Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SSPX FRANCE REPORTEDLY IN CHAOS
Envoy Magazine ^ | September 18, 2004 | Pete Vere

Posted on 09/20/2004 7:38:56 AM PDT by NYer

Taking a break from judging annulments earlier today, I visited a number of French traditionalist websites.  I also had the opportunity, yesterday, to speak with a friend of mine who is a canonist from France following the situation as well as another friend who keeps tabs on the traditionalist movement in both the English and the French speaking world.  Everyone agrees -- the situation has degenerated into total chaos, as nobody knows exactly what is going on with the highly-respected French SSPX clergy that have criticized what they see as the SSPX's growing rigidity. 


It does appear that Rome has refused to take competency over the case, more-or-less stating that the SSPX denied Rome's jurisdiction over them when Lefebvre carried out a schismatic act through the 1988 episcopal consecrations.  Beyond that, Rome refuses to comment other than to say, "Our door remains open for their return to full communion."

Beyond that, the rhetoric, polemic and accusations suggest that indeed civil war is breaking out among the laity and clergy within the SSPX's French District.  In fact, two websites have now popped up that are exclusively devoted to tracing all the news stories associated with the crisis.  What I find personally find interesting is that every news report, commentary, polemic, etc... mentions Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion from the SSPX around this time last year.

In the months that followed, it appears that the SSPX more-or-less tried to sweep Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion under the rug.  But in so doing, even the regime currently in charge of the SSPX had to admit the important role played by Fr. Aulagnier in the founding of the SSPX.  This is probably why the SSPX appeared to hope the issue would go away.

Yet it is also well-known that Fr. Aulagnier was a close friend of Fr. Laguerie as well as Fr. de Tanouarn -- two of the SSPX's leading priests.  (As Fr. Laguerie's assistant, Fr. Henri appears to have just happened into the situation).  It is also well-known that a number of French (and some American) SSPX priests were not happy with Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion.  Therefore, I will venture to guess that the current SSPX chaos is the effect of Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion coming back to haunt Bishop Fellay.  As for the particular details, this is the first time in almost fourteen years of being a traditionalist that I find the fog of war too thick to reasonably discern what is going on.  (What I find even more troubling is that behind the scenes, under the flag of truce, other SSPX and traditionalist commentators with whom I am in contact have admitted to having the same problem.)

So if I can end on a personal note to the moderate SSPX clergy and their supporters who follow this blog, I'm more than happy to abide by the flag of truce and keep you guys in prayer while you fight whatever battles need to be fought, but I honestly cannot make heads-or-tails of what is happening. But like Rome has said, the door is open for you to return.  I will pray that God gives you the necessary strength to walk through it.


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; General Discusssion; History; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: france
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 401-435 next last
To: Grey Ghost II

Vatican I teaches infallibly the Papacy will endure firm until the end of time. It is common sense to conclude Mary never said those words as Mary doesn't oppose the Catholic Church her son established and promised to be with until the end of time.


251 posted on 09/21/2004 12:41:21 PM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

Your comments about the SSPX are misinformed and ignorant. It is undeniable there are many apostates in high places in Rome, just as the Society has stated. This is undeniable. Cardinal Walter Kasper himself, for instance, has denied the historicity of the Resurrection and the validity of miracles. There are many like him who occupy chairs of great authority. The SSPX merely challenges Rome by stating out loud that many of these high officials have built their careers out of denying traditional Catholic teachings.


252 posted on 09/21/2004 12:51:17 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
Vatican I teaches infallibly the Papacy will endure firm until the end of time.

What happens when a pope dies and before a new one is elected? Also, the Blessed Mother said Rome will be the seat of the anti-Christ not the Papacy.

It is common sense to conclude Mary never said those words as Mary doesn't oppose the Catholic Church her son established and promised to be with until the end of time.

Then why did the Church approve of the apparition?

253 posted on 09/21/2004 12:54:43 PM PDT by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

"the Society, presumes to set itself up as what many consider a virtual counter-church & magisterium: in addition to employing private judgment to determine what is and what is not Catholic"

No private judgment is ever used. The Society obeys the teachings of the Church handed down by preconciliar popes and councils. It rejects only novelties--which are not binding on anybody when they contradict Tradition.


254 posted on 09/21/2004 12:57:47 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South

but wouldn't your effort be better utilized fixing the bigger problems in the Catholic Church? Do that and you may see us pesky SSPXers fade back into the fold or fade away.

