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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Not the SSPX of 40 Years Ago: Neo-SSPX Is Directly Attacking Sedevacantism ... P  (Read 2829 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Seraphina

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3988
  • Reputation: +3018/-299
  • Gender: Female
Re: Not the SSPX of 40 Years Ago: Neo-SSPX Is Directly Attacking Sedevacantism ... P
« Reply #15 on: Yesterday at 09:00:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on Yesterday at 05:34:31 AM
    Priest in the sspx chapel where I went to regularly scolds sedevacantists and sedevacantism as this big boogeyman error of our time. Only few sedes are still left in the chapel. There have been many cases of spiritual blackmail. If you do not do this or that (in relation to sede question), no more sacraments for you, you are forbidden to attend, etc.. And this threat was not to public sinners, novus ordo attendees or pants wearing ladies. They are all in "good standing" of course. How will such priests stand before God with clean conscience? The thought itself horrifies me.
    How does this priest know “if you do not do this or that…?” So far as I’m concerned, if I’m not committing a sin, it’s none of the priest’s or anyone else’s business. If it IS a sin, he’s bound to secrecy. Holding to one or another position on the pope question is not a sin. It’s not a sin to think, “I don’t know!” 
    A wise person keeps his mind engaged, his eyes and ears open, and his mouth shut!  
    Logged

    Offline IndultCat

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 160
    • Reputation: +112/-90
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Not the SSPX of 40 Years Ago: Neo-SSPX Is Directly Attacking Sedevacantism ... P
    « Reply #16 on: Yesterday at 02:39:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Seraphina on Yesterday at 02:18:41 AM
     If a priest is one who uses the Sacraments as a weapon, then I leave. Saving my soul is not of primary interest to him. I’m not going to be a sacrificial pawn in his game of chess.
    I agree 100%. It's such a shame that certain R&R and Sede priests have  "weaponized" the sacraments. Whether it's R&R priests refusing sacraments to sedes or Sede priests refusing sacraments to other Sedes who are either pro-Thuc bishops and/or pro-Una cuм.  I don't deal with that nonsense either.
    Logged

    Offline IndultCat

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 160
    • Reputation: +112/-90
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Not the SSPX of 40 Years Ago: Neo-SSPX Is Directly Attacking Sedevacantism ... P
    « Reply #17 on: Yesterday at 02:45:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on Yesterday at 05:34:31 AM
    Only few sedes are still left in the chapel. There have been many cases of spiritual blackmail. If you do not do this or that (in relation to sede question), no more sacraments for you, you are forbidden to attend, etc...
    Don't these R&R priests realize that they are behaving just as inappropriate as the Sede priests whom they are condemning?  
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46600
    • Reputation: +27440/-5070
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Not the SSPX of 40 Years Ago: Neo-SSPX Is Directly Attacking Sedevacantism ... P
    « Reply #18 on: Yesterday at 06:02:12 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: IndultCat on Yesterday at 02:39:53 PM
    I agree 100%. It's such a shame that certain R&R and Sede priests have  "weaponized" the sacraments. Whether it's R&R priests refusing sacraments to sedes or Sede priests refusing sacraments to other Sedes who are either pro-Thuc bishops and/or pro-Una cuм.  I don't deal with that nonsense either.

    Well, there are places I go where I realize I'd be refused if they knew what I thought about certain issues ... so I don't tell them.  They don't have a right to know and to withhold Sacraments from the faithful.  No, we're not heretics for believing that there's no salvation outside the Church, or for thinking that someone else is not a heretic if they put a putative Conciliar pope's name in the Canon, or if I don't think the CMRI are schismatic Old Catholics just because their founder originally received consecration from an Old ROMAN Catholic (evidently these guys don't even know what that is) ... since Canon Law declares such to be suspended (not to have contracted heresy as if it were a contagion of some kind), and they did ask DQ Brown to repudiate any schism/heresy beforehand, and he did so.  Even if you think their (Thuc-line) Sacraments are doubtful, you may not refuse me the Sacraments because I disagree.  Who do you think you are?  Nobody gave you the authority to impose your opinions on consciences, i.e who died and made you popes?  You have zero authority, not even that of a pre-V2 pastor of a parish, and Holy Orders was not given to you because you're so worthy of it (as no one is) and so that you can use it to lord it over the lay faithful, and have them bowing their heads to you, calling you Father (they're reverencing Our Lord, BTW, not you), and many of you would have to work your way up to shift manager at a McDonald's were you laicized right now.

