P
- Status
S
sidbrown
Guest
The Traditional Catholics point to many dubious things that have come from Vatican II.
If they have a right to protest these dubious effects, then do they not have a right to state their opinion as to the causes.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Thank you, pnewton, although I am surprised you quote it against yourself in this way. Your main point seems to be, that the more the case of Athanasius is raised, the less credibility it has. This is strange logic. Obviously, the comparison becomes unconvincing only when somebody shows where it is wrong – which is not done anywhere on the thread (or anywhere else that I have seen). The thread, although short, actually contains many of the most important and pertinent facts about Athanasius, and I hope all readers of this current thread will consult the link. I would say your objection to using the comparison was comprehensively refuted.
A
Aramis
Guest
Was there a Crisis? Yes.
Was it sufficient to justify the actions His Grace took? Doesn’t seem so. HH JP II didn’t think so. HH Benedict doesn’t seem to think so.
He broke his own vows of obedience by how he responded to the crisis.
Had he consecrated only one or two, just enough to ensure the SSPX had a bishop and he had a successor, I doubt highly the SSPX would be in such a harshly worded position as “… exercise no valid ministry within the Church.”
P
ProVobis
Guest
A better question maybe: Did the Bishop abuse his God-given power to consecrate other bishops, in light of the fact he was dying and there were no other bishops who were ordaining priests to say the Latin Mass?
A
At_Trent
Guest
Is Easter Sunday not enough reason to hold your tongue ?
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
So the crisis is over? Have you seen the recent Mahoney Mass video?
youtube.com/watch?v=nZ5it20gKqw
The consecrations were necessary to preserve a truly Catholic priesthood and Catholic Tradition. The excommunications have been remitted, so it seems ABL took the right course.
Obedience is never absolute and is a lesser virtue than Faith. Obedience can only work for the purpose of the Faith not to destroy it.
Do you seriously think if ABL consecrated one or two Bishops the reaction from Rome would not have been the same? If so you don’t comprehend the reality of the situation in '88.
The Society has not “exercised a legitimate (licit) ministry in the Church” in the eyes of the Vatican since the 1970’s. The statement by Benedict was actually in defense of the Society. Ill-intentioned Neo-Catholics with an axe to grind have taken that benign sentence in the Pope’s letter and tried to turn it into some sort of “revelation” of new condemnation. It is absurd. In the eyes of Rome, Society Bishops and priests are fully Catholic, they simply don’t yet have a juridical structure to operate under and thus are currently acting illicitly (just the same as they have since the 70’s) but validly (valid Eucharist and sacraments).
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
Hi At Trent,
It seems unfair to me to ask silence from those who in some respect doubt Msgr. Lefebvre’s legacy on Easter Sunday. While I disagree with Aramis’ reasonings I can see that he measured his words carefully. Note how he said of Pope Benedict that “he doesn’t seem” to agree with the actions taken in response to the crisis in the Church. He knows all the evidence is not in yet. If we get to applaud the SSPX for the impact it has had on Easter, shouldn’t we permit others to voice their objections on Easter? In my opinion, the objection of Aramis was comparatively mild, measured, and thoughtful when seen against the usual. I could give it consideration on any day in the calendar without thinking it went beyond the bounds of charity.
I’m sorry to have to be disagreeable with an apparent ally in this matter, but I trust that you will take it with the fraternal charity with which it is intended. God bless you and a holy and happy Easter season to you and to all who are trying to sort out the difficulties for God’s faithful during this time of crisis in the Church. Without sentimentalist indifference, may we be as easy on each other as our merciful Lord is to us, and to be especially eager to note hints of good will in the words of those with whom we differ. I speak as one who has frequently failed in this matter myself. God help me.
Rory
It seems unfair to me to ask silence from those who in some respect doubt Msgr. Lefebvre’s legacy on Easter Sunday. While I disagree with Aramis’ reasonings I can see that he measured his words carefully. Note how he said of Pope Benedict that “he doesn’t seem” to agree with the actions taken in response to the crisis in the Church. He knows all the evidence is not in yet. If we get to applaud the SSPX for the impact it has had on Easter, shouldn’t we permit others to voice their objections on Easter? In my opinion, the objection of Aramis was comparatively mild, measured, and thoughtful when seen against the usual. I could give it consideration on any day in the calendar without thinking it went beyond the bounds of charity.
I’m sorry to have to be disagreeable with an apparent ally in this matter, but I trust that you will take it with the fraternal charity with which it is intended. God bless you and a holy and happy Easter season to you and to all who are trying to sort out the difficulties for God’s faithful during this time of crisis in the Church. Without sentimentalist indifference, may we be as easy on each other as our merciful Lord is to us, and to be especially eager to note hints of good will in the words of those with whom we differ. I speak as one who has frequently failed in this matter myself. God help me.