Homeschooling. Write articles (with a specific emphasis and slant) for the diocesan newspaper. The lone Catholic representative for the religion advisory board for the local newspaper. Reading all my 14-year-old daugher's history and literature and religion this year and assigning and correcting her papers. Work 9 or so hours per day in a corporate position. Pray daily. Go to Mass daily when I can. Go to confession at least once per two weeks, but often weekly. Pray the rosary daily. Help my 5 children and my wife to grow closer to God. Speerhead the Latin Mass community at our indult parish for 5 year years (NOT something I ever WANTED to do!!!). Make new friends. Asssit in building Christ's kingdom. Complete a master's degree in theology.

Endure the taunts and criticisms of SSPX adherents, when I have actually defended them to my friends more than anyone I know.

Like I said, it is not my private opinion that SSPX confessions are invalid because they are not incardinated in their dioceses. In danger of death, or in invincible ignorance, of course they are valid, as the Church supplies. Don't shoot the messenger for bearing the news of the Church.

Finally, I pray daily that the SSPX and Rome will come to terms; I will be the first one to frequent the chapels whenever I travel and when the occasion strikes. I'm certain there are MANY more like me. I have even occasionally attended a few weeks ago--lo and behold! But don't tell anyone, 'K?


255 posted on 09/21/2004 1:00:15 PM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
chbishop Lefebvre did not call the Pope himself a heretic. He stated the "See of Peter" and "posts of authority" in Rome were occupied by Antichrists

*LOL When Lefevbre said that an antiChrist was occupying the "See of Peter," do you thinkhe was referring to Dan Rather?

With all due respect, your "explanation" is insane.

256 posted on 09/21/2004 1:09:12 PM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Grey Ghost II

It never approved those words of Mary. Besides, private revelations arent binding. The words of Jessus and Dogmatic Teachings are


257 posted on 09/21/2004 1:11:18 PM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
You suspect wrongly. Your problem is you are not used to hearing Catholics criticize the Pope.

For all practical purposes you are a sedavacanist. I hear plenty of Catholics criticize the Pope. I don't hear people say things that you have said, and remain Catholic.

That is why I say you worship the Pope. You think he is a god above Divine Law itself.

No Catholic could look at your words and think there is any charity in them. This is why I expect the mod to burst in here any second.
258 posted on 09/21/2004 1:16:17 PM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Obedience in a religious institution is owed to a superior unless something has been commanded which would harm the Church or would do harm to souls, in which case such a command would be illegitimate.

Correct.

However, let's not be sloppy with language. We are not talking about a "religious institution", nor a superior of a religious order. We are talking about the Catholic Church, founded on the rock, Peter and his successors to whom certain promises were made by Our Lord.

Furthermore, it must be certain that such harm would definitely occur. Moreover, it is also necessary to consider the harm which would be done by the deliberate disobedience. The moral theology involved in issues such as this is something which should give pause to angels.

An example of the latter would be JPII's command to Archbishop Lefebvre not to consecrate--a command deliberately intended to destroy once and for all the ancient Mass.

The Pope, as Archbishop Lefebvres superior had every right to do so. Unauthorized episcopal consecration is a serious matter.

See, right, here you're on shaky ground. Key word: intended. You have presumed to know what the Pope's intentions were. It's always a dangerous exercise to judge intentions-still more so when that person is the Pope. The Pope "intended" to destroy the ancient Mass? I say, that what he intended was to prevent Lefebvre excommunicating himself "latae sententiae", to keep him within the Church and to make available to those who wished it, the Tridentine Rite. To preserve unity.

Bishop Fellay's command to this priest, on the other hand, was wholly legitimate and ought to have been obeyed.

Why? Who's to say that his command wasn't harmful to the Church or souls? You? The Pope? Bishop Fellay? As I've said previously and will continue to repeat, the decision as to what is and is not worthy of obedience is being made by you. Dress it up, spin it, slant it any way you want. But that's what it boils down to.

Your confusion is not uncommon among pope-worshipers and is due to the fantasy that because of their high office, popes may command whatever they wish. This is not true. Even popes are limited--from above, not from below. No pope may command what is contrary to Divine Law.

Again, let's not be sloppy with language. "Pope-worshippers"? No. Pope-respecters. It is not due to the "fantasy that because of their high office popes may command whatever they wish". It's not a "high office". On the contrary. The Pope is the servant of the servants of Christ.

