Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on April 06, 2013, 12:49:08 PM
-
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;
4) By refusing to inoculate the faithful, leaving them susceptible to the sophisms and heresies of the modernists and Vatican II.
5) Now consider your SSPX chapel;
6) Where perhaps no sign of compromise has yet appeared;
7) And perhaps your priest even privately sympathizes with Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre;
8) Yet he refuses to publicly condemn the doctrines contained in the recently revealed doctrinal declaration (which substantially declared that the doctrines of Vatican II are implicitly contained within tradition);
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?
:scratchchin:
-
You're making more sense to me.
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?
Does the SSPX's position on ED groups vary depending on whether or not you otherwise have access to the Sacraments?
-
You're making more sense to me.
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?
Does the SSPX's position on ED groups vary depending on whether or not you otherwise have access to the Sacraments?
Well, they have always permitted attendance at indult chapels in case of necessity.
But other than that, it has always been prohibited, primarily because the 1988 indult (Ecclesia Dei Adflicta) did not abrogate the previous 1984 indult, which stated that by mere attendance at an approved traditional Mass, you were acknowledging the doctrinal uprightness of the New Mass.
But I am not sure what the answer to your specific question is.
It could become relevant if one was banned from an SSPX chapel, and would otherwise have to wait several weeks until a resistance priest came around on circuit, so I would be curious to read a learned answer to your question.
-
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.
-
And perhaps your priest even privately sympathizes with Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre;
I assume you mean an Ecclesia Dei priest? I would be worried if an SSPX priest has to keep his sympathies private.
-
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.
I am glad to hear the good priest's recommendation.
-
And perhaps your priest even privately sympathizes with Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre;
I assume you mean an Ecclesia Dei priest? I would be worried if an SSPX priest has to keep his sympathies private.
When was the last time you heard of an SSPX priest expressing his sympathies for Bishop Williamson from the pulpit?
Fr. Girouard said he was disciplined and precluded from even discussing concerns about the sellout privately.
-
In Dublin for example in the 1980s, the Indult undermined the SSPX. In Galway, the Indult undermined the SSPX by bringing in the Institute Christ the King. It overcame the problem of Diocesan priests offering the Mass.
-
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.
I am glad to hear the good priest's recommendation.
Same....presuming he has considered the analogy in my OP and dismissed it, that is.
-
And perhaps your priest even privately sympathizes with Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre;
I assume you mean an Ecclesia Dei priest? I would be worried if an SSPX priest has to keep his sympathies private.
When was the last time you heard of an SSPX priest expressing his sympathies for Bishop Williamson from the pulpit?
Fr. Girouard said he was dismissed for even discussing concerns about the sellout privately.
At the time of the 'Williamson Affair', Fr Loschi did to his credit, mention the Bishop favourably during a sermon in the home of the late Mrs. Deirdre Manifold.
Bishop Williamson was in Ireland the year before last and preached. Part of his sermon was about the enemies of God. Also known as the money men.
-
And perhaps your priest even privately sympathizes with Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre;
I assume you mean an Ecclesia Dei priest? I would be worried if an SSPX priest has to keep his sympathies private.
When was the last time you heard of an SSPX priest expressing his sympathies for Bishop Williamson from the pulpit?
Fr. Girouard said he was disciplined and precluded from even discussing concerns about the sellout privately.
Yes, but I meant also about the Archbishop.
-
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?
My last comment SJ, was indeed not addressing your OP; However, here's where I might disagree. Th answer to your above question, is found in your #2 point:
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.
-
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?
-
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?
He did :)
He knows I now attend mass with Fr. Cooper in Arcadia, Ca; I discussed what I've heard from his pulpit, which was mostly nothing. I actually asked where I should advise those who are potential 'converts' (to tradition) and he also said to advise them to go to a SSPX chapel.
As far as the reasons / dangers for going to a Ecclesia Dei mass, other reasons, off the top of my head, might be the fact that setting foot in a church (edit) attending mass in a church where the Novus Ordo was said would be support of an illicit mass; also, there are dangers in associating with priests who outright support the Novus Ordo and the VII teachings.
