Author Topic: Why everyone would be affected by SSPX sellout (Read 4607 times)

Matthew · « **on:** May 13, 2012, 02:35:28 PM »

Remember +Williamson's clever analogy about the SSPX being the "ugly fat kid" playing "anchor man" in a tug-of-war game?

You have the SSPX (unloved and under-appreciated by most) playing anchor man, keeping the rope from being pulled too far across the line into modernism.

In the middle, you have Campos et al. who might move a bit over the line this way, then back over that way. But because of the anchor man, they don't get "pulled" completely into modernism (think "average Novus Ordo Parish in California", or NovusOrdoWatch material).

But now you have the anchor man about to get hit over the head with a baseball bat. What becomes of all the groups in the middle -- between absolute non-compromise (SSPX) and complete modernist abandon (NovusOrdoWatch material)?

Obviously Rome can now deal more harshly with FSSP, Indult groups, etc. because where are they going to go? The recently destroyed SSPX?

Without a large, organized resistance like the SSPX, the modernists in the Vatican can convene Vatican III and take their machinations to the Next Level.

On the surface, the Sedevacantists would seem to be the least affected, and might even gain a few members. But the fact is that they were pretty insignificant to begin with; you have to admit they don't get much attention from anyone except themselves. When do they ever make the news, or get Rome's attention? They don't.

The movement might preserve the Faith for some, and I realize many in the movement are of good will, but it's a dead-end path with no real solution. Moreover, the fruits of Sedevacantism seem to be rather scarce.

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** May 13, 2012, 04:55:21 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

The movement might preserve the Faith for some, and I realize many in the movement are of good will, but it's a dead-end path with no real solution. Moreover, the fruits of Sedevacantism seem to be rather scarce.

Although this is not in the Crisis section, I'm going to make one comment in reference to the comment above.

I really don't understand why you, and others, seem to think the fruits of "sedevacantism" are so scarce. It seems that the SSPX is the just the latest sedeplentist group (and perhaps the last one?) to be mesmerized by the trappings of Modernist--and apostate--Rome. The SSPX priest at Mass today even noted that the internet publication of the bishops' letters was harmful in "our eventual canonical status with Rome."

Are there problems in some sedevacantist circles? Of course. The shepherd is struck and the sheep are scattered. But outside some of those groups that refuse communion with anyone on the outside (these are cults), the "fruits of sedevacantism" are the preservation, without adulteration, of the Catholic faith, untouched by Modernism. It doesn't look like the SSPX will be able to say that much longer.

I'll refrain from further discussion of this issue outside the Crisis section.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** May 14, 2012, 01:01:53 AM »

Quote

You have the SSPX (unloved and under-appreciated by most) playing anchor man, keeping the rope from being pulled too far across the line into modernism.

Yes, this is something many people don't understand. There is nothing more destructive to the opposition to liberalism than to have the leaders of the opposition consciously and unconsciously move towards it.

The 60s and 70s were so out of control because of Vatican II. It was the movement of the supposedly most traditional institution, the members of the church, that was the levee break that caused the flood.

The reason abortion is recognized by the Supreme Court is that the prolife movement supported a candidate who promised to make a woman his first Supreme Court choice. Because they supported a candidate whose father was in Planned Parenthood, who had the nick-name "rubbers." Because they supported a candidate whose father had chosen one of the most pro-abortion members of the Supreme Court, Souter.

The reason feminism is out of control in family life is because of the behavior of so-called traditional fathers, who have become worshippers of "their little girls."

Yes, the shift of Bishop Fellay away from Archbishop Lefebvre's teachings on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Judaism, Vatican II, etc, is going to be devastating. Absolutely devastaing to the future of many Catholic families.

Anthony M · « **Reply #3 on:** May 14, 2012, 01:23:23 AM »

TKGS,

The greater number of Sede's have lost what it even means to be a Catholic, let alone to be preserving Catholicism. Like the Schismatic Orthodox who have a great liturgy with all the trappings, but who no longer have the faith, for with time without being able to grasp the consequences and remaining adamant about being 'orthodox' they have fallen away from the faith.

Similar also to this is what happened to the group of French and Belgian Roman Catholics known as the The Petite Église (little church) who still exist today but who have separated themselves from the Church of Rome and yet like the Sede’s maintain they are Catholics. The Sede’s eventually will fall into the same boat (if they haven’t already).

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** May 14, 2012, 02:49:00 AM »

Quote from: Anthony M

TKGS,

The greater number of Sede's have lost what it even means to be a Catholic,

No, the greater part of those who recognize Benedict XVI have lost what it means to be Catholic. Sedes believe that a heretic cannot be Pope. That is, someone who denies the resurrection of the body cannot be the Pope. Someone who prays in ѕуηαgσgυєs cannot be Pope. Someone who says condoms can be a first step towards a humane sɛҳuąƖity cannot be Pope. The people who have lost what it means to be Catholic are not the sedes. The people who follow a non-Catholic "Pope" are the ones who have, for the most part lost what it means to be Catholic. Going into the vast majority of Novus Ordo parishes is enough to confirm this.

Quote

let alone to be preserving Catholicism. Like the Schismatic Orthodox who have a great liturgy with all the trappings,

No, sedes hold to traditional Catholic ecclesiology. It is your "Pope" who rejects that ecclesiology. As far as your "Pope" is concerned, the Orthodox are to be given more respect than sedes because sedes actually adhere to traditional Catholic ecclesiology, and the "Pope" doesn't.

Quote

but who no longer have the faith, for with time without being able to grasp the consequences and remaining adamant about being 'orthodox' they have fallen away from the faith.

Everyone here knows that Benedict XVI doesn't have the Faith. Some of those people are sedes. They have good reason to be sedes.

Quote

Similar also to this is what happened to the group of French and Belgian Roman Catholics known as the The Petite Église (little church) who still exist today but who have separated themselves from the Church of Rome and yet like the Sede’s maintain they are Catholics. The Sede’s eventually will fall into the same boat (if they haven’t already).

No, it's a totally different situation, and you know it. Believing Catholics adhere to the Faith. Apostates adhere to those who publicly teach the rejection of the Catholic Faith, as Benedict XVI does.

Wessex · « **Reply #5 on:** May 14, 2012, 05:44:00 AM »

Incredible as it may seem, one minute you have 500 priests all hostile towards the conciliar church ....... and then next minute you will have these priests in communion with the conciliar church. Like switching sides in a war. Your enemies will become your friends and friends enemies. But, of course, it is not happening like that. The transformation will be slow and has already started! The leadership will rely on the drip-drip method of change and of man's ability to adapt comfortably in small doses. The Three Bishops will have to upset this process with something dramatic. Their unified response to the preamble imposition was a start but there needs to be a series of similar tactics to hold the line. War with Menzingen has started and the bishops must have a solid strategy to win.

TKGS · « **Reply #6 on:** May 14, 2012, 08:24:26 AM »

Quote from: Anthony M

TKGS,

The greater number of Sede's have lost what it even means to be a Catholic, let alone to be preserving Catholicism. Like the Schismatic Orthodox who have a great liturgy with all the trappings, but who no longer have the faith, for with time without being able to grasp the consequences and remaining adamant about being 'orthodox' they have fallen away from the faith.

Similar also to this is what happened to the group of French and Belgian Roman Catholics known as the The Petite Église (little church) who still exist today but who have separated themselves from the Church of Rome and yet like the Sede’s maintain they are Catholics. The Sede’s eventually will fall into the same boat (if they haven’t already).

I hate to talk about this in the General Discussion section, but I have to ask...Do you really know the "greater number of Sede's"? I actually know a couple of dozen. I know of a few dozen more.

The ones I actually know, personally, have the faith and don't anathematize everyone that aren't with them. The ones people like you rail against are like the Dimond brothers as if they are they typical example of the sedevacantist. They aren't.

