Author Topic: On the SSPX (Read 10174 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 09, 2015, 12:45:21 PM »

I hope that you enjoyed your brief stay here at CathInfo.

:smoke-pot:

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #2 on:** March 09, 2015, 12:46:06 PM »

The OP clearly excelled at studies in sublety.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** March 09, 2015, 12:53:51 PM »

In all sincerity, though, please pray hard to be saved from this insanity. Too many people, like Mr. Ibranyi, fail to distinguish between objective error and formal heresy. To the extent that many Traditional Catholics and even Novus Ordo Catholics believe that what they hold is consistent with Catholic teaching and at the same time have the disposition to accept whatever Holy Mother Church teaches, they are material heretics at best, and the denunciation of so many Catholics as heretics and outside the Church ironically puts you outside the Church as a schismatic ... unless you carefully distinguish that you merely consider their opinions to be heretical but concede that they are most likely held in good faith.

So, for instance, I do not disagree that Archbishop Lefebvre's unfortunate formulation regarding EENS was objectively heretical, but I do not for one instant consider Archbishop Lefebvre to be a true heretic (i.e. formal heretic) but merely to have been confused on this subject; and a material heretic is nothing other than a Catholic.

This is STEP ONE towards extricating yourself from the dark poison of schism. Please pray about this to Our Lady. Ask her to let you see the distinction between formal and material heresy, to understand that the litmus test for being considered a Catholic has to do with the disposition to accept whatever the Church teaches and that this disposition can remain in those who have fallen into error about WHAT the Church happens to teach. There's no more vocal defender of EENS than myself here on CI, but I recognize that most people who disagree with me do so because they THINK that the Church's "interpretation" of various dogmas differs from my own. When the Church intervenes to explicitly condemn their views, and if they were then to remain obstinate in them, THAT is when they would formally cease to be Catholic.

TKGS · « **Reply #4 on:** March 09, 2015, 01:04:02 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I hope that you enjoyed your brief stay here at CathInfo.

:smoke-pot:

I don't know why he should have to leave. His statement above is no different than what you routinely say about the Archbishop in topics where you condemn the Catholic doctrine of Baptism of Desire. He's just a little more crude than you are.

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #5 on:** March 09, 2015, 01:06:56 PM »

In the words of Astro from the Jetsons, ruh roh...

Super sede? Protestant?
It's hard to choose which belief is the most outrageous:

Quote

Richard Ibranyi (RJMI), Mary's Little Remnant, johnthebaptist.us Facts, Beliefs and Practices Exposed

Mary’s Little Remnant is a sedevacantist organization run by Richard Ibranyi, also called Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi (RJMI), who is a self-professed prophet and Witness of the Apocalypse that claims to be “filled with the spirit of Elias” (On RJMI, Current version: 1/2011).

Before starting his own organization, Ibranyi was a member of the now notorious sedevacantist “Schism House” until he was allegedly kicked out in 1997 for holding the sedevacantist position contrary to the wishes and current beliefs of his superior, Michael Dimond, who at the time of the dispute was a Vatican II adherent and defender of the antipopes (On RJMI, Current version: 1/2011).

As of January 23, 2014, Richard Ibranyi and Mary’s Little Remnant rejects all the Popes and Ecuмenical Councils of the Catholic Church “from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward as apostate antipopes because they are idolaters or formal heretics and hence not Catholic.” (RJMI’s Position & Authority, Current version: 1/2014)
Richard Ibranyi’s Crazy Beliefs and Positions

This individual Richard Ibranyi rejects canonizations as infallible and has actually denounced several canonized Catholics saints as heretics. Specifically, he has denounced St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More, St. Bernard, St. Vincent Ferrer (and who knows how many else) as heretics. This proves that he is a non-Catholic heretic who has literally founded his own sect. By denouncing as heretics canonized saints, Ibranyi actually has put himself on the level of the Protestant reformers. He is now in the category of Protestant revolutionaries Martin Luther, John Calvin and other heretics (such as Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons) who founded their own “Churches.” He would literally have to hold that the Catholic Church fell into apostasy for centuries, by honoring and declaring as saints those he considers non-Catholic heretics, and that it is he who must come to “restore” the purity of the Gospel. He even said that, if he could, he would “bring St. Thomas Aquinas back from Hell, put his skin on him, rip it off, and then pour vinegar on his wounds!” (RJMI Audio) Yes, Richard Ibranyi actually said this while claiming to be Catholic.

