Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Kephapaulos on September 02, 2024, 01:45:37 PM
-
What is your traditionalist position?
-
I chose SSPX. Sedeprivationist SSPX-Mass attendee isn't a choice.
-
I checked sedevacantist, however, the sedeprivationist is the closest I’ve been able to reason through. I’m strictly dogmatic about it; recognizing that others may legitimately hold differing points of view. There is no sedeprivationist chapel near me, so I attend a sedevacantist chapel. I will attend an SSPX or Resistance chapel since I view the matter as unable to be certainly determined until a fully Catholic Pope makes a definitive ruling.
-
This poll is missing some choices.
Would it be better to say
recognize and resist,
sedevacantist,
unclear middle position,
indult,
other,
all,
anything but that which is attached to the Novus Ordo?
-
This poll is missing some choices.
Would it be better to say
recognize and resist,
sedevacantist ...
The problem with that is it assumes that sedevacantista are not also recognize and resisters.
Fr. Cekada's sect recognizes Pius XII as a legitimate pope, but resists (i.e., rejects) his liturgical reforms.
Every sedevacantist sect recognizes Benedict XVI as a legitimate pope, yet they reject countless laws that he promulgated in the 1917 code. For example, every one of their bishops were consecrated without papal mandate, in direct defiance of the 1917 Code, and also in defiance of the law promulgated by Pius XII who attached an ipso facto excomminucation to that crime. By recognizing Pius XII as pope, they are morally obliged to recognize their own excommunication and act accordingly, yet none of them do. Every sedevacantist priest/bishop hears confession and pretends to grant absolution, in direct definiance of the 1917 Code, which explicitly forbids any priest/bishop from doing so who does not possess ordinary faculties (except in danger of death).
I could go on and on, but the point is that every sedevacantist priest, and every sedevacantist laymen who attends a sede chapel, rejects legitimate laws that were promulgate by popes who legitimacy they accept. The same is true for the sedeprivationists.
So, the categories should be:
1) Non sedevacantist recognize and resist.
2) Sedevacantist recognize and resist.
3) Sedeprivationist recognize and resist.
-
I checked sedevacantist, however, the sedeprivationist is the closest I’ve been able to reason through.
But how can you reason through sedeprivationism when you don't understand sedeprivationism? Or are you the one person who does understand it. If so, please explain it for the rest of us.
-
The problem with that is it assumes that sedevacantista are not also recognize and resisters.
Fr. Cekada's sect recognizes Pius XII as a legitimate pope, but resists (i.e., rejects) his liturgical reforms.
Every sedevacantist sect recognizes Benedict XVI as a legitimate pope, yet they reject countless laws that he promulgated in the 1917 code. For example, every one of their bishops were consecrated without papal mandate, in direct defiance of the 1917 Code, and also in defiance of the law promulgated by Pius XII who attached an ipso facto excomminucation to that crime. By recognizing Pius XII as pope, they are morally obliged to recognize their own excommunication and act accordingly, yet none of them do. Every sedevacantist priest/bishop hears confession and pretends to grant absolution, in direct definiance of the 1917 Code, which explicitly forbids any priest/bishop from doing so who does not possess ordinary faculties (except in danger of death).
I could go on and on, but the point is that every sedevacantist priest, and every sedevacantist laymen who attends a sede chapel, rejects legitimate laws that were promulgate by popes who legitimacy they accept. The same is true for the sedeprivationists.
So, the categories should be:
1) Non sedevacantist recognize and resist.
2) Sedevacantist recognize and resist.
3) Sedeprivationist recognize and resist.
You do realize that this forum recognizes sedevacantists as Catholic, not part of a "sect", right?
-
That's fine, but the fact remains that every sedevacanitst chapel is a non-Catholic sect. And everyone who attends Mass at a sedevacantist sect is, according to Bellarmine, a "manifest heretic". I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but even heretics have a right to hear the truth.
Are you Siscoe or Salza?
-
That's fine, but the fact remains that every sedevacanitst chapel is a non-Catholic sect. And everyone who attends Mass at a sedevacantist sect is, according to Bellarmine, a "manifest heretic". I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but even heretics have a right to hear the truth.
Traddie, where do you attend?
-
The problem with that is it assumes that sedevacantista are not also recognize and resisters.
Fr. Cekada's sect recognizes Pius XII as a legitimate pope, but resists (i.e., rejects) his liturgical reforms.
Every sedevacantist sect recognizes Benedict XVI as a legitimate pope, yet they reject countless laws that he promulgated in the 1917 code. For example, every one of their bishops were consecrated without papal mandate, in direct defiance of the 1917 Code, and also in defiance of the law promulgated by Pius XII who attached an ipso facto excomminucation to that crime. By recognizing Pius XII as pope, they are morally obliged to recognize their own excommunication and act accordingly, yet none of them do. Every sedevacantist priest/bishop hears confession and pretends to grant absolution, in direct definiance of the 1917 Code, which explicitly forbids any priest/bishop from doing so who does not possess ordinary faculties (except in danger of death).
I could go on and on, but the point is that every sedevacantist priest, and every sedevacantist laymen who attends a sede chapel, rejects legitimate laws that were promulgate by popes who legitimacy they accept. The same is true for the sedeprivationists.
So, the categories should be:
1) Non sedevacantist recognize and resist.
2) Sedevacantist recognize and resist.
3) Sedeprivationist recognize and resist.
Every now and then a strange one comes along.
At least you could try to be funny.:clown:
Well, at least you mentioned the laws that Benedict XVI promulgated in the 1917 code, ten years before he was even born. :fryingpan:
-
Code?
Every now and then a strange one comes along.
At least you could try to be funny.:clown:
Well, at least you mentioned the laws that Benedict XVI promulgated in the 1917 code, ten years before he was even born. :fryingpan:
Typo correction: Benedict XV. Do you deny that every sede priest and pseudo bishop rejects laws that were promulgated by Benedict XV in the 1917 Code? Every sede chapel is a violation of that law as is every Mass celebrated by a sede priest. Except in danger of death, everytime a sede priest or pseudo bishop exercises a priestly power he commits a mortal sin.
-
You do realize that this forum recognizes sedevacantists as Catholic, not part of a "sect", right?
The worst of all has to be he CMRI cult, which was founded by the notorious heretic, Francis Schuckardt aka Antipope Hadrian VII. Is that the sect that you belong to? Every member of the CRMI sect has incurred a latae sententiae exommunication, which means they are cut off from the communion of saints.
-
Traddie where do you attend?
-
Typo correction: Benedict XV. Do you deny that every sede priest and pseudo bishop rejects laws that were promulgated by Benedict XV in the 1917 Code? Every sede chapel is a violation of that law as is every Mass celebrated by a sede priest. Except in danger of death, everytime a sede priest or pseudo bishop exercises a priestly power he commits a mortal sin.
I don't really understand how people take the time to argue with folks like you, who come here with an agenda and write bombastic posts.
As I said before, you could try to be funny to compensate all the nonsense.
Pick the one that better describes your position:
:trollface:
:clown:
:jester:
:laugh2:
-
The worst of all has to be he CMRI cult, which was founded by the notorious heretic, Francis Schuckardt aka Antipope Hadrian VII. Is that the sect that you belong to? Every member of the CRMI sect has incurred a latae sententiae exommunication, which means they are cut off from the communion of saints.
(https://i.imgur.com/15AdO04.png)
-
The worst of all has to be he CMRI cult, which was founded by the notorious heretic, Francis Schuckardt aka Antipope Hadrian VII. Is that the sect that you belong to? Every member of the CRMI sect has incurred a latae sententiae exommunication, which means they are cut off from the communion of saints.
Though I'm not of the sedevacantist nor the sedeprivationist (which I've never entirely understood) position, the above post must be addressed. Schuckardt was expelled from the organization. Bishop George Musey (Thuc Line) readministered sacraments as necessary, and reordained the priests. The Congregation held a general chapter in 1986 to adopt its rule, which was approved by the well respected Bishop Robert McKenna. Father Mark Pivarunas was elected as Superior General and in 1991 he was consecrated a Bishop by Bishop Moises Carmona (Thuc Line).
While only observing from a distance (I do have friends who are CMRI) they strike me as the most missionary minded of the traditionalist groups. In Washington they have established chapels and schools in Spokane and Tacoma and three mission stations with monthly Masses. They have a reputation for supplying priests to say Mass for communities without making inordinate demands for money or having property signed over to them. As far as I can tell they form their priests in seminaries organized as directed by the Council of Trent and provide opportunities for men and women to serve as professed religious. Some of the other traditionalist organizations and independents may do well to emulate their example.
-
"Traddie" keeps ignoring the question "Where do you attend Mass?"
I have noted his presence and will state he is on a SHORT LEASH at this point.
I have had someone from "Salza/Siscoe & co." join CathInfo multiple times, and their morality doesn't prevent them from re-joining the forum each time I ban them. So there's that.
On the lookout for more evidence "Traddie" is associated with Salza/Siscoe or their position.
-
"Traddie" keeps ignoring the question "Where do you attend Mass?"
Maybe he's the one that picked Indult? ::)
-
Maybe he's the one that picked Indult? ::)
I didn't vote, but to answer the question: I attend a licit traditional mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest with ordinary jurisdiction. Who else on here can say the same?
-
Though I'm not of the sedevacantist nor the sedeprivationist (which I've never entirely understood) position, the above post must be addressed. Schuckardt was expelled from the organization. Bishop George Musey (Thuc Line) readministered sacraments as necessary, and reordained the priests. The Congregation held a general chapter in 1986 to adopt its rule, which was approved by the well respected Bishop Robert McKenna. Father Mark Pivarunas was elected as Superior General and in 1991 he was consecrated a Bishop by Bishop Moises Carmona (Thuc Line).
