Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lefebvrist bishop says no reconciliation with Rome
SpiritDaily ^ | September 17, 2005

Posted on 09/17/2005 6:24:38 AM PDT by NYer

From CW News:

Sep. 15 (CWNews.com) - A bishop of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has warned traditionalist Catholics the "heresy of neo-modernism" which, he says, now controls the Vatican.

In an email message to his supporters, Bishop Richard Williamson, an English-born prelate who now serves the SSPX in Argentina, said that there are enormous differences "between Catholic Tradition and the position's of today's Rome." He continued: "Between these positions, any reconciliation is impossible."

Bishop Williamson conceded that some traditionalists might accept an offer of reconciliation with the Vatican, but "the conciliar positions of today's Rome would still be as false as 2 and 2 are 5, while the Traditional positions would still be as true as 2 and 2 are 4."

The Lefebvrist bishop wrote his email message to explain why he had said-- prior to the September 1 meeting between Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) and Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the SSPX-- that traditionalists would not be reconciled with the Vatican. He explained that if some traditionalists were to reach an agreement with the Vatican, others would resist-- "that if the Society [of St. Pius X] were to rejoin Rome, the resistance of Catholic Tradition would carry on without it."

Bishop Williamson, the most outspoken figure in the SSPX, is one of the four bishops consecrated by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in June 1988, in defiance of an order from the Vatican, prompting Pope John Paul II (bio - news) to announce the excommunication of the traditionalist leaders.


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; History; Ministry/Outreach; Prayer; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: pope; schism; sspx; vatican; williamson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-330 next last

1 posted on 09/17/2005 6:24:39 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...
For those unfamiliar with the situation, STATUS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X .
2 posted on 09/17/2005 6:27:28 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

It would seem that there is a budding schism among the SSPX. That's certainly ironic.

As I've posted previously, I'm in favor of reunification with SSPX on very generous terms. Including establishment of a sui iuris church.

Although I view the SSPX schism as primarily an issue for the western (Roman Catholic) church to resolve, the schism has caused a scandal for the universal Catholic church as a whole.


3 posted on 09/17/2005 6:56:03 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
I'm in favor of the Pope making it crystal clear these guys are excommunicated schismatics and that anyone who attends their Liturgies or in any way supports their schism is automatically excommunicated.

Inviting these clowns into the Church, unrepentant, bearing tons of noxious antisemitic and heretical theology and general lunacy will only halt the reform within that is well underway.

Let the sspx dead bury the dead williamson. Who cares..

4 posted on 09/17/2005 7:00:46 AM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

"I'm in favor of the Pope making it crystal clear these guys are excommunicated schismatics and that anyone who attends their Liturgies or in any way supports their schism is automatically excommunicated."

"Our way or the highway" hasn't worked yet. I don't expect it will anytime soon.

The problem with schismatics is that over time, the reasons for their schisms have often been vindicated. The SSPX is no exception. The obnoxious ones who are schismatic for the sake of being schismatic will remain in schism. So I don't worry much about them. I see no reason not to welcome the rest back.


5 posted on 09/17/2005 7:09:45 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

"I'm in favor of the Pope making it crystal clear these guys are excommunicated schismatics and that anyone who attends their Liturgies or in any way supports their schism is automatically excommunicated."

"Our way or the highway" hasn't worked yet. I don't expect it will anytime soon.

The problem with schismatics is that over time, the reasons for their schisms have often been vindicated. The SSPX is no exception. The obnoxious ones who are schismatic for the sake of being schismatic will remain in schism. So I don't worry much about them. I see no reason not to welcome the rest back.


6 posted on 09/17/2005 7:09:51 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Vidi aquam

There's a big difference. The bishops didn't leave the church.


8 posted on 09/17/2005 7:50:24 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: NYer

I agree that SSPX should be welcomed back on full and generous terms. Universal Indult and recognition of their clergy. However, it appears, that some members of the SSPX do not want a reunion, but want to continue in schism (Williamson). I hope and truly believe that Bishop Fellay is far more reasonable and hope lies in that direction.


10 posted on 09/17/2005 7:59:12 AM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: RKBA Democrat
The problem with schismatics is that over time, the reasons for their schisms have often been vindicated.

Really? Like what? Gnosticism? Arianism? Calvinism?

Heresy is never vindicated, so if a schism is due to heresy, which SSPX has largely embraced, SSPX will never be vindicated. If the form of the liturgy is their only gripe, that, indeed, may be "vindicated", if only by universal indult. But SSPX claims that the so-called Novus Ordo canon is not valid and is, therefore, idolatry, is heretical. Many are sedevacantists. Neither of these reasons will ever be vindicated.

12 posted on 09/17/2005 8:18:59 AM PDT by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vidi aquam
The CPA "bishops" were never in the Church.

What Church do you suppose the men who are now Bishops were Baptized in? The Methodists?

13 posted on 09/17/2005 8:33:02 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: RKBA Democrat
>>>>It would seem that there is a budding schism among the SSPX. That's certainly ironic.

Not really, it wouldn't even be the first such schism. When you are born of a particular sin, you tend to repeat it, and the SSPX as we know it today was born of a schismatic act, the Consecration of the four Bishops.

patent

15 posted on 09/17/2005 8:45:54 AM PDT by patent (A baby is God's opinion that life should go on. Carl Sandburg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

>>> Let the sspx dead bury the dead williamson. Who cares..


I know quite a few good people in the SSPX, and I'll not write them off, personally. I tend to think that writing any one off is an entirely unchristian attitude, and contrary to the Gospel.

patent


16 posted on 09/17/2005 8:46:53 AM PDT by patent (A baby is God's opinion that life should go on. Carl Sandburg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat; bornacatholic; ninenot; sittnick; Salvation; NYer
RKBA Democrat: "Our way or the highway" most certainly has worked. The SSPX bishops are all excommunicated as they ought to be. That works for me. Those who adhere to the SSPX schism are also excommunicated, as they ought to be. That also works for me. The SSPX is declared to be what it is: a schism and quite accurately so. Therefore its members, adherents, supporters or whatever are schismatic. That also works for me. All of these things also work for Catholicism, papal authority, church discipline, and recognition of reality.

JP II was in charge in 1988 when he excommunicated the SSPX leaders and adherents and declared SSPX a schism. He remained in charge until his death, earlier this year. Benedict XVI is now in charge. Neither JP II nor B XVI have changed the status of SSPX or its leaders or its adherents, who have, in any event, yet to prostrate themselves, sinful and sorrowful, before the pope. Hence no change seems justified.

There are still Nestorian heretics out there after many centuries. There are still Arian heretics out there. There are Utrecht's Old "Catholics" who started with a problem with Vatican I's definition of the doctrine of papal infallibility and now have the full gamut of exotic ecclesiastical flora and fauna. There are "retired" bishops who pass make-believe Holy Orders to dissident feminazis. There are those who believe that anal intercourse is the eighth "sacrament." There are those who adhere to the heresies crystallized in the 16th century. And there are the stiff-necked SSPX rebels who would grind papal authority under their fancy little heels in order to advance the cause of their offended liturgical tastes almighty or their ongoing rebellion against Vatican II.

As to all of the immediate prior paragraphs denizens, the Roman Catholic Church got along very well before it met them and will get along very well without them since 1988, now and forever if they choose not to knuckle under to papal authority. In their present posture, if they are ever readmitted to the Church, it will be too soon. If they want to crawl on their bellies in total humiliation, repudiating everything that is the SSPX schism and its leaders, and their respective "works and pomps" as it were, publicly pleading for forgiveness and renouncing Marcel the Malignant once and for all, then maybe, just maybe, with enough public penance as a precondition, the pope should consider readmitting them on an individual basis, each according to his public humiliation.

Until then, tooooo baaaaad, sooooo sadddd!

Study up on the Marxist notion of the Hegelian dialectic deserves your attention far more than does SSPX. Thesis (the Church as it was in 1988 under JP II), Antithesis (the nasty little revolution launched by Marcel in which Marcel and not the pope would decide whom Marcel would consecrate as bishops); Synthesis (Oh, well, who cares? The important thing is that we perceive some "progress" in the form of Fr. Recruiting Sergeant claiming that he has brought the unrepentant SSPX back to Rome with Rome ligitimating the excommunicated bishops and maybe raising old Marcel to the honors of the altar as the "patron saint" of those who despise the papacy and rebel against it). I'll pass. You should too. Most importantly Benedict XVI ought to pas as well as all of his successors.

What is it about the Americanist mentality that demands a complete resolution of all issues in a half hour or maybe an hour, less time for commercials, or we should be bored by whatever it is and accept anything in order to get it over with so we can move on to the next program, err, controversy?

The chances of SSPX ever being vindicated are none and less than none.

Sackcloth, ashes, peanut, nose!

17 posted on 09/17/2005 9:04:05 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vidi aquam

>>>Are you saying all CPA "bishops" are in the Church?

I think the safest statement is that you and I don't actually know the answer to that question. We know at least some are, but that's all that we know publicly.

The CPA is an unusual situation, and drawing conclusions from it to apply to other groups is difficult, if best.

patent


18 posted on 09/17/2005 9:06:40 AM PDT by patent (A baby is God's opinion that life should go on. Carl Sandburg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat; Vidi aquam
It would seem that there is a budding schism among the SSPX.

Uh no. Contrary to the hopes of the enemies of tradition, Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson are on exactly the same page. Here is a statementment from Bishop Fellay, (pdf file)

Bishop Fellay Statement

Compare that to the full statement by Bishop Williamson posted above in post #7.

19 posted on 09/17/2005 9:09:24 AM PDT by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: patent; Vidi aquam
We know at least some are

"We" know quite the contrary. It is not morally possible to support and comply with the Chinese Communist baby killing (among other things) government and be a Catholic bishop.

Cardinal Kung Foundation

20 posted on 09/17/2005 9:15:15 AM PDT by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
The problem with schismatics is that over time, the reasons for their schisms have often been vindicated.

Really? Have we become Nestorians yet, or Monophysites, when we reconciled with some of these "Churches of the East" holding on to ancient schisms? Do you think that the Orthodox will be reconciled to the Church in spite of their sustained denial of Papal Supremacy, or that their view will be ever accepted as a matter of course?

I don't agree with your statement above.

As for the SSPXers who follow continue under Bishop Williamson and in schism in the event of the SSPX reconciliation with Rome, good bye and good riddance. They will be destined to wither in the vineyard.

-Theo

21 posted on 09/17/2005 9:24:36 AM PDT by Teˇfilo (Visit Vivificat! - http://www.vivificat.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Gee. I'm really shocked. These folks are fringe loon wacko's and should be treated as such. Shake the dust off our shoes and have nothing more to do with them.

If some of them want to come back on *OUR* (read: The One True Catholic and Apostolic Church) terms, then so be it.
22 posted on 09/17/2005 10:08:03 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; All

thank you"NYer"
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Those whom dare question His Majesty will have heavy heart very soon. Fore These people whom should lead us are abounding fundamental rule. Eto infore His Majesty will explain to them in way that is terrifying of explain I say let them of eto it will come to light of whom is whom. If people would only understand what is at stake. Let it be I say."
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
thank you all


23 posted on 09/17/2005 10:30:38 AM PDT by anonymoussierra ("The wisdom of the wise and the experience of ages-Isaac Disraeli")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patent
I know quite a few good people in the SSPX, and I'll not write them off, personally. I tend to think that writing any one off is an entirely unchristian attitude, and contrary to the Gospel.

It is up to those good people then, to right themselves and try to avoid endangering their eternal souls by following this schismatic cult...er, sect. It's been made clear time and time again to Catholics that the SSPX is not to be followed. Their Latin services are not a substitute for the Novus Ordo or the Indult Latin Mass. Any nominally legitimate Catholics still following the SSPX at this point have made a conscious and intentional decision to leave the Catholic Church.

Our job is to help lead them out of that darkness by compassionately but firmly correcting their error. But I think a false sort of of ecumenism (similar to ecumenism towards Protestants and non-Christians) that legitimizes any more than a couple of the SSPX's complaints is a lie. The hardcore SSPXers have little to offer except bile and heresy, and it is incumbent on them to admit their errors and crawl back to the Church for forgiveness from God. I personally won't dignify people that say our Mass is illegitimate crap and that our Popes are heretics, losers, and antipopes.
24 posted on 09/17/2005 10:41:22 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: patent
I tend to think that writing any one off is an entirely unchristian attitude, and contrary to the Gospel.

Luke 9:1-5
1 He summoned the Twelve and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases,
2 and he sent them to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal (the sick).
3 He said to them, "Take nothing for the journey, neither walking stick, nor sack, nor food, nor money, and let no one take a second tunic.
4 Whatever house you enter, stay there and leave from there.
5 And as for those who do not welcome you, when you leave that town, shake the dust from your feet in testimony against them."


Matthew 18:15-17
15 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
25 posted on 09/17/2005 10:55:03 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: Teˇfilo
Really? Have we become Nestorians yet, or Monophysites, when we reconciled with some of these "Churches of the East" holding on to ancient schisms?

We're in full communion with heretical Churches? As in still-heretical Churches, not those that have renounced their heresy. What the hell are you talking about? Really, now.
27 posted on 09/17/2005 11:02:20 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: patent
And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matt., xviii, 17).

Catholic Encyclopedia Schism...

All the first Epistle of St. John is directed against contemporary innovators and schismatics; and the author regards them as so foreign to the Church that in contrast to its members "the Children of God", he calls them "the children of the devil", (I John, iii, 10); the children "of the world" (iv, 5), even Antichrist (ii, 22; iv, 3).

"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid" (Tit., iii, 10)

*As a Christian, I recognize the truth a schism is a grave evil done to the Body of Christ. It is indefensible and no Christian Catholic, any where, any time, has ever advanced the notion it is ever permissible to cause a schism.

As in all previous schisms, there are those attracted to it whose culpability is questionable. All schisms have tended to attract those uncertain in the Faith. That a schism includes such individuals goes without saying, at least for me. What does not, for me, go without saying is I think it a disastrous idea to invite them back corporately. I pray for individual followers of the sspx to convert. As to them as a whole..please. They are demonstrably noxious nuts.

Repeatedly efforts/advances have been made to the sspx and its supporters. Those efforts are ridiculed and repulsed by the sspx. I think they are a disgrace and I suspect these meetings are a way to keep their followers in tow. "Look, we tried our level best but Rome refuses to renonce their modernism so we are forced to keep the Traditions alive; buy this book...."

It's leading light, Fr. Fellay publicly decribes the normative mass as evil. And he is the "best and the brightest" of the schismatics.

As a neo-whatever, I will obey whatever the Magisterium decides. That is what we neo-whatevers do.

I am just expressing my strongly held personal opinion that inviting back into the church the sspx as a whole is suicidal. It would be inviting back into the Body of Christ those who are unceasingly warring against it and would be an invitation to more mayhem and madness.

The Schism has been around a long time and there is not a solitary piece of evidence they have stepped back one iota from any of their insane and outrageous ideas.

And, as my Bible citations (I could post more) illustrate, my personal opinion is not contrary to the Gospel.

A quick check of the Early Church Fathers would illustrate that when it coms to schism, my language and position is mild.

29 posted on 09/17/2005 11:11:05 AM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
I objected to the following original statement:

The problem with schismatics is that over time, the reasons for their schisms have often been vindicated.

I pointed out the absurdity of this statement by demonstrating its absurd, ultimate conclusion. Your beef is not with me, but with the original poster.

-Theo

30 posted on 09/17/2005 11:15:33 AM PDT by Teˇfilo (Visit Vivificat! - http://www.vivificat.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Amen, brother. That was spot-on and riotously funny at the same time

For some reason this schism is "good."

Does anyone read the Bible and the Early Church Fathers anymore? Read the Early Church Fathers on Schism. They make your ears blister and they tell today's sspx'ers they are headed for HELL.

Period

31 posted on 09/17/2005 11:17:25 AM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Vidi aquam
Do you support the sspx?

Do you reject the Indult?

Do you think the normative mass evil?

32 posted on 09/17/2005 11:25:10 AM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: TheGeezer

"Really? Like what? Gnosticism? Arianism? Calvinism?"

You're somewhat conveniently ignoring the larger schisms that have occurred, i.e. that between the Orthodox and the Catholic church, as well as the Protestant reformation.

Ultimately, I do think that both the Orthodox as well as the Protestants were somewhat vindicated in their positions. Were they right to schism? Not in my view. However, I might also note that several of the needed reforms of the church happened in response to schisms.

"Heresy is never vindicated, so if a schism is due to heresy, which SSPX has largely embraced, SSPX will never be vindicated. If the form of the liturgy is their only gripe, that, indeed, may be "vindicated", if only by universal indult."

You and I differ on several points. First, I believe that the underlying reasons for the SSPX schism has more to do with perceived heterodoxy in the western church than anything. I don't often like to get into the NO versus TLM controversy because I just don't have a dog in the fight. But I will point out that the transition was handled horribly. I think SSPX, particularly in the US, rose from legitimate grievances regarding that transition and widespread heterodoxy in the western church.

I find it interesting that you mention the indult mass. Do you believe that the universal indult would be being considered at this poiint or that indult masses would even be an option if there weren't an SSPX to force the issue? Or is it mere coincidence that the location of of many indult parishes is within close proximity of SSPX chapels?


34 posted on 09/17/2005 11:34:32 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: NYer
neo-modernism?

Isn't that redundant?
36 posted on 09/17/2005 11:38:15 AM PDT by escapefromboston (manny ortez: mvp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: Vidi aquam; RKBA Democrat; TheGeezer
The four Society bishops are of one mind in holding that on the one hand the Second Vatican Council imperiled the dogma of the Faith, but on the other hand the authorities of the official Church are to be respected as such; that the rescue of the Catholic Church depends on their returning to the positions of Catholic Tradition, and so the Society must do all it can to help along such a return

Not sure precisely what Williamson intends by 'Catholic Tradition' since it is not spelled out in this email. However, it is not surprising to see rifts within the "Traditionalists". Once separated from the Magisterium, groups must rely upon their own understandings and formulations.

The "Traditionalists" who do not return will fracture like other catholic dissident groups that refused to recognize Vatican Council I, etc. Christ remains with His Church; that is His promise, not man's.

38 posted on 09/17/2005 12:28:54 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
The chances of SSPX ever being vindicated are none and less than none.

Note to self, save this quote to serve it back as crow when Pope Benedict XVI makes his decision to clarify the excom issue and invites all priests everywhere to offer the 1962 Missal Traditional Latin Mass.

This statement is just as bold as the loud predictions, upon the death of John Paul II, that Cardinal Ratzinger had absolutely no chance at becoming Pope.
So sad, too bad...

39 posted on 09/17/2005 12:31:56 PM PDT by vox_freedom (Fear no evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: Vidi aquam
Lefebvre abandoned the Church when he abandoned obedience to the bishop of Rome. In doing so, he implicitly denied papal teaching authority, placing his own intuition and opinions above those of Christ's vicar on earth. That, in my understanding, constitutes heresy.

Lefebvre wrote:

To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division, a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith, is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error."

Now, whose teaching authority is greater: Lefebvre's, or conciliar joined with papal approval? The contradiction of scandalous public disobedience with assertions of adherence to what the Church "really" teaches might drive one insane if one did not embrace the obvious irony. This is what the SSPX claims to this very day, to be obedient to the papacy, even if by its very existence and apology it is not!

John Paul the Great thought the errors of the SSPX severe enough to forbid Catholics to belong to it:

"I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the church’s law" (Ecclesia Dei 5c). [emphasis added]

Disobedience in SSPX is implicitly heretical.

41 posted on 09/17/2005 12:38:00 PM PDT by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
And there are the stiff-necked SSPX rebels who would grind papal authority under their fancy little heels in order to advance the cause of their offended liturgical tastes almighty or their ongoing rebellion against Vatican II.

Man, I wish I hd written that! It sounds like St. Jerome vitriol, and that is throughly admirable. Regards.

42 posted on 09/17/2005 12:41:49 PM PDT by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: vox_freedom; murphE

The mini-popes of FR couldn't find their backside with a map. They'll be strangely silent when BXVI blows all their little theories out of the water.


44 posted on 09/17/2005 12:51:28 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: vox_freedom
You will search in vain for any post by me to the effect that Josef Cardinal Ratzinger would not be elected. There were a few Third World cardinals that might have made good popes but the Vietnamese Cardinal who was Thuc's nephew died of stomach cancer a couple of years ago and Francis Cardinal Arinze and Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos were not elected this time.

Since you seem too mired in inaccuracy to remember, my Bishop Thomas Doran has told his priests that they are all welcome to celebrate Tridentine Masses and he does so himself on occasion as well as confirming Catholics in the Tridentine rite at St. Mary's Oratory in Rockford. A decision by Benedict XVI to grant a universal indult will be welcomed in my home and in my diocese for the sake of the CATHOLIC faithful who are deprived of the Tridentine by their diocesan bishops who also seem not to get the message although they have yet to do "do it yourself" consecrations of bishops not chosen by the pope.

I will admit that it is not probable that a good pope like Benedict XVI would make the schizzies run the gauntlet as I would but he is pope and he gets to make the decisions.

There ios NOTHING about the excommunications and declaration of schism of SSPX that needs clarifying. JP the Great did those in Ecclesia Dei in 1988 and never relented. As with most schizzies, you want to see one pope contradict another to undermine papal authority.

Oh well, we can count on Williamson as a continuing icon of schism. Does his nibs also believe that the Holocaust never occurred? Do you? That the earth is flat? Do you?

