Author Topic: To non-sedes: Do you believe schismatic SVs, who die as SVs, can be saved? (Read 4020 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #20 on:** April 10, 2019, 05:01:17 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on April 10, 2019, 03:56:11 PM

1) You are absolutely wrong. Here is the letter of the Nine to +ABL (and please remember that Father Collins WAS NOT a “sedevacantist” at the time):

Nine priests outline the grave problems in the Society of St. Pius X in their March 25, 1983 letter to Archbishop Lefebvre and the General Council of the Society. The priests would be expelled the following month.

Do yourself a favor and don't accept the criminals' version of the crime. Look to what the Archbishop himself said about sedeism:

"Your place is not in the Fraternity" 1982-83

"The consequence of this tendency is schism with Rome, saying Rome is finished. That is absolutely impossible. I do not accept that!

A young priest said 'I do not recognize the pope... no pope in Rome... and I cannot pray for the pope.' With this attitude
Your place is not in the Fraternity. Not in the Fraternity. Because we must pray for the pope (said emphatically) .. .because the
pope is bad... his spirit is bad, is liberal... it is not that we say the pope has good doctrine and is traditional. ., no. But it is a big difference between saying "the pope is not good" and saying, "he does not exist".

"In the history of the Church you have some examples of holy men who speak against the pope... but they recognized him as the pope... and they said to the pope, "you have no right to do that. . no right..." St. Paul did this with St. Peter... St. Paul said to St. Peter "You have no right to do that... you do not walk in the way of the Gospel... you are against the Gospel. .
."
"We in this time, we must do that and say "You have no right to give a new Mass and new catechism. . .you have no right to destroy the Catholic Church..." They know that... they know that. But the time is coming when they will say "...yes we are doing wrong..." But they will not say this now. Perhaps they will admit their guilt in 2 years, or 3 years, or 35 years, I do not know. God knows. But they know now they do a very bad thing in the Church. But they do not recognize that the bad thing comes from the council of Vatican II.

When I said that to the pope or cardinals in Rome, they said "...no, no, you cannot say that. .. certainly there are many things wrong in the Church, many things bad.. .but we cannot say Vatican II is not good, that the New Mass is bad..." But I said just that to them. I am sure that the New Mass is bad. I am sure that Vat. II is a bad spirit. _ There are some things in Vat. II that are good but especially on 'Religious Liberty' we cannot accept such a declaration. . .it is impossible."

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #21 on:** April 10, 2019, 06:44:39 PM »

Criminals? Father Collins was NOT a sedevacantist.....I know it’s difficult for you to get, but let that sink in.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** April 10, 2019, 08:37:24 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on April 10, 2019, 03:34:51 PM

1) Not so, ask any SSPX priest who was around in those days - and +Sanborn was the ring leader. Every old time SSPX priest I ever spoke to about it all said the same thing.

Stubborn, you are making things up. I knew +Sanborn very well, and I also knew Father Jenkins well. +Sanborn told me that HE HIMSELF was not a sedevacantist at the time, and that only some of them were. Their grievances were as listed in their letter ... mostly having to do with annulments, the new Rite of Ordination, the New Code of Canon Law, and the FORBIDDING of non-una-cuм Masses. Some of them happened to be una-cuм, but they objected to forcing una-cuм on all the priests.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #23 on:** April 11, 2019, 02:10:46 AM »

"I THINK THAT, like all traditionalist Catholics, you would like now to hear how things stand; at what point relations are between the Priestly Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican in Rome. So I shall give you a rapid summary.Why do I maintain relations with Rome? Why do I keep going to Rome? Because I think that Rome is the center of Catholicism, because I think that there cannot be any Catholic Church without Rome. Consequently, if our purpose is to find a way of setting the Church straight again, it is by turning to Rome that maybe, with the grace of God, we may perhaps manage to set the situation straight. It is not one single bishop like myself who can set the whole situation straight in the Catholic Church. That is why I strive to keep on going to Rome and to plead the cause of Tradition ... And now, it’s meant to belong to them? It’s inconceivable! It’s plain theft! It’s unreal, it’s unbelievable! They deliberately put all their names on the boards of the corporations, whereas I was asking them to put the usual names on them, as everywhere else in the Society: those of “Superior General, Econome General,” and so on. True, they put my name in, but my name is the only one in these corporations, in place of the others we asked them to put in, they put in all their own names, telling us all the time, “Oh, yes, Monseigneur, we’ll change them, we’re going to do what you want” . . , but they never did. And now they thought they were strong enough to break away from us, so they are saying, “The properties are ours.” Did you ever hear anything like it? It is really unbelievable. It is really sad to think that priests formed by ourselves could reach such a point. However, in our day and age, alas! trials are all too common. Obviously, we are living in an age of confusion within the Church and we have to get used to such trials. However, I hope that the situation will be straightened out and that maybe some of them will come back to join us once more, that some of them will do some thinking, and that God will give them light ... Personally, I am not seeking to harm these priests may God be their judge! And I ask you not to get into polemics, but simply to follow us. You now have here a magnificent chapel. Come and attend Mass in this chapel with the priests of the Society, and, in the various centers, bring about a regrouping of the faithful staying with the Society, so that they keep their bond with Rome and with the Church. It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable." https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Conference_at_Long_Island.htm

Let SVs show that even 10% of Cardinals and Ordinaries are on their side, or supporting some other Pope, then we can consider it. It's very plain, if there is some real Anti-Pope, and some section of the Hierarchy and Rome is behind him, then, sure, there is no schism. But not when all the Bishops and all the Cardinals have accepted one single uncontested Pope. It's not I who say this, it's John of St. Thomas who has said it, that a layman who doesn't accept the unanimous acceptance of the Cardinals and the Bishops becomes a schismatic.

Here we are 60 years later, SVs cannot even point to where the Hierarchy is. Yet the Hierarchy must make a declaration that the Pope has lost his office, before a new Pope can be elected. The idea, only treated as a hypothesis, was that one single Pope may possibly fall into heresy, publicly and formally, after warnings from the Cardinals and Bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre considered even a 20 year vacancy to be too long, and in 1979, said it was not possible that the visibility of the Church should have disappeared for that long. But 60 years isnt?

The possibility was only considered as a hypothesis many times, but in practice, +ABL decided it hadn't happen and wouldn't happen. That's why most SSPX Priests will tell you that Archbishop Lefebvre forbad the Priests of the Society to publicly profess SVism.

Here is Fr. Gleize: "The Angelus: As for the place of the pope in all this, we certainly must admit that there is a mystery here, a mystery of iniquity.

Fr. Gleize: No doubt, but a mystery is a truth that surpasses reason; that the Church should be habitually deprived of her head is an absurdity and contrary to the promises of indefectibility. One of the reasons the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X could rely on to reject the sedevacantist hypothesis was that “the matter of the visibility of the Church is too essential to its existence for God to be able to do without it for decades; the reasoning of those who assert the non-existence of the pope places the Church in an insoluble situation.”3 Actually, your reasoning is more or less equivalent to sedevacantism. This is nothing new; but it is an old error that was already condemned by the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X. Pardon me if I disappoint you, but I will not run the risk of trying to be wiser than Solomon! The 40 years of Archbishop Lefebvre’s episcopate matter, if not in the sight of men, at least in the sight of God. Archbishop Lefebvre was a great man, a great bishop, because he was a man of the Church.

The Angelus: Thank you, Father Gleize." http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3501

Quote from: John of St. Thomas

"I REPLY that (as we have said above) the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops of a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him."

roscoe · « **Reply #24 on:** April 11, 2019, 02:57:39 AM »

There is No Such Thing as a 'sede vacantist'...

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: To non-sedes: Do you believe schismatic SVs, who die as SVs, can be saved? (Read 4020 times)

Stubborn

Re: To non-sedes: Do you believe schismatic SVs, who die as SVs, can be saved?

Quo vadis Domine

Re: To non-sedes: Do you believe schismatic SVs, who die as SVs, can be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: To non-sedes: Do you believe schismatic SVs, who die as SVs, can be saved?

Nishant Xavier

Re: To non-sedes: Do you believe schismatic SVs, who die as SVs, can be saved?

roscoe

Re: To non-sedes: Do you believe schismatic SVs, who die as SVs, can be saved?