Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on June 26, 2012, 05:26:06 PM
-
Betrayal by Three New Priests
On Sunday night, May 20, when the Archbishop arrived back at the Seminary at a late hour from Kansas, somewhat tired and travel-weary, no sooner had he stepped out of the car than he was served with a civil court summons in a suit to evict the Society from the seminary property here in Connecticut, a suit filed by Fathers Cekada, Dolan, Jenkins, Kelly and Sanborn. Those standing by noticed and will not easily forget the look of pain on the face of the Archbishop, who it must be remembered was their Father in the Priesthood. Now according to the old Code of Canon Law, anyone citing a Catholic Bishop before a civil judge incurs automatic excommunication (Canon 2341). Hence, according to the only Code of Canon Law which they themselves recognize, these five priests are excommunicated!
Then a few days later, an event which should have taken by surprise no Catholic familiar with the Gospel story of the betrayal of Our Lord, but which has nevertheless caused deep shock and heart-ache and scandal to countless Catholics: of the four newly ordained Priests who had freely requested and received Ordination within the Society of St. Pius X at the hands of its Founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, after freely taking on the evening before with their hand on the Gospels a solemn oath of Fidelity to their Superiors, two of the four, on the stormy afternoon of May 23, amidst flashes of lightning and torrents of rain, walked out of the Seminary and went to join the nine Priests who defected last year, and two days later a third, already absent, announced that he was doing the same. And it was night.
A few facts will highlight the nature of this deed. Firstly, we now know that very soon after the defection of the Nine one year ago, these three actually told someone that they intended to lie low in order to get the priesthood. Certainly over the course of one whole year their words and actions in the Seminary were of a nature to persuade everyone, priests, seminarians and even visitors from outside, that they would be loyal to the Society. Did they for one whole year live a lie?
Secondly, on the very eve of their Ordination, in accordance with the Traditional requirements of Mother Church, all three took a solemn Oath of Fidelity at the Altar of God, with their hand touching the Gospels before the Blessed Sacrament in the opened Tabernacle, swearing amongst other things that they would respectfully obey their Superiors in the Society of St. Pius X. The complete text of this Oath and the signatures of all three are enclosed with this letter.
The alterations made to the text by one of them suggest he was not at ease, and indeed to swear such an Oath at all each of them must have found or been given a way of justifying or rationalizing to himself and to others what he did. However, if before God they here committed perjury, then their receiving of Holy Orders in such a state will have been, thirdly, a grave sacrilege.
Fourthly, towards the end of the Traditional Ordination ceremony, each of the three placed his hands between the hands of the Archbishop, for the Archbishop to ask him in Latin, "Do you promise to me and my successors reverence and obedience?" Each of the three answered distinctly, "Promitto", meaning "I promise".
Fifthly, the at least apparent breaking, within ten days, of these solemn Oaths and Promises, taken together withpiece all the other circuмstances of this latest defection, has caused and will continue to cause a terrible scandal to Catholics; not only to those attached to Tradition who supported and assisted these three because they trusted them to follow Archbishop Lefebvre in defense of the Faith, but also to countless others not yet attached to Tradition who will wrongly but understandably say that if Tradition fosters such disloyalty, then they want none of it.
By way of comment upon these facts, let three quotations for the moment suffice. On May 27 of this year, Fr. Sanborn said from the pulpit in Traverse City, Michigan, "I am very pleased to announce three of the four Priests who were ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre on May 13 have decided to come with us. This makes me very happy because I trained them, and so not all the fruits of my labor as Rector of the Seminary were lost." (Does Fr. Sanborn realize what fruits he is laying claim to?).
On April 28 of last year, just after the split between the Society and the Nine, Archbishop Lefebvre said at the Seminary to all the seminarians, including the three who have just defected: "I hope you will make the good choice. But you must choose. If you agree with the position and attitude and orientation of Fr. Kelly, then follow Fr. Kelly. If you think Mgr. Lefebvre is right, then follow the attitude of Msgr. and the Fraternity. But you must be clear .... honest. Do not say: I will be silent until after my ordination. That is wrong! God knows that! That is a lie before God..... not before me. I am nothing. But before God! You cannot do that! " That is precisely what Fr. Dolan said, i.e. "I knew how to keep quiet until my ordination". I cannot understand him doing that! A future priest doing that??"
And on May 30 of this year, one of the three latest defectors, when reproached by a lady that such a blow as these actions of theirs might have killed the Archbishop, replied "Oh, he's 78 years old anyway. Mark you, I'm grateful to him, because without him I wouldn't be a priest".
People might ask how such a thing could happen inside a Seminary, and whether the same will not happen again. The answer is that Jesus saw to the very depths of the human heart (John VI, 65,71), but still chose to allow an Apostle to be unfaithful. As for Jesus' Priests, we can only see into human hearts, in the words of the Ordination Rite itself, "as far as human frailty allows us to know". Also there comes a point of mistrust at which the service of God seizes up and a Catholic Seminary can no longer operate, because charity "believes all things and hopes in all things" (1 Cor. XIII 7). However we are keeping our eyes open, and one seminarian has already been asked to leave since the defection, who under questioning clearly shared the defectors' way of thinking.
Fr. Richard Williamson
http://www.sspxseminary.org/publications/rectors-letters-separator/rectors-letter/68.html
-
A friend of mine brought up this letter in the context of the recent move by Bishop Fellay to suspend ordination of all Traditional Franciscan and Dominican priests.
He is pro-Fellay, of course.
Of course, the actions described in this letter remind us each of different people.
To me, the heart-wrenching scene of betrayal described above is what many faithful SSPX priests, bishops, and faithful experience upon hearing the recent words of Bishop Fellay, or WILL experience upon the announcement of a premature Deal with Rome.
...Or the feelings of Independent priests all over the country, who now are looked down upon, and soon to be branded "schismatic", "vagus", and a host of other names by the NEW SSPX -- even though in 2003 Angelus Press put out a whole book about them, holding them up as examples for other priests. "Priest, Where Is Thy Mass? Mass, Where Is Thy Priest?"
-
A friend of mine brought up this letter in the context of the recent move by Bishop Fellay to suspend ordination of all Traditional Franciscan and Dominican priests.
He is pro-Fellay, of course.
The comparison is an injustice to those who have their ordinations suspended.
-
A friend of mine brought up this letter in the context of the recent move by Bishop Fellay to suspend ordination of all Traditional Franciscan and Dominican priests.
He is pro-Fellay, of course.
Pass on the word that I have for him and his friends CCC's for 50% off.
-
The "nine's" position might have been correct, but the way they went about leaving sowed the seeds of much bad blood. How can these "wrongs" be undone some 30 years latter so we can drop the "labels" on good Catholics on both sides.
-
The "nine's" position might have been correct, but the way they went about leaving sowed the seeds of much bad blood. How can these "wrongs" be undone some 30 years latter so we can drop the "labels" on good Catholics on both sides.
The position of "the nine" back then is not the same position of most of them today. I think it's important to point out as well that "the nine" are no longer "the nine," and the fruits of these past 30 plus "correct position" years are not good at all.
-
Betrayal and Deception. Just like we are seeing now. One can see the devil's hand in this. Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.
-
Nowhere do I see a date regarding what YEAR this took place, but it seems it
must have been 1984.
