Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 17

Author Topic: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX  (Read 22467 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Meg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6790
  • Reputation: +3467/-2999
  • Gender: Female
Re: Scandals of the Nine against the good SSPX
« Reply #195 on: December 07, 2023, 01:53:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Centroamerica on December 07, 2023, 10:40:15 AM
    Most of the “nine” didn’t join in the 80s. Remember the split was in ‘83. Bishop Clarence Kelly, for example, joined the SSPX in 1971- Fr. Cekada in 1975 after being a Cistercian. Bishop Dolan had a similar beginning with the SSPX as well. Many held positions of authority in the US district also.

    I don’t think that after only a few years of existence (of the SSPX) or less that these priests would have been able to know all the positions and situations of the SSPX and plan to join them just “to get ordained”. It would be very rash and imprudent to publicly accuse them of this. When people joined the SSPX in the early ‘70s it was mostly because they saw it as the only organization where they could have the integral Catholic Faith. To state anything different is disingenuous.

    It doesn't matter when they joined. +ABL's policy was always the same.

    So, according to you, it's rash judgment to accuse them of knowing full well +ABL's policy before they joined the SSPX. That's a double standard, which sedevacantists are known for.

    It's fine for the sedes to judge, well, everyone else; but God forbid that anyone accuses God's Chosen People (sedevacantists) of any wrongdoing. Sedevacantists believe that they are above any judgment whatsoever. It reminds me of the elitist Jews who believe the same thing. 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4064
    • Reputation: +2402/-524
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #196 on: December 07, 2023, 01:56:21 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 07, 2023, 12:24:20 PM
    Have the Nine ever taken in new-rite bishops/priests without conditional sacraments?  To my knowledge, they have not.
    .

    Never. And none of them have ever changed their stance on this. Say what you want about sedevacantists, but this is one thing they hold the line on. You are guaranteed to get sacraments from an unbroken line of clergy ordained and consecrated in the traditional rite of holy orders in any sedevacantist chapel.

    Despite the fractured nature of the sedevacantist ecosystem, I am not aware of even a single except to this rule.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14645
    • Reputation: +6032/-903
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #197 on: December 07, 2023, 02:23:59 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 07, 2023, 12:24:20 PM
    The expelling of the Nine didn't change the sspx (or at least, not measurably.  It might have intangibly helped +ABL to wake up the new-rome.  Hard to say.).  But the Nine certainly changed/helped Tradition.  American Tradition would be much, much smaller had the Nine not left.
    Helped tradition? Much, much smaller? You don't have a clue what you're talking about here, the chapels were growing like crazy, people all over were asking them to send a priest and to start more chapels all over the country - until the scandal, which almost killed the whole SSPX, which at the time was nearly the whole of tradition. The scandal drove many good families into home alone and back into the NO and was the cause of much division and strife among the faithful. Much, much smaller? No way. It's a major reason you can only find a very, very few SSPXers who were around in those days.   


    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Giovanni Berto

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1305
    • Reputation: +1054/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Scandals of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #198 on: December 07, 2023, 02:33:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on December 07, 2023, 01:09:00 PM
    As the letter from The Nine pointed out, the practice of SSPX under +Lefebvre HAD been to conditionally ordain priests coming over from the NO.  Even in the case of the infamous Mr. Stark, +Lefebvre had initially requested that he be conditionally ordained, but Stark refused, which is where +Lefebvre relented.  There's a lot of UNWRITTEN stuff in SSPX, where they don't have a lot of explicit rules one way or the other, but where the rules were inferred from their general practices, information conversations, etc.
    Which is another interesting thing. 

    Stark was desobedient, but he had no punishment. He was actually defended by the superior that he disobeyed.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #199 on: December 07, 2023, 02:41:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    +ABL's policy was always the same.
    Not true, as Ladislaus has already explained.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #200 on: December 07, 2023, 02:42:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    The scandal drove many good families into home alone and back into the NO and was the cause of much division and strife among the faithful. Much, much smaller? No way.
    Short term, it was a disaster.  Long term, Tradition grew because of it.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14645
    • Reputation: +6032/-903
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #201 on: December 07, 2023, 02:56:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 07, 2023, 02:42:50 PM
    Short term, it was a disaster.  Long term, Tradition grew because of it.
    :facepalm:
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline OABrownson1876

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 649
    • Reputation: +541/-27
    • Gender: Male
      • The Orestes Brownson Society
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #202 on: December 07, 2023, 02:57:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • My question is, are there any SSPX priests out there who say the New Mass is a mortal sin?  I have not really kept up on my latest SSPX news, but I would say there are very few, if any, priests in the SSPX who maintain this position.  I know that the late Fr. Dolan (Bp. Dolan)  in the 1970's was forbidding Catholics to attend Fr. Wathen's Mass, yet the NO Catholics were showing up at the SSPX masses marching right on up to the Holy Communion rail.  Some of these priests are going to face a terrible judgment for not taking a strong stand against the Sacrilegious New Mass.
    Logged
    Bryan Shepherd, M.A. Phil.
    PO Box 17248
    2312 S. Preston
    Louisville, Ky. 40217; email:letsgobryan@protonmail.com. substack: bryanshepherd.substack.com
    website: www.orestesbrownson.org. Rumble: rumble.com/user/Orestes76

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #203 on: December 07, 2023, 02:58:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 07, 2023, 02:41:35 PM
    Not true, as Ladislaus has already explained.