That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the CMRI is a non-Catholic sect. Being reordained (illicitly for the second time) by Musey, and then being "approved" by McKenna, an excommunicated pseudo-bishop who didn't have the authority to approve anything, doesn't make a non-Catholic sect part of the Catholic Church. That should be obvious to anyone who has even a basic understanding of ecclesiology.
-
I didn't vote, but to answer the question: I attend a licit traditional mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest with ordinary jurisdiction. Who else on here can say the same?
I assume that you believe that the SSPX are schismatic too? And that Archbishop Lefebvre deserved to be excommunicated?
Would you have your 'licit' traditional mass, if not for Archbishop Lefebvre? Keep in mind that the traditional mass was nearly fully banned after the new mass replaced it.
-
I hold the Sedevacantist position, but I mostly attend at an SSPX chapel due to availability.
-
Fr. Cekada's sect recognizes Pius XII as a legitimate pope, but resists (i.e., rejects) his liturgical reforms.
This is your only point that I can agree on (though I wouldn't call SGG a sect). It seems hypocritical to me to believe that Pope Pius XII was the last true Pope, that a true Pope cannot give harm in his teachings and reforms, that recognize and resist is erroneous/heretical, and that the 1955 Holy Week reforms are not harmful in themselves and were validly promulgated, but yet refuse to follow said Holy Week reforms. No, "Bugnini cooties" is not a justification in rejecting them today, neither are "one step closer to Novus Ordo", "transitory reform", or "Pope Pius XII wouldn't have made the reforms if he knew where things were heading" valid excuses. If the 1955 Holy Week reforms were validly promulgated and no true Pope since then has abrogated them (and last time I checked, Pope Pius XII didn't set an expiration date on them), then every sede cleric should be using the reforms. Their personal opinion on their content or implications is wholly irrelevant, they do not possess the authority to start picking and choosing which reforms to obey. Why reject the 1955 Holy Week and not the 3 hour Eucharistic fast, or the permission for evening Masses? This selective filtering of Pope Pius XII's reforms only serves to undermine the legitimacy of the sedevacantist position.
-
I didn't vote, but to answer the question: I attend a licit traditional mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest with ordinary jurisdiction. Who else on here can say the same?
So FSSP?
-
But how can you reason through sedeprivationism when you don't understand sedeprivationism? Or are you the one person who does understand it. If so, please explain it for the rest of us.
Let me rephrase, I’d consider myself sedeprivationist to the extent I understand it. I don’t think you read my post correctly. I never said I have no understanding of the various positions on the crisis in the Church—-or don’t you acknowledge the fact that millions of Catholics don’t practice the Faith or even know the basic precepts.
For a better explanation of sedeprivationism, Check out Bp. Sanborn’s The Thesis. It on YouTube. He explains it a lot better than I. My view is close to His Excellency’s, but less dogmatic.
-
I attend a CMRI chapel
-
Let me rephrase, I’d consider myself sedeprivationist to the extent I understand it. I don’t think you read my post correctly. I never said I have no understanding of the various positions on the crisis in the Church—-or don’t you acknowledge the fact that millions of Catholics don’t practice the Faith or even know the basic precepts.
For a better explanation of sedeprivationism, Check out Bp. Sanborn’s The Thesis. It on YouTube. He explains it a lot better than I. My view is close to His Excellency’s, but less dogmatic.
Seraphina, I think he merely used your post to make a dig at the sedeprivationist position/theory.
-
Indult. Indult is the most reasonable position, and easily proven by many authorities and arguments, for those open to following Truth wherever it may lead. Take for e.g. that the Church cannot give evil, which is a standard position in traditional theology. Therefore, the New Mass cannot be inherently evil, but only inferior to the TLM. All theological texts teach this principle, and it was confirmed/reiterated by Pope Pius XII, Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, the Council of Trent etc. Fr. Ripperger of the FSSP has written on this, and +ABL also held a similar position on the NOM at least in the original years, as many quotes of his demonstrate. Btw, the sedevacantists agree with this principle, and it's part of the reason why they hold the OUM of the Church is not the Church. But that position is ultimately unsustainable. The Catholic Religion cannot be sustained without a Living Magisterium. We are not Prots, nor even OCs or Orthos etc. So all these positions have problems. Even the Indult position has some issues, but mostly practical issues, not doctrinal ones. I'm sure its right.
The Church may not be able to give evil, but isn't it possible that the Modernists who occupy the Church can give evil? Archbishop Lefebvre said over and over again that the Church is occupied by Modernists. According to Pope St. Pius X, Modernism is a heresy. Have you read Pascendi?
Your above post seems to indicate that everything in the Church is going along just fine, and that the only problem is that some traditionalists, such as on this forum, take too strong a stance, when there is no need to do so. Everything is just fine. Just attend the indult. But how long are those going to be available? Pope Francis wants them gone. I'm not against attending the indult though.
How can the Council of Trent, or Pope Pius XII teach that the new mass is only inferior to the TLM, when the TLM was replaced by the new mass long after Trent, and after the papacy of Pope Pius XII?
-
Indult. Indult is the most reasonable position, and easily proven by many authorities and arguments, for those open to following Truth wherever it may lead. Take for e.g. that the Church cannot give evil, which is a standard position in traditional theology. Therefore, the New Mass cannot be inherently evil, but only inferior to the TLM.
Only inferior to the point that it's against the law of Quo Primum?
Only inferior to the point that over 90% of it's adherents, include priests and bishops, do not believe in the Real Presence?
Only inferior to the point that the NO "churches" are being shuttered all over the place ever since this "inferior mass" was perpetrated?
Only inferior to the point that against the clear warning of St. Paul, it has women speakers?
Only inferior to the point that communion in the hand is a requirement and that laymen and women distribute communion?
Only inferior to the point that they use altar girls?
Only inferior to the point that by design it is devoid of all reverence and sanctity?
Only inferior to the point that those who go there are taught to believe one faith is as good as any other - as long as it's not the traditional faith and Mass?
And on and on this list could go.
No, the new "mass" is not "only inferior" to the True Mass, it is an inherently evil service because it apes the True Mass, and it's fruits are rotten to the core. It's purpose is to replace the True Mass, not to worship God.
-
I didn't vote, but to answer the question: I attend a licit traditional mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest with ordinary jurisdiction. Who else on here can say the same?
An Eastern Rite liturgy?
-
Even the Indult position has some issues, but mostly practical issues, not doctrinal ones. I'm sure its right.
Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. The chain is unbreakable.
What you term merely practical issues are indeed doctrinal ones because implicit is the acceptance of those new doctrines. Little by little in indult churches we see oddities such as women leading the Rosary in the presence of men, so-called Divine Mercy devotions announced in the bulletin, and by these paths the indifferentism seeps in. Sure, there's still the smells and bells and veils and altar rails.
Please explain for us why it is that Rome happily indulges, in the name of "enculturation", a Zairean Rite (https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/12/07/pope-francis-zaire-rite-catholic-church-amazon-239425) and now an Amazonian Rite (https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/new-amazon-rite-of-the-mass-to-enter-3-year-experimental-phase/) (Robert, do read those links) while hounding the TLM into encapsulated cells that must still bow down to the NOM, as well as its radically new belief system and the lifestyles it condones?
-
Only inferior to the point that it's against the law of Quo Primum?
Quo Primum never said the Church is forbidden from promulgating a new missal, nor did it say the Church is unable to make changes to the Mass. In fact, the Council of Trent explicitly stated that the Church can change the liturgy, as did Pous XII. Are you ignorance of what Trent and Pius XII teach concerning this point, or are you guilty of pertinaciously rejecting it?
Only inferior to the point that over 90% of it's adherents, include priests and bishops, do not believe in the Real Presence?
That is a false accusation.
Only inferior to the point that the NO "churches" are being shuttered all over the place ever since this "inferior mass" was perpetrated?
Another false accusation.
Only inferior to the point that against the clear warning of St. Paul, it has women speakers?
No disagreement there, but that is not a requirement of the NO.
Only inferior to the point that communion in the hand is a requirement and that laymen and women distribute communion?
Communion in the hand is an apostolic practice. Surely you are not ignorance of that, right? Like it or not, communion on the tongue is a novelty that developed many centuries after Christ founded the Church, and it was concenmed by the Council of Trullo.
Only inferior to the point that they use altar girls?
No disagreement here either, but altar girls are not a requirement of the NO.
Only inferior to the point that by design it is devoid of all reverence and sanctity?
The Church did not "design" it to be devoid of all reverence. Another false accusation.
Only inferior to the point that those who go there are taught to believe one faith is as good as any other - as long as it's not the traditional faith and Mass?
Another false accusation. Why do you lie so much?
And on and on this list could go.
I'm sure you could considering that you just make stuff up as you go along without even attempting to provide any poof.
-
Let me rephrase, I’d consider myself sedeprivationist to the extent I understand it. I don’t think you read my post correctly.
It amazes me how easily fallen away Catholics (and here I am referring to you) will following the errors and heresies of public heretics, such as "Bishop" Sanborn ("bishop" is in quatation marks because the Church has formally declared that it does not recognize his episcopal consecration).
-
I didn't vote, but to answer the question: I attend a licit traditional mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest with ordinary jurisdiction. Who else on here can say the same?
.
Then why didn't you just click the "Indult" option in the poll?
-
"Bishop" Sanborn ("bishop" is in quatation marks because the Church has formally declared that it does not recognize his episcopal consecration).
.
I've never heard of this. Can you please provide a link or some sort of docuмentation?
-
I can be moved to appreciate indulters who fear attending non-Diocesan masses for fear of being outside the Church. It's a Catholic instinct, and an awful lot of those people come around.
Indulters who lord their indultism over traditionalists are petty and pathetic, and should be met with more or less the same contempt they hurl toward us.
-
People like this "Traddie" guy are not merely irritating fools, they are poisonous.
There are many lurkers who might be mislead by his malicious posts. Even those who are registered and are better informed will waste their time and energy arguing with somebody who already thinks that they know it all and who is here only to create chaos.
Plus, if you have not noticed, his username, ""Traddie", is a joke, an irony. He is obviously not a Traditionalist.
