Author Topic: Orange Light? (Read 15411 times)

Domitilla · « **Reply #15 on:** April 06, 2013, 03:49:55 PM »

I take it you're a fan of Leni Riefenstahl.

John Grace · « **Reply #16 on:** April 06, 2013, 04:00:42 PM »

Quote from: Domitilla

I take it you're a fan of Leni Riefenstahl.

Probably best discussed on another thread. My point really was you would think a person who likes Triumph of the Will would be a brilliant fellow. It's strange Fr Angles is for the deal but he scuppered a Distributist project in America and they had to picket the priory to remove him.

Or perhaps discussed at the Iona/London forum.

John Grace · « **Reply #17 on:** April 06, 2013, 04:16:00 PM »

To keep the thread on topic I am trying to establish a resistance chapel. I have been looking around for a suitable property and have a few projects planned.

John Grace · « **Reply #18 on:** April 06, 2013, 04:29:20 PM »

In reality with the Indult/Approved you are getting crumbs from the table of Rome.

Seraphia · « **Reply #19 on:** April 06, 2013, 04:51:03 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

I have been counseled by Fr. Hewko, for what its worth, to continue to attend SSPX chapels for the time being, until the Doctrinal Preamble becomes official policy.

Fr. Hewko said the same to me as well.

Nishant · « **Reply #20 on:** April 06, 2013, 04:53:46 PM »

Arguably, the 5 provisions of the 1988 protocol (which is all an Indult group like the FSSP accepts and only where it differed from the SSPX) per se require rather less than the 8 provisions of the 2012 preamble (which is apparently soon enough to become official SSPX policy).

Matthew · « **Reply #21 on:** April 06, 2013, 05:06:59 PM »

FWIW, Seraphim, none of this is news to me. This has all been churning around my brain for weeks (months), in particular the parallel between the current SSPX and other Indult groups.

My question is the one MaterDominici asked: what about those who don't have a place to go? After all, not all of us get a Resistance Mass once a month like those lucky folks in Minnesota *nudge, nudge*

Some of us are in more "ignored" far-flung hinterlands of Tradition.

It seems to be a revelation to you (an Aha! moment), but you have to admit: nothing has really happened in the past few weeks to justify a new thread. It's just something you personally put together recently.

Jus' sayin' (as the current lingo goes...)

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #22 on:** April 06, 2013, 05:13:59 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: s2srea
Quote
2) One of the reasons was that, even if everything said and done were Catholic and orthodox, they were still omitting to teach the faithful about the poisons contained in the doctrines of Vatican II;

Surely this was 'one of the reasons', but it was not the singular reason- there were other dangers to attending an Eclessia Dei mass, or other indults. And these other dangers, I think, not present in a current sspx mass of April 2013; at least not present at all chapels.

A cliff hanger! : )

What are you thinking of that would apply to ALL Eclessia Dei masses and not SSPX masses?

What confuses me with Sean's ongoing yellow-orange-red conversation is he's not making a distinction between those with resistance Mass locations and those without. It would make a difference, would it not? I'm sure Fr. Hewko, when giving s2s advice, knew what his Mass options were, correct?

Won't apply to all ED, but most: orders. Not many diocesan priests left that weren't ordained in the new rite or by a new bishop.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #23 on:** April 06, 2013, 05:19:32 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

FWIW, Seraphim, none of this is news to me. This has all been churning around my brain for weeks (months), in particular the parallel between the current SSPX and other Indult groups.

My question is the one MaterDominici asked: what about those who don't have a place to go? After all, not all of us get a Resistance Mass once a month like those lucky folks in Minnesota *nudge, nudge*

Some of us are in more "ignored" far-flung hinterlands of Tradition.

It seems to be a revelation to you (an Aha! moment), but you have to admit: nothing has really happened in the past few weeks to justify a new thread. It's just something you personally put together recently.

Jus' sayin' (as the current lingo goes...)

Matthew-

Respectfully disagree:

1) The doctrinal declaration of Bishop Fellay was only leaked a couple weeks ago;

2) Bishop Williamson then came out and said SSPX priests had a duty to denounce it from the pulpit, since the faith of their parishioners was imperiled;

3) Since then, there has been a couple weeks opportunity for priests to comply or resist this order;

4) Now that 2 weeks have gone by, and no SSPX priest has seen fit to warn his parishioners about the peril implicit in accepting the idea that V2 comes from tradition(!), the thought arises only now about the analogy between the SSPX and indult groups:

5) If we can't go there because they do not inoculate us against the poison, why can we go to an SSPX parish that likewise refuses to inoculate us against the recently released poison?

6) Perhaps this omission on the part of indult (and now SSPX) priests was never sufficient to preclude all attendance at an indult parish, but just simply another good reason to stay away;

7) But it is new in light of the recent release of the doctrinal declaration, and Bishop Williamson's two week-old assertion that all priests have the duty to denounce it to their faithful;

8) Now that two weeks have gone by, we ought to assess whether the silence of our priests in this doctrinal omission warrants further action on our part or not.

9) Other older parallels between the SSPX and indult groups are off subject so far as this thread is concerned.

Pax

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #24 on:** April 06, 2013, 05:39:12 PM »

All that said, I guess I am kind of asking the same question as you, in a different way:

Does the refusal of SSPX pastors to warn the faithful about the poison contained in Bishop Fellay's acceptance of the hermeneutic of continuity (i.e, his acceptance of V2) mean we can no longer attend such chapels, since by analogy it amounts to the same omission as indult priests to warn against the poison of V2?

