Would the MP exist without Lefebvre?

[bear06]

The Cardinal in charge of Ecclesia Dei disagrees with you…

…so says a quote in a magazine article. The excommunication decree says otherwise.

 

[bear06]

“By their fruits you shall know them”.
SSPX- good fruits, conciliar church- bad fruits.
The sinfulness lies with those perpetrators of lies and calumny against the Archbishop.

If one actually quote the Archbishop they’re lyiing says you. Why don’t you tone down the drama and join the conversation rather than throw out accusation after accusation?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Good results do not justify sinful means.​

Agreed, I made it clear it was a sin.

There is no way to know, because God is able to over-rule all actions, sinful or not, to do His Will. We have no way to know all possible the “combinations” of acts of creatures which bring about a given result; as this requires Infinite Knowledge & Wisdom

So it is equally possible that if he had been obedient in 1974, the MP would have existed earlier. Being creatures, & not God , we do not have any way of** knowing**; all we can do is speculate.

I agree with this as well, but that is not to say we cant make connections between one event and another.

What one can know, is what God requires of one - which is, total love & total obedience. God has given us tests to know whether we love God - including: “You are My friends, **if **you keep my commandments”. Dividing His Mystical Body is not very friendly to Him, surely ?

“That they may be one, so that the WORLD may know” that Jesus is Lord.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

“By their fruits you shall know them”.
SSPX- good fruits, conciliar church- bad fruits.
The sinfulness lies with those perpetrators of lies and calumny against the Archbishop.

The end does not justify the means, that is Catholicism 101.
And it is unfair to compare the two groups considering the size difference and that it is a broad generalization.

The ends don’t justify the means…but, just from a historical perspective…if the SSPX hadnt caused an uproar and rather large schism (and it is a schism)…yeah, the Vatican probably would have ignored those “quaint, unprogressive traditionalists” and not bothered even patronizing us.

This is what my conclusion has been as well. Im not saying they would have been ignored forever, but certainly the schism resulted in a swift and sustained reaction from Rome.

 

[under_the_dome]

I voted “Yes”. I think that SSPX would have been better off (as would the Church) had they remained and tried to reform things from the inside out, with regard to the TLM, at least. I think the bigger problem was their stance on Vatican II more generally… what the council fathers actually decreed wasn’t the problem, how the Church received it was.

 

[labernadette]

The ends don’t justify the means…but, just from a historical perspective…if the SSPX hadnt caused an uproar and rather large schism (and it is a schism)…yeah, the Vatican probably would have ignored those “quaint, unprogressive traditionalists” and not bothered even patronizing us.

The SSPX caused an uproar? Let’s get the facts right okay? The modernists caused the uproar when they hijacked the council. The conciliarists are the ones that have turned the Church upside down, and away from the true Catholic Faith. And no it is NOT a schism, unless you are higher in rank that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos and are calling the shots.

 

[Icarus210]

The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against His Church.

God always raises someone up to protect His church… in this age it was Archbishop Marcel Leferbvre.

Iccy.

 

[laudamus_te]

Having read The Spirit of the Liturgy (by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) I believe the Holy Father is motivated more by the Holy Spirit in regards to Sacred Liturgy than a schismatic movement.

Again, from a website which is much-ballyhooed on this forum:

“CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.”

and

“CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately that is proof that within the Church, even at high levels, there is not always full knowledge of the Fraternity. The Fraternity has always recognized in John Paul II, and now in Benedict XVI, the legitimate successor of Saint Peter. That is not a problem.”

Please get your facts straight. There can be no label of “schism” if the Pope is recognized as the legitimate successor of Saint Peter. Archbishop Lefebvre was not, and likewise the SSPX is not, in schism.

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[BobP123]

The ends don’t justify the means…

I hope I don’t digress too much but please hear me out. I keep hearing this justification stuff from the SSPX bashers but let me ask you one thing: if you found an abandoned baby who obviously needed food and you found yourself without any cash on hand, wouldn’t it be acceptable to steal food in order to save that baby? Far-fetched? I can provide other examples to demonstrate my point.

 

[rlg94086]

Again, from a website which is much-ballyhooed on this forum:

"CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism."

So, it was an informal schism…

I like the way that the recent thread on Archbishop Lefebvre has magically disappeared. What was the motivation for removing it? I think I know.

It’s a conspiracy…they are out to get you.

 

[BobP123]

I think the bigger problem was their stance on Vatican II more generally… what the council fathers actually decreed wasn’t the problem, how the Church received it was.

