Author Topic: Reasons I will go to the SSPX (Read 3447 times)

Mabel · « **Reply #15 on:** December 29, 2013, 05:46:30 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: Mabel
I personally know or am very familiar most of "the 9" which one isn't a sedevacantist? I've never heard anything otherwise from their own mouths.

Father Eugene Berry is NOT a sedevacantist.

I'm fairly sure he is, as my dealings with him, and those of my friends led me to believe so.

Most websites have him listed as such.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #16 on:** December 29, 2013, 06:02:33 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: Mabel
I personally know or am very familiar most of "the 9" which one isn't a sedevacantist? I've never heard anything otherwise from their own mouths.

Father Eugene Berry is NOT a sedevacantist.

I'm fairly sure he is, as my dealings with him, and those of my friends led me to believe so.

Most websites have him listed as such.

Been digging for more information on this, and found this layman who wrote a book, and in the acknowledgements he listed Fr. Berry. Here's what he said:

http://www.prayforthepope.net/PParticle.htm

Quote

The author wishes to make grateful acknowledgment to Father James Buckley not only for the graces of the Sacraments and Masses but also for challenging my beliefs concerning the papacy and in guiding my search as to the ideals of sedevacantism. Also to Father Eugene Berry for his many years of providing the Mass and Sacraments and for reminding me that there are many problems with sedevacantism which started my search for understanding sedevacantism. Having very weak English skills, I also wish to thank my dear wife (Rosanne), Dr. Mary Buckalew, and Henry Sestak in their work to make different parts of this study readable.

And here he has a full chapter on "Sedevacantism?" if you read what he has to say about it.

Seems to me that Fr. Berry is not a sede if he reminded him that there are many problems with it. Father Bolduc wasn't a sedevacantist either, and he would frequently tell us why he didn't hold that position. He also would invite Father Gregory Hesse, who also wasn't a sedevacantist, to Saint Michael's, to lecture us.

Fr. Bolduc, and Fr. Berry were very good friends, considering when Fr. Bolduc was the headmaster at Saint Mary's (my husband attending Saint Mary's at that time) Fr. Berry was one of the teachers over there.

Mabel · « **Reply #17 on:** December 29, 2013, 06:14:56 PM »

Most sedevacantists know and can point out errors or things that are problematic with the position. Most honest, prominent sedevacantists do this, in fact.

What you are reading is a reference to possibly a discussion that a man had with Fr. Berry on the issue. But it isn't strong evidence in support of him not holding the sedevacantist position. As far as I know, most who attend his chapel in CO are sedevacantist and the majority of priests he keeps company with also hold that position.

Perhaps it is a modified view such as the SSPV holds.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #18 on:** December 30, 2013, 09:18:16 PM »

Ultra:

Quote

The '62 Missal was rarely followed by the US district prior to '83, if at all, but usage of pre-Bugnini Missals were the custom here. A change was forced in 1983.

1)That being the case, why was it reported to be such an issue among the nine?
2) If sedevacantism was not the primary issue among the nine, why has that one identification alone survived among them?
3)A "change was forced," you say. Who forced the change and why?
4)Did ABL force the change, perhaps, because he did not want to be seen by the Conciliar church as totally recalcitrant and opposed to the V2 reforms?

JPaul · « **Reply #19 on:** December 31, 2013, 07:52:58 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Ultra:
Quote
The '62 Missal was rarely followed by the US district prior to '83, if at all, but usage of pre-Bugnini Missals were the custom here. A change was forced in 1983.

1)That being the case, why was it reported to be such an issue among the nine?
2) If sedevacantism was not the primary issue among the nine, why has that one identification alone survived among them?
3)A "change was forced," you say. Who forced the change and why?
4)Did ABL force the change, perhaps, because he did not want to be seen by the Conciliar church as totally recalcitrant and opposed to the V2 reforms?

Number four about hits it on the head.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #20 on:** December 31, 2013, 09:44:16 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Ultra:
Quote
The '62 Missal was rarely followed by the US district prior to '83, if at all, but usage of pre-Bugnini Missals were the custom here. A change was forced in 1983.

1)That being the case, why was it reported to be such an issue among the nine?
2) If sedevacantism was not the primary issue among the nine, why has that one identification alone survived among them?
3)A "change was forced," you say. Who forced the change and why?
4)Did ABL force the change, perhaps, because he did not want to be seen by the Conciliar church as totally recalcitrant and opposed to the V2 reforms?

In reply to 1 and 2; Fr. Schmidberger was controlling the rhetoric, and SVism was the nascent boogeyman with which the "nine" were brutally branded. This split was also used as the mechanism er, excuse, to debut SSPX as landlords. ++L never had any interest in property, but some of his "trusted advisors" were already planning for what we suffer today. The recusants were being slowly corralled even then.
You've answered your 3 with 4. Ratsinger and John Paul the Small began schmoozing the good archbishop after the demise of P6, and 1962 was a concession they insisted on. In a moment of misplaced trust, he obliged.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #21 on:** December 31, 2013, 10:07:40 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Ultra:
Quote
The '62 Missal was rarely followed by the US district prior to '83, if at all, but usage of pre-Bugnini Missals were the custom here. A change was forced in 1983.

1)That being the case, why was it reported to be such an issue among the nine?
2) If sedevacantism was not the primary issue among the nine, why has that one identification alone survived among them?
3)A "change was forced," you say. Who forced the change and why?
4)Did ABL force the change, perhaps, because he did not want to be seen by the Conciliar church as totally recalcitrant and opposed to the V2 reforms?

Quote from: ultrarigorist

In reply to 1 and 2; Fr. Schmidberger was controlling the rhetoric, and SVism was the nascent boogeyman with which the "nine" were brutally branded. This split was also used as the mechanism er, excuse, to debut SSPX as landlords. ++L never had any interest in property, but some of his "trusted advisors" were already planning for what we suffer today. The recusants were being slowly corralled even then.
You've answered your 3 with 4. Ratsinger and John Paul the Small began schmoozing the good archbishop after the demise of P6, and 1962 was a concession they insisted on. In a moment of misplaced trust, he obliged.

Now this is the kind of stuff that I enjoy reading on Cathinfo: A good, honest history lesson. :ready-to-eat:

hollingsworth · « **Reply #22 on:** December 31, 2013, 10:18:24 AM »

ultra:

Quote

In reply to 1 and 2; Fr. Schmidberger was controlling the rhetoric, and SVism was the nascent boogeyman with which the "nine" were brutally branded. This split was also used as the mechanism er, excuse, to debut SSPX as landlords. ++L never had any interest in property, but some of his "trusted advisors" were already planning for what we suffer today. The recusants were being slowly corralled even then.
You've answered your 3 with 4. Ratsinger and John Paul the Small began schmoozing the good archbishop after the demise of P6, and 1962 was a concession they insisted on. In a moment of misplaced trust, he obliged.

You say that Schmid. was controlling the situation, and, (as I read you), he made SVism the issue. But we understand from the nine that they were concerned about other matters, viz. '62 missal, marriage annulments, priestly ordinations, etc. They could not have been that worked up about the '62 missal, since prior to '83 sspx chapels were using a variety of earlier missals. And it was in 1983 that they were kicked out. So you're implying that Schmid., not the nine, rolled out SVism as the major issue at the time, and only after 1983 did ABL agree to make the concession on the missal.
BTW, I am glad to hear that ABL had little interest in property. That's a relief. Nevertheless, he went to court with the nine over matters of property, didn't he?

DominvsSabaoth · « **Reply #23 on:** December 31, 2013, 10:31:02 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

I'm sure these were the same reasons people continued to go to their novus ordo Church in the 1950s-1960s, and were oblivious to the changes that happened slowly, but surely, until this image became the norm:

Instead of this:

But don't worry! It takes lots of years for that to happen, and Mr. Horhay doesn't mind waiting. Their strategy is all about incrementalism.

Hey!
At least the women are covering their heads (and it's McCain hats too)

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #24 on:** December 31, 2013, 12:38:42 PM »

These were the days when the real Catholic Men went to Holy Communion on a regular basics.

The second photo, the unspeakable. It looks like communion in the NO at
a so called out door mass.

What a change in a half of a century.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #25 on:** December 31, 2013, 01:05:33 PM »

Quote from: DominvsSabaoth

Quote from: parentsfortruth
I'm sure these were the same reasons people continued to go to their novus ordo Church in the 1950s-1960s, and were oblivious to the changes that happened slowly, but surely, until this image became the norm:

Instead of this:

But don't worry! It takes lots of years for that to happen, and Mr. Horhay doesn't mind waiting. Their strategy is all about incrementalism.

Hey!
At least the women are covering their heads (and it's McCain hats too)

And so is the girly man there...

Solidus · « **Reply #26 on:** December 31, 2013, 03:06:34 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Whoever did that abomination of a photoshop needs to spend a few hundred bucks on an Adobe Photoshop 101 course at the local community college.

Anyways I'm gonna keep going to the local SSPX chapel. The sacraments are valid and frequent, the priest and parishioners are good, it's five minutes away so I can go almost daily, and the nearest CMRI chapel is many hours away.

Satan's main game plan for Vatican II was to separate the people from valid sacraments. To become a "Home Aloner: SSPX Edition" is spiritual ѕυιcιdє for oneself and their family, and deservedly so. People need to stick their head out of the traditional ghetto once in a while and remember that we live in the most demonically infested world since Noah; every major city is filled with occultists, satanists, freemasons, idolaters (Massive immigration of Hindu and Voodoo sects), New Age (Reiki, tarot, ouija boards, séances), daily black masses, and actual witches and warlocks who have demonically gifted abilities to hurt people.

To willfully separate oneself from valid sacraments for more than one week in the times we live in is like starting a land war in Russia, equipped with only a speedo and a fork.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #27 on:** December 31, 2013, 04:32:25 PM »

Quote from: Solidus

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Whoever did that abomination of a photoshop needs to spend a few hundred bucks on an Adobe Photoshop 101 course at the local community college.

Anyways I'm gonna keep going to the local SSPX chapel. The sacraments are valid and frequent, the priest and parishioners are good, it's five minutes away so I can go almost daily, and the nearest CMRI chapel is many hours away.

Satan's main game plan for Vatican II was to separate the people from valid sacraments. To become a "Home Aloner: SSPX Edition" is spiritual ѕυιcιdє for oneself and their family, and deservedly so. People need to stick their head out of the traditional ghetto once in a while and remember that we live in the most demonically infested world since Noah; every major city is filled with occultists, satanists, freemasons, idolaters (Massive immigration of Hindu and Voodoo sects), New Age (Reiki, tarot, ouija boards, séances), daily black masses, and actual witches and warlocks who have demonically gifted abilities to hurt people.

To willfully separate oneself from valid sacraments for more than one week in the times we live in is like starting a land war in Russia, equipped with only a speedo and a fork.

I had noticed it was photoshopped (the hats anyway), but it was a good illustration of my point.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #28 on:** December 31, 2013, 04:32:43 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

ultra:
Quote
In reply to 1 and 2; Fr. Schmidberger was controlling the rhetoric, and SVism was the nascent boogeyman with which the "nine" were brutally branded. This split was also used as the mechanism er, excuse, to debut SSPX as landlords. ++L never had any interest in property, but some of his "trusted advisors" were already planning for what we suffer today. The recusants were being slowly corralled even then.
You've answered your 3 with 4. Ratsinger and John Paul the Small began schmoozing the good archbishop after the demise of P6, and 1962 was a concession they insisted on. In a moment of misplaced trust, he obliged.

You say that Schmid. was controlling the situation, and, (as I read you), he made SVism the issue.

Yes

Quote from: hollingsworth

But we understand from the nine that they were concerned about other matters, viz. '62 missal, marriage annulments, priestly ordinations, etc.

Yes

Quote from: hollingsworth

They could not have been that worked up about the '62 missal, since prior to '83 sspx chapels were using a variety of earlier missals. And it was in 1983 that they were kicked out. So you're implying that Schmid., not the nine, rolled out SVism as the major issue at the time, and only after 1983 did ABL agree to make the concession on the missal.

They were, because, according to Fr. Cekada and some personal/anecdotal history, almost all the English-speaking world and Germany used the 1954 (or previous) Missal. France was purported to be following 1965 or 1967 transitional. And yes..

Quote from: hollingsworth

BTW, I am glad to hear that ABL had little interest in property. That's a relief. Nevertheless, he went to court with the nine over matters of property, didn't he?

Yes, but litigating deeds was a radical departure from his earlier priorities, so we can be assured he was receiving a lot of "guidance" from underlings.