Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cothrige; Dr. Sivana
If the minions of long dead and excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefevre's vicious little anti-papal schism want to be regarded as Catholics, they simply need to unconditionally surrender and submit to papal authority. Personally, I would prefer to see the SSPX bishops (and any particularly mouthy other adherents) submit to lifetime silencing, painful preliminary physical public penance and lifetime cloistering.

The SSPX are "Catholic" only in the same sense that the Catholic baptized Fr. Martin Luther or Jean Cauvin were (i.e not at all as long as unrepentant). They should be denied the sacramental life of the Church unless and until they surrender. In better times, they should have and would have been executed. The purposeful rupture of the unity of the Church and the gross disobedience to the papal authority of John Paul II and their naked contempt for legitimate Church authority are at least as serious as the sins of userers burned at the stake after judgment by the Church's inquisitional authorities.

Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos is not and, God willing, never will be pope and he has no personal authority to countermand the papal JUDGMENT, not mere opinion, of John Paul II (who had been his patron and whom he has betrayed).

For what it may be worth, I am no fonder of Novus Ordo Masses than you may be. Nonetheless, they are legitimate Masses whatever Marcel's minions may imagine. I attend only Tridentine Masses said by the Institute of Christ the King and its local pastor with the blessings of Bishop Thomas Doran of Rockford who has long since given his permission as diocesan ordinary to ALL of his priests to say Tridentine Masses in appropriate venues. I may attend an occasional Novus Ordo on vacation or when out of town. My cultural preference for the Tridentine Rite in which I was raised does not constitute an enforceable demand on Peter's successors. Nor do the preferences of those in lesser positions of authority.

The silence of B-XVI (assuming he has been silent) is hardly what you need to justify the unsupportable assumption that he disagrees with his own decision to excommunicate Marcel and his adherents when he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under John Paul II much less that he has actually reversed the judgment of John Paul II.

I asked that any claim of that reversal be documented and, given previous SSPX wars here, am not surprised that there are apparently NO SUCH documents. B-XVI has the authority to reverse those judgments now for those still living such as Williamson, Fellay, de Mallerais and Castro de Meyer's successor in Brazil (who may alone have been restored to the good graces of the Church). It would be a nevel theory that even he can lift the excommunications of the likes of dead Marcel. The schismatics and their cronies are, however, not willing to wait for formal action and wish instead to speak for B-XVI because they despise JP II's memory and they JUST KNOW they are right since the other schismatics and excommunicati agree with them. We probably have cardinals who do not believe in God. Christ never guaranteed their wisdom or infallibility. B-XVI has assumed a higher and divinely guaranteed authority just as JP II and hundreds of others before him.

The schismatic and/or excommunicated minions of the SSPX schism actually have the brazen nerve to claim to be responsible for the revival of the Tridentine Mass which is like giving John Dillinger credit for improving bank security procedures and practices, or crediting Osama bin Laden with improving airport security. The SSPX are Catholic like Comrade OBambam is an American patriot.

It ought to be noted that arguing with the SSPX schizzies is like arguing with Darwinians or single taxers or anti-American leftists or abortion lovers, i.e. a futile exercise requiring much effort for little or no positive result.

BTW, that the SSPXers demand to "negotiate" their return to the Church seems an admission that they well know that they are excommunicated. Else, what is to negotiate??? It would have been fun to see the result of them trying to pull this crap with Pius XI, Pius XII, JP I, or, ummmm, Pope St. Pius X (taking his name in vain as it were) or Leo XIII or Pius IX, etc., etc.

113 posted on 07/21/2010 11:06:24 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]


To: BlackElk
If the minions of long dead and excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefevre's vicious little anti-papal schism want to be regarded as Catholics, they simply need to unconditionally surrender and submit to papal authority.

This is true of all who sin. When the priest in my Church insists that he is above the Church's law regarding the liturgy and can act on his own initiative to change the Mass, or add to it, or delete from it, he is also responsible to "unconditionally surrender and submit to papal authority." However, he remains Catholic even when he sins. So do the SSPX.

The SSPX are "Catholic" only in the same sense that the Catholic baptized Fr. Martin Luther or Jean Cauvin were (i.e not at all as long as unrepentant).

There is absolutely no comparison. Martin Luther openly denied the Catholic faith and Church, and intentionally set up a new institutional Church. The SSPX have not done this. Sure, they are wrong, and their actions have been schismatic (though the competent authorities in the Holy See have repeatedly insisted they are not formally in schism) but they are not setting up a new institutional church as did the Protestants. There is a vast difference here.

Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos is not and, God willing, never will be pope and he has no personal authority to countermand the papal JUDGMENT, not mere opinion, of John Paul II (who had been his patron and whom he has betrayed).

I am uncomfortable with this view which is actually very like that of the SSPX. The above Cardinal, and the commission he headed, were the competent authorities regarding the traditionalist adherents for the Holy See, and this included the SSPX. Unless Pope Benedict XVI were to openly deny what they said in reference to that which they are legitimately qualified to address then one is bound by faith to accept their word as his own. If your view were correct then one could freely ignore the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith regarding questions of faith or morals, or the views of the Congregation for Divine Worship regarding the proper forms for liturgical acts. And I guarantee you a Catholic is free to do no such thing.

For what it may be worth, I am no fonder of Novus Ordo Masses than you may be. Nonetheless, they are legitimate Masses whatever Marcel's minions may imagine. I attend only Tridentine Masses said by the Institute of Christ the King and its local pastor with the blessings of Bishop Thomas Doran of Rockford who has long since given his permission as diocesan ordinary to ALL of his priests to say Tridentine Masses in appropriate venues.

For what it is also worth, I have never once in my entire life seen or participated in any Mass but that which you call the "Novus Ordo." I have no attachment to the old forms, though intellectually I have opinions regarding them and would certainly welcome an opportunity to attend and experience it. My position is entirely free from any personal ideas about the issues, but is entirely concerning the objective claims that members of the SSPX are not Catholic, and that they are anti-semites. The first is wrong on the facts, and the second cannot be substantiated, which causes it be dangerously close to calumnious gossip, IMHO.

116 posted on 07/21/2010 1:15:28 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson