The SSPX Talks With Rome Are Not a Failure
(07-27-2011, 03:56 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote:
(07-27-2011, 03:28 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(07-27-2011, 03:14 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote:
(07-27-2011, 03:02 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: How can you seriously contend that the SSPX is under interdict, when they're practically the only organization in Western Europe that actually obeys and respects the person and office of the Pope?

The Photian Schism took hundreds of years to heal and the most recent one is still in effect.  Church history, much?

History much... yes. Photius and his followers were heretics and rightly considered outside the Church by such definition. Are you contending by such comparison that the SSPX and its founder were heretical or that the body they broke from were heretical?
  Not heretical, schismatic. Doctrine, much?
Quote:Why have an argument about it (interdict) for 20 years, when it is easy to verify in the Archbishops own writings. When he got the notice to cease all his priestly activities and was forbidden to say mass, he actually quoted it in a sermon 1970s. I can find it for you if you want. Do you want me to do that for you?
You mean you wished that he'd shut up and egaged in the conceit of false obedience when there are Bishops who do far worse things than teach orthodox doctrines and say the Immemorial Mass of all Ages.  In other words, it shouldn't take twenty years to figure out that some Bishops who are heretical go unpunished, even make the rules, while those who are orthodox are punished, censured, isolated and even destroyed.   Why not notice the immense disparity between your fulsome insistence that Archbishop Lefebvre obey the Church, while you infer that Bishops in "full communion" need not?
Quote:In addition to that, every other week it seems like someone at the Vatican confirms that the SSPX has no priestly mission or jurisdiction to provide sacraments anywhere in the world. Every time there is an SSPX ordination ceremony it is condemned.

Never the less, the SSPX has been growing and confirming its mission, despite hostile forces both in secular society and within  the Church itself.

You might also notice that it was Rome that closed the doors to discussion in the eighties after the ordinations of the four.

It has taken figures within the Church that long to acquiesce to the fact that the SSPX isn't going to fade away, and that it will only grow stronger as it makes this forty year discussion more clear to those both outside of and within the Church.

The SSPX, because of its doctrinal purity and orthopraxis, has continued to attract young men to its ranks, while other societies within the Church who hae not and embraced the false assumptions applied to the Vatican Council, are dying out.

I think simple comparison between the two forces have brought the partners to the table, and Rome, I'm suspecting, will continue to distance itself from what happened at the Council while allowing the SSPX to continue its mission.

I think you have already made some erroneous assumptions as to my beliefs, yet all I am trying to do is keep you honest. I agree with what the Archbishop did and your statements concerning prelates post-Vatican II.

You were passive aggressive in inferring a lack of knowledge in history, yet YOU compared the SSPX establishment to that of Photian. When I suggested a clarification, you inferred a lack of knowledge in doctrine. If I actually disagreed with you, all you would achieve is an angry partner in conversation.
 The issues that were raised in the Photian Schism were issues in the Cerularian schism later.  The Greeks weren't heretics, but schismatics, although there were those strident voices who would insist on using that language, there were also those who did not, including the major parties at Lyon and Ferrara-Florence.... Moscow, of course, didn't part company till later in c. 1204 .

So, your point, I assumed was to indicate that twenty years is a long time, or forty even as is actually the case.  Most people in the pews in your ordinary parishes aren't all that troubled by these controversies, although I suppose that's changing, owing in part to the intransigence of the SSPX and other like them..
Quote:In being honest with ourselves, it is historical fact that Archbishop Lefebvre acknowledged a receipt a notice of interdict and that he was forbidden to say mass.
 Then you agree that the Church had no right to do this?
Quote:As I said before, I probably agree with you. You assumed I brought up the interdict to bash the Archbishop or the SSPX - on the contrary, I just meant to state them as a matter of fact. I think very little of the organization/people that sent him the notice of interdict for the reasons you mentioned. I regard the archbishop most highly. I think the SSPX has deviated from his vision, but we don't need to quarrel on that point.

I've heard Atila Sinke Guinmaeres suggest that there was a deviation from the Liturgical path set by Archbishop Lefebvre in the beginning which gave way increasingly to doctrine as the battle lengthened and the combatants seasoned.

If that's what you mean, I don't know if I agree, based on what Micheal Davies says of Archbishop Lefebvre in Apologia.


Messages In This Thread
Re: The SSPX Talks With Rome Are Not a Failure - by Augstine Baker - 07-27-2011, 04:09 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)