Author Topic: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX (Read 22566 times)

Gunter · « **Reply #165 on:** December 06, 2023, 05:15:52 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 06, 2023, 04:57:10 PM

I didn't, so I'm not sure why you quoted me, Gunter.

Sorry. Didn't mean to imply that you did. It seemed like a dialing down of the inflammatory title which seemed like progress.

2Vermont · « **Reply #166 on:** December 06, 2023, 05:17:48 PM »

Quote from: Gunter on December 06, 2023, 05:15:52 PM

Sorry. Didn't mean to imply that you did. It seemed a dialing down of the inflammatory title which seemed like progress.

No problem. It's back to the earlier title though, so I'm not sure what is going on.

2Vermont · « **Reply #167 on:** December 06, 2023, 06:02:05 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 06, 2023, 03:18:31 PM

But their rejection of the 1962 Missale would also suggest that they believe that Vatican II was so bad, no Pope could live with it, resulting in the conclusion that John XXIII and onward were not popes, so we can't use the 1962 Missale which was promulgated under this "antipope's" watch.

Why else would they reject the 1962? Unless they're trying to go back "before the antipopes". Because the 1962 is practically the same as the Missale versions the sedevacantists and the Nine normally use.

Well....let's see what they actually said in the Letter:

Liturgical Changes

The First General Chapter of the Society, held at Ecône in 1976, adopted the principle that the Districts and the Houses of Formation should follow the Missal, Breviary, Calendar and Rubrics which were customary at that time. This decision was never rescinded or even discussed at the Second General Chapter held last year at which your successor was selected. In the case of the United States, we have always followed the Missal, Breviary, Calendar and Rubrics of our holy patron, Pope St. Pius X, which practice was sanctioned by the First General Chapter. Of late, however, an attempt has been made to force all the priests and seminarians in the United States to accept the liturgical reforms of Pope John XXIII on the grounds of uniformity and loyalty to the Society, thereby implying that adherence to the non-reformed traditional Rites of St. Pius X constitutes disloyalty. Can it be that the Society has come to look upon loyalty to tradition as disloyalty to the Society?

Most recently, to our shock and dismay, a newly-ordained priest was given an ultimatum — either to accept the reforms of John XXIII and to begin saying Mass according to the John XXIII missal or to leave the Society. Is it possible that the Society which has been persecuted because of its loyalty to tradition now persecutes priests for their loyalty to tradition? What has happened? Can it be that the Society now uses the same tactic which the reforming hierarchy used to impose the reform that has destroyed our people and our churches? Is not this, in the light of recent history, beyond belief? Would we not be far more guilty in accepting this first step than the priests of twenty years ago who did not have the historical precedent that we have before our eyes? As you well know, John XXIII made his original changes as merely temporary steps in preparation for Vatican II. Father Kelly wrote to you of this matter last year when it was announced that you would strive to introduce the reforms of John XXIII in the United States. To quote from Father Kelly's letter of March 23, 1982:

It seems to me that the very nature of Rubricarum Instructum is a temporary one, and, of course, it only remained in vigor for four years. Thus in its text, John XXIII said that his reform of July 25, 1960 was made with the understanding "that the more important principles governing a general liturgical reform should be laid before the members of the hierarchy at the forthcoming ecuмenical council," which he said he decided to convene "under the inspiration of God."

It is not difficult, then, for it to be seen as the type of gradualism which eventually embraced the reform. Our people would be shocked by any liturgical change. To introduce a change in the direction of the Council would be seen as one step toward the changes of the 1960's. We simply could not stand up in front of our congregations and tell them that we were abandoning the Missal, Calendar and Breviary of our Holy Patron, St. Pius X, for that of John XXIII — one, the greatest pope of the century, the other, the originator of the aggiornamento whose effects remain with us today. In our opinion, for us to accept the Missal, Breviary, Calendar and Rubrics of John XXIII would be to accept the first steps toward the "liturgical reform" of Vatican II, which steps lead gradually to the New Mass, and such would be the way the laity in America would interpret it.

