Read More Catholic than the Pope by Patrick Madrid and Peter Vere. Madrid is a respected apologist and Vere a Canon Lawyer (and former SSPX). The disobedience was an act of schism. Until the SSPX humbly recants their defiance, I will not give them the benefit of the doubt.Couldn’t help yourself again could you…the discussion is talking about the attempt by liberals to push ordaining openly gay people and women, yet you have to land another low blow about the SSPX. The only thing you seem to post about is the SSPX and it is always low blows, and outlandish comments that contain no intellect whatsoever…only contempt
Oh, and here is quick and free lesson for you. By Archbishop Lefebvre consecrating the Bishops, it was an act of disobedience , but he did not schism himself from the Church…on the otherhand, if he would have set himself up as the pope of a hierarchy outside of The Church, then that would’ve been an act of schism. Your welcome
You also don’t give a saint the respect he’s due by using his proper name. How can anyone take anything you say seriously when you’re not serious about a saint?Until the SSPX humbly recants their defiance, I will not give them the benefit of the doubt.
SSPX however refers to a schismatic (certainly tending) group, rather than to the Saint him self. There’s a difference.You also don’t give a saint the respect he’s due by using his proper name. How can anyone take anything you say seriously when you’re not serious about a saint?
Disrespecting a saint’s name has nothing to do with that person’s opinion of the SSPX.SSPX however refers to a schismatic (certainly tending) group, rather than to the Saint him self. There’s a difference.
I see no such charge in his two sentances…Disrespecting a saint’s name has nothing to do with that person’s opinion of the SSPX.
There is no disrespect. St. Thomas More is known for being congenial. As I understand it, he also had a reputation for being a prankster and had a wonderful sense of humor. Since you are going to attack me for my use of St. Thomas More, should I attack you for using the name of one whose goofy ideas contributed to the reformation and the utter abandonment of the correct view of morality? There are very good reasons why he isn’t known as “St. William of Ockham”You also don’t give a saint the respect he’s due by using his proper name. How can anyone take anything you say seriously when you’re not serious about a saint?
The OC broke off because of the “innovation” of Papal Infallibility at Vatican I. In exactly the same mindset as the SSPX: “The council made errors and the Church is broken; we’re the last remnants holding to the truth.”Fascinating stuff. Thanks for the info. I never knew about these groups.
Obviously they broke from the Church. Papal infallibility is a matter of doctrine. I don’t see the connection many are asserting that these groups are the same as SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t challenge doctrine or want to ordain women or gays.
Nothing indicates that, Ockham. The Vatican made it bloody clear, however, that the SSPX had to stop saying the OF was invalid…I haven’t spent much time researching the subject but it seems the Vatican wanted to get rid of the SSPX as they refused to say the Novus Ordo. When has the Vatican sat on bishop ordination applications before?
You are the only person I have ever seen change a saint’s name to suit their own agenda.There is no disrespect. St. Thomas More is known for being congenial. As I understand it, he also had a reputation for being a prankster and had a wonderful sense of humor. Since you are going to attack me for my use of St. Thomas More, should I attack you for using the name of one whose goofy ideas contributed to the reformation and the utter abandonment of the correct view of morality? There are very good reasons why he isn’t known as “St. William of Ockham”
To the best of my knowledge the SSPX did not break from Rome due to V2 but rather the need to ordain bishops. That was not a matter of doctrine or dogma would you not agree?The OC broke off because of the “innovation” of Papal Infallibility at Vatican I. In exactly the same mindset as the SSPX: “The council made errors and the Church is broken; we’re the last remnants holding to the truth.”
What is your theory as to the delay then? If the Fransicans can have all their indults to say or not say what they choose, why couldn’t the SSPX be given an indult to not say the Novus Ordo?Nothing indicates that, Ockham. The Vatican made it bloody clear, however, that the SSPX had to stop saying the OF was invalid…
The Franciscans celebrate both the Novus Ordo and the TLM.To the best of my knowledge the SSPX did not break from Rome due to V2 but rather the need to ordain bishops. That was not a matter of doctrine or dogma would you not agree?
What is your theory as to the delay then? If the Fransicans can have all their indults to say or not say what they choose, why couldn’t the SSPX be given an indult to not say the Novus Ordo?
Are the Eastern Rites part of the Church even though they don’t ascribe to papal infalliblity?
Some, as per BReducation, receive CITH as their norm. To receive COTT requires an indult.The Franciscans celebrate both the Novus Ordo and the TLM.
Read More Catholic than the Pope by Patrick Madrid and Peter Vere. Madrid is a respected apologist and Vere a Canon Lawyer (and former SSPX). The disobedience was an act of schism. Until the SSPX humbly recants their defiance, I will not give them the benefit of the doubt.
perhaps, you would like to hear this priest. things is not as bad as you think it is.The Franciscans celebrate both the Novus Ordo and the TLM.
But I at least find them more credible than an anonymous poster on an internet forum. Lets face it, all I know about you is that you are a defender of the SSPX and by implication dispute the validity and/or legality of the Novus Ordo Mass, promulgated by Pope Paul VI. It is a documented source, complete with bibliography and footnotes. You have made claims, but you provide no information to back up what you say folks have allegedly said. So I think I will side with the apologist and Canon lawyer.Why not…afterall, these guys spoke infallibly…I have explained how it was not an act of schism, but if you refuse to listen or desire to be forcibly ignorant to the truth, that is fine. Every Catholic apologists could argue that fallacious point you made, but it still doesn’t make it the truth. “Truth is not determined by a majority vote”–Cardinal Ratzinger.
