believe you are mistaken on that point. You are ascribing powers to a council that it doesn’t have. The Holy Spirit wasn’t invoked to guide the council into certain decisions. It can only protect from heresy.

Acts 15:27-29 disagrees with you. The first Church council exercised it’s power “under the inspiration of the H.S.” to make disciplinary concessions.

It won’t happen with any binding authority. To go further, if some future Pope is an utter crackpot and allows speculation into the matter "…

It hasn’t happened in 2000 years, so what makes you so concerned that it “might” in the future?? I think you’re not giving the H.S. His due credit.

 

[pnewton]

How about the eighth commandment in demanding that he abandon his vows of ordination, consecration and the anti-modernist oath by allowing the scandals in the Church to go on unchallenged?
)

I am unaware of any oath that LeFevbre was asked to abandoned. He chose to abandon his oath of obedience, though. Where was he asked to abandon any oath?

As to who left who, that is rather a black and white issue. The papacy is in Rome. The current pope is elected by the cardinals under the discernment of the Holy Spirit. You either get it or you don’t. I do not define different type of obedience. You do, or you don’t, obey the Holy See, which is God’s representative on Earth.

You said’" The SSPX certainly hasn’t deserted the Catholic Faith or the papacy." Right? Then why don’t they repent of their schism and join the Church in her mission? This mission of saving souls has never stopped. The Church is still active about this mission as souls are still brought into the Church. I do not remember the numbers, but last year the number was in the millions Africa had several hundred thousand. This continues dispite the SSPX, not because of it.

You said the quote about modernism was just hypothetical, but then you you say that LeFevbre was asked to abandon his anti-modernist oath. So is it hypothitical or not?

I like this question:

How is ecumenism, religious liberty and the Novus Ordo so much more suited to modern man because of technological advances or globalization?

Heck if I know, but then I am not the Pope and the current Mass is not a sin, so obedience is the only course for faithful Catholics. Otherwise we deteriorate into letting everyone interpret for themselves… uh… everything.

How many decades will it take for the SSPX to realize that all the doom and gloom (that the Church is wrong and they are right) was mistaken? I don’t think may will ever admit it. They will become another abberation, like the Old Catholic Church in another generation. The Catholic Church will move on without them and retain the charism of the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

 

[GerardP]

No, I am not saying that. I am saying what the Church teaches…that the Pope has the authority to bind and loose on earth, and this is considered AUTHORITATIVE interpretation.

I’ll use a real example. I abstain from meat on all Fridays. On one occasion I slipped up. I was in the confessional to an SSPX priest and he said, "Rome has taken away the obligation for abstinence, so you didn’t sin except venially at most. (for not subsituting an appropriate sacrifice) but it is still a good practice for the development of good Catholics in a good Catholic society to retain the traditional practices. " Here was a case where everyone acknowledged the right of the Pope to make changes but opted out of the changes in order to preserve the greater benefits of the old practices.

We agree that no Pope is given “new” revelation, but that his job is to PROTECT the deposit of faith. But for you or anyone to deny the Popes right to make changes to DISCIPLINARY things, denies this basic, fundamental concept of the keys to the kingdom.

We also agree that the Pope has the right to make disciplinary changes. But where we differ is you from your writings seem to believe that the Pope is divinely protected in making these changes. Whereas in the history of the Church, it has always been taught and shown that Popes are not protected. And in cases where disciplinary changes are a danger to the faith, they must be resisted until the danger is passed or the Pope corrects the error.

No, sorry…the popes are not necessarily “wrong,” when they disagree on DISCIPLINARY things. DOCTRINAL things cannot and will not change, but disciplinary things MUST.

We are in a situation now where disciplinary changes have lead to doctrinal changes. You are saying that all Popes are right in all disciplinary matters at all times because of their particular circumstances. Even when they contradict one another. This is modernism. For example, excessive and false ecumenism leads to indifferentism. Everyone seems to have known that on the traditionalist side of things and no one seems to know it on the “conciliar” (for lack of a better word) until the Holy Father says indifferentism is a problem.

This does NOT require that one pope is “right” and another is “wrong” regarding matters of faith and morals. And even if we were to agree that one was “right” or “wrong” on any given discipline, which is subjective anyway, it doesn’t matter…this is NOT DOCTRINE.

Because it’s not doctrine you seem to think that it’s unimportant? The fact that the disciplines and the doctrines affect each other doesn’t seem to be an issue? Or don’t you realize that the law of prayer affects the law of belief?

