Author Topic: Position Statement: (Read 9083 times)

TKGS · « **Reply #30 on:** March 27, 2013, 07:11:54 AM »

Quote

There is nothing murky about the distinction between de facto and de jure.

There are only those who do not want to see it.

You are correct, there is nothing murky about the distinction---

de facto: “existing in fact whether with lawful authority or not”.

de jure: “by right; according to law”

When applied to the application of law, one is honest, the other is not. When applied to what is “official”, one is honest the other is not.

It seems that the SSPX today has many policies, positions, and rules that are de jure, that is, official, but whose application are according to unstated, not necessarily known, and changing standards that are de facto enforced.

This is why I asked earlier what is meant by “official”. Menzingen does not necessarily issue a formal policy or position on any particular matter, but the Superiors certainly do act as if they have. It is impossible to know, I think, what is “official” and what is not in today’s SSPX at any given moment.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #31 on:** March 27, 2013, 11:54:41 PM »

Quote from: Militia Jesu

Quote from: Matthew

The SSPX is almost completely intact, if you look at the whole organization! The damage is what, less than 5 or 10%?

Wow!!! ..and I thought Seraphim was the one most out of touch here. I changed my mind.

I think it's rather disrespectful of you to come on Matthew's forum and write something like that towards him.

Militia Jesu · « **Reply #32 on:** March 28, 2013, 12:47:52 AM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: Militia Jesu
Quote from: Matthew

The SSPX is almost completely intact, if you look at the whole organization! The damage is what, less than 5 or 10%?

Wow!!! ..and I thought Seraphim was the one most out of touch here. I changed my mind.

I think it's rather disrespectful of you to come on Matthew's forum and write something like that towards him.

I hope he takes criticism better than you would.

Just because he owns the forum doesn't necessary means he should be spared of criticism; and the more I read his passage I quoted, the more I wish it was only a mirage.

That statement could've come right out of FishEater or Rorate Coeli... and that is scary!

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #33 on:** March 28, 2013, 03:37:40 PM »

Quote from: Militia Jesu

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
Quote from: Militia Jesu
Quote from: Matthew

The SSPX is almost completely intact, if you look at the whole organization! The damage is what, less than 5 or 10%?

Wow!!! ..and I thought Seraphim was the one most out of touch here. I changed my mind.

I think it's rather disrespectful of you to come on Matthew's forum and write something like that towards him.

I hope he takes criticism better than you would.

Just because he owns the forum doesn't necessary means he should be spared of criticism; and the more I read his passage I quoted, the more I wish it was only a mirage.

That statement could've come right out of FishEater or Rorate Coeli... and that is scary!

I'm not saying you can never disagree with the moderator.

But to call him the "most out of touch" person is unnecessary.

Militia Jesu · « **Reply #34 on:** March 28, 2013, 11:45:46 PM »

Seraphim:

Quote

Position Statement:, Laughable This Should Be Required

What is really laughable it's your 128th attempt in trying to prove to all of us SSPX still means 100% "green light".

Nothing is farther from the truth and by the number of threads and posts you have on this particular subject, it is obvious your conscience is bothered by it...

The fact you constantly try to use +W as being completely on your side is not accurate either but you rather overlook different SSPX places where H.E has given a RED light; again, not accurate to say the least. The Open Letter to SSPX Priests just comes to prove even more how inaccurate you've been portraying the illusionary and automatic "green light".

The other point you seem to be 'obsessed' with is the 37 priests in France... You treat them as the "great heroes of the last hour" in Bp. Fellay's betrayal. Although I agree it's better to act late than ever, remember they have come out anonymously in the 9th inning and if they stop at that, very little good will come out of this.

So, to sum up the other side of the coin I'll state this:

As the Conciliar Church is to Catholic Church so is the neo-SSPX to the SSPX; both intrinsically and respectfully changed by Vatican II and Vatican IIb.

If one can go as far as to deny that the position of the Superior General, all his Assistants, all District Superiors (yes, including Fr. de Cacqueray unfortunately), their last General Council, an approved written/signed docuмent (Preamble), the conduct of their official communication channels and the expulsion of those who are contrary to the conciliatory agenda --including its senior bishop, as not being official, nothing else will.

Am I telling you to leave or join anything? No! But don't try to tell me those who have come to the conclusion of a red light towards neo-SSPX is because they have a tool to be sharpened, it makes you look silly.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #35 on:** March 29, 2013, 08:03:25 AM »

Quote from: Militia Jesu

Seraphim:
Quote
Position Statement:, Laughable This Should Be Required

What is really laughable it's your 128th attempt in trying to prove to all of us SSPX still means 100% "green light".

Nothing is farther from the truth and by the number of threads and posts you have on this particular subject, it is obvious your conscience is bothered by it...

The fact you constantly try to use +W as being completely on your side is not accurate either but you rather overlook different SSPX places where H.E has given a RED light; again, not accurate to say the least. The Open Letter to SSPX Priests just comes to prove even more how inaccurate you've been portraying the illusionary and automatic "green light".

The other point you seem to be 'obsessed' with is the 37 priests in France... You treat them as the "great heroes of the last hour" in Bp. Fellay's betrayal. Although I agree it's better to act late than ever, remember they have come out anonymously in the 9th inning and if they stop at that, very little good will come out of this.

So, to sum up the other side of the coin I'll state this:

As the Conciliar Church is to Catholic Church so is the neo-SSPX to the SSPX; both intrinsically and respectfully changed by Vatican II and Vatican IIb.

If one can go as far as to deny that the position of the Superior General, all his Assistants, all District Superiors (yes, including Fr. de Cacqueray unfortunately), their last General Council, an approved written/signed docuмent (Preamble), the conduct of their official communication channels and the expulsion of those who are contrary to the conciliatory agenda --including its senior bishop, as not being official, nothing else will.

Am I telling you to leave or join anything? No! But don't try to tell me those who have come to the conclusion of a red light towards neo-SSPX is because they have a tool to be sharpened, it makes you look silly.

No.

What is really laughable is you trying to re-create reality and pretend I gave a green light.

Please quote me giving the green light.

If you cannot (and you can't), what does that say about your character?

Militia Jesu · « **Reply #36 on:** March 29, 2013, 11:46:55 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Militia Jesu
Seraphim:
Quote
Position Statement:, Laughable This Should Be Required

What is really laughable it's your 128th attempt in trying to prove to all of us SSPX still means 100% "green light".

Nothing is farther from the truth and by the number of threads and posts you have on this particular subject, it is obvious your conscience is bothered by it...

The fact you constantly try to use +W as being completely on your side is not accurate either but you rather overlook different SSPX places where H.E has given a RED light; again, not accurate to say the least. The Open Letter to SSPX Priests just comes to prove even more how inaccurate you've been portraying the illusionary and automatic "green light".

The other point you seem to be 'obsessed' with is the 37 priests in France... You treat them as the "great heroes of the last hour" in Bp. Fellay's betrayal. Although I agree it's better to act late than ever, remember they have come out anonymously in the 9th inning and if they stop at that, very little good will come out of this.

So, to sum up the other side of the coin I'll state this:

As the Conciliar Church is to Catholic Church so is the neo-SSPX to the SSPX; both intrinsically and respectfully changed by Vatican II and Vatican IIb.

If one can go as far as to deny that the position of the Superior General, all his Assistants, all District Superiors (yes, including Fr. de Cacqueray unfortunately), their last General Council, an approved written/signed docuмent (Preamble), the conduct of their official communication channels and the expulsion of those who are contrary to the conciliatory agenda --including its senior bishop, as not being official, nothing else will.

Am I telling you to leave or join anything? No! But don't try to tell me those who have come to the conclusion of a red light towards neo-SSPX is because they have a tool to be sharpened, it makes you look silly.

No.

What is really laughable is you trying to re-create reality and pretend I gave a green light.

Please quote me giving the green light.

If you cannot (and you can't), what does that say about your character?

Saying SSPX is "perfectly orthodox" equals "green light" on my book. Let alone all the attacks on anything remotely red.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #37 on:** March 29, 2013, 06:31:02 PM »

Quote from: Militia Jesu

Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Militia Jesu
Seraphim:
Quote
Position Statement:, Laughable This Should Be Required

What is really laughable it's your 128th attempt in trying to prove to all of us SSPX still means 100% "green light".

Nothing is farther from the truth and by the number of threads and posts you have on this particular subject, it is obvious your conscience is bothered by it...

The fact you constantly try to use +W as being completely on your side is not accurate either but you rather overlook different SSPX places where H.E has given a RED light; again, not accurate to say the least. The Open Letter to SSPX Priests just comes to prove even more how inaccurate you've been portraying the illusionary and automatic "green light".

The other point you seem to be 'obsessed' with is the 37 priests in France... You treat them as the "great heroes of the last hour" in Bp. Fellay's betrayal. Although I agree it's better to act late than ever, remember they have come out anonymously in the 9th inning and if they stop at that, very little good will come out of this.

So, to sum up the other side of the coin I'll state this:

As the Conciliar Church is to Catholic Church so is the neo-SSPX to the SSPX; both intrinsically and respectfully changed by Vatican II and Vatican IIb.

If one can go as far as to deny that the position of the Superior General, all his Assistants, all District Superiors (yes, including Fr. de Cacqueray unfortunately), their last General Council, an approved written/signed docuмent (Preamble), the conduct of their official communication channels and the expulsion of those who are contrary to the conciliatory agenda --including its senior bishop, as not being official, nothing else will.

Am I telling you to leave or join anything? No! But don't try to tell me those who have come to the conclusion of a red light towards neo-SSPX is because they have a tool to be sharpened, it makes you look silly.

No.

What is really laughable is you trying to re-create reality and pretend I gave a green light.

Please quote me giving the green light.

If you cannot (and you can't), what does that say about your character?

Saying SSPX is "perfectly orthodox" equals "green light" on my book. Let alone all the attacks on anything remotely red.

Where do you come up with this crap?

I can't remember the last time you quoted me accurately.

Is it malice, or are you a rather dull-witted fellow?

I think you just like to make stuff up as you go.

I will start doing the same:

I don't think you should call Bishop Williamson a heretic, and I definitely don't agree with you that the Jews will be saved by Judaism. :wink:

Machabees · « **Reply #38 on:** March 29, 2013, 07:22:17 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Militia Jesu
Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Militia Jesu
Seraphim:
Quote
Position Statement:, Laughable This Should Be Required

What is really laughable it's your 128th attempt in trying to prove to all of us SSPX still means 100% "green light".

Nothing is farther from the truth and by the number of threads and posts you have on this particular subject, it is obvious your conscience is bothered by it...

The fact you constantly try to use +W as being completely on your side is not accurate either but you rather overlook different SSPX places where H.E has given a RED light; again, not accurate to say the least. The Open Letter to SSPX Priests just comes to prove even more how inaccurate you've been portraying the illusionary and automatic "green light".

The other point you seem to be 'obsessed' with is the 37 priests in France... You treat them as the "great heroes of the last hour" in Bp. Fellay's betrayal. Although I agree it's better to act late than ever, remember they have come out anonymously in the 9th inning and if they stop at that, very little good will come out of this.

So, to sum up the other side of the coin I'll state this:

As the Conciliar Church is to Catholic Church so is the neo-SSPX to the SSPX; both intrinsically and respectfully changed by Vatican II and Vatican IIb.

If one can go as far as to deny that the position of the Superior General, all his Assistants, all District Superiors (yes, including Fr. de Cacqueray unfortunately), their last General Council, an approved written/signed docuмent (Preamble), the conduct of their official communication channels and the expulsion of those who are contrary to the conciliatory agenda --including its senior bishop, as not being official, nothing else will.

Am I telling you to leave or join anything? No! But don't try to tell me those who have come to the conclusion of a red light towards neo-SSPX is because they have a tool to be sharpened, it makes you look silly.

No.

What is really laughable is you trying to re-create reality and pretend I gave a green light.

Please quote me giving the green light.

If you cannot (and you can't), what does that say about your character?

Saying SSPX is "perfectly orthodox" equals "green light" on my book. Let alone all the attacks on anything remotely red.

Where do you come up with this crap?

I can't remember the last time you quoted me accurately.

Is it malice, or are you a rather dull-witted fellow?

I think you just like to make stuff up as you go.

I will start doing the same:

I don't think you should call Bishop Williamson a heretic, and I definitely don't agree with you that the Jews will be saved by Judaism. :wink:

Seraphim,

Here is your own quote for you...

Seraphim said,

Quote

All these arguments about why resistance members must leave their perfectly orthodox chapels are ridiculous, strained, and contrived.

Fr Pfeiffer, et al, try to pretend there has been some formal mission statement enacted which disqualifies our attendance in SSPX chapels.

There is not.

Instead, there is a scandalous doctrinal preamble THAT WAS REJECTED.

The preamble is not SSPX policy (thank heavens)!

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #39 on:** March 29, 2013, 11:06:14 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Militia Jesu
Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Militia Jesu
Seraphim:
Quote
Position Statement:, Laughable This Should Be Required

What is really laughable it's your 128th attempt in trying to prove to all of us SSPX still means 100% "green light".

Nothing is farther from the truth and by the number of threads and posts you have on this particular subject, it is obvious your conscience is bothered by it...

The fact you constantly try to use +W as being completely on your side is not accurate either but you rather overlook different SSPX places where H.E has given a RED light; again, not accurate to say the least. The Open Letter to SSPX Priests just comes to prove even more how inaccurate you've been portraying the illusionary and automatic "green light".

The other point you seem to be 'obsessed' with is the 37 priests in France... You treat them as the "great heroes of the last hour" in Bp. Fellay's betrayal. Although I agree it's better to act late than ever, remember they have come out anonymously in the 9th inning and if they stop at that, very little good will come out of this.

So, to sum up the other side of the coin I'll state this:

As the Conciliar Church is to Catholic Church so is the neo-SSPX to the SSPX; both intrinsically and respectfully changed by Vatican II and Vatican IIb.

If one can go as far as to deny that the position of the Superior General, all his Assistants, all District Superiors (yes, including Fr. de Cacqueray unfortunately), their last General Council, an approved written/signed docuмent (Preamble), the conduct of their official communication channels and the expulsion of those who are contrary to the conciliatory agenda --including its senior bishop, as not being official, nothing else will.

Am I telling you to leave or join anything? No! But don't try to tell me those who have come to the conclusion of a red light towards neo-SSPX is because they have a tool to be sharpened, it makes you look silly.

No.

What is really laughable is you trying to re-create reality and pretend I gave a green light.

Please quote me giving the green light.

If you cannot (and you can't), what does that say about your character?

Saying SSPX is "perfectly orthodox" equals "green light" on my book. Let alone all the attacks on anything remotely red.

Where do you come up with this crap?

I can't remember the last time you quoted me accurately.

Is it malice, or are you a rather dull-witted fellow?

I think you just like to make stuff up as you go.

I will start doing the same:

I don't think you should call Bishop Williamson a heretic, and I definitely don't agree with you that the Jews will be saved by Judaism. :wink:

Seraphim,

Here is your own quote for you...

Seraphim said,
Quote
All these arguments about why resistance members must leave their perfectly orthodox chapels are ridiculous, strained, and contrived.

Fr Pfeiffer, et al, try to pretend there has been some formal mission statement enacted which disqualifies our attendance in SSPX chapels.

There is not.

Instead, there is a scandalous doctrinal preamble THAT WAS REJECTED.

The preamble is not SSPX policy (thank heavens)!

Can you read the things you quote?

My quote says "perfectly orthodox chapels" not "perfectly orthodox SSPX" as I was wrongly credited with saying.

Can you comprehend the distinction?

Do you WANT to comprehend the distinction?

Matthew · « **Reply #40 on:** March 29, 2013, 11:09:52 PM »

Wow. Just wow.

Machabees -- you need to learn how to read carefully, or the enemies of God will use you even despite yourself to further their aims.

We all need to be able to read, reason, and express ourselves carefully and with precision.

Seraphim clearly said "perfectly orthodox chapels" but your mind read "perfectly orthodox SSPX"

There is a world of difference in between those two things -- the difference between truth and error.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #41 on:** March 29, 2013, 11:33:42 PM »

...as did Miletia Jesu...they see what they want to see....even if they don't really see it.

Machabees · « **Reply #42 on:** March 29, 2013, 11:39:43 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Wow. Just wow.

Machabees -- you need to learn how to read carefully, or the enemies of God will use you even despite yourself to further their aims.

We all need to be able to read, reason, and express ourselves carefully and with precision.

Seraphim clearly said "perfectly orthodox chapels" but your mind read "perfectly orthodox SSPX"

There is a world of difference in between those two things -- the difference between truth and error.

???

Can you both not understand?

Hello...the SSPX owns the Chapels!

They are controlled by the SSPX leaders!

What happens in Menzingen happens in the District Houses. What happens in the District Houses, happens in the Priories. What happens in the Priories, happens in the Chapels. What happens in the Chapels, happens to the faithful. Very simple...

No "orthodoxy" in the top, no "orthodoxy" in the bottom!

The "dancing" of word games here, are on Seraphim...

Follow the "bouncing ball" on how each post had followed -in everything Seraphim had wrote.

You may be surprised in his (new) demeanor...

Such is an inordinate attachment for "colored lights".

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #43 on:** March 29, 2013, 11:50:20 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Matthew
Wow. Just wow.

Machabees -- you need to learn how to read carefully, or the enemies of God will use you even despite yourself to further their aims.

We all need to be able to read, reason, and express ourselves carefully and with precision.

Seraphim clearly said "perfectly orthodox chapels" but your mind read "perfectly orthodox SSPX"

There is a world of difference in between those two things -- the difference between truth and error.

???

Can you both not understand?

Hello...the SSPX owns the Chapels!

They are controlled by the SSPX leaders!

What happens in Menzingen happens in the District Houses. What happens in the District Houses, happens in the Priories. What happens in the Priories, happens in the Chapels. What happens in the Chapels, happens to the faithful. Very simple...

No "orthodoxy" in the top, no "orthodoxy" in the bottom!

The "dancing" of word games here, are on Seraphim...

Follow the "bouncing ball" on how each post had followed -in everything Seraphim had wrote.

You may be surprised in his (new) demeanor...

Such is an inordinate attachment for "colored lights".

This definitely makes your Top 10 Dumbest Posts list (and that is hard to do).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #44 on:** March 29, 2013, 11:52:55 PM »

PS: Are you a woman? You seem to lack precision, and to be ignorant of that fact. Hence the question.