Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on March 24, 2013, 10:34:40 AM
-
Since a certain few members of this forum have seen fit to characterize my objective observations about the non-existence of any formal doctrinal statement against the Faith having become official policy of the SSPX (thereby contradicting the "red light" others have tried to defend on this basis), and attempted to construe this objective observation into "attacking Fr Pfeiffer," a few thoughts seem to be in order:
1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;
2) As Michael Davies used to say, "Facts are neither obedient nor disobedient. They are simply facts." Likewise in the present debate: The fact is that there is no justification to claim a "red light" on the basis of this rejected docuмent;
3) How, then, some can construe making this observation as an attack against Fr. Pfeiffer is revealing about the deficient intellectual horsepower of those people;
4) Alternately, one is tempted to wonder about the motives of those denouncing this objectively veritable observation:
5) Do they even attend an SSPX parish?
6) If not, have they always been hostile to the SSPX, such that they WANT a red light?
7) If they WANT a red light, which means they WANT catastrophe, what does this reveal about the souls of these people who would DESIRE such a situation as would throw up the red light?
8) Has it occurred to these red-lighters that they have formed the same conclusion as the accordistas (i.e., You must leave the chapel)?
9) Interesting that both accordistas and red-lighters want internal resisters gone.
10) So far as I am aware, Fr Pfeiffer is alone in red-lighting the entire SSPX.
11) This position is not shared by Bishop Williamson, or any other resistance priest I am aware of, despite the fact that I was assured by my antagonists that Bishop Williamson was going to announce his red light 2 Eleison Comments ago.
12) Are the French 37 enemies or attackers of Fr Pfeiffer?
13) At the end of the day, I think some people just have an axe to grind, and they end up grinding it on public forums.
-
What I Support:
1) Support of resistance priests/bishops;
2) Attending their Masses/conferences when possible;
3) Founding a traditional seminary for the continuity of tradition in case the SSPX continues its slide;
4) Supporting SSPX priests resisting internally;
5) Withdrawing from attendance at any chapel that poses a danger to the Faith;
6) Episcopal consecrations when/if Bishop Williamson thinks it required.
What I Oppose:
1) Any practical accord with Rome while the doctrinal issues remain unresolved;
2) Red-lighting the SSPX in entirety without need to do so;
3) The continued liberalization of the SSPX even in the absence of an accord;
4) The current leadership in Menzingen, and their continued exercise in office;
5) The current leadership of the District Superiors worldwide, who seem committed to exercising/implementing the new Menzingen agenda;
-
What I Support:
1) Support of resistance priests/bishops;
2) Attending their Masses/conferences when possible;
3) Founding a traditional seminary for the continuity of tradition in case the SSPX continues its slide;
4) Supporting SSPX priests resisting internally;
5) Withdrawing from attendance at any chapel that poses a danger to the Faith;
6) Episcopal consecrations when/if Bishop Williamson thinks it required.
What I Oppose:
1) Any practical accord with Rome while the doctrinal issues remain unresolved;
2) Red-lighting the SSPX in entirety without need to do so;
3) The continued liberalization of the SSPX even in the absence of an accord;
4) The current leadership in Menzingen, and their continued exercise in office;
5) The current leadership of the District Superiors worldwide, who seem committed to exercising/implementing the new Menzingen agenda;
This is exactly my position as well. I'm glad you laid it out here because I could not have said it better, although I have been searching for the words (not for posting anywhere, just for discussions)
As much as I would not be surprised if the leaked Preamble were true, it still remains unconfirmed (as far as I know) and we have to be careful on both sides of the fence. I would never be so gullible as to believe every anti-Fellay'er has the best of intentions either. The leaked docuмents have tended to be true which is why we are inclined to believe this but it can't become any kind of main argument until it is confirmed. Otherwise we send the message to crazies that we let our defenses down and all they have to do is post something and put "leaked" in front of it and we'll run with it, even if false. That could be disastrous at most and embarrassing at least. There are enough direct and confirmed sources to draw from, we don't NEED this to know the SSPX leadership has changed its goals, even if it is an interesting aside to be aware of.
-
What I Support:
1) Support of resistance priests/bishops;
2) Attending their Masses/conferences when possible;
3) Founding a traditional seminary for the continuity of tradition in case the SSPX continues its slide;
4) Supporting SSPX priests resisting internally;
5) Withdrawing from attendance at any chapel that poses a danger to the Faith;
6) Episcopal consecrations when/if Bishop Williamson thinks it required.