My respect for the Holy Father is due firstly, to the fact that he is the successor of Peter and secondly, I believe most firmly that as the successor of Peter, he possesses a charism to guide the Barque of Peter which I do not possess. I humbly submit that God who chose him, has endowed him with gifts and blesings which are not proper to me or my state. In other words, I don't possess the competence to stand as his uber-Pope.

Before anyone goes down "the Pope's screwed up" road, humility and prudence ought to cause everybody to be extremely reluctant and err on the side of caution.

259 posted on 09/21/2004 1:18:37 PM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
I think all that is great, my hat off to you, but you are missing the point I am many others have been making. I have never attacked the indult neither in public nor in private. I am sure there have been some on this site who do but I do not see it very often. Many of the people who defend SSPX are Indult people but it is a bit of a split down the middle as far as I can tell. This half-n-half situation is one of the major reasons I do not attack them, the other being sympathy for their situation. They will be coming for you just as soon as they can. I bet you suspect this is right even if you dread to admit it. Who wants to admit something we love has gone bad? Fixable but gone bad just the same. Is the Pope to blame, shucks I don't know but he is responsible just the same. I wish it were not true because I want to like the man but I haven't been able to bring myself to gouge out my eyes just yet. Is that being harsh, yes it is, very harsh, but is it wrong?

Half of you Indult folks come to our defense and half attack us. Some one side one thread, on the other side with the next. I need a program to keep up. I have not noticed a similar divide with the SSPXers. Please don't tell me "Well so and so on this thread....." I know there have been people who have said bad things about the Indult, my point is most do not, not most SSPXers and not most Novus Ordo, hootingnanny Mass types.

But you have about SSPX and they are most likely the only reason you have your Indult.



By the way, your welcome.
260 posted on 09/21/2004 1:34:50 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South

<I think all that is great, my hat off to you, but you are missing the point I am many others have been making.

BCM: I answer your direct question directly, and then you say I am missing the point.

<I have never attacked the indult neither in public nor in private. I am sure there have been some on this site who do but I do not see it very often.

BCM: SSPX literature, which I picked up and read again after attending the chapel, said effectively that Catholis attached to Tradition should not attend the Novus Ordo because it is "evil" and should not attend the indult. I read this years ago, and now I read it again. It is dangerous to tell people to stay at home and NOT go to Mass, when the Mass is the Mass, but it is the LITURGY we are really discussing.

<Many of the people who defend SSPX are Indult people but it is a bit of a split down the middle as far as I can tell.

BCM: And believe it or not, I have been one of them. I read the most recent issue of Latin Mass and thought Bishop Fellay's Q&A (BRAND NEW and I can't find it on the web) was phenomenal. I continue to hope and pray for a reconciliation.

<This half-n-half situation is one of the major reasons I do not attack them, the other being sympathy for their situation.

BCM: Me too. But I also think that having a LARGE Novus Ordo parish (where our indult is offered) to evangelize too is also advantageous to building the Kingdom.

<They will be coming for you just as soon as they can. I bet you suspect this is right even if you dread to admit it. Who wants to admit something we love has gone bad?

BCM: I am quite uncertain what you are speaking about.

<Half of you Indult folks come to our defense and half attack us. Some one side one thread, on the other side with the next.

BCM: It depends upon the specific topic. I would not say we are attacking anyone. We clarify ideas and put up what Vatican I and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta say. I am not saying any particular people here are SSPX adherents. That is for your own examination of conscience. I can say what it appears to be based upon what certain people write. I also know that the SSPX attendees, for the most part, are just Catholics seeking solace. However, the diocesan structure, even those open to the indult, are easily dissuaded by the type of acrimony and discussions we have on this board.

Like it or not, the individual feelings and predispositions of Novus Ordo bishops and priests do matter in the Big Church. We might not like that, but it is a fact of life. I would prefer to keep them on our side, or at least tolerate us.

And our younger pre-seminarians, well, my children will be richly blessed, because the half dozen or so I know are traddies through and through--or at least coming that way. But this kind of acrimony could dissuade them. This is my primary concern--as well as the sede tendencies I detect here.

"We acknowledge the Pope is the Pope, but we pick and choose what we want to obey."

This is the impression I am left with.

<But you have about SSPX and they are most likely the only reason you have your Indult. By the way, your welcome.

BCM: No, the Mass survived because Ratzinger and the Pope stuck to their original agreement with Lefebvre. Unfortunately, Lefebvre did not. I used to agree we had it because of him, but we really have it due to our bishop, the Pope and our director of prayer and worship who offers it.

