Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: CathMomof7 on January 20, 2013, 08:10:37 PM
-
I offer this bit of information for those that are following what is happening with the Society.
I received an e-mail today regarding Fr. Hewko. He is still a member of the SSPX but received a second warning just last week regarding his disobedience. Once he receives one more, he will be officially out.
He and Fr. Pfeiffer (not sure which one) are going to South America on Tuesday to meet with some priests who are interested in joining the resistance. They also plan on visiting Our Lady's Shrine in Quito.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is still in Chicago. He believes that the good Bishop might speak out even though he has been silenced if more people write to him and ask him to break his silence.
I know this isn't much, but hopefully it offers some hope to the resistance.
-
I offer this bit of information for those that are following what is happening with the Society.
I received an e-mail today regarding Fr. Hewko. He is still a member of the SSPX but received a second warning just last week regarding his disobedience. Once he receives one more, he will be officially out.
He and Fr. Pfeiffer (not sure which one) are going to South America on Tuesday to meet with some priests who are interested in joining the resistance. They also plan on visiting Our Lady's Shrine in Quito.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is still in Chicago. He believes that the good Bishop might speak out even though he has been silenced if more people write to him and ask him to break his silence.
I know this isn't much, but hopefully it offers some hope to the resistance.
It shows this much:
That these priests do good by publicizing the leftward drift of the SSPX.
But also, that they are not much use to us in the USA as priests to man resistance chapels.
Fr Chazal is in Asia.
Fr Pfeiffer and Hewko in South America.
Nobody in America this Sunday.
Somebody remind me why we donate to them again.
I guess charity is charity, but they are not much help to us.
We are in bad shape.
It would seem our options are to stay with the SSPX or become home-aloners?
-
Yep, is something of a problem. Little money, no churches, few priests and a laity who very often have throttled their career and earning potential in order to either be closer to the land or avoid the evils of the world.
A Max Krah seems to have all the wealth and property tied up and legally belonging to the holding company.
What is the solution? How can the SSPXotso get off the runway?
-
+TdM is silenced? o.O
-
Please may I ask if you know their schedule in S. America? I am in Chile.
But also, that they are not much use to us in the USA as priests to man resistance chapels.
Fr Chazal is in Asia.
Fr Pfeiffer and Hewko in South America.
Nobody in America this Sunday.
They are few in number and needed throughout the world, not just the U.S. I donate to them also, as do others.
-
I understand your frustration, Seraphim, but I think Fr. Pfeiffer (et al) are trying to lead by example, going around and getting things started, hoping that other priests will be inspired by their lead, or at least feel guilty for their past inaction, and join them.
It's classic "leading by example" -- If there were a famine, they would not talk themselves hoarse trying to convince us to feed the starving masses, they would wear themselves out working the land, growing food, and distributing it all day.
They're doing literally all they can, hoping that others will join the effort.
It's easy for Americans to wish that the Resistance priests would ignore the rest of the world -- but I'm sure those outside the USA don't feel the same way :)
-
Seraphim said: "Somebody remind me why we donate to them again."
ummmm... because its the right thing to do?
I donate because I believe in what they are doing: in trying to conserve the teachings of ABL in case the SSPX continues to slide until it slides right into the lap of a Rome which hasn't converted. I also donate in hopes that with enough support, perhaps there will be a chapel in my area with a holy priest from the Resistance in attendance some day. I also enjoy their good sermons which are recorded by the faithful for the edification of souls. I support them because I don't like people who won't put their money where their mouth is. Another reason is that having met them in person, I am personally convinced that they are good priests and that they are leaders in a just cause.
( I wonder if you ask the same question when asked to donate to a charity for a condition that you or a loved one do not personally suffer from?)
3rd edit. sticky keyboard.sigh
-
Please may I ask if you know their schedule in S. America? I am in Chile.
But also, that they are not much use to us in the USA as priests to man resistance chapels.
Fr Chazal is in Asia.
Fr Pfeiffer and Hewko in South America.
Nobody in America this Sunday.
They are few in number and needed throughout the world, not just the U.S. I donate to them also, as do others.
As an United states American living in Central America I concur. That's the mentality of U.S. Many tend to forget or simply not care about other countries (Catholic ones) unless it's to exploit them. If you have to ask why you donate to a traditionalist movement struggling to resist modernism maybe you don't know what this is all about.
-
If you knew these priests' schedules you'd be amazed. They go nonstop. They cover as much territory as possible. On their recent trip to Florida Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko drove all night from Virginia to Jacksonville, stopped in St. Augustine for supplies, and then drove to Sanford arriving late. Fr. Pfeiffer immediately began hearing confessions and Fr. Hewko said evening Mass adding many beautiful traditional prayers afterwards to which the congregation enthusiastically responded. Fr. Pfeiffer then held a LONG Q&A until Midnight. Fr. Hewko was so exhausted he had to go to bed. Remember -- they had driven all night before this.
The next morning they were headed for the airport at 5:45 AM. Fr. Pfeiffer went to Minnesota where he went to a couple of different places. Fr. Hewko went to the Carolinas where he too went to a couple different places. After saying morning Mass on Sunday Fr. Hewko returned to Sanford for an evening Mass -- probably because he had been stationed there years ago and people are crazy about him and they trust him with their concerns. He said a beautiful Mass after which he led the congregation in singing the Litany of the Saints in Latin--a Resistance priest leading the congregation in asking the great saints in Heaven for help. Remember -- the people in Sanford are being persecuted especially hard at the moment.
After Mass there was a BBQ where Fr. Hewko had the time to sit and talk with people at leisure and answer more questions. The BBQ lasted late and the next morning he was up early to give them a morning Mass before heading for the airport to return to Kentucky to see where they needed him next. These are just two priests and one weekend and just look at what they managed to do! And this is NORMAL for them!
Look at all the sermons on Inthissign. They come from Masses. Not all sermons are recorded either, meaning you may hear one sermon for a Sunday but that priest might have said more than one Mass that day and many places still don't record them.
Today in Sanford Fr. Roberts said the Mass for the Resistance group in the afternoon as always after saying his morning Mass in Jacksonville for his parish there. He doesn't eat until he has said both Masses which is usually late in the day and he drives nearly 2 hours each way for Sanford. He still says the entire Divine Office as well each day, including these busy Sundays. The Divine Office takes a long time to say and every priest is supposed to have it said in full by Midnight. The priests say it as they can while they travel. Fr. Roberts spends time with people both in Jacksonville and in Sanford seeing to their soul's needs after each Mass and during the week administers to his parishioners in Jacksonville and is available to help those in Sanford as well. He is enlarging his church in Jacksonville and hosts Third Order meetings for Dominicans with probably another Third Order in the future.
Why do we continue to contribute? Perhaps you don't realize or know about all they do but I see it first-hand and I only wish I had more money to give them. I pray daily for their health because they eat on the run and are always concerned about where they can go next, who needs them, and they put themselves last. If they can fit in a Mass somewhere along the line to their next destination, they do. They spend their time waiting in airports returning phone calls and conducting business from their phones, trying to find other flights that would enable them to visit more places... Just listen to their sermons. You don't hear this kind of preaching anymore. They are gold. You don't find priests like this anymore. Souls come first to them. They depend on God to keep them going.
The only problem with the Resistance priests is that there is not enough of them but WE CAN do something about that: Prayer and sacrifices. "Ask and you shall receive."
-
I offer this bit of information for those that are following what is happening with the Society.
I received an e-mail today regarding Fr. Hewko. He is still a member of the SSPX but received a second warning just last week regarding his disobedience. Once he receives one more, he will be officially out.
He and Fr. Pfeiffer (not sure which one) are going to South America on Tuesday to meet with some priests who are interested in joining the resistance. They also plan on visiting Our Lady's Shrine in Quito.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is still in Chicago. He believes that the good Bishop might speak out even though he has been silenced if more people write to him and ask him to break his silence.
I know this isn't much, but hopefully it offers some hope to the resistance.
It shows this much:
That these priests do good by publicizing the leftward drift of the SSPX.
But also, that they are not much use to us in the USA as priests to man resistance chapels.
Fr Chazal is in Asia.
Fr Pfeiffer and Hewko in South America.
Nobody in America this Sunday.
Somebody remind me why we donate to them again.
I guess charity is charity, but they are not much help to us.
We are in bad shape.
It would seem our options are to stay with the SSPX or become home-aloners?
:popcorn:"Somebody remind me why we donate to them again."
I think you may have a chance to get your money back if you have the courage to say it directly to him.
-
I offer this bit of information for those that are following what is happening with the Society.
I received an e-mail today regarding Fr. Hewko. He is still a member of the SSPX but received a second warning just last week regarding his disobedience. Once he receives one more, he will be officially out.
He and Fr. Pfeiffer (not sure which one) are going to South America on Tuesday to meet with some priests who are interested in joining the resistance. They also plan on visiting Our Lady's Shrine in Quito.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is still in Chicago. He believes that the good Bishop might speak out even though he has been silenced if more people write to him and ask him to break his silence.
I know this isn't much, but hopefully it offers some hope to the resistance.
It shows this much:
That these priests do good by publicizing the leftward drift of the SSPX.
But also, that they are not much use to us in the USA as priests to man resistance chapels.
Fr Chazal is in Asia.
Fr Pfeiffer and Hewko in South America.
Nobody in America this Sunday.
Somebody remind me why we donate to them again.
I guess charity is charity, but they are not much help to us.
We are in bad shape.
It would seem our options are to stay with the SSPX or become home-aloners?
Yes, charity is charity and you shouldn't concern yourself with the nationality of the Catholics receiving the help (Cathoilc=Universal, not only Americans); this fight is not about the USA or your selfish weekend without a resistance priest... It is much greater than that but apparently all you care is having a priest for your own self and complain about your donations being "wasted" in a third world country.
Be warned that whatever donation you might've contributed to the cause has lost their merits, as a matter of fact you might be chastised for complaining to have donated to the Lord's Vineyard.
It might not look practical and it might cost some money from the benefactors, but (1)they are going to consecrate their work to Our Lady of Good Success; and there's no price for such a grace, my dear friend.
While you're still in your little and selfish world, (2)these holy priests are going down to Brazil to consolidate the friendship among the other holy priests scattered in South America, they are even (3)bringing extra liturgical material to help those priests in need of a chalice, vestments, etc. Plus, (4)they might be preparing the ground for one of the most important events in Catholic tradition in the last 25 years, just think about it, Bp. Williamson was there not too long ago. Let us pray they can all come together in a near future to consecrate new bishops to our very reduced Catholic Tradition.
Are you going to complain you have donated vestments to be wasted in poor chapels and in poor priests outside the USA too?
These priests barely sleep or eat for the sake of souls. They don't help benefactors better over simple families, they don't help only larger groups and disregard little ones; they care about souls... period! and they'll go after them as best as they can; they also have in mind that they are nothing without the holy Mother of God, their help and hope are placed on her feet, not on money of selfish benefactors.
I hope you realize how terrible your post was and hopefully you may be retract it.
-
Sadly, I forgot to add remarks similar to the above in my earlier post. I also donate to the Frs so that souls (regardless of what nationality) can be saved, and Catholics can receive valid Sacraments that they otherwise might not. I am ashamed that this did not come to my mind first off.
-
I offer this bit of information for those that are following what is happening with the Society.
I received an e-mail today regarding Fr. Hewko. He is still a member of the SSPX but received a second warning just last week regarding his disobedience. Once he receives one more, he will be officially out.
He and Fr. Pfeiffer (not sure which one) are going to South America on Tuesday to meet with some priests who are interested in joining the resistance. They also plan on visiting Our Lady's Shrine in Quito.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is still in Chicago. He believes that the good Bishop might speak out even though he has been silenced if more people write to him and ask him to break his silence.
I know this isn't much, but hopefully it offers some hope to the resistance.
It shows this much:
That these priests do good by publicizing the leftward drift of the SSPX.
But also, that they are not much use to us in the USA as priests to man resistance chapels.
Fr Chazal is in Asia.
Fr Pfeiffer and Hewko in South America.
Nobody in America this Sunday.
Somebody remind me why we donate to them again.
I guess charity is charity, but they are not much help to us.
We are in bad shape.
It would seem our options are to stay with the SSPX or become home-aloners?
I hope you realize how terrible your post was and hopefully you may be retract it.
:pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray:
-
:popcorn:"Somebody remind me why we donate to them again."
I think you may have a chance to get your money back if you have the courage to say it directly to him.
I bet you are right. Having met him, I can picture Fr. Pfieffer doing just that. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that exchange. :popcorn:
-
I get thumbed down for agreeing with Guga, but he doesn't? Somebody doesn't like me. :sad: :applause:
-
Seraphim,
Remember that it will take time and benefactors for the "Resistance" to get off the ground. It won't happen overnight. There is no need for us to be "home-aloners" at this time, as we still have our chapels. And many of us have good and sincere priests that care about our souls as well. All we can do is be generous, and let Our Lady take care of the rest. So be of good cheer. God bless.
-
Guga must have repented before the ink dried. :laugh1:
-
Directory of Latin Masses
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/masslat.pdf
-
I am very grateful for the exposure of this crisis, finally. For too long I would stupidly think “Isn’t it wonderful that the Lord hasn’t allowed Satan to attack the SSPX like he is attacking the conciliar church!” How deluded. But now I am asked to carry my cross in this battle and to give thanks that God is in control and has a plan for me and all of us who love the Faith. Now, since I know more about what is going on, it adds more stress to my already stressful life, but at least I am not deceived about this anymore. My prayers are more urgent, and I know better what to pray about. So, if these dear priests are willing to be spent for the good of souls, no matter where it is that God leads them, I believe I must sacrifice the best I can to help out, and be doing God’s will and trust He won’t forget me too. Hebrews 6:10 "For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name, you who have ministered, and do minister to the saints."
-
Seraphim,
Remember that it will take time and benefactors for the "Resistance" to get off the ground. It won't happen overnight. There is no need for us to be "home-aloners" at this time, as we still have our chapels. And many of us have good and sincere priests that care about our souls as well. All we can do is be generous, and let Our Lady take care of the rest. So be of good cheer. God bless.
Magdalena-
Good points.
You know me.
Sometimes a bit too choleric for my own good.
Had I to do it over again, I might not have written my original post.
-
I offer this bit of information for those that are following what is happening with the Society.
I received an e-mail today regarding Fr. Hewko. He is still a member of the SSPX but received a second warning just last week regarding his disobedience. Once he receives one more, he will be officially out.
He and Fr. Pfeiffer (not sure which one) are going to South America on Tuesday to meet with some priests who are interested in joining the resistance. They also plan on visiting Our Lady's Shrine in Quito.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is still in Chicago. He believes that the good Bishop might speak out even though he has been silenced if more people write to him and ask him to break his silence.
I know this isn't much, but hopefully it offers some hope to the resistance.
It shows this much:
That these priests do good by publicizing the leftward drift of the SSPX.
But also, that they are not much use to us in the USA as priests to man resistance chapels.
Fr Chazal is in Asia.
Fr Pfeiffer and Hewko in South America.
Nobody in America this Sunday.
Somebody remind me why we donate to them again.
I guess charity is charity, but they are not much help to us.
We are in bad shape.
It would seem our options are to stay with the SSPX or become home-aloners?
Remember, when it comes to the Sacraments...
The Neo-SSPX, SSPX-SO, SBJXXIII, SABL, etc., are not the only options. There are other validly ordained "resistance" clergy that have been around for decades. Don't deny yourselves the valid Sacraments because of old propaganda / SV "taboos".
-
Seraphim,
Remember that it will take time and benefactors for the "Resistance" to get off the ground. It won't happen overnight. There is no need for us to be "home-aloners" at this time, as we still have our chapels. And many of us have good and sincere priests that care about our souls as well. All we can do is be generous, and let Our Lady take care of the rest. So be of good cheer. God bless.
Magdalena-
Good points.
You know me.
Sometimes a bit too choleric for my own good.
Had I to do it over again, I might not have written my original post.
Just ignore the name callers - it speaks volumes about THEIR character, not yours. We all can get discouraged sometimes.
Marsha
-
The Neo-SSPX, SSPX-SO, SBJXXIII, SABL, etc., are not the only options. There are other validly ordained "resistance" clergy that have been around for decades. Don't deny yourselves the valid Sacraments because of old propaganda / SV "taboos".
This is exactly my opinion. There are other places to receive the Sacraments. There are other priests who are not affiliated with the Society. If this is truly about souls and not politics, then you might consider one of these other options.
-
The Neo-SSPX, SSPX-SO, SBJXXIII, SABL, etc., are not the only options. There are other validly ordained "resistance" clergy that have been around for decades. Don't deny yourselves the valid Sacraments because of old propaganda / SV "taboos".
This is exactly my opinion. There are other places to receive the Sacraments. There are other priests who are not affiliated with the Society. If this is truly about souls and not politics, then you might consider one of these other options.
Receiving sacraments from those who are not in communion with the Pope is a bit more than "old propaganda."
If you think that way, why not receive your sacraments from the Orthodox?
Part of receiving Holy Communion is an expression of unity in Faith.
If you believe the Pope is the Pope, how can you be in communion with those who do not?
If you do not believe the Pope is Pope, how can you be in communion with those who do?
You probably don't realize it, but buried within your perspective is the seed of tradcuмenism: As long as the priest is validly ordained and opposes modernism, he is a legitimate option, which opens the doors to having Feenyites, Old Anglicans, Orthodox, Sedevacantists of all stripes, Indultarians and others).
The traditional SSPX position is the correct one: No indulters. No sedevacantists.
-
The Neo-SSPX, SSPX-SO, SBJXXIII, SABL, etc., are not the only options. There are other validly ordained "resistance" clergy that have been around for decades. Don't deny yourselves the valid Sacraments because of old propaganda / SV "taboos".
This is exactly my opinion. There are other places to receive the Sacraments. There are other priests who are not affiliated with the Society. If this is truly about souls and not politics, then you might consider one of these other options.
Receiving sacraments from those who are not in communion with the Pope is a bit more than "old propaganda."
If you think that way, why not receive your sacraments from the Orthodox?
Part of receiving Holy Communion is an expression of unity in Faith.
If you believe the Pope is the Pope, how can you be in communion with those who do not?
If you do not believe the Pope is Pope, how can you be in communion with those who do?
You probably don't realize it, but buried within your perspective is the seed of tradcuмenism: As long as the priest is validly ordained and opposes modernism, he is a legitimate option, which opens the doors to having Feenyites, Old Anglicans, Orthodox, Sedevacantists of all stripes, Indultarians and others).
The traditional SSPX position is the correct one: No indulters. No sedevacantists.
Seraphim, even if we don't have a problem with a career heretic/apostate claiming to be Pope, the SV crowd does... and they might be right.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
BTW, God's position is the correct one!
-
The Neo-SSPX, SSPX-SO, SBJXXIII, SABL, etc., are not the only options. There are other validly ordained "resistance" clergy that have been around for decades. Don't deny yourselves the valid Sacraments because of old propaganda / SV "taboos".
This is exactly my opinion. There are other places to receive the Sacraments. There are other priests who are not affiliated with the Society. If this is truly about souls and not politics, then you might consider one of these other options.
Receiving sacraments from those who are not in communion with the Pope is a bit more than "old propaganda."
If you think that way, why not receive your sacraments from the Orthodox?
Part of receiving Holy Communion is an expression of unity in Faith.
If you believe the Pope is the Pope, how can you be in communion with those who do not?
If you do not believe the Pope is Pope, how can you be in communion with those who do?
You probably don't realize it, but buried within your perspective is the seed of tradcuмenism: As long as the priest is validly ordained and opposes modernism, he is a legitimate option, which opens the doors to having Feenyites, Old Anglicans, Orthodox, Sedevacantists of all stripes, Indultarians and others).
The traditional SSPX position is the correct one: No indulters. No sedevacantists.
Hmm. These are very, very dark times. The "traditional SSPX position" is what exactly? That they, alone, have valid Sacraments?
Unity of Faith? Faith in what? The SSPX? How's that working for you?
Personally, I don't know if the Pope is the Pope or not. What I do know is that he is a phenomenologist, which ultimately makes him an atheist.
I also know that "the traditional SSPX" is telling parishioners NOT to receive the Sacraments at independent chapels, right now. I know they are telling parishioners to "keep coming back" and "we are working things out." On the other hand, the SSPX priests WHO HAVE THEMSELVES LEFT THE SOCIETY are telling parishioners "stay in your chapels" UNTIL WE CAN BECOME MORE ORGANIZED!
What if none of this happens? What if you follow along blindly because you believe the "traditional SSPX" is the only place to receive valid Sacraments? Are you going to just sit while the New Mass is dropped into your parish?
And what of these resistance priests? I thank God they are traveling around to offer the Sacraments to people across the globe. But what if this is their only future--to be independent priests without and order without "jurisdiction" not in union with anyone. Will you go to the Mass they offer in someone's garage? Will you go because they were "once" part of the "traditional SSPX?"
These times are absolutely crazy, just as the devil wants it. No one knows what to do. I know very good people who are struggling internally over going to an independent chapel to receive the Sacraments are "waiting it out" indefinitely in the SSPX chapels.
We all have to make a judgement here. The SSPX NO LONGER EXISTS!
The words you used above were almost the exact words my NO friends laid upon our conscious when we left.
"If you believe you can receive the Sacraments there why not go to the Orthodox? If you believe the Pope is the Pope, how can you receive the Sacraments from those who do not? The position of the Pope is correct--no SSPXer's, no sede's!"
I am NOT a sede, although I understand this position, and I seem to be coming closer and closer to accepting this position.
Yes, dark times indeed!
-
The above post is a bunch of rambling nothingness.
Tradcuмenism is not an acceptable response to the crisis in the Church or in the SSPX.
-
The above post is a bunch of rambling nothingness.
Tradcuмenism is not an acceptable response to the crisis in the Church or in the SSPX.
It's far from being a ramble and it is docuмented that the plan of Rome is to change the thinking of Traditionalists. Whilst the resistance continues, it has to be rebuilt.
With SSPX youth stewarding the recent pro-life vigil in Dublin, tradcuмenism is alive and well. Don't get me wrong, it is great "our people" are active but who influences who is key.
Of course of the 30,000 or so people present Traditionalists were certainly outnumbered.
Bishop Williamson did say it is going to be one helluva ride.
