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

Author Topic: SSPX "Position" Contortion  (Read 2678 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lover of Truth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8700
  • Reputation: +1158/-863
  • Gender: Male
SSPX "Position" Contortion
« on: February 11, 2010, 12:08:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fra Pio: What is the main difficulty with the Society's position, is it a matter of doctrine?

    Fr. J.S: Of course it is a matter of doctrine. I don't need to repeat again what other sedevacantist priests have said before, but one thing that we must notice from SSPX position is the error on the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. With their resist and recognize stand, they can disobey the New Mass :dancing-banana:, the new catechism :bob-marley:, the new code of canon law :rahrah:, reject novus ordo canonizations :heretic:disregard the encyclicals, :rahrah: etc. :devil2: :devil2: They fail to realize  :facepalm:that the liturgy :incense:, catechism :incense:, canon law :incense:, canonizations :incense: are also covered by the infallibility of the Church, the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. If we accept the SSPX position, then one can conclude that after Vatican II the Church's Universal Ordinary Magisterium is now fallible. :pop:
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +825/-1
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    SSPX "Position" Contortion
    « Reply #1 on: February 11, 2010, 06:07:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If this is one's position, and one is forced to decide between Rome and sedevacantism, I fail to see how one could come down on the unlikely side of sedevacantism. It would seem far more likely in my mind that I erred somewhere in misjudging Rome than the extremely unlikely scenario that God let Peter disappear for 50+ years and counting and only myself and a minute remnant of Catholics realize this.

    Perhaps one flaw with sedevacantism is the assumption that the Church has always been neat, tidy, in order, and completely uniform, efficient, and effective.

    My thoughts anyway...

    Sedevacantism to me is a sort of theological perfectionism. Perfectionists have an overwhelming desire to complete tasks perfectly. The problem is, they get to a point where they sense a small likelihood of completing an overwhelming or extremely difficult task perfectly, so they simply don't do it out of fear and a sense of hopelessness, ignore the task, and distract themselves, procrastinating with other things.

    In the theological realm, sedevacantists, in my opinion have a sort of obsessive compulsive/ false view of Church perfection. Since, in their minds, the Church is so far from this view as to be almost hopeless, they simply give up and ignore the Church (believing the current Church does not exist) and then procrastinate by writing reams of words and technical arguments trying to convince themselves that the Church does not in fact exist. It is like someone who has to write a term paper finding himself cleaning his garage. Anything to distract himself from the unpleasant reality that there IS a paper due, it will take an overwhelming amount of effort to get it done perfectly.

    The cure for this is to face one's fears instead of running away. Face the current Church, stare at all of the defects, wounds, imperfections, tragedies, and scandals in the human element of Christ's mystical body and then change the inner thought process. Instead of denial, one must tell oneself that this IS reality, BUT the good news is that the Church NEVER was perfect in its human element and ALWAYS has had defects, sometimes massive. Great Saints had to rebuild the Church at different times (St. Francis, etc.), BUT they never rebuilt it to the point of absolute perfection and they never gave up.

    They used all of the means Holy Mother Church has guaranteed us for our sanctification, sanctified themselves first, and then through mortification, prayer, and action, through their apostolate and the Holy Spirit, moved souls towards that same sanctification and worked together to purify the Church through the channels available.

    We are not called to transform the Church into a paradise single-handedly. We are simply called to transform ourselves and then others and do our small part. Leave the endless theological arguments to the theologians. As St. Thomas a Kempis says in the Imitation it is much more valuable to love than to know and all the books in the world won't bring you closer to God than simple humility and love. Then make that love effective around you and pray for these Priests, Bishops, and Pope to be good and effective Catholics and help bring about another restoration.



    Offline St Jude Thaddeus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 857
    • Reputation: +185/-24
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX "Position" Contortion
    « Reply #2 on: February 11, 2010, 08:32:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    If this is one's position, and one is forced to decide between Rome and sedevacantism, I fail to see how one could come down on the unlikely side of sedevacantism. It would seem far more likely in my mind that I erred somewhere in misjudging Rome than the extremely unlikely scenario that God let Peter disappear for 50+ years and counting and only myself and a minute remnant of Catholics realize this.

    Perhaps one flaw with sedevacantism is the assumption that the Church has always been neat, tidy, in order, and completely uniform, efficient, and effective.

    My thoughts anyway...

    Sedevacantism to me is a sort of theological perfectionism. Perfectionists have an overwhelming desire to complete tasks perfectly. The problem is, they get to a point where they sense a small likelihood of completing an overwhelming or extremely difficult task perfectly, so they simply don't do it out of fear and a sense of hopelessness, ignore the task, and distract themselves, procrastinating with other things.

    In the theological realm, sedevacantists, in my opinion have a sort of obsessive compulsive/ false view of Church perfection. Since, in their minds, the Church is so far from this view as to be almost hopeless, they simply give up and ignore the Church (believing the current Church does not exist) and then procrastinate by writing reams of words and technical arguments trying to convince themselves that the Church does not in fact exist. It is like someone who has to write a term paper finding himself cleaning his garage. Anything to distract himself from the unpleasant reality that there IS a paper due, it will take an overwhelming amount of effort to get it done perfectly.

    The cure for this is to face one's fears instead of running away. Face the current Church, stare at all of the defects, wounds, imperfections, tragedies, and scandals in the human element of Christ's mystical body and then change the inner thought process. Instead of denial, one must tell oneself that this IS reality, BUT the good news is that the Church NEVER was perfect in its human element and ALWAYS has had defects, sometimes massive. Great Saints had to rebuild the Church at different times (St. Francis, etc.), BUT they never rebuilt it to the point of absolute perfection and they never gave up.

    They used all of the means Holy Mother Church has guaranteed us for our sanctification, sanctified themselves first, and then through mortification, prayer, and action, through their apostolate and the Holy Spirit, moved souls towards that same sanctification and worked together to purify the Church through the channels available.

    We are not called to transform the Church into a paradise single-handedly. We are simply called to transform ourselves and then others and do our small part. Leave the endless theological arguments to the theologians. As St. Thomas a Kempis says in the Imitation it is much more valuable to love than to know and all the books in the world won't bring you closer to God than simple humility and love. Then make that love effective around you and pray for these Priests, Bishops, and Pope to be good and effective Catholics and help bring about another restoration.



     :applause: :applause: :applause:

    This is exactly what I was trying to say on another thread!

    I guess coming from a blue-collar background I have a kind of "get 'er done" attitude that allows me to see things in a different way than the academics. I don't need things to be perfect or even close to perfect for me to get to work on them;  in fact, just the opposite. Most of the time in my life my jobs have consisted of having to go in and clean up a big mess of some kind or other! I just roll up my sleeves and get to work.

    I hope I don't sound too folksy and country-western song with these comments but that's really my approach. I'm used to things being a little (or a lot) out of whack and having to do my best with the hand that's been dealt to me.

    I also realize that most sedes are just working with what they have too and I don't want to cast aspersions on any other poster here personally for their own opinion.
    St. Jude, who, disregarding the threats of the impious, courageously preached the doctrine of Christ,
    pray for us.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX "Position" Contortion
    « Reply #3 on: February 11, 2010, 08:49:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Fra Pio: What is the main difficulty with the Society's position, is it a matter of doctrine?

    Fr. J.S: Of course it is a matter of doctrine. I don't need to repeat again what other sedevacantist priests have said before, but one thing that we must notice from SSPX position is the error on the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. With their resist and recognize stand, they can disobey the New Mass :dancing-banana:, the new catechism :bob-marley:, the new code of canon law :rahrah:, reject novus ordo canonizations :heretic:disregard the encyclicals, :rahrah: etc. :devil2: :devil2: They fail to realize  :facepalm:that the liturgy :incense:, catechism :incense:, canon law :incense:, canonizations :incense: are also covered by the infallibility of the Church, the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. If we accept the SSPX position, then one can conclude that after Vatican II the Church's Universal Ordinary Magisterium is now fallible. :pop:


    Yes, the good priest labors under very serious misconceptions about the nature of the magisterium.  These misconceptions have led him to his conclusions.  Why is it that SV's ridicule making proper distinctions?  He sounds like a Protestant mocking Catholic doctrine.  I'm beginning to think that "SV's" only include men who simply cannot grasp subtle thought.  In other words, the "SV" position isn't the great and wonderful "Catholic" position, it is the result of serious defects in the men who hold the judgment because they simply refuse to think about it any further.

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7611
    • Reputation: +617/-404
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX "Position" Contortion
    « Reply #4 on: February 11, 2010, 08:55:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As has been noted recently, sspx Matthew somehow thinks the French GWS Popes are anti-popes( which they are not) and refuses to call the v2 'popes' the same. This is another example of the double standard that anyone should be able to figure out. You can't have it both ways.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2042
    • Reputation: +448/-96
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX "Position" Contortion
    « Reply #5 on: February 11, 2010, 08:58:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lover of Truth do you have a subscription to The Four Marks?
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX "Position" Contortion
    « Reply #6 on: February 11, 2010, 09:00:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lover of Truth, you are getting pretty aggressively SV.

    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1158/-863
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX "Position" Contortion
    « Reply #7 on: February 12, 2010, 12:28:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: trad123
    Lover of Truth do you have a subscription to The Four Marks?


    I sure do.  How about you?  I only heard about that periodical after Bishop Dolan busted a gut against Kathleen Plumb.  
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1158/-863
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX "Position" Contortion
    « Reply #8 on: February 12, 2010, 12:30:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    Lover of Truth, you are getting pretty aggressively SV.



    I have been a diehard SV since I read all the arguements for and against.  I played the devil's advocate for as long as I could and still avoid a retard mentallity.  When I was finally 100% convinced I let it loose on Daily Catholic.  

    The aggressiveness stems from my tiredness in seeing people who have the capacity to know better turn a blind eye to the reality for the sake of convenience.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1158/-863
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX "Position" Contortion
    « Reply #9 on: February 12, 2010, 12:33:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • SV's turn to Eternal Rome over modernistic rome.  Anti-SV's render Eternal Rome irrelevant for the sake of anti-church modern rome.  Anything opposed to Eternal Rome is anti-Catholic (should be obvious but seemingly isn't).
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Belloc

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6600
    • Reputation: +615/-5
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX "Position" Contortion
    « Reply #10 on: February 12, 2010, 12:37:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • what was the final straw for you, the "aha moment" if you will?
    Proud "European American" and prouder, still, Catholic


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31196
    • Reputation: +27113/-494
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX "Position" Contortion
    « Reply #11 on: February 12, 2010, 02:42:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The strange thing is, when someone decides to "become a Sedevacantist", I know very little about what they believe. There are almost as many flavors of Sedevacantist as there are Sedevacantists:

    http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/So-You-Decided-To-Become-A-Sedevacantist
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX "Position" Contortion
    « Reply #12 on: February 12, 2010, 03:34:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do you still go to an una cuм Mass, Lover of Truth?  Your invective against SSPX is not typical of the John Lane-type soft-sedes out there.  

    Within sedevacantism you have the various strands.  First there are the "dogmatic" and non-dogmatic sedevacantists.  The dogmatic sedes do not accept that any sedevacantist can go to the una cuм.  SGG would be an example of that; while CMRI would be an example of the non-dogmatic sedes.

    Then you have the dogmatic sedevacantist Feeneyites who are against baptism of desire, NFP, and the EENS heresy that you can be saved in a false religion.  Many of them also believe limbo is heresy.  

    Then you have myself and caio, maybe Richard Ibranyi -- sadly, he appears to have gone off the deep end -- dogmatic sedevacantists whose position is a synthesis. I believe in baptism of desire and limbo but am against NFP and the EENS heresy -- salvation in a false religion.  

    I'm not sure of Ibranyi's position on limbo but he thinks baptism of desire is acceptable, not a heresy, while I actually believe in it wholeheartedly.

    To make it more simple, for me, the crucial element to being a Catholic is rejecting the EENS heresy above all.  That you can be saved in false religions.  This one strikes me as a fatal error.
    If you are going to go to Mass with a priest who teaches it, at least reject it mentally, preferably vocally.  I recommend not going to such a Mass at all, of course, but AT LEAST study this topic.
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7611
    • Reputation: +617/-404
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX "Position" Contortion
    « Reply #13 on: February 12, 2010, 03:45:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There really is no such thing as a 'sede vacantist'.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1158/-863
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX "Position" Contortion
    « Reply #14 on: February 12, 2010, 03:47:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Belloc
    what was the final straw for you, the "aha moment" if you will?


    Ordination of Priests and Consecration of Bishops not being valid.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church