I would say "thank you," but you are not Lefebvre as far as I can tell. What I would have said to him was "Think about how much more good you could have done and leaven your priests could have provided from within the heart and soul of the Church."

I am not in any way saying there are not good fruits. But everything SSPX is NOT a good fruit.


261 posted on 09/21/2004 2:05:42 PM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South
Traditionally speaking, the Church has spent centuries working on issues, making certain that a decision was right. Now, we have a major change once or twice a year.
Would you be surprised to see another new Mass before the decade is out?
There seems to be no end to it. The Church resembles a US public university in this respect.
Isn't the Church supposed to take care of its flock? If so, what is to be said about the Great Falling Away we have experienced over the past generation?
262 posted on 09/21/2004 2:11:25 PM PDT by charliemarlow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
The See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by Antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below."

The Apostolic See...

From ancient times a distinction has been made between the Apostolic See and its actual occupant: between sedes and sedens. The object of the distinction is not to discriminate between the two nor to subordinate one to the other, but rather to set forth their intimate connection. The See is the symbol of the highest papal authority; it is, by its nature, permanent, whereas its occupant holds that authority but for a time and inasmuch as he sits in the Chair of Peter. It further implies that take supreme authority is a supernatural gift, the same in all successive holders, independent of their personal worth, and inseparable from their ex-officio definitions and decisions. The Vatican definition of the pope's infallibility when speaking ex cathedra does not permit of the sense attached to the distinction of sedes and sedens by the Gallicans, who claimed that even in the official use of the authority vested in the See, with explicit declaration of its exercise, the sedens was separate from the sedes.

* any sane individual can see lefevbre was calling the Pope an antiChrist. That is a heresy

263 posted on 09/21/2004 2:24:47 PM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
Sometimes I ask rhetorical questions. And I asked you not to give me a list of so and so said this on this and that. I already knew what you were saying about the SSPX position on the Indult. I had hoped that was ...*sigh*

I have no problem with the Indult strategy with the NO as far as I can tell what it is, but that was not my point either. And I know you are one of the people who sometimes defends Tradition and occasionally SSPX but look at this Thread. It is a SSPX hit piece and you wonder why I am defending SSPX and criticizing you. You put yourself in this conversation just like I did. I'm taking my hits from the usual suspects so don't be shocked if I defend SSPX from you as well. You must admit your post have not been very pro-SSPX today. If your posts in this thread reflect you POV, fine stand by them but don't complain if I object.

To explain your question about "they will be coming for you" was a reflection of my belief your Indult will go away at the first opportunity. Maybe not this Pope, or not your present Bishop but someday and most likely in your lifetime.

The "your welcome" was sarcasm for crying out loud.
264 posted on 09/21/2004 2:34:00 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: charliemarlow
Re: "Would you be surprised to see another new Mass before the decade is out?"

I think they may be working toward the same thing the Episcopalian Church is rumored to be doing as we speak. Before I converted I was on websites that was heavily involved in dealing with the cesspool that is the ECUSA.

Several of them were complaining about a new Book of Common Prayer that was to be on CD. It was to have dozens of liturgies, such as a feminist Communion and services, gay services, liberation theology etc etc etc. It was rumored to have unlimited "possibilities".

I thought the idea outlandish and unlikely to get off the ground. Silly moi, that was before I heard about clown Mass, Bali style Liturgical dance, cookie Mass, picnic Mass, and on and on.

I mean really, how far is the Catholic Church from this right now? Why go through the political bloodbath of changing the rite when they are permitting most anything now. And with nary a word of discouragement, they save that for SSPX.

Getting back to the subject of the Thread: If these wayward SSPX priests want reconciliation with the RC as it is right now, I say they should go ahead and do it. I am sure the Indult people would love to have them if they want them but that isn't good enough for these few priests. They want to drag everyone one with them, even those who have moral objections. It makes one wonder what their real agenda really is.
265 posted on 09/21/2004 2:48:41 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Rome does not speak for you. You do not speak for Rome or for the Roman Catholic Church which has expelled your heroes and bishops and declared those adhering to their SSPX as wallowing in schism.

Talk to your co-religionists in the cult of Marcell. I am no more likely to become a Marcellian schismatic than I am likely to become a resident of the planet Pluto. Actual Catholics have no reason to be interested in your self-serving schismatic propaganda. You have no more credibility than does the See-BS Network or Dan Blather.