Because May 20th fell on a Sunday that year, and the only other year it did so
within the lifetime of +ABL was in 1990, but by then, +Williamson was a bishop,
and he signs the letter on the St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary web page as "Fr.
Richard Williamson." Also, the letter says +ABL was 78 years old. He was born
in November of 1905, so he was 78 in May of 1984. Two different methods give
the same year, so it must be true.
I made a post containing curiously similar sentiments on another thread a while
ago. It's the last post on page 4 of this thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19410&min=30&num=10).
-
The Nine disobeyed ..... as ABL disobeyed ..... as Bp. W has disobeyed .... pot calling kettle black .... glass houses and stones ...... and so it goes on ...... and on ..... and on ....
-
The Nine disobeyed ..... as ABL disobeyed ..... as Bp. W has disobeyed .... pot calling kettle black .... glass houses and stones ...... and so it goes on ...... and on ..... and on ....
Did the nine (or should I say "the three") spoken of in the thread merely disobey? Or did they disobey, betray and deceive? From what I can understand, there are very few similarities between their's and +ABL's actions. Just asking.
-
The Nine disobeyed ..... as ABL disobeyed ..... as Bp. W has disobeyed .... pot calling kettle black .... glass houses and stones ...... and so it goes on ...... and on ..... and on ....
Well, I understand you. This current worst crisis of the Church is a real mess for sure. There's absolutely no business as usual (*), and we can't do our job from 9 to 5...
But still Our Lord watches over His Church. The day He says: Enough is enough! -- everything will be perfectly cleaned, like the world was with the Flood. So let's fasten our seat-belts and enter the Ark! ... but wait, what and where is the Ark?
The traditional Catholic Faith is the Ark. In times of distress like the Japanese Catholics had to bear, this can mean Rosary in the houses.
Bishop Williamson closed his EC "Deadly Mush" (19 April 2008) with these words:
But then ... if the Church cannot excommunicate such damaging enemies within, what means remain to her to defend herself? Answer, that is perhaps the most serious reason of all for thinking that only a divine chastisement comparable to the Flood can clean out the present corruption in Church and world. Catholic Tradition is today's Ark. Kyrie eleison.
(*) My Irish cup containing British tea shows this reading: Guinness as usual.
-
The Nine disobeyed ..... as ABL disobeyed ..... as Bp. W has disobeyed .... pot calling kettle black .... glass houses and stones ...... and so it goes on ...... and on ..... and on ....
Well, I understand you. This current worst crisis of the Church is a real mess for sure. There's absolutely no business as usual (*), and we can't do our job from 9 to 5...
But still Our Lord watches over His Church. The day He says: Enough is enough! -- everything will be perfectly cleaned, like the world was with the Flood. So let's fasten our seat-belts and enter the Ark! ... but wait, what and where is the Ark?
The traditional Catholic Faith is the Ark. In times of distress like the Japanese Catholics had to bear, this can mean Rosary in the houses.
Bishop Williamson closed his EC "Deadly Mush" (19 April 2008) with these words:
But then ... if the Church cannot excommunicate such damaging enemies within, what means remain to her to defend herself? Answer, that is perhaps the most serious reason of all for thinking that only a divine chastisement comparable to the Flood can clean out the present corruption in Church and world. Catholic Tradition is today's Ark. Kyrie eleison.
(*) My Irish cup containing British tea shows this reading: Guinness as usual.
In truth, Many SPPXs may soon become Sedes IF Fellay sells out to the Judaized Masonic Vatican, and it looks like he will.
The real scandal was Vatican 2, the culmination of centuries of plotting on behalf of Jєω and Freemasons.
The Church and Faithful had war declared on them, and so far, we have lost. We are but a remnant and lowly one at that.
'The World is so rotten today because so many Catholics are Silent'
It is time to no longer be silent. We are at war.
-
The Nine disobeyed ..... as ABL disobeyed ..... as Bp. W has disobeyed .... pot calling kettle black .... glass houses and stones ...... and so it goes on ...... and on ..... and on ....
Well, I understand you. This current worst crisis of the Church is a real mess for sure. There's absolutely no business as usual (*), and we can't do our job from 9 to 5...
But still Our Lord watches over His Church. The day He says: Enough is enough! -- everything will be perfectly cleaned, like the world was with the Flood. So let's fasten our seat-belts and enter the Ark! ... but wait, what and where is the Ark?
The traditional Catholic Faith is the Ark. In times of distress like the Japanese Catholics had to bear, this can mean Rosary in the houses.
Bishop Williamson closed his EC "Deadly Mush" (19 April 2008) with these words:
But then ... if the Church cannot excommunicate such damaging enemies within, what means remain to her to defend herself? Answer, that is perhaps the most serious reason of all for thinking that only a divine chastisement comparable to the Flood can clean out the present corruption in Church and world. Catholic Tradition is today's Ark. Kyrie eleison.
(*) My Irish cup containing British tea shows this reading: Guinness as usual.
In truth, Many SPPXs may soon become Sedes IF Fellay sells out to the Judaized Masonic Vatican, and it looks like he will.
The real scandal was Vatican 2, the culmination of centuries of plotting on behalf of Jєω and Freemasons.
The Church and Faithful had war declared on them, and so far, we have lost. We are but a remnant and lowly one at that.
'The World is so rotten today because so many Catholics are Silent'
It is time to no longer be silent. We are at war.
Noone who follows the 3 good Bishops is becoming a Sede. In fact becoming a Sede. Anyone who does so based upon anything Bishop Fellay does would be proving they are led by emotions and not clear logical thought. Nothing Bishop Fellay does has any relevance to whether or not their is someone sitting on the Throne of Saint Peter. What does have relevance is whether or not someone can trust Bishop Fellay, or obey/follow him.
-
Bishop Fellay's actions are going to cause a rift in the SSPX, to be sure, in an understated kinda way. And if there is an agreement, the SSPX will break up with at least half (maybe 75% remaining separated from Rome).
To accept the sede position wouldn't be based on Bishop Fellay but whether or not someone became convinced that the Chair of Peter was empty.
As for the nine, didn't they split over Abp L engaging in conversations with New Rome? Wasn't that the prinicpal motivation?
-
As for the nine, didn't they split over Abp L engaging in conversations with New Rome? Wasn't that the prinicpal motivation?
The answer is no.
-
Betrayal by Three New Priests
On Sunday night, May 20, when the Archbishop arrived back at the Seminary at a late hour from Kansas, somewhat tired and travel-weary, no sooner had he stepped out of the car than he was served with a civil court summons in a suit to evict the Society from the seminary property here in Connecticut, a suit filed by Fathers Cekada, Dolan, Jenkins, Kelly and Sanborn. Those standing by noticed and will not easily forget the look of pain on the face of the Archbishop, who it must be remembered was their Father in the Priesthood. Now according to the old Code of Canon Law, anyone citing a Catholic Bishop before a civil judge incurs automatic excommunication (Canon 2341). Hence, according to the only Code of Canon Law which they themselves recognize, these five priests are excommunicated!
Then a few days later, an event which should have taken by surprise no Catholic familiar with the Gospel story of the betrayal of Our Lord, but which has nevertheless caused deep shock and heart-ache and scandal to countless Catholics: of the four newly ordained Priests who had freely requested and received Ordination within the Society of St. Pius X at the hands of its Founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, after freely taking on the evening before with their hand on the Gospels a solemn oath of Fidelity to their Superiors, two of the four, on the stormy afternoon of May 23, amidst flashes of lightning and torrents of rain, walked out of the Seminary and went to join the nine Priests who defected last year, and two days later a third, already absent, announced that he was doing the same. And it was night.