Furthermore, and with all due respect, religious superiors do not, under the canons and traditions of the Church, have any power to legislate in liturgical matters. Such power belongs to the Roman Pontiffs who are themselves limited. For though the power of a pope is very great, it is neither arbitrary nor unrestricted. "The pope," as Cardinal Hergenroether once said, "is circuмscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficial use of the duties attached to his privileges.... He is also circuмscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy—to 'feed'— ...." (Quoted in The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), vol. XII, “Pope,” pp. 269-270) Thus obedience in matters liturgical belongs to a religious superior only insofar as what he demands is demanded by the Church and the legitimate demands of a Roman Pontiff.

Matthew · « **Reply #168 on:** December 06, 2023, 06:59:48 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 06, 2023, 05:17:48 PM

No problem. It's back to the earlier title though, so I'm not sure what is going on.

I'm trying to teach everyone how to use the "Subject" field.

Whenever you reply to any post, you can always change the contents of the subject. The problem is, if someone quotes any of the posts above yours, with the "original title", that will be the default.

Each post has its OWN subject/title, in other words. Not even the moderator can change them all with one fell swoop. I can only change them one post at a time! So I never do.

But if everyone got into the habit of giving posts their own new Subject -- bad "subjects" wouldn't persist so long. But most people are lazy; 99% of reply posts are made without changing the title/subject.

See graphic below.

Stubborn · « **Reply #169 on:** December 07, 2023, 05:05:19 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 06, 2023, 03:18:31 PM

Don't all those things pretty much require sedevacantism? I mean it takes a certain *absolute* position regarding the non-Catholicity of the Conciliar Church and the Papacy of the Pope, to reject the official marriage tribunals, validity of all Novus priests, etc.

But their rejection of the 1962 Missale would also suggest that they believe that Vatican II was so bad, no Pope could live with it, resulting in the conclusion that John XXIII and onward were not popes, so we can't use the 1962 Missale which was promulgated under this "antipope's" watch.

Why else would they reject the 1962? Unless they're trying to go back "before the antipopes". Because the 1962 is practically the same as the Missale versions the sedevacantists and the Nine normally use.

So yes, I hear you that TECHNICALLY they weren't Sedevacantist at the time of the rupture, they "only" made issue with 3 points that are dear to all Sedes from 1970 to the present day.

And to prove that I'm right about this, let's review how many of the Nine became formally Sedevacantist. 100%? I rest my case.

They were either Sedevacantist, sedevacantist leaning, or sedevacantist but didn't know it yet.

Well said.

It was not just the idea, but even the word "sedevacantism" was new to almost everyone back then. It was a word that had to be translated, sounded out and explained to practically everyone connected to the SSPX, and that was the reason for the scandal - and at the time, that's what everyone knew. Was everyone duped? No.

And again, Lad can say what he wants and he can quote things from The Nine to his heart's content, but the whole scandal was driven by the then Fr. Sanborn's sedeism, he was the ring leader and everyone knew it - apparently except for The Nine themselves. Were it otherwise, then when the other issues were cleared up sufficiently, or could have been cleared up sufficiently a few years later, why did they not all return? Because sedeism.

Every SSPX priest who was there at the time will tell you the above, because that's the way it was - it was a huge scandal within the SSPX that for years, even decades left no SSPXer unaffected.

To say "None of these issues is therefore tied to SVism" is to:
1st, completely negate the role sedeism played in the mess, which is a lie, and
2nd, is to give those "Core issues" an importance that does not in any way, shape or form, match the magnitude of the scandal, and pretty much makes the whole episode altogether superfluous.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #170 on:** December 07, 2023, 05:09:08 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 06, 2023, 06:02:05 PM

Well....let's see what they actually said in the Letter:

Of late, however, an attempt has been made to force all the priests and seminarians in the United States to accept the liturgical reforms of Pope John XXIII on the grounds of uniformity and loyalty to the Society

So they rejected the 1962 Missal because they held that Roncalli was not the pope, eh, Stubborn?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #171 on:** December 07, 2023, 05:11:56 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 06, 2023, 06:02:05 PM

Well....let's see what they actually said in the Letter:

For though the power of a pope is very great, it is neither arbitrary nor unrestricted. "The pope," as Cardinal Hergenroether once said, "is circuмscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficial use of the duties attached to his privileges.... He is also circuмscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy—to 'feed'— ...." (Quoted in The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), vol. XII, “Pope,” pp. 269-270) Thus obedience in matters liturgical belongs to a religious superior only insofar as what he demands is demanded by the Church and the legitimate demands of a Roman Pontiff.

