Too many Sympathetic for SSPX

[TradionalWay]

I wish I could answer the question the way I want… But will probably end up being banned

 

[mattkubes]

A great example from Bl. Duns Scotus! Yes, I can attest that an overload of information is infrequently our friend.

 

[Melchior_1]

Bl. John Duns Scotus told the Franciscans of England that the problem was not that life was complicated. The problem was that they were overwhelming themselves with concerns that had no impact on their personal relationship with Christ.

What was it that came up in another thread? “The Rule enables us to not to think about life”. Reminds me of that, it does.

Something that everyone, Rule or no Rule, can apply I think.

Oh, Augustine. I don’t care if everyone else loves Aquinas, I still think you’re cool!

 

[JReducation]

I think the idea is the persistent claim that they are right and the Catholic Church is wrong. He is the shepherd of the one sheep seeking the lost 99 in this reconcilliation. It is kind of a funny picture, in a way, though this idea opens the door to the SSPX version of Godwin’s Law. In other words, we will see if this brings out St. Athanasius.

Oh please, not St. Athanasius again.

Every time people bring up St. Athanasius in this situation, I think of Cardinal Ratzinger. He would cringe if he saw the comparison that people are making. One of the main events that he taught us in Theology of History was Athanasius.

The way that it’s linked here to the SSPX situation sounds nothing like the Athanasius that the Cardinal taught in his theology class. God used Athanasius to reinforce faith in his incarnation. Athanasius is more than an individual. He is an event in Christian history through which God teaches that those who draw near to God, do not withdraw from men, rather they become truly close to them, regardless of their situation, because God himself became truly close to men precisely because of our fallen nature.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

What was it that came up in another thread? “The Rule enables us to not to think about life”. Reminds me of that, it does.

Something that everyone, Rule or no Rule, can apply I think.

Oh, Augustine. I don’t care if everyone else loves Aquinas, I still think you’re cool!

That was St. Augustine who told his monks to stop thinking about life, because it interfered with their spiritual journey. I believe the Benedictines and Franciscans picked up on it, because we find it in the writings of Kempis and in the writings of Scotus too. This little rule made its rounds.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

Oh please, not St. Athanasius again.

Every time people bring up St. Athanasius in this situation, I think of Cardinal Ratzinger. He would cringe if he saw the comparison that people are making. One of the main events that he taught us in Theology of History was Athanasius.

The way that it’s linked here to the SSPX situation sounds nothing like the Athanasius that the Cardinal taught in his theology class. God used Athanasius to reinforce faith in his incarnation. Athanasius is more than an individual. He is an event in Christian history through which God teaches that those who draw near to God, do not withdraw from men, rather they become truly close to them, regardless of their situation, because God himself became truly close to men precisely because of our fallen nature.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

If it’s not too much trouble, is there an impartial third party description of what happened with St. Athanasius? His name comes up a lot, wouldn’t mind knowing what happened.

 

[johndoe100]

I Just simply don’t understand why there are so many Traditionalists who don’t really see anything wrong the the SSPX, or are indifferent to their status. I’ve heard arguments that the SSPX’s actions are “necessary”. While I do believe that there is a genuine crisis in the church in regard to the Sacred Liturgy and in Catechism, I don’t see how that can justify supporting or implying that you endorse the SSPX. To me it seems that the end doesn’t justify the means and that remaining outside of full communion with Christ’s Church and with Peter cannot be ever be justified even if its for a good reason.

Any Thoughts?

I think that we should be friends with the SSPX priests, and then start from there. It has helped me a lot to simply be friends and visit with Fr Jacques Emily at the SSPX St Aloysius Retreat House in the hills above Los Gatos, CA.

Sure, for the Traditional Latin Mass I’m usually at St Margaret Mary’s in Oakland. The old church with its statues, high alter, and wood rail have been preserved. *The Sovereign Priest are recognized by Rome. *Everything is just great!

However, by being friends with Fr Emily I found out that we are brothers in Christ. *Catholics! Following in the foot steps of Saint Pius X and of Archbishop Lefebvre the SSPX has consistently denounced modernism and the World.

 

[JReducation]

If it’s not too much trouble, is there an impartial third party description of what happened with St. Athanasius? His name comes up a lot, wouldn’t mind knowing what happened.

I guess maybe a secular historian might work. But a secular historian would miss the entire divine significance of the Athanasian Event. That’s what’s important to the Church, the event itself. It is through the event that God acted. It was incredible how God pulled it off. It’s truly amazing to read it. You almost want to get up on your chair and cheer for God once you truly understand the significance of the event.