A few facts will highlight the nature of this deed. Firstly, we now know that very soon after the defection of the Nine one year ago, these three actually told someone that they intended to lie low in order to get the priesthood. Certainly over the course of one whole year their words and actions in the Seminary were of a nature to persuade everyone, priests, seminarians and even visitors from outside, that they would be loyal to the Society. Did they for one whole year live a lie?
Secondly, on the very eve of their Ordination, in accordance with the Traditional requirements of Mother Church, all three took a solemn Oath of Fidelity at the Altar of God, with their hand touching the Gospels before the Blessed Sacrament in the opened Tabernacle, swearing amongst other things that they would respectfully obey their Superiors in the Society of St. Pius X. The complete text of this Oath and the signatures of all three are enclosed with this letter.
The alterations made to the text by one of them suggest he was not at ease, and indeed to swear such an Oath at all each of them must have found or been given a way of justifying or rationalizing to himself and to others what he did. However, if before God they here committed perjury, then their receiving of Holy Orders in such a state will have been, thirdly, a grave sacrilege.
Fourthly, towards the end of the Traditional Ordination ceremony, each of the three placed his hands between the hands of the Archbishop, for the Archbishop to ask him in Latin, "Do you promise to me and my successors reverence and obedience?" Each of the three answered distinctly, "Promitto", meaning "I promise".
Fifthly, the at least apparent breaking, within ten days, of these solemn Oaths and Promises, taken together withpiece all the other circuмstances of this latest defection, has caused and will continue to cause a terrible scandal to Catholics; not only to those attached to Tradition who supported and assisted these three because they trusted them to follow Archbishop Lefebvre in defense of the Faith, but also to countless others not yet attached to Tradition who will wrongly but understandably say that if Tradition fosters such disloyalty, then they want none of it.
By way of comment upon these facts, let three quotations for the moment suffice. On May 27 of this year, Fr. Sanborn said from the pulpit in Traverse City, Michigan, "I am very pleased to announce three of the four Priests who were ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre on May 13 have decided to come with us. This makes me very happy because I trained them, and so not all the fruits of my labor as Rector of the Seminary were lost." (Does Fr. Sanborn realize what fruits he is laying claim to?).
On April 28 of last year, just after the split between the Society and the Nine, Archbishop Lefebvre said at the Seminary to all the seminarians, including the three who have just defected: "I hope you will make the good choice. But you must choose. If you agree with the position and attitude and orientation of Fr. Kelly, then follow Fr. Kelly. If you think Mgr. Lefebvre is right, then follow the attitude of Msgr. and the Fraternity. But you must be clear .... honest. Do not say: I will be silent until after my ordination. That is wrong! God knows that! That is a lie before God..... not before me. I am nothing. But before God! You cannot do that! " That is precisely what Fr. Dolan said, i.e. "I knew how to keep quiet until my ordination". I cannot understand him doing that! A future priest doing that??"
And on May 30 of this year, one of the three latest defectors, when reproached by a lady that such a blow as these actions of theirs might have killed the Archbishop, replied "Oh, he's 78 years old anyway. Mark you, I'm grateful to him, because without him I wouldn't be a priest".
People might ask how such a thing could happen inside a Seminary, and whether the same will not happen again. The answer is that Jesus saw to the very depths of the human heart (John VI, 65,71), but still chose to allow an Apostle to be unfaithful. As for Jesus' Priests, we can only see into human hearts, in the words of the Ordination Rite itself, "as far as human frailty allows us to know". Also there comes a point of mistrust at which the service of God seizes up and a Catholic Seminary can no longer operate, because charity "believes all things and hopes in all things" (1 Cor. XIII 7). However we are keeping our eyes open, and one seminarian has already been asked to leave since the defection, who under questioning clearly shared the defectors' way of thinking.
Fr. Richard Williamson
http://www.sspxseminary.org/publications/rectors-letters-separator/rectors-letter/68.html
I just read this in the book of Ridgefield Letters. Its shocking. It makes me wonder about how this affects the fruit of their later work considering how sin can blind or cloud the intellect and cause people to fall into more errors. Hopefully the Lord has long since forgiven them if they were ever guilty.
-
I just read this in the book of Ridgefield Letters. Its shocking. It makes me wonder about how this affects the fruit of their later work considering how sin can blind or cloud the intellect and cause people to fall into more errors. Hopefully the Lord has long since forgiven them if they were ever guilty.
I remember those times, it was a huge scandal, like a bomb went off within the SSPX ripping at it's seams and was powerful enough to be felt outside of the SSPX as well. I believe that Fr. Sanborn, who I still have great respect for due to his vigor as a newly ordained young priest fresh out of seminary some odd 50 years ago, was certainly blinded for a long time prior to the split and as the below quote from the OP attests to:
...By way of comment upon these facts, let three quotations for the moment suffice. On May 27 of this year, Fr. Sanborn said from the pulpit in Traverse City, Michigan, "I am very pleased to announce three of the four Priests who were ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre on May 13 have decided to come with us. This makes me very happy because I trained them, and so not all the fruits of my labor as Rector of the Seminary were lost." (Does Fr. Sanborn realize what fruits he is laying claim to?).
I sometimes wonder what the SSPX, nay, all of traditional Catholicism would be today if that scandalous split had never happened.
-
There wouldn't have been a Fr. Rostand fairy-tale district superior.
When it comes down to it it's not that difficult to tear down someone's reputation. It has been said before but an amicable separation would have been the greater benefit to the Church. Nuff said
-
Yeah because forgiveness of the nine wouldn't be the "Catholic " thing to do.
Let history play out to reveal what approach to the crisis showed greater loyalty to Christ and his Church.
-
The 'Nine' left the sspx after disagreements with +ABL. So what? Neither side was guilt-less and neither side was completely pure in their interests or decisions.
Decades later...Both sides were spiritually fruitful (and still are), so whatever mistakes they made, they obviously repented and God blessed them. Life happens. People need to move on and quit re-opening this wound and let it heal.
-
I sometimes wonder what the SSPX, nay, all of traditional Catholicism would be today if that scandalous split had never happened.
I too wonder the same. Yet my wonderings are in the direction: What would have been had Msgr. Lefebvre acknowledged the criticisms of the Nine, made the necessary corrections, and stopped seeking an amicable relationship with Wojtyła?
-
I too wonder the same. Yet my wonderings are in the direction: What would have been had Msgr. Lefebvre acknowledged the criticisms of the Nine, made the necessary corrections, and stopped seeking an amicable relationship with Wojtyła?
It seems to have turned out well for ABL in the end. Would it really have been best if he did as you suggest? Maybe there would be no difference (I'm talking about relations with the pope, not the 9). I think he was doing his duty pretty well given the circuмstances.
-
In the mid 90's, when I was in SSPX seminary, 40% of all SSPX priests ordained in the SSPX (from '71-97), ended up leaving the Society for a multitude of reasons. I remember Fr. U throwing out that statistic. Of course he already had it in his mind to leave the SSPX, so that was probably justification for his leaving.
If the SSPX were a business, the CEO would need to ask himself, "Well, forty percent of all my salesmen leave the business for other companies, perhaps we need to reformulate the business model?" Perhaps the SSPX as a whole must examine its own liberalism within and ask the question, "If the priests leave, what is the root cause(s)?"
I often reminisce and ask myself, "What if Fr. James Wathen had entered the SSPX?" Fr. was ordained in 1958 and never said the New Mass. But Fr. W blasted the J's, published the book on the New Mass (the Great Sacrilege), and was hardcore on EENS. The simple fact is, had Fr. entered the SSPX, he would not have lasted more than five years. He would have been ushered out by the hierarchy more than likely.
Or, even more interesting, what if Fr. Feeney had approached Abp. Lefebvre in 1970, and said, "Msgr., will you accept me as a priest in the SSPX?" Or even Fr. Charles Coughlin, the Radio Priest, who died in 1979, a year after Fr. Feeney. I am not quite sure how traditional Fr. Coughlin was at the time of his death; but the Feds raided his church in 1942, so he must not be altogether too bad. HeHe
-
I too wonder the same. Yet my wonderings are in the direction: What would have been had Msgr. Lefebvre acknowledged the criticisms of the Nine, made the necessary corrections, and stopped seeking an amicable relationship with Wojtyła?
But you have it completely backwards.
The Nine were supposed to do as they solemnly vowed to do, acknowledge and obey the direction and criticisms of +ABL, stop wanting to dictate which Mass to celebrate, stop concerning themselves about the status of the popes and simply do what they were ordained to do - concern themselves with doing all of their priestly duties as best as they can for the salvation of souls and for the greater glory of God, that's what was expected of them, that's why they were ordained. Not to scandalize and drive a wedge in the whole trad effort for generations.
But that's all they had to do, just do what they were actually supposed to do, and for that, maybe, just maybe God would have rewarded them and the whole trad world with thousands, maybe 10s of thousands of more good, holy priests and bishops - who knows what else?
But no, they gave into their stinking pride - and for what?
-
The Nine were supposed to do as they solemnly vowed to do, acknowledge and obey the direction and criticisms of +ABL ...
Oh, give it a rest. Utterly pathetic. This has been the perennial hypocrisy of the SSPX, where their very raison d'etre rests upon the notion that one's conscience trumps the requirement for obedience to even the putative "Vicar of Christ", and yet you're evil if you have to disagree with +Lefebvre. Give it a rest. They could have gone about it differently, but in principle they were absolutely right and +Lefebvre was wrong. +Lefebvre was in a hopeful phase in the early 1980s that can hardly be distinguished from the attitude of +Fellay and the very reasons that the Resistance have broken off from SSPX.
What would you do if you had to assist at Mass "offered" by one Mr. Stark? Obey +Lefebvre and just receive doubtful Sacraments?
-
Oh, give it a rest. Utterly pathetic. This has been the perennial hypocrisy of the SSPX, where their very raison d'etre rests upon the notion that one's conscience trumps the requirement for obedience to even the putative "Vicar of Christ", and yet you're evil if you have to disagree with +Lefebvre. Give it a rest. They could have gone about it differently, but in principle they were absolutely right and +Lefebvre was wrong. +Lefebvre was in a hopeful phase in the early 1980s that can hardly be distinguished from the attitude of +Fellay and the very reasons that the Resistance have broken off from SSPX.
What would you do if you had to assist at Mass "offered" by one Mr. Stark? Obey +Lefebvre and just receive doubtful Sacraments?
1. In principle they were wrong; they only "happened" to be right about 30 years early. Which = being wrong, being lucky. It's like a broken clock. It's 3:40 PM, but the clock reads 7:53. Ooooh, The clock is ahead of it's time! *4 hours 13 minutes later* Look! It's 7:53 PM! That clock *knew*. It was ahead of its time!
You can't oppose someone good saying they're "bad" and then jump up and down and celebrate when that person goes bad in 30 years. You had no way of knowing that; so you were simply WRONG, and only COINCIDENTALLY right -- EVENTUALLY. But that's like a broken clock being right sometimes. Timing is PART of being right. There was no bad orientation or dead-end path being pursued by the SSPX when the Naughty Nine left. The SSPX was still favored by God, solidly defending the Faith, etc.
And no, our hindsight doesn't count against +Lefebvre's *eventually* unsuccessful deal with Rome. +Lefebvre did NOT do ANYTHING that +Fellay did. He didn't change/compromise/contradict himself in pursuit of a merely practical accord. He was against that idea, and history shows he rejected any such deal. HE had to try, for history's sake. Now we all have the luxury of knowing how far gone Rome is -- thanks to +Lefebvre's efforts. HE *had* to try. No one else SHOULD try today, however, because there is no reason to believe Rome has changed. On the contrary, all the evidence points to the fact that things are WORSE in Rome today. So no, +Lefebvre's actions must not be confused in any way with +Fellay or Fr. Pagliarani's.
If they wanted to leave for their sedevacantism and other personal opinions (how to handle disputed marriages -- human beings still have to eat, live, die, get married -- during the Crisis in the Church, etc.) then they should have just left. They didn't have to sue +ABL and try to steal the name, steal countless properties, chapels, Faithful, etc. That wasn't right then and it still wasn't right.
2. We've been through this discussion earlier in the Resistance's history. If you want me to bump some threads, I guess I can do that. It might take time to dig it up however. Suffice to say, NO, there is no resemblance between the Resistance and the Naughty Nine.
3. What the heck are you going on about a Mr. Stark? Are you talking about Iron Man? What does that have to do with the SSPX?
-
The Nine were supposed to do as they solemnly vowed to do
The priests in question (9+3) never took a solemn vow for anything related to the SSPX. The engagements with SSPX, whether temporary or perpetual, are not vows and, canonically, not even promises on the level of an ordination promise of obedience. In fact, the SSPX could never receive a solemn vow from anyone. Those are reserved to religious orders, not even religious congregations of common life let alone a community like explicitly says that it exists without vows.
I am puzzled by the current canonical status of the SSPX, but in 1982 the Society was either in a state of suppresion or it was merely a pious union, ala a confraternity like the Sacred Heart Auto League.
-
I am puzzled by the current canonical status of the SSPX, but in 1982 the Society was either in a state of suppresion or it was merely a pious union, ala a confraternity like the Sacred Heart Auto League.
The SSPX is a mere pious union or confraternity like the Sacred Heart Auto League, yes. But the status of the SSPV is even lower :trollface:
-
The SSPX is a mere pious union or confraternity like the Sacred Heart Auto League, yes. But the status of the SSPV is even lower :trollface:
Yup.
-
The priests in question (9+3) never took a solemn vow for anything related to the SSPX. The engagements with SSPX, whether temporary or perpetual, are not vows and, canonically, not even promises on the level of an ordination promise of obedience. In fact, the SSPX could never receive a solemn vow from anyone. Those are reserved to religious orders, not even religious congregations of common life let alone a community like explicitly says that it exists without vows.
I am puzzled by the current canonical status of the SSPX, but in 1982 the Society was either in a state of suppresion or it was merely a pious union, ala a confraternity like the Sacred Heart Auto League.
I thought it was a little higher, but what do I know. The term "Papal rite" sticks in my head for some reason. I think I heard it in a video of Fr Coenraad speaking about ABL and the formation of the SSPX.
