Author Topic: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX (Read 22476 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #15 on:** December 03, 2023, 09:26:06 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 03, 2023, 08:58:35 AM

No one is saying he was the Bishop Fellay of his time. But what the concerns of the Nine show (as clearly described in their Letter) is that things had already stated to change in the SSPX....in the early 1980's. In fact, I could have sworn that you and others at least recognized that truth when the Nine's Letter was trotted out here in the recent past.

Maybe others, but I didn't. I might have been uncomfortable to be placed in a superficially similar situation to the evil Nine -- but that's it.

But if the world were ending and collapse were happening, would you be THAT bothered that you are "in the same boat" as those false prophets over the decades with cardboard signs saying "The End is Nigh"? No, because YOU WOULD BE CORRECT when you say the End is Nigh (with fire, rioting, war all around you, power and water are out almost everywhere, etc.) while those false prophets (who said The End is Nigh in the 80's) were wrong, period.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

You can't get excited when a broken clock reads "11:15" just because the current time happens to be 11:15. Because that clock has been claiming 11:15 constantly for the past week! See the problem?

Gunter · « **Reply #16 on:** December 03, 2023, 09:47:15 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 03, 2023, 09:26:06 AM

Maybe others, but I didn't. I might have been uncomfortable to be placed in a superficially similar situation to the evil Nine -- but that's it.

But if the world were ending and collapse were happening, would you be THAT bothered that you are "in the same boat" as those false prophets over the decades with cardboard signs saying "The End is Nigh"? No, because YOU WOULD BE CORRECT when you say the End is Nigh (with fire, rioting, war all around you, power and water are out almost everywhere, etc.) while those false prophets (who said The End is Nigh in the 80's) were wrong, period.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

You can't get excited when a broken clock reads "11:15" just because the current time happens to be 11:15. Because that clock has been claiming 11:15 constantly for the past week! See the problem?

Mathew, +Lefebvre French priest assistants in 1983 were tipped off by snitches where my parents attended mass and refused to allow my confirmation. They said that the nine priests were liars. My parents didn't argue we just left. How does this jive with: 13 Then were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.
I don't blame the Archbishop, it is merely one of many cult like behaviors both religious and laity on all sides have engaged in. And it's ignorant. Like you said it's Bull

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #17 on:** December 03, 2023, 09:48:15 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 03, 2023, 09:22:37 AM

Who says the Nine were vindicated? Because 20+ years later they were accidentally right, like a broken clock that is right twice a day?

That would be like me calling for a collapse/end of the world and eventually being right. Well yeah, eventually it's going to happen! But if you quit your job, call dates, etc. and are repeatedly wrong, sorry but you were just WRONG completely. Timing is part of a prediction.

The Nine said the SSPX *fell* past tense, and they were wrong. +ABL was still alive, for crying out loud! To use the "end of the world" analogy, they quit their jobs, maxed out their credit cards, etc. Would that be wise to do, 20 years before the event? You'd call such a person a fool. They'd end up on the street if they did that. Why should "resisting the SSPX" be any different?

When the Nine "resisted" in 1983, there was NOTHING TO RESIST.

Nothing to resist???

How about the fact of them being forced to give the sacraments to those who had NO marriage annulments? Or the fact that they were being forced to use the 1962 missal against their conscience? Or having NO ordained “priests” being allowed to celebrate mass at the same altars?

They saw then what you see now and you criticize now, but you fail to admit that that was the start of the problems with the SSPX. Also, the fact that the Archbishop seems to have been less hard nosed afterward and even collaborated with, the reportedly sedevacantist, Bishop de Castro Mayer, shows (among several other reasons) that maybe he had misgivings about the whole affair.

Matthew · « **Reply #18 on:** December 03, 2023, 10:36:10 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on December 03, 2023, 09:48:15 AM

Nothing to resist???

