Posted on 09/17/2005 6:24:38 AM PDT by NYer
Is one to submit to the authority of all the Popes or merely the current shepard on the throne of Peter?
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in schisim but I thought this was all reconciled as it is simply about the Latin Mass. Which is fine, but don't say the Mass is not valid en ingles or espanol or greek. Jesus is Jesus. There are liberals in the Church, I despise. I see it daily in ways that would astonish you but this is extremely far right.
Lefevbre was notorious for going back on his promises - he agreed to the expiremental status erection of Econe then refused to close when ordered; he signed the protocl with Rome then immediatley reneged; he told his followers he didn't sign certain documents of Vatican Two when he actually did; one day he'd say the normative mass is fine another day it was a bastard rite; he'd say the mass is what matters then at Econe his priests weren't even taught how to say it; he'd claim the mass MUST be done accrd to the old rubrics yet at Econe they had a mish-mash of rites; he said one ought not say the normative mass then he'd say it publicly; one day he'd say the Pope was fine, another day he'd proclaim the Holy See was occupied by the antichrist.. I could go on and on...
During the Council Lefebvre defended the No Jurisdiction no Ministry axiom. Then when he didn't get his way he did just the opposite. That was his pattern and that is what the sspx mimics; they say they are defending Tradition even as they act as protestants
"Also, rather than looking at SSPX, you might want to step back and see what the other 22 churches in the universal Catholic church have to offer."
Obviously, a 'unity in diversity' fan but if you were to analyse the breadth of opportunities within Newchurch you would encounter all tastes from sainthood to sodomy though the two may not be mutually exclusive nowadays given the calibre of some candidates. And for those without olive oil in their blood, exotic eastern churches may seem rather alien places. Conversion only matters now within traditionalist circles since the liberals consider the practice unnecessay.
Try reading his posts. He is loved and respected in here
P.S. don't read the Early Church Fathers on Schism. Compared to them, me and black elk are casper milquetoasts
You are going to convert then join a schism...that certainly sounds like the place for you :)
That those who label themselves traditionalists are clueless about Tradition is well recognized by Catholics.
Will you apologize for them also?
2 John
9 Whosoever revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20). Holy Office letter to Ruchard Cushing
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
St. Augustine
The civil powers defend their conduct in persecuting schismatics by the rule which the apostle laid down: "Whoso resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." The whole question therefore is, whether schism be not an evil work, or whether you have not caused schism, so that your resistance of the powers that be is in a good cause and not in an evil work, whereby you would bring judgment on yourselves. Wherefore with infinite wisdom the Lord not merely said, "Blessed are they who are persecuted," but added, "for righteousness' sake." I desire therefore to know from you, in the light of what I have said above, whether it be a work of righteousness to originate and perpetuate your state of separation from the Church. I desire also to know whether it be not rather a work of unrighteousness to condemn unheard the whole Christian world, either because it has not heard what you have heard, or because no proof has been furnished to it of charges which Were rashly believed, or without sufficient evidence advanced by you, and to propose on this ground to baptize a second time: the members of so many churches rounded by the preaching and labours either of the Lord Himself while He was on earth, or of His apostles; and all this on the assumption that it is excusable for you either not to know the wickedness of your African colleagues who are living beside you, and are using the same sacraments with you, or even to tolerate their misdeeds when known, lest the party of Donatus should be divided, but that it is inexcusable for them, though they reside in most remote regions, to be ignorant of what you either know, or believe, or have heard, or imagine, concerning men in Africa. How great is the perversity of those who cling to their own unrighteousness, and yet find fault with the severity of the civil powers!
*Start apologizing, brother. There are MILLIONS of Catholics, dead and alive, who despise schism. You're gonna be so busy apologizing for us you won't have time to say a schism is good :)
"Lefevbre was notorious for going back on his promises ...."
What one says and what one does can be different things after time for reflection. Away from undue Roman influences and after witnessing the stark reality of what passes for Catholicism in the world, Lefebvre wisely saw the need to create an oasis of tradition in a desert of reform, novelty and destruction. Thus, we have a solid benchmark against which modern theology, trendy liturgy and chaotic governance can be compared.