-
Where I would urge caution is with Fr Angles and Fr Bierer in Ireland. They are for the agreement. They are hostile to the resistance. It's a shame because some allege Fr Angles showed the seminarians Triumph of the Will (Triumph des Willens)
-
I take it you're a fan of Leni Riefenstahl.
-
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.
-
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.
-
In reality with the Indult/Approved you are getting crumbs from the table of Rome.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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...)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Well, there's no point in me debating over something that would never happen, since I don't attend an indult. My only ppoint is that the most important reason for me not attending an indult mass is because I have SERIOUS doubts about the validity of their priest. AND the SSPX by what they write, no longer have that doubt.
-
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.
I don't hear anymore any mention of any Novus Ordo priest being conditionally ordained. The SSPX in The Angelus article formally taught that the Novus Ordo consecrations of bishops is valid, and that was a far weaker rite than the Ordination Rite.
-
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.
I am glad to hear the good priest's recommendation.
Thats kind of strange, because Fr Pfeiffer said not to attend Una cuм masses of the SSPX. Fr Hewko also told my friend here when he visited, that attending neo SSPX masses is like stepping into quicksand.
-
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.
I am glad to hear the good priest's recommendation.
Thats kind of strange, because Fr Pfeiffer said not to attend Una cuм masses of the SSPX. Fr Hewko also told my friend here when he visited, that attending neo SSPX masses is like stepping into quicksand.
Are you saying that Fr. Pfeiffer is sedevacantist???
It would certainly be news to any at our resistance center that Fr. Pfeiffer does not say "una cuм."
-
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.
I am glad to hear the good priest's recommendation.
Thats kind of strange, because Fr Pfeiffer said not to attend Una cuм masses of the SSPX. Fr Hewko also told my friend here when he visited, that attending neo SSPX masses is like stepping into quicksand.
Emerentiana- do you mind telling me where you heard this? Was it also from your friend?
In order to see if a mistake has been made, do you mind me asking if your friend is sede as you are (I believe you are, no?)?
-
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.
I am glad to hear the good priest's recommendation.
Thats kind of strange, because Fr Pfeiffer said not to attend Una cuм masses of the SSPX. Fr Hewko also told my friend here when he visited, that attending neo SSPX masses is like stepping into quicksand.
Are you saying that Fr. Pfeiffer is sedevacantist???
It would certainly be news to any at our resistance center that Fr. Pfeiffer does not say "una cuм."
Im not saying that at all. I didnt say that HE didnt say the UNA cuм mass. I said that he told the faithful not to attend the UNA cuм masses.
He gave a talk a while back about that. He and Fr Hewko asked the resistence members in our area not to attend the Neo SSPX masses.
-
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.
I am glad to hear the good priest's recommendation.
Thats kind of strange, because Fr Pfeiffer said not to attend Una cuм masses of the SSPX. Fr Hewko also told my friend here when he visited, that attending neo SSPX masses is like stepping into quicksand.
Are you saying that Fr. Pfeiffer is sedevacantist???
It would certainly be news to any at our resistance center that Fr. Pfeiffer does not say "una cuм."
Im not saying that at all. I didnt say that HE didnt say the UNA cuм mass. I said that he told the faithful not to attend the UNA cuм masses.
He gave a talk a while back about that. He and Fr Hewko asked the resistence members in our area not to attend the Neo SSPX masses.
So tell me f I am understanding correctly:
1) Fr Pfeiffer says "una cuм"
2) But he told faithful they should not attend "una cuм" Masses?
3) Therefore, he is telling faithful not to attend his own Masses???
-
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.
I am glad to hear the good priest's recommendation.
Thats kind of strange, because Fr Pfeiffer said not to attend Una cuм masses of the SSPX. Fr Hewko also told my friend here when he visited, that attending neo SSPX masses is like stepping into quicksand.
Are you saying that Fr. Pfeiffer is sedevacantist???
It would certainly be news to any at our resistance center that Fr. Pfeiffer does not say "una cuм."
Im not saying that at all. I didnt say that HE didnt say the UNA cuм mass. I said that he told the faithful not to attend the UNA cuм masses.
He gave a talk a while back about that. He and Fr Hewko asked the resistence members in our area not to attend the Neo SSPX masses.
So tell me f I am understanding correctly:
1) Fr Pfeiffer says "una cuм"
2) But he told faithful they should not attend "una cuм" Masses?
3) Therefore, he is telling faithful not to attend his own Masses???
Twist and contort! :mad:
There are many priests in the SSPX that DO NOT SAY the UNA cuм. There always have been. Priests do not really reveal if the are inserting the name of the "pope" into the mass
FYI, there are priests in the SSPX that hold a secret sedevacantist stand. There have always been priests in the SSPX that have converted to the sedevacantist stand. Many of them have left the society.
Please take my comments and do your own research.
There were some articles on this forum about Fr Pfeiffer saying not to attend Una cuм Masses. If anyone can find these articles, please post them on this thread.
I really dont have time to do research.
The purpose of my post was to show the contradictions. Fr Hewko says one thing, and then says another. Fr Pfeiffer saays dont attend the Neo SSPX masses. I dont know if he is now advising the faithful privately to attend the Neo SSPX, like Fr Hewko apparently is. I know first hand that Fr Hewko advised my friend to stay away from the Neo SSPX.
Perhaps , Sean, you can ask these priests personally if they use the UNA cuм in their masses.
-
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.
I am glad to hear the good priest's recommendation.
Thats kind of strange, because Fr Pfeiffer said not to attend Una cuм masses of the SSPX. Fr Hewko also told my friend here when he visited, that attending neo SSPX masses is like stepping into quicksand.
Are you saying that Fr. Pfeiffer is sedevacantist???
It would certainly be news to any at our resistance center that Fr. Pfeiffer does not say "una cuм."
Im not saying that at all. I didnt say that HE didnt say the UNA cuм mass. I said that he told the faithful not to attend the UNA cuм masses.
He gave a talk a while back about that. He and Fr Hewko asked the resistence members in our area not to attend the Neo SSPX masses.
So tell me f I am understanding correctly:
1) Fr Pfeiffer says "una cuм"
2) But he told faithful they should not attend "una cuм" Masses?
3) Therefore, he is telling faithful not to attend his own Masses???
Twist and contort! :mad:
There are many priests in the SSPX that DO NOT SAY the UNA cuм. There always have been. Priests do not really reveal if the are inserting the name of the "pope" into the mass
FYI, there are priests in the SSPX that hold a secret sedevacantist stand. There have always been priests in the SSPX that have converted to the sedevacantist stand. Many of them have left the society.
Please take my comments and do your own research.
There were some articles on this forum about Fr Pfeiffer saying not to attend Una cuм Masses. If anyone can find these articles, please post them on this thread.
I really dont have time to do research.
The purpose of my post was to show the contradictions. Fr Hewko says one thing, and then says another. Fr Pfeiffer saays dont attend the Neo SSPX masses. I dont know if he is now advising the faithful privately to attend the Neo SSPX, like Fr Hewko apparently is. I know first hand that Fr Hewko advised my friend to stay away from the Neo SSPX.
Perhaps , Sean, you can ask these priests personally if they use the UNA cuм in their masses.
Emerentiana-
I wasn't trying to twist/contort.
Just wasn't understanding.
Pax
-
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.
Sean Johnson,
This is a great question; and the answer also provides an insight
into Father Hewko's advice to several posters to " continue in your SSPX
Chapel, until you get a resistance chapel going."
There was no single morning during which Bishop Williamson,
Fathers Chazal, Pfeiffer, Hewko, Basilio, Don Thomas, et al all woke
up and came to the same conclusion. You can , however, be sure Fathers Hewko, Pfeiffer
and Chazal did not teach heresy the day, of even in The weeks before,
they finally stood up and decided that "enough is enough!"
Each priest came at a slightly different time, to the realization that,
based on all the evidence they then had, it is NOW time to resist.
There are, please God, many more such priests still in the SSPX
who are nearing that decision point. Some of the posters here may be attending the
Masses of these priests. As long as they are npot preaching heresy, and openly
supporting the leftist reunification with Rome, it may be very
possible to still receive valid sacraments from them. Of course, your financial support
should go to the priests and Bishop of The resistance-- giving the local parish what is
only absolutely necessary to support faithful priests.
