Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:08 pm Post subject: Flashback 1988: SSPX declares own Schism with New Church
To make sure that things don't get flushed down the memory hole, I wish to quote two paragraphs from the "Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin" dated July 6, 1988, as printed in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican (Angelus Press, 1989), pp. 136-38, in response to the declaration of automatic excommunication by "Cardinal" Gantin on July 1, 1988 (bold print added):
"...we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missae, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly....
"To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops [Lefebvre, de Castro Mayer, Williamson, de Galarreta, Tissier, Fellay] ... would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism."
This was signed by Fr. Schmidberger, SSPX, and a whole host of other district superiors and priests of the SSPX. Let's be honest here: is this not an admission of schism between the SSPX and the conciliar church, and a statement to the effect that the church of John Paul II is a false church?
If you want to put this uncontexed type of chop-job on NOW that's your business.
You really feel the need to "push it" I suppose. You've been a certain degree of deference on AQ and have been allowed to post things that others wouldn't have gotten away with.
Perhaps you don't value being among us, but for what it's worth posts like this will expend your "deference" capital quickly.
Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 786 Location: Syracuse, NY
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:33 pm Post subject:
Quote:
This was signed by Fr. Schmidberger, SSPX, and a whole host of other district superiors and priests of the SSPX. Let's be honest here: is this not an admission of schism between the SSPX and the conciliar church, and a statement to the effect that the church of John Paul II is a false church?
I don't think the late Archbishop needs me or anyone else on this board apologizing for him but even these out-of-context statements are not a formal declaration of schism but rather a repudiation of the same novelties and abuses that most Trads would sign on to that have nothing to do with ex-cathedra teachings and are prone to error.
If being repulsed by these and refusing to be part of these means that we are all excommunicated .. Houston has a big problem here.
That may have been the point the Archbishop was trying to make, as opposed to publishing a Schism Manifesto. _________________ http://www.traditionalcatholicradio.org
That hole looks deep!! Careful!!
Has anybody heard about the bottomless hole in Montanta or Wyoming a farmer found, I think his name was Ray or Bob, and then the CIA took it over and cordoned the area off, and now nobody can go back out there? It's off topic maybe -- probably -- but it is, or was, "CoasttoCoast," I mean I heard it from "The Kingdom of Nigh" on the late night am radio, but not the Mexican Radio.
This is off topic maybe, but what one was thinking is, is that if the CIA or "secular authorities" wanted to help Catholic tradition, then SSPX and tradition would be hard to defeat. But it's just the opposite. The secular arm is overwhelmingly opposed to tradition and consevatism in life and in Catholic faith and practice. They help the elements Fr. Lefebvre was opposing. This struggle is monumental. So monumental that tradition just about has to walk on water to make it or move mountains. The only way
to do that is prayer and that is the topic of all topics. Whatever happens,
living in the desert, and falling in holes, prayer will be the only way out,
CIA or no CIA. _________________ Up in Smoke ... Donde todos es mi rey
Beginning with that set-up surrounding the fake "excommunications" and that fake document ironically named God's Church Afflicted, which together with the relative creation of the decoy of a false traditional group, had already been prepared in advance only awaiting the SSPX to stop dillydallying with the necessary and unavoidable consecrations of bishops, Rome and its allies in the media have been demonizing the SSPX ever since to frighten away from tradition and salvation all those good obedient little Catholics.
However the bad faith of the mods and libs and neo-nongs was never reciprocated by the SSPX.
Here for example is a statement by the now Bishop Richard Williamson back in the mid-1980s showing just how much more civilized and universalist and magnanimous traditional believers are than their antagonists in Rome, the chanceries, and the liberal media:
“The Society [of St Pius X] is the only organized body of resistance to the betrayal of tradition; and it gives a kind of coherence and a kind of hope to many others involved in the same struggle to defend tradition. But the Society is by no means the only way to defend tradition or the only way to remain loyal to tradition. Hence I don’t think it is necessary for all priests to wish to join the Society if they wish to defend tradition. I don’t think it is necessary for all laity who wish to follow tradition to follow the Society. But I think all priests and laity, whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not, are helped and sustained – providentially – in this struggle for the defence of tradition by the existence of the Society and by the example and lead of Archbishop Lefebvre.”
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:31 pm Post subject: The Archbishop
The Archbishop was Shocked and Scandalized at what the Vatican Modernists (Condemned by Pope Saint Pius X!) were pulling off at Assisi (and elsewhere) with Pagans, Protestants, Jews, Moslems, Animists & whatever else the Devil can/does provide... Lefebvre knew his BASIC Catechism well enough that he realized that was going on in the name of 'Ecumenism' was nothing else but a Supreme Insult to GOD according to the FIRST COMMANDMENT!!! ANY Roman Catholic worth his/her Salt could see this a mile away... And shudder at the very thought of a POPE assisting at such a Blatant, Public BLASPHEMY!...Kyrie Eleison!
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 918 Location: Guildford, UK
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:37 pm Post subject:
"So is it that this is "out of context" or embarassment that SSPX came some close to BLEEP-ism?" ...... Consolatrix
To say that it is out of context would be to belittle the reasons for
his rebellion against the new order. A mere slight dispute would not
have lead to the creation of seminaries, parishes, priests and bishops worldwide. And it would be fair to talk about different degrees of BLEEP-ism existing within and without the SSPX. I must say having the picture of the current pontiff appear on SSPX websites does give rise to a little indigestion.
You know John, You don't have to let anyone post on the board that you pay for. You could have a system where you ban everyone who says things you don't like and it would be completely within your rights.
But what is the point? Shouldn't the truth be the point on a catholic board? If you want to deny realities (like SSPX WRITING THIS) Why not instead just deny that there is any problem with the Conciliar church and just attend the Novus Ordo. It would make your life a lot easier you know. All you have to do is deny reality which is what you are already doing anyway. Just go all out. Bow down at the altar of easy.
You know John, You don't have to let anyone post on the board that you pay for. You could have a system where you ban everyone who says things you don't like and it would be completely within your rights.
But what is the point? Shouldn't the truth be the point on a catholic board? If you want to deny realities (like SSPX WRITING THIS) Why not instead just deny that there is any problem with the Conciliar church and just attend the Novus Ordo. It would make your life a lot easier you know. All you have to do is deny reality which is what you are already doing anyway. Just go all out. Bow down at the altar of easy.
Archbishop Lefebvre's quote:
"We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Churchfor the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly.... "
The archbishop is not promoting SV'ism by any stretch of the imagination. He clearly states that what is happening is IN THE CHURCH.
His manner of expression is easily understood by those with common sense. There is apostasy IN THE CHURCH. IN. And insofar as anyone is involved in this apostasy, the archbishop has nothing in common with them. But that's been true of any saint.
Nowhere does he state that the entire Church has defected from the Faith or that the hierarchy and the papacy have vanished. At no time did the archbishop deny that any of the post conciliar popes were popes.
Saint Paul addressed this situation quite well in his second epistle to Saint Timothy.
2:19. But the sure foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal: the Lord knoweth who are his; and let every one depart from iniquity who nameth the name of the Lord.
2:20. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth: and some indeed unto honour, but some unto dishonour.
2:21. If any man therefore shall cleanse himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and profitable to the Lord, prepared unto every good work.
The Catholic Church is that "great house," and those who adhere to the "adulterous spirit," as Archbishop Lefebvre called it, are those vessels "unto dishonor."
If we want to keep talking about SVism, why don't we start discussing which one of their "popes" is/was the true and valid one? Personally, my vote is for the blind Clemente guy. Any other opinions?
Also, let's get into which group of SV's is correct. Is it Father Cekada, who publicly contradicted the teaching of the Church during the Schiavo case? Or is it the Dimond brothers, who have publicly denounced Father Cekada as a heretic? Perhaps it's the group that His Holiness Pius XIII is in communion with? Maybe it's "Bishop" Sanborn, who denounced "Bishop" McKenna and then later was "consecrated" by him? Or is it "Bishop" Dolan? Who's right? Any opinions?
Also, let's get into which group of SV's is correct. Is it Father Cekada, who publicly contradicted the teaching of the Church during the Schiavo case? Or is it the Dimond brothers, who have publicly denounced Father Cekada as a heretic? Perhaps it's the group that His Holiness Pius XIII is in communion with? Maybe it's "Bishop" Sanborn, who denounced "Bishop" McKenna and then later was "consecrated" by him? Or is it "Bishop" Dolan? Who's right? Any opinions?
I am not a SV and one of the reasons for that is how many holy traditionalists I know who are not. I had no idea Fr. Cekada took that position on the Schiavo case and am quite frankly disgusted by that. I've met some really holy SSPX priests and knowing them has been entirely inspiring.
Yet I guess one could go further and talk about how Sr. Lucia participated in the Novus Ordo if you wanted to go along with that line of reasoning.
Personally I hope SVism isnt true, but I think it is completely unCatholic to deny truths in order to say that SVism is false. I will not do this. What God wants is for us to be earnestly striving for the truth. If we are not doing that, becuase it makes us feel better or what not to believe lies, than we are not following His will.
