Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: 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???
-
Now however, like so many Trad Inc. R&R types, the SSPX is openly attacking sedevacantism:
https://youtu.be/tktlEwHFQAk?feature=shared
WHY???
Because of Pope Francis, there is more reasons to believe he was not the Pope, 1.) heresy before and after election 2.) substantial error in the resignation 3.) error in his concept of what a Pope is 4.) illegal campaigning 5.) CIA manipulation. Thus, more people are likely to accept he was not the Pope and neither is Leo, thus the R&R group must try harder to keep people (and their money) from leaving.
-
Funny how you say this sermon is attacking sedeism, seemed almost more like a nothing burger to me. All he did was give a short, elementary talk about what sedeism amounts to. At my SSPX chapel we had a much better sermon on sedeism this past Sunday.
-
Funny how you say this sermon is attacking sedeism, seemed almost more like a nothing burger to me. All he did was give a short, elementary talk about what sedeism amounts to. At my SSPX chapel we had a much better sermon on sedeism this past Sunday.
Had you read the title of this thread to the end uou would have seen thd word "poorly" to describe this.
Dogmatic sedevacantism is as annoying as R&R. Nuanced sedevacantism and sedeprivationism are legitimate, logical opinions.
-
Funny how you say this sermon is attacking sedeism, seemed almost more like a nothing burger to me. All he did was give a short, elementary talk about what sedeism amounts to. At my SSPX chapel we had a much better sermon on sedeism this past Sunday.
Anyone else hear one? Wonder if there was a memo sent out :confused:
-
Had you read the title of this thread to the end uou would have seen thd word "poorly" to describe this.
Dogmatic sedevacantism is as annoying as R&R. Nuanced sedevacantism and sedeprivationism are legitimate, logical opinions.
I completely agree, but what generally happens is those "legitimate, logical opinions" turn into de fide doctrines outside of which there is no salvation.
Anyone else hear one? Wonder if there was a memo sent out :confused:
That was the first thing I wondered too. I would think the subject will be popular for a little while since the papal election is a current event, which is how my priest opened his sermon.
-
That was the first thing I wondered too. I would think the subject will be popular for a little while since the papal election is a current event, which is how my priest opened his sermon.
I could see how such a sermon might be connected indirectly to the message of the epistle for the Sunday after Ascension (1 Peter 4:7-11) , but I cannot see anyway such a sermon would fit with the Gospel (John 15:26-27, 16:1-4) or with any of the propers or preces for the Mass.
It drives me crazy when sermons stray from the fundamental principles of homiletics and the decrees of Trent on preaching.
-
I wonder about the sermon of Our Lady of Sorrows, Phoenix. Was sent a text from my friend and I deleted it. It was a live steam with sermon.
-
I finally got the audio at my old SSPX chapel from Sunday. The sermon had nothing to do with Sedevacantism, not even an honorable mention.
-
Hard to listen to the same tired points, even on double the speed. So glad I bailed out of the Goodship Lolipop that is the SSPX.
-
Hard to listen to the same tired points, even on double the speed. So glad I bailed out of the Goodship Lolipop that is the SSPX.
Here's a little interesting story for you: Remember when the SSPX had that Damage Control Conference called "Resistance To What?" It was around the time the SSPX Resistance was just getting started and they tried to keep as many SSPX members as possible away from any and all Resistance priests and chapels. Well I listened to the entire Q&A session of that conference and it PROVED that the majority of the SSPX laity have indeed been "brainwashed" by the SSPX clergy and other officials.
If you go back and listen to the Q&A session of that conference, you can hear one lay member stand up and actually say these words: "Is it okay if I ask......" Now that right there is proof positive that this layman was frightened to even ASK a question to the panel members who organized and ran this conference. No grown man should ask if it's okay to simply ask a question.
