Author Topic: Novus Ordo SSPX???? (Read 11506 times)

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #30 on:** September 26, 2012, 07:28:32 AM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

I'm sorry to hear about the priest acting so rudely. Has he been unpleasant on other occasions?

Yes. He has been rude to many people on many occasions. It has become progressively worse over the last few months.

Quote

If you left the SSPX chapel, is there a sede chapel or an independent chapel that you could assist?

Yes. There is an independent chapel about an hour from us. We assist at Mass there on occasion. We are confident that the priest was properly ordained and that the sacraments are valid. Is he sede? Not certain, but this is not necessarily a condition for us, at this time. Others might disagree.

Quote

Or would you become a home aloner? In the absence of any traditional chapels, this would be an acceptable alternative.

We were home alone for a few months when we left NO. It was a terrible and trying time. Our children suffered. We managed to get through it, but I pray we don't have to do so again in the future.

JuanDiego · « **Reply #31 on:** September 26, 2012, 09:21:56 AM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Quote from: Wessex
Has anyone ever seen any published accounts of the Society? I don't mean names on a register but actual figures. The word MONEY came up on another forum today as the reason for a lot of policy and we tend to forget the power of money. For example, what is the justification for the showpiece seminary now being planned in Virginia?

The old one is not large enough, and all attempts to purchase empty, existing seminaries were met with No. This firsthand from the [very kindly]person spearheading the effort, and then Fr. La Roux mentioned the beautiful scenery of Virginia as something desirable. The old house will become a retreat center.

My SSPX priest told there was no reason for this new seminary. They have lots of property in Winona and could easily add on. They need more dorms and another Chapel there. The true reasons for the Virginia seminary haven't been revealed yet. Of course, the fact someone gave them the property, and several million to start is one reason. Very wasteful, however. Not a good use of resources, I don't think.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #32 on:** September 26, 2012, 10:32:35 AM »

Quote from: JMacQ

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: OP
Our priest today publicly chastised those of us who visit internet forums and criticize the superiors of the Society. He gave a sermon on Obedience as taught by St. Ignatius. He even went so far as to say "if you superiors tell you black is white then you must believe it." He said, also, that he has been to these forums and read some of the comments criticizing Bishop Fellay and Fr. Rostand, and that those who are doing this are no true Catholics, but Catholics without charity.

I read this to my 19 year old daughter. She was shocked. She suggested that if this ever happened at the SSPX chapel we attend about twice a month she would stand up immediately and tell father (during his sermon) that this is evil.

If a "superior" (and please note that there are no SSPX priests who have jurisdiction over the lay faithful, so neither he nor Bishop Fellay is a legitimate superior of any of the laity) commands us to believe what is opposed to reason (e.g., "black is white") then he is a cult leader, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Has it really come down to this? Is the SSPX being transformed into a cult? Just yesterday I would never have believed it. I am beginning to become unsure.

I am sure there must have been be a quiproquo somewhere. St Ignatius in his Rules for Thinking with the Church indeed did write:

Thirteenth Rule. To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed.

The thing is, Saint Ignatius was a soldier, and knew how to follow orders. This does not mean that what he said, in this particular circuмstance, should be the position we adopt. Even Saint Peter was castigated publicly when he was wrong, by Saint Paul. I doubt Saint Ignatius would disagree with Saint Paul in his "to the face" resistance.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #33 on:** September 26, 2012, 10:53:16 AM »

If it is to be taken literally, then they'd better start accepting the modernism of the conciliarists.

Which in fact is probably what they are doing.

Maria Elizabeth · « **Reply #34 on:** October 02, 2012, 05:24:44 PM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

A Text of Cajetan's on Prayer

"... since it is matter reserved for God -- the removal from this world of a still believing but incorrigible Pope."

Hobbledehoy,

Is Cajetan saying he agrees with the sedevacantist position?

(I'm not a sede, by the way.)