We recall that the Saint Help Save SSPX! (http://Www.sossaveoursspx.com) says Christians are identified by the way we live. Do we just dessert our brothers in the faith--just at the time they need the truth? Just at the point they
are beginning to awaken from their slumber? Just at the time they are realizing that, in Bp. Fellay's new world, 2 + 2 do not equal 4; rather they equal whatever is expedient to get recognition,and, of course, more money?
The answer is slightly different for each of us. If you can remain strong in your faith, and not fall prey to the sneaky hidden messages in the accordistas such as a Fr. LeRoux, a Fr. Robinson, a Fr. Anglase, or a Fr. Rostand, and you can help others wake up-- then that's your job!
If the brainwashing is too intense , or everybody in your chapel is so duped that they are forever lost (i.e.they actively want an association with the false perverts in Rome),and you have a valid Mass to attend elsewhere, then that's your job.
-
per the terms of the never-abrogated 1984 indult.
The terms of the 1984 Indult were in fact replaced by Summorum Pontificuм in 2007, no? Pope Benedict XVI wrote, "The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier docuмents 'Quattuor abhinc annis' (i.e. the 1984 Indult) and 'Ecclesia Dei,' are substituted" to no longer require the permission of the Holy See or local Ordinary and was recognized as every priest's right without further condition. IMO, Society leaders think that fact makes the situation today as such quite different from that in the 80's.
-
Nishant-
I started wondering about that myself, and your quote brings me to correction.
Much obliged.
-
There were some articles on this forum about Fr Pfeiffer saying not to attend Una cuм Masses. If anyone can find these articles, please post them on this thread.
I doubt he ever said such a thing. Since you made the statement, why don't you post the relevant quotes?
-
There were some articles on this forum about Fr Pfeiffer saying not to attend Una cuм Masses. If anyone can find these articles, please post them on this thread.
I doubt he ever said such a thing. Since you made the statement, why don't you post the relevant quotes?
Don't know about una cuм, but Fr. Pfeieffer was saying not to go to SSPX around March 13-15; it's in a video. Sean Johnson began a thread called "There is no Red Light" on March 15, and he references Fr. Pfieffer's sermon. Emerentiana did not make this subject up. I believe one of the threads dealing with this subject may have been deleted, but the video of Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon will be around somewhere.
-
Fr. Pfeiffer told me several weeks ago not to go to the NeoSSPX Masses. He said the teaching at the top had changed and it would trickle down.
-
Father Ortiz gave a conference today in Toronto and and made it clear that we should not attend SSPX masses, not because of what they are teaching, but because of the difficulties that they are not teaching about. That is enough to recommend that we stay away from SSPX masses at this time.
-
Father Ortiz gave a conference today in Toronto and and made it clear that we should not attend SSPX masses, not because of what they are teaching, but because of the difficulties that they are not teaching about. That is enough to recommend that we stay away from SSPX masses at this time.
This being on the verge of having no Mass to attend is a growing theme.
When this finally happens to you, you have become a 'home-aloner' and
how do you raise a family like that??
It seems Bishop Williamson has been hinting at this without giving specifics.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=23959&min=26&num=15
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!
I know the Japanese went through such a trial in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Their example should be for our edification.
Father Ortiz gave a conference today in Toronto and and made it clear that we should not attend SSPX masses, not because of what they are teaching, but because of the difficulties that they are not teaching about. That is enough to recommend that we stay away from SSPX masses at this time.
So when we avoid SSPX Mass, and we have no alternative nearby (I fortunately
am not presently in that predicament! but I appreciate hearing about others who
are!), then you stay home with your Rosaries, scapulars and missals?
I hope that isn't the end of this discussion!!
