Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 25036 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #45 on:** July 13, 2016, 08:05:22 AM »

Quote from: Croixalist

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Croixalist
Though, when I first started going to an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how many SVs didn't actually go to Mass but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that sedevacantists drove to your SSPX chapel in order to NOT go to Mass.

Our chapel, when it was filled beyond capacity every Sunday, used to have a fairly large meet-ups downstairs after Mass. My guess is that some of these guys turned sede at some point during their time there but didn't want to leave behind the Church's community. I never really got to know them that well anyway.

TLM has a higher percentage of attracting shall we say "intense" personalities. Some of these people aren't the most stable you've ever met. Just last year, I saw a man sitting on a bench across the street from the Church and he was visibly shaking like he was physically ill. I asked him if he was alright and he asked me if our priest had been validly ordained. I said yes, but he just sat there and didn't come in.

I'm only stating the facts, I can't answer for them!

This side notes do not argue for or against the SV finding. It merely does a "guilt by association thing". If some SVs are strange then SV must be wrong.

Many unstable persons believe the truth about some things. The truth does not become untrue just because they believe it.

Croixalist · « **Reply #46 on:** July 13, 2016, 08:19:19 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Croixalist
Though, when I first started going to an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how many SVs didn't actually go to Mass but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that sedevacantists drove to your SSPX chapel in order to NOT go to Mass.

Our chapel, when it was filled beyond capacity every Sunday, used to have a fairly large meet-ups downstairs after Mass. My guess is that some of these guys turned sede at some point during their time there but didn't want to leave behind the Church's community. I never really got to know them that well anyway.

TLM has a higher percentage of attracting shall we say "intense" personalities. Some of these people aren't the most stable you've ever met. Just last year, I saw a man sitting on a bench across the street from the Church and he was visibly shaking like he was physically ill. I asked him if he was alright and he asked me if our priest had been validly ordained. I said yes, but he just sat there and didn't come in.

I'm only stating the facts, I can't answer for them!

This side notes do not argue for or against the SV finding. It merely does a "guilt by association thing". If some SVs are strange then SV must be wrong.

Many unstable persons believe the truth about some things. The truth does not become untrue just because they believe it.

I thought I was pretty clear that I was referring to a particular kind of sede, not each and every sede. However, I still don't quite understand how you guys can go to these non-sede Masses said in union with a recognized Antipope. What branch of SV do you associate with? I suppose we can strike off the Sanborn/Cekada option.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #47 on:** July 13, 2016, 08:33:31 AM »

Quote from: Croixalist

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Croixalist
Though, when I first started going to an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how many SVs didn't actually go to Mass but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that sedevacantists drove to your SSPX chapel in order to NOT go to Mass.

Our chapel, when it was filled beyond capacity every Sunday, used to have a fairly large meet-ups downstairs after Mass. My guess is that some of these guys turned sede at some point during their time there but didn't want to leave behind the Church's community. I never really got to know them that well anyway.

TLM has a higher percentage of attracting shall we say "intense" personalities. Some of these people aren't the most stable you've ever met. Just last year, I saw a man sitting on a bench across the street from the Church and he was visibly shaking like he was physically ill. I asked him if he was alright and he asked me if our priest had been validly ordained. I said yes, but he just sat there and didn't come in.

I'm only stating the facts, I can't answer for them!

This side notes do not argue for or against the SV finding. It merely does a "guilt by association thing". If some SVs are strange then SV must be wrong.

Many unstable persons believe the truth about some things. The truth does not become untrue just because they believe it.

I thought I was pretty clear that I was referring to a particular kind of sede, not each and every sede. However, I still don't quite understand how you guys can go to these non-sede Masses said in union with a recognized Antipope. What branch of SV do you associate with? I suppose we can strike off the Sanborn/Cekada option.

I'll explain again. Most SVs believe they can go to a valid an una cuм in good conscience, at least when that is the only one available because the Priest offering the Mass does not reject the papacy as the Orthodox do, but merely is mistaken on who holds the office. This is not the sin of schism.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #48 on:** July 13, 2016, 08:58:26 AM »

I personally would not go to one as time passed. This was partly because the sermons sometimes where "we must believe what the pope teaches except when we shouldn't, and we must submit to the pope except when we shouldn't" variety. This from a man who was very sound theologically in other areas. Very sober, logical not emotional or flying by the seat of his pants. I believe such sermons are a danger to my wife and children.

I also don't wan anything to do with the Novus Ordo Church which is our enemy. And going to a Mass that acknowledges the head of the Novus Ordo Church as our Pope keeps us attached to that Church at least in a small way IMO.

This is kind of feeding the monster that is trying to kill us IMO. Quite acknowledging him I say. But these are confusing times. One must do what one must do which is to follow his properly informed conscience or one formed to the best of one's ability.

Croixalist · « **Reply #49 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:02:30 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Croixalist

I thought I was pretty clear that I was referring to a particular kind of sede, not each and every sede. However, I still don't quite understand how you guys can go to these non-sede Masses said in union with a recognized Antipope. What branch of SV do you associate with? I suppose we can strike off the Sanborn/Cekada option.

I'll explain again. Most SVs believe they can go to a valid an una cuм in good conscience, at least when that is the only one available because the Priest offering the Mass does not reject the papacy as the Orthodox do, but merely is mistaken on who holds the office. This is not the sin of schism.

Okay, I had to catch up a little on which group is what... so you're coming from the CMRI and you're saying that most sedes are from that branch and do not subscribe to the Sanborn/Cekada position on the Una cuм (among others), right? Can you list the various branches of SV that accept the Una cuм issue?

Croixalist · « **Reply #50 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:06:10 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I personally would not go to one as time passed. This was partly because the sermons sometimes where "we must believe what the pope teaches except when we shouldn't, and we must submit to the pope except when we shouldn't" variety. This from a man who was very sound theologically in other areas. Very sober, logical not emotional or flying by the seat of his pants. I believe such sermons are a danger to my wife and children.

I also don't wan anything to do with the Novus Ordo Church which is our enemy. And going to a Mass that acknowledges the head of the Novus Ordo Church as our Pope keeps us attached to that Church at least in a small way IMO.

This is kind of feeding the monster that is trying to kill us IMO. Quite acknowledging him I say. But these are confusing times. One must do what one must do which is to follow his properly informed conscience or one formed to the best of one's ability.

Okay, so in your particular neck of the woods, it's acceptable... but if it were up to you it wouldn't be. Would that be accurate?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #51 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:19:34 AM »

Quote from: Croixalist

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Croixalist

I thought I was pretty clear that I was referring to a particular kind of sede, not each and every sede. However, I still don't quite understand how you guys can go to these non-sede Masses said in union with a recognized Antipope. What branch of SV do you associate with? I suppose we can strike off the Sanborn/Cekada option.

I'll explain again. Most SVs believe they can go to a valid an una cuм in good conscience, at least when that is the only one available because the Priest offering the Mass does not reject the papacy as the Orthodox do, but merely is mistaken on who holds the office. This is not the sin of schism.

Okay, I had to catch up a little on which group is what... so you're coming from the CMRI and you're saying that most sedes are from that branch and do not subscribe to the Sanborn/Cekada position on the Una cuм (among others), right? Can you list the various branches of SV that accept the Una cuм issue?

I'm not CMRI. But all SVs, mainstream, apart from Sanborn/Cekeda/Dolan/Neville, as far as I know and possibly McKenna believe that SVs cannot attend una cuм heretic Masses. Also Droleskey. The rest believe one can go to an una cuм heretic Mass in good conscience, though that is not the same as recommending it I believe. They just won't condemn them for doing so.

This is true with CMRI and SSPV. Though SSPV absurdly condemns those who go to CMRI.

Croixalist · « **Reply #52 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:26:08 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Croixalist

Okay, I had to catch up a little on which group is what... so you're coming from the CMRI and you're saying that most sedes are from that branch and do not subscribe to the Sanborn/Cekada position on the Una cuм (among others), right? Can you list the various branches of SV that accept the Una cuм issue?

I'm not CMRI. But all SVs, mainstream, apart from Sanborn/Cekeda/Dolan/Neville, as far as I know and possibly McKenna believe that SVs cannot attend una cuм heretic Masses. Also Droleskey. The rest believe one can go to an una cuм heretic Mass in good conscience, though that is not the same as recommending it I believe. They just won't condemn them for doing so.

This is true with CMRI and SSPV. Though SSPV absurdly condemns those who go to CMRI.

I think you meant all SV's.... believe that SV's can attend una cuм heretic Masses. Correct?

That's a lot of big names you listed for those against it. How many other groups aside from all those plus CMRI and SSPV are there? Can't you say which one you come from?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #53 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:26:44 AM »

Quote from: Croixalist

Quote from: Lover of Truth
I personally would not go to one as time passed. This was partly because the sermons sometimes where "we must believe what the pope teaches except when we shouldn't, and we must submit to the pope except when we shouldn't" variety. This from a man who was very sound theologically in other areas. Very sober, logical not emotional or flying by the seat of his pants. I believe such sermons are a danger to my wife and children.

I also don't wan anything to do with the Novus Ordo Church which is our enemy. And going to a Mass that acknowledges the head of the Novus Ordo Church as our Pope keeps us attached to that Church at least in a small way IMO.

This is kind of feeding the monster that is trying to kill us IMO. Quite acknowledging him I say. But these are confusing times. One must do what one must do which is to follow his properly informed conscience or one formed to the best of one's ability.

Okay, so in your particular neck of the woods, it's acceptable... but if it were up to you it wouldn't be. Would that be accurate?

I readily admit that I lack the authority to insist on a conclusion. Even if I were a Priest or Bishop I would not insist on it either way with my parishioners. It is simply my personal opinion (which is not 100% conclusive either way) which could be erroneous.

The current issue had not been addressed in regards to our exact circuмstances in a definitive or authoritative way. Father Stepanich who was the most qualified clergy alive in our day said one could go but did not have to. I'm not sure how anyone could claim, for sure, he was wrong. I also do not know how one can definitively claim he was right either as the issue has not been addressed in depth by sound theologians under a valid Pope.

I believe it is a conscience thing until the issue is settled under a future valid Pope.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #54 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:30:49 AM »

Quote from: Croixalist

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Croixalist

Okay, I had to catch up a little on which group is what... so you're coming from the CMRI and you're saying that most sedes are from that branch and do not subscribe to the Sanborn/Cekada position on the Una cuм (among others), right? Can you list the various branches of SV that accept the Una cuм issue?

I'm not CMRI. But all SVs, mainstream, apart from Sanborn/Cekeda/Dolan/Neville, as far as I know and possibly McKenna believe that SVs cannot attend una cuм heretic Masses. Also Droleskey. The rest believe one can go to an una cuм heretic Mass in good conscience, though that is not the same as recommending it I believe. They just won't condemn them for doing so.

This is true with CMRI and SSPV. Though SSPV absurdly condemns those who go to CMRI.

I think you meant all SV's.... believe that SV's can attend una cuм heretic Masses. Correct?

That's a lot of big names you listed for those against it. How many other groups aside from all those plus CMRI and SSPV are there? Can't you say which one you come from?

I think most believe you can but certainly not all. Not 100% sure though. CMRI and SSPV are the main groups though there are a lot of independent clergy both SV and not whom I'm sure have varying opinions on the matter or are not sure themselves. No clergy can bind us on the issue either way.

Father Stepanich led most of good will to accept his conclusion through The Four Marks. He was certainly correct that Dolan/Cekeda were overstepping their bound by insisting on their position.

OHCA · « **Reply #55 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:40:16 AM »

Quote from: Croixalist

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Croixalist

I thought I was pretty clear that I was referring to a particular kind of sede, not each and every sede. However, I still don't quite understand how you guys can go to these non-sede Masses said in union with a recognized Antipope. What branch of SV do you associate with? I suppose we can strike off the Sanborn/Cekada option.

I'll explain again. Most SVs believe they can go to a valid an una cuм in good conscience, at least when that is the only one available because the Priest offering the Mass does not reject the papacy as the Orthodox do, but merely is mistaken on who holds the office. This is not the sin of schism.

Okay, I had to catch up a little on which group is what... so you're coming from the CMRI and you're saying that most sedes are from that branch and do not subscribe to the Sanborn/Cekada position on the Una cuм (among others), right? Can you list the various branches of SV that accept the Una cuм issue?

I consider myself sede but for a smidgen of doubt. I attend an independent non-sede chapel. I would fulfill my Sunday obligation via a true Mass offered by a validly ordained priest whether sede or not, whether una cuм or not. Just because a priest may be mistaken about sede or una cuм does not make him a heretic, invalidate his orders or his Masses, etc. Now I would be wary of attending an indult though even with an old validly ordained priest due to the sermons. I have never had a bad sermon at an SSPX chapel. I have never even been to a sede chapel but would have no hesitation.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #56 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:44:49 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Croixalist

I thought I was pretty clear that I was referring to a particular kind of sede, not each and every sede. However, I still don't quite understand how you guys can go to these non-sede Masses said in union with a recognized Antipope. What branch of SV do you associate with? I suppose we can strike off the Sanborn/Cekada option.

I'll explain again. Most SVs believe they can go to a valid an una cuм in good conscience, at least when that is the only one available because the Priest offering the Mass does not reject the papacy as the Orthodox do, but merely is mistaken on who holds the office. This is not the sin of schism.

Okay, I had to catch up a little on which group is what... so you're coming from the CMRI and you're saying that most sedes are from that branch and do not subscribe to the Sanborn/Cekada position on the Una cuм (among others), right? Can you list the various branches of SV that accept the Una cuм issue?

I consider myself sede but for a smidgen of doubt. I attend an independent non-sede chapel. I would fulfill my Sunday obligation via a true Mass offered by a validly ordained priest whether sede or not, whether una cuм or not. Just because a priest may be mistaken about sede or una cuм does not make him a heretic, invalidate his orders or his Masses, etc. Now I would be wary of attending an indult though even with an old validly ordained priest due to the sermons. I have never had a bad sermon at an SSPX chapel. I have never even been to a sede chapel but would have no hesitation.

With the indult some "hosts" could be left in the ciborioum and distributed in the Indult from a novus ordo mass. It is rare to find a validly ordained Priest in the indult.

It is nice that you have not heard a sermon in SSPX which affirms people in their disobedience and lack of submission to those they insist are popes. From what I have heard this is the exception. You are correct that it is merely a personal error of the Priest.

jhfromsf68 · « **Reply #57 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:49:04 AM »

I know this has probably been answered before but what is the difference between a material heretic and a formal and a public heretic and which one is Francis?

Thank you

Sbyvl · « **Reply #58 on:** July 13, 2016, 10:21:48 AM »

Quote from: PG

Falsecharity - nonsense. Vacantists when it comes to the una cuм is proof that the majority of them are either dogmatic or immature.

Right. Because broadbbrushing an entire group of Catholics based upon the statements of a few is completely mature.

Sbyvl · « **Reply #59 on:** July 13, 2016, 10:24:19 AM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I did not even read the post because the title itself was so repulsive. More and more since bergolio people are trying to convince themselves, kind of like DePauw in the 60's.

He's just gotta be Pope. He's just gotta.

Believe it or not, some of us (maybe more than a few) don't really spend a lot of time worrying about whether Francis is pope or not. I get the impression that Sedes think that non-Sedes are always trying to convince themselves that the Pope is really the Pope. I don't think that's necessarily the case. Is Pope Francis a modernist who is trying to change the Church? Yes. But our Lord did not guarantee that we'd never have a Pope who would hold heretical views.

I, for one, don't obsess over it. But I often think that some Sedevacantists obsess over the issue, and rarely think of anything else. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

And there are people on this forum who "obsess" over the h0Ɩ0cαųst, or Fr. Feeney, or Vladimir Putin.

Personally, I think the issue of who is the Vicar of Christ to be at least marginally more important than those issues.