You seems to have a hard time understanding the difference. You are raising disciplines to the level of doctrine, and applying the same criteria to discipines as you would doctrine, and you can’t do that.

No. I’m putting disciplines in their proper place. They are the fortress walls that protect the doctrines from corruption.
JPII said in 1981 that touching the sacred species was to be reserved for the ordained alone. Everybody disobeyed so he gave up. And the Church has suffered because he didn’t crack heads when he should have. Lax disciplines leads to lax beliefs. The root of “disciplines” is “disciple” which meand “to teach”–They are the little teachings. And the Council of Trent defined that they are incentives to piety and it is heresy to treat them as if they are readily disposable.

FYI, Peter’s “stumbles” had nothing to do with faith and morals, he was corrected for things that had nothing to do with faith. (ie. he refused to sit at table with the gentiles…this is NOT a matter of faith and morals).

So what is your problem with the Popes of the modern era being corrected for disciplines? On the one hand you say “they are not doctrines, what’s the big deal?” and on the other you say, “It was okay to correct Peter because they were not doctrines.” Don’t you see the inconsistency?

I

think what pnewton was trying to say, and I agree 100%, is that it “seems” like the SSPX has a real problem with obedience to authority, which is why he made the crack about the military.

Is “seems” due to what has been said “about” the SSPX or from your own firsthand experience with the SSPX?

 

[GerardP]

sfp wrote:

No one is denying the integrity or the faithfulness, or committment, or even the noble intentions of the SSPX, but there’s no doubt that there’s a real problem of obedience here, which is unnacceptable in the military…and “should” be in our faith, as well.

The military has it’s limits on obedience as we all know. Nuremburg ended the phrase, “I was just following orders.”

The question is, is there a problem of obedience or a problem in leadership? I’m not talking about the divinely instituted offices of bishop and Pope. I’m talking about the effects of the new philosophies on the carrying out of the mission of those offices. Since John XXIII the slow democratization of a heirarchical structure has been detrimental to the Church.

The Israelites “murmered” too, this is nothing new. But who had the authority? Moses, to be sure. Gerard, you can murmer all you want, but until one can assent his intellect and will to the teachings of the CURRENT authority, whether disciplinary OR doctrinal, “he ain’t Catholic.” (no offense)

I don’t know what you are referring to with “murmured”. But what you are saying is, “If Moses wants to hit the rock twice than Moses is right to hit the rock twice.” And we know that would have been untrue.

The authority of the Church is perennial. It is not current or past. There is one Magisterium. What you are demanding is assent of will and intellect, not to the teachings but to the policies of the current occupants of the heirarchy. Should the current heirarcy invoke the magisterium of the Church, you can be sure that traditionalists will accept it. Just as everyone accepted that the Pope had the right to make changes to the Rosary. But we’ve opted out of using them because there are arguments from Paul VI and Leo XIII that make the 15 mystery rosary a more well balanced prayer in the life of the Church. JPII made the changes, he had the authority. He didn’t bind anyone to abandon the old way and so traditionalists take that option and can make their objections known to the current Pope to bind the old way. There’s nothing unCatholic or wrong with any of that.

 

[GerardP]

Originally Posted by GerardP
How about the eighth commandment in demanding that he abandon his vows of ordination, consecration and the anti-modernist oath by allowing the scandals in the Church to go on unchallenged?
)

I am unaware of any oath that LeFevbre was asked to abandoned. He chose to abandon his oath of obedience, though. Where was he asked to abandon any oath?

LeFebvre was asked to accept the changes of Vatican II as if they were dogmatic decrees and not policy initiatives. (ie. something irresistible vs. something resistible morally) Now that I remember it, LeFebvre was asked by the Holy See to lie by signing an apology for something that he didn’t feel he should apologize for. He refused and this is why he retracted his signature from the protocol agreement.

LeFebvre, by being asked to cease “operation survival” was asked to abandon his anti-modernist oath.

As to who left who, that is rather a black and white issue. The papacy is in Rome.

No one disagrees with that part about the papacy. A true schismatic would disagree.

The current pope is elected by the cardinals under the discernment of the Holy Spirit.

That “under the discernment” part is false. There is no guaranted that the Pope is the choice of the Holy Ghost. The Pope is elected only by the permissive will of God. Not by divine intervention. Cardinals do not cede their free will in conclaves.