As a parishoner of Fr. Cekada I can tell you 1) I disagree with his vie won the Sciavo case, as does most of his people and 2) Bps McKenna, Sanborn, & Dolan, plus the entire BLEEP! ist world denounce Fr. Pulvermacher's claim to the papacy. Is that clear enough? I thought we were not suposed to bash other groups. Maybe this doesn't apply to to the BLEEPISTS _________________ My Name is Sean Murray.
A follow up point. I disagree with Fr. Cekada's opinion on the application of the Church's teaching. If you took the time to read the article, I think that you will find he followed Church teaching.
Do you actually know the SV issues, or are you just guessing. There are facts/principles and Church teachings from popes such as Innocent III and Paul IV that Fr. Cekada uses. He certainly makes the case for this legitimate theological opinion. _________________ My Name is Sean Murray.
Joined: 26 Jun 2004 Posts: 422 Location: somewhere in the Old South
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:41 am Post subject: Re: Flashback 1988: SSPX declares own Schism with New Church
novusordowatch wrote:
"...we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missae, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly....
"To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops [Lefebvre, de Castro Mayer, Williamson, de Galarreta, Tissier, Fellay] ... would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism."
This was signed by Fr. Schmidberger, SSPX, and a whole host of other district superiors and priests of the SSPX. Let's be honest here: is this not an admission of schism between the SSPX and the conciliar church, and a statement to the effect that the church of John Paul II is a false church?
To answer your question NO it is not an admission of a schism neither from the Church nor from Pope John Paul II, but it is a schism from a false doctrine invading of the Church and an act of error from a weak Pope. There have been similar events in the history of the Church that claimed to be acting in the Faith but were not. The Church has always been followed by a dark shadow that sought to mislead the faithful. Some points in history the errors were very great and grave in nature. Assisi is our (in our lifetime) biggest and worst (to date) manifestation of a shadow that thinks it leads the body rather than the other way around.
Quite frankly I approve of Fr. Schmidberger's remarks about Assisi. And if I thought for one second the proper understanding of his words was a schism from the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope I would abandon my support and look toward the Indult. But this is not how I see it at all. He is talking about a spirit that is seeking to take control of the RCC and he is expressing, in a very passionate manner, the intention of those in the Church who wish to defend that which is right and correct and in devotion to the True Faith from a rebellion from the shadows. Even if the Pope is one of the supporter of that rebellion and needs to be told to change. Did not Saint Paul do much the same to Saint Peter? And Saint Peter did nothing nearly as much to cause for rebuke, but it did risk the faithful in following a dark path. Assisi showed just how dark that path can be.
I have always said the worse case for Pope John Paul It’s case to be made a saint was the events at Assisi. Kissing the Koran was second and this prideful response to Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration of the 4 Bishops without the benefit of a review and appeal is number 3. It will take some heavy and serious miracles to convince me JPII is a saint. I do pray for his soul at ever Mass I attend. I hope it helps him. _________________ BEWARE OF ERRORS OUT OF RUSSIA
Mark in the Old South
After this post I'll be locking this thread. This is in keeping with the "new me" trog reputation I'm trying to build. To do so I must be as unreasonable, tactless and ham-handed as possible.
That and because BLEEP!ism is rearing its head, so it's either lock the thread or lock out posters.
I’ve gotten a handful of emails (6 at the time of this post) with “re-admit novusordowatch” in the subject line from folks responding to the blurb “Editor” (novusordowatch) posted at his website. I’m referring them to this post (which he linked) as opposed to responding to each individually.
I refer to him as “Editor” because that’s how he signs his emails to me, so I’m guessing he doesn’t want to be addressed by the name I and many of us know him by.
Although Editor is aware that BLEEP! apologetics are not allowed on AQ, he has continuously advocated the empty seat philosophy at every opportunity. He is also aware that AQ is an SSPX “friendly” site, yet he often insists on painting the Society as hypocritical or disorientated. He’s been left alone thus far because as a fellow webmaster, there’s a certain amount of empathy and deference. That deference would have continued if Editor hadn’t crossed the line. Besides making the ridiculous contention that the Society has declared own schism, he simply should have known better.
As he does on NOW, he grabs a one-liner or two from whatever dusty archives he spends his time in, applies his own context, then uses it as a bludgeon of condemnation to beat his intended target with. The pope, the Society… whoever.
If that’s how he wants to spend his online ministry, he has an operational website which can serve this purpose. If he enjoys being on Angelqueen, he should begin to realize that the Catholic faith is immense and vast and there is much more to it than tossing rocks. I haven’t read much at all from him - here or elsewhere - that would indicate his online Catholicism is much more than an exercise in denigration of his fellow Catholics.
As I told him in an email last night, the choice of whether to help or detract from Angelqueen is completely his. Whether I get 6 emails or 6,000 emails, if Editor would like to post here again, HE can request it himself – making it clear that HE wants to be here.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
