Skip to comments.Lefebvrists say no to Rome
Posted on 07/14/2012 3:33:27 PM PDT by Gillibrand
Announcement due tomorrow. There is no return to Rome. The superior of the Lefebvrists of Spain and Portugal, Juan Maria Montagut, will communicate to the faithful, after the mass of 11, that the hierarchy of the FSSPX, gathered in Ecône, have decided to say "no" to the Vatican.
The followers of Lefebvre will not return to the Roman fold. Primarily, because they are not willing to accept the Second Vatican Council in all its extremes.
(Excerpt) Read more at cathcon.blogspot.com ...
If you have a ping list, please include me. If you don't have a ping list, please start one.
Are you praising a different Jesus? I mean, other than the One who founded His Church on the rock of blessed Peter, and who prayed that all might be one (Jn 17:21)? Because I can't imagine Him being pleased at this.
I don't recognize the sort of "Catholic" spirit that rejoices in continued disunity with the Roman Pontiff. It's completely foreign to me.
You are praising schism. Examine yourself.
If true, the SSPX is just Lutheranism in Latin now.
The flaw in your reasoning is that Rome is the one in schism (with Catholicism). SSPX is “as Rome”, without some of the baggage, as it was for over a thousand years. Rome is the one that needs to return to untarnished (by modernism and ecumenism) Catholicism.
I can very much imagine Him being not pleased with His Church since the early 1960s.
until the statement is released, there is no news here, and thus far, I’ve seen no indication of leaks either. Instead of jumping, let’s see what is actually said. Give it time.
I surprised no one is this thread has tried to tarnish the SSPX by its association with Bp. Williamson so far. I’ll let prospective tarnishers know so they can save their breath(es): Williamson was recently excluded from the SSPX General Chapter.
I don’t doubt that He’s not pleased. But it remains His Church, not Fellay’s or Williamson’s, and the traditional doctrine of obedience — obey your lawful superiors unless they command you to sin — is still in force. So go ahead, make the case that for SSPX to be in obedience to the Pope is equivalent to obeying a *command* to *sin*.
They did okay tarnishing themselves by their association with Williamson for many years; they need no help in that regard from FReepers.
Williamson was recently excluded from the SSPX General Chapter.
I'm sure the SSPV awaits him with open arms, or is he even too strange for them?
Terrific news that they cast themselves off from the Rock of Peter upon whom Christ built the Church, and turned their back on the responsibility of upholding magisterial teaching and orthodoxy within the visible Church? Whatever. Enjoy irrelevance rotting on the vine like the Old Catholics. True Catholics should be loyal to the Pope and Tradition.
“Rome” is in schism? In other words the Pope is in schism. Sounds pretty sedevacantist to me. I love these broad brush statements that Lefebvrists use to brush away Catholic doctrines like Papal primacy, the authentic magisterium of Popes and Councils approved by the Pope, interpreted in continuity with Tradition, which doctrines actually predate Vatican II, which did not create a new religion, unlike both the Lefebvrists and the liberal Modernists hold. Thank God for Popes John Paul II and Benedict who have actually been working constructive slowly but surely to steer the Barque of Peter away from the shoals of the so called “Spirit of Vatican II”.
It isn't like Rome has ever had any bad priests or bishops over the years.
But thank you both for your comments and have a Blessed Sunday!
“Rome” has had bad priests and bishops, among others, from the beginning of the Church. Our Lord said the tares would grow up with the wheat.
(meant to include this in the previous comment)
Most of us trads harbor no doubt that the present Pope can still issue proclamations validly ex cathedra. And besides, we like the guy. So I don't think we're sedevacantist. He's still head of The Church and legitimately inherited the throne. May be in error on some things. Haven't all popes?
Now do you know exactly what the SSPX was commanded to do? Are you privy to the secret “doctrinal” preamble? If not, drop the nonsense about sin; because it is also a sin to bare false witness by signing a pledge you cannot honor as a Catholic.
Let the preamble first be made public and then make your judgement about who’s sinning.
Speaking of obedience, Cardinal Ratzinger refused to accompany
Pope John Paul II on his first love fest to Assisi.
And Padre Pio disobeyed and refused to celebrate the Novus Ordo long before the Motu Propio.
With or without SSPX.
Refused or was granted a dispensation?