You either get it or you don’t. I do not define different type of obedience.

Then you are not in accord with the teaching of the Catholic Church, which does define degrees of obedience. And it ranks the virtue of obedience as subordinate to the virtue of Justice.

You do, or you don’t, obey the Holy See, which is God’s representative on Earth.

What about when the Holy See, or the Patriarch of the West, the Supreme Pontiff, the Servant of the Servants of Christ, the Successor of St. Peter, the Holder of the Keys, doesn’t obey God? Do you really think the poor little deacon that Pope Stephen had stand next to the body of Pope Formosus was morally obligated to obey the sovereign Pontiff and provide answers that were lies for the body of the dead Pope next to him? Don’t you think that if he’d had the courage to disobey he would have been morally justified?

You said’" The SSPX certainly hasn’t deserted the Catholic Faith or the papacy." Right? Then why don’t they repent of their schism and join the Church in her mission?

Why should they repent of a schism that never occurred? Why didn’t the Pope apologize for persecuting LeFebvre?
Why didn’t the Pope abandon the novelties and help the Church in its mission of protecting and saving the souls of the faithful?

This mission of saving souls has never stopped.

No. But it has been stymied.

 

[GerardP]

The Church is still active about this mission as souls are still brought into the Church. I do not remember the numbers, but last year the number was in the millions Africa had several hundred thousand.

I would be curious as to what those souls are really being taught. The bishops in Africa are the most defiant bunch going with their support of condom use for a false crisis called Aids in Africa. (Read Tom Bethell’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Science and you’ll find out how the Aids scare in Africa is a huge scam… You don’t need to have an HIV test in Africa to be diagnosed with Aids. )

This continues dispite the SSPX, not because of it.

What makes you come to the conclusion that the SSPX is an obstacle to conversions in Africa?

You said the quote about modernism was just hypothetical, but then you you say that LeFevbre was asked to abandon his anti-modernist oath. So is it hypothitical or not?

No. It’s not a matter of a bold command, it’s a matter of coercive pressure.

I like this question:

Quote:
How is ecumenism, religious liberty and the Novus Ordo so much more suited to modern man because of technological advances or globalization?
Heck if I know, but then I am not the Pope and the current Mass is not a sin, so obedience is the only course for faithful Catholics.

If it’s the only course, why did St. Robert Bellarmine, doctor of the Church say that in certain circumstances it is licit to resist the Pope?

Otherwise we deteriorate into letting everyone interpret for themselves… uh… everything.

There used to be a time when Catholics were taught to have informed consciences and “discern” things. This has been now turned into a negative called “interpret” things. Knowledge, Wisdom, Fortitude used to be gifts of the Holy Spirit. The faith is already there, the Magisterium has already been invoked to clear up any number of errors. The problem is the Magisterium not being invoked in these modern days.

How many decades will it take for the SSPX to realize that all the doom and gloom (that the Church is wrong and they are right) was mistaken?

Read then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s statements about the state of the Church from the Stations of the Cross meditations 2005 and tell me about doom and gloom. In 2004 he talked about sorrowing for the ruins that we were standing in.

And the SSPX doesn’t say “the Church” is wrong. They say specific Churchmen are wrong. It was Churchmen that engaged in the policies of pedophile cover-ups relocations and scandal. It wasn’t Holy Mother Church.

I don’t think may will ever admit it. They will become another abberation, like the Old Catholic Church in another generation. The Catholic Church will move on without them and retain the charism of the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

Come now. Where’s the talk of unity? Why the doom and gloom? Where did this “triumphalism” of the Catholic Church come from? How’s this for a scenario?..Gradually the liberals in the heirarchy will die off or be converted to tradition. Bishops start to get appointed and eventually given the Red Hat, people like Fr. Berg or other Fr. Chad Ripperger. Then, they will be able to regularize the SSPX against the phalanx of the remaining liberals, and a Pope or Council will be called to reassert traditional teaching and anathematize the variouis novelties that developed from the ambiguities of Vatican II.

But if people like bishop Wuerl get the red hat, then we know we’re going to be in trouble for a long while yet.

 

[GerardP]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP
Whoa. Stop there. Jesus did not “let it be known that it was never so.”