Funny how, on a conservative website, we see so little of the Marcel cult on the political threads.

266 posted on 09/21/2004 2:54:14 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Rome does not speak for you. You do not speak for Rome or for the Roman Catholic Church which has expelled your heroes and bishops and declared those adhering to their SSPX as wallowing in schism.

Talk to your co-religionists in the cult of Marcell. I am no more likely to become a Marcellian schismatic than I am likely to become a resident of the planet Pluto. Actual Catholics have no reason to be interested in your self-serving schismatic propaganda. You have no more credibility than does the See-BS Network or Dan Blather.

Funny how, on a conservative website, we see so little of the Marcel cult on the political threads.

267 posted on 09/21/2004 2:55:13 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South

<"To explain your question about "they will be coming for you" was a reflection of my belief your Indult will go away at the first opportunity. Maybe not this Pope, or not your present Bishop but someday and most likely in your lifetime.">

Perhaps you have not been reading what Cardinal Hoyos has been saying. Perhaps you do not trust him or the Pope.

If I walked around thinking like this all the time, people would say I am even more pessimistic than they already do.

The indult is NOT going away because it is growing and we are helping form young men who want to say the Mass. If we have the priests, we'll have the Mass--even if nobody wants to go to it.

By the way, we have a third indult location (by FSSP) being added to the li'l ole diocese of Charleston in the old South with a 3 percent Catholic population. Three of them. Looks like the trend is toward more, not less.


268 posted on 09/21/2004 2:58:53 PM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Fifthmark; sinkspur

The judgment of the pope gthat SSPX is in schism and its bishops excommunicated will suffice as a foundation for anyone actually Catholic to agree. What outsiders declared in schism or excommunicated may imagine need not trouble the actually faithful.


269 posted on 09/21/2004 3:00:42 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; ultima ratio
Funny how, on a conservative website, we see so little of the Marcel cult on the political threads.

Funny how your last 20 posts have been on this thread.

p.s. I'm not tugging at your sleeve, I'm just accusing you of being a hypocrite.

270 posted on 09/21/2004 3:03:32 PM PDT by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Fifthmark
That will be between you and God. You are unwilling to distinguish between defense of the schism and adhering to it which gives rise to the obvious inference that you adhere to the schism. The Faith is not the schism per JP II. The schism is not the Roman Catholic Church or any part of it, per JP II. Like it or lump it.

At the very least, for one who defends the schism, attendance at SSPX Masses (meritorious as a Mass but perfectly replaceable by any Indult Mass or Novus Ordo Mass) would also seem to be a near occasion of sin. God gave you free will to use or abuse as you see fit with rewards and consequences. Have a party.

The answer to your question would therefore seem to be no.

271 posted on 09/21/2004 3:08:46 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
Re: "Perhaps you do not trust him or the Pope."

Well I guess you could say that, I really do not know for sure. I will tell you this, the days when you could be passive about theology and trust your priest, bishop or pope to watch the fort is over. At least for the time being. This is true in more Churches than the RC. We have to use our discernment. The SSPX position is the laity must view with a jaundiced eye everyone and every paper including their own. I agree with them.

My point was not to suggest the Indult was not growing, all the Traditional groups are growing. But your Indult can be taken away from you with the stroke of a pen. My SSPX Mass will take a bit more than that to make it go away.

Please don't take this too hard but I think you might be reading more into my post than are there. Example Indult growth was never in question by me.
272 posted on 09/21/2004 3:11:53 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Fifthmark; ninenot; GirlShortstop; sinkspur
I originally posed to another a request for documentation as to the facts of the actual life of the first century young girl with the fractured skull who is, on apparently dubious evidence, supposed to be Philomena and further supposed to have a specific history leading to martyrdom. I did not deny that such evidence might exist. I asked one of her apparent partisans (not you initially) to provide the facts and documentation. You decided to enter that conversation. Fine. I posed the same question to you, as I recall.

For all of this, I receive your complaint that I am talking to more than one person.

If I ping others, that is not your business. No one died and left you in charge of determining which other people (other than you since I do have manners) I should ping. We seem to be in anarchy on FR for the time being even as to whether we may effectively insist on not being pinged by others.

You have refused my now withdrawn offer to cease conversation by way of pinging each other. If you are complaining that I pinged someone else (not you) to whom I posed the question of Philomena, you have no standing to make such a complaint.

