Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: TomGubbinsKimmage on August 25, 2017, 05:01:29 PM
-
This was posted just yesterday on the french resistance forum.
Here is a google translation. And the link. Hopefully it will wake up some among us who still insist on going to the SSPX. (Including Sean Johnson)
----------------
On the occasion of a marriage celebrated in Nantes in a chapel of the SSPX (Chapel of Placelière), the Abbé Lajoinie received the consents of two faithful of the said chapel. Shortly before the signing of the registers, Father Lajoinie announced with a triumphant air that the consents had been received within the framework of the diocesan jurisdiction and that the bishop had given his consent. The priest finished this announcement, as stupefying as it was horrifying, by a masterful deo gratias.
Most of the faithful were rather surprised by this announcement but nevertheless received Communion at this Mass.
Fr. France (the SSPX priest- real name), prior of Nantes, will bear responsibility for this action if he does not react to this scandal. Let us pray for him.
It is left now to serious faithful who do not want this conciliar jurisdiction to have recourse to priests who do not belong to the current structure of the SSPX
-------
http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t373-Premiers-mariages-sous-le-signe-de-la-juridiction-diocesaine.htm
-
Responsible for what exactly? Acting like one he presumably "recognizes" as a diocesan bishop, actually has jurisdiction i.e. acting coherently and consistently?
Seriously, please break out the finger-paints. Spell it out if you would.
-
Responsible for what exactly? Acting like one he presumably "recognizes" as a diocesan bishop, actually has jurisdiction i.e. acting coherently and consistently?
Seriously, please break out the finger-paints. Spell it out if you would.
Are you joking? Are you really that slow of mind?
Traditional Catholics act under extraordinary jurisdiction, not ordinary. It is positively sinful to put ourselves under a heretical modernist structure in any way. The SSPX cannot any longer call itself traditional.
-
I think it means the SSPX priests from the Chapel of Placelière have surrendered their authority to the French modernists?
The SSPX leaders have been secretly promoting this new doctrine.
The 48 year old "Crisis in the Church"... the cornerstone reason for the existence for SSPX is over. The two are reconciled.
But if you follow the logic, it means the SSPX no longer matters... they are defunct.
Next, Bp. Fellay will tell them he has a "Traditional Catholic license issued by Francis".
Sean has been wrong for long time.
Look to fulfill your Sunday obligation and receive the Sacraments from an independent priest.
We're already in the Catacombs, but most refuse to see or fail to admit it.
-
Are you joking? Are you really that slow of mind?
Traditional Catholics act under extraordinary jurisdiction, not ordinary. It is positively sinful to put ourselves under a heretical modernist structure in any way. The SSPX cannot any longer call itself traditional.
No, I'm not joking.
If I really am "... that slow of mind...", then I'd hardly be in a position to perform an accurate self-assessment to make said determination now would I?
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough either. I'll rephrase.
Who, besides for example some dude named "moosy" on an internet forum, Traditionally, authoritatively teaches what "moosy" says? On what principle/s?
-
I think it means the SSPX priests from the Chapel of Placelière have surrendered their authority to the French modernists?
The SSPX leaders have been secretly promoting this new doctrine.
The 48 year old "Crisis in the Church"... the cornerstone reason for the existence for SSPX is over. The two are reconciled.
But if you follow the logic, it means the SSPX no longer matters... they are defunct.
Next, Bp. Fellay will tell them he has a "Traditional Catholic license issued by Francis".
Sean has been wrong for long time.
Look to fulfill your Sunday obligation and receive the Sacraments from an independent priest.
We're already in the Catacombs, but most refuse to see or fail to admit it.
However in/accurate that quoted may be, thank you for the effort. It is far more useful than a bunch of "LOL" and "Are you kidding" exasperations and naked assertions.
TA
-
Are you joking? Are you really that slow of mind?
Traditional Catholics act under extraordinary jurisdiction, not ordinary. It is positively sinful to put ourselves under a heretical modernist structure in any way. The SSPX cannot any longer call itself traditional.
It means that if all the parties do what tehy are supposed to do (that includes both the SSPX priest and the diocesan bishop) then the marriages that are officiated by the SSPX priest will be recognized as valid by the rest of the Catholic Church.
-
However in/accurate that quoted may be, thank you for the effort. It is far more useful than a bunch of "LOL" and "Are you kidding" exasperations and naked assertions.
TA
In this case the SSPX matters, however it will be at another stage of its existence.
-
In this case the SSPX matters, however it will be at another stage of its existence.
Okay?
-
A lot of
? "Yunno, lotza guys..."
priests in the resistance actually.
non-responsive
But the faithful are not listening.
Why would or should they?
Many prefer to think that they can go on attending sspx Masses indefinitely, or when a "deal is signed".
So?
Which will never happen in that way of course. As if it is not enough that 3 sacraments are approved.
"Without faith it is impossible to please God."
The problem is
Only one? "Optimist..."
that our bishops
Whose? You mean like the one the 'naughty' priest(?) more than "recognized", or the ones that remain in schism?
are not saying anything.
Silver lining perhaps?
Bishop Faure
Schismatics it is then. Well, I was speaking withing the context of Catholicism, and as it looks like Mr. Ho Ho will get here before you actually, simply, directly, clearly, unequivocally answer that actually asked, good day sir.
-
A lot of priests in the resistance actually. But the faithful are not listening. Many prefer to think that they can go on attending sspx Masses indefinitely, or when a "deal is signed". Which will never happen in that way of course. As if it is not enough that 3 sacraments are approved.
The problem is that our bishops are not saying anything. Bishop Faure came out on the subject in august of last year, but a few months later totally backtracked on it in France, when he was put under pressure from some liberal faithful there (which describes most of the resistance faithful in France).
Bishop Faure is afraid of Bishop Williamson, and we don't need to go into detail on the latter's view of Mass attendance. So it is up the the faithful like us to take a stand with the support of many priests in the resistance, until our bishops find the courage.
Let's not forget the influence of the Dominicans of Avrille of course, who despite the warnings of other priests in France, refuse to condemn attendance at SSPX Masses. They are afraid of losing their influence (a false fear of course). Bishop Faure also looks to them and is dependent on them for his seminary. It's a vicious circle.
None of this bodes well for the future of the resistance, which is the future of the Church. The Bride of Christ. It is not because we think ourselves so great, but because like children look to parents, so too do other Catholics look to us for example, even when they hate what we say.
There will be chastisements for this laziness. Be assured, the Good Lord is just.
Bishop Faure is afraid of Bp. Williamson? That doesn't seem likely. What's there to be afraid of?
Why would you want the Dominicans of Avrille to condemn attendance at SSPX chapels? There aren't enough Resistance chapels to attend. Home-alone isn't a good option for many.
You believe that there will be chastisements because the leadership in the Resistance isn't listening to some of the faithful such as yourself?
-
Not afraid in general, but afraid to contradict on this point and to act differently.
I am a nobody; I am not expecting anyone to listen to me. But in all countries except for France most of the resistance faithful no longer attend SSPX Masses. The communiqué of the USML back last august said this was the right thing to do, because it is practically the same thing as the indulters.
The (old)SSPX made very clear its position of attending these Masses. During the Arian heresy, one of the saints ( I think St. Hermingild or something like that) refused to take communion of from the hands of a perfectly validly consecrated bishop. The law of the Church says we should not accept the sacraments from the schismatics, even though they are validly consecrated.
The Church is in a very grave crises of a doctrinal nature. It is eclipsed by heresy. We cannot have anything to do that and must react like valiant soldiers to it.
-
Not afraid in general, but afraid to contradict on this point and to act differently.
I am a nobody; I am not expecting anyone to listen to me. But in all countries except for France most of the resistance faithful no longer attend SSPX Masses. The communiqué of the USML back last august said this was the right thing to do, because it is practically the same thing as the indulters.
The (old)SSPX made very clear its position of attending these Masses. During the Arian heresy, one of the saints ( I think St. Hermingild or something like that) refused to take communion of from the hands of a perfectly validly consecrated bishop. The law of the Church says we should not accept the sacraments from the schismatics, even though they are validly consecrated.
The Church is in a very grave crises of a doctrinal nature. It is eclipsed by heresy. We cannot have anything to do that and must react like valiant soldiers to it.
I appreciate your explanation. I don't really know much about the situation in France, but are you quite sure that everywhere else in the world, other than France, the Resistance faithful no longer attend SSPX Masses? Where do they attend, then?
I'm not sure what the USML is. Are they affiliated with the four Resistance bishops?
I understand what you are saying about the SSPX Masses being the same as the Indulterers, but I have to disagree. I stopped attending an FSSP Mass several months ago, and am now attending the local SSPX chapel again. There's a huge difference between the two. I'm so glad I stopped attending the FSSP parish. There are liberal tendencies in the FSSP, of course.
When I joined the Rosary confraternity of the Dominicans of Avrille last year, I was advised by them that it is not a good idea to attend the FSSP parish, and they were right. They didn't say anything about the SSPX, however, since the subject didn't come up.
The Dominicans of Avrille are prudent. They always have been - as far as I can tell. They say on their website that they do not define themselves by what they are against, but rather by what they are for - which is truth.
I don't see that the four Resistance bishops, or the Dominicans of Avrille, believe that the SSPX is schismatic. Though the situation with the SSPX is very serious of course, especially regarding the marriage situation.
-
I think it means the SSPX priests from the Chapel of Placelière have surrendered their authority to the French modernists?
The SSPX leaders have been secretly promoting this new doctrine.
The 48 year old "Crisis in the Church"... the cornerstone reason for the existence for SSPX is over. The two are reconciled.
But if you follow the logic, it means the SSPX no longer matters... they are defunct.
Next, Bp. Fellay will tell them he has a "Traditional Catholic license issued by Francis".
Sean has been wrong for long time.
Look to fulfill your Sunday obligation and receive the Sacraments from an independent priest.
We're already in the Catacombs, but most refuse to see or fail to admit it.
The liberal undercurrents that have always been present in the SSPX groups have always been there, although the actions that they inspire are usually masked by the use of terms such as "prudence", "nuanced", or as something which is proposed to be a "middle position" between two false extremes.
I agree that the truth of present realities are refused a place in their narrative. To those who are dedicated sectarians, I would both caution "Shall not both then fall into the pit"
-
But they are all under the Pope, which is the problem. ( Under him in a practical way.)
Being subject to a pope is a problem...
:facepalm: :fryingpan: :heretic:
-
Precisely, France is the only country where MOST of the faithful attend SSPX Masses. Elsewhere, it is mostly those who either have a resistance Mass or stay at home. The faith is paramount.
I was not saying that the SSPX are schismatic (though in a certain way they are - like all modernists), but rather illustrating the principle that it is not simply a question of validity of sacraments which determines where we go to Mass. There are higher principles which must guide our actions. "Principles" here is even too weak a word to use. It is rather the Faith. We should be repulsed by heresy and have a disgust for it.
This means by the very fact of what they stand for, we cannot attend the Masses of the Schismatics , and this applies to the SSPX.
Schism is really a heresy as well. That being against the faith. Because it is part of the faith that the Church has one supreme head.
In the last few minutes, Bishop Williamson just sent out his email. In it Fr. Girouard says what I mentioned up above.
The USML is the PUML, being the Priestly Union of Marcel Lefebvre, a loose association of priests in France which has now disintegrated. Bishop Faure was a member.
I love the Dominicans of Avrillé too. Don't get me wrong. But I don't have to agree with everything they say. I am totally convinced on the point of Mass attendance, and am not the only one who thinks they are dragging their heels. So I don't think it is a question of prudence.
I don't doubt the FSSP is worse in a way than the SSPX. But that is just the same gradations you find in the Conciliar Church at large. You have to the left of the indulters those who go to the Latin Novus Ordo, then Opus Dei, etc. etc. Each one looks left and right. But they are all under the Pope, which is the problem. ( Under him in a practical way.)
I am familiar with the situation with Fr. Girouard. His chapel is about a four hour drive from me, plus it's over the Canadian border. I would attend if I could, but it's not really possible.
Does the matter of Principals keep one from attending Mass an SSPX chapel? That's a personal decision, as far as I can see. I haven't seen that Fr. Girouard or Bishop Williamson has said that we cannot attend SSPX chapels. We have be prudent and careful, of course.
At least at the SSPX there are not women leading the Rosary, or using the term "Holy Spirit" in stead of Holy Ghost when praying the Rosary before Mass. And I appreciate that there are far less women dressing immodestly, than at the FSSP parish. At this time, there is still a big difference between the SSPX and the FSSP. How long that will last, I cannot say.
-
In this case the SSPX matters, however it will be at another stage of its existence.
Fr. Bruno Lajoinie of the FSSPX says:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-asK7SjBaV2Q/WZ9SDqWKezI/AAAAAAAACDw/iQW8d3Us_k4IlY5C7iP3J0vAG_7CoebvQCLcBGAs/s200/lajoinie_1605.jpg)
"Hey Poche, I'm digging on your interpretations"