Yes He did…that’s a direct quote from the Bible…

Mt. 19 (NAB)…
;;;;;8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

I’m sorry. I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that the Church has the right to change the sacramental nature of marriage. I agree with you that the natural marriages were indissoluable. But a civil divorce in some certain circumstances and even
today is permissible by the Church, though re-marriage is forbidden. And the Haydock commentary on the passage reads:

"

Ver. 8. Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you, &c. Whether this was permitted in the old law, so that the man who was divorced from his wife could marry another woman, is disputed. Some think this second marriage was still unlawful for the man or woman so separated to marry another. (Witham) — The latter part of this verse, of St. Paul, (Romans vii. 3,) and the constant tradition of the Church, shew that the exception only refers to separation, but not to the marrying another during the life of the parties. In this place Christ restores the original condition of the marriage state, and henceforth will have it to be a perfect figure of the hypostatic union of his divine person with our human nature, as also of his nuptial union with his Church, and consequently that it should be indissoluble. (Tirinus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP
That’s completely circular. God “reveals” over time, but there is no new revelation. That doesn’t hold. The deposit of faith is complete and the understanding of it is complete. It is the expression of it that changes with time.

I was only referring to the O.T. when I said “God reveals himself to us over time.” Yes, you say it more correctly when you say it is our “expression” of it that changes with time now (in the Church age), but that’s my whole point…disciplines are an EXPRESSION of the faith! They are NOT doctrine, and they CAN change because they are not matters of faith and morals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP
This is where we disagree. There have been disciplinary changes within the Church that have affected the faith.

Please give examples.

Ceding so much liberty to the bishops has lead to this babel of vernacular translations in the mass.
The allowance of vernacular translations has allowed mistranslations which lead to dogmatic errors.
The emphasis on collegiality has diminished the authority of the Pope to the point where he will not exercise his full power without consensus from the bishops (which they never will give in today’s climate) I can go on an on…
Communion in the hand leads to less reverence in many circumstances. Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers lead to Ordinary lay Eucharistic Ministers. Women in the sanctuary gets people primed for the push for women priests. Altars as tables leads to diminishing the emphasis on the sacrificial aspect of the Mass. The removal of Crucifixes and portrayals of Christ’s suffering diminishes the salvific sacrifice and the commensurate guilt of our own sins.

Lax seminaries are teaching bizaarre theology and sacramentology. I know of a Novus Ordo priest who won’t give even the new form of absolution. I’ve taken it to his pastor and he still won’t correct himself. The Cardinal ignores all attempts to contact him by the laiety. I had to go confess twice in one day because he didn’t say the essential words “I absolve you.” I had to go find a Norbertine at the local abbey to hear my confession. He was scandalized when I told him what happened at the local parish.

more later…

 

[sfp]

So what is your problem with the Popes of the modern era being corrected for disciplines? On the one hand you say “they are not doctrines, what’s the big deal?” and on the other you say, “It was okay to correct Peter because they were not doctrines.” Don’t you see the inconsistency?

No, I’m not being inconsistent. “Incomplete,” maybe, but not inconsistent…but this is what happens over forums…none of us have all day to respond to everything. I have the utmost respect for disciplines, and no I’m not suggesting that they are “unimportant.” What I said was that, “they can change” without inherently affecting doctrinal faith and morals. If some people of predisposed to become lax, it is due to societal pressures, NOT the Church’s rightful choice to allow certain concessions from a particular discipline.

Since the Pope does not “disallow” SSPX to keep the “traditional” disciplines that they practice, I have no right to discredit it’s mission to do that, and I am not doing so. The problem I have, is when you say that JPII was “wrong,” or that “those who choose to receive the Eucharist in the hand are somehow less reverant than those who refuse to do that.”

I receive the Eucharist in the hand, and I have the UTMOST reverance for the body of Christ. I do it precisely in RESPECT FOR the host, so that it is not accidentally “dropped,” AND so that I do not spread or receive germs from others via the fingers of the minister. And I have the Holy See’s permission to do this (SO LONG as I do not profain the host)

It is just not your place, or anyone in SSPX’s place to determine what is “more” correct than another in terms of disciplines. Keep your “traditional” practices (although this term is relative, and is not “traditional” in the ancient sense), because this is not forbidden, but you should not suggest that my disciplines are somehow “incorrect,” especially when God’s representative on earth says it is acceptable. Some may be applying them “incorrectly,” but that does not mean that the practice is wrong.

And I believe your priest is incorrect about his comment that “Rome has taken away the requirement for abstinence.” The Church is very clear that we are still supposed to abstain during Lent, and to fast on Fridays. It is recommended that we continue to abstain from meats on Friday, but another denial to self is acceptable…especially for those who have nutritional needs, such as pregnant mothers.