Because even the Japanese didn't end it there. They established a "loose
association of independent families" who met on carefully planned times
and places to have community prayer, and some kind of ritual. They had
no priest, and they saw no priest from generation unto generation. Imagine
that! No Holy Communion (they relied on spiritual Communion), no
confirmations (they relied on the grace of Baptism), no Sacrament of Penance
(they seem to have developed a rigor for achieving perfect contrition -
which, BTW should be OUR ABIDING OBJECTIVE - to achieve in our lives
an ability to attain perfect contrition), no Extreme Unction (they relied on
the fervent prayer of family and friends to sustain them in their final agony),
no Holy Orders (obviously!), but only Baptism.
All they had was baptism, their Rosary, brown scapulars (which require no
blessing from a priest - but "should" be invested by a priest - they relied on
their fervent desire to be invested for they had no priest), and missals.
And through it all, they passed on the tradition of what they would look for
one day when the priests would return.
The "orange light" syndrome should be an opportunity to prepare for what is
coming down the pike. Lots of people are packing in long-term storage food
and getting ready to be holed up for a year or more when problems start.
But what about spiritual preparations? How will you make do without Mass
and the sacraments for an extended time?
It seems to me that some manner of loose association of Catholic families is
in order. We should be able to meet with each other, on prearrangement, in
private, without a priest (although a priest would be wonderful!), and say the
family Rosary together, maybe some other prayers like the Angelus (Regina
Coeli this time of year!), litany of Loretto, or of the saints, or of the Sacred
Heart, or St. Joseph, the Fatima prayers..
..Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
I adore Thee profoundly, and I offer Thee the most
sacred Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord
Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the
world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges
and indifference with which He is offended. And
through the infinite merits of His most Sacred
Heart, and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg
Thee for the conversion of poor sinners..
..My God, my God, I adore thee in the Most Blessed
Sacrament..
..O my God, it is for love of Thee, for the conversion
of sinners, for the Holy Father, and in reparation for
sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary..
The three Fatima children were taught by the Angel of Peace, patron of Portugal,
to repeat this prayer three times. BTW that was not "useless repetition."
N.B. The Archangel Michael never told anyone not to pray "una cuм".
It is believed that this was none other than St. Michael the Archangel, for he
is the patron saint of Portugal. And what is the prayer to St. Michael that
Pope Leo XIII proposed that we add to the Mass?
St. Michael, Archangel, defend us in battle. Be
our defense against the wickedness and snares of
the devil. Rebuke him, we pray, and do thou, O
prince of the heavenly host, cast into hell satan
and all the other wicked spirits who prowl about
the world seeking the ruin of souls! Amen.
Blessed Jacinta of Fatima, the child whose specialty was reparation for sins
committed against purity, was devoted to prayers for the Holy Father, "who
will have much to suffer." Blessed Jacinta never said to anyone that prayers
"una cuм" should be somehow avoided, did she? No, she did not.
It was 1916 when the three children had this apparition and Holy Communion,
brought to them by an angel. The Leonine prayers after Low Mass had only
been in use for about 20 years at the time. But that means that for 20 years,
millions of Catholics had been praying to St. Michael the Archangel by NAME,
asking for him to thrust into hell satan and all the other evil spirits who roam
about the earth for the ruin of souls, which hearkens to the Scripture of St.
Paul, "like a lion that roams about the world seeing whom it may devour."
And therefore, this apparition of the Angel could be seen as St. Michael's
answer to this prayer of millions of Catholics over a span of 20 years.
It seems to me that this long period of time is instructive. This was a big
request and such things are not answered overnight. It is for our
edification that it might take years.
-
Sorry, the link to Domitilla's post was wrong. It should have been this:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=23959&min=25&num=5
The "cement dried" as usual.
-
In Toronto, our core grouo has stayed home since January.
Father Pfeffer has been to Toronto monthly, even, had to believe, Christmas and Easter. God will provide (and Father helped a lot!).
We went through the usual questions and we have other members who have been unable to stay away. Everybody does what they can handle.
-
In Toronto, our core grouo [group?] has stayed home since January.
Father Pfeffer has been to Toronto monthly, even, had [hard] to believe, Christmas and Easter. God will provide (and Father helped a lot!).
We went through the usual questions and we have other members who have been unable to stay away. Everybody does what they can handle.