"Unity in diversity was spoken about by the Pope. he referencd his june 29 speech in Rome. In that speech he cited Ireneaus "against heretics" when he spoke about diversity within unity."
I think we all know what Ratzinger meant given the mess he sees before him. In an attempt to justify diversity, he links it to unity and thereby creates a contradiction or at best a area of fuzziness which seems to be how modern popes work. At least there was some honesty with Wojtyla and his pantheist leanings but with his successor we are now not really sure what we will be getting. Expect another foggy era!
"I do show charity towards Catholics and non-catholics - I'm pinging a greek orthodox gentleman to put that inanity out of its misery -"
Very charitable at least to the Orthodox...schismatic, but always very charitable! :) Beyond that my brothers, this humble cooker of souvlakia will not go because my mother didn't raise an idiot.
Lefebvre did not tell the truth about the new rite of mass, even teaching using it to be a sin. He lied about other things as well, unless his memory about what he signed at Vatican II was obliterated with his disobedience.
The ratiocinations of SSPX adherents amaze me. I again simplify my assertions regarding the errors of SSPX, and the terrifying consequences for those who continue to support SSPX with this pastoral order from John Paul the Great:
"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]
Supporting SSPX is a grave matter that divides one from the vicar of Christ and the unity of the Church. "Formal adherence" means, for heaven's sake, excommunication. Now, if one is a defender of Tradition, a Tradition which has from the earliest of times regarded the pope as the supreme teaching and disciplinary authority in the Church, how can one defend Tradition by disobeying the pope?
I simply cannot understand why heads in SSPX do not explode containing this contradiction. Oh, valiant logical contortions emanate periodically from SSPX presses that seem to explain things, but they do not. The pope has stated unequivocally that to support SSPX is a grave sin; formal adherence to SSPX results in excommunication form the only source of salvation.
Quo Primum states: "We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is to be forced or coerced to alter this Missal, but that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remains always valid and retains its full force--notwithstanding the previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription--except, however, if of more than two hundred years' standing."
Because this is such a tired old SSPX error, and because I cannot say it better, the following is from Catholic Answers This Rock magazine:
There are several things to note here. First, Quo Primum was a disciplinary document, not an infallible doctrinal definition on the Mass. As such, there's no reason to think it's irreversible. [emphasis added]Second, Pius V's purpose in Quo Primum was to establish standards for the celebration of Mass throughout the Roman rite, not to determine how Mass would be said until the end of time. While allowing for a few exceptions, the revised Missal of Pius V was to be the norm.
Pius V wanted to ensure that "conservative" priests of his day wouldn't continue to celebrate their own local liturgies at the expense of the newly revised Roman Missal. In other words, he suppressed many local liturgies to establish uniformity of rite according to the needs of his day.
Third, the statement in Quo Primum that "no one whosoever is to be forced or coerced to alter this Missal" wasn't aimed at future priests who might dislike the liturgical changes of a future pope and who wanted to retain Pius V's liturgy. It was a safeguard for priests of that day who followed the revised Missal rather than the liturgy of a hesitant local bishop.
Fourth, when Quo Primum did mention those who were forbidden to alter the revised Missal, it said nothing about future popes. After all, how could Pius V have forbidden his successors to revise his Missal? If Pius V had the power to change the liturgies of his predecessors, why shouldn't future popes have the power to revise his? After all, his authority couldn't be superior to theirs.
Fifth, there's no evidence subsequent popes were aware of any intent by Pius V to limit their pastoral authority over the Church. Since the sixteenth century there have been numerous changes in the Missal of Pius V approved by various popes. Although none were as extensive as those of Paul VI, there were changes, a fact which refutes the Lefebvrist reading of Quo Primum.
Matters of discipline are not infallibly promulgated. If you argue publicly in contradiction to papal teaching and separate yourself from the bishop of Rome, however, you separate yourself from the Catholic Church.
I never said that nor would I. That said, the translations and the changes to the content of the liturgy are at least questionable.
Well, he is loved...;}
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.