Rory
A
Aramis
Guest
There is no better day for truth. The SSPX are one of the crises of the Church, not a solution to some single crisis, at least at present.Is Easter Sunday not enough reason to hold your tongue ?
The irreverent and illicit masses permitted by some bishops are a crisis.
The self-delusion of many that disobedience as vowed by priests and bishops is relative is a crisis (and it is in fact modernism). Especially since some who are self deluded are priests and bishops.
That modern society has ripped the social fabric that made religion a viable socially acceptable activity to sheds is a crisis, and not one of the church’s making.
That there are not enough vocations, counting even the SSPX, to meet the needs of the Roman Church is a crisis.
That a hundred years of systemic application of the biblical principles of forgiveness and a second chance have been done at the expense of abused individuals is a crisis.
But there has never been a period where there was no Crisis in the Catholic Church… only periods where the crises ongoing were handled well or handled poorly. The 20th C is not one of those periods where they were handled well.
S
sidbrown
Guest
It seems like the crisis is only getting worse as time passes.
A
At_Trent
Guest
Aramis, Roy, and all, I apologize, sincerely, for my blunt and perhaps cold sounding post.
I’m just troubled at what is going on with the media. Seems they were bent on disrupting Holy Week. Why I took out my frustration here, I don’t know.
mea culpa
I’m just troubled at what is going on with the media. Seems they were bent on disrupting Holy Week. Why I took out my frustration here, I don’t know.
mea culpa
P
ProVobis
Guest
Bad PR. But then the SSPX knows all about that.
P
pnewton
Guest
Of course you would say that. The SSPX constantly says that. Here is my objection.
LeFevbre is not a saint. Athanasius is.
Arianism was a heresy about the nature of Jesus himself.
The SSPX is a sliver of a percentage of the Church. Regardless of the idea that "the whole world was Arian, it really was not.
Athanasius was a bishop and finished his life in peace and union with the Holy Mother Church. At best Lefebvre was in a questionable position up to the the end. The controversy of the SSPX is longer lived, regardless of a less critical issue (unless you do not consider the deity of Christ critical).
FYI - Next time you ask me for something I will remember this incident. I did not guess your motivation.
Finally, the best the comparison might show, ever, is a begging of the question. An analogy only exists if one buys what the SSPX is selling. And if one does that, no comparison is necessary.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
St. Athanasius was not declared a Saint during the Arian crisis. The faithful had to decide between the Catholic Faith and a Catholic Bishop and the many “approved” heretical bishops and Masses disguised as “Catholic” with full approval.
Athanasius went into other bishops’ dioceses without their permission and ordained orthodox priests, the crisis was so bad.
How do you think people will recognize true Catholicism in a time of crisis? Do you think the “real” Catholic Bishops will have halos on their head?
The VAST majority of Catholics in the time of Athanasius were deceived by a clever and subtle heresy with the backing of almost all the Bishops and the apparent approval of Rome. It wasn’t until much later that we read about it in our textbooks and can see 20/20.
If you lived in those times you would be the first one to call Athanasius “disobedient” and order people to silently obey their legitimate (but Arian) bishops.
Athanasius went into other bishops’ dioceses without their permission and ordained orthodox priests, the crisis was so bad.
How do you think people will recognize true Catholicism in a time of crisis? Do you think the “real” Catholic Bishops will have halos on their head?
The VAST majority of Catholics in the time of Athanasius were deceived by a clever and subtle heresy with the backing of almost all the Bishops and the apparent approval of Rome. It wasn’t until much later that we read about it in our textbooks and can see 20/20.
If you lived in those times you would be the first one to call Athanasius “disobedient” and order people to silently obey their legitimate (but Arian) bishops.
C
corsair
Guest
Stevus,
Again you are correct. Thank you for your responses.
Again you are correct. Thank you for your responses.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
On the contrary. The two of us have raised the question of Athanasius a couple of times on different threads on this forum. Once I asked you, "If you had lived in the fourth century, and Athanasius & Eusebius of Samosata had come to you for advice, what advice would you have given them? Unfortunately the thread had closed down before you replied. I was hoping for some interesting thoughts on the thread you linked the other day, and I admit (I am not being facecious) to being very disappointed.