Sounds pretty darn R&R to me.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #172 on:** December 07, 2023, 05:22:00 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 06, 2023, 04:26:51 PM

All of the issues are delineated in their Letter to ABL. If people would actually read it, they would see that none of them involved the legitimacy of the pope.

Docuмent2 (traditionalmass.org)

from the letter:

Quote

The English words of the form in the New Rite of ordination so differ from the ones Pius XII said were essential for validity that they introduce a positive doubt as to its validity. In fact the doubt is not negative, but positive enough even in your own mind, Your Grace, so as to justify the conditional ordination of priests ordained in the New Rite. And so you have in fact conditionally ordained at least two priests in America: Father Sullivan and Father [. . .]. Indeed, you even asked Rev. Philip Stark to accept conditional ordination and he, as you yourself told us, adamantly refused And yet, after his refusal, you nevertheless allowed and continue to allow him to work with the Society; and he is not the only doubtfully ordained priest that you permit to do so — he is one of many.

Isn't this a pretty serious problem? If there is no positive doubt, then conditional ordinations cannot be done without sacrilege. So performing conditional ordinations implies that the person performing it entertains a positive doubt. Yet, if there is positive doubt, we are required to refrain from receiving the resulting doubtful Sacraments except in danger of death. This is a clear contradiction.

Despite Plenus touting the Archbishop's knowledge of Sacramental theology, it seems like there was a problem in that area. Which was it? Positive doubt or no positive doubt? If no positive doubt, you can't confer conditional ordination. If positive doubt, you can't subject the faithful to doubtful Sacraments. This is pretty cut and dry Sacramental theology 101.

Stubborn · « **Reply #173 on:** December 07, 2023, 05:24:44 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 07, 2023, 05:09:08 AM

So they rejected the 1962 Missal because they held that Roncalli was not the pope, eh, Stubborn?

There are quotes out there from the SSPX and from +ABL confirming this, I had some of them saved but for a long time the links don't work anymore. Probably still out there somewhere.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #174 on:** December 07, 2023, 05:40:22 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on December 07, 2023, 05:24:44 AM

There are quotes out there from the SSPX and from +ABL confirming this, I had some of them saved but for a long time the links don't work anymore. Probably still out there somewhere.

Despite what the SSPX narrative was, and your repeated claims, it's clear from this letter from The Nine that they did NOT reject the 1962 Missal on the grounds that Roncalli was a non-pope. They clearly refer to him as POPE John XXIII in the letter, uphold R&R principles that John XXIII had exceeded his authority in tampering with the Rite, and say they reject it because it was clearly the beginning of the "reforms" that led to NOM, citing John XXIII's own words that it was a temporary change pending the outcome of V2. Whatever narrative the SSPX might have been spinning, there's not a hint anywhere of rejecting the 1962 Missal because John XXIII was not the pope, but they call him the Pope and claim that he was exceeding the limits of his authority (R&R principle).

Unfortunately for you, whatever "quotes from the SSPX" you have in mind are contradicted by evidence here of what The Nine actually said. I was told by a couple of The Nine that a few of them were not sedevacantists, and that the issue was not at the forefront of their minds, which is confirmed by the fact that not only isn't it even mentioned explicitly in their letter to +Lefebvre, it isn't even hinted at ... but rather contradicted by their reference to John XXIII as "Pope".

2Vermont · « **Reply #175 on:** December 07, 2023, 06:31:19 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 07, 2023, 05:40:22 AM

Despite what the SSPX narrative was, and your repeated claims, it's clear from this letter from The Nine that they did NOT reject the 1962 Missal on the grounds that Roncalli was a non-pope. They clearly refer to him as POPE John XXIII in the letter, uphold R&R principles that John XXIII had exceeded his authority in tampering with the Rite, and say they reject it because it was clearly the beginning of the "reforms" that led to NOM, citing John XXIII's own words that it was a temporary change pending the outcome of V2. Whatever narrative the SSPX might have been spinning, there's not a hint anywhere of rejecting the 1962 Missal because John XXIII was not the pope, but they call him the Pope and claim that he was exceeding the limits of his authority (R&R principle).

Unfortunately for you, whatever "quotes from the SSPX" you have in mind are contradicted by evidence here of what The Nine actually said. I was told by a couple of The Nine that a few of them were not sedevacantists, and that the issue was not at the forefront of their minds, which is confirmed by the fact that not only isn't it even mentioned explicitly in their letter to +Lefebvre, it isn't even hinted at ... but rather contradicted by their reference to John XXIII as "Pope".