Still, what does it mean if someone makes a promise before the Blessed Sacrament at their ordination? Nothing?
-
Oh, give it a rest. Utterly pathetic. This has been the perennial hypocrisy of the SSPX, where their very raison d'etre rests upon the notion that one's conscience trumps the requirement for obedience to even the putative "Vicar of Christ", and yet you're evil if you have to disagree with +Lefebvre. Give it a rest.
Oh for heaven's sake, it has nothing to do with "you're evil if you have to disagree with +Lefebvre," the whole scandalous affair from start to finish was caused by them, not +ABL.
You act as if a disagreement of high importance obliged them to betray not only +ABL and the faithful, but also to split in order to join another order like the Dominicans, Redemptorists, or Franciscans. No, the disagreement, (which was half-baked in and of itself), is one that they instigated of their own volition and used as an excuse to be the driving factor to divide the faithful and start another order, the Sedevacantists.
As Fr. Sanborn said in the OP, now they're very happy, they accomplished what they set out to do.
The divisive aberration of Sedevacantism is due to nothing else than certain priests' losing sight of their proper roles in our present malaise. To save the Church from an heretical pope was never their assignment. Securing the Apostolic succession of the Church was never their assignment. What was their assignment?
It was to take care of the people whom God sent them as best they could, say their prayers faithfully, study and pray that they might not themselves fall victim to the spirit of Liberalism and worldliness, and keep their torment and speculations to themselves. The hierarchical structure of the Church and the papacy are not their business. Such high matters are the province of none other than Christ Himself and His Mother and the Apostles. - Fr. Wathen from Who Shall Ascend?
-
The priests in question (9+3) never took a solemn vow for anything related to the SSPX. The engagements with SSPX, whether temporary or perpetual, are not vows and, canonically, not even promises on the level of an ordination promise of obedience. In fact, the SSPX could never receive a solemn vow from anyone. Those are reserved to religious orders, not even religious congregations of common life let alone a community like explicitly says that it exists without vows.
You can look it up. If they received the Order of Subdiaconate, Diaconate, or Priesthood, prior to that they made this solemn vow in their Oath of Fidelity:
"...Lastly, I sincerely promise, according to Canon Law, to obey with docility all that my superiors or the discipline of the Church command, ready to give, in word and in act the example of virtue in order to merit to be rewarded by God for having received such an office.
I thus promise, I thus vow, I thus swear. May God help me and these Holy Gospels that I touch."
-
You can look it up. If they received the Order of Subdiaconate, Diaconate, or Priesthood, prior to that they made this solemn vow in their Oath of Fidelity:
"...Lastly, I sincerely promise, according to Canon Law, to obey with docility all that my superiors or the discipline of the Church command, ready to give, in word and in act the example of virtue in order to merit to be rewarded by God for having received such an office.
I thus promise, I thus vow, I thus swear. May God help me and these Holy Gospels that I touch."
:facepalm:
Evidently the definition of a solemn vow that Elwin was attempting to articulate has gone right over your head ... as do most things apparently. What this amounts to is a simple promise.
Whatever happened to the R&R dogmatic dictum that "faith is greater than obedience"? Catholics are SOLEMNLY bound to obey the Vicar of Christ on earth, but I guess if your "conscience" tells you, it's OK to break communion with him and refuse submission. But somehow +Lefebvre > Vicar of Christ. If "faith" can permit you to refuse obedience to a pope, a fortiori it can permit you to refuse obedience to a bishop who lacks any jurisdiction whatsoever.
So, what if +Lefebvre had decided to impose an annual concelebration of the NOM on the priests of the SSPX? Were they still bound by this alleged "solemn" vow?
I'm not sure how much I can suffer of the people here who are bereft of any capacity for logic.
There's no difference whatsoever, despite the purely-emotional claims to the contrary, between what The Nine did "in principle" vis-a-vis +Lefebvre back in the early 1980s and what the Resistance did in the early 2010s vis-a-vis +Lefebvre. You might note that the vow cited above refers to obedience to "my superiors" and wasn't directed to +Lefebvre specifically, so this vow applied to the Resistance's relationship with +Fellay, who was their "superior" at the time.
In the early 1980s, +Lefebvre was in an optimistic phase, since his nemesis Montini was gone, and he had hopes for some reconciliation with Wojtyla ... and so he was cozying up with Rome, asking to make the "experiment of Tradition" within the Conciliar pantheon, and ready to make compromises. That's precisely what +Fellay has been doing and what the Resistance has been objecting to.
Now, the manner in which the Nine conducted themselves is a separate matter altogether, and is hardly beyond criticism, but what they did in principle, objecting to a cozying up with Rome, and the "seeking" of some practical agreement (without one ever having actually materialized) differs not a lick from what the Resistance has done.
This reminds me of the contention that the as-yet-to-happen SSPX consecration of a bishop or bishops would render the SSPX hypocritical for having criticized the Resistance for consecrating bishops, where there's really no substantial difference other than a difference in "attitude" where the SSPX claim "well, we tried our best" vs. the Resistance are of the mindset "we don't care whether we have permission".
-
You can look it up. If they received the Order of Subdiaconate, Diaconate, or Priesthood, prior to that they made this solemn vow in their Oath of Fidelity:
"...Lastly, I sincerely promise, according to Canon Law, to obey with docility all that my superiors or the discipline of the Church command, ready to give, in word and in act the example of virtue in order to merit to be rewarded by God for having received such an office.
I thus promise, I thus vow, I thus swear. May God help me and these Holy Gospels that I touch."
A promise, not a solemn vow. Have you ever studied canon law in a formal way? Solemn vow has a very specific meaning.
Since the SSPX was at the time either a suppressed institution (canonically did not exist) or was only on the level of a confraternity (no superiors who could warrant obedience), and those are the only two options (one cannot realistically pretend, though so many do, that the SSPX was a lawful congregation of common life), to whom was this PROMISE made? To the Msgr. Lefebvre as supposed Superior General of a nonexistent religious congregation? To the supposed local ordinaries of Sion or Bridgeport where the ordinations occured, who were manifest heretics and ipso facto deposed from those respective sees?
I am dumbfounded by the lack of logic, consistency, and fundamental knowledge. You, who are an old-time traddy as am I, sound more like an opinionated church lady who clings to "Faaahther McBlahblahblah" than an informed and measured veteran of the war for Tradition.
-
:fryingpan:
Well done, St Giles. :facepalm:
-
I am dumbfounded by the lack of logic, consistency, and fundamental knowledge. You, who are an old-time traddy as am I, sound more like an opinionated church lady who clings to "Faaahther McBlahblahblah" than an informed and measured veteran of the war for Tradition.
-
3. What the heck are you going on about a Mr. Stark? Are you talking about Iron Man? What does that have to do with the SSPX?
Philip Stark - (not me!) - was a novus ordo Jesuit who wanted to join the English Mission of the SSPX c.1985/6. He was offered conditional ordination by +ABL but refused it. His presence caused much grief amongst the faithful worried about not receiving valid sacraments. At the time the other SSPX priests tried to ensure a ciborium of their consecrated altar breads was always present in the tabernacle along with anything 'Fr' Stark put there. Eventually, he decided to go his own way. A similar situation arose, some years later, with a 'Fr' Eason-Williams who, like Stark, refused conditional ordination. He only stayed a few weeks and went on to become a Greek Orthodox monk on Mount Athos.
-
3. What the heck are you going on about a Mr. Stark? Are you talking about Iron Man? What does that have to do with the SSPX?
This question demonstrates that you're really not very well informed on what actually took place, where you associate Stark (in the context of The Nine) with Iron Man rather than with Mr. Philip Stark. He was probably THE single biggest reason for the split (rest could have been worked out somehow). See the post above from Philip. Not only did the man cause a huge stink, but then he left anyway (after the damage had been done). So for the sake of Stark, Archbishop Lefebvre threw his good Traditional priests overboard. He should have said, "Well, if you won't receive conditional ordination, you can't offer Mass at SSPX chapels."
(https://images.gofundme.com/EqXAot1yy1nNL7lg8Ugyf9oAzmo=/1200x800/https://d2g8igdw686xgo.cloudfront.net/55452650_1616339362781239_r.jpeg)
In past threads on this subject, Stubborn insisted that the break was due to "sedevacantism" ... acting as if he were a newbie to Tradition rather than some grizzled veteran. Several of the Nine weren't even SV at the time, and if you read their complaints, there's hardly a mention of the subject. I've spoken to a couple of them who were even somewhat ANTI-SV at the time of the split.
-
Stark caused a horrible crisis even amongst those who stayed with Msgr. Lefebvre after the Nine (+3) went their own way. My own chapel priest (non-SSPX) accepted conditional ordination from Lefebvre at the very time that Stark refused. He could never fully grasp why Stark refused and encouraged faithful to avoid Stark.
Somewhere I have a memorial card of Stark's putative Jesuit ordination. I have not seen it in 25 years.
-
https://truerestoration.org/an-interview-with-fr-anthony-cekada-regarding-archbishop-lefebvre-and-the-1983-split-with-the-sspx/
Father Cekada's account:
What was that flash point?
It was an aggregation of different points that we mentioned in our letter to the Archbishop. For example, the John XXIII liturgy which the Archbishop had suddenly decided to impose on the entire Society of St. Pius X, when we had been using the 1955 liturgy. There was that. There was also the difficulty, specifically in the United States, of priests ordained in the New Rite. There was a Fr. Philip Stark who was saying Mass in the Southwest District of the Society. We had tried to resolve that problem in a number of different ways. You had the idea of following the party line of the Society – the Society as a substitute for the Magisterium of the Church. You had in the background the negotiations with – at that time – Ratzinger of the CDF. The Archbishop was carrying on a negotiation with him, and when you heard that, that was especially troubling. What kind of pushed things over the top was Archbishop Lefebvre’s acceptance of modern marriage annulments. There was a case out west where there was a prominent traditional Catholic who we discovered was actually involved in a second marriage. So, we did a little investigation and we found out that the first marriage had been annulled on the grounds of “psychic immaturity” by one of these modernist tribunals. We told the person that you can’t accept that – that it was baloney – and this person then wrote to the Archbishop. The Archbishop wrote back through Fr. Parrrice LaRoche who was the Secretary General of the Society and without inquiring into the reasons for the annulment, said that the presumption had to be for the validity of the annulment – that text is reproduced in our letter of March 25, 1983. That pushed things over the edge.
When they met with the Archbishop the first time, this the list, in order, of the point for discussion:
The first was doubtful priests, then the John XXIII [Mass], then expulsion of priests, then the idea of loyalty to the Church above loyalty to the Society, then the recognition of the Society’s subordination of authority to the authority of the Church, and the last thing was annulments.
-
:facepalm:
Evidently the definition of a solemn vow that Elwin was attempting to articulate has gone right over your head ... as do most things apparently. What this amounts to is a simple promise.Good heaven's again.
Either way, neither are meant to be broken, or in their case, a lie.
Whatever happened to the R&R dogmatic dictum that "faith is greater than obedience"? Catholics are SOLEMNLY bound to obey the Vicar of Christ on earth, but I guess if your "conscience" tells you, it's OK to break communion with him and refuse submission. But somehow +Lefebvre > Vicar of Christ. If "faith" can permit you to refuse obedience to a pope, a fortiori it can permit you to refuse obedience to a bishop who lacks any jurisdiction whatsoever.
Now you're resorting to implying them being in danger of losing the faith by celebrating the 62 Mass and obeying God rather than the pope. Some logic. :facepalm:
So, what if +Lefebvre had decided to impose an annual concelebration of the NOM on the priests of the SSPX? Were they still bound by this alleged "solemn" vow?
I'm not sure how much I can suffer of the people here who are bereft of any capacity for logic.
More of your ridiculous hypotheticals you use in your attempt to justify scandal, some logic. :facepalm:
In the early 1980s, +Lefebvre was in an optimistic phase, since his nemesis Montini was gone, and he had hopes for some reconciliation with Wojtyla ... and so he was cozying up with Rome, asking to make the "experiment of Tradition" within the Conciliar pantheon, and ready to make compromises. That's precisely what +Fellay has been doing and what the Resistance has been objecting to.
Now, the manner in which the Nine conducted themselves is a separate matter altogether, and is hardly beyond criticism, but what they did in principle, objecting to a cozying up with Rome, and the "seeking" of some practical agreement (without one ever having actually materialized) differs not a lick from what the Resistance has done.
Being that you were NO back then, how would you even begin to know? Or did you read all about it in sede articles? Except for the part about +Fellay, what you say above is pure BS that stinks to high heaven.
-
Being that you were NO back then, how would you even begin to know? Or did you read all about it in sede articles? Except for the part about +Fellay, what you say above is pure BS that stinks to high heaven.
For all your "experience", you're incredibly ignorant. Given how long you've been around, I agree with Elwin in marveling at your ignorance of some of the most basic things. I spoke directly and at great length with several of the Nine over the years, beginning in the late 1980s ... not to mention that the docuмentation is still out there (as cited above). I spent nearly a year with then-Father Sanborn as a seminarian, and several of the Nine also made visits there to help teach various courses.
-
But you have it completely backwards.
The Nine were supposed to do as they solemnly vowed to do, acknowledge and obey the direction and criticisms of +ABL, stop wanting to dictate which Mass to celebrate, stop concerning themselves about the status of the popes and simply do what they were ordained to do - concern themselves with doing all of their priestly duties as best as they can for the salvation of souls and for the greater glory of God, that's what was expected of them, that's why they were ordained. Not to scandalize and drive a wedge in the whole trad effort for generations.
But that's all they had to do, just do what they were actually supposed to do, and for that, maybe, just maybe God would have rewarded them and the whole trad world with thousands, maybe 10s of thousands of more good, holy priests and bishops - who knows what else?
But no, they gave into their stinking pride - and for what?
The same could be said about the Archbishop. Why didn’t he just “acknowledge and obey the direction” of his “pope” Paul VI or “pope” JPII? Thank God he didn’t follow your advice!
-
A promise, not a solemn vow. Have you ever studied canon law in a formal way? Solemn vow has a very specific meaning.
Ok, so they broke their promise and caused scandal - for no good reason.
Since the SSPX was at the time either a suppressed institution (canonically did not exist) or was only on the level of a confraternity (no superiors who could warrant obedience), and those are the only two options (one cannot realistically pretend, though so many do, that the SSPX was a lawful congregation of common life), to whom was this PROMISE made? To the Msgr. Lefebvre as supposed Superior General of a nonexistent religious congregation? To the supposed local ordinaries of Sion or Bridgeport where the ordinations occured, who were manifest heretics and ipso facto deposed from those respective sees?
I am dumbfounded by the lack of logic, consistency, and fundamental knowledge. You, who are an old-time traddy as am I, sound more like an opinionated church lady who clings to "Faaahther McBlahblahblah" than an informed and measured veteran of the war for Tradition.
Good Lord, the SSPX, whether "at the time either a suppressed institution (canonically did not exist) or was only on the level of a confraternity (no superiors who could warrant obedience)," was the life line, the only life line for many (most?) of the pioneering Catholics who did not abandon the true faith for the new faith. The entire scandalous episode was for no good reason. The main purpose it served was to divide the faithful - that's it.
-
For all your "experience", you're incredibly ignorant. Given how long you've been around, I agree with Elwin in marveling at your ignorance of some of the most basic things. I spoke directly and at great length with several of the Nine over the years, beginning in the late 1980s ... not to mention that the docuмentation is still out there (as cited above). I spent nearly a year with then-Father Sanborn as a seminarian, and several of the Nine also made visits there to help teach various courses.
So this is your experience? It's no wonder you're so blind.
-
::Sigh::
Once again, from the Letter of the Nine (1983):
2. Doubtful Priests
Over the past few years, the Society has accepted the service of priests ordained by vernacular versions of the New Rite of Ordination of 1968. On November 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, dealing with the matter of the Sacrament of Orders. It was his intention "to put an end to all controversy," as he said. He did this by, among other things, decreeing and determining which words in the form for the ordination of a priest "are essential and therefore requisite for validity."
The English words of the form in the New Rite of ordination so differ from the ones Pius XII said were essential for validity that they introduce a positive doubt as to its validity. In fact the doubt is not negative, but positive enough even in your own mind, Your Grace, so as to justify the conditional ordination of priests ordained in the New Rite.
And so you have in fact conditionally ordained at least two priests in America: Father Sullivan and Father [. . .]. Indeed, you even asked Rev. Philip Stark to accept conditional ordination and he, as you yourself told us, adamantly refused And yet, after his refusal, you nevertheless allowed and continue to allow him to work with the Society; and he is not the only doubtfully ordained priest that you permit to do so — he is one of many.
Thus under the aegis of the Society, doubtful Masses are being offered, doubtful absolutions are being given and dying people are being anointed with an "Extreme Unction" that may be invalid and of no more value than the anointing with oil done by a Protestant minister.
How, one must ask before God, can the Society reject the doubtful sacraments of the new Church only to replace them — 3— with doubtful priests? How grave a sin this is! How false a pretense! Furthermore, the Society in the Southwest District has begun to import to the United States priests whose theological training and manner of ordination are under a similar cloud. As Your Grace knows, this has been a source of scandal.
The employment of such priests strikes at the heart of one of the reasons for the Society's existence: to provide unquestionably valid sacraments for the faithful — for if a positive doubt exists as to the validity of a priest's ordination, not only are the sacraments he administers doubtful, but the faithful are put into a position by the Society of choosing between the doubtful sacraments of the new Church and the doubtful priests of the Society. From the standpoint of Catholic morality this is inadmissible.
-
The same could be said about the Archbishop. Why didn’t he just “acknowledge and obey the direction” of his “pope” Paul VI or “pope” JPII? Thank God he didn’t follow your advice!
He obeyed God rather than man. The pope is not God.
-
Also from the above link (interview with Father Cekada):
What I think was also strange is that over the years this always came to be understood in SSPX circles as “well all this was just because they didn’t want to recognize the Pope.” And that wasn’t it at all – it wasn’t about not recognizing Wojtyla, but about not recognizing Archbishop Lefebvre as Pope. He was a devout man, but he didn’t have any authority to decide these questions of annulments, etc.
This SV slant on the break was always just SSPX propaganda against the Nine, since I think a lot of the faithful would have been concerned about NO "Orders" and "annulments". As I said, several of the Nine were not SV at the time, and a couple were almost anti-SV.
-
He obeyed God rather than man. The pope is not God.
Pope is in fact "Christ on earth", thus he's called the Vicar of Christ. +Lefebvre wasn't even that. But your "logic" is that it's OK to refuse submission to the Vicar of Christ over matters of conscience but evil to refuse submission to +Lefebvre over matters of conscience. Go figure.
-
Pope is in fact "Christ on earth", thus he's called the Vicar of Christ. +Lefebvre wasn't even that.
:facepalm:
-
2. Doubtful Priests
...
In fact the doubt is not negative, but positive enough even in your own mind, Your Grace, so as to justify the conditional ordination of priests ordained in the New Rite.
This is a key point. If a conditional ordination is permitted, then it's required before the faithful can receive the Sacraments from such a priest (laboring under positive doubt). So was there or wasn't there a positive doubt? If not, then conditional ordinations are not permitted. If yes, then why were these priests being sent out to the faithful to give them positively-doubtful Sacraments?
This blatant contradiction was often smoothed over by (and +Lefebvre himself used the expression) it being "better" or "preferrable" on account of the "peace among the faithful". Sound like they realized that many of their faithful held the orders to be positively doubtful and they didn't want to risk losing too many people.
-
:facepalm:
Which part of this doesn't compute, the term "Vicar of Christ" or the fact that +Lefebvre is inferior to the pope in terms of authority? Both of these are Catholic dogma, the latter explicitly taught by Vatican I as dogma ... so which CATHOLIC DOGMA are you facepalming? This (your facepalming of Catholic dogma) demonstrates more clearly than ever that you're little more than a thinly-veiled Old Catholic heretic.
-
This (your facepalming of Catholic dogma) demonstrates more clearly than ever that you're little more than a thinly-veiled Old Catholic heretic.
Try to always remember that, like all other non-sede trads, I am only a heretic to sedes.
-
Try to always remember that, like all other non-sede trads, I am only a heretic to sedes.
Uhm, no. You're a heretic to Catholics. Please explain which of the Catholic dogmas you were facepalming above, i.e. whether it's that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth or that +Lefebvre has less authority than a Pope.
-
Once again, from the Letter of the Nine (1983):
2. Doubtful Priests
I agree, this is a major concern. We are all blessed to have had +ABL and the sspx, but...let's not pretend that their view on doubtful priests (i.e. new rite sacraments) and the new mass is logical or consistent. It's not. At all.
Fr Wathen (and other priests) were criticizing the sspx back in the early 80s for their wishy-washy attitude towards new-rome/new-sacraments. Of all the good things that ABL/sspx did over the years, this philosophical error was their downfall, and it's why they are what they are today.
-
He obeyed God rather than man. The pope is not God.
As did The Nine. Or are concerns with doubtful priests and sacraments only now an "obeying God, not man" issue post-Nine and post-Lefebrve?
-
As did The Nine. Or are concerns with doubtful priests and sacraments only now an "obeying God, not man" issue post-Nine and post-Lefebrve?
Vermont, it’s not that Stubborn “doesn’t get it”, he doesn’t WANT to get it.
-
I agree, this is a major concern. We are all blessed to have had +ABL and the sspx, but...let's not pretend that their view on doubtful priests (i.e. new rite sacraments) and the new mass is logical or consistent. It's not. At all.
Fr Wathen (and other priests) were criticizing the sspx back in the early 80s for their wishy-washy attitude towards new-rome/new-sacraments. Of all the good things that ABL/sspx did over the years, this philosophical error was their downfall, and it's why they are what they are today.
Right. Archbishop Lefebvre was a great man, but he wasn't infallible and did also err (although without a doubt materially only) on EENS dogma, articulating a position that's basically identical to Rahner's Anonymous Christian doctrine, where people are saved BY the Church (and by Christ) even if not IN the Church. EENS definitions do not read "no salvation except by means of the Church" but, rather, "no salvation except IN the Church". He made some decisions that didn't show him to be a great judge of character (undoubtedly due to his propensity to think the best of everyone, e.g. consecrating +Felly, appointing Schmidberger et al. to positions of authority, etc.) And his error on EENS was undoubtedly just due to the fact that this was being taught already for decades prior to Vatican II in seminaries even by priests who were otherwise orthodox or conservative, since the assault on that dogma has been going on for centuries. +Lefebvre did not train to be a theologian, but a missionary and a diplomat. When Father Feeney sent out a letter to all the world's bishops regarding the necessity to defend EENS with renewed vigor, he only received two positive responses (and the letter had nothing to do with BoD, which he didn't even discuss until later).
-
He obeyed God rather than man. The pope is not God.
What you said above sums the problem up very well. Some SV's (such as Ladislaus) believe that the pope is God. And, if a pope deviates from how God is supposed to behave (according to them), then he cannot be both Pope and God, since the two are synonymous. They are one in the same. The pope is like the fourth person of the Trinity for them. Such a strange way to view the situation. It seems to derive from a Vatican ll mindset.
-
Uhm, no. You're a heretic to Catholics. Please explain which of the Catholic dogmas you were facepalming above, i.e. whether it's that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth or that +Lefebvre has less authority than a Pope.
Uhm, if anyone is a heretic, it's you - except to other sedes. Face palm was for you insisting: (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/flashback-betrayal-by-the-nine/msg933610/#msg933610) "Pope is in fact "Christ on earth." Which actually is heresy. Your fellow sedes apparently agree with you on this heresy since they show their consent by their silence.
But now you've changed your tune again, now you say above: "the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth." Is the pope Christ or Christ's Vicar? Where is this dogma you falsely claim I facepalmed?And why do you repeatedly and falsely accuse me of facepalming a dogma of the Church? Can you believe that it was actually you and your ridiculousness that I facepalmed?
You said:
But your "logic" is that it's OK to refuse submission to the Vicar of Christ over matters of conscience but evil to refuse submission to +Lefebvre over matters of conscience. Go figure.
Let me set you straight, presuming that were possible.
No, it is not ok to refuse submission to the Vicar of Christ over matters of conscience no matter how trivial. You, as usual, confuse True Obedience (read my sig) with Blind Obedience (read your posts).
It is not only ok, it is our duty to refuse submission to the Vicar of Christ whenever "the popes use their authority contrary to the end for which this authority was given them. They have a right to be disobeyed by us." - Archbishop Lefebvre (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/true-obedience-by-archbishop-lefebvre/msg922071/#msg922071)
Using their authority contrary to the end for which this authority was given the conciliar popes are guilty of, and which is something you insist is impossible for popes to be capable of.
-
What you said above sums the problem up very well. Some SV's (such as Ladislaus) believe that the pope is God. And, if a pope deviates from how God is supposed to behave (according to them), then he cannot be both Pope and God, since the two are synonymous. They are one in the same. The pope is like the fourth person of the Trinity for them. Such a strange way to view the situation. It seems to derive from a Vatican ll mindset.
Hi Meg! I missed you, hope all is well with you! And yes, I agree 100% with you.
-
Hi Meg! I missed you, hope all is well with you! And yes, I agree 100% with you.
Thanks, stubborn. My husband passed away in January, so life has been very difficult. But I just had to post something on this thread, since you are the only forum member who is man enough to challenge Ladislaus for more than one or two posts. The others just cower before him, and who knows why, maybe so that his feewings won't be hurt?
It seems evident to me that pope Francis believes the same thing as the SV's in regard to the papacy. Francis rules with an iron rod, especially against anyone who believes what the Church truly teaches. Francis has no regard for canon law, he has no charity, and he has no honesty. But since he believes he rules with impunity, as if he were God, then how can the SV's complain about that?
-
So sorry to hear about your husband, Meg. :pray:
-
Thanks, stubborn. My husband passed away in January, so life has been very difficult. But I just had to post something on this thread, since you are the only forum member who is man enough to challenge Ladislaus for more than one or two posts. The others just cower before him, and who knows why, maybe so that his feewings won't be hurt?
It seems evident to me that pope Francis believes the same thing as the SV's in regard to the papacy. Francis rules with an iron rod, especially against anyone who believes what the Church truly teaches. Francis has no regard for canon law, he has no charity, and he has no honesty. But since he believes he rules with impunity, as if he were God, then how can the SV's complain about that?
Sorry to hear about your husband Meg. May he rest in peace.
-
Sorry to hear about your husband Meg. May he rest in peace.
Same here. :pray: Please accept my deepest sympathy.
-
Sorry to hear about your husband Meg. May he rest in peace.
Yes. Difficult times warrant a ceasefire.
:pray:
-
Thanks, stubborn. My husband passed away in January, so life has been very difficult. But I just had to post something on this thread, since you are the only forum member who is man enough to challenge Ladislaus for more than one or two posts. The others just cower before him, and who knows why, maybe so that his feewings won't be hurt?
It seems evident to me that pope Francis believes the same thing as the SV's in regard to the papacy. Francis rules with an iron rod, especially against anyone who believes what the Church truly teaches. Francis has no regard for canon law, he has no charity, and he has no honesty. But since he believes he rules with impunity, as if he were God, then how can the SV's complain about that?
I am sorry to hear about the loss of your husband, he will be added to my daily prayers!
And I can understand why non-sedes pay little or no attention to his sede posts - most of the time he's out there, way out there, always fending off us non-sede heretics! And yes, I've told him plenty of times that he and the current pope share identical beliefs about popes. The difference is, the conciliar popes actually, truly and firmly do believe it.
-
I am sorry to hear about the loss of your husband, he will be added to my daily prayers!
And I can understand why non-sedes pay little or no attention to his sede posts - most of the time he's out there, way out there, always fending off us non-sede heretics! And yes, I've told him plenty of times that he and the current pope share identical beliefs about popes. The difference is, the conciliar popes actually, truly and firmly do believe it.
So… within 2 minutes of declaring a ceasefire, you carry on Stubborn[ly] and indecently in your stupidity.
Ceasefire off.
-
Same here. :pray: Please accept my deepest sympathy.
Same here, too. My condolences on your loss.
-
Thank you all so much for your condolences, kind words, and prayers; they are greatly appreciated.
Carry on.
-
My husband passed away in January, so life has been very difficult.
I am very sorry, Meg. I will pray for his soul, you and your family.
-
Sorry to hear about your husband Meg. May he rest in peace.
Same here.:pray:
-
:pray:
-
My husband passed away in January, so life has been very difficult.
You, your husband, and your family will be in my prayers. Hang in there! 🙏
-
:pray: