The SSPX (without a flamewar)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am also aware of that. But illicitly consecrating your own bishops despite being explicitly told not to by the Pope is no trifling matter.
 
Last edited:
It seems it was an unfortunate necessity from thr Archbp. point of view. I am not qualified to cast judgement on it, as I have one Pope who excommunicated and another who lifted the excommunication. I’ll let God deal with it, and give thanks for the good that comes, come it from evil or good.
 
semper_catholicus said:
The practices of the lay faithful didn’t necessarily reflect what the actual disciplinary laws of the Church were.
Click to expand...
What?

You stated things were fine in the middle ages. They were so not.

The churches split East and West in 1054.

Until Blessed Imelda it was not acceptable to give Communion in the Latin church until the age of at minimum 12…usually after that. The Eastern Church had infant Baptism, Confirmation, and Communion. The Latin church continued down a different road with stronger rules involving First Holy Communion. God had enough of that and literally allowed for a young girl to become a saint so as to get them to right their ways.

It hasn’t been 300 years since VII but we’ve already had saints (PJPII) who followed it clearly. God has sent many Saints to fix the issues that have cropped up since the 500-1500’s.
 
I mean with the Church. Not necessarily the people in the Church.
 
ChunkMonk said:
It seems it was an unfortunate necessity from thr Archbp. point of view.
Click to expand...
That’s a funny way to say it, and would not have been my choice of words. I agree we are not to judge the salvation of Archbishop Lefebvre, but his actions were certainly not without consequence.
 
Perhaps he didn’t see it as unfortunate, but I think he probably did. I think he would have preferred that his mission was not necessary, but he saw it as such.
Some of those consequences were very good. Maybe they came from evil, but regardless, they are a blessing.
 
Last edited:
semper_catholicus said:
I mean with the Church. Not necessarily the people in the Church.
Click to expand...
12 was the minimum age of reception in the Latin church until after Bl. Imelda. It was then changed to 9, and eventually to “age of reason” which is 6-8.
 
ChunkMonk said:
Some of those consequences were very good. Maybe they came from evil, but regardless, they are a blessing.
Click to expand...
I don’t see what they could have done that the FSSP did not do within regular means. While I sympathize with them, I do not agree with them. I think it is a crying shame that they exist and one of Satan’s most clever ploys against the Church was to turn the Mass as a point of contention amongst her followers.
 
One could make a case that keeping the age of receiving Holy Communion high was a good thing. It was a way to insure that those receiving Holy Communion actually knew there stuff.
 
You cannot lift an excommunication of someone who is dead.
Again, this has been gone over ad nauseum.
 
In order to get grace from Sacraments, you do not need to “know your stuff”.
Should we wait until 7 for Baptism then?
 
Fauken said:
I don’t see what they could have done that the FSSP did not do within regular means.
Click to expand...
The FSSP would not exist without the SSPX.
Fauken said:
one of Satan’s most clever ploys against the Church was to turn the Mass as a point of contention amongst her followers.
Click to expand...
I agree with that and I believe so did the Archbp.
CilladeRoma said:
You cannot lift an excommunication of someone who is dead.
Click to expand...
Patently false. The excommunications of the Great Schism were lifted in Vat 2.
 
semper_catholicus said:
One could make a case that keeping the age of receiving Holy Communion high was a good thing. It was a way to insure that those receiving Holy Communion actually knew there stuff.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously going to argue against God himself?

God literally made His point very clear by allowing for a girl to become a Blessed.

For someone to say they know better than God is the height of arrogance.
 
Are we talking about the Eucharist or Baptism? We’re getting off topic. We should probably bring it back.
 
Last edited:
As a historical point, one consecration was approved. See protocol on the una voce site.
 
An excommunication can be retroactive. LeFerbvre’s was not.

In 2009, 18 years after Lefebvre’s death, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of the four surviving bishops at their request. However, it was not done retroactively, meaning that it had no effect on Lefebvre.
 
Last edited:
I think I also read in New Advent that normally, unless the excommunication has a time period in it, it is absolved by absolution. If that’s true, and of course, a dead person cannot receive absolution, then deceased people can’t have their excommunications revoked.
 
You said we should wait until people “know their stuff” for Communion.
Why stop there?
Why not Baptism? Infants haven’t clue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top