Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on Today at 06:03:43 PM

Quote

Again, I see your position of "trash-talking" Bishop Fellay to be of similar kind under the circuмstances. 

Wrong. Bishop Fellay is not the "Vicar of Christ" and therefore does not even come close to garnering such respect and reverence. At best he is a smarmy, shifty, Superior General to whom the SSPX owes no obedience. The SSPX is united under the "faith" and not under any "superior general." The Superior General is there for the SSPX faithful, not vice versa. It's a shame most SSPX people don't know this even yet.
In that pathetic SSPX Conference from April 2013 (Resistance to What?), some poor soul actually asked the SSPX clergy if he was allowed to ask about something pertaining to his own society! A grown man asking permission like a little boy to a group of people whom he helps support! It's sad really. Hopefully, if the SSPX has any conviction or guts left in it, it will get rid of + Fellay and elect a new Superior General who will tell Rome to "go to hell" and start to do things their own way once again. :applause:

So you can only "trash talk" a Vicar of Christ? Seriously?

Tell us, what are the conditions Bishop Fellay has agreed to? And prove it.

I suggest you withdraw your "trash talking" about Bishop Fellay. It's slanderous and without any foundation; at least you've shown none.

http://www.therecusant.com/menz-letter-to-3-bishops (Here, the other 3 SSPX Bishops question the motives of Judas Goat Fellay

http://www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012 (Here's the first concession he was dying to make with Rome)

These docuмents had caused so much of a stir among the SSPX faithful that in April 2013, the SSPX had to have that pathetic "Resistance to What" conference where one man pathetically asked if he was allowed to ask them a question.

Ok. Now you are actually referring to something. Thank you.

So what's your problem with Bishop Fellay's preamble? And did you compare it with the Archbishop's protocol of agreement? Just click the box up in the righthand corner.

How is Bishop Fellay a "Judas Goat" and the Archbishop with his protocol not?

Because the Archbishop correctly realized that it would be an absolutely wrong move on the part of the Society to reconcile with Rome in 1988. That's why he took back his initials on the May 5, 1988 Protocol and went ahead with the consecrations on June 30, 1988 - not even waiting until the date given to him by Rome: August 15, 1988. From then on, the Archbishop vowed never again communicate with Rome unless they first returned to Tradition. This has been verified countless times over the years by people who had been very close the Archbishop during these final years of his life.  

With that being said, why would + Fellay even think about reconciling with this Rome? Does anyone honestly believe that Rome is more Traditional in 2018 than it was in 1988? Quite the contrary! That's why, IMO, if + Fellay reconciles the SSPX with Rome (and gets his little Personal Prelature which he is so desperately seeking) then the SSPX will be recognized by that same Rome which still considers excommunicated the man who had made + Fellay a bishop in the first place! That alone is stabbing your mentor in the back! Also, if the Archbishop adamantly refused to reconcile with Rome when he was given the chance to do so 30 years ago because of its horrible modernism, what in the world would possess + Fellay to want to reconcile with a Rome that is 1000 times more modernist today? Maybe it's because of his own ego...maybe he wants to be always remembered in Church history as "the one who finally brought the Society into full communion with Rome."

But at what cost??

For years, the SSPX constantly told their faithful that they should not attend FSSP Masses (one main reason being because they were in full communion with the Holy See). If and when the SSPX becomes in full communion with the Holy See, not only will they be no different from the FSSP in validity and practice (despite what the SSPX PR tells their members so they don't leave the Society) but they will have also gone against absolutely everything the Society has stood for since their inception nearly 50 years ago.

Archbishop Lefebvre could've easily brought the Society into full communion with Rome on August 15, 1988 but he chose not to do so. Do you need to still ask yourself "why" he decided not to reconcile with Rome all those years ago?? How can anyone NOT SEE that joining in full communion with Rome today will be a definitive admittance that everything the Archbishop had done from 1988 until his death was "all for naught??"  

Do you really think the SSPX will get more members once they are in full communion with Rome? Don't you think many people will say things such as: "I'll stick with the FSSP, at least they've always been in full communion with Rome" or "I prefer the FSSP because they've been in the Church for 30 years while those SSPX misfits just joined up."??

If you think the answer is "no," and that more and more people are going to come pouring into the SSPX now that it's finally in full communion, then you are sadly mistaken. Judging by your inquiry into my opinions of Bishop Fellay, it's most likely that you either support the SSPX or are a member. If so, I can only recommend that you get a new Superior General this July who will not make any deals with Rome and therefore will save the Society from the embarrassment and ridicule it will receive the minute Rome fully accepts them. On that day, every member of every SSPX chapel should be downright ashamed to hang on their walls a photograph of Achbishop Marcel Lefebvre: the man whose actions kept the SSPX free from Roman Modernism (and the man who suffered a painful excommunication because of doing so) will, on that day, all have been for nothing.

And the SSPX will have only themselves to blame for it.

Hank,

Because, according to you, me and Bishop Fellay, he's the true pope?

Think about it. You say the charge that the NO is an incentive to impiety contradicts Catholic dogma if the V2 popes who use it are popes, and to say both (the NO is an incentive to impiety and the popes who use it are true popes) leaves one in a contradiction and in a situation of "anathema sit." Do you not see that saying that being in full communion with a true pope makes one a Judas Goat is an error of the same order?

We are simply talking about "full communion," not agreeing to any "errors," material "heresies," etc.

You are essentially saying that being in "full communion" with a true pope is evil, impious, etc. That is a violation of Catholic faith and belief of the same order (i.e., a contradiction) as saying a Mass used by legitimate popes is an "incentive to impiety" or "intrinsically evil."

You hold to a true intellectual analysis as to the NO Mass under true popes, and then lose your reason to emotion when it comes to Bishop Fellay seeking "full communion" with a true pope.

Firstly, I do not believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is an incentive to impiety. I recognize it as both valid and licit. The SSPX, however, recognizes the New Mass as valid but illicit. So I am not in a situation of what you would call "anathema sit" but I would say that the SSPX is in such a situation. Even this letter explains the typical double-talk of Judas Goat Fellay:

http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/sspx-internal-docuмent-cor-unum-june-2017.6348/

In your opinion, is the conciliar church a non-Catholic church?

There are still aspects of the Catholic Church in the conciliar church. Read the docuмent I linked to. I agree with its contents. It was written by Bp.Tissier de Mallerais back when he still followed in the footsteps of +ABL.

 While one may argue (as do I) that the New Mass is "barely Catholic" and therefore 1,000 times worse than the Traditional Latin Mass, I am forced to admit that a valid consecration still occurs during that rite.

Strange wording!  Parapraxis?  In the context of your usage here "worse than" means that the Traditional Latin Mass is bad, but that it is not as bad as the New Mass.  Conversely, if you were to have said the Traditional Latin Mass is 1,000 better than the New Mass it would mean that the New Mass is good.  The New Mass, however, is clearly evil (i.e., it is horribly deformed and lacking in the essential good that should be present).

That is not to say that God if he so chooses can not draw good out of evil, even the evil of the New Mass in much the same way that He could draw good out of  a whore house if he so chose.  That said, it does not equate to either the whore house being blessed or the New Mass being blessed even if God were in a particular instance to draw good out of it.  They are both cursed abominations in the eyes of God and they lead souls to eternal damnation.

The New Mass is like a very rotten apple.  It can in some instances help to sustain a certain degree of the faith or can be used as a stepping stone into the faith or back to the faith, but just as a starving man can live only so long on very rotten apples so too (aside from God's extraordinary intervention/assistance) one's spiritual life of grace can only remain intact for just so long if it feeds on a steady diet of the New Mass.

You are 100% correct! I meant to say that the Traditional Latin Mass is 1,000 times better than the New Mass. Thank you very much for correcting my grammatical error.

Apparently, you didn't understand my full message.  Please read this part again: "  Conversely, if you were to have said the Traditional Latin Mass is 1,000 better than the New Mass it would mean that the New Mass is good.  The New Mass, however, is clearly evil (i.e., it is horribly deformed and lacking in the essential good that should be present).