Athanasius and Arius were the protagonists in a drama that was bigger than both of them. To reduce Athanasius to some hero who stood up against the world distracts from Gold’s voice in history.

What made Athanasius so unique was his ability to contemplate. He did not try to juggle the entire Church at one time. God wanted to speak to the Church through him and Arius about one thing and one thing only. Through history he calls out attention to specific points in Revelation, one at a time. God is a god of order.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

I think that we should be friends with the SSPX priests, and then start from there. It has helped me a lot to simply be friends and visit with Fr Jacques Emily at the SSPX St Aloysius Retreat House in the hills above Los Gatos, CA.

Sure, for the Traditional Latin Mass I’m usually at St Margaret Mary’s in Oakland. The old church with its statues, high alter, and wood rail have been preserved. *The Sovereign Priest are recognized by Rome. *Everything is just great!

However, by being friends with Fr Emily I found out that we are brothers in Christ. *Catholics! Following in the foot steps of Saint Pius X and of Archbishop Lefebvre the SSPX has consistently denounced modernism and the World.

I think this part is fine. I too have a good SSPX friend. As I tell him each time we talk, the problem is not that they followed the Archbishop’s vision. The vision, like all visions, could be debated until the cows come home. The problem is that they followed the Archbishop right into violating the law. Founders do not lead their sons to violate the law.

Look at the best and finest:

Benedict, Bernard, John de Matha, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Ignatius of Loyola, John Bosco, Vincent de Paul, John de La Salle, Teresa of Calcutta, Maximilian Kolbe, Jose Maria Escriva and John Paul II. All founders of great families in times and places of great strife. Not a single one violated the laws of the Church.

While I do like my SSPX friend very much, we have finally reached an agreement that the Archbishop made a mistake. It may not be a moral mistake that God will hold against him. It was a prudential mistake. His heart was in the right place.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Cavaradossi]

If it’s not too much trouble, is there an impartial third party description of what happened with St. Athanasius? His name comes up a lot, wouldn’t mind knowing what happened.

Athanasius was the opponent of Arius, a priest from Alexandria who denied that Jesus was divine. Athanasius’ teaching that the Son was of the same ousia (Greek for essence) as the Father, which was confirmed by the council of Nicaea, caused a heated backlash in the East, especially after Constantine’s successor, Constantius II, came into power, as he himself was some sort of an homoian heretic. The backlash was itself over an incredibly diverse number of things. Some, like the Anomoeans argued that making the Son divine destroyed the simplicity of God. Others misunderstood the intent of the term homoousios, believing that Athanasius intended to teach that the Son was the same specific thing as the Father, as Sabellius taught.

At any rate, as a consequence of his defense of the orthodox faith, Athanasius found himself in exile for many years, until the Emperor of the West, Constans, secured his return to Alexandria in 346. After the death of Constans, almost a decade later, however Constantius II was left as the sole ruler of the empire, and he sent Athanasius into exile once again. After the death of Constantius, Athanasius returned to Alexandria only to be exiled again by Julian the Apostate, who detested all forms of Christianity. It was only under the emperor Valens several years later, that Athanasius would be afforded any stability, because of his great popularity. He would manage, during the reign of Valens, to remain in Alexandria until he reposed in the Lord in 373.

 

[JReducation]

Athanasius was the opponent of Arius, a priest from Alexandria who denied that Jesus was divine. Athanasius’ teaching that the Son was of the same ousia (Greek for essence) as the Father, which was confirmed by the council of Nicaea, caused a heated backlash in the East, especially after Constantine’s successor, Constantius II, came into power, as he himself was some sort of an homoian heretic. The backlash was itself over an incredibly diverse number of things. Some, like the Anomoeans argued that making the Son divine destroyed the simplicity of God. Others misunderstood the intent of the term homoousios, believing that Athanasius intended to teach that the Son was the same specific thing as the Father, as Sabellius taught.

At any rate, as a consequence of his defense of the orthodox faith, Athanasius found himself in exile for many years, until the Emperor of the West, Constans, secured his return to Alexandria in 346. After the death of Constans, almost a decade later, however Constantius II was left as the sole ruler of the empire, and he sent Athanasius into exile once again. After the death of Constantius, Athanasius returned to Alexandria only to be exiled again by Julian the Apostate, who detested all forms of Christianity. It was only under the emperor Valens several years later, that Athanasius would be afforded any stability, because of his great popularity. He would manage, during the reign of Valens, to remain in Alexandria until he reposed in the Lord in 373.