If some people have taken this out of context, and choose to do “whatever they feel is right,” this is their problem, and we as lay people have an obligation to help them understand.

However, the SSPX, according to what you have stated here, REINFORCES this idea that we can all just start our own church with our own theology if we disagree with the Holy See.

I believe your mission does much more harm than good, because it gives others encouragement to dissent.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Well then the argument that JPII’s judgement on canon law must be correct because he is the legislator falls flat. The law itself may be good Church common sense law but the application of those laws is completely fallible.

The law under normal circumstances is a good law for the regulation of the Church. But a law against trespassing isn’t there to prevent your neighbor from running across your lawn with a hose to put the fire out. We are in a state of emergency in the Church.

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. 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. Typically we would say a lawful order must be disobeyed if it commands immorality. So, was the liturgical situation enough to constitute an emergency? Let’s ask Bp. Williamson.

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. 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.) 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…

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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? 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).

The Holy Spirit wasn’t invoked to guide the council into certain decisions. It can only protect from heresy. There is no heresy in Vatican II. There are however many many bad policy initiatives that have been disastrous for the Church.

Well, it seems Vatican II contains no heresy. Statements that are very hard to understand in light of the Tradition? Perhaps. 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. 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. But that’s not an emergency. The Church teaching the truth doesn’t constitute an emergency.

How about the eighth commandment in demanding that he abandon his vows of ordination, consecration and the anti-modernist oath by allowing the scandals in the Church to go on unchallenged?

Should I get into the sins against faith, hope and charity that one is guilty of, if they neglect to defend the truth? How about the sins against the Holy Ghost (eg. aiding another’s sin by silence )

And the SSPX doesn’t say “the Church” is wrong. They say specific Churchmen are wrong. It was Churchmen that engaged in the policies of pedophile cover-ups relocations and scandal. It wasn’t Holy Mother Church.

It’s perfectly possible to stand up for the truth without being disobedient. In fact, I think one can genuinely argue that Abp. Lefebvre could have done this most effectively as a bishop in good standing. The Church wasn’t wrong. That’s impossible. Churchmen were wrong. 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. But as it stands, the faithful were receiving what the SSPX acknowledges are valid sacraments. 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. 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?

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

I absolutely agree 100% with Missa Solemnis (the original poster). Very well-written and very true post. We must pray much for the Church, and especially her leaders. I have faith that one day Archbishop Lefebvre will be recognized for the saint he truly was and is. May God rest his soul.

 

[GerardP]

**sfp wrote: **

Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP
God does not prevent this from happening. There is no protection guaranteed by God that disciplinary changes will be good ones.
Yes, and the reason the H.S. allows this is because disciplines can. IT DOESN’T MATTER that they change…they’re SUPPOSED to change…IT’S O.K., because the doctrines don’t.

As I pointed out above. The disciplines affect our understanding and response to the doctrines. Not all disciplinary changes are created equal. It does matter. Yes, they can change. But how they change is important. And the post Vatican II changes have been disastrous. This is why the disciplines promoted by the Synod of Pistoia were condemned at the Council of Trent. Vatican II adopted those very same condemned disciplines and the results have been ruins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP
That’s the problem. Vatican II didn’t “bind” anything. It loosened virtually everything
First of all, that’s the CHURCH’S prerogative…the Church has the authority to do that. Second, IT’S ONLY REGARDING DISCIPLINARY THINGS!

Exactly. Yet people are running around complaining about the SSPX as if they are denying the Immaculate Conception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP
No, I believe you are mistaken on that point. You are ascribing powers to a council that it doesn’t have. The Holy Spirit wasn’t invoked to guide the council into certain decisions. It can only protect from heresy.

Acts 15:27-29 disagrees with you. The first Church council exercised it’s power “under the inspiration of the H.S.” to make disciplinary concessions.

The Council of Jerusalem doesn’t count in what we’re discussing. We’re talking ecumenical councils after the close of revelation. Jerusalem is never even counted as the first, the First Ecumenical Council was Nicaea I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP
It won’t happen with any binding authority. To go further, if some future Pope is an utter crackpot and allows speculation into the matter "…
It hasn’t happened in 2000 years, so what makes you so concerned that it “might” in the future?? I think you’re not giving the H.S. His due credit.