What I Oppose:
1) Any practical accord with Rome while the doctrinal issues remain unresolved;
2) Red-lighting the SSPX in entirety without need to do so;
3) The continued liberalization of the SSPX even in the absence of an accord;
4) The current leadership in Menzingen, and their continued exercise in office;
5) The current leadership of the District Superiors worldwide, who seem committed to exercising/implementing the new Menzingen agenda;
This is exactly my position as well. I'm glad you laid it out here because I could not have said it better, although I have been searching for the words (not for posting anywhere, just for discussions)
As much as I would not be surprised if the leaked Preamble were true, it still remains unconfirmed (as far as I know) and we have to be careful on both sides of the fence. I would never be so gullible as to believe every anti-Fellay'er has the best of intentions either. The leaked docuмents have tended to be true which is why we are inclined to believe this but it can't become any kind of main argument until it is confirmed. Otherwise we send the message to crazies that we let our defenses down and all they have to do is post something and put "leaked" in front of it and we'll run with it, even if false. That could be disastrous at most and embarrassing at least. There are enough direct and confirmed sources to draw from, we don't NEED this to know the SSPX leadership has changed its goals.
Hello Wallflower-
Nice to find a kindred soul here once in awhile.
FYI, the leaked preamble is definitely authentic....it just ain't official SSPX policy (i.e., It was rejected).
-
I am with Saraphim and Wallflower.
-
I agree with Seraphim as well.
These times are so bizarre, aren't they?
-
I agree with all Seraphim's affirmations and rejections.
-
Hello Wallflower-
Nice to find a kindred soul here once in awhile.
FYI, the leaked preamble is definitely authentic....it just ain't official SSPX policy (i.e., It was rejected).
Oh for sure it is not the official policy. Not yet. Hopefully never.
Although, it would put an end to the games we're playing. It would draw a more visible line and we wouldn't get dizzy trying to spot the chameleon. That would be the only positive.
-
1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;
It's not?
It's "official" when the Superiors punish severely anyone who does NOT agree with the new orientation of their new policy -That's pretty "official".
Excerpt from:
"When the salt loses its flavour..."
An Open Letter from
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
to the Faithful of Mexico City
"...An external policy corresponds to an internal 'policy': which is to say that within the Society, each time in an increasingly obvious way, the existence of a policy of repression against anyone who does not agree with the new orientation of the Society is confirmed. Pressuring, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various different ways anyone who shows that they disagree. Many more disturbing statements and actions could be added. Like, for example, what Fr. Raphael Arizaga heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay in a conference to seminarians at Winona, on 21st December last year: "Because I wanted to preserve the internal unity of the Society, I withdrew the docuмent in which I said 'I do not reject all of Vatican II' - which is what I really said."
http://www.therecusant.com/fr-hugoruizvallejo
-
1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;
It's not?
It's "official" when the Superiors punish severely anyone who does NOT agree with the new orientation of their new policy -That's pretty "official".
Excerpt from:
"When the salt loses its flavour..."
An Open Letter from
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
to the Faithful of Mexico City
"...An external policy corresponds to an internal 'policy': which is to say that within the Society, each time in an increasingly obvious way, the existence of a policy of repression against anyone who does not agree with the new orientation of the Society is confirmed. Pressuring, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various different ways anyone who shows that they disagree. Many more disturbing statements and actions could be added. Like, for example, what Fr. Raphael Arizaga heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay in a conference to seminarians at Winona, on 21st December last year: "Because I wanted to preserve the internal unity of the Society, I withdrew the docuмent in which I said 'I do not reject all of Vatican II' - which is what I really said."
http://www.therecusant.com/fr-hugoruizvallejo
Typical lies spread by the spokes people of Bp Fellay and Rostand. Of Course, the declaration delivered to the vatican was the official policy of the SSPX, as viewed and represented by the usurpers in power, Rostand, Pflugger, Schmmidberger, Lorans,Craw,Nely,Fellay, leRoux, et al(Remember--they all maintained that only Fellay had the "grace of State" to deal with Rome). These people sent this answer to Rome, fully hoping, and intending , that Rome would accept it at face value, accept its promises and vows, all its representations, and reward them with a personal prelature. That's what Fellay claims "his secret advisors" in the Vatican told him! And that's why , in Adelaide, Fellay cried "the Pope deceived me!."
The trickster was deceived by the great deceiver! Imagine that! No-- what really happened, we now are pretty well aware, is that the illuminati (masonic powers) got tired of the Rat playing cat and mouse with Fellay , and told Ratzinger that he's through--- all deals are off, and deNoia and Mueller will make all decisions-- until the masonic interests get ratzinger out and replace him with someone more sure-footed in marxist, anti-Catholic theology.
SO YES, that despicable preamble is the official position of Fellay and his gang. Only a fool would believe otherwise. And, as Fellay said in Europe about his CNS comments on Religious Liberty 'I'll say whatever I have to say, to whomever I want to say it, if I think that that's what they want to hear!' ("I only said that about Religious Liberty because I knew the Americans would like to hear it").Save Our SSPX (http://www.sossaveoursspx.com)
-
1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;
It's not?
