Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: I would remind the SSPX shills  (Read 1488 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Meg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2942
  • Reputation: +1448/-2279
  • Gender: Female
Re: I would remind the SSPX shills
« Reply #15 on: February 28, 2019, 08:26:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • As to 1) There cannot be two visible Churches. Read any pre-Conciliar manuals on Ecclesiology. The confusion resulting from the Church's current crisis cannot justify a border-line heretical Ecclesiology that has no foundation in the Church's tradition.

    Bp. Tissier de Mallerais wrote a study of the notion that there are two churches. I'm not sure about of the "visible" part which you attach to the idea of not having two churches. I don't think that Bp. de Mallerais addressed the "visible" aspect. Have you read the study? It was suppressed by Bp. Fellay years ago, but the Dominicans of Avrille have the study posted on their website:

    http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/

    One thing I do agree with, and that's your view that some in the Resistance say that no Masses can be attended except Resistance Masses. I take issue with that as well. Though I think that those Resistance clergy who take that view are in the minority (I could be wrong about that). It's the laity attached to the Resistance who seem to more often say that no Masses can be attended except Resistance ones.

    I should add that Bp. Tissier de Mallerais wrote the study based on his view of what Archbishop Lefebvre believed. It's just his opinion, but it seems logical. The neo-SSPX wouldn't like the study at all, I'm sure.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17566
    • Reputation: +9856/-4290
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I would remind the SSPX shills
    « Reply #16 on: February 28, 2019, 08:28:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • FellayOFish...

    :jester:

    Best Screen Name so far this year.

    I knew a guy at seminary who referred to him as Bish Fellay.


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 22947
    • Reputation: +20086/-243
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I would remind the SSPX shills
    « Reply #17 on: February 28, 2019, 08:50:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • One thing I do agree with, and that's your view that some in the Resistance say that no Masses can be attended except Resistance Masses. I take issue with that as well. Though I think that those Resistance clergy who take that view are in the minority (I could be wrong about that). It's the laity attached to the Resistance who seem to more often say that no Masses can be attended except Resistance ones.

    Could you be more specific -- give some concrete examples?  You don't seem very sure about it.

    I hate to say it, but if any clergy or laity are getting DOGMATIC about the Crisis in the Church (and the SSPX crisis is just a continuation, another battle, in the wider Crisis in the Church), then these clerics and laymen are simply wrong.

    There are 2 distinct realms: Ideas (or the realm of ideas, principles) and individuals. You can use other terms too: Abstract vs concrete, General vs specific, principle vs practice, form vs matter, etc.

    In the realm of ideas, you have to be merciless against other positions or else you aren't very serious about your position!

    Of course I believe in the Resistance. But unless I make "Thou Shalt Attend Only Resistance Masses" as a new Commandment or Dogma of the Church, I can't condemn others, or bind their consciences. It's a prudential decision for each person. I can advise them to choose wisely; I can give them excellent reasons to go with the position I have chosen. But in the end, I can't force them. And when I fail to convince someone, I can't write them off as hell-bound.

    Any Resistance-affiliated priest the least bit serious is going to promote the Resistance, saying it's the best or safest option. I do this constantly! But you can't bind this upon the conscience of others. You can't condemn others who disagree with you. You can and must part ways of course, and you can oppose any errors or foolishness. But you can't say that any specific person attending SSPX, FSSP, or even the Novus Ordo is actually on the path to Hell.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2942
    • Reputation: +1448/-2279
    • Gender: Female
    Re: I would remind the SSPX shills
    « Reply #18 on: February 28, 2019, 08:55:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Could you be more specific -- give some concrete examples?  You don't seem very sure about it.

    I hate to say it, but if any clergy or laity are getting DOGMATIC about the Crisis in the Church (and the SSPX crisis is just a continuation, another battle, in the wider Crisis in the Church), then these clerics and laymen are simply wrong.

    There are 2 distinct realms: dogma (or the realm of ideas, principles) and individuals. You can use other terms too: Ideas/practice, form/matter, etc.

    Dogmatically, you have to be merciless against other positions or else you aren't very serious about your position!

    Of course I believe in the Resistance. But unless I make "Thou Shalt Attend Only Resistance Masses" as a new Commandment or Dogma of the Church, I can't condemn others, or bind their consciences. It's a prudential decision for each person. I can advise them to choose wisely; I can give them excellent reasons to go with the position I have chosen. But in the end, I can't force them. And when I fail to convince someone, I can't write them off as hell-bound.

    Any Resistance-affiliated priest the least bit serious is going to promote the Resistance, saying it's the best or safest option. I do this constantly! But you can't bind this upon the conscience of others. You can't condemn others who disagree with you. You can and must part ways of course, and you can oppose any errors or foolishness. But you can't say that any specific person attending SSPX, FSSP, or even the Novus Ordo is actually on the path to Hell.

    True; I'm not sure about it. I've not ever scientifically studied who or who doesn't believe that it's not okay to attend any Mass that isn't Resistance. I'm only recalling opinions from what I've read here on the forum over the years. I didn't intend to imply that a majority of trads associated with the Resistance say attending non-Resistance Masses shouldn't be done. I think that there are more Resistance laity who promote the idea, rather than Resistance priests. Resistance priests are very practical.

    I'm glad to see your view above, though. I agree with it.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 22947
    • Reputation: +20086/-243
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I would remind the SSPX shills
    « Reply #19 on: February 28, 2019, 09:03:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • True; I'm not sure about it. I've not ever scientifically studied who or who doesn't believe that it's not okay to attend any Mass that isn't Resistance. I'm only recalling opinions from what I've read here on the forum over the years.

    I'm glad to see your view above, though. I agree with it.


    Well you have to be *very* careful about forming a vague feeling over many years, without paying attention to any specifics.

    I'll give you a hint: The Resistance has been around since 2012, and the Pfeifferites haven't *always* been banned from the forum. Pablo himself used to be a member in the early days, before the truth came out about him and his past. Other venom-spewing, bitter opponents of +Williamson today used to be members of CathInfo back in the day. But they haven't changed *that* much.

    For example, there used to be big debates on Red Light vs. Yellow Light. But today, the Red Light camp would be pretty sparse because most of those people were of the Pfeifferite persuasion, and didn't last long. They soaked up Fr. Pfeiffer's schismatic Red Light position, but they also soaked up all his other errors, which caused them to be banned from this forum.

    So you have to be careful what ingredients you include in your dough, when making a loaf of "general impressions".
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2942
    • Reputation: +1448/-2279
    • Gender: Female
    Re: I would remind the SSPX shills
    « Reply #20 on: February 28, 2019, 09:08:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well you have to be *very* careful about forming a vague feeling over many years, without paying attention to any specifics.

    I'll give you a hint: The Resistance has been around since 2012, and the Pfeifferites haven't *always* been banned from the forum. Pablo himself used to be a member in the early days, before the truth came out about him and his past. Other venom-spewing, bitter opponents of +Williamson today used to be members of CathInfo back in the day. But they haven't changed *that* much.

    For example, there used to be big debates on Red Light vs. Yellow Light. But today, the Red Light camp would be pretty sparse because most of those people were of the Pfeifferite persuasion, and didn't last long. They soaked up Fr. Pfeiffer's schismatic Red Light position, but they also soaked up all his other errors, which caused them to be banned from this forum.

    So you have to be careful what ingredients you include in your dough, when making a loaf of "general impressions".

    Yes, you are right. I should have been more specific.

    I didn't know or notice that most of the red-lighters were Pfeifferites. That makes sense, now that you mention it. I can think of a couple of former Pfeifferites who take the red light position.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16