The SSPX (without a flamewar)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I did not say they were “better than the Church” I said it is possible that the SSPX must remain visibly separated for the good of the Church. Bp. Shnieder said basically the same thing about Archbishop Lefebvre:

The more the doctrinal, moral and liturgical confusion grows in the life of the Church, the more one will understand the prophetic mission of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in an extraordinary dark time of a generalized crisis of the Church.

Maybe one day History will apply the following words of Saint Augustine to him:

“Often, too, divine providence permits even good men to be driven from the congregation of Christ by the turbulent seditions of carnal men. When for the sake of the peace of the Church they patiently endure that insult or injury, and attempt no novelties in the way of heresy or schism, they will teach men how God is to be served with a true disposition and with great and sincere charity. The intention of such men is to return when the tumult has subsided. But if that is not permitted because the storm continues or because a fiercer one might be stirred up by their return, they hold fast to their purpose to look to the good even of those responsible for the tumults and commotions that drove them out. They form no separate conventicles of their own, but defend to the death and assist by their testimony the faith which they know is preached in the Catholic Church” (De vera religione 6, 11).
 
Last edited:
They do, yes. But what are the chances an SSPX priest will invite a priest from the diocese to perform such a thing? Probably unlikely. Otherwise Tribunals would not have the traffic that they do in regards to affirming that such marriages are or are not valid when they start going back to churches that follow the diocese.
 
OH goodness. Now THERE’s a bizarre statement.
Maybe read Church history a bit more.
Yikes!
 
I mean with regards to the theology, spirituality and teaching of the Church. There was nothing wrong with it.
 
Un-published ones.
Like for relatives, ones at the rectory, things like that.
 
But I think this goes back to them ordaining Bishops without the Holy Father’s permission?
 
Wait, immediately prior to Vatican II, we were in the Middle Ages?
 
Also,
In the eleventh century voluntary flagellation was added to reconciliation. Somewhat later they become quite a mania in Italy, which was then in a very disturbed state. Nobles and peasants, old and young, even children of five years of age, whose only covering was a cloth tied round the middle, went in pairs, by hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands, through the towns and villages, visiting the churches in the depth of winter. Armed with scourges, they flogged each other without pity, and the streets resounded with cries and groans that drew tears from all who heard them" (D’aubigne).
 
More?
Indulgences were looked upon by the common man as a license to sin, for men could buy their forgiveness.
 
Self-flagellation is terrible, yes. But what kind of penance then would you recommend to people who habitually starve, sleep on hard beds, and live hard lives that are without luxury or even what we would consider basic living requirements?
 
Get a history book. Or take a course in Catholic Theology online or at a good Catholic University.
It’s shocking some of the things people used to do.
I thank God for the modern church. Full of love and mercy.
 
You are assuming they were not contrite? I doubt that’s what you mean.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top