It's "official" when the Superiors punish severely anyone who does NOT agree with the new orientation of their new policy -That's pretty "official".
Excerpt from:
"When the salt loses its flavour..."
An Open Letter from
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
to the Faithful of Mexico City
"...An external policy corresponds to an internal 'policy': which is to say that within the Society, each time in an increasingly obvious way, the existence of a policy of repression against anyone who does not agree with the new orientation of the Society is confirmed. Pressuring, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various different ways anyone who shows that they disagree. Many more disturbing statements and actions could be added. Like, for example, what Fr. Raphael Arizaga heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay in a conference to seminarians at Winona, on 21st December last year: "Because I wanted to preserve the internal unity of the Society, I withdrew the docuмent in which I said 'I do not reject all of Vatican II' - which is what I really said."
http://www.therecusant.com/fr-hugoruizvallejo
Sure, if you make up your own definition of "official."
In reality, the situation described above is the textbook definition of "de facto" (i.e., common practice not established by law), and is therefore not official (i.e., de jure: official legislated policy).
-
1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;
It's not?
It's "official" when the Superiors punish severely anyone who does NOT agree with the new orientation of their new policy -That's pretty "official".
Excerpt from:
"When the salt loses its flavour..."
An Open Letter from
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
to the Faithful of Mexico City
"...An external policy corresponds to an internal 'policy': which is to say that within the Society, each time in an increasingly obvious way, the existence of a policy of repression against anyone who does not agree with the new orientation of the Society is confirmed. Pressuring, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various different ways anyone who shows that they disagree. Many more disturbing statements and actions could be added. Like, for example, what Fr. Raphael Arizaga heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay in a conference to seminarians at Winona, on 21st December last year: "Because I wanted to preserve the internal unity of the Society, I withdrew the docuмent in which I said 'I do not reject all of Vatican II' - which is what I really said."
http://www.therecusant.com/fr-hugoruizvallejo
Typical lies spread by the spokes people of Bp Fellay and Rostand. Of Course, the declaration delivered to the vatican was the official policy of the SSPX, as viewed and represented by the usurpers in power, Rostand, Pflugger, Schmmidberger, Lorans,Craw,Nely,Fellay, leRoux, et al(Remember--they all maintained that only Fellay had the "grace of State" to deal with Rome). These people sent this answer to Rome, fully hoping, and intending , that Rome would accept it at face value, accept its promises and vows, all its representations, and reward them with a personal prelature. That's what Fellay claims "his secret advisors" in the Vatican told him! And that's why , in Adelaide, Fellay cried "the Pope deceived me!."
The trickster was deceived by the great deceiver! Imagine that! No-- what really happened, we now are pretty well aware, is that the illuminati (masonic powers) got tired of the Rat playing cat and mouse with Fellay , and told Ratzinger that he's through--- all deals are off, and deNoia and Mueller will make all decisions-- until the masonic interests get ratzinger out and replace him with someone more sure-footed in marxist, anti-Catholic theology.
SO YES, that despicable preamble is the official position of Fellay and his gang. Only a fool would believe otherwise. And, as Fellay said in Europe about his CNS comments on Religious Liberty 'I'll say whatever I have to say, to whomever I want to say it, if I think that that's what they want to hear!' ("I only said that about Religious Liberty because I knew the Americans would like to hear it").Save Our SSPX (http://www.sossaveoursspx.com)
See previous comment
-
Sure, if you make up your own definition of "official."
This, I think, is the crux of the problem. What precisely is the "official" position of the SSPX?
Is it the position stated on their various websites?
Is it the position described in their letter to Rome?
And which position puts a priest out of favor with the SSPX superiors and gets a priest expelled?
They all seem to be different, and the one that causes priests to be expelled seems to be the least knowable.
-
What I Support:
1) Support of resistance priests/bishops;
2) Attending their Masses/conferences when possible;
3) Founding a traditional seminary for the continuity of tradition in case the SSPX continues its slide;
4) Supporting SSPX priests resisting internally;
5) Withdrawing from attendance at any chapel that poses a danger to the Faith;
6) Episcopal consecrations when/if Bishop Williamson thinks it required.
What I Oppose:
1) Any practical accord with Rome while the doctrinal issues remain unresolved;
2) Red-lighting the SSPX in entirety without need to do so;
3) The continued liberalization of the SSPX even in the absence of an accord;
4) The current leadership in Menzingen, and their continued exercise in office;
5) The current leadership of the District Superiors worldwide, who seem committed to exercising/implementing the new Menzingen agenda;
Very much in agreement with you here Seraphim- !
-
Sure, if you make up your own definition of "official."
This, I think, is the crux of the problem. What precisely is the "official" position of the SSPX?
Is it the position stated on their various websites?
Is it the position described in their letter to Rome?