You probably don't want to hear me say that I am personally fortunate not
to be having the same problem that you are. I'm only saying this because
I am grateful for you and others to post this news that you have taken to
staying home rather that jeopardize your Faith.
I have a different, although not unrelated problem. In our group, there are
particular people (generally among the youth, and young adults) who are in
distress that we do not have a regular church building that we own, or at
least are in the process of becoming owners. They see parish churches in
the community and in nearby communities and they want that too. They
want to have a choir loft and a good organ, with an organist, for example.
It does me a lot of good to see how so many worldwide these days are
raising families going to Sunday Mass in someone's living room or in a hotel
room or in a rented reception hall, or in a basement. How long before this
becomes the NORM?
It would be great if this were not necessary, but for now, it is, and like you
say, "Everybody does what they can handle." We can make our burdens,
our cross, a voluntary sacrifice for the conversion of sinners, for the Holy
Father (who "has much to suffer"), for reparation for sins committed against
the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
WE have much to suffer too. This is a great mystery.
-
There were some articles on this forum about Fr Pfeiffer saying not to attend Una cuм Masses. If anyone can find these articles, please post them on this thread.
I doubt he ever said such a thing. Since you made the statement, why don't you post the relevant quotes?
Don't know about una cuм, but Fr. Pfeieffer was saying not to go to SSPX around March 13-15; it's in a video. Sean Johnson began a thread called "There is no Red Light" on March 15, and he references Fr. Pfieffer's sermon. Emerentiana did not make this subject up. I believe one of the threads dealing with this subject may have been deleted, but the video of Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon will be around somewhere.
Yes, the issue would be SSPX versus "Resistance" Masses. This has nothing to do with "una cuм."
I wasn't claiming she "made it up," just that she was entirely mistaken about the reason. It's not a small issue nor a small error. It implies these men are sedevacantists when they are not.
-
Yes, the issue would be SSPX versus "Resistance" Masses. This has nothing to do with "una cuм."
I wasn't claiming she "made it up," just that she was entirely mistaken about the reason. It's not a small issue nor a small error. It implies these men are sedevacantists when they are not.
OK. I've no idea if the people staying home are thinking along those lines, either.
-
Yes, the issue would be SSPX versus "Resistance" Masses. This has nothing to do with "una cuм."
I wasn't claiming she "made it up," just that she was entirely mistaken about the reason. It's not a small issue nor a small error. It implies these men are sedevacantists when they are not.
OK. I've no idea if the people staying home are thinking along those lines, either.
Seriously, why would they "think along those lines" in the first place? There seems to be no reason other that that one bites on the suggestion that Emerentiana made, which was without any merit whatsoever!
-
SJB, I think Fr. Pfeiffer did use the term "una cuм" but not in the sense of sedevacantism. If I remember the sermon and the sense correctly, he was implying you can't profess communion with those who have a fundamentally different viewpoint and applying that to the current SSPX superiors. Agree with him or not, and I think many here would disagree especially if an SSPX Mass was all they had, that was what Fr. Pfeiffer said. I recall it was Seraphim who posted the topic containing the sermon, he or someone else can correct me if it was otherwise.
-
SJB, I think Fr. Pfeiffer did use the term "una cuм" but not in the sense of sedevacantism. If I remember the sermon and the sense correctly, he was implying you can't profess communion with those who have a fundamentally different viewpoint and applying that to the current SSPX superiors. Agree with him or not, and I think many here would disagree especially if an SSPX Mass was all they had, that was what Fr. Pfeiffer said. I recall it was Seraphim who posted the topic containing the sermon, he or someone else can correct me if it was otherwise.
Then he's fallen into the same error as some sedevacantists. Was he saying an SSPX mass is no longer a Catholic Mass?
-
...he was implying you can't profess communion with those who have a fundamentally different viewpoint ...
Viewpoint on what? Anything he may deem important?
"In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity." - St. Augustine
-
...he was implying you can't profess communion with those who have a fundamentally different viewpoint ...
Viewpoint on what? Anything he may deem important?
"In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity." - St. Augustine
Yeah, differences on the regularization with Rome. I can't find the sermon now though, so I'll wait for someone else who has a better idea to clarify it for you.
