Author Topic: Anti-Vatican II GroupsPositions? (Read 2145 times)

rum · « **on:** October 31, 2015, 07:49:05 PM »

Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Fr. Feeney's group)
Sedevacantist
Recognize and Resist
FSSP
SSPX
SSPV
Sirist

Who else? For the purposes of the question, it doesn't matter to me if they recognize Vatican II as valid or not, just that they don't like it.

Matto · « **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2015, 07:52:50 PM »

ICKSP though they are ecclesia dei so I don't know what they think about Vatican II. I would guess they do not like it privately but accept it publicly.
The former Transalpine Redemptorists now I think they are called the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer. They are a small monastery that used to be in line with the SSPX but a few years ago went back to Rome.
Also, the Diocese of Campos or the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, those from Campos who made a deal with Rome.

MMagdala · « **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2015, 11:56:45 PM »

Quote from: Matto

ICKSP though they are ecclesia dei so I don't know what they think about Vatican II. I would guess they do not like it privately but accept it publicly.

Those of us attached to the Institute hate V-2 and the Institute never refers to it. It might as well have never happened; it's simply irrelevant. Our sacramental rites are all pre-V2, teachings also Don't use the modern catechism; no RCIA program either. Follow only the traditional calendar, feasts, devotions. Adult conversions are done the old-fashioned way: 1 on 1 with an Institute priest. There is zero reference to V2 language or concepts. Institute couldn't say the N.O. if their lives depended on it. Are able only to offer the TLM. Works beautifully for everyone; we're all very happy.

Gregory I · « **Reply #3 on:** November 01, 2015, 12:32:39 AM »

ICK and FSSP shouldn't be up there. They don't disagree that Vatican II was a legitimate council, so they aren't anti Vatican II. They are Pro Hermeneutic of Continuity.

2Vermont · « **Reply #4 on:** November 01, 2015, 07:47:07 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

ICK and FSSP shouldn't be up there. They don't disagree that Vatican II was a legitimate council, so they aren't anti Vatican II. They are Pro Hermeneutic of Continuity.

The OP said he isn't looking for valid vs invalid...only that they don't like it.

MMagdala · « **Reply #5 on:** November 01, 2015, 09:19:42 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

ICK and FSSP shouldn't be up there. They don't disagree that Vatican II was a legitimate council, so they aren't anti Vatican II. They are Pro Hermeneutic of Continuity.

In practice, on every level they are anti-Hermeneutic of Continuity. (Heremeneutic of Rupture) To be associated with them is to experience full-on time travel.

I don't know much about the FSSP, but from what I have read so far, and heard from others, they're not nearly as traditionally oriented as the ICKSP.

So, I will repeat: Whatever is said technically or formally by the ICKSP, you will not find them referring to it, applying it, making use of it, preaching about it, writing about it, integrating it within their teaching, their spirituality, their spiritual direction, or their liturgies. Ever. On a practical level, it has no place within the Institute's operation and charism.

In true Conciliar Sect totalitarian fashion, the Institute was probably forced to take some repulsive Loyalty Oath in order to be granted the privilege of merely operating canonically within a diocese. If so, that was the first and the last time in that diocese they ever uttered the words "Vatican II."

Patrick JK Gray · « **Reply #6 on:** November 01, 2015, 10:30:56 AM »

The ICKSP are not traditional. It is ridiculous to want, or get 'full-on time-travel'. We cannot pretend that we are living in 1950 or whenever you care to. That sort of 'let's-pretend' traditionalism is delusional, insincere and unconscionable. The Lord has put us, for our trial and our merits, in this age of apostasy and we must fight.

Even if they don't talk about Vatican II, they accepted it. Indeed, they are a creature of the conciliar Church from the very beginning, designed to ensnare true Catholics, like the Mater Ecclesiae seminary in the 80s. They receive their doubtful ordinations from the Modernist Cardinal Burke.

http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/other-organizations-who-made-a-deal-with-rome#fssp

Look up ICKSP on that list.

