Author Topic: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX (Read 22504 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #210 on:** December 07, 2023, 07:11:19 PM »

Quote from: Kolar on December 05, 2023, 05:40:39 AM

There was never a problem with priests using the older rite in the SSPX. It was only that The Nine made an issue of it.

You have this reversed. There was never a problem until at one point the Archbishop decided to impose it at the seminary.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #211 on:** December 07, 2023, 07:13:29 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on December 07, 2023, 05:38:19 PM

Calm down and take a deep breath.
...
Seems that there is a lot of really hurt feelings regarding sedevacantism.

Meg in particular is constantly spitting venom at the sedevacantists and can't pass by any oppotunity to slam them and make gratuitous insults such as "That's a double standard, which sedevacantists are known for."

Stubborn · « **Reply #212 on:** December 08, 2023, 05:00:32 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".

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.

The letter from The Nine, is what Lad is referring to above which was sent to +ABL in 1983. The sermon below is from only a year, maybe two years later and demonstrates the truth of what what Matthew said: "They were either Sedevacantist, sedevacantist leaning, or sedevacantist but didn't know it yet." For me, I would say for certain that the then Fr. Sanborn was sede, but didn't advertise it as such.

In the below sermon, from about the 2:15 mark, Fr. is explaining sedeism, what it is and why it is. At the time it was only a new idea, a novelty. He goes on to caution against theological writings pertaining to novelties. For quite some time and especially these days - and for very many faithful Catholics on all the forums, the novelty of sedeism has morphed itself into an approved, even de fide doctrine of the Church - which is the reason Fr. cautioned against novelties.

But for the sedes, if they can stand to listen for a few minutes beginning at about the 2:15 mark they might get the feel for things in those days as regards the newness of the idea of sedeism, which helps to explain why John XIII was referred to as Pope John XIII in that letter.

Stubborn · « **Reply #213 on:** December 08, 2023, 05:11:25 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 07, 2023, 03:47:47 PM

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.

Yes, God allowed it, and really I think for reasons known only to Him. But you miss the forest Pax.
Use the Covid scam as an example where the economy was booming, jobs were plentiful, prices on everything were affordable and so on. If not for Covid and everything connected to it, things would still be humming along. That was a similar situation within the trad movement until the early 80s.

Look at this country and world 3 years after covid, and who can say what it will be like in 10 or 40 years from now, but in 40 years from now, most people with brains who were alive during the scam would say the scandal of Covid was devastating, only evil came from it.

Stubborn · « **Reply #214 on:** December 08, 2023, 05:14:51 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 07, 2023, 07:11:19 PM

You have this reversed. There was never a problem until at one point the Archbishop decided to impose it at the seminary.

And he explained why. After that, there was no reason to not use it and very good reason to use it.

Gunter · « **Reply #215 on:** December 08, 2023, 06:05:29 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on December 08, 2023, 05:14:51 AM

And he explained why. After that, there was no reason to not use it and very good reason to use it.

In thee Archbishop's last interview he instructed all the faithful both clergy and laity when an agreement could be made. It centered around the rejecting vatican II errors and maintaining the traditional rites.

https://drbo.org/lefebvre.htm

The rejection needs to be public if it is sincere

2Vermont · « **Reply #216 on:** December 08, 2023, 06:39:35 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on December 08, 2023, 05:00:32 AM

The letter from The Nine, is what Lad is referring to above which was sent to +ABL in 1983. The sermon below is from only a year, maybe two years later and demonstrates the truth of what what Matthew said: "They were either Sedevacantist, sedevacantist leaning, or sedevacantist but didn't know it yet." For me, I would say for certain that the then Fr. Sanborn was sede, but didn't advertise it as such.

In the below sermon, from about the 2:15 mark, Fr. is explaining sedeism, what it is and why it is. At the time it was only a new idea, a novelty.

And yet this CMRI nun was sedevacantist from well before 1985:

Matthew · « **Reply #217 on:** December 08, 2023, 07:16:08 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on December 07, 2023, 05:38:19 PM

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.

As someone who has participated in many of these passionate debates, I would say that MANY of the sharp words and bitter rhetoric is uttered in SELF-DEFENSE as it were. It's from non-sedevacantists who were just attacked, called names, and put on the defensive.

No one likes to be told they are inconsistent, stupid, bad-willed, on the road to Hell, etc. And let's be real, the same is true for Sedevacantists when they get called names. They are just as bad with the name calling. So no one gets the high ground here, no one gets to play high and mighty.

When someone posts flaws about the position I researched and chose as being "the best place to park myself during this Crisis", I feel compelled to throw out there how/why the sede position is actually worse, or at least no better.

Ladislaus just posted a clear syllogism about the Pope question. But just FYI, I could post an equally compelling syllogism which "forces" you to conclude AGAINST sedevacantism. Heck, let's do it.

MAJOR: Christ made a promise that St. Peter would have perpetual successors.
MINOR: There have been several popes since 1958, albeit rejected by a tiny minority (sedevacantists).
CONCLUSION: These were valid popes.

or

MAJOR: The Papacy cannot fail. Part of the essential constitution of the Catholic Church is a Pope at her head.
MINOR: But the sedevacantists say we haven't had a Pope for at least 65 years.
CONCLUSION: The sedevacantists are wrong.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #218 on:** December 08, 2023, 07:22:36 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 08, 2023, 07:16:08 AM

Ladislaus just posted a clear syllogism about the Pope question. But just FYI, I could post an equally compelling syllogism which "forces" you to conclude AGAINST sedevacantism. Heck, let's do it.

MAJOR: Christ made a promise that St. Peter would have perpetual successors.
MINOR: There have been several popes since 1958, albeit rejected by a tiny minority (sedevacantists).
CONCLUSION: These were valid popes.