And which position puts a priest out of favor with the SSPX superiors and gets a priest expelled?
They all seem to be different, and the one that causes priests to be expelled seems to be the least knowable.
It all depends on what you mean by "official." Very true. So +Fellay plays you
for a fool, and you scamper up and lap-dog take it. He can change what he
means by "official" at a whim, because he's a tyrant and a demigod. Arbitrary
and capricious changes are part of the deal. It's true if he says it's true and
it's false if he says it's false, and if he changes it all around tomorrow, it will
be as he says tomorrow, regardless of what he said yesterday.
So what is "official" anyway?
This pretty much answers the question...
(I took the liberty of patching up a few typos, hugeman)
1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;
It's not?
It's "official" when the Superiors punish severely anyone who does NOT agree with the new orientation of their new policy -That's pretty "official".
Excerpt from:
"When the salt loses its flavour..."
An Open Letter from
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
to the Faithful of Mexico City
"...An external policy corresponds to an internal 'policy': which is to say that within the Society, each time in an increasingly obvious way, the existence of a policy of repression against anyone who does not agree with the new orientation of the Society is confirmed. Pressuring, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various different ways anyone who shows that they disagree. Many more disturbing statements and actions could be added. Like, for example, what Fr. Raphael Arizaga heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay in a conference to seminarians at Winona, on 21st December last year: "Because I wanted to preserve the internal unity of the Society, I withdrew the docuмent in which I said 'I do not reject all of Vatican II' - which is what I really said."
http://www.therecusant.com/fr-hugoruizvallejo
Typical lies spread by the spokes people of Bp Fellay and Rostand. Of Course, the declaration delivered to the Vatican was the official policy of the SSPX, as viewed and represented by the usurpers in power, Rostand, Pflugger, Schmmidberger, Lorans, Craw, Nely, Fellay, leRoux, et al (Remember--they all maintained that only Fellay had the "grace of State" to deal with Rome).
These people sent this answer to Rome, fully hoping, and intending , that Rome would accept it at face value, accept its promises and vows, all its representations, and reward them with a personal prelature.
That's what Fellay claims "his secret advisors" in the Vatican told him! And that's why, in Adelaide, Fellay cried, "the Pope deceived me!"
The trickster was deceived by the great deceiver! Imagine that! No-- what really happened, we now are pretty well aware, is that the illuminati (masonic powers) got tired of the Rat playing cat and mouse with Fellay, and told Ratzinger that he's through --- all deals are off, and deNoia and Mueller will make all decisions-- until the Masonic interests get Ratzinger out and replace him with someone more sure-footed in Marxist, anti-Catholic theology.
SO YES, that despicable preamble is the official position of Fellay and his gang. Only a fool would believe otherwise.
And, as Fellay said in Europe about his CNS comments on Religious Liberty, 'I'll say whatever I have to say, to whomever I want to say it, if I think that that's what they want to hear!' ("I only said that about Religious Liberty because I knew the Americans would like to hear it"). Save Our SSPX (http://www.sossaveoursspx.com)
Question: What is official for the SSPX?
Answer: "Official" is whatever +Fellay says it is -
and, if he changes his mind, don't you dare pay
any attention to the man behind the curtain!
-
1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;
Wrong. The Doctrinal Preamble of Bishop Fellay is official SSPX policy de facto.
-
1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;
It's not?
It's "official" when the Superiors punish severely anyone who does NOT agree with the new orientation of their new policy -That's pretty "official".
Excerpt from:
"When the salt loses its flavour..."
An Open Letter from
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
to the Faithful of Mexico City
"...An external policy corresponds to an internal 'policy': which is to say that within the Society, each time in an increasingly obvious way, the existence of a policy of repression against anyone who does not agree with the new orientation of the Society is confirmed. Pressuring, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various different ways anyone who shows that they disagree. Many more disturbing statements and actions could be added. Like, for example, what Fr. Raphael Arizaga heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay in a conference to seminarians at Winona, on 21st December last year: "Because I wanted to preserve the internal unity of the Society, I withdrew the docuмent in which I said 'I do not reject all of Vatican II' - which is what I really said."
http://www.therecusant.com/fr-hugoruizvallejo
Sure, if you make up your own definition of "official."
In reality, the situation described above is the textbook definition of "de facto" (i.e., common practice not established by law), and is therefore not official (i.e., de jure: official legislated policy).
Don't you just love legaleeze? If one attends Novus Ordo Mass, he is de facto not a Catholic. Period. We all probably agree on that here. Legally, de facto simply means that something is done by practice without a law put into place demanding such. This "rule" or "standard operating procedure" is not de jure--by written law. However, legally once a practice becomes de facto, they are easily accepted as de jure, at least by all those involved.