46 posted on 09/17/2005 1:06:33 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
You're somewhat conveniently ignoring the larger schisms that have occurred, i.e. that between the Orthodox and the Catholic church, as well as the Protestant reformation.

Well, I think citing Calvin, perhaps the most erudite Protestant theologian, qualifies as not overlooking the Reformation? ;>)

The Orthodox schism, by the way, occurred more for political than theological reasons, since if Western Europe had responded with military effectiveness to rescue Constantinople from the Muslim invaders, there probably would not have been a schism.

Besides, what has been vindicated by the Orthodox schism? A few Orthodox churches are now teaching contraception and "situational" abortion as normative, morally. That, certain, is not a vindication of separation from papal teaching authority.

...

However, I might also note that several of the needed reforms of the church happened in response to schisms.

Many reforms of the Church have occurred without schisms as well. I think of St. Francis, for one.

You and I differ on several points. First, I believe that the underlying reasons for the SSPX schism has more to do with perceived heterodoxy in the western church than anything. I don't often like to get into the NO versus TLM controversy because I just don't have a dog in the fight. But I will point out that the transition was handled horribly. I think SSPX, particularly in the US, rose from legitimate grievances regarding that transition and widespread heterodoxy in the western church.

There was heterodoxy, but not by Vatican II. That's the amazing thing about claims of heterodoxy of Vatican II: in the official documents of Vatican II, you can't find it. Where do you find it is in the writing and teaching of radical-chic-lesbian-nun-socialist-liberation-theology-priests who claim to adhere to the spirit of Vatican II without actually studying it.

As an example, Vatican II did not teach that all religions are equal. It did not teach that salvation was possible outside the Church. What it DID teach was that governments must not coerce religious conviction from its citizens, but instead that religious liberty was a fundamental human right. And why did it do that, except to try to end the slaughter of Catholics living under all sorts of anti-Catholic governments everywhere? It changed no fundamental teaching of the Church. It expressed an understanding that was a defense of its flock against political forces wishing to destroy it. It was, if you will, an antiestablishmentarian teaching trying to preserve lives.

I find it interesting that you mention the indult mass. Do you believe that the universal indult would be being considered at this poiint or that indult masses would even be an option if there weren't an SSPX to force the issue?

There is no issue being forced. The TM is not necessary for salvation, for grace, for the Holy Eucharist. The indult mass is merely a means through which to attract souls back into the Church, to draw them away from the schimatic SSPX.

Or is it mere coincidence that the location of of many indult parishes is within close proximity of SSPX chapels?

I do not know if that is true; even if it is, however, if an indult mass attracts one away from heretical proests and illicit liturgy, so much the better.

Regards.

47 posted on 09/17/2005 1:13:32 PM PDT by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Vidi aquam; TheGeezer

VA: Let me see if I understand your remarkably twisted claim. As a Lefebvrite, YOU are questioning The Geezer's faith for his faithfulness to the Roman Catholic Church and his rejection of the SSPX schism of excommunicated bishops, adherents and other taste-offended miscreants????? Last I checked, St. Paul, St. Athanasius and St. Joan of Arc are ours and not yours. You are limited to three dead excommunicated bishops but have no way to canonize them, understandably.


48 posted on 09/17/2005 1:16:53 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Vidi aquam; bornacatholic; TheGeezer; sittnick; ninenot

VA: How would you know from the outer darkness of your schism how Catholics behave? We defend our Church and revile its enemies (SSPX, for instance)


49 posted on 09/17/2005 1:19:18 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Vidi aquam
Your understanding of heresy is faulty. According to your understanding, Sts. Paul, Athanasius and Joan of Arc were all heretics. Actually, Athanasius was declared heretic at least once, and perhaps twice, if I recall corectly. He was rehabilitated but relapsed in his old age.

St. Paul did not deny St. Peter's teaching authority when debating circumcision in particular and adherence to the Mosaic law in general, at the First Council of Jerusalem - is that what you are referring to? St. Peter agreed after listening to the argument that St. Paul was correct. St. Paul didn't go about claiming that his teaching authority was superior to the pope's, as Lefebvre did and the SSPX does.

Joan of Arc is an interesting citation. I wasn't aware of a controversy there, unless you are referring to the English burning her at the stake, which was thoroughly condemned by Rome...

50 posted on 09/17/2005 1:22:13 PM PDT by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-330 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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