Author Topic: SSPX development (Read 3437 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #30 on:** April 25, 2012, 07:10:58 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Dino
Quote from: Seraphim
Blah blah.

The SSPX wants freedom to save souls.

Rome is not sure it wants the souls to be saved.

Rome believes in a counterfeit Catholicism, and we are no longer concerned they should ever revert back to the Faith.

We just want to coexist on equal footing with heretics.

Wait a minute:

Don't we have the freedom to preach the faith today without worry of suppression, and believe that the sanctions levied against us are bogus?

Then why cut a deal that implies worry about the sanction, jeopardizes our liberty, and castrates any hope of a Roman return to the Faith?

We have been lied to if it is now acceptable to sign a practical deal whilst all the heresies remain promoted in Rome.

Archbishop Lefebvre would never go along with this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you didn't read the communique? It's basically saying that Bishop Fellay agrees with your statement!

Just wondering: Why does this priest need to clarify what the bishop is saying? Why doesn't Bishop Fellay tell us this directly himself rather than through an interpreter. In American politics this is what is called the "spin room".

I'm not saying this priest isn't accurate. I am saying that I've heard Bishop Fellay say in the past that doctrine must come before incorporation within the structure of the Conciliar church. This is apparently no longer the case. So what has changed? Why does the bishop not tell the faithful directly rather than making various comments that have to be spun by others to the faithful?

Well said.

:applause:

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #31 on:** April 25, 2012, 07:14:35 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

Quote from: Francisco
To me a layman, it seems that BpF doesn't mind having his SSPX as a church within another church.

I said something similar on another blog: the reality of a church within a church. Strip out the fancy words and convoluted justifications, seen from the SSPX side the Church represented by the Society would become a tenant of the conciliar Roman conglomerate. In return Rome would see her new member as but one expression of the Church of Christ, a new concept to embrace other Christians and in time all faiths. This would be Ratzinger's legacy, the old rogue; not a yearning for the old church!

Does anyone really think ABL would have been content to co-exist as but yet another flavor of Catholicism within the great pluralistic Church.

Talk of a juridical agreement while Rome is apostate is absolutely rediculous.

Francisco · « **Reply #32 on:** April 25, 2012, 11:13:34 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

Quote from: Francisco
To me a layman, it seems that BpF doesn't mind having his SSPX as a church within another church.

I said something similar on another blog: the reality of a church within a church. Strip out the fancy words and convoluted justifications, seen from the SSPX side the Church represented by the Society would become a tenant of the conciliar Roman conglomerate. In return Rome would see her new member as but one expression of the Church of Christ, a new concept to embrace other Christians and in time all faiths. This would be Ratzinger's legacy, the old rogue; not a yearning for the old church!

This is what I posted elsewhere:

Quote from: francisco
A Church within a Church?

[Reply]Does not make sense.
---------------------------------

In the event of an SSPX-Rome deal, it would not be unreasonable to expect an announcement at a parish church along these lines:

A group, attached to the old Latin Mass, has entered into full communion with the Catholic Church.
BUT, it reserves the right to criticize our Mass, which is said in the vernacular, and which it claims is protestanizing.
It also rejects the way we do things concerning Ecuмenism and Inter-faith activities.
Furthermore, it disputes our views on the freedom of Religion.
Also, it disagrees with the collegial powers of our bishops.
It has a problem with us saying that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.
And...it does not quite believe that the Holy Spirit blows where He wills, including in the faiths and faith-beliefs of our non-Catholic brethren ....

But no problemos. They are in full communion with us, even though they are a Church within our Church.

KofCTrad · « **Reply #33 on:** April 26, 2012, 02:08:06 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: KofCTrad
Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: KofCTrad
From the article/link:

"2) Liberty to preach to all its faithful of those diocese that assistance in the new mass, that is celebrated by the Pope and the majority of the bishops, is seriously favorable to the heresy and that to attend it with full conscience is a mortal sin, save extraordinary circuмstances when permission is given, such as permitting seminarians to see it for studying purposes, in order to note the spirit Protestantization of it."

Love the SSPX. and have nothing against it and I know this is the party line BUT it presents quite a problem and I don't think the Vatican would ever go for it. And well they should not if they want to keep the "facade"/game going.

This is the heart of the problem with the SSPX's position:

cannon 7 of Session XXII of the council of trent:

"If anyone says, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema"

The SSPX is in a very strange predicament. It's dialoguing with the "Holy See" over "doctrine" while it's official position is the Vatican II Novus Ordo apparatus is a danger to souls.

The sedevacantists are much more consistent.

SSPX position is wanting.

Nothing new in this post.

You are a sede, so you dont want to undertand or accept the Churches doctrine of necessity (i.e., a cause excusing from obedience to superiors, first taught by divine inspiration in Galations when St. Paul resisted Peter to the face because he was to be blamed).

Additionally, you seem unwilling to distinguish netween the doctrinal and disciplinary dictates of the canons of the Council of Trent.

Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent: Bull Iniunctum nobis of Pius IV
http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html
"The Apostolic and Ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same Church I firmly admit to and embrace."

Council of Trent cannon 13 of Session VII:
"CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by any pastor of the churches whomsoever, into other new ones; let him be anathema."

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi:
"But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind... or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"....Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration:"I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church."

Second Council of Nicea, cited and reaffirmed by St. Pius X in Pascendi
"If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the Church, let him be anathema."

Taken from: The Great Facade:Vatican II And The Regime of Novelty In The Roman Catholic Church. p.27-28, Christopher A. Ferrara & Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

So... you were saying...?

Just to nip this in the bud, I know that Ferrara and Woods are not sedes. That's precisely the whole point that drives me nuts and why I joined this board. Angelqueen will not even let you discuss the question. And I understand I'm not a theologian but this whole situation is schizophrenic.

The whole SSPX wing of the Traditionalists movement basically spends their whole career writing tons of pages of books and articles basically proving sedevacantism yet can't bring themselves to the logical conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church can NOT DO WHAT IT'S BEEN DOING for the last 54 years.

They ACT like sedevacantists, they WRITE like sedevacantists but yet they've never utterd the conclusion of sedevacantism. I mean His Emminence Bernard Tissier de Mallerais wrote an entire book cataloguing the FACT that Cardinal Ratzinger is a raving heretic, I pull up the Bull cuм Ex Apostolic Officio by Pope Paul IV, read St.Robert Bellarmine, learn the the teaching concerning heretics being automatically disposed and no longer members of the Church and it's like schitzoville.

I'm not like the Dimond's or other hard core sedes. I believe we can have different positions on Baptism of blood & desire and the question of the Pope until such time as the chastisement comes and we get a True Pope. All I'm trying to say is I don't get the position of the society. Not in 2012. Sure in 1973, 1976, 1983, 1988, 1995, maybe even up to early 2000's. But not now. Just my take.

I mean WHAT is going to happen if there's no agreement. They just had discussions on DOCTRINE, the Vatican may say their obstinate schismatics because they don't accept the current DOCTRINE of the Church and the SSPX is going to run around the world proclaiming, "but they're still legitimate, he's the Pope."

Color me confused. It's schizophrenia.

I am confused.

What point were you trying to prove with your citations?

Confused?

What point?

Read them again, one at a time, slowly. The point is that Vatican II has already been anathematized before it even started. The Novus Ordo falls under the condemnation and anathemas, which are excommunications, of numerous cannons of different councils from Church history.

The Vatican II Church is not The Roman Catholic Church. It's the whore from the book of Revelation.

"Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the anti-christ"
Our Lady of Lassellete

In short these popes and their prelates are illegitimate imposters.

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #34 on:** April 26, 2012, 07:20:14 AM »

The Excommunication against Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not valid,
and is to be treated as such.

Diego · « **Reply #35 on:** April 26, 2012, 11:59:24 AM »

Short of a heavenly vision, that picture is the strongest evidence for Abp. Lefebvre. Having the ability to read souls, St. Padre Pio would never have done that if Abp. Lefebvre was compromised.

pbax · « **Reply #36 on:** April 27, 2012, 01:25:55 AM »

Quote from: Francisco

To me a layman, it seems that BpF doesn't mind having his SSPX as a church within another church.

Subsist would be a good word to use here