Robert: Well lets put it this way - Sodom and Gomorrah were punished by GOD for their infidelity. Lets pray for thes Liberals to return to the Truths that GOD has given man lest something worse that what you describe happen to them. I am more worried that their punishment will be swift and severe. Lets us pray they opt for Conversion and Repentance.Hello everyone,
I was very distressed to see in the National Catholic Reporter, which purports to be actually Catholic, articles which encouraged women’s ordination, praised politicians for defying the bishops (most specifically in regards to abortion), and the like.
These liberals tend to raise the Social Teaching of the Church, which is great and should be cherised, but they raise the social teaching over and above the infallible teachings on faith and morals.
This is heresy, is it not? But my understanding is the Church’s teaching in regards to artificial contraception, abortion, and homosexual acts are not changeable. Truth can’t change, regardless of whether one likes it or not. It seems to me these liberal dissenters simply see the Church as what they Want it to be, rather than what it is- the Fullness of Truth, the fullness of Christian Doctrine.
Question is, will the Church ever ‘change’ these teachings? If not, do you see a possible schism later on?
Thanks
Peace in Christ,
Eric
Thing is their need to have bishops was (1) based upon the idea that they were the last vestige of the valid church and (2) predicate to setting themselves up to operate as a “remnant church,” exactly as the OC did.To the best of my knowledge the SSPX did not break from Rome due to V2 but rather the need to ordain bishops. That was not a matter of doctrine or dogma would you not agree?
They act as tho’ they are not under Rome. Commemorating the Pope is not the sole requirement for true union with Rome; obeying Rome’s restrictions is also part of it. When they acknowledge their suspensions, admit their error in ignoring them, I suspect the suspensions will likely be lifted at that point.What is your theory as to the delay then? If the Fransicans can have all their indults to say or not say what they choose, why couldn’t the SSPX be given an indult to not say the Novus Ordo?
The Eastern Rites are divided into Catholic and Orthodox. The Catholic chunk accept the V I definitions. The Orthodox generally don’t. But both are, per Pope Benedict, still part of the Church. As are the SSPX.Are the Eastern Rites part of the Church even though they don’t ascribe to papal infalliblity?
Their only contention (that I’m aware of) was staying with the TLM. There are many rites in the Church all in full communion with Rome.Thing is their need to have bishops was (1) based upon the idea that they were the last vestige of the valid church and (2) predicate to setting themselves up to operate as a “remnant church,” exactly as the OC did.
Excommunication is a sever punishment. The Vatican had the applications and didn’t process them. AB Lefebvre followed up. He later said he was going to ordain with or withoug approval. At any time during this process all the Vatican had to do was approve the applications. It could be said whoever was sitting on the paperwork was disobedient to the greater good.They act as tho’ they are not under Rome. Commemorating the Pope is not the sole requirement for true union with Rome; obeying Rome’s restrictions is also part of it. When they acknowledge their suspensions, admit their error in ignoring them, I suspect the suspensions will likely be lifted at that point.
Most issues of obedience are resolved without trial or further punishment by public admission of error, a solemn vow to not do it again, and acceptance of the already issued punishment,
Why don’t we see people coming on here attacking the Eastern Rites like they do the SSPX?The Eastern Rites are divided into Catholic and Orthodox. The Catholic chunk accept the V I definitions. The Orthodox generally don’t. But both are, per Pope Benedict, still part of the Church. As are the SSPX.
I have my own answer for that, but I’d like to know what you think.Why don’t we see people coming on here attacking the Eastern Rites like they do the SSPX?
Good post.Archbishop Lefebvre was only going to get ONE approval; he’d been told to pick one, and then wait for the approval. He felt he knew better than the Pope. He decided to ordain four.
If he’d ordained only one bishop, I doubt highly we’d have seen the society officially suppressed the way it was. Lefebvre wold still have been in trouble, but not have given the impression he was setting up a schismatic church. But by ordaining four vagante bishops, he gave the appearance of going into schism, and caused scandal as well; for a priest, both mortal sins.
And only** 5** men were excommunicated; the rest of the SSPX were merely suspended ad divinis. While that is a much harsher punishment than it first seems, it is not cutting them off from reception of the sacraments, just from performing them themselves licitly.
The concern of HH JP II was made public: he feared they were setting up to become a schismatic church. That the SSPX continued to set up and operate parishes after the suspension reinforces that view. The original excommunication calls the SSPX schismatic; HH Benedict XVI disagrees, and lifted the excommunications as the first step in the negotiations towards return to full ecclesiastical communion.
Locally, the adherents to the SSPX often hold a schismatic and/or remnant church mentality. But the SSPX is not an association of laity, only of clerics.
It’s established separate religious orders; again, that looks like an act of a schismatic group, not like a group merely in protest. Again, that action mirrors the action of the Old Catholics as well.
The SSPX also supports the actions of the SSJK, which is excommunicated as a whole. And that, too, mirrors the Old Catholic Schism…
I honestly think the best outcome would be for the traditionalists to have a separate chrch sui iuris from the general Roman Church Sui Iuris… separate hierarchs, separate liturgical praxis, and overlapping dioceses so that the anti-traditionalist bishops can not suppress their use of the EF.