Not so. These things can be discussed intelligently. I myself did not at first agree with Mgr Lefebvre’s action in consecrating the bishops in 1988, but when i saw all around me the ever-deepening crisis, and when I saw how the Vatican subsequently double-crossed the FSSP, I realised how wise and far-seeing he was. The people begging the question are those who say at the outset he disobeyed the pope! He’s in the wrong! He must be proud and arrogant! He must be condemned!
I reply that (i)An analysis of true obedience, coupled with (ii)one of the worst crises in the entire history of the Church, and coupled with (iii)the demonstrably illegitimate way he, and the Trad movement, was treated by the Vatican, vindicates his actions, or at least builds a very strong case in his favour.
I have also asked you before to comment on the analysis of Obedience of S. thomas Aquinas and others, which has been posted on this forum by others besied myself. I don’t remember your comment. I’ve also asked many, many times to be informed of what exactly it is was have to “obey” about Vatican II that has not been done. Any comments?
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Hardly a valid point, is it? The crisis in which Mgr Lefebvre was embroiled is still unresolved. None of us know who will be canonised one hundred years from now. Athanasius certainly would not have been canonised if he had died in the middle of the Arian Crisis.
It was not a tight, well-defined body of Faith like that professed by the True Church. This, in fact, is a notable feature of every heresy. There were innumerable shades of opinion: there was a 'hard core – the anousians – who stated definitely that Christ was of a “different nature” from The Father; then the ‘soft centre’: homoiousians who held that Christ was “like” the Father without being identical in nature; and then the Catholic teaching of homoousios – that Christ was 'of one substance with the Father". Cardinal Newman was deeply impressed by the parallels between that situation and his own in the Church of England: a Hard Core, a soft middle, some leaning as far as they could towards the Catholic church without actually submitting, and over against that, the Catholic Church teaching what she had always taught. He wrote, “I looked in the mirror, and behold I was an Arian!”
The comparison with the modern state of the Church is quite close, and I was disappointed you did not explore it on that thread. There is no monolithic “modernist Church” but a confusion of heresies stated or implied. There are those who either imply or state precisely the Arian heresy that Christ is not eternally-begotten of the Father, but the analogy is closer in that the Arians sought to 'demystify the Mysteries". This is constantly being done, including in RE programmes promoted from diocesan level. The real point of comparison with the Arian crisis is that heterodox beliefs were being promoted with the active encouragement of the hierarchy and the Roman emperor. The heresies were being given official patronage; the true Faith was pushed off the stage. As soon as the emperor renounced Arianism, and patronage disappeared, Arianism eveporated. Thus is human nature.
Have you never heard the phrase: “Athanasius contra Mundum?” It was Athanasius against the world. He was certainly a ‘sliver’ of the college of bishops, who were supporting the Arian muddle. And the Pope, instead of supporting Athanasius, condemned him, apparently ‘to keep the peace’. The pope was under duress at the time, but this cannot excuse his action. He was free to choose martyrdom like any good Catholic.
Oh yes it was. The whole World of Power was, at any rate, and the sheep were left without shepherds. What else can one say? As the Romans used to say, “Against a fact there is no argument”. The body of bishops, and significantly the whole Roman Army, went Arian. If they had mental reservations, they kept quiet about it. [Just as happens today]. The common folk were left without leadership. The Catholics (those holding to the Council of Nicea) were driven out of the churches. That is why Athanasius, in exile, wrote his famous letter that is actually on the thread you linked for us. *“They have the churches, but ye have the Faith”. * Again, I recommend readers to check this link.
continued…
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
continued…
I hope the Moderators agree that this topic is pertinent to the thread. Obviously the two crises in the church differ on points of detail. And I certainly am not suggesting that every bishop and priest except the SSPX are heretics, or any of the other absurd misrepresentations of the SSPX positions. But it does show two things very pertinent to the present crisis: firstly, that the institutional church really can get it horribly wrong for decades; and secondly, that even a few brave souls can turn things around. sursum corda!
Just to emphasise: The Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of Mass) is not in itself directly heretical (except in the Preface to Eucharistic Prayer 4: (Adressing the Father): “You alone are God, living and true”. This, if taken out of context, is actually as clear a statement of the Arian Heresy as one can find anywhere.
But the more important point is that the New Missal leaves itself wide open to heretical interpretations, as shown in the Ottaviani Intervention and elsewhere. So the Liturgy itself cannot now be used to combat these errors. The TLM (Traditional Latin Mass), on the other hand, presents the entire Faith, even the difficult bits, and in such a way that not eveone phrase taken out of context can be construed in an heretical way. that is why we should be grateful to all those who fight to keep it alive in the Church.
