Author Topic: Another SSPXer denied the Sacraments (Read 6248 times)

Mea Culpa · « **Reply #30 on:** March 22, 2013, 11:01:13 AM »

Quote from: duck2050

Quote from: Ethelred
Btw, the young women sitting to the left of Krah in the following photograph, is not his wife:

- No it is Oren Heiman's wife.

Quote from: Ethelred
Since some of these friends on the photo are Jєωs including the Scarface Mossad "buddy" (just click photo to enlarge it and see the names), what kind of "Mass" would this be: a ѕуηαgσgυє service?

- An interfaith ecuмenical "Mass". The sort where a bunch of EMBA Global graduates sit around and worship Usury & Mammon.

For the curious here is everyone identified from left to right :

The Phong Nguyen http://fr.linkedin.com/pub/the-phong-nguyen/2/5b6/bb6

Randi Brodsky http://de.linkedin.com/pub/randi-brodsky/21/263/70

Tal Shapsa (Oren's wife, remember that wedding Krah attended in Israel)

Maximilian Krah http://de.linkedin.com/in/maximiliankrah

Oren Heiman http://www.linkedin.com/pub/oren-heiman/7/a3b/29b

Alexander Romanov http://ru.linkedin.com/pub/alexander-romanov/18/508/b8a

Per those links above:

One thing they all have in common is that they studied together at Columbia University - Columbia Business School. (I don't know if there's any bearing on that.)

Ethelred · « **Reply #31 on:** March 22, 2013, 11:40:56 AM »

Not wanting to derail this thread, but just one point:

Quote from: Ethelred

Quote from: Hollingsworth
[..]
What do you mean "visits his wife?"

... when she has to be in the specialty hospital because of her hard and long-time illness, he's visiting her.

It has just been confirmed to me from once source that Mrs Krah is suffering cancer since several years, and that the couple has four children.

Quote from: Hollingsworth

Where does he live permanently? Does his wife live in a house or apartment owned or rented by Krah? I have to wonder why this man would not be living with or very near his (hopitalized?) wife in order to care for her and watch over her.

Good questions, but I don't know the answers.

Quote from: sedetrad

Quote
Alexander Romanov
?
Is he an heir of the last tsar?

Hard to imagine, since Krah is a rank democrat and hates monarchy.
Long live the King, long live the Emperor!

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #32 on:** March 22, 2013, 11:53:29 AM »

Quote from: John Grace

Regarding the Brompton Oratory, Dr Krah stated

Quote
My favourite church. Whenever I'm in London, I come for a while

Yet SSPX folk are punished for wishing to remain true to the heritage of the Archbishop.

true to the Roman Catholic Faith

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #33 on:** March 22, 2013, 01:18:31 PM »

It is not Catholic to deny communion to good and holy Catholics.

I guess Bishop Fellay is learning from his American Novus ordo cronies and this krah guy.

Novus Ordo Bishop donald Wherl of Washington, DC is creepy. He punished and sent away one of his priests to Siberia after the priest refused to give NO cookie to a lesbian budist gαy rights activist.

Also, I think It was in El paso Texas when a Novus ordo priest, Father Rodriquez was removed from the area for preaching against same sex marriage and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.

To punish the good and reward the evil is very novus ordo.

We were all sick when Biden , Peℓσѕι and others went to meet and receive communion from the Pope.

Matthew · « **Reply #34 on:** March 22, 2013, 01:24:41 PM »

I know first-hand of a Novus Ordo service where a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, low-level Freemason received Holy Communion.

I can certainly understand where Sedevacantists get their mindset. "This isn't Catholic AT ALL.", "That can't be Our Lord.", etc.

It would certainly be great if that whole Mass had been invalid.

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #35 on:** March 22, 2013, 02:30:24 PM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

Also, I think It was in El paso Texas when a Novus ordo priest, Father Rodriquez was removed from the area for preaching against same sex marriage and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.

I remember that very well. I think he was shipped to a ghost town in Arizona or NM where he says Mass for a handful of faithful. Unfortunately the Bishop responsible for that is now the Bishop of my local diocese.

wallflower · « **Reply #36 on:** March 22, 2013, 08:35:16 PM »

Can anyone give me a reminder of what it takes to be able to deny the sacraments?

Matthew · « **Reply #37 on:** March 22, 2013, 09:07:01 PM »

Quote from: wallflower

Can anyone give me a reminder of what it takes to be able to deny the sacraments?

Public, notorious mortal sin.

If a known prostitute or a pro-choice politician (I know, I repeat myself) showed up for Holy Communion, for example.

On the other hand, if a man confessed to murdering a few priests and didn't end up getting absolution, the priest couldn't deny him Holy Communion if the priest-killer presented himself at the Communion rail. That is because people don't know of the man's sins -- and the priest only knows under the Seal of Confession.

So A) he can't do anything with his in-confession knowledge and B) he can't deny him the Sacraments, since the man is not notorious.

The priest would be forced to hand Jesus over to the torturers -- the devil -- as it were. It would be a very heavy cross for him.

Matthew · « **Reply #38 on:** March 22, 2013, 09:10:07 PM »

With that in mind, you can see the mindset the pro-Fellay, pro-Rome faction would have to be in, in order to deny the Sacraments to a pro-Lefebvre, faithful Catholic.

They would pretty much have to be suggesting that the person is in mortal sin -- but what mortal sin? And what mortal sin are they doing publicly? Opposing Bishop Fellay and a few other SSPX superiors -- in a pious union.

Apparently that's good enough for Schism (which is indeed a grave mortal sin).

Because, for the pro-Rome, pro-sellout faction, +Fellay is the pope (?)
Ridiculous, I know, but the facts are crystal clear: cutting oneself off from, or opposing the Superior General of a pious union does not constitute Schism.

But because it would make it obvious that they held such a ridiculous position (that opposing +Fellay is schism -- which I hope they don't truly hold!), they would rather stay on the safe side of the law and just make your life a living hell and get you to quit. That has been their modus operandi to date.

wallflower · « **Reply #39 on:** March 22, 2013, 09:20:53 PM »

Ok thank you.

So the blog owners are obviously public, and in the superior's estimation in mortal sin for slander.

This is not my view but I'm wondering how hard or easy it would be for an apologist to justify the denials and threats of denial of the sacraments that are going on.

And are they denying the sacraments specifically or banning people from the churches which effectively but secondarily denies them the sacraments?

Or perhaps they don't see it as denying the sacraments because they expect the people to go elsewhere? Does the fact that they are a society of which the parishioners are not officially members make any difference?

I'm trying to get as true a representation of the superiors' position as possible in order to refute it as well as possible, if possible.

*Edit, I just saw your second post. It helps but if it can be expanded upon, I would be very appreciative.

Matthew · « **Reply #40 on:** March 22, 2013, 09:43:01 PM »

I don't think a subjective thing like "saying +Fellay is betraying the society" would count as sufficient notorious sin.

For those who agree with the pro-Rome position, you would consider these men to be "slandering" since what they say is "false". But for those who disagree with +Fellay, and who see his actions as a betrayal, these same men would be considered martyrs for the cause and heroes.

Notorious sinners are just that -- notorious sinners. Not merely "controversial".

No one considers a prostitute to be a woman of good morals. No one would consider a known hit-man to have good, upstanding morality.

wallflower · « **Reply #41 on:** March 22, 2013, 10:39:33 PM »

The distinction of not being merely controversial is perfect.

And since the blog owners are doing what they think is necessary to preserve the Faith, which has a valid argument as being necessary to preserve the Faith, they are obviously not fulfilling the requirements of mortal sin in having the blog. At the very least, it can't be said with the absolute certainty that it would require to be notorious.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #42 on:** March 22, 2013, 10:59:51 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

I know first-hand of a Novus Ordo service where a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, low-level Freemason received Holy Communion.

I can certainly understand where Sedevacantists get their mindset. "This isn't Catholic AT ALL.", "That can't be Our Lord.", etc.

It would certainly be great if that whole Mass had been invalid.

I've witnessed it firsthand in SV chapel--and the guy belonged to a secret society, all upfront. Same location of numerous "excommunications"for a variety of reasons.