Author Topic: Eleison Comments: Horrible Falls III (Read 14333 times)

Zeitun · « **Reply #30 on:** September 22, 2013, 08:30:49 PM »

If someone decides that stay away from SSPX and finds that their spiritual life suffers they can always go back. And certainly if any dangers to Faith are removed one can return.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #31 on:** September 22, 2013, 09:10:20 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

I would have a problem supporting any priest throwing up a blanket red light on SSPX Mass attendance, since I believe doing so is leading people into mortal sin.

I will not be complicit in that.

That's the thing--it is simply far too dangerous to encourage such a thing as quitting the Mass.

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #32 on:** September 23, 2013, 09:23:36 AM »

I think what Bishop Williamson says makes perfect sense.

The SSPX went from condemning NO and Modernism and now is, in many chapels, remaining silent or indifferent. It happened in my chapel. The priests went silent and began telling individuals that the NO was "like food, but not the best food."

We found an independent chapel to attend and our spiritual welfare has not suffered at all, in fact, it has greatly improved now that we are no longer being stalked on the internet by the priest or assaulted verbally and physically for asking questions.

Everyone should be warned and prepared to leave if you must.

Some people will remain in SSPX because they believe that the SSPX is the deposit of faith or the only place to go.

Others will leave and find other chapels in other places to attend. I suspect it's a repeat of what happened in the wake of VII.

But we must never stop encouraging each other in this crisis. People must make their own best judgments through prayer and good counsel.

There are other chapels. In the early days of SSPX, I am told, people drove for hours to attend Mass. People met in basements and garages. It's not about a building, it's about our Faith.

They can take our chapels but they can't take our Faith.

Wessex · « **Reply #33 on:** September 23, 2013, 10:30:08 AM »

The branding operation is an attempt to relate to new generations and to be more accepting of their attitudes and lifestyles. It partners a similar process underway in the religious field as the Society accommodates the mainstream church and laity. The two occupy different sides of the same coin called relevancy and the Society will endeavour to have both working together in its chapels of the future.

There is little point in wondering whether traditional doctrine will remain intact in a changing environment when it is clear which one is eventually going to suffer. A liberal environment will usher in liberal doctrine and practice which in the case of the new SSPX means being conciliar friendly. A period of transition does however allow folk to consider their only options: to go with the trend or oppose it.

Frances · « **Reply #34 on:** September 23, 2013, 08:08:51 PM »

quote] we are no longer being stalked on the internet by the priest or assaulted verbally and physically[/quote]

:surprised:You were stalked on-line, verbally and physically assaulted by a priest?

If you did not file charges, why not?

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #35 on:** September 25, 2013, 06:47:40 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Unless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy.....

The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter:

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/09/04/more-on-the-first-essential-condition-of-the-sspx-2012-general-chapter/

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #36 on:** September 25, 2013, 04:32:34 PM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Unless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy.....

The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter:

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/09/04/more-on-the-first-essential-condition-of-the-sspx-2012-general-chapter/

Which dogma do you consider it contradicts?

bg2 · « **Reply #37 on:** September 25, 2013, 09:46:17 PM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Unless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy.....

The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter:

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/09/04/more-on-the-first-essential-condition-of-the-sspx-2012-general-chapter/

____ shame that you are trying to keep people from attending Mass.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #38 on:** September 25, 2013, 10:05:58 PM »

SJ:

Quote

The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter

I think you are correct, especially in view of the legacy handed down to us from the Archbishop.

Matthew · « **Reply #39 on:** September 26, 2013, 12:16:25 AM »

Quote from: CathMomof7

I think what Bishop Williamson says makes perfect sense.

The SSPX went from condemning NO and Modernism and now is, in many chapels, remaining silent or indifferent. It happened in my chapel. The priests went silent and began telling individuals that the NO was "like food, but not the best food."

The food analogy is lame.

So we can "eat" a Novus Ordo Mass, say, once a month and it won't hurt us, as long as we eat some "home cooked food" (Tridentine Mass) the other 3 weeks? That's what they'll be suggesting next.

Also, what food causes death to 95% of those who eat it? Because the Novus Ordo has caused most post-Conciliar Catholics to become effectively protestant in their beliefs, culture, morals, etc. And in countless cases (especially men) outright apostasy.

How many in the Novus Ordo are recognizable as Catholics? How many would get along better with a Protestant family than a Trad one? That speaks volumes.

How many still go to frequent confession? How many go to Mass every Sunday morning? How many read Catholic books and avoid worldly entertainment? How many pray for the poor souls? How many have a strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin? How many could explain the Catholic doctrine on the Mass? How many know their Catechism at all? How many pray the Rosary? How many appreciate a large family? Catholics used to be infamous for having large families. Now people assume you're Mormon or fundie Protestant. How pathetic is that?

Sounds more like poison than food.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #40 on:** September 26, 2013, 06:46:24 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Unless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy.....

The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter:

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/09/04/more-on-the-first-essential-condition-of-the-sspx-2012-general-chapter/

Which dogma do you consider it contradicts?

The same ones that are attacked by VII's ecuмenism and religious liberty.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #41 on:** September 26, 2013, 06:47:38 AM »

Quote from: bg2

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Unless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy.....

The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter:

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/09/04/more-on-the-first-essential-condition-of-the-sspx-2012-general-chapter/

____ shame that you are trying to keep people from attending Mass.

From a motive of defending the Faith.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #42 on:** September 26, 2013, 07:44:23 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

SJ:
Quote
The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter

I think you are correct, especially in view of the legacy handed down to us from the Archbishop.

This quote is from EM, not me.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #43 on:** September 26, 2013, 07:46:01 AM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Unless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy.....

The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter:

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/09/04/more-on-the-first-essential-condition-of-the-sspx-2012-general-chapter/

Which dogma do you consider it contradicts?

The same ones that are attacked by VII's ecuмenism and religious liberty.

Care to demonstrate it in a syllogism?

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #44 on:** September 26, 2013, 09:21:29 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Unless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy.....

The neo-SSPX has already betrayed the Faith officially via the first condition established at the 2012 General Chapter:

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/09/04/more-on-the-first-essential-condition-of-the-sspx-2012-general-chapter/

Which dogma do you consider it contradicts?

The same ones that are attacked by VII's ecuмenism and religious liberty.

Care to demonstrate it in a syllogism?

No.