    Ladislaus is not telling the truth. Why do sedevacantists get away with this on this forum? 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46290
    • Reputation: +27248/-5037
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #204 on: December 07, 2023, 03:12:14 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on December 07, 2023, 02:58:11 PM
    Ladislaus is not telling the truth. Why do sedevacantists get away with this on this forum?

    So, because you don't want to accept the truth, you claim that it's a lie ... based on your gratuitous assertion rooted in nothing but wishful thinking.  Stark is the only known exception to NO priests receiving conditional ordination before working with the SSPX while Archbishop Lefebvre was alive.  Since you know this to be a lie, please cite other examples.  SeanJohnson, NOT a sedevacantist, presented evidence from the Archbishop (on the +Huonder-related threads) that the Archbishop had always considered them doubtful outside of that timeframe.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #205 on: December 07, 2023, 03:47:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    The scandal drove many good families into home alone and back into the NO and was the cause of much division and strife among the faithful. Much, much smaller? No way.
    The number of men who were asked to leave/left from sspx seminaries, who eventually got ordained through some operation of these Nine, is not small.

    I'm not saying the split was a good thing, but God used evil events to bring about good works.  He allowed the split to happen and (in the moment) it was not good.  But hindsight shows it was good for Tradition overall.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #206 on: December 07, 2023, 03:48:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    Ladislaus is not telling the truth.
    Prove it.
    Logged

    Offline ElwinRansom1970

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 980
    • Reputation: +739/-143
    • Gender: Male
    • γνῶθι σεαυτόν - temet nosce
    Re: Scandals of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #207 on: December 07, 2023, 05:04:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Giovanni Berto on December 07, 2023, 02:33:31 PM
    Stark was desobedient, but he had no punishment.
    How was Stark disobedient? He was never a member of the SSPX. He was a Jesuit who sought to work with the SSPX. He could be accused of being imprudent for refusing conditional ordination, but he was not disobedient.

    And this matter of disobedience comes back to a foundational issue with regard ths the Nine, to Msgr. Lefebvre, to the SSPX, namely, what is ths true canonical nature of the SSPX? Is it a pious union (17 Code, aka association of faithful 83 Code)? Is the SSPX a congregation of common life without vows? In other words, what kind obedience is owed to leadership by members of the SSPX? And this will horrify many here, what kind of obedience do laity seeking the ministry owe to its leadership and priests? I would argue none outside of basic deference owed to anyone in Holy Orders. The SSPX, like all traditionalist priests, have no canonical mission, no jurisdictional authority outside the VERY LIMITED supplied jurisdiction needed to offer Mass and administer sactaments. Their Mass centers are not parishes; their priests are neither pastors nor curates. At best they could be identified as rectors of SSPX houses and chapels.
    Logged
    "I distrust every idea that does not seem obsolete and grotesque to my contemporaries."
    - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

    Offline Comrade

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 192
    • Reputation: +87/-19
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #208 on: December 07, 2023, 05:32:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 07, 2023, 02:42:50 PM
    Short term, it was a disaster.  Long term, Tradition grew because of it.

    Pax, do you think Tradition grew with the introduction of the Resisitance? I tend to agree with your claim. I think that with every other split there is an initial stall of growth but within a few years it would bounce back even stronger. However, you will have to discount the influence of the Covid Catholics to understand if it did growth.
    Logged

    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2671
    • Reputation: +1684/-444
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Scandals of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #209 on: December 07, 2023, 05:38:19 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Meg on December 07, 2023, 01:53:58 PM
    It doesn't matter when they joined. +ABL's policy was always the same.

    So, according to you, it's rash judgment to accuse them of knowing full well +ABL's policy before they joined the SSPX. That's a double standard, which sedevacantists are known for.

    It's fine for the sedes to judge, well, everyone else; but God forbid that anyone accuses God's Chosen People (sedevacantists) of any wrongdoing. Sedevacantists believe that they are above any judgment whatsoever. It reminds me of the elitist Jєωs who believe the same thing.
    Calm down and take a deep breath. I attend Mass every Sunday with the SSPX. I just simply state that to accuse a priest of joining the SSPX in 1971 with evil intent of becoming a sedevacantist and just joining to get ordination and ignoring Archbishop Lefebvre's policy is very incorrect thinking. I'm pretty sure that there were no sedevacantists in 1971 and the Society itself was only a year old and had not clearly defined its policy. Maybe Fr. Saens y Arriaga had written his book on sedevacantism a few years later and it is very doubtful that any of the nine had read it. 1971 is just too early to say that priests joined the SSPX in order to just get ordination and not agree with the SSPX. It's pretty clear from their writings at the time that they all agreed with the position of the SSPX. We are talking about rectors and district superiors. Any rational thinking person would agree that it is a bit aloof to accuse these priests of bad intent and a disregard for SSPX policy as early as 1971.

    Seems that there is a lot of really hurt feelings regarding sedevacantism. Due to the high flowing emotions and seeming hatred for practicing Catholics who simply maintain a different outlook on the crisis, I'll refrain from commenting on this thread. I just want to leave saying that sedevacantists themselves are not the supreme enemy here.
    Logged
    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...
    Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 17
    « previous next »