In good faith, I do not know what the answer is.

In time all things become clear.

Domitilla · « **Reply #25 on:** April 06, 2013, 05:48:45 PM »

Great posts, Sean. A number of us resistors are currently in a "holding pattern". We definitely are aware of the looming dangers; watching what transpires in our local Chapels very carefully - waiting for "the other shoe to drop".

As +Williamson has advised: "Watch and pray".

It seems to be inevitable that sooner or later, in the absence of a Resistance Priest, we'll be at home with our rosaries, scapulars, and missals. Kyrie Eleison!

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #26 on:** April 06, 2013, 05:49:17 PM »

Stated differently still:

It has never been clear to me when sufficient necessity has been reached such as to justify attendance at an Ecclesia Dei Mass.

I believe having read somewhere once that the moralists determined the threshold of necessity to have been reached whenever "spiritual benefit will be derived," though if you ask me to cite that source, I may take a good long time to come up with it.

But given all the dangers wrapped up in attending a PCED Mass, I am not sure whether that raiser the bar on the degree of necessity required to justify attendance.

Remember: By stepping foot in the building, you are acknowledging by that very fact, despite any subjective intent to the contrary, that you acknowledge the new and old Masses to be on par with eachother, per the terms of the never-abrogated 1984 indult.

bowler · « **Reply #27 on:** April 06, 2013, 06:08:23 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

1) Traditionally, the SSPX taught us that we could not attend Ecclesia Dei chapels;

2) One of the reasons was that, even if everything said and done were Catholic and orthodox, they were still omitting to teach the faithful about the poisons contained in the doctrines of Vatican II;

3) And through this omission, these chapels represented a danger to the faith;

....
9) Do not his omissions represent as much a danger to the faith as an indult chapel, insofar as both refuse to condemn doctrinal error?

10) And if that is the case, was not the SSPX wrong to have formerly condemned indult chapel attendance on this account;

11) Or if they were correct, does it not hold perfectly true against the chapels manned by silent priests today?

12) Or perhaps this particular reason for avoiding indult chapels was simply another reason to avoid them, but not sufficient to ban attendance at them?

Those "dangers to the faith" are dangers to children and those that do not know their faith. When I was single, I would have gone to an indult mass if that was all that was available. That was never for me a reason not to go to an indult mass. The reason why I would not go to an indult mass was because I had doubts about the validity of the priests. PERIOD!

The SSPX use to teach that as the main reason. Then in like 2006 The Angelus magazine came out with an article saying that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecrations was valid (and thus they could ordain valid priests in the Novus Ordo). They switched their teaching! Moreover, the SSPX stopped conditionally ordaining the Novus Ordo priests that came over to the SSPX. Needless to say, if that is true, then there is no reason for a person who knows his faith, to not go to an indult mass if that is all that he has. AND, if they find an indult mass with a priest that is better than their SSPX priest, there is no reason to go to the SSPX.

I will not go to an indult mass because I have doubts about the validity of the priests. If the priest is not a priest, I might as well do a 15 decade rosary at home!

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #28 on:** April 06, 2013, 06:11:34 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: SeanJohnson
1) Traditionally, the SSPX taught us that we could not attend Ecclesia Dei chapels;

2) One of the reasons was that, even if everything said and done were Catholic and orthodox, they were still omitting to teach the faithful about the poisons contained in the doctrines of Vatican II;

3) And through this omission, these chapels represented a danger to the faith;

....
9) Do not his omissions represent as much a danger to the faith as an indult chapel, insofar as both refuse to condemn doctrinal error?

10) And if that is the case, was not the SSPX wrong to have formerly condemned indult chapel attendance on this account;

11) Or if they were correct, does it not hold perfectly true against the chapels manned by silent priests today?

12) Or perhaps this particular reason for avoiding indult chapels was simply another reason to avoid them, but not sufficient to ban attendance at them?

Those "dangers to the faith" are dangers to children and those that do not know their faith. When I was single, I would have gone to an indult mass if that was all that was available. That was never for me a reason not to go to an indult mass. The reason why I would not go to an indult mass was because I had doubts about the validity of the priests. PERIOD!

The SSPX use to teach that as the main reason. Then in like 2006 tThe Angelus magazine came out with an article saying that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecrations was valid (and thus they could ordain valid priests in the Novus Ordo). They switched their teaching! Needless to say, if that is true, then there is no reason for a person who knows his faith, to not go to an indult mass if that is all that he has. AND, if they find an indult mass with a priest that is better than their SSPX priest, there is no rerason to go to the SSPX.

Bowler-

Sorry, but you are wrong.

You may have had your subjective understanding and reservations regarding the dangers inherent in attending the indult.

But the objective preclusion stemmed from the never-abrogated 1984 indult which stated that by your mere presence in the chapel, you accepted that the new and old Mass were equal.

It doesn't matter that you don't believe that.

Additionally, your post overlooks the slow erosion process that comes with attending the indult: All the people that go there think they have perfect faith, despite believing V2 is reconcilable with tradition.

Matto · « **Reply #29 on:** April 06, 2013, 06:12:32 PM »

Quote from: bowler

The reason why I would not go to an indult mass was because I had doubts about the validity of the priests. PERIOD!

Yes. Even now the SSPX says that they may or may not be valid priests, as they sometimes, but not always, re-ordain Novus Ordo priests who come to the SSPX conditionally.