They are willing, you say, to take an oath accepting the Conciliar sect, the abominations of Assisi, the bastard Mass, as you rightly call it, and then to act as if Vatican II never happened? As if they know -- which I'm sure they do -- that Vatican II is evil? What stinking hypocrites and perjurers!

You can sin by omission as well as by commission. Vatican II is never mentioned, but that is in itself treason and dereliction. It should regularly and strenuously be condemned and fought. We need our priests to speak on politics and philosophy as much as we need the Sacred Heart. There is no point in giving the one without attacking and destroying the foul breath of apostasy. How can any Catholic keep silent at the Cardinals and Bishops and Popes who endorse every perversion and abomination, who crucify and mock Our Lord with profane parodies of the Mass and hideous ecuмenical blasphemies, like new Ahabs and Jeroboams!

We live in a world where a whole organised system – Judaeo-Masonic naturalism -- is making mortal war on the Church and has nearly destroyed her. The true Faith is kept alive 'at the Mass-rock', if you will, in hotel rooms, in a few chapels up and down the world, with Bishops Williamson and Faure, not in the few orders which are given beautiful churches and vestments which were stolen from the true Church in exchange for treason, to pretend that they have the Faith while keeping silent on the persecution of the few brave priests who will not submit and accepting by silence all the abominations of the Newchurch.

MMagdala · « **Reply #7 on:** November 01, 2015, 12:26:03 PM »

Quote from: Patrick JK Gray

The ICKSP are not traditional. It is ridiculous to want, or get 'full-on time-travel'. We cannot pretend that we are living in 1950 or whenever you care to. That sort of 'let's-pretend' traditionalism is delusional, insincere and unconscionable. The Lord has put us, for our trial and our merits, in this age of apostasy and we must fight.

Even if they don't talk about Vatican II, they accepted it. Indeed, they are a creature of the conciliar Church from the very beginning, designed to ensnare true Catholics, like the Mater Ecclesiae seminary in the 80s. They receive their doubtful ordinations from the Modernist Cardinal Burke.

http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/other-organizations-who-made-a-deal-with-rome#fssp

Look up ICKSP on that list.

They are willing, you say, to take an oath accepting the Conciliar sect, the abominations of Assisi, the bastard Mass, as you rightly call it, and then to act as if Vatican II never happened? As if they know -- which I'm sure they do -- that Vatican II is evil? What stinking hypocrites and perjurers!

You can sin by omission as well as by commission. Vatican II is never mentioned, but that is in itself treason and dereliction. It should regularly and strenuously be condemned and fought. We need our priests to speak on politics and philosophy as much as we need the Sacred Heart. There is no point in giving the one without attacking and destroying the foul breath of apostasy. How can any Catholic keep silent at the Cardinals and Bishops and Popes who endorse every perversion and abomination, who crucify and mock Our Lord with profane parodies of the Mass and hideous ecuмenical blasphemies, like new Ahabs and Jeroboams!

We live in a world where a whole organised system – Judaeo-Masonic naturalism -- is making mortal war on the Church and has nearly destroyed her. The true Faith is kept alive 'at the Mass-rock', if you will, in hotel rooms, in a few chapels up and down the world, with Bishops Williamson and Faure, not in the few orders which are given beautiful churches and vestments which were stolen from the true Church in exchange for treason, to pretend that they have the Faith while keeping silent on the persecution of the few brave priests who will not submit and accepting by silence all the abominations of the Newchurch.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about: I can tell from not only the content of your post, but your tone. Since I grew up in Tradition, I know precisely whereof I speak, whereas your "trad" credentials are suspect from the very accusations you make against these holy men. "Perjurers?" "Sinners of omission"? Listen to your unholy condemnation of others and you call yourself a traditionalist Catholic? You're not behaving as such.