On his website Richard Ibranyi states his official "Position & Authority" as of January 2014 (he changes his beliefs frequently).

Even though Ibranyi claims to be Catholic, it must of course be understood by the reader that he is not. (All the headers or titles before each of the sections is that of his own):

The remainder of the article is found at the MHFM website.

wxg101 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 09, 2015, 01:14:05 PM »

Are you God, phillipJMJ? Is Ibranyi God?

What is your authority to make such a statement? Can you say without any doubt that for 1,000 years that the Church has remained without a leader and without leaders? Who gave you the jurisdiction to make such a claim?

Based on what? The fact that there were Popes, theologians, etc. who were silent on particular matters during their tenure? Well, I'll have you read the Bible once again.

Do you not remember all the Kings of Israel who reigned during times of idolatry? All the high priests who reigned during times of idolatry? Even within their own people. Yet, these people did not lose their office on the sole fact of their "negligence", as some may falsely assume. It's hard to remember a time without instantaneous communication. Yet, for 5,000 years of human history, it did not exist (as far as I know).

What do you think of Ezechias, phillipJMJ?

1 And Ezechias sent to all Israel and Juda: and he wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasses, that they should come to the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, and keep the phase to the Lord the God of Israel,
2 For the king, taking counsel, and the princes, and all the assembly of Jerusalem, decreed to keep the phase the second month.
3 For they could not keep it in its time; because there were not priests enough sanctified, and the people was not as yet gathered together to Jerusalem.
4 And the thing pleased the king, and all the people.
5 And they decreed to send messengers to all Israel from Bersabee even to Dan, that they should come, and keep the phase to the Lord the God of Israel in Jerusalem: for many had not kept it as it is prescribed by the law.
6 And the posts went with letters by commandment of the king, and his princes, to all Israel and Juda, proclaiming according to the king's orders: Ye children of Israel, turn again to the Lord the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Israel: and he will return to the remnant of you that have escaped the hand of the king of the Assyrians.
7 Be not like your fathers, and brethren, who departed from the Lord the God of their fathers, and he hath given them up to destruction, as you see.
8 Harden not your necks, as your fathers did: yield yourselves to the Lord, and come to his sanctuary, which he hath sanctified forever: serve the Lord the God of your fathers, and the wrath of his indignation shall be turned away from you.
9 For if you turn again to the Lord, your brethren, and children shall find mercy before their masters, that have led them away captive, and they shall return into this land: for the Lord your God is merciful, and will not turn away his face from you, if you return to him.
10 So the posts went speedily from city to city, through the land of Ephraim, and of Manasses, even to Zabulon, whilst they laughed at them and mocked them.
11 Nevertheless some men of Aser, and of Manasses, and of Zabulon, yielding to the counsel, came to Jerusalem.
12 But the hand of God was in Juda, to give them one heart to do the word of the Lord, according to the commandment of the king, and of the princes.
13 And much people were assembled to Jerusalem to celebrate the solemnity of the unleavened bread in the second month:
14 And they arose and destroyed the altars that were in Jerusalem, and took away all things in which incense was burnt to idols and cast them into the torrent Cedron.
15 And they immolated the phase on the fourteenth day of the second month. And the priests and the Levites being at length sanctified offered h0Ɩ0cαųsts in the house of the Lord.
16 And they stood in their order according to the disposition and law of Moses the man of God: but the priests received the blood which was to be poured out, from the hands of the Levites,
17 Because a great number was not sanctified: and therefore the Levites immolated the phase for them that came not in time to be sanctified to the Lord.
18 For a great part of the people from Ephraim, and Manasses, and Issachar, and Zabulon, that had not been sanctified, ate the phase otherwise than it is written: and Ezechias prayed for them, saying: The Lord who is good will shew mercy,
19 To all them, who with their whole heart, seek the Lord the God of their fathers: and will not impute it to them that they are not sanctified.
20 And the Lord heard him, and was merciful to the people.
21 And the children of Israel, that were found at Jerusalem, kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great joy, praising the Lord every day, the Levites also, and the priests, with instruments that agreed to their office.
22 And Ezechias spoke to the heart of all the Levites, that had good understanding concerning the Lord: and they ate during the seven days of the solemnity, immolating victims of peace offerings, and praising the Lord the God of their fathers.
23 And it pleased the whole multitude to keep other seven days: which they did with great joy.
24 For Ezechias the king of Juda had given to the multitude a thousand bullocks, and seven thousand sheep: and the princes had given the people a thousand bullocks, and ten thousand sheep: and a great number of priests was sanctified.
25 And all the multitude of Juda with the priests and Levites, and all the assembly, that came out of Israel; and the proselytes of the land of Israel, and that dwelt in Juda were full of joy.
26 And there was a great solemnity in Jerusalem, such as had not been in that city since the time of Solomon the son of David king of Israel.
27 And the priests and the Levites rose up and blessed the people: and their voice was heard: and their prayer came to the holy dwelling place of heaven.

