Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Wheres the SSPXers?  (Read 2338 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Antony

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Reputation: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Wheres the SSPXers?
« on: April 29, 2011, 11:24:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I thought when I joined this site is was mainly a SSPX site.  Boy was I wrong.  I hear really no point of view other than the sed view which at times can be quite nauseating.  I have nothing against Sedavancantists other than you are objectively schismatic. Though, perhaps not in the subjective sense since I cant judge your soul.

    I understand how you got to the point you have, but your critisism of other Trads (SSPX) kind of makes me want to throw up.  In my view, the only logical view concerning the Church nowadays is the one passed onto the SSPX from the great French Archbishop.  And since we all understand each other's position, I dont need to elaborate anymore.

    I am truly not trying to make anyone mad here, but I think it my duty to speak out.  I know you seds are probaly trying to lead the best Catholic life you can, as we all are.  But please, your little snide comments about SSPXers is quite annoying.  God bless you all. Truly I mean it, God bless you all.


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12713
    • Reputation: +22/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Wheres the SSPXers?
    « Reply #1 on: April 29, 2011, 11:32:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Antony
    I thought when I joined this site is was mainly a SSPX site.  Boy was I wrong.  I hear really no point of view other than the sed view which at times can be quite nauseating.  I have nothing against Sedavancantists other than you are objectively schismatic. Though, perhaps not in the subjective sense since I cant judge your soul.

    I understand how you got to the point you have, but your critisism of other Trads (SSPX) kind of makes me want to throw up.  In my view, the only logical view concerning the Church nowadays is the one passed onto the SSPX from the great French Archbishop.  And since we all understand each other's position, I dont need to elaborate anymore.

    I am truly not trying to make anyone mad here, but I think it my duty to speak out.  I know you seds are probaly trying to lead the best Catholic life you can, as we all are.  But please, your little snide comments about SSPXers is quite annoying.  God bless you all. Truly I mean it, God bless you all.


    This is what the Archbishop said about it, and the SSPX response to that now is to attempt so suppress the Archbishop's sermons:


    Quote
    Now I don't know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don't know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying "there is no more Pope," but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious.
    I am not inventing this situation; I do not want it. I would gladly give my life to bring it to an end, but this is the situation we face, unfolding before our eyes like a film in the cinema. I don't think it has ever happened in the history of the Church, the man seated in the chair of Peter partaking in the worship of false gods.
     
     
    What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don't know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.


    One more thing, if you believe these conciliar Popes are truly the leaders of the Catholic Church, you are bound not to contradict the council or their encyclicals but to give assent to them.  


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12713
    • Reputation: +22/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Wheres the SSPXers?
    « Reply #2 on: April 29, 2011, 11:40:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's my problem with the SSPX position on the papacy, and why I felt I finally had to give up on it.

    How do I defend the Catholic Faith while scorning encyclicals and ecuмenical councils?  How do I say the Roman Catholic Church has preserved the Faith inviolate while insisting the conciliar Popes are its heads?

    It's not possible.  In attacking the teachings of the conciliar Popes I am forced to say in essence that the Popes are destroying the Catholic religion, while the Catholic religion teaches that the Popes keep the Faith inviolate.  What non-Catholic is going to buy that?

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31176
    • Reputation: +27093/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Wheres the SSPXers?
    « Reply #3 on: April 29, 2011, 11:45:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Antony --

    First, I'd like to say welcome to CathInfo. I am the sole moderator of this forum (unless you count my wife, who I have granted moderator privileges to as well)

    We attend an SSPX chapel, and their position is largely my position as well. I would particularly say I hold the late Archbishop's position on the Crisis. That might not necessarily be the same as that of Bishop Fellay, for example. Today, I am most encouraged and edified by the actions, behavior and teachings of Bishop Williamson.

    I realize that the SSPX is not perfect, but I realize that in a Crisis like the one we're in, there's is no perfect solution short of an end to the Crisis and a full return of Rome to Tradition.