-
In Toronto, our core grouo [group?] has stayed home since January.
Father Pfeffer has been to Toronto monthly, even, had [hard] to believe, Christmas and Easter. God will provide (and Father helped a lot!).
We went through the usual questions and we have other members who have been unable to stay away. Everybody does what they can handle.
You probably don't want to hear me say that I am personally fortunate not
to be having the same problem that you are. I'm only saying this because
I am grateful for you and others to post this news that you have taken to
staying home rather that jeopardize your Faith.
I have a different, although not unrelated problem. In our group, there are
particular people (generally among the youth, and young adults) who are in
distress that we do not have a regular church building that we own, or at
least are in the process of becoming owners. They see parish churches in
the community and in nearby communities and they want that too. They
want to have a choir loft and a good organ, with an organist, for example.
It does me a lot of good to see how so many worldwide these days are
raising families going to Sunday Mass in someone's living room or in a hotel
room or in a rented reception hall, or in a basement. How long before this
becomes the NORM?
It would be great if this were not necessary, but for now, it is, and like you
say, "Everybody does what they can handle." We can make our burdens,
our cross, a voluntary sacrifice for the conversion of sinners, for the Holy
Father (who "has much to suffer"), for reparation for sins committed against
the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
WE have much to suffer too. This is a great mystery.
We do have much to suffer in these days, and no good Catholic would ever take the decision to stay away from Mass and the Sacraments lightly. If the only way to resist Modernism is to travel for Mass, and receive the Sacraments when there is the opportunity, even if that is quite infrequent, then that is what we must do. They modernists may have held on to the beautiful churches that used to be ours, just as the Protestants did in the 16th century, but the faith is much more important. Assisting at Mass in people's living rooms, or in hotels and community centres is still easier than what the early Church had to endure in the catacombs, and what our ancestors had to endure huddled around Mass rocks and crammed into priest-holes.
-
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.
I realize I'm a newish member here who's not an SSPX adherent, so I'm unfamiliar with its organizational details, and I suppose my idea below might already have occurred to CathInfo members of longer standing:
Wouldn't SSPX have joyfully announced each & every ordination--even 'conditional' ordinations--by Abp. Lefebvre or the 4 bishops he consecrated, or each incoming transfer from the Novus Ordo? It'd be analogous to parish-newsletter columns announcing baptisms or welcoming new families. It seems that somewhere, there's gotta be some combination of SSPX adherents, either supporting or nonhostile to the Resistance, who'd collectively have access to a complete set of SSPX periodicals.
If so, couldn't a list of priests ordained by SSPX be compiled by the Resistance and distributed--or even made available in an on-line database? Some mysteries might be solved by Novus Ordo diocesan periodicals, which I'd expect to announce their installations/"ordinations" comparably joyfully. Wouldn't such a project resolve, to the greatest degree tractable, issues arising about the validity of orders of the vast majority of "priests" assigned to SSPX chapels? Or are so many independent priests joining SSPX (after traditional ordination) that compilers would become entangled in tracing the apostolic lineages of the ordaining bishops?
Would all that incur too much risk of litigation from Menzingen, at the direction of Bp. Fellay, and pursued by "The Crow"? Is a Resistance in the U.S.A., which I assume is free of any property whose deed is under the thumb of Menzingen, within the legal reach of attempts at censorship from Menzingen?
-
I suppose my idea below might already have occurred to CathInfo members of longer standing: [....] couldn't a list of priests ordained by SSPX be compiled by the Resistance and distributed--or even made available in an on-line database?
Upon further contemplation, I decided that this idea was independent of the "Orange Light?" issue, thus really an inappropriate digression. Having already stored my text, I could post it as a new topic, probably mañana.
And look! To the upper right of my posting, there was a relaxing blue button containing the word "DELETE". Und Ich muß Ordnung haben!. So I clicked it.
You can't delete posts by yourself, AlligatorDicax! I've heard of self-hate, but come on!
Well! It seemed to be a completely reasonable solution at the time. Please at least let the record show that I tried to do my part to remove my own clutter from this topic.