My priority is the loose alliance of Independent resisting priests.
-
And what of these resistance priests? I thank God they are traveling around to offer the Sacraments to people across the globe. But what if this is their only future--to be independent priests without and order without "jurisdiction" not in union with anyone. Will you go to the Mass they offer in someone's garage? Will you go because they were "once" part of the "traditional SSPX?"
With the crisis in the Church and society in general. I mean the world and not the society meaning the SSPX. 'Jurisdiction' is the least of our worries.
Indult folk tend to make a big deal about SSPX chapels. Often it is excuses and not qualms of conscience.
You can't be careless either. Some priests are not validly ordained or then you have the crazy nonsense of some, who think themselves to be Pope. I thinking here of Palmarian or Pope Michael types.
-
The above post is a bunch of rambling nothingness.
Tradcuмenism is not an acceptable response to the crisis in the Church or in the SSPX.
It's far from being a ramble and it is docuмented that the plan of Rome is to change the thinking of Traditionalists. Whilst the resistance continues, it has to be rebuilt.
With SSPX youth stewarding the recent pro-life vigil in Dublin, tradcuмenism is alive and well. Don't get me wrong, it is great "our people" are active but who influences who is key.
Of course of the 30,000 or so people present Traditionalists were certainly outnumbered.
Bishop Williamson did say it is going to be one helluva ride.
My priority is the loose alliance of Independent resisting priests.
No.
It is disconnected, non-theological ranting.
It is emotionalism.
It is devoid of any theological perspective other than tradcuмenism.
If you think that Archbishop Lefebvre was a tradcuмenist, then you have not understood him.
Doctrine matters.
-
When good priests are unjustly expelled it's the duty of the laity to support them...when the SSPXSO comes to through town everyone needs to rent a Conference Room and go to their Mass.
-
The traditional SSPX position is the correct one: No indulters. No sedevacantists.
If a sedevacantist chapel is all one has near them, they shouldn't attend? That seems a bit far-fetched.
We need to keep in mind that, while there are certainly some dogmatic sedevacanists out there with extreme views who should be avoided, sedevacantists are not the enemies, nor should we portray them as such. The enemies are the apostates in Rome, as well as the liberals in the neo-SSPX.
-
The traditional SSPX position is the correct one: No indulters. No sedevacantists.
If a sedevacantist chapel is all one has near them, they shouldn't attend? That seems a bit far-fetched.
We need to keep in mind that, while there are certainly some dogmatic sedevacanists out there with extreme views who should be avoided, sedevacantists are not the enemies, nor should we portray them as such. The enemies are the apostates in Rome, as well as the liberals in the neo-SSPX.
Wrong.
Sedevacantists are Satan's deceivers.
I was in the seminary under Bishop Williamson.
And this website's moderator was with me in Fr. Gaudray's class when we were told that it was never permissible to attend Mass at a sedevacantist chapel.
One who denies as a matter of fact that the pope is pope has cut himself off from the Church.
Since we cannot worship with non-Catholics, you can draw your own conclusion.
Because sedes like this website doesn't change the fact that you have been deceived.
Wondering whether the pope is the pope is another matter entirely.
-
One who denies as a matter of fact that the pope is pope has cut himself off from the Church.
Yet the SSPX has kept sedes within its ranks.
Just because you bought hook line and sinker into the anti-sede indoctrination doesn't mean anything to the rest of us.
Sedevacantism is an opinion, and if it's true, then those who hold to it cannot be schismatics simply by holding to it.
Anyone whose ever acknowledged it could be true cannot call a sede a schismatic, simply for being sede.
-
One who denies as a matter of fact that the pope is pope has cut himself off from the Church.
Yet the SSPX has kept sedes within its ranks.
Just because you bought hook line and sinker into the anti-sede indoctrination doesn't mean anything to the rest of us.
Sedevacantism is an opinion, and if it's true, then those who hold to it cannot be schismatics simply by holding to it.
Anyone whose ever acknowledged it could be true cannot call a sede a schismatic, simply for being sede.
"I have passed on that which I have received."
-
Sedevacantists are Satan's deceivers.
Roman apostates are satan's deceivers, Seraphim. Not sedevacantists.
One who denies as a matter of fact that the pope is pope has cut himself off from the Church.
That's a bit absurd. It's not a fact that Benedict XVI is Pope, that is your opinion. Just as it's a sedevacantist's opinion that the Chair is empty.
Furthermore, Archbishop Lefebvre thought sedevacantism was very possible. This has been proven before.
Since we cannot worship with non-Catholics, you can draw your own conclusion.
Sedevacantists aren't Catholics? The Neo-SSPX would be proud of a statement like that!
Because sedes like this website doesn't change the fact that you have been deceived.
How have I been deceived?
-
Tele said:
Anyone whose ever acknowledged it could be true cannot call a sede a schismatic, simply for being sede.
Response:
you obviously did not read the entire post you are responding to.
-
you obviously did not read the entire post you are responding to.
Not going to play that game with you of you referencing things without explaining anything. That you tried before. It's evasive.
Someone who holds to the truth cannot be schismatic for asserting that truth.
So anyone who acknowledges sedevacantism could be true cannot say that sedes are necessarily schismatic.
Many of the problems in the SSPX have come from its double-think about the Pope.
This double-think is extremely convenient for the cynical manipulators who wish to switch back and forth between contradictory positions.
-
Sedevacantists are Satan's deceivers.
Roman apostates are satan's deceivers, Seraphim. Not sedevacantists.
One who denies as a matter of fact that the pope is pope has cut himself off from the Church.
That's a bit absurd. It's not a fact that Benedict XVI is Pope, that is your opinion. Just as it's a sedevacantist's opinion that the Chair is empty.
Furthermore, Archbishop Lefebvre thought sedevacantism was very possible. This has been proven before.
Since we cannot worship with non-Catholics, you can draw your own conclusion.
Sedevacantists aren't Catholics? The Neo-SSPX would be proud of a statement like that!
Because sedes like this website doesn't change the fact that you have been deceived.
How have I been deceived?
Surely your assertions appear ridiculous to you, do they not?
-
A lame response, Seraphim. How about refuting what I actually said instead of playing games?
-
you obviously did not read the entire post you are responding to.
Not going to play that game with you of you referencing things without explaining anything. That you tried before. It's evasive.
Someone who holds to the truth cannot be schismatic for asserting that truth.
So anyone who acknowledges sedevacantism could be true cannot say that sedes are necessarily schismatic.
Many of the problems in the SSPX have come from its double-think about the Pope.
This double-think is extremely convenient for the cynical manipulators who wish to switch back and forth between contradictory positions.
No.
The real problem is that your thinking is simplistic, and trapped between the covers of the manual.
You have been snared by sedevacantism because of your lack of nuance.
And you will probably never come out of it.
And again, if you think there is contradiction in the SSPX condemnation of sedevacantism, it is again because you have not understood the position (though you will think you do).
-
A lame response, Seraphim. How about refuting what I actually said instead of playing games?
You first:
Explain how one can be in communion with the Catholic Church while not being in communion with its head?
-
If you make it a principle that a person who manifests heresies relentlessly can never be a manifest heretic - you destroy rationality. And if you say a heretic is the leader of your Church no matter what he says and does, and anyone who thinks he may not be the leader is a schismatic, again, you're going to run into terrible logical difficulties. Difficulties for the sincere, opportunities to manipulate for the unscrupulous.
-
A lame response, Seraphim. How about refuting what I actually said instead of playing games?
You first:
Explain how one can be in communion with the Catholic Church while not being in communion with its head?
And how do you or anyone else know with certainty that Benedict is its head?
Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong here?
“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
-
The same thing could be said by those who say Bishop Fellay hasn't departed from the Archbishop.
The SSPX has allowed sedes to be members.
If sedevacantism is true the only way to solve the problem is for that truth to be advanced by some.
So anyone who accepts it could be true must accept that the position can be advanced without schism or heresy.
-
If you make it a principle that a person who manifests heresies relentlessly can never be a manifest heretic - you destroy rationality. And if you say a heretic is the leader of your Church no matter what he says and does, and anyone who thinks he may not be the leader is a schismatic, again, you're going to run into terrible logical difficulties. Difficulties for the sincere, opportunities to manipulate for the unscrupulous.
Straw man
-
A lame response, Seraphim. How about refuting what I actually said instead of playing games?
You first:
Explain how one can be in communion with the Catholic Church while not being in communion with its head?
And how do you or anyone else know with certainty that Benedict is its head?
Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong here?
“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
ABL believed it.
-
The same thing could be said by those who say Bishop Fellay hasn't departed from the Archbishop.
The SSPX has allowed sedes to be members.
If sedevacantism is true the only way to solve the problem is for that truth to be advanced by some.
So anyone who accepts it could be true must accept that the position can be advanced without schism or heresy.
The SSPX allowed people who wondered.
The SSPX expelled people who declared.
-
There are sedes now in the SSPX from what I understand.
Another thing, I'm not sure the SSPV is officially sede.
Now I'm not endorsing the SSPV, but if they leave the question open, then do you consider that schismatic?
-
The above post is a bunch of rambling nothingness.
Tradcuмenism is not an acceptable response to the crisis in the Church or in the SSPX.
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
This is so funny! Rambling nothingness?
Well, you sit while the Law of Just Noticeable Difference transforms the Society of Saint Pius X into an attraction in Novus Ordo Land and they merge with the FSSP. Then get back to me about matters of doctrine.
As for me and mine, we will remain True to Faith and receive the Sacraments at a private chapel that may or may not be filled with sedes. I will work on my own opinion of whether or not the Pope is the Pope and I will let them work on theirs.
-
There are sedes now in the SSPX from what I understand.
Another thing, I'm not sure the SSPV is officially sede.
Now I'm not endorsing the SSPV, but if they leave the question open, then do you consider that schismatic?
See previous post.
-
The above post is a bunch of rambling nothingness.
Tradcuмenism is not an acceptable response to the crisis in the Church or in the SSPX.
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
This is so funny! Rambling nothingness?
Well, you sit while the Law of Just Noticeable Difference transforms the Society of Saint Pius X into an attraction in Novus Ordo Land and they merge with the FSSP. Then get back to me about matters of doctrine.
As for me and mine, we will remain True to Faith and receive the Sacraments at a private chapel that may or may not be filled with sedes. I will work on my own opinion of whether or not the Pope is the Pope and I will let them work on theirs.
More incoherence.
-
A lame response, Seraphim. How about refuting what I actually said instead of playing games?
You first:
Explain how one can be in communion with the Catholic Church while not being in communion with its head?
And how do you or anyone else know with certainty that Benedict is its head?
Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong here?
“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
ABL believed it.
Believed what?
-
A lame response, Seraphim. How about refuting what I actually said instead of playing games?
You first:
Explain how one can be in communion with the Catholic Church while not being in communion with its head?
And how do you or anyone else know with certainty that Benedict is its head?
Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong here?
“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
ABL believed it.
Believed what?
That the pope was pope.
The quote you supplied shows him wondering aloud about the question.
Not declaring the see vacant.
-
I never said Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist. I said he was open to the possibility of the position.
-
Pablo-
Give some thought to what I said.
Tequila is not good for you.
-
The above post is a bunch of rambling nothingness.
Tradcuмenism is not an acceptable response to the crisis in the Church or in the SSPX.
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
This is so funny! Rambling nothingness?
Well, you sit while the Law of Just Noticeable Difference transforms the Society of Saint Pius X into an attraction in Novus Ordo Land and they merge with the FSSP. Then get back to me about matters of doctrine.
As for me and mine, we will remain True to Faith and receive the Sacraments at a private chapel that may or may not be filled with sedes. I will work on my own opinion of whether or not the Pope is the Pope and I will let them work on theirs.
More incoherence.
Actually I understood quite well what CathMomof7 said, and I agree with her stance completely. I'm sure many others do also. Did you even read it and try to understand the meaning.
-
traditionalecuмenism: a funny made up word.
I have never seen it in any approved Catholic book, yet some would use this term to scare Catholics from the Sacraments.
My two cents worth: Go to priests who are good priests. Avoid cultish clergy of any group. There are many good SSPX priests out there, why avoid them? The CMRI are excellent, why avoid them? They will not ask or demand that you accept sedevacantism to go to Mass. Many who attend their chapels have not formed their mind on the matter. Many former SSPX priests who left are very good as well, such as Fr. Collins or Fr. Neville.
If you want to be loyal to the resistance priests, that is good, but when they are not around, why lose the sacraments if there are other chapels with Catholic, validly ordained, level headed clergy?
I do however urge caution, whether the priest is sedevacantist or sedeplenist, check the group/chapel/priest out ahead of time and learn all you can. There are a lot of mini-cults out there, scandal and weirdness.
A good rule of thumb I use, stick to SSPX and CMRI they are safe. As far as the independent clergy, you will have to learn on a case by case basis about them.
-
The Neo-SSPX, SSPX-SO, SBJXXIII, SABL, etc., are not the only options. There are other validly ordained "resistance" clergy that have been around for decades. Don't deny yourselves the valid Sacraments because of old propaganda / SV "taboos".
This is exactly my opinion. There are other places to receive the Sacraments. There are other priests who are not affiliated with the Society. If this is truly about souls and not politics, then you might consider one of these other options.
Receiving sacraments from those who are not in communion with the Pope is a bit more than "old propaganda."
If you think that way, why not receive your sacraments from the Orthodox?
Part of receiving Holy Communion is an expression of unity in Faith.
Uhh, the Orthodox do not claim to be Catholics. There is a difference.
Besides, if you have no other option, it is perfectly acceptable in the Church to
receive sacraments from the Orthodox in the state of emergency. And if this
isn't a state of emergency, I don't know what is. Maybe a sinking ship? But
this IS A SINKING SHIP!
If you believe the Pope is the Pope, how can you be in communion with those who do not?
If you do not believe the Pope is Pope, how can you be in communion with those who do?
Have you ever considered that perhaps you're siding more with the devil than
with Our Lord? Who was it that criticized Him for eating with uncircuмcised or
speaking to Samaritans or associating with sinners? It was the Judases, the
Pharisees and the lawyers. Are you one of them? St. Paul upbraided St. Peter
in public for choosing to eat with the circuмcised only to placate the snobs. And
St. Peter ACCEPTED THE REPROOF. That is the mark of a saint.
You probably don't realize it, but buried within your perspective is the seed of tradcuмenism: As long as the priest is validly ordained and opposes modernism, he is a legitimate option, which opens the doors to having Feenyites, Old Anglicans, Orthodox, Sedevacantists of all stripes, Indultarians and others).
The traditional SSPX position is the correct one: No indulters. No sedevacantists.
I think this outlook is a bit myopic. Just because the SSPX has a worldwide
smattering of chapels doesn't mean they have any monopoly on the truth. Look
at what's coming out of Menzingen these days. Do you think that the "traditional
SSPX position" had nothing to do with it? Maybe this crisis is God's retribution
on the SSPX for being so ridiculously exclusionary. No indulters? No sedes?
Who are you to pass judgment on indulters or sedes?? And it's none of the
SSPX's Business either.
These days are challenging enough and these times are enough of a scourge on
the Faith of Catholics without having some stuffed shirts telling everyone why
they would be disqualified for darkening the door of a chapel on Sunday!
Show me where it says that you have to pass a litmus test to come to Mass.
You know in the old days, the REAL old days, non-Catholics and catechumens
were required to stay outside starting at the Offertory. Maybe you were just
born in the wrong century.
traditionalecuмenism: a funny made up word.
I have never seen it in any approved Catholic book, yet some would use this term to scare Catholics from the Sacraments.
My two cents worth: Go to priests who are good priests. Avoid cultish clergy of any group. There are many good SSPX priests out there, why avoid them? The CMRI are excellent, why avoid them? They will not ask or demand that you accept sedevacantism to go to Mass. Many who attend their chapels have not formed their mind on the matter. Many former SSPX priests who left are very good as well, such as Fr. Collins or Fr. Neville.
If you want to be loyal to the resistance priests, that is good, but when they are not around, why lose the sacraments if there are other chapels with Catholic, validly ordained, level headed clergy?
I do however urge caution, whether the priest is sedevacantist or sedeplenist, check the group/chapel/priest out ahead of time and learn all you can. There are a lot of mini-cults out there, scandal and weirdness.
A good rule of thumb I use, stick to SSPX and CMRI they are safe. As far as the independent clergy, you will have to learn on a case by case basis about them.
I don't care which independent priest you pick to stick on your microscope
slide, you're going to find something you don't like eventually. Being Catholic
isn't about picking and choosing who's right and who's wrong, even when it
comes to matters of what you might think are really important. The question is,
"IS IT A MATTER OF DOGMA OR NOT?"
If it's not dogma, then it's not up to you or me to choose sides. It's the
Modernists and the troublemakers who harp on and on about "doctrine" when
they don't even CARE if it's dogma or not. They say that it's CLOSE to dogma,
or "proxima fidei." But they don't even know the Latin they pretend to
use so they say proxima fide. Which is improper grammar.
The devil's tactic is to divide. Find a crack and stick a wedge in there and then
start hitting the wedge with a sledge. Divide and conquer. And you're helping
him do it. Some independent priests do the same thing. They make a big
stink out of something that isn't really that important, if only to have the
appearance of winning an argument. Or sometimes it's worse. Sometimes
they do it to curry favor with a wealthy contributor so they'll get larger donations.
That's actually getting kind of close to simony. Not quite there, but in the same
direction.
Take a look at Fr. Hector Bolduc's ministry. Was he going around splitting hairs
and putting up fences? No way. He was bringing the sacraments to the poor
in spirit, and it was his sage words of advice that lit a fire under Frs. Pfeiffer and
Chazal, so that they had the fortitude to get going in the first place.
We have witnessed the PASSING OF THE BATON from one age to another. And
it has happened right before our eyes. And most of the SSPX Faithful are 100%
oblivious to the fact that it took place. And if you were to tell them about it
they would look at you with the glazed eyes of a dead fish, because you're not
talking their language.
Make no mistake about it. These are the days that try men's souls, but they are
also the days we should never forget. This is when history took a turn.
And it's up to us to make sure that the turn is a good one. Don't make it turn
bad with exclusionist rhetoric.
-
It shows this much:
But also, that they are not much use to us in the USA as priests to man resistance chapels.
Fr Chazal is in Asia.
Fr Pfeiffer and Hewko in South America.
Nobody in America this Sunday.
Somebody remind me why we donate to them again.
I guess charity is charity, but they are not much help to us.
We are in bad shape.
It would seem our options are to stay with the SSPX or become home-aloners?
I guess charity is charity, but they are not much help to us.
We are in bad shape.
It would seem our options are to stay with the SSPX or become home-aloners?[/quote]
I have only just starting reading this thread so I don't know if anything has been said about this comment, but I would like to ask you:
Do you belong to the Catholic Church or the American church?
-
The above post is a bunch of rambling nothingness.
Tradcuмenism is not an acceptable response to the crisis in the Church or in the SSPX.
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
This is so funny! Rambling nothingness?
Well, you sit while the Law of Just Noticeable Difference transforms the Society of Saint Pius X into an attraction in Novus Ordo Land and they merge with the FSSP. Then get back to me about matters of doctrine.
As for me and mine, we will remain True to Faith and receive the Sacraments at a private chapel that may or may not be filled with sedes. I will work on my own opinion of whether or not the Pope is the Pope and I will let them work on theirs.
More incoherence.
Actually I understood quite well what CathMomof7 said, and I agree with her stance completely. I'm sure many others do also. Did you even read it and try to understand the meaning.
Feminism before doctrine.
Way to go.
You are women and i hear you roar.
:laugh1:
-
traditionalecuмenism: a funny made up word.
I have never seen it in any approved Catholic book, yet some would use this term to scare Catholics from the Sacraments.
My two cents worth: Go to priests who are good priests. Avoid cultish clergy of any group. There are many good SSPX priests out there, why avoid them? The CMRI are excellent, why avoid them? They will not ask or demand that you accept sedevacantism to go to Mass. Many who attend their chapels have not formed their mind on the matter. Many former SSPX priests who left are very good as well, such as Fr. Collins or Fr. Neville.
If you want to be loyal to the resistance priests, that is good, but when they are not around, why lose the sacraments if there are other chapels with Catholic, validly ordained, level headed clergy?
I do however urge caution, whether the priest is sedevacantist or sedeplenist, check the group/chapel/priest out ahead of time and learn all you can. There are a lot of mini-cults out there, scandal and weirdness.
A good rule of thumb I use, stick to SSPX and CMRI they are safe. As far as the independent clergy, you will have to learn on a case by case basis about them.
I agree:
Sedevacantist.
Indultarian.
Feenyite.
Orthodox.
What's the difference?
-
The Neo-SSPX, SSPX-SO, SBJXXIII, SABL, etc., are not the only options. There are other validly ordained "resistance" clergy that have been around for decades. Don't deny yourselves the valid Sacraments because of old propaganda / SV "taboos".
This is exactly my opinion. There are other places to receive the Sacraments. There are other priests who are not affiliated with the Society. If this is truly about souls and not politics, then you might consider one of these other options.
Receiving sacraments from those who are not in communion with the Pope is a bit more than "old propaganda."
If you think that way, why not receive your sacraments from the Orthodox?
Part of receiving Holy Communion is an expression of unity in Faith.
Uhh, the Orthodox do not claim to be Catholics. There is a difference.
Besides, if you have no other option, it is perfectly acceptable in the Church to
receive sacraments from the Orthodox in the state of emergency. And if this
isn't a state of emergency, I don't know what is. Maybe a sinking ship? But
this IS A SINKING SHIP!
If you believe the Pope is the Pope, how can you be in communion with those who do not?
If you do not believe the Pope is Pope, how can you be in communion with those who do?
Have you ever considered that perhaps you're siding more with the devil than
with Our Lord? Who was it that criticized Him for eating with uncircuмcised or
speaking to Samaritans or associating with sinners? It was the Judases, the
Pharisees and the lawyers. Are you one of them? St. Paul upbraided St. Peter
in public for choosing to eat with the circuмcised only to placate the snobs. And
St. Peter ACCEPTED THE REPROOF. That is the mark of a saint.
You probably don't realize it, but buried within your perspective is the seed of tradcuмenism: As long as the priest is validly ordained and opposes modernism, he is a legitimate option, which opens the doors to having Feenyites, Old Anglicans, Orthodox, Sedevacantists of all stripes, Indultarians and others).
