SSPX - I dont get it

Come on people!

Enough of everyone bashing the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre was just PRESERVING the traditions and liturgy, mass and being obedient to the Roman Catholic Church (and the past Popes) - by doing what he had to do…

If it wasn’t for Archbishop Lefebvre, the Church would not have the Fraternity of St Peter (personal opinion it was directly set up to stop the faithful going to the SSPX) -

Anyway my point is:

How can Archbishop Lefebrve be excommunicated, labelled schismatic etc - for just doing what all priests in the catholic church had done for a great period of time…

SAY THE TRIDENTINE MASS!

It is the Church Heirarchy who have left the Roman Catholic Church of all time and all ages.

Sure I know that Archbishop disobeyed the Pope by continuing on with the consecrations of the Bishops - but he had no other choice. The Modernist Pope would not give him permission to consecrate the Bishops, because he wanted to modernise the church and bring it up to modern times…

which is forbidden and taught against by previous popes in history.

latin-mass-society.org/quoprim.htm

[quote=tradcatmel]Come on people!

Enough of everyone bashing the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre was just PRESERVING the traditions and liturgy, mass and being obedient to the Roman Catholic Church (and the past Popes) - by doing what he had to do…

If it wasn’t for Archbishop Lefebvre, the Church would not have the Fraternity of St Peter (personal opinion it was directly set up to stop the faithful going to the SSPX) -

Anyway my point is:

How can Archbishop Lefebrve be excommunicated, labelled schismatic etc - for just doing what all priests in the catholic church had done for a great period of time…Ask the Holy Father.

SAY THE TRIDENTINE MASS! Say the Indult, you mean?

It is the Church Heirarchy who have left the Roman Catholic Church of all time and all ages. Are you implying that the Holy Father lead the Church into error on so grave a matter of faith as the Mass? That makes you a heretic.

Sure I know that Archbishop disobeyed the Pope by continuing on with the consecrations of the Bishops - but he had no other choice. The Modernist Pope would not give him permission to consecrate the Bishops, because he wanted to modernise the church and bring it up to modern times… Again, heresy.

which is forbidden and taught against by previous popes in history.

latin-mass-society.org/quoprim.htm
[/quote]

Man from Nevada:

What heresy does this person and Archbishop Lefebvre expose?

[quote=katolik]Man from Nevada:

What heresy does this person and Archbishop Lefebvre expose?
[/quote]

Hi, TS! Thought you’d chime in. They “expose” no heresy, they profess one: that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as promulgated by HH Pope Paul VI and as celebrated by his successors TH Popes John Paul I and II is invalid or even questionable in Its ability to confect the Sacrifice. The OP also stated (for all intents and purposes) that the Popes had lead the Church into error.

Pardon me for speaking out. I am a convert and undoubtedly not as well informed as many posters here on the subject but all the saints practiced obedience. Humility and obedience. St. Pio was forbidden to say mass publicly for a long time. That was a major sacrifice for him but a true saintly virtue was his obedience.

I just know that I’m going to get into hot water here but this is what I see.
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. If the successor to Peter made these changes then perhaps the time had come for the changes. Maybe it wasn’t time before.

At any rate, a big red flag goes up for me in terms of discernment when obedience is flouted.

[quote=SusanL]Pardon me for speaking out. I am a convert and undoubtedly not as well informed as many posters here on the subject but all the saints practiced obedience. Humility and obedience. St. Pio was forbidden to say mass publicly for a long time. That was a major sacrifice for him but a true saintly virtue was his obedience.

I just know that I’m going to get into hot water here but this is what I see.
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. If the successor to Peter made these changes then perhaps the time had come for the changes. Maybe it wasn’t time before.

At any rate, a big red flag goes up for me in terms of discernment when obedience is flouted.
[/quote]

Judging by your response, Susan, I’d say you’re pretty darn well informed. Your post is right on target.

[quote=SusanL]Pardon me for speaking out. I am a convert and undoubtedly not as well informed as many posters here on the subject but all the saints practiced obedience. Humility and obedience. St. Pio was forbidden to say mass publicly for a long time. That was a major sacrifice for him but a true saintly virtue was his obedience.

I just know that I’m going to get into hot water here but this is what I see.
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. If the successor to Peter made these changes then perhaps the time had come for the changes. Maybe it wasn’t time before.

At any rate, a big red flag goes up for me in terms of discernment when obedience is flouted.
[/quote]

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

There are some dark and damaging things going on right here in the Church – there is no denying it. That darkness has touched the liturgy. But the place for fighting is within the structure of the Church, not from the curb outside where you’ve been kicked for disobedience. I fear that the SSPX has rendered itself useless, and has thereby made some of the Catholic faith’s most fervent defenders impotent. The fact that they are in schism has removed potential heroes from the battlefield.

[quote=SusanL]Pardon me for speaking out. I am a convert and undoubtedly not as well informed as many posters here on the subject but all the saints practiced obedience. Humility and obedience. St. Pio was forbidden to say mass publicly for a long time. That was a major sacrifice for him but a true saintly virtue was his obedience.

I just know that I’m going to get into hot water here but this is what I see.
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. If the successor to Peter made these changes then perhaps the time had come for the changes. Maybe it wasn’t time before.