In our own Legal system, companies defend themselves all the time by arguing desuetude---these laws on the books haven't been followed, obeyed, or punished in a long time, therefore they are of no merit.
So in fact, if a policy is de facto accepted by a groups members, it essentially becomes de jure without anyone having to make anything "official."
Just ask those who were around at Vatican II. Nothing "official" but what is the church now? Officially unrecognizable. Officially not Catholic. Officially Protestant.
-
1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;
Wrong. The Doctrinal Preamble of Bishop Fellay is official SSPX policy de facto.
I am impressed:
You have managed to contradict yourself in one short sentence.
Something cannot be both de facto and official at the same time.
De jure means official ("by law").
De facto means unofficial ("by the fact rather than law).
There is only confusion on this point for those who have an agenda which they see benefiting by defections from the sspx.
Interesting you and Fr Rostand have the same desire to eliminate internal resistance.
Im sure he French 37 would be quite perplexed to hear that by your logic they are traitors.
Faulty principles yield faulty conclusions.
Ps: Do you regularly attend an sspx chapel?
-
1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;
Wrong. The Doctrinal Preamble of Bishop Fellay is official SSPX policy de facto.
I am impressed:
You have managed to contradict yourself in one short sentence.
Something cannot be both de facto and official at the same time.
De jure means official ("by law").
De facto means unofficial ("by the fact rather than law).
There is only confusion on this point for those who have an agenda which they see benefiting by defections from the sspx.
Interesting you and Fr Rostand have the same desire to eliminate internal resistance.
Im sure he French 37 would be quite perplexed to hear that by your logic they are traitors.
Faulty principles yield faulty conclusions.
Ps: Do you regularly attend an sspx chapel?
Uhmmm, did you see my post above. Do not be confused by these purely legal terms. Yes, by definition de jure means "by law." Yes, by definition de facto means "by fact or practice." But these are just definitions. In legal terms, for legal issues, when a group or company has de facto practices they are just as good as written down, codified law. Many cases like these come to courts all the time.
Do not go down this path, you will only set yourself up for failure and disappointment.
The leadership of the SSPX wish to take the Society to a position that will be accommodating with Rome. Is it not true that Maximilian Krah is a lawyer? Do you not believe that he understands perfectly well, legally, what he is doing?
There is a hole in the side of the SSPX boat and it is sinking. Don't be the person standing on the pier jumping up and down telling people shouting "But the Captain said there is no hole in the bottom of the boat!"
By practice or by law, does not matter. The Society is over. Wait around until you can see it for yourself, but leave everyone else alone to make their own determination.
-
1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;
Wrong. The Doctrinal Preamble of Bishop Fellay is official SSPX policy de facto.
I am impressed:
You have managed to contradict yourself in one short sentence.
Something cannot be both de facto and official at the same time.
De jure means official ("by law").
De facto means unofficial ("by the fact rather than law).
There is only confusion on this point for those who have an agenda which they see benefiting by defections from the sspx.
Interesting you and Fr Rostand have the same desire to eliminate internal resistance.
Im sure he French 37 would be quite perplexed to hear that by your logic they are traitors.
Faulty principles yield faulty conclusions.
Ps: Do you regularly attend an sspx chapel?
Uhmmm, did you see my post above. Do not be confused by these purely legal terms. Yes, by definition de jure means "by law." Yes, by definition de facto means "by fact or practice." But these are just definitions. In legal terms, for legal issues, when a group or company has de facto practices they are just as good as written down, codified law. Many cases like these come to courts all the time.
Do not go down this path, you will only set yourself up for failure and disappointment.
The leadership of the SSPX wish to take the Society to a position that will be accommodating with Rome. Is it not true that Maximilian Krah is a lawyer? Do you not believe that he understands perfectly well, legally, what he is doing?
There is a hole in the side of the SSPX boat and it is sinking. Don't be the person standing on the pier jumping up and down telling people shouting "But the Captain said there is no hole in the bottom of the boat!"
By practice or by law, does not matter. The Society is over. Wait around until you can see it for yourself, but leave everyone else alone to make their own determination.
I would not get caught up in legaleze for my own sake but it is very important to be exact if you want discuss with others who are not as convinced.
-
CathMom,
Words like yours should be spoken to those who deny there is a problem in the SSPX.
Of course there's a problem. Of course there's a new orientation. Of course there's a hole in the ship, and it's going down. Some might even argue that there's no hope, humanly speaking, to turn the SSPX around.
That having been said...
Saying that the SSPX has officially changed its policy, and therefore all priests and laity are bound in conscience to distance themselves from it, and are forbidden to attend its Masses in any chapel whatsoever, is a completely different question.
If the situation is sufficiently hazy that many don't understand what has changed, that goes to show you how unofficial these changes are.
If Fr. Pfeiffer just had to borrow a priest's SSPX Member Statutes Handbook and show him how the organization is different, don't you think we'd have 200 Resistance priests right now instead of 20?