The traditional SSPX position is the correct one: No indulters. No sedevacantists.
I think this outlook is a bit myopic. Just because the SSPX has a worldwide
smattering of chapels doesn't mean they have any monopoly on the truth. Look
at what's coming out of Menzingen these days. Do you think that the "traditional
SSPX position" had nothing to do with it? Maybe this crisis is God's retribution
on the SSPX for being so ridiculously exclusionary. No indulters? No sedes?
Who are you to pass judgment on indulters or sedes?? And it's none of the
SSPX's Business either.
These days are challenging enough and these times are enough of a scourge on
the Faith of Catholics without having some stuffed shirts telling everyone why
they would be disqualified for darkening the door of a chapel on Sunday!
Show me where it says that you have to pass a litmus test to come to Mass.
You know in the old days, the REAL old days, non-Catholics and catechumens
were required to stay outside starting at the Offertory. Maybe you were just
born in the wrong century.
traditionalecuмenism: a funny made up word.
I have never seen it in any approved Catholic book, yet some would use this term to scare Catholics from the Sacraments.
My two cents worth: Go to priests who are good priests. Avoid cultish clergy of any group. There are many good SSPX priests out there, why avoid them? The CMRI are excellent, why avoid them? They will not ask or demand that you accept sedevacantism to go to Mass. Many who attend their chapels have not formed their mind on the matter. Many former SSPX priests who left are very good as well, such as Fr. Collins or Fr. Neville.
If you want to be loyal to the resistance priests, that is good, but when they are not around, why lose the sacraments if there are other chapels with Catholic, validly ordained, level headed clergy?
I do however urge caution, whether the priest is sedevacantist or sedeplenist, check the group/chapel/priest out ahead of time and learn all you can. There are a lot of mini-cults out there, scandal and weirdness.
A good rule of thumb I use, stick to SSPX and CMRI they are safe. As far as the independent clergy, you will have to learn on a case by case basis about them.
I don't care which independent priest you pick to stick on your microscope
slide, you're going to find something you don't like eventually. Being Catholic
isn't about picking and choosing who's right and who's wrong, even when it
comes to matters of what you might think are really important. The question is,
"IS IT A MATTER OF DOGMA OR NOT?"
If it's not dogma, then it's not up to you or me to choose sides. It's the
Modernists and the troublemakers who harp on and on about "doctrine" when
they don't even CARE if it's dogma or not. They say that it's CLOSE to dogma,
or "proxima fidei." But they don't even know the Latin they pretend to
use so they say proxima fide. Which is improper grammar.
The devil's tactic is to divide. Find a crack and stick a wedge in there and then
start hitting the wedge with a sledge. Divide and conquer. And you're helping
him do it. Some independent priests do the same thing. They make a big
stink out of something that isn't really that important, if only to have the
appearance of winning an argument. Or sometimes it's worse. Sometimes
they do it to curry favor with a wealthy contributor so they'll get larger donations.
That's actually getting kind of close to simony. Not quite there, but in the same
direction.
Take a look at Fr. Hector Bolduc's ministry. Was he going around splitting hairs
and putting up fences? No way. He was bringing the sacraments to the poor
in spirit, and it was his sage words of advice that lit a fire under Frs. Pfeiffer and
Chazal, so that they had the fortitude to get going in the first place.
We have witnessed the PASSING OF THE BATON from one age to another. And
it has happened right before our eyes. And most of the SSPX Faithful are 100%
oblivious to the fact that it took place. And if you were to tell them about it
they would look at you with the glazed eyes of a dead fish, because you're not
talking their language.
Make no mistake about it. These are the days that try men's souls, but they are
also the days we should never forget. This is when history took a turn.
And it's up to us to make sure that the turn is a good one. Don't make it turn
bad with exclusionist rhetoric.
Actually the orthodox do claim to be catholic, and that the Latin are not catholic.
You could call them the fathers of Sedevacantism.
-
traditionalecuмenism: a funny made up word.
I have never seen it in any approved Catholic book, yet some would use this term to scare Catholics from the Sacraments.
My two cents worth: Go to priests who are good priests. Avoid cultish clergy of any group. There are many good SSPX priests out there, why avoid them? The CMRI are excellent, why avoid them? They will not ask or demand that you accept sedevacantism to go to Mass. Many who attend their chapels have not formed their mind on the matter. Many former SSPX priests who left are very good as well, such as Fr. Collins or Fr. Neville.
If you want to be loyal to the resistance priests, that is good, but when they are not around, why lose the sacraments if there are other chapels with Catholic, validly ordained, level headed clergy?
I do however urge caution, whether the priest is sedevacantist or sedeplenist, check the group/chapel/priest out ahead of time and learn all you can. There are a lot of mini-cults out there, scandal and weirdness.
A good rule of thumb I use, stick to SSPX and CMRI they are safe. As far as the independent clergy, you will have to learn on a case by case basis about them.
I agree:
Sedevacantist.
Indultarian.
Feenyite.
Orthodox.
What's the difference?
The difference is obvious, and for one that has attended seminary, this should be obvious to you.
1. Sedevacatist: Catholics who have responded to a publicly heretical papal claimant. They recognize his status as an anti-pope and await a true Pope. Do you want to pretend that Vatican II popes have not publicly taught heresy to the universal Church?
2. Indultarian: One in full communion with the anti-pope, who most likely attends masses that are said by priests either ordained in the new rite or consecrated by bishops of the new rite, leading to doubtful sacraments.
3. Feeneyite: At least by the common meaning of the term, one who rejects the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood.
4. Orthodox: One who is outside the Church by cutting themselves off from the Papacy.
If you choose to equate formal schismatics or those who deny doctrine with Catholics who have cut themselves off from a public heretic pretending to be Pope, then you have at the very least not been very careful in your thinking about this.
The sedevacantist believes all the teachings of the Church and believes in the Papacy. The sedevacantist understands that public heretic cannot be Pope, and that a pope cannot teach heresy to the universal Church and cannot bind Catholics to evil laws.
The sedevacantist is the defender of the Papacy. The sedevacantist believes in the indefectibility of the Church. We know that the Church cannot teach evil and give evil.
The sedevacantists defends the dogma that the Church is holy. The sacramental rites of the Church are only pure and good and a Catholic would never have a reason to distrust the Church on the Mass, the ordination rites, etc. A Catholic knows that the Church cannot give evil. If a rite comes from the Church it is good, holy and pleasing to God.
-
It shows this much:
But also, that they are not much use to us in the USA as priests to man resistance chapels.
Fr Chazal is in Asia.
Fr Pfeiffer and Hewko in South America.
Nobody in America this Sunday.
Somebody remind me why we donate to them again.
I guess charity is charity, but they are not much help to us.
We are in bad shape.
It would seem our options are to stay with the SSPX or become home-aloners?
I guess charity is charity, but they are not much help to us.
We are in bad shape.
It would seem our options are to stay with the SSPX or become home-aloners?
I have only just starting reading this thread so I don't know if anything has been said about this comment, but I would like to ask you:
Do you belong to the Catholic Church or the American church?[/quote]
Your distinction is heretical
-
traditionalecuмenism: a funny made up word.
I have never seen it in any approved Catholic book, yet some would use this term to scare Catholics from the Sacraments.
My two cents worth: Go to priests who are good priests. Avoid cultish clergy of any group. There are many good SSPX priests out there, why avoid them? The CMRI are excellent, why avoid them? They will not ask or demand that you accept sedevacantism to go to Mass. Many who attend their chapels have not formed their mind on the matter. Many former SSPX priests who left are very good as well, such as Fr. Collins or Fr. Neville.
If you want to be loyal to the resistance priests, that is good, but when they are not around, why lose the sacraments if there are other chapels with Catholic, validly ordained, level headed clergy?
I do however urge caution, whether the priest is sedevacantist or sedeplenist, check the group/chapel/priest out ahead of time and learn all you can. There are a lot of mini-cults out there, scandal and weirdness.
A good rule of thumb I use, stick to SSPX and CMRI they are safe. As far as the independent clergy, you will have to learn on a case by case basis about them.
I agree:
Sedevacantist.
Indultarian.
Feenyite.
Orthodox.
What's the difference?
The difference is obvious, and for one that has attended seminary, this should be obvious to you.
1. Sedevacatist: Catholics who have responded to a publicly heretical papal claimant. They recognize his status as an anti-pope and await a true Pope. Do you want to pretend that Vatican II popes have not publicly taught heresy to the universal Church?
2. Indultarian: One in full communion with the anti-pope, who most likely attends masses that are said by priests either ordained in the new rite or consecrated by bishops of the new rite, leading to doubtful sacraments.
3. Feeneyite: At least by the common meaning of the term, one who rejects the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood.
4. Orthodox: One who is outside the Church by cutting themselves off from the Papacy.
If you choose to equate formal schismatics or those who deny doctrine with Catholics who have cut themselves off from a public heretic pretending to be Pope, then you have at the very least not been very careful in your thinking about this.
The sedevacantist believes all the teachings of the Church and believes in the Papacy. The sedevacantist understands that public heretic cannot be Pope, and that a pope cannot teach heresy to the universal Church and cannot bind Catholics to evil laws.
The sedevacantist is the defender of the Papacy. The sedevacantist believes in the indefectibility of the Church. We know that the Church cannot teach evil and give evil.
The sedevacantists defends the dogma that the Church is holy. The sacramental rites of the Church are only pure and good and a Catholic would never have a reason to distrust the Church on the Mass, the ordination rites, etc. A Catholic knows that the Church cannot give evil. If a rite comes from the Church it is good, holy and pleasing to God.
No, no.
Your position dictates they are all viable options for you.
-
The above post is a bunch of rambling nothingness.
Tradcuмenism is not an acceptable response to the crisis in the Church or in the SSPX.
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
This is so funny! Rambling nothingness?
Well, you sit while the Law of Just Noticeable Difference transforms the Society of Saint Pius X into an attraction in Novus Ordo Land and they merge with the FSSP. Then get back to me about matters of doctrine.
As for me and mine, we will remain True to Faith and receive the Sacraments at a private chapel that may or may not be filled with sedes. I will work on my own opinion of whether or not the Pope is the Pope and I will let them work on theirs.
More incoherence.
Actually I understood quite well what CathMomof7 said, and I agree with her stance completely. I'm sure many others do also. Did you even read it and try to understand the meaning.
Feminism before doctrine.
Way to go.
You are women and i hear you roar.
:laugh1:
How very misogynistic of you.
The voice of reason remains the voice of reason no matter whose mouth it come from.
Enjoy your stay in the Neo-SSPX.
-
It is very unfortunate that people like Seraphim who declare the position of the Archbishop and the position of the Society on sedevacantism get nothing but thumbs down. We are not sedevacantists, we are SSPX!
The Archbishop didn't mind merely private speculation about sedevacantism but he always expelled those who spoke publicly about it. The sedevacantists desperately trot out the one remark of the Archbishop that was in favor of sedevacantism, and try to make him into a sedevacantist which he never was.
And this on a board that supposedly supports the great work of the holy Archbishop! :facepalm:
-
If you believe the Pope is the Pope, how can you be in communion with those who do not?
EXACTLY!
"And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?"
2 Corinthians 6:15
-
The above post is a bunch of rambling nothingness.
Tradcuмenism is not an acceptable response to the crisis in the Church or in the SSPX.
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
This is so funny! Rambling nothingness?
Well, you sit while the Law of Just Noticeable Difference transforms the Society of Saint Pius X into an attraction in Novus Ordo Land and they merge with the FSSP. Then get back to me about matters of doctrine.
As for me and mine, we will remain True to Faith and receive the Sacraments at a private chapel that may or may not be filled with sedes. I will work on my own opinion of whether or not the Pope is the Pope and I will let them work on theirs.
More incoherence.
Actually I understood quite well what CathMomof7 said, and I agree with her stance completely. I'm sure many others do also. Did you even read it and try to understand the meaning.
Feminism before doctrine.
Way to go.
You are women and i hear you roar.
:laugh1:
How very misogynistic of you.
The voice of reason remains the voice of reason no matter whose mouth it come from.
Enjoy your stay in the Neo-SSPX.
Enjoy yours with Pope Michael.
-
traditionalecuмenism: a funny made up word.
I have never seen it in any approved Catholic book, yet some would use this term to scare Catholics from the Sacraments.
My two cents worth: Go to priests who are good priests. Avoid cultish clergy of any group. There are many good SSPX priests out there, why avoid them? The CMRI are excellent, why avoid them? They will not ask or demand that you accept sedevacantism to go to Mass. Many who attend their chapels have not formed their mind on the matter. Many former SSPX priests who left are very good as well, such as Fr. Collins or Fr. Neville.
If you want to be loyal to the resistance priests, that is good, but when they are not around, why lose the sacraments if there are other chapels with Catholic, validly ordained, level headed clergy?
I do however urge caution, whether the priest is sedevacantist or sedeplenist, check the group/chapel/priest out ahead of time and learn all you can. There are a lot of mini-cults out there, scandal and weirdness.
A good rule of thumb I use, stick to SSPX and CMRI they are safe. As far as the independent clergy, you will have to learn on a case by case basis about them.
I agree:
Sedevacantist.
Indultarian.
Feenyite.
Orthodox.
What's the difference?
The difference is obvious, and for one that has attended seminary, this should be obvious to you.
1. Sedevacatist: Catholics who have responded to a publicly heretical papal claimant. They recognize his status as an anti-pope and await a true Pope. Do you want to pretend that Vatican II popes have not publicly taught heresy to the universal Church?
2. Indultarian: One in full communion with the anti-pope, who most likely attends masses that are said by priests either ordained in the new rite or consecrated by bishops of the new rite, leading to doubtful sacraments.
3. Feeneyite: At least by the common meaning of the term, one who rejects the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood.
4. Orthodox: One who is outside the Church by cutting themselves off from the Papacy.
If you choose to equate formal schismatics or those who deny doctrine with Catholics who have cut themselves off from a public heretic pretending to be Pope, then you have at the very least not been very careful in your thinking about this.
The sedevacantist believes all the teachings of the Church and believes in the Papacy. The sedevacantist understands that public heretic cannot be Pope, and that a pope cannot teach heresy to the universal Church and cannot bind Catholics to evil laws.
The sedevacantist is the defender of the Papacy. The sedevacantist believes in the indefectibility of the Church. We know that the Church cannot teach evil and give evil.
The sedevacantists defends the dogma that the Church is holy. The sacramental rites of the Church are only pure and good and a Catholic would never have a reason to distrust the Church on the Mass, the ordination rites, etc. A Catholic knows that the Church cannot give evil. If a rite comes from the Church it is good, holy and pleasing to God.
The sedevacantist claims to believe the current pope is a formal heretic. Without being able to provide proof that the current pope willingly and knowingly denies Catholic dogma this position leads to error and is to say the least materially schismatic. If proof were provided that the current pope was a formal heretic this would alter greatly the traditionalist movement and create a real schism being those who would follow a formal heretic. Sedevacantism as of today has yet to provide such evidence which would consist in a pope admittingly acknowledging his heresy. Apart from this sedevacantist intend to read the mind of the pope that they believe to know what he thinks. This is a judgement highly erroneous and presumptuous. The pope must admit his heresy in able to be recognized as a formal heretic. Let's avoid material schism and follow the wisdom of Mons. Lefebvre.
-
The Neo-SSPX, SSPX-SO, SBJXXIII, SABL, etc., are not the only options. There are other validly ordained "resistance" clergy that have been around for decades. Don't deny yourselves the valid Sacraments because of old propaganda / SV "taboos".
This is exactly my opinion. There are other places to receive the Sacraments. There are other priests who are not affiliated with the Society. If this is truly about souls and not politics, then you might consider one of these other options.
Receiving sacraments from those who are not in communion with the Pope is a bit more than "old propaganda."
If you think that way, why not receive your sacraments from the Orthodox?
Part of receiving Holy Communion is an expression of unity in Faith.
Uhh, the Orthodox do not claim to be Catholics. There is a difference.
Besides, if you have no other option, it is perfectly acceptable in the Church to
receive sacraments from the Orthodox in the state of emergency. And if this
isn't a state of emergency, I don't know what is. Maybe a sinking ship? But
this IS A SINKING SHIP!
If you believe the Pope is the Pope, how can you be in communion with those who do not?
If you do not believe the Pope is Pope, how can you be in communion with those who do?
Have you ever considered that perhaps you're siding more with the devil than
with Our Lord? Who was it that criticized Him for eating with uncircuмcised or
speaking to Samaritans or associating with sinners? It was the Judases, the
Pharisees and the lawyers. Are you one of them? St. Paul upbraided St. Peter
in public for choosing to eat with the circuмcised only to placate the snobs. And
St. Peter ACCEPTED THE REPROOF. That is the mark of a saint.
You probably don't realize it, but buried within your perspective is the seed of tradcuмenism: As long as the priest is validly ordained and opposes modernism, he is a legitimate option, which opens the doors to having Feenyites, Old Anglicans, Orthodox, Sedevacantists of all stripes, Indultarians and others).
The traditional SSPX position is the correct one: No indulters. No sedevacantists.
I think this outlook is a bit myopic. Just because the SSPX has a worldwide
smattering of chapels doesn't mean they have any monopoly on the truth. Look
at what's coming out of Menzingen these days. Do you think that the "traditional
SSPX position" had nothing to do with it? Maybe this crisis is God's retribution
on the SSPX for being so ridiculously exclusionary. No indulters? No sedes?
Who are you to pass judgment on indulters or sedes?? And it's none of the
SSPX's Business either.
These days are challenging enough and these times are enough of a scourge on
the Faith of Catholics without having some stuffed shirts telling everyone why
they would be disqualified for darkening the door of a chapel on Sunday!
Show me where it says that you have to pass a litmus test to come to Mass.
You know in the old days, the REAL old days, non-Catholics and catechumens
were required to stay outside starting at the Offertory. Maybe you were just
born in the wrong century.
traditionalecuмenism: a funny made up word.
I have never seen it in any approved Catholic book, yet some would use this term to scare Catholics from the Sacraments.
My two cents worth: Go to priests who are good priests. Avoid cultish clergy of any group. There are many good SSPX priests out there, why avoid them? The CMRI are excellent, why avoid them? They will not ask or demand that you accept sedevacantism to go to Mass. Many who attend their chapels have not formed their mind on the matter. Many former SSPX priests who left are very good as well, such as Fr. Collins or Fr. Neville.
If you want to be loyal to the resistance priests, that is good, but when they are not around, why lose the sacraments if there are other chapels with Catholic, validly ordained, level headed clergy?
I do however urge caution, whether the priest is sedevacantist or sedeplenist, check the group/chapel/priest out ahead of time and learn all you can. There are a lot of mini-cults out there, scandal and weirdness.
A good rule of thumb I use, stick to SSPX and CMRI they are safe. As far as the independent clergy, you will have to learn on a case by case basis about them.
I don't care which independent priest you pick to stick on your microscope
slide, you're going to find something you don't like eventually. Being Catholic
isn't about picking and choosing who's right and who's wrong, even when it
comes to matters of what you might think are really important. The question is,
"IS IT A MATTER OF DOGMA OR NOT?"
If it's not dogma, then it's not up to you or me to choose sides. It's the
Modernists and the troublemakers who harp on and on about "doctrine" when
they don't even CARE if it's dogma or not. They say that it's CLOSE to dogma,
or "proxima fidei." But they don't even know the Latin they pretend to
use so they say proxima fide. Which is improper grammar.
The devil's tactic is to divide. Find a crack and stick a wedge in there and then
start hitting the wedge with a sledge. Divide and conquer. And you're helping
him do it. Some independent priests do the same thing. They make a big
stink out of something that isn't really that important, if only to have the
appearance of winning an argument. Or sometimes it's worse. Sometimes
they do it to curry favor with a wealthy contributor so they'll get larger donations.
That's actually getting kind of close to simony. Not quite there, but in the same
direction.
Take a look at Fr. Hector Bolduc's ministry. Was he going around splitting hairs
and putting up fences? No way. He was bringing the sacraments to the poor
in spirit, and it was his sage words of advice that lit a fire under Frs. Pfeiffer and
Chazal, so that they had the fortitude to get going in the first place.
We have witnessed the PASSING OF THE BATON from one age to another. And
it has happened right before our eyes. And most of the SSPX Faithful are 100%
oblivious to the fact that it took place. And if you were to tell them about it
they would look at you with the glazed eyes of a dead fish, because you're not
talking their language.
Make no mistake about it. These are the days that try men's souls, but they are
also the days we should never forget. This is when history took a turn.
And it's up to us to make sure that the turn is a good one. Don't make it turn
bad with exclusionist rhetoric.
:applause:
-
The Archbishop didn't mind merely private speculation about sedevacantism but he always expelled those who spoke publicly about it. The sedevacantists desperately trot out the one remark of the Archbishop that was in favor of sedevacantism, and try to make him into a sedevacantist which he never was.
No one on this forum is saying Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist. He considered the position a possibility, he wasn't strongly against sedevacantists like you and Seraphim are trying to claim.
And this on a board that supposedly supports the great work of the holy Archbishop!
If you understood the great work of the holy Archbishop, you would be supporting Bishop Williamson and the Resistance.
-
traditionalecuмenism: a funny made up word.
I have never seen it in any approved Catholic book, yet some would use this term to scare Catholics from the Sacraments.
My two cents worth: Go to priests who are good priests. Avoid cultish clergy of any group. There are many good SSPX priests out there, why avoid them? The CMRI are excellent, why avoid them? They will not ask or demand that you accept sedevacantism to go to Mass. Many who attend their chapels have not formed their mind on the matter. Many former SSPX priests who left are very good as well, such as Fr. Collins or Fr. Neville.
If you want to be loyal to the resistance priests, that is good, but when they are not around, why lose the sacraments if there are other chapels with Catholic, validly ordained, level headed clergy?
I do however urge caution, whether the priest is sedevacantist or sedeplenist, check the group/chapel/priest out ahead of time and learn all you can. There are a lot of mini-cults out there, scandal and weirdness.
A good rule of thumb I use, stick to SSPX and CMRI they are safe. As far as the independent clergy, you will have to learn on a case by case basis about them.
I agree:
Sedevacantist.
Indultarian.
Feenyite.
Orthodox.
What's the difference?