    Harsh words, but I'm fed up with the mini-popes using the Sacraments as weapons, when the faithful requesting the Sacraments from the provides the only justification for their operating as priests and for having received Holy Orders.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46600
    • Reputation: +27440/-5070
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Not the SSPX of 40 Years Ago: Neo-SSPX Is Directly Attacking Sedevacantism ... P
    « Reply #19 on: Yesterday at 06:06:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ElwinRansom1970 on June 04, 2025, 07:25:57 AM
    The SSPX has never put forward sedevacantism as its official policy.

    That said, the SSPX long-tolerated sedevacantism as a private opinion. Even its criticism of the so-called "Nine" or then-Fr. Guerard des Lauriers was not an attack on sedevacantism in se, rather it was a criticism that their presentations of the sedevacantist and sedeprivationist theories was imprudent and premature. Even Msgr. Lefebvre never excluded the possibility of a long vacancy, he merely believed that in his time such a judgment would be too soon. Further, not all the Nine were sedevacantist in the 1980s although most had embraced that position by 2000.

    Now however, like so many Trad Inc. R&R types, the SSPX is openly attacking sedevacantism:

    https://youtu.be/tktlEwHFQAk?feature=shared

    WHY???

    Who is this priest?  I just randomly skipped ahead, and just happened to land where he says, "If all these popes have been invalid, that means all the Sacraments are invalid."

    :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

    There's one younger priest (and don't get me wrong, I like him) ... who uttered close to double-digit Christological heresies during his Christmas (midnight Mass) sermon.

    What has become of the seminary training?
    Logged

    Offline Clare67

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 47
    • Reputation: +47/-2
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Not the SSPX of 40 Years Ago: Neo-SSPX Is Directly Attacking Sedevacantism ... P
    « Reply #20 on: Yesterday at 09:36:54 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 06:06:20 PM
    Who is this priest? 
    Fr. Paul Robinson.  

    There is another recent sermon of his called "Do it Yourself Catholicism" where Fr. Robinson doesn't see the irony in him, an SSPX R&R priest, preaching a homily/sermon regarding "do it yourself Catholicism" wherein people pick and choose which parts of Catholicism they follow according to their own likes and dislikes, which dogmas they will follow, which doctrines and teachings from the Magisterium they will follow.  I mean...is he kidding?  The SSPX/R&R trads invented the "Do it Yourself Catholicism" that is so prevalent today in trad circles.  
    Logged

    Offline MiracleOfTheSun

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 795
    • Reputation: +343/-140
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Not the SSPX of 40 Years Ago: Neo-SSPX Is Directly Attacking Sedevacantism ... P
    « Reply #21 on: Yesterday at 10:47:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • We're a long way from the days of Sean Johnson's book 'As We Are' and it's not pretty but the meltdown of the SSPX is just a sad fact of history.
    Logged

