Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on September 14, 2012, 04:56:31 PM
-
Does the FSSP have it's own bishop or do they have to rely on the benevolence of the local novus ordo new bishop?
-
It's been well over 20 years, right? Where's their bishop?
-
If they ever do get a "bishop" (and they won't), it will just be some invalidly consecrated novus ordo guy.
The FSSP deserve everything they get.
They have made very bad compromises, and they are in communion with that antiCatholic Rat in the Vatican.
-
If they ever do get a "bishop" (and they won't), it will just be some invalidly consecrated novus ordo guy.
The FSSP deserve everything they get.
They have made very bad compromises, and they are in communion with that antiCatholic Rat in the Vatican.
FSSP has been a poison since its very creation because it recognizes the novus ordo mass as the "primary mass" in the Latin Rite; and it recognizes Vat II Council as a "valid" Council. FSSP is simply a trick.
-
:applause:
That is correct. Great post. You see how the FSSP went. Let us all stand firm against the encroachment of modernism and other heresies.
-
And yes, the FSSP are a trick.
-
FSSP = no bishop = been in existence since at least 1989 - how many priests?
ICKSP = no bishop = been in existence since at least 1990 and only has 50 priests.
-
It looks like having a go at St.Peter's Fraternity is standard fare here. It's nothing new that they receive grief from all sides, really just because and for no other reason that they do not accept opinions doing the rounds about the alleged invalidity of the new rites.
They do just the work of orthodox doctrinal catechesis and traditional liturgical orthopraxis, under the Roman authorities, exactly as the Pius X society did for several years before them, and who still acknowledge that authority. The Catholic Church needs at the moment and for the future exactly such seminaries, even if it draws down persecution on their heads from those who wield power at the moment, for God is in charge. The agreement they signed in 1988 is almost identical to that seriously considered and originally signed by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Their priests are zealous for souls and the needs of their flock. They began several years after the SSPV, with comparatively fewer priests, do not have the relative free reign which is the advantage of independent communities, yet now have over 200 solid priests and over 150 seminarians, as well as been instrumental in the wide promotion of the traditional Mass among diocesan priests, over a 100 since Summorum Pontificuм just a few years ago. This is the beginning, this is part of the solution.
-
NO. The FSSP are not part of the solution.
They are a BIG part of the problem.
They are invalidly ordained faux-traditionalists.
They are in communion with Antipope Benedict XVI.
So the FSSP wannabe-priests are doing damage.
They are not real traditionalists. They are not real priests.
These make-believe priests are ruining traditional Catholicism.
The FSSP was founded by AntiPope John Paul II to contain those who can see through the lies, and who might otherwise become Sedevacantists.
-
On the subject of an FSSP bishop. Should someone file a missing person's report?
-
Just stating the mere fact that the FSSP has not been granted a bishop is as clear a statement from New Vatican that the FSSP is simply a decoy to try to pull as many souls from the Traditionalists as is humanly possible.
-
What's the hold up? Why no bishop consecrated from the ranks of the FSSP?
-
Just stating the mere fact that the FSSP has not been granted a bishop is as clear a statement from New Vatican that the FSSP is simply a decoy to try to pull as many souls from the Traditionalists as is humanly possible.
Who would thumb down this statement?
Do you think the Vatican is correct in keeping the FSSP as a side show?
-
Why no bishop?
Is it because they were established to give the illusion of tradition? That sounds unkind but is it true?
Why did the novus ordo establish the FSSP, if not to draw members of the SSPX back into the NO trap?
Some Reasonable Assessmentss:
1. If new church keeps a small "traditionalist" group on a leash then it can always proclaim its theological broadness. It can point to the FSSP along with the LCSW heretical nuns and say "See how big a church we are?"
2. The FSSP would shepard those oldtimers who were raised in the Tridentine Rite to their graves, then when the last pre-vatican II Catholic dies, they can close shop and pick up their hula hoop and be a good old regular presider.
3. Catholics disgusted by the novus ordo will, upon discovering the FSSP, open their wallets willingly. These Catholics will gladly donate to the FSSP basket thinking cheerfully that tradition has returned. This FSSP coffer can be milked by novus ordo churches in the diocese for special pet project, or to just pay novus ordo bills.
What are reasons that we can't say are reasons???
1. The return of Tradition. Why not? Because if the return of tradition was intended by the conciliarists then the FSSP would not have one bishop they could probably have 7 - 9 bishops and maybe even a cardinal. The FSSP was established in 1988 by JPII and now, 24 yrs later, only has approx. 190 priests? Add in the 50 from the ICKSP and together that's 240. The SSPX by itself has 600 priests with another 200 in seminary. So, the growth of tradition can be crossed off as a reason for the FSSP.
Three Hopeful options.
1) Can we hope that the FSSP will help pick up the pieces when the concilliar madness comes to an end?
2) Is it possible that within the next half century, the FSSP will eventually get its first bishop and continue to blossom?
3) Is it possible that 100 years from now, after the collapse of the concilliar church, the Latin rite worldwide will be indistinguishable from the FSSP?
Or are these three hopeful options merely wishful thinking and that the Catholic Church is the traditionalist groups, i.e., SSPX, CMRI, SSPV and the independents?
-
The Fraternity of Saint Peter are just a bunch of invalidly ordained, faux-traditionalist, wannabe-priests.
And they are in communion with Antipope Benedict XVI.
If you want valid traditional Catholic priests, find a CMRI priest who was ordained by Bishop Mark Pivarunas.
There are also other validly ordained and validly consecrated Thuc Lineage Sedevacantist Bishops, such as Bishop Davila Gandara.
But you must be very careful that any Bishops you find are validly ordained and validly consecrated.
Or go to a Sede priest ordained before A.D. 1968, when they changed the rite of ordination.
E.g. Father Martin Stepanich.
Bishop Mark Pivarunas and Bishop Davila Gandara are undeniably validly consecrated Bishops.
-
The Fraternity of Saint Peter are just a bunch of invalidly ordained, faux-traditionalist, wannabe-priests.
And they are in communion with Antipope Benedict XVI.
If you want valid traditional Catholic priests, find a CMRI priest who was ordained by Bishop Mark Pivarunas.
There are also other validly ordained and validly consecrated Thuc Lineage Sedevacantist Bishops, such as Bishop Davila Gandara.
But you must be very careful that any Bishops you find are validly ordained and validly consecrated.
Or go to a Sede priest ordained before A.D. 1968, when they changed the rite of ordination.
E.g. Father Martin Stepanich.
Bishop Mark Pivarunas and Bishop Davila Gandara are undeniably validly consecrated Bishops.
I agree completely.
God bless the CMRI and God bless the Sede Priests!
I just am curious as to why the FSSP does not have a bishop. I think I know the reason but what do others think?
-
I just am curious as to why the FSSP does not have a bishop.
There's really only one reasonable explanation, and it's that a traditionalist bishop is not wanted.
-
The Fraternity of Saint Peter are just a bunch of invalidly ordained, faux-traditionalist, wannabe-priests.
And they are in communion with Antipope Benedict XVI.
If you want valid traditional Catholic priests, find a CMRI priest who was ordained by Bishop Mark Pivarunas.
There are also other validly ordained and validly consecrated Thuc Lineage Sedevacantist Bishops, such as Bishop Davila Gandara.
But you must be very careful that any Bishops you find are validly ordained and validly consecrated.
Or go to a Sede priest ordained before A.D. 1968, when they changed the rite of ordination.
E.g. Father Martin Stepanich.
Bishop Mark Pivarunas and Bishop Davila Gandara are undeniably validly consecrated Bishops.
So only sedevacantist priests and Bishops are validly ordained in your opinion? Do I have that correct?
-
The Fraternity of Saint Peter are just a bunch of invalidly ordained, faux-traditionalist, wannabe-priests.
And they are in communion with Antipope Benedict XVI.
If you want valid traditional Catholic priests, find a CMRI priest who was ordained by Bishop Mark Pivarunas.
There are also other validly ordained and validly consecrated Thuc Lineage Sedevacantist Bishops, such as Bishop Davila Gandara.
But you must be very careful that any Bishops you find are validly ordained and validly consecrated.
Or go to a Sede priest ordained before A.D. 1968, when they changed the rite of ordination.
E.g. Father Martin Stepanich.
Bishop Mark Pivarunas and Bishop Davila Gandara are undeniably validly consecrated Bishops.
So only sedevacantist priests and Bishops are validly ordained in your opinion? Do I have that correct?
No, you do not have that correct.
There are many validly ordained priests in the norvus ordo, but the vast majority are either heretics or are very confused about the Faith, or they do the idolatrous and invalid novus ordo, or are in communion with Antipope Benedict XVI.
Any priest ordained in the new rite of ordination is invalidly ordained.
Any bishop consecrated in the new rite of consecration is invalidly consecrated.
-
Perhaps if Bishop Fellay is expelled from the Society he could become the FSSP bishop?
-
Can anyone make the case in favor of the FSSP?
-
The FSSP, since they do not have a Bishop consecrated pre-1968 changes, and since they operate under the New Church promulgated by Paul VI, are not carrying on Catholic Tradition but are simply an ornate floor show. One positive aspect is that they do not charge admission to see this show. However, since you could lose your soul by attending the FSSP, I'd say the admission price is very high.
-
The FSSP, since they do not have a Bishop consecrated pre-1968 changes, and since they operate under the New Church promulgated by Paul VI, are not carrying on Catholic Tradition but are simply an ornate floor show. One positive aspect is that they do not charge admission to see this show. However, since you could lose your soul by attending the FSSP, I'd say the admission price is very high.
True.
And the New-SSPX is FSSP 2.
-
The FSSP, since they do not have a Bishop consecrated pre-1968 changes, and since they operate under the New Church promulgated by Paul VI, are not carrying on Catholic Tradition but are simply an ornate floor show. One positive aspect is that they do not charge admission to see this show. However, since you could lose your soul by attending the FSSP, I'd say the admission price is very high.
True.
And the New-SSPX is FSSP 2.
The SSPX has bishops consecrated according to Paul VI's abomination? You sure about that?
-
The FSSP, since they do not have a Bishop consecrated pre-1968 changes, and since they operate under the New Church promulgated by Paul VI, are not carrying on Catholic Tradition but are simply an ornate floor show. One positive aspect is that they do not charge admission to see this show. However, since you could lose your soul by attending the FSSP, I'd say the admission price is very high.
True.
And the New-SSPX is FSSP 2.
Attacking the SSPX is no defense of the FSSP.