Author Topic: Cebu City SSPX threatens withholding Sacraments (Read 8243 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #15 on:** August 17, 2014, 08:44:03 AM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
Am I misreading, or does the title of the "announcement" read "Pius V" instead of "Pius X"? What has Fr Coture have to do with SSPV? Why should Pius V care about the Resistance?

:confused1:

Don't be confused - the name of the SSPX chapel is St Pius V.

Does the SSPV have any chapels named "St. Pius X?"

We'll know it's REALLY getting bad when the SSPX opens a new chapel named,

"St. John XXIII." :tv-disturbed:

.

trento · « **Reply #16 on:** August 17, 2014, 10:35:34 AM »

Quote from: Francisco

Quote from: trento
Quote from: Francisco
Quote from: Matthew
Now that I've fixed the thread, my comments:

How outrageous. These priests act like they're in a cult. They make claim to "supplied jurisdiction" where the needs of the Faithful cause the Church to supply jurisdiction where it is normally lacking. Which is fine -- but then they can't pick and choose which Faithful they will serve. If someone crosses the Church door, they are obligated to offer the Sacraments.

Since when can a priest deny a person the Sacraments because they don't like him, they don't like his face, or because he's a Packers fan?

That's what it comes down to. Supporting the Resistance is NOT like being a public notorious sinner, or being excommunicated. When an SSPX Father is confronted with a Resistance supporter, what he sees is an "opponent" or someone he disagrees with at best. He can't deny him the Sacraments because they have a personal disagreement.

The SSPX here is acting like a parallel church, a schismatic sect, a cult, which presumes to excommunicate members. Is Bishop Fellay now the pope? Is Fr. Couture? He sure acts like he is.

In the 1940's or 1950's, could a priest excommunicate a member of the Church on his own volition? I doubt it.

"If anyone from this group is caught actively promoting it here in this chapel, this person will be denied the sacraments." This is the crux of the matter. The rest is much ado about nothing. If you are a Resistance person nobody stops you from attending Mass in an SSPX chapel. All that the SSPX-Asia is saying ( and only one chapel has put up such a notice) is not to promote the Resistance on their property. All over the district Resistance people, including Organizers, are attending Mass at SSPX chapels, some because of the low frequency of Resistance Masses in their respective areas.

Precisely. Can you imagine if someone from the Indult Masses, coming to an SSPX chapel to actively promote the Indult and distribute flyers trying to lure ppl to the Indult Mass? No sane pastor would tolerate that.

Yes I'm also surprised that people dont want to see it like it is! This non-issue has been blown up by Fr Chazal's small, but over enthusiatic, Young Men's Brigade, who keep arranging Masses (usually one-off per venue) for him to say here, there and everywhere in the Philippines.

And when it gets posted on Cathinfo, the Resistance folks get all worked up over nothing as if it has never happened before in the history of the SSPX. I recall similar action against the Feeneyites who were propagating Feeneyism and causing discord in SSPX chapels, as well as against certain parishioners who were writing poison pen letters against the priests.

ggreg · « **Reply #17 on:** August 20, 2014, 12:34:20 AM »

Perhaps the SSPX are working off the principle that "a house divided against itself cannot stand"?

How does the Resistance deal with say priests and laity that not only hold SV sympathies but spread them around before and after mass? How does the Resistance deal with its own "splitters"

I know some of the key figures in the resistance and have known them and known of them for decades. In the most part, whenever they have had the power to do so, they have dealt with dissent in a similar fashion. It's just now they are on the receiving end of the power of censure and being cast out.

Add to this, this is the Philippines we are talking about here. They are not cold blooded Englishmen. I'm pretty sure things get heated and passionate very quickly in that culture.

Francisco · « **Reply #18 on:** August 20, 2014, 03:06:13 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

<I know some of the key figures in the resistance and have known them and known of them for decades. In the most part, whenever they have had the power to do so, they have dealt with dissent in a similar fashion. It's just now they are on the receiving end of the power of censure and being cast out>

Ditto two of the M-C priests when they were in the SSPX ......

ggreg · « **Reply #19 on:** August 20, 2014, 03:47:33 AM »

I'm convinced that the clerical taliban has existed as long as anyone can remember and pre-dates Vatican II by at least 100 years. Don Bosco's life was full of other priests ganging up on him.

holysoulsacademy · « **Reply #20 on:** August 21, 2014, 12:38:30 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Is the SSPX (in all its chapels) supposed to be a disinterested outpost of the One True Church, or a private club set up for its own benefit?

Is the SSPX a club/cult/business, or a mere branch of the Catholic Church that only exists for the sake of the Faithful?

You hit the nail on the head! "The" should be changed to "it's" faithful, meaning faithful to those particular group of priests or Bishop.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #21 on:** August 21, 2014, 04:24:43 AM »

Quote from: trento

Quote from: Francisco

Yes I'm also surprised that people dont want to see it like it is! This non-issue has been blown up by Fr Chazal's small, but over enthusiatic, Young Men's Brigade, who keep arranging Masses (usually one-off per venue) for him to say here, there and everywhere in the Philippines.

And when it gets posted on Cathinfo, the Resistance folks get all worked up over nothing as if it has never happened before in the history of the SSPX. I recall similar action against the Feeneyites who were propagating Feeneyism and causing discord in SSPX chapels, as well as against certain parishioners who were writing poison pen letters against the priests.

How in the world does one "propagate Feeneyism" pray tell?

Is it somehow reprehensible to advocate reading Scripture? Or are there certain passages that are for whatever reason to be avoided at all costs?

Or, like Fr. Pfeiffer did recently, is deliberate misinterpretation (like no commentary on Scripture has ever said) to construe I John v. 7-8 as referring to Baptism and the so-called three kinds thereof, instead of the divinity of Jesus in the Trinity (which is the only reasonable context, since that's the topic of chapter five), somehow become the norm? If deliberate misinterpretation of Scripture is to be now the norm, how are Catholics any different from Protestants or 7th Day Adventists or Mormons?

How does one propagate "Feeneyism"?

By openly proclaiming that there is no salvation outside the Church? What a crime! Wait. That's being Catholic.

Or is it by announcing from the housetops that your goal is the conversion of America?

EEEkkkk ---- how dare they be so unecuмenical!?!?

Wait. Isn't that what Catholics are SUPPOSED to be doing?

Please explain. Or, is explaining what you mean too much trouble?

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #22 on:** August 21, 2014, 04:25:43 AM »

Quote from: holysoulsacademy

Quote from: Matthew
Is the SSPX (in all its chapels) supposed to be a disinterested outpost of the One True Church, or a private club set up for its own benefit?

Is the SSPX a club/cult/business, or a mere branch of the Catholic Church that only exists for the sake of the Faithful?

You hit the nail on the head! "The" should be changed to "it's" faithful, meaning faithful to those particular group of priests or Bishop.

How many times have we heard the Menzingen-denizens claim that it's the "Church of Fellay?"

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #23 on:** August 21, 2014, 04:28:12 AM »

.

I think I know why the SSPX has habitually been so irritated with the St. Benedict Center.

I think I know the reason, and it has nothing to do with "baptism of desire" at all.

That's just a smokescreen. There is a much bigger reason.

MUCH BIGGER.

.

Francisco · « **Reply #24 on:** August 22, 2014, 11:56:45 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

I think I know why the SSPX has habitually been so irritated with the St. Benedict Center.

I think I know the reason, and it has nothing to do with "baptism of desire" at all.

That's just a smokescreen. There is a much bigger reason.

MUCH BIGGER.

.

Now please dont leave us suspense - tell us all about this bigger reason!

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #25 on:** August 23, 2014, 12:02:21 AM »

Now I'm curious

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #26 on:** August 23, 2014, 09:35:17 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

I think I know why the SSPX has habitually been so irritated with the St. Benedict Center.

I think I know the reason, and it has nothing to do with "baptism of desire" at all.

That's just a smokescreen. There is a much bigger reason.

MUCH BIGGER.

.

Well?

Ambrose · « **Reply #27 on:** August 23, 2014, 10:50:40 PM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

I think I know why the SSPX has habitually been so irritated with the St. Benedict Center.

I think I know the reason, and it has nothing to do with "baptism of desire" at all.

That's just a smokescreen. There is a much bigger reason.

MUCH BIGGER.

.
Well?

Why wait for him? I have just recently posted 4 articles from the SSPX on this very issue on the CathInfo library. Go right to the source and read the SSPX explanation from their own words.

JPaul · « **Reply #28 on:** August 25, 2014, 09:29:27 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: ultrarigorist
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

I think I know why the SSPX has habitually been so irritated with the St. Benedict Center.

I think I know the reason, and it has nothing to do with "baptism of desire" at all.

That's just a smokescreen. There is a much bigger reason.

MUCH BIGGER.

.
Well?

Why wait for him? I have just recently posted 4 articles from the SSPX on this very issue on the CathInfo library. Go right to the source and read the SSPX explanation from their own words.

Ambrose, while you have developed such a liking for SSPX articles why con't you post two or three, or four of their articles about sedevacantism in the library to give some balance?

peterp · « **Reply #29 on:** September 06, 2014, 01:03:13 AM »

Does/did the Church not refuse the sacraments to those organizations help bent on her destruction (i.e., members of communist parties and the freemasons)?

So if the Society is subject to such attacks, attacks designed for her destruction, is she not allowed to refuse the sacraments to such perpetrators?

The Church allows for the refusal of Holy Communion to both public and occult sinners (in certain circuмstances) and those who are not properly disposed.

What is/are the specific issues here?