At any rate, a big red flag goes up for me in terms of discernment when obedience is flouted.
[/quote]

Amen! Obedience and humility are two virtues almost universally practiced by all of our saints and two virtues that seem to be almost totally absent in most radical traditionalists.

We don’t obey only when we agree. Obedience is required even when we feel our superiors may be mistaken. The Pope had every right to promulgate a new Mass, just as his successors have every right to abrogate that Mass and promulgate an even newer Mass. Or even return the Mass to what it was in 1962, as he sees fit. At that point, all will be bound to humbly submit themselves to the decision of the Pope, as always. Even you, Mahoney. :tsktsk:

I have nearly a 7 page article explaining why the SSPX AREN’T in schism from [font=Arial]REV. R. DENZIL MEULI, S.T.D., U.J.D., Ph.L., LL.B., [/font][font=Arial]Advocate for the Holy Roman Rota, Barrister for the High Court of New Zealand. Anyone interested in this, please PM your e-mail address and I will forward you a copy. [/font]

Well, now I’m confused. Where do you get an official, from the Vatican, whatever the Pope says I’ll go along with, decision on this?

Was the Archbishop excommunicated as the first poster said or not?

There are questions if the excommunication was valid.

If Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated for ordinations without the Pope’s approval, what then of the bishops who go to and in ways support the bishop ordinations of Protestants?

[quote=Dr. Bombay]Amen! Obedience and humility are two virtues almost universally practiced by all of our saints and two virtues that seem to be almost totally absent in most radical traditionalists.

We don’t obey only when we agree. Obedience is required even when we feel our superiors may be mistaken. The Pope had every right to promulgate a new Mass, just as his successors have every right to abrogate that Mass and promulgate an even newer Mass. Or even return the Mass to what it was in 1962, as he sees fit. At that point, all will be bound to humbly submit themselves to the decision of the Pope, as always. Even you, Mahoney. :tsktsk:
[/quote]

And Amen to that!

A Pope only needs be obedient to Conciliar and Ex-Cathedra decrees of previous popes, which Quo Primum Tempore was not. This is much better explained in this thread forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=43907

We are not attacking the SSPX merely out of anti-traditionalist sentiments, nor a modernist agenda to subvert the true Catholic faith. It is because we have **SOLID **Magisterial documents from Rome to attest to the fact that the SSPX is indeed IN schism. You will find all the documentation you need in the link above, and in this one to Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei from the Vatican’s official website vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

And nobody here is claiming that the Latin Mass the SSPX offers is invalid, nor the validity of their priesthood or their bishops. BUT the Holy See and John Paul II have decreed them illicite, due to the fact Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops without a canonical mandate. And since to my understanding John Paul II is still the one holding the keys, I remain obedient to His solemn judgement.

And I am NO fan of Cardinal Mahony’s either.:tsktsk:

[quote=EddieArent]I have nearly a 7 page article explaining why the SSPX AREN’T in schism from [font=Arial]REV. R. DENZIL MEULI, S.T.D., U.J.D., Ph.L., LL.B., [/font][font=Arial]Advocate for the Holy Roman Rota, Barrister for the High Court of New Zealand. Anyone interested in this, please PM your e-mail address and I will forward you a copy. [/font]
[/quote]

I see your seven page article and raise you an exhaustive website that features dozens of articles explaining why the SSPX ARE in schism.

I dare ya to click on the link and start reading. Double dog dare ya. :bigyikes:

[quote=EddieArent]There are questions if the excommunication was valid.

If Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated for ordinations without the Pope’s approval, what then of the bishops who go to and in ways support the bishop ordinations of Protestants?
[/quote]

He excommunicated himself when he left the authority of the Church.

[quote=Dr. Bombay]I see your seven page article and raise you an exhaustive website that features dozens of articles explaining why the SSPX ARE in schism.

I dare ya to click on the link and start reading. Double dog dare ya. :bigyikes:
[/quote]

Wasn’t Bishop Bruskewitz also on hand for a number of Protestant ordinations?

[quote=EddieArent]There are questions if the excommunication was valid.

If Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated for ordinations without the Pope’s approval, what then of the bishops who go to and in ways support the bishop ordinations of Protestants?
[/quote]

EddieArent, is he in line with Rome or not? Does he accept JPII as our rightful Pope?

If so, then on to stage 2. If not, game over.

[quote=jimmy]He excommunicated himself when he left the authority of the Church.
[/quote]

So invoking Canon law which speaks about states of necesity is a form of excommuncation?

[quote=SusanL]EddieArent, is he in line with Rome or not? Does he accept JPII as our rightful Pope?

If so, then on to stage 2. If not, game over.
[/quote]

The Society priests pray for the Pope and the local Bishop each Mass.

[quote=EddieArent]There are questions if the excommunication was valid.

If Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated for ordinations without the Pope’s approval, what then of the bishops who go to and in ways support the bishop ordinations of Protestants?
[/quote]

“In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience–which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy–constitutes a schismatic act. [Code of Canon Law, 751.] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1382.]”–Ecclesia Dei, July 2, 1988

Seems pretty self-explanatory to me. No questions in my mind.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.