Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on November 14, 2020, 03:39:51 PM
-
I live in the Columbus, Ohio area, and am trying to establish a Resistance presence here. I started working with Bishop Pfeiffer, but I would like to know if his apostalate is one I can trust. If not, is there any priest who can stop by Columbus on his travels? There is a very small group of us, but in order to receive the sacraments we are reduced to attending CMRI chapels, Byzantine Liturgy, or some of them go to Indult Mass. The Byzantine Church here is as saturated in modernism as the rest of the Novus Ordo parishes around. I absolutely refuse to go to indult Mass!
Please, let us know if there is anything anyone can do to help us.
God bless!!!
W.P.
-
It is a pity your thread has been side-tracked by a sedevacantist. The good part is that it has given you the opportunity to prove that you are truly resisting all the heresies of the counterfeit newchurch and its anti-christian 'doctrines'. If you get in touch with Fr. Chazal or Fr. MacDonald they will advise you. Matthew would have their email addresses.
-
Oh please. The reason no sedes outside of Ibranyi and MHFM believe in EENS is because they know they are outside the Church and don't want to condemn themselves in their arrogance.
lol no the reason why is because for better or for worse most of Tradition is in some way indebted to Archbishop Lefebvre, and he taught a looser view of EENS (never denied it.)
Ibryani is absolutely a joke.
-
lol no the reason why is because for better or for worse most of Tradition is in some way indebted to Archbishop Lefebvre, and he taught a looser view of EENS (never denied it.)
Ibryani is absolutely a joke.
No, the most liberal sedes on EENS are the CMRI who were founded by the drug addicted sodomite Shuckhardt before the SSPX even existed, independent of Lefebvre, so it is not solely because of his influence.
-
Ibranyi and Matatics, and those like them, and to a lesser degree MHFM are the only sedes worthy of respect. MHFM are the only traditional Catholics at all who evangelize effectively. The other trads just let the world go to hell hoping that BOD will save the 8 billion souls who they failed to evangelize.
Sede laymen evangelizing, like protestant "missionaries." Who needs a clergy, when you have the laity who can do everything better, right?
-
None of the trad clergy evangelize. Better laymen than nobody. Are you going to condemn the laymen for trying to do what the clergy refuse to do?
How very Vatican ll. The rise of the laity.
-
St. Margaret Mary Chapel
1000 Scioto Street
Urbana, OH 43078
Sunday Mass 10:00 am
-
What is "the Mass of John XVIII"? And why would R&R use it instead of the Tridentine missal?
Sorry, I meant the Mass of John XXIII.
-
Well, let me rephrase myself:
Does Ibranyi still believe that there's been no pope in 700 years? Then he's still not a Catholic.
If he has recanted to regular sedevacantism, then he is.
-
Well, let me rephrase myself:
Does Ibranyi still believe that there's been no pope in 700 years? Then he's still not a Catholic.
If he has recanted to regular sedevacantism, then he is.
I thought it was more like 1000 years. Just thumbing through his "RJMI Refutations" here, he says "the Great Apostasy" began in ARSH 1033. (A nod there to Ann Barnhardt, she's one sharp lady.) RJMI comes very close to being a highly mutated Western Rite Orthodox with a prejudice towards the papacy (if that makes any sense).
I don't even begin to agree where his conclusions have led him, but I have to give the man credit, he writes very, very well, and he is one diligent scholar.
-
Well, let me rephrase myself:
Does Ibranyi still believe that there's been no pope in 700 years? Then he's still not a Catholic.
If he has recanted to regular sedevacantism, then he is.
I see no essential difference between regular sedes and Ibranyi. He is just a more extreme example of regular sedeism. Why does it have to stop with John XXIII? I remember a sede who used to post here going crazy and declaring schism over another sede who was just like him but also rejected the papacy of Pius XII. Schism! If I were to become a sede I would consider rejecting Pius XII also. If Ibranyi is of good will he is just as Catholic, or not, as regular sedes.
-
lol no the reason why is because for better or for worse most of Tradition is in some way indebted to Archbishop Lefebvre, and he taught a looser view of EENS (never denied it.)
Ibryani is absolutely a joke.
I agree with what you said, but I accidentally downvoted your post. My stupid thumb...
-
I see no essential difference between regular sedes and Ibranyi. He is just a more extreme example of regular sedeism. Why does it have to stop with John XXIII?
.
Because John XXIII was the one who started the current crisis in the Church. Sedevacantism is not an arbitrary rejection of popes. It is an attempt to explain an unprecedented crisis in the Church, one that is incompatible with Catholic theology on the papacy if you accept John XXIII and his successors as popes.
-
.
Because John XXIII was the one who started the current crisis in the Church. Sedevacantism is not an arbitrary rejection of popes. It is an attempt to explain an unprecedented crisis in the Church, one that is incompatible with Catholic theology on the papacy if you accept John XXIII and his successors as popes.
Silly Yeti. ;)
-
No, the most liberal sedes on EENS are the CMRI who were founded by the drug addicted sodomite Shuckhardt before the SSPX even existed, independent of Lefebvre, so it is not solely because of his influence.