Except that this term "perpetual successors" is routinely abused. What about normal interregna, which have regularly lasted months and years? Does that undermine "perpetual succession"? Obviously not. Then what does "perpetual succession" mean if it admits of gaps. At that point, then, how long a gap is possible? We've had a few years in the past. What's the cutoff? 5 years? 10 years? 17 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours, 23 minutes, and 15 seconds? Father Edmund Oreilly, S.J., held (IMO rightly) that a vacancy lasting the entire duration of the Great Western Schism (40 years) would not have been incompatible with the promises of Christ.

That's the weakness in this syllogism, the lack of explanation for what perpetual succession means. It can't mean that there must be an actual living pope at every moment in the entire history of the Church. Nor can there be some relatively arbitrary time limit on a vacancy. So what's the principle behind "perpetual succession" and when would such perpetual succession be undermined?

Matthew · « **Reply #219 on:** December 08, 2023, 07:36:29 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 08, 2023, 07:22:36 AM

What about normal interregna, which have regularly lasted months and years? Does that undermine "perpetual succession"? Obviously not. Then what does "perpetual succession" mean if it admits of gaps. At that point, then, how long a gap is possible? We've had a few years in the past. What's the cutoff? 5 years? 10 years? 17 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours, 23 minutes, and 15 seconds? Father Edmund Oreilly, S.J., held (IMO rightly) that a vacancy lasting the entire duration of the Great Western Schism (40 years) would not have been incompatible with the promises of Christ.

That's the weakness in this syllogism, the lack of explanation for what perpetual succession means.

I understand what you're saying, and you have a point, but I think we can all agree 65 years is too long. It's common sense.

Even Fr. Oreilly's 40 year hypothetical interregnum has been dwarfed by the current 65 years. And his opinion was just the opinion of one priest to begin with; hardly anything definitive.

That's why I keep saying "this isn't the 1980's". The Sede position was much more attractive and much more likely back then. The Sedevacantist position ages like milk. It gets more untenable and improbable with every passing year. When will Sedes give it up and admit they bet on the wrong horse? When we have 100 years of interregnum? 200 years?

Meanwhile the +Lefebvre position, the "it's a mystery, so we'll just have to assume they hold the Papacy in some way for now, at the very least we don't have the authority to depose these Popes or declare them deposed" position ages like wine.

Matthew · « **Reply #220 on:** December 08, 2023, 07:44:12 AM »

You see, both +Lefebvre's "flirtation" with making deal with Rome, and the Sedevacantist hypothesis, were both much more reasonable and tenable in the 1980's because the Crisis was so young. Anything was possible, 10 or 13 years could be a "one-off" with things going back to normal without an epic disruption. Likewise, a 10 or 13 year interregnum was easily conceivable. One pope could have had an invalid election or something.

But you see, the past decades have solidified things. Now we have a long string of post-V2 popes. And a lot of decades under our belt. A lot of things have become clear, such as the new religion that dominates Modernist Rome.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #221 on:** December 08, 2023, 07:44:41 AM »

Here's an interesting video from the Dimonds. There are similar Old Testament prophecies that the throne of David would be perpetual and would last forever. Jeremiah 33:17 "David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel" ... and many others indicating that the throne of David would last forever. But the throne of David was left vacant by God for 500 years. How was this prophecy fulfilled? Our Lord assumed the throne of David and held it forever.

Cardinal Franzelin, De Ecclesia Christi:

Quote

Hence a distinction arises between the seat and the one sitting in it in the matter of perpetuity. The seat, that is, the perpetual right of primacy - owing to God in His unchangeable law and supernatural providence, and owing to the Church in her right and duty of forever keeping as a deposit the power divinely instituted for the individual successors of Peter and of procuring theri succession by a firm law - never ceases. But the individual heirs or those sitting in the Apostolic seat are mortal men, and so the seat can never fail, but it can be vacant, and is often vacant. Even at that time there indeed remain the divine law and institution of perpetuity ...

Again, I ask, what was the point of having Montini, Wojtyla, and Bergoglio around? So the SSPX would have pictures to put up in the vestibule and there could be a guy walking around Rome in a white cassock?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #222 on:** December 08, 2023, 07:46:06 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 08, 2023, 07:36:29 AM

I understand what you're saying, and you have a point, but I think we can all agree 65 years is too long. It's common sense.

Even Fr. Oreilly's 40 year hypothetical interregnum has been dwarfed by the current 65 years. And his opinion was just the opinion of one priest to begin with; hardly anything definitive.

OK, but then where's the cutoff? 45 years, 50 years, 55 years?

And my chief question is ... who cares? Why do we care that Montini, Wojtyla, and Bergoglio have been popes? We'd have been better off without them.

I personally hold that Siri was the Pope until his death in 1989, so in that case we'd only be at 34 years.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #223 on:** December 08, 2023, 07:50:52 AM »

Ultimately we're weighing an admittedly very lengthy interregnum against an occupied See of Peter that has been destroying the Church and leading souls to hell for 65 years. I think it was Stubborn who had a slogan along the lines of: "Conciliar Church: leading souls to hell for 65 years."

Why do we need such popes as Montini, Wojtyla, and Bergoglio?

2Vermont · « **Reply #224 on:** December 08, 2023, 07:53:10 AM »

I think we can all agree 65 years is too long. It's common sense.

And 65 years of errors from the supposed Vicar of Christ is so much better.

Author Topic: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX (Read 22504 times)

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

Stubborn

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Stubborn

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

Gunter

Re: Blessings of the Nine on the good SSPX until 2012 fork in the road

2Vermont

Re: Scandals 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

Matthew

Re: Evils 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: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX

2Vermont

Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX