Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 26434 times)

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.