-
I assume that you believe that the SSPX are schismatic too? And that Archbishop Lefebvre deserved to be excommunicated?
Would you have your 'licit' traditional mass, if not for Archbishop Lefebvre? Keep in mind that the traditional mass was nearly fully banned after the new mass replaced it.
Traddie, are you planning on ignoring these questions too? Is the Resistance also schismatic/non-Catholic/a sect?
-
People like this "Traddie" guy are not merely irritating fools, they are poisonous.
There are many lurkers who might be mislead by his malicious posts. Even those who are registered and are better informed will waste their time and energy arguing with somebody who already thinks that they know it all and who is here only to create chaos.
Plus, if you have not noticed, his username, ""Traddie", is a joke, an irony. He is obviously not a Traditionalist.
It also appears that at least 1 or 2 anti-Trad members agree with his anti-Trad rhetoric.
-
People like this "Traddie" guy are not merely irritating fools, they are poisonous.
Correct. People like Faggie here, and Slaza & Sicoe are open enemies of the Faith while pretending to defend it. They should be the first excommunicated by a Traditional Pope (Modernists will just leave and will require no such action).
-
Sedeprivationism is pseudo-intellectualism at its finest and only a complete fool would reject the legitimacy of Francis based on a novelty, such as the modern version of sedeprivationism, that they don't understand.
I say modern version because the heretics Wycliff and Huss were also sedeprivationists, and many of their condemned propositions apply equally to the sedevacantist and sedeprivationist heretics of our day. Let me provide just one example.
The heretics, Fr. Cekada and Vigano, both said they reject the legitimacy of Francis because he doesn't act like a Pope. That is one of the condemned propositions of Wycliff and Huss, and those two heretics both publicly professed it.
It amazes me how easily fallen away Catholics (and here I am referring to you) will following the errors and heresies of public heretics, such as "Bishop" Sanborn ("bishop" is in quatation marks because the Church has formally declared that it does not recognize his episcopal consecration). There's a saying, "when people stop believing in God, they will believe in anything." A similar saying, which is equally true, is that when Catholics lose the faith and publicly defect from the Roman Catholic Church (the visible hierarchical society consisting of the local Church of Roma and diocese throughout the world in union with it), they will believe the most ridiculous heresies - even if they don't understand them.
Why are you so angry with us? If you were truly practicing what you believe then you would not associate with us.
Have you read Guadium es Spes? It seemed to change our God focused Catholicism to a man centered religion. Our Church couldn't teach that? Could it? How about ecuмenism? Like the prayer meetings of Assisi where many of the Catholic altars were given over to other religions for a period of time to pray to their personal gods. The crisis we have in the Catholic Church is not a simple one. Practicing Charity will go a lot father than coming here with guns blazing.
-
Why are you so angry with us? If you were truly practicing what you believe then you would not associate with us.
It's for the same reason that ex-Catholics always become the most virulent anti-Catholics. They have troubled consciences, and their crusades are more about trying to convince themselves, and thereby quiet that pesky voice of conscience, than to convince others and convert them from motives of charity (which are nowhere in evidence). It's also why Benedict Salza and Robert Arnold have gone on the warpath against Traditionalists, in a desperate attempt to appease their own traitorous consciences. Their vitriol and polemics are not going to "convert" anyone, so that's clearly not their motivation, to convert these poor lost Trad souls, just as the hostile anti-Catholic ex-Catholics are not trying to "save" Catholics as they are trying to appease their own guilty consciences and convince themselves that they're not on the road to damnation.
-
Quo Primum never said the Church is forbidden from promulgating a new missal, nor did it say the Church is unable to make changes to the Mass.
Ya right, the pope, Pius V, established a law for all time but he didn't actually mean for the law to be followed.
In fact, the Council of Trent explicitly stated that the Church can change the liturgy, as did Pous XII. Are you ignorance of what Trent and Pius XII teach concerning this point, or are you guilty of pertinaciously rejecting it?
Trent never said those who adhere to the Mass of Pope Pius V could be judged, threatened, penalized, calumniated and censured for doing so. What boat did you just get off?
Communion in the hand is an apostolic practice. Surely you are not ignorance of that, right? Like it or not, communion on the tongue is a novelty that developed many centuries after Christ founded the Church, and it was concenmed by the Council of Trullo.
Supposedly the new jazz was supposed to bring the church more inline with and usher it into modern times, not back into antiquity. Pope Pius XII condemned that idea.
The Church did not "design" it to be devoid of all reverence. Another false accusation.
Tell that to the one or two faithful trying to pray while the band plays on.
Only inferior to the point that those who go there are taught to believe one faith is as good as any other - as long as it's not the traditional faith and Mass?
Another false accusation. Why do you lie so much?
Lie? The newchurch even has a name for it, they call it "being ecuмenical", also sometimes known as interfaith gatherings.
-
It's for the same reason that ex-Catholics always become the most virulent anti-Catholics. They have troubled consciences, and their crusades are more about trying to convince themselves, and thereby quiet that pesky voice of conscience, than to convince others and convert them from motives of charity (which are nowhere in evidence). It's also why Benedict Salza and Robert Arnold have gone on the warpath against Traditionalists, in a desperate attempt to appease their own traitorous consciences. Their vitriol and polemics are not going to "convert" anyone, so that's clearly not their motivation, to convert these poor lost Trad souls, just as the hostile anti-Catholic ex-Catholics are not trying to "save" Catholics as they are trying to appease their own guilty consciences and convince themselves that they're not on the road to damnation.
Lad, you confuse me. Sometimes your responses are reasonable and I agree with them. Other times you seem to get angry yourself when their are differences, like FE. I guess that it is just the nature of humans.
-
Seraphina, I think he merely used your post to make a dig at the sedeprivationist position/theory.
You’re probably right, but when words are put in my mouth in public, I need to clarify and correct. It’s required in justice to myself, and to others who can be led astray by misinformation. Our Lord requires Truth not only in the inward parts, but in public.
-
…only a complete fool…
I do not engage in debate or discussion with those who resort to name-calling.
Farewell, Traddie Laddie.
p.s. You may want to consult St. Matthew 5:22.
-
.
I've never heard of this. Can you please provide a link or some sort of cuмentation.
https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Explanation-of-the-Thesis.pdf
-
As for the OP poll, I find it interesting that there are more SSPX responses than Resistance. I know there are a number of Resistance folks that assist at SSPX masses, but this poll was specifically asking about one's position. I would have expected the numbers to be at least flip flopped.
-
Hi Meg. Good to know you are ok with the Indult. I'm ok with/support both Indult and the SSPX. Btw, speaking of the SSPX, the SSPX has now become thoroughly convinced of the Truth of the Indult traditionalist position. How? Through a direct revelation from God? No (although many private revelations, with all the motives of credibility, confirm its Truth, as we will see shortly in the case of Akita), through theological reasoning just as we are doing here, disputation in charity, as was common in the medieval era too, and as Priests are able to do on a higher level than laymen/laywomen because of their theological training. And so, the SSPX has become convinced that Indult is the way to go, with the exception, of course, as +ABL said, that Bishops are certainly necessary for Catholic Tradition too. It is superiors who form the subjects, not subjects who form their superiors.
Next, why must believing the New Mass/New rites are valid and grace-giving (valid=gives grace ex opere operato) somehow lead to the conclusion that "everything is just fine". Take Our Lady's message in Akita, which is approved by the Church. Pope Benedict XVI said the message of Akita is the same as that of Fatima. Our Lady, now in 1973, the same year of Roe v Wade, spoke of the work of the devil infiltrating the Church, and of Cardinals against Cardinals Bishops against Bishops, Priests against Priests, the Good against the Bad, all within the Church. She gave the solution too: with the Rosary, pray for the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests. She said nothing about supposedly invalid or sacrilegious sacraments, though She made plenty of references to irreverence, lack of devotion etc. So She basically confirms the Indult position.
As for the rest, Meg, everything the Church teaches is eternally true. If the Church says the Church can never give evil, that applies in the 1st century, the 15th century, the 21st century, and will apply even in the 31st if there is one. Yes, I have read Pascendi and agree with/submit to it 100. There is infiltration, but sedeism as one of my former sede friends told me is like: "seeing your house burn down and running away with a picture of your wife". God didn't ask for this through Our Lady at Akita, He told us to stay and fight by supporting the good and opposing the bad. Not by falsely saying the new Sacraments are always invalid/sacrilegious, which +ABL/Church teaching rejects.
It's good that you are ok with the SSPX. Though the SSPX has changed its focus, and now the SSPX doesn't speak out against the errors of Modernist Rome as its founder did.
Yes, they probably are fine with the Indult, but Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't fine with it. He believed that those priests who left the SSPX after the 1988 consecrations were traitors.
I do believe that the new mass is generally valid. I don't really go along with the sedevacantists here who believe that the new mass is absolutely invalid. The Archbishop believed that too. He was never as radical as the sedevacantists want him to be. But then he did not believe as you do either. Rather, he was prudent.
Regarding Akita, you are correct that the message/solution received at Akita is similar to that of Fatima: with the Rosary, pray for the Pope, cardinals, bishops, etc. I assume that you are praying for these intentions, but then also, here you are, on this forum, correcting the traditional Catholics here. That takes time. Time that you could be spending in prayer and penance. So really, it's not just the forum members here who are focusing on something other than prayer and penance.
I'm not a fan of sedevacantism, but then, I have to ask, in all honesty: would sedevacantism even exist if it weren't for the errors/heresies of the conciliar church hierarchy (Modernist Rome)? Try to keep in mind that the Crisis in the Church is a very, very serious Crisis, and should not be taken lightly. Downplaying the problems in the conciliar church is not wise.
-
I hold the sedevacantist position and I assist at Mass at a chapel under the RCI (Roman Catholic Institute) Bp. Sanborn.