And that's not all. When a layman began speaking (it might have even been the same layman who asked permission to ask a question... I forget because it's been so long since I listened to it), a panel member quickly stopped him during a sentence and said "Wait! Be careful!" as if to warn him either NOT to say something that would be damaging to their position against the Resistance or NOT to finish his statement because the panel member sensed a statement or question was coming that the panel did not want to address at all. It was a very quick damage control move on the part of the SSPX panel members and I never forgot how "shady" and "cult-like mind-controlling" that behavior seemed to be.
It was then that I realized the following:
1. That the SSPX faculty were merely doing damage control and were never interested in truthfully addressing all of the questions the SSPX laity had concerning the Resistance in the first place;
2. The SSPX faculty had instilled fear into its members so much so that a grown man was afraid to even ask a question about the Resistance; and
3. The SSPX was in the wrong when a panel member actually tried to censor a layman's questioning statements. That proved the SSPX had something to hide and that it wasn't comfortable at all with having an open panel discussion (which it claimed to be having through this "Resistance To What?" Conference)
I might go back and listen to that Q&A section again because it is very revealing in that it shows what the SSPX will resort to in order to keep their flock in line. It's amazing how practically none of the SSPX members in attendance addressed the sleazy verbal tactics of the panel.
Check it out and hear for yourself.
-
:laugh1: “Is it okay if I ask…”
That’s one preface that I’ll never ask of the SSPX or any trad organization! If I’m told a topic of public concern is off limits, I’m out of there. I don’t ask in public about personal matters or questions whose answers require long, detailed, or case by case explanations. If I do it by mistake, I fully expect the priest or moderator to indicate the proper venue for my question.
This sort of incident is exactly why I come to Mass, go right inside to pray, hear Mass, make my thanksgiving, and depart shortly thereafter. I don’t do trad politics, end of story. If a priest asks me something along those lines privately, then of course I’ll answer if it concerns the faith. If it’s whether I drove Fr. So-and-so to the airport in 2015, I have to politely decline to answer. That has no bearing on 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.
-
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.
-
Here's a little interesting story for you: Remember when the SSPX had that Damage Control Conference called "Resistance To What?" It was around the time the SSPX Resistance was just getting started and they tried to keep as many SSPX members as possible away from any and all Resistance priests and chapels. Well I listened to the entire Q&A session of that conference and it PROVED that the majority of the SSPX laity have indeed been "brainwashed" by the SSPX clergy and other officials.
If you go back and listen to the Q&A session of that conference, you can hear one lay member stand up and actually say these words: "Is it okay if I ask......" Now that right there is proof positive that this layman was frightened to even ASK a question to the panel members who organized and ran this conference. No grown man should ask if it's okay to simply ask a question.
And that's not all. When a layman began speaking (it might have even been the same layman who asked permission to ask a question... I forget because it's been so long since I listened to it), a panel member quickly stopped him during a sentence and said "Wait! Be careful!" as if to warn him either NOT to say something that would be damaging to their position against the Resistance or NOT to finish his statement because the panel member sensed a statement or question was coming that the panel did not want to address at all. It was a very quick damage control move on the part of the SSPX panel members and I never forgot how "shady" and "cult-like mind-controlling" that behavior seemed to be.
It was then that I realized the following:
1. That the SSPX faculty were merely doing damage control and were never interested in truthfully addressing all of the questions the SSPX laity had concerning the Resistance in the first place;
2. The SSPX faculty had instilled fear into its members so much so that a grown man was afraid to even ask a question about the Resistance; and
3. The SSPX was in the wrong when a panel member actually tried to censor a layman's questioning statements. That proved the SSPX had something to hide and that it wasn't comfortable at all with having an open panel discussion (which it claimed to be having through this "Resistance To What?" Conference)
I might go back and listen to that Q&A section again because it is very revealing in that it shows what the SSPX will resort to in order to keep their flock in line. It's amazing how practically none of the SSPX members in attendance addressed the sleazy verbal tactics of the panel.
Check it out and hear for yourself.
The Secret Police level tactics have been in vogue a long time for anyone wishing to see it. In the wake of 2012, Fr. Beck and Fr. Rostand each visited the chapel to work damage control. My dad asked two questions and Fr. Beck said, 'you're a question hogger' and no one else in the audience was asking questions. lol Fr. Rostand was working his tap dance routine and I asked, 'How is this not Operation ѕυιcιdє?' He said he had to go say Mass. Basically, the smelly rotting corpse that is the SSPX needs to be taken out back and shot so an organization worth the name can replace it.
-
This interesting story shows very well what we all know deep down, that in the SSPX, questions are not to be asked. You can almost feel it in the air. It's a tense, toxic enviroment. The faithfull are a nuisance, and if they are anything but foolish and naive, they are considered dangerous people, and are to be avoided by the others.
Even if a particular priest does not agree with the leadership and wants to act like a normal person, he knows that he might be expelled just like the inconvenient man sitting on the pew asking questions. It is a group ruled through fear. It's no wonder that we have so many weird priests who seem to have deep psychological issues.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"... 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+
-
Hard to listen to the same tired points, even on double the speed. So glad I bailed out of the Goodship Lolipop that is the SSPX.
(https://i.imgur.com/U1H2dmJ.gif)
Shirley Temple’s dresses were way too short to post. 🤦🏻
But this GIF… is better at symbolizing the neo-SSPX superiors and their cult faithful.
-
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!
It was not breaking the seal, no. One example- there was a big issue about Hounder's oils in the chapel. There were public and semi public online discussions through various social media outlets amongst the laity who attend(ed) the chapel, with the "blind-obedient-shut-up-stupid" on one side and others who did not want the invalid oils imposed on them nor their children for the confirmations and baptisms. So, the trouble makers (aka sedevacantists) were blackmailed to be quiet about it or else there will be no more access to sacraments in general for them. So naturally, they did no want any more part of that nonsense.
-
One of the comments in the sermon video says:
“Let us pray that the SSPX and Vatican II can be announced as two aspects of the same Leonine theology”
It’s pretty clear where many SSPX faithful stand as well.
-
One of the comments in the sermon video says:
“Let us pray that the SSPX and Vatican II can be announced as two aspects of the same Leonine theology”
It’s pretty clear where many SSPX faithful stand as well.
Do you a time stamp for that at all? That's a major one.
-
“Let us pray that the SSPX and Vatican II can be announced as two aspects of the same Leonine theology”
Yikes!!! :laugh1:
-
Do you a time stamp for that at all? That's a major one.
It's only in the comments...
(https://i.imgur.com/sMyatOX.png)
-
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
What has become of the seminary training?
The changes in the SSPX seminary curriculums should be compared and docuмented.
Recall around 2014, Fr. Joe Pfeiffer claiming that he had an SSPX seminarian contact.
He was able to list the seminary curriculum changes made after +W left Winona.
This would be a good indicator of how the SSPX priestly formation has been altered.
-
Do you a time stamp for that at all? That's a major one.
I meant a comment below the video, in the comments section. Sorry, I should have been more clear.
-
It was not breaking the seal, no. One example- there was a big issue about Hounder's oils in the chapel. There were public and semi public online discussions through various social media outlets amongst the laity who attend(ed) the chapel, with the "blind-obedient-shut-up-stupid" on one side and others who did not want the invalid oils imposed on them nor their children for the confirmations and baptisms. So, the trouble makers (aka sedevacantists) were blackmailed to be quiet about it or else there will be no more access to sacraments in general for them. So naturally, they did no want any more part of that nonsense.
The issue of Hounder’s oils WAS a matter of true positive doubt. The oils either were holy, or they were not. This is not the type of controversy I’m referring to, where the issue of one of actual sin. Depending upon who you are and your state in life, speaking out may be required.
Say what needs saying and let the chips fall where they may. If you lose Mass and Sacraments, try another chapel, commute, relocate, go to the Japanese model, or the model of the early days of tradition. Go it home alone, Live-stream Mass with your missal, or simply read the missal, make a spiritual communion, or set aside time for Our Lord.