The difference is obvious, and for one that has attended seminary, this should be obvious to you.
1. Sedevacatist: Catholics who have responded to a publicly heretical papal claimant. They recognize his status as an anti-pope and await a true Pope. Do you want to pretend that Vatican II popes have not publicly taught heresy to the universal Church?
2. Indultarian: One in full communion with the anti-pope, who most likely attends masses that are said by priests either ordained in the new rite or consecrated by bishops of the new rite, leading to doubtful sacraments.
3. Feeneyite: At least by the common meaning of the term, one who rejects the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood.
4. Orthodox: One who is outside the Church by cutting themselves off from the Papacy.
If you choose to equate formal schismatics or those who deny doctrine with Catholics who have cut themselves off from a public heretic pretending to be Pope, then you have at the very least not been very careful in your thinking about this.
The sedevacantist believes all the teachings of the Church and believes in the Papacy. The sedevacantist understands that public heretic cannot be Pope, and that a pope cannot teach heresy to the universal Church and cannot bind Catholics to evil laws.
The sedevacantist is the defender of the Papacy. The sedevacantist believes in the indefectibility of the Church. We know that the Church cannot teach evil and give evil.
The sedevacantists defends the dogma that the Church is holy. The sacramental rites of the Church are only pure and good and a Catholic would never have a reason to distrust the Church on the Mass, the ordination rites, etc. A Catholic knows that the Church cannot give evil. If a rite comes from the Church it is good, holy and pleasing to God.
The sedevacantist claims to believe the current pope is a formal heretic. Without being able to provide proof that the current pope willingly and knowingly denies Catholic dogma this position leads to error and is to say the least materially schismatic. If proof were provided that the current pope was a formal heretic this would alter greatly the traditionalist movement and create a real schism being those who would follow a formal heretic. Sedevacantism as of today has yet to provide such evidence which would consist in a pope admittingly acknowledging his heresy. Apart from this sedevacantist intend to read the mind of the pope that they believe to know what he thinks. This is a judgement highly erroneous and presumptuous. The pope must admit his heresy in able to be recognized as a formal heretic. Let's avoid material schism and follow the wisdom of Mons. Lefebvre.
yep.
-
The Archbishop didn't mind merely private speculation about sedevacantism but he always expelled those who spoke publicly about it. The sedevacantists desperately trot out the one remark of the Archbishop that was in favor of sedevacantism, and try to make him into a sedevacantist which he never was.
No one on this forum is saying Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist. He considered the position a possibility, he wasn't strongly against sedevacantists like you and Seraphim are trying to claim.
And this on a board that supposedly supports the great work of the holy Archbishop!
If you understood the great work of the holy Archbishop, you would be supporting Bishop Williamson and the Resistance.
I do support Bishop Williamson, who himself condemns sedevacantism.
-
The Archbishop didn't mind merely private speculation about sedevacantism but he always expelled those who spoke publicly about it. The sedevacantists desperately trot out the one remark of the Archbishop that was in favor of sedevacantism, and try to make him into a sedevacantist which he never was.
No one on this forum is saying Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist. He considered the position a possibility, he wasn't strongly against sedevacantists like you and Seraphim are trying to claim.
And this on a board that supposedly supports the great work of the holy Archbishop!
If you understood the great work of the holy Archbishop, you would be supporting Bishop Williamson and the Resistance.
I do support Bishop Williamson, who himself condemns sedevacantism.
I know, I was refering to brainglitch, who supports Bishop Fellay.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
-
traditionalecuмenism: a funny made up word.
I have never seen it in any approved Catholic book, yet some would use this term to scare Catholics from the Sacraments.
My two cents worth: Go to priests who are good priests. Avoid cultish clergy of any group. There are many good SSPX priests out there, why avoid them? The CMRI are excellent, why avoid them? They will not ask or demand that you accept sedevacantism to go to Mass. Many who attend their chapels have not formed their mind on the matter. Many former SSPX priests who left are very good as well, such as Fr. Collins or Fr. Neville.
If you want to be loyal to the resistance priests, that is good, but when they are not around, why lose the sacraments if there are other chapels with Catholic, validly ordained, level headed clergy?
I do however urge caution, whether the priest is sedevacantist or sedeplenist, check the group/chapel/priest out ahead of time and learn all you can. There are a lot of mini-cults out there, scandal and weirdness.
A good rule of thumb I use, stick to SSPX and CMRI they are safe. As far as the independent clergy, you will have to learn on a case by case basis about them.
I agree:
Sedevacantist.
Indultarian.
Feenyite.
Orthodox.
What's the difference?
The difference is obvious, and for one that has attended seminary, this should be obvious to you.
1. Sedevacatist: Catholics who have responded to a publicly heretical papal claimant. They recognize his status as an anti-pope and await a true Pope. Do you want to pretend that Vatican II popes have not publicly taught heresy to the universal Church?
2. Indultarian: One in full communion with the anti-pope, who most likely attends masses that are said by priests either ordained in the new rite or consecrated by bishops of the new rite, leading to doubtful sacraments.
3. Feeneyite: At least by the common meaning of the term, one who rejects the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood.
4. Orthodox: One who is outside the Church by cutting themselves off from the Papacy.
If you choose to equate formal schismatics or those who deny doctrine with Catholics who have cut themselves off from a public heretic pretending to be Pope, then you have at the very least not been very careful in your thinking about this.
The sedevacantist believes all the teachings of the Church and believes in the Papacy. The sedevacantist understands that public heretic cannot be Pope, and that a pope cannot teach heresy to the universal Church and cannot bind Catholics to evil laws.
The sedevacantist is the defender of the Papacy. The sedevacantist believes in the indefectibility of the Church. We know that the Church cannot teach evil and give evil.
The sedevacantists defends the dogma that the Church is holy. The sacramental rites of the Church are only pure and good and a Catholic would never have a reason to distrust the Church on the Mass, the ordination rites, etc. A Catholic knows that the Church cannot give evil. If a rite comes from the Church it is good, holy and pleasing to God.
No, no.
Your position dictates they are all viable options for you.
Seraphim,
No, they are not all viable options. You do not explain yourself but answer with a quip. A Catholic must keep the Faith and must remain in communion with the Church. That removes two of your options.
The indult people are most likely still Catholic but their predicament is far more dangerous to their souls.
The sedevacantist keeps both the Faith and remains in communion with the Church. He believes in the Papacy, but does not accept the claim of the current open public heretic.
So, your statement that all are viable options is incorrect.
-
God isn't going to ask us on Judgement Day whether or not we believed Benedict was Pope. As Myrna once said, He will ask us "Did you keep the Faith?".
That's something that both the Neo-SSPX and dogmatic sedevacantists like Hutton Gibson and the Dimond Brothers need to realize. Keeping the Faith is what is most important during these times.
-
CentroAmerica wrote:
The sedevacantist claims to believe the current pope is a formal heretic. Without being able to provide proof that the current pope willingly and knowingly denies Catholic dogma this position leads to error and is to say the least materially schismatic. If proof were provided that the current pope was a formal heretic this would alter greatly the traditionalist movement and create a real schism being those who would follow a formal heretic. Sedevacantism as of today has yet to provide such evidence which would consist in a pope admittingly acknowledging his heresy. Apart from this sedevacantist intend to read the mind of the pope that they believe to know what he thinks. This is a judgement highly erroneous and presumptuous. The pope must admit his heresy in able to be recognized as a formal heretic. Let's avoid material schism and follow the wisdom of Mons. Lefebvre.
You are assuming a lot of things in your statement. A Catholic can identify a heretic if a man publicly states heresy and knows better, and offers no correction to clarify themselves. Benedict XVI was trained as a priest and made a professor of theology during the reign of Pius XII. Do you think he is ignorant?
The Code presumes malice for heresy, which is why canon 188, #4 declares the heretic ipso facto excommunicated, (by operation of the law). The Church does not use the standard, "innocent until proven guilty." When you state heresy, the onus is on you to explain yourself, as guilt is presumed.
The reason why the Code does this is because when a man publicly professes heresy he is outside the Church, he loses his membership in the Church by his act of public teaching against the Faith.
There has been public outcry against the heresy and error of Vatican II for decades. The claimants were all trained priests in the seminaries of the Church, all took the oath against modernism, and all were certainly men of high intelligence. They have taught Catholics to believe false doctrine, and in most cases have succeeded.
Most Catholics (or perhaps former Catholics) now believe that all religions are a means of salvation, that the Old Covenant is still in force, that the Greeks and Protestants are in partial communion with the Church, that Holy Communion can be given to those outside the Church, and likewise that Catholics can receive from the schismatics, that primary end of marriage is no longer procreation, and I could go on.
The ability of a Catholic to know that the men claiming to be Pope are not popes was taught by Archbishop Lefevbvre. He taught the principle to be used in making this determination, which was external evidence. Some distort his teaching on this, but the Archbishop knew his theology and professed it. Nothing that I say in this post deviates from the public teaching of the Archbishop.
-
God isn't going to ask us on Judgement Day whether or not we believed Benedict was Pope. As Myrna once said, He will ask us "Did you keep the Faith?".
That's something that both the Neo-SSPX and dogmatic sedevacantists like Hutton Gibson and the Dimond Brothers need to realize. Keeping the Faith is what is most important during these times.
I agree, with this. It is not necessary for salvation to know Benedict XVI and the other claimants were not popes, but it does keep you safe from them by knowing this.
Once you identify these men for who they are, they can no longer harm you spiritually. A Catholic must remain in communion with the Pope. The Pope is the Supreme Teacher of the Church, his universal teaching is binding whether he is teaching infallibly or not. He is the Supreme Lawgiver of the Church. His laws bind the consciences of Catholics, and the sacramental rites approved by the Pope are infallibly protected, and are holy and pleasing to God.
"
This causes a major problem for those who want to adopt a position which calls the Vatican II popes, "pope in name only." Such a position is impossible in the long term.
Why do you think Bp. Fellay and the SSPX upper leadership keeps negotiating with them. These men are not stupid, so they are following a principle which is taught in every theology manual. They know they must remain in communion with the Pope and remain in submission to the Pope, but, they cannot do this, because to do this means to defect from the Faith.
They are torn between two principles, keep the Faith, and remain in submission to the Pope. This places them in grave spiritual danger. The only way out of this contradiction is to realize that the men claiming to be the successor of St. Peter, are not truly Popes. Once you recognize that fact, you will no longer try to place yourself under them, and you will be spiritually safer.
The danger of these men to harm you spiritually all comes from the pretended claim to the office of Pope. Once that is removed, Catholics will see them for what they are: heretics and enemies of the Church.
-
So then you are making the claim that Pope Benedict knowingly and willingly denied Catholic dogma? The fact that he is intelligent has no bearing on judging what he might think. Because he is an intelligent, learned person does not allow you to know what he may have been thinking when he wrote such and such comment or having walked into a mosque. You can't know what he thinks or read minds in order to assert formal heresy. The pope has not admitted to denying any Catholic dogma and it is impossible to declare him a formal heretic.
-
Benedict XVI has denied Catholic Dogma many times, whether or not he's the Pope is different question. Nevertheless, I think this "anti-sedevacanist" stance that Telesphorus has previously mentioned is indeed wrong. Even if one is not a sedevacantist, it is still understandable why some feel the need to adhere to the position when they look at the unimaginable heresy coming from the Vatican. Benedict's heretical beliefs are well-docuмented, and even Bishop Tissier has noted this.
And going beyond heresy for a moment, Benedict has recently called for a "one world government". A one world government is the part of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, and the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is satan's kingdom on earth. It is the opposite of the Social Kingship of Christ.
Considering that Benedict supports something that is extremely evil, one should be able to sympathize with sedevacantists, while simply avoiding sedes who are "way out there" like David Landy, Hutton Gibson, etc.
-
traditionalecuмenism: a funny made up word.
I have never seen it in any approved Catholic book, yet some would use this term to scare Catholics from the Sacraments.
My two cents worth: Go to priests who are good priests. Avoid cultish clergy of any group. There are many good SSPX priests out there, why avoid them? The CMRI are excellent, why avoid them? They will not ask or demand that you accept sedevacantism to go to Mass. Many who attend their chapels have not formed their mind on the matter. Many former SSPX priests who left are very good as well, such as Fr. Collins or Fr. Neville.
If you want to be loyal to the resistance priests, that is good, but when they are not around, why lose the sacraments if there are other chapels with Catholic, validly ordained, level headed clergy?
I do however urge caution, whether the priest is sedevacantist or sedeplenist, check the group/chapel/priest out ahead of time and learn all you can. There are a lot of mini-cults out there, scandal and weirdness.
A good rule of thumb I use, stick to SSPX and CMRI they are safe. As far as the independent clergy, you will have to learn on a case by case basis about them.
I agree:
Sedevacantist.
Indultarian.
Feenyite.
Orthodox.
What's the difference?
The difference is obvious, and for one that has attended seminary, this should be obvious to you.
1. Sedevacatist: Catholics who have responded to a publicly heretical papal claimant. They recognize his status as an anti-pope and await a true Pope. Do you want to pretend that Vatican II popes have not publicly taught heresy to the universal Church?
2. Indultarian: One in full communion with the anti-pope, who most likely attends masses that are said by priests either ordained in the new rite or consecrated by bishops of the new rite, leading to doubtful sacraments.
3. Feeneyite: At least by the common meaning of the term, one who rejects the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood.
4. Orthodox: One who is outside the Church by cutting themselves off from the Papacy.
If you choose to equate formal schismatics or those who deny doctrine with Catholics who have cut themselves off from a public heretic pretending to be Pope, then you have at the very least not been very careful in your thinking about this.
The sedevacantist believes all the teachings of the Church and believes in the Papacy. The sedevacantist understands that public heretic cannot be Pope, and that a pope cannot teach heresy to the universal Church and cannot bind Catholics to evil laws.
The sedevacantist is the defender of the Papacy. The sedevacantist believes in the indefectibility of the Church. We know that the Church cannot teach evil and give evil.
The sedevacantists defends the dogma that the Church is holy. The sacramental rites of the Church are only pure and good and a Catholic would never have a reason to distrust the Church on the Mass, the ordination rites, etc. A Catholic knows that the Church cannot give evil. If a rite comes from the Church it is good, holy and pleasing to God.
No, no.
Your position dictates they are all viable options for you.
Seraphim,
No, they are not all viable options. You do not explain yourself but answer with a quip. A Catholic must keep the Faith and must remain in communion with the Church. That removes two of your options.
The indult people are most likely still Catholic but their predicament is far more dangerous to their souls.
The sedevacantist keeps both the Faith and remains in communion with the Church. He believes in the Papacy, but does not accept the claim of the current open public heretic.
So, your statement that all are viable options is incorrect.
Because I know better than to waste my time arguing with sedes.
-
:surprised:
"knowingly and willingly denied Catholic dogma". No one can prove that Pope Benedict XVI KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY denied Catholic dogma. If they could an overwhelming majority of traditionalists would be sedevacantists. They cannot and the position of sedevacantism is not a certitude and remains a theological position which can lead to error.
-
You are assuming a lot of things in your statement. A Catholic can identify a heretic if a man publicly states heresy and knows better, and offers no correction to clarify themselves. Benedict XVI was trained as a priest and made a professor of theology during the reign of Pius XII. Do you think he is ignorant?
You assume to know what the pope thinks based off your presumption of his level of intelligence and it's capabilities in order to assume that he is not the pope, and all of this while assuming that I am making too many assumptions.
And if I think he is ignorant I answer invincibly so.
-
:surprised:
"knowingly and willingly denied Catholic dogma". No one can prove that Pope Benedict XVI KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY denied Catholic dogma. If they could an overwhelming majority of traditionalists would be sedevacantists. They cannot and the position of sedevacantism is not a certitude and remains a theological position which can lead to error.
It is not necessary to prove this. You are making this into more than what it is. Your standard makes it impossible for Catholics to defend themselves against heretics. The onus is on the heretic to clear his good name, not on individual Catholics to sort it out.
When one hears a heretic publicly espousing heresy, guilt is presumed. He is a criminal and is leading Catholics astray. If it was just an honest mistake, they have had decades to explain themselves and have failed to do so.
Do you understand that guilt is presumed, and the onus is on the public heretic to correct the matter if it is a misunderstanding? I am not making this up, take the time to read the moralists and canonists.
-
You are assuming a lot of things in your statement. A Catholic can identify a heretic if a man publicly states heresy and knows better, and offers no correction to clarify themselves. Benedict XVI was trained as a priest and made a professor of theology during the reign of Pius XII. Do you think he is ignorant?
You assume to know what the pope thinks based off your presumption of his level of intelligence and it's capabilities in order to assume that he is not the pope, and all of this while assuming that I am making too many assumptions.
And if I think he is ignorant I answer invincibly so.
How do you know he is ignorant? Given some of the thing he has said, the evidence would seem to point to the contrary.
-
You are assuming a lot of things in your statement. A Catholic can identify a heretic if a man publicly states heresy and knows better, and offers no correction to clarify themselves. Benedict XVI was trained as a priest and made a professor of theology during the reign of Pius XII. Do you think he is ignorant?
You assume to know what the pope thinks based off your presumption of his level of intelligence and it's capabilities in order to assume that he is not the pope, and all of this while assuming that I am making too many assumptions.
And if I think he is ignorant I answer invincibly so.
How do you know he is ignorant? Given some of the thing he has said, the evidence would seem to point to the contrary.
It's not about if I know he is ignorant, its about if he has willingly and knowingly denied Catholic dogma. Asserting that Pope Benedict XVI is a formal heretic is something that has to be supported with proof. You can't just say anything without something that supports your claim. Yes there is evidence of material heresy, but where is the evidence of formal heresy. If you say Pope Benedict XVI is a formal heretic but without proof it is foolish to assert something which is not a certitude.
-
I offer this bit of information for those that are following what is happening with the Society.
I received an e-mail today regarding Fr. Hewko. He is still a member of the SSPX but received a second warning just last week regarding his disobedience. Once he receives one more, he will be officially out.
He and Fr. Pfeiffer (not sure which one) are going to South America on Tuesday to meet with some priests who are interested in joining the resistance. They also plan on visiting Our Lady's Shrine in Quito.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is still in Chicago. He believes that the good Bishop might speak out even though he has been silenced if more people write to him and ask him to break his silence.
I know this isn't much, but hopefully it offers some hope to the resistance.
It shows this much:
That these priests do good by publicizing the leftward drift of the SSPX.
But also, that they are not much use to us in the USA as priests to man resistance chapels.
Fr Chazal is in Asia.
Fr Pfeiffer and Hewko in South America.
Nobody in America this Sunday.
Somebody remind me why we donate to them again.
I guess charity is charity, but they are not much help to us.
We are in bad shape.
It would seem our options are to stay with the SSPX or become home-aloners?
Seraphim,
Understand everyone's frustration.
I keep telling my trad friends this neoSSPX thing is a big deal!
It means our options for the Sacraments are severely limited.
All we can do is support the SSPX-Resistance and other validly ordained, independent priests... as best we can.
Msgr. Fellay sold us out, not unlike our country's leaders.
We pray for justice... may the villians all be arrested.
In the meantime, we are srappy, resourceful fighters, keeping our Faith as best we can.
-
Any study of the Archbishop's most prudent position on this subject is incomplete without mentioning the consistent reasons why to the very end of his life, he always refused this thesis and its implications. Archbishop Lefebvre's most insightful consideration of the question, as penetrating now as it was then.
Pope Pius IX, in particular, spoke often of the Liberal Catholic, whom he considered a destroyer of the Church. The Liberal Catholic is a two-sided being, living in a world of continual self-contradiction. While he would like to remain Catholic, he is possessed by a thirst to appease the world. He affirms his faith weakly, fearing to appear too dogmatic, and as a result, his actions are similar to those of the enemies of the Catholic Faith.
Can a Pope be Liberal and remain Pope? The Church has always severely reprimanded Liberal Catholics, but she has not always excommunicated them. Here, too, we must continue in the spirit of the Church. We must refuse Liberalism from whatever source it comes because the Church has aways condemned it. She has done so because it is contrary, in the social realm especially, to the Kingship of Our Lord.
Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of ages, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves, render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.
The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no Cardinals, is he to be chosen?
This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others.
Our Fraternity absolutely refuses to enter into such reasonings.
1. So, in brief, with regard to the validity of election, a Papal election accepted by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy, the Roman Church in short, is by that very fact shown to be valid. This is, as Archbishop Lefebvre said above, the teaching of theologians.
2. Moreover, the simple question of whether a single Pope has ceased to be Pope is not quite the same as the implications an indefinite interregnum already lasting for 2 or 3 (and now 5) decades has for visibility, future election etc (not to mention other considerations the Archbishop went into elsewhere). The two questions are not the same, even if some people equate them, Archbishop Lefebvre did not.
And this was why he never embraced the opinion though from a human point of view he had much motive to do so, because the Archbishop saw it had unacceptable implications from the perspective of the whole Church and her future.
Choosing which chapel one wishes to attend is one thing, but embracing a misguided opinion against Archbishop Lefebvre's better judgment is something else entirely.
-
I don't think anyone here believes Archbishop ever embraced the sedevacantist thesis, Nishant. The point is that he considered it a possibility.
“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” ( Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
-
You are assuming a lot of things in your statement. A Catholic can identify a heretic if a man publicly states heresy and knows better, and offers no correction to clarify themselves. Benedict XVI was trained as a priest and made a professor of theology during the reign of Pius XII. Do you think he is ignorant?
You assume to know what the pope thinks based off your presumption of his level of intelligence and it's capabilities in order to assume that he is not the pope, and all of this while assuming that I am making too many assumptions.
And if I think he is ignorant I answer invincibly so.
How do you know he is ignorant? Given some of the thing he has said, the evidence would seem to point to the contrary.
It's not about if I know he is ignorant, its about if he has willingly and knowingly denied Catholic dogma. Asserting that Pope Benedict XVI is a formal heretic is something that has to be supported with proof. You can't just say anything without something that supports your claim. Yes there is evidence of material heresy, but where is the evidence of formal heresy. If you say Pope Benedict XVI is a formal heretic but without proof it is foolish to assert something which is not a certitude.
It is irrelevant if he is a formal heretic or not. Guilt is presumed in the external forum. The post Vatican II claimants are doctrinal criminals. They have espoused heresy publicly, and have not made any attempt to defend themselves.
