Author Topic: SSPX Fake Priests (Read 9728 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #195 on:** August 05, 2025, 08:31:18 AM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 05, 2025, 07:52:25 AM

Yes, we are living in similar times to V2 or covid, where the following are everywhere -- gaslighting, half-truths and social pressure to accept authority.

Yeah. Now, the SSPX also gaslight that it's the sedevacantists driving this attack on the validity of NO Orders becaues they "need themt to be invalid". Utterly ridiculous. As I mentioned, I would LOVE to be able to drive 5 minutes to see "Father Bob" down the street if I needed to go to Confession, and also to not pray that I would wait til the weekend (when the priest was in town) before dropping dead, and therefore having the opportunity to receive Last Rites. I have these lists I periodically update of retired pre-V2 Novus Ordo priests in the area we could seek out in an emergency, and that list gets shorter every year.

No, we do not "need" for them to be invalid any more than we "need" the Eastern Orthodox Orders and Liturgy to be invalid in order to recognize that they're schismatic.

Now, I would PREFER that New Orders be invalid in that I would prefer that Our Lord not be subjected to all the sacrileges and blasphemies to which He would be subject in the Novus Ordo ... but that's not a motivation here. I'm sure the Apostles would have preferred that Our Lord not be crucified, but at the end if God has willed that Our Lord be mistreated in the NOM like He was at His Passion, who am I to say otherwise.

But, no, there's no theological need that SVs have that the NO Orders be invalid. Zero.

On the contrary, the neo-SSPX have a political need to assert their validity ... since to say otherwise would be a non-starter for any talks with the Novus Ordo. "Hello, Mr. Prevost ..."

Yeti · « **Reply #196 on:** August 05, 2025, 08:56:05 AM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 04, 2025, 01:20:01 PM

A positive doubt doesn't automatically render something invalid; on this we agree.

.

This is irrelevant. A doubtful sacrament must be treated as invalid since only certainly valid sacraments can be used. This is the teaching of Pope Innocent IX, as someone posted a bit earlier.

Quote

We also agree that only the Church - the Pope - can declare on a Positive Doubt.

No, this is totally false. So, the Church tells us water must be the matter of baptism, and if someone baptizes using apple juice instead, we must consider the baptism as certainly valid until a pope tells us it's not?

Doubt exists when the matter and form that the Church teaches about the sacrament are not used. But this is the case in the new rite of holy orders, which uses words that are different from what Pius XII told us are necessary for validity. Therefore it is doubtful.

In other words, a pope has already declared on the positive doubt here; it was Pope Pius XII.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #197 on:** August 05, 2025, 09:44:09 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on August 05, 2025, 08:56:05 AM

This is irrelevant. A doubtful sacrament must be treated as invalid since only certainly valid sacraments can be used. This is the teaching of Pope Innocent IX, as someone posted a bit earlier.

Right, and there's only one "edge case" practical difference. One MAY avail oneself of a Sacrament laboring under positive doubt in danger of death when there are no certainly-valid alternatives available (in a timely fashion) ... but you can't do that with a certainly invalid Sacrament.

If I were on my deathbed and all I could get was absolution from a Novus Ordo presbyter, I might take a shot. But, absent such dire circuмstances, it's indeed irrelevant. But I would and could not call in, say, an Anglican "minister", since Pope Leo XIII taught quite clearly that their Orders are "absolutely null and utterly void".

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #198 on:** August 05, 2025, 09:52:55 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 05, 2025, 08:31:18 AM

Yeah. Now, the SSPX also gaslight that it's the sedevacantists driving this attack on the validity of NO Orders becaues they "need themt to be invalid". Utterly ridiculous. As I mentioned, I would LOVE to be able to drive 5 minutes to see "Father Bob" down the street if I needed to go to Confession, and also to not pray that I would wait til the weekend (when the priest was in town) before dropping dead, and therefore having the opportunity to receive Last Rites. I have these lists I periodically update of retired pre-V2 Novus Ordo priests in the area we could seek out in an emergency, and that list gets shorter every year.

No, we do not "need" for them to be invalid any more than we "need" the Eastern Orthodox Orders and Liturgy to be invalid in order to recognize that they're schismatic.

Now, I would PREFER that New Orders be invalid in that I would prefer that Our Lord not be subjected to all the sacrileges and blasphemies to which He would be subject in the Novus Ordo ... but that's not a motivation here. I'm sure the Apostles would have preferred that Our Lord not be crucified, but at the end if God has willed that Our Lord be mistreated in the NOM like He was at His Passion, who am I to say otherwise.

But, no, there's no theological need that SVs have that the NO Orders be invalid. Zero.

On the contrary, the neo-SSPX have a political need to assert their validity ... since to say otherwise would be a non-starter for any talks with the Novus Ordo. "Hello, Mr. Prevost ..."

I see. So you are Sedevacantist. No wonder you are so anti-SSPX and anti-Church. No wonder you disregard all authority except your own. YOU have decided there is a positive doubt where both the Church and the SSPX have declared there is not. You even have the audacity to speak of the 'new' SSPX when you disregard the 'old'. I repeat, I do not recognize your new religion with you as self-declared Pope.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #199 on:** August 05, 2025, 10:04:15 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on August 05, 2025, 08:56:05 AM

No, this is totally false. So, the Church tells us water must be the matter of baptism, and if someone baptizes using apple juice instead, we must consider the baptism as certainly valid until a pope tells us it's not?

Doubt exists when the matter and form that the Church teaches about the sacrament are not used. But this is the case in the new rite of holy orders, which uses words that are different from what Pius XII told us are necessary for validity. Therefore it is doubtful.

In other words, a pope has already declared on the positive doubt here; it was Pope Pius XII.

Twists and turns; keep with the context. I said only the Church, when it comes to an official Rite itself, can declare upon a positive doubt. However, and I made this clear too, if individual abuses or lapses occur during this Rite - outside of this Rite - then a case for a positive doubt could be made - and presented to the proper authorities. With to Pope Pius XII, I only have your word that the New Rite does not measure up to what this Holy father stipulated. Both the Church itself and the OLD leadership of the SSPX have told me that the New Rite - in its original Latin form - does measure up.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #200 on:** August 05, 2025, 10:04:57 AM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 05, 2025, 09:52:55 AM

I see. So you are Sedevacantist. No wonder you are so anti-SSPX and anti-Church. No wonder you disregard all authority except your own. YOU have decided there is a positive doubt where both the Church and the SSPX have declared there is not. You even have the audacity to speak of the 'new' SSPX when you disregard the 'old'. I repeat, I do not recognize your new religion with you as self-declared Pope.

You are missing the forest for the trees.

Even IF the new rite sacraments were 100% valid, we still couldn't go to them because the issues with new-rome are much bigger than just sacraments:
- V2's new doctrines,
- Ecuмenism,
- rampant ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, "annulments" and NFP,
- synodal heresies,
- Pachamama blaspemies,
- Communion in the hand,
- Women involved in serving, eucharistic ministering, deaconesses,
- Pride masses, etc

Traditionalists would still exist, even if every new mass was valid, because...we would have to separate ourselves from the dangers to the FAITH.

And this is your main error...you falsely simplify religion down to the liturgy alone. No, the Faith/doctrine is more important. Liturgy is meant to TEACH the faith. Japanese Catholics (and Catholics in communist countries) saved their souls by PRESERVING THE FAITH, even when no sacraments/liturgy was available.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #201 on:** August 05, 2025, 10:08:34 AM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 05, 2025, 10:04:15 AM

Twists and turns; keep with the context. I said only the Church, when it comes to an official Rite itself, can declare upon a positive doubt. However, and I made this clear too, if individual abuses or lapses occur during this Rite - outside of this Rite - then a case for a positive doubt could be made - and presented to the proper authorities.

No, not how it works.

Quote

With to Pope Pius XII, I only have your word that the New Rite does not measure up to what this Holy father stipulated.

Don't be lazy. Go look it up.

Quote

Both the Church itself and the OLD leadership of the SSPX have told me that the New Rite - in its original Latin form - does measure up.

IF the ordination was done by a true bishop, then the new rite of ordination MIGHT be ok. But ALL THE OLD RITE BISHOPS ARE DEAD (except in Tradition).

Quote

No, this is totally false. So, the Church tells us water must be the matter of baptism, and if someone baptizes using apple juice instead, we must consider the baptism as certainly valid until a pope tells us it's not?

I see you dodged this comment, because it destroys your argument.

Yeti · « **Reply #202 on:** August 05, 2025, 10:22:52 AM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 05, 2025, 10:04:15 AM

I said only the Church, when it comes to an official Rite itself, can declare upon a positive doubt.

.
The new rite of holy orders is not an official rite because it goes against what the Church taught in the early 1940s. The Church cannot contradict herself; therefore the new rite cannot come from the Church.

Quote

However, and I made this clear too, if individual abuses or lapses occur during this Rite - outside of this Rite - then a case for a positive doubt could be made - and presented to the proper authorities.

This is irrelevant because the doubt in the new rite does not arise from individual abuses but from the official text itself.

Quote

With to Pope Pius XII, I only have your word that the New Rite does not measure up to what this Holy father stipulated. Both the Church itself and the OLD leadership of the SSPX have told me that the New Rite - in its original Latin form - does measure up.

A simple Google search will show you that the form of the new rite is different from what Pius XII decreed in the early 1940s. With regard to the words for ordaining a priest, the word "ut" was removed from the formula of Pius XII. With regard to the words of consecrating a bishop, the words that Pius XII gave were deleted entirely and re-written with something completely different.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #203 on:** August 05, 2025, 02:40:04 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on August 05, 2025, 10:22:52 AM

.
The new rite of holy orders is not an official rite because it goes against what the Church taught in the early 1940s. The Church cannot contradict herself; therefore the new rite cannot come from the Church.

This is irrelevant because the doubt in the new rite does not arise from individual abuses but from the official text itself.

A simple Google search will show you that the form of the new rite is different from what Pius XII decreed in the early 1940s. With regard to the words for ordaining a priest, the word "ut" was removed from the formula of Pius XII. With regard to the words of consecrating a bishop, the words that Pius XII gave were deleted entirely and re-written with something completely different.

But it did come from the Church. And the 'OLD' SSPX, including Archbishop Lefebvre, accepted this rite - at least in the original Latin - as valid and without positive doubt. It is certainly a stripped down version but the three main elements exist. The main argument being made on this thread is that the SSPX have turned modernist because they do not re-ordain every NO priest that either joins them or works with them. This is a falsehood. The SSPX has always maintained this cautious policy of accepting the New Ordination Rite unless a positive doubt (an abuse or lapse) arises from an ordination done with a faulty English translation etc. If you choose to answer to no-one accept the Diamond Brothers, that's your affair. But don't suggest that your open rebellion against any Catholic authority, is caused by the SSPX going soft.

The Sedevacantist Diamond Brothers from which all this nonsense arises from, are renowned for splitting hairs and twisting things to fit their own private narrative. Yet again, they have done so here. They claim that each and every word must be the same and in exactly the same order. They claim that because the New Rite is worded slightly different, it is thus invalid. But what they seem to ignore, is that the meaning and the sense of it, is exactly the same. It means the same thing. So to say that "oh it s missing the word 'ut'" actually means nothing in itself because the sentence was re-ordered to mean the same without having to use it. They are very black and white people who cannot make distinctions. I stress again. The Church, Archbishop Lefebrve and even his Lordship Bishop Williamson accepted the New Ordination Rite, in its original form, as valid.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #204 on:** August 05, 2025, 02:58:12 PM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 05, 2025, 02:40:04 PM

But it did come from the Church.

The new rites did not come from the Church, for the following reasons:
1. They are illegal, because they violate the law of Quo Primum, which forbids competing rites.
1a. Benedict admitted that Quo Primum was still a law in effect, so he also admitted that the new rites contradict this law, which is a grave sin.

2. Nobody is forced to use, say, attend or accept the new rites.
2a. Quo Primum only allows the true rites, under penalty of sin.
2b. No V2 law, even going back to Paul 6, forces anyone to accept the new rites or new mass.
2c. No one commits any sin by ignoring the new rites and avoiding the new mass. It's not even a venial sin. No roman official has ever said it's a sin at all.

3. The new rites and new mass are not obligatory (as stated above) and are, therefore, not a papal command to the entire church (not even the entire latin church).
3a. If a papal command doesn't extend to the entire Church, then it's not infallible.
3b. If it's not infallible, then it's not protected from error, nor is it guaranteed the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

The new rites are illegal, not obligatory and not infallible -- thus, they are capable of error, which is why probable doubt exists.

If these rites came from the Holy Ghost, then they would be
a) legal,
b) obligatory, under pain of sin, and
c) infallibly error-free.

The new rites/new mass fail all 3 conditions. And many more...They are NOT from the Holy Ghost.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #205 on:** August 05, 2025, 04:02:26 PM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 05, 2025, 02:40:04 PM

The Sedevacantist Diamond Brothers from which all this nonsense arises from, are renowned for splitting hairs and twisting things to fit their own private narrative.

What a total pack of lies. There are many R&R types who reject the validity of Conciliar Holy Orders, and I know several such priests, and faithful Catholics were questioning the validity of the Orders long before the Dimond Brothers even knew what sedevacantism was.

If you present yourself as a credible participant in the debate, then you need to stop vomiting forth logical fallacies, distortions, and lies.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #206 on:** August 05, 2025, 04:06:24 PM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 05, 2025, 02:40:04 PM

But it did come from the Church. And the 'OLD' SSPX, including Archbishop Lefebvre, accepted this rite - at least in the original Latin - as valid and without positive doubt.

1) False. Archbishop Lefebvre wavered back and forth on this question, as he did on many others, where in the early 1980s he was most inclined to get in bed with the Modernists.

2) Who cares? It's irrelevant to the debate. Many weight reasons have been adduced by some very well educated Catholic men, including bishops and priests, that suffice to establish at least positive doubt, and your gratuitously declaring the opposite out of your wishful thinking simply doesn't make it so. You ignore every argument presented here and just regurgitate your conclusions over and over again, making false appeals to authority and then ad hominem attacks against those on the other position (PS -- most sedevacantist clergy despite the Dimond Brothers).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #207 on:** August 05, 2025, 04:15:00 PM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 05, 2025, 02:40:04 PM

The main argument being made on this thread is that the SSPX have turned modernist because they do not re-ordain every NO priest that either joins them or works with them.

Another lie and distortion. Main point of this thread is to expose the fake priests that the SSPX are imposing on the consciences of the faithful for purely political reasons, since they can't afford to offend Rome. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that conditional ordination of all Novus Ordo presbyters should not be mandatory ... except that SSPX can't do that lest they offend Rome, since they're desperately attempting to effect a return tot he Conciliar collective.

In the past, SSPX have nearly always conditionally ordained, without engaging in some charade of an "investigation" ... as if "intention" can be investigated. Pope Leo XIII taught the opposite in Apostolicae Curae.

Now, it is true that they used to hedge their bets by BLAMING the uncertainty and doubt on ambiguous formulae combined with unknown / uncertain intention, since they were afraid to commit to something that might lend itself toward sedevacantism (which they hate with a passion) and yet wanted to come up with some plausible-sounding justification for why, as a matter of course, they always conditionally ordained Novus Ordo priests. But the general policy was to ordain conditionally ... as has been made quite clear from the citations presented here from +Lefebvre as the years went on. Alas, there was one tragic incident in which +Lefebvre tried to impose a Novus Ordo Fake Priest, a Mr. Stark, in the early 1980s, but that occurred when +Lefebvre was probably as liberal as +Fellay is today, begging to simply make the "experiment of Tradition" while accepting Vatican II in the light of Tradition.

As for SSPX turning Modernist, there's a mountain of evidence for that outside of this issue and entirely independent of it, which Sean Johnson thoroughly cataloged in his book. It's clear that they most certainly are slouching Modernist, right down to promoting that heretical Modernist book by Paul Robison.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #208 on:** August 05, 2025, 04:20:56 PM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 05, 2025, 02:40:04 PM

If you choose to answer to no-one accept the Diamond Brothers, that's your affair. But don't suggest that your open rebellion against any Catholic authority, is caused by the SSPX going soft.

Again with the lies, you pernicious malefactor, lying again that the Dimond Brothers came up with this, rather than that the evidence clearly demonstrates it.

Then of course you somehow manage to say with a straight face that questioning the NO Rites is a "rebellion against any Catholic authority". What authority? That of the Modernists in Rome? Oh, wait, the SSPX have always been admittedly in open rebellion against the "authority" of those Modernists, against their teaching authority, their authority to impose a New Mass, etc. Or do you mean the (non-existent) authority of the SSPX themselves, where they have the temerity to require obedience to their non-jurisdiction, while at the same time rejecting the requirement for obedience to the Vicar of Christ.

Nor is it "our affair" only when the SSPX try to impose fake priests on the consciences of the faithful, you pernicious dirtbag. SSPX have made it everyone's affair by imposing these fake priest. Now, the opposite is what's true, that if YOU wish to go to town attending the "Masses" of "Presbyter Bob" at your local chapel and you're willing to risk your own salvation on it, now THAT is YOUR AFFAIR. But that's not what's going on here. Those of YOUR ILK are trying to impose your conclusions on everyone else, but then you cry out in pain as you strike the others.

Your spew filthy and disgusting lies, error, and distortions with every sentence ... and are scuм, hiding in Anonymity. Get lost, you turd.

WorldsAway · « **Reply #209 on:** August 05, 2025, 05:19:04 PM »

Neo-SSPXplainer would do well to read: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catalog-of-compromise-change-and-contradiction-in-the-sspx/

Author Topic: SSPX Fake Priests (Read 9728 times)

Ladislaus

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Yeti

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Ladislaus

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Änσnymσus

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Änσnymσus

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Pax Vobis

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Pax Vobis

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Yeti

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Änσnymσus

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Änσnymσus

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Ladislaus

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Ladislaus

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Ladislaus

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Ladislaus

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

WorldsAway

Re: SSPX Fake Priests