May I here congratulate all those who have slogged it out in their parishes, doing their best against the tide. These too are workers in the vineyard. The SSPX have kept many things alive (not just the TLM but the Ignatian Retreats, the children’s Eucharistic Crusade, the Acts of Reparation at Fatima, many priceless statues, altar vessels etc that were destined for the rubbish dump (some were literally pulled out of rubbish bins) … as the Church fights free of the morass, it will see ever more clearly what the SSPX have done for us all.
That is because the crisis was resolved before he died. What if he had died in the middle of the crisis?
Liberius was unable to quell the Arian heresy. In fact, he found himself manoeuvered into condemning the very bishops who were upholding the true faith. I can see very clear parallels with the modern crisis. And I am not judging the state of soul of Liberius or any of the post-Vatican II popes. The Modernist heresy, condemned by the popes for a full century up to 1960, was a cat that got out of the bag. It is being supported by very powerful forces in the Church and the World. All Lefebvre ever did was refuse to follow novelties that could never have been imposed with infallibility, and never have been. The comparison with Athanasius, who refused all compromise with the watering-down that was Arianism, is striking.
Are you telling us you don’t know that the Arian crisis dragged on for more than a century? Can I make a gentle suggestion that you spend less time on posting and more on reading up on the history?
I do hope you don’t think that the issue of the TLM is the main point of Mgr Lefebvre’s objections. Don’t you know that there are priests and bishops out there who deny Christ in the Eucharist? Either formally or by concelebrating with heretical prelates from Protestant churches who stoutly deny the Divinity of the Holy Eucharist? The biggest difference here is that in Arian times people spoke more openly. These days much of it is done implicitly.
I hope the Moderators agree that this topic is pertinent to the thread. Obviously the two crises in the church differ on points of detail. And I certainly am not suggesting that every bishop and priest except the SSPX are heretics, or any of the other absurd misrepresentations of the SSPX positions. But it does show two things very pertinent to the present crisis: firstly, that the institutional church really can get it horribly wrong for decades; and secondly, that even a few brave souls can turn things around. sursum corda!
Just to emphasise: The Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of Mass) is not in itself directly heretical (except in the Preface to Eucharistic Prayer 4: (Adressing the Father): “You alone are God, living and true”. This, if taken out of context, is actually as clear a statement of the Arian Heresy as one can find anywhere.
But the more important point is that the New Missal leaves itself wide open to heretical interpretations, as shown in the Ottaviani Intervention and elsewhere. So the Liturgy itself cannot now be used to combat these errors. The TLM (Traditional Latin Mass), on the other hand, presents the entire Faith, even the difficult bits, and in such a way that not eveone phrase taken out of context can be construed in an heretical way. that is why we should be grateful to all those who fight to keep it alive in the Church.
May I here congratulate all those who have slogged it out in their parishes, doing their best against the tide. These too are workers in the vineyard. The SSPX have kept many things alive (not just the TLM but the Ignatian Retreats, the children’s Eucharistic Crusade, the Acts of Reparation at Fatima, many priceless statues, altar vessels etc that were destined for the rubbish dump (some were literally pulled out of rubbish bins) … as the Church fights free of the morass, it will see ever more clearly what the SSPX have done for us all.
O
Ockham
Guest
It’s amazing to witness the wrath some Catholics have towards Archbishop Lefevbre and the SSPX. You would think he was preaching against the Church, trying to legitimize liturgical abuses, attacking doctrine or dogma. From my understanding he consecrated the four bishops after a long delay from the Vatican and nearing death. Had AB Lefevbre died there would not have been a traditional bishop left to consecrate new ones.
Where is the furour over Cardinal Mahony, Richard McBrien or Hans Kung? Why aren’t they excommunicated?
Where is the furour over Cardinal Mahony, Richard McBrien or Hans Kung? Why aren’t they excommunicated?
M
mariediana
Guest
With every post from an SSPX the pride is glaring. It is their way and no one else could possibly be right. The posts bring to mind Pontius Pilate’s “What is truth”?
The truth is with the Vicar of Christ. “He who hears you hears ME.” My diocese has had an average of 40-50 seminarians for the past three years. How many does yours have? And these seminarians are about as traditional as any priest could be.
I find it interesting that the SSPX call themselves traditional when they broke tradition by disobeying the Vicar of Christ and doing things the way THEY saw them instead of waiting for direction from Rome. Their excuse is that the Pope was wrong. Obviously he wasn’t because the Catholic Church thrives. Jesus told us that He would be with us until the ending of the world, and He’s still here on the altar every day of the week.
There is no way these negotiations with the Pope can go on until there is repentance of some kind from those who left, or at least a promise of obedience in the future.
- Status