FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: SSPX Deal: But Will the Fat Lady Sing? — article by Fr. Cekada
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(04-19-2012, 02:55 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: [ -> ]Father, why is the first thing that pops into your mind about doing the deal the property? Bad memories about splitting from the SSPX in the United States and waging a war against them in secular legal fora for control over that very thing?

Lest we forget, though, the faith is not about the material. Chapels can be bought and sold, property can be lost and regained -- who was it that said we better not sacrifice our souls over a piece of land? Oh yeah, Him...

Other than that, I like your analysis -- a reunion would establish a bright line distinction.

See my above post for more on the property question.

In fact, the very point that caused Archbishop Lefebvre to blow up and expel us in April 1983 was our insistence (especially mine) that legal provisions be permanently inserted into the legal documents for  all U.S. chapel corporations that would in effect prevent the Novus Ordo clergy from ever functioning in them or the "reformed" rites from being used.

We fought him tooth and nail in civil court because we suspected that he or his successor would one day sell out to the modernists — just what it seems Bp. Fellay is in the process of doing.

Glad you liked the article otherwise. If the deal goes through, the actual stakes in the battle against V2 would be a lot easier for the average Catholic to understand. Ultimately, the Council is the source of all our woess.
(04-19-2012, 05:24 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2012, 02:55 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: [ -> ]Father, why is the first thing that pops into your mind about doing the deal the property? Bad memories about splitting from the SSPX in the United States and waging a war against them in secular legal fora for control over that very thing?

Lest we forget, though, the faith is not about the material. Chapels can be bought and sold, property can be lost and regained -- who was it that said we better not sacrifice our souls over a piece of land? Oh yeah, Him...

Other than that, I like your analysis -- a reunion would establish a bright line distinction.

See my above post for more on the property question.

In fact, the very point that caused Archbishop Lefebvre to blow up and expel us in April 1983 was our insistence (especially mine) that legal provisions be permanently inserted into the legal documents for  all U.S. chapel corporations that would in effect prevent the Novus Ordo clergy from ever functioning in them or the "reformed" rites from being used.

We fought him tooth and nail in civil court because we suspected that he or his successor would one day sell out to the modernists — just what it seems Bp. Fellay is in the process of doing.
[Image: 250px-Portrait_Msg_Marcel_Lefebvre_1960s.jpg]

For a man who practically saved the TLM from being completely wiped out from the face of the planet.
The man who ordained you an alter Christus.
A man who publicly said he was not a sedevacante. (In fact, he denounced it).
Gets a a lawsuit from his own.......
I'll take the fifth on this one.

Prudence Alex.


May God steer you to the correct path Fr. (The only path).
God bless.




Quote:We fought him tooth and nail in civil court because we suspected that he or his successor would one day sell out to the modernists — just what it seems Bp. Fellay is in the process of doing.

Wow -- I never really understood the sadness on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre conveyed in the stories about the splintering of the SSPX in the United States until reading your reply here. You had suspicions all along that the man who ordained you -- whom you owned your priesthood and theological inspiration -- and made life easier for Tradition at a great sacrifice to himself, was going to "sell out to the modernists"? What sadness that must have been indeed...

(04-19-2012, 05:45 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: [ -> ]For a man who practically saved the TLM from being completely wiped out from the face of the planet.
The man who ordained you an alter Christus.
A man who publicly said he was not a sedevacante. (In fact, he denounced it).
Gets a a lawsuit from his own.......
I'll take the fifth on this one.

Prudence Alex.

I deny neither the archbishop's personal virtues nor the great good that he did for Catholics everywhere, myself included.

But he was not impeccable, and many of his theological positions and his practical decisions turned out to dead wrong.

But please consider: If you can justify a retired archbishop publicly resisting a man he considers to be a true pope, you should have no problems  whatsoever with the idea of priests publicly resisting a retired archbishop. Sauce for the pope should be sauce for the archbishop.

That said, may he rest in peace.
(04-19-2012, 05:57 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:We fought him tooth and nail in civil court because we suspected that he or his successor would one day sell out to the modernists — just what it seems Bp. Fellay is in the process of doing.

Wow -- I never really understood the sadness on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre conveyed in the stories about the splintering of the SSPX in the United States until reading your reply here. You had suspicions all along that the man who ordained you -- whom you owned your priesthood and theological inspiration -- and made life easier for Tradition at a great sacrifice to himself, was going to "sell out to the modernists"? What sadness that must have been indeed...

Well, of course.

During the first years I was in SSPX ('75-'79), the archbishop's position on various issues seemed to be in a state of flux. Nevertheless, the majority of his statements during those years took a very hard line against the Conciliar Church.

In an interview in '76 about his suspension by Paul VI, the archbishop himself even raised the possibility of a heretical pope who had lost his office — this was several years, mind you, before the word "sedevacantism" had even been invented. So, I always hoped that he would settle into the "hard line" for good.

With the election of JP2, however,  he went into his diplomat/negotiation mode. This was naturally a great disappointment for many of us, especially when one considered how effectively he could have waged war against the modernists — he was an astoundingly eloquent preacher.

But alas, it was not to be. In the '80s, there was more and more talk of a deal, brokered by Ratzinger. Our break with him in '83 was in part due to one of the conditions he had agreed to as part of the deal with Ratzinger — all priests would have to use the John XXIII Missal.
I've not read all the replies in this topic, but will someone please reply - - - - - AT THIS POINT, what does it matter whether the pope is the pope or not? 

TIA.

(04-19-2012, 07:10 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]I've not read all the replies in this topic, but will someone please reply - - - - - AT THIS POINT, what does it matter whether the pope is the pope or not? 

TIA.

One thing is sacraments and their validity.
(04-19-2012, 07:37 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2012, 07:10 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]I've not read all the replies in this topic, but will someone please reply - - - - - AT THIS POINT, what does it matter whether the pope is the pope or not? 

TIA.

One thing is sacraments and their validity.

Since the revolution began, the validity of NO sacraments and ordinations has been deemed absolutely and completely  doubtful - - - - if that tune has changed, there is no reason why far as I know.

When a modernist (NO) priest converts, SSPX investigates his ordination as the Church would a doubtful baptism.

Another thing is everything since 1958. All documents, encyclicals, etc. The pope question matters a lot.
(04-19-2012, 12:47 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]Very interesting, especially in regards to the ownership issues, but here's where my red flag went off.

Quote: "First, a real Catholic does not negotiate with the Roman Pontiff — he submits to the Roman Pontiff. It is an article of faith that this is necessary for salvation."

Abraham and Moses were both capable of negotiatin with God Himself. But the Pope is somehow above negotiation?   What about the Popes that have negotiated with Eastern rites that actually split off and returned? 

St. Celestine wasn't interested in negotiatin with Boniface at all. He just kept disobeying. 

To propose this as an absolute without pointing out the difference between proper and improper submission is simply a capitulation to the Protestant idea of the papacy. 

The Protestant misunderstand the Papacy and reject Catholicism.  The Neo-Catholics have the same misunderstanding and simply love it and reject common sense. 

The traditionalists that carry the same misconception simply reject the occupant of the Papal Throne in order to preserve the premise. 

But to paraphrase, real Catholics submit to the voice of Peter when he speaks with the voice of Peter and when he walks not uprightly or perverts the gospel, they resist him to the face. 
Last time I checked, St. Paul was a "real Catholic." 

Vatican I clearly had the qualifier in it's definition of papal supremacy that what was required was "true heirarchical obedience" not "absolute" obedience.  If it had said "absolute" either Catholicism would be false or Popes would be Immaculate and Impeccable outside of Infallibility as defined.

We have too many incidences in history where "submission" to a Pope was not the moral option whether it be the deacon providing answers for the trial of Formosus or the wife of the man that killed one of the Pope Johns.

If you follow the absolutist understanding it goes like this:

"He's Pope right or wrong and since he's Pope he can do no wrong and if you think he is wrong he's irresistible anyway"  But, if you have a shred of morality and intellect trying to wrap itself around an invalid absolute, you simply replace the subject matter.  "He's wrong so He can't be Pope so,because my understanding of the premise must be correct."

But, when a Pope behaves like an "Anti-Christ" or "Satan" in Peter's case,  well...the description fits.  Not because you can't get your way but because objectively the Pope is not impeccable in his functions as Pope and the description is apt. 

So, to call absurd LeFebvre's descriptions and dealiings with the mercurial Popes on a human level is demanding "SuperPope" where none exists.    It's reminiscent of Chesterton's criticism of G. Bernard Shaw in "Heretics"  In discussing Mankind he said Shaw  will never be satisified because the ideal he searches for has never existed and cannot exist.  Therefore he has no appreciation for what is and everything falls short. 

Hold Jesus to the same standard that you hold LeFebvre.  When the Pope said what he liked, "You are the rock."  When he said what he didn't like, "Get thee behind me Satan."    Was Jesus a case of  Praxis without Principles? 
Your agument gave me the "aha!" experience I've been looking for.  I was a "sortofa cantist" that could not quite commit to the sede position, as much sense as it makes.  Now I don't feel the need to go there.  That being said, in these days of confusiion I am NOT ready to boot those that are sede's out.  I also love Fr. Cekada and find him a voice of great clarity in a confusing world.  I believe "SV's" may be wrong on a point of fact, but they are not "heretics" for the most part and are fully catholic from what I can glean from 20 years of trying to figure this all out.  I will never compromise the faith to the extent I am able and always submit my ideas to the subjection of Holy Mother Church, but like I said, you argument was succinct and clear and solves the issue, at least for me and mine.  Thanks. 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7