Again, if those sympathetic with the SSPX keeps the anti-sede narrative going, then most readers won't pay any attention to the real issues the Nine had with ABL's changing policies nor bother to read their Letter describing them. It's quite strategic.

Stubborn · « **Reply #176 on:** December 07, 2023, 06:41:21 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 07, 2023, 05:40:22 AM

Despite what the SSPX narrative was, and your repeated claims, it's clear from this letter from The Nine that they did NOT reject the 1962 Missal on the grounds that Roncalli was a non-pope. They clearly refer to him as POPE John XXIII in the letter, uphold R&R principles that John XXIII had exceeded his authority in tampering with the Rite, and say they reject it because it was clearly the beginning of the "reforms" that led to NOM, citing John XXIII's own words that it was a temporary change pending the outcome of V2. Whatever narrative the SSPX might have been spinning, there's not a hint anywhere of rejecting the 1962 Missal because John XXIII was not the pope, but they call him the Pope and claim that he was exceeding the limits of his authority (R&R principle).

Unfortunately for you, whatever "quotes from the SSPX" you have in mind are contradicted by evidence here of what The Nine actually said. I was told by a couple of The Nine that a few of them were not sedevacantists, and that the issue was not at the forefront of their minds, which is confirmed by the fact that not only isn't it even mentioned explicitly in their letter to +Lefebvre, it isn't even hinted at ... but rather contradicted by their reference to John XXIII as "Pope".

Matthew's post that I replied to explained the situation very well. But as I said, you can keep quoting The Nine all you want. The fact remains that had they just done what they were ordained to do in this crisis, there would have been no split, no scandal, likely even no sedeism - if they would have just stuck to doing what they were ordained to do.

2Vermont · « **Reply #177 on:** December 07, 2023, 06:45:09 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on December 07, 2023, 06:41:21 AM

Matthew's post that I replied to explained the situation very well. But as I said, you can keep quoting The Nine all you want. The fact remains that had they just done what they were ordained to do in this crisis, there would have been no split, no scandal, likely even no sedeism - if they would have just stuck to doing what they were ordained to do.

What were they "ordained to do"?

Stubborn · « **Reply #178 on:** December 07, 2023, 06:57:51 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 07, 2023, 06:45:09 AM

What were they "ordained to do"?

"...It was to take care of the people whom God sent them as best they could, say their prayers faithfully, study and pray that they might not themselves fall victim to the spirit of Liberalism and worldliness, and keep their torment and speculations to themselves. The hierarchical structure of the Church and the papacy are not their business. Such high matters are the province of none other than Christ Himself and His Mother and the Apostles." - Who Shall Ascend?

2Vermont · « **Reply #179 on:** December 07, 2023, 07:19:44 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on December 07, 2023, 06:57:51 AM

"...It was to take care of the people whom God sent them as best they could, say their prayers faithfully, study and pray that they might not themselves fall victim to the spirit of Liberalism and worldliness, and keep their torment and speculations to themselves. The hierarchical structure of the Church and the papacy are not their business. Such high matters are the province of none other than Christ Himself and His Mother and the Apostles." - Who Shall Ascend?

So, according to Fr Wathen.

Priests are ordained by the Church to save souls. These nine priests believed that the changing policies of ABL in the Society hampered their ability to save souls in the Church. So, by addressing them, they were doing what they were ordained to do.

Author Topic: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX (Read 22566 times)

Gunter

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

2Vermont

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

2Vermont

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Matthew

Re: Evils and Scandals of the Naughty Nine against the good SSPX and ABL

Stubborn

Re: Scandals of the Nine against the good SSPX

Ladislaus

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Ladislaus

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Ladislaus

Re: Scandals of the Nine against the good SSPX

Stubborn

Re: Scandals of the Nine against the good SSPX

Ladislaus

Re: Scandals of the Nine against the good SSPX

2Vermont

Re: Scandals of the Nine against the good SSPX

Stubborn

Re: Scandals of the Nine against the good SSPX

2Vermont

Re: Scandals of the Nine against the good SSPX

Stubborn

Re: Scandals of the Nine against the good SSPX

2Vermont

Re: Scandals of the Nine against the good SSPX