CathInfo.com

You're a total snake.
You know full well that Mass is a profession of Faith. It make a statement of what we stand for.
Many priests in the Resistance, and I am NOT talking about Fr. Pfeiffer or Hewko, have advocated for avoiding the SSPX totally.
They have long since compromised and to go to their Masses not only is a betrayal of the Faith, but also putting your personal faith in danger.

Otherwise you vitiate the very act of attending Mass.


For every person who loses their faith through not going to SSPX there are ten more who lose their faith BY going. I have seen that FAR MORE than people losing their faith through homealonism. It is total gaslighting to suggest what you are suggesting.

As usual, your Catholic principles are out of whack.  Yes, the Mass is a profession of faith but that’s not its main purpose.  So if people like you make decisions based on this criteria being the top criteria, your resultant logic is flawed.  

Priority 1 with Mass is honoring God and this is AN OBLIGATION.  Yes, it can be fulfilled by going to Fr Hewko and 95% of the sspx and 95% of Sede priests.  You may not like Fr Hewko (or anyone else) but he’s a valid priest who isn’t a heretic.  In this case, YOU HAVE TO FULFILL YOUR SUNDAY OBLIGATION.  

Your whole “profession of faith” thing is secondary, when the priests’ views are heretical/schismatic, then you avoid, except in cases of death.  But Fr Hewko and the sspx and Sedes are 95% ok to attend.  Grow up and accept reality. 

Your whole “profession of faith” thing is secondary, when the priests’ views are heretical/schismatic, then you avoid, except in cases of death.  But Fr Hewko and the sspx and Sedes are 95% ok to attend.  Grow up and accept reality.

Right ... and that's vice more typically associated with the actual dogmatic SVs (not all SVs that this guy broad-brushes all SVs with), where they shoot from the hip recklessly hurling accusations of heresy against anyone who doesn't share their "position" (I hate that word) regarding the crisis.  That term "position" should be scrubbed from our vocabulary, and the concept almost instrinsically exacerbates divions among Traditionalists.  And it's easy to shoot from the hip hurling accusations of heresy against the Conciliars and Vatican II.

At the end of the day, there's only one obvious cut-and-dry heresy in Vatican II ... and yet >95% of Trad clergy actual hold the same position.

With Vatican II, "it's the ecclesiology, stupid!" ... to a paraphrase that old political slogan.

And of course, the reason for the new ecclesiology is none other than the new ... soteriology.  Yes, that's right ... EENS dogma.

BoD can be a distraction to the core problem, where, OK, if you say a catechumen who drops dead before his Baptism can be saved by some kind of, oh, partial membership in the Church, since they meet the criterion of professing the true faith and at least formally intending to submit to the Supreme Pontiff, etc.  It's weak, but it doesn't have the same Vatican II-esque catastrophic consequences.

But >90% of Trad clergy believe that non-Catholics, aka Protestants, schismatics, and even infidels like "Hindus in Tibet", Muslims, Jews, etc. can be saved. ... and if course I'm pretty sure he meant "Buddhists in Tibet", since if you do web searches, you find that there's no statistically significant Hindu population, and is therefore listed as 0% of the population in Tibet.

Yeah, well ... there's a little problem here, in that the Council of Florence dogmatically declared that those (listing each category) cannot be saved.

So he can they get away with claiming that some of these can be saved as-is, i.e. without first having converted to the True Faith ... is by claiming that while this guy might LOOK like he's a Hindu, he's secretly a Catholic and is therefore inside the Church, so he's an "Anonymous Catholic".

In other words, you have to gut Tridentine ecclesiology that the Church is a visible society and slouch towards the Protestant "invisible" Church notion ... OR, you can creatively blend the two into Vatican II-ism, which is actually a rather ingenious formulation, where the Catholic Church is that visible subsistent core of the Church, and yet there can be others who are materially divided (visibly) but formally unit to and in the Church (invisibly), and thus they are "separated brethren", brethren because they're in the Church (formally) and yet separated from the Church materially.

In other words, since EENS is dogma, thrice defined, and, try as they might, they can't simply make it disappear "into the cornfield" with the wave of their hand ... their only out is to redefine Church.

MAJOR:  No Salvation Outside the Church (for heretics, schismatics, infidles, Jews, pagans, etc.) [defined dogma]
MINOR:  Heretics, schismatics, infidels, Jews, pagans, etc. CAN be saved SOMEhow.
CONCLUSION:  Heretics, schismatics, infidels, Jews, pagans, etc. CAN be "in the Church" SOMEhow.

QED:  Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell.

See, if you believe the MINOR above, as well as the MAJOR, Vatican II actually comes up with an ingenious reconciliation between the two, with this "subsists in" stuff, where the subsistent essence of the Church can be identified with the Catholic Church, but without precluding other things being in or associated with that essence.

At least the perennial defender of BoD (albeit in a very limited manner), Msgr. Fenton, at least he was consistent and therefore declared Vatican II too have made an "improvement" in Catholic ecclesiology.  Msgr. Fenton was no Modernist, but was about as "conservative" as they got prior to Vatican II.

But today's Modern Cushingite Trad clergy live in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance, where, if you ask them what the heresies of Vatican II are, the first thing that rolls off their tongue (and out of their brain) is ... "the ECCLESIOLOGY!".  And, yet, almost like the R&R, they comparmentalize their own IDENTICAL ecclesiology as Traditional (while condemning those EEEVIL) "Feeneyites", the reject Vatican II's statement of the same as "heretical".

If you could convince me that non-Catholics could be saved, i.e. that there's any interpretation of the EENS dogmatic definitions that, while meaning the same thing that those popes who taught it meant (i.e. non-Modernistic understanding of EENS), not only can but even should (as the anti-Feeneyites claim) be accepted by Catholics ... then I would immediately drop any and all opposition to Vatican II, and would actually revere it as an eloquent and profound explanation of Catholic ecclesiology, nay, an "improvement", just as Msgr. Fenton considered it to be.  EVERY error in Vatican II rests upon this new soteriology and resulting ecclesiology, with the possible exception of "collegiality" (which I actually don't find all the problematic, as articulated).

Yes, even "Religious Liberty".  How?  Well, if non-Catholics are saved, then the criteria for salvation are now subjectivized.  If people can please God and save their souls by following their (even erroneous) consciences, then ... since they have a right to please God and to save their souls, they therefore also have a right to follow their (even erroneous) consciences.  In fact, if you were to place impediments before them, where they succuмb to those pressures, and fail to follow their consciences, you could in fact be jeopardizing their salvation.  So, let's say you, as a Catholic monarch, out law the practice of Islam.  In order to fit in, to not jeopardize being able to make a living and to thrive in that society, certain Muslims then compromise and fail to follow their consciences, and therefore sin ... and thus they lose their souls.  As a result, it would be a crime now, with the new subjectivist soteriological paradigm, to ban their practice of religion, and their consciences may even require their public profession of and practice of their religion.