A Liturgy put together out of whole cloth by a committee with heretics contributing supervised by a Freemason, a dominantly pastoral in nature ecumenical council dominated by liberal periti, no definitions given to solve problems in the Church and the World. It was the attitude of “It hasn’t happened before” that convinced the bishops at Vatican II that there would be no revolution in the Church. I can’t recall the name of the bishop who voiced his opinion at the council that we faced the possibility of all vernacular masses. He was laughed at in the council.

 

[pnewton]

Why should they repent of a schism that never occurred? .

Yes it did.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38&highlight=SSPX

Not that you will agree, but feel free to continue in stubborn obstinance and affirn the stereotype of SSPX.

 

[GerardP]

Yes it did.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38&highlight=SSPX

Not that you will agree, but feel free to continue in stubborn obstinance and affirn the stereotype of SSPX.

Well that answer sure is slim pickings for discussion. You’ve got an unsupported denial of my point. It’s based on nothing but an a priori assumption that the Pope is always right in everything he does. Something that is totally against Catholic teaching.

I’ve provided numerous examples to support my position. Established that Catholic teaching about schism is something different than “the Pope said so.” and you’ve not really addressed any of those points.

I’ve pointed to Vatican I and the demand for “true” obedience and St. Thomas’ approved teaching on obedience. St. Robert Bellarmine on resisting a Pope, and no one has addressed.

I’ve pointed to extenuating circumstances regarding the shabby treatment and persecution that LeFebvre underwent. (we haven’t even gotten to the mock trial in Rome, the refusal to let him speak with Paul VI directly, the Apostolic visitation at Econe where the visitors from Rome denied the bodily Resurrection )

I’ve provided quotes from the Popes demonstrating that they believe the Church is in Crisis.

And what’s the response? An ad hominem attack and some pithel about “stereotypes”. There are stereotypes about “neo-Catholics” as well as SSPX supporters, I don’t think we want to descend into name calling.

If you don’t have anymore to contribute that is an actual argument, that contributes positively to the discussion, why don’t you take a break and come back when you cool off?

No one wants a pointless name-calling contest.

 

[pnewton]

Well that answer sure is slim pickings for discussion. …If you don’t have anymore to contribute that is an actual argument, that contributes positively to the discussion, why don’t you take a break and come back when you cool off?
.

Not your call. Kind of like LeFevbre. I quoted one of the apologists from this site. The Pope is not right about everything. I never said that. But when it comes to defining communion, he is, by definition of being Pope unquestionable. He does have the power to excommunicate, whether he uses it wisely or not. The status of the one excommunicated is unchanged whether the pope behaved wisely or not. Obviously I think he did the only thing he could when confronted with such a person as LeFevbre.

FYI - This is not an SSPX forum. In fact, the forum rules prohibit single-minded agendas to deter those who would deceive the Catholic faithful and attempt to recruit people out of the Church.

 

[GerardP]

Not your call. Kind of like LeFevbre…

I never said it was my call. I made a suggestion that’s all. If you want to spew venom at me, that’s your business. I’m sorry that you are so upset when I point out basic Catholic teaching.

I quoted one of the apologists from this site.

And? I didn’t see quotation marks or a reference. No matter what it’s origin, it had no value in the discussion.

The Pope is not right about everything. I never said that.

No. Nobody ever says that outright. They just imply it by ignoring Catholic teaching on the papacy, the history of the papacy and instead rely on other non-Catholic factors and opinions.

But when it comes to defining communion, he is, by definition of being Pope unquestionable.

Again. That is wrong. Pope Innocent III even stated directly that even a Pope’s excommunications can be self evidently invalid and should be ignored. St. Robert Bellarmine also addressed this as well as Suarez and other doctors, saints, Popes and theologians of the Church.

There are three forms of excommunication dealing with validity. There is the valid and just, the valid and unjust and the unjust and invalid. Look it up.

He does have the power to excommunicate, whether he uses it wisely or not.

Sure he has the power. He can use it wisely, unwisely or abuse it to the point of invalidity. In the case of LeFebvre it was intrinsically invalid.

The status of the one excommunicated is unchanged whether the pope behaved wisely or not.

By “status” you must be referring to canonical status. Reality and status don’t always agree.

Obviously I think he did the only thing he could when confronted with such a person as LeFevbre.

Alright. You have your opinion on the matter. I have mine. I know mine is based on facts, Catholic teaching, the history of the Church and a correct understanding of the human limits and supernatural character of the papacy.