Author Topic: Orange Light? (Read 6699 times)

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:

MaterDominici · « **Reply #1 on:** April 06, 2013, 01:41:22 PM »

You're making more sense to me.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

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?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** April 06, 2013, 01:54:38 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

You're making more sense to me.

Quote from: SeanJohnson
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.

s2srea · « **Reply #3 on:** April 06, 2013, 02:02:21 PM »

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.

John Grace · « **Reply #4 on:** April 06, 2013, 02:05:04 PM »

Quote

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.

Matto · « **Reply #5 on:** April 06, 2013, 02:06:55 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.

I am glad to hear the good priest's recommendation.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #6 on:** April 06, 2013, 02:08:55 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

Quote
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.

John Grace · « **Reply #7 on:** April 06, 2013, 02:10:05 PM »

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.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #8 on:** April 06, 2013, 02:10:41 PM »

Quote from: Matto

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.

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.

John Grace · « **Reply #9 on:** April 06, 2013, 02:13:04 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: John Grace
Quote
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.

John Grace · « **Reply #10 on:** April 06, 2013, 02:16:33 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: John Grace
Quote
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.

s2srea · « **Reply #11 on:** April 06, 2013, 02:18:06 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

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:

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.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #12 on:** April 06, 2013, 02:31:40 PM »

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?

s2srea · « **Reply #13 on:** April 06, 2013, 02:37:55 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?

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.

John Grace · « **Reply #14 on:** April 06, 2013, 02:58:25 PM »

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)