Yes, Archbishop Marcel did sign the documents only to rescind some if not all of them probably after he saw the ramifications of what he signed. No doubt a lot of the other bishops turned against his attempts to keep the traditional Faith alive and we all have a good idea today of what damage they can cause.

 

[BobP123]

rlg94086:
So, it was an informal schism…

Means that they didn’t have to wear tuxes.

 

[rlg94086]

Means that they didn’t have to wear tuxes.

Well…maybe a tuxedo t-shirt…with jeans and tennis shoes. Standard dress at some parishes.

 

[Apocalypse_12]

I don’t want to get too off topic from the thread, but I want to get one thing cleared.

So the SSPX is not in schism? Only Lefebvre’s consecrations of the bishops “constitutes a schismatic act.” (Ecclesia Dei)?

Officially, as their website says, the SSPX recognizes Pope Benedict 16 as St. Peter’s Successor. So that would mean that they are not in schism, right?

I don’t know. Please, could someone give me your knowledge on this?

 

[bear06]

I don’t want to get too off topic from the thread, but I want to get one thing cleared.

So the SSPX is not in schism? Only Lefebvre’s consecrations of the bishops “constitutes a schismatic act.” (Ecclesia Dei)?

Officially, as their website says, the SSPX recognizes Pope Benedict 16 as St. Peter’s Successor. So that would mean that they are not in schism, right?

I don’t know. Please, could someone give me your knowledge on this?

You’re about to get a whole lot of differing opinion. I’d search the forums for SSPX and you’ll find years worth of debate on this.

Here’s the Excommunication Decree. I’m sure someone’s about to question my source but this is silly. There is no commentary - only a document from the Magisterium. After the original 4, we cannot know exactly who is in schism but we can guess who likely is - at least the Vatican has (see second quote and link).

BTW, protestant recognize the pope, the problem is, they don’t submit to him.

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.

Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication latae sententiae as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

+BERNARDINUS Card. GANTIN

Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

Here’s a letter from Ecclesia Dei on the subject of the status of the SSPX priests.

latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm

The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See and also because those ordained after the episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop. They are also excommunicated if they adhere to the schism. While up to now the Holy See has not defined what this adherence consists in, one could point to a wholesale condemnation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council and a refusal to be in communion with it. Further, it is likely that these priests, after eleven years in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, effectively adhere to the schism.

 

[under_the_dome]

You’re about to get a whole lot of differing opinion. I’d search the forums for SSPX and you’ll find years worth of debate on this.

Here’s the Excommunication Decree. I’m sure someone’s about to question my source but this is silly. There is no commentary - only a document from the Magisterium. After the original 4, we cannot know exactly who is in schism but we can guess who likely is - at least the Vatican has (see second quote and link).

BTW, protestant recognize the pope, the problem is, they don’t submit to him.

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

Here’s a letter from Ecclesia Dei on the subject of the status of the SSPX priests.

latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm

Thanks for clearing this up. I was going to look for the decree from the Congregation for Bishops, but I didn’t know where to start.

 

[labernadette]

If one actually quote the Archbishop they’re lyiing says you. Why don’t you tone down the drama and join the conversation rather than throw out accusation after accusation?

Okay then. How about this…

By their fruits you shall know them.
SSPX-good fruits, conciliar church-bad fruits.

No drama, just truth.

 

[labernadette]

BTW, protestant recognize the pope, the problem is, they don’t submit to him.

Do protestants pray for the pope at every mass? Do protestants have their eyes always turned towards Eternal Rome?

 

[under_the_dome]

Okay then. How about this…

By their fruits you shall know them.
SSPX-good fruits, conciliar church-bad fruits.

No drama, just truth.

I don’t know about that, exactly. The “conciliar church” has done a lot of good in the world, despite its lack of adherence to tradition. I would designate it as a “qualified failure” or a “qualified success”, depending on where you are coming from.

The SSPX, for its part, has been successful for the 1% of the church to which it appeals, but has done nothing for the other 99%.

 

[labernadette]

I don’t know about that, exactly. The “conciliar church” has done a lot of good in the world, despite its lack of adherence to tradition. I would designate it as a “qualified failure” or a “qualified success”, depending on where you are coming from.

The SSPX, for its part, has been successful for the 1% of the church to which it appeals, but has done nothing for the other 99%.

St. Athanasius: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition were reduced to a handful, they would be the true Church.”