Mysterium Fidei · « **Reply #7 on:** May 14, 2012, 08:47:18 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Matthew
The movement might preserve the Faith for some, and I realize many in the movement are of good will, but it's a dead-end path with no real solution. Moreover, the fruits of Sedevacantism seem to be rather scarce.

Although this is not in the Crisis section, I'm going to make one comment in reference to the comment above.

I really don't understand why you, and others, seem to think the fruits of "sedevacantism" are so scarce. It seems that the SSPX is the just the latest sedeplentist group (and perhaps the last one?) to be mesmerized by the trappings of Modernist--and apostate--Rome. The SSPX priest at Mass today even noted that the internet publication of the bishops' letters was harmful in "our eventual canonical status with Rome."

Are there problems in some sedevacantist circles? Of course. The shepherd is struck and the sheep are scattered. But outside some of those groups that refuse communion with anyone on the outside (these are cults), the "fruits of sedevacantism" are the preservation, without adulteration, of the Catholic faith, untouched by Modernism. It doesn't look like the SSPX will be able to say that much longer.

I'll refrain from further discussion of this issue outside the Crisis section.

I agree totally with TKGS and also Telesphorus.

If anyone here considers BXVI to be their "Pope" then they should not be in the least bit upset about the agreement about to take place between +Fellay and Rome.

It is not a Catholic position to claim that BXVI is your Pope but virtually ignore everything he says or does; with the exception to criticize the latest heresy to come out of his mouth or the latest prayer meeting with schematics, heretics and pagans. If BXVI is your Pope, then you owe him obedience and submission.

I mean, isn’t this is just a natural consequence of the SSPX’s incoherent dogma of sedeplenism?

Mysterium Fidei · « **Reply #8 on:** May 14, 2012, 08:51:09 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

Incredible as it may seem, one minute you have 500 priests all hostile towards the conciliar church ....... and then next minute you will have these priests in communion with the conciliar church. Like switching sides in a war. Your enemies will become your friends and friends enemies. But, of course, it is not happening like that. The transformation will be slow and has already started! The leadership will rely on the drip-drip method of change and of man's ability to adapt comfortably in small doses. The Three Bishops will have to upset this process with something dramatic. Their unified response to the preamble imposition was a start but there needs to be a series of similar tactics to hold the line. War with Menzingen has started and the bishops must have a solid strategy to win.

Hopefully there will be a spit. The bigger, the better.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #9 on:** May 14, 2012, 10:08:54 AM »

I think Matthew should give some serious consideration to banning Anthony M. He's obviously another guy like White Donkey or bobbyva who's here to pick fights over this deal.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #10 on:** May 14, 2012, 10:30:44 AM »

Quote from: Anthony M

TKGS,

The greater number of Sede's have lost what it even means to be a Catholic, let alone to be preserving Catholicism. Like the Schismatic Orthodox who have a great liturgy with all the trappings, but who no longer have the faith, for with time without being able to grasp the consequences and remaining adamant about being 'orthodox' they have fallen away from the faith.

Similar also to this is what happened to the group of French and Belgian Roman Catholics known as the The Petite Église (little church) who still exist today but who have separated themselves from the Church of Rome and yet like the Sede’s maintain they are Catholics. The Sede’s eventually will fall into the same boat (if they haven’t already).

I suppose if you cannot demonstrate how signing a merely practical agreement does not constitute acceptance of doctrinal pluralism, you must revert to the tired "all who refuse are sedes" line.

Please see Bishop Fellay refute this charge in his Letter to Benefactors #63.

Why do you refuse obedience to Bishop Fellay and insist on calling such people sedes?

Also, why does Bishop Fellay refuse obedience to Bishop Fellay on the same score?

Wait! It is because you two are sedes!!! After all, failure to render obedience = sedevacantism!

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #11 on:** May 14, 2012, 10:49:57 AM »

My questions in this whole thing, are:

"Has the Society of Saint Pius X secured their property so that it cannot be confiscated from the 'local ordinary' once whatever 'practical agreement' has been made?"

Also, "What if certain congregations of the Society whose buildings do not belong to the SSPX per se, that belong to individuals, perhaps, do not go along with such a 'practical agreement' and decide to 'boot out' the SSPX?"

"Will there be more SSPX chapels/priests going 'independent' if the 'practical agreement' is not agreed on by certain priests?"

"Will some of these priests that do not sign onto the 'practical agreement' end up going and getting advice from some of the 'elders' that endured this same type of conundrum years ago when they left the Society, without going 'full blown sede?'"

There is much at stake here.

Cheryl · « **Reply #12 on:** May 14, 2012, 11:10:45 AM »

Quote from: Mysterium Fidei

Hopefully there will be a spit. The bigger, the better.

You do not do the Sede position any good when you make uncharitable remarks like this.

LordPhan · « **Reply #13 on:** May 14, 2012, 11:11:41 AM »

Quote from: Mysterium Fidei

Quote from: Wessex
Incredible as it may seem, one minute you have 500 priests all hostile towards the conciliar church ....... and then next minute you will have these priests in communion with the conciliar church. Like switching sides in a war. Your enemies will become your friends and friends enemies. But, of course, it is not happening like that. The transformation will be slow and has already started! The leadership will rely on the drip-drip method of change and of man's ability to adapt comfortably in small doses. The Three Bishops will have to upset this process with something dramatic. Their unified response to the preamble imposition was a start but there needs to be a series of similar tactics to hold the line. War with Menzingen has started and the bishops must have a solid strategy to win.

Hopefully there will be a spit. The bigger, the better.

Are you not aware that this statement alone ipso facto removes YOU from the Church?

LordPhan · « **Reply #14 on:** May 14, 2012, 11:27:42 AM »

I for one hope that a split can be avoided, I hope that Bishop Fellay can be removed from his position, unfortunately this does not seem like that will happen.

From what I've been told, the SSPX has control of the properties, they have made sure to do this ever since 1983.

Times are going to get tough for many of us, but perhaps it is a test to see if we are as strong as those who resisted immediately after V2.

It may be a cleansing of sorts.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is the exact position that Archbishop Lefebre had, Bishop Williamson is similar but does things in a slightly different way. I believe but do not know for certain that Bishop De Gallareta is the same.

It is apparent that Bishop Fellay is not. He seems to hold the position that the FSSP holds. We will all soon find out who our friends are.

Keep strong and keep your eyes open to any events.

Yesterday I saw a disturbing sermon from the District Superior of Canada, pronounce that:

1: That Bishop Fellay has done as much as or more for the SSPX than
Archbishop Lefebvre! (I kid you not, he said these words)

2: That a non-Catholic businessman told Menzingen that the SSPX were wrong
in their methods; that is one example of why they should join Rome

3: He attacked the priest who leaked the letter, calling it a mortal sin
to
do so. He said that if someone receives a letter from someone and shows it
to someone else, that it is a mortal sin. Well, I received an email and
showed it to someone today; I don't think I committed a mortal sin.

4: He disgustingly referred to Bishop Williamson as a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier.

5: He praised the Pope numerous times, including the above jab, which
amounted to “Rome was gracious enough to overlook one of our Bishops being
a
h0Ɩ0cαųst denier).

6: He essentially said we must obey Bishop Fellay without question. (How
can
one be a member of the SSPX, let alone one of its Superiors, and not know
what false obedience is!)

I’m not the only one who had a problem with this; there were several
others.

I got word from a friend that he had the complete opposite sermon from another famous SSPX Priest:

Quote

commented that the SSPX position has always been no practical deal without doctrinal solution, and that Bp Fellay seems dot be abandoning is. He then gave a sermon condemning relativism/subjectivism (basically a more detailed version of the 3 bishops' letter). After Mass he send the letters in question to everyone on the chapel email list and commented that BpF's response was "unconvincing".