I'm afraid we're still in that phase where only the clear-thinking, well-informed, or forward-thinking Catholics are aware of the problems. There is still plenty of confusion and ignorance at this point. It is WAY too soon to say that everyone must shake the dust off their feet and abandon "what's left" of the SSPX.
The SSPX is almost completely intact, if you look at the whole organization! The damage is what, less than 5 or 10%?
You don't abandon a sinking ship at the first sign of taking on water. First you get as many people to the lifeboats as possible. It's common sense.
-
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 completely agree with you, Seraphim.
Regarding the "red-light" idea, if all those supporting the Resistance left their SSPX chapel,
1. They would be doing exactly what the accordistas and liberals want them to do.
2. They would weaken the SSPX just when it most needs strengthening and bringing back to its original mission.
3. They would deprive themselves (and their families) of the sacraments. How many Masses can the Resistance priests say? And in how many countries? Suddenly depriving the majority of the Resistance laity of the grace of the sacraments would be disastrous!
That said, of course people should avoid SSPX chapels where the priest has a policy of liberalism and persection. But they are not so common - yet. We must resist them to the face if we can do so without endangering our faith, and not run away and become home-aloners, leaving them in possession.
-
I am impressed:
You have managed to contradict yourself in one short sentence.
Something cannot be both de facto and official at the same time.
De jure means official ("by law").
De facto means unofficial ("by the fact rather than law).
You are correct. I should not have included the word "official".
There is only confusion on this point for those who have an agenda which they see benefiting by defections from the sspx.
I could say the same about your position.
Interesting you and Fr Rostand have the same desire to eliminate internal resistance.
Eliminate internal resistance: no; eliminate cowardice: yes.
Im sure he French 37 would be quite perplexed to hear that by your logic they are traitors.
I do not call them traitors. I can see some strengths from speaking out and being anonymous, but I think the strengths of speaking out and showing yourself outweigh the former.
Faulty principles yield faulty conclusions.
True. But it doesn't apply in my case.
Ps: Do you regularly attend an sspx chapel?
I stopped going two weeks ago. I presented the prior with the Doctrinal Preamble and asked him to comment and he responded by saying that it was not a compromise. That was the final straw for me. I don't regret my decision. Nonetheless, I have been supporting the idea of priests speaking out even before the 2012 SSPX General Chapter. Others who are doing the same at a local level need to be ready and willing to provide material help.
-
I completely agree with you, Seraphim.
Regarding the "red-light" idea, if all those supporting the Resistance left their SSPX chapel,
1. They would be doing exactly what the accordistas and liberals want them to do.
2. They would weaken the SSPX just when it most needs strengthening and bringing back to its original mission.
3. They would deprive themselves (and their families) of the sacraments. How many Masses can the Resistance priests say? And in how many countries? Suddenly depriving the majority of the Resistance laity of the grace of the sacraments would be disastrous!
That said, of course people should avoid SSPX chapels where the priest has a policy of liberalism and persection. But they are not so common - yet. We must resist them to the face if we can do so without endangering our faith, and not run away and become home-aloners, leaving them in possession.
All very sensible but personally I don't intend to ever stand in an SSPX chapel again. A clean break is necessary.
-
3. They would deprive themselves (and their families) of the sacraments. How many Masses can the Resistance priests say? And in how many countries? Suddenly depriving the majority of the Resistance laity of the grace of the sacraments would be disastrous!
Exactly-
If someone is intelligent enough to find a reason to stay away from the SSPX because they are somehow modernist now or the intricacies of what's going on, they should be intelligent enough to discern when there is a modernist priest speaking from the pulpit, in most cases. Perhaps some people 'should' stay away from their chapel. But its not a blanket case for everyone, or the entire SSPX.
Be weary, for sure. But now is not the time to leave, in my own opinion.
-
SSPX Priests Need to Start Barking:
www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013_03_24_-_Fr._Hewko_Sermon_- Kansas_City,_MO_-_Extract.mp3
-
Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;
There I see a big part of the problem with murky thinking in this topic: Factum (from facio, -ere) should not be translated lazily into the English word "fact", but instead into "deed", or more literally into the substantive "a thing done". That should clarify the distinction signified by "de facto". (When expressing opposition, it is reasonable to translate argumentum as the colloquial English "argument".)
It's "official" when the Superiors punish severely anyone who does NOT agree with the new orientation of their new policy - That's pretty "official".
Sure, if you make up your own definition of "official."
Yep. So far, so good for Seraphim.
In reality, the situation described above is the textbook definition of "de facto" (i.e., common practice not established by law), [....]
Sure, if you make up your own definition of "definition". The situation described is actually a "textbook example" (from exemplum, -i). But I do agree with the implied definition introduced by "i.e.".
[...] and is therefore not official (i.e., de jure: official legislated policy).
No argument by me on this final quoted excerpt (at least not until I figure out where my little law lexicon went).
Fascinating: It's unusual for a single topic to hit 2 of my pet peeves so closely spaced.
I have no doubt that traditional Catholicism benefits far more from a viable traditional SSPX than from a Novus Ordoized mutation bearing the same name. Not being an SSPX adherent myself, I don't know enough about what deeds, and by whom, make proposals or policy official within SSPX. So I have faint hopes of following developments effectively when its adherents discuss them in murky language.
-
Of course there's a problem. Of course there's a new orientation. Of course there's a hole in the ship, and it's going down. Some might even argue that there's no hope, humanly speaking, to turn the SSPX around.
At least on this part we can agree.
Saying that the SSPX has officially changed its policy, and therefore all priests and laity are bound in conscience to distance themselves from it, and are forbidden to attend its Masses in any chapel whatsoever, is a completely different question.
I said none of this. What I said was that we are swimming in murky waters here making the distinction between de facto and de jure. Whether or not something is "official" or not regarding the new orientation of the Society is just a matter of semantics. As such, I never said anyone was bound to go or to stay. Instead I said that individuals must work this out for themselves. Telling people that they must not leave is quite troubling to me. The Society is the not the Church.
If the situation is sufficiently hazy that many don't understand what has changed, that goes to show you how unofficial these changes are.
This is exactly what happened in the wake of VII. It wasn't "official" to rip out the altar rails. It wasn't "official" to give COT. But they happened anyway. People were confused then and still are now.
I'm afraid we're still in that phase where only the clear-thinking, well-informed, or forward-thinking Catholics are aware of the problems. There is still plenty of confusion and ignorance at this point. It is WAY too soon to say that everyone must shake the dust off their feet and abandon "what's left" of the SSPX.
This statement bothers me the most. We have an obligation to our Faith and the people in the pews. We don't have an obligation to the SSPX. I know where there is a Mass with a true priest, not affiliated with SSPX. My obligation is to tell the people I know about that. If they come, then good. If they stay at their SSPX chapel, fine. But my obligation is not to keep people in the pews at SSPX until they can work out their problems.
The SSPX is almost completely intact, if you look at the whole organization! The damage is what, less than 5 or 10%?
I don't know if you can really defend this statement. How do you know? The Society is rotten at it's core. Are you suggesting the +Fellay doesn't know what is going on? What about Fr. Rostand? Who knows what else is going on? Do you? Perhaps there is more that no one knows about because the leaders are either silent or continue to make plans in private. The damage may well be 50% for all you know.
You don't abandon a sinking ship at the first sign of taking on water. First you get as many people to the lifeboats as possible. It's common sense.
If I am on a sinking ship, I am going to load my family into the life boat and encourage as many people as I can to go too. But I'm not going to tarry too long hoping they will listen. Otherwise, I risk losing my whole family to drowning in the water. It's common sense.
-
There is nothing murky about the distinction between de facto and de jure.
There are only those who do not want to see it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Seraphim:
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.
-
Seraphim:
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?
-
Seraphim:
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.
-
Seraphim:
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:
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,
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)!
-
Seraphim:
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,
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?
-
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.
-
...as did Miletia Jesu...they see what they want to see....even if they don't really see it.
-
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".
-
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).
-
PS: Are you a woman? You seem to lack precision, and to be ignorant of that fact. Hence the question.
-
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".
No, they won't understand.
Seraphim is obsessed with green light and will do anything to debunk the red light. Matthew thinks the SSPX is "almost intact" and even throws a number: maybe "less than 5% or 10%.
It's interested to notice though that both have claimed their local SSPX Chapels are just fine, while at the same time -in between the two, they have admitted getting in contact with RESISTANCE priests, attended their Masses and even organized a group with a possibility of building a Chapel.
"Rebels" without a cause I suppose?!? :scratchchin:
-
Seraphim,
You surprise me with your overall lack of charity, your lack of decency, your lack of comprehension skills, and your lack of conversation and debate.
When you do not like something, as many of your posts show over the year, you go on a "belittling and smear campaign".
Have you anything good to say?
Can you not articulate your thoughts or ideas without getting aggressive and digressive?
Seraphim, with your irrational behavior, I no longer wish to respond to any of your (digressive) posts.
I would offer you, to reconsider your ill-attitude. Remember what today is -Good Friday- and what our Lord had done for all of us. Your behavior is not at all becoming.
I again will pray for you.
God bless.
-
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".
No, they won't understand.
Seraphim is obsessed with green light and will do anything to debunk the red light. Matthew thinks the SSPX is "almost intact" and even throws a number: maybe "less than 5% or 10%.
It's interested to notice though that both have claimed their local SSPX Chapels are just fine, while at the same time -in between the two, they have admitted getting in contact with RESISTANCE priests, attended their Masses and even organized a group with a possibility of building a Chapel.
"Rebels" without a cause I suppose?!? :scratchchin:
You can "de-bunk" me right now:
Quote me where Bishop Williamson says there is a red light.
You can't.
Every post you write says there is a red light.
Yet you can't demonstrate it.
You are a solipsist who lives in her own world.
-
Seraphim,
You surprise me with your overall lack of charity, your lack of decency, your lack of comprehension skills, and your lack of conversation and debate.
When you do not like something, as many of your posts show over the year, you go on a "belittling and smear campaign".
Have you anything good to say?
Can you not articulate your thoughts or ideas without getting aggressive and digressive?
Seraphim, with your irrational behavior, I no longer wish to respond to any of your (digressive) posts.
I would offer you, to reconsider your ill-attitude. Remember what today is -Good Friday- and what our Lord had done for all of us. Your behavior is not at all becoming.
I again will pray for you.
God bless.
I have no patience for your type of willful stupidity, and resent having to condescend to someone of your muted intelligence.
You and your sister Miletia are the first people I have had to put on ignore on this forum in over a year.
COngrats.
-
Since a certain few members of this forum have seen fit to characterize my objective observations about the non-existence of any formal doctrinal statement against the Faith having become official policy of the SSPX (thereby contradicting the "red light" others have tried to defend on this basis), and attempted to construe this objective observation into "attacking Fr Pfeiffer," a few thoughts seem to be in order:
1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;
2) As Michael Davies used to say, "Facts are neither obedient nor disobedient. They are simply facts." Likewise in the present debate: The fact is that there is no justification to claim a "red light" on the basis of this rejected docuмent;
3) How, then, some can construe making this observation as an attack against Fr. Pfeiffer is revealing about the deficient intellectual horsepower of those people;
4) Alternately, one is tempted to wonder about the motives of those denouncing this objectively veritable observation:
5) Do they even attend an SSPX parish?
6) If not, have they always been hostile to the SSPX, such that they WANT a red light?
7) If they WANT a red light, which means they WANT catastrophe, what does this reveal about the souls of these people who would DESIRE such a situation as would throw up the red light?
8) Has it occurred to these red-lighters that they have formed the same conclusion as the accordistas (i.e., You must leave the chapel)?
9) Interesting that both accordistas and red-lighters want internal resisters gone.
10) So far as I am aware, Fr Pfeiffer is alone in red-lighting the entire SSPX.
11) This position is not shared by Bishop Williamson, or any other resistance priest I am aware of, despite the fact that I was assured by my antagonists that Bishop Williamson was going to announce his red light 2 Eleison Comments ago.
12) Are the French 37 enemies or attackers of Fr Pfeiffer?
13) At the end of the day, I think some people just have an axe to grind, and they end up grinding it on public forums.
From the OP:
In case anyone forgot what this thread was about, and why Machabees and Miletia are so enraged.
-
Seraphim,
With all due respect, didn't you state a few months ago that you were longer going to post on the forum due to advise from your spiritual director? I have noticed that, while you may make some good arguments, you fly off the handle far too frequently.
-
Seraphim,
With all due respect, didn't you state a few months ago that you were longer going to post on the forum due to advise from your spiritual director? I have noticed that, while you may make some good arguments, you fly off the handle far too frequently.
Good point.
The blind cant be helped to see, especially when the blindness is willful.
Goodbye.
-
Seraphim,
With all due respect, didn't you state a few months ago that you were longer going to post on the forum due to advise from your spiritual director? I have noticed that, while you may make some good arguments, you fly off the handle far too frequently.
*It should be "you were no longer..." and "due to advice."
-
Seraphim,
With all due respect, didn't you state a few months ago that you were longer* going to post on the forum due to advise* from your spiritual director? I have noticed that, while you may make some good arguments, you fly off the handle far too frequently.
*It should be "you were no longer..." and "due to advice."
Now, here's a great example of how the post-post-edit timer could be set to
3 hours and 11 minutes with beneficial results! HAHAHAHAHA
-
Seraphim,
With all due respect, didn't you state a few months ago that you were longer going to post on the forum due to advise from your spiritual director? I have noticed that, while you may make some good arguments, you fly off the handle far too frequently.
*It should be "you were no longer..." and "due to advice."
Maybe you've been reading too many Eleison Comments -- British English has a few extra words ending in "se" where Americans use "ce" or "ze".
-
I would like to point out Militia Jesu didn't suggest that someone said the SSPX is perfectly orthodox.
He said "Saying SSPX is perfectly orthodox"
- he means implicitly - the individual's SSPX mass center.
Now if your priest isn't allowed to criticize the doctrinal preamble, I wouldn't call that doctrinally orthodox.