[Daegus]

To be quite honest, I'm a bit lost by the SSPX's position on the modern crisis. On the one hand they say that Vatican II was an awful council, it allowed modernism to spread rapidly in the Church, brought about the New Mass, changed almost all of the Sacraments and was convened with the help of modernists. They also say that Vatican II spouted a "new religion".

On the other hand... This is where I got lost. Who created this new religion? They maintain that Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) is the true Pope of the Catholic Church, yet essentially imply that he is heading a false religion. How can he be head of the Catholic Church and head of the Vatican II religion? If I'm not mistaken, virtually all of those who accept Vatican II in its entirety accept Benedict XVI as their leader. You can't have it both ways. He can't somehow be heading a false religion and heading the Catholic Church. If he were heading a false religion, he would definitely not be Catholic. There's no way the Novus Ordo can be a new religion and the true religion at the same time. That makes no sense.

I also don't understand how the SSPX can possibly grant marriage annulments when they have no jurisdiction. Yet to my knowledge they do it anyways. Why is that? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but they also apparently have no jurisdiction to even absolve sins in the confessional and yet do it anyways and Benedict XVI says this is ok. I'm not sure I understand this.

In other news.. I recently discovered some "EENS" forum that discusses the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation. Here is their forum:

http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/

I must say, I'm quite amazed at how hostile they are to sedevacantists. They're willing to say that sedevacantists are schismatics, excommunicated and therefore outside of the Church. Yet some of them hold that the "Orthodox" schismatical heretics aren't actually schismatics or heretics. What sense does that make? The very existence "Orthodox" religion is dependent on their contradistinction with the Catholic Church. But oh yes, they're not schismatic..

 

What would happen to their criticisms if the sedevacantist position ended up being true? Would sedevacantists still be "schismatic" and "excommunicated" then? Would they still be deserving of uncharity from the Novus Ordo-ites over there, who exalt the conciliar papal claimants to the status of sacrosanct? (I've seen people excuse their apostatical behavior by saying ridiculous things like "What's wrong with change in the Church?" and saying "John Paul II was not praying with heretics at Assisi! That's false. He was praying next to them" (as if that makes any real difference..  :rolleyes:))

Where did this attitude of "Never criticise anything the Pope says or does" even come from? The Pope is not above criticism. God is above criticism. The Pope is not God. Where did this false doctrine of "partial communion with the Church" come from? Either you're in the Church or you're not. There's no "in between". You're either pregnant or you're not. You're either dead or alive, etc. Nowhere before Vatican II have I ever seen the teaching of "partial communion with the Church" ever being taught.

What say you?

[Stubborn]

In other news.. I recently discovered some "EENS" forum that discusses the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation. Here is their forum:

http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/

I must say, I'm quite amazed at how hostile they are to sedevacantists. They're willing to say that sedevacantists are schismatics, excommunicated and therefore outside of the Church. Yet some of them hold that the "Orthodox" schismatical heretics aren't actually schismatics or heretics. What sense does that make? The very existence "Orthodox" religion is dependent on their contradistinction with the Catholic Church. But oh yes, they're not schismatic..

 

They are a strange bunch. About a year ago, I happened across that forum when it was called "Pascendi". Turns out the Pascendi site shut down and some of it's members started the site you linked.

Very strange indeed to have a site that is faithful to the NO called Pascendi - and whose members are NO and believe in EENS.

How about that for a combination hey? - - - just when ya thought you heard of everything lol

 

[Vladimir]

What say you?

Whoever, therefore, wishes to serve Christ..should endeavor to withdraw from disputes, to love to be alone, to be silent of things that do not concern him, or which perhaps are even hurtful to him.

[PartyIsOver221]

Vladimir, I do not believe this issue is something to "blow over" and "let sleeping dogs lie".  And I think it is wrong for you to counsel people toward your conclusion here. Here is my opinion though on this matter, and anyone reading may freely disregard it for you all have free will and can take it up with God, just as I will have to.

The issue of the Pope, and thus which chapel to attend, is quite an important issue. There I said it, and I know all the SSPX will shut me up, but as GV would say, "C'est la vie".  I would love to defend the true Pope, whoever he may be, for it is done in earnest for God, for truth, and for sanctification of my self as I defend the Church God has revealed to us divinely. September 4th, today, has St. Rosalia and St. Rose of Viterbo as today's saints.

St. Rose of Viterbo has a great entry in the history of saints, and it matches perfectly with the issue Daegus is bringing up. She was only 18 years old when she was taken by Our Lord into His arms. She was a staunch defender and vocal proponent of Pope Innocent IV, the exiled true Pope as Frederick II lay siege on Rome and held it, similar to how Benedict XVI and these other false "popes" have done for the past 50 years. SHE WAS 10 years OLD when she was going to the streets, preaching to all who would hear, that restoration of Rome to the true Sovereign Pontiff was required of ALL CATHOLICS! I'm ashamed at all of you people on this forum that are over 30+ and mock all of the young Catholics here, even under your muttered breathes from home, as if young people are lesser than you, have less "experience", "wisdom", etc...  Unbelievable.

Ok, aside complete...back to the point....

Yet if I don't know the Pope, I will just be a home aloner , in a sense. It's part of being Catholic, knowing that the papacy exists and is always true in the sense of being the Vicar of Christ on earth. Benedict XVI is no way , shape , or form, the Vicar of Christ. The striking parallels to the current US president and him being an actual Constitution-serving president (NOT!) are peculiar... is foreshadowing/revealing some truth to our own traditional Catholic plight here??

Slippery slope to dogmatic sedevacantism..but remember. Dogmatic sedevacantism is banned from this forum, doesn't mean its banned in real life or it may not be a correct position to take at some point in the future , eventually perhaps.

[s2srea]

They maintain that Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) is the true Pope of the Catholic Church, yet essentially imply that he is heading a false religion.

When I read this, I thought, wow- this is totally on point- good job Daegus. And while I still commend you for being able to point this out (you do a lot of research which is great and commendable), the fact is is that the situation is much more complex than this. Bishop Williamson in a video interview on the truerestoration blog explained the delicacy of dealing with the annulments. This also, in my opinion, translates in to how they deal with Rome. Just because they've created a new religion (which I whole-heartedly agree with) doesn't mean Rome doesn't exist. I think where the many in the SSPX lose it (in my humble opinion) is in believing 'they' are the ones who will restore order and the Faith in Rome.

http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/

I must say, I'm quite amazed at how hostile they are to sedevacantists.

Ah, don't worry about such retards. Thats why you post on CI  :wink: cause we're **cool**

[stevusmagnus]

Daegus,

See here for SSPX annulments:

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/canonical/Canonical_Commission/questions_re_canonical_commission.htm


http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/canonical/Canonical_Commission/legitimacy_and_status_of_our_tribunals.htm


As for the EENS forum, that group is a living contradiction. They are 100% Novus Ordo, yet believe that if you are not water baptized and you die you are guaranteed Hell. They have yet to explain how they could support an ecuмenical Novus Ordo Mass and slavish obedience to an ecuмenical Pope and at the same time hold an absolutist view of EENS that the Pope rejects.

The St. Benedict Center (where some of them may come from or have ties to) was recently okayed by Rome, presumably on the agreement that they allow for the POSSIBILITY of God saving a non water-baptized person, even though they believe the number of people He saves like this are zero! It is another Vatican sleight of hand. So this group now defends BXVI, the NO, etc. because they are now "approved". They are a deluded bunch. Neo-Catholic Feeneyites! A living contradiction.