    Specifically, I am dismayed at some of the recent actions of the SSPX -- ejecting certain priests who spoke up during the Germany/Bishop Williamson media affair, silencing/retiring Bishop Williamson himself, and removing all Catholic doctrine about the Jєωs from the SSPX website. These things are not to be defended by good Catholics.

    I also have some personal issues with them, some more local (as in, my chapel) and another private issue far closer than that!

    Nevertheless, I believe that attending an SSPX chapel is the best bet for me to raise my children to be good Catholics. We all need Mass and the Sacraments, and there is much good that is done by the Society.

    Regarding the Sedevacantist presence on CathInfo --

    1. I ask you to please stick around. We actually have many members who are non-sedevacantist, but we can always use more.

    2. Just remember that some members are more vocal/forceful/outspoken than others. Some members post more than others.

    3. It doesn't matter how many sedes are here, because the official position of CathInfo on the Crisis is the SSPX position. You will always have support "from the top".

    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6273
    • Reputation: +3628/-347
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Wheres the SSPXers?
    « Reply #4 on: April 30, 2011, 08:06:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    2. Just remember that some members are more vocal/forceful/outspoken than others. Some members post more than others.


    To Antony, there are a few non-sedes here that bait the sedes, what about them?  They too can be can be quite nauseating.
    Please pray for my soul.
    R.I.P. 8/17/22

    My new blog @ https://myforever.blog/blog/


    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5768
    • Reputation: +4621/-480
    • Gender: Male
    Wheres the SSPXers?
    « Reply #5 on: April 30, 2011, 08:15:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I haven't seen this posted yet, and thought this was the proper topic on which to post it.  This is Bishop Williamson's lastes newsletter that I received in my email box this morning.   All emphasis is from the original.  I have made not editorial comments within the quote either by word or edits.

    Quote
    ELEISON  COMMENTS  CXCVIII  (April 30, 2011) :  TRUE  POPE ? -- I

    Since saying three weeks ago (EC 195, April 9) that tomorrow's "beatification" of John-Paul II will only make him a Newblessed of the Newchurch, I have reasonably been asked if I am a so-called "sedevacantist". After all, if I virtually declare Benedict XVI to be a Newpope, how can I still believe him to be a true Pope ?  Actually, I believe he is both Newpope of the Conciliar Church and true Pope of the Catholic Church, because the two do not yet completely exclude one another., so I am not what is called a sedevacantist.  Here is the first part of my reasoning:--

    On the one hand I consider Benedict XVI to be a valid Pope, because he was validly elected as Bishop of Rome by the parish priests of Rome, i.e. the Cardinals, at the conclave of 2005, and if for some hidden flaw the election itself was not valid, it was convalidated, as the Church teaches, by his being subsequently accepted as Pope by the worldwide Church. As such, towards Benedict XVI  I mean to show all the respect, reverence and support due to the Vicar of Christ.

    On the other hand it is obvious from the Pontiff's words and actions that he is a "Conciliar" Pope, and head of the Conciliar Church. Merely the latest clear proofs of that are tomorrow's Newbeatification of John-Paul II, great promoter of Vatican II, and next October's commemoration of John-Paul's disastrous Assisi event of 1986, violating God's First Commandment in the name of man's Conciliar ecuмenism. For as that Commandment excludes all false religions (Deut.V, 7-9), so Vatican II virtually embraces them (Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Aetate). Therefore besides Benedict XVI's being the Vicar of Christ, I believe he is also betraying his sacred function of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Lk. XXII, 32), so besides duly respecting him as Peter, I mean also not to follow or obey him (Acts V, 29) when he does not behave like Peter. This was Archbishop Lefebvre's distinction.

    But note that even while betraying -- at least objectively --  the true religion, Benedict XVI also holds to it !  For instance, wishing to prevent Assisi III from being accused of mixing religions like Assisi I, he is having the public procession of all religions together take place in silence. In other words, even while Benedict XVI promotes error, he means not to abandon the truth !  And he is constantly in this way resembling an arithmetician who claims that 2 and 2 can make 4 or 5 !  Coming from a Pope, this is a recipe for confusion from top to bottom of the Church, because if anyone follows the Pope in this 4 or 5 "arithmetic", he will have in his head sheer contradiction and confusion !

    But note that Benedict XVI as arithmetician absolutely claims that he does believe that 2 and 2 are 4. And for as long as his claim is sincere, and it does appear to be sincere - God alone knows for sure - Benedict XVI is not wilfully denying what he knows to be defined truths of the Catholic Faith. Rather he is convinced, as Bishop Tissier shows, that he is "regenerating" them with the help of modern thinking ! This makes it difficult to make the accusation of formal heresy stick in his case, which is why even his love and promotion of 2+2=5 does not yet make me personally into a sedevacantist.

    Mother of God, Seat of Wisdom, shield us from the confusion !

                        Kyrie eleison.


    This is the first time I think I've seen this directly stated.  Bishop Williamson is saying that if a person believes in all the doctrines of the Church but also believes in heresies that are mutually exclusive to the true doctrines or that have been condemned by the Church in the past (i.e., 2 + 2 = 4 or 5, as he says), than he is not strictly a heretic.  Because Bishop Williamson believes that Benedict 16 (and before him, John Paul 2) do hold the truths of the Catholic faith while at the same time holding heresies, they are still valid and true popes.

    In other words, those who believe in two mutually exclusive doctrines at the same time, i.e., Modernists, are still held to be Catholics in good standing.  

    I wonder if this is a novelty or if this is the immemorial teaching of the Catholic Church.  When has the Catholic Church ever held that one who manifestly and pertinatiously believes in an heretical doctrine but also believes in the true and contradictory doctrine are true Catholics?  It seems that Pope St. Pius X did not agree.

    On a previous topic I asked about this and asked why Pope St. Pius X didn't excommunicate Modernists and was roundly chastised by members of this forum who provided a number of excommunications under this saintly pope for refusing to renounce their Modernist heresies.  So it seems that Pope St. Pius X did not agree with Bishop Williamson.

    This is the main problem I have with the Society and with anti-sedevacantists.   They accuse us of judging the pope whereas they judge each and every action and word of the man they regard as pope and then ignore what they believe is wrong and accept what they believe is right.  I admit that I have made one--and only one--judgment.  The Society and other anti-sedevacantists make judgment after judgment, day after day.

    Bishop Fellay's talk at the Angelus Conference in Kansas City last October was the same.  After speaking on the numerous and extensive heresies, inconsistencies, and outright lies coming from the Vatican (in the name of Benedict 16) and laying out the evidence that nearly all of the Cardinals and the pope himself are manifest heretics, he derides the sedevacantists.  Of course he had to criticize the sedevacantists because he had just laid an irrefutable foundation for sedevacantism.

    I realize I am no philosopher, and I am not the brightest bulb in the lamp; but I simply cannot understand how a person who believes that 2 + 2 = 4 or 5 can be in the same club as he that rejects the self-evident error.

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6273
    • Reputation: +3628/-347
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Wheres the SSPXers?
    « Reply #6 on: April 30, 2011, 08:40:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    ELEISON  COMMENTS  CXCVIII  (April 30, 2011) :  TRUE  POPE ? -- I

    Since saying three weeks ago (EC 195, April 9) that tomorrow's "beatification" of John-Paul II will only make him a Newblessed of the Newchurch, I have reasonably been asked if I am a so-called "sedevacantist". After all, if I virtually declare Benedict XVI to be a Newpope, how can I still believe him to be a true Pope ?  Actually, I believe he is both Newpope of the Conciliar Church and true Pope of the Catholic Church, because the two do not yet completely exclude one another., so I am not what is called a sedevacantist.  Here is the first part of my reasoning:--

    On the one hand I consider Benedict XVI to be a valid Pope, because he was validly elected as Bishop of Rome by the parish priests of Rome, i.e. the Cardinals, at the conclave of 2005, and if for some hidden flaw the election itself was not valid, it was convalidated, as the Church teaches, by his being subsequently accepted as Pope by the worldwide Church. As such, towards Benedict XVI  I mean to show all the respect, reverence and support due to the Vicar of Christ.

    On the other hand it is obvious from the Pontiff's words and actions that he is a "Conciliar" Pope, and head of the Conciliar Church. Merely the latest clear proofs of that are tomorrow's Newbeatification of John-Paul II, great promoter of Vatican II, and next October's commemoration of John-Paul's disastrous Assisi event of 1986, violating God's First Commandment in the name of man's Conciliar ecuмenism. For as that Commandment excludes all false religions (Deut.V, 7-9), so Vatican II virtually embraces them (Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Aetate). Therefore besides Benedict XVI's being the Vicar of Christ, I believe he is also betraying his sacred function of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Lk. XXII, 32), so besides duly respecting him as Peter, I mean also not to follow or obey him (Acts V, 29) when he does not behave like Peter. This was Archbishop Lefebvre's distinction.

    But note that even while betraying -- at least objectively --  the true religion, Benedict XVI also holds to it !  For instance, wishing to prevent Assisi III from being accused of mixing religions like Assisi I, he is having the public procession of all religions together take place in silence. In other words, even while Benedict XVI promotes error, he means not to abandon the truth !  And he is constantly in this way resembling an arithmetician who claims that 2 and 2 can make 4 or 5 !  Coming from a Pope, this is a recipe for confusion from top to bottom of the Church, because if anyone follows the Pope in this 4 or 5 "arithmetic", he will have in his head sheer contradiction and confusion !

    But note that Benedict XVI as arithmetician absolutely claims that he does believe that 2 and 2 are 4. And for as long as his claim is sincere, and it does appear to be sincere - God alone knows for sure - Benedict XVI is not wilfully denying what he knows to be defined truths of the Catholic Faith. Rather he is convinced, as Bishop Tissier shows, that he is "regenerating" them with the help of modern thinking ! This makes it difficult to make the accusation of formal heresy stick in his case, which is why even his love and promotion of 2+2=5 does not yet make me personally into a sedevacantist.

    Mother of God, Seat of Wisdom, shield us from the confusion !

                        Kyrie eleison.







    Frankly it is quite nauseating also to read from intelligent persons who use fancy words  (above) in the hopes of deceiving even the elect.
    Even a child schooled in a traditional Catholic school knows that Truth and error can not be part of the Mystical Body of Christ.  These Modernist with their choice words should meditate on what a Divine Institution IS.

    They continue to make a mockery of God, and sin against the Holy Ghost.
    Please pray for my soul.
    R.I.P. 8/17/22

    My new blog @ https://myforever.blog/blog/

    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Wheres the SSPXers?
    « Reply #7 on: April 30, 2011, 08:53:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    I haven't seen this posted yet, and thought this was the proper topic on which to post it.  This is Bishop Williamson's lastes newsletter that I received in my email box this morning.   All emphasis is from the original.  I have made not editorial comments within the quote either by word or edits.

    Quote
    ELEISON  COMMENTS  CXCVIII  (April 30, 2011) :  TRUE  POPE ? -- I

    Since saying three weeks ago (EC 195, April 9) that tomorrow's "beatification" of John-Paul II will only make him a Newblessed of the Newchurch, I have reasonably been asked if I am a so-called "sedevacantist". After all, if I virtually declare Benedict XVI to be a Newpope, how can I still believe him to be a true Pope ?  Actually, I believe he is both Newpope of the Conciliar Church and true Pope of the Catholic Church, because the two do not yet completely exclude one another., so I am not what is called a sedevacantist.  Here is the first part of my reasoning:--

    On the one hand I consider Benedict XVI to be a valid Pope, because he was validly elected as Bishop of Rome by the parish priests of Rome, i.e. the Cardinals, at the conclave of 2005, and if for some hidden flaw the election itself was not valid, it was convalidated, as the Church teaches, by his being subsequently accepted as Pope by the worldwide Church. As such, towards Benedict XVI  I mean to show all the respect, reverence and support due to the Vicar of Christ.

    On the other hand it is obvious from the Pontiff's words and actions that he is a "Conciliar" Pope, and head of the Conciliar Church. Merely the latest clear proofs of that are tomorrow's Newbeatification of John-Paul II, great promoter of Vatican II, and next October's commemoration of John-Paul's disastrous Assisi event of 1986, violating God's First Commandment in the name of man's Conciliar ecuмenism. For as that Commandment excludes all false religions (Deut.V, 7-9), so Vatican II virtually embraces them (Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Aetate). Therefore besides Benedict XVI's being the Vicar of Christ, I believe he is also betraying his sacred function of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Lk. XXII, 32), so besides duly respecting him as Peter, I mean also not to follow or obey him (Acts V, 29) when he does not behave like Peter. This was Archbishop Lefebvre's distinction.

    But note that even while betraying -- at least objectively --  the true religion, Benedict XVI also holds to it !  For instance, wishing to prevent Assisi III from being accused of mixing religions like Assisi I, he is having the public procession of all religions together take place in silence. In other words, even while Benedict XVI promotes error, he means not to abandon the truth !  And he is constantly in this way resembling an arithmetician who claims that 2 and 2 can make 4 or 5 !  Coming from a Pope, this is a recipe for confusion from top to bottom of the Church, because if anyone follows the Pope in this 4 or 5 "arithmetic", he will have in his head sheer contradiction and confusion !

    But note that Benedict XVI as arithmetician absolutely claims that he does believe that 2 and 2 are 4. And for as long as his claim is sincere, and it does appear to be sincere - God alone knows for sure - Benedict XVI is not wilfully denying what he knows to be defined truths of the Catholic Faith. Rather he is convinced, as Bishop Tissier shows, that he is "regenerating" them with the help of modern thinking ! This makes it difficult to make the accusation of formal heresy stick in his case, which is why even his love and promotion of 2+2=5 does not yet make me personally into a sedevacantist.

    Mother of God, Seat of Wisdom, shield us from the confusion !

                        Kyrie eleison.


    This is the first time I think I've seen this directly stated.  Bishop Williamson is saying that if a person believes in all the doctrines of the Church but also believes in heresies that are mutually exclusive to the true doctrines or that have been condemned by the Church in the past (i.e., 2 + 2 = 4 or 5, as he says), than he is not strictly a heretic.  Because Bishop Williamson believes that Benedict 16 (and before him, John Paul 2) do hold the truths of the Catholic faith while at the same time holding heresies, they are still valid and true popes.

    In other words, those who believe in two mutually exclusive doctrines at the same time, i.e., Modernists, are still held to be Catholics in good standing.  

    I wonder if this is a novelty or if this is the immemorial teaching of the Catholic Church.  When has the Catholic Church ever held that one who manifestly and pertinatiously believes in an heretical doctrine but also believes in the true and contradictory doctrine are true Catholics?  It seems that Pope St. Pius X did not agree.

    On a previous topic I asked about this and asked why Pope St. Pius X didn't excommunicate Modernists and was roundly chastised by members of this forum who provided a number of excommunications under this saintly pope for refusing to renounce their Modernist heresies.  So it seems that Pope St. Pius X did not agree with Bishop Williamson.

    This is the main problem I have with the Society and with anti-sedevacantists.   They accuse us of judging the pope whereas they judge each and every action and word of the man they regard as pope and then ignore what they believe is wrong and accept what they believe is right.  I admit that I have made one--and only one--judgment.  The Society and other anti-sedevacantists make judgment after judgment, day after day.

    Bishop Fellay's talk at the Angelus Conference in Kansas City last October was the same.  After speaking on the numerous and extensive heresies, inconsistencies, and outright lies coming from the Vatican (in the name of Benedict 16) and laying out the evidence that nearly all of the Cardinals and the pope himself are manifest heretics, he derides the sedevacantists.  Of course he had to criticize the sedevacantists because he had just laid an irrefutable foundation for sedevacantism.

    I realize I am no philosopher, and I am not the brightest bulb in the lamp; but I simply cannot understand how a person who believes that 2 + 2 = 4 or 5 can be in the same club as he that rejects the self-evident error.


    I THINK he's saying he has not proof of FORMAL heresy. There is a difference between Formal Heresy and Material Heresy so I'm told. And this is supposedly needed to declare him a false Pope.

    I personally believe that JPII is a false Pope, probably Paul VI too. Benedict seems to be confused. Also a possiblity he may be a false Pope. However, we need another Pope or ecuмenical council to declare this to be so. Ex: the case of Honorius. In the meantime we disobey him because what he is preaching is error and error may not be followed no matter who issues it.

    Obey your Parents unless they error. Obey the Pope unless he errors. Obey your King unless he errors. This has been the Catholic way throughout history.

    That is my understanding of it, take it for what you will.
    I support the Society of St. Pius X.


    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5768
    • Reputation: +4621/-480
    • Gender: Male
    Wheres the SSPXers?
    « Reply #8 on: April 30, 2011, 11:59:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: LordPhan
    I THINK he's saying ...


    And this demonstrates the problem of the SSPX.  Though they publish a periodical entitled,  Si, Si, No, No, they themselves fill their words with nuance.  

    Is Benedict (and John Paul 2 before him) the pope?  If he is, then why do you not accept what he says in his encyclical letters and offical docuмents (i.e., in the exercise of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church) with religious and docile submission?  If he is, then why do you not obey his commands as is demanded by the authority of his universal jurisdiction?  

    I understand that there have been less than stellar popes throughout history.  Which of them directly taught heresy (as in the doctrine of religious liberty) or indirectly taught heresy (as in all of the officially approved Eucharistic sacrileges) and taught (and commanded) priests and bishops to hate the true Mass?  According to Saint Bellarmine, none of them did up to his time.  Amazingly, even during the reign of many very sinful popes, the faith was not compromised and we find numerous saints, some even directly condemning the pope for his wickedness.  Unlike today, however, those popes didn't make their wickedness the doctrine of the Church.

    The wicked popes of history were wicked in carnal matters.  They loved riches, woman, and power.  Today's popes may eschew carnal matters but they are even more dangerous to souls for they blaspheme God, teach false doctrines, call evil good and good evil; and, they teach others to do the same, all the while appearing humble.  

    And, while I have always liked his writings, here he tells us that he is pope of both the True Church and the false church precisely because he does all this wickedness while appearing humble.  

    Quote from: Bishop Williamson
    But note that even while betraying -- at least objectively --  the true religion, Benedict XVI also holds to it !


    I simply cannot understand how this one statement can be defended in any way.  Can it not be turned around by saying, "But note that even while holding - at least objectively -- the true religion, the Society bishops also betray it!"?

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8212
    • Reputation: +7173/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Wheres the SSPXers?
    « Reply #9 on: April 30, 2011, 12:06:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Antony, I highly recommend you stick around. Most of the sedes here are actually kind, they sometimes can just be overly-critical of the SSPX. The Society is in no way perfect, and like Matthew my viewpoints also more closely resemble Archbishop LeFebvre's than Bishop Fellay's. But I do think that the criticism of the SSPX needs to come down a notch or two.

    There are sedes here who never attack the Society. Among them are Myrna (she does express problems with Fellay, but I can't really blame her), Gladius Veritatis, Emerentiana, Trinity, and Exilenomore. You can always stay away from the Crisis section and post on other sections where sedevacantism is rarely mentioned.

    God Bless.
    Please ignore ALL of my posts. I was naive during my time posting on this forum and didn’t know any better. I retract and deeply regret any and all uncharitable or erroneous statements I ever made here.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Wheres the SSPXers?
    « Reply #10 on: April 30, 2011, 12:21:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • TKGS said:
    Quote
    In other words, those who believe in two mutually exclusive doctrines at the same time, i.e., Modernists, are still held to be Catholics in good standing.  

    I wonder if this is a novelty or if this is the immemorial teaching of the Catholic Church.


    The SSPX teaching is a novelty, but the reason it is seductive is that it is based on truth.  You could say it's an exaggeration of truth.

    What they are playing on is St. Augustine's saying that we don't judge someone as a heretic who is innocently mistaken.  For instance, if your mom says "The Virgin Mary had relations with Joseph after Christ was born."  She doesn't instantly become a heretic upon emitting this statement.  If you tell her, "No, she was always a virgin," and she says "Oh, I see," then you can see she isn't a heretic, she was willing to believe what the Church teaches.  She just didn't know it.  

    It's common sense.  In fact, all of what is happening in the Church can be solved by common sense, but the SSPX has distorted that beyond all recogition.

    Some of the SSPX people have taken this idea of being slow to judgment and turned it into an attack against the very nature of objective truth.  They have, for all intents and purposes, erased the very possibility of formal heresy, since one "never knows."  Even if Benedict was preaching devotion to Satan they'd quote Thomas Aquinas -- as Caminus did the other day -- saying that no one consciously does evil, but they do evil thinking that it's good, so maybe Benedict really mistakenly believes that Satan is better than God and was the victim of a misunderstanding.  

    So?  When has that ever concerned people about heretics before?  We who do know the truth have to protect ourselves and the Church, which amounts to the same thing, and that is why when we see a heretic, we treat them as a heretic until they prove otherwise, we separate from them.  And these anti-Popes are not just making innocent mistakes, they are creating a new religion. Yeah, they probably think it's a more tolerant and better religion, but they're wrong, and they're destroying souls.

     I remember the Albigensians being routed and waged war upon, I don't recall anyone saying "Oh, they thought they were doing good."

    But the SSPX leaders play on the idea of being slow to judgment, and then they exaggerate it beyond all recognition.  They don't just give the "Popes" one or two chances to correct themselves, but engage in decades of "talks" whose terms remain unexplained and whose outcome is almost always vague.  

    When hearing this, the SSPX have two tactics to try to recover ground:

    ( a ) They play on the fear of people to say Rome has defected and that there have been decades of anti-Popes, like those government shills who act as if 9/11 could not have been a conspiracy because it would have involved too many people.  

    This is why so many of them mock the idea of cօռspιʀαcιҽs in general, because the existence of a vast conspiracy is damaging to SSPX, who need you to believe this is just an innocent misunderstanding ( otherwise people will be rightfully enraged and cut off these heretics in Rome as they should have done long ago )  

    By the way, it doesn't matter if this conspiracy is fully conscious and involves men in dark rooms chomping cigars.  I doubt any conspiracy is fully conscious to anyone except Satan, since he is the one pulling the strings of them all.  But  these guys know they are not teaching what the Church has always taught.

    ( b ) They distort the idea of papal infallibility beyond all recognition, reducing it to nothing, to ex cathedra statements which most Popes never even make

    What makes this more offensive is that, though it's true we can't judge souls, these anti-Popes are not only heretics but moral reprobates who did nothing to stop vast networks of child molestation.  Yet the SSPX act as if this is all accidental, as if it's not connected.  Then what about the universal wreckification, what about the many heretical priests and bishops who are never reprimanded?  Oh, the Popes are victims of a Modernistic mindset ( rather than violent Modernists themselves ).  And on and on... There's no way out of these mind games when you're dealing with the SSPX die-hards.  
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.


    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8212
    • Reputation: +7173/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Wheres the SSPXers?
    « Reply #11 on: April 30, 2011, 12:29:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Raoul, the SSPX doesn't "deny conspiracy theories". I doubt they believe in all of them, but I think most of them are aware of the NWO and such. The SSPXers who deny these "crazy theories" are your ones such as stevus who are so glued to the modern-day SSPX and Bishop Fellay that they go along with practically everything Fellay says or does.

    Furthermore, the SSPX hasn't been engaging in talks for decades. There's a difference between what Fellay is doing and what ABL did. ABL never stopped trying to convert them, which was actually a good thing. But there were no "talks" going on between he and the Vatican per se.
    Please ignore ALL of my posts. I was naive during my time posting on this forum and didn’t know any better. I retract and deeply regret any and all uncharitable or erroneous statements I ever made here.

    Offline Jitpring

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 536
    • Reputation: +247/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Wheres the SSPXers?
    « Reply #12 on: April 30, 2011, 12:51:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Antony
    I thought when I joined this site is was mainly a SSPX site.  Boy was I wrong.  I hear really no point of view other than the sed view which at times can be quite nauseating.  I have nothing against Sedavancantists other than you are objectively schismatic. Though, perhaps not in the subjective sense since I cant judge your soul.

    I understand how you got to the point you have, but your critisism of other Trads (SSPX) kind of makes me want to throw up.  In my view, the only logical view concerning the Church nowadays is the one passed onto the SSPX from the great French Archbishop.  And since we all understand each other's position, I dont need to elaborate anymore.

    I am truly not trying to make anyone mad here, but I think it my duty to speak out.  I know you seds are probaly trying to lead the best Catholic life you can, as we all are.  But please, your little snide comments about SSPXers is quite annoying.  God bless you all. Truly I mean it, God bless you all.


    I share your nausea.

    You may have seen this book:

    http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/8011/sedevacantism

    P. 58: "In the long term sedevacantism will no longer direct its bile and venom against modernism as such - such attacks are useful only to demonstrate that John Paul II is not the pope - but rather against those who, also rejecting modernist doctrines, do not embrace positions on authority identical to their own. The history of sedevacantism unhappily confirms that in fact the principle object of its spite does belong to this category. In this way a chronic sterility is indeed apparent."
    Age, thou art shamed.*
    O shame, where is thy blush?**

    -Shakespeare, Julius Caesar,* Hamlet**

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12713
    • Reputation: +22/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Wheres the SSPXers?
    « Reply #13 on: April 30, 2011, 01:01:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    This is why so many of them mock the idea of cօռspιʀαcιҽs in general, because the existence of a vast conspiracy is damaging to SSPX, who need you to believe this is just an innocent misunderstanding ( otherwise people will be rightfully enraged and cut off these heretics in Rome as they should have done long ago )  


    Actually the mockery of cօռspιʀαcιҽs is something that is recent among them.  It shows how SSPX members are often willing to change their minds about an issue rather quickly in order to remain in favor.  That is a very very bad sign for the future of the SSPX.

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12713
    • Reputation: +22/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Wheres the SSPXers?
    « Reply #14 on: April 30, 2011, 01:04:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    What makes this more offensive is that, though it's true we can't judge souls, these anti-Popes are not only heretics but moral reprobates who did nothing to stop vast networks of child molestation.


    Yes they even give catechism classes to defend the Novus Ordo priesthood in this matter and quote "Jєωιѕн businessmen" as authorities on the good name of the Church.

    Quote
    Yet the SSPX act as if this is all accidental, as if it's not connected.


    Yes during that class I mentioned that the crisis is connected to the abuse scandal and the priest tried to downplay any connection and mentioned cases going back to the pontificate of Pius XII.  It really does make you wonder.