(II Paralipomenon, Ch. XXX)

Was he to be declared a heretic because he invited idolaters to the Pascal feast, and they who were unclean to feast upon the Pascal Lamb? How about those Levites, who immolated the victim for those who could not, in time, be cleansed for the Feast?

If so, you are going to have to stretch back even further than you originally planned.

"Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew, ch. VII, verse V)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** March 09, 2015, 01:23:38 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Ladislaus
I hope that you enjoyed your brief stay here at CathInfo.

:smoke-pot:

I don't know why he should have to leave. His statement above is no different than what you routinely say about the Archbishop in topics where you condemn the Catholic doctrine of Baptism of Desire. He's just a little more crude than you are.

Your failure to understand simple distinctions never ceases to amaze me.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** March 09, 2015, 02:02:42 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

So, for instance, I do not disagree that Archbishop Lefebvre's unfortunate formulation regarding EENS was objectively heretical, but I do not for one instant consider Archbishop Lefebvre to be a true heretic (i.e. formal heretic) but merely to have been confused on this subject; and a material heretic is nothing other than a Catholic.

Oh, well -- Marcel Lefebvre, archbishop and papal legate to French-speaking Africa just wasn't of the same intellectual caliber as you, Ladislaus. If you had been born in his time, you would have made Pope for sure!

Too bad you weren't born a bit sooner -- maybe you could have shared your great insight and wisdom with the Archbishop. His mind just wasn't as quick or penetrating as yours.

Yes I'm being very sarcastic, and I must confess it's quite infuriating to have to read such pride, hubris and conceit as I had to read in your post which I quoted!

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** March 09, 2015, 02:07:20 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

The OP clearly excelled at studies in sublety.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** March 09, 2015, 02:35:25 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Ladislaus

So, for instance, I do not disagree that Archbishop Lefebvre's unfortunate formulation regarding EENS was objectively heretical, but I do not for one instant consider Archbishop Lefebvre to be a true heretic (i.e. formal heretic) but merely to have been confused on this subject; and a material heretic is nothing other than a Catholic.

Oh, well -- Marcel Lefebvre, archbishop and papal legate to French-speaking Africa just wasn't of the same intellectual caliber as you, Ladislaus. If you had been born in his time, you would have made Pope for sure!

Too bad you weren't born a bit sooner -- maybe you could have shared your great insight and wisdom with the Archbishop. His mind just wasn't as quick or penetrating as yours.

Yes I'm being very sarcastic, and I must confess it's quite infuriating to have to read such pride, hubris and conceit as I had to read in your post which I quoted!

And, Matthew, it's not "pride, hubris and conceit" on your part to question Vatican II, an Ecuмenical Council which represents the teaching of many hundreds of bishops along with the Pope? Yet you fail to see the irony in that? ALL of the Vatican II errors have their roots in the very same soteriology that Archbishop Lefebvre has publicly professed. Many bishops with many more academic credentials than Archbishop Lefebvre himself had would make the same accusation against you for rejecting V2, Matthew.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** March 09, 2015, 02:47:29 PM »

And if Archbishop Lefebvre is right on this subject, then +Fellay's statement that Vatican II is 95% compatible with Tradition actually represents an understatement ... to the tune of 5%. You had better put down the gauntlet in your fight against Vatican II because you've got nothing to stand on ... other than some general disdain for clown Masses.

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** March 09, 2015, 03:48:30 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

And, Matthew, it's not "pride, hubris and conceit" on your part to question Vatican II, an Ecuмenical Council which represents the teaching of many hundreds of bishops along with the Pope? Yet you fail to see the irony in that? ALL of the Vatican II errors have their roots in the very same soteriology that Archbishop Lefebvre has publicly professed. Many bishops with many more academic credentials than Archbishop Lefebvre himself had would make the same accusation against you for rejecting V2, Matthew.

No, I disagree that Feeneyism is the only solid foundation for the Traditional movement.

Vatican II was a "pastoral" council that explicitly rejected the protection of the Holy Ghost. Also, there is plenty of evidence that the Church was hijacked by Freemasons during Vatican II. The consonance of the post-Vatican II Church with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (as well as communism) is evident to anyone with open eyes.

That is why I'm a Trad. Yes, I place myself in opposition to a few hundred bishops and a half-dozen popes, but only because I have tens of thousands of bishops and hundreds of Popes, as well as the whole of Catholic doctrine (which can't change) on my side. So even in my "judgment" of these V2 clerics, I stand with a much greater number as a Traditional Catholic.

Long story short, mine is the humble, obedient position of a good Catholic.

There is no pride involved. Pride is saying that you can change the doctrine of the Church, her priesthood, her sacraments, etc.

You and Cantarella seem to think that 95% of Trads aren't "trad" enough because they "substantially" agree with Vatican II -- because they're not Feeneyite, I guess.

You can have it.

There is a pretty big difference between you and I. When I attended the Seminary, I was there to learn. Not to argue, not to teach. I came there with a docile mindset. I didn't argue or discuss anything with Bishop Williamson, during class or otherwise. I took notes. I also didn't leave for any doctrinal reason.

You seem quite attached to your own opinions. You wouldn't even trust the priests/prelate you chose earlier (before you joined) as a safe place to be formed as a priest! Even among friends (of your own choosing), you still weren't at peace or in a position to trust. That is sad.

It is very dangerous to hold to ANY extreme opinion that would place 95% of TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS outside the Truth. I think everyone who would do so has an ulterior motive for doing so (needing to be special, needing to be better than others, pride, etc.)

I've been a Trad for life. I'm used to being different, martyr for the truth, misjudged, and all that. But anyone who can't be content in their Trad circle, feeling the need to be a "remnant of the remnant of the remnant" -- I think there's something wrong there.

I don't believe God would do that to us.

Matthew · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2015, 03:54:54 PM »

No, intellect isn't everything.

But Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't just a stellar intellect. He is known for his wisdom and prudence, as well as holiness.

Countless post-Vatican-2 clerics have a high IQ, but what does it get them if they are ignorant of the Faith?

The fact of the matter is, God chose +Lefebvre to save the Church in his day (to become the backbone of the Traditional movement), and he cooperated with God's grace. He was good enough for God, but not good enough for you. That's the problem I see.

I guess that's what happens when you view everything through the distorted lens of "Feeneyism".

There's a reason it's named after a man.

Matto · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2015, 04:14:47 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

I guess that's what happens when you view everything through the distorted lens of "Feeneyism".

There's a reason it's named after a man.

I also disagree with Lefebvre's position on this one. He seemed to believe, according to the quotes I have seen, that people can be saved by baptism of desire in false religions without conversion to the Catholic faith.

For example, he said: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion, but not by this religion.” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press p. 216)

I accept the possibility of Baptism of desire, but only for those who convert to the Catholic faith. I do not believe they can be saved in a religion other that the Catholic religion.