How about the fact of them being forced to give the sacraments to those who had NO marriage annulments? Or the fact that they were being forced to use the 1962 missal against their conscience? Or having NO ordained “priests” being allowed to celebrate mass at the same altars?

They saw then what you see now and you criticize now, but you fail to admit that that was the start of the problems with the SSPX. Also, the fact that the Archbishop seems to have been less hard nosed afterward and even collaborated with, the reportedly sedevacantist, Bishop de Castro Mayer, shows (among several other reasons) that maybe he had misgivings about the whole affair.

You've obviously heard their arguments first. There's a very sane and reasonable answer to all those objections.

A superior general can't have chaos in the organization. Imagine if some SSPX chapels had the 1962 Missal and others used different older versions. And then, let's say you're happy with the version used at your chapel -- then a new priest moves in! Now the chapel changes what version is used. It would be chaos.

And the annulments issue touches on the Crisis in the Church. If we don't respect the Marriage Tribunals of the Catholic Church, then whose Marriage Tribunals DO we respect? Because life goes on, including marriage (and marriage problems), during the Crisis in the Church. Humans are still humans. Humans are as fallible and slipshod as they come. Anything involving humans is GOING to have problems.

It's not the job of a priest at a Trad chapel to play God. It's his job to shepherd this particular lost flock (sheep without a shepherd), bringing them the Mass and sacraments. But it's the responsibility of EACH INDIVIDUAL where they will go to Mass, what Missal they insist on, whether they're in the state of grace and fit to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion, etc. But some priests put additional burdens on would-be communicants. See the problem?

God is God. He can take care of Himself. He doesn't need us to "protect Him", or withhold communion from this or that Trad Catholic. The Church is clear on this matter: unless a would-be communicant is a *public sinner*, the priest is to administer Communion. As for preventing sacrileges to this Holy Sacrament, public sinners are the only low-hanging fruit we're allowed to "pick" as it were. For the rest, God has decided that it will be on the conscience of each communicant. Read St. Paul -- he speaks about this very topic. 1 Corinthians chapter 11

27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord

Ladislaus · « **Reply #19 on:** December 03, 2023, 10:38:53 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 02, 2023, 11:46:58 PM

1. If they had issues with the SSPX, they should have simply LEFT. Rather than suing the Archbishop for the SSPX name, trying to take away as many properties/priests/faithful as possible, etc.

2. The conduct of the Nine post-expulsion is precisely what I have issue with. What they did was villainous and unfair to the Archbishop who only wanted to save Tradition and serve the Church.

I agree that they should have just left in peace. Now, to consider their side of it, from their perspective, the faithful who donated money to build those chapels were also opposed to the same things they opposed, so I think their reasoning (or perhaps rationalization ... God alone knows) was along the lines of how the faithful who financed those properties should be allowed to retain them. I think that if they had simply left, they would have landed on their feet, since the all these faithful who reputedly supported them would have followed them. Sure, it would have taken some time to build back up, where they'd have had to revert to the hotel rooms, etc. And that's pretty much where the Resistance found themselves also, building back from the ground up.

Matthew · « **Reply #20 on:** December 03, 2023, 10:42:01 AM »

Quote from: Gunter on December 03, 2023, 09:47:15 AM

Mathew, +Lefebvre French priest assistants in 1983 were tipped off by snitches where my parents attended mass and refused to allow my confirmation.

I don't know the circuмstances of your PARTICULAR case and your PARTICULAR priest that you speak of.
You clearly have an axe to grind for this personal wrong that was done to you.

Talk about "it's personal"!

You are clearly about as far from objective as it gets. I'm sure over 99% of readers agree.

Given your personal experience, I'd be shocked if you *didn't* have a strong emotion (hate) for the SSPX.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** December 03, 2023, 10:42:42 AM »

In more recent times, I had issues with some of their bullying with the Sacraments, where they used the threat of withholding Sacraments to ensure compliance with their theological opinions. They did a smear job against Archbishop Thuc. At one point, another member of The Nine told me that then-Father Kelly said of the Thuc bishops that "We can't say they're valid because then people might go to them." The Nine have been known to withhold Sacraments (in one case on a person's death bed) for being "Feenyite"s, but then had no issues being "in communion with" and giving Sacraments to Natalie White, who was herself a Feeneyite, because she was their access to Bishop Mendez.

Matthew · « **Reply #22 on:** December 03, 2023, 10:43:36 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 03, 2023, 10:42:42 AM

In more recent times, I had issues with some of their bullying with the Sacraments, where they used the threat of withholding Sacraments to ensure compliance with their theological opinions. They did a smear job against Archbishop Thuc. At one point, another member of The Nine told me that then-Father Kelly said of the Thuc bishops that "We can't say they're valid because then people might go to them." The Nine have been known to withhold Sacraments (in one case on a person's death bed) for being "Feenyite"s, but then had no issues being "in communion with" and giving Sacraments to Natalie White, who was herself a Feeneyite, because she was their access to Bishop Mendez.

What goes around comes around.
Karma's a b****.
A bad tree always bears BAD FRUIT.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** December 03, 2023, 10:47:36 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 03, 2023, 10:36:10 AM

You've obviously heard their arguments first. There's a very sane and reasonable answer to all those objections.

A superior general can't have chaos in the organization. Imagine if some SSPX chapels had the 1962 Missal and others used different older versions. And then, let's say you're happy with the version used at your chapel -- then a new priest moves in! Now the chapel changes what version is used. It would be chaos.

Perhaps, but that was in fact what was happening before the 1980s. In the 1970s, there was a significant variety among the SSPX priests, with some using the 1962 Missal, others the pre-1955 Missal, with some sedevacantists, and some non-sedevacantists. Even among The Nine, not all of the, for example, were sedevacantists at the time of the split. There was a certain amount of plurality within the SSPX, and I frankly feel that this was healthy. It left theological opinions that had not been decided by the Church ... as theological opinions not yet decided by the Church.

Unfortunately, what happened in the early 1980s is that Archbishop Lefebvre was in fact cozying up to Modernist Rome because Wojtyla had made some positive comments about Traditional Catholicism. It's from that same period, the early 1980s, that the neo-SSPX pull all the quotes from +Lefebvre that are favorable to their current orientation vs. that of the Resistance.

Gunter · « **Reply #24 on:** December 03, 2023, 10:52:41 AM »

Your judgment is meaningless. You see what you want to see and ignore what you want to ignore. Thank God the church wasn't subject to your judgments. I can see it now, your Aunt Karen's annulment would be fine but cross your opinion regarding the crisis, off with their head. Pathetic

I actually have a position in the world were people's lives are affected based on my understanding. I can assure you that circuмstances mean alot. I tend to be forgiving. I suppose that's my weakness.

Gray2023 · « **Reply #25 on:** December 03, 2023, 11:02:03 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 02, 2023, 11:46:58 PM

1. If they had issues with the SSPX, they should have simply LEFT. Rather than suing the Archbishop for the SSPX name, trying to take away as many properties/priests/faithful as possible, etc.

2. The conduct of the Nine post-expulsion is precisely what I have issue with. What they did was villainous and unfair to the Archbishop who only wanted to save Tradition and serve the Church.

And no, dying doesn't automatically make everything you did "good" or "Oh, it's ok, he's dead now, so it's all good." No, scandalous deeds still need to be criticized, for the sake of justice, and to right the wrongs that were committed! Some of these actions in the mid 80's had consequences which persist up to the present day.

So 4 of these Nine have passed before the judgment seat of God? So be it. God has judged them. But my place is to call out their publicly-known evils they participated in here on earth and fight against their legacy. I can only operate on the information I have regarding what is good and evil.

I don't care about their subjective guilt, because I'm not looking to judge them personally. I'm only in this for the truth and God's cause. And that cause was NOT served by Fr. Cekada & company's evil legal motions against the SSPX.