A public heretic is presumed guilty in the external forum. When a bank robber robs a bank, he is guilty of robbing a bank. He may have a reason why he had to do it, but he still robbed the bank. If for some reason he was forced to rob the bank, he could explain it and clear the matter up, but until then, his guilt is presumed.
The same for a public heretic. He leads Catholics away from the Faith, and he is presumed guilty. Catholics do not use the American standard, "innocent until proven guilty," rather we use, "guilt (or malice) is presumed for external violations of the law."
It does not matter if in the internal forum he is not a formal heretic, if he is a pertinacious public heretic then he is guilty and is deprived of his office and presumed outside the Church.
-
I don't think anyone here believes Archbishop ever embraced the sedevacantist thesis, Nishant. The point is that he considered it a possibility.
“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” ( Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
I don't think anyone here disputes that he considered it a possibility.
But it is erroneous to conclude that, because he considered it a possibility, it is permissible to act as though it is a fact.
To consider it a possibility, versus declaring it a fact, are two completely different positions.
The latter of which puts you in schism outside the Church.
-
I didn't say sedevacantism was a fact. My point was that Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't anti-sedevacantist, and we shouldn't be either.
-
He did not tolerates a factual, public declaration of sedevacante.
I would say that makes him pretty anti-sedevacantist.
-
He did not tolerates a factual, public declaration of sedevacante.
I would say that makes him pretty anti-sedevacantist.
Once again... it only matters what God tolerates.
His opinion alone is what matters, not yours, mine nor ABL's.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
-
He did not tolerates a factual, public declaration of sedevacante.
I would say that makes him pretty anti-sedevacantist.
Once again... it only matters what God tolerates.
His opinion alone is what matters, not yours, mine nor ABL's.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Since there is no doubt, there is no liberty, and your quote is irrelevent.
Just because you have a malformed conscience and intellect, which doubts where it ought not, does not objectify your subjectivist position that the reign of BXVI is not pope.
Of course, when you can produce authoritative docuмentation that we Catholics have no obligation to recognize the man universally acknowledged to be pope as pope, I will concede the argument.
But since I know you won't be able to, I suppose we shall have to suffer your "I only acknowledge good popes, and only I can determine which popes are good, and worthy of recognition" stance.
Very liberal and Protestant.
-
He did not tolerates a factual, public declaration of sedevacante.
I would say that makes him pretty anti-sedevacantist.
Once again... it only matters what God tolerates.
His opinion alone is what matters, not yours, mine nor ABL's.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Since there is no doubt, there is no liberty, and your quote is irrelevent.
Just because you have a malformed conscience and intellect, which doubts where it ought not, does not objectify your subjectivist position that the reign of BXVI is not pope.
Of course, when you can produce authoritative docuмentation that we Catholics have no obligation to recognize the man universally acknowledged to be pope as pope, I will concede the argument.
But since I know you won't be able to, I suppose we shall have to suffer your "I only acknowledge good popes, and only I can determine which popes are good, and worthy of recognition" stance.
Very liberal and Protestant.
Seraphim,
Does your mother know you are wasting all this time on the internet? :facepalm:
-
He did not tolerates a factual, public declaration of sedevacante.
I would say that makes him pretty anti-sedevacantist.
Once again... it only matters what God tolerates.
His opinion alone is what matters, not yours, mine nor ABL's.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Since there is no doubt, there is no liberty, and your quote is irrelevent.
Just because you have a malformed conscience and intellect, which doubts where it ought not, does not objectify your subjectivist position that the reign of BXVI is not pope.
Of course, when you can produce authoritative docuмentation that we Catholics have no obligation to recognize the man universally acknowledged to be pope as pope, I will concede the argument.
But since I know you won't be able to, I suppose we shall have to suffer your "I only acknowledge good popes, and only I can determine which popes are good, and worthy of recognition" stance.
Very liberal and Protestant.
Seraphim,
Does your mother know you are wasting all this time on the internet? :facepalm:
Which predictably means you have no persuasive response.
-
I offer this bit of information for those that are following what is happening with the Society.
I received an e-mail today regarding Fr. Hewko. He is still a member of the SSPX but received a second warning just last week regarding his disobedience. Once he receives one more, he will be officially out.
He and Fr. Pfeiffer (not sure which one) are going to South America on Tuesday to meet with some priests who are interested in joining the resistance. They also plan on visiting Our Lady's Shrine in Quito.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is still in Chicago. He believes that the good Bishop might speak out even though he has been silenced if more people write to him and ask him to break his silence.
I know this isn't much, but hopefully it offers some hope to the resistance.
It shows this much:
That these priests do good by publicizing the leftward drift of the SSPX.
But also, that they are not much use to us in the USA as priests to man resistance chapels.
Fr Chazal is in Asia.
Fr Pfeiffer and Hewko in South America.
Nobody in America this Sunday.
Somebody remind me why we donate to them again.
I guess charity is charity, but they are not much help to us.
We are in bad shape.
It would seem our options are to stay with the SSPX or become home-aloners?
Seraphim,
Understand everyone's frustration.
I keep telling my trad friends this neoSSPX thing is a big deal!
It means our options for the Sacraments are severely limited.
All we can do is support the SSPX-Resistance and other validly ordained, independent priests... as best we can.
Msgr. Fellay sold us out, not unlike our country's leaders.
We pray for justice... may the villians all be arrested.
In the meantime, we are srappy, resourceful fighters, keeping our Faith as best we can.
:applause: :applause: :applause:
For the record, I am not a sede. Also for the record, my family happily attended an SSPX chapel for 3 years. That is where we went when we left NO. We considered ourselves to be incredibly blessed to have access to the True Mass and Sacraments within driving distance.
However, over the summer, our priest began to be openly critical of Fr. Hewko from the pulpit. It sent up red flags for me. Then, he began repeating in his sermons things that I had posted on here about Fr. Hewko and the Society.
At that moment, my husband was on high alert. As the sermons began to be mostly about "obedience" and "stay off the internet", we began to feel increasingly uncomfortable. These sermons were not about being obedient in terms of Catholic doctrine, like birth control or fasting or penance, but about being obedient to the Society priests. The sermons were not about the dangers of pornography or time-wasting, but about "internet forum gossip." More red flags.
The final straw, so to speak, was when our priest assaulted a parishioner. We knew we could no longer stay at our chapel and we knew there were some problems within the Society itself that were springing from the leadership itself.
At that moment, we decided to leave our chapel. We left it because we believed firmly that our faith was in jeopardy as was the faith and souls of our children.
The ONLY choices for a Latin Mass in our area are the indult Mass and another NO Mass in Latin. We had been to these before when we were transitioning and did not believe we should return. As such, our other options were to stay home, also which we had done before, or attend Mass at an independent chapel.
We contacted our friends who attend regularly there and accompanied them one Sunday. We have remained.
We are completely confident in the holiness of this priest. There is no politics, only good solid sermons and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
I refuse to be condemned and criticized by Seraphim for our families decision. I also refuse to be labeled a "sede" because I attend a private chapel with a priest who is not affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X.
It is precisely this attitude that offends me more than anything else. I also believe this attitude is keeping good and faithful Catholics away from the Sacraments. That to me seems evil.
I hate this thread.
I started it because I thought the information I had received would bring hope and encouragement to those Catholics who find themselves confused about what to do in this crisis within the Society.
My heart hurts for the loss of these good and holy priests from the Society. My heart hurts for the crisis within the Society itself because it reflects the ugly root of deceit and manipulation.
It is my opinion, based on the evidence I have before me, that the Society is in free fall. It will, within a year or two, be regularized by Rome. Within a few years thereafter it will be smooshed with the FSSP because there just cannot be two large vocal traditional groups like this, especially in the United States.
It is also of my opinion that the glory of the Church has passed. Just like a human life, we are in a new stage. The visible Catholic Church is sick. It's visible head, and the visible heads for the last 50 years, is and were sick. I believe just as Our Lady has warned us repeatedly that in the end there will be only a remnant.
The Society, as an organization, has served its purpose, the purpose for which Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin allowed and intended. But now, it is coming to an end. We must all be prepared to move on.
If trads can't find some peace among themselves and stop splitting hairs over a theological position that is possible on both sides, than how in the world is the remnant to last through this dark time?
Souls are at stake here. It's time we all suck up our pride. Would you prefer to be without the Mass, without the Faith, without the Sacraments because a validly ordained priest may or may not hold the belief that the Chair of St. Peter is empty?
The devil is rolling in Hell laughing. He will win certainly if we continue down this path!
-
My heart hurts for the loss of these good and holy priests from the Society. My heart hurts for the crisis within the Society itself because it reflects the ugly root of deceit and manipulation.
It is my opinion, based on the evidence I have before me, that the Society is in free fall. It will, within a year or two, be regularized by Rome. Within a few years thereafter it will be smooshed with the FSSP because there just cannot be two large vocal traditional groups like this, especially in the United States.
It is also of my opinion that the glory of the Church has passed. Just like a human life, we are in a new stage. The visible Catholic Church is sick. It's visible head, and the visible heads for the last 50 years, is and were sick. I believe just as Our Lady has warned us repeatedly that in the end there will be only a remnant.
The Society, as an organization, has served its purpose, the purpose for which Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin allowed and intended. But now, it is coming to an end. We must all be prepared to move on.
If trads can't find some peace among themselves and stop splitting hairs over a theological position that is possible on both sides, than how in the world is the remnant to last through this dark time?
Souls are at stake here. It's time we all suck up our pride. Would you prefer to be without the Mass, without the Faith, without the Sacraments because a validly ordained priest may or may not hold the belief that the Chair of St. Peter is empty?
The devil is rolling in Hell laughing. He will win certainly if we continue down this path!
I completely agree -- couldn't have said it better myself!
(I didn't remove anything on purpose so as to be able to agree with the rest of it -- I just quoted the "best part" for the sake of brevity.)
I would just like to add that certain Traditional Catholic book publishers have moved on to a new stage in their lifecycle as well. (You probably know who I'm talking about. Tango Alpha November. Please don't discuss it here.)
If all these "pillars" of the Traditional world are falling, what does it say for the world? Is the Chastisement near? It's as if God is saying, "We won't be needing these anymore..."
-
I offer this bit of information for those that are following what is happening with the Society.
I received an e-mail today regarding Fr. Hewko. He is still a member of the SSPX but received a second warning just last week regarding his disobedience. Once he receives one more, he will be officially out.
He and Fr. Pfeiffer (not sure which one) are going to South America on Tuesday to meet with some priests who are interested in joining the resistance. They also plan on visiting Our Lady's Shrine in Quito.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is still in Chicago. He believes that the good Bishop might speak out even though he has been silenced if more people write to him and ask him to break his silence.
I know this isn't much, but hopefully it offers some hope to the resistance.
It shows this much:
That these priests do good by publicizing the leftward drift of the SSPX.
But also, that they are not much use to us in the USA as priests to man resistance chapels.
Fr Chazal is in Asia.
Fr Pfeiffer and Hewko in South America.
Nobody in America this Sunday.
Somebody remind me why we donate to them again.
I guess charity is charity, but they are not much help to us.
We are in bad shape.
It would seem our options are to stay with the SSPX or become home-aloners?
Seraphim,
Understand everyone's frustration.
I keep telling my trad friends this neoSSPX thing is a big deal!
It means our options for the Sacraments are severely limited.
All we can do is support the SSPX-Resistance and other validly ordained, independent priests... as best we can.
Msgr. Fellay sold us out, not unlike our country's leaders.
We pray for justice... may the villians all be arrested.
In the meantime, we are srappy, resourceful fighters, keeping our Faith as best we can.
:applause: :applause: :applause:
For the record, I am not a sede. Also for the record, my family happily attended an SSPX chapel for 3 years. That is where we went when we left NO. We considered ourselves to be incredibly blessed to have access to the True Mass and Sacraments within driving distance.
However, over the summer, our priest began to be openly critical of Fr. Hewko from the pulpit. It sent up red flags for me. Then, he began repeating in his sermons things that I had posted on here about Fr. Hewko and the Society.
At that moment, my husband was on high alert. As the sermons began to be mostly about "obedience" and "stay off the internet", we began to feel increasingly uncomfortable. These sermons were not about being obedient in terms of Catholic doctrine, like birth control or fasting or penance, but about being obedient to the Society priests. The sermons were not about the dangers of pornography or time-wasting, but about "internet forum gossip." More red flags.
The final straw, so to speak, was when our priest assaulted a parishioner. We knew we could no longer stay at our chapel and we knew there were some problems within the Society itself that were springing from the leadership itself.
At that moment, we decided to leave our chapel. We left it because we believed firmly that our faith was in jeopardy as was the faith and souls of our children.
The ONLY choices for a Latin Mass in our area are the indult Mass and another NO Mass in Latin. We had been to these before when we were transitioning and did not believe we should return. As such, our other options were to stay home, also which we had done before, or attend Mass at an independent chapel.
We contacted our friends who attend regularly there and accompanied them one Sunday. We have remained.
We are completely confident in the holiness of this priest. There is no politics, only good solid sermons and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
I refuse to be condemned and criticized by Seraphim for our families decision. I also refuse to be labeled a "sede" because I attend a private chapel with a priest who is not affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X.
It is precisely this attitude that offends me more than anything else. I also believe this attitude is keeping good and faithful Catholics away from the Sacraments. That to me seems evil.
I hate this thread.
I started it because I thought the information I had received would bring hope and encouragement to those Catholics who find themselves confused about what to do in this crisis within the Society.
My heart hurts for the loss of these good and holy priests from the Society. My heart hurts for the crisis within the Society itself because it reflects the ugly root of deceit and manipulation.
It is my opinion, based on the evidence I have before me, that the Society is in free fall. It will, within a year or two, be regularized by Rome. Within a few years thereafter it will be smooshed with the FSSP because there just cannot be two large vocal traditional groups like this, especially in the United States.
It is also of my opinion that the glory of the Church has passed. Just like a human life, we are in a new stage. The visible Catholic Church is sick. It's visible head, and the visible heads for the last 50 years, is and were sick. I believe just as Our Lady has warned us repeatedly that in the end there will be only a remnant.
The Society, as an organization, has served its purpose, the purpose for which Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin allowed and intended. But now, it is coming to an end. We must all be prepared to move on.
If trads can't find some peace among themselves and stop splitting hairs over a theological position that is possible on both sides, than how in the world is the remnant to last through this dark time?
Souls are at stake here. It's time we all suck up our pride. Would you prefer to be without the Mass, without the Faith, without the Sacraments because a validly ordained priest may or may not hold the belief that the Chair of St. Peter is empty?
The devil is rolling in Hell laughing. He will win certainly if we continue down this path!
Since your tradcuмenical principles consider doctrinal differences mere quibbling, why don't you go to mass at an Orthodox or Anglican chapel?
After all, these are dark times.
What a bunch of emotional gibberish you have been putting out.
-
Seraphim, you may call yourself a supporter of the Resistance, but your insulting behavior and paranoia of sedevacantism more closely resembles the mindset of the Neo-SSPX.
-
Since your tradcuмenical principles consider doctrinal differences mere quibbling, why don't you go to mass at an Orthodox or Anglican chapel?
After all, these are dark times.
What a bunch of emotional gibberish you have been putting out.
"Outside the society there is no salvation." Right, Seraphim?
You're really deluded. I wonder how you would have gotten on with Father Bolduc. Something tells me he would have been repulsed by your ideology as he was with the sedes ideology, but at least he was charitable, and not condescending and rude like you appear to be.
-
Since your tradcuмenical principles consider doctrinal differences mere quibbling, why don't you go to mass at an Orthodox or Anglican chapel?
After all, these are dark times.
What a bunch of emotional gibberish you have been putting out.
"Outside the society there is no salvation." Right, Seraphim?
You're really deluded. I wonder how you would have gotten on with Father Bolduc. Something tells me he would have been repulsed by your ideology as he was with the sedes ideology, but at least he was charitable, and not condescending and rude like you appear to be.
Oh, you have already shown being outside the church is mere quibbling.
Since you feel that way, I am just giving you some more options you can justify with your "these are dark times" scapegoat.
As for Fr Bolduc, yes, if he was a tradcuмenist, the revulsion would have been mutual.
You see, we Lefebvrists do believe doctrinal differences are more than mere quibbles to be overlooked when they present inconveniences.
-
Since your tradcuмenical principles consider doctrinal differences mere quibbling, why don't you go to mass at an Orthodox or Anglican chapel?
After all, these are dark times.
What a bunch of emotional gibberish you have been putting out.
"Outside the society there is no salvation." Right, Seraphim?
You're really deluded. I wonder how you would have gotten on with Father Bolduc. Something tells me he would have been repulsed by your ideology as he was with the sedes ideology, but at least he was charitable, and not condescending and rude like you appear to be.
Oh, you have already shown being outside the church is mere quibbling.
Since you feel that way, I am just giving you some more options you can justify with your "these are dark times" scapegoat.
As for Fr Bolduc, yes, if he was a tradcuмenist, the revulsion would have been mutual.
You see, we Lefebvrists do believe doctrinal differences are more than mere quibbles to be overlooked when they present inconveniences.
You seem to forget, that Father Bolduc was kicked out of the society because of two layovers at two different airports with snowstorms. When Fr. Schmitberger admitted his blunder, Father chose not to come back to the society, and operate on his own with a celebret from Rome. This "tradcuмenism" you speak of is a red herring, and just because someone is not in the society as a priest, doesn't mean they're automatically a "sede vacantist."
There are MANY priests that are not in the society, and still are traditional Catholic priests. What say you about them? That "outside the society there is no salvation?"
You're pretty arrogant.
-
Since your tradcuмenical principles consider doctrinal differences mere quibbling, why don't you go to mass at an Orthodox or Anglican chapel?
After all, these are dark times.
What a bunch of emotional gibberish you have been putting out.
"Outside the society there is no salvation." Right, Seraphim?
You're really deluded. I wonder how you would have gotten on with Father Bolduc. Something tells me he would have been repulsed by your ideology as he was with the sedes ideology, but at least he was charitable, and not condescending and rude like you appear to be.
Oh, you have already shown being outside the church is mere quibbling.
Since you feel that way, I am just giving you some more options you can justify with your "these are dark times" scapegoat.
As for Fr Bolduc, yes, if he was a tradcuмenist, the revulsion would have been mutual.
You see, we Lefebvrists do believe doctrinal differences are more than mere quibbles to be overlooked when they present inconveniences.
You seem to forget, that Father Bolduc was kicked out of the society because of two layovers at two different airports with snowstorms. When Fr. Schmitberger admitted his blunder, Father chose not to come back to the society, and operate on his own with a celebret from Rome. This "tradcuмenism" you speak of is a red herring, and just because someone is not in the society as a priest, doesn't mean they're automatically a "sede vacantist."
There are MANY priests that are not in the society, and still are traditional Catholic priests. What say you about them? That "outside the society there is no salvation?"
You're pretty arrogant.
First, you should know your place, and not argue with men.
Second, you have subtly steered the original subject from your support of Catholics attending sede chapels, to a fabricated conflict attributed to me between sspx and independent priests.
So I can't tell if you are simply dishonest or an idiot.
But in any case, you had a battle with your sspx priest and now have an axe to grind.
Since you got thrown out on your assets, you now believe any tlm is ok.
You have embraced tradcuмenism because it us convenient for you.
But if you want to twist this into sspx v independent, i will take it as a concession that you can no longer back up your original assertion that it is ok for Catholics to go to schismatic sedevacantist chapels simply because these are dark times.
Ps: The proof that you are an emotionalistic liar in trying to attribute to me animus against independents is the fact that i was the first in my chapel to contact Fr Pfeiffer.
-
Source (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22601&min=40#p0)
you obviously did not read the entire post you are responding to.
Not going to play that game with you of you referencing things without explaining anything. That you tried before. It's evasive.
Someone who holds to the truth cannot be schismatic for asserting that truth.
So anyone who acknowledges sedevacantism could be true cannot say that sedes are necessarily schismatic.
Many of the problems in the SSPX have come from its double-think about the Pope.
This double-think is extremely convenient for the cynical manipulators who wish to switch back and forth between contradictory positions.
No.
The real problem is that your thinking is simplistic, and trapped between the covers of the manual.
You have been snared by sedevacantism because of your lack of nuance.
And you will probably never come out of it.
And again, if you think there is contradiction in the SSPX condemnation of sedevacantism, it is again because you have not understood the position (though you will think you do).
So now being nuanced is a virtue, or a requirement? Where is the commandment
of God, Thou shalt be nuanced?
Bless me, Father for I have sinned: I have committed a lack of nuance.
HUH?
Let your Yes be Yes and your No be No - anything other than that is of the devil.
I would that you were either hot or cold, but if you are lukewarm I would begin
to vomit you out of my mouth.
Where is the nuance virtue in the words of Our Lord?
-
Since your tradcuмenical principles consider doctrinal differences mere quibbling, why don't you go to mass at an Orthodox or Anglican chapel?
After all, these are dark times.
What a bunch of emotional gibberish you have been putting out.
"Outside the society there is no salvation." Right, Seraphim?
You're really deluded. I wonder how you would have gotten on with Father Bolduc. Something tells me he would have been repulsed by your ideology as he was with the sedes ideology, but at least he was charitable, and not condescending and rude like you appear to be.
Oh, you have already shown being outside the church is mere quibbling.
Since you feel that way, I am just giving you some more options you can justify with your "these are dark times" scapegoat.
As for Fr Bolduc, yes, if he was a tradcuмenist, the revulsion would have been mutual.
You see, we Lefebvrists do believe doctrinal differences are more than mere quibbles to be overlooked when they present inconveniences.
You seem to forget, that Father Bolduc was kicked out of the society because of two layovers at two different airports with snowstorms. When Fr. Schmitberger admitted his blunder, Father chose not to come back to the society, and operate on his own with a celebret from Rome. This "tradcuмenism" you speak of is a red herring, and just because someone is not in the society as a priest, doesn't mean they're automatically a "sede vacantist."
There are MANY priests that are not in the society, and still are traditional Catholic priests. What say you about them? That "outside the society there is no salvation?"
You're pretty arrogant.
First, you should know your place, and not argue with men.
Second, you have subtly steered the original subject from your support of Catholics attending sede chapels, to a fabricated conflict attributed to me between sspx and independent priests.
So I can't tell if you are simply dishonest or an idiot.
But in any case, you had a battle with your sspx priest and now have an axe to grind.
Since you got thrown out on your assets, you now believe any tlm is ok.
You have embraced tradcuмenism because it us convenient for you.
But if you want to twist this into sspx v independent, i will take it as a concession that you can no longer back up your original assertion that it is ok for Catholics to go to schismatic sedevacantist chapels simply because these are dark times.
Ps: The proof that you are an emotionalistic liar in trying to attribute to me animus against independents is the fact that i was the first in my chapel to contact Fr Pfeiffer.
Fr. Rostand would be proud reading nonsense like this.
-
Source (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22601&min=40#p0)
you obviously did not read the entire post you are responding to.
Not going to play that game with you of you referencing things without explaining anything. That you tried before. It's evasive.
Someone who holds to the truth cannot be schismatic for asserting that truth.
So anyone who acknowledges sedevacantism could be true cannot say that sedes are necessarily schismatic.
Many of the problems in the SSPX have come from its double-think about the Pope.
This double-think is extremely convenient for the cynical manipulators who wish to switch back and forth between contradictory positions.
No.
The real problem is that your thinking is simplistic, and trapped between the covers of the manual.
You have been snared by sedevacantism because of your lack of nuance.
And you will probably never come out of it.
And again, if you think there is contradiction in the SSPX condemnation of sedevacantism, it is again because you have not understood the position (though you will think you do).
So now being nuanced is a virtue, or a requirement? Where is the commandment
of God, Thou shalt be nuanced?
Bless me, Father for I have sinned: I have committed a lack of nuance.
HUH?
Let your Yes be Yes and your No be No - anything other than that is of the devil.
I would that you were either hot or cold, but if you are lukewarm I would begin
to vomit you out of my mouth.
Where is the nuance virtue in the words of Our Lord?
Very intelligent Neil.
You are right after all.
Subtlety, distinction, and nuance are unnecessary in theology.
Is there a full moon out or something?
Ps: please quote where i declare nuance a virtue. When you can't, will you have the seeds to apologize?
-
Since your tradcuмenical principles consider doctrinal differences mere quibbling, why don't you go to mass at an Orthodox or Anglican chapel?
After all, these are dark times.
What a bunch of emotional gibberish you have been putting out.
"Outside the society there is no salvation." Right, Seraphim?
You're really deluded. I wonder how you would have gotten on with Father Bolduc. Something tells me he would have been repulsed by your ideology as he was with the sedes ideology, but at least he was charitable, and not condescending and rude like you appear to be.
Oh, you have already shown being outside the church is mere quibbling.
Since you feel that way, I am just giving you some more options you can justify with your "these are dark times" scapegoat.
As for Fr Bolduc, yes, if he was a tradcuмenist, the revulsion would have been mutual.
You see, we Lefebvrists do believe doctrinal differences are more than mere quibbles to be overlooked when they present inconveniences.
You seem to forget, that Father Bolduc was kicked out of the society because of two layovers at two different airports with snowstorms. When Fr. Schmitberger admitted his blunder, Father chose not to come back to the society, and operate on his own with a celebret from Rome. This "tradcuмenism" you speak of is a red herring, and just because someone is not in the society as a priest, doesn't mean they're automatically a "sede vacantist."
There are MANY priests that are not in the society, and still are traditional Catholic priests. What say you about them? That "outside the society there is no salvation?"
You're pretty arrogant.
First, you should know your place, and not argue with men.
Second, you have subtly steered the original subject from your support of Catholics attending sede chapels, to a fabricated conflict attributed to me between sspx and independent priests.
So I can't tell if you are simply dishonest or an idiot.
But in any case, you had a battle with your sspx priest and now have an axe to grind.
Since you got thrown out on your assets, you now believe any tlm is ok.
You have embraced tradcuмenism because it us convenient for you.
But if you want to twist this into sspx v independent, i will take it as a concession that you can no longer back up your original assertion that it is ok for Catholics to go to schismatic sedevacantist chapels simply because these are dark times.
Ps: The proof that you are an emotionalistic liar in trying to attribute to me animus against independents is the fact that i was the first in my chapel to contact Fr Pfeiffer.
Fr. Rostand would be proud reading nonsense like this.
Really? He supports parishioners at his chapels bringing Fr Pfeiffer to town? Things must be looking up!
-
Seraphim: FWIW your posts on this thread have so far awarded you
a net total of 109 down-thumb votes, that is, after all the up-thumbs
have been subtracted from the total down-thumbs.
Are you having fun yet?
-
First, you should know your place, and not argue with men.
Second, you have subtly steered the original subject from your support of Catholics attending sede chapels, to a fabricated conflict attributed to me between sspx and independent priests.
So I can't tell if you are simply dishonest or an idiot.
But in any case, you had a battle with your sspx priest and now have an axe to grind.
Since you got thrown out on your assets, you now believe any tlm is ok.
You have embraced tradcuмenism because it us convenient for you.
But if you want to twist this into sspx v independent, i will take it as a concession that you can no longer back up your original assertion that it is ok for Catholics to go to schismatic sedevacantist chapels simply because these are dark times.
Ps: The proof that you are an emotionalistic liar in trying to attribute to me animus against independents is the fact that i was the first in my chapel to contact Fr Pfeiffer.
1) :laugh2: That's funny. This is about the Faith. And you're not my husband, neither are you an authority over me, nor do I assert any kind of authority, except my own opinion, to say that you're a garrulous idiot. I'm entitled to that.
2) You talked Cathmomof7 down because she goes to an independent church accusing her of 'tradcuмenism.' YOU were the one badmouthing independent priests. By the way, I do have reading comprehension.
I didn't "have a battle with" my sspx priest, and I don't have an axe to grind. I did confront Fr. Rostand, who is NOT "my" SSPX preist, since all the other men were too cowardly to ask the tough questions to him, and his answers really weren't even satisfactory.
I got "thrown out on my assets?" :laugh2: Cute. I actually wasn't ever denied Holy Communion, and I didn't ever get "thrown out." I'm staying where I am, thanks very much.
For the record: If I had no other place to go, other than a "sede vacant" chapel, that I can trace back where their ordinations came from, and they're valid priests, not doubtful, and they don't force me to believe their "sede vacant theory" I wouldn't hesitate to go to their Mass to get the sacraments had I no other choice.
So yeah, call me a "tradcuмenist." The SSPX wasn't always at my Church. Father Bolduc had the whole outfit signed over to Menzingen in March, ready to die, and when April came around, he smelled a RAT because he was smart, and yanked it off.
Quit belittling people. Things are not as cut and dried to some people as they are to you. Be charitable. Is that beyond you?
-
Source (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22601&min=40#p0)
you obviously did not read the entire post you are responding to.
Not going to play that game with you of you referencing things without explaining anything. That you tried before. It's evasive.
Someone who holds to the truth cannot be schismatic for asserting that truth.
So anyone who acknowledges sedevacantism could be true cannot say that sedes are necessarily schismatic.
Many of the problems in the SSPX have come from its double-think about the Pope.
This double-think is extremely convenient for the cynical manipulators who wish to switch back and forth between contradictory positions.
No.
The real problem is that your thinking is simplistic, and trapped between the covers of the manual.
You have been snared by sedevacantism because of your lack of nuance.
And you will probably never come out of it.
And again, if you think there is contradiction in the SSPX condemnation of sedevacantism, it is again because you have not understood the position (though you will think you do).
So now being nuanced is a virtue, or a requirement? Where is the commandment
of God, Thou shalt be nuanced?
Bless me, Father for I have sinned: I have committed a lack of nuance.
HUH?
Let your Yes be Yes and your No be No - anything other than that is of the devil.
I would that you were either hot or cold, but if you are lukewarm I would begin
to vomit you out of my mouth.
Where is the nuance virtue in the words of Our Lord?
Very intelligent Neil.
You are right after all.
Subtlety, distinction, and nuance are unnecessary in theology.
Is there a full moon out or something?
Ps: please quote where i declare nuance a virtue. When you can't, will you have the seeds to apologize?
Sorry, I made a big mistake: I failed to accommodate Seraphim's clumsiness.
Bless me Father for I have sinned, I failed to nuance the shortcomings of my
reply to Seraphim.
The above post missed the quote code placement and should have appeared
thusly:
Source (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22601&min=40#p0)
you obviously did not read the entire post you are responding to.
Not going to play that game with you of you referencing things without explaining anything. That you tried before. It's evasive.
Someone who holds to the truth cannot be schismatic for asserting that truth.
So anyone who acknowledges sedevacantism could be true cannot say that sedes are necessarily schismatic.
Many of the problems in the SSPX have come from its double-think about the Pope.
This double-think is extremely convenient for the cynical manipulators who wish to switch back and forth between contradictory positions.
No.
The real problem is that your thinking is simplistic, and trapped between the covers of the manual.
You have been snared by sedevacantism because of your lack of nuance.
And you will probably never come out of it.
And again, if you think there is contradiction in the SSPX condemnation of sedevacantism, it is again because you have not understood the position (though you will think you do).
So now being nuanced is a virtue, or a requirement? Where is the commandment
of God, Thou shalt be nuanced?
Bless me, Father for I have sinned: I have committed a lack of nuance.
HUH?
Let your Yes be Yes and your No be No - anything other than that is of the devil.
I would that you were either hot or cold, but if you are lukewarm I would begin
to vomit you out of my mouth.
Where is the nuance virtue in the words of Our Lord?
Very intelligent Neil.
You are right after all.
Subtlety, distinction, and nuance are unnecessary in theology.
Is there a full moon out or something?
Ps: please quote where i declare nuance a virtue. When you can't, will you have the seeds to apologize?
You are demonstrating a curious weakness in intellectual pursuits in general when
you leap from one extreme to another. The restlessness of your gymnastics is
exposing the insufficiency of your principles. It would seem you are believing
that either someone is obsessed with nuance or else one must discard all nuance
as useless, and "unnecessary in theology?"
So a useful tool like the ability to make nuanced distinctions is somehow so
important that lacking it can cause someone to lose their faith?
Perhaps you are missing out on a nuance yourself, Seraphim. Perhaps you are
a bit too eager to make a SEPARATION in a case where only a minor distinction
is in order? Hmmmm?
Have you ever given consideration to the principle of philosophy that teaches
us (if we are willing to learn, first of all) that:
We distinguish but we do not separate.
Now, I know you're really upset right now and maybe you don't want to think
about something that you have been ignoring to your detriment, but think
about it, okay? It might do you a lot of good in the LONG RUN, and it is the
long run that we are really concerned with, is it not?
-
Seraphim: FWIW your posts on this thread have so far awarded you
a net total of 109 down-thumb votes, that is, after all the up-thumbs
have been subtracted from the total down-thumbs.
Are you having fun yet?
[/quote
Yes, debating women and sedes usually results in that typical response.
They account for almost all thrown thumbs down i ever received.
Fortunately, i am not in this for vanity, or i would have stopped long ago.
But yes, i am definitely having fun!
-
First, you should know your place, and not argue with men.
Second, you have subtly steered the original subject from your support of Catholics attending sede chapels, to a fabricated conflict attributed to me between sspx and independent priests.
So I can't tell if you are simply dishonest or an idiot.
But in any case, you had a battle with your sspx priest and now have an axe to grind.
Since you got thrown out on your assets, you now believe any tlm is ok.
You have embraced tradcuмenism because it us convenient for you.
But if you want to twist this into sspx v independent, i will take it as a concession that you can no longer back up your original assertion that it is ok for Catholics to go to schismatic sedevacantist chapels simply because these are dark times.
Ps: The proof that you are an emotionalistic liar in trying to attribute to me animus against independents is the fact that i was the first in my chapel to contact Fr Pfeiffer.
1) :laugh2: That's funny. This is about the Faith. And you're not my husband, neither are you an authority over me, nor do I assert any kind of authority, except my own opinion, to say that you're a garrulous idiot. I'm entitled to that.
2) You talked Cathmomof7 down because she goes to an independent church accusing her of 'tradcuмenism.' YOU were the one badmouthing independent priests. By the way, I do have reading comprehension.
I didn't "have a battle with" my sspx priest, and I don't have an axe to grind. I did confront Fr. Rostand, who is NOT "my" SSPX preist, since all the other men were too cowardly to ask the tough questions to him, and his answers really weren't even satisfactory.
I got "thrown out on my assets?" :laugh2: Cute. I actually wasn't ever denied Holy Communion, and I didn't ever get "thrown out." I'm staying where I am, thanks very much.
For the record: If I had no other place to go, other than a "sede vacant" chapel, that I can trace back where their ordinations came from, and they're valid priests, not doubtful, and they don't force me to believe their "sede vacant theory" I wouldn't hesitate to go to their Mass to get the sacraments had I no other choice.
So yeah, call me a "tradcuмenist." The SSPX wasn't always at my Church. Father Bolduc had the whole outfit signed over to Menzingen in March, ready to die, and when April came around, he smelled a RAT because he was smart, and yanked it off.
Quit belittling people. Things are not as cut and dried to some people as they are to you. Be charitable. Is that beyond you?
Then I accept your having conceded the argument.
-
Seraphim wrote:
Since your tradcuмenical principles consider doctrinal differences mere quibbling, why don't you go to mass at an Orthodox or Anglican chapel?
After all, these are dark times.
What a bunch of emotional gibberish you have been putting out.
Apparently you ignored our discussion in which I explained to you that you cannot equate those outside the Church with sedevacantists. You should calm your choleric temperament for a minute and at least for a moment try to be little more like a melancholic and reflect.
Sedevacantism is not a doctrine, it is a response to the crisis. The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope. We as Catholics are doing what they tell us to do.
You would not know that because the Society has suppressed and misrepresented the correct Catholic teaching about how to respond to a publicly heretical pope. But, you can read it for yourself, it is in all of the approved books if you take the time.
If you wish to deprive yourself of the sacraments that is your choice, but I can tell you and anyone on here that at least with the CMRI and quite of a few of the former SSPX priests who are sedevacantist, you will never be asked your position if you want to go their chapels. They see you as Catholics and that is the end of it. These clergy do not push sedevacantism on anyone, they make their position known, but they do not require it of anyone. They know that what matters is keeping Catholic unity during this crisis and keeping the Faith.
-
Then I accept your having conceded the argument.
The way you paint this way of thinking is where you're going to get the disagreement. You paint it as if people are schismatic by your own definition if they don't exactly agree with your way of thinking on this specific cloudy issue.
This is a mess, and like Bishop Williamson said, in order for this to be fixed in any meaningful way, is for there to be a chastisement first.
You can go ahead pointing fingers at everyone else, sitting on your high horse, but when it really comes down to it, you don't really know.
Do I believe BXVI is the pope? The answer is: I don't know. Do you know? I doubt it. Some shenanigans happened in 1958, and I'm not about to say that I know the full extent of the "diabolical disorientation," that Sister Lucy spoke of. I did as much exhaustive research on the topic as I could, and I couldn't come to a definite conclusion one way or the other. I'm sure people that are more learned, or schooled in this area than I am might make a definite statement one way or the other, but I can't. I'm not going to condemn someone if they do, but they can't force feed that way of thinking to me, just as you can't force feed your way of thinking to me. If I agree with you, it's by accident only.
I pray for the pope, whoever he is. If it's BXVI, my prayers go to him. If he's not, then they go to whoever that is.
People during the middle ages didn't know who the pope even was, they just knew there was one, and they prayed for him. I do similarly.
Condemn me for it, saying I should know, but there's altogether too many things that leave me questioning his authenticity or his credentials to hold that office.
-
Source (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22601&min=40#p0)
you obviously did not read the entire post you are responding to.
Not going to play that game with you of you referencing things without explaining anything. That you tried before. It's evasive.
Someone who holds to the truth cannot be schismatic for asserting that truth.
So anyone who acknowledges sedevacantism could be true cannot say that sedes are necessarily schismatic.
Many of the problems in the SSPX have come from its double-think about the Pope.
This double-think is extremely convenient for the cynical manipulators who wish to switch back and forth between contradictory positions.
No.
The real problem is that your thinking is simplistic, and trapped between the covers of the manual.
You have been snared by sedevacantism because of your lack of nuance.
And you will probably never come out of it.
And again, if you think there is contradiction in the SSPX condemnation of sedevacantism, it is again because you have not understood the position (though you will think you do).
So now being nuanced is a virtue, or a requirement? Where is the commandment
of God, Thou shalt be nuanced?
Bless me, Father for I have sinned: I have committed a lack of nuance.
HUH?
Let your Yes be Yes and your No be No - anything other than that is of the devil.
I would that you were either hot or cold, but if you are lukewarm I would begin
to vomit you out of my mouth.
Where is the nuance virtue in the words of Our Lord?
Very intelligent Neil.
You are right after all.
Subtlety, distinction, and nuance are unnecessary in theology.
Is there a full moon out or something?
Ps: please quote where i declare nuance a virtue. When you can't, will you have the seeds to apologize?
Sorry, I made a big mistake: I failed to accommodate Seraphim's clumsiness.
Bless me Father for I have sinned, I failed to nuance the shortcomings of my
reply to Seraphim.
The above post missed the quote code placement and should have appeared
thusly:
Source (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22601&min=40#p0)
you obviously did not read the entire post you are responding to.
Not going to play that game with you of you referencing things without explaining anything. That you tried before. It's evasive.
Someone who holds to the truth cannot be schismatic for asserting that truth.
So anyone who acknowledges sedevacantism could be true cannot say that sedes are necessarily schismatic.
Many of the problems in the SSPX have come from its double-think about the Pope.
This double-think is extremely convenient for the cynical manipulators who wish to switch back and forth between contradictory positions.
No.
The real problem is that your thinking is simplistic, and trapped between the covers of the manual.
You have been snared by sedevacantism because of your lack of nuance.
And you will probably never come out of it.
And again, if you think there is contradiction in the SSPX condemnation of sedevacantism, it is again because you have not understood the position (though you will think you do).
So now being nuanced is a virtue, or a requirement? Where is the commandment
of God, Thou shalt be nuanced?
Bless me, Father for I have sinned: I have committed a lack of nuance.
HUH?
Let your Yes be Yes and your No be No - anything other than that is of the devil.
I would that you were either hot or cold, but if you are lukewarm I would begin
to vomit you out of my mouth.
Where is the nuance virtue in the words of Our Lord?
Very intelligent Neil.
You are right after all.
Subtlety, distinction, and nuance are unnecessary in theology.
Is there a full moon out or something?
Ps: please quote where i declare nuance a virtue. When you can't, will you have the seeds to apologize?
You are demonstrating a curious weakness in intellectual pursuits in general when
you leap from one extreme to another. The restlessness of your gymnastics is
exposing the insufficiency of your principles. It would seem you are believing
that either someone is obsessed with nuance or else one must discard all nuance
as useless, and "unnecessary in theology?"
So a useful tool like the ability to make nuanced distinctions is somehow so
important that lacking it can cause someone to lose their faith?
Perhaps you are missing out on a nuance yourself, Seraphim. Perhaps you are
a bit too eager to make a SEPARATION in a case where only a minor distinction
is in order? Hmmmm?
Have you ever given consideration to the principle of philosophy that teaches
us (if we are willing to learn, first of all) that:
We distinguish but we do not separate.
Now, I know you're really upset right now and maybe you don't want to think
about something that you have been ignoring to your detriment, but think
about it, okay? It might do you a lot of good in the LONG RUN, and it is the
long run that we are really concerned with, is it not?
Hi Neil-
Lots of words, as usual.
Unfortunately, none of them addressed my having called you out to quote me allegedly having declared subtlety a virtue.
Want to try again, or like pft, would you prefer to change the subject rather than admit error?
-
Seraphim wrote:
Since your tradcuмenical principles consider doctrinal differences mere quibbling, why don't you go to mass at an Orthodox or Anglican chapel?
After all, these are dark times.
What a bunch of emotional gibberish you have been putting out.
Apparently you ignored our discussion in which I explained to you that you cannot equate those outside the Church with sedevacantists. You should calm your choleric temperament for a minute and at least for a moment try to be little more like a melancholic and reflect.
Sedevacantism is not a doctrine, it is a response to the crisis. The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope. We as Catholics are doing what they tell us to do.
You would not know that because the Society has suppressed and misrepresented the correct Catholic teaching about how to respond to a publicly heretical pope. But, you can read it for yourself, it is in all of the approved books if you take the time.
If you wish to deprive yourself of the sacraments that is your choice, but I can tell you and anyone on here that at least with the CMRI and quite of a few of the former SSPX priests who are sedevacantist, you will never be asked your position if you want to go their chapels. They see you as Catholics and that is the end of it. These clergy do not push sedevacantism on anyone, they make their position known, but they do not require it of anyone. They know that what matters is keeping Catholic unity during this crisis and keeping the Faith.
It does not matter that Sedevacantism is not doctrinal per se.
It breaks.communion with the pope, and places men outside the church.
As pft said, the devil is laughing in hell.
-
Then I accept your having conceded the argument.
The way you paint this way of thinking is where you're going to get the disagreement. You paint it as if people are schismatic by your own definition if they don't exactly agree with your way of thinking on this specific cloudy issue.
This is a mess, and like Bishop Williamson said, in order for this to be fixed in any meaningful way, is for there to be a chastisement first.
You can go ahead pointing fingers at everyone else, sitting on your high horse, but when it really comes down to it, you don't really know.
Do I believe BXVI is the pope? The answer is: I don't know. Do you know? I doubt it. Some shenanigans happened in 1958, and I'm not about to say that I know the full extent of the "diabolical disorientation," that Sister Lucy spoke of. I did as much exhaustive research on the topic as I could, and I couldn't come to a definite conclusion one way or the other. I'm sure people that are more learned, or schooled in this area than I am might make a definite statement one way or the other, but I can't. I'm not going to condemn someone if they do, but they can't force feed that way of thinking to me, just as you can't force feed your way of thinking to me. If I agree with you, it's by accident only.
I pray for the pope, whoever he is. If it's BXVI, my prayers go to him. If he's not, then they go to whoever that is.
People during the middle ages didn't know who the pope even was, they just knew there was one, and they prayed for him. I do similarly.
Condemn me for it, saying I should know, but there's altogether too many things that leave me questioning his authenticity or his credentials to hold that office.
No.
I accept the pope is pope.
Nobody has authority to say otherwise except a future pope.
Until then your duty is to accept the same.