-
First, let's all try to abide by the Augustinian maxim: "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas" (in necessities unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things, charity), in all our discussions even despite disagreements. Second, here are 3 proofs of the Catholic doctrine on the Church's holiness/indefectibility, which absolutely preclude (for a Catholic with faith in said doctrine) the possibility of the NOM supposedly being an evil black Mass or something, which Fr. Wathen mistakenly claimed, and which +ABL rejected, as we will see below. Even +BW does not exactly agree with Fr. Wathen. Yet much of the once faithful trad world has groaned to find itself Wathenite and abandoned the prudent position of +ABL, which he confirmed was his true opinion in a 1980 letter to Michael Davies:
1. First, here is the Magisterium: "“the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,— CONDEMNED as false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.” (Auctorem Fidei).
This shows Wathenism is word-for-word a condemned heresy, dogmatically rejected by the Magisterium of P. Pius VI. He who believes in Wathenism, after knowing it is an objective error, certainly grieves the Holy Spirit. He accuses the Holy Spirit of infidelity toward His Bride and of failing to protect Her, which the Pope/Church rejects as proven above.
Let him answer who can. Again, I pass no judgment on the subjective culpability of those who hold such an error. But it is a serious one. Perhaps those who do can explain themselves and the Magisterial evidence to the contrary.
The church that has indisputably established a discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism, is the conciliar church, not the Catholic Church. The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church which is and always will be ruled by the Spirit of God and cannot make useless/evil disciplines.
What you are doing is viewing the whole thing exactly backwards, the NO way if you will.
Per the magisterium, we already are certain that the above condemned error are rules in the conciliar church. What you are doing is closing your eyes to that reality, claiming wrong is not wrong because it comes from the church - where you are wrong is, it does not come from the Catholic Church, it comes from the conciliar church.
-
You’re probably right, but when words are put in my mouth in public, I need to clarify and correct. It’s required in justice to myself, and to others who can be led astray by misinformation. Our Lord requires Truth not only in the inward parts, but in public.
I understand why you responded. Wasn't saying you shouldn't. :-)
-
https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Explanation-of-the-Thesis.pdf
.
Where does it say what Traddie said? Traddie made a very odd claim, which was that the Vatican had made a statement that Bp. Sanborn was not validly consecrated a bishop. I had never heard of this, and I have never heard of the Vatican saying anything about Bp. Sanborn at all, so I was asking him to provide where the Vatican said this.
-
Unless some folks are translating 'what is your position' with 'where do you go to Mass', I am very surprised that SSPXers basically double Resisters here. And I'm kind of surprised the Resisters here are that few. Interesting poll.
-
"Pray as if all things depended on God. Work as if all things depended on men". +ABL always did both, as his frequent trips to Rome to plead the cause of Tradition testify.
Yes, +ABL did take frequent trips to Rome; that is, until the episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988. He pretty much ignored Rome after that. Except for pointing out their errors, of course. The current and traitorous leadership of the SSPX could now care less about the errors of Modernist Rome. Pope Francis might not like it.
You may be surprised, and perhaps annoyed to learn, however, that there are SSPX clergy who do not go along with the new orientation of the SSPX, and rather they try to stay with what their founder taught. They have to keep a low profile, so as to not attract attention.
The possible reason for the SSPX not formally reconciling with Rome is that they know that many of their priests and lay faithful would leave if they did reconcile. Still, the SSPX is still better than the Indult. The SSPX don't consider it a mortal sin to not attend Sunday Mass, if the only thing available is the novus ordo. My experience in attending FSSP masses is that they believe that we have to attend a novus ordo mass, if there is no Latin Mass available. At least the SSPX hasn't caved on that.
-
Firstly, the world did not begin in 1988, and I counsel you to read what +ABL wrote and said in the years before that. Secondly, even after 1988 His Excellency remained opened to Canonical recognition under the right circuмstances. This can be easily shown. Let's begin.
The first point: "Holy Father, for the honor of Jesus Christ, for the good of the Church, for the salvation of souls, we beg you to say a single word as Successor of Peter and Pastor of the Universal Church to the bishops of the whole world: "Let them carry on - We authorize the free use of what multisecular Tradition has used for the sanctification of souls.”
What difficulty is there in such an attitude? None. The bishops would decide the places and the times reserved for that Tradition. Unity would be discovered again at once at the level of the bishop of the place. On the other hand, what advantages for the Church: the renewal of seminaries and monasteries, great fervor in the parishes. The bishops would be stupefied to find in a few years an outburst of devotion and sanctification which they thought had disappeared forever ... I am entirely at the disposition of Your Holiness, and I beg you accept my profound and filial respect in Jesus and Mary.
+Marcel Lefebvre
formerly Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle"
http://www.archbishoplefebvre.com/december-24-1978.html
The second point: "https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/07/reality-check-for-la-resistance-real.html (note: words in brackets by the blog author, not by me). The statements from +ABL are crystal clear that he was always open to Canonical recognition under the right conditions, even post the magical year of 1988. And read his words from 1978 too.
Yes, you are quite right that +ABL was open to canonical recognition before 1988. No one here disputes that, that I know of. I am quite familiar with the works of the Archbishop.
Before 1988, the Archbishop was waiting for Rome to give him a bishop, or rather he was waiting for Rome to approve a bishop that was chosen from amongst the clergy in the SSPX, before he formally reconciled. But of course he waited, and waited, and waited. Rome always gave an excuse as to why it had to be postponed. Finally, the Archbishop concluded that Rome was waiting for him to die, and that's why they hadn't approved a bishop. That's what he said. Therefore, he took matters into his own hands, so that Tradition and the Traditional sacraments would continue. That's when he consecrated the four bishops. Indeed, the Archbishop lived for only 2 1/2 years after the June 30, 1988 episcopal consecrations. He knew he hadn't much time left. Haven't you heard of this before now?
-
Unless some folks are translating 'what is your position' with 'where do you go to Mass', I am very surprised that SSPXers basically double Resisters here. And I'm kind of surprised the Resisters here are that few. Interesting poll.
I made the same observation and asked a similar question too.
-
Ah yes, this old error which we Indult traditionalists have now decisively triumphed over. Read how Fr. Gleize, of the SSPX, now agrees with Indult Catholics that the Roman Catholic Church at Rome is the True Church, while there is still an illness of sorts affecting some of the men of the Church: "Ever since the authorities of the Society of Saint Pius X have been getting closer to conciliar Rome in the hopes of obtaining a canonical recognition, their language has changed. A new thesis contrived by a theology professor at Écône named Fr. Gleize, maintains that there is no conciliar church in the sense of an organized society; the current crisis is rather an “illness” affecting the men of the Church, and the Church presently at Rome is the Catholic Church. This is what Bishop Fellay says, for example in his ordination sermon at the seminary of La Reja (Buenos Aires, Argentina) on December 20th, 2014:
https://dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
Well, that the SSPX leans conciliar, sad tho it is, is not something unheard of - after all, nearly the whole Catholic world went conciliar after V2 - and they all only knew the true faith and Mass but went conciliar anyway.
The problem with the SSPX is the same as all faithful Catholics who've gone conciliar, namely, their willingness to compromise their faith.
Now, to proceed in good scholastic fashion, Stubborn, first (1) define your terms. What exactly are you calling (2) the Conciliar Church and (3) the Catholic Church. Is the entire Roman Catholic Church, the Pope and all the Bishops appointed by and communion with him for you a "Conciliar Church". In the same way, I could say, that Post Vatican I the Church supposedly defected from the faith and fell into heresy and became a "Conciliar Church". But such a thesis would be heretical and thus unfortunately so is yours. The Catholic Church didn't defect post V2.
By "conciliar church" I mean the same church Pope John Paul II meant when he called it - "the church of the New Advent," and of "the New Pentecost." This is not the Catholic Church, it's likely blasphemous to even say such things.
In short, we had our Pentecost, which was the Birthday of our Holy Mother the Church on the first Pentecost Sunday when the Holy Ghost descended upon Our Blessed Mother and the Apostles. The conciliar church had their pentecost when (apparently) the spirit of revolution descended upon the council which was comprised of the pope, +/-2500 bishops and 6 protestant advisors at V2. The conciliar church had it's own Pentecost at V2, which is when the conciliar church was born.
No, the Catholic Church on earth did not nor can it ever defect, it is still the one true Church that will last till the end of time and her magisterium will remain immune from all error - this is how we know the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church. What you are suggesting, is that wrong cannot be wrong because the church said it's ok, what you have not accepted is that you have your churches mixed up is all, when you accept that 1 is Catholic, 1 is conciliar usurping the name "Catholic" I believe you should stop wrongfully calling the conciliar church, Catholic.
"Conciliar Church" probably speaking is an orientation affecting some of the men of the Church. Thus we may say Cardinal Burke or Abp. Cordileone represents the Catholic Church whereas Kasper or Fernandez the Conciliar Churcch - the same battle between good and bad Cardinals mentioned by Our Lady of Akita. Next, if the marks of the True Church - One, Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic - aren't in Rome, then where are they? What of the indefectibility of the Church of Rome as a local Church as taught by St. Robert and Msgr. Fenton? So many problems with your thesis, Stubborn, but that will do for now. And, care to address the +ABL quotes?
I'm no fan of Fr. Fenton, I believe he is part of the problem along with some other popular theologians of the last few centuries who taught as if it is a de fide teaching of the Church, that the pope has some additional infallibility above and beyond what was dogmatically defined at V1. All these theologians managed to accomplish was to instill false obedience to papal authority because they taught a false idea of papal infallibility.
Well the 4 marks are not in the conciliar church of Rome, this is obvious to Catholics who have not compromised. The reason they are not in Rome is because Rome kicked them out for the V2 religion. The 4 marks are present wherever the true faith and Mass are celebrated, always will be.
As for +ABL quotes, you need to consider the times, the chaos and confusion among *all* the faithful, including +ABL of those days make the covid confusion of a few years ago look like nothing at all. As to why he didn't roundly condemn the new jazz for what it is I cannot say and won't guess, there is no need to because of how obviously evil the new jazz is, was and can only always be.
-
.
Where does it say what Traddie said? Traddie made a very odd claim, which was that the Vatican had made a statement that Bp. Sanborn was not validly consecrated a bishop. I had never heard of this, and I have never heard of the Vatican saying anything about Bp. Sanborn at all, so I was asking him to provide where the Vatican said this.
Yes, he wrote:
"Bishop" Sanborn ("bishop" is in quotation marks because the Church has formally declared that it does not recognize his episcopal consecration).
But "Traddie" won't be responding because it appears Matthew banned him. Thank you, Matthew. When a poster pontificates that at least 50% of the posters/members here are non-Catholic and part of a sect, he certainly deserves a ban IMO.
-
Sede here. Slighty on a tangent. I had my mother tell me the current pope is not the pope, and that's 100 percent the conclusion she has came to. But.. She's still obstinate about attending the N.O.. I don't understand it. She is pretty traditional for a NO, but just has that Jezebel attitude with sedes and SSPXers. She wont go somewhere if she doesn't "like" the people that go there.... Let that sink in... There ARE rigid trads, however, its reactionary to our times.... It's understandable, everyone can find their circle at any church.. She even went to her local SSPX with me while I was a "sspx'er", a lot of people were VERY kind to her and even considered her a friend, and she STILL gives BS about people being "rigid"
Anybody here know super conservative NO's who don't seem to get it? OR just won't because of an issue they have? I don't know ONE female that has went from NO to Sede/SSPX. I know lots of guys who have, though. lol
-
Sede here. Slighty on a tangent. I had my mother tell me the current pope is not the pope, and that's 100 percent the conclusion she has came to. But.. She's still obstinate about attending the N.O.. I don't understand it. She is pretty traditional for a NO, but just has that Jezebel attitude with sedes and SSPXers. She wont go somewhere if she doesn't "like" the people that go there.... Let that sink in... There ARE rigid trads, however, its reactionary to our times.... It's understandable, everyone can find their circle at any church.. She even went to her local SSPX with me while I was a "sspx'er", a lot of people were VERY kind to her and even considered her a friend, and she STILL gives BS about people being "rigid"
Anybody here know super conservative NO's who don't seem to get it? OR just won't because of an issue they have? I don't know ONE female that has went from NO to Sede/SSPX. I know lots of guys who have, though. lol
Where does your father stand (if he is still with us)?
-
My guess is that Traddie's claim about NO non-recognition of +Thuc orders is based on the universally-misinterpreted passage from them, misinterpreted by those who have some agenda against the +Thuc line.
It goes something like (from memory): Whatever one wants to say regarding the validity of the Orders, we [Conciliars] consider them illegitimate.
What this means is that they're simply prescinding from making any assessment/study/judgment regarding the validity of the orders. Clearly, however, their validity is presumed by them in that if +Thuc had not validly consecrated +Carmona/+Zamorra/+des Lauriers, then he would not have incurred the ipso facto excommunication.
-
Where does your father stand (if he is still with us)?
My father (alive and well) basically follows what my mother wanted/did, FOR THE MOST PART.. He is/was a very good father in the temporal sense. Led the family, disciplined, etc. He is sort of a get it over with Church goer, I'm sorry to say. He does pray, say the Rosary by himself, etc. What's funny is that when I was in the N.O, I couldn't wait for Church to be over, either.
He grew up with no father, had a rough life, but grew up to be a stable, prize of a future husband/engineer. He makes literally no decision off an emotion, it's quite impressive, and I look up to him a lot. I may be wrong on what he thinks personally, he's a very private, out of the spotlight kind of man. Although, he agrees with everything I say about the Church and N.O. This is what confuses me.
If he said to my mother: we are gonna go to SPPX/Sede church, she would follow with no resistance. The husbands need to lead and get over their attachment to the boomer retirement lifestyle, like my dad won't admit he wants. A lot of dads are straight lazy with spiritual things and don't wanna talk to anybody to save their lives... We are at war, no time to ignore what is going on in the Church or right in our neighborhood.
-
My father (alive and well) basically follows what my mother wanted/did, FOR THE MOST PART.. He is/was a very good father in the temporal sense. Led the family, disciplined, etc. He is sort of a get it over with Church goer, I'm sorry to say. He does pray, say the Rosary by himself, etc. What's funny is that when I was in the N.O, I couldn't wait for Church to be over, either.
He grew up with no father, had a rough life, but grew up to be a stable, prize of a future husband/engineer. He makes literally no decision off an emotion, it's quite impressive, and I look up to him a lot. I may be wrong on what he thinks personally, he's a very private, out of the spotlight kind of man. Although, he agrees with everything I say about the Church and N.O. This is what confuses me.
If he said to my mother: we are gonna go to SPPX/Sede church, she would follow with no resistance. The husbands need to lead and get over their attachment to the boomer retirement lifestyle, like my dad won't admit he wants. A lot of dads are straight lazy with spiritual things and don't wanna talk to anybody to save their lives... We are at war, no time to ignore what is going on in the Church or right in our neighborhood.
Thanks for sharing all of that, Everlast. This is why I asked. IMO, I think it is your father that needs to change, and the rest (your mother) will follow.
-
My guess is that Traddie's claim about NO non-recognition of +Thuc orders is based on the universally-misinterpreted passage from them, misinterpreted by those who have some agenda against the +Thuc line.
It goes something like (from memory): Whatever one wants to say regarding the validity of the Orders, we [Conciliars] consider them illegitimate.
What this means is that they're simply prescinding from making any assessment/study/judgment regarding the validity of the orders. Clearly, however, their validity is presumed by them in that if +Thuc had not validly consecrated +Carmona/+Zamorra/+des Lauriers, then he would not have incurred the ipso facto excommunication.
Here is the decree:
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html
As you observe rather bizarre saying they will not recognise the consecrations and confirming the ipso facto canonical penalties!
-
My father (alive and well) basically follows what my mother wanted/did, FOR THE MOST PART.. He is/was a very good father in the temporal sense. Led the family, disciplined, etc. He is sort of a get it over with Church goer, I'm sorry to say. He does pray, say the Rosary by himself, etc. What's funny is that when I was in the N.O, I couldn't wait for Church to be over, either.
He grew up with no father, had a rough life, but grew up to be a stable, prize of a future husband/engineer. He makes literally no decision off an emotion, it's quite impressive, and I look up to him a lot. I may be wrong on what he thinks personally, he's a very private, out of the spotlight kind of man. Although, he agrees with everything I say about the Church and N.O. This is what confuses me.
If he said to my mother: we are gonna go to SPPX/Sede church, she would follow with no resistance. The husbands need to lead and get over their attachment to the boomer retirement lifestyle, like my dad won't admit he wants. A lot of dads are straight lazy with spiritual things and don't wanna talk to anybody to save their lives... We are at war, no time to ignore what is going on in the Church or right in our neighborhood.
Do you think it is harder for this generation to fight a war that they can't really see?
I agree with 2Vermont, he just needs to make it happen. Prayers for your family.
-
My father (alive and well) basically follows what my mother wanted/did, FOR THE MOST PART.. He is/was a very good father in the temporal sense. Led the family, disciplined, etc. He is sort of a get it over with Church goer, I'm sorry to say. He does pray, say the Rosary by himself, etc. What's funny is that when I was in the N.O, I couldn't wait for Church to be over, either.
He grew up with no father, had a rough life, but grew up to be a stable, prize of a future husband/engineer. He makes literally no decision off an emotion, it's quite impressive, and I look up to him a lot. I may be wrong on what he thinks personally, he's a very private, out of the spotlight kind of man. Although, he agrees with everything I say about the Church and N.O. This is what confuses me.
If he said to my mother: we are gonna go to SPPX/Sede church, she would follow with no resistance. The husbands need to lead and get over their attachment to the boomer retirement lifestyle, like my dad won't admit he wants. A lot of dads are straight lazy with spiritual things and don't wanna talk to anybody to save their lives... We are at war, no time to ignore what is going on in the Church or right in our neighborhood.
My mother (RIP) was similar in that she grew up in the 1920’s and 1930’s in a dysfunctional home fit to rival any out there today, divorces, remarriages, cohabitation, alcohol abuse, violence, kidnapping attempts on my uncles when they were young, frequent moves, result of poverty, unemployment, poor health, poor education, single motherhood by necessity, not choice, incomplete catechesis, irregular Mass attendance-not her fault, mixed religions, constant fighting, etc. All that manure caused her to come out smelling like a rose. My grandmother and surviving uncle came out the same way.
She waited until age 30 to marry my Dad.
-
Ah yes, this old error which we Indult traditionalists have now decisively triumphed over. Read how Fr. Gleize, of the SSPX, now agrees with Indult Catholics that the Roman Catholic Church at Rome is the True Church, while there is still an illness of sorts affecting some of the men of the Church: "Ever since the authorities of the Society of Saint Pius X have been getting closer to conciliar Rome in the hopes of obtaining a canonical recognition, their language has changed. A new thesis contrived by a theology professor at Écône named Fr. Gleize, maintains that there is no conciliar church in the sense of an organized society; the current crisis is rather an “illness” affecting the men of the Church, and the Church presently at Rome is the Catholic Church. This is what Bishop Fellay says, for example in his ordination sermon at the seminary of La Reja (Buenos Aires, Argentina) on December 20th, 2014:
https://dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
Now, to proceed in good scholastic fashion, Stubborn, first (1) define your terms. What exactly are you calling (2) the Conciliar Church and (3) the Catholic Church. Is the entire Roman Catholic Church, the Pope and all the Bishops appointed by and communion with him for you a "Conciliar Church". In the same way, I could say, that Post Vatican I the Church supposedly defected from the faith and fell into heresy and became a "Conciliar Church". But such a thesis would be heretical and thus unfortunately so is yours. The Catholic Church didn't defect post V2.