Great summary

You should write for Cliff.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[pnewton]

If it’s not too much trouble, is there an impartial third party description of what happened with St. Athanasius? His name comes up a lot, wouldn’t mind knowing what happened.

I’m really sorry. I didn’t meant to get this started. I noted a few years back that there is a type of Godwin’s Law (Hitler and Nazis) where St. Athanasius always pops up on SSPX thread. The thing is, that like Hitler and Nazis, the example proves nothing, and never will. All such analogies do is beg the question of whether the analogy is an accurate or a poor analogy.

 

[JReducation]

I’m really sorry. I didn’t meant to get this started. I noted a few years back that there is a type of Godwin’s Law (Hitler and Nazis) where St. Athanasius always pops up on SSPX thread. The thing is, that like Hitler and Nazis, the example proves nothing, and never will. All such analogies do is beg the question of whether the analogy is an accurate or a poor analogy.

My frustration every time this happens is that the story is reduced to this happened and that happened and then this was said and that was said. I want to run out and pull my hair out by the roots. Because people are missing the real story, which has many layers to it. As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote and taught us in his class, the Fathers of the Church are not historical figures that you can describe by prattling off data. They are part of a fabric that God weaves through history. One must look at them in that context. When we pull them out of that context, that is, when we stop at the man and not look at what God did through the events around the man, we reduce the Fathers and their significance in Church history.

None of the Fathers stands alone. They all pieces of a puzzle. You can’t prattle on about Athanasius without mentioning Anthony of the Desert and the Fathers before him and after him. He was not the Lone Ranger that we paint him out to be. To paint him as such is very poor scholarship. I never thought of the Fathers that way until I took that course. I took used to look at them individually, not as parts of a whole.

In that sense, he does not fit into this situation, because it’s very different and the other players are different.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Cavaradossi]

Great summary

You should write for Cliff.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I see, however, that you already beat me to the punch, and with a summary which is probably a bit more on point.

 

[Iotaunum]

(1)

Usually when any thread is created on the SSPX, or related issues, it quickly descends into a debate on Archbishop Lefebvre, the 1988 consecrations, canon law or some other controversial matter on which most people have already made up their minds as to what position is more logical and which they take. When discussing the current relations of the SSPX with the Vatican, or any “deal” which may or may not be made the conversation quickly turns to these same issues which have been debated at length by most people on this forum. What I think is unacceptable in these discussions is any attempt to accuse either side or the laity connected to either side of the debate with bad will or having been brain washed or coerced in any way. It serves no purpose but to sow division and discord, something which those of both sides who are of good will want to eradicate.

When I hear rumours propagated by people who hear from “very good sources” in the Vatican and SSPX I take them with a large pinch of salt. I myself have heard from very good sources high up in the SSPX and from a trusted friend with the highest family connections in the Vatican. But these I do not spread and do not put much stock in because no one can say for sure what the outcome will be.

What is certain is that from both sides there are great numbers of laity of good will who wish the best for the Church in general and are praying and hoping for an agreeable outcome. What is equally certain however is that a significant number on both sides have also been trying to stir up things and sow greater division.
On the “mainstream” side these sowers of division try their best to derail all talks by accusing the SSPX of being something it is clearly not. They make unacceptable demands above and beyond what the Holy father and most theologians of orthodox leanings want the SSPX to accept. The problem is, they are liberals. Most of these people, clergy and laity, do not even accept Catholic teaching on many issues and want the Church to become more liberal. They use “disobedience” as a weapon against the SSPX when they themselves are openly disobedient not only to the Holy Father, but to dogmatic teaching and traditions of the Church. I know this because I have seen it first hand in my conversations with priests and laity. All around me I hear disobedience and calls for liberalization that would make an Anglican blush by Catholic priests who are promoted to the highest places and not given so much as a rap on the knuckles. Yet I have watched as those clerics and laity are ignored and the “evil “ SSPX is ridiculed for its positions. These people are wolves in sheeps clothing. They are no friends of the Pope nor the Church.

On the SSPX side there are those who are guilty of the same. They are hard at work also for division. The problem is, many sedevacantists attend SSPX chapels because the SSPX is so widespread that it exists in places where no sedevacantist priests say Mass. Thus these people attend SSPX masses. Now I know for a fact, as I have heard first hand; the SSPX priests are very intolerant of sedevacantism. When sedevacantists distributed leaflets at one chapel I attended, a Priest was sent to say Mass there the next week and gave a whole sermon chastising such actions and refuting them. These people want the SSPX to split because they think they can use the priests or bishops to join and promote their sects. These people are likewise no friends of the Church.