I also note that you prvide nothing in the way of the reuested material to back the claims that this girl was someone named Philomena, much less any documentable facts of her life to underlie the claim of her sainthood based on her life. You reference only that, about eighteen hundred years after the death of her whose remains have been found, Church officials saw to her canonization. I knew that but not why.

I had not known that she had been withdrawn from the Church calendar in about 1970. Has she also been withdrawn from the honors of the altar? As a non-person? As one not provable? I actually have no idea. Facts? Documentation? Usable links?

273 posted on 09/21/2004 3:23:56 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: FrankWild; ninenot; GirlShortstop

You think I support "bugger priests?" Now certainly you can bring up one teensy little post of mine in support of them? No???? Then keep your libels to yourself, Frankieboy!


274 posted on 09/21/2004 3:28:50 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Fifthmark; Dominick

Fifthmark: Do you think the damned arrive in hell by accident or do you think they wind up there through the willed (however disappointed) justice of Almighty God, based upon His objective knowledge of their behavior in life and unrepented mortal sins????


275 posted on 09/21/2004 3:32:23 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
The indult is NOT going away because it is growing and we are helping form young men who want to say the Mass. If we have the priests, we'll have the Mass--even if nobody wants to go to it. By the way, we have a third indult location (by FSSP) being added to the li'l ole diocese of Charleston in the old South with a 3 percent Catholic population. Three of them. Looks like the trend is toward more, not less.

I think you may be missing the point which is not whether the indult is growing but whether adherence to Catholic Tradition is growing. Everyone here who supports Catholic Tradition is glad to see more indult locations, and hopefully they are also glad to see more SSPX locations, since in both cases opportunities are offered to the faithful to practice the traditional Catholic faith and attend the traditional Catholic Mass. We need more of every kind of traditional Catholic.

If there are issues from the SSPX point of view regarding the FSSP and other indult situations, they would consist of questions regarding:
1. Do they truly adhere to Catholic tradition or do they merely say the 1962 Mass? I've heard the priest at an indult Mass tell the congregation in his sermon that they shouldn't bother having so many children now that the pope has recommended NFP.
2. Is it a wise move to split traditional forces which are already so small in comparison to the numbers of those who are promoting the revolution? The indult succeeded in creating divisions within the traditional movement, which is a bad thing, although it also succeeded in making the traditional Catholic Mass more widely available, which is a good thing. It is a legitimate question to wonder which will prove more significant in the long run, the good effects or the bad effects. We can all hope together that the good effects will outweigh the bad, even if we deplore the bad effects of division and infighting within the traditional movement such as what is described in the article that started this post.

276 posted on 09/21/2004 3:34:45 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Fifthmark; FrankWild; Dominick

Fifthmark: I have no idea of whether Frankwild is a schismatic but he sure does have an overly active and overly malignant fiction gland if he thinks I support "bugger priests."


277 posted on 09/21/2004 3:35:20 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio; marshmallow; bornacatholic

See bornacatholic's #215 which, though aimed elsewhere, is the answer to your old schismatic argument. You believe you owe obedience when you or the now dead and excommunicated archscismatic of your group pleased or pleases. Catholics KNOW you owe obedience to the Pontiff. So did dead Marcel and so do all of his excommunicated bishops and all of his schismatic sycophants, whether they like it or not. The priests of the swchism are violating their vow of obedience and well do they know it.


278 posted on 09/21/2004 3:44:51 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
This Fr. Peter Scott, then, would he be a member of the schismatic-American community and the man who would be an American anti-pope?

The schismatic Fr. Scott sounds like the faux Teddy Roosevelt character in Arsenic and Old Lace, bounding up and down the staircase blowing his bugle and imagining his sisters' home to be San Juan Hill.

Sincere thanks for your posts.

279 posted on 09/21/2004 3:50:05 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio; ninenot; GirlShortstop

You have a very good working definition of your little sulfurous schism there in the second sentence. The rest, per usual, is bilge.


280 posted on 09/21/2004 3:53:17 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Unless and until this forum is suppressed, let the wars resume.

Still vying to have the forum shut down?

The only place any "war" exists is in your own small mind. What you perceive as a war, others perceive as a nobody on an internet forum acting as a disruptive child.

Perhaps those drugs you take for your weight problem are becoming an issue.

281 posted on 09/21/2004 3:53:36 PM PDT by AAABEST (Lord have mercy on us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio

Your first sentence is what they all say up at the asylum. The rest is the same old, same old bushwah.