"Conciliar Church" probably speaking is an orientation affecting some of the men of the Church. Thus we may say Cardinal Burke or Abp. Cordileone represents the Catholic Church whereas Kasper or Fernandez the Conciliar Churcch - the same battle between good and bad Cardinals mentioned by Our Lady of Akita. Next, if the marks of the True Church - One, Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic - aren't in Rome, then where are they? What of the indefectibility of the Church of Rome as a local Church as taught by St. Robert and Msgr. Fenton? So many problems with your thesis, Stubborn, but that will do for now. And, care to address the +ABL quotes?
When Our Lord commented "Think ye when the Son of Man returns, He will find faith on the earth"? Where exactly is the Church when Our Lord returns? Did the gates of hell prevail? Of course not.
When Our Lord established His Church, did He first adorn it with Vatican City and church buildings? When a pope dies, does the Church cease to exist? No to both questions. Point is, the Church is not a pope or physical structure. The Church has those things but it exists without them. The first criteria is the faith. We are to believe all that Our Lord commanded and defined by the teaching authority of His Chuch. It is clear that Vatican ll hierarchy has rejected the teaching authority and has replaced the worship of God with the worship of man. In fact, these men who hijacked Our Lord's Church will tolerate all religions except traditional Catholicism. Yes, they will tolerate the Latin Mass but only if there is no condemnation of the modernist errors and Vaticanll. As long as we don't make waves or stir their conscience. Our Lord was crucified for condemning the errors of the church leaders in His day. St. John the Baptist had his head cut off for condemning the adultery committed by the political leader of his day. Where are those brave men today?
-
When Our Lord established His Church, He established it on St. Peter (Mat 16:18) before 33 AD. St. Peter was Bishop of Rome from 42 AD to 67 AD. Archbishop Lefebvre often said a decades long vacancy in the Papacy (as opposed to a single Pope vacancy) is not possible.
A decades long vacancy is more possible than 60 years (or any years) of actual legitimate Popes teaching and promoting heresy, promulgating a blasphemous non-Catholic form of public worship, canonizing dozens of bogus "saints", and turning the Church into something that's completely unrecognizable. There's no point of a guy walking around in white cassock if he's not the rock of faith and is not protected by the Holy Ghost from wrecking the Church. At that point, who can say that the Old Catholics, Orthodox, or even Prots were wrong ... except that they identified this possibility of a corrupt papacy long before anyone else did.
You're degenerate apostate scuм doing the work of Satan in promoting and enabling the imposter Church ... and God will hold you accountable.
-
Anyone else wondering who the (1) Novus Ordite is? Is poche back too?
-
Why are you attempting to prosletyze/convert us, Siscoe? Your "Pope" has denounced such activity as wicked and sinful. "No, no, no" he said ... and yet you defy him by coming on here and not respecting our beliefs, accepting us for who we are, dropping now-invalid terms such as "schism" and "heresy". You're behaving quite contrary to the teachings of your Master, Jorge. Who are YOU to judge, Siscoe?
-
Your spiritual leader has instructed you that God wills the diversity of religions, so why are you on here bashing our religion, in defiance of Bergoglio, when God has willed the Traditional movement, the SV groups, and everything else? Please explain why you are so mean to your brethren in Christ? Salza spent much virtual ink on how SSPX lacks "mission" but his own Popes instructed him that even the Orthodox and Protestants have mission. In denouncing us this way, these clowns don't even realize that they're contradicting the same facts of the new religion that has led many of us to become Traditional Catholics. They want to have their Pope and ignore him too.
-
Lol. Have you even read the New Catechism, which Pope John Paul II declared a sure norm for teaching the Faith, before rejecting it? Both the Catechism and the 1983 .........
^ this right here made me laugh. You're in the wrong forum, my guy..
-
RobertS,
Do you think, as Francis, that Hell is probably empty (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/256542/pope-francis-i-like-to-think-of-hell-as-empty)?
If not. What do you think about this and the rest of his heretic quotes?
-
Your spiritual leader has instructed you that God wills the diversity of religions, so why are you on here bashing our religion, in defiance of Bergoglio, when God has willed the Traditional movement, the SV groups, and everything else? Please explain why you are so mean to your brethren in Christ? Salza spent much virtual ink on how SSPX lacks "mission" but his own Popes instructed him that even the Orthodox and Protestants have mission. In denouncing us this way, these clowns don't even realize that they're contradicting the same facts of the new religion that has led many of us to become Traditional Catholics. They want to have their Pope and ignore him too.
... ignored by Siscoe. Jorge rebukes you for the sin of prosletysm.
Jorge and Wojtyla were the biggest religious indifferentists in history. Stop lying, Siscoe, you degenerate. Both of them have repeatedly and explicitly stated that non-Catholics should not be converted, that the goal is not their conversion, that non-Catholic (schismatic/heretic) churches have mission. Jorge has explicitly embraced heresy against the Council of Florence on 2 different points ... the Old Covenant and the possibility of non-Catholics being martyrs. You're so full of crap that your eyes are brown.
-
Lol.
Do you have the same IQ as Kamala hαɾɾιs? You start every post with a "LOL" just like that giggling moron.
-
RobertS is strictly smells and bells. He's just another one who likes quoting select snips from +ABL that suit his agenda. :facepalm:
-
RobertS is strictly smells and bells. He's just another one who likes quoting select snips from +ABL that suit his agenda. :facepalm:
He's a bad-willed non-Catholic who cherry-picks everything to suite his agenda, and he's here just trolling. Siscoe picks out a couple passage from the "New Catechism" that pay lip service to EENS, pretending that somehow the Conciliar Church upholds EENS dogma whereas it does nothing but deny it at every turn.
-
Lol. Have you even read the New Catechism, which Pope John Paul II declared a sure norm for teaching the Faith, before rejecting it?
.
The new catechism teaches that the death penalty is immoral. How could God command people to put people to death many times in the Old Testament if it were immoral? And why would it be practiced by every Christian society without any condemnation from the Church until the 21st century?
This is not the same faith that the Church has always taught.
-
This is not the same faith that the Church has always taught.
This ^^^. It's not the same religion in general. It doesn't have the same beliefs, the same discipline, and the same public worship of God. Not only are they not the same but they're incompatible and mutually exclusive. Only individuals who are intellectually dishonest (engaging in mental gymnastics) or with a corrupt sensus Catholicus are unable to see this.
-
Robert, you're a smart guy, you've done a lot of good work. But why have you returned to the vomit? Are you also a Freemason? You know there would not even be an Indult Mass were it not for the true Catholic shepherds like Archbishop Lefebvre who stood up for the Faith, who understood that obedience is at the service of the Faith and not an end in itself. You know very well that the Indult has only ever been applied in such a fashion as to keep the faithful from Tradition.
Remember the warning of St Vincent of Lerins. Reject the novelties and hold fast to Tradition.
At the very least you are encouraging the faithful to place themselves in an occasion of sin against the Faith. You would have me back in my local parish with the priest bringing in a Buddhist monk to teach me how to do Buddhist meditation rather than under a faithful priest leading me along the straight and narrow path to Salvation.
Our Lord gave us the criterion: judge the tree by its fruits. Stop guiding the faithful towards evil.
You have lost sight of the purpose of all ecclesiastical law: the salvation of souls. That is the supreme law which trumps every other law. Have you forgotten? Whence comes this legalistic mindset when you can see the rot and perversion permeating the entire modernist edifice? Why would you have us jump on board?
Archbishop Lefebvre was given by God to the Church as a light in the darkness of the Conciliar revolution. Listen to him! "It is therefore a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Catholic Church and of the Catholic Faith".
Be careful! You will have to give an account to God.
-
You can't live in the 80's. It was a great time, no smartphones, etc. but a lot has changed since then.
+ABL had to try. He tried once for all of us -- his efforts made it clear, to himself AND to posterity, how far gone Conciliar Rome was.
So if someone 10 years after +ABL did EXACTLY WHAT +ABL DID, this second-timer would not be as blameless, wise, OR innocent as +ABL was. Because he didn't do it first; he should have known better. He would be an imprudent fool at best, and a traitor to Tradition at worst.
And this is 100X as true when the Church is in the state it's in today, with Pope Francis at the helm. How can anyone suggest (with a straight face) that +ABL would say (if he were alive today), "Yes, things were pretty bad under John Paul II, but we have Pope Francis now. Looks like the Crisis in the Church is wrapping up. Awesome! Time to put ourselves back under their authority." Have you lost your ever-loving mind?
Remember, it wasn't just +ABL that was "burned" trying to talk sense into Rome. How many Traditional organizations have made a deal with the devil and were completely neutralized/destroyed?
Imagine a terrorist holding 30 people hostage in a room. The first person to attempt escape is killed by gunmen outside the room. Then a few other people try the same thing at night -- same result. At this point, trying to escape is basically a death wish. The first guy didn't know it would kill him. After several have died due to the "armed guards outside the door", everyone remaining SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
Imagine the group gets down to 10 people, the other 20 being killed trying to escape. A few days later, a man decides to make the 21st attempt to escape. His name is Bishop Bernard Fellay. Is he wise or foolish?
-
All Trads who condemn V2 and the new mass as heretical, are "practical sedevacantists” because we haven’t had an orthodox pope since Pius XII. Sean said nothing new or groundbreaking.
-
So it was because of Pope Benedict XVI's gestures of love toward Tradition
Benedict admitted in his book that he made concessions for the TLM to try to get the sspx to make a deal.
Benedict
1) never corrected any of V2’s errors.
2) never condemned communion in the hand.
3) never abolished the new mass.
Benedict never intended to reverse any part of the V2 heretical theology or the new mass’ liturgical destruction. He simply wanted the sspx to become indult. Benedict never compromised his support for V2. But he wanted the sspx to compromise their orthodoxy.
Benedict had no “love” of Tradition. He had a love of practical agreements, which is what the indult is.
-
RobertS, you have been duped. Your mission is not to convert us. I don't even know why you are trying. Do you think that if you bring all of us renegade Catholics back into the fold of Pope Francis, then all will be well? Do you have a request from God to do this? I do not understand why you are so insistent.
If you could actually explain yourself, instead of being aggressive with your position, then maybe real conversations would happen.
The Crisis in the church is such that you either make a deal with Rome and assimilate into the Modern errors that have grown over the last 60+ years, or you believe that there hasn't been a pope since Vatican 2. Both choices are not Catholic and this is why we have a crisis.
All of us who attend Masses not approved by Pope Francis, do so because we want the surety of worshiping Jesus and not bread. (I don't know if all Novus Ordo and Indult Masses are just bread worshiping.)
If you want to understand, why we are where we are then ask, but telling us over and over how you think everything went down is annoying. Some of us have been going through this crisis or the 20+ years and are very well read on all the topics involved.
I will say this, I do understand where you are coming from. I myself struggled with the idea that if we were just obedient then the mess would not have lasted so long. These are the trials God wants us to go through. He wants those who have the true Faith to stand strong. The only thing that will correct this problem for most is that a true Catholic Pope corrects all the errors of Vatican 2, then reconciliation can happen.
-
Any thoughts on what the CCC says on EENS in paras 846-848 quoted above? Isn't it basically the same as the Baltimore Catechism?
But the point is not EENS. The point is believing that The Hell is empty, contradicts not only the whole catholic teachings before VII, but contradicts even the words of Christ in the Gospel. The % of the saved is debatable, but not the fact that there are damned people in hell.
-
RobertS, you have been duped. Your mission is not to convert us. I don't even know why you are trying. Do you think that if you bring all of us renegade Catholics back into the fold of Pope Francis, then all will be well? Do you have a request from God to do this? I do not understand why you are so insistent.
If you could actually explain yourself, instead of being aggressive with your position, then maybe real conversations would happen.
The Crisis in the church is such that you either make a deal with Rome and assimilate into the Modern errors that have grown over the last 60+ years, or you believe that there hasn't been a pope since Vatican 2. Both choices are not Catholic and this is why we have a crisis.
All of us who attend Masses not approved by Pope Francis, do so because we want the surety of worshiping Jesus and not bread. (I don't know if all Novus Ordo and Indult Masses are just bread worshiping.)
If you want to understand, why we are where we are then ask, but telling us over and over how you think everything went down is annoying. Some of us have been going through this crisis or the 20+ years and are very well read on all the topics involved.
I will say this, I do understand where you are coming from. I myself struggled with the idea that if we were just obedient then the mess would not have lasted so long. These are the trials God wants us to go through. He wants those who have the true Faith to stand strong. The only thing that will correct this problem for most is that a true Catholic Pope corrects all the errors of Vatican 2, then reconciliation can happen.
Good post!
-
But the point is not EENS. The point is believing that The Hell is empty, contradicts not only the whole catholic teachings before VII, but contradicts even the words of Christ in the Gospel. The % of the saved is debatable, but not the fact that there are damned people in hell.
“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops and the bones of priests.” - St. Athanasius was one among other saints and Doctors who taught this.
-
“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops and the bones of priests.” - St. Athanasius was one among other saints and Doctors who taught this.
Yes. There are not even a single saint that believed the Hell is empty, I only know the Origen heresy of apokatastasis, but it's an heresy.
-
Y'all are wasting your breath.
-
That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the CMRI is a non-Catholic sect. Being reordained (illicitly for the second time) by Musey, and then being "approved" by McKenna, an excommunicated pseudo-bishop who didn't have the authority to approve anything, doesn't make a non-Catholic sect part of the Catholic Church. That should be obvious to anyone who has even a basic understanding of ecclesiology.
Are you east coast, west coast, Midwest?
-
Catacombs should be an option.
I’m a Catholic.
-
Yes. There are not even a single saint that believed the Hell is empty, I only know the Origen heresy of apokatastasis, but it's an heresy.
Yep, according to him, the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of the Church's magisterium. :facepalm:
-
Hello, all. I'm new to this forum and to this important topic.
Does anyone know of an online source where each of the most common positions is explained in a simple manner?
My current difficulty is that it seems only someone that is a historian, canon lawyer, and theologian, and with the opportunity to devote thousands of hours to research this important topic will be able to make heads or tales of it all. It's hard for me to believe 99% of Catholics fit this mold, which in turn, would mean 99% may not even know there's a problem and, if the problem is true, would probably fall on the wrong side of the issue.
Thank you kindly for your help!
-
Why is resistance a minority position on the sspx resistance forum :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
-
Hello, all. I'm new to this forum and to this important topic.
Does anyone know of an online source where each of the most common positions is explained in a simple manner?
My current difficulty is that it seems only someone that is a historian, canon lawyer, and theologian, and with the opportunity to devote thousands of hours to research this important topic will be able to make heads or tales of it all. It's hard for me to believe 99% of Catholics fit this mold, which in turn, would mean 99% may not even know there's a problem and, if the problem is true, would probably fall on the wrong side of the issue.
Thank you kindly for your help!
Hello TuAmigo and welcome!
What you are looking for is probably out there somewhere, but personally I would be very hesitant to trust it myself because I would expect that it would be biased toward the author's position, which may sway you that way, which may or may not be right.
Where do you go to church now?
-
Hello, all. I'm new to this forum and to this important topic.
Does anyone know of an online source where each of the most common positions is explained in a simple manner?
My current difficulty is that it seems only someone that is a historian, canon lawyer, and theologian, and with the opportunity to devote thousands of hours to research this important topic will be able to make heads or tales of it all. It's hard for me to believe 99% of Catholics fit this mold, which in turn, would mean 99% may not even know there's a problem and, if the problem is true, would probably fall on the wrong side of the issue.
Thank you kindly for your help!
It's really not that complicated.
The Vatican II sect is clearly not Catholic and that's the long and the short of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX97Qg4DIJU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWsgxCVYtAI
-
Why is resistance a minority position on the sspx resistance forum :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
I think what this poll is showing is not that there has been an influx of sedes on this forum (because I seem to recall about 1/3 of the forum would vote sede), but that a number of formerly non-sede voters have changed their position in an anonymous poll.
-
I think what this poll is showing is not that there has been an influx of sedes on this forum (because I seem to recall about 1/3 of the forum would vote sede), but that a number of formerly non-sede voters have changed their position in an anonymous poll.
I think you may be right. I've been saying for some time now that the Resistance is going to go sede, at least here in the U.S. The poll seems to reflect that.
-
Stubborn & Marulus Fidelis, thank you for your responses!
Another concern of mine is the fact there are different Traditionalist positions with the main thing in common being the rejection of "the Vatican II sect". How would we respond to the criticism that this is similar to the Protestant Reformers who had a common enemy, but couldn't agree amongst themselves and ended up creating various new churches based on their own interpretations? Are the differences between Traditionalist positions not grave, which would lead to a schism between Traditionalist positions?
How does our current situation centered around Vatican II relate to previous schisms that also involved differing interpretations of faith and authority, like the Great Schism, the Jansenist Schism, the Old Catholic Schism, etc.?
Thank you for your help!
-
Stubborn & Marulus Fidelis, thank you for your responses!
Another concern of mine is the fact there are different Traditionalist positions with the main thing in common being the rejection of "the Vatican II sect". How would we respond to the criticism that this is similar to the Protestant Reformers who had a common enemy, but couldn't agree amongst themselves and ended up creating various new churches based on their own interpretations? Are the differences between Traditionalist positions not grave, which would lead to a schism between Traditionalist positions?
How does our current situation centered around Vatican II relate to previous schisms that also involved differing interpretations of faith and authority, like the Great Schism, the Jansenist Schism, the Old Catholic Schism, etc.?
Thank you for your help!
Yes, we can't all be correct and the differences are grave enough to constitute schism. That is why most of the various groups do not communicate in sacred things.
The response is quite simple, actually. Only one position is truly Catholic, and the rest, being non-Catholic, have no effect on the unity of Catholics who agree on all matters of dogma. (Which does not mean every Catholic is necessarily aware of the situation in Rome.)
It should be noted, however, that the disunity among traditionalists pales in comparison to the utter free-for-all that is the Novus Ordo. Where Bp. Fellay, Biden, Bergoglio and Strickland supposedly have the same faith.
And while the one is to be expected according to the maxim: Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered, for the Novus Ordo sect there is no excuse.
-
Hello, all. I'm new to this forum and to this important topic.
Does anyone know of an online source where each of the most common positions is explained in a simple manner?
My current difficulty is that it seems only someone that is a historian, canon lawyer, and theologian, and with the opportunity to devote thousands of hours to research this important topic will be able to make heads or tales of it all. It's hard for me to believe 99% of Catholics fit this mold, which in turn, would mean 99% may not even know there's a problem and, if the problem is true, would probably fall on the wrong side of the issue.
Thank you kindly for your help!
I'd like to return for a moment to this and emphasise the crux of the matter:
Yes, you are not crazy, everyone is wrong and you should trust your common sense instead of the multitude of well-spoken and charismatic deceivers.
Everything is just as open and shut as it seems, actually. Just as atheists reject the obvious, fake Catholics likewise ignore reality.
For most people it is too much to believe that over 2000 bishops signed off on a new religion.
Well, Holy Writ begs to differ: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man.
Only one man was given unwavering faith.
-
Stubborn & Marulus Fidelis, thank you for your responses!
Another concern of mine is the fact there are different Traditionalist positions with the main thing in common being the rejection of "the Vatican II sect". How would we respond to the criticism that this is similar to the Protestant Reformers who had a common enemy, but couldn't agree amongst themselves and ended up creating various new churches based on their own interpretations? Are the differences between Traditionalist positions not grave, which would lead to a schism between Traditionalist positions?
How does our current situation centered around Vatican II relate to previous schisms that also involved differing interpretations of faith and authority, like the Great Schism, the Jansenist Schism, the Old Catholic Schism, etc.?
Thank you for your help!
When confronted by non-trads about the situation, I start with simply saying that V2 was a time when liberalism went wild within the council hence the Church, hence the whole world, and that since that time, the V2 clergy from the popes on down have all been flaming Liberals. If you want to, here is a two minute (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/the-second-vatican-council-51899/)read (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/the-second-vatican-council-51899/) on what happened at V2.
As for being in schism, personally, I believe that we are right now, today, living the prophesy of Jeremiah 23:1-4...
(https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=23&l=1-#x)
1 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=23&l=1-#x)Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord [Jeremias (Jeremiah) 23:1] (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=23&l=1#) 2 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=23&l=2-#x)Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel to the pastors that feed my people: You have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold I will visit upon you for the evil of your doings, saith the Lord. 3 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=23&l=3-#x)And I will gather together the remnant of my flock, out of all the lands into which I have cast them out: and I will make them return to their own fields, and they shall increase and be multiplied. 4 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=23&l=4-#x)And I will set up pastors over them, and they shall feed them: they shall fear no more, and they shall not be dismayed: and none shall be wanting of their number, saith the Lord.
As such, personally, I believe what we are seeing among the different trad groups out there is what the Lord has provided for us, He set us up with pastors to feed us - Deo Gratias for that! The bad part is that as Our Lord warned us, we all have to beware of the false pastors that weaseled their way in among the good pastors. For this we rely on the grace of God using tradition as our rule to guide us.
-
Yes, we can't all be correct and the differences are grave enough to constitute schism. That is why most of the various groups do not communicate in sacred things.
MF, can you elaborate what you mean by "most of the various groups do not communicate in sacred things"?
-
As for being in schism, personally, I believe that we are right now, today, living the prophesy of Jeremiah 23:1-4...
(https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=23&l=1-#x)As such, personally, I believe what we are seeing among the different trad groups out there is what the Lord has provided for us, He set us up with pastors to feed us - Deo Gratias for that! The bad part is that as Our Lord warned us, we all have to beware of the false pastors that weaseled their way in among the good pastors. For this we rely on the grace of God using tradition as our rule to guide us.
Stubborn, thank you for helping me better understand your position.
Let's put aside the Novus Ordo position for a moment and only focus on the Traditionalist positions. Would you agree everyone should accept your Traditionalist position and all other Traditionalist positions are incorrect and schismatic because they are led by misguided/false pastors? Would this also mean that other Traditionalists are outside the church and going to hell?
-
Stubborn, thank you for helping me better understand your position.
Let's put aside the Novus Ordo position for a moment and only focus on the Traditionalist positions. Would you agree everyone should accept your Traditionalist position and all other Traditionalist positions are incorrect and schismatic because they are led by misguided/false pastors? Would this also mean that other Traditionalists are outside the church and going to hell?
No. Like me, other traditionalists are striving to do God's holy will too - "he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." This is what matters, but I would never say any trad is incorrect or schismatic because they don't take my exact position.
I don't think much about it, but I don't think other trads who follow false pastors are necessarily or automatically outside of the Church.
-
Stubborn & Marulus Fidelis, thank you for your responses!
Another concern of mine is the fact there are different Traditionalist positions with the main thing in common being the rejection of "the Vatican II sect". How would we respond to the criticism that this is similar to the Protestant Reformers who had a common enemy, but couldn't agree amongst themselves and ended up creating various new churches based on their own interpretations? Are the differences between Traditionalist positions not grave, which would lead to a schism between Traditionalist positions?
How does our current situation centered around Vatican II relate to previous schisms that also involved differing interpretations of faith and authority, like the Great Schism, the Jansenist Schism, the Old Catholic Schism, etc.?
Thank you for your help!
Do you yourself believe that traditionalists are schismatic? Or perhaps you believe that certain traditionalists are schismatic?
-
No. Like me, other traditionalists are striving to do God's holy will too - "he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." This is what matters, but I would never say any trad is incorrect or schismatic because they don't take my exact position.
I don't think much about it, but I don't think other trads who follow false pastors are necessarily or automatically outside of the Church.
What do you mean by other trads who follow false pastors, Stubborn? Are you thinking e.g. of sedevacantists following e.g. Fr. Cekada (rest in peace), or of indult catholics following e.g. Fr. Ripperger? In what sense are they false pastors, as you claim?
-
What do you mean by other trads who follow false pastors, Stubborn? Are you thinking e.g. of sedevacantists following e.g. Fr. Cekada (rest in peace), or of indult catholics following e.g. Fr. Ripperger? In what sense are they false pastors, as you claim?
Like I said, I don't give it much if any thought, but the likes of Francis Schuckardt and "pope" Michael comes immediately to mind.
Were their followers automatically outside of the Church? I think so but at the same time I understand that in the scheme of things, what I think doesn't mean a thing to anyone, even me. Hence, why I don't think much about it.
-
ok
-
No. Like me, other traditionalists are striving to do God's holy will too - "he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." This is what matters, but I would never say any trad is incorrect or schismatic because they don't take my exact position.
I don't think much about it, but I don't think other trads who follow false pastors are necessarily or automatically outside of the Church.
I would argue that most faithful Novus Ordo Catholics would say they are striving to do God's Holy Will, too.
-
Do you yourself believe that traditionalists are schismatic? Or perhaps you believe that certain traditionalists are schismatic?
Hi Meg. No to both mainly due to not having a good grasp of how schism is defined exactly. I need to learn more about that difficult and sad topic.
-
What do you mean by other trads who follow false pastors, Stubborn? Are you thinking e.g. of sedevacantists following e.g. Fr. Cekada (rest in peace), or of indult catholics following e.g. Fr. Ripperger? In what sense are they false pastors, as you claim?
JCRev2033, do you mind if I ask how you would answer my question (copied below)?
How would we respond to the criticism that this [i.e. various Traditionalist positions] is similar to the Protestant Reformers who had a common enemy, but couldn't agree amongst themselves and ended up creating various new churches based on their own interpretations? Are the differences between Traditionalist positions not grave, which would lead to a schism between Traditionalist positions?
-
I would argue that most faithful Novus Ordo Catholics would say they are striving to do God's Holy Will, too.
Well, you said to keep the NO out of it and focus only on traditionalists, but if we want to venture into the NO, then they'd be beating the wind with that argument. The whole concept is non-existent to most conciliar catholics because to them, that's not really necessary.
After V2, which was the NO's Pentecost, a new religion was born and the true religion was abandoned. V2 brought in a new faith, new liturgy, new lex orandi/credendi, new sacraments, new laws, new, new, new, which is condemned and is against God's holy will. V2's faith and religion is indeed no longer Catholic. To be a member of that religion is against God's holy will.
-
I'm a "semi-sede".
I believe the new mass and new sacraments and new priest and bishops are all valid. But I do not believe Francis is a Catholic so therefore he is not pope. I do not know if Vatican II teaches heresy or the if the other popes like Benedict were real popes.
-
I checked sedevacantist, however, the sedeprivationist is the closest I’ve been able to reason through. I’m strictly dogmatic about it; recognizing that others may legitimately hold differing points of view. There is no sedeprivationist chapel near me, so I attend a sedevacantist chapel. I will attend an SSPX or Resistance chapel since I view the matter as unable to be certainly determined until a fully Catholic Pope makes a definitive ruling.
Seraphina, can you help me understand what a "fully Catholic Pope" means?
-
Seraphina, can you help me understand what a "fully Catholic Pope" means?
It is a Pope that holds all of the Dogmas of the Faith, whole and entire and does not teach a false religion of ecuмenism.
-
It is a Pope that holds all of the Dogmas of the Faith, whole and entire and does not teach a false religion of ecuмenism.
A Catholic who was validly elected by the college of Cardinals.
-
It is a Pope that holds all of the Dogmas of the Faith, whole and entire and does not teach a false religion of ecuмenism.
JPKTrad, are the Dogmas of the Faith defined anywhere? When I do web searches, I see various results including multiple results that reference a list of 255 dogmas (e.g. https://www.virgosacrata.com/dogmas.html).
-
What is the status of someone who believes that the Church erred in occasional matters of faith and morals before Vatican 2?
Such as the acceptance of certain forms of usury.
The condemnation of Action Française.
The condemnation of the armed struggle by the Cristeros against the mexican government.
The 1892 ralliement of the Church to the French Republic
The homo erotic paintings in the sistine chapel.
The cabalist infiltration in the rennaissance church that resulted in the papal apartments decorated with a painting, still present, of Hermes Trismegistus
The non naming of the traditional enemies of the church in any papal bull, letter or encyclical for over 400 years.
-
I'm Sedevacantist but not sure what delineation. I'll ust say I strive to b autenticallky catholic. UI don't ha ve a cool uniuform like the SS or something.
Bergoglio isn
t ad cannot be the Pope I know that. IU just got to where I can pronounce Cassisiacuм and my grandparents came from Italy. The theory makes some sense but it has its holes as well I'll just let God figure it out as it's his problem
-
What is the status of someone who believes that the Church erred in occasional matters of faith and morals before Vatican 2?
Such as the acceptance of certain forms of usury.
The condemnation of Action Française.
The condemnation of the armed struggle by the Cristeros against the mexican government.
The 1892 ralliement of the Church to the French Republic
The homo erotic paintings in the sistine chapel.
The cabalist infiltration in the rennaissance church that resulted in the papal apartments decorated with a painting, still present, of Hermes Trismegistus
The non naming of the traditional enemies of the church in any papal bull, letter or encyclical for over 400 years.
Godefroy, what do you mean by "what is the status"?
I don't know several of the events you mentioned, but some of the others (like Pope Pius XI condemning the Cristeros in Mexico) seem to be personal decisions made by the Pope. Since they're not dogmatic statements about Faith and Morals, they're not infallible and could be the wrong decision, but I don't think they would say anything about the Catholicity of the Pope.