 

[Iotaunum]

(2)

I have also heard people who discuss these matters with me say that they hope the SSPX will split. This is purely based on pride as far as I can see and they wish the split as a “downfall” of the “Lefebvrites” as they call us. Well these people can neither see nor care how a split within the SSPX would be a bad thing for all concerned. Both sides do not want a split. The SSPX does not want anyone to leave, and the Pope certainly does not want an agreement with part of the SSPX and have a group split off to deal with. So those who rejoice at the prospect of such an outcome, and I can assure you they are numerous, are simply of bad will and are motivated by the wrong reasons.

Any attempts to make the SSPX repent for its actions or the actions of its founder are misguided. All those who are of the same position will say the Archbishops actions were necessary. We can debate to the cows come home but it is obvious that people are convinced of the reasons for the positions they hold otherwise they would not hold them. I can only speak for myself here, but I can say that without the SSPX I would not have been within travelling distance of a traditional Mass and the administration of the sacraments in the traditional rite, nor would I have been able to hear traditional sermons from priests who continue in the same traditional theological formation as those in past times. I can’t speak for anyone else, or any other area, but I honestly can’t imagine what I would have done had it not been for that elderly French Archbishop. Many disagree with me – of course, this is a controversial issue – but it does no good to say that people who are of the same mindset are somehow simply rebels.

I also read some comments on various blogs suggesting that a split in the SSPX is no surprise since “they cannot even obey the Pope” – so why should they obey each other? Again, this is just another chance for those of bad will to bash the SSPX. The “disobedience” has been debated. The Archbishop and those in the SSPX thought it necessary and in fact felt the Archbishop was morally obliged to take the actions he took for the good of the Church. There is a great chasm between this and a schismatic mentality or a rejection of authority. The difference between the legitimacy of the command and the commander’s right to command. Some people will never understand this whether they agree with it or not. I talked with one Nun who although she did not agree said she understood completely and in fact thought the Archbishop was a very holy man who thought he was doing the right thing. She met him once. The bottom line is that the SSPX will not forget what they fought to keep for so long and just join in with the ecumenism and start saying the New Mass, likewise, the Vatican is not going to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. Neither will happen, so we must hope and pray for an agreement which is acceptable to all and will benefit the Church and the Salvation of souls – the very purpose the Church, the Vatican, the clergy and the SSPX exist for. Let’s pray for this.

 

[curlycool89]

The Archbishop and those in the SSPX thought it necessary and in fact felt the Archbishop was morally obliged to take the actions he took for the good of the Church.

See, I think this is where the greatest point of disagreement is.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s responsibility was for his society (of which he was the leader). Period. Full stop. Nothing more.

The responsibility for the good of the Church falls on the Pope and the Pope’s Magisterium. To say “I’m doing this for the good of the Church” is setting yourself up as a pope and as a magisterium.

If you want to do something more, then you work with the Pope and ask the Pope if you can do more, or the Pope will ask you to do more. Doing your own thing unilaterally is not what we’ve ever done as Catholics. St. Dominic probably thought his ideas were all for the good of the Church too, but his rule was rejected and he was told to use one of the pre-existing ones. Instead of saying “what I’ve got is important so I’m going to do it anyways”, he selected the Rule of St. Augustine for his order.

St. Francis had a similar thought, that his Rule was important for the Church, and the Church agreed with him, and so his Rule has spread far and wide through the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

Archbishop Lefebvre’s responsibility was for his society (of which he was the leader). Period. Full stop. Nothing more.

AL’s been dead for over 20 years. He is not the leader of anything. What he set up the society to be is past tense. The current Pope can’t deal with AL anymore than he can with Henry VIII or Luther. We can only deal with the now and what happens next.

 

[fakename]

See, I think this is where the greatest point of disagreement is.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s responsibility was for his society (of which he was the leader). Period. Full stop. Nothing more.

The responsibility for the good of the Church falls on the Pope and the Pope’s Magisterium. To say “I’m doing this for the good of the Church” is setting yourself up as a pope and as a magisterium.