    Offline Seraphina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3988
    • Reputation: +3018/-299
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Not the SSPX of 40 Years Ago: Neo-SSPX Is Directly Attacking Sedevacantism ... P
    « Reply #22 on: Yesterday at 11:55:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 06:02:12 PM
    Well, there are places I go where I realize I'd be refused if they knew what I thought about certain issues ... so I don't tell them.  They don't have a right to know and to withhold Sacraments from the faithful.  No, we're not heretics for believing that there's no salvation outside the Church, or for thinking that someone else is not a heretic if they put a putative Conciliar pope's name in the Canon, or if I don't think the CMRI are schismatic Old Catholics just because their founder originally received consecration from an Old ROMAN Catholic (evidently these guys don't even know what that is) ... since Canon Law declares such to be suspended (not to have contracted heresy as if it were a contagion of some kind), and they did ask DQ Brown to repudiate any schism/heresy beforehand, and he did so.  Even if you think their (Thuc-line) Sacraments are doubtful, you may not refuse me the Sacraments because I disagree.  Who do you think you are?  Nobody gave you the authority to impose your opinions on consciences, i.e who died and made you popes?  You have zero authority, not even that of a pre-V2 pastor of a parish, and Holy Orders was not given to you because you're so worthy of it (as no one is) and so that you can use it to lord it over the lay faithful, and have them bowing their heads to you, calling you Father (they're reverencing Our Lord, BTW, not you), and many of you would have to work your way up to shift manager at a McDonald's were you laicized right now.

    Harsh words, but I'm fed up with the mini-popes using the Sacraments as weapons, when the faithful requesting the Sacraments from the provides the only justification for their operating as priests and for having received Holy Orders.
    :incense::pray: You said it!  I’m taking a screenshot of this comment. 
    Logged

    Offline Twice dyed

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 516
    • Reputation: +213/-22
    • Gender: Male
    • Violet, purple, and scarlet twice dyed. EX: 35, 6.
    Jansenism and their heresy re. Communion
    « Reply #23 on: Today at 10:58:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Seraphina on Yesterday at 02:18:41 AM
    "... the supreme law of the Church which is the salvation of souls. If a priest is one who uses the Sacraments as a weapon, then I leave. Saving my soul is not of primary interest to him. I’m not going to be a sacrificial pawn in his game of chess...."
    I remember Fr. Hesse saying: "If you think you have to be holy to receive communion, then you are a heretic; this was condemned by the Church...you don't receive communion because you are holy, you receive communion TO BECOME HOLY!" 
     Not sure about this following link,  but it is relevant...
    *********
    http://thecatechist.com/the-eucharist-is-not-a-prize-for-the-perfect/

    "...But this teaching is original to Pope Saint Pius X! The great enemy of modernism.

    In 1910, during the papacy of Pius X, the Congregation of the Sacraments recalled the error of the Jansenist heretics, “who maintained that the Most Holy Eucharist was a prize, not medicine of human weakness” (Decree Quam Singulari).

    The Jansenist heresy emerged and spread strongly in the 17th century. Its defenders claimed to defend the dignity and the revaluation of the Eucharist, in line with the guidance of the Trent Council. However, in practice, this very pious-looking excuse resulted in a strict behavior that were very distant from the mercy of the Gospel.

    The central idea of the Jansenists was that Holy Communion was a sublime reward for the good practice of virtues and severe penitence. And so the poor sinners (the vast majority of Christians), who often fell, were long periods without Eucharist. Even though they were sorry, they had to show that they were “humble” and not receive communion.

    This austerity discouraged the weakest from pursuing holiness (Daniel-Rops, volume VI of Church History).

    Quite different from this heresy, the Church preaches that even those who have any addiction or are crawling on the path of holiness must confess and receive the Eucharist. It is enough that he sincerely wishes to amend himself, and wishes to return to God. It is necessary to get up and start again, on each humiliating relapse!

    It is harmful to the soul to receive Eucharist in mortal sin. It is also harmful to imagine that one must be almost a saint worthy of the altar in order to be able to approach the Holy Communion.

    Whoever has a sick soul because of sin cannot be discouraged. He must persevere in the search for healing, which is Jesus..."
    ****
    Holy First Saturday of June everyone+


    Logged
    La mesure de l'amour, c'est d'aimer sans mesure.
    The measure of love is to love without measure.
                                     St. Augustine (354 - 430 AD)
    Pages: 1 [2]
    « previous next »