This is where a lack of training and a failure to understand fundamentals raises its ugly head to poison discussion. Traditio is spot on in their analysis, from the very words of JXXIII and Paul VI, how non-dogmatic the Council was, given the intent of those 2 Popes, which determines (not the titles of docuмents) whether a Council is binding teaching (dogmatic) or merely pastoral, suggestive, and not intended as a catechism. The Institute gets that; you do not. Therefore, in good conscience & honesty they can indeed take an oath. All that oath assents to is that V2 was a valid pastoral council. Since that council is utterly irrelevant to their purpose, they have no moral responsibility to "implement" it.

The other failure to understand is that which afflicts many trads on many forums, and obviously you yourself. If you don't yet get that operating legitimately (canonically) in the Roman Catholic Church requires permission, then you truly don't know much about how the Church has ever operated, let alone now. They took an oath honestly because the council has zero effect on them. End of story.

Yeah, the Visible Church exists only in hotel rooms. That comment tells me all I need to know about you, your beliefs, and your understanding of Tradition.

Have a nice day.

Patrick JK Gray · « **Reply #8 on:** November 01, 2015, 01:36:31 PM »

Why, then, was such an oath 'repulsive'? Why is the Newchurch a 'Conciliar sect'? I am sorry, it doesn't add up.

I ought to clarify that despite the crisis in the Society there are SSPX chapels which retain and possess the True Faith; whose priests and laity are better far than I. The leadership is bad at least in a large part and the poison will inevitably work downwards but it need not be assumed to have done so yet. Bishop Williamson advocates -- and I agree -- that prudent, cautious, vigilant attendance at an SSPX chapel if it is sound is altogether sensible.

rum · « **Reply #9 on:** November 01, 2015, 05:04:46 PM »

Does ICKSP have a presence in New York City?

Matto · « **Reply #10 on:** November 01, 2015, 05:31:16 PM »

Quote from: rum

Does ICKSP have a presence in New York City?

As far as I know, no they do not. They do have a chapel in New Jersey according to their website.

2Vermont · « **Reply #11 on:** November 01, 2015, 05:52:04 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: rum
Does ICKSP have a presence in New York City?

As far as I know, no they do not. They do have a chapel in New Jersey according to their website.

Yes, there is one in West Orange, New Jersey. I almost made it there for confession once, but ended up going to an SSPX chapel.

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #12 on:** November 01, 2015, 06:14:12 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

ICK and FSSP shouldn't be up there. They don't disagree that Vatican II was a legitimate council, so they aren't anti Vatican II. They are Pro Hermeneutic of Continuity.

ICK and FSSP are BEYOND anti-Vatican II. They are saying the Traditional Latin Mass because they're anti-Vatican II. The clergy went to those institutions to be formed as seminarians, eventually tonsured and ordained because they're anti-Vatican II!

If they were pro-Vatican II, you know where they'd be? At some circular Protestant-looking church with guitar Masses, idol-worship of Bergoglio and a parking lot full of "Coexist" bumper stickers along with some sign for the fαɢɢօt alphabet soup.

You can't be pro-Vatican II AND pro-Tradition at the same time. One features some secular humanist in an oversized hoodie having &*$& Shabbos dinner on a Protestant table who wants Margaret Sanger and Harvey Milk to be canonized and the other is the True Catholic Faith, whole and inviolate for 2,000 years that CANNOT teach error. Pick one.

Marlelar · « **Reply #13 on:** November 01, 2015, 07:16:18 PM »

I can say from personal attendance at an FSSP chapel years ago that they are NOT "anti-V2", although some priests are more "anti" than others. They are ordained by NO bishops (of doubtful consecration themselves), and say Mass at the pleasure of whoever the local NO bishop is in the city where they operate. They also attend clergy meetings with their local bishop and will "concelebrate" a NO Mass with that local bishop if asked(required) to do so. They officially recognize the legitimacy of the NO lock, stock, and barrel.

When I went to them I thought they were traditional through and through, when I found out it was just a veneer of traditionalism I left.

Matto · « **Reply #14 on:** November 01, 2015, 07:30:29 PM »

I feel bad for the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.