-
Claiming to be in communion with a heretic is absolutely pointless.
So Benedict XVI isn't a heretic then, to you people? Then what is he? He's your Pope? Then follow him. But you say you can't follow him? Then what is the significance of the "visibility" you say he represents?
It's patently absurd to argue that the visibility of the Church depends on men who very clearly do not hold the Catholic Faith.
Neotrads call people like Seraphim "crypto-sedevacantists."
True, it's ridiculous on the face of it, but they couldn't get away with it if there wasn't a problem with the "protests too much" anti-sedevacantism of certain recognize and resistors.
-
You presume to know his internal forum?
-
You should calm your choleric temperament for a minute and at least for a moment try to be little more like a melancholic and reflect.
Unofortunately, he can't. His temperament gives him too much self-confidence.
-
You presume to know his internal forum?
You presume to know it, obviously. :laugh2:
-
You presume to know his internal forum?
You presume to know it, obviously. :laugh2:
You poor, poor woman...
-
I don't think anyone here believes Archbishop ever embraced the sedevacantist thesis, Nishant. The point is that he considered it a possibility.
Yes, SSS, but the Archbishop also gave several reasons as to why he thought sedevacantism was not correct, and those reasons have not ceased to exist, in some cases they have intensified.
Moreover, one cannot base one's decisions or actions merely on a remote possibility, but on what is at least morally certain. Would you disagree? So, the mere possibility of sedevacantism would prove nothing.
And there are other things you are not taking into consideration at all. Pope Alexander VI for instance was accused of the same by Savonarola, of not being Pope at all, but Cardinal Billot (an outstanding theologian raised to the Cardinalate by Pope St.Pius X) says in commenting on this case that the very unanimous consent given to Pope Alexander VI at this time proves for certain he was not a formal heretic. Other theologians say similarly, universal acceptance is a sign and an effect of a valid election. The Church is a divine society, even when she is "ill", so things happen in her that are beyond what we may expect.
The Society knows all this, and has written about it, but probably prefers not to have to explain it to every one of its chapel attendees and so follows a simpler policy, just asking the faithful to trust their priests.
Anyway, I never said that sedevacantists are schismatics, just mistaken, so there at least your disagreement is not with me. Not every incorrect opinion puts one in schism.
-
Yes, SSS, but the Archbishop also gave several reasons as to why he thought sedevacantism was not correct, and those reasons have not ceased to exist, in some cases they have intensified.
I acknowledge this, my only point was he was not hostile to sedevacantism. He never embraced the position, but was open to it.
And there are other things you are not taking into consideration at all. Pope Alexander VI for instance was accused of the same by Savonarola, of not being Pope at all, but Cardinal Billot (an outstanding theologian raised to the Cardinalate by Pope St.Pius X) says in commenting on this case that the very unanimous consent given to Pope Alexander VI at this time proves for certain he was not a formal heretic. Other theologians say similarly, universal acceptance is a sign and an effect of a valid election. The Church is a divine society, even when she is "ill", so things happen in her that are beyond what we may expect.
I am not sure what this has to do with Archbishop Lefebvre and his thoughts on sedevacantism.
The Society knows all this, and has written about it, but probably prefers not to have to explain it to every one of its chapel attendees and so follows a simpler policy, just asking the faithful to trust their priests.
Unfortunately, numerous priests in the Society today cannot be trusted.
-
It does not matter that Sedevacantism is not doctrinal per se.
It breaks.communion with the pope, and places men outside the church.
As pft said, the devil is laughing in hell.
Seraphim,
How does one break communion with the Pope, when there is no Pope at present? We are not breaking with a certain Pontiff, but one whose claim is rejected by many in the Church.
Your position, whether you admit it or not, also is a rejection of the Vatican II "Popes." If you truly believed they were Popes, you would accept their teaching and law, and would remain in communion with them and the bishops in union with them.
When one remains in communion with the Pope, they do not just give him primacy of honor, they submit themselves with docility to him as their Supreme Teacher and lawgiver. Catholics learn from the Pope as their teacher, and they trust the Pope as they know he could not lead them astray. There is no holiness where there is disagreement with the Pope. (St. Pius X)
So, when you say that Benedict XVI or John Paul II were popes, what does that mean for you? Did you learn from them? Do your trust the sacramental rites that they have approved or allowed to continue i.e. the Novus Ordo for example? Do you trust all of their canonizations? Do you believe that the Church is irrevocably committed to ecuмenism, as John Paul II has taught? Do you believe that non-Catholic religions are a means of salvation as Vatican II and Benedict XVI have taught?
If you say no to any of the above, then you are not learning from the "Pope," or are not trusting in the laws given by the "Pope," to the universal Church. If you say "no" then you are disagreeing with the "Pope."
If you are disagreeing with the Pope as your Supreme Teacher as the rule of Faith, then what are these Popes to you? What is the point of a Pope if Catholics cannot trust his teaching given to the universal Church? What is the point of a Pope, when lay Catholics and priests can refuse to be taught by him and ignore his laws, and operate chapels outside of his jurisdiction?
-
Ambrose wrote:
Sedevacantism is not a doctrine, it is a response to the crisis. The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope. We as Catholics are doing what they tell us to do.
You would not know that because the Society has suppressed and misrepresented the correct Catholic teaching about how to respond to a publicly heretical pope. But, you can read it for yourself, it is in all of the approved books if you take the time.
Ambrose, which reading material are you referring to when you wrote: "The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope."? And, which approved books are you referring to? Can you provide some links?
Thankyou.
-
FATHER HEWKO MUST GO BACK TO HIS PRIORY AND CONTINUE TO PREACH THE TRUTH FROM THERE. THIS WILL MAKE HIS EVENTUAL REMOVAL INVALID AND IS ALSO WHAT BISHOP WILLIAMSON DID. RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS WITH HE AND THE OTHERS HAVING ESTABLISHED A PRIORY WITHOUT IT BEING CANONICALLY ERECTED THEIR PUNISHMENTS ARE BINDING. NOT FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH BUT FOR ESTABLISHING A PRIORY. THIS IS GOING ABOUT IT THE WRONG WAY!
As it stands we cannot throw all our weight into the success of these priests. Especially knowing the prophecies of our Lady. God save us.
-
Canonically erected by whom? Are the SSPX priories canonically erected?
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but the chapel of the Pfeifer family has been there for decades and the SSPX listed it on their Holy Masses as a legitimate chapel.
Reverend Father Ringrose's chapel, is it canonically erected? Probably not. But is it illigitimate? I don't think so. And what about other independent chapels friendly with the SSPX?
Perhaps a priory is not like a chapel, I just don't know the precise requirements. But in the present times what makes a chapel legitimate is in my opinion: true valid Holy Mass, true valid ordained priest, true Traditional doctrine preached and true non conciliar Traditional Catholic faithful. That's good enough for me and my family.
Oh yes, and I must add: a true Traditional Catholic altar, not like "the one" we know.
-
And what about other independent chapels friendly with the SSPX?
Perhaps a priory is not like a chapel, I just don't know the precise requirements. But in the present times what makes a chapel legitimate is in my opinion: true valid Holy Mass, true valid ordained priest, true Traditional doctrine preached and true non conciliar Traditional Catholic faithful. That's good enough for me and my family.
Oh yes, and I must add: a true Traditional Catholic altar, not like "the one" we know.
I realise we are not on the same 'dimension' but I agree with this comment. We are all doing our best for the resistance I respectfully ask you not to state I am on another dimension. Insulting each other is not the way forward.
And Yes, I live in Ireland and doing my bit for Faith and Nation.
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but the chapel of the Pfeifer family has been there for decades and the SSPX listed it on their Holy Masses as a legitimate chapel.
Reverend Father Ringrose's chapel, is it canonically erected? Probably not. But is it illigitimate? I don't think so. And what about other independent chapels friendly with the SSPX?
Perhaps a priory is not like a chapel, I just don't know the precise requirements. But in the present times what makes a chapel legitimate is in my opinion: true valid Holy Mass, true valid ordained priest, true Traditional doctrine preached and true non conciliar Traditional Catholic faithful. That's good enough for me and my family.
Oh yes, and I must add: a true Traditional Catholic altar, not like "the one" we know.
Archbishop Lefevbre consecrated the original altar at Saint Michael's. It's an independent Church too.
-
It does not matter that Sedevacantism is not doctrinal per se.
It breaks.communion with the pope, and places men outside the church.
As pft said, the devil is laughing in hell.
Seraphim,
How does one break communion with the Pope, when there is no Pope at present? We are not breaking with a certain Pontiff, but one whose claim is rejected by many in the Church.
Your position, whether you admit it or not, also is a rejection of the Vatican II "Popes." If you truly believed they were Popes, you would accept their teaching and law, and would remain in communion with them and the bishops in union with them.
When one remains in communion with the Pope, they do not just give him primacy of honor, they submit themselves with docility to him as their Supreme Teacher and lawgiver. Catholics learn from the Pope as their teacher, and they trust the Pope as they know he could not lead them astray. There is no holiness where there is disagreement with the Pope. (St. Pius X)
So, when you say that Benedict XVI or John Paul II were popes, what does that mean for you? Did you learn from them? Do your trust the sacramental rites that they have approved or allowed to continue i.e. the Novus Ordo for example? Do you trust all of their canonizations? Do you believe that the Church is irrevocably committed to ecuмenism, as John Paul II has taught? Do you believe that non-Catholic religions are a means of salvation as Vatican II and Benedict XVI have taught?
If you say no to any of the above, then you are not learning from the "Pope," or are not trusting in the laws given by the "Pope," to the universal Church. If you say "no" then you are disagreeing with the "Pope."
If you are disagreeing with the Pope as your Supreme Teacher as the rule of Faith, then what are these Popes to you? What is the point of a Pope if Catholics cannot trust his teaching given to the universal Church? What is the point of a Pope, when lay Catholics and priests can refuse to be taught by him and ignore his laws, and operate chapels outside of his jurisdiction?
Blah Blah.
-
It does not matter that Sedevacantism is not doctrinal per se.
It breaks.communion with the pope, and places men outside the church.
As pft said, the devil is laughing in hell.
Seraphim,
How does one break communion with the Pope, when there is no Pope at present? We are not breaking with a certain Pontiff, but one whose claim is rejected by many in the Church.
Your position, whether you admit it or not, also is a rejection of the Vatican II "Popes." If you truly believed they were Popes, you would accept their teaching and law, and would remain in communion with them and the bishops in union with them.
When one remains in communion with the Pope, they do not just give him primacy of honor, they submit themselves with docility to him as their Supreme Teacher and lawgiver. Catholics learn from the Pope as their teacher, and they trust the Pope as they know he could not lead them astray. There is no holiness where there is disagreement with the Pope. (St. Pius X)
So, when you say that Benedict XVI or John Paul II were popes, what does that mean for you? Did you learn from them? Do your trust the sacramental rites that they have approved or allowed to continue i.e. the Novus Ordo for example? Do you trust all of their canonizations? Do you believe that the Church is irrevocably committed to ecuмenism, as John Paul II has taught? Do you believe that non-Catholic religions are a means of salvation as Vatican II and Benedict XVI have taught?
If you say no to any of the above, then you are not learning from the "Pope," or are not trusting in the laws given by the "Pope," to the universal Church. If you say "no" then you are disagreeing with the "Pope."
If you are disagreeing with the Pope as your Supreme Teacher as the rule of Faith, then what are these Popes to you? What is the point of a Pope if Catholics cannot trust his teaching given to the universal Church? What is the point of a Pope, when lay Catholics and priests can refuse to be taught by him and ignore his laws, and operate chapels outside of his jurisdiction?
Blah Blah.
What profound insight and oratory you have!
-
Ambrose wrote:
Sedevacantism is not a doctrine, it is a response to the crisis. The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope. We as Catholics are doing what they tell us to do.
You would not know that because the Society has suppressed and misrepresented the correct Catholic teaching about how to respond to a publicly heretical pope. But, you can read it for yourself, it is in all of the approved books if you take the time.
Ambrose, which reading material are you referring to when you wrote: "The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope."? And, which approved books are you referring to? Can you provide some links?
Thankyou.
There is so much that is difficult on where to start. But, I can give you a few things that are well worth reading, and if you want more, let me know.
1. Archbishop Lefebvre: In 1986, the Archbishop gave an excellent address to seminarians on sedevacantism. In it he explains the criteria to be used in determining that we are in a state of sedevacante which is the evidence of public heresy such as the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Assisi sacrilege. http://www.sedevacantist.com/lefebvresede.html
Take note on this that some SSPX folks like to quote the Archbishop on earlier statements, pre-1986, but his position was evolving as the crisis continued. If you want to learn more about Archbishop Lefebvre and his thinking on sedevacantism, Restoration Radio just did a very good show on it recently. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/restorationradio/2012/09/09/archbishop-lefebvre
2. Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope, Fr. Cekada: In 1995 and revised in 2006, Fr. Cekada put together a great tract which collected with docuмentation the teaching of the Popes and theologians about what happens to a heretical Pope: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf Many of the excerpts are in Appendix I, but if you have time read the entire tract, it is well worth your time.
3. Answering the Objections to the Sedevacantist Position, Bishop Mark Pivarunus, CMRI, http://www.cmri.org/02-answering-objections-sede.html This tract gives some excellent references and sources to numerous theologians and canonists.
4. If you have any questions on sedevacantism beyond that, I would refer you to read the Bellarmine Forums, in which hundreds of topics have been put forward covering every aspect of the sedevacantist position since the forum started in 2006. You will find any answer you need there to every question that you may have: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/index.php
God bless, and I hope this helps in your search for the truth!
-
It does not matter that Sedevacantism is not doctrinal per se. It breaks.communion with the pope, and places men outside the church.
Your position, whether you admit it or not, also is a rejection of the Vatican II "Popes." If you truly believed they were Popes, you would accept their teaching and law, and would remain in communion with them and the bishops in union with them.
A verrry inconvenient deduction by 'Ambrose'. My response herein is otherwise directed to 'Seraphim':
I'm fascinated by your exercise in smoke and mirrors. You use insults and lame come-backs, including a childish "Blah Blah", to oppose the rejection by sede-vacantists of Vatican II modernist "popes" who abandoned the Catholic faith as taught and practiced for centuries. Your lectures might work on peasants of centuries past, illiterate in their own vernacular--so never mind Latin. But instead, you're confronting literate traditional Catholics who have access to the text of Vatican-II and official-papal docuмents on line in European vernacular languages, plus an abundance of other relevant docuмents. They include extensive writings by the preelection Card. Ratzinger, and by the postelection Pope Benedict XVI, some being commercially published books, and others being published interviews with him.
Yet at the same time you profess obedience to bishops who were consecrated in open defiance of disapproval by Pope John Paul II, so that his Vatican excommunicated the consecrating bishop(s), the new bishops, and their followers, by decree. So it seems to me that JP-II excommunicated you, too. As a promoter of SSPX, you do continue to receive the sacraments from priests ordained by those same bishops, don't you? Or do you avoid them by receiving sacraments from Novus Ordo "priests" of dubious ordination status, as reportedly infiltrating the SSPX nowadays under Bp. Fellay? Nonetheless, you condescendingly argue as if that excommunication failed to kick you "outside the church", inexplicably sparing you the anguish of broken "communion with the pope".
I'm quite curious about how you developed such impressive skills at doublethink.
-
Ambrose wrote:
Sedevacantism is not a doctrine, it is a response to the crisis. The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope. We as Catholics are doing what they tell us to do.
You would not know that because the Society has suppressed and misrepresented the correct Catholic teaching about how to respond to a publicly heretical pope. But, you can read it for yourself, it is in all of the approved books[/b] if you take the time.
Ambrose, which reading material are you referring to when you wrote: "The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope."? And, which approved books are you referring to? Can you provide some links?
Thankyou.
Thanks Ambrose for the links.
I do not know why I received a thumb’s down for an inquiry of information. I can presume of someone’s intention, but then I would be doing the same in “misjudging” as the one who had given a thumb’s down.
None the less, in reading through some of these 29 pages of posts that went from “News from the front...” to a Sedevacantist subject, I am interested in Ambrose’s statement of: "The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope." And, “you can read it for yourself; it is in all of the approved books.” Frankly, I have not seen anything in writing to this claim.
Yes I very much desire to know the truth. Scripture says: "test all things", in that testing, I do not have any interest in putting any "emotion" into it, nor any other type of influences, or "admixture". As Bishop Williamson says, “I am a Roman Catholic. Not a conservative Catholic. Not a traditional Catholic, nor any other variant. I am a Roman Catholic.”. Throughout this dark crisis of Martyrdom, and disfigurement in the Catholic Church, I profess the same Faith, in my Baptism, as St. Peter, and all of the Martyrs and Saints (pre-Vat. II).
I am aware of the pre-Neo SSPX position of Sedevacantism, and the basic tenants of the Sedevacantist position itself. I have been in conversations over the years with different exchanges of Sedevacantism that were really an “emotional” argument. I also went to a conference given by Gerry Matitics a few years ago. Gerry’s position of Sedevacantism had two pillars: First, Gerry says that the Pope is a "material and formal" heretic in what he says -therefore the Pope is not the Pope. Second, that there is no longer a valid “form” for consecrating a Bishop (a post-Vat.II) -therefore the Pope is not a Bishop- therefore the Pope is not a Pope.
If someone can answer this, I have always had these 4-simple questions:
- Is what Gerry said (above) still the main two pillars of Sedevacantism? Is it different? Or is there more added to it, and if so, what is it?
- How can Gerry, or others, judge that the Pope is a “formal” heretic? Isn’t it that only another valid Pope and a Council of the Catholic Church do that?
- If the apparition of Fatima is true, in which it is in being approved by the (pre-Vat. II) Catholic Church, and Our Lady said in that apparition: “In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”, then, if there is “no” Pope, especially including the last 2 or 3 popes, and there is “no” longer any valid bishops (and cardinals), how can there be a Pope, or even another “elected” pope, to fulfill the promise of our Lady of Fatima for which needs a real / valid Pope who is in the line of St. Peter to do this consecration?
- Our Lord had promised: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18). “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia: Where Peter is, there is the Church”. How is it that if there is an eclipsed “Peter”, of “no” Pope in all of these 50-years, that the Catholic Church being in a state of no “Peter”, along with the Catholic Church no longer having “valid” consecrations for a bishop (and cardinal), then it shows that the Catholic Church will always be in a state of “no” Pope? You need a Bishop to consecrate another Bishop. How then, can both off these promises of Our Lady and Our Lord be fulfilled if there is “no” Pope at present, or in the future? Has not therefore, in all of this premise of Sede-vacantist (the chair is vacant…), that “the gates of hell prevailed against it”?
So yes, I am interested if someone can answer these 4-simple questions.
-
I acknowledge this, my only point was he was not hostile to sedevacantism.
Ok. Since you created another thread about Archbishop Lefebvre's views on sedevacantism, we can take that up there.
A brief response to the claim that "the Society has suppressed and misrepresented the correct Catholic teaching".
An example of an argument the sedevacantists, of good will though many of them are, have hardly even attempted to reply to, let alone addressed adequately,
The Church is indefectible (principle 3) not only in her faith and means of sanctification, but also in her monarchical constitution (principle 4), comprising governing power i.e., jurisdiction, hence Vatican I’s profession that Peter will have perpetual successors.
But is indefectibility preserved if there is no pope since 1962 or if there is no one with ordinary jurisdiction whom the sedevacantists can point out as such?
As has been discussed before, and to elaborate slightly on the above for those who may not see the force of the argument straightaway, the Catholic teaching on the Papacy, particularly though by no means only that of Pope Pius XII, requires that Bishops can only receive their ordinary jurisdiction immediately from the Pope. The Catholic teaching on the Church requires that the whole Church as such cannot ever cease to be what she is, and that includes that she cannot ever cease to be formally Apostolic, and ordinary jurisdiction is the formal component of Apostolicity. Both of these are amply confirmed and explained as such by the very best of theologians apart from the many direct Magisterial statements to this effect.
This simple fact disproves the idea of an indefinitely lengthy vacancy in the Holy See, for by God's most wise design, the formal Apostolic succession itself depends on the actual Petrine succession, in which way the intrinsic dependence of the episcopate on the Papacy is manifested. This is why and how the First Vatican Council's definition on perpetual successors to Peter is not reduced to absurdity, as if an indefinitely lengthy interregnum was also compatible with that definition, which would make it more or less meaningless. When such a vacancy is extended beyond a point, formal Apostolic succession will therefore cease.
The Society has often responded to the erroneous claims of the sedevacantists logically, calmly, reasonably and sufficiently.
-
Nishant, we've heard the "ordinary jurisdiction" argument plenty of times.
The "indefectability" argument as well.
They are indirect arguments against sedevacantism: they can't refute the basic facts that make it impossible to take the conciliar Popes seriously.
-
Well, Telesphorus, I think the argument is successful in proving that a vacancy in the Apostolic See cannot be extended beyond a point. As for recent Popes and the difficulties they have caused to Catholics by their words and deeds, it should be sufficient to resist them precisely in that manner in which the Doctors and Saints speak of and no more.
Which reminds me, I intended to post this for the record in response to what AlligatorDicax said. St.Thomas on an unjust excommunication.
I answer that, An excommunication may be unjust for two reasons. First, on the part of its author, as when anyone excommunicates through hatred or anger, and then, nevertheless, the excommunication takes effect, though its author sins, because the one who is excommunicated suffers justly, even if the author act wrongly in excommunicating him. Secondly, on the part of the excommunication, through there being no proper cause, or through the sentence being passed without the forms of law being observed.
In this case, if the error, on the part of the sentence, be such as to render the sentence void, this has no effect, for there is no excommunication; but if the error does not annul the sentence, this takes effect, and the person excommunicated should humbly submit (which will be credited to him as a merit), and either seek absolution from the person who has excommunicated him, or appeal to a higher judge. If, however, he were to contemn the sentence, he would "ipso facto" sin mortally. But sometimes it happens that there is sufficient cause on the part of the excommunicator, but not on the part of the excommunicated, as when a man is excommunicated for a crime which he has not committed, but which has been proved against him: in this case, if he submit humbly, the merit of his humility will compensate him for the harm of excommunication.
St.Robert too is reported to have said, "When the Supreme Pontiff pronounces a sentence of excommunication which is unjust or null, it must not be accepted, without, however, straying from the respect due to the Holy See."