282 posted on 09/21/2004 3:55:14 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

I sure do bet that ol' Marcel regrets his indiscretions as to "antichrists" now that he certainly knows the truth he denied in life.


283 posted on 09/21/2004 3:57:25 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio

Merely????????


284 posted on 09/21/2004 3:59:19 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio; ninenot; GirlShortstop; Mershon; marshmallow

According to the ruling of Antipope UR I. How very laughable! How very pathetic! How excruciatingly presumptuous!


285 posted on 09/21/2004 4:01:43 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South; Mershon
Mark:

If we actual Catholics are going to be shot in the back by those who purport to be Catholic, we will make it our first priority to fire back at the pseudoCatholic phonies and then give full attention to the outer enemies. We gave the Albigensian heretics a lot of priority as targets too.

286 posted on 09/21/2004 4:07:51 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, Huh????


287 posted on 09/21/2004 4:11:44 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; ultima ratio

And also, Monsieur Fellay has absolutely no authority whatsoever to order anyone to do or to refrain from doing anything. He is excommunicated. He has no authority as an illicitly consecrated bishop. He does not even claim a diocese and has benver had one and never will.


288 posted on 09/21/2004 4:15:51 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Grey Ghost II

Considering the source, I regard myself as flattered but flattery will get you nowhere. But you knew that. Phony moral equivalency arguments are no more convincing from you that from the Demonratic National Committee which you ignore and I do not. If I post 150 consecutive times against schismatics on a thread like this, I also post on other threads as well. I am not here to advertise the RCC. I don't have to. We are, vis-a-vis the schism, the brand name as you well know.


289 posted on 09/21/2004 4:23:36 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Illicit consecrations of rebel bishops are grand theft ecclesiastical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
We are, vis-a-vis the schism, the brand name as you well know.

I know the brand name well: neo

290 posted on 09/21/2004 4:41:00 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic; ninenot; BlackElk; Fifthmark; All

First of all, you have taken your quotes out of context. This is deceptive and slanderous. Here is the full letter, one in which you will see immediately that the Archbishop is accusing some in high positions of being Antichrists, but does not accuse the Pope himself of being an Antichrist. In fact, he does the opposite and actually encourages his bishops TO REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THE SEE OF PETER--meaning the Pope--and not the modernists who surround the Pontiff in the highest places.

_________________________________________________________

My dear friends,

The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below, especially through the corruption of the Holy Mass which is both the splendid expression of the triumph of Our Lord on the Cross - Regnavit a Ligno Deus - and the source of the extension of His kingdom over souls and over societies. Hence the absolute need appears obvious of ensuring the permanency and continuation of the adorable Sacrifice of Our Lord in order that "His Kingdom come." The corruption of the Holy Mass has brought the corruption of the priesthood and the universal decadence of Faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

God raised up the Priestly Society of St. Pius X for the maintenance and perpetuity of His glorious and expiatory Sacrifice within the Church. He chose Himself some true priests instructed in and convinced of these divine mysteries. God bestowed upon me the grace to prepare these Levites and to confer upon them the grace of the priesthood for the continuation of the true Sacrifice according to the definition of the Council of Trent.

This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. Since this Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the Liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove, I find myself constrained by Divine Providence to pass on the grace of the Catholic episcopacy which I received, in order that the Church and the Catholic priesthood continue to subsist for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls.

That is why, convinced that I am only carrying out the holy will of Our Lord, I am writing this letter to ask you to agree to receive the grace of the Catholic episcopacy, just as I have already conferred it on other priests in other circumstances. I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it.

The main purpose of my passing on the episcopacy is that the grace of priestly orders be continued, for the true Sacrifice of the Mass to be continued, and that the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation be bestowed upon children and upon the faithful who will ask you for it.

I beseech you to remain attached to the See of Peter, to the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all Churches, in the integral Catholic Faith, expressed in the various creeds of our Catholic Faith, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in conformity with what you were taught in your seminary. Remain faithful in the handing down of this Faith so that the Kingdom of Our Lord may come.

Finally, I beseech you to remain attached to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, to remain profoundly united amongst yourselves, in submission to the Society's Superior General, in the Catholic Faith of all time, remembering the words of St. Paul to the Galatians (1:8-9): "But even if we or an angel from heaven were to teach you a different gospel from the one we have taught you, let him be anathema."

As we have said before, now again I say: "if anyone teaches you a different gospel from what you have received, let him be anathema." My dear friends, be my consolation in Christ Jesus, remain strong in the Faith, faithful to the true Sacrifice of the Mass, to the true and holy priesthood of Our Lord for the triumph and glory of Jesus in heaven and upon earth, for the salvation of souls, for the salvation of my own soul.

In the hearts of Jesus and Mary I embrace you and bless you. Your father in Christ Jesus,

+ Marcel Lefebvre










Courtesy of the Angelus Press, Regina Coeli House
2918 Tracy Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64109
Vol. XI, No. 7, July 1988






291 posted on 09/21/2004 5:26:46 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; bornacatholic

"This Fr. Peter Scott, then, would he be a member of the schismatic-American community and the man who would be an American anti-pope?"


The same Father Scott is actually Australian and is now running a seminary in Australia for the Society. The only American anti-popes I know are those that run Amchurch.


292 posted on 09/21/2004 5:27:56 PM PDT by Wessex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Grey Ghost II
Then why did the Church approve of the apparition?

Actually, it didn't approve the so-called "Secret" of La Salette. In fact, the "Secret" was banned by the Holy Office:

Wednesday, 9th May 1923

In a General Session of the Supreme Holy Congregation of the Holy Office, eminent and reverend Lord Cardinals appointed for protecting the faith and morals, proscribed and condemned the little work The Apparition of the Most Holy Virgin on the holy mountain of La Salette, Saturday 19 September 1845. - Simple Reprinting of the entire public text by Mélanie, etc. Society Saint-Augustine, Paris-Rome-Bruges, 1922; ordering those to whom it looks to take care to withdraw examples of the condemned book from the hands of the faithful.

And the same holiday and day of the Most Holy Lord. N. D. by the foresight of divine providence Pope Pius XI, in the customary audience of R. P. D. Assessor of the Holy Office has commissioned the report himself and approved the resolution.

Given at Rome from the Holy Office on 10th May, 1923.

Aloisius Castellanus, S. R. and U. Notary.


293 posted on 09/21/2004 5:30:04 PM PDT by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; bornacatholic

I've seen bornacatholic's scurrilous attempt to smear the SSPX--not unlike your own. He cites the Archbishop out of context. I have posted above the entire letter. Notice how Archbishop Lefebvre encourages his bishops to remain loyal to the Holy See, despite the apostasy of those in high places in Rome. That you and he distort this by asserting a meaning the good Archbishop never intended, is a measure of how far you both will go to slander the SSPX.


294 posted on 09/21/2004 5:39:16 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

The judgment that SSPX was schismatic or excommunicated is wrong, whether the Pope says so or not. No pope, after all, is above Divine Law--which is to say, no pope can condemn the innocent merely for refusing a command in order to protect the faith. That the Pope thought otherwise is proof of nothing except he is as prone to error as other men.


295 posted on 09/21/2004 5:51:52 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; Dominick; Fifthmark

Cut the crap about damnation. Bad enough you pretend to be a pope, but now you want to be God.


296 posted on 09/21/2004 5:57:16 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; bornacatholic

"Your first sentence is what they all say up at the asylum. The rest is the same old, same old bushwah."

You may not like my first sentence. But I notice you avoid addressing the rest of my argument. What's normal about a Pope who gives Holy Communion publicly to an abortion activist? Inquiring minds want to know. How about giving the red hat to somebody who thinks the Resurrection never happened? Inquiring minds want to know. How about praying to the Great Thumb in the Togo Forest? Inquiring minds want to know.


297 posted on 09/21/2004 6:05:36 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Presumptuous? Hey, next to you I'm Francis of Assisi. You need to take another look at the parable about the Publican and the Pharisee. You keep pushing the rest of us out of the way so you can walk up to the sanctuary and parade your bona fide credentials as a Pharisee. You even claim to know who's damned and who's saved. Fine. I'll take my chances as a Publican.


298 posted on 09/21/2004 6:14:06 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
, for the true Sacrifice of the Mass to be continued,
,br> Here is it admitted. Only the Tridentine Mass is a true sacrifice.......

I guess the excommunication is justified in more ways than one!
299 posted on 09/21/2004 7:02:13 PM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Dominick
Only the Tridentine Mass is a true sacrifice.......

Of course it is. Why do you think they call the New Mass a "Eucharistic Celebration"?

300 posted on 09/21/2004 7:15:07 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 401-435 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