If you want to do something more, then you work with the Pope and ask the Pope if you can do more, or the Pope will ask you to do more. Doing your own thing unilaterally is not what we’ve ever done as Catholics. St. Dominic probably thought his ideas were all for the good of the Church too, but his rule was rejected and he was told to use one of the pre-existing ones. Instead of saying “what I’ve got is important so I’m going to do it anyways”, he selected the Rule of St. Augustine for his order.

St. Francis had a similar thought, that his Rule was important for the Church, and the Church agreed with him, and so his Rule has spread far and wide through the Church.

Well as an opinion, I think that canon law is a real law and so it follows the philosophy of law. As such, just as in any other law, in canon law merely doing something for the good of the Church does not make you a pope. If a few good men thought that what they were doing was good for the Church but the Church disagreed and no further conflict occurred, (and if my interpretation of the philosophy of law is correct) then clearly the disagreement was merely trivial for any disagreement that had to do with morals or faith would’ve been prosecuted to the end unless (as in the case of secular rebellions) revolt was worse than disorder. Either that or pressing their suggestions would somehow usurp some sort of higher and more authoritative judgment.

But this brings me to a few more questions (maybe the Franciscan Br. here could help): the pope is the living law -I assume this means that the pope can teach magisterially qua pope? But it doesn’t mean anything more does it?

Also, if the pope controls the canon law and also is the living law, then why isn’t canon law infallible? Also, if the pope can disregard evidence, why is this more in keeping with the natural law when it seems more reasonable to simply make decisions based on evidence? Perhaps it has something to do with the phrase “living law” which I don’t totally understand now?

 

[Iotaunum]

See, I think this is where the greatest point of disagreement is.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s responsibility was for his society (of which he was the leader). Period. Full stop. Nothing more.

While it is true that Archbishop Lefebvre’s responsibility was for his society, it is also true that he felt morally bound to be responsible for all of those of sincere hearts who asked for his help. It is too black and white to say “Period. Full stop. Nothing more”. I know the St Athanasius analogy is a hot topic and I avoid using it, but we both agree St Athanasius was a bishop, and you may suppose that he was only responsible for taking care of his territory, and nowhere or nobody else. However, he felt the moral duty as a bishop of God to save as many souls as possible helping all those who sought him out. The point is, when one becomes a priest or a bishop, they become responsible for living out their vocation so as to save as many souls as possible, administering the sacraments to people. Normally this is allowed for when subject to the proper authorities. However, seminarians were contacting the Archbishop in droves and asking where they could go. He directed them to many seminaries which were still orthodox, but most of the seminarians came back and told him that were not being formed properly, they were discouraged from wearing the cassock, discouraged from performing traditional practices and were being taught new teachings which they felt were incompatible with what traditional Catholic theology has always been about. They just wanted to be formed in the traditional manor, with the same theological teachings that previous generations had. Obviously they were not satisfied that they were able to get this. So they begged the Archbishop to open a seminary, as he had experience teaching and running seminaries as rector. He said he would only come out of retirement to do this if it was God’s will. He asked for permission to open the seminary and got it from the ordinary. This he did not expect, and took as God’s will to proceed.

So then we come to the point where the aging prelate had been asking for a bishop to continue his work in ordaining priests in the traditional manor, and was told yes, but wait. The correspondence is more complex than this of course between the Archbishop and the Vatican and should be read by anyone interested in this issue. However, the Archbishop in his many meetings and correspondence was not satisfied that those in the Vatican were actually going to give him the permission (he already in fact had this permission but was told to wait for the time the Vatican had decided). He kept asking for a date or a year but was told just to wait. He came to the conclusion that he was being deceived in some way. He felt that certain people were simply waiting for him to die. Many shared this view. Now he obviously could have been wrong – the Vatican may have given him a date for next week or next year, but he was obviously human and fallible and felt he had to make a choice based on his own experience and prayers. So he set a date himself and asked the Vatican to re-arrange it or give him a good excuse to hold off. He felt he was going to die soon and had a responsibility to his seminarians to provide a way of traditional ordination and formation for the future. The Vatican sent a limousine to collect him on the day, but he went ahead as planned. This is where his responsibility for his society came into it. He, and the seminarians felt that if he died, then they could be “bullied” into accepting new ideas which they did not accept and say the new Mass or risk not being ordained.

Also, in the interest of saving souls – which was his main objective in everything he done – he travelled around administering the sacraments to people who would otherwise not have received them. So I don’t think he was setting himself up as Pope and magisterium, but simply trying to hand on what he had received and ensure that those souls who flocked to him and felt they had nowhere else to go would be provided for after his death. The debate will go on, but this is my perspective and I can see and understand yours.