On a practical level, how can the people who were involved make amends for this evil (your word not mine, I don't understand all the details, nor want to, i just want to know what a resolution would look like) behavior. What can Bishop Sanborn, Father Berry, Father Zapp, Father McMahon, Fr Ahern, ect, do?

Matthew · « **Reply #26 on:** December 03, 2023, 11:24:11 AM »

Quote from: Gray2023 on December 03, 2023, 11:02:03 AM

On a practical level, how can the people who were involved make amends for this evil (your word not mine, I don't understand all the details, nor want to, i just want to know what a resolution would look like) behavior. What can Bishop Sanborn, Father Berry, Father Zapp, Father McMahon, Fr Ahern, ect, do?

How about they apologize, for starters? Then we can talk.

Matthew · « **Reply #27 on:** December 03, 2023, 11:31:03 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 03, 2023, 10:47:36 AM

Unfortunately, what happened in the early 1980s is that Archbishop Lefebvre was in fact cozying up to Modernist Rome because Wojtyla had made some positive comments about Traditional Catholicism. It's from that same period, the early 1980s, that the neo-SSPX pull all the quotes from +Lefebvre that are favorable to their current orientation vs. that of the Resistance.

I think you, me, and many others have movie-watcher's syndrome, audience syndrome, hindsight, whatever you want to call it.

We know how it turns out, so we yell out at the screen (or the biography about +ABL), "Watch out, Archbishop Lefebvre! He's going to trick you!" but he didn't know that at the time. He didn't have the benefit of hindsight. +ABL didn't know he was only 13 years into (at least) a 53-year Crisis. WE know that today. He did not.

The fact of the matter is, there is only ONE best position or way to end the Crisis, and that solution involves Rome to some extent. The Crisis was only 13 years old in 1983, and my famous reasoning why "the Crisis is a supernatural mystery that only God can solve" didn't exist yet. I have that personal opinion today because the Crisis is FIFTY THREE years old, and it hasn't been solved by any man from any group yet.

So the Archbishop was wise to try. But let's not confuse people and keep the facts straight -- ABL didn't water down the Society or start contradicting, compromising, or changing things before an Agreement. He didn't go after a "purely practical" agreement like +Fellay and company foolishly did a few decades later. +ABL stayed faithful. There is NOTHING WRONG WITH THE 1962 MISSAL. That wasn't a compromise. He was merely following the CHURCH as far as he could follow her on that point. He wasn't picking and choosing his favorite Missale. He was trying to stay faithful to the spirit of the Church, so that after the Crisis there would be some Catholicism left in us.

As the proverb goes, hindsight is always 20/20.

Matthew · « **Reply #28 on:** December 03, 2023, 11:34:10 AM »

Fool me once, shame on YOU.
Fool me twice, shame on ME.

One might say the Archbishop was "fooled" in 1988. Shame on ROME. Anyone can be betrayed or fooled ONCE. But you learn from that mistake. You don't get fooled again. And in fact, +ABL did permanently wise-up to the reality of the Conciliar Roman situation, up till his death in 1991.

But +Fellay went into the deception 30 years later with eyes wide shut -- he should have known better.
He was fooled AGAIN, even with the benefit of hindsight, knowing what Rome did to the Archbishop in 1988.

So the second fooling was +Fellay's fault (and all the priests who supported him)

Kazimierz · « **Reply #29 on:** December 03, 2023, 12:00:54 PM »

Upon reading the first words of the subject line of this topic, My Tolkien-ed mind leapt into action.

In light of the gravity of this subject though, the comparison is quite apt, and makes powerful visible metaphor.

"Nine for mortal men, doomed to die......."

Author Topic: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX (Read 22476 times)

Matthew

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Gunter

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Matthew

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Ladislaus

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Matthew

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Ladislaus

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Matthew

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Ladislaus

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Gunter

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Gray2023

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Matthew

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Matthew

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Matthew

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Kazimierz

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX