Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform  (Read 7754 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2022, 11:03:03 PM »
Yes, I’m sure +ABL and Fr Wathen knew about Bugnini.  But that doesn’t change the fact that the 62 missal did not alter the mass in any essential way.  

The Holy Week changes are liberal but are they heretical?  They don’t affect the mass so I don’t see how such changes are monumentally wrong.  Should they be reversed?  Absolutely.  

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2022, 04:43:46 AM »
Then, if as you say, +ABL had such a command of Catholic theology, why did he cooperate with heretics to make the Society kosher?.......

The Nine vs. Lefebvre:

Source
It's interesting how the stories differ, this is a very short version of the story, it's the "other side of the coin" from +ABL's position......

Only when the Faith is in question
Archbishop Lefebvre's 1983 Ridgefield Conference

On April 24, 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre gave a conference to the seminarians at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield, Connecticut. The background was the opposition of nine priests (one just ordained) and a few seminarians who had disobeyed His Excellency’s instruction to follow the 1962 liturgical books.

Despite their disobedience to his directive, the Archbishop attempted to remonstrate with them, but eventually was compelled to expel them from the Society of St. Pius X for obstinate refusal to obey their superior.

As the opposition had been led by the former seminary rector, Archbishop Lefebvre prudently decided to delay the diaconate ordinations that were scheduled for that year. He wanted to ensure that the future deacons would willingly follow the SSPX’s policy concerning the liturgical books to be used.

During the conference he explained his reason for deciding upon the 1962 liturgical books and the principle upon which it was based, asking the future deacons to consider this and thus determine their decision if they intended to remain faithful members of the Society of St. Pius X.

We present here three extracts from the conference outlining Archbishop Lefebvre’s exemplar attitude and firm response in dealing with this past historical event of the SSPX.

Extracts from Archbishop Lefebvre's conference

What is the first principle to know what we must do in this circuмstance, in this crisis in the Church? What is my principle?

The principle of the Church, it is the principle of St. Thomas Aquinas. It is not my choice; it’s not my favor; it is not my personal desire... I am nothing... I merely follow the doctrine of the Church. This doctrine is expounded by St. Thomas Aquinas.

So what does St. Thomas Aquinas say about the authority in the Church? When can we refuse something from the authority of the Church?

Principle: Only when the Faith is in question.

Only in this case. Not in other cases... only when the Faith is in question... and that is found in the Summa Theologica (II II Q.33, a.4, ad 2m): St. Thomas' answer is that we cannot resist to the authority; we must obey:

1. "Sciendum tamen est quod ubi immineret periculum fidei." Periculum fidei, i.e., the danger to our faith...
2. "etiam publice essent praelate a subditis arguendi.", i.e., the subject can be opposed to the authority if the Faith is in question ("periculum fidei");
3. "Unde et Paulus, qui erat subditus Petro, propter imminens periculum scandali circa fidem, Petrum publice arguit," i.e., St. Paul opposed St. Peter because it was a danger for the Faith (cf. Galatians 2:11).

That is the principle (of St. Thomas), and I cannot harbor another motive to resist the pope… it is very serious to be opposed to the pope, and to the Church. It is very serious, and if we think that we must do that, we must do it (resist the Holy Father) only to preserve our Faith, and not for any other motive.

We must now do an application of the principle. For me I think that the liturgical reform of Pope John XXIII has nothing against the Faith. You can take the Pontificale, the Rituale, the Breviary, the Roman Missal, and… what is in these books of Pope John XXIII that is against the Faith? Nothing! And so [in an urgent tone]: ...I cannot refuse this book (of Pope John), because he is the pope, and the pope gave me this book (and I must obey).

It is quite another thing with the reform of Pope Paul VI… in this book of reform of Pope Paul VI is a very grave danger to my Faith... it is precisely Periculum Fidei. So I refuse it, because ecuмenism is the idea and motive of this reform… and this ecuмenism... they say themselves, Pope Paul VI, Bugnini, etc., all say the motive of their reform is ecuмenism, and this ecuмenism takes away all (Catholic) things which are displeasing to the Protestant.

(...)

Some people abandon the Society on the left (i.e., moving towards the left), and some abandon her moving towards the right.

Those who abandon the Society on the left, they now use the rite of the New Mass... they are Progressivists... they are not against Progressivism any more.

Those who abandon us to the right, for them, there is no more any relations with Rome, no more relation with the Church, and they look (for a pope elsewhere)...as in the case of Fr. G--, where he went to Spain to see if the famous Palmar De Troya [a schismatic “traditionalist” cult in Spain who elected their own “pope”—Ed.], i.e., Clemente… he went there to see if Clemente is the true pope! Because such priests (who defect to the right) they look for authority; (by nature) they cannot remain without authority… because they have none... they have none.

(...)

This situation is very sad because I thought that I was helping my priests, (since I gave them) all my prayers, all my spirit, all my heart.

I gave all this to these priests... [“The Nine” who were expelled—Ed.] and they did good work… But it is a pity now… what will happen to the faithful? ...the poor faithful, if they know that five or six or seven priests are no more members of the Society of St. Pius X?

What has happened? They will be bewildered to hear that it is true, these priests are not members of the Society any more… [with great distress and heartache]; ...it is very sad, very sad for the faithful. I know these American faithful... they are very good people... and now... what can I do?"

Perhaps it is my fault, because I waited too long... if I took this decision three or four years ago, perhaps the situation would not be as grave as now. But perhaps I am too lenient, too tolerant, too good to them, because I do not like to go against my brothers, my priests.

So I tolerated them... I thought perhaps next year, or some time, things would change... but truly nothing has changed... it’s not better... in fact things have gotten worse with time.

Thus, we must pray... we must pray.

I hope, slowly, slowly, they can return in the good way, in the good progress of the seminary... and I hope I can give you ordination. We need priests... but we do not need priests that disobey, no.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2022, 06:59:00 AM »
You’re kind of an idiot, aren’t you?

According to your heretical Protestant ecclesiology, any man at any time can declare the See vacant, and simply assert the “heresy” of the pope is manifest.

Pay no mind to the practical reality that since, could that heretical principal prevail, the unity of the mystical body becomes an impossibility since each man would erect his own subjective threshold and declare the See full or vacant as his own personal lights “inform” him.

Are you microdosing tonight??

You repeatedly embarrass yourself with these effeminate meltdowns.  Grow up, would you?

What's eminently Protestant is the R&R assertion that the Catholic Church can become corrupt and fundamentally veer away from the Church's Tradition.  That allegation of corruption is at the very heart of Protestantism, and R&R declares that it's OK to separate from Rome because Rome has become corrupt in both faith and in worship (precisely the allegations made by the Prots).

Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly asserted the Catholic principle (which you reject) that the Holy Spirit guides the papacy and that what's taking place is not possible, and where he asserted the SVism is in fact a possible explanation.  He merely refrained from coming out publicly with it (his words) out of an abundance of prudence.  But he repeatedly asserted that SVism is possible and that it's not heretical, and at times considered it likely.  Around the time of Assisi he said that he may have to come out as an SV.  Father Ringrose cited all these statements by Lefebvre when he became SV.

I find it incredibly humorous that your buddy Salza, whom you guys all touted as the champion of R&R, turned on your clowns, and took is principles to their logical conclusions (which SVs called out as eroneous from the outset) and declared you to be outside the Church.  :laugh1:  Now you guys are "refuting" Salza using the same arguments that SVs had against him in the first place.

See, the difference between SVism and R&R in terms of rendering the "unity of the mystical body ... an impossibility" is that SVs hold that this is an extraordiary situation due to the obvious infiltration and takeover of the Church.  There have been regular Antipopes throughout Church history and disputes over the identity of the real pope.  That is nothing new, and has a ton of precedents.  What's absolutely novel ... and heretical ... is the assertion that even when you have a legitimate pope, it's permissible for Catholics to reject their Magisterium, their Rite of Mass, etc. ... when they think they know better.  Even when a new legitimate pope is elected, there's no way ever to roll that garbage back, and the "new normal" created by R&R is a situation where anyone can at any time second-guess the Magisterium.  Your principles destroy the Church.  An extraordinary takeover situation (in many ways like the Great Western Schism scenario) does not fundamentally destroy the Church.  Canonists have repeatedly asserted (have been quoted here) that one is not in schism for refusing submissioin to a Pope if the refusal is based on doubts about his election or his person.  Corollary to that is of course that if you have no doubts about his person, then you are schismatic to behave the way you behave.

We you in the seminary for about 3 days?  Or were you asleep during all your classes?  You obviously learned nothing about Catholic theology while you were there.
You would have thought tath

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2022, 07:32:57 AM »
The Virgin, from the time of Our Lady of LaSalette stated that the Pope will suffer much.

Pope Gregory XVII was threatened with the annihilation of his family and the decapitation of the Roman Curia via a tactical nuke. 

The Chiesa Viva expose docuмents that.

He was the Pope in hiding. Surely he was ashamed of himself. Still he was the papal favorite for three consecutive conclaves and in each case, ʝʊdɛօ-masonry bumped him out. 

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
« Reply #34 on: May 16, 2022, 07:51:07 AM »
The Virgin, from the time of Our Lady of LaSalette stated that the Pope will suffer much.

Pope Gregory XVII was threatened with the annihilation of his family and the decapitation of the Roman Curia via a tactical nuke. 

The Chiesa Viva expose docuмents that.

He was the Pope in hiding. Surely he was ashamed of himself. Still he was the papal favorite for three consecutive conclaves and in each case, ʝʊdɛօ-masonry bumped him out.

THIS^^^

It's very clear what happened.  Combine Catholic teaching regarding the protection of the Church by the Holy Spirit along with Fatima, LaSalette, and an abundance of Catholic prophecy, then the conclusion is obvious.  Catholic Church was taken over (outwardly) by the Judaeo-Masonic-Communists (the errors of Russia).