You may be right, but my bigger point is that this idea that large swaths of Trad clergy "don't believe in EENS" is silly.
-
for better or for worse most of Tradition is in some way indebted to Archbishop Lefebvre, and he taught a looser view of EENS (never denied it.)
Most of the CURRENT Trad priests are indebted to +ABL, only because most have been ordained by the sspx and/or sspv...All the older, diocesan priests are dead. Going back to the beginnings of Tradition in the 70s, there was a much more grounded orthodoxy (ie priests weren’t as hyper-focused on theories of sedeism/R&R, but mainly on running a chapel and school) because most of the priests in the 70s had a proper, fully formed, diocesan seminary training. Thy were trained on how to run a church, the “basics”, and they were also taught their LIMITATIONS because they realized that theological questions such as EENS, R&R, Sedism, etc were complex matters best left to trained theologians. So most early Trad priests didn’t focus on this stuff because it was a distraction from the true errors of the day (immorality, V2, Modernism, etc).
.
Regarding EENS, there were many priests of the 70s who had a more stringent view than +ABL. Let’s not forget he was French and Europe was way more liberal than America in the 40s-60s. The French/Germans were the ring leaders of Modernism at the V2 council. So we can’t quite trust that +ABL was the bulwark of orthodoxy in all things. EENS has been attacked since the 1700s, starting in Europe.
.
As it is today, 95% of Trad priests have little to no normal seminary training, as compared to the priests of the 60s. Yet they go around acting like the highest scholars and theologians of the land. It’s similar to the current censorship on FB, YT and Twitter, except it’s self-censorship and group-think. Both groups are now just an echo-chamber of their own delusions of theological grandeur.
.
How can most Trads be wrong on EENS? ...That’s absolutely the wrong question. The real question is....”With the woeful lack of normal seminary training for most Trad priests of the last 40 yrs, with the lack of proper bishops and diocesan structure to help priests, with the Modernist infiltration in the Church starting 100+ yrs ago, with the Protestant “normalization” in America for her entire existence, how can ANY American Catholic be expected to have a proper EENS understanding, except they read and pray much on this important doctrine?”
-
Most of the CURRENT Trad priests are indebted to +ABL, only because most have been ordained by the sspx and/or sspv...All the older, diocesan priests are dead. Going back to the beginnings of Tradition in the 70s, there was a much more grounded orthodoxy (ie priests weren’t as hyper-focused on theories of sedeism/R&R, but mainly on running a chapel and school) because most of the priests in the 70s had a proper, fully formed, diocesan seminary training. Thy were trained on how to run a church, the “basics”, and they were also taught their LIMITATIONS because they realized that theological questions such as EENS, R&R, Sedism, etc were complex matters best left to trained theologians. So most early Trad priests didn’t focus on this stuff because it was a distraction from the true errors of the day (immorality, V2, Modernism, etc).
.
Regarding EENS, there were many priests of the 70s who had a more stringent view than +ABL. Let’s not forget he was French and Europe was way more liberal than America in the 40s-60s. The French/Germans were the ring leaders of Modernism at the V2 council. So we can’t quite trust that +ABL was the bulwark of orthodoxy in all things. EENS has been attacked since the 1700s, starting in Europe.
.
As it is today, 95% of Trad priests have little to no normal seminary training, as compared to the priests of the 60s. Yet they go around acting like the highest scholars and theologians of the land. It’s similar to the current censorship on FB, YT and Twitter, except it’s self-censorship and group-think. Both groups are now just an echo-chamber of their own delusions of theological grandeur.
.
How can most Trads be wrong on EENS? ...That’s absolutely the wrong question. The real question is....”With the woeful lack of normal seminary training for most Trad priests of the last 40 yrs, with the lack of proper bishops and diocesan structure to help priests, with the Modernist infiltration in the Church starting 100+ yrs ago, with the Protestant “normalization” in America for her entire existence, how can ANY American Catholic be expected to have a proper EENS understanding, except they read and pray much on this important doctrine?”
This is fair enough as far as it goes, but then there's an issue.
I don't think we can have it both ways.
If this isn't a big deal, but maybe the majority of (modern) trad priests may be a bit off/a bit too soft, OK, all well and good.
But then people on here shouldn't be running around accusing these priests of "not believing in EENS."
The interpretation being off might not be such a big deal. "Denying EENS" is absolutely a big deal since EENS is a dogma.
So are all these trad denying heretics denying Catholic dogma, or are they, in your mind, just a bit off on a minor issue?
-
There’s no one answer. It depends on the priest, depends on the day. +ABL went too far against EENS at times (as has been quoted many times); at other times, he was quite orthodox.
.
That’s the problem with this doctrine. It’s been attacked so many times over the centuries. The errors regarding it are many!
-
There’s no one answer. It depends on the priest, depends on the day. +ABL went too far against EENS at times (as has been quoted many times); at other times, he was quite orthodox.
.
That’s the problem with this doctrine. It’s been attacked so many times over the centuries. The errors regarding it are many!
It is a very wide spread issue among the faithful and really is exactly as Fr. Wathen explained it in Who Shall Ascend?:
"Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it - while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so..."