-
The Society has often responded to the erroneous claims of the sedevacantists logically, calmly, reasonably and sufficiently.
Personally, I think Bishop Fellay and today's SSPX have an unhealthy paranoia of sedevacantists. It's one thing to disagree with the sedes, but they act as if sedes are enemies and that anyone who opposes a deal with Rome is some "practical sedevacantist".
Even Bishop Williamson doesn't seem as open to sedevacantism as the Archbishop was. I don't mean that as a put down against His Excellency, whom I obviously have great respect for, I am just noting an observation. He does not, however, have the same paranoia of the position that the Neo-SSPX has.
It is true that the Society has never accepted sedevacantism, but it does not change the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre was open to the position, a fact that is conveniently ignored by the Neo-SSPX.
-
God supplies a true Shepherd, not a false one.
Indirect refutations of sedevacantism fail to address the heart of the problem.
Technical objections about jurisdiction and indefectability can't make heretics Catholic or make infidelity into fidelity.
How such a situation could come about is a mystery, but what isn't a mystery is the infidelity of the modernist clergy.
-
Machabees,
Things have been very busy, but I plan on answering your questions later today. God bless.
-
Machabees,
You ask good questions. I will try my best to give you good answers.
1. Machabees wrote:
Gerry’s position of Sedevacantism had two pillars: First, Gerry says that the Pope is a "material and formal" heretic in what he says -therefore the Pope is not the Pope. Second, that there is no longer a valid “form” for consecrating a Bishop (a post-Vat.II) -therefore the Pope is not a Bishop- therefore the Pope is not a Pope.
If someone can answer this, I have always had these 4-simple questions:
- Is what Gerry said (above) still the main two pillars of Sedevacantism? Is it different? Or is there more added to it, and if so, what is it?
In regard to Gerry Matatics, I believe he is a case in point of the dangers that can come about when a convert jumps too quickly into matters of theology without the careful training that is needed. Another good example of this is the Dimond brothers.
But, to your point, I do not agree that the two points you mentioned are the two pillars of sedevacantism. First, it is not relevant to the determine if a suspected heretic is a formal heretic or not. How can one make such a determination anyway?
Sedevacantism essentially is built on two pillars, but not the one's you mentioned. They are: (1) It can be proven that Paul VI and his successors are pertinacious public heretics, and due to this they have either lost their office or have never assumed the office of the Papacy to begin with. (2) It is impossible for Paul VI and his successors to have been Popes because if they were Popes, they would have taught heresy and given evil laws to the universal Church. The indefectibiliy and the note of holiness of the Church would prevent such things from happening.
Regarding the destruction of the consecration rite of bishops in the Roman Rite, I believe it is an argument against Benedict XVI being a bishop.
2. Machabees wrote: How can Gerry, or others, judge that the Pope is a “formal” heretic? Isn’t it that only another valid Pope and a Council of the Catholic Church do that?
Yes, you are right. Only the Pope can declare one a heretic. What we are discussing here is what happens to a public heretic prior to the judgment of the Church. Catholics have the right and the duty to defend themselves against a public heretic and when one is detected, and one is morally certain that the culprit has publicly and pertinaciously espoused heresy, then we can privately conclude that they have defected from the Faith, and that if that person held and office in the Church that they have lost their office as they are no longer a Catholic.
If times were normal, our duty would be to report such a person to the Church authorities, and it would be their duty to investigate and publicly judge the heretic. Once the Church declares a person a heretic, then all are bound to recognize that fact. That is why in our current situation, the status of the post Vatican II "popes" is not a binding matter on Catholics, as the Church has not yet judged the matter.
3. Machabees wrote:
- If the apparition of Fatima is true, in which it is in being approved by the (pre-Vat. II) Catholic Church, and Our Lady said in that apparition: “In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”, then, if there is “no” Pope, especially including the last 2 or 3 popes, and there is “no” longer any valid bishops (and cardinals), how can there be a Pope, or even another “elected” pope, to fulfill the promise of our Lady of Fatima for which needs a real / valid Pope who is in the line of St. Peter to do this consecration?
You make a key assumption in the above. There are most certainly bishops with jurisdiction (the hierarchy) still in the world, they are just less visible than they once were. I agree that there are no longer at present any cardinals, but that does not prevent an election of the Pope. In the absence of the Cardinals, the right of election falls to the bishops and the clergy of Rome.
At any point of the crisis, if the remaining bishops and the clergy of Rome would have gathered together to elect to elect a Pope, then that would have been a lawful act. The mechanism of the Church to resolve this crisis would have ended it. It has not yet happened, but it could happen at any time. It may take a miracle to bring this about, but that is what we as Catholics know very well, that miracles can and do happen.
The power to end this crisis and elect a Pope has been sitting in front of all of us the entire time. The best chance of this happening in my opinion would have been in the earlier time of the crisis, when so many bishops were not happy with Vatican II. If only they gathered, declared Paul VI or John Paul II a public heretic and then proceeded to elect a Pope, this could have all ended, but they did not so we must now depend on those bishops and members of the clergy or Rome who God has allowed a long life and who have kept the Faith.
You can be sure of one thing. We will once again have a Pope, and despite the late hour, he will consecrate Russia in union with the remaining bishops. We can be certain of this, as we have the word of Our Lady.
4. Machabees worte:
Our Lord had promised: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18). “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia: Where Peter is, there is the Church”. How is it that if there is an eclipsed “Peter”, of “no” Pope in all of these 50-years, that the Catholic Church being in a state of no “Peter”, along with the Catholic Church no longer having “valid” consecrations for a bishop (and cardinal), then it shows that the Catholic Church will always be in a state of “no” Pope? You need a Bishop to consecrate another Bishop. How then, can both off these promises of Our Lady and Our Lord be fulfilled if there is “no” Pope at present, or in the future? Has not therefore, in all of this premise of Sede-vacantist (the chair is vacant…), that “the gates of hell prevailed against it”?
The gates of Hell will never prevail! We can be certain of that. The Petrine Office has continued through the crisis, we just await having a man fill it and become Pope. There is nothing against the Faith which would state that period of sedevacante could not continue for any amount of years.
There are still bishops alive appointed by Pope Pius XII, and others appointed by John XXIII and others until the Roman Rite changed. The rites of the East, kept the sacramental rites intact at least for the most part, and to the best of my knowledge there would be no reason to doubt them.
For myself, I believe there is a strong argument to believe that the state of sedevacante did not begin until December 7, 1965, the day Paul VI officially taught heresy to the universal Church. Using that date as a "line in the sand" we could be certain that all bishops appointed prior to that date have habitual jurisdiction, i.e. they are members of the hierarchy, so long as they have kept the Faith. This also goes for the members of the clergy of Rome, all appointments would have been valid up until that date.
Now, in addition to the bishops alive with habitual jurisdiction, that I have mentioned above, John Lane has put forth an interesting argument that bishops appointed by the anti-popes would be valid due to supplied jurisdiction given to the anti[pope for that specific act if that act were for the common good, One could imagine this to be the case in some Eastern rite dioceses. (A poster on this forum, Nishant, has challenged John Lane on this point indirectly, but as of yet, despite urging by myself and SJB has chosen to not put forth his case against John Lane on the Bellarmine Forums.)
Regardless of the position put forward by Mr. Lane, it is an indisputable fact that there are in the world today bishops lawfully appointed by a Pope prior to December 7, 1965, and that fact alone demonstrates that the visibility of the hierarchy has been maintained through the crisis and is still present to this very day.
So, to conclude your point, the Apostolicity of the Church is safe, as it must be. Some may argue that it hard to conceive of the Church with so few bishops. I would state in reply that the Church once existed with only 11 member of the hierarchy in the entire world, all located in one room.
I hope this helps, and I have prayed for you today for Our Lady to help you in your search for the truth. God bless.
-
Ambrose,
I have started a reply for you today. I too have been very busy in my work. I will try to finish it tonight or tomorrow.
God bless.
-
Hello Ambrose,
Because this thread evolved into another topic -of the Pope and sedevacantism, I thought we can start another thread on this, for others to chime in, and to help it be more organized.
I have entitled it: “A broader conversation on sedevacantism and the SSPX”
Is the Pope Pope; a Formal heretic?
-
I offer this bit of information for those that are following what is happening with the Society.
I received an e-mail today regarding Fr. Hewko. He is still a member of the SSPX but received a second warning just last week regarding his disobedience. Once he receives one more, he will be officially out.
He and Fr. Pfeiffer (not sure which one) are going to South America on Tuesday to meet with some priests who are interested in joining the resistance. They also plan on visiting Our Lady's Shrine in Quito.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is still in Chicago. He believes that the good Bishop might speak out even though he has been silenced if more people write to him and ask him to break his silence.
I know this isn't much, but hopefully it offers some hope to the resistance.
That was a good OP. And the thread title was valuable. This is something
that a lot of people all over the world are interested in.
I understand your frustration, Seraphim, but I think Fr. Pfeiffer (et al) are trying to lead by example, going around and getting things started, hoping that other priests will be inspired by their lead, or at least feel guilty for their past inaction, and join them.
It's classic "leading by example" -- If there were a famine, they would not talk themselves hoarse trying to convince us to feed the starving masses, they would wear themselves out working the land, growing food, and distributing it all day.
They're doing literally all they can, hoping that others will join the effort.
It's easy for Americans to wish that the Resistance priests would ignore the rest of the world -- but I'm sure those outside the USA don't feel the same way :)
Leading by example is a key theme. Excellent point. It's what the Resistance
is all about. It is the core issue. Well said, Matthew.
If you knew these priests' schedules you'd be amazed. They go nonstop. They cover as much territory as possible. On their recent trip to Florida Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko drove all night from Virginia to Jacksonville, stopped in St. Augustine for supplies, and then drove to Sanford arriving late. Fr. Pfeiffer immediately began hearing confessions and Fr. Hewko said evening Mass adding many beautiful traditional prayers afterwards to which the congregation enthusiastically responded. Fr. Pfeiffer then held a LONG Q&A until Midnight. Fr. Hewko was so exhausted he had to go to bed. Remember -- they had driven all night before this.
The next morning they were headed for the airport at 5:45 AM. Fr. Pfeiffer went to Minnesota where he went to a couple of different places. Fr. Hewko went to the Carolinas where he too went to a couple different places. After saying morning Mass on Sunday Fr. Hewko returned to Sanford for an evening Mass -- probably because he had been stationed there years ago and people are crazy about him and they trust him with their concerns. He said a beautiful Mass after which he led the congregation in singing the Litany of the Saints in Latin--a Resistance priest leading the congregation in asking the great saints in Heaven for help. Remember -- the people in Sanford are being persecuted especially hard at the moment.
After Mass there was a BBQ where Fr. Hewko had the time to sit and talk with people at leisure and answer more questions. The BBQ lasted late and the next morning he was up early to give them a morning Mass before heading for the airport to return to Kentucky to see where they needed him next. These are just two priests and one weekend and just look at what they managed to do! And this is NORMAL for them!
Look at all the sermons on Inthissign. They come from Masses. Not all sermons are recorded either, meaning you may hear one sermon for a Sunday but that priest might have said more than one Mass that day and many places still don't record them.
Today in Sanford Fr. Roberts said the Mass for the Resistance group in the afternoon as always after saying his morning Mass in Jacksonville for his parish there. He doesn't eat until he has said both Masses which is usually late in the day and he drives nearly 2 hours each way for Sanford. He still says the entire Divine Office as well each day, including these busy Sundays. The Divine Office takes a long time to say and every priest is supposed to have it said in full by Midnight. The priests say it as they can while they travel. Fr. Roberts spends time with people both in Jacksonville and in Sanford seeing to their soul's needs after each Mass and during the week administers to his parishioners in Jacksonville and is available to help those in Sanford as well. He is enlarging his church in Jacksonville and hosts Third Order meetings for Dominicans with probably another Third Order in the future.
Why do we continue to contribute? Perhaps you don't realize or know about all they do but I see it first-hand and I only wish I had more money to give them. I pray daily for their health because they eat on the run and are always concerned about where they can go next, who needs them, and they put themselves last. If they can fit in a Mass somewhere along the line to their next destination, they do. They spend their time waiting in airports returning phone calls and conducting business from their phones, trying to find other flights that would enable them to visit more places... Just listen to their sermons. You don't hear this kind of preaching anymore. They are gold. You don't find priests like this anymore. Souls come first to them. They depend on God to keep them going.
The only problem with the Resistance priests is that there is not enough of them but WE CAN do something about that: Prayer and sacrifices. "Ask and you shall receive."
There is a lot going on that does not get reported because it takes too much
energy and resources to do so. There is no MSM with paid reporters running
around like ants, as there is with worldly so-and-sos who will die and be
forgotten, except in the "hall of fame" which amounts to nothing in the end.
I am very grateful for the exposure of this crisis, finally. For too long I would stupidly think “Isn’t it wonderful that the Lord hasn’t allowed Satan to attack the SSPX like he is attacking the conciliar church!” How deluded. But now I am asked to carry my cross in this battle and to give thanks that God is in control and has a plan for me and all of us who love the Faith. Now, since I know more about what is going on, it adds more stress to my already stressful life, but at least I am not deceived about this anymore. My prayers are more urgent, and I know better what to pray about. So, if these dear priests are willing to be spent for the good of souls, no matter where it is that God leads them, I believe I must sacrifice the best I can to help out, and be doing God’s will and trust He won’t forget me too. Hebrews 6:10 "For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name, you who have ministered, and do minister to the saints."
You know the same thing was going on in the 50's with the Roman Church
worldwide. All the trappings were there, but the substance was growing thin.
Bishop Williamson has endeavored to put it into words for us in the past few
conferences he's given. Those are words you would NEVER hear expressed
by the +Fellayites of the Church of +Fellay, the Menzingen-denizens.
But this is not a 'sede' discussion. If that's your sore spot, be honest and take
it elsewhere.
This thread is about what's happening. What's coming up? What's going on?
A number of us were regretful that we did not hear about the men's retreat
that Fr. Voigt preached in KY until it was over. What's up with that? The only
mention I saw of it was in Pablo's post when the retreat was already underway.
For us to participate we need a little advance notice, like two weeks at least.
The turnout for the Family Conference was a bit thin, I'd say. Why wasn't there
a hundred people? For crying out loud, there must be 100 Catholics out there
who wanted to be there. What's the world's population of English-speaking
Trads? A few million anyway? Let's get real.
I'm really glad that those who could go did go. And I've been a bit cranky
about the noises in the recordings, and the babies crying and people coughing.
The sermons are great, and they are really keepers. And it gives me an awful
lot of consolation just knowing that it happened. It must have been absolutely
wonderful for those who made it. And to think that there were young families
with babies who went, in the middle of winter in a cold climate, with snow on
the ground and people sick all over the place. I can imagine what it would be
like for a husband, or a wife, even, whose spouse is not all that keen on religion,
to make that trip and to hear all the arguments about how risky it is for the
children to be exposed to germs and on and on and on. Been there done that.
Any young family who went and the parents were on the same page, with a
strong faith and trust in God: you cannot possibly know how blessed you are.
You just cannot know.
So I'm telling you: you are blessed. Believe me.
-
Source post by sspxbvm (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22601&min=132#p0)
FATHER HEWKO MUST GO BACK ... THE WRONG WAY!
As it stands we cannot throw ... the prophecies of our Lady. God save us.
Somehow I missed this previously. I think you're overlooking a lot, sspxbvm.
Fr. Hewko is not ... at that point?
But this is really ... what's happening, not this topic: why it should not be
happening.
New thread for this discussion (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22790)!
-
Hello Ambrose,
Because this thread evolved into another topic -of the Pope and sedevacantism, I thought we can start another thread on this, for others to chime in, and to help it be more organized.
I have entitled it: “A broader conversation on sedevacantism and the SSPX”
Is the Pope Pope; a Formal heretic?
Good idea! New thread....
:whistleblower: Y'all come over here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/A-broader-conversation-on-sedevacantism-and-the-SSPX) now!
(that's the new thread for anyone getting lost in this)
-
SS, I believe Fr.Celier wrote an article recently addressing what you are talking about. It of course disagrees with you, have you seen it (http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/interpreting_words_of_archbishop_lefebvre_1_5-22-2012.htm) and what do you think?
In fact, Telesphorus, the purpose of such theological considerations is not somehow to make the problem disappear but only to arrive at the correct explanation of the reality we see, by first of all eliminating what is demonstrably false. Once the idea of an extended sede vacante where all apparent Popes have lost or never had their office is proven false (what you call an "indirect" or "technical" refutation), we can look at the only other alternative, "the evil Pope" and the proper response to it.
Such elimination itself shows that the remaining alternative, the so called "recognize and resist" position must therefore necessarily be correct, in the face of a Pope who gives a public scandalous example, or otherwise by grave sins whether of omission or commission harms the Faith and the Church - the precise limits of such resistance alone remaining to be delineated.
Here too, St.Thomas remarks following the incident of St.Paul and St.Peter that prelates may be rebuked even publicly by their inferiors when there is danger to the Faith. St.Robert in describing resistance to unjust commands says it is lawful to resist the Pope "by not doing what he commands and by hindering the execution of his will".
The eminent Cardinal Cajetan. in agreement with the best theologians, who had seen the reign of Pope Alexander VI (this Pope was also accused by Savonarola "this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. The man is not a Christian") and had opposed the bad theologians who had thought the Church ought to be able to depose such a Pope said,
So, if a Pope hardened in evil ways appears, his subordinates, without leaving their own vices, content themselves with daily murmurings against the evil regime; they do not seek to avail themselves, save perhaps in a dream and without faith, of the remedy of prayer; so that what Scripture predicts comes about by their fault, namely that it is due to the sins of the people that a hypocrite reigns over them, holy in respect of his office, but a devil at heart. . . We have become blind to the point of refusing to pray as we ought, while yet desiring the fruit of prayer; of refusing to sow, while still wanting to reap. Let us not call ourselves Christians any longer! Or if we do, let us turn to Christ; and the Pope, were he frantic, furious, tyrannical, a render, dilapidator and corrupter of the Church, would be overcome.
Indeed in reading the theologians, one is struck by the fact that they say in many words only in essence what Our Lady already explained with profound simplicity to the three children of Fatima, unpleasant though it may be to some to think that that is all the "solution" consists of - (and later in Akita, to those who accept that, as His Excellency Bishop Williamson does) - that such a Pope and such wayward shepherds in general are the preferred instrument of divine Justice in punishing an unfaithful people (as seen often in the Old Testament), and that prayer and penance for our sins which brought it about and for the Holy Father as well is the only and fitting recourse for the Church at large.
-
I haven't read the article you're refering to, Nishant, but if Fr. Cekada is claiming in the article that Archbishop Lefebvre was hostile to sedevacantism, he is wrong. I've already provided quotes from the Archbishop that clearly show he was open to the position.
-
SSS, it was Fr.Celier of the SSPX, not Fr.Cekada. :-) I'd embedded the link in the previous post, but I think it wasn't visible. It's entitled "Interpreting the words of Archbishop Lefebvre".
http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/interpreting_words_of_archbishop_lefebvre_1_5-22-2012.htm
-
Father Celier is the one whose book was foreworded and edited by a freemason who writes for Grand Orient Journals.
-
Oh? A search showed me it was discussed here in the past. I did not know of the allegations about him at the time I posted it.
-
SSS, it was Fr.Celier of the SSPX, not Fr.Cekada. :-) I'd embedded the link in the previous post, but I think it wasn't visible. It's entitled "Interpreting the words of Archbishop Lefebvre".
http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/interpreting_words_of_archbishop_lefebvre_1_5-22-2012.htm
Ah, sorry. I was not reading your post from my computer, I was reading it from a screen where the page and words were smaller. So it looked like Fr. Cekada to me. My apologies.
Nevertheless, I don't care what Fr. Celier says about the words of the Archbishop. I skimmed through that article months ago, and I thought it was more typical Menzingen propoganda.
Father Celier is the one whose book was foreworded and edited by a freemason who writes for Grand Orient Journals.
Wow, I had not heard this.
-
I did some research, and it appears the foreward from Fr. Celier's book "Bendict XVI and the Traditionalists" was apparently written by a man named Jean-Luc Maxence, who has actually written a few books about Masonry and its symbolism.
Tele, do you have a source that proves he was a Mason?
-
It appears that his father, Jean-Pierre Maxence, although a Catholic, was sympathetic to Judaism.
-
I did some research, and it appears the foreward from Fr. Celier's book "Bendict XVI and the Traditionalists" was apparently written by a man named Jean-Luc Maxence, who has actually written a few books about Masonry and its symbolism.
Tele, do you have a source that proves he was a Mason?
There is no doubt in my mind that he is one.
http://www.resistance-catholique.org/articles_html/2010/06/RC_2010-06-25_C_Dossier_LA-FACE-OCCULTE-DE-LA-FSSPX_Le-franc-macon-Jean-Luc-Maxence.html
We have SSPX priests working in conjunction with the servants of satan, because they seek to belong to the conciliar one world religion.
-
Wow, thanks, Tele. That was incredible.
Using Google Translate, it appears that Maxence said the following in one of his books about Archbishop Lefebvre:
As a "sumptuously dressed prelate, walking from Lille to Besançon his endless pectoral cross, his purple belt and amethyst ring! "(Page 9), the founder of the SSPX, described as" absurdly stubborn "(page 126), is described as" Savonarola Lace "(page 144) and" Savonarola junk "(4th coverage)!
And Fr. Celier wants to tell us how to "interpret" the words of Archbishop Lefebvre, when he chose a Freemason who criticized the Archbishop to write his book's foreward?
Thank you for that link, Tele. I am now 100% that Fr. Celier is a rat in the wall, and that Maxence is a disgrace.
We have SSPX priests working in conjunction with the servants of satan, because they seek to belong to the conciliar one world religion.
Very true.
-
SSS, it was Fr.Celier of the SSPX, not Fr.Cekada. :-) I'd embedded the link in the previous post, but I think it wasn't visible. It's entitled "Interpreting the words of Archbishop Lefebvre".
http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/interpreting_words_of_archbishop_lefebvre_1_5-22-2012.htm
The Society's website claims that was taken from a book Fr. Celier wrote in 2007. It had to have been the same one with a foreward written by a Freemason who criticized Archbishop Lefebvre.