Quote from: curioustrad

Quote from: Emerentiana

Quote from: eddiearent

So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.

Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals

How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.

The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.

 :applause: :applause:

Perfectly said.  The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo.  They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist  position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis.  Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence.  Less funds will result.  
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?

 What are the sedes accomplishing ? Garage chapels - cowboy priests - pseudo theologians ?

As a "sede" ie: A CATHOLIC, I would kneel in the mud while Holy Mass is offered by a true CATHOLIC priest on the hood of a jeep rather than commit sacrilege by attending a "mass" in union with a heretic in a bejeweled and golden gilt chapel:



So much for your "garage chapel" theory/slam.

Yes but that WAS the church - now we have people PLAYING at church based upon private judgment in  opposition to the real Magisterium. Remember this all started as an attack on Fr. Pfeiffer. I believe this forum calls itself the home of the resistance not of the sedes. I'm only sticking up for Fr. P.

Quote from: curioustrad

Quote from: Emerentiana

Quote from: eddiearent

So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.

Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals

How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.

The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.

 :applause: :applause:

Perfectly said.  The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo.  They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist  position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis.  Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence.  Less funds will result.  
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?

 What are the sedes accomplishing ? Garage chapels - cowboy priests - pseudo theologians ?

As a "sede" ie: A CATHOLIC, I would kneel in the mud while Holy Mass is offered by a true CATHOLIC priest on the hood of a jeep rather than commit sacrilege by attending a "mass" in union with a heretic in a bejeweled and golden gilt chapel:



So much for your "garage chapel" theory/slam.

I agree, and I would kneel in the mud at the true Mass, rather than go to the churches under control of the Novus Ordo traitors.  

Quote from: curioustrad

Quote from: Emerentiana

The SSPX has valid priests.  The FSSP does not.  All of their priests today have been ordained bu Novus Ordo Bishops.  They are NOT the same as the SSPX, who have validly ordained priests, for the most part, except the Novus Ordo priests that have joined them and have not been reordained.

SSPX priests are forbidden to say mass in the Novus Ordo churches.

Armchair theology in action ?

Emerentiana may have given you the Reader's Digest version of the situation but she isn't making any claims of being a theologian.

Can you tell me how one becomes a legitimate theologian and who is a living theologian that you would recommend we approach?

Now that's a loaded question if ever I saw one. The first answer is that the Church is in crisis and therefore a state of confusion. Secondly, the normal way a theologian became one was to study the disciplines and obtain doctorates from Catholic universities. Not one Trad cleric falls into this category - and by definition neither do lay people with a keyboard in front of them. All I can recommend is that we study the manualists from before the time of the confusion (bearing in mind that no theologian every could have imagined the confusion that reigns today.)

The resistance priests are offering an attempt to reject the excesses of a sell-out by the neo-SSPX but they hold fast to the position of the Archbishop which was always reject the modernism, respect the authority which sometimes requires us refusing the authority (not reject) in order to reject the modernism. It's a way of greater subtlety which as a young fellow I could not accept from Bp. Williamson. Now I am older I know he is absolutely right.

That said, it is quite obvious that the so-called resistance Fora (forums) have been flooded of late with pro-sede types and I'm here to firmly defend the resistance which is the only logical position that I can see -it is the heir to that position of the Archbishop which saner minds once accepted as the middle (and a fortiori the safer) course.

That said - it's just my opinion - not a dogma.

Quote from: Emitte Lucem Tuam

Quote from: curioustrad

Quote from: Emerentiana

Quote from: eddiearent

So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.

Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals

How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.

The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.

 :applause: :applause:

Perfectly said.  The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo.  They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist  position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis.  Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence.  Less funds will result.  
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?

 What are the sedes accomplishing ? Garage chapels - cowboy priests - pseudo theologians ?

As a "sede" ie: A CATHOLIC, I would kneel in the mud while Holy Mass is offered by a true CATHOLIC priest on the hood of a jeep rather than commit sacrilege by attending a "mass" in union with a heretic in a bejeweled and golden gilt chapel:



So much for your "garage chapel" theory/slam.

I agree, and I would kneel in the mud at the true Mass, rather than go to the churches under control of the Novus Ordo traitors.  

I agree with that sentiment absolutely !

We are not schismatics! If an excommunication was pronounced against the bishops of China, who separated themselves from Rome and put themselves under the Chinese government, one very easily understands why Pope Pius XII excommunicated them. There is no question of us separating ourselves from Rome, nor of putting ourselves under a foreign government, nor of establishing a sort of parallel church as the Bishops of Palmar de Troya have done in Spain. They have even elected a pope, formed a college of cardinals... It is out of the question for us to do such things. Far from us be this miserable thought to separate ourselves from Rome!

On the contrary, it is in order to manifest our attachment to Rome that we are performing this ceremony. It is in order to manifest our attachment to the Eternal Rome, to the Pope, and to all those who have preceded these last Popes who, unfortunately since the Second Vatican Council, have thought it their duty to adhere to grievous errors which are demolishing the Church and the Catholic Priesthood.

[...]

This is why we do this ceremony. Far be it from me to set myself up as pope! I am simply a bishop of the Catholic Church who is continuing to transmit Catholic doctrine. I think, and this will certainly not be too far off, that you will be able to engrave on my tombstone these words of St. Paul: "Tradidi quod et accepi-I have transmitted to you what I have received," nothing else. I am just the postman bringing you a letter. I did not write the letter, the message, this Word of God. God Himself wrote it; Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave it to us. As for us, we just handed it down, through these dear priests here present and through all those who have chosen to resist this wave of apostasy in the Church, by keeping the Eternal Faith and giving it to the faithful. We are just carriers of this Good News, of this Gospel which Our Lord Jesus Christ gave to us, as well as of the means of sanctification: the Holy Mass, the true Holy Mass, the true Sacraments which truly give the spiritual life.

It seems to me, my dear brethren, that I am hearing the voices of all these Popes - since Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII - telling us: "Please, we beseech you, what are you going to do with our teachings, with our predications, with the Catholic Faith? Are you going to abandon it? Are you going to let it disappear from this earth? Please, please, continue to keep this treasure which we have given you. Do not abandon the faithful, do not abandon the Church! Continue the Church! Indeed, since the Council, what we condemned in the past the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing. How is it possible? We have condemned them: Liberalism, Communism., Socialism, Modernism, Sillonism. All the errors which we have condemned are now professed, adopted and supported by the authorities of the Church. Is it possible? Unless you do something to continue this Tradition of the Church which we have given to you, all of it shall disappear. Souls shall be lost."

Thus, we find ourselves in a case of necessity. We have done all we could, trying to help Rome to understand that they had to come back to the attitudes of the holy Pius XII and of all his predecessors. Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself have gone to Rome, we have spoken, we have sent letters, several times to Rome. We have tried by these talks, by all these means, to succeed in making Rome understand that, since the Council and since aggiornamento, this change which has occurred in the Church is not Catholic, is not in conformity to the doctrine of all times. This ecuмenism and all these errors, this collegiality - all this is contrary to the Faith of the Church, and is .in the process of destroying the Church.

This is why we are convinced that, by the act of these consecrations today, we are obeying the call of these Popes and as a consequence the call of God, since they represent Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Church.

Sermon for the 1988 consecrations

"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !

"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.

Quote from: Mabel

Quote from: curioustrad

Quote from: Emerentiana

The SSPX has valid priests.  The FSSP does not.  All of their priests today have been ordained bu Novus Ordo Bishops.  They are NOT the same as the SSPX, who have validly ordained priests, for the most part, except the Novus Ordo priests that have joined them and have not been reordained.

SSPX priests are forbidden to say mass in the Novus Ordo churches.

Armchair theology in action ?

Emerentiana may have given you the Reader's Digest version of the situation but she isn't making any claims of being a theologian.

Can you tell me how one becomes a legitimate theologian and who is a living theologian that you would recommend we approach?

Now that's a loaded question if ever I saw one. The first answer is that the Church is in crisis and therefore a state of confusion. Secondly, the normal way a theologian became one was to study the disciplines and obtain doctorates from Catholic universities. Not one Trad cleric falls into this category - and by definition neither do lay people with a keyboard in front of them. All I can recommend is that we study the manualists from before the time of the confusion (bearing in mind that no theologian every could have imagined the confusion that reigns today.)

The resistance priests are offering an attempt to reject the excesses of a sell-out by the neo-SSPX but they hold fast to the position of the Archbishop which was always reject the modernism, respect the authority which sometimes requires us refusing the authority (not reject) in order to reject the modernism. It's a way of greater subtlety which as a young fellow I could not accept from Bp. Williamson. Now I am older I know he is absolutely right.

That said, it is quite obvious that the so-called resistance Fora (forums) have been flooded of late with pro-sede types and I'm here to firmly defend the resistance which is the only logical position that I can see -it is the heir to that position of the Archbishop which saner minds once accepted as the middle (and a fortiori the safer) course.

That said - it's just my opinion - not a dogma.

I agree with most of what you have stated.

So what is the difference between a priest who gives a poorly organized sermon, filled with error, void of proof and an armchair theologian?

Neither have permission from the Church to write or speak on matters of Faith. One is ordained and one is not.

No one is allowed to criticize this provocation inserted into the mass, of all places?

What makes one traditionalist priest always right over another? I hold that we should accept the truth even if we don't like the messenger. You might like much of what any priest says, and so might I, but it does not mean they are always right or justified in every matter.

The whole point is that the attack on sedevacantists by Fr.Pfieffer was unnecessary, illogical, and should not have been done during mass, if at all. If this is the product of Society training, it isn't in conformity with the SSPX standards under Lefevbre.

Now, we have Catholics signing docuмents against other Catholics as result and it furthers an "us against them" mentality. Sedevacantists are not the enemy.

I'd rather kneel in actual mud for mass that kneel at a mass where mud has been slung. Poor sermons such as these have no place at mass--whether we agree theologically with the speaker or not.

Read with humility...

Jus Canonicuм by the Rev F X Wernz S.J. and the Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938) Chapter VII

De Summo Pontifice
translated by J.S. Daly

[The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases...]

453. By heresy which is notorious and openly made known. The Roman Pontiff should he fall into it is by that very fact even before any declaratory sentence of the Church deprived of his power of jurisdiction. Concerning this matter there are five Opinions of which the first denies the hypothesis upon which the entire question is based, namely that a Pope even as a private doctor can fall into heresy. This opinion although pious and probable cannot be said to be certain and common. For this reason the hypothesis is to be accepted and the question resolved.

A second opinion holds that the Roman Pontiff forfeits his power automatically even on account of occult heresy. This opinion is rightly said by Bellarmine to be based upon a false supposition, namely that even occult heretics are completely separated from the body of the Church...

The third opinion thinks that the Roman Pontiff does not automatically forfeit his power and cannot be deprived of it by deposition even for manifest heresy. This assertion is very rightly said by Bellarmine to be "extremely improbable".

The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others, contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. "Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible" as Bellarmine teaches.

Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.

Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence...

Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.